Douglas R. Bush: Transient statement, then I’ll take your questions. In order lots of you already know, the primary–one of my primary focus areas is acquisition and speed, so speed in a responsible manner and acquisition at speed, I feel, is working. Within the last fiscal yr, we’ve had some great successes. We issued prototypes of the Robotic Combat Vehicles to our first unit. We awarded the longer term Long-Range Assault Aircraft contract, we transitioned to milestone C with mobile protected fire power, which is now recognized as a model for the way fast we will go after which this coming yr goes to be even greater. So, by the tip of fiscal yr ‘23, we’re on target to still have 24 recent systems within the hands of Soldiers through fielding or testing including significantly the long-range hypersonic weapon. We are going to equip our first unit with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, we are going to equip our first units with the brand new Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, we’ll award the phase 3 and 4 contract for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicles to up to a few vendors this spring, and we’re also making significant advancements within the Army’s Tactical Network. So, there are various the reason why this success is going on, however the chief amongst them, in fact, is our people. So, and after I say people, I mean uniform and civilian working across the Army. In Acquisition, now we have 525 Army programs at once. There are 30,000 professionals in my workforce they usually do great work, but in addition they work with many thousand more talented professionals at Army Futures Command and Army Materiel Command to truly make all this occur. It takes the entire Army team to do it and at once I feel the team is working very well. These same people, in fact, are working on the second issue I’ll mention, which is Ukraine. So, we’re working across the clock to meet Ukraine’s Priority Security assistance needs. We are going to proceed to deliver weapons from U.S. stocks and procure defense items directly from industry. I hope today to have a possibility to set the record straight on the defense industry’s ability to surge in response to urgent needs. I feel they’re surging and I’m confident, actually in our ability to do that, each within the defense industry and each as an industry government team. Before we take questions, I would really like to publicly thank, as I at all times do, members of Congress for his or her continued strong support regarding Ukraine, the funding they’ve provided, and the pliability with that funding has been vital, and in addition the Office of the Secretary of Defense Team lead by Dr. La Plante has provided terrific support and couldn’t be doing what I’m doing without him. So, all that said, in fact context is significant, so you already know, today’s announcement on M-1 tanks is just the following step on support for Ukraine. The Army will in fact be directly involved in working that issue after which that’s on top of our other efforts which might be already announced. So, Bradleys, Strykers, M109-A6s, other things that we’re providing along with what we’ve been providing before, as you guys know, HIMARS, GMLRs, artillery ammunition, and artillery. So, so much happening and I’d wish to take your questions.
Moderator: Tara Copp, let’s start with you.
Tara Copp: Okay. Thanks for doing this. Due to day, I do must ask about Ukraine.
DB: Sure.
TC: With the Abrams announcement, do you anticipate the USAI funding will probably be used to retrofit existing Abrams, procure a complete recent tank? I suppose, what’s the fastest solution?
DB: So, we’re — the Army’s developing options that will probably be presented to, you already know, Senior Leaders on that. So, I feel there are multiple courses of motion and it’s not only the tanks. So, now we have to have the opportunity to deliver the tanks, the support equipment, the training, the ammunition, the fuel. You realize, the entire package fielding like we do with other Abrams partners. So, it’s really a giant — an even bigger picture. So, I can just inform you, you already know, work rapidly in fact, underway now to develop those courses of motion, however the Army will probably be presenting those to OSD for decisions.
TC: After which as a follow-up—-
DB: I don’t know yet is the reply.
TC: As a follow-up on the support infrastructure, you already know, Abrams eat a whole lot of fuel. Would that include providing Army fuel trucks or advising on how best to do a fuel logistics support?
DB: Well, each time we field a capability like Abrams to a partner country, we also provide all of that and training on that. So, the logistics tale and that is critical — when the USA sells things to people, you already know, we offer, like I said, the entire package that makes it an actual military capability and Abrams in fact has a big logistics aspect to it. I assume that that will probably be a part of what’s provided.
TC: Providing the fuel trucks will probably be a part of it?
DB: Potentially. If what’s already available is just not adequate. That is all into account by way of these options we’re constructing. However the tanks without the fuel system behind them, in fact, not very effective.
Moderator: Thanks Tara. Brian Everstine on the phone with Aviation Week.
Brian Everstine: Yes, thanks a lot for doing this. I used to be hoping you might speak about a few of your work with industry to seek out sort of sticking points in production. We have heard specifically NASAMs and Stingers. Are you able to sort of give an update on the way you’re working with industry to hurry up production of those systems?
DB: Sure. So, there’s really often what you discover is sort of two elements to it. One is on the contracting side, that’s a procedural thing and with support from Congress and recent authorities, we got within the NDAA, that can help clear away a few of those procedural — they’re not likely hurdles, they’re just steps we undergo and now the hurdles are somewhat lower. So, you already know, the general public interest will probably be protected but we’ll have the opportunity to do it faster and that’s, you already know, doing the contracting side, the cash flow. The economic side is usually based on identifying in the availability chain what the long-lead items are. So, a whole missile for instance may not take 18 months to provide. It could be really only one component that takes 14 of those 18 months. So, identifying those and I’ve mentioned previously, advanced procurement is a tool able to getting at long-lead parts. That’s something we’re taking a look at after which also with the brand new authority from Congress regarding multi-year procurements, that’s one other option to get at accelerated production because with the guaranteed funding stream, industry can do more on their side working with their suppliers to purchase parts prematurely.
