John Thomas’ Post

The Hi-Tech Alliance: Evolving Dynamics Between Big Tech and US Defence The tech industry's role in US defense is undergoing a profound transformation. My latest analysis for ITSS Verona explores how companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and emerging players like Palantir are reshaping the traditional military-industrial complex. Key insights: Pentagon's $886B defense budget increasingly flows toward tech partnerships Silicon Valley firms now compete directly with traditional defense contractors Geopolitical tensions driving unprecedented tech-defense integration Emerging players like Anduril ($14B valuation) show sector's rapid evolution Fascinating to see how this public-private collaboration could redefine national security in the coming years. Thoughts? #NationalSecurity #TechIndustry #Defense #Innovation #PublicPrivatePartnership Read the full analysis here: https://lnkd.in/dnxJ4Gbx

As demand for critical defense electronics increases in the #C4ISR space, #consolidation activity across the middle market and subcontracting environment is expected to continue heading into 2025. See how market participants are poised to benefit from the latest sector trends with Head of Aerospace, Defense, Government & Security Tess Oxenstierna: https://hubs.la/Q02YZLVb0 #defense #space #marketresearch

Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks recently highlighted the accelerating pace of change and innovation within the Department of Defense (DoD). Key initiatives like the Replicator Initiative are driving rapid advancements in capability development, reducing acquisition timelines, and fostering collaboration with nontraditional defense companies. With over $57 billion flowing through new acquisition pathways and significant progress in software and hardware upgrades, the DoD is transforming how it meets national security challenges. 💬 What steps are you taking to accelerate innovation and adaptation?

Very insightful article from Michael A. Brown detailing the gap between R&D and procurement. I particularly like the comment "the disconnect between research programs and the acquisition system is one of the reasons for the valley of death for non-traditional suppliers: vendors successfully performing on R&D or prototype contracts may be waiting years before there is a requirement written" This is the challenge facing many Australian robotics SMEs. Whilst there may be funding for R&D to build a prototype, it can be years before a tender is written - which the SME cannot survive - they need orders. In this case, the valley of death is temporal. And this is not restricted to defence - we see the same in Mining and Ag. In my case, I have seen the mining industry invest $M in R&D (which is great) but once a prototype is built they are not interested in buying their "own" technology. They wait a few years (sometimes a decade or more) and then buy from a global OEM, often after all the patents have lapsed. And then - even worse, when the OEM does not have the capability to deliver the technology in Australia, they acquire the SME that did the research in the first place. The argument between tech push and market pull is a false choice. What we should be doing is supporting the SMEs that live in the valley. Rather than trying to work out how to help universities push out their tech. Or how the customer (defence, mining, ag etc) can acquire the tech. We need to support the SME to translate the research to the market. In the US there is the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program https://www.sbir.gov/about Whilst this provides funding - it does not de-risk the transfer. Irrespective of funding the technology could still fail. To address this risk, I am very interested in the idea of forward technology procurement insurance. This is discussed in my article of Australian Made Robots. https://lnkd.in/gwY_NqJs It also needs to be recognised that Australia is very bad at research translation. We have one of the lowest innovation efficiencies in the world and we rank 72nd for knowledge diffusion. To address this issue we need to work out who should be responsible for research translation. Is it the Universities - No. Is it the Government - No. Is it the Customer - No. It is the OEM/SME that should be responsible for research translation! David Pocock (Australian independent senator) is interested in the role of procurement policy to enhance sovereign capability https://lnkd.in/g8mSaZtc Which is also related to the situation where our defence procurement strategies have been left us flat-footed. https://lnkd.in/g97wZqHa Attn: Robin Smith OBE CSC, Adam J. Hepworth, PhD Jason Scholz, S. Kate Conroy, Warwick Penrose, Ben Sorensen, Shawn Tansley GAICD, Stephen Bornstein, Simonette Cox, Kelvin Ross, Rob Sutton, John Sheridan, 🕹 Ross Newman, Darren Foster, Jeff Sterling, Dr Joe Cronin

This is especially true when we talk AI. In an ML-enabled system there is very little distinction between “development” and “sustainment” since the system needs to be continually learning and adapting to the environment in which it’s operating. No successful ML-enabled system is “set it and forget it”, it must be monitored and updated to be successful

This is a lasting and very historic debate. Innovation comes in many forms some from the user and some from the sciences and R&D. We all agree that R&D needs to be mission focused and understand requirements. However, if it is pulled directly into acquisition then the R&D funding runs the risk of being absorbed into existing programs that are far over running in cost and schedule yet failing to deliver over hyped capabilities. This could lead to a state where our defense department is in a propetual race to integrate and adapt commercial capabilities faster than our adversaries with little long lasting advantage. If we fully tie R&D to known needs and fixing broken links in the chain we may never invent a new chain. No cell phone user would have agreed to spend $1,000 on a phone in the early 1990’s but today most people can’t think of a world without a smart phone. Corning continued to pursue fiber optics even when the telecom industry said they would never use it and today we have global interconnectivity because of fiber optics. Therefore, we must consider how to keep R&D calibrated to the mission and manage innovation and R&D with transition pathways in mind and plan for and fund those transition initiatives.

This goes beyond the transition of projects to programs of record; it also calls for an intricate architecture needed to depict an integrated framework across portfolio, domain, and enterprise.

Interesting article on Forbes on the US DoD challenge around accelerating R&D into capability that can be deployed to the warfighter. Highlights the disconnect between agencies such as DARPA with a technology push model, yet end warfighter capability is delivered through traditional acquisiton agencies. This challenge is not new or unique to Defence. For me we need a new model of rapid technology maturation with intimate involvement from end users from the get go taking a leaf out of the world of DevSecOps in software. #r&d #innovation https://lnkd.in/ex5FjuMR

A great article today out of Forbes highlights the ongoing disconnect between the R&D investments and the requirements side of the DoD. This gap has persisted for years, with temporary fixes often falling prey to the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. You need people with the combined expertise to execute/oversee R&D projects, leverage the budgetary cycle and anticipate what the warfighter needs. Success can only occur through consistent interaction with the people who need the capability. We did this while I was at the ISR Task Force stood up by Secretary Gates in 2008. DIU is doing it now. But we need a permanent fix. Companies executing R&D projects for the DoD should also be part of planning ahead for a transition once the technology matures. #defensetech #nationalsecurity #innovation

Good quick read on part of the problem. The budget process is the heart of the problem. Great ideas, that are explored in the S&T communities and transition to promising capabilities still lag for years because of the requirements, budget approval, and program initiation processes alone; never mind the necessary development, test, and certification requirements. PEOs can’t move quickly without funding no matter how compelling and mature the capability is. Initiatives like Replicator are steps in the right direction but we need a longer term reform solution in order to modernize at the speed necessary to keep up with our adversaries. How many projects are stalled right now because of our budget process?