DEPSECDEF Hicks's "Replicator" Speech: 80% Cringe, 20% Excellence

just say no to transformationalists

Serious times require serious leaders to communicate serious solutions in a serious way.

We do not need people who are steering the future of our military picking up the methods, intonations, or practices of late night TV salesmen, the exaggeration and appeal to emotion of televangelists, or the earnestness of the most cringe inducing TedX talk personalities.

We are not selling time shares.

We do not need to try to pretend we are tech-bro hype-men.

As with many of the pebbles in our Terrible 20s shoe, this started in earnest in the 1990s. From TQL to the Transformationalism … one would hope by now that even the most easily swayed amongst us would have developed a protective armor of applied cynicism for anyone offering that - FLASH - they have the secret to a real easy button.

No kidding! It works!

No. It isn’t going to be easy or quick. It also isn’t a mystery.

Do we have challenges right now? Sure do - but most of them derived from the iterative layering of one bad easy-button crusade after another in order avoid the harder - but proven - path to simply follow the best practices of decades, centuries really, of how to properly build, maintain, and project power.

Update your tools - but keep the culture and practices that worked last time. Shed those that did not.

Today we’re going to return to the topic we discussed here on 29 AUG; DEPSECDEF Hick’s “Replicator.”

We had hints earlier this week what was coming, but yesterday she gave a speech better outlining her plan during the lunch at the Defense News Conference.

This is a 80/20 speech. It almost reads like it was written by two people. 80% by someone from the ShamWow school of sales,

…and the last 20% written by a sober professional along the lines of Vince the Great;

Pick your player.

So, shall we dive in?

The snarky Executive Summary is that on balance this whole “Replicator” effort smells of another flash in the pan to eat up time and money while distracting us from the very real and required hard work of building a Navy ready to meet the challenging growing west of the International Date Line.

However, there are some good things here, and if the energy and drive is refocused in a few places, can really do some good…but is just looks ohhhh tooo familiar.

… over the past two-and-a-half years, we've taken a comprehensive, iterative, warfighter-centric approach — recognizing that we face an accumulation of challenges. There is no silver bullet when it comes to innovation.

Along the way, we've never wavered from our ultimate objective, which is delivering safe and reliable, combat-credible capabilities at speed and scale to America's warfighters — so that they can deter aggression, and win if they are called to fight.

Yes, yes, as everyone mostly does … but from here there is a <checks notes> proposal for a silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. There are no magic beans.

The shaping part of the speech has some interesting points that vibe more with the last 20% of the speech than the rest.

…the PRC, has spent the last 20 years building a modern military carefully crafted to blunt the operational advantages we've enjoyed for decades.

Yes they have. And what have they done? They’ve built the hard power that is required to take, hold, and secure territory and project power from the sea.

But the one advantage that they can never blunt, steal, or copy — because it's embedded in our people — is American ingenuity: our ability to innovate, change the game, and in the military sphere, to imagine, create, and master the future character of warfare.

Before we pull our shoulder out of joint patting ourselves on the back, we need to be a bit more humble. Humility is a force multiplier…or sump’n.

Yes, we have a narrowing advantage in innovation and certain high technology, but in many places - such as drones used in the Russo-Ukrainian War - PRC technology is better, more reliable and more affordable.

Again, I ask everyone to listen to the July 24th “Geopolitics Decanted” podcast on the actual performance of drones in Ukraine - especially the opinion of USA vs PRC produced drones.

Everything Hicks mentions in the pull quote may be true, but it did not give us victory in Afghanistan. Nor Iraq. Syria and the general response to the Arab Spring was not a ringing success. Do we need to discuss Libya, or have I made my point?

Our ingenuity did not stop us from losing an entire generation of shipbuilding. It did not stop us from deindustrializing our shipbuilding industry. Our innovation did not force us to extend the F-15 production line or restart the Arleigh Burke DDG.

We need less Up With People and more Gods of the Copybook Headings.

We have a stronger starting position, as a free and open society of imaginative inventors, doers, and problem-solvers.

Yes we do - but the DOD nomenklatura, swamps of rent seekers, and an Ottomaneque bureaucracy of our own creation blunts them. Are we investing time in fixing the systemic problem we all see so the future has a better path to prosper, or are we selling another over-promised and probably under-delivered vaporware shortcut that feels great to say now, but later makes no significant shadows on ramps; displaces no amount of water?

In the post-9/11 wars, we sprinted to counter the scourge of roadside bombs with Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicles, blast gauges, and more.

For Afghanistan alone, we fielded 8,000 all-terrain MRAPs in 16 months, with procurement, production, and process innovations.

I’m sorry - that is a false history. It took a hissy fit to get the uparmored vehicles out of CONUS and forward deployed. MRAPS showed up YEARS later than they were asked for - and again - were slow rolled. The requirement for both were known from decades of lessons learned from the inventors of MRAPS, Apartheid South Africa, and our own experience in Somalia in the early 90s.