BE: I even have to ask, because you brought it up at the highest, you mentioned the FLRAA work. Are you able to give an update on where things stand and your confidence within the schedule because the protest continues?
DB: Well, the protest — the schedule already accounted for a possible protest, which we now have and it’s in GAO and, you already know, the Army’s confident, but you already know GAO will do its job and we’ll go from there.
Moderator: Thanks Brian. Tony Capaccio.
Tony Capaccio: I got here in — I used to be somewhat late on the tanks. Are these recent tanks? Are they built from scratch or is all of it going to be set from Army inventories?
DB: To be determined.
TC: Seriously?
DB: Don’t know yet. We’re working on multiple options.
TC: Huh. You’d think — okay. And the Army’s Contracting Command would execute the contract, is that [in audible]
DB: This may all be done by the Army.
TC: No, no, however the Army Contracting Command will do the –?
DB: Oh, sure. They’re doing all the opposite. So, Army Contracting were already doing all of the — so, if it’s like a proper military sales case…
TC: Yeah.
DB: We do all that contracting already for all FMS cases. This may flow the identical assuming it’s funded with USAI funding.
TC: Got it.
DB: It will flow through sort of the identical way we’ve been providing other things through that channel.
TC: The multi-year procurement authority, will you be using existing IDIQs or OTAs or UCAs, or how will that play out?
DB: So, in some cases — so, that is as regards to just the brand new, I’d call it somewhat easier multi-year authority we got. We’re working on quite a few cases. Some will probably be recent contracts since the timing works out where we will do a recent contract that’s a multi-year. In other cases, we’re going to be modifying existing contracts or perhaps extending the terms of existing contracts to retain current pricing. But, I feel each case goes to be somewhat different because, you already know, when you take a look at different systems we’re taking a look at from potentially munitions to sort of a Patriot to perhaps HIMARS, they’re all at different places of their acquisition cycle, so the contracting aspect will probably be sort of tailored in each case to shift from a one — you already know, annual, to multi-year. It’s gonna require some creativity.
TC: One follow-up. You don’t should go as much as the Hill to justify that there’s like a ten percent savings over annual or you already know end of the present rules?
DB: So, over our reading, I feel — any multi-year contract that’s over 500 million, we still also need an appropriations language.
TC: Okay.
DB: So, normally there’s two launch keys. You’ve gotten to have language from each to do it. That continues to be the case. So, the conversations won’t just be on the authorizing side, it’ll be on appropriations side to make certain that we reveal — that we’ve done our homework, the maths is sensible, however the language did give us relief from a number of the normal conditions.
TC: Okay. Thanks.
Moderator: Okay, thanks. Ashley Roque from Breaking Defense.
Ashley Roque: Hi. Sorry, I used to be having problems with mute. I just have I suppose two follow-ups. One was, I understand a laundry list of options on the M1-Abrams, but are you in a position to say which variant you might potentially– you’re taking a look at providing them? Like, the SEPv3 or something else?
DB: I can’t.
AR: Okay. After which the opposite one, on the multi-year, and I’m sorry, I don’t know if it’s my computer, however it was somewhat off in the gap. Have you ever issued any of those multi-year contracts yet and do you really should return and alter the Army Acquisition Objective before moving forward on a few of these program lines?
DB: So, we haven’t done a recent multi-year using the brand new authorities which might be within the NDAA yet. So, those plans are being worked at once. The, you already know, in some cases we might need to but often the AAOs are very high and we already don’t — we just haven’t budgeted to them, so we may or may not should. It relies on this system and the important thing thing will probably be ensuring that the multi-year math is sensible after which we get buy-in from Congress to support.
AR: Okay, great. Only one follow-up, the CSIS report that just got here out, and talking to industry too, there’s a whole lot of concern about these — you already know, there’s rockets or motors that don’t have second sources. Are you — is the Army doing anything to handle a few of these secondary issues that go along? Whether it’s the availability chain, the second vendors, etcetera?
DB: On critical programs where we’re executing a production ramp, yes. So, for instance, on programs with rocket motors, like Javelin or GMLRs, you already know, all options are on the table and second sources are definitely a option to ensure production and ensure supply. That is a tool, it’s not the one tool. But and sometimes it is sensible to do it but in fact having two suppliers sometimes is less efficient than having only one, however it has other advantages similar to redundancy and, you already know, back-up in case something goes incorrect at one among the production facilities. So, yeah, we’re taking a look at that option and already moving out actually in some cases.
Moderator: Thanks. Haley Britzky, CNN.
Haley Britzky: Thanks for doing this. I’m wondering if we — when you can sort of put into context after we speak about just like the spin up of industry as a way to provide all of this stuff, I feel the Latest York Times had something that said this was the largest increase or demand that we’ve seen for the reason that Korean War. What, in context of history, how big has this been?
