FINAL COTS02 Jeff Editorial –February COTS
Biased Toward Technology
The AFCEA West show this month in San Diego had its share of biases—the show had a mix of
west coast companies, with a bias toward west coast. And it had a mix of vendors in the IT side
of defense technology and those in our embedded computing side. And finally, there was a
natural bias toward Navy/ Shipboard technologies. None of these were surprising for a southern
California show co-run by the U.S. Naval Institute. And as New Englander I will confess my
bias that week in favor of being in sunny San Diego away from my cold and snow-covered
home.
During his lunch keynote at the show Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work likewise
showed a bias—one that’s positive for the future of our industry. His bias was toward investing
in technology. In fact as soon as he reached the technology part of this speech it was clear that
Work clearly gets it in terms of COTS without even using the word.
Work contrasted how in the 1950s though 1970s a lot of money was spent on missiles, on
nuclear weapons, space and the beginnings of the early computer age. And it was all generally
government driven. “But today, “ said Work, “commercial adaptation and commercial
innovation is really the thing that is causing all of us to scratch our heads and say ‘where are we
headed? Robotics, autonomous operating guidance and control systems, new ways of
visualization, biotechnology, miniaturization, advanced computing, big data, additive
manufacturing like 3D printing, all of those advances are being pushed primarily in the
commercial sector.”
With that in mind Work said the DoD has to work closely with the commercial sector and to
make sure the department is exploiting all of the advances happening there. That’s a motivation
between the updated 3.0 version Better Buying Power initiative announced by Frank Kendall last
fall. Kendall is the DoD’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Because technology is changing at such a rapid pace in the commercial technology sector, the
DoD now has to think in terms of five year defense plans (FYDP). :”Five years out, what can we
do with the stuff that we have differently, to have a new advantage, or what capabilities can we
pull in very, very quickly?,” said Work. Referencing the recently released FY '16 defense budget
proposal, Work talked about how technology developments have to be linked to strategic and
tactical advantages. The proposal includes more investment in unmanned underwater vehicles,
high speed strike weapons, railguns, and high energy lasers and so on.
Citing an example of technology advancement linked to game-changing capabilities, Work
described a recent test where the Block IV Tomahawk missile was an anti-ship role. A few
weeks ago the USS Kidd, a guided missile destroyer, launched a Tomahawk missile that changed
course mid-flight and struck a moving ship after being queued by an aircraft. This said Work is a
game-changing capability for not a lot of cost—a 1,000 mile anti-ship cruise missile and it can
be used from practically our entire surface and submarine fleet. What happens, said Work, if we
take another step and just make an advanced seeker on the Tomahawk rather than building a new
missile? Decisions like that, said Work, are what will be able to outturn potential adversaries and
maintain our technological superiority.
Although Work is bullish on technology, he expressed that he doesn’t believe just in technology
for technology sake. “Ultimately, it's not winning on the future battlefield if it's not about
winning on the future battlefield, I, as deputy secretary of defense, don't want to waste a
moment's time on it.”
The focus on technology—as always—ultimately filters down to good opportunities for our
embedded computing industry. And it’s positive to hear that at the high levels of the DoD that
viewpoint continues to be reinforced. Along those same lines Kendall said himself when he
announced the Better Buying Power 3.0 initiative last fall. “We cannot afford to start things that
we cannot afford,” Kendall said. “We’ve canceled programs over the years we started with great
ambitions and aspirations that we should have realized earlier on were not affordable in the long
term.” That’s why engineering expertise has to be part of the decision making. “If you’re going
to run the development program, you really have to be an engineer,” Kendall said. “You
wouldn’t supervise surgeons if you weren’t a surgeon.”