American Military History, assignment help

User Generated

wpoqnte81

Business Finance

Description

Please make sure you address the following points in your PowerPoint presentation:

 Examine the innovations and technological advances directly related to the U.S. military.  Evaluate the strengths of the U.S. military during major military encounters.  Evaluate differences in the U.S. military during times of peace and war. Your PowerPoint presentation must include the following requirements:  Include a minimum of 12 slides, not including title or reference slides.  Include a maximum of six pictures total—the focus needs to be on content.  Include at least one selection from Online Library database, such as the America: History and Life with Full Text database, which is used for research of events and views of the time

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center’s new virtual reality dome, demonstrated 7 October 2015 at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, will enable researchers to assess the impact of the environment on soldier cognition, including decision making, spatial memory, and wayfinding. (Photo by David Kamm, U.S. Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center) Strategic Acquisition for Effective Innovation Lt. Col. Rafael Rodriguez, U.S. Army Maj. William Shoemate, U.S. Army Maj. Justin Barnes, U.S. Army Karen Burke 20 September-October 2016  MILITARY REVIEW INNOVATION T his article reflects recommendations developed by a team from the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group (CSA SSG). The CSA SSG is a think tank that conducts independent research on topics selected by the CSA.1 The team studied an essential strategic question: How can the Army make its acquisition process lead to effective innovation? That the Army acquisition process is cumbersome is widely accepted, as several case studies and task forces established to improve it have clearly demonstrated. For example, in 2009, the Task Force on Defense Acquisition Law and Oversight recommended significant acquisition reform to increase unity of effort across all acquisition stakeholders, recruit personnel with business skills and experience, and focus on outcomes that would meet the needs of warfighters.2 However, attempts such as this at improving the acquisition process have largely failed, and innovation has suffered for that reason. The Future Combat System (FCS) exemplifies the task force’s findings. The FCS originally was envisioned as a major Army innovation effort. However, FCS program managers failed across all acquisition functions to plan effectively, generate realistic requirements, and manage the complex program. Their failure largely was due to an unreformed acquisition process that did not include adequate analysis nor achieve technology readiness before the program was under way.3 A critical roadblock to innovative solutions reaching warfighters is the difficulty of introducing new ideas, technologies, and concepts from the scientific and research community into acquisition programs.4 Acquisition programs offer minimal flexibility—with fixed requirements, schedules, testing protocols, and budgets that deter integration of innovative solutions. Furthermore, a key metric of success in research and development (R&D) efforts is the number of transitions from the R&D community to acquisition programs. This metric drives R&D investments toward existing acquisition programs, requirements, and funding lines, and away from effective innovation. The team conducted extensive research before reaching its conclusions on how the Army can encourage the kind of acquisition process it needs to be ready for future conflict. However, the final recommendations are adapted primarily from a 2014 paper by Joseph P. Lawrence III, titled “A Strategic Vision and a New Management Approach for the Department of the MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2016 Navy’s Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Portfolio.”5 Lawrence’s proposals, while aimed at improving Navy acquisition, apply strategic principles relevant across the Department of Defense. Therefore, for the purposes of ensuring acquisition supports effective innovation for the force, the Army should adopt the following recommendations: 1. Separate research (technology development) from product development. 2. Establish an Army R&D corporate board to set Army acquisition priorities consistent with projected future conflict. 3. Realign acquisition management under Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). 4. Increase competitive prototyping and experimentation. These changes are necessary because the Army suffers from a kind of acquisition paralysis—a limited ability to get good ideas and effective new technology applications into the field rapidly, as evidenced by the number of ad hoc organizations that are created during times of conflict.6 For example, during the conflicts of the past decade, the Army needed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) technologies for squad-level command-and-control systems, but attempts to integrate ISR programs into Army acquisition failed because of R&D stakeholder ownership issues and federal regulations on the use of frequencies.7 The Army acquisition process, however, is not in need of broad-based acquisition reforms— these have been tried before. Nor is acquisition paralysis the result of underinvestment. The problem stems from how the Army traditionally views and executes R&D, and from how it defines the word innovation. For example, the Army tends to focus on the near term. In addition, Army leaders sometimes pursue exciting new technology solutions rather than