First-of-its-kind "war game" looks at military personnel issues. What does the future hold for recruiting and retention?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:08:52 -0400

When Michael Jones, a Silicon Valley wizard who invented the technology underlying Google Earth, visited an aircraft carrier, he was stunned that the Navy still needs a crew of more than 5,000 sailors to run the ship.

"I could write a program that lands that plane on the deck. I can build a robot who can attach that hose to that fuel tank. I could get a lot of those people out of there. In the very near future, half of the jobs people have right now won't exist," Jones recently told a room packed with military experts.

He was among a cadre of tech experts who joined in a first-of-its-kind "war game" focused on military personnel issues. The two-day event held in late June in the Washington suburb of Tyson's Corner, Virginia, brought a team of Silicon Valley pioneers and computer-science experts together with current and former Pentagon officials and military experts from think tanks across Washington.

The rare brainstorming session, sponsored by the Defense Department, was designed to tackle some of the military's most vexing long-term challenges in building a force for the 21st century and recruiting and retaining the talent it will need in the years ahead.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/06/28/wargame-perseonnel/29284617/

DoD 'wargames' look at the future of recruiting, retention challenges

When Michael Jones, a Silicon Valley wizard who invented the technology underlying Google Earth, visited a Navy aircraft carrier, he was stunned that

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 28 at 2015 3:07 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:07:32 -0400

Michael Jones needs to rethink his statements.

The Navy is not running "over staff." If anything they are running at a level far more efficient than anything in the civilian market, and if he fails to understand that, by saying something as condescending as "I could write a program that..." he needs his head forcibly removed from his 4th point of contact.

The problem isn't that we could have programs or robots doing these things, it's that you have to have people to maintain those programs and robots. People are still far more versatile than programs and robots, and people don't break down anywhere near as often.

I remember the old adage of 20 hours of "maintenance" for 1 hour of "flight" time. How much maintenance time would be need for his proposed robots? How many additional parts would a carrier have to have on deck.

Short sighted, ill spoken.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 4:33 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:33:43 -0400

Oh sure, Google guy. Get rid of all those crew members.
That works fine so long as there is no weather.
An accident never happens.
The enemy never gets lucky and damage control is needed.
The ship never loses power or communications go down.

How well will Google work when the big earthquake happens? I'll bet they'll need people to pick up the pieces.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 28 at 2015 5:32 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:32:10 -0400

Baby Steps are always shaky, we tend to overestimate the impact of technology in the short term and underestimate it in the long term. As I mentioned in a related post the way to think about future weapons coming from miniaturization and improved AI isn't just mechanical versions of existent tactics, its new. It's a swarm of semi-intelligent microbots (only when swarmed at high enough numbers) at a density of one per cubic meter or so for 500 cubic meters locating and swarming any flat topped ship. Instant FOD cloud, carrier neutralized until major weather clears the cloud and repairs from impacts can be made.

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 4 at 2019 7:51 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Sun, 04 Aug 2019 19:51:07 -0400

Interesting!