Back to news

July 20, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

DoD Needs Supply Chain Strategy To Survive Future Crises: Roper

"We were in a very frenzied state," Air Force acquisition head Will Roper says of DoD efforts to stave off the collapse of key suppliers during the early weeks of the coronavirus crisis.

By on July 17, 2020 at 4:38 PM

WASHINGTON: Air Force acquisition head Will Roper says DoD needs to develop a new supply chain strategy that incentivizes industry to build a more diverse, responsive and resilient supply chain.

“What I hope sticks on the other side of COVID-19 is a strategic focus on the supply chain,” he told a webinar co-sponsored by Government Matters and the Farnborough International Association today, on the even of the virtual air show. “Government has to have a strategy. We have to explain to industry what we consider good supply chain management practices to be, and not to be. And we need to write that in plain English, which the government has a tough time doing frequently.”

That strategy also has to be followed up with incentives for industry to do the right thing, he said. “We have to put our money where our mouth is,” Roper said.

For example, he said, it should include incentivizing contractors, big and small, to use digital manufacturing technologies that allow companies to quickly pivot to different missions in times of need.

“That's a strategic capability for the nation. We need to encourage that,” he said.

Roper noted that the Air Force is attempting to do just that with its centerpiece Advanced Battle Management Program (ABMS), being designed as a technology foundation for running future all-domain wars via the Joint All-Domain Command and Control System (JADC2).

“We've got a pretty cool program called the Advanced Battle Management System. It's not a cool name — it's kind of like Castle Anthrax in Monty Python: ‘it's not a good name but it's the one we've got',” he joked. “That's a program where adaptability is king.”

He explained that the service is working with industry to both explain, and reward, technology initiatives that will give operators the ability to rapidly upgrade or switch out old capabilities for new ones. As Breaking D readers knows, ABMS is attempting to iterate technologies developed under the program on a four-month cycle.

Roper said the first three weeks of the COVID-19 crisis threw DoD into a maelstrom as acquisition authorities tried to cope with the potential of supplier collapse. “We were in a very frenzied state,” he said.

The Air Force is the executive agent for all DoD use of Defense Production Act Title III contracts to support industry suffering from the coronavirus pandemic. However, the Defense Industrial Base Sector Coordinating Council under the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) actually chooses which companies to support based on service requests — including for the Air Force.

While Roper sees ongoing problems from COVID-19 impacts on suppliers, especially small firms for whom cash-flow is highly important, he said that the Air Force and DoD are in a much better place now to handle them as they arise.

“I don't think we'll see something as frenzied as what we went through during the first three weeks of COVID,” he said. “I think if this continues in future, we will have to take aggressive actions when there are hotspots that fire up in the country. Smaller companies are always going to be at risk by a few number of COVID-19 cases — they're going to have to shut down their facilities, they're going to have to clean, they're gonna have to be work force quarantining — and for companies of that size, having cash on hand to make payroll, to make invoicing, is critically important. Cash flow and liquidity is everything during a crisis. But we're more ready for that.”

This is in part because leaders have a better grasp on what companies are likely to be at risk, Roper explained. “Now, we know who those critical suppliers are we have insight into our supply chain that we have ever had,” he said.

For example, the small launch industry is one sector that Roper continues to keep a close eye on.

“Small launch is still a big need for our industrial base for the Space Force and we want to try to try to do whatever we can to keep that market healthy,” he told reporters on July 14.

Roper expressed some disappointment about OSD's July 1 decision to rescind a June-announced award of $116 million for six small launch companies: Aevum, Astra, X-Bow, Rocket Lab, Space Vector and VOX Space. He explained that OSD determined there “were some additional small business needs” that came up, because the small launch package was one of the last DPA approved actions, it was “the first to be put back in the batter's box.”

“My hope is that whenever there's new Title III funding, or when resources free up due to other efforts not executing as planned, that those are the first to go back into the hopper. If I were asked today to put in one new Title III initiative, it's small launch,” he added.

As Paul reported, Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord on June 22 said she is seeking approval for a funding package request in the “lower double digit billions” from the White House to cover COVID-19 related costs, including paying for industry claims of supply chain and workforce reductions.

And a group of CEOs from major defense primes, in a letter obtained by Breaking D, are asking for DoD help in seeking yet more COVID-19 stimulus funds from Congress.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/dod-needs-supply-chain-strategy-to-survive-future-crises-roper

On the same subject

  • Can the US military still innovate quickly?

    September 7, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

    Can the US military still innovate quickly?

    By: Daniel Cebul WASHINGTON — In the era of great power competition, the speed at which competing militaries are capable to innovate and evolve could determine who would win in a war. In light of the need for speed, military innovation experts at the Defense News Conference tackled the question of whether the Department of Defense can still move quickly to develop new technologies and capabilities. While the conversation surrounding innovation tends to revolve around the development of new technology, other organizational changes are arguably more important for military innovation. Col. Liam Collins, director of the Modern War Institute, said that while new technologies play a role, they are not the driving force of innovation. “Sure, there were technological innovations that were part of it, such as new signals intelligence capabilities, but it was really more of an organizational or doctrinal innovation in which technology played a part,” Collins said. “Technology facilitates those other innovations, which are really often the most critical and often the less studied [of] what we focus on.” One example of changes to organizational doctrine and behavior is the DoD's uptick in using other contracting authorities, or OTA. Shawn Black, vice president and general manager for electro-optical and infrared systems are Leonardo DRS, said that from the commercial side, these alternative contracting authorities are appealing because they move quicker and better communicate requirements. “They represent a faster procurement cycle. You are able to move through the process of responding to a solicitation and providing a proposal much quicker. There is more flexibility in the intellectual property provisions,” Black said. "[Leonardo] has seen much-improved communication with the acquiring organization as you move through the process. “Right up until the submission we are able to zero in right on what they are looking for.” So how fast are these alternative options able to pump out contracts? Mike Madsen, partner and head of Washington operations at Defense Innovation Unit, said his office is looking to “leverage the OT authority and put award prototyping contracts within 60 to 90 days." "The fastest we've been able to do is just under that, and we are averaging 100 days,” he added. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2018/09/06/can-the-us-military-still-innovate-quickly

  • So you want to fly a drone over a nuclear weapons lab'€¯'€¦

    September 1, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    So you want to fly a drone over a nuclear weapons lab'€¯'€¦

    U.S. authorities have issued a warning about the airspace over Los Alamos National Laboratory.

