Crooked Bough News Round-up

— ‘Noticeable shift in warfare’: US Army under secretary on the lessons of modern combat

 

at 10/12/26 11:00am

The U.S. Army is entering unprecedented territory. Demand for exquisite munitions has skyrocketed as conflicts in Iran and Ukraine — and an ever-tense Indo-Pacific — continue to redefine stockpile demand. So, too, has there developed an insatiable market for cheap systems and interceptors capable of balancing scales that, in regions like the Middle East, have been encumbered by cost-per-kill ratios as lopsided as 114-1 — in the case of a PAC-3 interceptor versus a Shahed-136 drone. If that weren’t enough to consider, there’s the lightning-quick speed of AI integration and unmanned systems into formations, and the reality of having to rethink a simple concept — hiding — that was seldom given a second thought due to the total air superiority of the Global War on Terror. Such frenzied developments, meanwhile, come against a backdrop of new Pentagon policy that aims to eliminate the antiquated red tape of the acquisition process and speed development to the battlefield. A daunting cluster of problems to solve, no doubt. But if encountering such a catalog of to-dos is stress-inducing, one would not know it when speaking to U.S. Army Under Secretary Mike Obadal, who finds himself at the center of many of these discussions. From his office and out on the trail, Obadal oversees the service’s business operations, acquisition strategy, and manpower and personnel systems, among myriad other duties. Obadal assumed the position after a stint in the private sector, which followed a military career that included time as a Special Operations officer, the status of Master Army Aviator and qualifications in nine different aircraft. Obadal spoke to Military Times about how he and the Army are approaching these seismic shifts in warfighting philosophy, and how this year’s AUSA exposition reflects the blistering pace of innovation that catalyzes them.There are many examples of individuals without military experience working in consequential positions within the Pentagon. You are not one. How has your military experience shaped how you approach this role?What I try very hard to do is not let my experience drive the way I do things. I want it to inform the way I do things, whether that’s my experience working with the interagency and seeing how other executive branch agencies operate, my experience in the conventional military or in other parts of the military, doing joint work, working with partners and allies or going out into corporate America. I don’t want any one of those things to be the driver of how I make decisions and conduct myself in the business of the Army, but I do want all of it to come together and inform it. So, it’s certainly very helpful for me when I talk to soldiers or when I look at programs or weapon systems. The biggest thing it helps me with is understanding that there’s no single weapon system that operates by itself anywhere. They are all part of a joint force, and within that, you have a maneuver Army that is reliant — tanks are reliant on infantry, infantry is reliant on fires, all of it is reliant on aviation, medical and logistics. All those components work together as a chain, and you have to make sure every link in the chain is as strong as possible. That’s one of the biggest things that I take away from being in the military: an understanding that all of these things have to work in synergy, and there are no easy solutions.We continue to watch the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran unfold. What do you expect to see at an event like AUSA that reflects what America has learned from them?If you walk around the hall at AUSA, it’ll give you a good indication of the Army’s priorities. Our priorities are reflected in what we’re procuring. Going back several years, when we were in the Middle East and we first saw adversary drones — counter-drone systems became a really important topic. It kind of started in the special operations and then expanded into the larger Army. Ukraine has not just reinforced that counter-UAS is a critical part of operations today; it’s cemented it. So, if you walk around AUSA, you’re going to see an immense number of not only drones but also counter-UAS. That’s a reflection of the procurement and the budget, not just in the Army but in the Pentagon. That’s number one. Number two is software. Being able to see, sense and integrate to understand what your positional advantage is, and understand the adversary and their vulnerabilities. That’s just military operations, but today it’s looking at how we apply the best sensors and best software to bring all of that together to give decision advantage to our commanders. The third one is fires, and when you look at current conflicts, the importance of long-range precision fires is highlighted. So, what you’ll also see at the conference is a reflection of our investment portfolio in our magazine depth, but also the variety of munitions. Expanding out the optionality that commanders have beyond just one or two exquisite munitions, with everything from longer-range artillery, one-way attack and loitering munitions, up into our higher-end missiles. All of those represent our fires portfolio, but that’s just for offensive operations. When we get into the defensive side, we’ll be seeing everything from ballistic missiles down to Group One drones. If you look at those three areas — drones and counter-UAS; software and sensors; and the fires portfolio — and were to roll back the clock to AUSA 10 years ago, the difference is remarkable. At that time, the focus was very vehicle-centric, armor-centric, pieces of kit for individual soldiers. All of those things are important and are continuing to advance, but these newer investment areas represent a noticeable shift in warfare.These conflicts are obviously influencing the speed of acquisition. But that process includes an emphasis on both cost-friendly and exquisite munition stockpiles. What is the best balance to ensure success?The conflicts are definitely influencing and accelerating the way the Army — and certainly the broader Department — are innovating, prototyping, procuring and then fielding different capabilities. If you were to roll back a decade or even less, you would see very traditional models that go from experimentation into writing an initial requirement document, then into prototyping, then selection, then low-rate production and then finally into fielding and high-rate production. That’s years long. That process is very deliberate, and it built our military to where it is today, which is still the most dominant, but with a number of vulnerabilities because of technical innovation in the commercial market that adversaries are able to take advantage of. So, where can we compress this cycle and get it more into a process where we ask the commercial industry to experiment on their dime? A lot of this has to do with private capital being interested in the defense market. They’re making a bet that they can get through some of the experimentation, and then we can follow on with prototyping and quickly get into low-rate and high-rate production before fielding.Fielding then allows us to get immediate feedback that goes back into industry. That is essentially what had to happen in Ukraine because it’s existential to them. So, when we say wartime footing, Ukraine is on the ultimate wartime footing, and there are lessons to draw from there. What are the unnecessary steps in the acquisition process? Where can you smartly accept risk? Probably one of the biggest drivers of speeding things up is acknowledging that we’re willing to accept risk. We know that if we get a tighter innovation cycle, we’re accepting more risk on the battlefield, but we’re also driving down risk on the battlefield because we’re getting it to them much sooner. So, then we get into how that translates to fires. Exquisite versus low cost. It’s a balance, or a high-low mix, essentially, where we have to have both offensive and defensive exquisite weapons. We have to have certain stockpiles to be able to counter the exquisite weapons of our adversaries and have our own effects. Then you get into mass, which comes when we start going beyond the first few days of a conflict, and we’re in protraction. We have to have affordable mass. The cost curve needs to come back in our favor.While balancing the above, how much of a difference has the surge in domestic manufacturing made in having these pre-positioned elements assisting efforts? A massive difference. The Infantry Squad Vehicle is a perfect example. That’s a Chevy Colorado chassis; the drivetrain and suspension are a little different, but it’s nothing unusual. Essentially, it then goes to a detailer that puts the military-specific equipment on top of it. It’s everything that we need it to be. As with anything, it has its vulnerabilities. We’re sacrificing heavy armor and survivability, which we needed throughout the GWOT years, for mobility, transportability and ease of repair.But using this model also allows us to sustain it far more easily because so many of the components are commercial. It especially matters when you get into keeping the ISV — or domestically made equipment — in the decades ahead and needing improvements over the years. With the ISV, as Chevy makes improvements to its chassis and drivetrain, that immediately feeds back into the production line of ISVs. So, we’re now getting upgrades that are just byproducts of the commercial market.With acquisition, there’s a major emphasis on AI. What are you discussing with tech companies to ensure the human-in-the-loop element equates to maintaining final say despite the speed of the tech?Every company that deals with this emerging technology and the military is of the same mindset, which is that the human-in-the-loop factor has to be the default. There are workflows and cycles that human commanders can say, “I need this to run in the background, and I don’t need to see it or be on it.” But when it comes to kinetic kill chains and making decisions on the battlefield, the workflows that enable commanders have to have very hard stops. It’s not just a commander saying yes or no. It’s far more complicated and nuanced. It’s presenting options based on a tremendous amount of computing analysis and saying, “Here are all the courses of action based on the priorities that you gave, based on the environmental factors that the agents have been able to ingest and all of the long-term planning that goes into it. That allows the commanders to then take highly complex tasks like mission planning and distill it down into areas where they can consume it more easily, and then apply what only humans can do, which is context and reason. That context and reason part is what the tech companies that work with us are very focused on enabling, as opposed to taking over entire workflows. Autonomy is important, really, in three areas when it comes to warfighting.Think about combat breaching. That’s one of the most dangerous things we ask a human to do: to breach a linear minefield or barrier. If we can automate that, that removes something inherently dangerous. The second is highly complex, like command and control. How do you distill what would take human staff officers hours or days into seconds, and give a commander not only several options, but the analysis behind it and the confidence in the product being presented? The third is the ability to remove repetitive and mundane things human soldiers are doing. Resupplying via trucks, for instance. If we can automate that, we are removing that task from our logistics soldiers and allowing them to apply their talents to solving real problems with a clear vision and mindset. Beyond weapon systems, something as simple as staging — or hiding — equipment or personnel requires a vastly different strategy than even 10 years ago. How does something as simple as saying, “How do we hide this helo?” impact your conversations with industry?It’s not something that we’ve had to truly consider as an Army for 40 or 50 years because we were guaranteed air superiority. We don’t have air superiority at this point because of long-range fires and precision targeting from space. So, you go back to dispersion, displacement of assets and disaggregation of large headquarters. As you remember from recent decades, a division headquarters would be a massive entity with satellite dishes and other assets in the open. Those days are gone. We now have to consider how we bring in technology from the companies to allow us to displace 10-foot satellite dishes and 20 miles of wire, and actually have small-scale edge compute and transport systems that can disaggregate everyone. That’s incredibly important. Certainly, camouflage comes into play. Other classified capabilities come into play as well, and that’s all just the visible element. Then you get into electronic warfare and the ability to monitor. So, how do you disaggregate some of that? Those are all things that we are actively moving — and coming back to — in a more modern stance.

