‘One of the biggest generational changes': Army Secretary explains Redstone Arsenal's role in new initiative
REDSTONE ARSENAL, Ala. (WHNT) — Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll visited Redstone Arsenal for the first time Monday.
After a tour, the secretary told reporters he wants the nation's war fighter to be more efficient, and he believes Redstone will play a role in that process.
Longtime Decatur city councilman announces run for mayor
Under the direction of the Department of Defense, Driscoll is implementing the Army Transformation Initiative. The program, like others created under the Trump administration, prioritizes cutting programs and positions deemed 'obsolete,' while bringing in the private sector to 'innovate.'
'We do not do a good job with our requirements and our funding, and we know that,' Driscoll said. 'We are trying to get better.'
Driscoll said improvement will come from more communication with other agencies, like the partnerships that exist on the Arsenal between the Army, FBI and ATF. He told News 19 that a push for fast solutions could also mean opportunities for new defense contractors.
'Small and medium businesses around the country are going to be able to create things for the United States Army, and if it is the best, we're going to put it on to our new platforms going forward,' Driscoll said. 'Things like open AI and these other big tech companies that are in the news every single day, we are not quite ready at scale to be a customer of theirs, but we think in the next six to 12 months, we will be in that because a lot of the work that's happening down here.'
Authorities on scene of 'weather-related' fire at old LaGrange Elementary School
The secretary said he wants to take the best practices from the commercial sector, particularly in areas like transportation and logistics.
'We just don't do things all that quickly,' Driscoll said. 'If you look at modern warfare with what's going on in Ukraine with drones and cyber and just this data layer that's being overlaid on to warfare, we knew that we needed to be able to move faster.'
On Monday, Driscoll said he met with the Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) on the Arsenal, which is responsible for making sure critical combat materials are delivered quickly.
'I'm even more optimistic after learning about it,' Driscoll said. 'I think a lot of the things that they're touching today will start to hit the war fighter in six to 12 months.'
During his visit, Driscoll said Redstone Arsenal has talent and resources that could lead to growth in the area down the line.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Britain's biggest companies are preparing for a Third World War
The year is 2027 and a major global conflict has erupted. Perhaps China has launched an attempted invasion of Taiwan, or Russian forces have crossed into the territory of an eastern European Nato country. Whatever the case, Justin Crump's job is to advise big companies on how to respond. And with tensions rising, a growing number of chief executives have got him on speed dial. The former Army tank commander, who now runs intelligence and security consultancy Sibylline, says his clients range from a top British supermarket chain to Silicon Valley technology giants. They are all drawing up plans to keep running during wartime, and Crump is surprisingly blunt about their reasoning: a global conflict may be just two years away. 'We're in a world which is more dangerous, more volatile than anything we've seen since the Second World War,' he explains. There are lots of crises that can happen, that are ready to go. 'Chief executives want to test against the war scenario, because they think it's credible. They want to make sure their business can get through that environment.' He rattles off a series of smouldering international issues – any one of which could ignite the global tinderbox – from Iran's nuclear ambitions, to China's threats to Taiwan, to Vladimir Putin's designs on a Russian sphere of influence in Ukraine and beyond, as well as Donald Trump's disdain for the post-1940s 'rules-based international order'. Against this backdrop, planning for war is not alarmist but sensible, Crump contends. With all these issues building, 2027 is viewed as the moment of maximum danger. 'The worst case scenario is that all these crises all overlap in 2027,' he explains. 'You've got the US midterms, which will have taken place just at the start of that year, and whatever happens there will be lots of upset people. It's also the time when a lot of the economic disruption that's happening now will have really washed through the system, so we'll be feeling the effects of that. And it's also too early for the change in defence posture to have really meant anything in Europe.' Putin and Xi Jinping, the president of China, are acutely aware of all this, he says, and may conclude that they should act before the US and Europe are more fully rearmed in 2030. 'In their minds now, the clock is ticking,' he adds. He also points to major British and Nato military exercises scheduled to take place in 2027, with American forces working to a 2027 readiness target as well. 'There's a reason they're doing it that year – because they think we have to be ready by then,' Crump says. 