The Department of the Army’s modernization of Command and Control demonstrates a structural reset of acquisition authority, architectural standards, and competitive dynamics. Authority has shifted to empowered Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs), who have now defined their organizational constructs and are actively organizing “trade space” across PAEs to reallocate resources and programs based on operational demand. At TEM 15, senior leadership also made it clear that Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) is a foundational platform alongside major weapons systems such as the M1E3.

The acquisition shifts are not theoretical. Program Managers within Capability Program Executives (CPEs) are expanding industry engagement teams to facilitate direct communication and iteration. More importantly, the mechanisms governing how capability is funded, evaluated, and scaled are evolving in parallel. Commercial-first pathways are being operationalized through output-based contracting and streamlined procurement approaches. Documentation-heavy procurement cycles are giving way to demonstration, iteration, and measurable adoption. Enterprise-level usage, rather than requirement compliance, is increasingly serving as the signal that drives resource allocation.

Senior leaders are also signaling that Army demand is intended to enhance commercial viability rather than displace it. They explicitly linked commercial-first execution to government-facilitated private equity exposure. Production pricing discussions, intellectual property posture, and refresh-cycle alignment are moving earlier in the lifecycle. For executives and P&L leaders, acquisition strategy and capital strategy are now intertwined.

The NGC2 architecture purposefully employs this transformation to deliver warfighter-focused and flexible command-and-control that the Army can modernize at the speed of technological change. Data standards that define how data is composed and exchanged across systems govern NGC2’s four-layer construct (transport, infrastructure, data, and application). Composable core services enable units to select modular capabilities such as storage, telemetry, mapping, voice, and AI/ML workflows rather than procuring fixed, vendor-defined bundles. Containerization allows full-stack configurations to move across formations, enabling flexibility without sacrificing interoperability.

At the application layer, the Army has articulated an “app-store” logic designed to simplify the warfighter experience. Divisions such as 4ID and 25ID are already tailoring applications to meet mission-specific demands. Military units are sharing preferred applications across the Lockheed and Anduril prototypes, demonstrating cross-environment portability. Operational exercises, such as Lightning Surge, Scarlet Dragon, and Ivy Stings, are informing iterative refinement. Acquisition leaders employ adoption and usage metrics, not compliance documentation, in their scaling decisions.

This shift is already influencing award strategy. The CPE C3N stated that he expects production awards to be staggered and informed by operational validation rather than single down-select events. In other words, the Army will not field NGC2 through a single umbrella vehicle. Opportunity lies across Program Managers responsible for Data & AI, Infrastructure, Transport, Applications, Enablers, and enterprise network modernization. Expect the Army to leverage flexible options such as OTAs, Firm Fixed Price, and IDIQ contracts.

Industry leaders need to understand how the shift to PAEs reshapes engagement strategy. First, PAEs have defined their internal structures and are now developing cross-PAE trade space. Capture strategy must align to portfolio authority rather than legacy program offices. Second, NGC2 is the testbed for new Army acquisition approaches and practices. The competitive moat is no longer controlling the full stack, but rather being indispensable within it by teaming effectively and being responsive to warfighter demands over requirement documents. Adaptable organizations that can help shape the Army’s demand signal will possess a decisive competitive edge; those anchored to legacy integration models risk structural disadvantage and loss of market share.

Architectural coherence and ecosystem fit outweigh vertically integrated “full stack” positioning. Firms that invest early in interoperability, empower technical leaders in engagement, and design offerings for enterprise-scale adoption will be positioned to lead as the competitive center of gravity shifts toward modular, adoption-driven ecosystems.

Third, this is the first step in a Department of War–wide transformation, with significant unresolved uncertainty and resulting risk. Newcomers’ agility and incumbents’ resources will enable different forms of adaptation to the evolving landscape. Firms unable to posture for success may seek to slow or shape change through political, contractual, or legal means. However these dynamics unfold, institutional complexity and sustained change should be expected — themes we will examine in greater depth in the forthcoming three-part essay series.