Adaptivity and Agility Must Define U.S. Army Integrated Air and Missile Acquisition Process
Earlier this month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth took on an issue that has long evaded Pentagon officials in both Democratic and Republican Administrations: acquisition reform. Secretary Hegseth laid out a bold strategy for addressing the development, procurement, and fielding of defense assets, with a much-needed focus on “speed to capability.”
The move should be fully embraced by policymakers, the acquisition community, and private sector contractors, alike.
Secretary Hegseth’s vision rightly reflects that the myriad threats facing the U.S. homeland and forward-deployed resources demand a rejection of the “business as usual” approach at the Pentagon. Given the urgent priorities outlined by the Trump Administration – be it Golden Dome or the defense of Guam – there is no better time to focus on both increased flexibility and efficiency.
The U.S. Army will be front and center during this effort, particularly in its integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) portfolio. Lt. Gen. Sean A. Gainey, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, has said, “The U.S. Army AMD force is undergoing the most significant modernization in our history.”
This initiative is far from a luxury in 2025. As the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have demonstrated over the last couple of years, air and missile defenses are essential if we are to protect our troops and allies abroad.
Following Secretary Hegseth’s announcement, the Army shared its own plan in what officials told the press was the biggest shakeup the service has seen in years. This includes the welcomed contraction of 12 Program Executive Offices to six Portfolio Acquisition Executives with greater authority and less bureaucracy.
Of course, the devil will be in the details.
The Department of War (DoW) made special note that the U.S. military should be leveraging commercial products when possible. Unfortunately, there are no off-the-shelf solutions for major pieces of the Army’s integrated air and missile defense architecture. You don’t walk into your local retailer and expect to find interceptors, sensors, or command-and-control systems. It’s what makes the development work so fraught with challenges and why large prime contractors – with decades of experience in the arena – are still a viable option for the DoW.
One test case will be the Army’s initiative to modernize its hallmark AMD command-and-control (C2) program, known as the Integrated Battle Command System or IBCS. With its system-agonistic C2 approach, IBCS breaks down legacy missile defense system silos by fusing sensor data across domains and services for a single actionable picture of the full battlespace, enhancing decision-making in a time-sensitive environment. Given its use of AI and its ability to enable battlefield information dominance, IBCS is a model critical technology that fits within two DoW’s recent revised list of six categories that “represent the priorities that will deliver the greatest impact, the fastest results and the most decisive advantage” in modern warfare.
But the future configuration of IBCS, especially considering recent conflicts abroad, remains an open question. Last month, the Army signaled that the current IBCS components — with tents, tactical vehicles, and towers – are too bulky and immobile for the realities of today’s battles.
To address the need for a nimbler IBCS, the Army published a notice asking private industry for ideas on how to evolve the system architecture “to leverage new technologies to enhance survivability, adaptability, and supportability on the future battlefield.” These concepts should drive future AMD investment decisions, whether it’s IBCS or the large, fixed Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor.
While the baseline IBCS program has enjoyed bipartisan support in the budget process across both the Biden and Trump Administrations and is expected to be fully funded by Congress in FY2026 to deliver on full-rate production plans, the Army’s budget and acquisitions way forward for a modernized IBCS are far more ambiguous.
Harnessing the power of industry partners and private sector investment, IBCS architecture must evolve as soon as possible to deliver next-generation mission performance. This is where the DoW’s “speed to capability” mantra will be tested, and clearly creativity is a must for accelerated deployment. Specifically, the U.S. Army should explore empowering defense firms already under contract – those with a track record of delivering high-performing capabilities on time and on budget.
While the Administration indicated an increased risk tolerance, mitigating timeline, budgetary, and technical challenges will be crucial to supporting new system components that swiftly reach the warfighter and not just paying for a series of ideas that look good on PowerPoint slides. If done correctly, AMD modernization can be a cost-saver, getting more out of contractors of record and the military’s existing interceptor and sensor inventory across services.
Secretary Hegseth deserves significant credit for marshalling the Pentagon’s acquisition process into the 21st Century. But the Building’s ability to execute the strategy – in time to stay ahead of the future threats that face our warfighters and nation — will come down to getting the most out of and improving what is already working.
Dean G. Popps is the former Army Acquisition Executive and Acting United States assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology.