Carolyn Ford: What's the biggest roadblock?1
Lee Davis: Definitely infrastructure for industry to collaborate in real time would be the constraint that I say. And I think governments have solved this and militaries have solved this, and for industry to collaborate at some of the higher security levels, I think that's the area where, you know, the infrastructure needs to catch up.
Carolyn Ford: I'm Carolyn Ford, and today on Tech Transforms, we're talking about why AUKUS isn't just a submarine story. It's a stress test for whether three allies can actually share sensitive industrial capacity and data without tying themselves in security knots. My guest is Lee Davis, Senior Director, Honeywell Aerospace Australia, and he's living in the fine print: export controls, diverging security frameworks, US specs versus Australian specs, trying to turn three separate Defence ecosystems into what behaves like a single trusted industrial network. We dig into why the biggest bottleneck isn't hardware or talent; it's the age-old problem of just trying to talk to each other.Lee explains how new policies and digital tools are starting to make cross-border collaboration possible, but why the basic problem remains: industry still lacks the secure shared environments it needs to talk at higher classifications without going through a long government relay chain. So I asked him to start with the big picture of how AUKUS is reshaping security and industrial cooperation.
Carolyn Ford: Lee, when most people hear AUKUS, they think of submarines. If they've ever even heard of the term AUKUS, I think their minds will go to submarines, but you framed it as something much bigger—an industrial transformation. So, can you unpack that shift in perspective for us?
Lee Davis: Yeah, sure. So, I guess Australia, UK, US—it's a historic security pact and whilst it is often framed in the construct of nuclear-powered submarines, it really is much broader, designed to really enhance defence cooperation across the three nations, advance military technology, and strengthen industrial partnerships across each of the three nations. Again, at its core, it's about nuclear-powered submarines and essentially enabling all three nations to participate in the development and sustainment of that capability. And really, for the US and the UK, it's also about enhancing, you know, Australia's capabilities in the Indo-Pacific, which is very much a strategic interest for all three nations. I guess for Australia, it's quite interesting because it's our largest national endeavor. So, typically, if we look back in Australian history, our Snowy Mountain hydro scheme was one of our biggest national endeavors, as well as automotive manufacturing. But really AUKUS is now swamping that, and that's really a driver from the size of investment.So, for Australia, it's over $350 billion investment and also the inclusion of the size of the workforce. You know, estimates have it somewhere in the order of 20,000 to 30,000 people, you know, during the development and operation, sustainment of that capability. So, it really does put it as Australia's largest national endeavor.But again, in terms of the security trilateral nature of it, it's a, you know, very transformative security agreement between the three nations.
Carolyn Ford: And it's fairly new, right? 2021, 22?
Lee Davis: Yeah, '21. So it's five years in now, and you know, a lot has already happened in terms of export reforms and progress towards US and UK fleet visits to the new submarine base in the west and also the establishment of the infrastructure to start, you know, getting the facilities, engineering, development, and sustainment aspects ready. So yeah, it's hard to believe we're already five years in.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah. Well, so if you think of this like upgrading from a single factory to an interconnected industrial network, what changes in how countries and companies need to operate? Has it—I mean, it's had to have changed how you guys operate, right?
Lee Davis: Yeah, definitely. So again, you know, it's got three nations collaborating bilaterally. So you've got Australia and the US on Virginia; you've got Australia and the UK on Astute and SSN AUKUS; and then you've got all three kind of trilaterally collaborating as well. So it's quite a complex integration of, I guess, nation capabilities and products. And so when you think you've got to share information around design, production, and operation in those three contexts, it really becomes quite complex. So you've got export control matters to think about, you've got security control matters to think about, and then down to kind of specifications and elements like that. So, you know, when you look at that, it's a combination of blending sovereign national sovereignty—so each country has their own capability, export security, design approach—and then you've got to blend that with allied integration. And I think we've seen that happen many times from a military context, so our nations, you know, operate militarily in that allied integration, but now taking that a step further and really driving that down into the industrial base where corporations need to get that same level of allied integration. And so that requires the alignment of again of the export, the security, and the design to make that happen. So yeah, it really is about driving that interoperability deep into the industrial bases across the three nations.
