1.0 Executive Summary

The global security architecture in early 2026 is defined by interconnected logistical vulnerabilities and overlapping structural constraints. The escalation of the military conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran in February 2026 exposed severe frailties in global supply chains. The virtual closure of the Strait of Hormuz paralyzed the movement of approximately 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum liquids, alongside critical industrial inputs such as liquefied natural gas, helium, petrochemicals, and fertilizers.¹ The resulting rerouting of commercial vessels around the Cape of Good Hope compounded transit times, elevated fuel consumption, and disrupted the global delivery of pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and construction materials.⁵

These acute logistical shocks highlight a profound strategic vulnerability for national security apparatuses. Traditional defense manufacturing and centralized procurement systems rely heavily on uninterrupted global transit lines and highly predictable peacetime timelines. The United States defense acquisition process is historically characterized by multi-year budget cycles, a consolidated monopolistic prime contractor base, and a rigid bureaucratic pathway known as the technology transition “Valley of Death”.⁸ The Department of War has recognized these systemic failures, launching the Warfighting Acquisition System transformation in late 2025 to prioritize speed to capability and operational agility.¹⁰ However, structural reforms require a proven operational blueprint to succeed.

The Ukrainian defense sector provides this necessary blueprint. Since the escalation of hostilities in 2022, the Ukrainian defense industry has transitioned from a rigid, state-owned industrial base into a highly decentralized, commercially driven ecosystem.¹³ By integrating open-source intelligence, leveraging direct-to-manufacturer allied funding, and empowering tactical units to drive localized procurement, Ukraine has drastically compressed the technology development and deployment timeline.

This report analyzes the logistical lessons of the 2026 Middle East conflict and juxtaposes them with Ukrainian procurement innovations. It identifies the top 10 approaches the United States must adopt to successfully reform its defense industrial base. These lessons are ranked sequentially, moving from immediate structural and policy changes to long-term industrial capability scaling, providing a precise order of operations for strategic reform.

2.0 The 2026 Strategic Context

Understanding the necessity of procurement reform requires analyzing the dual failures of physical logistics and administrative acquisition processes observed in recent and ongoing conflicts. The intersection of kinetic military action and brittle supply chains dictates a shift in how modern militaries must acquire and sustain their technological advantages.

2.1 Logistical Constraints Exposed by the Iran Conflict

The targeted military strikes against Iranian facilities on February 28, 2026, instantly transformed the Persian Gulf into a high-risk combat zone.⁵ The immediate consequence was the virtual cessation of commercial maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor that traditionally handles 25 percent of the global maritime oil trade.⁴ The strategic fallout extended far beyond energy markets and localized shipping lines.

The Middle East serves as a critical node for petrochemicals, holding up to 30 percent of global capacity for vital inputs like helium, polyethylene, and methanol.¹⁶ The disruption forced maritime traffic to divert around the southern tip of Africa, introducing severe delays and capacity shortages across the global supply chain.⁶ Data indicates that roughly 3,200 ships, representing about 4 percent of global ship tonnage, became idle inside the Persian Gulf.⁶ Another 500 ships were forced to wait outside the Gulf in ports off the coast of the United Arab Emirates and Oman.⁶ This congestion created a cascading domino effect across global port infrastructure, severely elevating freight rates. Financial analysts projected that extended closures would drive freight rates up by an additional 30 percent, equating to a 65 percent increase from pre-conflict baseline levels.¹⁷

Simultaneously, air cargo capacity out of the Gulf region plummeted by 79 percent between late February and early March 2026, triggering a 22 percent worldwide reduction in air freight capabilities.⁷ This contraction threatened highly sensitive supply chains, notably the cold-chain transport of pharmaceuticals from India, highlighting how military conflict in a single geographic chokepoint generates compounding, multi-sector economic degradation.⁶ The conflict also impacted the construction industry, with restricted access to cement, steel, concrete, and aluminum driving up material costs and delaying critical infrastructure projects globally.⁵

For military logisticians, the core observation is that reliance on heavily centralized manufacturing hubs and extended maritime shipping routes represents a critical strategic liability. A defense industrial base that requires years of lead time and complex global component sourcing cannot adequately supply a warfighter in a contested environment. The disruption necessitates a shift toward decentralized, localized production and the utilization of commercially available components that circumvent traditional, highly vulnerable military supply chains.

2.2 The U.S. Defense Procurement Valley of Death

The physical supply chain vulnerabilities exposed in 2026 are severely exacerbated by the administrative rigidities of the United States defense acquisition system. The process of transitioning new technology from research and development into fielded military capabilities is hampered by a systemic barrier universally referred to in the defense sector as the “Valley of Death”.⁹

This valley is defined by four primary failure conditions. First, financial timelines are misaligned with the pace of modern innovation. If a new technology achieves viability, it often takes two or more years to secure funding due to rigid federal budget submission deadlines and the frequent reliance on continuing resolutions.⁹ Small, innovative firms cannot survive this prolonged revenue gap, forcing them to exit the defense market or pivot to commercial applications. Second, technical integration is stifled by a reliance on legacy architectures that resist modular upgrades, making it difficult to insert new components into existing platforms without triggering massive system overhauls.¹⁹

Third, the doctrinal requirements process forces developers to build toward rigid, speculative top-down mandates rather than adapting to current, observable battlefield realities.¹⁴ Finally, the industrial base has suffered from severe consolidation. The ecosystem transitioned from dozens of prime contractors during the Cold War down to just five major entities, creating a rigid oligopoly that inherently discourages disruptive competition and limits the entry of scaling commercial technology firms.⁸

The Department of War sought to rectify these administrative issues with the November 2025 Acquisition Transformation Strategy.¹⁰ This strategy mandated the establishment of Portfolio Acquisition Executives to streamline authority and directed a shift toward commercial solutions and modular open system architectures.¹⁰ It explicitly called for the transition of the Defense Acquisition System into the Warfighting Acquisition System to put the industrial base on a wartime footing.¹¹ However, to successfully execute these theoretical mandates, the United States must study and operationalize the specific methodologies deployed by Ukraine under active combat conditions.

3.0 Strategic Priority Ranking: 10 Lessons from the Ukrainian Procurement Model

To implement effective changes within the United States defense apparatus, reforms must be sequenced logically to build compounding capability. The following 10 lessons represent the specific approaches the United States must adapt from the Ukrainian defense sector. They are organized in a strict operational hierarchy, beginning with foundational shifts in policy and contracting authority, progressing through novel funding and testing methodologies, and culminating in sustainment strategies and production scaling.

3.1 Lesson 1: Decentralization of Procurement Authority to the Tactical Level

The most critical and immediate structural change the United States must implement is the decentralization of procurement authority. The traditional United States system is heavily centralized and service-centric, focusing predominantly on large-scale programs of record managed at the highest levels of the Pentagon.¹⁴ Combatant commands, despite being the entities responsible for executing military operations, control a negligible fraction of the overall defense budget, possessing influence over roughly 0.7 percent of acquisition funding.¹⁴ This top-down structure dictates requirements based on theoretical future conflicts, resulting in systems that are often mismatched to operational realities by the time they are fielded years later.

Ukraine radically altered this dynamic by decentralizing procurement and permitting individual military units and brigades to purchase equipment directly.¹⁴ Using reallocated local budgets and decentralized state funds, tactical commanders purchase technologies that address the exact threats they face on their specific sector of the front line.¹⁴ This decentralization eliminates layers of bureaucracy, reducing contracting timelines from multiple years to a matter of months, or even weeks in the case of critical unmanned systems.¹⁴

For the United States, granting localized purchasing power to combatant commands and tactical units allows the military to respond dynamically to shifting adversary tactics. If a new electronic warfare threat emerges in a specific theater, units must have the financial authority and contracting flexibility to immediately acquire commercial countermeasures without waiting for a multi-year program of record to be established, debated, and funded by Congress. This approach ensures that the operators facing the highest risk have direct control over the tools required for their survival and mission success.

