Navy Aims for “Compile to Combat in 24 Hours”

It’s poor, confused PR all the way down. The linked origin article is also glorious, http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=1021... with classics like “ubiquity of micro web services in the commercial world and in each individual smartphone“ which may be trying to say something about RESTful APIs.

...and don't forget Big Data. Or is it no longer in fashion?

Drone strike smart contracts might be a thing soon enough if we ever privatize armies at a large scale.

If I were the enemy I too would have them choose XML.

The innovation is mostly in hardware, albeit they're trying to move as much of that as possible to CotS.

At a tactical level, better hardware with dated but tested software > inferior hardware with the newest software.

Edit: To elaborate, there are almost no startup spaces where someone is actively trying to degrade your systems as they're being used. That changes a lot of calculus.

Seriously? You are judging the project on the serialization format they use? Who cares what it does or how it serves it's users right?

Not to mention that XML is actually not all that bad of a technology. Not my first choice, but it is fine.

Especially as it pertains to the cyber world the military is slow to adopt, yes. IMO this is largely due to the amount of vetting, documentation, the number of people who must approve it, and the security measures taken in order to use a product or process. This is frustrating, because as soon as a product or process is approved there is almost always been a shift in the industry to a better way of doing the same task or better product. The workaround here always seems to be the pairing up the military with commercial industry, which isn't hindered in the same way. However, you then risk having the commercial industry not following proper protocol for securing information and leaking secrets to foreign countries, amongst other issues. Problems are abound, and the military is still trying to figure out the best way to approach innovation in the cyber world.

Having worked in defence for over 15 years, I can say with certainty that in general the level of technology in your average military product is well behind the times.

This is by design since the products tend to have 20 year support requirements and you fix the level of technology at the design stage (say 5 years development).

Its therefore commmon to be ten years out of date.

What's wrong with SAML?

This is obscenely true and somewhat underrated.

Sad as it is, the prime reason for the strength of DoD computer systems, both afloat and in the air, is that it's difficult enough to use and interface with them-- 'Hacking' them, and getting the ability to pivot and deny/destroy is extremely limited. Sailor Joe Schmuckatelli's Fire control system is on a separate network because there was no common network at the time the contract was let for competition. It's both the worst and most extreme version of security through obscurity. Now you're introducing more connections, availability, and reliance on a core infrastructure-- Which still won't meet basic corporate cybersecurity / patch control doctrine.

The U.S. military has been very aware of this threat for a few years (though a legacy of disregard precedes that, as they saw no peer threats and were fighting low-tech insurgents). They're not idiots; it's obvious and they hack into their enemy's systems. In fact, they have been focusing on systems and training that enable units to operate while disconnected from the defense networks.

I can't help but think of:

"The ultimate cause of our failure was a simple one: despite all statements to the contrary, it was not due to lack of bravery on the part of our men, or to any fault of the Fleet's. We were defeated by one thing only - by the inferior science of our enemies. I repeat - by the inferior science of our enemies."

</sarcasm> surely?