[Category: / MilTech] [Link to media]

— ‘We’ve drowned ourselves in buzzwords’: Acting US Army secretary gives sermon-like first speech

 

at 10/12/26 9:35am

One year ago, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll eviscerated bureaucratic delay and acquisition roadblocks in a profanity-laced public address. On Monday, his successor, Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle, took things back to the biblical book of Genesis in his first public speech to troops since assuming the role.“Controlling land is fundamental to humanity,” he told a packed ballroom at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting. “The Army does it better than anyone, and it’s on us, the people in this room, to keep it that way. Humanity’s connection to the land is biblical, and it even transcends faith, since the dawn of creation, as recorded in Genesis.”Telle, who previously served as the assistant secretary of the Army for public works, enlisted the Old Testament to preach a message of simplicity of purpose, invoking the sacred ground of past battlefields and the Army’s long history of protecting American territory.“It makes me wonder why the United States Army, again the most lethal and dominant institution in human history, struggles to explain in common terms who we are in 2026, who we really are,” Telle said. “We’ve drowned ourselves and the public in buzzwords, strategies, slideshows, government acronyms and bureaucratic doublespeak — things that are advertised as revolutionary. But the Army’s value proposition is actually too fundamental for goofy corporate jargon.”Though Telle’s rhetorical approach differed from Driscoll’s, he quickly made it clear that the Army was holding the course set by his predecessor, who resigned Aug. 31 over growing disagreements and friction with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.Telle hailed the Army’s work to streamline acquisition and reduce roadblocks to getting soldiers the gear they need, citing the Army’s work to reduce service “fiefdoms” from thousands to a few newly named portfolio acquisition executives. The service, he said, is moving away from what he called “compound self-interest,” or bureaucratic risk avoidance.“We’re empowering a small number of teams to address our biggest mandates to make difficult trade-offs around speed, manufacturability and supply chain realities early, often and together,” he said. “This is how you generate compound soldier-interest. That’s the opposite of compound self-interest.”He demonstrated the Pentagon’s new small drones online marketplace, likening it to Amazon.com and showing how soldiers could access it on their smartphones and leave reviews for future soldiers based on how well their gear worked. Likewise, he compared the Army’s new online test range reservation system for industry, initiated under Driscoll, to the hotel reservation site Booking.com. The site, he said, is like a “white-glove concierge service that allows innovators to get a reservation on the range faster.” Officials have previously said the new system can accelerate companies’ range-testing schedules from as much as 18 months to 30 days.Telle also reasserted the Army’s commitment to what the military has called a “right to repair,” meaning that it will demand open-architecture systems from all future vendors and limit industry’s ability to control intellectual property and charge a premium for fixes and spare parts.“Right now, we’re sprinting to field low-cost interceptors with open architecture built in from the outset. We need these low-cost interceptors to shoot down missiles and drones headed our way,” Telle said. “We know we need thousands of these things, but they have to seamlessly connect to our network.“If the data is trapped behind proprietary moats, and we have to call a contractor to decode the data, our superintelligent command and control doesn’t matter,” He continued. “Everything we buy from here on out will have open architecture; it’s non-negotiable.”A ‘manufacturing rodeo’Next, he said, the Army will launch a new project: a “manufacturing rodeo,” to be held early next year, that will put the service’s industrial base suppliers in competition with each other.“We’ve invested a lot in our organic industrial base. Now we need to strain it in the nation’s larger industrial base,” Telle said. “We’re going to stress-test the supply chain, the manufacturing processes and see where it breaks.”Telle did not provide specifics, such as the precise mechanism for competition or the challenges in which companies would be asked to compete.“We’re going to learn by doing, not by sitting around postulating at the Pentagon,” he said. “We’re going to find the weak links. We’re going to make them stronger, and we’re going to keep iterating.”Telle did not refer to Driscoll or allude to the fact that the service has no current Army secretary nominee. He did, however, address the “beautifully chaotic” system of American government, saying that while it wasn’t efficient, it centered human freedom and allowed for creativity and innovation.“The United States Army laid the groundwork for that, and will continue to guarantee that it’s never extinguished. Meanwhile, the other team’s human spirit, its imagination, is bounded and boxed and regulated,” Telle said. “The United States of America is where the magic happens, where brilliant people turn science fiction into science fact, and you can’t flip a switch to turn that on.“The Army’s work over the course of history has been so fundamental, so successful that the American spirit it unleashed is now the most important and potent force we have,” he continued. “It’s a potent force that the other guys don’t have.”

[Category: / Your Military] [Link to media]

— Airport training site in Laos extends China’s clout in Southeast Asia

 

at 10/12/26 8:31am

NEW TAIPEI CITY, Taiwan — China’s design to use a Laotian airport for joint military training has put much of Southeast Asia on guard about how far the People’s Liberation Army will extend its reach.The China-Laos Joint Support and Training Center at Ban Keun Airport some 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the Lao capital Vientiane and the China-Laos Friendship Aviation Academy kicked off in September, the Chinese Ministry of Defense said on its website.China’s role at the military airport, which had just finished major upgrades and features a 2,000-meter runway, suggests that the People’s Liberation Army intends to springboard into other parts of Southeast Asia – a land-border neighbor where several countries have territorial differences with China – experts say.“As China in reality aspires to be a major power, it has to gradually and in a low-key manner build up military bases, albeit for training or other seemingly innocuous purposes,” said Oh Ei Sun, principal adviser at the Pacific Research Center think tank in Kuala Lumpur.“Laos has long been considered to be a close ally for (China) in Southeast Asia and it is of course no surprise that China’s first base in Southeast Asia is located there,” he added.The two countries share a border, a Communist Party leadership and a recent history of economic cooperation led by large Chinese infrastructure projects such as a railway line.The defense ministry in Beijing said the training center, to be jointly maintained and operated, is aimed at helping Laos strengthen the training of its air force pilots.Ban Keun will allow a “continuous” Chinese presence and primarily be used to “steer procurement to Chinese equipment” and support PLA air operations, the China Global South Project media platform says in a study.The ministry website says China’s role at the airport is “not directed against any third party”, contributing instead to improving “practical military cooperation.”But instead, China may be increasing its military foothold “deep inside mainland Southeast Asia” after earlier establishing a naval presence at Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base, said Nguyen Thanh Trung, a political scientist at Fulbright University in Vietnam. Mainland Southeast Asia includes Vietnam, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand as well as Laos and Cambodia.Chinese operational military presence and privileged access at the Cambodian base grew from 2019 through 2025, Asian mainstream media reports have said.China is keen on Laos now “because the Chinese feel it’s time to complement the naval facility in Cambodia with nearby air power capability,” said Denny Roy, a ­senior fellow at the East-West Centre think tank in Hawaii.Using both its navy and air force, Beijing has shored up its South China Sea claims over the past two decades by building artificial islands, often for military use. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam dispute parts of the sea with China.Sporadic China-Vietnam incidents have occurred in the waters since the 1970s. China and the Philippines are jousting for control over tiny islets west of Luzon and Palawan islands.“Vietnam is probably the most sensitive, as Laos has long been its strategic buffer, and for now the foothold looks more like China asserting leverage over Hanoi and Phnom Penh,” said Hangyu Lee, East Asia Pacific analyst at the nonprofit organization Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. He said Ban Keun and Ream “together could look like a wider Chinese security network.”Myanmar, Lee added, could be “indirectly affected” if the airport improves China’s ability to monitor activity across continental Southeast Asia. Myanmar, with its own Chinese border, has been in civil war since 2021.China’s presence at the Laotian airport has been linked to its first confirmed overseas base, in the East African country Djibouti. The People’s Liberation Army uses it as a support base. The African base and now Ban Keun mark China’s gradual, low-key buildup of bases, Oh said.But the Laotian site “represents a new air-centered model” distinct from Djibouti and Ream in Cambodia, the China Global South Project study says.“Eventually it can be a pre-positioned base for PRC aircraft as needed,” Roy said. “It could also be expanded to accommodate more and larger aircraft.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— Pentagon, Raytheon sign $6.3B deal to replenish US missile interceptor supply

