Exclusive: The Pentagon's software-hardware tug of war
The problem is the Pentagon has yet to find the sweet spot.
Why it matters: In a world of robots, autonomous weapons and global supply chains, conflicts will be swayed by the team that refreshes its code quicker and shares its information more accurately.
A hypothetical war with China in 2027 will be fought with what the U.S. military hasin hand right now.
Driving the news: An Atlantic Council report — the product of more than a year of work and 60-plus interviews, first shared with Axios — sheds light on this era of " software-defined warfare."
Such a dynamic "is about ensuring we have sufficient numbers of systems, as technologically advanced as possible, at the moment of need," Stephen Rodriguez, the commission director, told me.
What's inside: Here are some of the commission's conclusions:
The U.S. military is still moored to an acquisition system "ill-suited to the rapid tempo of modern technological innovation." This status quo puts the country "at significant risk."
The Defense Department lacks "sufficient software expertise," hamstringing capabilities that harness "critical technology areas including AI, autonomy, and cyber." Training is needed all the way up the chain. Academia can help.
While long-term reform is necessary, what's needed today is "near-term, high-impact initiatives to bridge" the gap and "reestablish an advantage." Beijing, meanwhile, is aligning industrial policies and resources to the digital domain.
Stateside service chiefs should identify a program executive office to oversee how — and ensure that — disparate tech can communicate. This is Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control in action.
The Defense Department should, by default, purchase software, not build it. When the department "decides to develop custom software, this often results in higher costs, longer schedules, and increased risks."
It also needs a software cadre, and that requires recruiting dozens of specialists to be spread far and wide, including at operational commands and in budget offices.
What they're saying: "DoD has made some decent progress on software adoption, but we're still doing it in siloed fiefdoms and not always with broader, more strategic outcomes in mind," Whitney McNamara, one of the report's authors, told Axios.
"Our software-enabled capabilities won't move the mark on the battlefield if they can't talk to one another."
Inside the room: The commissioners, contributors and staff are a who's who of industry, government and financiers. The roster includes:
Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet
Helsing cofounder Gundbert Scherf
Trae Stephens of Founders Fund and Anduril Industries fame
Saab executive and former Task Force 59 commodore Michael Brasseur
Adam Hammer at Roadrunner Venture Studios
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper
Former Pentagon weapons buyer Ellen Lord
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote
The bottom line: The Pentagon "buys metal well, because buying metal is an Industrial Age process. They perfectly define a requirement, then they spend years building the thing," Second Front CEO Tyler Sweatt, also a study commissioner, said in an interview.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Don't Bomb Mexico, Mr. President
The State Department designated eight organized-crime syndicates based in Latin America as 'foreign terrorist organizations,' or FTOs, in February. In July it added a ninth. Last week the New York Times reported that President Trump has signed a secret 'directive' to the Pentagon to 'begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels.' The White House declined to tell me if the Times story is true. But on Thursday Reuters reported that the U.S. deployment of air and naval resources to the Caribbean to combat cartels had begun. Whether their mission is interdiction or something more invasive remains unclear.
