Exclusive: The Pentagon's software-hardware tug of war
There's a balance to be struck between defense software and hardware; without one, your targeting's bricked, and without the other, you're not seizing airfields.
The problem is the Pentagon has yet to find the sweet spot.
Why it matters: In a world of robots, autonomous weapons and global supply chains, conflicts will be swayed by the team that refreshes its code quicker and shares its information more accurately.
A hypothetical war with China in 2027 will be fought with what the U.S. military hasin hand right now.
Driving the news: An Atlantic Council report — the product of more than a year of work and 60-plus interviews, first shared with Axios — sheds light on this era of " software-defined warfare."
Such a dynamic "is about ensuring we have sufficient numbers of systems, as technologically advanced as possible, at the moment of need," Stephen Rodriguez, the commission director, told me.
What's inside: Here are some of the commission's conclusions:
The U.S. military is still moored to an acquisition system "ill-suited to the rapid tempo of modern technological innovation." This status quo puts the country "at significant risk."
The Defense Department lacks "sufficient software expertise," hamstringing capabilities that harness "critical technology areas including AI, autonomy, and cyber." Training is needed all the way up the chain. Academia can help.
While long-term reform is necessary, what's needed today is "near-term, high-impact initiatives to bridge" the gap and "reestablish an advantage." Beijing, meanwhile, is aligning industrial policies and resources to the digital domain.
Stateside service chiefs should identify a program executive office to oversee how — and ensure that — disparate tech can communicate. This is Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control in action.
The Defense Department should, by default, purchase software, not build it. When the department "decides to develop custom software, this often results in higher costs, longer schedules, and increased risks."
It also needs a software cadre, and that requires recruiting dozens of specialists to be spread far and wide, including at operational commands and in budget offices.
What they're saying: "DoD has made some decent progress on software adoption, but we're still doing it in siloed fiefdoms and not always with broader, more strategic outcomes in mind," Whitney McNamara, one of the report's authors, told Axios.
"Our software-enabled capabilities won't move the mark on the battlefield if they can't talk to one another."
Inside the room: The commissioners, contributors and staff are a who's who of industry, government and financiers. The roster includes:
Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet
Helsing cofounder Gundbert Scherf
Trae Stephens of Founders Fund and Anduril Industries fame
Saab executive and former Task Force 59 commodore Michael Brasseur
Adam Hammer at Roadrunner Venture Studios
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper
Former Pentagon weapons buyer Ellen Lord
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clinton Hinote
The bottom line: The Pentagon "buys metal well, because buying metal is an Industrial Age process. They perfectly define a requirement, then they spend years building the thing," Second Front CEO Tyler Sweatt, also a study commissioner, said in an interview.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
UN Nuclear Watchdog Humiliates Trump With Brutal Iran Assessment
The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has obliterated President Donald Trump's claims about the efficacy of the United States' strikes on Iran. Rafael Grossi said American B-2 bombers did not cause total damage—or 'completely and totally obliterate,' as Trump said—to the Iranian nuclear program. Instead, he estimates Tehran can restart enriching uranium again 'in a matter of months.' Grossi's remarks are a blow to Trump and his administration, which has dismissed a leaked attack assessment from U.S. intelligence—which reached a similar conclusion as Rossi—as incomplete and untrue since CNN first reported on it Wednesday. 'The capacities they have are there,' Grossi told CBS News' Face The Nation about Iran's nuclear program. 'They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.' Grossi, 64, is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency—the agency that conducts inspections at nuclear sites around the world. He noted that the U.S. military had 'severely damaged' a trio of Iranian nuclear sites. Still, he said there is no indication that the program has been set back years, as the White House and Pentagon claim. 'It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage,' he said. The Argentine added of Iran, 'If they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.' The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast. A hotly contested debate has erupted over whether Iran was able to remove enriched uranium from its facilities ahead of the U.S. dropping bunker buster bombs. Trump says Iran was not able to, while Tehran insists that it did. Grossi said it is not clear. He noted that Iran said it was taking protective measures ahead of the strike, which would logically include moving uranium—its most crucial material—from nuclear sites, assuming they were able to. The director made clear his goal was not to undercut Trump. He pushed for a diplomatic solution with Iran, pointing out that the country has not always been truthful with U.N. inspectors over its potential progress toward a nuclear weapon. He said his watchdog group has found traces of uranium in Iran outside its three known nuclear enrichment sites. 'We were asking for years, 'Why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y, or z?'' he said. 'And we were simply not getting credible answers.' Inspectors have been shut out of Iran entirely since Israel attacked it on June 13, Grossi said. He pushed the country to let the U.N. in again. Grossi also noted that prior checks in Iran did not reveal proof that it was nearing the completion of a nuclear weapon—a conclusion also reached by United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard earlier this year. Gabbard has since changed her tune to say that Iran was indeed months away from producing a nuclear bomb after Trump called her assessment 'wrong.' Grossi said Iran's secrecy made it hard to be certain. 'We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending,' he said.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in ‘matter of months'
