The US defense industry under the Biden administration has been in a constant state of ruckus, as it is doubled to satisfy supplies for foreign arms and foreign wars. Responsible Statecraft reports that the new National Defense Industrial Strategy intends to “catalyze generational change” of the defense industrial base and to “meet the strategic moment."

All the "strategic moments" concern competition with China, US aid to Ukraine against Russia, and "Israel’s" genocidal campaign in Gaza.

Biden is proposing a generation of investment to amp up the arms industry, which continues to fail in meeting cost, schedule, and performance standards. Meanwhile, contractors have already covered their backs against any political potential for future national security cuts.

However, increasing the military-industrial base means giving more leverage to arms makers, which, in turn, leads to increased national security spending - most of which goes to contractors. According to RS, the US puts more cash on national security than the next 10 countries combined. It beats China alone by 30%.

Even so, the Biden administration acknowledges that “America’s economic security and national security are mutually reinforcing,” and that “the nation’s military strength depends in part on our overall economic strength.”

Read next: How US economy benefits from war in Europe: WSJ

Optimizing the nation’s defense needs, according to the Biden plan, needs tradeoffs between “cost, speed, and scale,” but there is no mention of quality in return for all three factors.

Examples like the B-2 bomber, the F-35 fighter jet, the Littoral Combat Ship, the V-22 Osprey, and others have proven acquisition failures while a report by the Accountability Office shows that costs and delivery time continue to increase even though the number of major defense acquisition programs continue to drop. So truly, what's the military gaining in return? 

A 'permanent' state of war

This is where economic failure comes into play. The Congressional Budget Office anticipates that because of acquisition failures, operations and maintenance budgets will significantly exceed the rate of inflation for the next 10 years. This faces a military that does not intend to reduce its force or its industrial aims.

Earlier this month, a report published by the Heritage Foundation commenting on the think tank's annual Index of US Military Strength said that the US military is currently at its weakest point in the past decade with no signs of this trend reversing, while its adversaries are only growing stronger.

Biden’s new National Defense Industrial Strategy states that the US must “move aggressively toward innovative, next-generation capabilities while continuing to upgrade and produce, in significant volumes, conventional weapons systems already in the force.” However, the RS argues that it remains ironic as the US has spent decades developing the F-35 fighter jet, which the Pentagon still hasn’t given a green light for full-rate production, as time and money run out. 

Another priority is to “institutionalize supply chain resilience,” but this is a task handed to the Pentagon  by investing in “spare production capacity,” which is “excess capacity a company or organization maintains beyond its current production needs.”

That “spare production capacity” is intended by the Pentagon to be funded by US taxpayer money.

An additional priority in the plan is “flexible acquisition”, which is defined in the strategy to be done by reducing costs and development times while increasing adaptability. The Biden administration suggests “a flexible requirements process” for multiyear contracts and states that it is due to a shift in an “evolving threat environment."

Multiyear contracting doesn't mean cheaper. Although the Pentagon claims multiyear contracts give contractors the “demand signal” they constantly ask for to begin production, contractors aren't putting their extra money on identifying strengths or making capital investments to maximize output. The Pentagon isn't paying attention to that either. 

“Aggressive expansion of production capacity” is yet another priority on the list which means that during peacetime, weapons acquisition centers on “greater efficiency, cost-effectiveness, transparency, and accountability.”

The plan does not specifically say that the US is in a state of war, but it compares the acquisition policy with “today’s threat environment,” as it urges for a “crisis period acquisition policy” that revives the industrial base, shifting from efficiency to ensuring that contractors are “better resourced".

This is where the clouds clear up: Contractors don't need more resourcing, and this “crisis acquisition policy” puts the US on a “permanent war footing,” the RS report concludes.