Transformation—DoD's central non-war objective: Aldridge spells out six DoD transformation goals - Brief Article

Program Manager, March, 2002

Opening remarks by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics E.C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr., in a speech to the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA), Feb. 19, 2002.

Transformation is the central non-war objective of the Department of Defense. The President made it a critical feature of his Presidential campaign, and reaffirmed his commitment to that objective in a speech from the Citadel last December. Among other things, he characterized our need to transform as the military and moral necessity of our time. And he described our task as the "redefinition of war on our terms."

We will transform our defenses. Indeed, that transformation is well under way. It started last year--before the attacks--with the formulation of six transformational goals:

1 First, to protect the U.S. homeland and our bases overseas.

2 Second, to project and sustain power in distant theatres.

3 Third, to deny our enemies sanctuary.

4 Fourth, to protect our information networks from attack.

5 Fifth, to use information technology to realize the power and potential of true joint warfare.

6 And sixth, to maintain unhindered access to space and protect our space capabilities from enemy attack.

Those six transformational goals imply a very full plate for [AIAA's] membership.

Airlift, UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] and UCAVs [Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles], air dominance, space dominance, precision guided munitions, tactical and anti-ballistic missiles--you all have your work cut out for you.

Transformational AT&L

The activities of my office are important to these transformation efforts. The transformation of our nations defenses simply cannot succeed without transformational acquisition, transformational technology, and transformational logistics. The implied predicate is acquisition excellence.

In keeping with that, I too have committed my office to its own body of goals designed to make acquisition excellence a reality, and by so doing, to enable the transformation of our national defenses. These five goals each hold implications for contractors.

In short order they are:

1

Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics process. If we are ever to bring stability to our acquisition efforts, if we ever expect Congress to grant us more leeway in the management of our portfolio, we must re-build their confidence in us.

There are two major elements to the accomplishment of this goal: first, we must introduce spiral development to reduce risk and development time; and second, we must properly and realistically price our programs.

Reducing risk, maintaining schedules, and keeping costs under control are the key factors in improving acquisition effectiveness and credibility.

2

Revitalize the quality of the AT&L workforce. Many of our workers are getting older and will soon retire. We must ensure that those who remain possess the skills we will need for the future.

In addition, we would like to find a way for DoD to have access to people with industrial experience, and vice versa.

3

Improve the health of the defense industrial base. As I have said many times before, if we are to provide our military men and women with the finest equipment in the world, the industrial base that produces it must be healthy, innovative, and competitive.

To achieve this goal, we must look at our profit policy, progress payments (which we have done), savings sharing plans, and export control procedures. Our objective is not only to help our traditional contractors, but to also incentivize non-traditional contractors to do business with DoD.

We also need to incentivize industry to pursue more independent research and development--the kind that gives depth, resiliency, and competitiveness to the industrial base.

Let me read you a quote from General [Dwight David] Eisenhower:

"The DUCK, an amphibious vehicle, proved to be one of the most valuable pieces of equipment produced by the U.S. during the war. Four other pieces of equipment that most senior officers came to regard as most vital to our success in Africa and Europe were the bulldozer, the jeep, the two-and-a-half ton truck, and the C-47 airplane. Curiously enough, none of these is designed for combat."

Healthy industry--even industry not directly related to combat weapons systems--is in our national security interests.

4

Rationalize our weapons systems and infrastructure with our national defense strategy Both detractors and supporters of our transformation efforts have expressed reservations about our recently released budget priorities. The charges span the gamut from "not transformational enough," to "too much too soon."

What seems to characterize both extremes is, first, an inability to separate transformation from appropriations. And second, an inability to understand that transformation is a journey, not an end state.

Let me be clear: Transformation is not a reflection of dollars spent. Nor is it the mere expression of technology. Transformation is first and foremost a state of mind.