DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Defense (Dod) Report: Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, October 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Defense (Dod) Report: Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, October 2013 Description of document: Department of Defense (DoD) report: Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, October 2013 Request date: 02-December-2014 Released date: 22-April-2015 Posted date: 06-July-2015 Source of document: OSD/JS FOIA Requester Service Center Office of Freedom of Information 1155 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1155 Fax (571) 372-0500 Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff's FOIA Online Submission Form The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. From: "Blake, Adrianne C CIV WHS ESD (US)" Date: Apr 22, 2015 8:50:51 AM Subject: OSD/JS Freedom of Information Act Request 15-F-0402 - Final Response Cc: "Santos, Adrienne M CIV WHS ESD (US)" , "Council, Suzanne F CIV WHS ESD (US)" Sent by electronic mail This is the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received in this Office December 2, 2014, and assigned case number 15-F-0402. We ask that you use that number when referring to your request. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (MIBP) meets the requirements of the statute noted in your request, 10 U.S.C. 2504, and provides an Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress. The October 2013 Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, totaling 199 pages, is the most recent report prepared by MIBP. It is provided to you as responsive to your request, is attached to this email, and is released without excision. It is also available online at the following hyperlink: http://www.acq.osd.mil/mibp/docs/releases/FINAL%202013%20Annual%20Report%20 to%20Congress%20(updated).pdf Please note there is no separate report entitled "Department of Defense Technology and Industrial Base Policy Guidance" as specified in your request; however, the technology and industrial base policy guidance is addressed in Section 2 of the attached report. Inasmuch as this constitutes a full grant of your request, I am closing your file in this office. There are no assessable fees associated with this response. Thank you. Adrianne C. Blake, Government Information Specialist For Suzanne Council on behalf of Stephanie L. Carr, Chief, Office of Freedom of Information Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff FOIA Requester Service Center 1155 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1155 Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress October 2013 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy Preparation of this study cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $125,000 dollars in Fiscal Years 2012-2013. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 2. Strategic Guidance ................................................................................................... 5 3. Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier (S2T2) Evaluations of the Defense Industrial Base 11 4. Industrial Sector Assessments ............................................................................... 13 4.1 Aircraft Sector Industrial Summary ................................................................. 13 4.2 Electronics Sector Summary ......................................................................... 15 4.3 Contract Services Sector Industrial Summary ................................................ 20 4.4 Ground Vehicles Sector Industrial Summary .................................................. 21 4.5 Materials Sector Industrial Summary .............................................................. 24 4.6 Munitions and Missiles Sector Industrial Summary ........................................ 27 4.7 Shipbuilding Sector Industrial Summary ......................................................... 33 4.8 Space Sector Industrial Summary .................................................................. 35 5. Defense Mergers and Acquisitions ........................................................................ 44 5.1 Major Defense Supplier Merger and Acquisition Reviews .............................. 45 5.2 Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ................................. 47 6. Programs and Actions to Sustain Capabilities ........................................................ 49 6.1 The Defense Production Act (DPA) ................................................................ 49 6.2 DoD Manufacturing Technology Program ...................................................... 56 Appendix A - Annual Report Requirements ..................................................................A-1 Appendix B – Summary of Key Industrial Capabilities Assessments Completed During CY2011 ........................................................................................................................B-1 B.1 DoD-Wide ...................................................................................................... B-1 B.2 Army………………………………………………………………………………...B-8 B.3 Navy………………………………………………………………………………..B-21 B.4 Air Force………………………………………………………………………..…..B-22 B.5 Defense Contract Management Agency ...................................................... B-28 B.6 Defense Logistics Agency ........................................................................... B-36 Appendix C – Related Activities .................................................................................. C-1 C.1 Title III – Defense Production Act Summaries .............................................. C-1 C.2 DoD ManTech Component Program Summaries ....................................... C-20 C.3 Science & Technology Investments ............................................................ C-35 Appendix D – Defense Production Act Committee Report to Congress ...................... D-1 1. Executive Summary The Department of Defense (DoD) submits this report in accordance with section 2504 of title 10, U.S.C. For over a decade, the Nation has increased annual defense spending in support of our women and men engaged in two active conflicts while, at the same time, investing in the capabilities to prevent and deter future conflicts around the globe. Over that period, we have supported a clearly articulated mission – plan, train, fight, win the ongoing conflicts – while simultaneously planning to train, fight, and win contingencies around the globe that threaten our national interests. As we executed our mission over the last decade, the industrial base has been with DoD every step of the way – responding to our immediate needs while investing in our future requirements. The industrial base that supports DoD is, and remains, a vital component of our national security capability, second only to the women and men in uniform. DoD relies upon our Nation’s industrial capabilities and capacity for everything from ships to shoestrings, and industry continues to answer the call to respond to both the current and emerging threats our Nation faces. In return, the firms that serve our Warfighters must do so at a fair price to the taxpayers, and should reasonably expect fairness in treatment, rationality in our program decisions, and certainty in our spend plans which financially correspond to the market risks industry bears. DoD leverages a largely market-based approach that continues to produce innovative ideas, products, and systems that remain the envy of the world. Our market-based approach has served DoD well. It is important to recognize that over the last 20 years, the industrial base upon which we rely has steadily become more global and diverse. Now, more than ever, we must accept that DoD does not control the supply chain that supports production. An overly-prescriptive approach to industrial policy, rather than a market-based approach, is a model that tends to destroy innovation, produce false competitive choices, and prevent the best and brightest America has to offer from entering the national security sector. Put simply, a directive approach is not in keeping with the rapid pace of technological development – largely commercially dependent – upon which the Warfighters of the future will depend. Since the end of World War II (WWII), DoD has experienced four major swings in investment spending: the first after WWII, the second after the Korean conflict, the third after the Vietnam conflict, and the fourth initiated due to a domestic fiscal crisis, but accelerated by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Each of these four cycles had unique and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ti for Military Ground Vehicles: Are Hopes Dashed?
    Ti for Military Ground Vehicles: Are Hopes Dashed? International Titanium Association San Diego, October 2011 T. James Dorsch BAE Systems Land and Armaments Santa Clara, CA 10/5/2011 ApprovedApproved forfor Public Public Release, Release, Distribution Distribution Unlimited, Unlimited, BAE BAE Systems Systems Communications Communications Department, Department, September September 2011 2011 1 Outline . Advantages of titanium for armor . Why the lack of titanium applications in ground combat vehicles . Current applications . Future defense challenges . General difficulty in adopting new materials . Improved fuel economy to reduce convoys and related casualties . Future vehicles – new and upgrade programs . New technologies . Opportunities 10/5/2011 Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited, BAE Systems Communications Department, September 2011 2 One of the world’s largest defense companies Defense News Top 100 BAE Systems plc Based on 2008 Revenues ($B) 45 . 107,000 employees 40 . 2009 sales of £22.4B ($35.1B**) 35 . 2009 order book of $73.4B** 30 25 . Second largest global defense company 20 . Top 10 U.S. prime contractor 15 . Seven home nations 10 5 . Presence in more than 100 nations 0 Lockheed BAE Boeing Northrop General Raytheon EADS Martin Systems Grumman Dynamics BAE Systems, Inc. 52,000 employees BAE Systems Sales from 2002 – 2009 (Figures in £000s) (44,000 in the U.S.) 25,000 . 2009 sales of £12.4B ($19.4B**) 20,000 . Major operations in 38 states, the UK, Sweden, Israel, Germany, Mexico, 15,000 Switzerland, and South
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Corps PEO LS Advanced Technology Investment Plan 2017
    2017 PEO LS Advanced Technology Investment Plan | i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2017 PEO LS Advanced Technology Investment Plan | ii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER LAND SYSTEMS MARINE CORPS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT PLAN 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS i. Executive Summary ii. Bottom Line Up Front iii. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction pg. 1 2.0 S&T Collaboration and Engagement pg. 5 3.0 Futures pg. 17 4.0 Top Technical Issues pg. 29 5.0 PEO LS S&T Focus Areas pg. 31 5.1 Power and Energy pg. 33 5.1.1 Fuel Efficiency pg. 33 5.1.2 Intelligent Power and Thermal Management pg. 36 5.2 Survivability and Mobility pg. 41 5.2.1 Survivability pg. 41 5.2.1.1 Fuel Containment/Fire Suppression pg. 45 5.2.1.2 Safety pg. 45 5.2.2 Mobility pg. 46 5.2.2.1 Crew Visibility pg. 47 5.2.2.2 Corrosion pg. 48 5.2.2.3 Autonomy pg. 48 5.2.2.4 Weight Reduction pg. 51 5.3 Modeling and Simulation pg. 59 5.4 Open Plug-and-Play Communication Architecture pg. 65 6.0 Warfare Centers pg. 71 7.0 MCWL/DARPA Efforts pg.9 8 8.0 PEO LS Programs pg.7 9 8.1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle pg. 101 8.2 Amphibious Combat Vehicle Phase 1 Increment 1 pg. 109 8.3 Common Aviation Command and Control System pg. 117 8.4 Ground Based Air Defense pg. 125 8.5 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar pg.
