Will the U.S. Military’s ‘Great Reboot’ Be Ready for the Next War?

The nature of warfare is undergoing some of the most significant changes seen in a generation, with technological advancements in unmanned systems and artificial intelligence of particular importance. These developments can be seen in near real-time in Ukraine thanks to the plethora of videos posted to X, TikTok, and elsewhere, documenting equipment losses, territorial gains, and all the gore in between.

In parallel, the United States government is also in the throes of some of the most significant changes seen since the end of the Cold War, with enormous implications for the U.S. military. A more inwardly focused administration sees American security as a zero-sum game and sees China as the pacing threat. 

At the same time, the Trump administration is hell-bent on reviving what it sees as a moribund Department of Defense.

The pressing question, therefore, is, given the pressing challenges in Ukraine and the Middle East now and the enormous potential for war with a peer rival in the Indo-Pacific, what is the best way to reboot the United States military?

For the moment, the solution has been to cut, trim, reduce, and chop, thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Elon Musk, the Czar of the Trump administration’s effort to slash spending, has taken a narrow view of some of the United States military’s most significant programs, recently disparaging the F-35 project and expressing scorn for the personnel behind the project.

In November of last year, Musk posted a video to X of a large quadcopter drone swarm performing coordinated maneuvers. “Meanwhile,” Musk wrote, “some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”

Online commentators pointed out significant limitations to quadcopter design — even if operating in tandem with dozens or hundreds of other drones. One of the most apparent advantages fighter jets have over quadcopter-like drones is the immense amount of munitions they can fire — tens of thousands of pounds of munitions and fuel — plus an overwhelming advantage in range. This advantage is incredibly significant When equipped with conformal or external fuel tanks. 

However, the F-35 platform’s stealth characteristics are another strength over quadcopter designs.

Interestingly, Elon Musk is a fan of some of the United States’ earlier record-setting aerospace projects. In 2020, Musk named his newborn X Æ A-12, a homage to the A-12 Oxcart, the predecessor aircraft to the SR-71 Blackbird of Cold War fame.

And while Musk has shown his enthusiasm for high-level aerospace projects, he’s been no fan of more benign government initiatives, the most recent of which is the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Just last week, the Trump administration announced they would cut 80,000 jobs from the VA, with Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency leading the charge — a remarkable announcement for a department that has historically enjoyed high bipartisan support.

War in Ukraine

Musk’s disparaging remarks about the F-35 program aside, there is a glimmer of relevance to his insistence that the next war the United States fights will increasingly rely on unmanned systems. But in Ukraine, that reality is now.

Advances in unmanned drone technology on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides are accelerating at break-neck speed. The increasing sophistication of drone range, payload capabilities, and weapon load-out has been made possible by extremely rapid prototyping, allowing innovation to be quickly tested on the battlefield in real-world scenarios.

Likewise, the cat-and-mouse game of electronic warfare on both sides of the front via jamming, GPS spoofing, or other means is evolving at an incredibly rapid clip.

While unmanned aircraft of the size now being used to devastating effect in Ukraine cannot replace manned fighters like the F-35 or even other fourth-generation fighter jets like the F-16 at the strategic level, their use at the tactical level has helped Ukraine partially offset their disparity with Russia in terms of artillery pieces and ammunition.

A War in the Pacific

The pace of innovation within the U.S. military, by comparison, is painfully slow. Long, drawn-out design processes followed by many months of testing and evaluation don’t always yield the right piece of equipment. One example of this is the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

Regarding mobility, armor protection, and curb weight, the JLTV has significant advantages over the MRAP and Humvee vehicles. However, the JLTV has sustained pointed criticisms.

A report by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan think tank that reports to Congress, noted that “among other findings… JLTVs were not operationally suitable because of deficiencies in reliability, maintainability, training, manuals, crew situational awareness, and safety.” It added, “on June 20, 2019, the Army authorized JLTV full-rate production.”

The JLTV would have excelled mainly at the kind of counterinsurgency operations the United States fought in Afghanistan and Iraq against irregular but sophisticated terrorist groups.

However, as the United States increasingly faces the prospect of expeditionary warfare in the Pacific against a peer rival, applying a vehicle like the JLTV to that theater of warfare is questionable at best — and would have deadly consequences at worst.

B-21 Raider U.S. Air Force. Image Credit: U.S. Air Force.

The JLTV is, in essence, built to fight the United States’ previous wars, not its future ones.

The long distances between islands would shape a peer-on-peer conflict in the Pacific. Small drones of the quadcopter type used extensively in Ukraine would struggle to overcome thousands of miles between islands.

However, high-endurance unmanned systems, particularly unmanned sea vehicles, would play a significant role.

A U.S. Military Reboot?

Ukrainians are rapidly fielding and adjusting these prototypes — both in the air and at sea. Learning the lessons of this war to win the next battle should be paramount to the United States military.

Streamlining how the Pentagon acquires new equipment will be hugely important.

This raises an important question: if the goal of the U.S. military should be to win a war in the Pacific, what will ultimately result in victory? Is it slashing jobs at the Veterans Administration?

The United States military’s supremacy in warfare is at risk thanks to incredibly outdated procurement processes, a very slow adaptation of new technologies, particularly in autonomous systems, and bureaucratic inefficiencies within the Pentagon.

It is the ultimate irony that the United States is the world leader in developing artificial intelligence — but that its own military is slow on the AI uptake. There is, however, a glimmer of hope.

Companies specializing in big data analytics and firms on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence development, particularly in America, that fuse AI with weapons technology, are leading the boom in defense technology.

At the forefront of defense tech disruption, these companies may win the next war.

Perhaps it would behoove the Department of Government Efficiency to streamline acquisition processes for innovative American companies rather than go for easy and ineffectual short-term political wins.

About the Author: Caleb Larson 

Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.