Category Archives: Military

Modest Small Business Innovative Research Program (SBIR) Investments Bring Big Benefits

Standard

Soldier_Blackbox_878

Blackbox Biometrics’ Blast Gauge System

“NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE”

“The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program makes funding available to small companies to develop technologies to meet warfighting requirements and that can transition to a program of record and commercialization.

The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program is similar to SBIR, but requires the small business to formally collaborate with a research institution.

The defense industry is big, technologically complex and highly competitive. The bar for entry can be high. For small companies who think they have something new or different to offer, vying for a chance to compete can be daunting.

The cost and risk involved with science and technology and research and development to bring a new product or service to market can exceed the ability and resources of many small businesses. So special funding is available to help them develop their ideas and prove their technologies. Meanwhile, program managers and prime contractors have incentives to bring small companies to the table.

Then-Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Acquisition and Development Sean Stackley said in a 2015 memo that a competitive, healthy small business industrial base is vital to the long term success and affordability of the service. “Where affordability is paramount, a strategy that includes small business creates more affordable outcomes and promotes innovation and technical advancement,” he said.

Bob Smith, director of the Navy’s SBIR/STTR program, said in May 2016 that the service announces topics three times a year. It issued about 170 topics in its most recent cycle. From that it received about 2,800 proposals. It reviewed, evaluated and prioritized each one, and selected two proposals for each topic. One of the two is chosen to go forward as a Phase II project. The Navy looked at 252 Phase II proposals, and selected 137 Phase III awards to help those technologies transition.

“These might seem like low numbers, but if you talk to any venture capitalist, that’s a pretty good track record,” Smith said.

While SBIR can help small companies introduce and develop their new technologies, Smith said companies should not focus solely on winning these awards. “Do not make SBIR your only business model. It will not work.”

For Midé Technology Corp., a small business in Medford, Massachusetts, SBIR efforts have led to some surprising developments. From missile instrumentation to bulkhead shaft seals to smart wetsuits, Midé has seen SBIR grant activity evolve into further opportunities including the development of products for the military and commercial markets. One good idea has led to another.

“We know the cycles when the topics and solicitations come out from the different agencies and departments,” said Midé’s Vice President of Corporate Programs Rick Orlando. We have a process in our company that ties into their schedules. We look at the topics, and glean the ones where we have interest and are suited to submit a proposal.”

In general, Orlando said a high proportion of Midé’s R&D work is funded by SBIR funding. “It’s about 80 percent of our R&D expenditures, but that doesn’t count our product revenue.”

A small company in Melbourne, Florida, has used SBIR to match existing technology with a requirement to provide communications relay radios between unmanned systems and host platforms.

“We had the technology, but we had to find a way to militarize it. It had to handle the vibrations and temperatures, and be small enough to fit inside an unmanned aerial vehicle,” said Emilio Power of RSS Technology.

The RT 1944 U radio was developed by RSS using a Navy SBIR investment. Power says the RSS radio is now part of the littoral combat ship program, and the company’s equipment is on the ship and its off-board vehicles, such as the MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned aircraft.
SBIR and STTR projects require a technology transition plan, that specifies the “fiscal and transition commitment of participants in the transition stream to develop, deliver and integrate a technology/product into an acquisition program.”  It calls for a “seminal transition event,” to test the technology in a mission environment before it can be used by the warfighter.

“Our Phase III funding is allowing us to finish our software and conduct the seminal transition event, which is to do 80 MB at 30 miles. We’re getting ready to put that radio into production,” Power said.

RSS Technology is taking advantage of a related funding mechanism, the Rapid Innovation Fund, to further validate the concept. The Navy’s RIF enables participants to develop concepts and technologies to meet operational or national security needs, and invests in ways to reduce technical risk and cost.

“The SBIR program is fantastic,” Power said. “But one has to know how to work it. There is only a certain amount of money. But that investment can make the difference between an idea and a reality.”

Powers understands the importance and value of working with big companies. But being smaller is an advantage. “A lot of the big guys have tried doing some of these projects, but it takes a long time. A small company can act and react faster.”

Janet Hughes with Robotic Research of Gaithersburg, Maryland, said her company has participated in SBIRs for a number of agencies, such as the Army, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.

“We’ve had success moving to Phase II and III by working closely with the TPOCs (technical points of contact),” Hughes said. “We’ve taken technologies developed through one agency’s SBIR program and transitioned them into other agencies.

“Today we use SBIR funding almost exclusively for our research and development,” added Hughes.

Rochester, New York-based BlackBox Biometrics (B3), has been selling the Blast Gauge System, a small, wearable sensor that can detect and measure overpressure from explosions such as artillery or bombs, that can cause brain injuries. According to B3’s Scott Featherman, the Blast Gauge technology was first developed with DARPA, and was adopted by the Army. Now, because of a SBIR from the Marine Corps Systems Command, BlackBox has demonstrated the effectiveness of the technology to the service.

“We’re completing our Phase II now and getting ready to enter Phase III, and begin commercial sales,” Featherman said.

Once a company wins a Phase II SBIR award, the Navy SBIR program offers a course to the company to learn how to create a business plan and navigate the complex Defense Department business structure. This is called the SBIR/STTR Transition Program (STP).

A good percentage of NAVSEA’s SBIR companies participate in the program, Smith said. “We teach them how to be a success. That’s what STP does; we foster the relationship between the Navy and the company and teach these companies how to transition their technology.”

“Our naval acquisition community considers SBIR/STTR part of the solution for delivering quality innovation to our warfighters — quickly and cost-effectively,” said Smith. “The Navy cares about our small businesses, and we care about them succeeding.”

Tad Dickenson, Raytheon’s director of the company’s SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar program, said Raytheon has some big reasons why it embraces small business. “Small companies offer more diverse input, and help us to think like a smaller company.”

Raytheon has developed the radar with open architecture to be flexible.  “There’s nothing proprietary, and any-sized company can be involved in the program. In fact, we can insert different algorithms for the same function next to each other to see which works best. We can select one, or both. And we can easily put in new functionality, or replace something with a better version.”

