Contents

Under Secretary Of Defense For Acquisition Technology And LogisticsEdit

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) was a senior executive in the executive branch who shaped how the Department of Defense (DoD) buys, develops, and sustains the armed forces. The office set policy for the defense acquisition system, guided research and development, and oversaw logistics and sustainment to ensure that American troops have reliable, survivable, and affordable capabilities. Its remit touched everything from science and technology investments to the management of major weapon programs and the industrial base that supplies them. In practice, the USD AT&L functioned as the principal architect of how the United States translates taxpayer dollars into capable, battle-tested hardware and support systems, while balancing risk, schedule, and cost.

The USD AT&L role operated at the center of a complex ecosystem that includes industry, Congress, and the military services. The office pursued a continuous push for more rigorous cost control, tighter program management, and greater competition in defense contracting. It also sought to modernize the force through technology demonstrations, rapid prototyping, and smarter logistics, so that modernization did not come at the expense of readiness. Advocates argued this structure was essential to maintaining a competitive defense industrial base, accelerating fielding of new capabilities, and preventing budgetary bloat from creeping into critical programs. Critics, however, pointed to the inherent difficulty of overseeing sprawling, technically intricate programs and warned that overly aggressive cost-cutting could undermine readiness or degrade safety. The debates around the DoD acquisition system have long center-staged questions of speed versus risk, discipline versus flexibility, and the proper balance between private sector efficiency and public accountability.

History

The office evolved as part of a broad DoD reform impulse aimed at unifying policy for how the United States acquires, develops, and supports its weapons systems. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the acquisition, technology, and logistics functions were consolidated under a single Under Secretary to improve integration across research, development, procurement, and sustainment. This arrangement linked the DoD’s science and technology investments with program management and logistics planning, creating a more coherent path from concept to battlefield readiness. In 2018, the department reorganized to emphasize sustainment as a core mission along with acquisition and technology, creating the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(AS)) and shifting responsibilities accordingly. The legacy of the AT&L framework continues to influence how defense policy is framed and executed, even as the formal title and organizational structure have shifted.

Within the DoD, the acquisition system is organized around major program categories and milestones. The office oversaw the Defense Acquisition System and the management of major defense acquisition programs (ACAT I and ACAT II), with responsibilities that encompassed requirements definition, program initiation, development, testing, fielding, and lifecycle support. The structure also coordinated closely with the Pentagon and the military services to align technical objectives with budgetary priorities and strategic goals. The emphasis on competition, accountability, and performance outcomes has been a hallmark of the AT&L era, informing subsequent reforms and ongoing policy debates about how best to deliver capability while safeguarding taxpayers’ interests.

Role and responsibilities

  • Policy and oversight of the defense acquisition system, including procurement procedures, contracting approaches, and program governance. Defense Acquisition System
  • Management of major weapon programs and acquisition programs across the service branches, with attention to cost, schedule, and performance. ACAT
  • Leadership on science and technology investment to ensure that future capabilities are technically feasible and affordable. Science and Technology
  • Coordination of logistics and sustainment to ensure that fielded systems remain reliable and supported throughout their life cycles. Logistics Sustainment
  • Stewardship of the defense industrial base, promoting competition, supplier diversity, and domestic capability to reduce strategic risk. defense industrial base
  • Development of acquisition policy, workforce standards, and accountability mechanisms designed to reduce waste and improve outcomes. Defense procurement
  • Interaction with Congress, the services, interagency partners, and industry to balance national security priorities with fiscal discipline. National Defense Authorization Act

Major initiatives and outcomes

  • Focus on better program management practices, cost discipline, and performance-based contracting to curb budget overruns in large programs. Initiatives such as Better Buying Power (BYP) sought to improve value by applying competitive pressure and disciplined program execution. Better Buying Power
  • Emphasis on rapid prototyping, iterative development, and spiral acquisition for select programs to reduce time-to-field while managing risk.
  • Efforts to strengthen the defense industrial base through domestic manufacturing, small business participation, and supply chain resilience, amid concerns about global supply chain vulnerabilities. defense industrial base
  • Initiatives to harmonize technology development with defense needs, aligning R&D investments with the requirements of frontline units and the services. Defense technology

Controversies and debates

  • Cost growth, schedule slippage, and technical challenges in major defense programs have long tested the credibility of the acquisition system. Critics argued that the complexity of modern weapons programs fosters overruns and delays, while proponents maintained that ambitious capabilities require careful risk management and rigorous testing. The balance between speed and reliability remains a central tension when budgeting for the next generation of systems; advocates for streamlining processes argue that excessive bureaucracy slows fielding, while defenders of the process warn that cutting corners undermines safety and performance. See discussions around major programs such as those exemplified by high-profile projects in the F-35 Lightning II program. F-35 Lightning II
  • The acquisition framework has faced scrutiny over the extent to which it relies on private contractors versus in-house capabilities. Proponents of market-based competition contend that competitive sourcing drives better prices and outcomes, while critics warn that too much outsourcing can erode the domestic industrial base, reduce oversight, and create dependency on a narrow set of suppliers. The ongoing debate touches on the proper mix of competition, control, and core capability retention within the DoD. defense industrial base
  • There is a spectrum of views on how tightly cost and schedule pressures should influence program design. From a perspective focused on national security and fiscal responsibility, a premium is placed on primacy of output—delivering effective capabilities on a predictable timeline—and on rigorous accountability for contractors. Critics from other viewpoints sometimes argue that a rigorous emphasis on cost-cutting or procedural reform can hamper innovation or readiness. In this discourse, proponents of stronger discipline argue that wasteful spending and deliberate, incremental reforms are necessary to preserve capability while safeguarding taxpayers. In discussions of policy reform, many conservatives emphasize the value of fixed-price contracts, modular designs, and clear performance metrics as guardrails against waste. The critiques of such reform rhetoric, sometimes labeled as overly disruptive or “anti-government” by detractors, are often contested as a misreading of the need for responsible stewardship of national defense resources. Defense procurement
  • Widespread debates about defense policy and procurement often intersect with broader budget debates and questions about the size of government. Proponents of efficiency argue that the DoD must modernize rapidly while controlling costs, whereas opponents may press for more expansive funding or more aggressive public-sector oversight. The AT&L framework has historically been a focal point for these conversations, because the acquisition decisions have direct consequences for readiness, innovation, and the industrial base. National Defense Authorization Act

See also