logo
The defense acquisition system is broken — it's time for an overhaul

The defense acquisition system is broken — it's time for an overhaul

Yahoo2 days ago

The United States' industrial might helped save the free world in World War II. William Knudsen, the Detroit auto titan turned wartime production chief, put it simply: 'We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production.'
Could the U.S. meet a similar mobilization challenge today? The answer is likely no without real changes to our acquisition system — and our adversaries know it.
That's why the House Armed Services Committee is advancing the SPEED Act — a bold, bipartisan reform effort to overhaul our broken acquisition system.
Our acquisition process is too slow, risk-averse and bureaucratic to deliver the capabilities that service members need. It incentivizes compliance over capability, process over speed and certitude over innovation.
While China can field new military capabilities in months, the U.S. often takes more than a decade, by which time the threat has changed, the technology is outdated and the program is over budget. We struggle to replenish stockpiles sent to support Ukraine and Israel and U.S. operations in the Red Sea. Moreover, we must ensure we have sufficient supplies of key munitions in the event of a prolonged conflict. The U.S. cannot deter and, if necessary, win a future conflict if we cannot equip our forces at speed and scale.
This vulnerability stems from a struggling acquisition system and the hollowing out of the domestic defense industrial base. Since the 1990s, the number of defense prime contractors has shrunk from 51 to just six. Excessive regulations have pushed commercial firms away from working with the Defense Department. Game-changing technologies from startups often languish in the notorious 'Valley of Death,' where Pentagon bureaucracy stymies the ability to translate innovation into full-scale production.
These barriers to entry and layers of red tape are national security risks. It is time to break them down.
The SPEED Act will empower program executive officers with clear authority and greater budget flexibility. In doing so, it will enable them to be held accountable for fielding capabilities that meet the threat, not just check compliance boxes. It also tackles the bureaucratic chokepoints that slow acquisition to a crawl, notably by accelerating the requirements process from nearly three years to as little as 90 days.
It clears a path for commercial innovation by attracting new entrants to the defense industrial base, reducing barriers to the Pentagon's use of commercial technology and bridging the 'Valley of Death.' It promotes a data-as-a-service model to ensure the U.S. military can access the data it needs to maintain its systems without requiring industry to give up the rights to privately funded intellectual property.
By cutting through layers of bureaucracy, the bill also modernizes outdated regulations that slow the delivery and needlessly drive up the cost of critical capabilities. Specifically, it raises dollar thresholds to free smaller programs from excessive oversight and eliminates duplicative cost reporting requirements.
In short, the SPEED Act streamlines overly burdensome compliance without compromising transparency or accountability — ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent more efficiently and effectively.
Finally, it establishes the Industrial Resilience Consortium. This will put industry at the table to help the Pentagon solve critical challenges such as parts obsolescence, supply chain fragility and the urgent need to restore the United States' surge capacity by leveraging advanced manufacturing.
We cannot afford to continue on the path of business as usual. It is time to reform how the Pentagon buys weapons so that we can harness the United States' unmatched innovation and dynamic private sector and deliver the capabilities that service members need.
Our current acquisition system is standing in the way. The SPEED Act will address this critical challenge before it is too late.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., serves as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., serves as the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain says it understands U.S. need to review AUKUS submarine pact
Britain says it understands U.S. need to review AUKUS submarine pact

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Britain says it understands U.S. need to review AUKUS submarine pact

LONDON (Reuters) -Britain said on Thursday it understood a decision by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to launch a formal review into the AUKUS submarine pact, repeating London's position that the project was crucial to peace and security. In 2023, the United States, Australia and Britain unveiled details of the plan to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines from the early 2030s to counter China's ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. On Wednesday, a Pentagon official said the administration was reviewing AUKUS to ensure it was "aligned with the President's America First agenda". Asked about the review, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "As we've already said it is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership." "AUKUS is a landmark security and defence partnership with two of our closest allies and it's one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades supporting peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic," he told reporters.

Trump wanted an Iran deal fast. Now he may get military confrontation
Trump wanted an Iran deal fast. Now he may get military confrontation

CNBC

time27 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Trump wanted an Iran deal fast. Now he may get military confrontation

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Oil prices spiked overnight on geopolitical concerns, as U.S. President Donald Trump struck a sharply more negative tone over the progress of nuclear talks with Iran and announced the withdrawal of some American personnel from the Middle East. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," he told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. Speaking on a podcast with the New York Post, Trump accused Tehran of "delaying", calling it a "shame." "I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them," he said of Iranian representatives. The president earlier warned that the U.S. or Israel could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed. He added that his administration would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. In response, Iran's defense minister expressed hope for the talks, but warned of military retaliation if things were to go south. "It won't come to that, and the talks will yield results. But if they don't, and the conflict is imposed upon us, the enemy's losses will undoubtedly be greater than ours," the minister told Iranian press. "In that case, America will have to leave the region, because all of its bases are within our reach. We have access to them, and without hesitation, we will target all of them in the host countries." On Thursday, the IAEA Board of Governors — the UN's nuclear watchdog — passed a resolution declaring Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations for the first time in nearly 20 years. The developments mark a stark shift after several rounds of mostly indirect U.S.-Iran talks that were previously described as "positive" and "respectful." Tehran has accused Washington of not being serious in its engagement and not respecting Iran's right to enrich uranium for what it insists are peaceful purposes. As it stands, U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for further discussions. Both the Trump administration and Iran say they want a deal. For Trump, this would deliver a political and diplomatic win that the previous Biden administration failed to achieve. For Iran, it would mean desperately needed relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy. The number one hold up? Domestic uranium enrichment in Iran, which can be used to generate nuclear energy for peaceful purposes — or build a bomb. After initially showing flexibility on Iran being able to enrich uranium at lower levels for nuclear power generation, Trump has changed his tune, saying anything beyond zero enrichment in the country is unacceptable. That's a hard deal-breaker for Tehran, which demands its right to a civilian nuclear energy program. Iran maintains that right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it joined in 1970, and which allows non-nuclear weapon states to build peaceful nuclear energy programs. But concerns abound over Iran's actual intentions. Under the 2015 Obama-era Iranian nuclear deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran committed to capping levels of 3.67% enriched uranium at 300 kilograms — enough to sustain a civilian nuclear power program. But Iran's uranium enrichment has reached 60% purity, according to the IAEA — a dramatically higher level that is a short technical step from the weapons-grade purity level of 90%. "A country enriching at 60% is a very serious thing. Only countries making bombs are reaching this level," IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said in 2021. So what happens next, and how high is the risk of a military conflict between the U.S or Israel, and Iran, a country of 93 million people that is nearly four times the size of Iraq? Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed Trump to allow strikes, while the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran, while negotiations with Washington were under way. Tensions have escalated since then. Multiple analysts speaking to CNBC say a military confrontation is still likely to be averted — for now. Some suggest that the recent partial evacuation orders are part of the choreography of pressure ahead of the upcoming U.S.-Iran talks. Despite Trump publicly saying any Iranian domestic enrichment at all represents a red line, a number of options have been floated that would provide a sort of "compromise" for Tehran. Those include the U.S. proposal that Iran join a regional nuclear consortium that would allow it to continue enriching uranium at low levels while committing to zero enrichment at some point in the future, and that would see it mothball — but not dismantle — its nuclear facilities. But the U.S. proposal "is more a series of ideas than a concrete plan, and for the moment looks unworkable," Gregory Brew, senior Iran and energy analyst at Eurasia Group, wrote in a note this week. "Even if Iran is allowed to enrich on an interim basis, it will not accept an arrangement that does not safeguard this right in perpetuity." In addition, the Iranians "are also quite irritated that the U.S. has not engaged substantively with the issue of sanctions relief," Brew said. "They are asking for clarification on that issue; the Iranians of course are chiefly interested in a deal that brings sanctions relief for their economy." The fact that Iran has openly threatened to directly strike U.S. assets in the region if attacked is tremendously significant, according to Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. That's in large part because the missiles Iran deployed to strike Israel last October "actually were quite efficient," Parsi told CNBC's "Access Middle East" on Thursday. "If there is a confrontation, and if the Iranians make true on their threats to target American bases, this is going to end up becoming a very, very devastating confrontation," Parsi said. "And supporters of Trump from his own base are very worried that he will be jeopardizing his entire presidency over this issue, when in reality, there is a diplomatic deal in reach."

Bruce Springsteen's Berlin concert echoes with history and a stark warning

time31 minutes ago

Bruce Springsteen's Berlin concert echoes with history and a stark warning

BERLIN -- BERLIN (AP) — Veteran rock star Bruce Springsteen, a high-profile critic of President Donald Trump, slammed the U.S. administration as 'corrupt, incompetent and treasonous' during a concert Wednesday in Berlin. He was addressing tens of thousands of fans at a stadium built for the 1936 Olympic Games that still bears the scars of World War II and contains relics from the country's dark Nazi past. 'Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices, stand with us against authoritarianism, and let freedom reign,' he said. Springsteen has made increasingly pointed and contentious public statements in recent concerts. He peppered Wednesday's performance with mentions of the American democracy's system of checks and balances designed to ward against authoritarianism. His short speeches — referencing recent headlines about immigration raids, the freezing of federal funds for universities and measles outbreaks — came between songs that were also captioned in German on large screens beside the stage. The set was flanked by an American flag on one side and a German flag on the other. Still, the Boss remained hopeful: 'The America that I've sung to you about for the past 50 years of my life is real. And regardless of its many faults, it's a great country with great people. And we will survive this moment.' But last month in Manchester, he denounced Trump's politics during a concert, calling him an 'unfit president' leading a 'rogue government' of people who have 'no concern or idea for what it means to be deeply American.' Springsteen is no stranger to Berlin. In July 1988, he became one of the first Western musicians to perform in East Germany, performing to a roaring crowd of 160,000 East Germans yearning for American rock 'n' roll and the freedom it represented to the youth living under the crumbling communist regime. 'I'm not here for or against any government. I've come to play rock 'n' roll for you in the hope that one day all the barriers will be torn down,' Springsteen said in German at the time, before launching into a cover of Bob Dylan's 'Chimes of Freedom.' An Associated Press news story from that period says 'fireworks streaked through the sky' and hundreds of people in the audience waved handmade American flags as they sang along to 'Born in the USA.' The Berlin Wall fell the following year, and some experts credit the concert for its part in fueling the protest movement that brought the end of the Communist government. Almost four decades later, Springsteen issued a stark warning: 'The America that I love, the America that I've sung to you about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration." The rocker closed Wednesday's three-hour show with 'Chimes of Freedom.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store