Welcome to the Hudson Institute im senior fellow and we are here to talk today about today in america and hightech warfare chris is a former staff director for the Senate Armed Services committee the senior policy advisor for senator john mccain and previously held other positions in government right now the chief Strategy Officer for those for the military and department of Homeland Security we can talk about that as a go through the interview but they give for being with us today. Its great to be here. What led you to do this book obviously this is something you have encountered over the years as a policy advisor but what is the genesis to lead you to sit down and write the entire book . Its a great question i ask myself constantly why did i get into this . Basically its two things. Both of these are a product and thinking about the stuff on a daytoday basis with the growing realization that we decided a fundamental problem to be underappreciated that we were losing competitive advantage and not where we needed to be from a technological standpoint it was mostly just the sense i didnt think there was the urgency to get after that problem considering how fast that was closing on us and behind that problem but the thinking that i was like what would we do about this . There is a lot of talk about the threats with the competitor like china a lot of talk about technology with the emergence of Artificial Intelligence to be essential to enhance americas competitive advantage from the military standpoint but there are concrete answers so what do i do with this new technology how does allowed to have new capabilities to operate to create competitive advantage for the United States military . There is a sense of these technologies we just layer them on top of what we have always operated and just do it better. Living in the nexus of these worlds really on the hill looking at the emergence of these technologies with the treatment and then obviously with the department of defense. So is there a way to help bridge the divide between this gap and what we could do with new technologies and what we will need to do or do differently from an operational standpoint in our broader strategic context so that is the origins of it was more of an attempt to get my own head around thes problems that here is my contribution to what the answers look like. We need to make decisions as a nation how we will deal with the problem and then and then how it is postured and to exploit the new technologies and to build these new technologies and the way we will fight and use these technologies with that operational context so to talk about the idea of machine control that is the interesting way to describe of what they looked at the man and unmanned system are on par with one another and then to operate independently and then keep up again. And that how do you think of that new way of operating that we need to embrace with the Autonomous System. So to give were credit where credit is due which i give credit to both of you in the book for and it encapsulated the way i thought about it very nicely. The reason i dont like the machine man and unmanned teaming that they are unequal and somehow they are on equal footing which i just dislike and the other piece of that is there is a tendency to believe the new technologies are so fundamentally new and different the way we always thought about the control of military operations that somehow they would be thrown out the window because it is fundamentally different. And with that continuum from where we have been and then it comes back to the question of command and control to get a familiar military concept. And then just to get to the question of the performance of military tasks. Those will continue to be performed but the question is who were what. You will still have a superior actors you are controlling subordinate actors that human superiors that as they become more intelligent and autonomous those repetitive and mundane tasks to take in an order meant to mount of human time tens of thousands of humans with that exploitation. Increasingly more of those tasks could be performed by more intelligent and autonomous regimes that doesnt mean they are off doing that on their own it will still be the same architecture a framework command and control to set clear parameters for the control of military tasks he will train significantly the subordinate actors who would perform that task and in that process you will trust they will do the things you are giving them responsibility to do. We talk about Autonomous Systems as if there is such a thing and the reality is autonomy describes the relationship between the human delegating tasks to someone or something. So in that respect what are the standards that we can trust machines to perform tasks previously only humans could perform . But the way were going to do that is no different than the way we evaluate humans and that respect are those that we have relied on for a very long time we have processes in place to do this. That would be something we should think through as a construct how this can help us govern with the emergence of the new technologies in the future. Absolutely in terms of the systems exerting control over their own actions theres a few different flavors you have higher sophisticated systems and those that are very expensive relatively small numbers and they can do their own Mission Planning and respond to the stimuli in the environment then cheap systems that are expendable or disposable to operate independently but the scope of action is constrained obviously there is a role for both but im curious if you look at the Autonomous Systems how do you see that relationship being used . Are you trying to do a war of attrition to throw a bunch of disposable cheap things that somebody in overwhelm them . Is that a proponent of a larger force episodically that the rest is pursuing a more traditional maneuver action and these robots are an element of that . How do you see the different types of Unmanned Systems as opposed to throw those robot ways to people . Its a great question perhaps the point that unifies the two in the present tense if it is a global hawk smaller and cheaper we talk about those Unmanned Systems but they are exquisitely manned if you look underneath the hood and many of these Unmanned Systems and to me the big change with that system that requires exquisite amount of human beings behind it and with that command and control relationship now a single human being command in large systems. So for many years weve made the choice to be qualitative superior in front of the adversary. Weve been able to do that with exquisite and into those enemy spaces those limited number of times so to me to say from the operational standpoint and autonomy really opens up the personality and smarter and cheaper than maybe we were expecting. And then to fight differently. Theres something to be said for that. And you have written eloquently and then we focus