🧠 Replicator, Congress, & next-gen ground combat vehicles
Heading to GVSETS next week? Come try out our rig.
Welcome back to the Nexus Newsletter, Applied Intuition Defense’s biweekly newsletter covering the latest in national security, autonomy, and software-defined warfare.
Coming to GVSETS? We want to learn more about your team’s work to build tomorrow’s ground combat vehicles. We will be at booth #702 and at the SAIC booth where you can try out our rig to learn more about the work we do. To mark GVSETS week, in today's newsletter, we will riff on some of the hot topics shaping defense technology and ground combat vehicle development.
But first, we have thoughts on recent comments from Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks on Replicator 👇
💸 Top of mind: Replicator and Congress
Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks this week spoke candidly about her Replicator initiative during her keynote address at the NDIA Emerging Technologies for Defense conference. Breaking Defense reported that Hicks, while acknowledging the support Replicator has received from Capitol Hill, asked lawmakers to “substantially expand” trust in the initiative in order to transform the Department of Defense (DOD) at speed and scale.
Key quote: “‘Now, we couldn’t do this without Congress,’ Hicks acknowledged as she reached the end of her speech. ‘We’re grateful for their bipartisan, bicameral support, across both authorizers and appropriators. … Do not take it for granted.’
‘But,’ she went on, her tone hardening, ‘if this country is going to transform its defense at the speed and scale we need, Congressional trust will need to substantially expand.’
On Replicator specifically, ‘we’ve done nearly 40 Hill briefings since last October, averaging about one a week,’ she said. ‘That’s on an initiative that represents 0.059 percent of DoD’s budget. That depth of engagement isn’t scalable for Congress across the breadth of what we’re trying to accomplish.’
Congress also needs to back off of the related but distinct Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve (RDER), Hicks said. This comes less than a week after Senate appropriators suggested RDER should be cut and funds moved to Replicator, which prompted a rare public rebuttal from Pentagon R&D chief Heidi Shyu, arguing that RDER played a vital role in vetting new tech that Replicator could then buy in bulk.”
Our take: We commend Hicks and others at DOD on their creativity and leadership on Replicator, and we commend Congress for taking a bet on Replicator by fully funding the initiative. Both DOD and Congress share a desire to deliver commercially proven technology to the warfighter at the speed of relevance. What does “relevance” actually mean? Faster. And Replicator is certainly a key component of this.
Some tension between the executive and legislative branches is not only inevitable, but healthy. With the significant reprogramming of funding in the year of execution on an initiative so high-profile, it is only natural Congress will seek more information. Often, congressional oversight can help disparate entities in DOD coordinate better and formulate cohesive strategies and outcomes. With an initiative so cross-cutting like Replicator, congressional oversight is likely needed.
Yet, in addition to passing on-time budgets, Congress must ensure that it is doing its homework engaging industry experts so it can ask the right questions.
How is Replicator taking advantage of commercial best practices when it comes to software? How can Replicator make sure it is prioritizing software versus just the hardware so that disparate software systems are integrated in a dev and T&E pipeline? Congress should avoid blanket skepticism and avoid political points, while rewarding and protecting those that are willing to put their own reputation and careers on the line to achieve change in bureaucracy.
Trust is not given — it is built over time. Hopefully, Replicator will not only yield repeatable acquisition strategies, but also provide successive experiences that build trust between Congress and the executive branch that is so needed to take on our near peer adversaries.
💡 Defense tech x next-gen ground combat vehicles
With GVSETS approaching, we wanted to share a few thoughts on some news items ahead of the conference that intersect ground combat vehicle development and defense technology.
Retrofitting legacy combat vehicles with software-defined capabilities
Story: Army requesting humvee anti-lock brake and stability control retrofits (Inside Defense)
Key quote: “The Army is asking industry to manufacture antilock brake and stability control systems for the service's humvee fleet in a decade-long effort to reduce fatalities resulting from rollovers, according to a public notice.
Issued as a sources-sought notice, interested manufacturers are ‘to design, develop, manufacture, supply and install/troubleshoot an anti-lock brake system with electronic stability control retrofit kit onto the high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle that meets the requirements defined in the ABS/ESC Retrofit Kit Army Tank Purchase Description,’ the Monday announcement reads.
The announcement is part of the Army’s effort to retrofit its humvee fleet with kits designed to prevent rollovers by 2035, which have resulted in nine deaths.”
Sadly, it is becoming far too common to read about servicemembers tragically losing their lives due to accidents that could be prevented. According to the Inside Defense article, the Army wants to retrofit its humvee fleet to prevent rollovers by 2035.
Retrofitting military vehicles with new tech can improve safety and functionality of military vehicles. But not all retrofits have to be physical, like enhanced training and simulation. Software-defined capabilities can be retrofitted onto legacy combat vehicles in order to increase safety and prevent rollover deaths. As with on/off-road vehicles produced in the automotive industry, tomorrow’s ground combat vehicles will need to rapidly adapt to ever-changing battlefield conditions. A scalable and modular vehicle software platform is needed to transform legacy ground systems into modern, safe, and cost-effective combat systems.
The Army is moving out on this work. In January, Inside Defense reported that Army acquisition chief Doug Bush called on Congress to inject more funding to speed up humvee safety retrofits. Bush told the publication that more funding from lawmakers could allow the service to speed up the retrofitting effort “six years” ahead of its 2035 schedule.
XM30
Story: XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle: Why the U.S. Army Needs This (The National Interest)
Key quote: “The XM30 will replace the Bradley fighting vehicle, bringing new transformational capabilities to lethality, soldier-vehicle survivability, and upgrade ability beyond the physical and economic limits of the Bradley,” said Douglas R. Bush, assistant secretary of the Army, Acquisitions, Logistics, and Technology. “The modular open system architecture that the XM30 will allow new building technology to be added to the vehicles as that technology matures, ensuring an overwhelming advantage in any potential adversary competition.”
We are proud to be part of this project and agree with the views of BG Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team, who is quoted in the article, that it is transformational and not just an incremental improvement. The XM30 is not just a replacement for the Bradley — It is a replacement for an entire system of delivering capability. Notably, the XM30’s modular open system architecture (MOSA) will allow for faster integration of new cutting edge capabilities.
Abrams tank
Story: A lighter, high-tech Abrams tank is taking shape (Defense News)
Key quote: “I think that there would be real goodness for the Army if M30 combat vehicles and M1E3 tanks could be fielded simultaneously to an [armored brigade combat team],” Norman said. “I think the Army senior leaders are going to push us to try to align those schedules, and whether that can be done is an open question right now.”
At this time, there are more questions than answers on what the Army is planning for the new variant for the Abrams tank. As stated above, the XM30 is a trailblazer of sorts. If the goal is to field the M1E3 on the same timeline as the XM30, we imagine both programs are working closely together to ensure lessons learned are resulting in best of breed products. We believe that engineering change requirements that don’t reflect autonomy requirements will be a step backward. Adapting to rapidly changing battlefield conditions and crew reduction call for autonomy integration.
That’s all for today’s newsletter. 📲 Don’t forget to follow us on LinkedIn and X. See you next time!