'So why shouldn't businesses also work off the same thinking and plan for the same thing?' He is not alone in arguing that society needs to start expecting the unexpected. In 2020, the Government established the National Preparedness Commission to ensure the UK was 'significantly better prepared' for the likes of floods, power outages, cyber attacks or wars. It has urged households to keep at least three days' worth of food and water stockpiled, along with other essential items such as a wind-up torch, portable power bank, a portable radio, spare batteries, hand sanitiser and a first aid kit. 'In recent years a series of high-impact events have demonstrated how easily our established way of life can be disrupted by major events,' the commission's website says – pointing to the coronavirus pandemic, recent African coups, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and turmoil in the Middle East. Britain is also secretly preparing for a direct military attack by Russia amid fears that it is not ready for war. Officials have been asked to update 20-year-old contingency plans that would put the country on a war footing after threats of attack by the Kremlin. All of this has led major businesses to conclude that perma crisis is the new normal, Crump says. In the case of Ukraine, Western sanctions on Russia forced companies to choose between continuing to operate heavily-constrained operations in Russia, selling up, or walking away entirely. Crump recalls speaking to several clients including a major energy company in the run-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. He and his colleagues urged the business to evacuate their staff, at a point when it was still received wisdom that Putin wouldn't dare follow through with his threats. 'I had almighty arguments with some people in the run-up, because I was very firmly of the view, based on our data and insights, that the Russians were not only invading, but they were going for the whole country. But other people in our sector were saying, 'No, it's all a bluff'. 'Their team came to me afterwards and said: 'After that call, we were convinced, and we got our people out'. They got a lot of grief for that at the time, from people who were saying it was all nonsense. 'But then on the day of the invasion, they told me they got so many calls actually saying 'thank you for getting us out'.' Yet even in Ukraine, much of which remains an active war zone, life must go on – along with business. 'I've been to plenty of war zones,' says Crump. 'And people are still getting on with their lives, there's still stuff in supermarkets, and things are being made in factories – but that certainly all gets a lot more difficult.' In the case of a major British supermarket, how might executives plan for, say, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? The first question is how involved the UK expects to be, says Crump. But if Britain, as might be expected, sides with the US at least in diplomatic terms, 'we're not buying anything from China'. That immediately has implications for a company's supply chains – are there any parts of the supply chain that would be crippled without Chinese products? But as the recent cyber attack on Marks & Spencer has demonstrated, attacks on critical digital infrastructure are also a major risk to supermarkets in the event of a war with China or Russia. 'If you look at a retailer, the vulnerability is not necessarily whether or not they can transport stuff to the shop, even in a war zone,' says Crump. 'The problem becomes when you can't operate your systems. 'If you can't take money at the point of sale, or if you have no idea where your stock is because your computer system has been taken down, you've got major problems and you can't operate your business.' In a scenario where Britain becomes involved in a war itself, Crump says employers may also suddenly find themselves with gaps in their workforces. He believes things would need to get 'very bad indeed' for the Government to impose conscription, which applied to men aged 18-41 during the Second World War. But he points out that the calling up of British armed forces reservists would be very likely, along with the potential mobilisation of what is known as the 'strategic reserve' – those among the country's 1.8 million veterans who are still fit to serve. There are around 32,000 volunteer reservists and an undisclosed number of regular reserves, former regular members of the armed forces who are still liable to be called up. 'There's a big pool of people we don't tap at the moment who are already trained,' explains Crump. 'But there would be consequences if the entire reserve was called forward, which would have to happen if we entered a reasonably sized conflict. It would certainly cause disruptions. 'The medical services are hugely integrated with the NHS, for example, and we saw the effects of them being called forward with Iraq and Afghanistan.' The sort of supermarket chaos that erupted during the Covid-19 pandemic would also return with a vengeance if a significant conflict broke out. During that crisis, grocers had to limit how many packs of loo rolls and cans of chopped tomatoes shoppers were allowed to take home, among other items, because of supply chain problems. 'If we're in a conflict, that sort of supply chain activity would increase,' notes Crump. 'So you don't necessarily have rationing imposed, but there might be issues with food production, delivery, payment and getting things to the right place. 'In a world where we don't have our own independent supply chains, we're reliant on a lot of very interconnected moving parts that have been enabled by this period of peace. 