Written by Will Jones
Jameson Riley Johnson of Sabre Global examines the growing gap between rapid defense technology innovation and traditional government acquisition processes, and argues that new funding and procurement models could help small businesses turn emerging technologies into deployable capabilities faster.
The problem in defense is not a lack of innovation. The defense acquisition system fuels some innovation; however, defense technology is advancing faster than the government systems are designed to fund, acquire, and field it. Closing that gap requires providing promising small businesses with a pathway to develop and build new capabilities, rather than expecting them to arrive with fully developed products.
New capabilities in drones, AI, intelligence gathering, and communications are developing at unprecedented speed. Yet, according to Jameson (J.R.) Johnson, president of Sabre Global, the systems responsible for bringing those capabilities into service have struggled to keep pace. “My experience is that the biggest gap right now is in the actual acquisition process of the government.”
The scale of that gap is reflected in the time and resources required to deliver defense capabilities. According to GAO’s Weapon Systems Annual Assessment, the average time to deliver a defense capability increased to more than 12 years in 2026. Meanwhile, as Military Times reported, the U.S. Army was producing just 36,000 155mm rounds per month as of March 2026, against a goal of 100,000.
“Technology is moving at one speed, but our acquisition system is moving at another,” Johnson says. “We’re developing modern capabilities, but they still have to navigate processes built for an earlier generation of technology.”
Recognizing the need for new technology is only the first step. For many of the smaller companies developing these capabilities, the bigger challenge is having the funding and production capacity to turn a promising idea into something that can actually be deployed. Small defense companies can be nimble and innovative, but they often lack the capital to take promising technology into production. The government can generally buy existing capability, but it has limited ability to invest in a company’s future capability and guarantee the long-term demand needed to justify investment.
That pushes smaller companies toward subcontracting for larger defense contractors rather than developing their own technologies. As Johnson explains, “Our agility frequently surpasses that of larger firms, yet the pursuit of promising ideas can demand so many resources that we ultimately focus on subcontracting simply to keep the business viable.”
This gap becomes even more consequential as technology itself continues to accelerate. AI and emerging systems are compressing the time it takes to develop, adapt, and deploy new capabilities, putting even greater pressure on traditional processes. “AI is certainly moving the speed of those new technologies at a much faster level,” Johnson says. Target recognition is a clear example. “AI-run software fed with imagery can identify tanks, artillery, and active versus empty trench lines. A small drone carrying an infrared sensor can now do that analysis in the air, making targeting an on-board capability.”
“We’re having to come up with ways to pre-fight the pre-fought battle with the AI-equipped drones,” Johnson explains, describing how the growing use of drones and autonomous systems is creating a new layer of defense around already rapidly evolving capabilities. As technology moves faster, the question is not whether the existing acquisition system has value. It is whether there is enough flexibility to bring genuinely new capabilities to the field at the speed they require.
The answer, Johnson argues, is not to eliminate the existing acquisition system. Slower processes still provide engineering oversight, testing, program management, and lifecycle accountability. A strategic approach to stimulate production may involve grouping smaller firms with complementary engineering and technology strengths into collaborative, five-year development programs.
Under this model, companies would receive structured investment in exchange for committing to a clear milestone, that is, creating domestic small-scale manufacturing while dramatically improving product performance. Implementing this type of integrated, multi-company funding model may require modernizing current industrial procurement frameworks to allow for collaborative commercial scaling.
The goal is to allow small businesses to build capability rather than simply survive long enough to win subcontracting work. “Create an acquisition environment where small business talent and capability can pursue truly transformative innovation, rather than simply striving to keep their doors open,” he says.
Defense innovation requires not just better technology, but an acquisition system capable of helping promising technology accelerate with small business agility to become a new capability at speed. The next step is determining how that system will catch up to the technology it was built to deliver.