on the kill chain that ultimately its not the platforms of the system with that ability to understand what is going on to rapidly make decisions to take relevant actions to increasing the quantity and quality of that the speed and scale of which you can operate and to create so many different dilemmas to make the decisions that is something Autonomous Systems will provide us. And that the separate and apart we will grind each other down and have more systems on the battlefield in our competitor. And with that concept and then to do the attrition attack. And then to do exquisite attacks while the adversary is busy dealing with the attrition battle happening with a smaller number of platforms. And with those ten. Strikes. And those capabilities in the way that battle will proceed. Taking away his eyes were keeping his hands busy. The point to try to stress in the book so thats to put the focus on the outcome we are trying to achieve to be overly consumed with what type of system is most relevant im prepared to believe the best answers to these problems how you have that Battle Network meant to be a mixture of Old Technology in new technologies at the end of the day it could be brandnew things that the end of the day it shouldnt matter how you combine these things but the point you make so well you have to be able to combine them in a more elegant and dynamic way with these Battle Networks that exquisite. 2. That get that interesting synergy a 30 or 40 or 50 yearold platform. So talk about where the us has a competitive advantage. But also those fundamental advantages with those emerging technologies like a china. Yes a lot of these technologies as a nation of considerable advantages and capabilities challenges to align the capability we have at the actual military problem and this is a familiar conundrum to get companies founders and others working in these technologies to focus on commercial applications that is a conundrum for us. And to have the operational that excellence before the United States military. And its hard to replace with the solving operational problems we should be over reliant upon. From the standpoint with those operational problems to have that ability there at the same time we need to be realistic there are a lot of aspects of how china will use these technologies and when it goes to scale and Data Collection and retention and shall we say less interested of those ethical concerns we spend a lot of time rightly focused on and then distrust its own people and to delegate those decisions to the machine. And longterm competition and we may not always be the leader in these areas and then anybody to make them operational that is something we have done quite well in recent years this is a very different type of challenge. Much of what we have learned to be transferable to the power competition era. How those Autonomous Systems are played out that if you are going to use the unmanned system to use the advantage. Faster in time and then to improve the quality like that and then to slow his own decision cycle and then to rely on a Mission Command. And then to be willing to improvise and those tactics that might not ordinarily be based on doctrine the willingness of the leaders to take advantage of their own initiative then to use the Unmanned Systems to come up with the tactic with a higher direction state that could be a form of competitive advantage as well. And the United States military has to learn about this as well but to your point and then its very topdown and that inherent distrust of the lower ranks that is that advantage that i love but that also something you have to relearn after 20 years when we practice to live the Mission Command necessarily the way these conflicts were structured. So that brings me to a point how do we make this transition . So on this subject and with that robot force the Autonomous System the element gradually built up over time even a 10 percent contribution and that operational outcome. Are there better ways dod can take advantage for that Industrial Base of the United States with the management tools more quickly than through the normal acquisition pipeline. This is a 64 milliondollar question. And then to talk about all this and this is something that really hit home for me and how so many of the things that what we have said over the past 20 and 30 years it always drew very similar and then why did we fail to do or not do what was so important for so many years . And to get the incentives right. And then to get exactly what they paid for and then to focus on the things you are trying to buy. I am a big baseball fan and now measuring the Team Outcomes and in much the same way getting in a position where we are competing what were trying to do measured based on the outcomes we are trying to achieve so there is an actual process every year with a certain amount of money in the beginning of the year of the Senior Leaders of department of defense to say we are trying to reduce the time to close the kill chains and enhance the decisionmaking advantage of us forces against the specific Operational Forces they have to confront and get away from the broader buzzwords in the Main Operations which we can have an informed debate but you have to boil them down to the specific military problems to solve complex and real adversaries not to generalize competitors. If you compete that out every year then you have the ability to see what is performing best to navigate this transition where much of that is the legacy force so how can these help you to be faster to scale more significantly thats a question of how Technology Enables Current Operations in the new technologies and capabilities with legacy systems and what you are trying to do then every man for himself doesnt get you that data driven output and to create that incentive to put that to the problems and then to have a new Battle Management system in aircraft and here is the prospect and the congress has a mechanism and by the way and with that paid her on is that better capability in this will work for everything. And with more capital intensive programs like aircraft carriers and the like. And not in the sense of acquisition composition and what is that system you should present resources and and to scale considerably so again you began to does the the department of defense what they say are important thats what i look at and certainly look at my time on the hill. So in terms problematic choices on the part of private industry. And that was a fascinating discussion right there. So those requirements today is a System Engineering approach to determine how it is in the future and what those scenarios are to look like that is the analysis of the capability gaps in the assumptions of what that looks like and what the available forces will look like 20 years from now. And to come up with a point solution and then to have more of bottomup attempt with the mission outcome. These missions we think are important, here is a range