Over the past 90 days, I’ve gone back to the source: you.
Not think tank commentary. Not press releases.
Your LinkedIn polls tell a different story. The defense market is not confused. It is cautious, fast, and skeptical of anyone promising speed without a path to execution.
Here is the signal hiding in plain sight, and what I would do about it if I were sitting in your seat.
Acquisition “Speed” Is Not Your Problem. Execution Risk Is.
A National Defense Magazine report called the Pentagon “stuck in an acquisition cul-de-sac.” When I asked what is really blocking escape velocity, you answered clearly:
- Overly bureaucratic processes and regulations: 51%
- Budget instability and unpredictable funding cycles: 27%
- Risk aversion inside the workforce: 12%
- Lack of collaboration with industry on new tech: 10%
That breakdown matters.
It tells me the market is done blaming “culture” as the primary villain. You see structure and funding volatility as the core constraints. That is why speed initiatives can feel like theater. If the pipeline is faster but the money signal stays noisy, you don’t get acceleration. You get whiplash.
My take: If you want speed, you need two things at once. A contracting pathway that can actually move, and a funding story that survives contact with a CR, a reprogramming fight, or a late cycle pivot.
Are primes losing because they can’t rewire fast enough?
Business Insider framed the Army’s tilt toward startup-friendly procurement as a fresh challenge for primes. Your votes show no single “killer” issue. You split the blame evenly:
- Transitioning to a venture style mindset: 29%
- Competing for smaller ticket, high volume systems: 29%
- Adapting to shorter development cycles: 27%
- Attracting and retaining new tech partners: 15%
That is not a problem. That is a diagnosis.
If you are a prime, you are being asked to behave like a portfolio. Many smaller bets, faster iterations, a higher tolerance for partial wins, and a tighter connection between users and requirements.
My take: If you are a growth stage or commercial tech firm, the message is simple: primes are looking for partners who reduce cycle time and reduce risk at the same time. If your offer only improves one, you will stall.
Shipbuilding Is Becoming a Stress Test for Industrial PolicyAnd You Do Not Trust the Shortcut
When I asked about trade discussions with Finland and South Korea to build U.S. Navy warships, you rejected it:
- No: 69%
- Yes: 26%
- Not sure: 5%
This is the rare poll where the skepticism is overwhelming.
It tells me you are not against allied capacity. You are against a political workaround that fails to rebuild the U.S. base. You are worried about second order effects: workforce, supplier fragility, sustainment, and control of the long tail.
Then I asked where the Atlantic Council’s Revitalizing US Shipbuilding Task Force should focus first in 2026. You did not crown a single winner. You spread priority across operational levers:
- Advanced manufacturing and automation: 29%
- Workforce and trade incentives: 29%
- Sustainment and rapid repair: 29%
- Allied partner integration: 13%
My take: you want allied integration to be additive, not substitutive. You want domestic capacity, domestic sustainment, and domestic throughput. Then you will talk about partnerships.
AI Has a Clear Winner
But the “How” Is Still Unresolved
Two versions of my AI leadership poll landed in different pockets of the audience. The top line still held: you want joint leadership.
- Joint leadership and partnership: 70%
- Industry-only leadership: 11%
- Government-only leadership: 10%
- Academia and research: 9%
That is a strong signal, even with different sample sizes.
It means nobody credible believes the government can dictate AI direction alone. It also means industry does not trust itself to run unchecked. You want an integrated model that does three things at once: move fast, stay ethical, and remain operationally relevant.
My take: If you are selling AI into the DoD, the winning move is not “more AI.” The winning move is proof of integration: how it plugs into data rights, mission workflows, security constraints, and contracting realities.
Supply Chain Pain Is Not a Tech Problem. It’s a Planning Problem.
McKinsey reported $240B in excess inventory and spare parts in Aerospace and Defense. In my poll, forecasting inaccuracy dominated at 60%.
In another small-sample poll, the answers split between lack of trust and visibility and legacy systems, both at 40%.
The narrative is consistent: your organizations do not trust the forecast, so they buy insurance in the form of stockpiles.
This is the hidden tax on the defense industrial base. Not because inventory is evil, but because bad demand signaling turns balance sheets into bunkers.
