I Saw Ukraine’s Rapid Adaptation Cycle in Action, and This is What the US Military Should Learn from It

Modern War Institute | Rachael Hoagland

Ukrainian frontline drone teams regularly modify jammed electronic warfare systems in hours, contrasting sharply with American acquisition processes that require up to two years to field updates. The United States defense acquisition apparatus remains structurally tied to pre-established static requirements rather than operational speed. Departmental culture prioritises compliance over rapid technological iteration.

Traditional mechanisms such as the Middle Tier of Acquisition fail to address the underlying adaptability gap when threats evolve post-contract. To bridge this divide, updating DFARS 215.304 would allow evaluators to judge contractors on rapid modification capabilities, enforcing two-week software update turnarounds. Initiatives like Project Agincourt and the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems offer immediate pilot pathways to transition toward an Autonomous Warfare Command. Furthermore, leveraging Ukraine's Brave1 Test in Ukraine cluster provides live battlefield data against active Russian electronic warfare tactics before future high-intensity conflicts escalate further.

Comment

Incorporating adaptability metrics into DFARS 215.304 shifts the measurement of defence industrial capacity from static hardware outputs to continuous software iteration. Traditional procurement pathways like the Middle Tier of Acquisition reward strict compliance with pre-established specifications rather than rapid threat response. When prime contractors building platforms under these pathways are evaluated against static baselines, assembly lines remain optimised for fixed configurations rather than field-reprogrammable architectures.

This structural misalignment creates operational bottlenecks for platforms managed by the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems. Consequently, systems transitioning toward the Autonomous Warfare Command risk entering full-rate production with electronic protection suites already rendered obsolete by adversary jamming.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor presents the greater obstacle to integrating rapid adaptation cycles into the Autonomous Warfare Command — statutory source selection criteria under DFARS 215.304 or institutional risk aversion among program managers?

The available evidence points toward statutory evaluation factors under DFARS 215.304 as the primary structural barrier, as regulatory compliance legally binds contracting officers to fixed requirements. Program managers operate within the boundaries established by source selection criteria, meaning cultural risk aversion is largely a rational response to current incentive structures. Until contracting mechanisms explicitly reward iterative adaptation over compliance, institutional culture inside defence acquisition programs is unlikely to shift.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here