Carolyn Ford: Do you think it's improved the ability to interoperate? And I like that you mentioned—I mean, we're not just talking the defence agencies; we're talking about industry as well. And do you think it's helped or has it layered on more red tape?
Lee Davis: No, I definitely think it's helped. I mean, it's not at the end state yet and there's a lot more efficiency, I think, to generate. But as you say, you think about the complexity of the key stakeholders: so you've got on the government side, you've got the governments, you've then got the defence departments, you've got the procurement agencies; you have in the case of the submarine industrial base, you've got the shipbuilders, then you've got the tier one suppliers, and then you've got SMEs. Getting them all to kind of integrate and operate across those areas is really challenging. I think the first area that was selected really to focus on was export. And I think that was a really great idea because everything starts with export. You want to have a conversation, you want to share data, you know, it's the first place that we go. So the license-free environment that was established directly to support AUKUS, I think, has been a real accelerator of activities in terms of being able to share information. But we're now hitting some of those, you know, next layer of complexities: alignment of security standards, alignment of specifications, alignment of measurement requirements.You know, it's funny, my daughter actually is hitting this herself. So, she just graduated architecture last year. She's studied architecture for four years in Australia and she's just been employed by an LA design firm. And so now she's trying to rewire her brain from, you know, centimeters and meters to inches and feet. Um, that same challenge occurs on a daily basis in AUKUS where organizations who are collaborating—you know, the US platforms have been designed to US specifications and standards against US measurement requirements and now you need to integrate that with Australian companies who are used to Australian standards, material standards, specifications, and measurements. And you know, getting that alignment, I guess, is the key and that's the thing that takes time. So as I said, exports, you know, on a pathway really good now and moving really into the alignment on security specifications, measurement approach down the details—like, the devil's in the details.
Carolyn Ford: I wouldn't have even thought of that, but I can imagine just the metric versus the US system could wreak havoc on trying to interoperate. So, is this—this is going to be a dumb question—but is AUKUS about being able to sell components between the three countries or is it more than that? Is it building solutions together and actually operating as like a coalition or is it really trade?
Lee Davis: Definitely not a dumb question. I mean, it's all of those really. At its core, it is a security pact. So it is about establishing the interoperability of the three nations to operate in the nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarine space. So, you know, step one on that is to actually get Australia up to that same capability. So, you know, many years ago between the US and the UK, the US helped the UK establish their nuclear submarine program and that's now happening from an Australian side. So, step one is getting the capability up to the same and then enabling the three nations to interoperate in that coalition. But then to be able to, you know, support the design, support the ongoing sustainment requires the industrial bases to be able to—so you can imagine as US submarines are, you know, based out of Australia, UK submarines are based out of Australia, new Australian nuclear-powered submarines are based out of Australia, the industrial base in Australia now needs to support that. But even stepping back from that, to get the three nations' production capacity to the area where it's been forecast to be effective requires the industrial bases really to be synchronized to get to the capacity that's required to meet that demand. So yeah, it's across all those aspects. It's across interoperability of defence forces, it's across interoperability of industrial bases, but as you say, the end goal is kind of back to that security alignment between the three nations.
Carolyn Ford: What are the biggest misconceptions that people have about what it takes to deliver on something like AUKUS? I mean, I would have never thought of the different measurement systems.