My take: If you are a supplier or sub, the practical implication is this: your customer’s forecasting weakness becomes your cash flow risk. If you cannot shape demand conversations earlier, you will keep eating volatility downstream.
Right to Repair Is Becoming a Political and Contracting Flashpoint
I asked whether defense contractors should be able to require subscription fees for parts, data, and tools needed to repair equipment the military already owns. The results were decisive:
- No, full right to repair: 51%
- Compromise, basic equipment only: 20%
- Yes, protect proprietary IP: 5%
- Ban it as a national security risk: 24%
That is a 75% bloc demanding either full repair rights or a national security line in the sand.
This is where many contractors misread the room. They treat this as an IP policy argument. The operators and maintainers treat it as readiness. Congress increasingly treats it as cost control and leverage.
My take: If you are on the contractor side, you need a posture that does not look like a toll booth. If you are on the government side, you need language that secures readiness without collapsing incentives for innovation. Either way, this is heading toward tougher terms.
FY27 Planning Is Not About Prediction. It’s About Optionality.
At Reagan National Defense Forum, OMB signaled no decision on another reconciliation package while arguing there is no “hole” in defense funding. When I asked how you are planning FY27, the dominant answer was:
Dual-track scenarios: 43% in one poll
In a smaller follow-on poll, the audience tilted toward “plan for a second reconciliation add-on,” but the sample size was small.
The takeaway is not the split. The takeaway is that mature teams are building optionality. They are adjusting pipeline gates, capturing investment timing, and cash burn assumptions to survive either outcome.
That is how professionals behave in a volatile appropriations environment.
The New Reality:
Work Is Happening Without the RFP
One of the most revealing signals came from a Navy AI move.
The Navy is moving with Palantir on a $448M ShipOS initiative. I asked a simple question: did you see an RFP?
No: 100%
You should sit with that.
Whether you love or hate that outcome, it is a reality you must plan around. More work is being shaped through relationships, data access, pilots, task orders, and rapid contracting pathways. If your strategy begins at the portal, you will be late by design.
The Mood of the Market:
Pragmatic, Skeptical, and Ready to Move
Across these polls, I see a community that is not panicking. You are not waiting for perfect clarity either.
You are signaling three instincts:
1st: You believe the system is structurally slow, and you want a real pathway, not slogans.
2nd: You trust partnership models more than single-owner models, whether we are talking AI, shipbuilding, or acquisition modernization.
3rd: You are building scenario plans and capturing discipline around execution risk, not political noise.
My Top 5 Recommendations Right Now for DoD Contractors:
- Build a dual-track capture plan for FY26 and FY27: Assume at least one major funding surprise. Set triggers for when to accelerate, pause, or pivot.
- Translate “speed” into contracting reality: If you cannot name the pathway, the decision owners, the money type, and the timing, you do not have speed. You have hope.
- Treat industrial base narratives as a competitive arena: Shipbuilding, sustainment, and repair rights are moving into the center of policy. If you are not shaping language and relationships, someone else is shaping them against you.
- Upgrade your early warning system: Your own poll answered this: Hill signals matter. NDAA language trends dominated at 57% in my poll, with appropriations posture and OMB–DoD comments trailing. Track the language, not the headlines.
- Stop treating RFPs as the start line: If the work is moving through pilots and other pathways, your engagement must start earlier, with the right stakeholders, and with a verified funding story.
If You Want Help, Here Is Where I Can Plug In
If you are trying to tighten your message, capture influence, validate funding, or shape outcomes before it’s “real,” that is exactly what I do.
Contact me here and tell me your primary DoD target and message. I will respond with three questions that will expose where your plan is strong and where it is vulnerable, then we can decide if a working session makes sense.
Cleared Hot:
Not yet ready to work together? Read my latest book, digital copy for free here, or Kindle/Paperback on Amazon.
I wrote Cleared Hot because too many great teams treat their first award like a finish line. It’s not. It’s clearance into new airspace.
In military aviation, “Cleared Hot” is the final call before decisive action. In federal sales, it’s the moment when preparation, alignment, and confidence converge, so you can execute with momentum, not just hope.
In Cleared Hot: The Flight Path to Sustained Federal Funding, I share the flight plan I’ve used with defense companies to move beyond survival and win again and again.