    [Show full text]
  • Calepin International B6 2009 Version3.Indd
    Calepin international des principales entreprises travaillant pour la défense Édition Mai 2009 DÉLÉGATION GÉNÉRALE POUR L’ARMEMENT Sommaire Sommaire .............................................................................................. p. 3 Carte des ensembles de sécurité en Europe ............................................ p. 4 Préface .................................................................................................. p. 5 Taux de change de l’Euro ....................................................................... p. 6 Fiches sociétés (pays de la LoI* + États-Unis) Sommaire sociétés pays de la LoI + États-Unis ....................................... p. 7 à 8 Fiches sociétés pays de la LoI + États-Unis ............................................. p. 9 à 112 Tableaux pays (LoI* + Etats-Unis) Sommaire tableaux pays de la LoI + États-Unis ...................................... p. 114 Allemagne............................................................................................. p. 116 Espagne ................................................................................................ p. 117 États-Unis d’Amérique ........................................................................... p. 118 France ................................................................................................... p. 119 Italie ..................................................................................................... p. 120 Royaume-Uni .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Marine Corps Assault Amphibian Vehicle Egress Study
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2014-06 United States Marine Corps assault amphibian vehicle egress study Ford, Jason T. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/42624 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS ASSAULT AMPHIBIAN VEHICLE EGRESS STUDY by Jason T. Ford June 2014 Thesis Advisor: Lawrence G. Shattuck Second Reader: Lyn R. Whitaker Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2014 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 5. FUNDING NUMBERS AMPHIBIAN VEHICLE EGRESS STUDY 6. AUTHOR(S) Jason T. Ford 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Appropriations for 2010
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania, Chairman NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia TODD TIAHRT, Kansas MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JACK KINGSTON, Georgia ALLEN BOYD, Florida KAY GRANGER, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. PAUL JUOLA, GREG LANKLER, SARAH YOUNG, LINDA PAGELSEN, PAUL TERRY, KRIS MALLARD, ADAM HARRIS, ANN REESE, BROOKE BOYER, TIM PRINCE, MATT WASHINGTON, B G WRIGHT, CHRIS WHITE, CELES HUGHES, and ADRIENNE RAMSAY, Staff Assistants SHERRY L. YOUNG, Administrative Aide PART 2 Page Marine Corps Ground Equipment ....................................... 1 Soldier Equipment, Ergonomics and Injuries .................. 47 Army and Marine Corps Readiness .................................... 139 Army and Marine Corps Force Protection ....................... 191 Air Force Military Personnel ................................................ 281 Military Personnel—Army ..................................................... 367 Printed for the
    [Show full text]
  • 2014, Bericht Der Bundesregierung Über Ihre Exportpolitik Für Konventi
    1 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft 7 2009/81/EC extremists-alienates-allies-near- und Energie (BMWi), 2014, 8 2009/43/EC and-far.html?_r=0, 8.9.2014. Bericht der Bundesregierung 9 Artikla 346 20 CNN, 5.3.2014, Saudi Arabia, UAE, über ihre Exportpolitik für Bahrain withdraw envoys from konventionelle Rüstungsgüter im 10 Tilastot eivät kata Tanskaa, joka Qatar. Saatavissa: http://edition. Jahre 2013. Berliini. Saatavissa: ei ole puolustusviraston jäsen, cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/ http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/ eivätkä Kroatiaa, joka liittyi meast/gulf-qatar-ambassadors/, Redaktion/PDF/Publikationen/ EU:hun vasta vuonna 2013. 30.8.2014. ruestungsexportbericht-2013,pro 11 European Defence Agency, 2013, 21 Jarmo Pykälä (2014) Suomalainen perty=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,spr Defence Data Booklet 2012. ache=de,rwb=true.pdf, 30.8.2014. asekauppa. Pystykorvakirja. Sivut EDA, Bryssel, s. 12. Saatavissa: 66-67. 