Lee Davis: Yeah, I think it's easy to get caught up in the mission system and in engineering and kind of defence programs, that's often the case. You see the shiny end goal, which is, you know, in the case of AUKUS, Pillar One is nuclear-powered submarines. So, it's easy to focus on the submarine and the submarine capability, but really to get there, it requires people to accelerate in sharing information and being able to, you know, design, build, sustain the capability. So I think the biggest misconception is people think it's just about, you know, a submarine and operating a submarine where to be effective it needs that alignment of the three nations across export, security, design sharing, interoperative industrial bases. You know, and I give you an example: if you're trying to bring a new supplier in Australia into the industrial base, and I talk about that kind of integrated industrial base to support either development or sustainment activities, an organization in the US has to first identify the need or the demand.Then they need to figure out how to, you know, look at the capabilities in the other nation, in Australia, to understand where those capabilities lie. Once they've selected the right set of companies or partners to work with, they've then got to figure out what's the environment to be able to export this material to that company. What's the environment to do that in a secure manner? How do we exchange information back and forth? And you know, in the past that's often happened government-to-government at the higher security levels, whereas really to accelerate and realize the capability that needs to be driven down to industry and allow industry to collaborate at speed.So you know, essentially the secure infrastructure, the digital engineering environment, all of those things need to be implemented to enable that company in the US to collaborate with that provider in Australia and to do that in an environment that enables that speed of transfer and communication. Um, that's really where the, I guess solving that will enable the overall goals to accelerate.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah. Just even to talk about some of these programs and technologies at that industrial level. Has AUKUS helped facilitate that? Because I would—I'm guessing that that just even that, just to even be able to talk about it between the countries could be a barrier.
Lee Davis: Yeah, definitely. And again, the export control reforms and the AUKUS license-free environment have absolutely enhanced that. And whilst that has been set up for the purposes of AUKUS, it's actually not restricted to that. It enables the three nations to collaborate more effectively across military technology across the board. So you know, Guided Weapons Enterprise is another focus area for Australia and certainly for the US. You would have seen the administration recently making some big announcements in that space and that capacity increase requires collaboration across our nations as well. So you know, the export reforms are absolutely, you know, enabling those conversations to happen at speed, and as I said, then it's dealing with the next order of challenges beyond that, which is the focus to help us accelerate.
Carolyn Ford: Is this creating a gap between supply and demand?
Lee Davis: Yeah, look, I mean on the capacity side, we're still recovering, I think, is the clear position post-COVID. You know, a lot of the supply chain kind of constraints and reductions that happened during that period have taken a while to really remobilize. And that remobilization is occurring at the same time as demand has significantly increased. So it's kind of that alignment of two conditions you don't really want: you're recovering at the same time as demand is accelerating. Um, so and you know, I guess the ongoing geopolitical instability as well is driving that demand even further. So as demand recovered post-COVID and the geopolitical instability has driven the demand as well, you've really got the supply chain trying to catch that demand and increase. So yeah, if you look across the priority initiatives in the submarine industrial base, in the maritime industrial base and, as the administration has now signaled, in the guided weapons industrial base, you know, there is a huge demand.And it will take time for the supply base to respool back to that demand, for sure.
Carolyn Ford: So you're trying to play catchup from COVID and then you layer on that the volatility—geopolitical volatility—is the gap getting smaller or is it getting bigger?
Lee Davis: Yeah, look, I mean the US industrial base and the allied industrial bases have demonstrated capacity before. So I think this is definitely more of a backlog than a significant structural issue. So I think there's definitely an ability to spool back up to that demand, and I think we are seeing that in different areas across those different industrial bases.There are a lot of measures kind of showing the capacity increases and where they're coming online. But it is going to take time and I think the real opportunity is how to accelerate that gap closure and using new technologies and approaches to do that. And whilst the alignment of our industrial bases through security and export and alignment will help accelerate that, I think the adoption of advanced digital engineering tools and secure cloud infrastructure will really help accelerate that as well. So whilst in the past maybe it took even when the capacity came on for that collaboration to occur, it took a lot more time; I think with the adoption of some of those advanced kind of digital engineering tools, we'll see that enable the closure of that gap much faster.
Carolyn Ford: I think you said this, but say it again for me: where do they need to align first to mobilize the allied capacity? So, cloud? Or is that done? Or where does the alignment need to happen first?
