India’s Operation Sindoor, executed in May 2025, has sent shock waves through the global defence community, exposing critical vulnerabilities in the US defence establishment and highlighting the urgent need for reform. The operation’s success, driven by rapid innovation, cost-effective systems, and decisive execution, stands in sharp contrast to the slow, monopolistic, and expensive defence practices that dominate the United States.

Operation Sindoor: Precision, Speed, And Impact

Operation Sindoor was launched in response to a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, killing 26 civilians. India’s military response was swift and surgical: over a four-day campaign, Indian forces targeted terrorist camps and, when Pakistan retaliated, escalated to precision strikes on Pakistani air bases and command centres.

The operation crippled Pakistan’s radar and air defence networks, dismantled command and control, and exposed the weaknesses of Chinese and Turkish-supplied systems. Within hours, Pakistan was forced to seek a ceasefire, underscoring the effectiveness and deterrent value of India’s approach.

Cost-Effective Innovation Vs US Defence Monopolies

India’s military achievements are not just about battlefield success—they are rooted in a philosophy of affordable, scalable, and rapidly deployable systems. The Pinaka rocket, for example, costs less than $56,000, compared to the US GMLRS missile at $148,000. The Akashteer missile defence system was developed and fielded at a fraction of the cost of US-made Patriot or NASAMS platforms. This stands in stark contrast to the US, where a handful of defence giants—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics—dominate the landscape, stifling competition and innovation.

The US defence industry, once a symbol of strength, now resembles a cartel. The number of prime contractors has shrunk from 51 to fewer than 10, making it difficult for the Pentagon to negotiate or drive innovation. Cost-plus contracting further insulates these firms from risk, encouraging cost overruns and the development of over-engineered, expensive platforms—exemplified by the F-35 fighter jet’s $1.7 trillion lifetime cost and persistent performance issues.

Structural Challenges In The US Defence Industry

The United States defence industry faces significant structural challenges that limit its ability to compete effectively with emerging alternatives like India's cost-effective manufacturing model. The industry's concentration among a small number of prime contractors has created what analysts describe as a cartelized system with limited genuine competition. According to Department of Defence studies, the number of prime defence contractors has declined dramatically from 51 to fewer than 10, fundamentally altering the competitive landscape and reducing incentives for innovation and cost reduction. This consolidation has occurred despite soaring defence budgets expected to approach $1 trillion by 2025, indicating that increased spending has not translated into improved competition or efficiency.

The monopolistic concentration of the US defence industry manifests in several problematic ways that directly impact military readiness and fiscal responsibility. Major contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Technologies, and General Dynamics dominate the global arms market, with nine of the world's top 20 defence firms by revenue being American companies. While this concentration once represented strength through specialization and scale, it has evolved into a system where contractors have little incentive to drive innovation, reduce costs, or adapt quickly to changing requirements. The lack of genuine market competition has created an environment where cost-plus contracting shields firms from the consequences of budget overruns and delays.

A 2024 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies revealed that 61% of major defence contracts now go to companies with no commercial business, rising to 86% when firms like Boeing with limited commercial operations are included. This isolation from broader market pressures has created a defence industry that operates according to different economic principles than the competitive commercial sector. The resulting system prioritizes technical specifications over cost-effectiveness and favours complex, expensive platforms over simpler, more affordable alternatives that might prove more suitable for contemporary warfare requirements.

Acquisition Process Inefficiencies
The US defence acquisition process has become notoriously slow and bureaucratic, often requiring years or even decades to field new equipment. This timeline mismatch with the pace of modern warfare has been starkly exposed by conflicts like the war in Ukraine, where rapid adaptation and production scaling proved crucial to military effectiveness. While American weapons systems like Javelins and HIMARS demonstrated their technical superiority, production systems struggled to keep pace with demand, forcing the Pentagon to rely on ageing factories and slow supply chains to meet urgent requirements.

The acquisition system's fundamental structure creates perverse incentives that prioritize compliance with bureaucratic processes over operational effectiveness and speed. Many battlefield innovations since 9/11, including counter-IED kits and unmanned systems, were introduced through emergency procurement channels that bypassed formal acquisition processes. While these stopgap measures enabled rapid deployment of critical capabilities, they highlighted the systematic failures of the standard procurement system to respond to urgent operational needs. The reliance on emergency measures for innovation demonstrates that the formal acquisition process has become an obstacle to rather than an enabler of military effectiveness.

Cost-plus contracting models further exacerbate these systemic problems by removing financial risk from contractors and creating incentives for program complexity and duration rather than efficiency and speed. The F-35 fighter jet program exemplifies these challenges, with a lifetime cost estimated at $1.7 trillion and a development process characterized by delays and performance shortfalls. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's acknowledgment that the F-35 represented "a serious mistake" and his warning about creating "perpetual monopolies" reflects growing recognition within the defence establishment that fundamental reform is necessary to maintain American military competitiveness.

Systemic Weaknesses And The Need For Reform

The US acquisition system is notoriously slow, with new equipment often taking years or decades to reach the field. The war in Ukraine exposed the inability of the US industrial base to surge production or adapt quickly, forcing reliance on outdated factories and slow supply lines. Many battlefield innovations since 9/11 were only fielded through emergency channels, bypassing normal procurement—highlighting systemic delays that remain unaddressed.

A further problem is the increasing isolation of US defence firms from commercial markets. Over 60% of major contracts now go to companies with no commercial business, rising to 86% when including firms like Boeing with limited commercial work. This insularity, a legacy of post-Cold War consolidation, has led to a defence sector resistant to market pressures and innovation.

Lessons From India: Agility, Affordability, And Scalability

India’s approach offers a compelling alternative. Its defence industry emphasises rapid development, integration of advanced technology, and cost-effective production. Systems like BrahMos and Akashteer are not boutique prototypes but proven, battle-ready platforms. India’s integrated air defence network, which seamlessly links air force and ground forces, is described by experts as “unique”—even surpassing current US capabilities in some respects.

This model demonstrates that lethality, affordability, and scalability can coexist. India’s ability to deploy, test, and validate new systems in actual combat provides a blueprint for the US to follow, especially as global threats evolve and the pace of conflict accelerates.

Urgent Path Forward For The US

Experts warn that the time for incremental change is over. The US must:

Reform its acquisition process for speed, iteration, and frontline feedback
Break up monopolies or foster genuine competition and alternative suppliers
Treat allies like India and Israel as co-equal production partners, not just buyers
Establish permanent learning teams embedded in conflict zones to feed real-time lessons into system design

A recent White House executive order has acknowledged these issues, directing the Secretary of Defence to deliver a reform plan. But experts caution that true change requires a full-scale overhaul of both procurement and organisational culture.

Facing The China Challenge

China’s massive military and population advantage mean future conflicts will be won not by size, but by the ability to innovate, produce economically, and adapt at speed. As India’s Operation Sindoor has shown, wars of the future will be decided by those who can “think faster, build faster, and fight smarter”.

Conclusion

Operation Sindoor is more than a military victory for India—it is a clarion call for the US to reform its defence establishment. Without urgent action to break monopolies, speed up innovation, and build adaptable, scalable systems, the US risks losing its military edge. The clock is ticking, and the lessons from India are too clear to ignore.

Based On ET News Report