Can the Pentagon Be Run Like a Business?

Make them easier to do business with - The Pentagon has constructed a labyrinth of bureaucratic processes to regulate and oversee defense contractors, largely to prevent fraud. Yet, as various defense analysts have shown, much more public money is squandered on the inefficiencies and expenses of complying with the audits than is lost through the small amount of fraud in the system.

We could buy weapons from other friendly nations.

Remove burdensome processes and regulations that make it difficult to do business? Its way harder than dealing with the GSA.

Eliminate the continual production of excess capacity and quantities of weapons when there are virtually no enemies.

Use commercial products when possible. Allow defense products to be built in the same plants as commercial products. Japan has encouraged its defense sector to buy commercial products and has encouraged Japanese companies that build aircraft and jet engines to build both advanced military fighters and major components of civilian transport aircraft with the same machinery in the same plants.

The military services use competition as an excuse to retain excess capacity.

Evolutionary weapons acquisition would be a positive development.
The problems of high costs and outdated technology will not be solved until the defense sector not only adopts commercial practices but also buys components commercially.
The Navy made adjustments to the designs for new submarines to incorporate commercial computers and software.

Make it competitive - despite the existence of more than one supplier (in most instances), most defense contracts are not competitive in the commercial sense of the term.

Until top DOD officials demand the purchase of commercial components and greater integration of military and civilian production, the military services will continue to insist on militarily unique products and waste billions of dollars in the process.

Make it competitive - Some contracts are awarded without competition, and others are let as administrative exceptions to procedures for open competition.

They should be encouraged to have 2 suppliers

Make it competitive - True competition means more than just retaining two or more producers. It requires sufficient demand for at least two suppliers to produce articles efficiently. At least for Tanks, Aircraft and smaller items. It might be OK for the largest low quantity systems like Ships or Submarines.

With the end of the Cold War, the national security rationale for limiting foreign imports and investment needs to be reexamined and the walls around the domestic defense market lowered.  Purchasing weapons produced by companies from friendly foreign countries is probably fine.

Tanks and Aircraft could be purchased without critical avionics and weapons systems. Which would be snapped in after the vehicle was delivered.

We should consider buying Weapons from NATO countries and nations such as Israel, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, and Brazil should not be ruled out.

Make it competitive - Prevent US Defense firms from lobbying for a restrictions on foreign competition.

Make it competitive - Prevent US Defense firms from lobbying for a restrictions on foreign competition.

The U.S. government would obtain better and more innovative weapons systems for lower prices, weapons from the United States and friendly countries would be more compatible for battlefield operations, and U.S. defense companies would become stronger and more efficient.

U.S. taxpayers would benefit from cheaper and better weapons.

Make it competitive - Allow the commercial sector to compete