This post previously appeared on Defense News and C4SIR.
Despite the clear and present danger of threats from China and elsewhere, there is no agreement on what kind of adversary we face. How to fight, organize and train. And what kind of weapons and systems will be needed in future battles? Rather, developing new principles to address these new problems is fraught with disagreements, divergent objectives, and established forces defending the status quo. But changes are coming to military doctrine. Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks is navigating the tightrope of competing interests, hopefully in time.
There are several theories about how innovations in military doctrine and new operational concepts occur. Some argue that new principles emerge when civilians intervene to support military “mavericks,” such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Alternatively, the service can generate innovation internally if senior military officers recognize the doctrinal and operational implications of new capabilities (e.g., rickovers and nuclear-powered navies).
Today, however, doctrinal and conceptual innovation is driven by four major factors. external Upheavals that simultaneously threaten our military and economic superiority:
- China has implemented several asymmetric offset strategies.
- China is deploying an unprecedented number of naval, space, and air assets.
- The proven value of a vast number of expendable unmanned systems on the Ukrainian battlefield.
- Rapid technological change in artificial intelligence, autonomy, cyber, space, biotechnology, semiconductors, hypersonics, etc. Much of it is driven by commercial companies in the United States and China.
the need for change
The US Department of Defense’s traditional sources of innovation (Prime, FFRDC, Service Labs) are no longer sufficient on their own.
The speed, depth, and breadth of these disruptive changes will occur faster than the responsiveness and agility of current procurement systems and the defense industrial base. But in the decade since these external threats emerged, the Department of Defense’s doctrine, organization, culture, processes, and risk tolerance have functioned as if virtually nothing needed to change. .
As a result, the Department of Defense now has world-class people and organizations for a world that no longer exists.
It’s not that the Pentagon doesn’t know how to innovate on the battlefield. In Iraq and Afghanistan, innovative organizations emerged to lead the crisis, such as the Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Agency and the Army Immediately Equipped Command. And the military is circumventing its own bureaucracy by creating offices of rapid capacity. Today, the Ukrainian Security Assistance Group continues to rapidly deliver weapons.
Unfortunately, these efforts are siled and temporary, disappearing once the immediate crisis ends. They rarely make permanent changes at the Pentagon.
But several meaningful signs of change over the past year indicate that the Pentagon is serious about changing the way it operates and fundamentally rethinking its doctrine, concepts, and weapons.
First, the Defense Innovation Unit was elevated to report directly to the Secretary of Defense. Previously hobbled by a $35 million budget and buried within the research and engineering organization, its budget and reporting structure showed how the Pentagon was downplaying the importance of commercial innovation.
Now that the DIU has been rescued from the shadows, its new director, Doug Beck, will chair the Deputy Secretary’s Innovation Steering Group, which oversees defense efforts to rapidly deploy high-tech capabilities to address urgent operational problems. Serving. The DIU also sent staff to the Navy and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to identify actual emergency needs.
Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee proposed a $1 billion budget for fiscal year 2024 to fund these efforts, signaling the importance of DIU. And the Navy has signaled its intention to fully participate in the DIU through the creation of the Office of Disruptive Capabilities.
In addition, Deputy Secretary of Defense Hicks announced the Replicator Initiative, which aims to field thousands of expendable autonomous systems (air, underwater, and subsea drones) within the next 18 to 24 months. This effort will be the first test of the Deputy Under Secretary’s Innovation Steering Group’s ability to deliver autonomous systems to warfighters quickly and at scale while breaking down organizational barriers. DIU will work with new companies to address the ban/area denial issue.
The replicator portends a fundamental doctrinal change at the Department of Defense, as well as a signal to the defense industrial base that the Pentagon is serious about acquiring parts faster, cheaper, and with shorter shelf lives. It definitely shows.
Finally, at the recent Reagan Defense Forum, it felt like the world was turned upside down. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin talked about DIU in his keynote speech, and he visited President Reagan’s office shortly after visiting his headquarters in Silicon Valley, where he met with innovative companies. In many panels, senior officials and defense officials repeatedly used the words “disruption,” “innovation,” “speed,” and “urgency,” to show they were serious about what they wanted.
The audience included many venture and private capital fund leaders looking for ways to build companies that deliver innovative capabilities quickly.
What stands out is that, unlike previous years, the conference’s sponsor banners were not current prime contractors, but rebel factions like new prime contractor candidates like Palantir and Anduril. The Pentagon woke up. We realized that new and escalating threats required rapid change or we might not be able to win the next conflict.
Change is difficult, especially in military doctrine. (Ask any Marine.) Existing suppliers don’t sit around and work, and new suppliers almost always underestimate the difficulty and complexity of the job. Existing organizations protect budgets, personnel, and authority. Organizational saboteurs resist change. But the enemy is not waiting for our decades-long plans.
But more can be done
- Congress and the military can support change by fully funding the Replicator Initiative and the Defense Innovation Unit.
- The service doesn’t have a budget to buy replicators and would need to shift existing funding to unmanned or AI programs.
- The Department of Defense should translate new innovation processes into actual, substantive orders to new companies.
- And the command of other combatants should follow what Indopacom is doing.
- Additionally, defense personnel need to partner more actively with startups.
Change is in the air. Deputy Secretary of Defense Hicks is building a coalition of people willing to do just that.
I hope it’s in time.
File: National Security |