'We've never been in a conflict during a time where we've had 'just in time' systems.' Crump brings up the recent blackouts in Spain and Portugal. British grocers initially thought their food supplies would be completely unaffected because truck loads of tomatoes had already made their way out of the country when the problem struck. But the vehicles were electronically locked, to prevent illegal migrants attempting to clamber inside when they cross the English Channel and could only be unlocked from Spain – where the power cuts had taken down computer systems and telecoms. 'People in Spain couldn't get online, so we had locked trucks full of tomatoes sitting here that we couldn't open because of technology,' Crump says. 'No one had ever thought, 'But what happens if all of Spain goes off the grid?' And I'm sure the answer would have been, 'That'll never happen' anyway.' This tendency towards 'normalcy bias' is what Crump tries to steer his clients away from. While it isn't inevitable that war will break out, or that there will be another pandemic, humans tend to assume that things will revert to whatever the status quo has been in their lifetimes, he says. This can mean we fail to take the threat of unlikely scenarios seriously enough, or use outdated ways of thinking to solve new problems. 'We've had this long period of peace and prosperity. And, of course, business leaders have grown up in that. Military leaders have grown up in it. Politicians have grown up in it. And so it's very hard when that starts to change. 'People have grown up in a world of rules. And I think people are still trying to find ways in which the game is still being played by those old rules.' Unsurprisingly, given his line of work, Crump believes businesses must get more comfortable contemplating the unthinkable. 'Go back a decade and most executives did not want to have a crisis because a crisis is bad for your career, so they didn't want to do a test exercise – because you might fail,' Crump adds. 'But the whole point is that you can fail in an exercise, because it's not real life.' At least, not yet. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts
The Democratic-run New York state legislature could rush through a series of bills to give convicts early parole and prevent law enforcement from keeping dangerous criminals off the streets, Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly warned Sunday. In recent years, Democrats clawed back controversial cashless bail and discovery laws after serial criminals were let loose, triggering massive political blowback. 'These bills undercut everything we work for every day — building strong cases, securing convictions, and ensuring justice is served,' Donnelly, a Republican up for re-election this fall, told The Post. Advertisement 3 Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly. Brigitte Stelzer 'When prosecutors do the hard work of putting violent offenders behind bars, we should be backed by laws that protect that progress — not laws that allow those same criminals to return to our communities years before their sentences are complete,' added Donnelly, who is holding a press conference Monday announcing her opposition to the bills. Among the bills drawing concern is the Elder Parole bill — which would require inmates aged 55 and older who have served at least 15 years of their sentence to be considered for early release, regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed. Advertisement The measure is sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Maritza Davila (D-Brooklyn). Another bill, the Earned Time Act, would make most violent felons eligible for time allowance credits, potentially slashing their prison sentences in half, Donnelly said. The earned time bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Cooney (D-Rochester) and Assemblywoman Anna Kelles (D-Ithaca). 3 Madeline Brame's son, Hason Correa, was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago. Steven Hirsch Advertisement A third bill — the Second Look Act — would permit prisoners to petition the courts for a sentence reduction after serving 10 years, including inmates convicted of violent crimes. The legislation is promoted by Sen. Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn) and Assemblywoman Latrice Walker (D-Brooklyn). GOP Long Island lawmakers oppose the early parole bills, including Assemblyman Edward Ra and Sen. Jack Martins. 3 The New York State Capitol building. Hans Pennink for the NY Post Advertisement Crime victims' advocate Madeline Brame, whose Army Sergeant son Hason Correa was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago, expressed outrage at the proposals to give violent cons a break. 'These proposals completely disregard the pain and effort that go into holding criminals accountable,' she said. 'We need to help prosecutors put violent offenders behind bars — not give criminals new ways to get out early.' Gov. Kathy Hochul toyed with early release proposals in April as a way to try to alleviate the prison population amid an illegal prison guard strike and a staffing shortage. She was forced to bring in the National Guard to staff the prisons. She proposed opening eligibility for merit time in the state budget, then backed down after it was revealed doing so could lead to people who were in for violent crimes to be released early. Donnelly was among those who raised the alarm. Inmate advocates have pushed for early parole and other reforms after prisoners were allegedly killed at the hands of guards over the past year.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Did The U.S. Air Force Cancel The F-22 Raptor?
