I’ve spent years watching defense contractors navigate a system designed to protect everyone except the warfighter.
The incentive structure was clear: don’t fail publicly. Deliver late but compliant. Over budget but documented. The acquisition workforce learned to optimize for process adherence, not mission outcomes.
That changed on November 7, 2025.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth released a memo that didn’t suggest reform. It redesignated the entire Defense Acquisition System as the Warfighting Acquisition System. The language was unambiguous: acquisition is a warfighting function.
Speed to capability delivery is now the organizing principle. Not risk mitigation. Not stakeholder alignment. Speed.
What “Acquisition as a Warfighting Function” Actually Means
The phrase sounds like bureaucratic rebranding. It’s not.
When you classify acquisition as a warfighting function, you’re saying the speed at which we field capabilities directly determines battlefield outcomes. You’re admitting that a six-year procurement cycle for a critical component isn’t just inefficient—it’s a strategic vulnerability.
The FY 2026 NDAA codified this shift. According to the House Armed Services Committee, the legislation focuses defense acquisition on one primary objective: quickly equipping warfighters with needed capabilities in the most cost-effective manner practicable.
Notice what’s missing: there’s no mention of consensus-building, no reference to comprehensive documentation, no nod to risk committees.
The DoD is moving from program-centric approaches to portfolio-based strategies, with portfolio acquisition executives serving as senior officials responsible for oversight across multiple systems. Translation: fewer approval layers, faster decisions, more accountability concentrated in fewer hands.
Accountability and Authority Finally Live in the Same Room
For decades, the defense acquisition system distributed authority so widely that accountability evaporated.
Program managers had responsibility but limited authority. Contracting officers had authority but limited visibility into technical requirements. Engineers understood capability gaps but had no procurement power. The result was a system where everyone could point to someone else when programs failed.
The new framework collapses that distance.
In January 2026, Executive Order 14372 made this explicit: large contractors underperforming on contracts are not permitted to pay dividends or buy back stock until they produce a superior product, on time and on budget.
This is accountability with teeth. You can’t optimize for shareholder returns while delivering late to the warfighter. The incentive structure just flipped.
But it’s not just contractors facing new pressure. The DoD’s acquisition strategy emphasizes the importance of the “warfighting acquisition workforce” and the need to let them cut through red tape and deliver results. According to analysis from The Center for Government Procurement, the United States will modernize the duties and composition of the defense acquisition workforce and incentivize risk-taking and innovation.
Risk-taking. That’s the word that matters.
For 55 years, the acquisition workforce was trained to avoid risk. Now they’re being told to embrace it—but only if it accelerates capability delivery.
The Speed Imperative: What Wartime Footing Actually Requires
The DoD isn’t just talking about speed. It’s restructuring around it.
The strategy establishes a Wartime Production Unit to advise on production optimization and accelerate production ramps to meet operational needs. This isn’t a study group. It’s an operational entity with the authority to bypass traditional acquisition channels when speed is critical.
The defense industrial base has been shrinking for more than a decade. The strategy seeks to reverse these trends by spurring competition, increasing innovation, accelerating production, decreasing cost, and generating more private capital investment.
But here’s what that means in practice: if you’re a manufacturer who can’t demonstrate rapid production scalability, you’re not competitive anymore. The DoD doesn’t want prototypes that take three years to reach production. It wants production-ready capabilities that can scale in months.
Additive manufacturing is becoming central to this strategy. The U.S. Department of War’s FY 2026 budget request allocates $3.3 billion for AM-related projects, an 83% increase from the previous year. Direct DoD spending on additive manufacturing increased from $300 million in 2023 to approximately $800 million in 2024—a 166% year-over-year jump, according to Rapid + TCT.
That’s not incremental growth. That’s a strategic bet.
Real-World Impact: From Five Years to Operational Production
The B-1 bomber at Tinker Air Force Base provides the clearest example of what this shift enables.
A plastic panel in the crew compartment might have taken five years to replace using conventional contracting processes. Through additive manufacturing and the Air Force’s REACT initiative, replacements are now produced for the entire fleet.
Five years to operational production. That’s the paradigm shift in action.
