DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation FY 2012 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation FY 2012 Annual Report Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation FY 2012 Annual Report Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation 3090 Defense Pentagon 5A1076 Washington, DC 20301-3090 [email protected] www.acq.osd.mil/dte-trmc Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Developmental Test and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 DoD Test Resource Management Center ......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Adequacy of Resources.................................................................................................................... 2 2 DASD(DT&E) ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................5 2.1 Policy and Guidance Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Measurable Performance Criteria .................................................................................................... 6 2.3 T&E Acquisition Workforce Development ..................................................................................... 8 2.4 Program Engagement .................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 DASD(DT&E) Focus Areas .......................................................................................................... 11 3 DOD COMPONENT ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 29 3.1 Updates from FY 2011 DoD Component Assessments ................................................................. 29 3.2 DASD(DT&E) Assessment of the DoD Component Reports ....................................................... 31 3.3 T&E Acquisition Workforce .......................................................................................................... 36 4 ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 41 4.1 Adequacy of Resources for DASD(DT&E) ................................................................................... 41 4.2 Adequacy of Resources for DoD Component Lead DT&E Organization ..................................... 42 5 DOD TEST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CENTER ..................................................................... 43 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 State of the T&E Resources ........................................................................................................... 44 5.3 Investment Programs ..................................................................................................................... 44 5.4 Other Significant Activities ........................................................................................................... 54 6 PROGRAM ENGAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................ 57 6.1 Army Programs .............................................................................................................................. 59 6.2 Navy Programs .............................................................................................................................. 89 6.3 Air Force Programs ...................................................................................................................... 123 6.4 DoD Programs ............................................................................................................................. 139 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... 155 DASD(DT&E) FY 2012 Annual Report iii Contents Figures Figure 2-1. DASD(DT&E) FY13 to FY15 T&E Workforce Development Road Map ............................. 9 Figure 3-1. FY 2012 T&E Certification Rates ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 3-2. FY 2012 T&E Personnel Breakdown .................................................................................... 37 Figure 3-3. Comparison of T&E Workforce Data from FY 2009 to FY 2012 ......................................... 38 Tables Table 2-1. Program DT&E Performance .................................................................................................. 7 Table 2-2. Overall DT&E Performance .................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3. Additions to Core Functional Training .................................................................................... 9 Table 2-4. FY 2013 DAU Curriculum Updates ...................................................................................... 10 Table 2-5. Prerequisite Courses .............................................................................................................. 10 Table 2-6. DASD(DT&E) Assessments and Recommendations (FY 2012) .......................................... 20 Table 2-7. JTRS HMS RR ...................................................................................................................... 21 Table 2-8. C-130 AMP ............................................................................................................................ 21 Table 2-9. HC/MC-130 Recapitalization Program ................................................................................. 21 Table 2-10. E-2D AHE ............................................................................................................................. 22 Table 2-11. Apache Block III .................................................................................................................... 22 Table 2-12. WIN-T Increment 2 ............................................................................................................... 23 Table 2-13. AIM-9X ................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 2-14. B-2 EHF Increment 1 ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 2-15. JTRS HMS Manpack ............................................................................................................. 24 Table 2-16. MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAS ....................................................................................................... 25 Table 2-17. P-8 Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft .................................................................................... 25 Table 2-18. SBIRS E-5 OUE .................................................................................................................... 25 Table 3-1. T&E Acquisition Workforce Certification Levels ................................................................. 30 Table 3-2. Acquisition T&E Workforce Comparison, FY 2011 vs. FY 2012 ........................................ 36 Table 3-3. T&E KLPs in FY 2012 .......................................................................................................... 39 Table 4-1. DASD(DT&E) FY 2012 Budget ($K) ................................................................................... 41 Table 4-2. DASD(DT&E) Workforce and Contractor Support, End of FY 2012 .................................. 