Lee Davis: I think for me, that's really—that's an enabler. I think if you look at the alignment, the alignment is all about understanding the demand, the capacity, and capability, and where that exists. So you know, you need to really have a detailed view of capacity, and that's capacity across the industrial bases of the three nations. And it is a little bit more than just capacity as well: you need to understand the capability. And you know, again you take something like a Virginia-class submarine—this complex engineering product—when you dismantle that, you come down to a level of manufacturing of castings, forgings, machined components, printed circuit card assemblies, wiring harnesses—you know, all of these different components.So when you get down to trying to really energize that industrial base, you need to understand where that capacity sits. So on the one hand, you've got a bill of materials—what's required for that product—and then on the other hand you've got an industrial base with capacity by each of those capability areas. And so there's time and effort to map that out to really get a good sense of, you know—let's take an example of castings. So where are the casting capabilities across the three nations and are they the same manufacturing processes in each of those nations to the right standards? And then for those casting houses, what's their current capacity and how can they be adjusted to meet that demand? So yeah, in my mind, having that good view of demand down to bill of materials and then mapping that to capacity in the industrial base in those different capabilities really is key. And I think on the demand side the signals are really strong. You know, we're seeing from each of the governments there's alignment on strategy and how that strategy needs to be delivered.There's a good understanding now of capacity—I think that's happened over the past few years—and so you know, again, it's now accelerating into matching that capability, capacity, and demand. And on the demand side, the strongest way for enabling industry is to set really clear demand. And you know, we've seen from the administration in the US recently in the guided weapons space a really good example of that where they're now starting having to extend that demand signal from what was maybe previously yearly kind of forecasts and yearly commitments out to seven-year commitments on some of those product lines. And when you give that strong demand to industry, industry can invest and spool up to meet that. So yeah, that's another way to accelerate is to provide that longer-term demand signal and allow industry then to adapt and really get ready for that.
Carolyn Ford: I was trying to think of an analogy for standing up industrial capability across the three countries, and I was like, "Well, is it kind of like building a plane while it's in flight?" And then I thought it's more like three different orchestras on three different stages, you know, nobody can hear each other and you're all trying to play the same piece of music. You might not even have the same sheet music in front of you; you're trying to keep tempo with each other. Like, it sounds really complicated. Um, but I think, you know, what you just said about some of the things that have to come together for that to work. Let's go back and list those. So, alignment—I think I heard you say just alignment on the specs themselves, right?
Lee Davis: Yeah. You've got export, security, specifications, requirements. Um, it is really complex. And then again, as I said earlier, it's—you've got the national sovereignty aligned with the trilateral kind of interoperability. And so you take that on the security side: trying to align each country's security frameworks to be able to move at pace, and then none of those things are static as well. They are continually evolving. And again, take the US as a good example: in the security standard space, some really enhanced security controls that are coming online through the CMMC kind of adoption. Um, so you know, as that is rolling out and, you know, I guess Zero Trust and how we enhance the security of that overlays at the same time as you're trying to share information across three different security architectures. So you know, that's another good example of needing to get that alignment. Um, and I think adopting the highest standard is often the fastest way to get there. So you know, I definitely see from an Australian perspective a lot of organizations following what's happening in the CMMC space in the US to be ready to align to that quite quickly so that they're well-positioned as that progressive rollout becomes mandated.
Carolyn Ford: I was just going to ask: do you have Australia's, UK's, and US's security requirements lined up and you have to check the box on each? But you answered the question. So Australia says if it meets CMMC then it's going to meet all of ours.So they just go to the highest.
Lee Davis: It's not always that easy, unfortunately. It's quite nuanced, but um, yeah, certainly.
Carolyn Ford: Nice way of you saying no.
Lee Davis: No, Carolyn. No. Um, you know, that you need to understand—and this is, again, I guess when it comes down to humans and people—you need to understand and respect that each nation has their own sovereignty and they have their security requirements and they know them quite well. Um, so it's not about saying, you know, "my requirements are right and your requirements are wrong."It's about saying, "We've both got our sets of requirements and where is the common alignment? Okay, that's great. We can move that aside. Where do they differ?" and then acknowledging that sometimes, you know, you just have to accept, "All right, well, you know, you're a superset in that space, so we'll adopt what you've got," and that brings us to a common operating environment as quickly as possible.
Carolyn Ford: Okay. But yeah, it is challenging.
Lee Davis: Yeah.
