acquisition, ash carter, department of defense, dod, hacking for defense, intlpol 340, joe felter, kill chain, max boot, military innovation, ms&e296, raj shah, requirements, stanford, Steve blank, Technology, Innovation and Modern War

1. Technology, Innovation,
and Modern War
INTLPOL 340; MS&E 296
Steve Blank, Joe Felter, Raj Shah
Lecture 2

2. Agenda
• Summary from Lecture 1
• Lecture
• Max Boot

3. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (1)
Technology
invention
Early Adopter
Military Usage Envisioned
Holt Tractor

4. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (2)
Technology
invention
Visionary/Military
Usage Envisioned
Early Versions Less Capable
Then Existing Weapons/
Don’t fit Existing Doctrine
Holt Tractor
British Mark 5 Tank
• Battle of Flers-Courcelette
• Battle of Cambrai

5. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (3)
Incumbents - Internal (Leadership)
and External (Suppliers, Contractors)
Inertia Against Change
Fight to Keep Status Quo
Existing Doctrine/concept of
operations obsolete/don’t make
optimal use of new tech
The more complex a legacy system is the more inertia to change or replace it

6. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (4)
Rapid Adoption
new weapons/ contractors/
doctrine/leadership
German Panzer 3 + Radios +
Tactical Air + Doctrine
• Blitzkrieg
• 73 Easting

7. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (5)
Slow Adoption or Crisis
• Become 2nd rate power
• Lose War

8. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (6)
• Offset Strategy
• Win War
Slow Adoption or Crisis
• Become 2nd rate power
• Lose War

9. Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing Weapons
Incumbents Fight to
Keep Status Quo
Winners Adopt New
Tech and Weapons
Adoption Creates New
Doctrine
Offset Strategy
/ Win War
The Technology to Weapons Adoption Cycle
500-year-old
^

10. 500 Year-Old Technology Adoption Cycle (7)
• Technology Leadership is ephemeral
• Legacy systems create inertia for adoption of next
generation of disruptive tech
• Most tech disruption is driven by commercial
interests not DOD

11. Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
AI/ML
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Space
Cyber
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
BioTech
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Autonomy
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Hypersonics
Today - Multiple Tech Transitions

12. Result – Obsolescence of Existing Weapons and Doctrine

13. Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
AI/ML
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Space
Cyber
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
BioTech
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Autonomy
Technology
Innovation
Visionaries See
Military Application
Early Prototypes Not As
Good as Existing
Weapons
Incumbents
Fight to Keep
Status Quo
Winners Adopt
New Tech
Adoption Creates
New Doctrine
Offset
Strategy /
Win War
Hypersonics
Multiple Challenges
Disruptive Technology
most commercially available
X
2+3 Adversaries
near peer/regional/
Finite/Legacy
Budget
Designed for past threats
88 MDAP’s (Major Defense
Acquisition Programs)
• F-35/B-21/KC-46 aircraft
• Ford-Class Carriers
• Columbia-class SSBN
• Virginia-class SSN
• M-1 tank upgrades
al qaeda ISIS
China
Russia
North Korea
Iran
X
Adversaries Have New Doctrines/Operational Concepts
What Are Ours?

14. What Are Some Solutions?
• If we understand that tech to weapons is a recognizable pattern…
• Agile nations might develop an Innovation Doctrine
• A parallel process to the existing requirements and acquisition process
• For example, what if services continue to buy incremental improvements, but
each would set up parallel OTA-like acquisition for disruptive weapons and
doctrine
• Use combatant commands like SOCOM as early experiments
• What else might we do?

15. Guest Speaker: Max Boot
Max Boot is a historian, best-selling
author, columnist, and foreign-
policy analyst who has been
described by the International
Institute for Strategic Studies as one
of the “world’s leading authorities
on armed conflict.”
He is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior
fellow in national security studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations, a
columnist for the Washington Post,
and a Global Affairs Analyst for
CNN.