DB: So, not being a serious historian of this, I would like to watch out with making grand pronouncements, but I feel on the standard ammunition side, so I’m just talking about sort of the artillery production side, I feel it’s — the production ramp we’re undergoing, by way of how briskly we’re attempting to do it, might be the fastest since Korea, but I’d have to envision, you already know, there’s Army historians on the market who could be shaking their head at me at once. But, I can inform you so long as anyone around here can remember, it’s the fastest ramp up. Because in previous conflicts we’ve had, for our conflicts, we’ve had the supplies we wanted initially of the conflict, so the ramp up urgency was somewhat different. On this case, we’re ramping up to provide an ally and replenish ourselves and provide others. So, it’s definitely from where the standard ammo industrial base has been, it is certainly, you already know, dramatic, is the suitable word when you take a look at the size within the pace we’re after.
HB: After which on this CSIS report, which might be what Ashley was just asking about, saying that, you already know, if the US were to go right into a — you already know, start a war with China or enter right into a war with China, there wouldn’t be enough within the US stockpile for that conflict. Are you able to sort of speak about that so far as where we stand on that, how long that can take to replenish? Those sorts of things.
DB: So, there’s a pair parts to that. To start with, determining how much is required is just not the Army’s job; that’s the Joint Staff and Combatant Commander’s and OSD Policy. They determine the necessities that we construct to. So, you already know, what I might call war reserve requirements for potential conflicts, they set those and we construct to them. So, I feel do now we have enough is de facto a matter for them, not me. My end of it’s just ensuring now we have production capability to fulfill that. So, I feel there are good conversations happening they usually’re at all times happening about what those war reserve levels must be depending on different assumptions concerning the conflict, a critical one often being how long you think that it’ll last. But, that’s a judgment call that must be made by way of planning. What I even have seen from this ramp-up is I do imagine we’re able to ramping up quickly because we’re doing it at once and I feel that American industry can and would respond. So, I’m more optimistic I suppose than that report’s conclusions. But, that doesn’t mean it’s easy. So, I feel there are really necessary policy inquiries to think through regarding how big the war reserves must be, how much planning we do for mobilization prematurely, and the way much resources we’re willing to place against this need, having for instance large stocks of munitions versus other needs. There are lots of other needs in a China scenario for instance, that can not be missed, you already know. Numbers of ships and planes, in fact, and the Army units matter too. So, it’s at all times a trade-off between ammunition stocks, when you only take a look at war through one lens, it doesn’t offer you the entire picture. But, it’s a crucial discussion.
Moderator: Matt Beinart, Defense Day by day.
Matt Beinart: Great, thanks. I desired to ask about last week, General McConville had some remarks where he said he would really like to see the Army give attention to replenishing of kit sent to Ukraine with up-graded capabilities slightly than, in his words “recent old stuff” and he cited an example of giving M113s and replenishing those with, say AMPVs, you already know, sort of within the near term. So, what’s the feasibility of implementing this priority of latest up-graded equipment over recent old stuff and the way is it perhaps reshaping some modernization timelines with specific efforts? Thanks.
DB: Sure, so typically, what the Chief was describing is what Congress has allowed us to do with the funding from the beginning, which is great. Which is that if we send an older piece of kit sometimes it’s not even in production anymore, we’re allowed to switch that with a more moderen one which is in production. So, in certain cases, so for instance AMPV, the indisputable fact that we’re sending 113s and we’re replacing with AMPV has led to, when you take a look at the replenishment dollar flow, you already know, a big increase in available AMPV funding in FY’23. We’re gonna put that to good use. I feel it’ll help speed up, I hope, some goals by way of just getting that thing fielding — getting that thing fielded more quickly. But, so yeah, what the Chief described is what we’re doing and it’s, thus far, Congress has been very supportive of that approach. There are just a few other areas where that may happen. For instance, if we send older night vision devices, we should buy newer ones. If we send older versions of artillery shells, we should buy current production recent ones. So, there are quite just a few examples of that and Congress has been very understanding thus far on approving those.
MB: After which just as a fast follow-up, what we kinda saw, you already know, starting in the autumn after which into late fall, a sort of standard flow seeing these announcements of the replenishment contracts. Do you expect a ramp-up of that within the near term to sort of start back-filling things that you would be able to do more immediately? What is the sort of tempo we must always expect on that?
DB: Sure, so overall we’re — we remain well ahead of ordinary DoD timelines on getting funding obligated by way of replenishment funds and we track it that way. We track ourselves against sort of the traditional templates and we’re well ahead. So, I feel there are going to be several big awards coming in February and March that can just move us further down that path. You realize, we receive replenishment funding in so-called tranches. There have been nine of them. You realize that funding is already in Army accounts and we’re putting it on contract now. So, I feel there will probably be — there was — we did so much in the autumn after which now that we got the extra funding flow coming from the Ukraine supplemental, I do anticipate a bunch of huge awards in February and March.
Moderator: Jen Judson, Defense News.
