U.S. Defense Acquisition Reforms Face Test in Counter-Drone Race

The U.S. Department of Defense has overhauled its acquisition system for the first time in six decades, replacing the slow-moving Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) with a faster “Warfighting Acquisition System” designed to counter evolving threats. However, analysts warn the reforms risk repeating past failures by prioritizing speed over systemic understanding of emerging challenges, particularly in the counter-drone domain.

The Reforms and Their Risks

The reforms, which include scrapping JCIDS and creating dedicated “Warfighting Acquisition Units,” aim to accelerate the delivery of critical technologies to the battlefield. However, retired U.S. Army Colonel Pete Newell, a former director of the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force, argues the changes lack the institutional mechanisms to track and adapt to fast-moving threats.

“The reforms invest heavily in development and deployment but ignore the earlier phases of innovation—detecting threats, defining problems, and assessing solutions,” Newell said. “Without continuous monitoring at the tactical edge, the system risks repeating the $75 billion counter-IED fiasco in Afghanistan, where we spent billions but failed to keep pace with adversaries.”

The Counter-Drone Challenge

The counter-drone fight has become a critical test case for the new system. Despite the availability of proven technologies—such as directed-energy weapons and drone-on-drone interceptors—the U.S. military struggles to field effective solutions quickly. Soldiers still rely on expensive Stinger missiles to counter low-cost, commercially built drones, while adversaries rapidly adapt to countermeasures using open-source software.

“This isn’t a technology gap—it’s a cycle-time gap,” Newell explained. “Adversaries can update drone firmware in hours, but the DoD’s process takes months. The new system hasn’t solved that fundamental problem.”

Industry’s Role in Closing the Gap

Newell argues that industry must take a more active role in addressing these challenges. He outlines three key shifts for companies seeking to influence the defense market:

• Invest in problem discovery: Instead of pitching products, engineers should collaborate with operational units to understand on-the-ground challenges. “The quality of your solution is determined by the quality of the problem you choose to solve,” Newell said.
• Build for adaptation: Systems must be modular and upgradable to keep pace with adversaries. “If your product can’t change in weeks, it’s obsolete on delivery,” he noted.
• Act as sensors, not just suppliers: Companies should feed data into the DoD’s “fusion cells” that link field intelligence with technological possibilities. “The demand signal has to come from the field, not just headquarters,” Newell said.

The Workforce Challenge

The reforms also highlight a critical gap in personnel. While the DoD is rebranding its Defense Acquisition University as a “Warfighting Acquisition University,” experts say the changes lack配套 training for the workforce. Newell points to the “Hacking for Defense” program, which has trained students to solve real-world security problems, as a model for scaling experiential learning.

“We need a workforce trained to out-cycle adversaries, not just out-comply regulations,” he said. “The current system prioritizes compliance over capability.”

Looking Ahead

The DoD’s acquisition overhaul represents a significant shift in how the military approaches technology development. However, as Newell warns, the success of the reforms will depend on whether the department—and its industry partners—can address the systemic gaps that allowed past failures. With drones now a central threat on multiple battlefields, the stakes could not be higher.