3.2 Lesson 2: Establishment of an Integrated Innovation Cluster

Once decentralized funding is authorized, the military requires a secure, high-speed mechanism to connect tactical units with the commercial sector. Ukraine achieved this structural bridge through the creation of Brave1, a specialized defense technology cluster that functions as a centralized coordination platform.²¹

Brave1 operates as an ecosystem manager rather than a traditional, slow-moving procurement office. It bridges the financial Valley of Death by maintaining an active database of over 150 venture funds and hosting direct pitching events for startups.²¹ By acting as an official validator of technology, Brave1 provides the necessary technical intelligence to private investors, enabling defense startups to secure capital rounds without waiting for government budget cycles.²¹ The platform has supported over 2,800 research and development projects and facilitated the distribution of hundreds of grants.²¹ Furthermore, the platform facilitates direct military range testing for new products, ensuring that developers receive immediate technical feedback from the soldiers who will ultimately deploy the technology.²¹ This direct interaction between engineer and operator is vital for iterative design.

The United States must establish a highly resourced national platform equivalent to Brave1. While entities like the Defense Innovation Unit exist, they often remain constrained by broader federal acquisition regulations and scale limitations. An effective United States cluster must replicate the Brave1 model by aggressively linking private venture capital with military testing infrastructure, creating a unified marketplace where operators, engineers, and financiers interact without bureaucratic mediation. This cluster must be empowered to issue immediate grants and serve as the definitive clearinghouse for commercial defense solutions.

3.3 Lesson 3: Prioritization of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Technologies

The third priority requires a fundamental shift in the technical philosophy of military engineering. Historically, the United States defense sector relies heavily on highly specialized, custom-developed systems designed specifically for military use.¹⁴ This bespoke approach demands massive research and development expenditures, introduces significant technical risk, and guarantees prolonged delivery schedules.

Ukraine realized that wartime survival requires the immediate deployment of available resources, leading to the heavy prioritization of commercial-off-the-shelf technologies.¹⁴ A primary example of this philosophy is the battlefield adaptation of civilian drone platforms. Instead of waiting for defense primes to design a bespoke loitering munition from scratch, Ukrainian engineers affixed Soviet-era RKG-3 anti-tank hand grenades to widely available commercial drones.²⁴ This approach bypassed the research and development phase entirely, transforming a cheap, readily available civilian product into an effective armor-defeating weapon capable of neutralizing advanced main battle tanks.

The Department of War has recently introduced a presumption of commerciality in its new acquisition guidelines, but cultural resistance remains deeply entrenched within the acquisition workforce.¹⁰ The United States must aggressively expand the use of Commercial Solutions Openings and prioritize the procurement of existing technologies, modifying them for military use rather than initiating ground-up development programs.¹⁰ This commercial-first posture leverages the massive research budgets of the private technology sector, allowing the military to absorb innovations at the speed of the commercial market.

3.4 Lesson 4: Implementation of Direct-to-Manufacturer Funding Vehicles

To bypass the logistical bottlenecks associated with traditional foreign military sales and centralized bureaucratic distribution, the United States must study and implement the “Danish Model” of allied procurement utilized in Ukraine.

Pioneered in 2024, the Danish Model channels foreign financing directly into the domestic defense industrial base of the recipient nation.²⁵ Instead of Denmark purchasing weapons from its own contractors and shipping them globally to Ukraine, Denmark invests directly in Ukrainian firms to manufacture the weapons domestically.²⁷ This direct-procurement mechanism serves multiple strategic purposes simultaneously. It radically shortens delivery times because the weapons are produced near the front lines, eliminating transnational shipping vulnerabilities.²⁶ It expands manufacturing capacity within the conflict zone, promotes transparency by circumventing traditional intermediary procurement agencies, and builds dynamic industrial capabilities within the domestic sector.²⁷ This approach collectively delivered EUR 590 million worth of weapons to Ukraine in 2024 with exceptional speed.²⁶

The United States should apply this model both internally and externally. Internally, the Department of War should utilize direct investment vehicles and advance market commitments to capitalize mid-tier suppliers, bypassing the dominant defense primes to foster a wider, more resilient industrial base.¹² Externally, when supporting allies, the United States should fund partner-nation manufacturing capabilities to build regional resilience, rather than relying solely on trans-oceanic shipments that are highly vulnerable to chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.

3.5 Lesson 5: Rapid Iteration and Frontline Testing Over Perfection

The United States acquisition culture is heavily risk-averse, prioritizing extensive developmental testing, regulatory compliance, and perfect system engineering over operational speed. The Department of War has historically relied on rigorous Enterprise Technical Execution and complex systems engineering validation to prevent field failures.¹⁰ While this level of perfectionism is absolutely necessary for nuclear deterrence systems or manned aviation platforms, it is severely detrimental to the acquisition of rapidly evolving tactical technologies.

Ukraine operates on a fundamentally different philosophy of rapid prototyping and immediate battlefield validation. Technologies are pushed from initial concept to the battlefield in a matter of months, and occasionally weeks.²³ The Brave1 platform facilitates immediate frontline testing, allowing software developers and hardware engineers to refine their products based on actual combat data rather than simulated testing environments.²¹ A minimum viable product is deployed, its flaws are exposed under severe combat conditions, and the next iteration is engineered and deployed immediately to ensure a tight observe, orient, decide, and act loop.³⁰

The United States must implement a stratified testing protocol to support this pace. Software, unmanned systems, and electronic warfare tools must be explicitly exempted from traditional multi-year milestone testing. The Department of War must adopt the Ukrainian model of deploying minimum viable products to realistic training environments and active theaters, utilizing the warfighter as the ultimate operational tester to drive continuous, software-like updates to hardware systems.

3.6 Lesson 6: Shifting from Monopolistic Primes to a Diversified Private Ecosystem

The resilience of an industrial supply chain is directly proportional to its diversity and the volume of active participants. The United States defense industrial base is currently dominated by five major prime contractors.⁸ This severe consolidation stifles innovation, creates single points of failure, and results in oligopolistic pricing structures that drain the defense budget and discourage commercial players from entering the sector.⁸

Prior to 2022, Ukraine suffered from a similar structural vulnerability, relying heavily on the massive state-owned conglomerate UkrOboronProm, which suffered from inefficiency and corruption.¹⁴ The intense pressures of the conflict forced a rapid transition. Between 2015 and 2020, the share of state orders going to private companies grew from 25 percent to 54 percent.³¹ By 2024, the Ukrainian defense ecosystem had exploded to encompass approximately 500 active defense companies, the vast majority of which were highly agile, private enterprises.¹⁴ This structural shift from legacy state platforms toward an innovation-driven private production base fostered immense competition, driving down unit costs and accelerating technological breakthroughs across the sector.²⁰

The United States must actively deconstruct its monopolistic reliance on legacy primes. The Department of War’s recent mandate to maintain at least two qualified sources for critical program content through initial production is a vital first step.¹⁰ However, true reform requires structuring contracts so that smaller, venture-backed technology firms can compete as primary vendors, rather than forcing them to act as subordinate subcontractors to legacy defense primes. Expanding the supplier base stabilizes demand signals and injects necessary commercial velocity into the sector.¹²

3.7 Lesson 7: Frontline Maintenance and Open Architecture Over Vendor Lock

Traditional United States weapon systems are accompanied by highly lucrative, long-term sustainment and maintenance contracts. Original equipment manufacturers maintain proprietary control over technical data, forcing the military to rely exclusively on specialized civilian contractors for repairs, a concept known as vendor lock.¹⁰ This centralized depot-level maintenance structure requires broken equipment to be shipped vast distances back to secure facilities. Such a structure is entirely incompatible with high-intensity warfare, where transporting damaged equipment back to secure depots is logistically unfeasible and presents a prime target for adversary interdiction.

Ukraine has adapted by aggressively discarding long-term maintenance contracts for many frontline assets. Manufacturers invest heavily in training frontline fighters to perform basic repairs and component swaps directly in the combat zone to ensure operational resilience.¹⁴ For highly attritable systems like small drones, the concept of long-term maintenance is eliminated entirely in favor of rapid replacement.

