DIB Innovators

The Keystone fire control module is weapon-agnostic from day one. Bryan Bockmon, CEO, President, & Chairman of AimLock, describes how the same edge computing system that directs a machine gun can be reconfigured for missiles, grenades, or lasers by rotating out effectors without rebuilding the platform. That modularity is a direct response to an increasingly common battlefield reality: adversaries iterate faster than any requirements-based acquisition process can respond, and single-purpose systems are obsolete before they're fielded.Bryan also breaks down how AimLock used OTAs to compress the gap between prototype and deployable capability, why he believes the requirements-based procurement process will never work again, and what it actually costs in time and credibility to build defense tech a decade before the funded demand signal exists to support it. Topics discussed:Designing modular fire control systems that swap effectors and sensors to avoid obsolescence across evolving threat environmentsAutomating target acquisition and engagement with human operators retained in the kill-decision loopUsing other transaction authorities OTAs to prototype and test lethal systems outside standard federal acquisition regulationsBuilding defense tech a decade ahead of the funded demand signal and the timing risk that createsWhy single-purpose weapon systems fail against adversaries who iterate faster than requirements-based procurement can respondContrasting small business iteration speed with large prime bureaucracy and the collaboration model that bridges themThe counter-drone threat as an economic and tactical inflection point reshaping short-range air defense doctrineWhy the requirements-based procurement process is no longer viable and what replaces it in practice

Matt McElvogue, VP of Design at Teague, doesn't talk about design as a polish layer. He talks about it as a mission-critical failure point. His clearest example: a $5,000 tactical device used by JTAC operators for calling in 9-line bombing runs, where zeroizing the device was buried so deep in the menu that soldiers in the field resorted to shooting it or blowing it up. That failure isn't a UX anecdote; it's the operational cost of ignoring the experience layer. Matt lays out how AI and autonomous systems are now forcing a fundamental rethink of that layer, specifically the shift from in-the-loop to on-the-loop decision-making, and the three trust requirements every autonomous system interface must satisfy: legibility, predictability, and recoverability. He also describes a coming design challenge that has no precedent, which is building interface components for AI systems that will dynamically assemble the UX themselves, in real time, based on individual context. Topics discussed:How AI and autonomy are shifting military operators from in-the-loop to on-the-loop as threat volumes scale The three trust requirements for autonomous system UI design: legibility, predictability, and recoverabilityWorking with early-stage defense companies before contracts arrive and how early design involvement shapes technical requirements AI systems that dynamically assemble their own UX, requiring designers to build components for experiences they can’t fully predictHow procurement decision-makers who grew up with iPhones are raising the bar for defense technology usabilityWhy trust erosion from poor interface design is effectively irreversible so the military ends up with expensive equipment operators work around 

David Dickey, CEO, Founder, & Executive Search Consultant of Patriot Group, has seen it happen: an executive placed into a PE-backed defense company and a year later, the firm was contracting operations and pushing to sell. It wasn’t because of the market, but because the hire who looked great on paper couldn't actually lead. David has founded and exited aerospace and defense companies before starting Patriot Group, and watched that pattern repeat enough times that he built his entire process around preventing it. He walks through the Patriot Method, which focuses on the “p” being for “planning.” He also reflects on how most job descriptions are laundry lists that have to be torn apart before a search can even begin, how a scorecard keeps hiring teams from getting charmed by a good talker, and why running the same questions through the candidate, the brief, and the reference check is the only way to build real signal on something as hard to fake as leadership under pressure. Topics discussed:Using scorecards and structured job description reviews to eliminate "laundry list" hiring and focus searches on actual requirementsNavigating the talent gap facing defense tech startups competing for the same senior candidates from high-logo companiesScreening executive candidates for AI fluency through scenario questions, written questionnaires, and reference checksIdentifying what separates high-impact defense executives from candidates who perform well in interviews but fail in the seatWhy senior military operators face a harder transition into defense tech executive roles than technical veteransHow the Patriot Method (planning, scorecards, submission packages, and communication) reduces offer-stage surprises and failed placementsHow competitive comp, defined growth path, and a differentiated story drives top defense tech talent to leave established companiesWhy founders cannot delegate accountability for culture to a head of people and what happens to companies that do

Coastal launch infrastructure is a strategic chokepoint that is one EW disruption off the Cape grounds US space ops, and bespoke responsive launch systems top out at a magazine depth of three. Jonathan Slavik, Co-Founder & CEO of Sagittarius Logistics, is building the orbital launch company incumbents structurally cannot become: designed from day one for payload handoffs measured in hours, non-destructive abort capability that unlocks inland and distributed launch, and an airline-model operations stack that gives the DOD unlimited reconstitution depth by stepping directly into a commercial flow already running at daily cadence. Jonathan walks through the technical architecture and the FAA regulatory roadmap for over-land launch. Topics discussed:Why commercially-driven space companies require market-responsive launch timelines that existing providers structurally cannot offerHow non-destructive abort capability eliminates months-long payload acceptance testing and enables FAA approval for inland over-land launch routesThe airline model for launch operations: swapping vehicles without delaying payloads and scheduling days or weeks out instead of yearsWhy incumbent launch providers are locked out of this market by prior design decisions and an incompatible business modelNational security case for distributed inland launch: eliminating coastal single points of failure and replacing bespoke warehouse-stored rockets Revenue-first company building strategy: subscale hovering rocket vehicles generating early revenueHuman-on-the-loop ML architecture: 30-40 simultaneous sensor data streams used to detect anomalies before they require vehicle recoveryHow a commercial procurement mindset benefits DOD by matching real mission requirements to available commercial capabilities

Jackson Moses, Founder and Managing Partner at Silent Ventures, spent a decade building companies before he started backing them. He founded Silent Ventures to invest exclusively at the pre-seed and seed stage in aerospace, defense, and national security, specifically because he believed most early-stage investors didn't understand what it actually took to survive inside the defense contracting system.Jackson makes the case that most defense tech companies fail on go to market, not technology, and that a program of record is the only outcome that turns a defense tech startup into a real business. He also gives a direct take on why dual use is a hedge word, why SBIR dollars prolong the valley of death instead of crossing it, and why diversification is the wrong thesis for anyone investing seriously in this space.Topics discussed:Why SBIRs prolong the valley of death instead of solving itDual use as a hedge word, not a strategyProgram of record as the only real success metric for defense techWhat Silent Ventures looks for in a founding team at pre-seedGo-to-market as the primary failure point in defense techWhy diversification kills alpha in defense tech investingBiggest funding gaps: electronic warfare and affordable drone massThe case against building a defense tech company around non-dilutive funding