The perception of the defense budget as a massive fund for new technology is incorrect. More than half is allocated to fixed costs like personnel, facilities, and maintaining old equipment. The actual procurement budget for new systems is historically low as a percentage of GDP.
The conflict in Ukraine exposed the vulnerability of expensive, "exquisite" military platforms (like tanks) to inexpensive technologies (like drones). This has shifted defense priorities toward cheap, mass-producible, "attritable" systems. This fundamental change in product and economics creates a massive opportunity for startups to innovate outside the traditional defense prime model.
Strategic military planning, which looks decades into the future, is still based on a 2% inflation target. This is a critical flaw, as even slightly higher sustained inflation will drastically cut the real budget, severely limiting the military's ability to procure equipment and maintain readiness.
The true purpose of a budget is not to limit spending or perfectly predict outcomes. Its value lies in creating a baseline for comparison. Analyzing why actual results differ from the budget provides critical insights for strategic adjustments, turning it into a tool for understanding, not judgment.
The government's procurement process often defaults to bidding out projects to established players like Lockheed Martin, even if a startup presents a breakthrough. Success requires navigating this bureaucratic reality, not just superior engineering.
The US defense industry's error was creating a separate, "exquisite" industrial base. The solution is designing weapons that can be built using existing, scalable commercial manufacturing techniques, mirroring the successful approach used during World War II.
The U.S. military's power is no longer backed by a robust domestic industrial base. Decades of offshoring have made it dependent on rivals like China for critical minerals and manufacturing. This means the country can no longer sustain a prolonged conflict, a reality its defense planners ignore.
Simulations of a conflict with China consistently show the US depleting its high-end munitions in about seven days. The industrial base then requires two to three years to replenish these stockpiles, revealing a massive gap between military strategy and production capacity that undermines deterrence.
Contrary to popular belief, military procurement involves some of the most rigorous safety and reliability testing. Current generative AI models, with their inherent high error rates, fall far short of these established thresholds that have long been required for defense systems.
Countries are rapidly increasing defense spending due to global instability and the US's shifting role. Massive backlogs for US equipment, like a reported 15-year wait for Patriot missiles, are forcing allies to invest in domestic production and R&D for assured supply.
The US military's 30-year strategy, born from the Gulf War, of relying on small numbers of technologically superior weapons is flawed. The war in Ukraine demonstrates that protracted, industrial-scale conflicts are won by mass and production volume, not just technological sophistication.