Axios
6 hours ago
- Axios
Rubio says peace agreement "a long ways off" after Putin summit
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that "we're not at the precipice" of a peace agreement after President Trump's Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ended without a deal on Russia's war in Ukraine. The big picture: Trump, who Axios previously reported set a ceasefire as the goal of the talks, said "we didn't get there" after the meeting. Rubio on Sunday said both sides would have to make concessions, but refused to name any that Putin agreed to. Now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, joined by several European leaders, will travel to Washington for a potentially difficult meeting with Trump on Monday. Driving the news: Rubio, who made appearances across the Sunday political show lineup, told ABC's Martha Raddatz a ceasefire was not the aim, arguing, "You're not going to reach a ceasefire or peace agreement in a meeting" without Ukraine present. If an agreement isn't reached, Rubio said, there will be consequences — but he emphasized the administration is trying to avoid such measures. Late last month, Trump threatened to shorten Putin's deadline to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face heavy sanctions, which he said would include "secondary sanctions and tariffs." Yes, but: Rubio on Sunday argued that if the U.S. levies additional sanctions, the "talking stops." "If this morning the president woke up and said, 'I'm putting these terrible ... strong sanctions on Russia,' that's fine — [it] may make people feel good for a couple hours," he said on Fox's "Sunday Morning Futures." "But here's what you're basically saying ... talks are over for the foreseeable future." He reiterated that view on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that he doesn't believe new sanctions would force Putin to accept a ceasefire. "We may very well wind up in that place," he said of new sanctions. "I hope not. Because that means that peace talks failed." The other side: Democrats on Sunday blasted the president over the meeting, which began with a red carpet rollout, and denounced the lack of immediate consequences for Russia. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) described the summit as a "great day for Russia" in an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, saying Putin left with "his photo op with zero commitments made and zero consequences." His Democratic colleague, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), said on ABC's "This Week" that Trump "got played" by Putin and that "[a]ll the threatened sanctions ... apparently have been set aside." Van Hollen called for the Senate to move ahead on bipartisan legislation that would impose new sanctions on Russia. Catch up quick: Trump, in a Truth Social post after the summit, said the meeting — and a subsequent phone call with Zelensky and European leaders — went "very well." He wrote that it "was determined by all" that a peace agreement, rather than a "mere Ceasefire Agreement" would be the best solution. Zelensky had been adamant that there must be a ceasefire before peace talks, Axios' Barak Ravid reports. The terms that Putin laid out in the summit included that Ukraine cede two of the four regions to which Russia has laid claim and freeze the front lines in the other two, Axios' Barak Ravid and Dave Lawler reported, citing two sources briefed on a call U.S. officials held with other allied leaders. Flashback: Zelensky's Monday trip to Washington comes around six months after Trump's February Oval Office meeting with the Ukrainian leader boiled over into a heated argument. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte are all expected to attend the meeting with Zelensky. Friction point: On CBS News' "Face the Nation," Rubio denied that those leaders were joining Zelensky as backup to protect him from being bullied into a deal. "This is such a stupid media narrative; that they are coming here tomorrow because Trump is going to bully Zelensky into a bad deal," he said. "We invited them to come," he added. "The president invited them to come."
Axios
9 hours ago
- Axios
GOP-led states sending National Guard troops to D.C.
The Republican governors of three states announced they will send state National Guard personnel to Washington, D.C., at the Trump administration's request. The big picture: The deployment of hundreds of additional troops, who will join the 800 already mobilized in the nation's capital, marks a major escalation in President Trump's takeover. Driving the news: South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster authorized the deployment of 200 Guard personnel from his state to support federal law enforcement activities, according to a Saturday statement. The deployment, per his office's statement, comes at the request of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau and will be funded by the federal government under Title 32. Zoom out: Some 300 to 400 West Virginia Guard personnel will also be deployed to the District at the administration's request, Gov. Patrick Morrisey announced. "West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital," he said in a statement. Those troops will be joined by 150 military police from the Ohio National Guard, sent by Gov. Mike DeWine, multiple outlets reported. Catch up quick: Trump on Monday announced a federal takeover of the District's police and deployment of National Guard troops in his push to crack down on crime and homelessness in D.C. Trump's memorandum, signed Monday, directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to coordinate with state governors to authorize additional Guard units as needed. The president has cast his crackdown as an effort to "take our Capital back," describing rampant lawlessness in a city where violent crime is trending down. Zoom in: The D.C. National Guard members — who, unlike Guard personnel in other states and territories, report to the president — have "broad latitude," Hegseth told Fox News Monday, but he noted they won't be involved in law enforcement functions. But if police aren't around, Hegseth said he "will have their back to ensure they can take the necessary action to protect citizens of D.C. and to protect themselves." He said troops could remain in D.C. for weeks or months but emphasized that it's "the president's call." Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told reporters Thursday that those personnel will not be making arrests, but they may "temporarily limit the movement of an individual who has entered restricted or secured area without permission."
