Digital Engineering: Zero Shot or Zero Chance?

Can We Build Army Vehicles Without Prototypes—or Is That Still Science Fiction? 

ARC Annual Review Debate Sparks Strategic Reflections on Army Modernization 

Ann Arbor, MI – June 18, 2025 — At the 2025 Annual Review of the Automotive Research Center (the ARC), a high-stakes debate captivated more than 250 leaders from the U.S. Army, academic institutions, and the defense industry. Framed as a bold confrontation between two provocative viewpoints—Zero Shot (the belief that digital engineering is ready to eliminate the need for physical prototypes) and Zero Chance (the argument that digital engineering will never fully replace physical testing)—the debate aimed to challenge assumptions and deepen understanding of digital engineering’s real potential in Army ground vehicle systems. The session was co-moderated by Dr. Tulga Ersal, Chief Scientist at the ARC, and Dr. Alauddin Ahmed, Principal Scientist at the ARC. 

Why This Debate Matters: Perspectives from the ARC and the Army 

“The Army is investing in digital engineering not just to modernize—but to revolutionize how we design, test, and deliver future systems,” said Dr. David Gorsich, Chief Scientist at the U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC). “This debate gives voice to the spectrum of opinions we need to hear—honest insights from technical, operational, and academic leaders who don’t always agree.” 

“The ARC sits at the intersection of emerging science and Army mission needs,” said Prof. Bogdan Epureanu, Director of the ARC.
“This debate is not about taking sides. It’s about provoking the right questions to ensure we develop the best possible systems for those who serve.” 

Meet the Debaters: Leaders Shaping the Future of Defense and Engineering 

Team “Zero Shot” (Digital engineering is ready to replace physical prototyping) 

• Prof. Jian Cao, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
  Associate Vice President for Research at Northwestern University and a global leader in intelligent manufacturing. Prof. Cao is a member of both the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She is the founding director of Northwestern’s Initiative for Manufacturing Science and Innovation, focused on cutting-edge, customizable production technologies. 

“We must embrace simulation-driven manufacturing not as a supporting step, but as the design foundation itself. The fidelity we can now achieve is redefining what’s possible—and what’s wasteful—in physical prototyping,” Prof. Cao asserted. Upon revealing her true stance, she added, “I support accelerated digital adoption, but it must be informed by intelligent boundaries and physical calibration when needed.” 

• Colonel Ryan A. Howell, Ph.D. Project Manager for Main Battle Tank Systems in the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS). COL Howell brings over 20 years of U.S. Army leadership experience, including overseas commands, research roles, and acquisition posts. His operational and technical background spans materials, prototyping, and system integration. 

“We don’t win by iterating on hardware forever—we win by moving faster than the threat. Digital engineering gives us that edge,” said COL Howell. Later, he clarified, “I believe in the direction—but we’re not there yet. DE is a capability, not a replacement.” 

Team “Zero Chance” (Digital engineering cannot fully replace physical prototyping)

• Colonel Jeffrey Jurand, Project Manager for the XM30 Program in Maneuver Combat Systems at PEO GCS. COL Jurand previously served at the Army Research Laboratory and as Executive Officer to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA(ALT)). His expertise spans artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and digital system acquisition. 

“No simulation will ever reproduce the battlefield’s chaos. We can’t afford digital illusions when soldier safety is on the line,” COL Jurand emphasized. Revealing his true position, he acknowledged, “DE is powerful—but only as powerful as its validation in the real world.” 

• Prof. Alan Taub, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
  Former Vice President for Global Research & Development at General Motors and current Director of the University of Michigan’s Electric Vehicle Center. Prof. Taub is an internationally recognized expert in advanced mobility and materials, leading over $130 million in state-backed efforts to accelerate vehicle electrification and workforce development.

“History shows us that every breakthrough still had to be physically tested to be trusted. That’s not a limitation—it’s wisdom,” Prof. Taub remarked. At the end, he noted, “We must expand our digital toolkit aggressively—but never eliminate physical prototyping altogether.” 

What’s at Stake: A Clash of Paradigms 

The debate explored whether the Army’s future vehicles and systems can be designed and validated entirely in virtual environments: 

Zero Shot advocates argued: 

• Simulation and modeling are now robust enough to eliminate much of the cost, time, and risk of physical prototyping. 
• With rich data streams, digital engineering systems can self-correct and improve—reducing the need for human intervention. 
• A digital-first strategy is essential to outpace evolving threats and shorten development timelines. 

Zero Chance defenders responded: 

• Real-world complexity—materials, physics, unexpected edge cases—cannot be fully captured in any virtual model. 
• Mission-critical systems, like ground vehicles, demand physical validation to ensure safety and reliability. 
• Examples such as the British Army’s AJAX vehicle program demonstrate how reliance on digital design alone can overlook system-breaking flaws. 

Audience Engagement and Candid Reflections 

Audience members—ranging from Army program managers to university researchers—raised thoughtful, at times provocative questions: 

• Can the Army afford the volume and quality of data needed for truly effective digital engineering? 
• How do we overcome institutional cultures still rooted in hardware-first mindsets? 
• Will future safety certifications and combat-readiness standards ever trust simulation alone? 

The debate’s unique format concluded with each panelist revealing their personal beliefs after defending their assigned stance—illuminating the complexity and nuance of this issue across the defense enterprise.

Reflections from Key Leaders 

“This debate captured exactly what’s needed right now: respectful disagreement, technical clarity, and a shared goal of making Army systems safer and smarter,” said Dr. Talia Sebastian, Deputy Chief Scientist at GVSC.
“Whether you’re an engineer or policymaker, you left with a richer understanding of what digital engineering can and cannot do.”

“It’s great to see the ARC continuing this tradition of pushing boundaries,” added Prof. Dawn Tilbury, Chair of Robotics at the University of Michigan, member of the National Academy of Engineering, and former Assistant Director for Engineering at the National Science Foundation (NSF).
“Debates like these are where bold ideas meet real constraints—and where innovation actually begins.” 

Looking Forward

The debate ultimately reinforced that digital engineering is not a binary promise—it’s a journey. As the Army evolves from the legacy “design-build-test” model toward a “model-analyze-build” paradigm, the ARC’s role as a trusted research partner grows ever more critical.

“Our goal with this debate was not to find a winner—but to make space for critical discourse,” said Dr. Tulga Ersal, Chief Scientist at the ARC.
“By openly confronting contrasting viewpoints, we support the Army in making better-informed, strategically sound decisions.”

“Debates like these challenge us to think beyond the lab or the field—they force us to bridge them,” added Dr. Alauddin Ahmed, Principal Scientist at the ARC.
“That’s what digital engineering demands, and it’s what the ARC is built to enable.”

“This debate wasn’t about who’s right,” concluded Prof. Bogdan Epureanu, Director of the ARC.
“It was about preparing our minds—just as we prepare our models—for the complexity of the future challenges.”