To operationalize this lesson, the United States must strictly enforce Modular Open System Architectures across all new acquisition programs.¹⁰ The military must mandate the acquisition of technical data packages and access rights during the initial competitive phases. The government must effectively own the operator’s manual, ensuring that military mechanics and frontline troops can perform organic depot-level maintenance and immediate tactical repairs using standardized, interchangeable components without relying on original equipment manufacturers.¹⁰

3.8 Lesson 8: Exploitation of Open-Source Intelligence and Crowdsourced Data

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated conclusively that intelligence gathering and battlefield situational awareness are no longer the exclusive domains of classified military satellites and specialized reconnaissance units. Ukraine has expertly leveraged open-source intelligence to achieve a decisive information advantage over heavily centralized adversaries.³²

Civilian activists, non-governmental organizations, and decentralized intelligence groups process vast amounts of publicly available data, utilizing machine learning and computer vision models to track adversary troop movements, identify naval deployments, and assess infrastructure damage.³³ Ukrainian military units have successfully utilized commercial social media platforms to geolocate adversary positions.³³ Furthermore, geographic information systems software has been critical in mapping areas littered with unexploded ordnance to prioritize de-mining operations.³³ This integration of civilian data science with military operations provides near real-time situational awareness. Furthermore, Ukraine has partnered with commercial data firms, utilizing platforms like Palantir to create data rooms to train artificial intelligence models using raw, unstructured battlefield data.²²

The United States acquisition system must prioritize the procurement of software and artificial intelligence tools capable of ingesting and analyzing massive streams of open-source data. The reliance on purely bespoke, highly classified intelligence collection architectures must be immediately augmented by the agility, scale, and ubiquity of commercial data analytics and satellite imagery providers.

3.9 Lesson 9: Gamification and Performance-Based Rapid Acquisition

Traditional military requirements are generated through theoretical war-gaming, academic studies, and lengthy bureaucratic committee processes. Ukraine has circumvented this slow methodology by introducing concepts of gamification and pure market dynamics directly into the weapons development cycle.

The Brave1 marketplace operates on a performance-based feedback loop that some observers have termed a scoreboard economy.³⁴ Operators on the frontline utilize a system where effective combat actions are tracked, and users earn points to acquire more equipment from the marketplace.³⁴ Manufacturers receive direct, quantified validation of their product’s utility in real-time. Consequently, manufacturers are no longer designing systems to meet a static list of hypothetical requirements drafted by a distant procurement office. Instead, they are building to maximize their value on the operational scoreboard, continually iterating their designs to ensure they remain the most lethal or effective asset available to the warfighter.³⁴

The United States should adopt similar performance-based acquisition models for tactical systems. By implementing a digital feedback loop that directly connects end-user combat evaluations to subsequent funding tranches, the Department of War can eliminate multi-year development cycles and ensure that only the most effective, battle-proven technologies receive continued government investment.

3.10 Lesson 10: Asymmetric Scaling of Unmanned and Electronic Warfare Systems

The final structural lesson addresses the specific types of systems the industrial base must be configured to produce. While the United States continues to invest heavily in exquisite, high-cost platforms such as sixth-generation aviation, advanced bombers, and nuclear-powered submarines ⁸, the battlefield reality in Ukraine demonstrates the profound strategic dominance of massed, low-cost asymmetric weapons.

Ukraine has achieved significant strategic impact by rapidly scaling the production of unmanned systems. The domestic industry achieved the capacity to produce over 8 million first-person view drones annually, accounting for the vast majority of adversary vehicle and personnel losses in recent operational periods.³⁶ Furthermore, the rapid scaling of interceptor drones provided a highly effective, low-cost alternative to exhausting expensive legacy air defense missiles against cheap incoming munitions.³⁶ Maritime drones, engineered with extended ranges, fundamentally altered the naval balance of power in the Black Sea, successfully targeting dozens of adversary vessels.³⁶ Electronic warfare production surged massively to counter adversary drone technologies and protect localized troop concentrations.²⁰

The United States must balance its procurement portfolio to reflect this reality. While high-end systems remain necessary for strategic deterrence and power projection, the acquisition system must demonstrate the capability to rapidly surge the production of low-cost, attritable systems. The defense industrial base must be reconfigured to mass-produce autonomous and remote-controlled technologies that provide a high-impact asymmetric advantage.

Table 1: Strategic scaling of asymmetric technology segments within the Ukrainian defense industrial base during the 2025 operational period, highlighting the shift toward high-volume, innovation-driven production.²⁰

4.0 Implementation Roadmap for the U.S. Warfighting Acquisition System

Adopting these 10 distinct lessons requires a phased execution plan directly aligned with the Department of War’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy. The transition from a compliance-focused peacetime bureaucracy to an agile, execution-oriented Warfighting Acquisition System must be executed with extreme urgency.

4.1 Phase 1: Structural and Cultural Shifts

The initial phase must focus on dismantling entrenched bureaucratic barriers and fundamentally altering the cultural incentives within the acquisition workforce. The Department of War must fully empower the newly established Portfolio Acquisition Executives, granting them explicit authority to make prudent cost and schedule trades, waive technical standards, and bypass traditional 5000-series documentation in favor of speed.¹⁰ The Defense Acquisition University must be aggressively transformed into the Warfighting Acquisition University, shifting the curriculum from rigid compliance training to competency-based education focused on rapid capability delivery.¹⁰

Concurrently, the military must pilot decentralized procurement authorities. Select combatant commands and specialized tactical units should be allocated immediate discretionary budgets explicitly earmarked for the rapid acquisition of commercial-off-the-shelf technologies.¹⁴ Finally, the United States must establish an immediate domestic analogue to the Brave1 cluster, creating an integrated digital and physical ecosystem where venture capital, defense startups, and military operators can interact without regulatory friction.²¹

4.2 Phase 2: Procedural and Financial Realignments

The second phase targets the rigid financial structures that create the acquisition Valley of Death. The Department of War must collaborate with the legislative branch to secure flexible funding mechanisms that permit continuous, rather than annualized, capital allocation for high-priority technology development.⁹ The fundamental principle that money must follow need requires significant legislative support to alter current appropriations law.³⁷

During this phase, the United States must actively deploy the principles of the Danish Model. The government should utilize direct advance market commitments and risk-sharing agreements to capitalize emerging non-traditional defense firms, specifically those focused on unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and electronic warfare.¹² The objective is to dilute the monopolistic hold of the prime contractors and build a robust, diversified network of secondary and tertiary suppliers capable of independent innovation. Furthermore, this phase must see the institutionalization of rapid frontline testing protocols, replacing speculative requirement documents with iterative field evaluations utilizing the newly mandated Software Acquisition Pathway as the default solicitation approach.¹¹

4.3 Phase 3: Industrial Scaling and Capability Delivery

The final phase involves achieving mass production and ensuring sustainable logistical resilience across the entire industrial base. With a diversified supplier ecosystem established, the Department of War must rigidly execute the two-to-production standard, ensuring multiple qualified sources exist for all critical components to eliminate supply chain chokepoints.¹⁰

Supply chains must be deeply mapped and localized to mitigate the severe risks exposed by the 2026 maritime chokepoint closures in the Middle East.³ The military must transition fully to Modular Open System Architectures, strictly enforcing the acquisition of technical data rights necessary to perform decentralized, organic frontline maintenance.¹⁰ The ultimate goal of this phase is to demonstrate the domestic capacity to rapidly prototype, field test, and mass-produce asymmetric technologies at a scale that fundamentally deters near-peer adversaries globally.

5.0 Conclusion

The strategic environment of 2026 demands a radical departure from legacy military procurement methodologies. The logistical paralysis caused by kinetic conflicts in global maritime transit zones, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, proves conclusively that a defense apparatus reliant on extended, fragile supply chains and slow, centralized manufacturing cannot sustain high-intensity operations. The United States defense acquisition process, historically characterized by extreme risk aversion, monopolistic consolidation, and bureaucratic stagnation, is fundamentally ill-equipped for the velocity of modern warfare.