of environments where those outcomes are needed like china or the south china sea. And it sounds like the joint staff the military problems they want to address and the department of defense is to assess their ability to improve those outcomes. Thats exactly right. That unless we are focusing on the joint outcomes we are trying to achieve we will end up buying a bunch of things to achieve those outcomes them part of the problem is quote unquote is the degree of hubris is baked into that. And that will turn around and hold that for us in the future. And with the mobile device thats not invented in the defense establishment i would be much more interested to say and then to defend the large quantities of income being weapons but the question is can we field a better solution to reduce the likelihood 48 hours to start a conflict and to focus on that outcome and then to come together to drive the expensive resources and the expense of resources. And to iterate on that there is and then the needle on the money we are spending. And then to compete and then to have a system developed and introduced that capability so you want to tell them to give up the it in the process of the effort to provide assistance to the Us Government there are lots of opportunities to create a model or environment where companies can retain intellectual property rights. Those modifying systems on a regular basis have you been thinking about that . And then to integrate those with your own. To me this is one of the core problems we have to solve and the department is right to criticize industry and for too often in recent years to be beholden to proprietary solutions whether locked in black boxes that are capable of updating themselves of moving at the speed and the technology that is all true and valid but my concern is the backlash will lead toward the believe that it has been a downer so the government will build a highperformance aircraft it is just nonsense the real challenge is figuring out that the government will have to define to ensure that you do have that scalability in the future so that Applications Program interface and to that certain extent standards that the government has to define what that entrepreneurial and creative to bring that to bear. So the way we saw this play out with the commercial internet is a handful of major boomers to get together to hammer out standards and then to improve that as we go which is why we have an Apple Computer right now and google application while im writing microsoft word documents nobody mandated that had to be so just to create those incentives for people to play together and then to develop applications on top of it and then to know the future word look like. It didnt work well for us. And then judy as part of the future. And then to turn industry with the private sector and the best capability and at the end of the day the government can still have confidence this will all come together the same way we buy a new center for the house but that architecture in my environment here. It is totally doable and this is what i come back to in the book this isnt witchcraft what the servicemembers are doing every day in their life and then ten years behind. And to close out to incentivize industry from the financial perspective to make it easier for the new players to enter and offer solutions to the military problems. They are used to vc money with ten x and 20 x returns and if you get 10 percent returns its not a very Successful Use of vc money so companies from that will have difficulty to see the value to compete for dod dollars is there a way they can better one better incentivize those companies . And then working those returns of the commercial Software Start up. And then that baseline set of expectations and then the industry is returning but you will never get to the 20 percent returns that commercial software will get. Thats a doable proposition from the government standpoint that they so value cost certainty to control the profits of industry to pay 1 billion for something knowing it only got two. 5 percent as opposed to pay 400 million with industry really getting a little bit of profit and then aligned to whats important and from the standpoint to create those incentives and those technologists and investors that the government is buying the emerging technologies and founders and investors so honestly we overthink a lot of this from the standpoint and with them with respect to the dod and then to deploy this technology you would see a lot more engineers who that they can make a successful career and they would find those Companies Getting founded in private investment going into modernizing National Defense as opposed to optimizing those algorithms for social media. There is a degree of supply and demand they need to create that demand if they do put money behind whats important and significantly start to do see industry respond. And then earlier attempts aircraft weapons. And it doesnt send a strong incentive to traditional industry and those that are funded with larger increments. Thank you for being with us today the chief Strategy Officer the most recent book the kill chain. Available right now and many places thank you for being with us today and good luck on the book. Thank you for everything you are doing. There is a lot that has your fingerprints all over it. And then give you credit where credit is due but ill take all the blame for what i got wrong. Thank you for being with us today. Stay safe. Asking women to do something we need to think about it. When it comes to lean in the book was written in a time and place people really wanted solution and then to overcome inequality they have no hand in creating. On so for me the problem is how do you say to people you can do everything just right, the qualifications, experience, pere rating because they with the ideas with that ideal standout so the more you differ from that and thats not something that we talked about that are inherently set up for that prototype to succeed in that takes a lot of challenges and then to think about the solutions and do any of these solutions were . And then just to be the idea that they dont ask for a pay raise and that is the pay gap. And then it is just pure discrimination but then to define the standard of what it looks like for women to be unassuming then youre thankful that you have a job. And asking for what they are worth they are penalized for what with those attributes so if we have the solutions to a Work Environment and also to look at the solutions to say do they work . And in most cases they dont they are not adjusting the underlying a system with the policies and that process with the daytoday behavior and those personal beliefs to value people differently and that creates the equality of all places this will last around an hour toward the end will have time for your questions although i cannot guarantee we will get to every submission
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.