 

at 10/9/26 2:17pm

The Pentagon inked a five-year contract with Raytheon for the steady production of ballistic missile interceptors that use force to destroy targets, rather than explosives. The $6.3 billion contract, which provides two additional option years, will see Raytheon provide the Defense Department with a continuous supply of Standard Missile-3 Block IB interceptors manufactured primarily in Tucson, Arizona and Huntsville, Alabama. “SM-3 Block IB has proven its relevance in combat and this contract helps ensure we can replenish inventories and keep pace with the evolving threats the U.S. Navy, MDA and their partners face around the world,” Raytheon President Phil Jasper said in a statement. The SM-3 Block IB interceptor belongs to a larger family of “hit-to-kill” SM-3 missile interceptors, which seek and destroy incoming ballistic missiles using sheer speed and momentum. The Block IB type can be used by land forces and ships and is frequently deployed on vessels due to its range and highly flexible steering. The interceptor tracks flying targets with a two-color infrared seeker and propels itself towards them in short bursts, giving it accuracy at high speed as it homes in on targets. It is designed to knock short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles out of the sky when they are halfway to hitting their targets, and has long striking reach. It was used in combat for the first time in 2024 when the U.S. Navy destroyers USS Arleigh Burke and USS Carney fired them to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at targets in Israel. The Center for Strategic and International Studies named the SM-3 Block IB among “seven critical munitions” in an April report detailing ammunition shortages, alongside Patriot missiles, Precision Strike Missiles, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles, Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles and others.The contract for more SM-3 Block IBs, announced by Raytheon on Thursday, was among five framework agreements the defense giant signed with the Pentagon this February. The deal comes at a time when the DoD is seeking to avert diminishing munitions stockpiles. National security specialists, defense analysts and foreign policy pundits cautioned in March that the U.S. military’s increased use of missile interceptors during the war with Iran poses strategic risks to integral defense capabilities if fighting spills into a long-term conflict. Raytheon stated in its release that the contract for SM-3 Block IB supply “supports urgent replenishment of missile defense inventory that has been successfully used in combat and remains central to protecting U.S. forces, allies and critical infrastructure.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— How the US military plan to livestream an execution compares with global practice

 

at 10/9/26 11:38am

The U.S. military plans to livestream the Dec. 3 execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.If carried out as planned, death penalty experts said it would mark the first known broadcast or livestream of a lawful execution.Executions are generally conducted behind prison walls, and internet platforms and governments have spent years trying to limit the circulation of violent execution footage.Has a lawful execution ever been livestreamed or broadcast to the public before? Death penalty experts consulted by Reuters said they were unaware of any previous lawful execution that had been livestreamed or broadcast to a public audience.Execution footage has occasionally emerged after the event. The hanging of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 2006, for example, was seen around the world after official and unofficial recordings circulated online and through broadcasters, though it was not shown live.Broadcasts and livestreams today are common for court proceedings, parliamentary debates and other state functions, but not for judicial executions.How unusual is this compared with modern execution practices around the world? Public executions have become rare worldwide, with most countries that retain the death penalty carrying out executions away from public view.According to Amnesty International, public executions recorded in recent years have largely been concentrated in Iran and Taliban-run Afghanistan.The execution would also be notable in the United States. Public executions largely disappeared during the 20th century, and death penalty experts cited by Reuters said the last legally sanctioned public execution took place in 1936.Hasan’s execution would be the first carried out by firing squad by the U.S. military since the 1945 execution of Eddie Slovik, who was convicted of desertion during World War II.How has the internet changed the circulation of execution footage? The internet has transformed execution imagery from a local event into content capable of reaching global audiences within minutes.Militant groups, such as the Islamic State, became notorious for producing professionally edited execution videos that were distributed online as propaganda and recruitment tools.Criminal organisations, including Mexican drug cartels, have also circulated violent footage to intimidate rivals and project power.The ability of users to rapidly copy, repost and redistribute content has made it more difficult for governments and technology companies to control the spread of such material.What has been the reaction from governments and tech companies? Governments and technology companies have generally moved in the opposite direction, attempting to reduce rather than expand access to graphic execution footage.Major social media platforms have spent years removing execution videos linked to extremist organisations and other violent groups.One of the first public governmental reactions came from New Zealand, whose chief censor said authorities would have little practical ability to prevent residents from accessing a livestream while it was taking place.Livestreams pose particular challenges for platforms because footage can be viewed, copied and redistributed before moderation systems can intervene.Even countries that still conduct public executions have often restricted filming and broadcast rights. Saudi Arabia historically carried out public executions before spectators, but recording them was prohibited, and such public executions had largely ceased by 2019.

[Category: / Your Military] [Link to media]

— US to livestream Army execution of Fort Hood shooter, Pentagon official says

 

at 10/8/26 4:10pm

The U.S. will livestream the Army’s upcoming firing squad execution on Dec. 3 of Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in a 2009 shooting spree, a Pentagon official said, in what would be an unprecedented move.Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, is set to become the first person to be executed by firing squad by the U.S. military since 1945, shortly after the end of World War II.The Pentagon official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not offer more information and said details would follow.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier told the Human Events Daily podcast he planned to make Hasan’s execution public, according to video of his comments posted on social media on Thursday.Hegseth said deciding to execute Hasan by firing squad at Fort Hood on a Thursday at 1 p.m. — the approximate time, day of the week and location of Hasan’s shooting — was a “no-brainer.”“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public. Because people need to understand that ... there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said.Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell announced Monday that Hegseth had recommended death by Army firing squad for Hasan, and President Donald Trump approved the decision. “He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ during the attack,” Parnell wrote.The date and location were announced Wednesday.“The execution of Nidal Hasan by firing squad will take place at Fort Hood, Texas, on Thursday, December 3rd, 2026, at 1 p.m. CT.,” acting Army Secretary Adam Telle announced, confirming that the location would return Hasan to the site of the murders. If the date and method of execution are carried out, it would mark the first such case for the service since Jan. 31, 1945, when Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik was executed by a U.S. Army firing squad in France for desertion during World War II.The last death sentence carried out by the U.S. military was in 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was executed by hanging at the gallows in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after he was convicted of raping and attempting to kill a young girl.Hasan, who was born in northern Virginia, walked into a Fort Hood readiness processing center on Nov. 5, 2009, and opened fire using a semi-automatic handgun. Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier.At his court-martial, Hasan, now 56, admitted to the shooting, and in 2013, said he carried out the attack in support of the Taliban.Hasan was convicted by a military jury in August 2013, which recommended he be sentenced to death. He was subsequently transferred to Fort Leavenworth, where he has been incarcerated on death row.

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— Readiness bill coming due for Navy after marathon carrier deployment, No. 2 admiral says

 

at 10/8/26 3:55pm

A day after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, congratulating the crew on proving doubters wrong, the Navy’s No. 2 officer sounded a warning note, saying the full readiness impact of a deployment double extension and other combat commitments had yet to be felt.Speaking at a hearing before the congressionally created National Commission on the Future of the Navy on Thursday, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said the Navy faced difficulties that weren’t all immediately visible when it came to sustaining and resetting after such combat demands.“That’s the piece I think that we need to be better at articulating and demonstrating — what the cost of this extension will be two years from now,” Kilby said. “So people see that, and they sign that bill.”Referencing Hegseth’s commendation of sailors on the Lincoln for their successful 321-day deployment, of which they spent 265 consecutive days without a port call, Kilby acknowledged that the crew had “delivered the goods.”“So, it’s a little bit of a challenge for me to say you can’t do this when we keep delivering,” he said.But, he said, readiness rates remain “artificially high” amid the combat surge because ships remain deployed or have yet to return to maintenance. When that happens, Kilby indicated, the “little bit of a false positive” readiness picture will change rapidly.“The problem will come when eventually they do come home. The industrial base will not be able to swallow that pill, and so we’ll have to sequence that,” he said. A standard solution to account for the additional cost: deferring maintenance.“I’ll either squish the package into the bare minimum and not do modernization things I need to do, so that’s the bill that’s being paid there,” Kilby said.Unmanned vessels, he added, present a promising future solution, but still one that’s a way off.“When we get a combatant commander that’s willing to ask for a tailored force package, think a [littoral combat ship], an unmanned air vessel, and some unmanned surface vessels to do monitoring and maritime domain awareness and potentially action, it alleviates the request for him to ask for a strike group or an amphibious ready group. That will help,” Kilby said. “But that’s a long time coming because they don’t see that offer on the menu right now. We’ve got to act on that and produce that thing for them to ask for it.”He suggested that a cultural change to give service leaders and key commanders more flexibility in how they meet requirements would help to sustain long-term readiness.“They have very, very little flexibility in their basic phase to get through those gates, and we’re pressurizing that by saying, ‘Do it faster, so I can count you as combat-surge ready,’” Kilby said, “which prevents them from maybe doing some things that existed in what I maybe fondly remember from my youth, where we had a little bit more control of that culture.”For now, Kilby said, the Navy is “in a system” where the geographic combatant commander is given a problem to address and will ask for whatever they need from the services to meet the requirement. The services, in turn, will do whatever it takes to meet the requirement, despite future costs.“I think it’s a tough pill for us to swallow, because the Navy’s strength, the Navy and Marine Corps’ strength, is our weakness in that regard,” he said.