The Ukrainian experience provides a validated, battle-tested alternative. By treating defense technology as a dynamic commercial market rather than a rigid state enterprise, Ukraine achieved unparalleled speed, efficiency, and operational adaptability. The 10 lessons outlined in this report, from the decentralization of purchasing authority and the embrace of commercial technologies, to the direct capitalization of manufacturing bases and the integration of open-source intelligence, offer a precise roadmap for strategic reform. To maintain operational dominance and secure the national interest in an increasingly volatile global landscape, the United States must decisively implement these changes, transforming its industrial base into an agile, resilient, and continuously iterating warfighting ecosystem.

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. Dire Straits: The Hidden Supply Chains of the Strait of Hormuz | Insights – BRG, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/publications/dire-straits-the-hidden-supply-chains-of-the-strait-of-hormuz/
2. Strait of Hormuz – About – IEA, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.iea.org/about/oil-security-and-emergency-response/strait-of-hormuz
3. World Oil Transit Chokepoints – International – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/special-topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints
4. Chart: Ship Traffic in the Strait of Hormuz Has Virtually Stopped | Statista, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.statista.com/chart/35984/ship-traffic-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/
5. The 2026 Iran War and Its Global Impact on Construction Supply …, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.bakerdonelson.com/the-2026-iran-war-and-its-global-impact-on-construction-supply-chains
6. Supply chain disruptions from the Iran war could raise prices for drugs, electronics and more – AP News, accessed April 13, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/iran-war-supply-chain-disruption-8f262bb210710b7509221a3dccf787c9
7. Where the Iran War Could Disrupt Pharmaceutical Supply Chains | Think Global Health, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/where-the-iran-war-could-disrupt-pharmaceutical-supply-chains
8. The Pentagon is Overhauling the Defense Acquisitions Process: What to Know | Steptoe, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/stepwise-risk-outlook/the-pentagon-is-overhauling-the-defense-acquisitions-process-what-to-know.html
9. UNDERSTANDING ACQUISITION: THE VALLEY OF DEATH – USAASC, accessed April 13, 2026, https://asc.army.mil/web/news-understanding-acquisition-the-valley-of-death/
10. Transforming the Defense Acquisition System into the Warfighting Acquisition System to Accelerate Fielding of Urgently Needed Ca – Department of War, accessed April 13, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Nov/10/2003819439/-1/-1/1/TRANSFORMING-THE-DEFENSE-ACQUISITION-SYSTEM-INTO-THE-WARFIGHTING-ACQUISITION-SYSTEM-TO-ACCELERATE-FIELDING-OF-URGENTLY-NEEDED-CAPABILITIES-TO-OUR-WARRIORS.PDF
11. Acquisition Transformation Strategy – Department of War, accessed April 13, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Nov/10/2003819441/-1/-1/1/ACQUISITION-TRANSFORMATION-STRATEGY.PDF
12. War Secretary Announces Strategy Regarding Defense Acquisition Reform | Insights, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/war-secretary-announces-strategy-regarding-defense-acquisition-reform
13. Ukraine’s emerging defense export strategy: What investors and defense companies need to know – Dentons, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2026/march/5/ukraine-emerging-defense-export-strategy
14. How Ukraine Rebuilt Its Military Acquisition System Around … – CSIS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-ukraine-rebuilt-its-military-acquisition-system-around-commercial-technology
15. How the Iran Conflict Is Disrupting Global Supply Chains, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.oxfordcollegeofprocurementandsupply.com/how-the-iran-conflict-is-disrupting-global-supply-chains/
16. The Hormuz Strait: Which Sectors Are Impacted Most? | BCG, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2026/the-hormuz-strait-which-sectors-and-regions-are-impacted-most
17. Food, flights and more: The ripple effects of the Iran conflict – J.P. Morgan, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/current-events/iran-conflict-ripple-effects
18. TERRAFORMING THE VALLEY OF DEATH – Defense Innovation Board, accessed April 13, 2026, https://stib.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2023-1_DIB_Report_Terraforming_the_Valley_of_Death.pdf
19. A Platform Across the Valley of Death: Tech Transition via Open Enterprise Information System Development – Naval Postgraduate School, accessed April 13, 2026, https://nps.edu/documents/104466966/104581936/A+Platform+Across+the+Valley+of+Death/2249c450-4f04-45d4-b45d-98a348ce8073
20. Ukraine’s top defense market segments more than doubled to $6.8 Billion in 2025, accessed April 13, 2026, https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/04/04/ukraines-top-defense-market-segments-doubled-to-6-8-billion-in-2025/
21. UKRAINE’S DRONES INDUSTRY: INVESTMENTS AND PRODUCT …, accessed April 13, 2026, https://kse.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/241004-Brave1-report-v.1.pdf
22. information about the project Brave1 – Digital State UA, accessed April 13, 2026, https://digitalstate.gov.ua/projects/tech/brave1
23. Now that’s innovation: Ukrainian army units compete for weapons; start-ups compete for their business | The Strategist, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/now-thats-innovation-ukrainian-army-units-compete-for-weapons-start-ups-compete-for-their-business/
24. What the Pentagon Might Learn from Ukraine About Fielding New Tech – RAND, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/02/what-the-pentagon-might-learn-from-ukraine-about-fielding.html
25. From Production to Procurement: How Europe and Ukraine are Transforming Defense Supply Chains – CSIS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/production-procurement-how-europe-and-ukraine-are-transforming-defense-supply-chains
26. The Danish Model – a sustainable approach to supporting Ukraine – DSEI UK, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.dsei.co.uk/news/danish-model-sustainable-approach-supporting-ukraine
27. From Production to Procurement: How Europe and Ukraine Are Transforming Defense Supply Chains – CSCE – Helsinki Commission, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csce.gov/briefings/from-production-to-procurement-how-europe-and-ukraine-are-transforming-defense-supply-chains/
28. Danish Model Pathway to Dynamic Capabilities in Ukraine’s …, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Danish-Model-Pathway-to-Dynamic-Capabilities-in-Ukraines-Wartime-Defence-Industry-22_fig1_398290521
29. DEPARTMENT OF WAR – Defense Standardization Program, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.dsp.dla.mil/Portals/26/Documents/Publications/2026_Digital%20Standards%20Strategy_010826.pdf
30. Agile procurement front and center as U.S. observes lessons from Ukraine – Apex Defense, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.apexdefense.org/past-engagements/agile-procurement-front-center-us-observes-lessons-ukraine
31. The transformation of Ukraine’s arms industry amid war with Russia – SIPRI, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2025/transformation-ukraines-arms-industry-amid-war-russia
32. How OSINT has given Ukraine a strategic advantage – YouTube, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhjtGhMGNk
33. Artificial Intelligence, OSINT and Russia’s Information Landscape, accessed April 13, 2026, https://cetas.turing.ac.uk/publications/artificial-intelligence-osint-and-russias-information-landscape
34. Ukraine turned war into a point-based game with a real-world rewards market, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.wearethemighty.com/feature/brave1-market-walmart-of-war/
35. UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, accessed April 13, 2026, https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2026/FY2026_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
36. Ukrainian Defense Industry: Scale, Effectiveness, Results – National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/en/Diialnist/7384.html
37. Acquisition Transformation: How to Make it Last – War on the Rocks, accessed April 13, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/2025/11/acquisition-transformation-how-to-make-it-last/

1. Executive Summary

The strategic landscape of modern conflict is undergoing a structural realignment. Recent military engagements, notably the United States operations against Iranian proxies in the Red Sea and the subsequent Operation Epic Fury against Iran, have exposed a critical vulnerability in traditional defense paradigms. Initiating conventional military attacks using highly complex and exquisite weaponry against an adversary deploying massed, low-cost unmanned systems results in an unsustainable cost-exchange ratio.¹ The United States military has historically relied on technological overmatch, utilizing multi-million-dollar interceptors and strike platforms to counter threats.¹ However, adversaries have successfully weaponized this reliance, employing a strategy of cost-imposition and magazine depletion to strain logistics networks, exhaust defense budgets, and limit operational agility.¹

To improve its ability to fight smart and hard, the United States military must systematically change its operational concepts, procurement methodologies, and logistical frameworks. The necessary transformation requires a shift from an overwhelming reliance on small quantities of exquisite platforms to the deployment of smart, affordable mass.⁵ This transition demands a strict, phased order of operations to ensure lasting institutional change.