41 iv DASD(DT&E) FY 2012 Annual Report Index to Program Engagement and Assessments PROGRAM ENGAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENTS ..............................................................................57 Army Programs ........................................................................................................................................... 59 Apache Block III (AB3) Upgrade ........................................................................................................ 60 Distributed Common Ground System–Army Mobile Basic (DCGS-A MB) ....................................... 62 Excalibur M982E1 Precision Engagement Projectiles ......................................................................... 64 Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) – Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) .................................................... 67 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System–Alternative Warhead (GMLRS-AW) ................................. 69 Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) ......................... 70 Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit (HMS) (AN/PRC-155) .................................................................................................................................. 71 Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit (HMS) Rifleman Radio (RR) (AN/PRC-154) ............................................................................................... 73 M109 Family of Vehicles, Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) Self-Propelled Howitzer (SPH) and Carrier, Ammunition, Tracked (CAT) Vehicle ............................................... 75 MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Increment I................................................... 77 Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) ....................................................... 80
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fy15 Table of Contents Fy16 Table of Contents
    FY15FY16 TABLE OF CONTENTS DOT&E Activity and Oversight FY16 Activity Summary 1 Program Oversight 7 Problem Discovery Affecting OT&E 13 DOD Programs Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Best Practices 23 Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) 29 Defensive Medical Information Exchange (DMIX) 33 Defense Readiness Reporting System – Strategic (DRRS-S) 37 Department of Defense (DOD) Teleport 41 DOD Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM) 43 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 47 Global Command and Control System – Joint (GCCS-J) 107 Joint Information Environment (JIE) 111 Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) 115 Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) Increment 2 117 Next Generation Diagnostic System (NGDS) Increment 1 121 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Increment 2 123 Theater Medical Information Program – Joint (TMIP-J) 127 Army Programs Army Network Modernization 131 Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 135 Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) Main Battle Tank (MBT) 139 AH-64E Apache 141 Army Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD) 143 Chemical Demilitarization Program – Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (CHEM DEMIL-ACWA) 145 Command Web 147 Distributed Common Ground System – Army (DCGS-A) 149 HELLFIRE Romeo and Longbow 151 Javelin Close Combat Missile System – Medium 153 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Family of Vehicles (FoV) 155 Joint Tactical Networks (JTN) Joint Enterprise Network Manager (JENM) 157 Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) 161 M109A7 Family of Vehicles (FoV) Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) 165
    [Show full text]
  • DTE-SE FY09 Annual Report Title Page
    Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering FY 2011 Annual Report. Washington, DC: DASD(DT&E) and DASD(SE), 2012. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation 3030 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3030 [email protected] www.acq.osd.mil/dte Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering 3030 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3030 [email protected] www.acq.osd.mil/se Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Developmental Test and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Systems Engineering ....................................................................................................................... 2 2 DASD(DT&E) ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................5 2.1 Policy and Guidance Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Measurable Performance Criteria .................................................................................................... 5 2.3 T&E Acquisition Workforce Development ..................................................................................... 7 2.4 Program Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.5
    [Show full text]
  • Lcs 20 Completes Acceptance Trials
    COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 14 FEBRUARY 2019 LCS 20 COMPLETES ACCEPTANCE TRIALS AUSTAL (ASX: ASB) today announced its tenth Independence Class Littoral Combat Ship, the future USS Cincinnati (LCS 20) successfully completed acceptance trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Completing acceptance trials is the last significant milestone required by the U.S. Navy before the ship is delivered and commissioned into service. The trials involved the Navy conducting comprehensive tests to demonstrate the performance of the propulsion plant, ship-handling and auxiliary systems. "I can’t say enough about the positive results achieved by the Navy and industry team during these acceptance trials of the future USS Cincinnati. She’s well into her journey to being delivered to the Navy this summer and will provide needed and cost-effective warfighting capability to the fleet and the nation" Capt. Mike Taylor, US Navy LCS program manager said. “We are exceptionally proud of the LCS program, it is in a full rate of production and being delivered at a reliable and efficient pace. It is a real credit to our Austal USA team in Mobile,” David Singleton, Austal CEO said. Following delivery and commissioning, USS Cincinnati will join her nine sister ships already homeported in San Diego, USS Independence (LCS 2), USS Coronado (LCS 4), USS Jackson (LCS 6), USS Montgomery (LCS 8), USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10), USS Omaha (LCS 12), USS Manchester (LCS 14), the future USS Tulsa (LCS 16) and the future USS Charleston (LCS 18). Austal USA currently has four LCS under construction. Final assembly is well underway on the future USS Kansas City (LCS 22) and USS Oakland (LCS 24).
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight Review of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program" December 8, 2016
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 114–145] OVERSIGHT REVIEW OF THE U.S. NAVY’S LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROGRAM HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD DECEMBER 8, 2016 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 23–763 WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri, Chairwoman JEFF MILLER, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia GWEN GRAHAM, Florida MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona HEATH BOPE, Professional Staff Member KATY QUINN, Professional Staff Member ANNA WATERFIELD, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative from Missouri, Chairwoman, Subcom- mittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................................................. 1 Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Sub- committee on Oversight and Investigations ...................................................... 3 WITNESSES Gilmore, Dr. J. Michael, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Depart- ment of Defense ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Management Perspectives Pertaining to Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-Mccurdy Breaches
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. MARK V. A RENA, IRV BLICKSTEIN, ABBY DOLL, JEFFREY A. DREZNER, JAMES G. KALLIMANI, JENNIFER KAVANAGH, DANIEL F.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Defense Budget
    Preface The Overview Book has been published as part of the President’s Annual Defense Budget for the past few years. From FY 1969 to FY 2005, OSD published the “Annual Defense Report” (ADR) to meet 10 USC section 113 requirements. Subsequently, the Overview began to fill this role. The Overview is one part of an extensive set of materials that constitute the presentation and justification of the President’s Budget for FY 2020. This document and all other publications for this and previous DoD budgets are available from the public web site of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller): http://comptroller.defense.gov. The Press Release and Budget Briefing, often referred to as the “Budget Rollout,” and the Program Acquisition Costs by Weapons System book, which includes summary details on major DoD acquisition programs (i.e., aircraft, ground forces programs, shipbuilding, space systems, etc.) are especially relevant. The website for Performance Improvement tables and charts is http://dcmo.defense.gov/Publications/AnnualPerformancePlanandPerformanceReport.aspx. Other background information can be accessed at www.defense.gov. The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $27,000 for the 2019 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $14,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2019Mar05 RefID: E-DE33FD3 i This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ii Overview – FY 2020 Defense Budget Table of Contents 1. FY 2020 Budget Summary – A Strategy Driven Budget 1-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 2018 National Defense Strategy ......................................................................................... 1-2 FY 2020 Budget Request Overview .................................................................................... 1-3 Building a More Lethal Force .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Naval Affairs May 19, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program Summary The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) program is a program to procure a total of 40, and possibly as many as 52, small surface combatants (SSCs), meaning LCSs and frigates. The LCS/FF program has been controversial over the years due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the first LCSs, concerns over the survivability of LCSs (i.e., their ability to withstand battle damage), concerns over whether LCSs are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively, and concerns over the development and testing of the modular mission packages for LCSs. The Navy’s execution of the program has been a matter of congressional oversight attention for several years. Two very different LCS designs are currently being built. One was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed; the other was developed by an industry team that was led by General Dynamics. The design developed by the Lockheed-led team is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI, with Lockheed as the prime contractor; the design developed by the team that was led by General Dynamics is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL, with Austal USA as the prime contractor. The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget requested $1,125.6 million for the procurement of the 27th and 28th LCSs, or an average of $562.8 million for each ship.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition Research: Creating Synergy for Informed Change
    SYM-AM-16-019 Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Acquisition Research Symposium Wednesday Sessions Volume I Acquisition Research: Creating Synergy for Informed Change May 4–5, 2016 Published April 30, 2016 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93943. Acquisition Research Program Graduate School of Business & Public Policy Naval Postgraduate School The research presented in this report was supported by the Acquisition Research Program of the Graduate School of Business & Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School. To request defense acquisition research, to become a research sponsor, or to print additional copies of reports, please contact any of the staff listed on the Acquisition Research Program website (www.acquisitionresearch.net). Acquisition Research Program Graduate School of Business & Public Policy Naval Postgraduate School Table of Contents Keynote: The Honorable Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, & Acquisition ............................................................... vii Plenary Panel: Weapon Acquisition Program Outcomes and Efforts to Reform DoD’s Acquisition Process ..................................................................................... 1 Panel 2. Applications of Real Options Analysis in Defense Acquisition ............ 3 Acquiring Technical Data With Renewable Real Options ....................................... 5 Incorporation of Outcome-Based Contract Requirements in a Real Options
    [Show full text]
  • Radar and Phased-Arrays: Advances, Breakthroughs and Future
    RADAR AND PHASED-ARRAYS: ADVANCES, BREAKTHROUGHS AND FUTURE Dr. Eli Brookner Raytheon Company (retired); 282 Marrett Rd., Lexington, MA 02421 [email protected], Tel and Fax: +1-781-862-7014 Radar-2018, August, 27-30, 2018, Brisbane, Australia Keywords: Radar, AESA, phased arrays, metamaterial, radar for horizon search; adaptive digital beam forming; MIMO, Extreme MMIC, PATRIOT, JLENS, AMDR, SPY-3, handles 30 times more targets and has more than 30 times graphene, car radar, signal processing, Moore’s law. FPGA, Dig- sensitivity of SPY-1D(V).; uses GaN which is 34% less ital Beam Forming, carbon nanotubes, transistors, synaptic tran- costly than GaAs; GaN has 108 hour MTBF; antenna com- sistors, cloaking, stealth, COSMOS, ACT, DAHI. posed of 2x2x2 ft3 radar module assembly (RMA) building blocks; 4 line replaceable units (LRU) per RMA; each LRU Abstract: replaced in less than 6 minutes; fully programmable, 37 Moore’s Law is slowing down but still has a way to go. Potential RMAs produce a system that is equivalent to the SPY- further major advances of Moore’s Law via: Spintronics, Memris- 1D(V)+15dB, back-end radar controller built out of com- tors, Graphene, and Quantum Computing. Advances made in met- mercial off-the-shelf (COTS) x86 processors which allows amaterials include low cost electronically scanned arrays (ESAs), adapting to future threats by easy upgrading with future stealth, cloaking (invisibility), low profile VHF/UHF antennas, COTS processors eliminating obsolescence; S-band an- λ focusing < /2. PATRIOT upgraded to GaN active electronically tenna is scalable. Another development is the Zumwalt scanned arrays (AESAs) having 360o coverage without mechani- DDG-1000 stealth ship launched Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • TRIMARAN TECHNOLOGY . AFFORDABLE MULTI-ROLE CAPABILITY Austal-2.Ps 18/3/11 12:19 Pm Page 2
    TRIMARAN TECHNOLOGY . AFFORDABLE MULTI-ROLE CAPABILITY austal-2.ps 18/3/11 12:19 pm Page 2 he bold vision of a young company was borne out at How was this achieved? In the first instance, Austal was the end of 2010 when the US division of Australian- able to draw on its extensive commercial pedigree in high Theadquartered aluminium shipbuilder Austal was con- speed aluminium multi-hull vessels, including the design and tracted by the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) construction of the world’s largest trimaran. Second, it could to take the world’s most advanced multi-mission combatant demonstrate a fast and efficient design and manufacture phi- into series production. losophy that has realised a step change in naval shipbuilding In meeting the US Navy’s requirements for a fast, agile and practice. And third, it had the vision to articulate the multiple versatile Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Austal has engineered a benefits offered by the trimaran hullform in terms of volume, seaframe design that breaks the bounds of naval convention. payload, powering, seakeeping and stability. Uniquely, the Austal LCS has successfully synthesised the These groundbreaking approaches to naval ship engineer- significant hydrodynamic and seakeeping advantages of the ing and production reflect Austal’s culture of innovation. And trimaran hullform, with the weight and powering efficiencies it is this same ability to think ‘outside the box’ that has given of a robust aluminium structure to create a shallow draft war- the company such confidence in the potential of aluminium ship that truly deserves to be called transformational.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Laboratory Lands on Red Ink
    AA CoverOctFinal.qxd:AA Template 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 1 9 AEROSPACE AMERICA JanuaryOctober 20092009 OCTOBER 2009 Mars laboratory lands on red ink Space debris: A growing challenge A conversation with Graham Love APUBLICATIONOFTHEAMERICANINSTITUTEOFAERONAUTICSANDASTRONAUTICS toc.OCT2009.qxd:AA Template 10/7/09 11:23 AM Page 1 October 2009 DEPARTMENTS Page 4 EDITORIAL 3 Our future in space. INTERNATIONAL BEAT 4 Europe looks for UCAV synergies. ASIA UPDATE 8 Southeast Asia reaches toward space. Page 8 WASHINGTON WATCH 10 Page 10 Aviation and spaceflight under scrutiny. HONORS & AWARDS 14 CONVERSATIONS 16 With Graham Love. VIEW FROM HERE 18 Is human spaceflight “optional”? ENGINEERING NOTEBOOK 22 NASA coating helps keep hearts beating. Page 18 OUT OF THE PAST 44 CAREER OPPORTUNITIES 46 FEATURES MARS LABORATORY LANDS ON RED INK 24 With the Mars Science Laboratory’s launch window soon closing and important Page 24 challenges remaining, NASA has acted to safeguard the troubled program. by Frank Sietzen Jr. SPACE DEBRIS:A GROWING CHALLENGE 30 As space debris proliferates, experts say portions of near-Earth orbit could become unusable if mitigating steps are not taken soon. by Leonard David CLOUDY FORECAST FOR NPOESS 38 Working hand in hand with both manufacturers and airlines, EASA’s goal is to make flying Europe’s skies as safe as possible. by James W.Canan BULLETIN Page 30 AIAA Meeting Schedule B2 AIAA Courses and Training Program B4 AIAA News B5 Meeting Program B13 Call for Papers B22 Page 38 COVER The Mars Science Laboratory is NASA’s most complex Mars effort to date.Its large rover will be housed in an aeroshell with a heat shield.For more on this ambitious program,turn to the story beginning on page 24.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Anti-Access/Area Denial Measures on Space Systems: Issues and Implications for Army and Joint Forces
    The United States Army War College The United States Army War College educates and develops leaders for service at the strategic level while advancing knowledge in the global application of Landpower. The purpose of the United States Army War College is to produce graduates who are skilled critical thinkers and complex problem solvers. Concurrently, it is our duty to the U.S. Army to also act as a “think factory” for commanders and civilian leaders at the strategic level worldwide and routinely engage in discourse and debate concerning the role of ground forces in achieving national security objectives. The Strategic Studies Institute publishes national security and strategic research and analysis to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between military and academia. The Center for Strategic Leadership contributes to the education of world class senior leaders, CENTER for STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP develops expert knowledge, and provides solutions to strategic Army issues affecting the national U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE security community. The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute provides subject matter expertise, technical review, and writing expertise to agencies that develop stability operations concepts and doctrines. The School of Strategic Landpower develops strategic leaders by providing a strong foundation of wisdom grounded in mastery of the profession of arms, and by serving as a crucible for educating future leaders in the analysis, evaluation, and refinement of professional expertise in war, strategy, operations, national security, resource management, and responsible command. The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center acquires, conserves, and exhibits historical materials for use to support the U.S. Army, educate an international audience, and honor Soldiers—past and present.
    [Show full text]