- Special operations forces have a fast and flexible weapons acquisition process.
- It’s critical to keeping operators ahead of the curve on what capabilities are needed.
- There are lessons for the larger Joint Force and Pentagon, officials said.
US Special Operations Forces know how to get new technologies and weapons to the warfighter quickly, and there are potential lessons in their approach for the broader military.
At a recent symposium in Washington, DC, speakers argued that the Pentagon needs to move faster.
“The biggest thing we need to do is really fundamentally change the culture of the Pentagon and Congress,” Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat and the ranking member of the US House Armed Services Committee, said last month at the National Defense Industrial Association’s US Special Operations Symposium.
“We need to speed up the pace of innovation,” he said.
Special operations forces have flexible acquisition processes which not only bring operators and industry partners together but also encourage adaptations in real time.
At the recent symposium, special operations leadership, other military officials, and industry partners spoke about what works and what doesn’t in acquiring new weapons and capabilities.
SOF’s agile acquisition process means that it’s able to work with industry partners to get its hands on and adjust both hardware and software faster than others. Officials said its approach was a model for how to solve broader issues within the Pentagon.
Melissa Johnson, a Senior Executive Service member and acquisition executive for Special Operations Command (SOCOM), said the strength in the process is that decision-making on what systems to acquire and when is made through close coordination with the operator, creating a stronger relationship between what the individual operator sees as necessary and what industry partners can provide.
“I think the recipe is really simple,” Johnson said at the symposium, adding that “it’s the mindset and culture of being able to take the magic that happens at SOCOM, the way we do business, and how do we scale that and get that across the department.”
What slows down DoD acquisition? There are a range of different factors.
As officials said recently, many of the problems are due to the way funding is appropriated and how contracting works across the services and Congress. The other complication is the requirements piece and whether some are too complicated and arbitrary for certain systems. Smith referenced lengthy and sometimes unnecessary requirements for some things, such as paint on the littoral combat ship.
It is not as though US special operations forces are not without their own acquisition problems. For instance, special operations commanders told the House Armed Services Committee last week that US adversaries are modernizing faster than they can, telling congressional leaders that sometimes technology is already obsolete by the time it’s fielded.
Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, the commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, said “it’s this constant loop of trying to catch up with the enemy threat.”
Still, special operations forces tend to move faster than the rest of the military, which is feeling the pressure to modernize for a higher-end conflict amid the emergence of newer combat technologies like uncrewed systems and artificial intelligence and the greater focus on great power competition with China and Russia.
There are lessons to be learned, SOCOM officials said, from the Ukraine war, where drone manufacturers are creating hardware and software solutions to problems on the battlefields even when countermeasures arise.
Chris Brose, the chief strategy officer at Anduril Industries, said that one of the benefits of working with SOCOM is that its work with industry partners is run differently than the requirements for building the next attack submarine or destroyer.
Brose pointed to Anduril’s work with SOCOM on counter-drone systems, noting that feedback from operators on threats that outpace new technologies was key to adjusting in real time.
Others have tried this approach with industry, such as US Army Futures Command, which relied on immersive testing and feedback soldier touch points. Still, there is room for improvement in innovation and acquisition within DoD.
Adopting SOCOM’s way of doing things comes down to having greater flexibility in the budget. But there’s wariness from appropriators, Smith said, and that’s been a big battle with questions on oversight. Not every solution presented, officials said, is going to apply to the entire military, as special operations forces purchase smaller quantities of cutting-edge technology with a smaller, flexible budget. But a general focus on problem-solving that’s closer to industry could be beneficial.
Read the full article here