Raytheon’s SBIR teammates bring important attributes to a project, Dickenson said, because they are lean and agile, and can produce results quickly at a lower cost. “Their ideas evolve very quickly, and we can leverage that innovation. That adds up to better capability, performance and affordability for the Navy.”

Dickenson said the SBIR program creates win-win-win situations that benefit the Navy, Raytheon and the small businesses. “We look to nurture these relationships. We learn a lot from our small business partners, and we think we can offer them a mentorship relationship with our experience and expertise.”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/4/5/modest-sbir-investments-bring-big-benefits

The Rewards of Mentoring – Helping Success Stories Like “Thunder Road”

Standard

It was a pleasure to assist with the business plan for “Thunder Road” seven years ago.

Today it is a vital, growing organization, serving veterans, the disabled and a tri-state community out of Decorah, Iowa.

Photo:  Michelle McLain-Kruse at “Thunder Road”

Thunder Road

PLEASE ENJOY THE VIDEO BELOW

http://www.thunderrode.org/

 

National Service Narrows Military-Civilian Divide

Standard
arm-recruit-424jpg.24

Basic Training Photo Credit: Spc. Emily R. Martin/Army

“AIR FORCE TIMES”
“Since 1974, America has depended on an all-volunteer military for our national defense.
Even in the face of 15 years of war (and counting), the all-volunteer force has proven to be sustainable at the present levels with relatively little adjustment to its selection criteria.
Overall, this force has performed magnificently, in many cases exceeding the expectations of the original architects and surprising many of the naysayers.
While this is good news, especially for those who abhor a draft, it has not been without unintended consequences.

Our nation today faces a growing military-civilian divide, both cultural and societal. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans currently serve in uniform, while the 99-plus percent realize the benefit while bearing none of the burden. Not only do most American families have no one in the military, most do not even know someone who is now serving. This is especially true within the higher economic strata, to include the majority of our nation’s lawmakers.

As a result, most Americans know little or nothing about what life is like for our military families who serve and sacrifice on our behalf. This does not make for a healthy society.

One ray of hope to offset this divide has been a growing interest in national service in a civilian capacity as a way to get more Americans involved. Only about one in four young Americans can even meet the requirements for military service, which makes non-military service options even more important.

While there is much to be said for requiring all young people to serve a year or more in some capacity of national service, that is simply a non-starter in today’s environment. It turns out, however, that a purely voluntary program is already enormously successful.

In fact, demand for very poorly paid national service positions, such as those supported by AmeriCorps, exceeds the availability of these positions many times over. There is an increasing thirst among our nation’s 18- to 24-year-old population to get involved in something bigger than themselves, and, yes, altruistically to “make a difference” in this world.

National service in a civilian capacity still requires a degree of sacrifice on the part of its participants, including financial deprivation and what we might call the “opportunity cost” of a year or more of their lives. The benefits, however, far outweigh these costs, and that’s one reason the demand is so high.

One need look no further than the “greatest generation” and what they subsequently achieved for themselves and for the nation as a direct result of their having served in World War II.

Of course, these veterans, as today’s, were “battle hardened,” which is not likely to be the case for those engaging in civilian national service.

The real benefit to those who served came in the form of maturity, self-discipline, management and leadership experience, and the camaraderie that derived from shared experience, especially with teammates of diverse backgrounds to which they might never have otherwise been exposed.

The thousands of businesses who have been hiring our current generation of veterans have quickly discovered it is not an act of charity, rather it’s the smartest thing that they could be doing for their enterprises. The same can be said for those who hire young Americans coming out of a year or more of national service.

The benefits of national service are legion. What makes the case more compelling is that, by doing their share, these young men and women are actually helping to bridge the military-civilian divide and adding to the moral fiber of our communities and our nation.

We’re stronger as a nation because so many of our young men and women selflessly serve, whether in uniform or in a civilian capacity. Both contribute to “providing for the common defense.”

The recently released federal budget proposal, however, would wipe out this critical element of our national strength by zeroing out both AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service, the little-known federal agency that runs national service programs, including AmeriCorps and Senior Corps.

This proposal ignores the enormous return on investment that these very small budget lines represent, especially in comparison to the defense budget, which these programs actually complement.

This would be a tragic outcome for both the nation and those individuals in national service.

There is nothing partisan about national service, which for over eight decades has enjoyed bipartisan support at all levels of government. The Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act of 2009 came about following the 2008 election campaign during which both John McCain and Barack Obama gave their enthusiastic endorsement of national service.

The subsequent passage of that legislation significantly increased the number of AmeriCorps positions available for young Americans to serve their country. We must not lose this momentum.

The signatories to this piece have all proudly served our country in uniform. We strongly believe that a national civilian service program is a vital component of our strength as a nation. We urge the administration to rethink this small, but critical, budget item, and we urge our congressional representatives to ensure that both the AmeriCorps program and the Corporation for National and Community Service are fully funded.
Air Force Gen. John A. Shaud (ret.)
Army Gen. William G. T. Tuttle (ret.)
Salisbury is chairman of the Critical Issues RoundTable, an informal non-partisan group of retired senior military leaders who meet regularly in Washington to discuss contemporary issues of national importance. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of Military Times or its staff.
Co-signers:
Army Lt. Gen. Henry J. Hatch (ret.)
Navy Rear Adm. Cameron Fraser (ret.)
Navy Rear Adm. David T. Hart Jr. (ret.)
Army Maj. Gen. Leo M. Childs (ret.)
Army Brig. Gen. Clarke M. Brintnall (ret.)
Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway (ret.)
Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway (ret.)
Air Force Reserve Brig. Gen. John A. Hurley (ret.)
Army Brig. Gen. Richard L. Reynard (ret.)
Army Brig. Gen. Anthony A. Smith (ret.)
G. Kim Wincup
Army Col. Charles B. Giasson (ret.)
Army Reserve Col. Herman E. Bulls
Army Col. George W. Sibert (ret.)
Army Col. John P. Walsh Jr. (ret.)
Army Col. Francis A. Waskowicz (ret.)
Army Lt. Col. William T. Marriott III (ret.)
Army Lt. Col. Palmer McGrew (ret.)
Army Capt. Douglas A. Cohn (ret.)
Army Capt. Joan S. Grey (ret.)
Glen L. Archer III
Jan C. Scruggs”

Revolving Door Picking Up Speed at the Pentagon and Homeland Security

Standard

Pentagon Revolving Door

“THE INTERCEPT”

“Defense firms have eagerly watched as Trump recently unveiled a budget calling for $54 billion in additional military spending next year.

