{"id":30556,"date":"2021-09-09T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-09T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2021\/09\/09\/redefining-disruption-a-plan-to-upgrade-defense-innovation\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T22:35:27","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T22:35:27","slug":"redefining-disruption-a-plan-to-upgrade-defense-innovation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/commentary\/2021\/09\/09\/redefining-disruption-a-plan-to-upgrade-defense-innovation\/","title":{"rendered":"Redefining disruption: A plan to upgrade defense innovation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Since World War II, our military technological superiority has served as the linchpin of the global international order, helping create and sustain an extended period of global peace, security and unparalleled economic growth. This claim seems risible in the wake of recent events in Afghanistan<\/a>. While the efforts of our men and women in uniform, those at the embassy, and veterans and contractors have been actually heroic in evacuating more than 100,000 people in a matter of days, we cannot reasonably continue to make policy or spend money in future similar scenarios like we did in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this essay isn\u2019t about policymaking in Congress and the administration, or even about defense budgeting. It\u2019s about drawing a useful lesson, one that was so well-articulated by Ezra Klein<\/a>: \u201cToo much agreement can be as toxic to a political system as too much disagreement. The alternative to polarization is often the suppression of dissenting viewpoints. If the parties agree with each other, then they have incentive to marginalize those who disagree with both of them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you swap out \u201cpolitical system\u201d for \u201ctechnology development,\u201d and \u201cparties\u201d for \u201cprime defense contractors,\u201d the challenges we face become clear. New and divergent approaches should be welcomed, not suppressed; they should be sought out, not swatted away. Disruption should be redefined for the world we live in, not prior eras that we have emerged from, neatly or messily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Operationally, the U.S. military suffers a readiness crisis because of antiquated rules and cultural norms for how the government works with the commercial sector in developing new technologies. This can\u2019t continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It may come as a surprise to some that the private sector \u2014 not government \u2014 is the leading investor in the research and development that underpins what should be next-generation military technology. Hundreds of companies working on self-driving cars, highly engineered spare aircraft parts and everything in between devote significant resources to beating their competitors in the private sector. But far too many stay away from the defense market because there is so much friction \u2014 because their \u201cviewpoints\u201d are \u201csuppressed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How so? First, they must navigate a gauntlet of burdensome regulations that don\u2019t exist in the private sector. Second, they can lose control of aspects of their intellectual property, which threatens viability in many commercial markets. Third, there is significant reputational risk in the Capital Beltway market, which chases headlines and clicks regardless of their veracity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These conditions weaken the defense-industrial base. At a time when venture capital investment breaks new records every quarter, and a decade of progress on technology can now be demonstrated in a matter of months, the military ecosystem is going backward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are just five major prime contractors<\/a>; they are loath to compete with one another, and they can and do block new entrants. Further, the Center for Strategic and International Studies found<\/a> that the number of first-tier defense vendors declined by roughly 17,000 companies, or 20 percent, between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress can help by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n