Tate Nurkin joined me on the Acquisition Talk podcast to discuss China’s weapons technologies. He is the founder of the OTH Intelligence Group, and a non-resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council. We touch on a wide range of topics, including:
- Progress on civil-military integration
- Volume and velocity in Chinese development
- Advances in autonomous systems and drone swarms
- The fast pace of change in hypersonic missiles
- China’s PLA Navy shipbuilding
- How the United States needs to work better with other countries
- Kai-Fu Lee’s take on techno-utilitarianism
- The Army’s approach to Future Vertical Lift
Tate recognizes the rapid progress of China’s progress since the watershed 2013-2014 reforms, and indeed the number of Chinese firms marketing unmanned systems. For example, China has successfully demonstrated swarms of 119 UAVs and 56 unmanned surface maritime vessels. However, he argues that we have a tendency to overplay the challenges facing the United States defense industry, and underplay those facing China.
The Chinese defense industry still faces its own hurdles, including the inefficiency of state owned enterprises and persistent troubles developing aircraft engines. We should also treat the operational effectiveness of China’s hypersonic missile, the DF-17, with a dose of skepticism. Yet overall, it is impressive how fast China can get new applications out into the field. This should force the United States to think hard about the way it conducts business, and how that can be sped up to match the threat.
Podcast annotations.
I just got back from Abu Dhabi where I was attending the unmanned systems exposition. It’s an interesting place to go for a defense exposition because there were many providers displaying things. If you go to AUSA it’s predominantly American and European.
Even though it’s not a huge show, I was struck by the number of private Chinese companies displaying their unmanned systems. All from knock-offs of the Black Hornet UAV to much more sophisticated equipment. In many of these areas where we think the future of military capabilities is going, China’s private sector is getting engaged in a way that it hasn’t been in the past.
Of course China can require state owned enterprises and even private companies to participate in dual-use technologies. But perhaps it is more likely that they see defense applications as a profitable growth opportunity. One advantage is that the Chinese government seems to be able to iterate quickly — on commercial timelines.
Kai-fu Lee… talks about China having a techno-utilitarianism. The idea that they just want to get everything out there as soon as possible. It can either succeed of fail. But it gets out there. Develop it. Market it. That’s primarily on the commercial side, but I think some of that is starting to bleed into the development of some of these high tech enabled capabilities within the military.
Here’s a little more on that from a McKinsey interview with Kai-fu Lee:
… the Chinese government has always been techno-utilitarian, which means when it comes to new technology, it thinks, “Let’s get the technology out there. And of course, there will be issues that come up, and let’s course correct as they come up.”
As opposed to the Western countries, which tend to want to debate and resolve issues that may relate to privacy, security, bias, and explainable AI.
I must confess I tend to agree with the basic concept of techno-utilitarianism. It’s pragmatic and action-oriented. It relies on improvement by trial-and-error. It keeps open real options. And it’s friendly to commercial firms, not just because shorter timelines create cash flow advantages — it accelerates the number of projects to be competed over and lowers barriers to entry. Oddly enough, the Chinese approach better reflects market competition.
Of course, democracy and not just markets is the way to go. Not just because they are aesthetically desirable, but because they stimulate technological progress. But within that construct, the Pentagon should be able to move faster on starting, ramping up, or cancelling programs. Democratic principles do not conflict with permissionless innovation. Indeed, democratic principles emphasize the responsibility of the individual, such as military program officials, and empowers them to make choices within a legal framework.
The danger for the United States is not just losing out on dual-tech commercial technologies, but losing out on foreign military tech and potential partnerships. This comes from a number of stringent requirements, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS). More recently, supply chain concerns are putting additional pressure on securing the defense marketplace. Here is Tate on access to foreign suppliers:
The U.S. defense industry, in order to win contracts in these areas, is going to have to be able to work with local industry. China doesn’t have this problem. In fact, China is very aggressive in the way it engages local industry. There was this T LORAMIDS deal in Turkey where Chinese supplier was selected ahead of Raytheon, EuroSAM, and a Russian offering as well, to provide an integrated air defense system to Turkey. NATO said, ‘no way, we can’t allow this.’ The contract never came to fruition.
But after the selection of the Chinese company, the individual who ran the competition said ‘we did that because their cost was so much lower, and the advantages we got in terms of tech transfer, local workshare, co-development, were so much more.’ China’s been successful in building a nascent defense export business that engages these industries. They’re making unmanned systems in Saudi Arabia with Saudi Arabian companies.
Tate says that while he doesn’t expect China to get significant defense work with partners and NATO countries, in emerging markets China may fill a void — particularly for the lower-end capabilities. But it is not all doom and gloom. There are a lot of great things happening here in the United States that are advancing our security. For example, Tate points to the Army’s Future Vertical Lift program. It is using more commercial practices enabled by Other Transactions Authority and Middle-Tier Acquisition to speed up timelines.
The use of the OTAs can be helpful in a very big, very expensive program has been really interesting to me. I’ve been impressed. It adds a little flexibility as well not to be overly prescriptive in the requirements. We need this platform to do these things. How you do it is up to you. Between the OTA and not being overly prescriptive seems like an interesting approach.
I’d like to thanks Tate Nurkin for joining me on the Acquisition Talk podcast. Follow him on Twitter @TateNurkin. I highly recommend you read the study he led at IHS, “China’s Advanced Weapons Systems.” I’ve excerpted some of that here. Listen to his podcast with CSIS, “UAV Technology in China.” I invite you to read his paper, “A candle in the dark: US national security strategy for artificial intelligence,” co-authored with Stephen Rodriguez and with a forward by former DepSec Ash Carter. Tate has testified before Congress a few times, such as for “Implications of China’s Military Modernization” and “Hearing on China’s Space and Counterspace Programs.” Read some additional articles here.
Leave a Reply