First, the foundational budgeting and requirements processes must be reformed to allow for agile funding in the year of execution, moving away from rigid prediction models.⁶ Second, procurement must transition to an iterative, building-block approach utilizing Other Transaction Authorities and Commercial Solutions Openings to acquire commercial technology rapidly.⁸ Third, a Modular Open Systems Architecture must be strictly enforced by statute to decouple hardware from software, preventing vendor lock-in and allowing for rapid field upgrades.¹⁰ Fourth, the military must shift its operational architecture from fragile, linear kill chains to resilient, dynamic kill webs that achieve convergence across all domains.¹² Finally, the logistical tail must be radically decentralized, moving toward point-of-need manufacturing and distributed maritime operations to sustain forces actively engaged in contested environments.¹⁴ This report details the precise mechanisms required to achieve these strategic imperatives, identifying the specific technological and procedural adaptations necessary to secure a decisive warfighting edge.

2. The Strategic Context: Asymmetry and the New Cost Curve of War

For several decades, the standard doctrine of advanced militaries focused on developing highly sophisticated, survivable, and multi-role platforms. This approach operated on the historical assumption that qualitative superiority would inevitably overwhelm quantitative advantages.¹ The current conflicts in the Middle East have severely tested this assumption, revealing a new cost curve of war where weaker militaries utilize commercially available and highly prolific technologies to offset the advantages of stronger adversaries.¹

2.1 The Unsustainable Economics of Defensive Attrition

The initial phases of the conflict in the Red Sea against Houthi forces, heavily backed and supplied by Iran, served as a stark demonstration of this new operational reality. United States naval destroyers, operating under Operation Prosperity Guardian, successfully defended commercial shipping lanes against continuous barrages of incoming anti-ship ballistic missiles and one-way attack drones.³ While tactically successful in kinetic terms, the strategic arithmetic presented a severe crisis for military logisticians and planners.²

Adversaries deployed systems such as the Shahed-136 drone, which carries an estimated unit cost of between $20,000 and $50,000.¹ In stark contrast, the defensive architecture of Aegis-equipped destroyers relies heavily on advanced interceptors such as the Standard Missile-2, Standard Missile-6, and the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile.² The cost of these interceptors ranges from $1.5 million to over $4.3 million per shot.³ Furthermore, land-based defense systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors can cost between $12 million and $15 million each, supported by radar systems like the AN/TPY-2 that cost upward of $1 billion.⁴ When Iranian forces successfully disabled these highly expensive sensor networks using swarms of inexpensive drones, the resulting cost-exchange ratio exceeded 30,000 to one in favor of the adversary.⁴

The total financial burden of this conventional approach is immense. Estimates regarding the costs of United States military activities in the wider Middle East since October 2023 place the expenditure between $9.65 billion and $12.07 billion through September 2025, with an additional $21.7 billion allocated for military aid to Israel.¹⁷ During the initial direct engagement with Iran, the Department of Defense informed Congress that the first six days of the conflict alone resulted in $11.3 billion in unbudgeted costs.¹⁸

This asymmetry extends far beyond immediate financial outlays. Every high-end interceptor expended on a low-end drone represents a depletion of finite magazine depth.² Because advanced interceptors take years to manufacture and rely on complex, slow-moving defense industrial bases, utilizing them against cheap drones degrades the readiness of the military for high-end contingencies involving peer competitors.² The strategy of the adversary relies on launching large numbers of relatively cheap drones and missiles in mixed salvos to stretch defensive systems, consume interceptor inventories, and impose economic costs that far outweigh the investment required to launch the attack.¹

2.2 The Shift to Offensive Cost-Imposition: Operation Epic Fury

Recognizing the unsustainability of absorbing this painful asymmetry indefinitely, military leadership initiated a structural pivot to alter the operational calculus. The objective shifted from purely defensive interception to offensive cost-imposition, aiming to weaponize asymmetry against the adversary rather than suffering its effects.² This shift was fully realized during Operation Epic Fury, a military operation targeting Iranian leadership, missile assets, and critical infrastructure.²¹

Instead of relying solely on expensive cruise missiles that can cost upward of two million dollars each, United States Central Command integrated hundreds of Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack Systems into its offensive architecture.¹⁹ Known as the LUCAS, this system represents a rare instance of rapid military adaptation through reverse-engineering.¹ Originally modeled after the Iranian Shahed-136 drone, the LUCAS was designed and built for the military by the Arizona-based company SpektreWorks.²⁰

The technical specifications of the LUCAS directly address the need for affordable mass. The drone costs approximately $35,000 per unit, features an 8-foot wingspan, measures roughly 10 feet in length, and possesses an operational range of 500 miles powered by a commercial-grade 215cc carbureted internal-combustion engine.¹⁹ First utilized operationally in January 2026 during Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, the system saw its first officially confirmed use against Iranian targets in late February 2026.²⁰

By launching these attritable drones in massed waves, the military actively flips the cost equation. The drones, utilizing commercial-grade components and open-architecture guidance systems potentially linked to military networks like SpaceX Starshield, navigate autonomously to saturate adversary air defense networks.² This saturation forces the enemy to expend their own expensive surface-to-air missiles and reveal the geographical locations of their radar emitters and command nodes.² Once the defense network is depleted and exposed by the low-cost drones, higher-end exquisite assets can safely follow to strike critical nodes, thereby preserving expensive United States capacity for decisive effects.² This transition from a defensive posture to an offensive cost-imposition strategy demonstrates the precise operational shift required for future conflicts.

3. Redesigning the Acquisition Architecture: What Must Change and In What Order

Recognizing the tactical need for affordable mass is only the first step in military modernization. The acquisition, deployment, and sustainment of systems like LUCAS cannot be managed through the traditional defense apparatus. The legacy system relies on linear requirements processes and bureaucratic layers that take five to ten years to deliver a capability.² In contrast, commercial drone innovation cycles in active conflict zones are currently measured in weeks rather than years.⁵ To fight smart and hard, the military must overhaul its entire development lifecycle. This transformation must occur in a specific, sequenced order to prevent localized innovations from being stifled by broader systemic inertia.

3.1 Phase One: Reforming the Budgeting and Requirements Foundation

The most critical bottleneck hindering military agility is not a lack of available technology, but rather the extreme rigidity of the resource allocation system. The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process has served as the bedrock of defense resourcing for over sixty years.⁶ However, this system requires planners to predict technological requirements and secure funding years in advance of the actual deployment of those funds. In an era where the commercial technology sector dictates the pace of innovation, predicting the required specifications for an autonomous drone or artificial intelligence software suite two years ahead is an exercise in futility.⁷

The mandatory first change is the structural reform of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process to allow for high agility in the year of execution.⁷ The Commission on PPBE Reform has highlighted that the current interfaces with Congress do not provide the flexibility required to adopt commercial technological advances at the speed of relevance.⁷ The Commission published a final report containing 28 recommendations critical to reforming this structure, emphasizing the need for much-needed changes to the period of availability of funds, account structures, and reprogramming processes.⁷ Without the ability to dynamically reprogram funds toward successful rapid prototypes mid-year, innovative systems inevitably fall into the “valley of death” between initial prototype demonstration and full-scale production.⁷

Coupled with budgetary reform is the absolute necessity to bypass the traditional Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System for urgent technological needs. Traditional requirements generation relies on highly complex, predictive analysis to forecast future military challenges.²⁷ A modern, agile approach requires adaptation in contact, where requirements are driven iteratively by continuous feedback from operators actively engaging adversaries in the field.²⁷ Legislative initiatives, such as the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act, aim to tackle defense acquisition challenges head-on by cutting red tape, accelerating timelines, and creating alternative pathways that are significantly more comfortable for commercial technology entities to navigate.²⁸ Establishing this flexible financial and regulatory foundation is the necessary first step, without which all subsequent technological innovations will stall in bureaucratic gridlock.