The MRAP battle? I lived this. It was not a tale of success.

Let me quote then Senator now President Biden from 2007;

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and long-time advocate of building and deploying more life-saving Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) issued the following statement today after the Pentagon announced that only 1,500 - rather than the planned 3,500 - Mine Resistant Vehicles would be delivered to Iraq by year's end:

"This is outrageous and another example of this Administration's gross mismanagement of this war. We know that 70 percent of casualties in Iraq come from road-side bombs and these Mine Resistant Vehicles can reduce those casualties by two-thirds - so getting MRAPS into the field needs to be a national priority. Instead of being told about delays, I want to hear how we're going to do better. This nation knows how to make steel and trucks and the American people will do what it takes to get our troops the equipment they need, but the President needs to make it his top priority. Our troops are being killed and these vehicles save lives. No more delays; no more excuses."

Why are so many people in the military space so cynical? Why does no one believe much of what our senior people say?

This.

We were there. We lived it. We remember. We are tired of being bullsh1tted.

So, bullsh1t.

It is fair for people to think that if you are trying to bullsh1t them about the past, why wouldn’t you bullsh1t them about the future?

Back to talking about the present;

Last week, I announced our Replicator initiative — the latest effort to overcome the production valley of death, beginning with accelerating the scaling of all-domain attritable autonomous systems.

OK, “production valley of death” is a new attempt to explain our self-imposed accretion encumbered acquisition system. A bit opaque, but I’ll allow it.

We continue to not address the core problem, but want to find patches and workarounds. We have this overburdened ship with low free board and a long righting arm that before we deploy to heavy seas updates the wardroom furniture and installs a new radar on the mast then announces all the enhanced warfighting lethality we’ve created. Sure.

Then there are the word games. I guess “autonomous system” is this week’s “uncrewed” which replaced the other week’s “unmanned” … I think.

Whatever we are calling them this FY, regardless of what we purchase we need to quit selling them as THE future. They are part of the future, but they will not be IT. They will support the main effort, not be the supported.

Then there is the introduction of the clunky the “all-domain attritable autonomous systems” though? Man, that sounds clunky. It is almost as if … oh no … don’t tell me …

With Replicator, we're beginning with all-domain, attritable autonomy, or ADA2, to help us overcome the PRC's advantage in mass: more ships, more missiles, more forces.

In the name of all that is holy, we only just got people to understand A2AD and now we’re introducing <checks notes just in case> ADA2?

Well, time to learn Mandarin I guess.

At DoD, we've already been investing in attritable autonomous systems — across the military services, DIU, the Strategic Capabilities Office, and the combatant commands themselves — and in multiple domains: self-piloting ships, uncrewed aircraft, and more.

Yes, we have … for decades. If you open the aperture a bit - centuries. None of this is new. We are evolving as existing technology evolves. Why can’t we simply say this? Why must we go all Home Shopping Network on it?

Now is the time to scale, with systems that are harder to plan for, harder to hit, and harder to beat than those of potential competitors.

OK, this is good and doable...but before we go to scale, we need to make sure we have an operationally effective platform that will meet the very real space and time requirements that dominate the INDO-PACIFIC theater. Have we learned nothing from LCS?

We don’t have that right now. If that is our fight, we don’t have anything to scale.

Since we need to break through barriers and catalyze change with urgency, we've set a big goal for Replicator: to field attritable autonomous systems at a scale of multiple thousands, in multiple domains, within the next 18-to-24 months.

If that is our timeline, then we need those systems IOC … today. Like, right now. What are they? Where are their production lines? Where are their supply chains coming from? Define “multiple thousands.”

All-domain, attritable autonomous systems will help overcome the PRC challenge of anti-access, area-denial systems. Our ADA2 to thwart their A2AD.

She went there, didn’t she. She crossed the ADA2 and A2AD streams in the same sentence.

We are going to counter real, existing, already scaled and still in production and modernization tranches today … with vaporware we cannot show our math with?

…question, #2: Some have asked, "how will DoD accomplish its goals for Replicator? If you're not asking for new money, how are you paying for it?"

As I said last week, we will leverage the Deputy's Innovation Steering Group — brand new — which the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I co-chair. Every key DoD stakeholder will have a seat at the table: combatant commanders; military departments, service secretaries and service chiefs; and OSD component heads.

So, the solution to an accretion encumbered bureaucratic system is to <checks notes, as I seem to need to do a lot here> create yet another layer of bureaucracy and demand time from other already existing bureaucracies overtasked with already existing projects they are underperforming on? That’s the plan?

Our task through this initiative is bringing leadership across the department around that DISG table to help ensure those ripe enough to scale actually do get scaled, by elevating and accelerating what we do and cutting red tape, so they're delivered to warfighters in 18-to-24 months. And DIU's Doug Beck will directly assist me and the Vice Chairman in driving forward progress, helping to catalyze that whole DoD innovation ecosystem.