[Category: / Your Military] [Link to media]

— Pentagon barred Qatar base access to hide Iran war damage, US senator claims

 

at 10/8/26 3:30pm

A U.S. senator was recently denied access to the largest military installation in the Middle East, calling it a “cover-up” over the damage suffered during the Iran war.Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., visited the Middle East this week on a Congressional Delegation trip, speaking with Gulf region leaders and visiting American facilities to assess damage done by the Iran war. Murphy was denied access to Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, which had suffered damage from drone strikes during the conflict.“They are using every tool they can, including withholding information about damages, slow walking the pace of reports about casualties and denying us access to see the damage as part of a campaign of cover-up, so as to mask the true cost of the war,” Murphy told reporters on Thursday.The “unprecedented” base denial prepared Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Defense Appropriations Committee, in the coming days to draft language that would explicitly require the Department of Defense to grant members of Congress access to military bases overseas under all circumstances if needed.“I don’t have any illusions that that’s going to pass between now and the end of the year, but I think that’ll be a really important part of the discussion around an appropriations bill next year and the defense authorization bill,” he said during the press call.Prior to his trip, Murphy requested access to the base through a letter and direct appeal to U.S. Central Command leadership. But he was denied access even as the Department of State supported his trip to the region, with the Defense Department saying it was due to previously imposed travel restrictions.“Senator Murphy’s office was informed before his trip to the Middle East that he would not receive Department of War support to access Al Udeid Air Base, consistent with the Secretary of War’s directive on travel restrictions in the region ordered on March 3, 2026,” a senior Defense Department official told Military Times on Thursday.“That decision was communicated in advance by the Office of the Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs,” the official continued. “The Department applies the Secretary’s guidance evenly.”In early March, the State and Defense departments issued travel guidance, calling on Americans to depart areas in the region and updating its travel advisory to recommend against visiting certain countries, including Qatar.“It is absolutely ordinary for members of Congress to travel to areas of conflict and get to talk directly to the military leaders and the soldiers that are involved in the conflict and see for ourselves the damage that has been done to our bases and equipment,” Murphy said, highlighting how during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars he was able to visit operating bases.He argued that since Congress decides funding and authorization for war, it is necessary to see the consequences, but he was unable to visit Al Udeid or have a briefing on the war with American military officials while in the region.On the same day the travel advisory was issued in March, the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was hit ​by two Iranians drones, resulting in building damage and a fire. Murphy said that the drones impacted multiple floors of the embassy and part of the space is now “uninhabitable” with permanent damage.The U.S. previously announced in 2023 plans to build a new embassy compound in Riyadh, which Murphy attributes the lack of repairs to.Even though no injuries or casualties were reported from the strike, Murphy said that if the attack happened during the day it would have killed many Americans.“[Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth is determined to hide the cost and the consequences of this war from the American public, and it is absolutely outrageous that I and Republican senators are being denied the ability to see the damage for ourselves,” he said.

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— US Army report cites systematic failures in 2025 helicopter and jet collision that killed 67

 

at 10/8/26 1:49pm

The collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport last year that killed 67 people was the result of several systemic failures, according to a U.S. Army investigative report seen by Reuters.The previously undisclosed report, completed in May, made a series of safety recommendations and said the key factor was two broken radio transmissions resulting in the helicopter crew not receiving critical details from air traffic control. The report also found a number of other issues, including technical issues with the Black Hawk and a pattern of helicopter crews failing to fly semiannual minimum hours. It said many helicopters in the Army battalion — including the one in the January 2025 collision — did not have Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance systems.The report also said Army work with the Federal Aviation Administration on helicopter incidents in the Washington area before the collision was lacking and a working group “did not discuss airspace violations, near-miss reports, or pilot deviations.”National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said in an Oct. 1 letter to the Army that it had made significant progress in addressing its recommendations from the collision. It added, however, that it needed to do more work as “the Army’s aviation safety system failed to consistently detect, interpret, and act on signals of latent hazards, resulting in degraded safety assurance, organizational learning, and safety culture.”The NTSB report on the crash in January found a series of failures by the FAA were largely responsible for the deadliest U.S. aviation disaster in more than two decades.The Army report noted that the helicopter was not providing key safety location data, known as ADS-B Out, due to improper maintenance. After the incident, the Army issued an urgent safety message to inspect all Army aircraft transponders to ensure ADS-B Out functionality, and all 3,600 Army helicopters were inspected by July 2025.The report also noted the Army had not addressed issues that led to the helicopter providing inaccurate altitude data and proposed a series of recommendations to address the issue. It also said the Army needs more advanced night vision equipment for pilots.The Army report also faulted FAA air traffic control for using “non-standard terminology for directing air traffic and providing incomplete traffic advisories.”The FAA did not immediately comment. The Army said in a statement on Thursday that it has implemented stronger training and surveillance checks and completed new helicopter safety inspections and testing on altitude awareness. It also said it was pursuing an FAA data-sharing agreement to help identify potential midair collision risks.The report also called for improved training for military pilots around Washington and Baltimore commercial airports and for reviews of Army helicopter operations near major cities in the United States, South Korea, Japan and Germany.Congress is still debating aviation safety legislation after lawmakers passed competing versions. The family of First Officer Sam Lilley, who was killed in the collision, said the Army report shows “the system failed everyone that night. The Army’s report acknowledges failures involving known altimeter issues, near-miss reporting, training, risk mitigation and safety culture.”

[Category: / Your Military] [Link to media]

— Future cost, use of Marine Corps ACVs scrutinized in congressional report

 

at 10/8/26 10:34am

With today’s armored vehicles vulnerable to drones, congressional researchers are raising questions about the U.S. Marine Corps’ new Amphibious Combat Vehicle. In particular, a Congressional Research Service report, released Tuesday, pointed to the war in Ukraine, where armored vehicles have largely been driven from the battlefield by unmanned aerial vehicles and guided munitions. “As ACVs are intended to provide organic, direct fire support to dismounted Marines in the attack, how vulnerable to these threat systems are ACVs during amphibious operations and when operating ashore to support combat operations?” the research service asked in its report. “Are the Marines considering additional ACV survivability modifications based on lessons learned in Ukraine?” In fact, the Marine Corps did award a contract last month to Anduril for a counter-UAS system to protect the ACV from small drones. Anduril’s Pulsar-L is a sensor and jammer package designed to stop small Group 1 and 2 radio-frequency drones. “The system is currently in use by the Special Operations Command due to the system’s low weight, proven performance in engaging multiple UASs, and simultaneous execution of the full kill-chain while static or on the move,” noted the Marine contract award. The Congressional Research Service also questioned whether a possible plan to expand the Marine Corps would, in turn, require more ACVs, which cost about $6 million each, depending on the variant. Last month, a Force Structure Review suggested adding more than 6,500 personnel by 2032, including additional slots in 19 infantry battalions and two Littoral Combat Teams. If the plan is implemented, “would additional ACVs be required to accommodate growth in Marine infantry units?” CRS asked. The ACV comes in multiple variants, including the ACV-P troop carrier, ACV-C command vehicle, ACV-30 fire support model armed with a 30mm cannon, and the ACV-R armored recovery vehicle. Initially, the Marines envisioned buying 1,122 ACVs. But the current plan is for 608 vehicles, comprising 389 ACV-P, 33 ACV-C, 152 ACV-30 and 34 ACV-R, Marine Corps officials told CRS. BAE was just awarded a $230 million contract modification for 32 ACV-Rs, which will be the final ACV variant. The order is scheduled to be fulfilled by November 2028. For fiscal 2027, the Navy is requesting $237 million for ACV upgrades. The ACV has already experienced teething pains. After two ACVs tipped over in 2022 while operating in surf up to 10 feet high, the Marines briefly suspended ACV operations in the open ocean, as long as significant breaker height doesn’t exceed four feet. One issue is the weight of the ACV, which now stands at around 35 tons. In 2025, a Navy Small Business Innovation Research solicitation called for reducing the weight of all ACV variants, and particularly the heavier ACV-30 and ACV-R. The goal is to slim down at least 2,000 pounds per vehicle. “Components identified as having potential for weight reduction include engine access covers, drive shafts, ramp door, ramp, hatches, external fuel tanks, external metallic and metallic/composite add-on-armor components, suspension, turret exterior panels, and bow plane,” the 2025 solicitation stated. Saltwater corrosion of ACV struts has also created problems. “The high deployment schedule combined with the high training tempo of the United States Marine Corps creates an extremely corrosive environment for the ACV not typically experienced by other vehicles,” claimed a January 2026 Sources Sought notice for more than 5,000 corrosion-resistant struts. In addition, the weight reduction SBIR specified that any solution “must address corrosion issues expected from use in and around salt water. Weight reduction will improve fuel efficiency and can lower the Center of Gravity and Center of Buoyancy.”

[Category: News] [Link to media]

— Pentagon recruits drone pilots from across services for upcoming competition

 

at 10/8/26 8:06am

The Defense Innovation Unit is recruiting service members with first-person-view drone experience to participate in the Defense Department’s Drone Dominance program, according to a recent announcement.The $1.1 billion program is the Pentagon’s effort to rapidly expand the domestic drone industry by having companies submit small unmanned aircraft systems, or sUASs, for competition and then building stockpiles of the systems that perform best for military use.Erin Cherry, the program’s test lead, told Military Times in an email that DIU is looking to recruit about 100 pilots for the program’s next phase, known as Gauntlet III. But the larger goal is to create a standing registry of drone operators across the military services.“There’s no cap on the registry,” Cherry said. “We want to hear from any warfighter with FPV experience.”She explained that service members selected to participate will get “stick time” with some of the newest drones, including systems that are not yet in military service, and some will receive specialized training on one-way attack drones. “Most importantly, Gauntlet results strongly inform which systems move forward, and these pilots are the ones flying,” Cherry said.The DIU announcement specifically calls for troops with experience flying FPV drones, which are typically flown manually in “acro” mode and are used for missions ranging from reconnaissance and surveillance to kamikaze attacks and close-quarters combat.But Cherry said DIU is looking for more than just experienced FPV pilots.“‘Pilot skill’ isn’t just one thing,” she said. “Flying ability, tactical knowledge, payload experience, and specialized skills like long-distance navigation and urban flight are all distinct, so we look at each one.”That variety is important because the drones will ultimately be used by more than just the military’s most experienced operators.“A drone that only performs well in an expert’s hands isn’t ready for the force,” Cherry said, adding that “whether someone has been flying FPV for five years or five months, we want to hear from them.”For service members interested in participating, DIU is asking them to complete a Pilot Interest Form. Officials will only respond to applicants using a valid .mil email address, and all pilot participation will be coordinated through the individual military services.

[Category: / Your Military] [Link to media]

— Pentagon names 4 directed-energy weapons for counter-drone program at US bases

 

at 10/6/26 12:29pm

The Pentagon on Monday named four directed-energy weapons for a homeland counter-drone pilot, the first systems the military will field and test at U.S. bases under a program ordered by Congress.The four systems selected are AeroVironment’s Palletized High-Energy Laser, Epirus’ Leonidas high-powered microwave, Kord’s Firefly high-energy laser and Boeing’s Compact Laser Weapon System, the Defense Department said in a release. The pilot is run by Joint Interagency Task Force 401, or JIATF-401, the Army-led organization set up last year to coordinate counter-drone work across the military and other federal agencies.“High-energy lasers and high-powered microwave systems are tools that can be effectively used in a layered drone defense,” Army Brig. Gen. Matt Ross, the task force director, said in the release. “This pilot program will test these capabilities in an operational environment so we can understand how best to integrate and sustain them to defend the homeland.”The department said the pilot will gather real-time data on how the systems perform, what they cost and what it takes to operate and maintain them. Ross said in August the pilot will run for a year, with service members operating and maintaining the weapons at the bases. The task force is coordinating the pilot with the services, U.S. Northern Command and the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA.In May, JIATF-401 selected five sites for the pilot: Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and Fort Bliss, Texas, both tied to the southern border mission; Naval Base Kitsap, Washington; Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; and Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.Officials said at the time that deployment plans would be worked out with installation commanders over 180 days, with operations expected later this year. Monday’s release does not say which system will go to which installation, how many of each will be fielded or what the systems and the pilot as a whole will cost.Cost is the main selling point for lasers and microwaves, and one of the things the pilot is meant to test. Firing one costs a fraction of the price of a missile or even a gun round, and neither leaves unexploded ordnance on the ground.Ross told reporters in August he was skeptical of per-shot math alone. “If I procure that system and it costs me $6 million and I take one shot a year, you can’t tell me that that shot only costs 8 cents,” he said.Beyond cost, lasers and microwaves address different threats. A high-energy laser dwells on one drone at a time until it burns through. A high-powered microwave can thwart a swarm of drones in a single burst by overwhelming their electronics, though its wider footprint raises concern about effects on nearby systems.Among the lasers, AeroVironment’s system is the company’s LOCUST laser in a roll-on, roll-off configuration, meaning it is packed onto a self-contained pallet that can be moved by truck or ship and set up wherever needed. The company said in April that a palletized LOCUST tracked and defeated target drones aboard the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush in an October 2025 live fire with the Navy and the Army’s rapid weapons development office.In September, the Army awarded AeroVironment a $464.8 million deal to produce its 30-kilowatt LOCUST X3 under the Enduring-High Energy Laser program, which the company called the first production contract for a U.S. directed-energy weapon. The Pentagon release does not say whether the pilot systems are drawn from that buy.Boeing’s Compact Laser Weapon System, or CLWS, is a lower-power laser. Lower power generally means a laser must remain on a target longer to destroy it, but the system itself can be smaller and easier to move.Boeing said in 2024 that a 5-kilowatt CLWS defeated Group 3 drones, which can weigh up to about 1,320 pounds, at the Red Sands counter-drone exercise in Saudi Arabia, using targeting data from the Army’s Forward Area Air Defense network. At the time, the company said the system had defeated nearly 500 drones in testing and demonstrations at ranges from about 200 meters to 2.5 kilometers. Boeing also said CLWS units had returned from a multiyear overseas deployment with the Marine Corps but did not say whether they engaged hostile drones.Kord, a KBR subsidiary, markets Firefly as a palletized, mobile laser scalable from 5 to 40 kilowatts. Company officials told reporters at an August demonstration near Guntersville Dam in north Alabama that a truck-mounted version typically needs a few seconds on target to down a small drone.Leonidas is the only microwave counter-drone system in the pilot. Built by Epirus, it is the basis for the Army’s prototype high-power microwave for defending troops and sites against drone swarms, part of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability program. The Army awarded the company $66.1 million in December 2022 for four prototypes and another $43.5 million in July 2025 for a second-generation version.Epirus said in September 2025 that a Leonidas disabled all 61 target drones across five scenarios at Camp Atterbury, Indiana, including a 49-drone swarm in one burst. The pilot follows a rough start for lasers in domestic airspace. In February, the FAA briefly closed the airspace over El Paso, Texas, after a counter-drone laser was used near Fort Bliss without coordinating with the FAA, the Associated Press reported at the time.To address safety concerns, defense and FAA officials held a live-fire demonstration in March at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. AeroVironment later said the system tested was its LOCUST laser, the same family as the palletized system named in Monday’s pilot announcement. On April 10, the FAA said a safety review found that the laser systems tested, with proper safety controls in place, “do not pose undue risk to passenger aircraft.” The department said it will continue evaluating other directed-energy technology and will host a shoot-off in December at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, for additional laser and microwave systems. Ross, the task force director, said in August the shoot-off is being set up so systems that perform well “can immediately result in a purchase order that allows us to start building the production lines to get these systems into the field.”The pilot is one piece of a greater, ongoing effort. On Sept. 29, the Army announced that JIATF-401 had awarded 10 contracts worth up to $4.15 billion combined for sensors, optical sights and gun-based systems to support Domestic Shield, the push to protect priority Defense Department sites within the United States.

