The Middle East Conflict Exposes the Shortcomings of the U.S. Military-Industrial Base

According to a report by Reference News Network on May 22, the U.S. New York Times website reported on May 19 that nearly twenty years ago, then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposed the purchase of multifunctional and overly expensive weapons. He condemned weapons that could provide a "99% solution" but took years to produce, and called for the development of a new generation of weapons—ones that might only provide a "75% solution" but could be produced at a lower cost within months.

Today, the situation has hardly changed. Building a Patriot missile can take up to 36 months and cost $4 million. In the Iran war, the U.S. military has launched over 1,200 Patriot missiles so far. Some of these were used to shoot down "Shahed" drones, which cost only $35,000 each, while Iran can produce at least 200 of these drones per month.

This war, along with the rapid consumption of weapons by the U.S., has validated Gates' criticisms from years ago and exposed deep flaws in the U.S. military-industrial base and weapons procurement system.

For years, the Pentagon and Congress have tried to address this issue but have fundamentally failed. Now, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is rising to the challenge. The main difference is that, unlike Gates and several former Secretaries of Defense who advocated doing more with less money, Hegseth is pushing a $1.5 trillion budget proposal, the largest military spending proposal in modern U.S. history.

However, experts say that there are fundamental problems with how the military designs and builds weapons, and that simply increasing funding may not solve them.

Rachel Hoff, policy director at the Ronald Reagan Institute, said, "The Pentagon needs to demonstrate real change in behavior and culture. They have set up so many new offices and announced new strategies, but if there is no real change in contracting and procurement, all of this is just talk."

Department of Defense officials say they are ready to make changes. With potentially significantly increased military spending, Hegseth's reforms focus on prioritizing commercial channels, promoting the introduction of multiple suppliers, and requiring contractors to enhance manufacturing capabilities. Senior officials say they are looking for ways to bring in new defense tech companies to eliminate bureaucratic barriers that hinder their entry.

Within the government, concerns have arisen over the shortage of interceptors and the slow pace of weapons production, worrying that adversaries may become more aggressive and that allies may change their calculations, fearing that the U.S. may not provide effective protection as they previously believed.

Earlier this year, a U.S. Special Forces raid in Venezuela made the U.S. military appear invincible. However, the Iran war has made the U.S. seem less unstoppable.

Gates said in an interview in Williamsburg, Virginia: "It seems that everyone verbally acknowledges that there are problems with the defense industrial base, whether in shipbuilding, munitions, or other areas, but how fast is the expansion of existing factories? What is the progress on building new factories? I think at this moment, breaking through the bureaucracy is crucial because speed has become a decisive factor."

Defense procurement experts Peter Modigliani and Matt McGregor recently pointed out that, aside from LUCAS (Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Aerial System)—a version reverse-engineered from Iran's "Shahed" drones—the weapons used by the U.S. military in operations against Iran are all outdated technologies, such as the F-35 fighter jet, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the Patriot air defense system.

Gates stated that Pentagon leadership must decisively determine which traditional systems should be retained and accelerated in production, and which should be decisively discarded.

Pentagon officials insist that they are more willing to take risks than their predecessors. However, many former Secretaries of Defense have promised reforms, only to watch their visions come to nothing. (Translated by Liu Zongya)