ARMY ACQUISITION SUPPORT TO UKRAINE
Many assumed the initial surge efforts early in the conflict would be sufficient, but the pace and scope of the support has continued at a high level for over a year.
Te COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of a stable and robust organic and commercial industrial base. Te Ukraine support has reinforced the fact that the Army’s military readiness depends on a healthy, responsive and modern defense industrial base. ASA(ALT) leadership has made the industrial base a stra- tegic priority—with the full support of Congress, the Army is making substantial long-term investments in the industrial base. In the meantime, as the secretary of the Army and the chief of staff of the Army recently reported, “Te Army is working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and our industry partners to rapidly increase production capacity and transform our processes from vulnerable supply chains to a more resilient supply fabric.”
A key element of responsive to partner demand is ensuring we proactively manage technology security and export control measures to ensure we can provide meaningful capability to partners while maintaining our technological edge. Systems should be designed and built with the mindset that they will likely be exported to an ally or partner nation. Tis is not a new requirement, but it is often traded away when faced with cost and schedule constraints. However, in a crisis, exportability can become a critical limiting factor that even relatively uncon- strained resources can solve in the timeline required…. time once traded can’t be reclaimed. Like building for reliability, the Army must design and build exportability features in from the beginning.
A key factor to success was the recognition that ASA(ALT) must operate within DOD established processes while ensuring its own internal processes for presidential drawdowns were efficient, effective, collaborative and transparent. ASA(ALT) worked on
https://asc.ar my.mil 55
a two-week battle rhythm to receive, analyze and respond to DOD requests for materiel support. Coordination and approval processes operated on both unclassified and classified networks. At any given time, the Army was working on three different drawdown requests. ASA(ALT) continually refined its process and procedures to ensure requests were acted upon expeditiously and senior leaders were provided sufficient and timely analysis to support their decision making.
CONCLUSION Over the last year, the Army acquisition enterprise has planned and executed their mission well to support Ukraine security assis- tance as a significant contributor to Army efforts to build capacity and capability due to the detailed planning, diligence and leader- ship of its workforce, while operating under tight timelines and resource constraints. As we continue to execute, ASA(ALT), and the broader Army enterprise, must institutionalize what has been learned; capture the appropriate information in policy and regu- lations; and, where appropriate, recommend statutory changes to ensure it remains strategically and operationally responsive to the needs of our nation.
For more information about ASA(ALT), go to https://
www.army.mil/asaalt.
JAMES TREHARNE, PH.D., serves as the director of acquisition studies and analysis with ASA(ALT) in the Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management Office in the Pentagon. He is a retired Army engineer colonel and has a Ph.D. in industrial and systems engineering and an M.S. in industrial engineering from Auburn University, and a Master of Strategic Studies from the Army War College. He is a graduate from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a B.S. in applied science and engineering.
JAMES STOCKS serves as the deputy chief of operations, plans and strategy with ASA(ALT) in the Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management Office in the Pentagon. He has served in multiple organizations at the ASA(ALT) headquarters and is a retired U.S. Marine. He has an M.S. in business administration from Boston University, an M.S. in national resource strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and a B.S. in management from Guilford College.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132