Jen Judson: Hi, yes, thanks Mr. Bush for doing this. I desired to follow up on the Abrams tank heading to Ukraine and I do know you said obviously you’re taking a look at developing quite a lot of options or multiple courses, but how long are you, you already know, what’s type of the benchmark goal to attempt to get these over to Ukraine? Do you may have a timeline you’re working towards to get them there?
DB: I don’t yet. That will probably be determined by Senior Leaders and the Army will make whatever they need occur, occur. But, the precise details of the timelines, as you may imagine, that is dynamic. I don’t have those today.
JJ: Okay. And simply to sort of ask a more broad query. We talked somewhat bit about multi-years as a mechanism here, but with Congress, the measures that they set to ease munitions procurement within the NDAA, are you able to talk somewhat bit more broadly the way you’ve perhaps begun to take a advantage of those authorities? In case you could provide some examples of that?
DB: Sure, so, as I answered earlier, we haven’t yet awarded one under that recent authority, but quite just a few are within the works. So, mostly within the munitions area, which is a spot the Army hasn’t traditionally used multi-year contracts. We have often only used them for really aircraft. But it surely appears that Congress is more inclined to support multi-year contracts for munitions, which is high-quality, and we’re, yeah, definitely looking in that area for some good multi-year opportunities.
JJ: Okay.
DB: So, to be determined and like I said for ones above threshold, above 500 million, we also need Appropriations Committee explicit approval. In order that’ll be a part of the conversation this yr.
JJ: Okay, thanks. Just a really quick follow-up to Matt’s questions on AMPV and also you were talking about AMPV there and I do know there’s speculated to be a full-rate production decision expected soon. Are you able to tell us whether to expect that soon or if that’s delayed in any way?
DB: It’s soon. But, you already know, the precise day hasn’t been nailed down yet, however it’s coming soon. Tied into that, in fact, is the contract negotiations, that are, you already know, a serious a part of that call.
JJ: Sure, thanks.
Moderator: Thanks, Jen. Marcus Weisgerber from Defense One.
Marcus Weisgerber: Thanks for doing this and for continuing to do these. I desired to ask you, you already know, we’re a few yr into this conflict in Ukraine. How are you beginning to take into consideration maintenance and sustainment of the billions of dollars of weapons which were transferred?
DB: Yes, so early within the conflict, sort of divided working this issue with Gen. Ed Daly and Army Materiel Command and the Army’s, in fact, senior logistician. He has led the trouble on providing sustainment and maintenance support for the equipment going to Ukraine and he and their whole command have moved mountains and are making, frankly, miracles occur. So, I’m encouraged by what we’ve done thus far. As we send more additional advanced equipment, like Strykers, like Bradleys, like tanks, in fact, that sustainment activity can have to, you already know, increase in its complexity and plans to do which might be already under way. So, I feel the challenge is recognized, I feel the Army knows how you can do it, it’s just we’re gonna put the systems in place to make certain we will actually sustain what we offer.
MW: All right. Thanks.
Moderator: Jeremy Bogaisky of Forbes.
Jeremy Bogaisky: Hi, thanks. I desired to ask about raising production of 155 millimeter artillery munitions. Last — late last yr, there have been a few contracts given out to [inaudible] and General Dynamics to extend production of shell bodies, metal parts. I used to be wondering is it the shell bodies particularly which might be a bottleneck in raising production of those munitions? Or is it also the explosives and the fuses? Is that individual shortage area that’s holding things up, or is it, you already know, all the things must be boosted in production?
DB: Well, it’s really all the above. So, I mean, the parts that come together to form a completely usable artillery shell include the metal part, which is the shell itself. Now we have to have the explosive fill to go in it. Now we have to have the costs that shoot the shell, in order that’s a special production line, after which you may have to have a fuse. So, it’s really all the above. I feel, however the — what’s going to take us the longest to ramp up is the metal parts production. So, we began there. Those are what the initial ramp-up contracts have been focused on and there’s so much to that. It is definitely pretty complicated manufacturing since the standards we’re getting. Second, right behind that, you’re gonna start seeing contract awards, when you haven’t already, for what’s referred to us load, assemble, and pack. That’s filling the shell with explosives after which doing all of the packaging and work to make it something we will actually, you already know, ship to any person. Right away, that activity for 155 is sort of exclusively at one place, the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. We wish to each expand there and stave up additional capability within the private sector to complement them. So, it’s each. We want the metal parts production ramp. We want the load, assemble, pack capability after which the ancillary parts I discussed — fuses, explosive fill, charges — we’re ramping up those already. Those are easier. They will ramp up more quickly. So, all of it has to return together, you already know, to truly have a capability. But it surely’s all under way.
JB: Also, I used to be wondering the [inaudible] attempting to work with artillery, 155 mm artillery shell producers in other countries to lift production?
DB: Yep. Yes. So, through USAI funding, now we have also and/are working with foreign partners on using their production capability. So, it’s not all the USA. So, we’re doing a dramatic ramp-up within the, you already know, we’re also using a whole lot of allies. So, team effort. We’re sourcing and searching worldwide and a whole lot of that’s now actually flowing through. So, and that’s gonna be critical because production ramp-ups do take time and I feel we’re taking a look at various sources including foreign production to make certain Ukraine has what it needs.