Carolyn Ford: Where are you seeing the biggest constraints right now? Are you seeing it like in supply chain or workforce infrastructure? What's the biggest roadblock?
Lee Davis: Yeah, I think definitely infrastructure for industry to collaborate in real time would be the constraint that I say. And I think it's been solved for governments to be able to talk to each other.
Carolyn Ford: That's your biggest—to be able to share information in an accelerated fashion.
Lee Davis: So yeah, and as I said, I think governments have solved this and militaries have solved this, and they've been operating in coalitions for a long time where they bring their environments together and they share that information.For industry to collaborate at some of the higher security levels, I think that's the area where the infrastructure needs to catch up. Um, and again, it exists government-to-government, but you don't want to end up in the scenario where the US industry's got to go to government, government's got to go to government in Australia, government Australia's got to go back to industry, and then you might have a prime or a shipbuilder and then you've got to go down to a tier one and then you've got to go down to actually hit a manufacturing site.
Carolyn Ford: Just to talk to the person you need to talk to, you've got to talk to 20 other people first.
Lee Davis: And then when the message has to come back—so, inevitably as I said before, there's always this misalignment on specs or requirements, so you need to go back and forth—if you have to go back through that network to get an answer and then back through that network again, you know, that's the area where I think the infrastructure needs to catch up: to have those environments for industry for the lowest levels to be able to connect in real time. And I think that's the area where when we've got that in place more holistically, we'll really start to accelerate.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah. Crazy. Like, it seems like you just told me that a caveman problem was your biggest problem.
Lee Davis: Exactly.
Carolyn Ford: That one should be solved. So, how do programs like Australia's Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance enterprise change the game for local industry participation?
Lee Davis: Yeah. So, like AUKUS, I guess the GWEO program is really seeking to align industrial bases as well. So, Australia's GWEO program is looking for Australia to enter into
Carolyn Ford: Sorry, what is the name of the program?
Lee Davis: Yeah, it's GWEO—Guided Weapons and Explosive...
Carolyn Ford: Yeah, GWEO. You're giving me the—I'm with you now. I'm with you.
Lee Davis: The amount of acronyms in defence.
Carolyn Ford: It's—yeah, you need the decoder.
Lee Davis: Um, but it's about guided weapons production. So, Australia's seeking to enhance its sovereign capability around guided weapons production. Um, and a large part of that is really collaboratively working with the US to produce US-designed guided weapons in Australia. So there's a number of activities underway to support that. And so you know, we talked about the submarine industrial base and the alignment of that; we're now seeing that as Australia's moving out on its guided weapons program. Again, similarly large significant investments that requires the industrial bases to align, and it's already seeing the benefits of AUKUS. So as I said, AUKUS is more than just the submarines.The license-free environment, the integration of the industrial bases—so we're now seeing benefits in the guided weapons space where license-free environment can be utilized for guided weapons. Security alignment understanding can be utilized for guided weapons; infrastructure that's being rolled out to support that sharing of information and digital engineering can be utilized as well. So that's enabling US companies and Australian companies again to get into more collaboration opportunities and development opportunities through the guided weapons space. Um, and that, you know, on the demand side, that's another area where it's the right time. So as the US administration is really accelerating that capability in the US and really trying to mobilize the US industrial base, because Australia had already started towards that journey, I think it's the perfect alignment of demand and capability on both sides.
Carolyn Ford: When AUKUS was first being designed, was that always the intent—to have it apply not just to the nuclear submarines but also to GWEO? Look at me using the right acronym.
Lee Davis: There you go. I like it. Look, absolutely. So, there were always two major components to the AUKUS program: Pillar One, which was the nuclear submarines, and then Pillar Two, which was advanced technologies and military capabilities. So yeah, there was always that goal to have it broader than just the submarines, and now we're seeing the success of that as these other programs come online.