President Trump has weaponized the revolving door by appointing defense contractors and their lobbyists to key government positions as he seeks to rapidly expand the military budget and homeland security programs.”


“The spending spree will provide a brand new opportunity for defense lobbyists to get business for their clients. And the most effective lobbying generally involves contacting former colleagues in positions of power.

Two Department of Homeland Security appointments Trump announced Tuesday morning are perfect examples.

Benjamin Cassidy, installed by Trump as assistant secretary for legislative affairs, previously worked as a senior executive at Boeing’s international business sector, marketing Boeing military products abroad. Jonathan Rath Hoffman, named assistant secretary for public affairs, previously worked as a consultant to the Chertoff Group, the sprawling homeland security consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. The firm has come under fire for advising a variety of firms seeking government contracts, including for full-body scanners deemed invasive by privacy activists. Hoffman also led a state chapter of a neoconservative military-contractor advocacy organization during the 2016 presidential campaign. Neither position requires Senate confirmation.

Personnel from major defense companies now occupy the highest ranks of the administration including cabinet members and political appointees charged with implementing the Trump agenda. At least 15 officials with financial ties to defense contractors have been either nominated or appointed so far, with potentially more industry names on the way as Trump has yet to nominate a variety of roles in the government, including Army and Navy secretaries.

Before their confirmations, Jim Mattis and John Kelly, the secretaries of the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, were primarily paid by defense firms.

Mattis was paid $242,000, along with up to $500,000 in vested stock options, as director of General Dynamics, a company that produces submarines, tanks, and a range of munitions for the military. Mattis also received speaking fees from several firms, including Northrop Grumman. Kelly previously served in a number of roles at defense contracting consulting and lobbying firms and worked directly as an adviser to Dyncorp, a company that contracts with the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

Major lobbying groups for the arms companies, including the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association, welcomed the selection of Secretary Mattis, who has already scheduled meetings with industry executives. Secretary Kelly has pledged to work more closely with the private sector, promising greater collaboration with private firms to accomplish his agency’s goals.

To carry out this private-sector friendly agenda, defense officials have taken major roles throughout Trump’s administration.

Pat Shanahan, nominated last week by Trump to serve as deputy secretary of defense, is a vice president at Boeing who formerly led the company’s missile defense subsidiary. Disclosures show that Elaine Duke, the nominee for deputy secretary of homeland security, previously consulted for Booz Allen Hamilton, General Dynamics, and the Columbia Group, a small contractor that builds unmanned naval drones.

The nominee to lead the Air Force, former New Mexico Congresswoman Heather Wilson, worked as a consultant to a Lockheed Martin subsidiary after retiring from public office. The company sought Wilson’s help to maintain a $2.4 billion a year contract to manage Sandia National Laboratories, the premiere nuclear weapons research facility, and to keep the contract closed to competition. “Lockheed Martin should aggressively lobby Congress, but keep a low profile,” Wilson urged the company in a memo revealed later by an inspector general report.

Trump’s pick for national security council chief of staff, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has worked at a variety of defense contracting companies. After serving in senior roles in Iraq’s provisional government after the 2003 invasion, Kellogg left the government for the private sector. He told the Washington Post in 2005 that he joined Oracle to “establish a homeland security business unit” at the firm, and later joined CACI International, a company with major contracts in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following CACI, Kellogg joined Cubic Defense in 2009 to develop the company’s combat training business.

A list of temporary political appointees recently published by ProPublica reveals a number of less-known influence peddlers who have taken senior roles in the administration.

Chad Wolf and Lora Ries, two recently appointed advisers at the Department of Homeland Security, are formerly registered defense lobbyists. Wolf lobbied for Harris Corp. and the United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Ries previously lobbied for a range of defense and homeland security contractors, including Altegrity, Boeing, Implant Sciences Corp., General Dynamics, L1 Identity Solutions, and TASC Inc.

In the White House, one of the newest members of the National Economic Council staff is Michael Catanzaro, formerly a registered lobbyist working for both Boeing and Halliburton.

Palanatir Technology’s Justin Mikolay, formerly a chief in-house lobbyist for the company who worked to win over billions of dollars in Army contracts, was quietly appointed to serve as a special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Several appointees are associated with SBD Advisors, a consulting that firm that advertises its ability to facilitate “engagements between the technology and defense sectors,” and is advised by a high profile team of former government leaders, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retired Adm. Mike Mullen and former National Security Agency Director of Operations Ron Moultrie.

SBD Advisors’d Sally Donnelly and Tony DeMartino work as temporary political appointees at the Office of the Defense Secretary, according to the list assembled by ProPublica. Kristan King Nevins, recently appointed as chief of staff to Second Lady Karen Pence, also previously worked at SBD Advisors as the director of communications.

The Trump administration is the “military-industrial complex personified,” said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung noted that while the administration is bringing arms industry officials into government, it is also demanding a massive increase in military spending and appears to be escalating conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

In short, the Trump proposals are an armsmaker’s dream come true,” he said. “

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/21/revolving-door-military/

 

 

New Website Competes VA Hospitals

Standard
VA Competiton

Image:  “Cartoon Stock”

“MILITARY TIMES”

“WASHINGTON — The Department of Veterans Affairs wants its medical centers to compete over patients, and they’re launching a new online tool to make comparison shopping for health care easier.

The new “access to care” site, launched Wednesday but expected to be refined significantly over the next few weeks, will allow veterans to see how regional VA health centers stack up against each other on wait times, available services and customer satisfaction.