[Category: / MilTech] [Link to media]

— Boeing locks in 7-year deal to triple PAC-3 MSE seeker output

 

at 10/5/26 6:19pm

Boeing announced Monday that it formalized a seven-year contract supporting the Pentagon’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy, signing an approximately $14.7 billion “undefinitized” agreement with the Pentagon that allows the firm to triple its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement.“Early investment and a relentless focus on quality and execution have positioned us to now deliver seekers at unprecedented levels in the near-term, and we’re committed to building on that momentum,” Steve Parker, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said in a release. “Our Boeing teammates could not be prouder of the role they play in protecting U.S. and allied service members, civilians and critical infrastructure worldwide.”The agreement follows the framework deal that was announced in April. Production will be spread over seven years, matching Lockheed Martin’s push to surge production on the PAC-3 MSE all-up round.Lockheed in January announced a seven-year framework agreement to increase annual PAC-3 interceptor production from approximately 600 to 2,000.Work on the seekers began immediately, the company announced in April, and will be completed at Boeing’s facility in Huntsville, Alabama.Boeing’s PAC-3 seekers work by identifying, tracking and knocking out a range of threats, from ballistic missiles and hypersonics to hostile air platforms.Once the seeker identifies the target, the highly maneuverable interceptor, which uses a two-pulse solid rocket motor, engages and eliminates threats via direct body-to-body contact.Monday’s announcement, meanwhile, comes as the U.S. military’s reliance on costly interceptors against cheap munitions, particularly those deployed by Iran during Operation Epic Fury, has come under increased scrutiny over the past eight months.The announcement also follows a busy week for Boeing. Last Tuesday, the U.S. Navy selected the company to build its F/A-XX sixth-generation carrier-based fighter under a development contract worth more than $20 billion. The same day, the Air Force signed a $2.38 billion order for 22 more F-15EX Eagle II fighters.Military Times reporter Michael Scanlon contributed to this report.

[Category: / MilTech] [Link to media]

— Has the Pentagon given up on AI polygraph analysis of loyalty?

 

at 10/5/26 5:43pm

As of July, the Pentagon had been prepping artificial intelligence tools that analyze text, voices and faces to estimate staff trustworthiness, according to declassified presentation slides and prior Defense Department statements. Now, Pentagon officials say that some of that AI is not part of the current revamp of the polygraph interview process, after Defense News asked for a response to concerns about the earlier statements and the slides. On Wednesday, the Pentagon’s Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, or DCSA, which vets security clearance holders and applicants, said in an emailed statement that “active research and development” for the “Modernizing Polygraph” effort “does not incorporate generative super intelligence, also known as artificial intelligence,” that creates new content — such as emails, graphics or voiceovers. Nor does the effort include “large language models,” meaning chatbots like ChatGPT and other programs trained on giant data sets to engage in human conversation, DCSA added. And the research does not involve “facial action coding [of emotions], micro-expression analysis or vocal analyses,” the statement said. “While those technologies are not part of the effort,” DoD will “continue to monitor emerging scientific capabilities to evaluate their potential utility down the road.” DCSA did not address other types of AI models that, according to the slides, researchers had been developing to scan spoken and written language for “deceptive speech” patterns. Wednesday’s statement came after Defense News sought a response to criticisms from national security lawyers, scientists and AI auditors about AI’s ability to analyze deception — meaning not just to lie, but to do so knowingly and willfully. They warned that AI-aided scanning of speech patterns, vocal stress or facial expressions to read minds lacks scientific backing, will compound errors and may violate civil liberties in a domain where few such rights exist. Defense News chronicled their concerns and the Pentagon’s prior research and development of AI-aided lie-detection and emotion-estimation tools.The recent DCSA statement, including the project name “Modernizing Polygraph,” contrasts with several earlier DoD statements, 2027 budget documents and DCSA slides that Defense News obtained through an open records request. In July, a Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the technology, explained the advantages of AI-driven sentiment and deception analysis. “AI processes data in real time and enables standardized, objective data analysis,” the official told Defense News, via email. “AI-based analysis is a force multiplier for our human investigators, not a replacement.” The official added, “The models are primarily trained on data from laboratory-controlled studies using volunteer participants.” The DCSA slides, which include presentations from 2021 through 2025, show that the Air Force, DCSA and academic labs had been working on “sentiment analysis” AI models and “deceptive speech” AI-aided analysis since 2019, as part of a “Credibility Assessment Modernization” project. In July, the DoD official described the AI models as part of a larger multi-year “transformation,” which the official referred to interchangeably as “Polygraph+” and Credibility Assessment Modernization. Current budget materials price the Polygraph+/Polygraph Next project at $31 million, including costs for AI “scoring algorithms” and “decision aids,” thermal imaging tools to spot blood flow changes that can reflect stress and other non-contact sensors. On Friday, DCSA declined to provide additional information, including the scope of the “Modernizing Polygraph” project and the decision not to include AI-based voice screening and facial expression analysis. Trained on Twitter and Reddit Over the summer, Farakh Zaman, a developmental leader at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, elaborated on the appeal of AI-aided deception analysis. “By processing subtle physiological, vocal and linguistic cues, these developmental algorithms may help establish a more objective baseline for investigators and pinpoint specific areas requiring further human-led clarification,” he said by email in July. Wednesday’s DCSA statement said that the Air Force is not involved in the “active” research and development phase. One undated declassified DCSA slide describes the Air Force amassing “deception-related” text to create a “deep learning model,” an algorithm that analyzes hordes of data to find patterns. The Air Force trained an early model on text from websites including Twitter, Reddit and other vocabulary data sets such as WordNet, according to the slide. “This baseline training helps the algorithms understand natural, modern linguistic patterns, slang and everyday vocabulary,” Zaman explained in July. He acknowledged the need for “further rigorous testing, validation and a clear transition path” before fielding a prototype. A separate DCSA slide, dated May 2025, contains a flowchart that depicts an avatar — a computer-generated image of an interviewer — in front of a security clearance applicant. Next to the applicant, a camera and microphone feed audio, video and speech-to-text data from the interview into various large language models. The recording devices and algorithms interact to gauge the applicant’s emotional state, while a human investigator observes and keys in questions for the avatar to ask. DCSA’s Wednesday statement said the university that drafted the chart is not involved in the current research and development stage. According to another undated DCSA slide, DoD has set a goal for natural language processing technology to interpret an interviewee’s feelings with 75% accuracy. In July, the Pentagon official said by email that a human investigator remains essential for “the contextual reasoning and emotional intelligence required in these sensitive interviews.” ‘I’ve caught AI lying to me’Ahead of Wednesday’s statement, Mark Zaid, a national security attorney who reviewed the slides, warned that the danger of derailing a military officer’s career is too great for AI to misinform an investigator. The polygraph device “is just registering the physiology of the person,” such as spikes in breathing rate, perspiration or blood pressure, he said. “Then a human examiner analyzes those reactions to render an opinion.” Here, however, “AI would be taking the polygraph readings and rendering an opinion” to the human examiner, said Zaid, who has represented individuals on all sides of the polygraph table, from workers disputing revoked clearances to former government officials and polygraphers. “Now, we’re starting to get into the movie Minority Report,” he said, referencing a 2002 Steven Spielberg film that depicts a government reliant on psychic children for tips to predict crimes and detain people accused of future crimes. Zaid, whose own clearance was revoked temporarily after he represented a whistleblower pivotal in President Trump’s first impeachment, said, “That concerns me more than the polygraph,” if science does not back AI’s reliability. So far, scientific studies do not. Rather, decades of research have discredited theories, popularized by shows such as Lie to Me, that anyone — human or artificial — can recognize deception based on speech patterns, vocal stress or facial movements. Another concern scientists and auditors have is bias: the Justice