  • New European Defence Agency boss warns against ‘rash’ budget cuts by EU members

    June 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    New European Defence Agency boss warns against ‘rash’ budget cuts by EU members

    By: Martin Banks BRUSSELS — The new head of the European Defence Agency, Jiří Šedivý, has thrown down the gauntlet to European Union member states, telling them: “It is up to you to deliver.” In an interview with Defense News, he said the onus is on EU countries “to use the EDA to its full extent.” Šedivý has extensive experience in the defense domain, having served as defense minister and deputy defense minister of the Czech Republic, NATO assistant secretary general for defense policy and planning, and permanent representative of the Czech Republic to NATO. His term comes amid a fast-changing European defense landscape and new EU defense initiatives that are under increasing pressure to deliver results. How will the COVID-19 health crisis affect European defense spending in the near, mid and long term? Let's be realistic: We are still in the middle of the pandemic and, at this stage, nobody can foresee what its exact repercussions will be. But being realistic also means that we have to anticipate, already now, that national and European defense budgets might come under pressure as a result of the massive economic and financial costs of COVID-19, whether we like it or not. Here our answer should be straightforward: Rather than cutting national defense expenditure rashly, let's coordinate, pool and share our resources and invest more in collaborative capability development because a collective approach is much more cost-effective than national solo efforts. The same goes for defense research where national ministries of defense might face problems to receive the same funding than in the past to finance their individual national programs. The best response to shrinking national budgets for defense research is to join forces and resources and to engage in more cost-effective collaborations at EU level. We therefore should maintain our European defense ambitions, keep course and pursue the implementation of the new EU defense instruments — the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) — which are all in place, fit for purpose and ready to be used. The COVID-19 crisis could offer us an unexpected and unique opportunity to reinvigorate defense cooperation in Europe. The defense portion of the proposed EU budget has come under pressure. If the European Defence Fund is indeed curtailed, how do you expect EDA to adjust its objectives? It is too early to speculate about the Fund's future budget allocation as negotiations are still ongoing. Therefore, we have to wait and see. This being said, the EDF will be an essential part of the EU's defense-cooperation toolbox, together with CARD and PESCO. Therefore, it is crucial that the Fund receives the financial means it needs to play its role properly. I thus hope for adequate funding for this important collaborative tool because for the reasons I just explained, we need more defense cooperation in the future, not less. And the Fund will serve not only as an incentive to that end, but also as a point of leverage for economic recovery. In any case, EDA's activities are not directly linked or dependent of the Fund's budget as we are an intergovernmental agency entirely and directly funded by our member states, not through the EU budget. U.S. defense companies want to be allowed to compete for EDF money and PESCO participation. How do you believe it is possible to strengthen intra-EU defense cooperation without shutting out trans-Atlantic ties at the same time? Third-party participation in the EDF is among the topics currently discussed between member states, the Commission and the European Parliament as part of the legislative process on setting up of Fund. So the jury is still out on the outcome of these talks. EDA is not involved in that process and therefore I cannot comment. However, I want to recall a basic underlying principle of European defense cooperation, namely that the European Union is fully committed to working with the U.S. as a core partner in security and defense matters. The EU defense initiatives must be understood in this context: They are not directed against our trans-Atlantic partnership but aim to enhance Europe's contribution to our common trans-Atlantic security by sharing a greater part of the burden. PESCO and EDF will help enhance EU member states' investment in the joint development of defense capabilities and deepen cooperation to make more efficient use of defense spending in the EU. The resulting defense capabilities will not be owned by the EU but by its member states. Which means they will also be available to NATO, at least for those EU member states that are NATO allies. As a result, EU cooperation ultimately also strengthens NATO as well as our trans-Atlantic partners. What is in store for the dozens of PESCO projects currently underway? For example, do you expect new ones to join the roster at some point, or some to be canceled if they fail to deliver? As you know, PESCO is a member states driven initiative. It's therefore up to the 25 participating countries to decide whether they want to launch new collaborative projects in the future. If you ask me, I expect indeed more projects to be added in the future but not this year as it was decided to skip 2020 after three consecutive waves of new projects launched — 47 in total to date — since December 2017, when PESCO was established. Focusing on the project implementation and delivering tangible outputs is thus the priority now. Equally, it is up to the member states involved in a given project to decide about possible changes or adjustments to be made or, to answer your question, even to cancel a project that would fail to deliver. It's the member states who own the projects, so it is up to them to implement them in the way they want. This being said, EDA is available and keen to support them, if they wish, in the implementation. As the European hub for collaborative capability development, we have the expertise and experience needed to do that. We therefore encourage member states to make full use of the Agency and to seek our know-how and support for bringing their PESCO projects forward. And we see that they start to rely more and more on our help. The number of PESCO projects which have been or currently are supported by the agency has constantly increased and now stands at six; two of them (in the areas of CBRN surveillance and deployable underwater capabilities) as EDA projects. Judging from informal expressions of interest received, we have reasons to expect those numbers to further grow in the future. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/22/new-european-defence-agency-boss-warns-against-rash-budget-cuts-by-eu-members/

All news