Moderator: Thanks Jeremy. Next, we’re gonna go to Dan Schere, Inside Defense.
Dan Schere: Thanks for doing this. Are you able to talk generally just concerning the ways in which this production ramp-up is gonna impact how you place together the FY ‘24 budget, just by way of weapons procurement?
DB: So, I can’t provide details on ‘24, ‘cause it’s not finished, but, you already know, in fact, the ‘24 budget was developed with Ukraine as context for that. So, you already know, I feel it’s somewhat little bit of a bounce over. We’re getting funding through Ukraine supplementals for a whole lot of these munitions lines, which suggests the FY ‘24 President’s budget number may not should be as big as you would possibly think because we’ve already got the funding in ‘23. But we’re taking a look at the entire picture. So, if you stretch it out over multiple years, what does it must be? I feel the near term, so really ‘24, a whole lot of that increased demand is already provided money-wise at once. I feel the true issue will probably be the ‘25-’29 POM. So, that’s the budget we’ll start working on this yr where the long run look of how big these production lines must stay to take care of capability, that’s where that debate’s gonna happen. And it’s not only us, it’s you already know, everyone with advanced munitions who’re taking a look at this too.
DS: I also desired to follow up on the 155 after which I had seen within the Latest York Times the opposite day that there’s speculated to be one other domestic plant that’s gonna, I suppose, occur soon. Do you may have a timeline or details?
DB: So, several things under way. So, you already know, on metal parts for instance, the shell bodies themselves, they’re currently made in two places. They’re near one another. One is Scranton Army Ammunition Plant and the opposite one is a personal facility right down the –right down the highway. We’re taking a look at standing up one other one in the USA in Texas. We have already also — that’s already on contract. We’re also on contract for a support from Canada for them to arise to retool a facility in order that they could make that too. So, that might give us potentially 4 locations where that is being done. On load, assemble, and pack, like I discussed, Iowa’s right where that work is at once, we’re taking a look at and really near or already made contract awards to arise additional capability in Arkansas and in addition potentially Iowa and potential also Kansas. So, we’re really taking a look at the entire industrial base. Those contract awards aren’t final yet, so we’ll see. But I feel we’re gonna go from having sort of one set of, you already know, one sort of production chain to having several all working at the identical time. [Crosstalk] Sorry, and most of that expansion, by the best way, is private sector. So, we’re doing capability increases which might be government plants but a whole lot of that capability increase goes to be private sector as well.
DS: Thanks.
Moderator: Thanks. Eric Lipton, Latest York Times.
Eric Lipton: Yes, thanks a lot for doing this. So, because the Assistant Secretary for Army Acquisition, what are sort of one or two specific lessons that you think that you’ve learned from the war in Ukraine that you desire to attempt to apply moving forward? You realize, a few sort of narrow examples that come to mind to you?
DB: So, I might defer to my military colleagues on sort of the military lessons learned by way of what capabilities–
EL: Yeah, I meant acquisition-wise, not actually military, but acquisition-wise. That is what I meant, sorry.
DB: Sure. So, one is a reminder that we will go fast when now we have to. So, we took a whole lot of lessons from our COVID response and we’ve used them here. The important thing to that’s, you already know, sustained support from Congress who provides funding for all the things and in addition sustained support within the Department for getting the sort of waivers we want and the sort of permissions and the Ukraine response has featured each. So, you wish all of the pieces aligned to make certain that we will do this, but we will. That said, it’s necessary to at all times learn. So, I feel as we expect through the long-term and if there’s a policy decision to retain more production capability for munitions each conventional and precision, there’s gonna be a whole lot of work that should be done. OSD might want to lead it. I feel they are going to. When it comes to looking across the entire industrial base and different conflicts we could be faced with and the way will we prepare to mobilize slightly than simply assuming industry can do it with a bunch of cash, there’s a government side to that too and now we have to work together. So, I feel one among my lessons learned is we want to think through mobilization planning in a more formal way in order that we’re able to do it. Now, look, we’re doing it at once and the American industry is responding brilliantly I feel. You realize, now we have the creativity, the knowledge on this country about how you can make things and make things quickly. But, you already know, there’s a planning aspect that the federal government needs to try this I feel could be the opposite lesson at once. And that’s –we’re capturing those lessons. I feel there’s gonna must be some good work done across the department on that.
EL: And just related to that, sort of following up, is that one among the things that seems apparent is just that it’s not the contractors themselves, however it’s their supply chains and their subcontractors and it looks like that’s the largest thing that they’ve been encountering by way of barriers is that every one of the subs and their give attention to “just in time.” Is that something that would — that you think that is sort of a lesson learning is to think through more concerning the full supply chain to ramp up.