Poonam Alaigh, acting under secretary for health at the department, said the goal is to both increase transparency over the state of VA health services and provide veterans a way to better customize their own care.

Would-be patients willing to travel significant distances can find regional offices with shorter average wait times for primary and specialty care than nearby facilities. Individuals in metro areas can choose between sites based on customer response ratings.

“There’s competition now,” she said. “They’re going to start losing patients if they don’t start watching the patient experience piece.”

The site is the latest step in a three-year response to the 2014 VA wait-times scandal that forced the resignation of several senior department officials, including then VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.

Hospital administrators were found to have manipulated wait-time data to better meet department standards, and in some cases gain bonuses for facility improvements.

Alaigh dismissed concerns about the new public comparison site creating similar incentives for dishonesty, saying the focus is on accountability and public awareness. And she said unrelated to the site, VA has implemented new data-monitoring algorithms to detect similar manipulation in the future.

But she acknowledged the site will highlight “the good and bad” of current facility performance.

For example, on the site now, visitors can track wait times for new patient primary care appointments for every VA facility in the greater Phoenix area, the center of the 2014 scandal. For the VA clinic in nearby Anthem, Arizona, the average wait is 11 days. For the clinic in Casa Grande south of the city, it’s 56 days.

“I want to use this to help build accountability,” she said. “I don’t want this to be a punitive thing. It also has to be a tool for us to redirect resources to needed areas.”

The site also includes comparisons of standardized health data to other regional, non-VA hospitals, although only a small number of VA sites are currently listed. Alaigh said more will be added in coming weeks.

So will a feedback button for veterans to ask questions about facility offerings and better contact information to help veterans contact medical centers. Alaigh called the site “rushed” and “far from perfect” but said officials wanted to get the available data in veterans hands as quickly as possible.

VA officials for years have promised both better access to medical treatments at department clinics and better customer service throughout the agency, but have received mixed reviews on the work so far from veterans groups and lawmakers.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/va-website-medical-care-access-competition

 

 

‘Swimming Bullets’ Can Obliterate a Target Underwater

Standard

cav-x-swimming-bullets-1800

Photo by Hope Hodge Seck/Military.com

“MILITARY .COM”

 “Bullets that “swim” and remain effective on target for significant distances underwater.

The secret to DSG Technology’s CAV-X supercavitating bullets is a specially turned tip and carefully calibrated balance and mass, creating an air bubble that allows the munition to shoot through the water.”


“The 12.7mm bullet, a machine gun round, has an effective range of 2,200 meters through the air and 60 meters underwater, according to the company. The 7.62 and 5.56 rifle rounds are effective underwater at 22 and 14 meters, respectively.

The company released the product earlier this year and has already sold small quantities of CAV-X bullets for research and development testing to international militaries.

The company has also fielded interest from the U.S. military, noting that “special communities” who operate in and near the water would find the technology useful. In a promotional video here at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference, DSG showed a visualization of an Independence-class littoral combat ship shooting the rounds into the water from a deck-mounted gun.

At larger calibers, he said, the technology has the potential to aid harbor and beachhead defense and to assist in countermine and counter-torpedo operations.”

https://kitup.military.com/2017/04/swimming-bullets-can-obliterate-target-underwater.html

 

Want to Reform Government? Start with the Basics.

Standard
government collaboration

Image:  “IP Dimensions”

“WASHINGTON TECHNOLOGY” By Stan Soloway

“The principal, and ultimately most impactful, evolution that needs to take place has little to do with law and everything to do with culture and people.

The generally poor quality of cross-sector communications and collaboration suggests, the workforce entering government today is being trained and developed in much the same way as multiple generations before them.”


“The email was most unexpected. In the midst of what had been a series of substantive discussions with a Defense Department command about the potential application of a new capability that might help address one of the command’s most pressing concerns, a command attorney effectively directed that the conversations cease. Because no “requirement” exists for the capability being discussed, he said, the conversations had to end.

Of course there is no “requirement” in place; they had only recently become aware of the technology. Our conversations were about whether and how it might be applicable. In other words, one can’t have a requirement for something one doesn’t even know about.

And let’s not even get started on why an attorney even stepped in. One would think the relevant program office could decide when and if their time was being wasted.

As I’ve relayed this story to friends and colleagues in both government and industry, it became clear that it is far from uncommon.

More than 20 years after the passage of acquisition reforms that, among other things, were designed to improve the government’s access to and communications with the private sector, and a half dozen years since the Office of Management and Budget issued its “Mythbusters” memo that was designed to make clear the importance of open communications, the problem remains all too present.

That is not to say there are no good examples of agencies and components swimming against the tide. There most certainly are. The Special Operations Command has created SofWerx, which invites companies of all sizes to demonstrate their capabilities and explore with the command possible applications. SOCOM acquisition executive Jim Geurts says his hope is that SofWerx will become a kind of “mosh pit” of ideas.

And then there is the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, innovation labs in a range of agencies including Homeland Security, HHS and USAID. Beyond that, there have been more than 500 procurement contests and challenges, which by design invite any interested party to propose a solution to an identified problem.

For each of these activities, communications and collaboration are a core operating principle. But the reach of each also remains quite limited and each operates, to one extent or another, outside of the traditional acquisition process.

As the Trump Administration launches its new Office of American Innovation, focused on bringing smart business acumen to government, these examples also provide something of a framework from which to start.

First, whether acquisition is high on their target list or not today, it needs to be. After all, it is a critical engine upon which the government runs. And yes, there are a number of regulatory barriers that need to be eliminated to make that process work as it should.

Changing that paradigm in government requires that the workforce be given the tools, the training and the support to both understand and incorporate smart business concepts in the execution of their work. It requires that the workforce understand, far more than most do now, how businesses identify, manage and mitigate risk.

And it requires that they recognize that communications can be both appropriately limited and significantly more open than they might think.

Simply put, while the government is not a business, there are a wide array of best business practices from which the government would greatly benefit. And none is more important than the degree to which successful businesses have adapted and changed their approach to people and collaboration.

Every day I see examples where clients are engaged with their commercial customers at levels and depths that are exceptionally rare in the government arena.