It is the absolute apex of air-to-air combat. It rules the skies like a bird of prey, from which it takes its name. It's one of the stealthiest fighter jets in the world. The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the pinnacle of what air dominance can be. So ... it was canceled. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense decided to end production of the fighter after only 186 planes were produced, significantly less than the original order of 750. What happened? Airpower is supposed to be one of the pillars of America's military strength, so why take its best piece off the board? The answer comes down to the fact that the nature of America's threats change and evolve over time, meaning that an asset that seemed critical in one era seems less so in another. Plus, put simply, the F-22 is wildly expensive, so if it's not an absolute must-have, the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't shake out. Read more: These Are The Worst American Cars Ever Made The F-22 was a revelation when it first flew in 1997. With a top speed of an incredible Mach 2.25 (1,726 miles per hour), supercruise capability (meaning it could fly for extended periods above the speed of sound), and a coat of radar-absorbent material, it was more advanced than any other fighter in the world at the time. It was a spaceship in a world full of paper planes. Ironically enough, that was part of its problem. Because Russia and China had nothing comparable in the first decade of the 21st century, the F-22 almost seemed like overkill. At a massive per-unit cost of $150 million, did America really need something that far beyond any of its competitors? For that matter, America's main adversaries at the time had no airpower at all. With the U.S. embroiled in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq against low-tech insurgent forces, a high-cost air-dominance fighter just didn't fit the country's needs at the time. Since even the Pentagon doesn't have infinite money (though it sure seems like it sometimes), it had to make some tough choices over where to put resources. For the budget-draining War on Terror, the F-22 just didn't have an argument to make. Not helping matters was the fact that Congress restricted use of the F-22 to just the U.S. Air Force. Translation: There would be no sales to foreign allies, which cut off a major revenue stream that could have offset its costs. Of course, since the end of production in 2009, a lot has changed. Russia and particularly China have upped their military capabilities, including in the air. With the benefit of hindsight, should the U.S. have kept the F-22 rolling off the assembly line? Not necessarily. For one thing, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an even newer fighter jet (though it has problems of its own). While slower and less stealthy than the F-22, it has vastly more advanced sensor capabilities. Not only can it gather a huge amount of information about the battlespace, its true party trick is its ability to disseminate that information to other F-35s and to headquarters. Meanwhile, the Air Force has also moved forward by looking backward. The decades-old F-15 airframe has gotten a major update in the form of the F-15EX. For one thing, it's much cheaper than the F-22 (its unit cost is only $94 million), which is appealing as the Pentagon looks to cut overspending. More importantly, the F-15EX can bring a whopping 12 air-to-air missiles to the fray, compared to the F-22's measly eight. The F-15EX was also designed to carry the newest and most advanced ordnance in the Air Force's arsenal, hypersonic missiles. Given all that, you could argue that the F-22 has lost its crown as the best air dominance fighter ... to a much older, and cheaper, plane. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