Department has warned that using emotion-recognition algorithms to measure worker competency can discriminate against high performers with intellectual or developmental disabilities, who algorithms do not always understand. Also, “automation bias,” the tendency to take AI’s advice without question even when conflicting information exists, may further erode the polygraph system’s reliability, technologists warned. “[T]here is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable,” the Supreme Court declared in a 1998 decision banning polygraph results and polygraphers’ opinions from military courts. Zaid said he appreciates the attempt to retool polygraph testing but wants proof that the planned approach is in fact an improvement. “Anytime we might be able to scientifically advance the ability to determine truth, with accuracy, would generally be a good thing,” he said. But “the first thing that jumps out at me with AI is how often it is wrong…I’ve caught AI lying to me.” Greg Rinckey, a former Army Judge Advocate General Corps officer who now provides security clearance representation, said that today’s “technology is so outdated, where they’re using tubes around people’s chests and blood pressure and sweat, so, any way that you can get a more reliable test for security clearances, especially counterintelligence investigations [into leaks], is a step up.” That said, he questioned, “What is the research saying on how accurate it is?” At present, research suggests the odds of AI-aided speech, voice or face analysis pegging a lie are about 50:50. AI is ‘assuming dishonesty’“There are no – reliable – diagnostic cues for deception detection, and I have yet to see any evidence, whether it is with humans or with artificial intelligence, that goes against that trend,” said David Markowitz, a Michigan State University professor who studies AI’s ability to understand human communication. For instance, “the leakage idea — that these microfacial expressions will leak out from our awareness, signaling veracity or deceit — there’s very little evidence to support that, unfortunately,” he said. Markowitz expressed doubts about AI-based deception analyses that claim an accuracy rate of 75% because “that is not how accurately humans do it, and often these systems are a big reflection of how humans do it.” For example, he pointed to a recent experiment in which he prompted a Google Gemini AI model to examine audio and video of mock interrogations of accused cheaters in a trivia game, all of whom claimed innocence and some of whom were lying. Prior studies had asked humans to observe the same interrogations. DoD has entered into agreements to run a secure version of Gemini on unclassified and classified networks. Markowitz said that his study, “The [in]efficacy of AI personas in deception detection experiments,” found Gemini was just as inaccurate as humans, both faring no better than chance, when prompted to distinguish fraudsters from truth-tellers. What’s more, compared to humans, AI was more likely to wrongly accuse a trivia player of lying. Markowitz gave one possible reason for AI’s systemic distrust of trivia players: The AI “is assuming that someone must have done something wrong because why else would they be questioned,” he said. “Anytime that someone is in an interview setting where they might be accused of something, a large language model is assuming dishonesty.” Supreme Court: The jury is the lie detector The consequences of a machine, whether a heart monitor or a voice screener, potentially bungling a credibility assessment can last a year or longer, said Zaid, the national security lawyer. When officers who have successfully passed exams without issue suddenly fail their latest polygraph test, DoD typically puts them “in a corner with a dunce cap on for a year before officials will re-administer another exam,” he said. “You can’t get promoted. You can’t get certain assignments. And you can’t go overseas, which, to case officers, is death careerwise.” Further, civil courts routinely dismiss complaints when employees claim that inaccurate results cost them their clearances. Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts have no power over such national security matters. Concerns about power imbalances and due process prompted the European Union to label AI-aided polygraph tools as “high risk” and place strict limits on law enforcement’s use of them. Stateside, the Supreme Court, in forbidding polygraph evidence in military courts, noted that allowing it would meddle with the human’s role, or, as it were, the jury’s role, in determining credibility. “A fundamental premise of our criminal trial system is that the jury is the lie detector,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court’s 1998 United States v. Scheffer decision. Pointing to the court’s decision, Zaid said that he wants assurances of due process when staff undergo administrative proceedings to contest a revoked clearance resulting from misaligned algorithms. Comparing the situation to successful cases disputing speeding tickets caused by a miscalibrated street camera, Zaid questioned, “Would the person be provided the evidence? An understanding of the AI’s training?” New biases Pentagon officials have long stressed the desire for AI-based lie detection to help curb gender and cultural biases that human investigators may carry into an interview room. At the same time, employers’ use of similar technology for pre-employment screening has faced allegations of other biases and system errors. “Facial expression analysis is heaviest in terms of biases against individuals with disabilities,” said Jo Ann Oravec, a University of Wisconsin professor whose research focuses on AI, public policy and disability issues. For instance, AI-powered video screening of job applicants tends to misinterpret the involuntary twitches or vocal outbursts of skilled people with certain disabilities — and thus pass over qualified applicants, said Oravec, author of the 2024 article “From Polygraphs to Truth Machines: Artificial Intelligence in Lie Detection.”In response to concerns about such biases in July, the Pentagon official said via email that the credibility assessment modernization plan adheres to DoD’s AI Ethical Principles of “responsible, equitable and traceable” use of algorithms. The Air Force’s Zaman, in his July email, said that his team’s work aligns with DoD’s Responsible Artificial Intelligence Guidelines. Researchers “are actively engineering and testing these models” to account for “diverse, representative training data,” he stated. The testing covers “broad variations in speech, language and expression.” Ryan Carrier, founder of ForHumanity, a global nonprofit that helps organizations audit AI systems, said that the Pentagon’s principles and guidelines are a skeleton of those that the European Union follows and that ForHumanity uses for inspections. For example, the EU’s AI Act demands users of high-risk systems receive training to overcome a different kind of bias called “automation bias” — or the tendency to execute AI’s advice without questioning its accuracy. This bad habit can lead to incorrect data overriding correct decisions, Carrier said. Also, multimodal systems, meaning AI systems that simultaneously parse audio (the subject’s voice), video (their facial movements) and text (interview transcriptions), tend to misalign data and results, yielding an irrelevant analysis, Carrier said. The system “could be making determinations that a person is lying or trying to deceive me that are outside of the tool’s specifications,” he explained. In response to concerns about multimodal systems in July, the Pentagon official had said, “Any automated output is treated strictly as auxiliary data for a highly trained, certified polygraph examiner.” Similarly, Zaman, at the time, said that investigators who use AI-aided deception-detection systems are “trained to contextualize the tool’s findings, preventing automated outputs from dictating an outcome.” To safeguard against mismatched data or results, the Air Force keeps a documented history of each piece of data’s origin and modifications and brings in independent white-hat hackers to try producing false correlations, he added. “We recognize that multimodal AI systems present unique technical challenges, and mitigating these risks by hardening our systems is central to our engineering and testing protocols,” Zaman said. Reason for suspicion? In August, when the Pentagon administered a raft of polygraph exams to probe leaks alleging the Iran conflict is depleting U.S. arsenals, some observers suspected the endgame was not to find the leakers, but to crack down on disloyalty. Critics of the planned system said that AI-based deception analysis may be best suited to achieve the same purpose. “If it’s purely an intimidation technique, it may not be utterly useless from the point of view of large bureaucracies,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. The expectations for AI-powered trustworthiness testing resemble the hope that U.S. national security officials held out for the polygraph about 100 years ago, other lawyers said. Polygraph devices “were seen as this magic-miracle-machine when they first came out,” and, over time, the government learned that when seemingly making deductions, the tools were “actually just flagging correlating factors, like heart rate and physiological factors that can indicate lying, but aren’t actually reflective of it,” said Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project. He added, “Thinking that AI sentiment analysis tools are actually making an assessment or engaged in reasoning — that’s not what those machines are actually able to do.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— US Marine Corps anti-ship weaponry to see exercise action on remote Japan island near Taiwan

