{"id":7741,"date":"2026-03-22T16:01:19","date_gmt":"2026-03-22T16:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/defense-business-brief-dod-lab-audits-notes-from-mcaleese-spotlight-on-alabama-manufacturing\/"},"modified":"2026-03-22T16:01:19","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T16:01:19","slug":"defense-business-brief-dod-lab-audits-notes-from-mcaleese-spotlight-on-alabama-manufacturing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/defense-business-brief-dod-lab-audits-notes-from-mcaleese-spotlight-on-alabama-manufacturing\/","title":{"rendered":"Defense Business Brief: DOD lab audits?; Notes from McAleese; Spotlight on Alabama manufacturing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Pentagon should audit its labs and their projects to make sure scientists aren\u2019t developing technology that can be bought off-the-shelf or spun up by startups, according to a recommendation from the Ronald Reagan Institute\u2019s latest National Security Innovation Base report card.\u00a0<\/p>\n

“The review would specifically be focused on, given all the emphasis on commercial first, ensuring that those organizations and that funding is properly aligned and not duplicative of, or in some cases, competitive of what commercial industry is doing,\u201d Eric Snelgrove, a subject matter expert who contributed to the report, told Defense One<\/em>. \u201cIf you look at why the service laboratories exist in the first place, oftentimes it’s a very unique mission\u2026If it’s a 20-year project, private capital is probably not going to fund a private entity to conduct that research.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposed review would focus mostly on the military services\u2019 laboratories, federally funded research and development centers, and university-affiliated research centers, with the Pentagon\u2019s newly reorganized Science, Technology, and Innovation Board leading the charge. There\u2019s also, of course, a place for the Congressional defense committees to oversee the effort.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cHow can the labs enable the private sector to move faster, and how can we better leverage all of the private capital that’s being funneled to private companies to deliver capability,\u201d Snelgrove told reporters at a Defense Writers Group event. \u201cAnd maybe that means, expanding the use of government hypersonic wind tunnels and making those more accessible to industry. Maybe it’s [providing] compute resources for private industry, but making sure that the government laboratories are enabling the private sector, and, again, not competing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, the idea is to make the labs, and funds they get, as effective as possible.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u200b\u201cYou always need independent experts. You always need tests and evaluation,\u201d Snelgrove told Defense One<\/em>. \u201cBut given all the incentives and the reform that’s been going on to attract more commercial entrants\u2014and the success of a lot of those initiatives\u2014now, I think it’s time to re-look at what the public sector R&D looks like.\u201d<\/p>\n

The concept begs at least two more questions: Does the Pentagon even know all of the research projects under its purview and how they\u2019re going? Is the woeful valley of death the result of a fundamental disconnect between deep scientific research and the rapid development in industry?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Welcome<\/strong><\/p>\n

You\u2019ve reached the Defense Business Brief, where we dig into what the Pentagon buys, who they\u2019re buying from, and why. Send along your tips, feedback, and song recommendations to lwilliams@defenseone.com<\/strong>. Check out the Defense Business Brief archive here<\/strong>, and tell your friends to subscribe<\/strong>!<\/p>\n

Notes from McAleese.<\/strong> Speaking at the annual defense-programs conference run by McAleese & Associates in Arlington, Va., Emil Michael, the Pentagon\u2019s chief technology officer, said removing Anthropic from the Defense Department\u2019s networks would be minimally disruptive.<\/p>\n