⚓ Experience vs.
Experimentation: Who Should Lead ONR Defense Research in Peacetime?
In recent news, the Trump administration
is planning to replace the head of the Office Of Naval
Research with a former DOGE consultant.
I thought it would be fun to explore how this could play out. Let’s take a look.
Relevant Skills & Credentials
Rear Adm. Kurt Rothenhaus — PhD (Software Engineering), 30+ years as a Navy
engineering-duty officer, Program Executive Officer for C4I, deep acquisition
and classified R&D experience.
Dr. Rachel Riley — Rhodes Scholar, former McKinsey partner, senior advisor in
the Department of Government Efficiency, known for large-scale transformation
and budget optimization programs.
Two impressive résumés — but vastly
different toolkits. One built for operational continuity and technical depth,
the other for reform and rapid efficiency gains.
Risk / Benefit Comparison
In a peacetime military research environment, the question isn’t who’s
smarter — it’s who reduces strategic risk while sustaining innovation.
- Rothenhaus
offers continuity, trusted networks, and technical assurance — ideal for
maintaining the research pipeline and classified program integrity.
- Riley
brings fresh energy, civilian accountability, and the promise of
modernizing bureaucracy — but carries higher near-term disruption and
cultural risk.
Quantified Risk Scores (1 = low risk, 25
= critical)
|
Factor |
Rothenhaus |
Riley |
|
Operational Stability |
7 / 25 |
14 / 25 |
|
Security & Compliance |
✅ Low risk |
⚠️ Elevated onboarding
risk |
|
Fiscal Efficiency |
⚠️ Moderate |
✅ Potentially High (conditional) |
|
Talent & Culture |
✅ Stable |
⚠️ Fragile during
transition |
|
Innovation Potential (3 yr) |
⚠️ Moderate |
✅ High (if well executed) |
Overall, Rothenhaus
yields roughly 70 % higher benefit-per-risk efficiency under current
conditions.
Outcome Summary
For a peacetime Navy focused on readiness through science, the data points to
continuity.
Aggressive reform can be valuable — but only when reforms are vetted, risks are
mapped, and institutional knowledge is preserved.
Innovation in defense isn’t just about
moving faster; it’s about moving securely, with context.
Continuity ensures readiness. Reform
succeeds only when guided by discipline.
Given the private sectors
current love affair with AI, AI related security concerns are a big issue here.
Real innovation in defense science is measured not by how many programs we cut, but by how securely and sustainably we build the ones that matter.
My takeaway:
In peacetime, continuity ensures readiness. Reform succeeds only when paired with rigorous vetting, staged adoption, and technical oversight.
Note: I created this with the help of
ChatGPT 5. To aid in accuracy and
balance, I instructed the GPT to balance for political bias using multiple
sources and to then do an adversarial analysis of the data in this report.