effective innovation. Some leaders use the word innovation narrowly, to mean inventing new technologies. However, innovation also can include exploiting an existing capability or resource in a new and clever way to solve a problem. Objective, data-driven analysis for understanding problems can inform creative thinking that leads to inexpensive or nonmateriel solutions. The Army is no stranger to innovation. Jeffrey J. Clarke, former director of the Center for Military History, frames the Army’s rich innovation history 21 in the foreword to A History of Innovation: U.S. Army Adaptation in War and Peace: From the exploits of the Lewis and Clark Expedition at the beginning of the nineteenth century to the medical and engineering advances associated with the construction of the Panama Canal begun at its end, … [Army innovation also includes] military initiatives in weapons, tactics, organization, training, and other areas.8 requirements. Their objective is to transition developmental systems to production and then into fielding. Frequently, product managers fund engineers from RDECOM’s research, development, and engineering centers (RDECs)—usually the same RDECs that oversee the supporting technology. Figure 1 (adapted from Lawrence) illustrates the transition point of research and product development, where prototyping leads to innovations.9 However, at this transition point, prototypes tend to be influenced by end users before product requirements are generated and locked in. Research While the process sometimes Prototype Development of products Explore Develop works, there are (transition) some unanticipated consequences. For example, the (Graphic adapted from Joseph P. Lawrence III) Army tends to be Figure 1. Traditional Process Flow of Research focused on increand Development (with Transition Point Highlighted) mentally improvWith the right changes to the acquisition process, the ing existing equipment and systems without adequate Army can make sure the force remains adaptable through consideration of return on investment. This approach effective innovation. The CSA SSG team’s recommenleads to a stove-piped, product-based culture instead dations are designed to ensure Army innovation thrives of a solid strategy and a balanced investment portfolio within budgetary limits. They could help ensure R&D that could address the most pressing Army problems. investments address both near-term and future needs. Alternately, by focusing on early prototyping of new capabilities and concepts rather than product-based Recommendation 1: Separate programs for improving trucks, aircraft, and rifles, the Research from Product Development acquisition community could become responsive to bigThe Army needs to separate research (where ger-picture Army needs for accomplishing missions. technologies are discovered or created) from product The intentional separation of research and product development (where technologies are refined for use). development would also prevent immature technolA separation between research and product developogies from entering into formal programs where they ment would increase the discovery of innovative solu- are exposed to rigid processes and fixed requirements tions. It would facilitate determining a technology’s that can lead to high risk of failure, delays, and cost viability before significant resources were expended in overruns. A 2010 review of Army acquisition, known product development. as the Decker-Wagner report states, “even with this Army researchers and scientists explore and devellaborious [acquisition] process, new weapon systems op technologies to solve the Army’s capability gaps and continue to enter engineering and manufacturing maintain military superiority. They do this mainly as development prematurely with technological risk, part of the Research, Development and Engineering leaving a legacy of program cost overruns, reduced Command (RDECOM). In contrast, program execuquantities fielded, and terminations.” 10 This same point is made in a report published by tive officers, and their subordinate project and product Business Executives for National Security (BENS). The managers, undertake product development as part of report notes the Department of Defense effectively formal programs of record guided by fixed capability 22 September-October 2016  MILITARY REVIEW INNOVATION fixed requirements and acquisition processes. In contrast, to fail during product development leads to very different outcomes, with far greater costs, as noted in the Decker-Wagner report.13 How, then, does the Army realign risk to the technology development phase and increase the rate of innovation in Army culture? Lawrence, an acquisition expert at the National Defense University, is a strenuous advocate of early prototyping and experimentation during technology development. He promotes “use of early experiments Deryck James, Army Research Laboratory (ARL), operates the Stream Line PRO Light Detection and Ranging and/or demonstrations (LiDAR) at the Parachute Operations Mishap Prevention Orientation Course 2016, Fort Stewart, Georgia, by SYSCOMs [systems to demonstrate enhanced capabilities not available with current precision airdrop operations systems. In commands] to resolve response to a request from United States Army Africa, ARL undertook a program to reduce the size, weight, technology risks, prior to and power of current commercial off-the-shelf Doppler LiDAR systems. The new system weighs less than forty-five pounds, is under two cubic feet, and operates on standard twenty-four-volt batteries with reinitiation of product dequired power of less than one hundred watts. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army) velopment, reducing cost and schedule overruns; encourages unnecessary risk in acquisition product-de- and use of early-fielded prototypes as a mechanism for velopment programs with unproven technologies and achieving speed to the fleet/force.” 14 Lawrence further 11 notes that prototyping should be a mechanism for refinuncertain requirements. Demanding a high science and technology (S&T) transition success rate places the ing requirements, gaining customer expertise and buy-in greatest S&T program risk where it does not belong— on the value of the product, and reducing the risk otherin product development. wise inherent to introducing new technologies. Adopting According to Lawrence, the risk of failure should be an approach similar to what Lawrence describes would 12 mainly in the research phase of R&D. The cost of failure allow the Army to place and resolve risk early in the during research is less than the cost of failure during R&D process, where failures contribute valuable insights product development. New ideas and theories can be that inform the Army’s future decisions—and where expounded and tested, prototypes built, and experiments failures cost far less. conducted apart from product development. Allowing Furthermore, the separation of research from product researchers to explore ideas without having to perfect a development prevents the Army from over influencing specific product would provide the Army with tremenS&T investments to support existing near-term technoldous value because it would allow the freedom to explore ogy and programs. Capability gaps, operational requirecreative solutions to the Army’s challenges prior to facing ments, strategic direction, and space for innovative ideas MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2016 23 Army Research and Development Corporate Board Selection of priorities, investment approval Technology and capability analysis, research and development strategy development Top-down priorities Technology Oversight Board Focus Area/Priority Integrated Product Teams Project oversight, proposal recommendations, transition coordination Near-term focus: Incremental upgrades to existing systems Future focus: Science & technology and prototyping & experimentation (Graphic by Innovation and Improved Acquisition Team, Cohort IV, Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group, 2015-2016) Figure 2. Recommended Research and Development Governance Structure should direct focus areas, not existing programs of record. Essentially, the current investment strategy, which emphasizes continual incremental improvement of existing systems for today’s threats and operating environments, closes an effective entry point into Army R&D that would keep pace with the Army’s accelerating needs. Before creating a program of record, there should be an iterative refinement of requirements for new capabilities by warfighters, technologists, sponsors, and the acquisition community. Scientists and engineers should be free to explore new ideas and move toward a larger strategic vision that would guide their work. Recommendation 2: Establish an Army Research and Development Corporate Board An Army senior leader R&D corporate board would bridge the gap between technology development and product development. It would ensure the CSA and 24 Army secretariat could identify the Army’s problems and set priorities to guide the acquisition community to align its R&D investments. It could increase the direct participation of uniformed military personnel in setting acquisition priorities and guiding R&D investments. Without that participation, the CSA’s ability to influence acquisition to meet future threats and operational needs will be stymied by a lack of synchronization across military, civilian, and congressional stakeholders. The board would not be a new governance body. It would be a repurposing of existing four-star general-officer-level and senior civilian-level boards such as the Army Science & Technology Assessment Group or the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC). It would achieve unity of purpose across the Army’s senior leadership by reinvigorating corporate R&D governance and development of an Army R&D strategy. In early 2016, CSA Gen. Mark A. Milley took charge of the requirements process by convening four-star September-October 2016  MILITARY REVIEW INNOVATION Spc. Logan Fishburn, 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, tests a PD-100 unmanned aerial vehicle 22 July 2016 during the Pacific Manned-Unmanned Initiative at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Hawaii. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Christopher Hubenthal, U.S. Army) commanders to participate in frequent AROC forums.15 By reinvigorating other senior-leader groups in a similar manner, senior leaders could set priorities for the current and the future force, balance the R&D portfolio, and establish an Army R&D strategy built on an analytical foundation. An Army corporate board (illustrated in figure 2) would operate as a governance team, directing R&D resources toward the Army’s most pressing nearand far-term needs, and promote unity across Army labs, combatant commands, and networks of industry and academia. A four-star corporate R&D board could establish a single Army R&D strategy and exercise substantial influence to cut through bureaucratic processes and organizational stovepipes. 