And let me give a particular shout-out to two leaders who've helped us lead the way: Under Secretary Heidi Shyu, who helped move us down the path through the original Innovation Steering Group. And Under Secretary Bill LaPlante, who has been leading our Competitive Advantage Pathfinders work that has, well, been a pathfinder for this effort.

This is laudable, but a short term fix to a larger problem. As opposed to getting as much duct tape and bailing wire within reach to form another kludge, who in Congress is DEPSECDEF working with to fix the clearly counterproductive system she and everyone else is trying to work around? It was created by us - it can be fixed by us. Previous generations with no computers and fewer people performed “transformative” advances better.

…question #3: "What types of platforms and missions will you look at?"

Our selection process will be driven by what warfighters need now, what is ready enough to scale, and where our attention and authorities — especially mine and the Vice Chairman's — can get the job done. 

Oh. 18-24 months again … and we don’t know the platforms? Oh.

Imagine distributed pods of self-propelled ADA2 systems afloat, powered by the sun and other virtually-limitless resources, packed with sensors aplenty, enough to give us new, reliable sources of information in near-real-time.

Imagine? Is that the plan adjacent to hope? How about explain how they are powered. How are they maintained? Range and endurance? Seaworthiness? EW hardened, how? Tempest hazard issues? Protected from being picked up by a maritime militia fishing boat … how?

Imagine fleets of ground-based ADA2 systems delivering novel logistics support, scouting ahead to keep troops safe, or securing DoD infrastructure.

Powered again by what? Terrain? Range? Payload? Works from Bear Island in February to Ali Al Salem in August?

Imagine constellations of ADA2 systems on orbit, flung into space scores at a time, numbering so many that it becomes impossible to eliminate or degrade them all.

This is mostly just StarLink that Emperor Elon, First of His Name, is already doing….but yes…but local degradation is still going to be here … and NEO is easy to “dirty up” in a major war.

Here's what might really surprise some of you — you don't need much imagination for what I just described, because in several instances, we've already seen the adoption of systems that are small, smart, cheap, and many.

Yes, thank you … then why play “hypeman” to a group of people who are already in the defense information space?

As for more details, we will be deliberate about what we share publicly — though we will be working with industry, Congress, and allies and partners in everything that we do. And some things, we will only reveal at a time and place and manner of our choosing. 

Oh, yes … the details. So, we are 14 months aways from the next election - 14 of your 24 months, and you expect everyone to focus on this project? Do we have a start date here … or is it 06SEP2023?

OK … now hold on, this are about to pivot real fast.

Remember I told you this was a 80/20 speech? Well, most of the 80 is behind us, now we enter the better, more grounded and really what reads like a second author part of the speech;

Remember, these aren't ships or aircraft that we'll be using for the next 30-to-50 years. ADA2 systems are things we might use for 3-to-5 years, before we move on to the next thing — as we must, given a dynamic, fast-moving adversary and the pace of innovation. We can never take our military superiority for granted.

This is correct. This is a solid mindset, but until we address the dead hand of our existing procurement bureaucracy and its nomenklatura, it will never bear the fruit we want.

But don't forget that integrating autonomy into weapon systems is nothing new for DoD. We know how to do it responsibly. In fact, we've done it so far for decades, from AEGIS destroyers to ship- and ground-based Phalanx defense systems. And we've continually gotten better at it.

Another solid statement. Why not use this as the core of the argument and not Tomorrowland futurist sounding stuff?

Our goal always is to deter, because competition does not mean conflict. We must ensure the PRC leadership wakes up every day, considers the risks of aggression, and concludes, "today is not the day" — and not just today, but every day, now and for the foreseeable future.

But we also must be ready if aggression comes. And that readiness focus and energy extends not just to the force, but also to all of us. We never want to find ourselves in a situation where, in the words of Secretary Bob Gates, "the troops are at war, but the Pentagon is not."

Hicks goes Salamander, in a fashion. Airtight.

If she would ditch the 80% cringe and focus on this … she could bring in a lot of allies and grow her personal capital outside the obsequious masses around her.

So from the Pentagon, to Congress, to industry and beyond — we must be bold, we must be determined, and we must move with urgency and unity of purpose, to ensure we can maintain the peace and have our troops ready for whatever may come.

Yes we should - but to do so we need to act on, and talk about, the very real hard work that must be done to fight the very real kinetic fight against a larger adversary west of the International Date Line who is positioning herself to supplant our position on the world … at our cost.

The PRC is serious and she is waiting for an opportunity to step out on the world stage. If we fool ourselves via some transformationalist offset wishcasting that in the near “out years” simply forces us to lose another generation of fleet building and aircraft development while pouring money down rat holes … then the PRC did not win the future, we will fumble it.