2 Ministère de la Défense, 2014, http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/ Rapport au Parlement 2014 sur default-source/eda-publications/ 22 Jukka Rislakki: Paha sektori. les exportations d’armement defence-data-booklet-2012-web, WSOY, sivu 434. de la France. Pariisi. Saatavissa: 30.8.2014. 23 Uraani kaivostoiminnassa – säteily http://www.defense.gouv.fr/salle- 12 Perlo-Freeman, Sam & Solmirano, ja ydinturvallisuuskatsauksia. de-presse/dossiers-de-presse/ Carina, 2014, Trends in World Säteilyturvakeskus, 2012. rapport-au-parlement-2014-sur- Military Expenditure 2013. 24 Täydennys lupahakemukseen les-exportations-d-armement-de- Tukholma, SIPRI, s. 4-5. Saatavissa: ydinenergialain 2 §:n 2 momentin la-france, 30.8.2014. http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/ mukaiseen toimintaan. 3 Svenska Regeringen, 2014, SIPRIFS1404.pdf, 30.8.2014.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Is the Na Marine Corps (USMC) He U.S
    U.S. Marine Corps he U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is the na- prioritized “near-term readiness” at the ex- Ttion’s expeditionary armed force, posi- pense of other areas such as capacity, capability, tioned and ready to respond to crises around modernization, home station readiness, and the world. Marine units assigned aboard ships infrastructure.4 However, the President’s fiscal (“soldiers of the sea”) or at bases abroad stand year (FY) 2019 budget request states that the ready to project U.S. power into crisis areas. service will now “prioritize modernization.”5 Marines also serve in a range of unique mis- This is consistent with and central to its readi- sions, from combat defense of U.S. embassies ness-recovery efforts and represents a shift to a under attack abroad to operating the Presi- longer-term perspective. Recapitalization and dent’s helicopter fleet. repair of legacy systems is no longer sufficient Although Marines have a wide variety of to sustain current operational requirements. individual assignments, the focus of every According to General Glenn Walters, Assistant Marine is on combat: Every Marine is first a Commandant of the Marine Corps: rifleman. The USMC has positioned itself for crisis response and has evolved its concepts After years of prioritizing readiness to to leverage its equipment more effectively to meet steady-state requirements, our support operations in a heavily contested mar- strategy now defines readiness as our itime environment such as the one found in the ability to compete, deter and win against Western
    [Show full text]
  • ARMORED VEHICLES MARKET REPORT 2019 the WORLD’S LARGEST DEDICATED ARMOURED VEHICLE CONFERENCE  #Iavevent
    presents THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEDICATED ARMOURED VEHICLE CONFERENCE @IAVehicles ARMORED VEHICLES MARKET REPORT 2019 THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEDICATED ARMOURED VEHICLE CONFERENCE #IAVEvent CONTENTS Rationale 3 Regional Developments 4 Africa 5 Europe 7 Indo-Asia Pacific 11 Middle East 14 North America 17 Latin America 18 Global Armoured Vehicle Holdings 19 Europe 20 Russia and Central Asia 24 Asia 27 North America 31 Middle East and North Africa 32 Sub-Saharan Africa 36 Latin America and Caribbean 41 International Armoured Vehicles 2019 44 2 THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEDICATED ARMOURED VEHICLE CONFERENCE #IAVEvent INTRODUCTION Within an ever changing strategic context, the market for armoured vehicles and related equipment has become even more wide- ranging. There has been a significant rise in the use of UGVs, artificial intelligence, virtual training and survivability equipment. Also, Active Protection Systems (APS) are being developed in lighter, cheaper and more accurate forms, supporting their case as a popular solution for the future battlespace. With all of the aforementioned in mind, the deployment of MBTs is still seen as a necessity by most in spite of climbing demand for light protected mobility. Ahead of International Armoured Vehicles 2019 conference, Defence IQ has compiled this market report to outline global key programmes and future requirements across all types of armoured vehicles. In January, Senior Representatives from the below countries will share their current requirements and challenges with the audience made up of over
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress
    Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress Andrew Feickert Specialist in Military Ground Forces January 6, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42723 Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) Summary On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a “more affordable and sustainable” vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles are intended to play a central role in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program “on ice” due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Military Balance Chapter Five: Russia and Eurasia
    This article was downloaded by: [RFE/RL Prague Library], [Mr Martina Boudova] On: 11 February 2015, At: 01:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Military Balance Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmib20 Chapter Five: Russia and Eurasia Published online: 10 Feb 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: (2015) Chapter Five: Russia and Eurasia, The Military Balance, 115:1, 159-206, DOI: 10.1080/04597222.2015.996357 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2015.996357 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 158 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2012 No. 155 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was appoint the Honorable KIRSTEN E. GILLI- on record supporting it, even cospon- called to order by the Honorable BRAND, a Senator from the State of New sored it. This treaty, already ratified KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, a Senator from York, to perform the duties of the Chair. by 125 countries, would hold foreign na- the State of New York. DANIEL K. INOUYE, tions to the same high standard and President pro tempore. treatment the United States already PRAYER Mrs. GILLIBRAND thereupon as- maintains for people with disabilities. sumed the chair as Acting President The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- It would safeguard American citizens pro tempore. fered the following prayer: traveling, working, and serving abroad, Let us pray. f and that is hundreds of thousands of people right now. The treaty has the God, You have truly been good to us. RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY support of veterans groups, disability Even when we stumble and fall, Your LEADER mercy continues to sustain us. Lead groups from around the country, vir- our lawmakers to realize that the abili- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- tually all of them. It wouldn’t cost the ties You have given them are only pore. The majority leader is recog- taxpayers a single penny. It wouldn’t maximized when they are used for Your nized.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Combat Systems
    Spring 2015 Industry Study Final Report Land Combat Systems The Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy National Defense University Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319-5062 i LAND COMBAT SYSTEMS 2015 ABSTRACT: The Land Combat Systems (LCS) industry, which consists of the Combat Vehicle (CV) market and the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) market, faces challenges following the drawdown of U.S forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Looming budget cuts, defense force structure realignments, and a new U.S. National Security Strategy have caused instability across the LCS industrial base. The TWV market has remained competitive for both Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers because of the predominately commercial nature of this segment of the industry. Due to the military unique nature of combat vehicles (no commercial application), the CV market has fewer OEMs and suppliers, although these market participants compete aggressively. As the Department of Defense (DoD) continues to struggle with budget cuts and Congressional directives, both industry and DoD must work together to ensure that the LCS industry remains viable domestically, while also seeking "best of breed" products from the global marketplace. BG Abdul Kadir Ahmad, Malaysian Army COL Shawn Boland, U.S. Army CDR Troy Carr, U.S. Navy LtCol Steve deLazaro, U.S. Marine Corps Lt Col Edward Goebel, U.S. Air Force Ms. Delana Salley-Jordan, Dept of the Navy COL Martine Kidd, U.S. Army Mr. Bruce Meissner, Dept of Defense Mr. John Mulville, Central Intelligence Agency CDR Nick Mungas, U.S. Navy Lt Col Mike Oliver, District of Columbia Air National Guard Mr.
    [Show full text]