We need to match the high quality of our defense platforms and weapons with speed in producing them.
The United States is struggling to keep up with the increasing demands of an unstable world. Escalating global threats, economic strain, and rapid advances in adversary capabilities are forcing our nation’s leaders to reconsider how our defense industry can meet and defeat the challenges that lie ahead.
With FY27 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) deliberations already off to a rocky start, members of Congress will need to reconcile competing concerns to ensure that our warfighters are equipped with the tools they need to accomplish their missions. Unfortunately, equipping our troops hasn’t been a particularly straightforward process. Cost overruns, delays, and quality-control issues plaguing the acquisition process have raised understandable concern that our country is spending too much on defense with too little to show for it. In response, members of Congress proposed updates to the Nunn–McCurdy Act in 2025, hoping to bring more accountability to defense acquisition programs.
At the same time, the urgent reality is that our armed forces are short on critical munitions and in need of platforms and weapons better suited to the modern battlefield. Supply shortages exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have warned both the U.S. and its European allies that their standards for manufacturing and stockpiling weapons, munitions, and equipment are severely deficient. We are fortunate that this warning granted our country time to kick its military production into high gear. Unfortunately, production on several fronts has not met expectations. The evolution of adversary capabilities, like drones and ballistic missiles, has also left the United States scrambling for solutions to meet these threats. On top of that, the war with Iran has further exacerbated the munitions shortage and the urgency of replenishment, making it plainly obvious that the U.S. is not truly prepared to fight a high-intensity conflict with a peer adversary such as China.
To correct these deficiencies, our country needs to reinvigorate its defense industrial base in an efficient and effective manner. Efficient, because the American people deserve maximum return on their tax dollars; and effective, because the weapons and equipment produced now must reliably meet the needs of both today and tomorrow. Take the example of the B-52, a bomber designed in the 1950s and destined to remain in service until at least 2050. High-quality American engineering withstands the test of time. We need more of that — and fast.
Given the multitude of current and looming threats, our leaders and defense contractors appear to agree that defense production needs to improve. Earlier this month, at the Pennsylvania Defense and Innovation Summit, President Trump encouraged defense contractors to boost the speed of production, stating, “We have the best quality in the world, but we need a little more speed.” As part of these efforts, the government and encouraging the defense sector to work with U.S. companies to boost production capacity, meaning companies like GM will increasingly produce parts for defense companies’ products. This is a positive development that will lead to improvements in a time when there is bipartisan concern over declining industrial capability.
Additional production capacity must also be complemented by quality, allowing the United States to outplan, outbuild, outfight, and outmatch its adversaries. Quality further enables the American warfighter to perform at maximum efficiency on the battlefield while reducing casualties. We should continue to ensure our defense manufacturers meet the high standards for quality that their contracts specify and implement measures to encourage on-time, on-budget, and as-expected delivery, while addressing government behavior that hinders those goals.
As a command pilot with 4,500 hours of flight experience and plenty of missions over enemy territory, I can personally attest to the importance of being able to trust the high-quality “kit” — resources, equipment, and machinery — that enables our warfighters to carry out their mission. In the air, I couldn’t afford to worry about bickering between the Pentagon and defense companies. It is imperative that the government and private industry work closely together to ensure that same sense of confidence and resolve production issues collaboratively rather than contentiously. Fortunately, new aircraft such as the F-47 and B-21 and their supporting capabilities provide key opportunities for the defense sector and U.S. government to exemplify new standards and healthy collaboration in acquisition, and the initial signs are promising. Smaller programs, like the effort to get drone boats into combat, also provide valuable lessons on how to rapidly get the latest tech into the hands of our warfighters.
Several data points indicate the defense industry is serious about meeting the demands of this new age. America’s traditional defense manufacturers are investing billions in research and development, employing millions of Americans, and augmenting our country’s ability to secure its national security and foreign policy interests. For example, RTX spent over $10 billion on R&D and capital investments in 2025, and this year, RTX, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, L3Harris, and General Dynamics are projected to spend a combined $10.08 billion in capital expenditures. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently noted that in exchange for longer-term orders, defense manufacturers are investing in their own capital to expand production facilities and equipment. Similarly, Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell highlighted a $68 billion investment by more than 360 companies into new factories.
Those long-term contracts are key in providing the type of predictability that allows private industry to plan its own investments in talent and capital. On the other hand, sudden cancellations, changing requirements, and governmental indecision put strain on the ability of private industry to efficiently and effectively build. Though industry must continue to improve its processes and performance, the U.S. government must also continue to improve the way it works with industry if it’s going to get the results it demands. Part of the solution would involve passing proper budgets, instead of continuing resolutions that disrupt the efficiency and schedules of military contracts.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American people about the growing influence of what he called the military-industrial complex, but in doing so, he also explained that “we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.” Supply shortages and battlefield challenges exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Operation Epic Fury illustrate that we are still stuck in a cycle of emergency improvisation. Defense manufacturers appear willing to step up to the plate, and the country should be willing to play ball.