3.2 Phase Two: Implementing Iterative Procurement and Commercial Adoption

Once flexible funding mechanisms and appropriate authorities are established, the military must formally abandon the traditional bespoke development model in favor of an iterative, building-block approach. The commercial sector now drives the bulk of global technology development, leading progress in eleven of the fourteen critical technology areas designated by the Department of Defense, including artificial intelligence, autonomy, and cyber capabilities.³⁰ The military must harness this existing commercial engine rather than attempt to replicate it at a higher cost and slower speed.

The Defense Innovation Unit serves as the primary conduit for this vital transformation. Through its recent evolution into the DIU 3.0 model, the organization’s focus has shifted from simply demonstrating the feasibility of commercial technology to aggressively scaling those technologies for strategic effect across the joint force.⁸ The operational flow of DIU 3.0 is organized into eight mutually reinforcing lines of effort, which include focusing on the most critical capability gaps by embedding directly with the warfighter, partnering with the engines of scale within the military, and taking partnerships with the commercial tech sector to an unprecedented level.³¹

This scaling process is heavily reliant on the use of Commercial Solutions Openings and the leveraging of Other Transaction Authorities.⁹ Other Transaction Authorities, operating pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 4022, provide critical exemptions from standard federal procurement regulations.⁸ This drastically reduces the bureaucratic burden for non-traditional defense contractors, eliminating the need for government-unique cost accounting systems and significantly accelerating the time to award.⁸ Instead of issuing highly rigid and outdated technical specifications, the military publishes a broad statement of the problem, allowing commercial firms to pitch innovative solutions.⁸

This procurement process is intrinsically iterative and repeatable. It begins with a problem curation stage lasting 30 to 60 days, where military partners clarify core needs and determine the feasibility of meeting those needs through commercial technology.⁸ This is followed by a solicitation phase lasting approximately 30 days. The selection process involves rapid evaluation and negotiation, culminating in prototype execution agreements that typically last 12 to 24 months.⁸ Between fiscal years 2016 and 2023, this flexible award process yielded more than 450 prototype agreements, with 51 percent of completed prototypes successfully transitioning into full production.⁸

In addition to the Commercial Solutions Openings, the military must increasingly utilize Middle Tier Acquisition pathways, authorized under Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act.⁸ This pathway specifically seeks to provide capabilities rapidly by bypassing the traditional acquisition system. It is divided into two primary objectives: rapid prototyping, which requires fielding a prototype that can be demonstrated in an operational environment within five years of an approved requirement, and rapid fielding, which requires beginning production within six months and completing fielding within five years.³⁵ By utilizing these iterative pathways, the military prioritizes speed, adaptability, and residual operational capability over the pursuit of perfect but outdated systems.³⁶

3.3 The Replicator Initiative: Scaling Attritable Autonomy

The Replicator initiative serves as the clearest strategic manifestation of this new iterative procurement doctrine. Announced by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Replicator is designed to accelerate the delivery of innovative capabilities to warfighters at unprecedented speed and scale, specifically to counter the asymmetric advantages of peer competitors.²⁶ The initiative is managed by the Defense Innovation Unit and the Deputy’s Innovation Steering Group, focusing on leveraging existing congressional authorities to bypass traditional bottlenecks.⁸

The first iteration, known as Replicator 1, focused heavily on fielding all-domain attritable autonomous systems at a scale of multiple thousands within an 18-to-24 month timeframe.³⁸ Following the success of this initial push, the Department of Defense announced Replicator 2, which tackles the urgent warfighter priority of countering the threat posed by small uncrewed aerial systems to critical military installations and force concentrations.⁸ The expectation for Replicator 2 is to deliver meaningfully improved protection within 24 months of Congress approving funding, thereby forcing the broader defense bureaucracy to adopt the rapid timelines characteristic of the commercial sector.⁴⁰

3.4 Phase Three: Enforcing Modular Open Systems Architecture

Acquiring commercial technology rapidly is insufficient if those newly procured systems operate in closed, proprietary silos. The third vital change required to fight smart is the strict enforcement of a Modular Open Systems Approach across all new acquisitions and major legacy upgrades.¹⁰ Historically, defense contractors have utilized proprietary interfaces, resulting in severe vendor lock-in where the military must return to the original manufacturer, at exorbitant costs, for every minor software update or hardware modification. This legacy business model is antithetical to operational agility.

A Modular Open Systems Approach is defined as an integrated business and technical strategy that outlines system architectures using widely supported, consensus-based standards.¹¹ Required by United States law under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 4401(b), this approach ensures that major defense acquisition programs employ modular designs where major system components are severable.¹⁰ By intentionally decoupling hardware from software, the military can incrementally add, remove, or replace specific components throughout the entire lifecycle of a platform to afford opportunities for enhanced competition and innovation.¹⁰

The implementation of a Modular Open Systems Architecture involves several highly specific functional steps.¹¹ Program managers must partition systems into functional modules, define the interfaces between these modules, and standardize those interfaces using non-proprietary rules.¹¹ This requires the delivery of software-defined interface syntax and properties in machine-readable formats, conveying the semantic meaning of interface elements so that third-party developers can build compatible upgrades seamlessly.¹⁰ Interface Control Working Groups are established to expose design drivers and ensure compliance across different organizations.¹¹

The strategic value of this approach is immense. For example, if a specific low-cost drone requires an updated artificial intelligence targeting algorithm to counter a newly deployed adversary jamming technique, the military must be able to swap the software module immediately without requiring the original drone manufacturer to physically redesign the hardware. This modularity allows the military to utilize the best-in-class commercial software from an innovative startup, mount it on the hardware of a separate manufacturer, and integrate it with the sensor payload of a third. Considering that sixty to seventy percent of a system’s lifecycle cost occurs in sustainment, enforcing these open standards allows the military to continually upgrade warfighting capabilities with maximum flexibility and minimum cost.⁴³

4. Transforming Operational Doctrine: From Linear Chains to Dynamic Webs

The implementation of agile procurement and open technical architectures provides the necessary foundation for a massive shift in warfighting doctrine. If the United States is to maximize the utility of its newly acquired attritable mass, the military must transition its tactical operations from linear, domain-specific kill chains to dynamic, multi-domain kill webs.¹²

4.1 The Vulnerability of the Traditional Kill Chain

The traditional military kill chain model operates sequentially through the Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act loop.¹² Historically, these chains were tightly stovepiped within specific military branches. The Army maintained the sensors, decision networks, and weapons for land-based problems, while the Navy and Air Force maintained entirely separate architectures for their respective domains.¹²

A linear kill chain is inherently fragile and highly vulnerable to disruption. In a conventional setup, a radar system observes a threat, passes the data to a specific command center for orientation and decision, which then tasks a specific fighter jet to act.¹² If a sophisticated adversary disables or jams a single critical functional node in that sequence, such as the airborne warning and control system or a low-earth orbit satellite, the entire chain collapses.⁴⁴ The associated shooters are rendered completely blind and tactically useless. Furthermore, a sequential chain can only operate as fast as its slowest link, an operational reality that is unacceptable when defending against hypersonic missiles or reacting to rapidly maneuvering drone swarms.¹²

4.2 Convergence and the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Kill Web

To fight smart and hard, the military must replace these two-dimensional static sequences with a six-dimensional, dynamic network.¹³ This concept, known as convergence, is the driving force behind the Joint All-Domain Command and Control framework.¹³ A kill web seamlessly links any sensor to any shooter across all domains, including air, land, maritime, space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum.¹³