As some have suggested, most of the business world has moved from the information age to the collaboration age. It’s past time for the government to embrace that shift as well. Finding new ways to make that happen would be a terrific first step to really changing and moving the government forward.”

About the Author

Stan Soloway is a former deputy undersecretary of Defense and former president and chief executive officer of the Professional Services Council. He is now the CEO of Celero Strategies.

https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2017/03/27/insights-soloway-kushner-message.aspx

 

 

 

Military Contract Manufacturing There When You Need It

Standard

Electronic Contracting

“MILITARY AND AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS”

“The nation’s prime defense contractors often find themselves with too many orders to handle with in-house expertise.

That’s where electronics contract manufacturing comes in.

With the rapid expansion of high-tech military equipment and componentry, thousands of small specialty manufacturers have come into being, with the initial big boost during with the Space Race of the 1960s.

Throughout that period – and with even greater frequency since the turn of the century – contract manufacturing of military electronics grew into a major industry in its own right. Working primarily for systems integrators, contract manufacturers typically focus on specific areas, such as machining; mechanical and electrical assemblies; power systems; lasers; optics; sensors; robotics; vehicular controls; RF systems; satellite instrumentation; environmental stress screening; G-force testing; and electronic circuit card assembly.

“In the last 10 years, if you look at industry consolidation, that tends to support systems integration, which intuitively should mean more contract manufacturing,” says Matt Turpin, CEO of contract manufacturer Zentech Manufacturing Inc. in Windsor Mill, Md. “Given the peaks and troughs of the mil-aero business, any company that tried to stay vertically integrated would probably die. Given the rate of technology change, vertical integration would not, in general, be able to keep up.”

The role of industry consolidation

This is the primary reason that big systems integrators like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and L-3 rely on best-in-breed contract manufacturing,” Turpin says. “The economics don’t really support them trying to do it all in-house. If you try to bring in that capability for just your stuff, you can’t even out the troughs in mil-aero the way an independent contract manufacturer can.”

Contract manufacturing of military electronics is significantly different from the model in use in many other industries, where the contract manufacturer produces complete products under the contractor’s brand.

In the military market, the contract manufacturer may produce unique components designed by the contractor or provide its own designs, developments, prototyping and modeling, assemblies, fabrication, tooling, manufacturing, qualification testing, procurement, and logistics services to meet the contractor’s requirements.

Representative of that is Jabil Circuit Inc. in St. Petersburg, Fla. With $18 billion in annual revenues, Jabil is the third largest contract manufacturer in the world – behind Taiwan’s Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn) and Singapore’s Flextronics International Ltd.

Trailing closely behind Jabil in size are U.S. contract manufacturers Sanmina Corp. in San Jose, Calif.; Benchmark Electronics Inc. in Angleton, Texas; and Plexus Corp. in Neenah, Wis.

Jabil promotes its second largest division, Defense and Aerospace, as providing a skilled workforce for aerospace and defense manufacturing, design, and supply chain management for high-mix, low- to medium-volume products and electronic and mechanical solutions to complement original equipment manufacturers’ core competencies and reduce program costs.

“Systems integrators are still doing a lot of work in-house, but are outsourcing more each year, although the increase is not that great,” says Mike Matthes, president of the Jabil Aerospace and Defense division.

Demonstrating Value

“We have to provide a value proposition to show it is more advantageous to outsource electronics manufacturing than to keep it in-house, which allows them to focus more on their strategic plans and not worry about the actual manufacturing,” Matthes says. “Jabil is moving into a new capability – aerospace machining – and entering into agreements to provide that to defense and civilian companies.” Contract manufacturers also have to grow their capabilities to retain that value, he points out.

“We do electronic manufacturing and systems integration, but not the machining portion,” Matthes continues. “At Jabil Green Point, our largest division, we do machining, mostly in China, but not for aerospace. It’s not an easy capability to master and we’re working with our customers to develop and launch that. Some of that will be based in the U.S., other parts in Asia. Military contracting would have to be done in the U.S., including a new facility. Almost everything we have at this time is commercial aerospace, but we will be working toward that.”

Jabil’s high volume of non-military contract manufacturing is fairly common among the larger contract manufacturers, much of it for overseas customers, although many of the smaller companies have focused their efforts tightly on items in demand by U.S. military contractors. While the vast majority of such contracts are with industry, some contract manufacturers do have direct contracts with the military services and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).

“It’s a combination,” says Zentech’s Turpin. “We have two divisions, one with a long history of direct contracts, primarily with the Navy. The other does fewer direct contacts, but in the last five years contracts with the Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground and a blanket purchase agreement with the Navy have increased. But most are with industry,” he says.

“For us, the U.S. government – and certainly DOD – are huge customers with lots of opportunity, predominantly subcontract work for primes, especially as we come out of sequestration, where defense dollars really did shrink a lot,” adds Jabil’s Matthes. “As we move forward under the new administration, there certainly are possibilities for increased defense spending.”

Prime defense contractors are reluctant to surrender their manufacturing capabilities to contract manufacturers.

“The primes have their own manufacturing and to move it out they would have to cut jobs and close factories, which is never palatable for anyone,” Matthes says. “And moving jobs and changing the labor landscape is never popular, even if the work remains in the U.S. It does become popular when the benefits outweigh concerns, so our job is to show where that value is.”

Industry diversity

U.S. military electronics contract manufacturers come in all sizes, representing the full gamut of needs from systems prime contractors and, to a lesser extent, the military services themselves. By focusing their efforts and investments in specialty technologies and workers, they can make themselves too valuable to the defense industry at large to be taken in-house by individual companies.

Representatives of that diversity include: NEO Tech in Chatsworth, Calif., with a focus on advanced IP protections systems, anti-counterfeit protection, and upgrading or replacing out-of-date legacy systems for its aerospace and defense customers.

“The obsolescence of electronic components is a serious challenge in the aerospace and defense markets. Many of the ICs designed into systems have shorter life cycles than the end products in these markets,” according to a company document. “NEO Tech has implemented a supply- chain design for the industry that can support long product life cycles. NEO Tech Obsolescence Mitigation helps customers through the obsolescence process so disruption to ongoing programs is mitigated.”

