and executing. In fact, recently we had a vessel repaired in South Korea, instead of having to return to the United States. That saved 9,000 miles off a journey just to get in line. It was able to get seen at roughly the same cost (in fact, I think it was the exact same cost) and get serviced but be back in the fight more than a month early. That means that vessel was able to support the combatant com- manders earlier and was, again, another tool back into the Warfighters’ hands. Q We noticed at least one Service, the Air Force, has ad- opted a broadly based approach to RSF with its Global Enterprise Network for Universal Sustainment—GENUS. What are your thoughts on GENUS, and have the other Ser- vices indicated an intent to establish a similar approach? A. GENUS is a very, very bright spot in our partnerships. We’ve been working very closely with Air Force Sustainment Center and that whole crew, Gen. Stacey Hawkins, Gen. Brian Moore, to create a partnership between that GENUS Project and RSF, because we see a lot of commonality there. And again, I think over the broad historical aspect of what we’re trying to do here. During World War II, we had to have this immense industrial might. In fact, the Arthur Herman book “Freedom’s Forge” details this. We had this intense industrial might, but we had a hard time getting it to the theater—the Battle of the Atlantic and Battle of the Pacific. Having to traverse those huge oceans to get our resources where needed for the Warfighter was difficult. And it was difficult for the Allies. We learned that lesson and applied it in the Cold War when we had lots of capabilities posi- tioned forward. But then the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union dis- solved. It was no longer economical for us to have those resources forward. It made sense at the time to be more consolidated. That made perfect sense. Well, now we’re at the point where we need to go out and put more assets forward, closer to the point of need, and so GENUS is a great way that we’re doing that in partnership with the Air Force. It’s the Air Force’s initiative, and again, there is a lot of great leadership within the Air Force Sustainment Center and the GENUS program. We’re looking forward to partnering with them around the globe. Q From the numerous DoD forums that you and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Product Support Lisa Smith have addressed recently, there appears to be solid support for RSF from international allies and partners to combat- ant command to the Joint staff and the Services. What are your impressions on industry’s perspective? What are the main challenges or concerns, and how are they being addressed? A. I’m glad you brought that up. Industry is excited. This is an opportunity for them to partner with foreign firms. This is an opportunity for them to expand their global pres- ence, and with that comes new opportunities for them with those foreign nations to provide increased support.
Going back to what I talked about earlier, which was OSD’s multiple roles—synchronization, prioritization, ad- vocating—we’re working with and reaching out to the Ser- vices. We’re reaching out to our industrial partners through the associations to figure out what do they need to make RSF happen? And there could be, as you could imagine, a number of ways we can make the RSF’s chances for suc- cess higher. The first is asset visibility, knowing where we are and what we have where. The second could be resourcing. Nothing in life is free, right? So, what kind of resources do we need? And third, relief from regulation, relief from guidance and in certain places. We’ve got lots of guidance out there, and the guidance was there for the right reasons at the time it originated. But sometimes this guidance may trip up RSF. It may not necessarily help. So, we’re reaching out to the Services, industry, and our allies to ask: Which regulations, which guidance, which policy do we need to look at to advocate for its mitiga- tion or waiver or something along those lines to basically lift those barriers? Because there are barriers to doing RSF, and that could be anything from customs, it could be anything from tech transfer, it could be even as small as a business practice of a service or an agency that does foreign military sales. We’re working to identify how we need to surgically adapt guidance or that regulation or seek a waiver entirely or seek new guidance that enables us to do more. That’s what we’re up to right now; we’re collect- ing that input; we’re going back to Congress at the end of the year with a report to Section 842 out of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2024 with recommendations of how best to go forward. Q We’ve spoken of interoperability and compatibility be- tween the Services with some of our allies now shoul- dering more of their own burden for self-defense, like the Germans are finally spending more money on their own de- fense. How is that going to affect foreign military sales? Do you see any disconnect between foreign military sales and interoperability with our allies if they’re going in that more self-reliant direction with their own domestic equipment? A. We want them to buy either U.S. items or items co- produced with the United States. If they buy their own items, that is fine, but they need to be compatible and interoperable. Generally speaking, foreign military sales have only increased our operability and compatibility defined as a combined force and as a joint force, not only within the United States, but also with our partners. So, any forward progress on foreign military sales benefits the Warfighter in many ways, in my opinion. The other thing to consider is that we are pressing our allies to invest more in collective defense. That’s great. RSF gives them a venue for gainful investment, mutually gainful investment, burden sharing toward sustainment. And again, you can buy the best he- licopter or airplane or tank in the world, but if you don’t maintain it, it will be stuck in the depot. It will be stuck
8 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION | May-June 2025
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker