It’s striking to revisit the O5-O6 perspective from 2015-2016, which flagged the sluggish pace of technology adoption in acquisitions and programs of record. Back then, these mid-level officers—colonels and Navy Captains—saw the writing on the wall: the system was too cumbersome, too mired in bureaucracy to keep up with rapid technological change. Yet, senior leadership at the time either couldn’t hear the alarm bells or lacked the agility to act. Fast forward a decade, and those same O5s and O6s have climbed the ranks to become the senior leaders of 2025. Now, they’re the ones sounding the horn about acquisition delays and tech lag—ironic, given they were sidelined or ignored when they first raised the issue.
What’s compelling here is the tension between continuity and change. These leaders, now with more authority, face the same entrenched realities they once critiqued: Congressional oversight, political interests on the Hill, and a defense ecosystem built to prioritize stability over speed. The Hill’s need to protect jobs, maintain district funding, and exert control hasn’t budged—it’s baked into the process. So, the real question isn’t just whether these former O5s and O6s *want* to overhaul the system; it’s whether they *can*. Are they bold enough to push past the inertia they once decried, or will they, too, get bogged down by the same forces that frustrated them a decade ago? Ten years on, it’s less about insight and more about execution—can they turn their old frustrations into tangible reform, or is this just a cycle of recognition without resolution? Also what are the O5/O6s now championing? Canary in the mineshaft?
BlackHays Group
JointWerx
?A sincere thank you to GEN James E. Rainey, Commanding General, Army Futures Command, for kicking off the 16th Annual McAleese "Defense Programs" Conference this morning focused on matching threats to US Army capabilities - ability to adapt! #USArmy #ArmyFuturesCommand #IndustrialBase #McAleese #DPC25 #Warfighter #Readiness #Modernization #Lethality #Defense
