By Chuck Cynamon, Defense Opinion Writer.
With his memo last November and address at the National War College, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has made clear that the acquisition process for military technology will change considerably in the near future.
Advances in technology enable our adversaries to adopt new warfighting methods quickly. Because those adversaries are unconstrained by the highly bureaucratic and lengthy processes entrenched in the Pentagon ethos, they readily use advanced technologies, often against us. As the secretary emphasized and so many in industry know, the military’s deeply embedded and dated acquisition model needs to change.
U.S. warfighters require and deserve advanced capability now rather than later. Leveraging the commercial technology and capabilities that industry can deliver is pivotal to getting those advanced capabilities into warfighters’ hands. That demands a faster procurement cycle.
Speeding up weapons acquisition
The secretary emphasized doing away with the current Joint Capabilities and Integration Development System process (JCIDS), which defines acquisition requirements for defense programs. It will be replaced with three new, more agile entities focused on speed, warfighting priorities and a flexible funding pool that allows for rapidly trying out new capabilities.
The concept isn’t new. The Pentagon has mechanisms such as the Adaptive Acquisition Framework 5000 policy series, which delegates acquisition decision-making into six tailored pathways, and the Space Rapid Capabilities Office, an independent unit in the Space Force acquisition system, to speed acquisitions for priority needs.
Such policies should become the standard approach for all defense requirements, because the U.S. is in a strategically competitive environment that makes all needs urgent.
Reform requires budgeting changes
Changing the requirements and acquisition models also forces a change to budgeting. That requires collaboration with Congress, which must ultimately approve the Department of Defense budget. The department’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process that creates a five-year funding plan will need to realign to Hegseth’s newly proposed requirements and acquisition changes.
That is because commercial industry does not work to the PPBE cycle; it works at a rapid pace of innovation and the market entry need. The government needs both a policy and a mindset change to tap that innovation in a timely way. It must be able to buy and adopt commercial capability as soon as it is available, perhaps even invest before its formal launch – not years after the fact.
For example, communications capability, which underpins everything the department does, is rapidly advancing with the proliferation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations that enable reliable connectivity in even the most remote locations. As more commercial LEO-based networks come online, the department should be able to take advantage of the dramatically expanded and secure capacity rather than waiting years to build and launch more of its own satellites.
But the PPBE must allow the flexibility to do that in a timely manner.
Committing earlier, sending better demand signals
As advanced commercial satellite communications and many other new solutions appear on the near-term horizon, defense agencies should be able to factor them into acquisition plans as soon as they are available. It is common for agencies to sign contracts to build their own systems five to seven years in advance; why not do the same for commercial systems that will be brought to market in a far shorter timeframe?
Committing early will reduce the risk of the department being in competition for new capabilities with commercial and even international customers, ensuring the military will have access to innovations that may already be experiencing high demand in the broader market. High early demand demonstrates commercial buyers’ confidence that a vendor will have a capability worthy of signing a contract, making a defense agency commitment a safer bet.
Budgeting in advance for the kinds of large purchases the military frequently makes can also provide pricing leverage, in an age where cost reduction and efficiency are prioritized. We have seen this done successfully before, as Commercial Pathfinders in the 2010s emphasized finding ways to get better pricing for commercial SATCOM. In lieu of buying services on the spot market, the Department of Defense could likely achieve better pricing with innovative acquisition approaches.
More multi-year procurements needed
Even as faster acquisition paths open up, budget categorization also needs to be addressed. For example, mechanisms such as service level agreements (SLAs) that guarantee a pre-agreed amount of capacity and performance will help ensure that the department not only accesses what it needs faster but also gets as much as it needs when it is needed.
However, budget rules currently require an SLA to be categorized as a services procurement that gets renewed annually – and is therefore subject to shifting political influence and budget negotiations.
Instead, being able to categorize a communications SLA as the capital expense capability would enable the department to benefit from the predictability and consistency of a multi-year acquisition. This would support longer-range operational planning and ensure warfighters will have connectivity essential to their missions.
The Department of Defense is undergoing disruptive but exciting change, some of it long overdue. Making big changes is never simple, and modernizing the deeply entrenched acquisition process is certainly a formidable task, but one that is essential.
The realities of modern conflict compel it, and our warfighters deserve timely access to the capabilities they need to protect our national interests.
Charles “Chuck” Cynamon is president of Telesat Government Solutions, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.
Are you a Defense Daily reader with a thought-provoking opinion on a defense issue? We want to hear from you.
- We welcome submissions of opinion articles on national security, defense spending, weapons systems and related areas.
- We welcome submissions from lawmakers, administration officials, industry representatives, military officials, academics, think tank experts, congressional candidates, international experts and others on issues important to the national defense community.
- We welcome a diverse range of opinions all along the political spectrum.
- Email: editor@DefenseOpinion.com