Many contract manufacturers also are prime contractors themselves, typically on smaller systems for the military services.

One such is Sparton Corp. in De Leon Springs, Fla., which focuses on specialized technologies like embedded systems, RF, lasers, optics, sensors, and robotics for uses as varied as undersea warfare to cockpit controls to satellite communications, as well as aerospace and military printed circuit board assemblies.

Sypris Electronics in Tampa, Fla., a division of Sypris Solutions in Louisville, Ky., offers complete electronic manufacturing services (EMS) from circuit card assemblies to complex box builds and systems integration. Their approach is based on a Lean/Six Sigma, continuous improvement culture cultivated through internal investments.

TeligentEMS LLC in Havana, Fla., another ITAR and ISO 9001 registered contract manufacturer, offers product manufacturing services in a wide range of technologies, including unattended ground sensors, GPS tracking devices, spread spectrum transceivers, and handheld communication devices. The company promotes its capabilities in “technically complex defense projects, combined with strong configuration management capabilities and organizational flexibility.”

Specializing in electronic, electro-mechanical, and electro-optical equipment, the engineering group at TRICOR Systems Inc. in Elgin, Ill., develops complete packages for their customers, from concept to operating manuals. That has included a broad array of products, under contract and for sale directly by TRICOR, from extremely complex to simple test equipment, hardware and software simulators, illuminator systems, and airborne black boxes.

Steady work flow

Commercial and non-military government contracts provide the ability to “even-out the troughs” as defense spending changes from year to year and administration to administration. Homeland security, for example, has grown significantly as a market in which contract manufacturers can find customers and is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. That also applies – primarily in the U.S. – to investments in cyber-related hardware and chem/bio-detection equipment. Globally, industry experts say there has been a stated focus on improving commercial air fleets.

The resulting increased demand for contract manufacturers has led not only to growing competition but also to closer industry oversight.

“For existing EMS companies, if there is more demand for military equipment, most U.S.-built, there will be an uptick of military assembly work in the U.S., but it also is likely to incentivize people to get into the market, either through acquisitions or expansion,” says Zentech’s Turpin. “To an outsider looking in, military electronics may seem pretty simple, but hiring and maintaining a skilled workforce, and maintaining a balance through the peaks and troughs is a different story.”

About three years ago, industry standards group IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries in Bannockburn, Ill., came up with a list of trusted sources. “Competition to receive that is brutal,” Turpin says.

IPC describes its origin and purpose on its website: “IPC Validation Services was created to answer a recognized need identified in an industry survey – 75 percent of responding engineers and executive management from OEMs, EMS providers, and industry suppliers viewed a supplier qualification program as vital to their business. For EMS providers and industry suppliers, IPC Validation Services provides the opportunity to become part of a network of trusted sources that industry will look to first and foremost when evaluating existing and potential business partners.

“Participating EMS providers and supplier companies will be audited by IPC Validation Services – the authoritative, objective source for quality conformance and data reporting – to earn certification through the Qualified Products List (QPL) and Qualified Manufacturers List (QML) programs. Once certification is achieved, EMS companies and industry suppliers earn the right to a high level of visibility throughout the industry,” the IPC description reads.

Disruptive technologies

Industry leaders largely agree that coming disruptive technologies, including further advances in miniaturization and evolution of the Internet of Things, also will change the world of electronics contract manufacturing.

“There are many disruptive technologies being developed right now, but nobody knows which ones will actually displace an existing technology in a way that is efficient and effective in meeting military SWaP [size, weight and power] requirements or commercial requirements for quality. Everything active will be disrupted by such things as nanotech, nanostructures, new fabrication techniques other than 3D printing – which itself is changing so fast, making prototyping faster and less expensive, for example,” Zentech’s Turpin says.

“Quantum computing is another that will change everything in the future, if and when they get it nailed down – how manufacturing and product development are done,” Turpin continues. “As relates to EMS companies, all that further underscores and exacerbates the issues surrounding capital investment. These technologies are not cheap and it doesn’t make sense for a prime to invest in such technologies with only relatively small production requirements.”

As more new and disruptive technologies come out, it will be incumbent on the primes to determine which EMS companies have the right people and equipment to build their products and properly use those technologies. Those in charge of contracting complex, high-reliability, military and aerospace assemblies will have to place even more emphasis on who is building those components by fully understanding the problems, challenges, and risks involved.

“If you use the wrong electronics contract manufacturer, no matter how good they may be, if they don’t have the right people or equipment, you could end up killing your own business,” Turpin warns.

Jabil’s Matthes agrees, but does not believe such new developments constitute an immediate concern for military electronics contract manufacturing.

“I see disruptive technologies that will take hold, but not in the short term,” Turpin says. “When you have a force out there fighting, if you are going to change the equipment they are using, you will have to do a lot of testing before making that move, which could take years. It could be a long time before it finds its way into the field to any large extent,” he predicts.

“So in the next few years, I don’t think disruptive tech will be a big changer; it will be more policy, funding, and outsourcing strategies from the primes,” Turpin says. “The big technology trends are going to make their way in, but will require a lot of time to mature and meet pretty stringent reliability and operating requirements. So while those will slowly become part of it, they will be slower to adoption than on the commercial side.”

Government and industry policies

For the military, then, technology changes will not be as important to contract manufacturing as new government policies, especially given the anticipated changes of the new Trump Administration. That also applies to changes in how the military does business, moving more toward autonomous systems, major improvements in battery technology, and overall energy requirements and technologies, with the commercial sector leading the way. Continuing advances in materials science also will shape that future.

Regardless of how quickly new technologies and new demands on contract manufacturing develop, they are on the horizon and primes and contract manufacturers will have to prepare themselves for them.

“Wherever there is change, there is opportunity; it just depends on how well you are positioned to take advantage of it, especially in areas in which you are investing,” says Jabil’s Matthes. “The trick is to invest in the right technologies at the right time.” Jabil’s size will be an advantage that will enable company executives to make strategic decisions rather than betting the company. “The more resources you have, the easier it is to fund that type of research and development.