DB: Well, our industry partners, in fact, they live and breathe the availability chain on daily basis. So, they already know that. I feel prior to the conflict, the Army and other services are already doing a whole lot of good work on seeing our supply chains higher, you already know, in additional depth. Not only counting on industry to try this for us. And I feel, you already know, this conflict now and this ramp-up, you already know, adds to that case that the federal government needs visibility of those supply chains as well so we all know where the weak points are. All that said, I feel what we’re finding is across a 25 trillion-dollar economy, we will find people to make things. We just should have the cash. People have to write down the authorities and we just need the urgency to make that occur.
Moderator: Thanks. Lee Hudson, Politico.
Lee Hudson: Hi, thanks for doing this. Today in General Dynamics in an earnings call, the CEO said that for the past three to 5 months, they’ve been working on a plan with the Army to extend production of ammunition and projectiles. I used to be just wondering when you could give examples of that and like if you think that may be achieved?
DB: Yeah, so an element of General Dynamics — General Dynamics OTS is who — is the corporate that operates Scranton Army Ammunition Plant for us. It is a GOCO (government-owned, contractor-operated facility) and in addition they run the ability down the road. I hope I don’t mispronounce it. Anyone from Pennsylvania, please don’t hit me — in Wilkes Barre. So, GD already runs those two facilities. So, I feel that’s probably what they’re referring to, each ramp-ups at those facilities after which I discussed the Garland — it’s in Garland, Texas — additional capability expansion contract that’s been awarded there. So, I feel that’s what they were referring to, Lee.
LH: Okay. Thanks.
Moderator: Flavia Camargos, Shephard Media.
Flavia Camargos: Yeah, thanks for taking my query. I would like to follow up on the Abrams as well. I do know you don’t have details to supply, but I used to be wondering from the logistics perspective, I feel it will be much easier to send Abrams which might be already in Europe, and I wondered if these platforms are actually a part of the inventory of European Command or if these tanks will probably be shipped straight from US to Ukraine?
DB: So, again, I can’t get into details about different options we’re taking a look at. But, in fact, the U.S. Army tanks in Europe are operated by the U.S. Army. So, those tanks are ours. I feel — they usually’re vitally necessary to providing deterrence and assuring allies, that’s why they’re there. So, I feel there are multiple options being checked out, but we’re not yet able to go into any details.
FC: Okay. Just a fast follow-up on the arms stockpiles as well. When it comes to timeline, I mean, when will the Army have its stockpiles one hundred pc refilled? Is it possible to reply this?
DB: So, I mean, I can’t offer you an actual date. I feel — and in addition by the best way, the necessities we construct to, the war reserves, those change year-to-year based on, you already know, different planning assumptions. A variety of it relies on how long the conflict goes in Ukraine and the way much we draw down from U.S. Army stocks. That’ll determine to a big degree how long it takes us to construct back. To mitigate that risk of that being too long, that’s why we’re expanding on such a high production rate ramp. So, that buys us, we hope, time to make certain we will replenish more quickly because replenishing is just not just replenishing ourselves. My assumption is we can even be helping replenish our allies. So — and in addition other services — the Marine Corps for instance has provided a whole lot of artillery and ammunition. They’ll have needs as well. So, we’re sort of taking a look at the massive picture and assuming that we’re gonna need that capability for a sustained time frame. But, increasing the capability will allow us to replenish faster. That is been how we made the argument to Congress and thus far we’ve gotten great support for it.
FC: Okay, just a fast follow-up on the FY 2024. I’m wondering if the war in Ukraine has impacted the necessities of the present or future programs. For instance, the OMFV, I mean, initially it didn’t have the requirement for counter UAS and I’m wondering if it will change when you guys revisit the necessities of some programs within the FY 2024?
DB: So, I might say that relooking requirements is just not really tied to the budget cycles, and it happens on a regular basis and it’s happening now. So, I might encourage you to talk over with General Rainey of Army Futures Command and a few of his folks on the necessities side about lessons learned from Ukraine and the way they’re planning to include into, those requirements into our recent programs. But I can inform you that’s ongoing, and I feel you’d expect us to make adjustments based on what we’re seeing on the battlefield. But now we have a option to do this and one good thing concerning the recent authorities we’re using in some cases, for instance, rapid prototyping. Now we have the flexibility to regulate requirements while we’re developing. Whereas before, we sort of needed to set them in stone before. That is going to be an example of why that’s necessary because if we’re halfway through a program and we learn something really necessary from a foreign conflict, now we have to have a option to incorporate that sooner slightly than later.
Moderator: Thanks. Dan Parson, The War Zone. Dan are you on?
Dan Parson: Yes, hi. Excuse me. So, a yr in, what’s the Army learning about its own ability to project, you already know, large scale combat operations on one other continent now that we’re supplying the Ukrainians, you already know, of their effort?
DB: Well, speaking broadly by way of just America’s ability — the American Army’s ability to project power, I feel individuals are seeing that we’re the most effective on this planet at this. I don’t think there’s one other Army that would possibly even come close. Only we will do that. So, it’s sort of one among the U.S. Army’s superpowers, is its logistics capability and I feel this war is taking full advantage of all — supporting this conflict is taking full advantage of what we all know how you can do. So, I used to be only recently in Germany. I used to be talking to some folks doing training for Ukraine Soldiers. Two weeks ago, they were doing something else on a gunnery range in Poland. They are actually training Soldiers on Bradleys. I’m somewhat biased, but I feel only the US Army can do this at scale this present day. And same on the logistics side. I discussed General Daly’s team. You possibly can imagine the challenges of supporting, not only supporting Ukraine equipment, but now we have sent so much more to Europe and it’s there at once, that also must be supported. So, those two things together, I discussed moving mountains and dealing miracles, it’s happening and it’s Army Materiel Command and dealing with a whole lot of folks across DoD. It’s pretty cool to see.
DP: Right and so forth the training front, are you able to expand somewhat bit? You realize, these systems which might be going over there, at this point, we’re talking about exquisite systems, Patriot, Abrams, they require a whole lot of training. Just the timelines for readying the Ukrainians to receive and operate these systems?
DB: Sure. So, what we’ve found we will do thus far, just speaking and passing on what I’m hearing from others is we will often abbreviate and speed up what we will do by way of training for the Ukrainian Army Soldiers just based on their existing knowledge and capabilities. We have already been in a position to do this on several systems. So, you already know, with enough motivation and dedicated 24/7 access to them, we will train people really quickly. The US Army knows how you can do this and we’re doing that at once. And, in some cases, you already know, what we might consider a full training program, perhaps 60 percent of that could be the critical stuff that they actually need to enter combat, they usually are selecting to work with us on, you already know, shortening a few of those training timelines. The Ukrainians are full partners in those discussions.
Moderator: Thanks. Doug Cameron, Wall Street Journal.
Doug Cameron: Oh good. I’ve got a pair Mr. Bush. A couple of contractors have mentioned that they’ve presented quite a lot of scenarios to the Army with regard to what we will do with production rates and the way much it will cost and the way long it will take. Except for HIMARS and Javelins, are there some other concrete examples where you said, “OK go get it? Go do it?”
DB: So, the largest production ramp-ups quantitatively I feel could be, for the Army, HIMARS launchers, Javelin missiles, GMLRS rockets, 155 artillery. Those are those I might call sort of the massive 4 at once by way of us doing — and Stinger missiles, to a lesser degree, but Stinger also since it began at such a low level. So those are sort of my big five.
DC: And, as follow-up, is that this the, you already know, you say industry has done brilliantly, but you already know these are the identical executives who swore blind they’d their arms around the availability chain, they knew what was happening and that was apparently true until the rubber hit the road and what you hear now could be, well the availability chain can’t do it, so it’s gonna take two more years to double Javelin production. So, how much confidence do you may have in these scenarios the industry provided you of their ability to deliver on them given they sort of dropped the ball previously?
DB: Well, those characterizations are yours, not mine.
DC: Well, you called them brilliantly, so I’m just asking what they’ve done brilliantly. I’ll put it that way. I’ll keep it easy.
DB: Sure. So, a part of that — there’s two parts of that answer. So, you’re speaking of the company executives. When I feel brilliantly, I’m considering of the employees. So, imagine me, I’ve visited these places. The employees who actually do the work are those working extra shifts, you already know, doing more with less, finding ways to go faster. So, I feel of the workforce, I feel is terrific and it’s been great to see. Now…
DC: What concerning the executives? What have they done?
DB: Well, I feel, and really I don’t have complaints. In fact, there’s at all times a natural tension between the federal government and industry that, in fact, is attempting to make cash and that’s okay and the federal government and its needs. But I feel by and enormous, once we get within the room with them, we work through these problems in a cooperative way. I feel everybody’s running in the identical direction. You realize, businesspeople should work in a, you already know, competitive economic environment. I’m sympathetic to different demands they’ve on them by way of running their corporations and making a profit while also meeting the federal government’s demands. But I feel by and enormous, when you zoom it up a level, I feel actually industry has responded quite well. Sure, every now and then, in fact, there are at all times gonna be rough spots they usually exist now, but we’re working through them, and I feel individuals are — everybody’s got the fitting mindset now.
DC: Thanks very much.
DB: Doesn’t mean it’s all perfect.
Moderator: Corey Dickstein, Stripes. Corey, are you on?
Corey Dickstein: Sorry. I had mute issues also. I would like to and you only did again, speak about how confident you’re within the ramp-up capabilities inside industry, but I do wonder, is there a turning point in your confidence in some unspecified time in the future if this thing, if the war continues to pull on or where they need, you already know, increasingly more and more, 155 shells for instance. Is there a degree where you might potentially lose confidence in our — within the industry’s ability to maintain up with demand?
DB: Well, okay, there’s zero likelihood I lose confidence in America. We are able to do that. Now we have all of the knowledge we want, it’s just a matter of constructing it occur. So, no, really not. I feel time is the factor. So, you already know, the production ramps are happening. Everybody wants them to occur more quickly, so do I. We’re working on daily basis to make certain, to attempt to do what we will to make it occur faster. But I feel if you put enough money on contract, an industry works its magic, working with the federal government and the American employees do what American employees do. I’m completely confident that we’re going to do that.
