China: Effectively Managing Complex Military-Technical Transformation
In both cases, this analysis focuses on transferable best practices that could be adapted within the context of the U.S.
Many Chinese and Israeli practices may not be relevant in the U.S. The United States is neither a single-party authoritarian state nor a small country with universal military service. Practices that enable its efficiency in military innovation could be highly transferable to the U.S. While not a peer in terms of size, Israel is also a free-market democracy with a private-sector defense innovation base and a commitment to military technological superiority.
Nonetheless, the ability of the tiny “startup nation” to rapidly and affordably bring unique capabilities to the field is leading the United States to import some of its novel defense products, such as the Iron Dome missile defense system and the Trophy active defense system for armored vehicles. Its defense budget is less than one-thirtieth that of the United States. Second, Israel is remarkable for its ability to produce maximum military innovation with limited resources. competitor, with a similarly large and complex defense enterprise, China’s practices could be applicable to U.S. 7 Absorption, even theft, of foreign technologies has been part of its strategy, but is only part of a much more complex picture. It has achieved its remarkable gains despite military budgets less than half the size of those of the United States. First, China’s rapid technological rise is the main impetus behind the U.S. Two national case studies are particularly relevant. global peers in military innovation? Could some of these practices be adapted within the U.S. Are similar practices helping to enable the most successful U.S. industrial firms in the 1980s and 1990s, the United States reacted in part by identifying and adapting the key practices, such as Kaizen and Total Quality Management, that were enabling the outperformance of Japanese industry. When Japanese companies made competitive gains against U.S. The United States has been in similar situations before. DOD and the Services are seeking to identify and implement the supporting acquisition practices that can accelerate disruptive innovation. 5 These changes feature a renewed emphasis on promoting disruptive innovations that can deliver leap-ahead advances in military capability, changing the character of military operations and providing sustained advantage for U.S. Army Futures Command and the publication of an ambitious new Air Force Science and Technology Strategy. Examples include the establishment of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense the creation of the U.S. 4ĭepartment of Defense (DOD) and military Service leaders are making strategic-level changes to accelerate innovation. military technological prowess by 2020 and surpass it by the 2030s if Washington does not react quickly. Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that China could achieve its goal of equaling U.S. 3 Nonetheless, it has modernized so rapidly that in 2018 the Vice Chairman of the U.S. 2 China, in particular, possessed almost no modern-generation military systems prior to 2000. 1 Meanwhile, Great Power competitors including China and Russia have worked to quickly close the technology gap with the United States. As a result, many of today’s frontline systems are upgraded versions of those used in the Gulf War almost 30 years ago. defense research and development (R&D) during that time focused on delivering incremental innovations to address capability gaps in existing systems and warfighting concepts. Since the end of the Cold War, the military has been largely occupied with relatively low-tech counterterrorism and counterinsurgency conflicts against non-peer adversaries. military’s technological advantage is under threat.