16 To be effective, the corporate board would require access to valid analysis to enable thoughtful decision making. Recommendation 3: Realign Acquisition Management The third recommendation is focused on aligning R&D, program executive officer programs of record, MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2016 and systems engineering functions under a single chain of command. A misalignment between S&T (far term) and product development (near term) has created counterproductive incentives that lead to integrating immature technologies into Army systems and investments in nonprioritized efforts. Figure 3 (next page) depicts a realignment of acquisition stakeholders that would enhance their ability to respond to guidance from the corporate board, as refined from the CSA’s guidance and priorities. Existing Army labs, RDECs, program executive officers, and program managers would provide formal analysis and S&T, R&D, and systems integration within a proposed technology oversight board. Most important, an execution command (i.e., a proposed modernization command) could unify and integrate R&D organizations to execute well-founded programs that are in line with the needs of the Army. This realignment would calibrate the technology development and product development efforts to help solve tough Army problems and inform the corporate board on potential courses of action. This would be 25 especially important when the corporate Guidance: Corporate board board and the CSA Key needed to make tough decisions such as Authority redirecting program Analysis: efforts and funds. Partnership Technology The proposed oversight board HQDA organizational Organizational elements structure would develop strategic approachExecution: es around Army Proposed modernization problems by balancing command Assistant investments through Secretary of the cost-benefit and Army for Acquisition, trade-off analyses. An Logistics, and analysis-based R&D Combine acquisition’s Technology strategy—grounded in key elements under a shared views of future single command operational environments and supported Systems Program by data from operEngineering Management ational prototyping and experimentaScience and Prototyping and tion—would coalesce Technology Experimentation around shared Army goals and objectives. Combined with a (Graphic by Innovation and Improved Acquisition Team, Cohort IV, Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group, 2015-2016) technology- and capaFigure 3. Recommended Organizational bility-vetting process Alignment of Army Acquisition led by RDECOM, the R&D strategy would be integrated with operational test venues to inform creating a more flexible, focused, and responsive culture the corporate board and the executing acquisition orga- among the Army RDECs, program executive officers nizations on how to accelerate innovation and reduce and product managers, and centers of excellence. program-of-record risk. Test venues integrated with Once this alignment was achieved, the work of identhat R&D strategy would include the Rapid Equipping tifying and analytically vetting technologies and capabilForce, the Asymmetric Warfare Group, combat ities could begin. Prototyping and early experimentation training centers, and U.S. Army Training and Doctrine would be key to this process. Command battle labs. Recommendation 4: Increase By placing R&D, prototyping, program executive Competitive Prototyping and officers and product managers, and systems engineerExperimentation ing funding under a single HQDA priority schema, in How can the Army senior leaders influence the partnership with the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition process to maximize the benefit it has on acquisition, logistics, and technology, the CSA can better R&D? The final recommendation is to strategically execute a streamlined, need-driven R&D program. This manage prototyping and experimentation as a distinct realignment also would provide the added benefit of 26 September-October 2016  MILITARY REVIEW INNOVATION portfolio that progresses toward the Army’s strategic vision. This is akin to seizing key terrain in battle. The CSA has limited influence over the current force, as the budget investments are set through 2025. However, with these recommendations, Milley could align Army R&D to meet the needs of the future force as he realigned Army capability requirements when he reenergized the AROC. The CSA has significant influence on the future. Milley has indicated he welcomes opportunities to guide R&D for the success of the future force. In his view, the future must be informed by analysis derived from prototyping and experimentation, and inspired by networks of expertise.17 As of 2016, most prototyping funds are executed by program executive officers, in a process that does not allow for early, unconstrained prototyping and experimentation that could positively influence multiple capability solutions. The CSA, as the uniformed leader of the R&D corporate board, should strategically oversee prototyping efforts and strategies. This would assure Army priorities were met, and it would provide the capabilities needed for the current and future force. Through prototyping efforts, the CSA receives user needs from two primary sources: first, from the current force (through FORSCOM) and the combatant commands, and, second, from the projected future force, as influenced by the S&T technology communities and future operating concept data. The outputs from these data are strategic requirements, priorities, and funding for both forces.18 For the current force, the corporate board and the CSA can identify the equipment needed for incremental capability enhancements. For the future force, they can identify critical technologies for the S&T portfolio. The CSA would have the means to manage R&D strategically so that Army innovation could thrive even during downsizing. The Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche prototype made its maiden flight 4 January 1996 at West Palm Beach, Florida. The program was canceled in 2004 just before mass production. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons) Sunk Costs on Terminated Acquisition Programs The Army spends more unrecoverable money—sunk costs—on more terminated acquisition programs than any other entity in the Department of Defense (DOD): “The Army has both the largest number of canceled programs and the largest percentage of sunk RDT&E [research, development, test, and evaluation] costs [compared to DOD and other services]. The amount of funding lost was relatively constant for the Army from 2004 through 2010, coming down sharply thereafter. The majority of the Army’s sunk funding problem through this period was due to the cancellation of the Future Combat System (FCS); however, every year from 1996 to 2010, the Army spent more than $1 billion annually on programs that ultimately were canceled.”1 According to Patrick Clowney, Jason Dever, and Steven Stuban, the Army’s sunk cost for the failed FCS is estimated at $20 billion.2 Another example of a sunk cost for a failed acquisition program is the estimated $6 billion spent on the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter.3 Helicopters exceed their budgets more frequently than most other major defense acquisition programs.4 A third example is the sunk cost of the failed Joint Tactical Radio System, estimated at $11 billion.5 Notes 1. Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD[AT&L]), Performance of the Defense Acquisition System, 2013 Annual Report, (Washington, DC: USD[AT&L], 28 June 2013), 13. The annual reports on the performance of the defense acquisition system are available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/news.html. 2. Patrick Clowney, Jason Dever, and Steven Stuban, “Department of Defense Acquisition Program Terminations: Analysis of 11 Program Management Factors,” Defense Acquisition Research Journal 78, July 2016, table 1. 3. Ibid. 4. USD(AT&L), Performance of the Defense Acquisition System, 2015 Annual Report, (Washington, DC: USD[AT&L], 16 September 2015), 28. 5. Clowney, Dever, and Stuban, “Department of Defense Acquisition Program Terminations: MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2016 Analysis of 11 Program Management Factors,” table 1. 27 Conclusion The Army can create space for innovation to thrive within the acquisition process. It can do this by (1) separating research (technology development) from product development, (2) establishing an Army corporate board to direct R&D for unity of effort, (3) realigning acquisition management under HQDA, and (4) strategically managing prototyping and experimentation to nest within the strategic vision for the Army’s current and future force. The Army can apply analytical rigor to determining how it will invest in discovering technologies that can ensure the Army is successful in future conflicts. The Army can begin to overcome acquisition inflexibility and provide interdisciplinary solutions to complex issues; this does not require overhauling of the system through reform. The goal should be to identify long-lasting and impactful improvements to the acquisition system that will survive the frequent change of leaders in senior positions. Biographies Lt. Col. Rafael Rodriguez, U.S. Army, formerly served as a Chief of Staff of the Army fellow in the Strategic Studies Group. He holds a BS from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, and a master’s degree in defense analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School. He has served in multiple airborne and Special Forces command and staff assignments, where he deployed routinely on overseas contingency operations. Maj. William H. Shoemate is a U.S. Army engineer and formerly served as a Chief of Staff of the Army fellow in the Strategic Studies Group. He holds a BA from the University of the Ozarks and an MMAS from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He has served in a variety of command and staff assignments and was an observer/controller/ trainer at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. Maj. Justin Barnes is a U.S. Army judge advocate and formerly served as a Chief of Staff of the Army fellow in the Strategic Studies Group. He is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of St. Thomas School of Law and a graduate of Indiana University. He was an assistant professor in the administrative and civil law department and editor of the Military Law Review at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. He has served in a variety of Army staff judge advocate assignments. Karen Burke is an acquisition professional in the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM). A Chief of Staff of the Army fellow in the Strategic Studies Group, she has over twenty years’ experience in defense acquisition in positions across Army science and technology and joint program management. She holds an MS in engineering management from Western New England College and a BA from Framingham State College. She holds Level III certification in program management and systems engineering and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps. Notes 1. Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group (CSA SSG) website, accessed 21 June 2016, http://csa-strategic-studies-group.hqda.pentagon.mil/SSG_Index.html. The authors were members of the Innovation and Improved Acquisition Team, Cohort IV, 5 July 2015 through 10 June 2016. 2. Task Force on Defense Acquisition Law and Oversight, Getting to Best: Reforming the Defense Acquisition Enterprise (Washington, DC: Business Executives for National Security, July 2009), accessed 30 June 2016, http://www.bens.org/document. doc?id=12. Other acquisition studies include Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 28 Performance of the Defense Acquisition System (Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 2013), accessed 30 June 2016, http://www.defense. gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/PerformanceoftheDefenseAcquisitionSystem-2013AnnualReport.pdf; Government Accountability Office (GAO), Defense Acquisitions: DOD’s Research and Development Budget Requests to Congress Do Not Provide Consistent, Complete, and Clear Information, GAO-07-1058 (Washington, DC: GAO, 5 September 2007). 3. Christopher G. Pernin et al., Lessons from the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program (Santa Monica, CA: RAND September-October 2016  MILITARY REVIEW INNOVATION Corporation, September 2012), accessed 30 June 2016, http:// www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/ RAND_MG1206.pdf. 4. Thomas Russell, technical director of the Army Research Lab, interview by Karen Burke, Rafael Rodriquez, and William Shoemate on Army Research Lab initiatives, 21 January 2016, Adelphi, Maryland. 5. Joseph P. Lawrence III, A Strategic Vision and a New Management Approach for the Department of the Navy’s Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Portfolio (Washington, DC: National Defense University, August 2014). 6. Army Science Board, FY 2009, Institutionalization of Innovation in the Army (Washington, DC: Army Science Board, December 2009), 11–14. 7. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (Redbook) (Arlington, VA: NTIA, September 2015), accessed 30 June 2016, https://www.ntia.doc. gov/page/2011/manual-regulations-and-procedures-federal-radio-frequency-management-redbook. 8. Jeffrey J. Clarke, “Foreword,” in ed. Jon T. Hoffman, A History of Innovation: U.S. Army Adaptation in War and Peace (Washington, DC: U.S. Army Center for Military History, 2009), v. 9. Ibid., 5, 3. 10. Gilbert F. Decker and Louis C. Wagner Jr., “Army Strong: Equipped, Trained and Ready,” final report of the 2010 Army Acquisition Review (Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, 2011), iv. 11. Task Force on Defense Acquisition Law and Oversight, Getting to Best, 28. 12. Lawrence, “A Strategic Vision,” 10. 13. Decker and Wagner, “Army Strong,” 92. 14. Lawrence, “A Strategic Vision,” 6. 15. Brant Dayley, CSA SSG fellow July 2014 through June 2015, interview by Karen Burke and Rafael Rodriquez about insights on Army innovation, 11 February 2016, Arlington, Virginia. 16. Joseph Lawrence, “Prototyping and Experimentation for Improved Acquisition: Setting the Stage” (lecture, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 14 September 2015). 17. Report to Congress on Chief of Staff of the Army Acquisition Authorities, In Response to Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 Pub. L. 114-92 (March 2016) (statement of 39th Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army Gen. Mark A. Milley). See also Jen Judson, “US Army Chief Moves to Center of Acquisition Universe,” Defense News online, accessed 30 June 2016, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2016/03/10/ us-army-chief-moves-center-acquisition-universe/81588944/. 18. Ibid., 16. From theories of international relations, to incorporating cultural considerations into training and education efforts with internationals, to a look at the ethics of espionage and covert action, the Summer 2016 edition of the Simons Center’s InterAgency Journal offers a variety of topics for interagency practitioners and others. Is the United States ready for a deadly airborne disease outbreak? Is West Africa a ticking time bomb or an opportunity to advance U.S. national interests? Read about these issues and more! The CGSC Foundation’s Simons Center for Interagency Cooperation publishes the InterAgency Journal four times per year. Get your free online copy of all editions of the InterAgency Journal from the Simons Center at www.thesimonscenter.org/publications/interagency-journal MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2016 29 This content is in the public domain. D Research Development of products Explore Develop Prototype (transition) Research Development of products Explore Develop Prototype (transition) ARL video
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi, can I have one extra hour? Regards.
Hi, here it is. Download from this sendspace link since I have a problem uploading directly. https://www.sendspace.com/file/4jazji

Name
Instructor
Course
Date









The United States military dates back over the
last two centuries.
It is attributed to the US evolution from a
completely new nation that was in fight against
the British for independence between 1775 and
1783.
It gained even more strength during the
American Civil War, the World War II.
It made the country hold the position of
superpower since the late 20th century.










The US military is today the most powerful
military in the world.
This strength evolved over a century ago.
The major technology of the military were initiated
during major wars in the country and global was
like the World War II.
More technological advances were, however,
realized during the American Civil War, the World
War I, and the Word War II.
For instance, World War I involved the technology
of using poisonous gas in war.
World War II involved fighting jets, tankers, and
nuclear weapon technology.









This period dates between 1620 and 1774 just
before independence.
Mainly civil frontiers hunting and fighting for
survival.
They were organized into local mili...


Anonymous
Nice! Really impressed with the quality.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags