Jan. 1, 2004

XVIII Airborne Corps: Spearhead of Military Transformation

War transforms armies. Combat accelerates transformation by moving it out of the realm of academic debate and endless speculation about the future to a pragmatic approach focused on fielding new capabilities within new combat formations as soon as possible. In war, transformation means conserving equipment and operational methods that are still relevant while incorporating new technologies, tactics, and organizations that enable victory. It is nearly impossible to replicate in peacetime training the true conditions of land warfare—ambiguity, uncertainty, and above all terror, killing, and exhaustion. For the Army, the best opportunity to transform involves parallel evolution, a method that moves new technologies into combat formations today and explores what the troops will actually do with them in action. With a conflict in progress, this approach is better than trying to predict future uses in an inflexible operational requirements document developed in isolation from the field environment.

Dec. 2, 2003

Changing Mindsets to Transform Security: Leader Development for an Unpredictable and Complex World

This book is a compilation of papers and discussions from the Third International Transformation Conference and Workshop on Leader Development in Washington, DC, on June 19-20, 2013. The event was sponsored by the NATO Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, hosted at the National Defense University, and supported by the International Transformation Chairs Network.

Dec. 1, 2003

Commercial Information Technology Possibilities: Perspectives on its Future Role in Military Operations as Inspired by Visits to Selected Sites

There has been a substantial amount of discussion in the DOD community about the availability of commercially funded R&D products capable of supporting ongoing and anticipated military operations. Those who doubt the availability of such technological products point to the past necessity of military R&D investment to assure American technological superiority. Pundits who hold that commercial investments are currently producing products relevant to military operations point to the incredible growth of various consumer markets, e.g. electronics, telecommunications and personal computers. This report describes the efforts of the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) to assess the availability of Information Technology to support current and future military operations. In short, we wanted to consider whether there exist technological winners—or keepers—derived from research and development (R&D) investments initiated and sustained by private-sector firms. Based on the case studies derived from this study’s purposive sample, we believe strongly that currently available technological products can easily be adopted by users and institutions within DOD. Moreover, we assert that these technologies will be able to support future operations effectively.

Nov. 1, 2003

Hydrogen as a Fuel for DOD

Energy issues have been at the center of the national security debate for some time, and the current situation in the Persian Gulf underscores the strategic importance of sound energy policy. Activities or developments—geopolitical, environmental, technological, or regulatory—that materially change the energy security equation are, naturally, of great interest to the Department of Defense (DOD). The announcement by President George Bush in his State of the Union address that he intends to accelerate research and development (R&D) for hydrogen-powered vehicles toward the objective of total U.S. energy independence has great potential impact on DOD. This paper examines a number of technical issues connected with energy independence through hydrogen and how they might affect DOD. We conclude that the move to a hydrogen economy will be a massive undertaking, requiring large investments and decades to accomplish. We will show that, with few exceptions, pure hydrogen is not a viable fuel for DOD missions, primarily because of the DOD requirement for compact, high-volumetric energy density power sources. As a result, to meet its unique needs, DOD likely will have to increase its dependence on nuclear power and support R&D that investigates ways to use hydrogen to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels in an environmentally compliant fashion. Several suggestions and recommendations will be made in this regard.

Nov. 1, 2003

Alternative Governance: A Tool forMilitary Laboratory Reform

Throughout the Cold War, the United States maintained an edge over adversaries by fielding technologically superior warfighting systems. This strategy depended on a strong research and development (R&D) effort in both the public and private sectors, and the community of military laboratories in the Department of Defense played an essential role in the overall effort. Because of the importance of these labs during the Cold War, defense planners continually focused on ways to improve and strengthen them.

Oct. 1, 2003

Dual-Track Transformation for NATO

Recent strains between the United States and some European allies have raised concerns that NATO is becoming irrelevant or even headed toward extinction. A breakup of NATO would severely damage the United States and Europe as well as prospects for global peace. As an urgent priority, NATO must restore its unity and strengthen its capacity for common action in the Greater Middle East. But how can this goal be achieved in today’s climate?

Oct. 1, 2003

Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the Military

Most debates and studies addressing potential climate change have focused on the buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. But this “slow ramp”1 climate change scenario ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has become much colder, warmer, wetter, or drier—in time spans as short as three to 10 years.

Sept. 1, 2003

A New PPBS Process to Advance Transformation

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has released its first Transformational Planning Guidance to steer the Armed Forces through a joint process of transformation. This is a strong step in the direction of making transformation and innovation visible parts of the defense planning process, but more is needed. The planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS) through which the Department of Defense (DOD) prioritizes its programs and resources has to be restructured to facilitate transformation and innovation, not to obstruct them. DOD has begun a trial resource allocation process that will reduce the burden of repetitive report generation that has drained time and energy away from innovative, strategic change. This process gives senior leadership an opportunity to shift its attention from wrestling with budget detail to developing initiatives to transform U.S. forces. However, this change will not happen of its own accord. A set of proposals that would enable senior leadership to move its focus from the back end (budgeting) of the resource allocation process to the front end (planning and idea generation) is presented below. A review of how the PPBS has evolved is presented to highlight the need to target specific parts for restructuring.

Sept. 1, 2003

Technology, Transformation, and New Operational Concepts

Throughout history, technology has been central to warfare, often giving qualitative advantages to numerically inferior forces. Typically, the rate of technology development has been relatively slow and the introduction of new weapons systems even slower, which has allowed evolutionary development of operational concepts. Today’s accelerated pace of technology development no longer allows sequential development of operational concepts. In addition, the current global political environment has placed demands upon the military that range from engaging in major regional conflicts to stabilization, reconstruction and peacekeeping, all creating a continuous need for flexible, adaptive systems and new concepts of operation.

Aug. 1, 2003

Catastrophic Bioterrorism – What Is To Be Done?

It is now widely recognized that terrorists may inflict great trauma upon us by using biological weapons against America’s civilian populations. There is, however, no common perception of how this problem should be defined and countered. In the language of today’s business consultants, neither the “problem space” nor “the solution space” has been well mapped. In military terms, we have no established a method of focusing our efforts, testing alternative strategies, setting requirements, and determining priorities. This paper is designed to show how we can do these things.