As the U.S. Department of War (DOW) considers ways to modernize its defense requirements system, the experiences of other nations in formulating their defense requirements may suggest useful approaches. The authors of this report examine the defense requirements processes of China, Russia, Australia, and the United Kingdom to better understand these systems, draw comparisons, and leverage potential practices for DOW.

Defense Requirements Planning in Comparative Organizations

Case Studies of Selected Adversaries and Allied Nations

Megan McKernan, Stephen M. Worman, Anna Puglisi, Elizabeth Bujwid, Jackson Smith, Mark Stalczynski, Yuliya Shokh, Andrew Dowse, Sachini Kadaoluwa, Daniel Marns, et al.

ResearchPublished Aug 11, 2026

U.S. leadership has directed sweeping acquisition reform to address the mismatch between the Department of War’s (DOW’s) requirements system and evolving technology, emerging threats, and the speed needed to provide capabilities to operational forces. U.S. allies and adversaries are facing similar pressures, and their experiences in formulating defense requirements may suggest useful approaches for DOW to consider. The authors of this report examine the defense requirements processes of China, Russia, Australia, and the United Kingdom to better understand these systems, draw comparisons, and leverage potential practices for DOW.

Key Takeaways

China leverages its strong manufacturing base and ability to access civilian research entities

  • The People’s Liberation Army has access to China’s entire innovation ecosystem.
  • Manufacturing capacity across a wide variety of technologies and systems gives China a deep bench from which to draw, as well as surge capabilities.

Russia’s requirements process has had to adjust to the war in Ukraine

  • The war in Ukraine has accelerated the pace and prioritization of all Russian military processes, including the recruitment of soldiers, the procurement of equipment, and the adoption of newer, commercial technologies. Planning has shifted to focusing only on the near term; the future is obfuscated by the war.

Australia’s requirements processes are defined under the One Defence Capability System (ODCS) and emphasize centralized planning

  • The ODCS is a set of processes across the capability life cycle that is intended to ensure that capability decisions optimize capability outcomes within resource limitations.
  • The ODCS reforms emphasize speed to capability, by pursuit of minimum viable capabilities, discouragement of requirements “tinkering,” and prioritization of off-the-shelf acquisitions—thus enabling the rapid procurement of urgent capabilities.

The United Kingdom has embarked on Defence Reform, the biggest reform of UK defense in 50 years

  • The Defence Reform shifts the balance of responsibility from individual services toward a centralized model.
  • The U.S. and UK requirements processes experience similar challenges: persistent back and forth between greater centralization and more devolution, as well as similar ad hoc or crisis-driven requirements processes.

Recommendations

  • DOW needs to match China in terms of knowledge of current innovation and how it can be applied to military purposes. The U.S. Acquisition Transformation Strategy’s call for the U.S. defense industrial base to pivot capacity to wartime footing should provide some counterbalance to China’s industrial capacity, but this will need to be coupled with consistent funding across the entire U.S. innovation ecosystem, as is done in China.
  • Like Russia, DOW should continue to track the war in Ukraine and what it will mean for the speed of DOW processes (e.g., the use of lower-cost, attritable weapon systems) and the need to continuously innovate and integrate new solutions to key operational problems.
  • Australia’s ODCS reforms emphasize speed to capability and prioritize off-the-shelf acquisitions, enabling the rapid procurement of urgent capabilities. DOW’s requirements modernization must include these same principles.
  • As the UK and the United States reform their requirements processes, there are opportunities to share the lessons from the UK’s ongoing Defence Reform with DOW. In addition, the UK’s Urgent Capability Requirement process and the lessons from Operation Scorpius (expedited provision of military aid to Ukraine) offer valuable insights for identifying key factors that enable greater speed.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

McKernan, Megan, Stephen M. Worman, Anna Puglisi, Elizabeth Bujwid, Jackson Smith, Mark Stalczynski, Yuliya Shokh, Andrew Dowse, Sachini Kadaoluwa, Daniel Marns, Austin Wyatt, Lucia Retter, Harper Fine, Sydne J. Newberry, and Audrey F. Cisneros, Defense Requirements Planning in Comparative Organizations: Case Studies of Selected Adversaries and Allied Nations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3510-3.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.