In a fully realized kill web, every asset on the battlefield acts as both a sensor and a potential relay node. A commercial observation satellite in space, an autonomous underwater vehicle, or a specialized infantry unit on the ground can detect a target and instantly share that telemetry across a unified data architecture.¹³ Artificial intelligence systems process this data in real-time, discerning the important information and autonomously matching the threat to the most optimal available shooter, whether that is a naval destroyer, an artillery battery, or a loitering munition.²

This networked approach creates immense operational resilience. If one sensor is destroyed by enemy action, the web seamlessly routes data through alternative nodes without a loss of situational awareness. This resilient architecture is what makes the deployment of cheap, attritable mass so highly lethal. A swarm of low-cost drones like the LUCAS does not need exquisite, heavy, and expensive radar equipment onboard if it can securely tap into the high-fidelity targeting data provided by a stealth aircraft or satellite operating hundreds of miles away.²

To successfully support this kill web, the Department of the Navy has begun establishing entities like the Navy Rapid Capabilities Office, which is designed to serve as an engine for enterprise-level adaptation.²⁷ Rather than focusing on legacy platforms, this office focuses on deploying tailored forces and managing the continuous adaptation cycle required to keep kill webs operational in the face of rapidly evolving adversary countermeasures.²⁷ This includes shifting significant investment away from the crewed platforms of the general-purpose force toward Robotics and Autonomous Systems, proposing to spend up to five percent of the Total Obligational Authority, roughly $10 billion, to ensure these tailored forces have the necessary technical support to function within the broader web.²⁷

5. Decentralizing and Securing Contested Logistics

The final structural change involves completely overhauling the logistical tail required to sustain modern operations. The United States military has historically benefited from uncontested logistics, relying on massive, centralized depots and complex global supply chains that ship replacement parts thousands of miles across relatively secure oceans. In future conflicts against sophisticated adversaries, these traditional supply lines will be actively targeted, disrupted, and severed. Mastering the concept of contested logistics is a primary requirement for the future of combat, fundamentally altering military strategy by emphasizing the need for flexibility and advanced technological planning.⁴⁶

5.1 The Challenge of Distributed Maritime Operations

The tactical shift toward Distributed Maritime Operations perfectly illustrates this logistical challenge.¹⁵ To counter adversary long-range anti-access and area-denial systems, the military is dispersing its offensive combat power away from concentrated, highly vulnerable carrier strike groups. Instead, forces are pushing smaller surface combatants, frigates, and autonomous vessels across vast geographic expanses to complicate the targeting calculus of the adversary.¹⁵

While this dispersion increases survivability and creates offensive dilemmas for the enemy, it creates a logistical nightmare for sustainment planners. Resupplying thousands of distributed, disconnected units with fuel, food, munitions, and highly specific repair parts using traditional, slow-moving cargo ships is practically impossible when those ships are highly vulnerable to long-range missile attack.¹⁵

5.2 Vulnerabilities in the Uncrewed Systems Supply Chain

The solution to sustaining distributed forces requires securing the components necessary to maintain affordable mass. Currently, the supply chain for uncrewed systems is fraught with vulnerabilities.⁵⁰ Modern drone warfare relies heavily on specific raw materials and components, many of which are dominated by foreign supply chains controlled by strategic competitors.⁵⁰ Every drone involved in modern conflicts, from palm-sized quadcopters to long-range loitering munitions, depends on materials such as carbon fiber, rare-earth neodymium magnets, lithium-ion battery cells, and gallium-nitride semiconductor chips.⁵⁰

The ability to sustain mass production of these systems translates directly into a geopolitical battle for the raw materials needed to employ drones at scale.⁵⁰ Mitigating these five strategic vulnerabilities across structural materials, propulsion, power, sensors, and logistics requires the integration of commercial off-the-shelf components that can be sourced globally and manufactured at high volume.⁵⁰ By utilizing civilian-defense production lines, the military avoids the fragile, highly specialized, and slow-moving supply chains of traditional defense contractors.² If one manufacturing facility is compromised, multiple secondary commercial vendors can rapidly surge production to meet battlefield demands, ensuring that the supply of attritable drones remains uninterrupted.

5.3 Point-of-Need Manufacturing and Fabrication at the Tactical Edge

To further secure contested logistics, the military must push production capabilities directly to the front lines through an operational paradigm known as Fabrication at the Tactical Edge.⁵² By leveraging advanced additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, combined with artificial intelligence, the military can produce vital spare parts on demand directly in the theater of operations, drastically reducing lead times and logistics burdens.¹⁴

This decentralized manufacturing capability fundamentally reshapes sustainment. For example, if an autonomous system or a mobile artillery launcher experiences a critical mechanical fault in a remote, contested island environment, traditional logistics would dictate aborting the mission to await a replacement part shipped via vulnerable maritime routes from a centralized depot.⁵⁴ Under a decentralized model, troops connect to a secure tele-maintenance network where remote engineers identify the failure visually.⁵⁴ The necessary component is then manufactured on-site using portable additive manufacturing systems, or printed at a nearby allied facility and delivered rapidly via a cargo uncrewed aerial system.¹⁴ The system comes back online rapidly, strikes the target, and restores operational tempo without relying on vulnerable supply ships.⁵⁴

The cost and time savings associated with this point-of-need manufacturing are substantial and proven. In documented instances, the Navy Southeast Regional Maintenance Center successfully utilized additive manufacturing to reverse-engineer and print a critical six-blade rotor for a chilled-water pump aboard an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.¹⁴ The conventional alternative would have cost approximately $316,544, but the final printed part cost only $131, and it was installed in a fraction of the time.¹⁴ When dealing with large fleets of attritable mass, the ability to print replacement drone wings, payload mounts, or battery housings at the edge of the battlefield ensures continuous combat effectiveness.

6. Strategic Conclusion

The hard lessons drawn from recent operations in the Red Sea and operations against Iran clearly indicate that the fundamental character of warfare has irrevocably changed. A strategy reliant exclusively on expensive, exquisite, and slow-to-produce defense systems is highly vulnerable to exhaustion and economic defeat by adversaries leveraging low-cost, commercially derived mass. The cost-exchange ratio of using multi-million-dollar interceptors to defeat twenty-thousand-dollar drones is a path to strategic failure.

To restore its warfighting edge and improve its ability to fight smart and hard, the United States military must execute a comprehensive structural transformation, abandoning the slug-fest mentality of conventional warfare. This transformation requires initiating the following specific changes in a strict, sequential order:

First, enact comprehensive budgetary and policy reform by overhauling the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process to allow for flexible funding in the year of execution, enabling the rapid capitalization of successful technological prototypes. Second, accelerate iterative procurement by utilizing Commercial Solutions Openings and Other Transaction Authorities to aggressively integrate civilian innovation into the defense ecosystem, prioritizing the rapid fielding of affordable mass over the slow perfection of complex platforms. Third, mandate Modular Open Systems Architecture by enforcing strict open standards for all hardware and software interfaces to prevent vendor lock-in, enabling continuous adaptation in contact. Fourth, deploy dynamic kill webs, transitioning away from vulnerable linear kill chains toward resilient, multi-domain command and control networks that seamlessly connect disparate sensors to autonomous shooters. Finally, decentralize logistics by developing robust sustainment capabilities for contested environments, integrating point-of-need additive manufacturing, tele-maintenance, and autonomous supply delivery systems.

By embracing this iterative, building-block approach across acquisition, operations, and logistics, the military can successfully invert the cost curve of modern conflict. Transitioning from a posture of defensive attrition to one of offensive cost-imposition ensures that the force remains agile, economically resilient, and fully capable of maintaining deterrence in an era defined by rapid technological disruption and asymmetric threats.

