Pentagon’s Procurement System Faces Scrutiny Amid Evolving Threats
The Pentagon’s acquisition process, historically responsible for equipping American forces with iconic military hardware such as the Humvee and Apache helicopter, is now under intense scrutiny. Critics argue that the system is bogged down in outdated practices and excessive bureaucracy, potentially hindering the U.S. military’s ability to effectively respond to emerging threats and great-power competition.
Alex Miller, the Army’s Chief Technology Officer, highlighted the issue, citing the continued procurement of Humvees despite their vulnerability to roadside bombs (IEDs) during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Even after the introduction of more survivable vehicles like MRAPs and Strykers, the Army persisted in purchasing Humvees, exposing a systemic problem in how the military conducts its business. Miller pointed out that the Army is still utilizing over 100,000 Humvees, showcasing an outdated acquisition process which has not adapted to evolving threats.
Miller explained that the military is operating under post-Cold War principles that dictate continued procurement based on established requirements, regardless of changing circumstances. The requirements process, acquisition process, and fielding process have remained largely unchanged, leading to a situation where outdated equipment remains in use despite the availability of superior alternatives. This suggests that new technologies are not being adopted into the battlefield quickly enough.
Even newer systems, like the JLTV designed to replace the Humvee with enhanced armor and mobility, are vulnerable to becoming obsolete due to the rapid pace of technological advancement and the emergence of new threats. Despite ongoing procurement efforts, Miller questions whether these systems are the optimal solution.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has issued a memo directing a comprehensive overhaul of the Army’s acquisitions process. His intention is to modernize the process by getting weapons systems from the proposal stage to the battlefield before they become outdated. Hegseth stated that, to build a more lethal fighting force, the Army must transform at an accelerated pace, divesting outdated, redundant, and inefficient programs, as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems.
Miller warned that some of the Army’s key weapons platforms may be ill-suited for future battlefields. He highlighted the lack of demand for Apache helicopters in Ukraine, suggesting that unmanned systems may be a more appropriate direction. He also questioned the value of legacy artillery platforms like the Paladin howitzer, noting that the Army is stockpiling them primarily to meet a minimum sustainment rate, rather than in response to specific commander requests.
To address these shortcomings and accelerate modernization, the Army is undertaking initiatives to reduce bureaucratic procedures and revise regulations. The "Transforming in Contact" program involves embedding requirement writers in the field alongside soldiers, enabling them to gather real-time feedback instead of relying on lengthy documents drafted in Washington. This direct engagement with soldiers ensures that their needs are being met. Miller suggested that simply listening to what soldiers need for a change has been wildly successful.
According to Miller, streamlined requirements documentation for next-generation unmanned aerial vehicles has reduced 200- to 300-page documents to just 10 pages. He cited the example of units equipped with advanced gear, including autonomous infantry vehicles, advanced battery tech, and hundreds of drones, during training exercises at Fort Johnson, Louisiana. These advancements were made possible by leaders who authorized taking action, rather than adhering to traditional bureaucratic processes.
However, experts like Abigail Blanco, a defense expert and professor at the University of Tampa, caution that modernization is not always the optimal solution. She cited the RQ-4 Global Hawk reconnaissance system, which had an impressive payload capacity and advanced capabilities but was extremely expensive. Air Force reports indicated a preference for the Cold War-era U-2 spy plane over the RQ-4.
Miller noted that some lawmakers and defense officials initially resisted the Army’s efforts to streamline systems. However, the Army successfully advocated for its reforms, emphasizing that the goal was not to increase spending but to utilize taxpayer dollars more effectively.
Blanco highlighted the role of congressional budgeting practices in perpetuating the procurement of equipment beyond its useful lifespan. Elected representatives often have a vested interest in ensuring the continued production of military hardware, regardless of operational necessity, because they could be manufactured in their district.
Ultimately, Miller emphasized that acquisition reform is not about cutting corners but about adapting to an adversary who is unconstrained by bureaucracy. In this ever-changing environment, it is crucial to work with commercial entities and deliver capabilities to soldiers more rapidly. The Army must utilize commercial entities and determine the best ways to get equipment into soldiers’ hands faster.
The need to evolve quickly is not just the problem of the armed forces. It is a need for all government entities and commercial businesses. The world is evolving at an exponential rate and the US government is not structured to deal with these changes.
A new, streamlined, cooperative environment is needed to ensure that the US can be successful in the decades to come. Without these changes, the US risks falling behind its adversaries.
The Pentagon’s procurement system is at a critical juncture. Its ability to adapt to evolving threats and embrace innovative solutions will determine the U.S. military’s effectiveness in future conflicts. As Secretary Hegseth’s memo and Miller’s remarks underscore, a fundamental shift in mindset and practices is essential to ensure that American forces remain equipped with the best possible tools to safeguard national security.
