Concur, well done Minkus. @ Shane (below)... Although one can readily argue that UAVs are not niche, the application of said UAVs relative to Ukrainian paradigm (methodology and environment) is more so niche than current discussions often warrant.
This paper primarily poses the valid concern that split focus could potentially be weakening a US MIL area of excellence: major military acquisition. Getting and using "a large stick" has for more than a century served the US Military quite well. Recognizing such risks properly can only benefit US security thoroughness.
All of this being said, the strategic value of dispersed power (capability) and consolidated power remains paramount to leveraging Absolute Advantage. Similarly, rapidity in acquisition and flexibility in these acquiring-processes represents a future advantage that it would be absurd to overlook....
So, the issue is not "do one or do the other".... it is "how much", "when", "where and "how" such that the trade-offs are ultimately a positive net benefit, if done well a game-changing net benefit.
Good article overall. I actually wish more people would argue on behalf of long-term programmatic stability if only so the innovators can have a worthy foil.
It would help the author's case if he could point to any innovation that's occurred at N98 recently. Cause this reads a little like "people keep asking us but its hard." Also the author asserts that the Navy has a stable Naval Force Design plan that we can all look at and reference. The MARINES definitely have that, not sure about Big Navy.
I don't think the Russian Navy would view Ukrainian innovations in USVs as niche given that the Ukrainians have crippled Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Innovation must be measured by the value added and this metric allows integration of innovation initiatives into ordinary course budget processes. Isolating innovation in special units dooms it to failure precisely because it cannot be judged on an equal footing with other organizational requirements over time.
Concur, well done Minkus. @ Shane (below)... Although one can readily argue that UAVs are not niche, the application of said UAVs relative to Ukrainian paradigm (methodology and environment) is more so niche than current discussions often warrant.
This paper primarily poses the valid concern that split focus could potentially be weakening a US MIL area of excellence: major military acquisition. Getting and using "a large stick" has for more than a century served the US Military quite well. Recognizing such risks properly can only benefit US security thoroughness.
All of this being said, the strategic value of dispersed power (capability) and consolidated power remains paramount to leveraging Absolute Advantage. Similarly, rapidity in acquisition and flexibility in these acquiring-processes represents a future advantage that it would be absurd to overlook....
So, the issue is not "do one or do the other".... it is "how much", "when", "where and "how" such that the trade-offs are ultimately a positive net benefit, if done well a game-changing net benefit.
Great article and well written, Minkus! You have a unique perspective from where you sat and it's often hard to articulate the delicate balance.
Good article overall. I actually wish more people would argue on behalf of long-term programmatic stability if only so the innovators can have a worthy foil.
It would help the author's case if he could point to any innovation that's occurred at N98 recently. Cause this reads a little like "people keep asking us but its hard." Also the author asserts that the Navy has a stable Naval Force Design plan that we can all look at and reference. The MARINES definitely have that, not sure about Big Navy.
I don't think the Russian Navy would view Ukrainian innovations in USVs as niche given that the Ukrainians have crippled Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Innovation must be measured by the value added and this metric allows integration of innovation initiatives into ordinary course budget processes. Isolating innovation in special units dooms it to failure precisely because it cannot be judged on an equal footing with other organizational requirements over time.