The Shifting sands of Defense Tech: Beyond the Buzz of “Cheap Mass”
the defense industry is undergoing a fascinating transformation, fueled by a surge of new technology companies promising disruptive innovation. However, beneath the surface of “cheap mass” hardware and software, a more complex business reality is emerging. As a former Navy officer and now a fellow at the council on foreign Relations, I’ve observed this shift closely, and it’s crucial you understand the implications for national security and long-term strategy.
The Promise and Peril of Neo-Defense Companies
Many new entrants are focusing on rapidly deploying affordable technology, frequently enough leveraging commercial off-the-shelf components. This approach contrasts sharply with the traditional, lengthy procurement cycles of established defense primes. Yet,this apparent democratization of defense technology isn’t without its challenges.
Consider the integration problem. While standards like the modular open systems approach (MOSA) aim to ensure interoperability, the reality is often a fragmented “zoo of systems.” Ultimately, seamless integration proves arduous, hindering scalability and limiting profitability for individual companies.
The Software Play: A New Revenue Model
Increasingly, the true business model for thes neo-defense companies isn’t hardware sales. Instead, they’re aiming to hook end-users with low-cost devices, potentially even offering them at minimal profit.Following this initial investment, the real revenue stream comes from indispensable software – permanent licensing and continuous updates.
Maintenance on the hardware provides some income.
However, the software represents a far more lucrative and recurring revenue layer.
Remember, “cheap” upfront doesn’t necessarily translate to ”cheap” over the long term.This isn’t inherently negative, but it fundamentally alters the industry’s priorities. The core objective isn’t necessarily bolstering American manufacturing jobs or guaranteeing battlefield victories. Rather, it’s consistently licensing and updating your software.
Consolidation is Inevitable
if hundreds of companies are vying to sell “cheap mass” solutions, a critical question arises: can they all succeed? The military doesn’t need dozens of competing command-and-control systems. Even with MOSA, efficiently knitting together a multitude of platforms is a logistical nightmare.
Therefore, the future likely won’t involve replacing five established primes with hundreds of smaller contractors. Instead, expect a consolidation back to a smaller group – probably six or seven dominant players.
Questioning the Narrative
These companies are selling not just products, but also a compelling narrative. It’s perfectly reasonable to scrutinize this narrative,especially when those presenting it stand to profit.
Are the weapons currently proving effective in Ukraine truly applicable to the unique challenges faced by the United States military?
* More importantly, does adopting these technologies lock us into a specific, potentially limiting, way of warfare?
Being skeptical isn’t a sign of being a Luddite. It’s a presentation of prudence,and prudence is a vital war-winning virtue,just as important as innovation.
The Path Forward: Prudent Innovation
You need to approach the promises of neo-defense tech with a critical eye. While innovation is essential, it must be tempered with careful consideration of long-term implications, interoperability, and strategic alignment. Don’t be swayed by the allure of “cheap mass” without thoroughly evaluating the total cost of ownership and the potential for vendor lock-in.
Ultimately, a balanced approach – one that embraces innovation while prioritizing prudence and strategic foresight – will best serve our national security interests.
About the Author:
Jonathan Panter is a Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a former U.S. Navy surface warfare officer. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University.
Image: Midjourney