The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium 'in a matter of months,' contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades. Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported on by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months. While the final military and intelligence assessment has yet to come, Trump has repeatedly claimed to have 'completely and totally obliterated' Tehran's nuclear program. The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran began earlier this month when Israel launched an unprecedented attack it said aimed at preventing Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The US then struck three key Iranian nuclear sites before a ceasefire began. The extent of the damage to Tehran's nuclear program has been hotly debated ever since. US military officials have in recent days provided some new information about the planning of the strikes, but offered no new evidence of their effectiveness against Iran's nuclear program. Following classified briefings this week, Republican lawmakers acknowledged the US strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran's nuclear materials – but argued that this was never part of the military's mission. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported on Sunday the US had obtained intercepted messages in which senior Iranian officials discussing the attacks said they were not as destructive as they anticipated. Asked about the different assessments, Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS's 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan': 'This hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is not a good idea.' 'The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,' he told Brennan, according to a transcript released ahead of the broadcast. 'It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage,' Grossi went on to say. 'Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.' Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes. 'We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending.' CNN has asked the White House for comment on Grossi's claims. Asked about Grossi's interview with CBS, one US official pointed to comments the IAEA chief had previously made that described 'a very serious level of damage.' 'As Rafael Grossi said just days ago, the difference between Iran's nuclear program before and after Operation Midnight Hammer is 'night and day,' and a 'very serious level of damage' was done,' the official said. 'Iran has no air defenses, so the idea that they can just start rebuilding a nuclear weapons program is nonsense. As the President (Donald Trump) has said, Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon,' added the official. In his interview with CBS, Grossi also stressed the need for the IAEA to be granted access to Iran, to assess nuclear activities. He said Iran had been disclosing information to the agency up until recent Israeli and US strikes, but that 'there were some things that they were not clarifying to us.' 'In this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view,' he said. 'What I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers.' The initial Pentagon assessment said Tehran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked but Trump has insisted nothing was moved. 'It's logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it (moving the material). But, as I said, we don't know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days,' Grossi told Brennan. Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program. Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons. CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed reporting.
Axios
8 hours ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Spinwheel raises $30M to streamline debt management
Spinwheel, a fintech startup focused on consumer debt management, raised $30 million in Series A funding, CEO Tomás Campos tells Axios exclusively. Why it matters: Debt management solutions remain fragmented and difficult for users to manage effectively. How it works: Spinwheel helps fintech platforms and banks authenticate users, automate data retrieval and facilitate payments, reducing the friction of managing consumer debt. With a person's phone number and date of birth, the company can find and connect to all of an end user's liability accounts and make payments on their behalf. "We decided we're not going to depend on the user and password because the friction is too high and it doesn't prove it's actually the user," Campos says. The big picture: Consumer fintechs face challenges in getting users to authenticate and connect all of their various financial accounts. High friction from login requirements often leads to user drop-off and incomplete financial pictures. Between the lines: The company's unique feature is combining data aggregation capabilities, like those of Plaid, with payment processing functionality similar to Stripe's. "We're not just aggregating data. We're actually a payment network that can automate real transactions for consumers," Campos says. Flashback: Spinwheel initially focused on student loan repayment but pivoted to a broader approach to managing various types of consumer debt. Customers now include PFM platforms like Monarch Money, marketplaces like NerdWallet or Credit Karma, and lenders. By the numbers: Spinwheel has connected over $1.5 trillion in consumer liabilities across 165 million accounts since its founding. It has processed over 50 million AI-powered payment transactions, leading to revenue increasing 760% over the past 18 months. Zoom in: F-Prime Capital led the round, which included participation from QED Investors, Foundation Capital and Fika Ventures.
