That sounds a bit hard to believe in the specifics, but in general I don't think it's particularly controversial that the US government has something of a veste

That sounds a bit hard to believe in the specifics, but in general I don't think it's particularly controversial that the US government has something of a vested interest in keeping the defense industry from contracting too much during peacetime, and structures contracts and purchasing in such a way that companies are kept around who might otherwise go out of business or get acquired. E.g. I think it's pretty much accepted that the Pentagon has gone out of its way to keep the market for military aircraft from collapsing too much. That's an industry that would be difficult to rebuild once the expertise and tooling is gone. (Personally I was surprised when they let McD-D merge in the late 90s.) Interestingly, there's case studies in the private sector for doing exactly this sort of thing in cyclical industries. Toyota is famous (within the rarefied air of supply-chain textbooks, anyway) for supposedly buying up its suppliers parts and stockpiling them, or even just paying the suppliers to be idle, so that they don't go out of business (or start retooling for other clients) during lean times and are ready to go when demand returns. If you view the military-industrial complex as basically a "supplier" to the US Government, and view the demand for military equipment somewhat cynically as a cyclical demand curve, the government's behavior makes sense. You don't let your suppliers go out of business if you think you might need them again...