Acquisition Reform Needs Its Own Wargame

Key Takeaways

• Navy requests 785 Tomahawk missiles for FY2027, up 1,200% since 2025
• Current wargames lack acquisition variables, limiting insight on policy impacts
• Proposed wargame would output strike‑capacity numbers for specific reform scenarios
• CSBA and CNA identified as best positioned to develop the tool
• A legislative‑ready metric could turn reform proposals from assertions into actionable bills

Pulse Analysis

The surge in the Navy’s Tomahawk request underscores a systemic blind spot in defense acquisition: policymakers propose reforms without a clear picture of how those changes translate to combat power. The FY 2027 budget’s 785‑missile request, a stark contrast to the 55 funded two years earlier, illustrates how decades of procurement choices can leave the warfighter vulnerable. When Congress evaluates legislation, it needs a concrete metric—how many missiles would be on the shelf at the start of a conflict under a given statutory change—to move beyond abstract cost‑saving arguments.

Wargaming has already proven its legislative influence, from Rep. Mike Gallagher’s Taiwan tabletop that spurred multiyear missile authority to the Pentagon’s own J‑books that embed consumption estimates in budget justifications. Yet these exercises treat the acquisition system as a static backdrop, never testing how earlier policy tweaks—such as expanded multi‑year purchasing or lowered other‑transaction thresholds—would reshape battlefield inventories. The missing variable is a model that links procurement levers directly to strike‑capacity outcomes. By integrating contract timelines, production bottlenecks like the sole‑source Williams engine, and congressional authority limits, a new acquisition‑focused wargame could generate the "X versus Y" numbers staffers crave.

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) already possess the methodological foundations to build this tool. Their combined expertise in budget modeling and policy‑driven simulations can produce side‑by‑side scenarios that quantify days of combat sustainment, missiles ready at launch, and delivery speed under different legislative frameworks. Embedding such a metric into the annual defense authorization process would give lawmakers a tangible scorecard, turning reform proposals from assertions into actionable, evidence‑based legislation. In a geopolitical environment where rapid escalation against Iran or China is plausible, that analytical bridge could be the decisive factor in preserving U.S. strike superiority.