“We are a Fortune 150 company, about $18 billion in annual revenue and 180,000 employees worldwide,” Matthes says. “That can be an advantage in having a breadth of resources and capabilities, but it can be a disadvantage if a customer fears we’re so large, their work might get lost. But divisionalizing our business units and keeping each customer with its own business unit manager makes the connection much more intimate and gives the feel of a smaller, more nimble company.”

For the next decade, Zentech’s Turpin sees a future depending on increased investment in manufacturing technologies for the military electronics market, in the U.S. and abroad.

“I would love to say increased profitability will mark the decade, but I say that tongue-in-cheek due to the continuing peaks and troughs in mil-aero. Nevertheless, the promise of increased military spending should be good for business,” Turpin says. “Other changes for contract manufacturing to stay in business, especially on the mil-aero side, will mean more new investments in capital equipment. When new technology comes out, you need equipment to work it and inspect it in order to compete.”

While all military electronics contract manufacturing must be done by U.S. companies at plants in the United States, successful competition for customers – primarily commercial – around the world is important to the ability of contract manufacturers to maintain a steady level of business and invest in the appropriate technologies and expertise.

Domestic manufacturing

In one of the first efforts to support advanced domestic manufacturing technologies, the U.S. Congress approved the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation (RAMI) Act in 2014. It was designed to use federal and private matching funds to create an initial network of as many as 15 institutes around the country, pursuing areas of greatest interest to industry.

The resulting National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, renamed Manufacturing USA in 2016, established nine institutes in its first years of operation, with another six planned for 2017. The long-term goal is for as many as 45 public-private partnerships, each with its own technology focus area, but working toward a common goal, to secure America’s technological future through manufacturing innovation, education, and collaboration.

Seen as a major boost for prime and contract manufacturers, the Manufacturing USA network is operated by the inter-agency Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO), headquartered in the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce. The office is staffed by representatives from federal agencies with manufacturing-related missions, as well as fellows from manufacturing companies and universities, all working with DOD, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the departments of Energy, Education, and Agriculture.

As it has grown and adjusted to continuing rapid changes in technologies, manufacturing processes, and market demand, but the organization says it has not changed its overarching mission:

  • “to convene and enable industry-led, private-public partnerships focused on manufacturing innovation and engaging U.S. universities; and
  • “to design and implement an integrated whole-of-government advanced manufacturing initiative to facilitate collaboration and information sharing across federal agencies.

“By coordinating federal resources and programs, the AMNPO enhances technology transfer in U.S. manufacturing industries and helps companies overcome technical obstacles to scale up new technologies and products.”

Turpin describes it as the best effort to date to help contract manufacturers, primes, and the military maintain the nation’s technological lead.

Manufacturing goals

“At a macro level, the U.S. does a lot of things extremely well, but one thing it has not done well is have a national manufacturing strategy. Other countries have a very defined national strategy to embrace, enhance, and grow advanced manufacturing in their nations,” Turpin explains.

“The IPC was very active in lobbying Congress to set up the RAMI Act. The advanced manufacturing centers being created throughout the country to focus on building up the next generation of manufacturing in the U.S. should help the military and commercial worlds.”

In a strategic plan for Manufac-turing USA issued in February 2016, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker noted that manufacturing “innovation is the lifeblood of our economy, supporting one-third of our economic growth,” from the largest defense and commercial companies to the smallest contract manufacturers and suppliers. “Having a cutting-edge manufacturing sector that remains a step ahead of the global competition is not simply nice to have, it is a ‘must have’ for our country to thrive, now and in the future,” she wrote. “In today’s advanced manufacturing industries – those that make the highest-value goods, pay the highest wages, and export all over the world – product and process innovation are two sides of the same coin. Inventing, designing, making, and improving happen in concert, which requires a collaborative environment that brings together researchers and companies throughout the supply chain.

“America has all the essential ingredients to form innovation ecosystems, including universities and government labs that excel at basic science and technology research, top-flight original equipment manufacturers, capable suppliers, enterprising start-ups, and a new generation of workers,” Pritzker wrote. “The NNMI Program assembles our diverse competitive assets – the people, organizations, and resources – necessary for the United States to stay at the head of the pack in the global race to out-innovate – and out-produce – the competition… [laying] the foundation for American manufacturing competitiveness for generations to come.”

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/search.html?q=Contract+manufacturing%253A+there+when+you+need+it&x=13&y=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sensitive Navy Information on Readiness Will No Longer Be Publicly Disclosed

Standard
Adm. John Richardson

Admiral John Richardson

“BREAKING DEFENSE”

“We can share that information with the Congress behind closed doors, but we don’t want to share that information with our competitors,”

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. John Richardson, issued a March 1 memorandum urging all naval personnel “to ensure we are not giving away our competitive edge by sharing too much information publicly.Adm. Richardson MemoIn their desperation to convince Congress that budget gridlock hurts military readiness, Navy officials made public some information that they shouldn’t have, Acting Secretary Sean Stackley told reporters here today.

Many of my fellow reporters here at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference said they’d felt a chilling effect from the CNO’s memo. I myself saw three admirals cite the need to say less in public. And, unlike in past years, the CNO himself didn’t address the conference in any public forum. (Richardson was consumed with prep for today’s congressional hearing on the danger of a full-year Continuing Resolution, Stackley said).

So naturally the new policy came up when Stackley sat down with us this afternoon. His response is worth quoting at length.

“We’re having a dialogue with Congress, trying to get Congress to understand the impacts associated with Continuing Resolutions, the shape that our budget is in, and the impacts that has on things like fleet readiness,” Stackley said. “And in doing that… what had been happening is, people were leaning further and further into talking about details associated with readiness — hey, that’s classified. We don’t promulgate that information.”

“We can share that information with the Congress behind closed doors, but we don’t want to share that information with our competitors,” Stackley continued, “so there has been a pullback in terms of how much detail we put out regarding materiel readiness.”

