The Pentagon’s acquisition chief signaled that “speed” is not a blanket mandate for overhauling defense procurement, emphasizing trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance, according to remarks reported by Breaking Defense. The comments suggest the department will rely on targeted reforms—rather than sweeping changes—as it tries to field systems faster for a more contested world.

What the Pentagon is saying

In recent remarks reported by Breaking Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment said the drive to move faster will be tempered by judgment and flexibility across the classic triad of cost, schedule, and performance. The message: rapid fielding matters, but not at the expense of reliability, affordability, or suitability for troops. It’s a sign the department is unlikely to abandon the core guardrails of acquisition even as it pushes to speed up deliveries of everything from munitions to software. The official comments also align with guidance the Pentagon has shared in recent years—use rapid pathways when they fit, but keep discipline on major programs.

Why speed became the watchword

The call for faster procurement grew out of practical needs. The war in Ukraine exposed gaps in U.S. and allied stockpiles and the time it takes to ramp production of basic items like 155mm artillery shells. In the Indo-Pacific, commanders warn they need more resilient logistics, long-range munitions, and agile software to deter a high-end adversary. Washington has tried to meet those demands by leaning on tools such as Other Transaction Authorities, the Middle Tier of Acquisition for rapid prototyping and fielding, and multiyear buys for critical munitions approved in recent defense policy and spending bills. The Pentagon has also launched initiatives like Replicator to accelerate attritable, autonomous systems, while the State Department is implementing a modernization plan for foreign military sales to shorten timelines for allies.

The trade-offs and risks

Moving fast comes with risks the department has seen before. Concurrency—the practice of building systems while testing is still underway—contributed to expensive retrofits on past programs like the F-35 and ship classes that encountered reliability issues after early fielding. Government watchdogs, including the Government Accountability Office in its annual weapon systems assessments, have repeatedly urged the Pentagon to mature technology before committing to production and to strengthen cost and schedule discipline. The latest comments suggest leadership is trying to thread that needle: use rapid lanes where appropriate (software, small UAS, counter-drone tech), but avoid locking in immature designs on multibillion-dollar programs that affect the force for decades.

What it means for workers, troops, and allies

For service members, the balance between speed and rigor determines whether new gear shows up on time and works as advertised. For communities tied to the defense industrial base—from shell plants in Pennsylvania to missile lines in Arkansas and Arizona—multiyear procurement and clearer demand signals can mean steadier jobs and investments in facilities and workforce training. Small and midsize suppliers, which often innovate in areas like drones and sensors, stand to benefit when the Pentagon uses flexible contracting to get commercial tech to the field quickly—provided payment terms and cybersecurity requirements remain manageable. Allies, meanwhile, are watching U.S. delivery timelines closely. Reforms to foreign military sales and expanded production of munitions and air defenses are central to closing backlogs for partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

On the horizon

Congress is weighing additional acquisition and budgeting changes in the fiscal 2025 defense bills, building on recommendations from the independent PPBE Commission delivered in 2024 to accelerate how the Pentagon plans and moves money. The department is also expanding multiyear contracts for munitions like JASSM, SM-6, GMLRS, and PAC-3 to stabilize supply chains and lower unit costs. On the software side, services are pushing continuous delivery models and streamlined cybersecurity approvals to keep code current in the field. The test will be whether these targeted steps deliver measurable improvements—shorter timelines, fewer rework costs, and faster deliveries to troops and allies—without repeating the pitfalls of past “faster-is-better” pushes.