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. The Iran conflict exposes the new cost curve of war – Atlantic Council, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-iran-conflict-exposes-the-new-cost-curve-of-war/
2. From Red Sea Defense to Epic Fury: How the U.S. Flipped the …, accessed April 13, 2026, https://defense.info/re-shaping-defense-security/2026/03/from-red-sea-defense-to-epic-fury-how-the-u-s-flipped-the-drone-cost-equation/
3. The cost of US fighting Houthis in the Red Sea just went up | Responsible Statecraft, accessed April 13, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/operation-prosperity-guardian/
4. The new economics of warfare – European Policy Centre (EPC), accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.epc.eu/publication/the-new-economics-of-warfare/
5. Smart and affordable mass | Roland Berger, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/Smart-and-affordable-mass.html
6. DoD PPBE Reform Implementation Plan – Department of War, accessed April 13, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/17/2003629812/-1/-1/1/DOD-PPBE-REFORM-IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN.pdf
7. Commission-on-PPBE-Reform_Full-Report_6-March-2024_FINAL.pdf, accessed April 13, 2026, https://ppbereform.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Commission-on-PPBE-Reform_Full-Report_6-March-2024_FINAL.pdf
8. Defense Innovation Unit: Actions Needed to Assess Progress and …, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106856
9. Defense Innovation Unit FY23 Annual Report | DIU, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/fy23
10. DSP :: MOSA – Defense Standardization Program, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.dsp.dla.mil/Programs/MOSA/
11. Implementing a Modular Open Systems Approach in … – USD(R&E), accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/MOSA-Implementation-Guidebook-27Feb2025-Cleared.pdf
12. Transitioning from the kill chain to the kill web – Military Embedded Systems, accessed April 13, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/comms/communications/transitioning-from-the-kill-chain-to-the-kill-web
13. Joint All-Domain Kill Webs – Marine Corps Association, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Pavlak-Oct23.pdf
14. Reshaping Military Logistics Through Additive Manufacturing, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/10/25/additive-manufacturing-could-reshape-military-logistics.html
15. Naval Logistics in Contested Environments: Examination of Stockpiles and Industrial Base Issues | RAND, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1921-1.html
16. Is The US Running Out Of Missiles? $20000 Drones vs $1.5 Million Interceptors – YouTube, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-ma3aoltw
17. 1 Costs of United States Military Activities in the Wider Middle East Since October 7, 2023 Linda J. Bilmes1 October 7, 2025 – Costs of War, accessed April 13, 2026, https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/2025-10/Wider-Middle-East-Costs_Costs-of-War_Bilmes_10.7.25.pdf
18. Iran War Cost Estimate Update: $11.3 Billion at Day 6, $16.5 Billion at Day 12 – CSIS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/iran-war-cost-estimate-update-113-billion-day-6-165-billion-day-12
19. LUCAS Kamikaze Drones Lauded As “Indispensable” By U.S. Admiral In Charge Of Iran War, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.twz.com/news-features/lucas-kamikaze-drones-lauded-as-indispensable-by-u-s-admiral-in-charge-of-iran-war
20. Low-cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System – Wikipedia, accessed April 13, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_Uncrewed_Combat_Attack_System
21. Centcom commander says ‘hundreds’ of U.S. drones are involved in Iran war, accessed April 13, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/04/07/us-launches-more-attack-drones-iran-epic-fury-adm-cooper-centcom/
22. DOD’s arsenal of LUCAS drones ‘in the dozens’ amid their combat debut, accessed April 13, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/03/17/lucas-drone-production-emil-michael-operation-epic-fury/
23. Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS): Future of Warfare Strategy, accessed April 13, 2026, https://straitsresearch.com/article/lucas-new-age-warfare-strategy
24. Modernizing and Simplifying Defense Resourcing: Updated and Expanded PPBE Reform Report Released – Department of War, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4032945/modernizing-and-simplifying-defense-resourcing-updated-and-expanded-ppbe-reform/
25. Final Report – PPBE Reform Commission – Senate.gov, accessed April 13, 2026, https://ppbereform.senate.gov/finalreport/
26. Implementing DoD Replicator Initiative at Speed and Scale – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/implementing-the-department-of-defense-replicator-initiative-to-accelerate
27. Adapting to Win | Hudson Institute, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.hudson.org/defense-strategy/adapting-win-us-navy-rapid-capabilities-office-nrco-new-approach-military-acquisition-bryan-clark-dan-patt
28. The Need for Speed: Transforming Defense Procurement for a Dangerous World – YouTube, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOpIMY80NDo
29. The Need for Speed: Transforming Defense Procurement for a Dangerous World | Hudson Institute, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.hudson.org/events/need-speed-transforming-defense-procurement-dangerous-world
30. “DIU 3.0” | CNAS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/diu-3-0
31. DIU 3.0: Scaling Defense Innovation for Strategic Impact, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/diu-3-0-scaling-defense-innovation-for-strategic-impact
32. FY 2023 ANNUAL REPORT THE DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT – Amazon S3, accessed April 13, 2026, https://s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/publicdocs.diu.mil/DIU_Annual_Report_FY2023.pdf
33. Government Contracting Trends | Focus Areas – CSIS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csis.org/programs/center-industrial-base/focus-areas/government-contracting-trends
34. Advancing DoD Operations With Software Acquisition Reform – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/advancing-dod-operational-capabilities-with-software-acquisition-reform
35. Middle Tier of Acquisition (Section 804) – AiDA – Mitre, accessed April 13, 2026, https://aida.mitre.org/middle-tier/
36. Rapid Acquisition – The Challenge to Accelerate – National Defense Industrial Association, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/divisions/ipmd/2019/2019-04-meeting/207-middle-tier-of-acquisition-lacamera-190508215620.pdf
37. DoD Instruction 5000.80, “Operation of the Middle Tier of Acquisition,” December 30, 2019 – Executive Services Directorate, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/500080p.PDF
38. The Replicator initiative is key to the Army’s modernization – Brookings Institution, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-replicator-initiative-is-key-to-the-armys-modernization/
39. Is Replicator Replicable? | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/replicator-replicable
40. Secretary of Defense Memorandum: Replicator 2 Direction and Execution, accessed April 13, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/30/2003555473/-1/-1/0/REPLICATOR-2-MEMO-SD-SIGNED.PDF
41. Modular Open Systems Approach – DoW Research & Engineering, OUSW(R&E), accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.cto.mil/sea/mosa/
42. mosa-pocket-guide.pdf, accessed April 13, 2026, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/03/29/59226bed/mosa-pocket-guide.pdf
43. Modular Open Systems Approach – Implementation Challenges and Opportunities – National Defense Industrial Association, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/divisions/systems-engineering/studies-and-reports/mosa-implementation-challenges-and-opportunities–ndia-v1-20231016.pdf
44. Winning the Kill Chain Competition – Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/app/uploads/2023/05/Scale_Scope_Speed_Survivability_-KillChain_-Policy_Paper_40-New.pdf
45. Battle Networks and the Future Force – CSIS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/battle-networks-and-future-force
46. The Future of Combat: Exploring the Need for Contested Logistics and Its Impact on the Military – New Jersey Innovation Institute, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.njii.com/2024/07/contested-logistics-impact-on-military/
47. CNO Navigation Plan 2024 – Navy.mil, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.navy.mil/leadership/chief-of-naval-operations/cno-navplan-2024/
48. U.S. Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations Concept: Something for NATO to Consider?, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.cjoscoe.org/post/u-s-navy-s-distributed-maritime-operations-concept-something-for-nato-to-consider
49. Distributed Maritime Operations, Logistics, Industry, and American Strategy in Asia, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/distributed-maritime-operations-logistics-industry-and-american-strategy-in-asia/
50. The Drone Supply Chain War: Identifying the Chokepoints to Making a Drone – CSIS, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/drone-supply-chain-war-identifying-chokepoints-making-drone
51. Affordable Drones and Civilian Supply Chains are Transforming Warfare | Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University, accessed April 13, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2024/11/26/affordable-drones-and-civilian-supply-chains-are-transforming-warfare/
52. Fabrication at the Tactical Edge – National Defense University, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.ndu.edu/News/Article-View/Article/4445402/fabrication-at-the-tactical-edge/
53. DoD Additive Manufacturing Strategy – DoW Research & Engineering, OUSW(R&E), accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.cto.mil/dod-ams/
54. Army Adopting New Approaches, Tech to Sustain Dispersed Units, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/5/2/army-adopting-new-approaches-tech-to–sustain-dispersed-units