Weapons makers have 'conned' US military into buying expensive equipment, Army Secretary says

Reuters.com ^ | 11/14/2025 | Idrees Ali

[E. Pluribus Unum]

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Large defense companies have "conned" the U.S. military into buying expensive equipment when cheaper commercial options would have been available, U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said.

Government accountability advocates and some lawmakers have long argued that defense contractors have overcharged the military. But Driscoll's comments were unusually blunt for a sitting government official speaking out against companies that supply the largest military in the world.

"(The) defense industrial base broadly, and the primes in particular, conned the American people and the Pentagon and the Army," Driscoll told reporters, referring to prime contractors that work directly with the government.

He added that, in part, it was the government's fault for creating incentive structures that encouraged companies to charge astronomical prices.

Large weapons makers provide the U.S. military with all types of systems, from Lockheed Martin's (LMT.N), F-35 fighter jets to missile defense systems from companies like RTX (RTX.N), Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), and Boeing (BA.N).

Previously, the Army has said that a Lockheed-owned Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter screen control knob that costs $47,000 as part of a full assembly could be manufactured independently for just $15.

"The system has changed. You will no longer be allowed to do that to the United States Army," Driscoll said.

The Army is launching an initiative to streamline its acquisition process. It is part of an overall effort by the Pentagon to allow the military to more rapidly acquire technology amid growing global threats.

---

TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: spammingfr

[PGR88]

Nobody conned anybody.

Just like our bloated health care system, food stamps, or any large government program - there is HUGE money at stake.

If government is paying, there will be a lot of slick people who will get in the middle to write the rules of the game and make sure they and their friends get rich.

[pfflier]

That is a double sided coin. I worked for the largest defense contractor for 12 years. The design constraints to using Mil Spec components when commercial components were available drove up costs immensely.

One case in point, the HUD on the F-16. There were already many mature displays available on the market , many were more mature in design, multicolor, rapid updating etc.

Instead we had to re-invent the wheel and the pilots got a monochrome display. Good but very expensive compared to a commercial equivalents. We also had to go through severl design review cycles and audits that further increased the cost and time line before it made it on the jet.

[ClearCase_guy]

The problem: Price gouging by defense companies. Things are too expensive.

The solution: Streamline the process so that things move faster.

Yes, people say “time is money” and so it is possible that moving faster will make things cheaper. But I think if you want to make things cheaper, you should perhaps focus on the contract side and the financial side to make things cheaper.

I was involved in weapon system acquisition for many years. Everything is over budget. Everything is behind schedule. Many technical requirement are not met. It’s all a big mess. All three areas are a mess. But if your main focus in making things cheaper, why aim at the schedule?

“Faster” is nice. But “faster” is not necessarily “cheaper”. This all feels like a shell game.

[tommythev]

I’m 20 years out of the defense industry, but the problem has always been the procurement system, which involves a specification for the hardware being procured and a bidding process. Items have a detailed specification. For many items, you may have a commercial product that would do the job fine, but it doesn’t meet the form factor specified. Or the item is required to meet MIL specs and the commercial supplier is not set up to prove that his device could meet those specs. Famous anecdotes like the 700 dollar hammer fail to take into account that an item that was initially bought in large quantity is expensive if you buy a small quantity and the supplier has to tool a factory to make 20 pieces.

I’m sure some defense firms talk buyers into over-spec’ing but the bigger problem is when buyers do it on their own. If you require a coffee maker to be able to function over the full MIL temp range of -55 to +125C in the absence of cabin pressure, it will cost you a lot of money. Someone has to decide to make an exception to exempt the item from meeting the spec and get approval for that exemption from an engineer. Invoking MIL spec often involves just checking a box. This is less hassle for the buyer.

There is a tendency, especially on the left to demonize the defense industry. The people I worked with just wanted to supply the best products possible.

[curious7]

“Faster, Better, Cheaper”
- pick any two.

[Openurmind]

Biggest load of Horse Apples I have ever heard... Our MIC is the biggest bunch of Crooks in the World... Period...