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...

[T-Bird45]

You might consider your screen name an admonition to listen to those who’ve BTDT before grabbing your paint bucket and broad brush. The MIC has certainly not crowned itself in glory on many projects (F-35, for example) but history tells us it didn’t start yesterday. When Harry Truman was still a senator from MO, he had a committee looking into excessive costs while WW2 was still raging on battlefields around the world.

As the other posters noted, the government acquisition process often brings these excess costs on through poor specifications and other processes that give suppliers little incentive to improve the process.

[pfflier]

As the other posters noted, the government acquisition process often brings these excess costs on through poor specifications and other processes that give suppliers little incentive to improve the process.

My point exactly. Where do you think that flowdown originates?

[pfflier]

Thank you. Real world experiences put us on the same page (see my post #3)

[Openurmind]

I have friends in the industry. I’m not blind to how it works.

[T-Bird45]

“Where do you think that flowdown originates?”

No doubt in my mind that it originates in the politics behind the acquisition. Some Senator gets a project for a preferred contractor then gets significant sub-systems specified in his compatriots’ states/district so more political hacks are scratched. Look at the horse-trading that went on with base closures to see the game writ large.

[IndispensableDestiny]

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.

It's because some non-engineer decided the knob was not a replaceable item. Parts were not stocked or available so the next higher assembly is purchased. Some Army provisioner probably approved of this. Stupid shit, I've seen before.

[DugwayDuke]

The old, discredited $400 hammer story again.
No service ever paid $400 for a hammer. Here’s what happened.
The hammer was part of a tool kit which included several very expensive electronic test sets. The contractor rightfully applied a overhead to the entire tool kit. Instead of allocating the overhead on the basis of the price of individual items, the overhead was divided by the number of items in the tool kit. This didn’t matter since the services bought the tool kits, not the components.

[T-Bird45]

“I have friends in the industry.”

Yet there you are with your broad brush painting your friends as, at a minimum, being employed by a bunch of crooks or participating in a crooked enterprise. Perhaps you would like to consult with those friends as whether the other posters noted have presented legitimate information that has to do with broken processes or if it really is as you say “a bunch of crooks”, thus making clear to them your opinion on their employment choice.

[MinorityRepublican]

[DugwayDuke]

One other factor is requirements creep. The user specifies the requirements for the item. Since they’re only going to buy a certain number, the over specify the item.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Yes this is valid, but consider that the “off the shelf” display may not have the same environmental requirements as are required of airborne systems. From semiconductor parts to cables, the military often has tougher operating environments and so cheaper made products cannot be purchased.

Another frequent complaint is the quality inspections that push cost up, On a program I worked on, a test program wa plagued by a series (6) of failure that were all traced back to failures during manufacture. These should have been caught but were not found because the companies had been given permission to reduce inspection staff. When we went back to full inspections, the failures stopped happening.

Finally a third cost increasing issue that is frequently put up as a waste is the requirement for competitive bids. We needed a circuit board that could only be made by one company but we were ordered to go out for bids. Only the one company submitted a bid, but the process took so long that we had to pay for expedited manufacturing. The cost went up twice, once for the procurement cycle, and again for the rapid manufacturing.

[Sequoyah101]

That’s right nobody conned anybody. The military procurement system is broken and corrupt Just like our government is

Only a damn fool would spend $47,000 for a $15 knob. Either a fool or someone who’s getting a huge chunk of the $47,000 as a kickback.

[Mr Rogers]

Here is an example that bothered me - and still does:

On a particular thing we (the military) wanted to buy, the software had a flaw. I brought it up in a meeting. Meanwhile, one of the guys I worked with talked with a civilian friend working there and it turned out that problem was in software he worked on. The friend fixed it on the spot.

In the meeting, the contractor told us it would take 6 months to fix and would run into millions. My guy told him it was already fixed.

There was an explosion. But in the end, it WAS already fixed. The software guy? He was good enough not to lose his job, but he was told to NEVER talk to anyone testing the equipment again.

Which may be why I sometimes got a phone call...”You don’t know me or know who I am, but I just saw X happening.”

The people working for that major contractor were almost all wonderful patriots. The people running it? I’d have put them in prison if the law allowed.