CD: Thanks. I appreciate that.
Moderator: Roxana Tiron, Bloomberg.
Roxana Tiron: Thanks a lot. I actually don’t have any questions. Most of my questions have been answered already. Thanks a lot though for doing this.
Moderator: Thanks Roxana. Meredith Roaten, National Defense.
Meredith Roaten: Hi, I just desired to do a degree — quick clarification on one point. I do know you said you’re considering a whole lot of options, but has the choice on which variant for the Abrams tank been made already?
DB: No.
MR: Okay. And…
DB: That’s a part of the choice considerations that senior leaders can have to think about.
MR: Well, in that, could you talk somewhat bit about how much maintenance and sustainment will play in that — selecting that variant and the way much variation there may be in maintenance and sustainment between the choices?
DB: There’s not a fantastic deal of difference by way of the logistics elements of maintaining, you already know, an Abrams tank battalion on this case, the 31 tanks, between the variants. Same engine, for instance. A variety of the parts are the identical. A variety of the differences are with the turret and the electronics. So, the lion’s share of logistics burden is more on the automotive side, which is consistent across the differing types.
MR: So, maintenance and sustainment is, it won’t be that much different between…
DB: No.
Tara Copp: Just need to follow-up, since we’re — if you described the entire, just how involved the Army is now with getting the 155 from — the shell casings, ramping up all these different, you get an actual sense of urgency and I’m just — two questions. How concerned are you concerning the stockpiles after which secondly, has this conflict really modified your considering, modified other’s considering on what more reserve levels must be?
DB: So, the second part there, you already know, like I said, I don’t resolve those, but I feel the system is learning from watching and the Army is closely observing usage rates in one of these conflict. But there may be, and I feel you’ve heard the Chief of Staff speak about it, it’s like the best way the Ukrainians are fighting is different than how we normally fight. For instance, we might use so much more air power because now we have it, an unlimited amount of it. So, after I take a look at our artillery stockpiles, for instance, you already know, if those are lower than they were initially of the conflict, in my mind that’s somewhat mitigated by all this capability we might have in a conflict with regard to our Air Force and the Navy and everybody else. So, it’s different. So, I feel good conversations are going down at the fitting levels about balancing those risks. What was the primary a part of the query? Sorry.
TC: Just the sense of urgency with all of the trouble, particularly behind the 155.
DB: Yeah, so it’s, as you may tell, it’s urgent. So, I feel — but for the fitting reasons. Because I feel we are attempting to get ahead of the issue. So, slightly than simply being — so, during the last — during the last summer as this began to appear like it was going to proceed longer, and the demands could be higher. We began considering then about what a production ramp would require and began working with Congress particularly. So, I feel without that urgency, we risk being behind on the incorrect time later and the opposite reason for my urgency is that wars are unpredictable exercises and it’s hard to know where things will go. I might slightly have more capability, which provides us options, each us and our allies, slightly than being caught short. So, there may be some risk in that in that it’s a production ramp-up that you would be able to’t guarantee you’ll, you already know, exactly what the demand’s going to be, but I feel we’ve been in a position to make the sale with Congress that it’s higher to be incorrect on the high side than incorrect on the short side.
TC: Thanks.
DB: Go ahead Tony.
Tony Capaccio: A fast follow up – from a delivery standpoint, is it easier — is it faster to set an old, an M1A1 into an M1A2 or is it faster to provide a recent tank from scratch I suppose in layman’s terms.
DB: So, we don’t produce any tanks from scratch anymore. So, all tanks come… Yeah, all of us use current tanks, so M1s they usually’re all just modified into regardless of the production is, so.
TC: That’s good to know. You’re not gonna construct — the layman individuals are gonna say, individuals are gonna say, “Really, you’re gonna construct?” You’re not gonna construct them from pieces of armor right into a recent tank. You are gonna — any option’s gonna be modifying an old tank into the configuration.
DB: But that’s how we do all Abrams production. It’s all that way.
TC: You realize this, but…
DB: Right, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy or fast necessarily, right? So, but — and that’s an artifact of just now we have a big stock of older M1s that we use as seed vehicles. Were we to ever run out of those, sure we might construct recent. But, at once, irrespective of which option we go, we don’t should construct completely recent.
TC: That’s helpful. Thanks.
Ashley Roque: What number of total M1s do you may have now, like of old and recent and what the…
DB: Hundreds.
AR: Hundreds.
DB: We built a whole lot of tanks within the ‘80s.
AR: I didn’t realize that they weren’t built…we’re talking like — Heritage had like 2000 total, I’ve seen as much as 4400.
DB: You mean — I’ll work on which numbers, hopefully we will offer you what we currently have today after which what’s in, like, not excess, but what’s in storage, right? So, those are two different numbers. Let me see what I can do. Hopefully, offer you a raw at the least.
Moderator: I feel we’re gonna lose the room here in only a second. So, thanks all for joining us. Any additional questions, you may send to Jamal Beck and myself and this concludes today’s event. Thanks a lot.