Carolyn Ford: Okay. All right. Well, we're going to take a quick break to thank our sponsors. This episode is sponsored by GME, an Australian-owned leader in secure electronics, RF, and SATCOM solutions supporting defence and critical communications. Learn more at gme.net.au/defence. And by Owl Cyber Defense, delivering trusted data diode and cross-domain solutions that protect the world's most sensitive networks and enable secure real-time collaboration.Visit owlcyberdefense.com to learn more.And we're back. I'm Carolyn Ford, this is Tech Transforms, and I'm here with Lee Davis, Senior Director at Honeywell Aerospace Australia. We've been unpacking what industrial transformation really looks like in defence manufacturing and how leaders can actually scale capability, wrangle global supply chains, and survive the beautiful chaos of allied collaboration under AUKUS. So, Lee, as capability scales, complexity explodes.Are we underestimating how hard it is to get systems and data to actually work together across borders?
Lee Davis: I think probably underestimating, yes. Um, but starting to make—you know, we're definitely seeing green shoots in how to do it. Um, so getting the right collaboration environments in place can solve that complexity and enabling the right tools, I guess, in those collaboration environments. And so I'm definitely seeing now that becoming a focus: while previously it was export, it's gone into security and now it's security and kind of secure cloud environment to enable that collaboration to happen much faster across borders is, you know, it's definitely progressing, which is good to see.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah. And right before the break you shared that just the collaboration piece is one of your biggest, if not biggest, roadblocks. Um, and if interoperability is the goal—so we've got collaboration as a roadblock—is there—what's the bigger challenge between technical integration and trust between the systems and the organizations and the countries? Like, the trust between the three countries—is that an issue ever?
Lee Davis: Yeah, look, I don't think trust is in "do we all trust that we can work together?" but I think trust is in making sure that the security and alignment of our systems keeps our information within the three nations' collaboration environment. I think that's definitely the bigger challenge. So getting the right environments in place where, again, when you come down to people doing the work and they want to work together and they want to collaborate, it's about making sure that the environment enables them to do that and that they're empowered to do that. And I think that's where the focus needs to be in terms of making the environment scale so that at all levels of the industrial base—from the government to the agencies to the primes to the tier ones down to the suppliers—they've got the ability to directly connect through those secure environments and enable that transfer. And to do that requires the infrastructure to trust, and I think that's the piece that needs to be built out.
Carolyn Ford: What are some of the measurable outcomes or changes that you've seen since implementing more integrated cross-border industrial and data sharing approaches?
Lee Davis: Yeah, I think the speed at which industry can collaborate when the environments are in place is what's impressed me to date. And I think in the license-free environment, we've seen some really great examples of this where previously I've had experiences where it would take six to nine months to enable the right licenses and appropriations and agreements to be put in place before organizations could collaborate on a data set; we can do that now in days in the license-free environment. So, you know, that's a massive acceleration. Uh, and so I think as I said, taking those lessons and that approach and rolling that more broadly in the industrial base is going to be a critical enabler.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah, I did an episode with Matt Cantagallo with State Department.State Department—is that the right title?Okay. And we talked about that exemption, and I think that's what you're talking about with this accelerated timeline, right? And just how absolutely how long it took before, and it's amazing that you guys have been able to go down from, you know, multiple months to, like you just said, a matter of a few days.
Lee Davis: Nine months to days. Yeah.
Carolyn Ford: It's amazing. For small and mid-sized companies trying to enter a global defence supply chain, what's the smartest way for them to position themselves right now?
Lee Davis: Yeah, I think engaging with the primes and the tier ones. I mean, that's generally what they do, but you know, it's always about keeping the communication open and making sure you're ready. So, I think engaging at conferences, exhibitions, getting into global supply chain uplift programs, um, is definitely the right thing to be doing. But in addition, given the complexity that we've talked about in this podcast today—you've got again these export requirements, the security requirements—getting in front of those and just understanding how to navigate those and pre-positioning their businesses to be ready to be able to meet those needs, I think, is critical. And a lot of the primes and tier ones will have programs to support SMEs in doing that.So I think finding the pathway to get into those and establishing the right position or readiness across those is the right thing to be doing.
Carolyn Ford: What are the opportunities and the risks that they should be paying attention to? All companies should be paying attention to, but especially these small to mid-sized that are trying to just get into this area.
