WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth On Friday, the Pentagon said it was reviewing the way the military purchases weapons, shifting focus from producing advanced and complex technology to products that can be manufactured and delivered quickly.
“The objective is simple: transform the entire acquisition system to be war-ready, rapidly accelerate capability deployment, and focus on results,” Hegseth told military leaders and defense contractors in Washington.
Hegseth gave a speech lasting more than an hour at the National Military University. It was much more in-depth into military details. last big speech Hundreds of military leaders were suddenly called to their base in Virginia. he declared He put an end to “woke” culture and announced a “gender neutral” directive for the military.
Hegseth acknowledged the granularity Friday, saying, “If anyone was watching this on Fox, they would roll their eyes.”
The defense secretary argued that his changes are aimed at moving the military away from traditional processes that prioritize delivering perfect products even if they are expensive and delayed, and in favor of things that are not ideal but can be delivered quickly. Some experts say the changes could mean less transparency and result in the military using a system that may not work as expected.
“The 85% solution that our military has today is far better than the unattainable 100% solution that is subject to endless testing and waiting for additional technology development,” he said. He claimed that what previously took years could be accomplished within a year.
The shift will look like this fierce war in russia Ukraine is short of funds Inexpensive mass-produced drone The aim is to effectively deter technologically superior Moscow, which is armed with state-of-the-art missiles and hundreds of tanks.
“Drones are the biggest battlefield innovation in a generation and account for the majority of casualties in Ukraine this year,” Hegseth said. I claimed in my July memo. before declaring that “while global military drone production has skyrocketed over the past three years, the previous administration has red tape.” The memo lifts some of the Pentagon’s restrictions on drone purchases.
Todd Harrison, a defense budget and acquisition expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said Hegseth’s idea represents a major change in the way the military buys weapons.
But he cautioned that unless contractors are incentivized to “check all the boxes” on all the boxes the military wants in a product, “they might deliver something faster, but it might not be what you expect.”
The way the U.S. military purchases weapons and platforms has been under fire for decades for a variety of reasons. The most famous example of the Pentagon’s failure to properly equip the front lines in recent years is in Iraq and Afghanistan, where scores of soldiers were killed by roadside bombs because of poorly armored vehicles not designed for conflict.
Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used his influence to quickly develop the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) through an acquisition process within a year.
Mr Hegseth acknowledged the effort on Friday, saying: “The whole process… needs to move at the speed of MRAP.”
Other Pentagon efforts have also recently taken place, including China’s invasion of Taiwan, Quickly deploy a swarm of dronesresults are mixed.
Hegseth also argued that companies selling weapons and platforms to the military must “assume the risk of partnering with the United States.”
He then took aim at major defense contractors, saying the Pentagon would move away from a traditional system of limited competition to “take greater advantage of America’s innovative companies.”
Mr Harrison said there were risks involved in moving away from traditional contractors. This is because they have deep expertise and most are publicly traded companies. That “means we have more visibility into their liquidity, the stability of the company, the stability of the board,” he said.
This change creates the potential for further fraud and fraud.
“Many of these startups have very little internal visibility into how the company works, who owns what, how decisions are made. It’s all very opaque,” Harrison said.