This isn’t theoretical. DDM Systems has delivered similar results across multiple platforms. A fighter aircraft roll ratio servo cover went from CAD to first casting in 39 days versus 100+ days traditional. An A-10 Thunderbolt II control input arm moved from part model to casting in 10 days.
The technical capability existed before 2025. What changed is the acquisition framework that now rewards speed over process compliance.
What This Means for Defense Manufacturers
If you’re bidding on defense contracts, the evaluation criteria just changed.
DoD actions collectively point toward a procurement environment that prioritizes speed, measurable performance, and transition readiness over traditional, checklist-driven evaluations. Contractors should expect solicitations to hinge on their ability to deliver and update capabilities quickly and demonstrate mission impact in operational use.
Government customers increasingly expect rapid delivery of deployable capabilities rather than long, sequential programs, making speed-to-field a core performance metric. In response, aerospace and defense leaders are adopting agile development, modular open architectures, and continuous digital engineering to compress innovation cycles.
But here’s what that actually requires:
You need to eliminate tooling dependencies. Traditional investment casting requires months of tooling development before the first part ships. That timeline is incompatible with the new acquisition framework.
You need to demonstrate production scalability. The DoD doesn’t want to hear that you can deliver 10 units in six months. It wants to know how you’ll deliver 1,000 units in six months when the requirement changes.
You need third-party qualification. The Air Force Sustainment Center is working to establish a single, standardized process for qualifying additive manufacturing, according to a project announced by the University of Oklahoma and Oak Ridge National Lab. If your process isn’t aligned with these emerging standards, you’re building technical debt.
You need to show energy efficiency and sustainability. DDM Systems’ LAMP technology achieves up to 90% reduction in energy consumption compared to traditional casting. That’s not a marketing claim—it’s a strategic advantage when the DoD is evaluating total lifecycle costs.
The Capital Markets Are Watching
Defense technology has advanced more in the past 24 months than in the previous three decades, according to Bessemer Venture Partners.
The convergence of AI breakthroughs, procurement reform, and intensifying geopolitical tensions has created a compounding effect, accelerating defense innovation at unprecedented speed. European defense spending is projected to grow 3.4x over the next six years, making defense Europe’s fastest-growing sector.
Private capital is flowing into companies that can demonstrate production readiness, not just technical capability. The DoD’s shift to wartime footing creates a clear signal: manufacturers who can compress timelines from years to months will capture disproportionate contract value.
DDM Systems has $14 million in Digital Foundry installations confirmed at Tinker Air Force Base and Robins Air Force Base. A $5 million contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne for RS-25 rocket engine castings starts in H2 2025. A $15 million strategic partnership with Eaton includes a Digital Foundry installation in the UK.
These aren’t speculative investments. They’re operational deployments of production infrastructure that can deliver castings in days instead of months.
What Happens Next
The acquisition workforce is being retrained. Contractors are restructuring their operations. Capital is reallocating toward speed-capable manufacturers.
But the most important shift is cultural.
For 55 years, the defense acquisition system rewarded caution. Program managers who avoided public failures advanced. Contractors who delivered compliant but late products kept their contracts. Engineers who followed established processes received promotions.
That incentive structure is breaking down.
The new framework rewards calculated risk-taking in service of speed. It punishes process compliance that delays capability delivery. It creates career consequences for contractors who prioritize shareholder returns over warfighter outcomes.
If you’re a manufacturer, you have two paths forward.
You can optimize for the old system—comprehensive documentation, consensus-driven decisions, risk-averse timelines—and watch your competitive position erode as faster competitors capture contracts.
Or you can restructure around speed. Eliminate tooling dependencies. Demonstrate production scalability. Achieve third-party qualification. Show energy efficiency. Compress your innovation cycles.
The DoD just told you which path it’s rewarding.
The question is whether you’re ready to move at the speed the warfighter requires.
Continue your research: Explore Aerospace and Defense Casting. Related articles: The Acquisition Reform Signal Most Defense Contractors Missed and When the Pentagon Said "Ship It Imperfect": What Defense Acquisition Reform Means for Manufacturing Speed. For production capabilities, see Rapid Precision Castings capability statement. For more detail, read the Solving the Defense Supply Chain Crisis white paper.