Yes, military procurement can be problematic.

For one thing, officers involved are then allowed to retire and go to work for the civilian contractors from which they used to receive bids/proposals.

Another, don't forget Congress. They're all talk about cutting the military budget, until some cut affects some business in their district. I know of at least two examples of that (i.e. the Osprey: Pentagon didn't want it, but the contractor actually landed on near the Capitol building as part of a marketing campaign to approve it; the other is the recent plan to convert several B52s from "bomb trucks" to nuclear-capable, even though the Pentagon doesn't want it or see a need for it).

And then there is over-spec'ing a project, though even that is a two-edged sword. (I recall people complaining about the $100 wrench, so the military was forced to use a $5 wrench that damaged the nuts, which then needed to be replaced more frequently, which ended up costing more than if you bought the correct $100 wrench designed for those nuts.)

As for Project 2025, I saw part of an interview in front of Congress (specifically, a black congresswomen...forget her name) with one of the architects of Project 2025. He was actually proud of the document, and fully supported the plan (obviously), which included removing Schedule F protection so inconvenient employees could be replaced at-will. He did not argue the point, tacitly admitting that was the goal. It's not "your interpretation", it is the obvious (and tacitly-admitted) goal.

I won't say there aren't democrat "party loyalists" in government, just as there are republican "party loyalists". People are people, and they have whatever views they have. But the hiring process -for the most part- is blind. Applications are screened by computers to spit out lists of qualified candidates for any given position. I've dealt with OPM, I know -more or less- how they work. The hires then go on to do their jobs as best they can.