Dedicated Navy PEO’s for the 3 main war fighting domains make sense, but not across the entire Navy enterprise of surface ships, aviation, and undersea war fighting. Different kill chains, conops/conemp, tactical mission threads, and VERY different vehicle types and technologies; and common solutions for all unmanned often do not consider the domain and warfighting challenges of each one, and they often clash due to SWAP-C and host platform architectures.
It could be worse… I was in PMA263 when it was the only unmanned program office, let alone sharing a PEO with weapons programs.
And to be clear, it is the Resource Sponsors in OPNAV that decide POM and program priorities, not the PEOs; with unmanned programs still competing with other capabilities in warfighting portfolios for resource constrained funding.
I think too what you see in Navy is a limited number of Flag billets to satisfy the proper management of emerging warfighting capabilities, and SECDEF’s 20% reduction in Flag/GO billets will only exacerbate the scarcity of senior leader positional rank for unmanned.
Bottom line is that there is no easy solution right now, but something to keep an eye on and work towards.
Is establishing another PEO stovepipe the only solution? It may be the best way to get improvements quickly, but not sure it's the ultimate solution.
I agree that UxS need better visibility and resourcing, just not sure a PEO is the way to go. May need to relook the entire PEO/PM/PdM breakout to see where we are actually failing to get resources where they need to do.
Also need to consider how AI fits within these new PEOs. Best option will be to bake-in AI during system design & development. Costs can be captured as part of the overall system lifecycle.
But there will also be the need to add AI to existing systems. AI that may come from outside the prime and subs that own development of the uncrewed system.
Vertical integration would be optimal, but the PEOs will also need a plan for bringing in the most current software from outside vendors, and sustaining it at a rapid CI/CD pace once the uncrewed system is fielded.
Those costs might have to be treated separately, depending on who’s doing what.
Great points. These PEOs should work closely with CDAO and Service AI organizations to shape and execute on these strategies, architectures, and talent.
Dedicated Navy PEO’s for the 3 main war fighting domains make sense, but not across the entire Navy enterprise of surface ships, aviation, and undersea war fighting. Different kill chains, conops/conemp, tactical mission threads, and VERY different vehicle types and technologies; and common solutions for all unmanned often do not consider the domain and warfighting challenges of each one, and they often clash due to SWAP-C and host platform architectures.
It could be worse… I was in PMA263 when it was the only unmanned program office, let alone sharing a PEO with weapons programs.
And to be clear, it is the Resource Sponsors in OPNAV that decide POM and program priorities, not the PEOs; with unmanned programs still competing with other capabilities in warfighting portfolios for resource constrained funding.
I think too what you see in Navy is a limited number of Flag billets to satisfy the proper management of emerging warfighting capabilities, and SECDEF’s 20% reduction in Flag/GO billets will only exacerbate the scarcity of senior leader positional rank for unmanned.
Bottom line is that there is no easy solution right now, but something to keep an eye on and work towards.
Is establishing another PEO stovepipe the only solution? It may be the best way to get improvements quickly, but not sure it's the ultimate solution.
I agree that UxS need better visibility and resourcing, just not sure a PEO is the way to go. May need to relook the entire PEO/PM/PdM breakout to see where we are actually failing to get resources where they need to do.
Excellent idea.
Also need to consider how AI fits within these new PEOs. Best option will be to bake-in AI during system design & development. Costs can be captured as part of the overall system lifecycle.
But there will also be the need to add AI to existing systems. AI that may come from outside the prime and subs that own development of the uncrewed system.
Vertical integration would be optimal, but the PEOs will also need a plan for bringing in the most current software from outside vendors, and sustaining it at a rapid CI/CD pace once the uncrewed system is fielded.
Those costs might have to be treated separately, depending on who’s doing what.
Great points. These PEOs should work closely with CDAO and Service AI organizations to shape and execute on these strategies, architectures, and talent.