Opinion | Here’s One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

"A few years ago, I was standing in a South Korean field, knee deep in mud, incredulously asking one of my maintenance Marines to tell me again why he couldn’t fix a broken generator. We needed the generator to support training with the United States Army and South Korean military, and I was generally unaccustomed to hearing anyone in the Marine Corps give excuses for not effectively getting a job done. I was stunned when his frustrated reply was, “Because of the warranty, ma’am.”
At the time, I hadn’t heard of “right-to-repair” and didn’t know that a civilian concept could affect my job in the military. The idea behind right-to-repair is that you (or a third-party you choose) should be able to repair something you own, instead of being forced to rely on the company that originally sold it. This could involve not repairing something (like an iPhone) because doing so would void a warranty; repairs which require specialized tools, diagnostic equipment, data or schematics not reasonably available to consumers; or products that are deliberately designed to prevent an end user from fixing them.

In the United States, conversations about right-to-repair issues are increasing, especially at federal agencies and within certain industries. In July, the Federal Trade Commission hosted a workshop to address “the issues that arise when a manufacturer restricts or makes it impossible for a consumer or an independent repair shop to make product repairs.”
It has long been considered a problem with the automotive industry, electronics and farming equipment. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have even brought it up during their presidential campaigns, siding with farmers who want to repair their own equipment; while the senators are advocating national laws, at least 20 states have considered their own right-to-repair legislation this year.

I first heard about the term from a fellow Marine interested in problems with monopoly power and technology. A few past experiences then snapped into focus. Besides the broken generator in South Korea, I remembered working at a maintenance unit in Okinawa, Japan, watching as engines were packed up and shipped back to contractors in the United States for repairs because “that’s what the contract says.” The process took months.
With every engine sent back, Marines lost the opportunity to practice the skills they might need one day on the battlefield, where contractor support is inordinately expensive, unreliable or nonexistent.

I also recalled how Marines have the ability to manufacture parts using water-jets, lathes and milling machines (as well as newer 3-D printers), but that these tools often sit idle in maintenance bays alongside broken-down military equipment. Although parts from the manufacturer aren’t available to repair the equipment, we aren’t allowed to make the parts ourselves “due to specifications.”
How pervasive is this issue for the most powerful military in the world? And what does it mean for a military that is expected to operate in the most austere and hostile environments to not possess the experience, training or tools to fix its own very technical equipment?
These issues have multiple causes, from historic changes in the United States economy, laws and rules adopted as part of military procurement reform and military-industrial base consolidations, which I included in my comment (written with my colleague Maj. Lucas Kunce) to the F.T.C. But the issues mirror what happened in the civilian sphere.

In the case of the armed services, the Department of Defense from the 1940s to the 1970s significantly invested in research and development and unquestionably owned the right to repair the equipment it developed. In the years since, much of the research and development has shifted to the commercial sector; increasingly, the commercial sector develops cutting-edge technology that also has military uses, such as communication technologies, software, satellite launches and drones.

To compound the impact of increasingly technical military systems, a new set of political philosophies favorable to corporate consolidation emerged in the 1970s, leading to merger waves across the civilian sector. Strategists in the national security world responded by arguing that the Defense Department needed to become a better customer in order to have access to this commercially developed technology. Consequently, the department decided that it needed to be more cooperative, and less aggressive, when negotiating terms with commercial companies that produce military equipment or perform services in support of the military.

In alignment with this new paradigm, policymakers simplified the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 1994 and 1995, exempting “commercial items” from a large portion of the rules (as well as expanding the definition of what is a commercial item to include goods that could be seen as specialized military goods). Congress also encouraged federal agencies to purchase commercial items “to the maximum extent practicable.” These changes fueled high rates of commercial purchases, which, coupled with consolidation in the defense industry, contributed to the Defense Department’s increased use of commercial technology and the negotiation of single-source contracts.
Ultimately, the power dynamics shifted between the Defense Department and commercial industry, forcing the department to accept warranties, contracts or prices that it could previously avoid — all thanks to changes in research and development funding, regulations and a lack of competition.

The effects of the right-to-repair paradigm will become only more significant and restrictive as older military vehicles and systems are replaced with equipment that is more complex and involving more electronics. Already complicated equipment designs lead to situations where the manufacturer is the only source for repairs.
Fortunately, the F.T.C.’s workshop and industry conversations are putting this issue on the radar. A solution will require protection against onerous contracting regimes for all Americans, whether farmers, iPhone owners or the Pentagon.
Fundamentally, service members just want to ensure that their gear is ready to meet mission requirements. While a broken generator or tactical vehicle may seem like small issues, the implications are much larger when a combat ship or a fighter jet needs to be fixed. What happens when those systems break somewhere with limited communications or transportation? Will the Department of Defense get stuck in the mud because of a warranty?"