Stackley’s staff clarified to me afterwards that he was not accusing anyone of improperly disclosing classified information. That’s a relief. But a central point of the CNO’s memo, and of Stackley’s comment, was that even unclassified data can be damaging if disclosed.

China’s watching everything that we do, and we want to be very measured about what we put out in open, public forums,” Stackley said. “Are we in fact sharing information that creates vulnerabilities, crosses the line in terms of security?”

“I’ve read pieces myself, I’ve seen things in the literature (that made me think), ‘what the heck is this doing in the press?’” Stackley said. “These are our secrets, and we don’t need them to know exactly what we’re doing, how we’re doing it.”

“We do have a responsibility to share information with the public, (but) we need to be more measured about the information we’re pushing out in the public domain,” Stackley said. “There’s some recalibration going on, rightfully so. We have a very aggressive competitor out there.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/navy-officials-overshared-sensitive-info-on-navy-readiness-stackley/

 

 

68 years of NATO: 10 things You Might Not Know About the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Standard
What is NATO NATO Global Interdependence

IMAGE: NATO GLOBAL INTER-DEPENDENCY

“MILITARY TIMES”

“On April 4, 1949, the United States was joined by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom in signing the agreement.

Since then, NATO members have remained committed to the collective defense principle — Article 5 of the treaty — that regards an attack on one member country as an attack on all member countries.

In recognition of the treaty’s anniversary, here are 10 things you might not know about NATO:

10. From 12 to 28 member countries

Over the 68 years since the original 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty, an additional 16 countries have become members in the international agreement. Turkey and Greece were the first additional countries to join in 1952, followed by then-West Germany in 1955. Albania and Croatia are the most recent two countries to join NATO, becoming members in 2009.

9. Separate, yet derived from the United Nations

While NATO is a separate international organization from the U.N., it derives its authority from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Article 51 of the charter reaffirms the rights of independent states to individually or collectively defend themselves.

8. NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Originally the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance, the Warsaw Pact was created on May 14, 1955, in response to West Germany joining NATO,according to the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian. During the Cold War, nearly all of Europe was divided between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with East Germany joining the Soviet Union for the pact. All former Warsaw Pact countries except for Russia — Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia — have since become NATO members, with East Germany reuniting with the rest of Germany in 1990.

7. Air policing in Eastern Europe

F-15C theater security package arrives in Europe

Pilots assigned to the 159th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron exit their F-15C Eagles after landing at Leeuwarden Air Base, Netherlands, April 1, 2015. The F-15s from the Florida and Oregon Air National Guard are deployed to Europe as the first ever ANG theater security package here. These F-15s will conduct training alongside our NATO allies to strengthen interoperability and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to the security and stability of Europe. (U.S. Air Force photo/ Staff Sgt. Ryan Crane)Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Ryan Crane/Air ForceNATO allies support member countries in Eastern Europe who do not have their own fighter jets by providing year-round 24/7 airspace defense for Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.

6. An integrated command

NATO maintains a permanent, integrated command in which both military and civilian personnel from all member countries work collectively. This includes two strategic commands based in Belgium and the U.S., joint force commands in the Netherlands and Italy, air command in Germany, land command in Turkey and maritime command in the U.K.

5. The only invocation of Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” reads Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

If a NATO member or members invoke Article 5, all members will assist the attacked party, which includes the use of armed force. The only time that Article 5 has been invoked was in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York City and Washington. In addition to military assistance in Afghanistan, NATO allies assisted with Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Eagle Assist ran from October 2001 to May 2002, consisting of NATO E-3 AWACS assisting with airspace defense and security over the U.S. Active Endeavour involved maritime patrols in the Mediterranean, with the goal of preventing movement of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists.

4. New NATO members around the corner?

Four countries want to join NATO: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia all aspire to join the treaty.

“Any European state which can contribute to the security and principles of the Alliance can be invited to join. It is up to the country concerned to decide if it wishes to seek membership,” according to NATO. The allied members assess NATO applicants and require “a wide range of political, economic and security reforms” to be implemented before they can join.

3. International partners

Spanish forces conducting a UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.

Spanish forces conducting a UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.Photo Credit: Hussein Malla/APNATO maintains a relationship with many other nations and international organizations. The U.N., the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe maintain strong relationships with NATO. Since 2005, the African Union has received support from NATO. Other initiatives such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the European-Atlantic Partnership Council have fostered relationships with non-members in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Additionally, NATO maintains relationships with its Partners Across the Globe. These include Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, New Zealand and Mongolia.

2. Supreme Allied Commanders always American

Dwight  Eisenhower

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied commander, leaves his closed staff car behind because of the mud and boards a jeep in Europe to start on his recent tour of the fighting front in November 1944.Photo Credit: APThe Supreme Allied Commander, or the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, is the military head of NATO, serving as the head of Allied Command Europe and the head of Allied Command Operations. This position has always been held by American generals, with the first being future president, then-Army Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The current commander is Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti.

1. So who is paying for NATO?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Friday, March 17, 2017.Photo Credit: Evan Vucci/APPresident Donald Trump has made headlines both during his campaign and once elected president, asserting his belief that NATO allies need to pay more. While Trump has been criticized for his words regarding the alliance, he is not the first president to highlight the need for NATO allies to pay more.

NATO allies are meant to spend two percent of their gross domestic product on defense. In 2016, only five of the allies — the U.S., the U.K., Greece, Estonia and Poland — were at or above the minimum spending target. The U.S. spent 3.61 percent of its GDP on defense in 2016. Canada, Slovenia, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg all spent the least, respectively, with Luxembourg putting 0.44 percent of its GDP toward defense.

President Obama called on NATO allies to contribute their share as well, according to the Washington Post.

“[E]very NATO member should be contributing its full share — 2 percent of GDP — toward our common security, something that doesn’t always happen,” said President Obama during a April 2016 speech in Germany. “And I’ll be honest, sometimes Europe has been complacent about its own defense.”

In addition to President Obama, President Trump’s campaign opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also raised the issue of NATO members spending more on defense.”

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/68-years-of-nato-10-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-north-atlantic-treaty-organization