By Mackenzie Eaglen, Defense One: “In two recent memos, the SecDef reveals his intention to change how the Pentagon uses its money, people, and time."
By Harlan Ullman, Proceedings: "Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work was a powerful advocate of what he called the “third offset” strategy. The first was the advent of nuclear weapons that offset Soviet power; the second, the revolution in precision weapons that offset numerical U.S. military inferiority; and the third involves protecting vital command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance networks against enemy attack that could strip the United States of its military advantages. Taking the third offset strategy to its logical conclusion, what is needed is a third revolution in military affairs principally—but not entirely—driven by potentially revolutionary technology."
By Van Jackson, War on the Rocks: "In a recent piece warning about an emerging arms race in hypersonic missiles, The New York Times quoted Will Roper, the Air Force's senior acquisition and technology official, saying that the United States needed to invest more in such advanced weapons “if we want to dominate this new domain of fast flight.” This kind of statement is emblematic of a defense establishment that thinks in terms of military superiority — a paradigm that requires the United States to be capable of overmatching anyone at any time.""
By John E. Sweeney, RealClearDefense: "This sustained layering of sanctions on Russia has produced unintended consequences."
(UPI) Raytheon inked a $9 million deal to maintain high-speed anti-radiation missiles, known as HARM, for the Air Force, the government of Morocco and the government of Turkey, according to the Pentagon.
By Wesley Hallman & Christopher Smith, National Defense Magazine: "The Executive Order 13806 report on production risks to critical defense industrial supply chains in 2018 starkly framed the health of the U.S. defense industrial base as key to the readiness of the nation's armed forces to confront near-term threats and their ability to compete long-term against strategic adversaries."
By Loren Thompson, Forbes: "For much of U.S. history, the vast oceans separating America from Europe and Asia protected the nation against attack by foreign enemies. Today, those oceans are as much a hindrance as an advantage."
By Ryan Tice, Proceedings: "Integration both at sea and ashore is critical to address a number of challenges, including antiaccess/area denial threats from rising powers such as Russia and China. To maintain their ability to project power at sea, the Navy and Marine Corps need to aggressively experiment with nontraditional command-and-control relationships, organizational structures, and emerging technologies that capitalize on both services’ unique strengths."
The U.S. Navy's Three Great Intellectual Challenges
By John R. Kroger, Defense One: "The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are developing an aggressive naval education strategy to deepen the intellectual capabilities of our force. Our goal, following the leadership of Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas B. Modly, is to build a highly educated team with a deep understanding of strategy, geopolitics, emerging technologies, resource management, and weapons acquisitions."
(The Hill) Two years ago, the Army recognized the need to rapidly and persistently modernize our force to stay ahead of technological change and national competitors.
By Chris Telley, Modern War Institute: "The new strategy document poorly assumes that Army forces will not do the murkier work like managing proxies, interacting in the economies it moves through, or using influence technology—among other information-related tasks required to gain the initiative at the opening of a future war."