Lee Davis: Yeah. I think the opportunities are that we will, as those elements of complexity align, we'll see this start to accelerate. And so I think getting ahead of the enablers—export, security—that's really the opportunity, but also the risk because, in terms of getting in place registrations for export, security, these things can take time. So yeah, the faster and earlier that they're on board and understanding of that, the better position they'll be to catch that demand wave as it really starts to come through in terms of capability.
Carolyn Ford: So every large transformation program experiences risks and opportunities just like we've been talking about. Where do you think this one's likely to stumble first, or have you seen it stumble first? Um, like workforce shortages we talked about?
Lee Davis: Given the three nations and the complexity, I would have said that this was probably going to stumble kind of at the political level first. But I'm surprised because we've now had changes of administration in all three nations. So if we go back five years, it was a different color of government in each of the three nations that created this transformational program. And now we've seen that survive the test of administration changes. You know, each nation, as the administration has changed at different times, has done their own reviews of the program: "Do we really want to move forward with this? Can we afford to? Is it still aligned to our strategy?" And it has. So in my mind, that's really a testament to the alignment of purpose and priority.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah. Really amazing.
Lee Davis: It is really amazing. I mean, system complexity still remains, but that strong bipartisan endorsement, I think, we'll see the program succeed in one form or another. Um, and as these large transformational programs go, do you get at the end exactly what you set out at the start? Not always, and that isn't necessarily the only success measure. I think with such strong support and an ability to adapt, we'll end up in a better place trilaterally through this security agreement than we were had we not started, for sure.
Carolyn Ford: All right. If you had to pick one early warning signal for leaders, what is it?
Lee Davis: I think shifting priorities. Um, as I said, what was originally intended and what might end up at the end may be different. So, it's really keeping an eye on those shifting priorities, and whilst that trilateral commitment is strong, the pathways to get there will absolutely adapt. Um, and as the scale and complexity of the stakeholders continues to grow, reading those changes and positioning and adapting your organization's strategy to be able to pivot quickly, I think, really is the key in this scenario.
Carolyn Ford: All right. All right. We get to do our Tech Talk questions now. So, these are just fun rapid-fire questions—don't think too much about them. All right. And your first one: if AUKUS were a piece of technology—a platform, app, or a system—what would it be and why?
Lee Davis: Yeah, this one was clear to me: definitely a mesh radio network. I mean, there's so much interconnectedness and the adapting nature of the stakeholders across government, industry, defence—it's expansive, it's growing, it's adapting. So, yeah, I like the mesh radio network.
Carolyn Ford: I like it. All right. What has surprised you the most in AUKUS and GWEO transformation so far?
Lee Davis: Yeah, look, I think I said this one already: it's definitely the alignment of the three governments and the fact that we've now survived administration changes across the three nations.
Carolyn Ford: I am blown away by that one. That one surprises me. All right. What's one emerging technology you think will become the backbone of this transformation?
Lee Davis: I mean, AI is blowing up. It's got to be AI. I mean, you know, and I've actually seen some really unique applications already in this space. I mean, using AI to read drawings—old drawings—looking for drawing errors, spec misalignments, doing drawing conversions—so taking, you know, old 2D drawings, creating 3D models automatically—validating errors, you know, it's producing new artifacts from kind of old technology. I think I've been surprised by that. Uh, and that needs to be supported, as we talked about, with a secure digital infrastructure to be able to share that, but definitely AI is a critical enabler.
Carolyn Ford: Yeah, man. We could do a whole show just on how AUKUS is using AI and securing it, because— Yeah. All right.Well, thank you so much for joining Tech Transforms. Where can our listeners connect with you to learn more about your work?
Lee Davis: Yeah, honeywellaerospace.com—that's the best place to start.
Carolyn Ford: All right. Well, thank you for joining me on an early Friday morning all the way from Australia. Thanks for tuning in. If you found this episode valuable, be sure to share it, leave a review, and smash that like button to help us reach more people who could benefit from the conversation. I'm Carolyn Ford. Tech Transforms is produced by Show and Tell and sponsored by Owl Cyber Defense.Until next time, stay curious and keep imagining the future.