 

at 10/5/26 6:24am

MANILA, Philippines — The U.S. Marine Corps will deploy its ground-based anti-ship and air-defense systems to Japan’s southwesternmost island for exercise Keen Sword, placing new U.S.-Japan capabilities on an island sitting just 110 kilometers from Taiwan.Keen Sword, the largest U.S.-Japan biennial joint drill, will feature two key systems of the Marine Corps’ littoral force: the anti-ship NMESIS (Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System) and air-defense MADIS (Marine Air Defense Integrated System).Yonaguni’s local government disclosed the deployment on Friday, a day after the Okinawa Defense Bureau relayed deployment plans on Oct. 1.The systems will be deployed to Yonaguni for the first time, as this year’s iteration shifts to ground-based, multi-island, sea-denial operations aimed at distributing American and Japanese forces across the southwestern islands.The deployment also reflects a broader shift by the United States and Japan toward mobile missile and air-defense systems that can operate from scattered islands.NMESIS and MADIS form the cornerstone of the U.S. Marine Corps’ force design modernization and restructuring plan, which moves away from heavy armored platforms to focus on small-unit, expeditionary forces that can capture and defend islands.NMESIS can strike targets at around 115 miles and could threaten ships operating in waters around Taiwan. The reported deployment, in turn, has drawn criticism from Chinese military experts even while China’s PLA Navy and coast guard vessels have increased activities around Taiwan.The NMESIS and MADIS systems first arrived with the Okinawa-based 12th Marine Littoral Regiment 3rd Marine Division in June. The units were earlier deployed to the Philippines’ northern Batanes Islands and western Laoag province during the Balikatan drills.The deployment comes as Japan tests what defense officials describe as standoff-strike capabilities, missile systems that can strike targets far from enemy weapons, while strengthening its southwestern islands for distributed military operations.According to the Ministry of Defense, troops from nine countries, including the Australian and French armies, will join 45,000 Japanese Self-Defense Forces personnel for this year’s exercise, which will run from Oct. 19 to 29.The exercise will also bring together a number of U.S. and Japanese ground-based missile systems.The U.S. Army will deploy HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) weapons to Camp Ishigaki, some 80 miles from Yonaguni.The Army’s Typhon missile launcher will also be moved to Okinawa mid-month, although no disclosures have been made about whether the mid-range system will be used for the exercise.In past iterations of the drill, the USS George Washington joined the exercises, but the carrier strike group was sent to the Arabian Sea in August to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln, which was returning home after a prolonged deployment.That prominent naval absence is expected to emphasize the exercise scenario shift toward a land-based network of mobile systems.Last year, exercises in Yonaguni focused on maximizing the island as a forward operating base. This year, Keen Sword will showcase the Ground Self-Defense Force’s three anti-ship missile systems, which are the core of Japan’s long-range standoff-strike capabilities.The JGSDF will train with the new ground-launched Type-25 surface-to-ship guided missile system, formerly known as the upgraded Type-12, which was fielded across the Nansei Islands in late March. The Type-25 SSM has a strike reach of 1,000 kilometers.The lineup also includes the Type-88 ground-to-ship missile and the upgraded Type 03 Chu-SAM Kai medium-range ground-to-air guided missile.Keen Sword was originally planned as a much larger exercise, local government officials said, but opposition forced the ministry to scale it down to its current iteration.Yonaguni is Japan’s last inhabited island in the Nansei, a chain of scattered islands in southwestern Okinawa and a fast-emerging flashpoint amid rising tensions around Taiwan.The JGSDF set up a radar and surveillance system on the island in 2016 to fill a “surveillance vacuum” in the seascapes stretching from the island to Taiwan, according to officials.The island has seen increased joint exercises between Japanese and U.S. troops while it faces incursions from Chinese ships.In June this year, the government reported incursions by Chinese Coast Guard ships encroaching on Japan’s exclusive economic zone between Yonaguni and Taiwan. In 2022, China’s ballistic missile landed just 80 kilometers from the island.While tensions surround the island, local officials have raised concerns about the use of civilian roads, ports, and airways.Large equipment for the exercise will be transported by sea through Kubura Port, and local authorities have asked residents to avoid using roads during the movement of military equipment.There are also concerns after a Japan Self-Defense Forces V-22 Osprey was involved in a ground-strike incident in the same exercise in 2024. The incident prompted then-defense minister Gen Nakatani to order the grounding of Japan’s 17 Osprey aircraft.This year, however, the V-22 Osprey will not participate, Yonaguni Mayor Tsuneo Uechi told Mainichi Shimbun on Oct. 2.While the island understands the need for military training, Uechi said it is not ready for large-scale exercises that exceed the island’s capacity. The local government remains opposed to the exercises and continues to hold talks with the defense ministry.

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— US removes B-1 bombers from UK base amid security concerns

 

at 10/5/26 1:40am

NEW YORK — The United States removed its B-1 bombers from a U.K. air base one week after several men were arrested there on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts, a Pentagon official said on Sunday. A dozen B-1 bombers were stationed at RAF Fairford air base, located northwest of London. The planes had been used for U.S. strikes on Iran. “While operational security precluded us from confirming the movement of our assets and forces in real-time, we can acknowledge now that all US bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford have re-deployed to their home stations in the United States,” a Pentagon spokesman wrote in an email.Britain has “strong indications” that Iran was involved in a suspected plot targeting the base, Prime Minister Andy ​Burnham said on Wednesday. Iran said accusations linking Tehran to the alleged plan were baseless and summoned the British ambassador in Tehran over the issue. The Wall Street Journal first reported that the aircraft were removed from the base amid security concerns over suspected terror plots against the facility.The British government had allowed the U.S. to use bombers based at Fairford to strike Iranian missile sites that were attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.U.S. President Donald Trump said those involved in the plot had planned “big damage” while US ​Secretary of State Marco Rubio also pointed to the “hands of a foreign actor.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— GAO calls on Coast Guard, Congress to step up marine firefighting

 

at 10/1/26 1:46pm

The Coast Guard responded to 886 marine fires between 2015 and 2025, including 206 that resulted in serious damage, vessel destruction, injuries or deaths, according to a new Government Accountability Office report that calls for changes to the service’s response and federal law.Several factors contribute to the severity of marine fires, including a lack of coordination between Coast Guard units and land-based authorities that assist in responding to the incidents.The report follows a mandate in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to study the incidents of marine fires and Coast Guard responses.The report found several deficiencies in the Coast Guard’s responses to marine fires despite the establishment of a task force to improve such responses following the 2023 deaths of two land-based firefighters in Newark, New Jersey. Those deficiencies include a lack of coordination between local Coast Guard units and community fire response; inadequate training and coordination between Coast Guard personnel and land-based fire crews; little funding and resources for training and emergency response; lack of coordination and information sharing between Coast Guard sectors; and inadequate vessel response plans, or VRPs.Those VRPs are at the heart of the proposed congressional action. GAO recommends amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow the Coast Guard to require owners and operators of nontank vessels using alternative fuels to prepare VRPs for hazardous-substance discharges.Vessels of a certain size that use or carry petroleum products must already have plans outlining how to respond to spills and other incidents involving the hazardous materials they carry.That legislation predates the widespread use of alternative fuels such as lithium-ion batteries, which can overheat during a fire and are difficult to extinguish, causing serious damage to vessels, people and the environment in a marine accident.Though the Coast Guard and DHS have concurred with the recommendations outlined in the GAO report, it’s not yet clear what action, if any, Congress will take to help mitigate these incidents.

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— Pentagon launches Office of Religious Affairs, will report directly to Hegseth

 

at 10/1/26 12:21pm

The Pentagon is launching a religious affairs office to address what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth calls a loss of religious community within the military after an era of “political correctness.”Reporting directly to Hegseth, the Office of Religious Affairs, or ORA, is meant to offer service members “first-class religious support,” according to the defense secretary. Hegseth first announced the office during his State of the Force address on Wednesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, to junior officers and enlisted leaders.“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” Hegseth said on Wednesday. “God is good. Evil is not. And America’s military must understand the difference.”Hegseth announced the new office alongside a slew of other initiatives, such as the Autonomous Warfare Command, but he said all would be incomplete without faith, which he described as the “most essential part of our republic.”Hegseth said that less than 5% of the joint force identifies as nonreligious, and the other 95% recognizes an “Almighty God.” The Pentagon has not released an official report of the religious makeup of the military since 2019, when the composition of active-duty personnel was 70% Christian, 2% atheist or agnostic and 24% reported as unclassified or unknown.He said the force previously did not prioritize faith and instead emphasized “political correctness and secular humanism” and claimed that “secular careerists” and lawyers with red tape were dictating the spiritual life of service members, instead of military chaplains.“The people who actually practice faith and religion, our chaplains, were buried echelons deep, waiting for permission,” he said. “We asked chaplains to serve and sacrifice, and then sidelined them with paperwork and process. And that ends now.”Service chaplains will continue to serve as the department’s primary providers of religious support, with the office being their advocate, a Pentagon release says.The Pentagon intends to address what Hegseth calls a loss of religious community within the military after an era of “political correctness.”ORA’s First StepsEffective immediately, the office will report directly to the defense secretary, according to a Sept. 30 memorandum. Its director, who has yet to be named, will serve as the principal advisor to the secretary and deputy secretary for religious affairs across the department.The office’s core responsibilities, as outlined by the memo, will be to ensure that the Pentagon and military departments obtain sufficient funding and resources for religious affairs, such as chaplain-led programs and faith-based initiatives, as well as sponsoring and overseeing research and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness and readiness across the military.The office will also align and issue policies on religious affairs for the secretary; represent him on all religious affairs matters in engagements with Congress, religious endorsing organizations, and external governmental departments; and realign the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and its executive director under the office’s authority for chaplain advisement.“This is not going to be a paper-pushing shop,” Hegseth said. “It’s going to have real teeth. It’ll protect budgets, demand infrastructure and strengthen religious support. The experts, our chaplains, will finally have an advocate at the highest levels.”Within 60 days of the memo’s date, the office is expected to submit an initial baseline budget to Hegseth for fiscal year 2027 funding, the memo says, including permanent manning requirements. In the next 90 days, the director of Administration and Management will work with the office’s director to incorporate it into the Pentagon’s organizational framework and identify the initial allocation of senior executive service, civilian and military billets to stand up the office.Within 90 days of the memo, the military departments’ secretaries are also expected to submit a baseline report of all unfunded and underfunded religious affairs requirements to the office’s director.Pentagon’s Religious OverhaulThe announcement comes as the Pentagon has largely reduced the number of officially recognized faith affiliations from over 200 to 31, sparking criticism that most are Christian denominations and pressing the department to update the classifications by removing the subheading that grouped the Christian denominations.In what the secretary described as a “top-down cultural shift,” he directed an overhaul of the Chaplain Corps and later required military chaplains to stop wearing rank insignia and to instead wear symbols of their faith.To further align with the Pentagon’s policies, military services recently began requiring service members to update their Religious Affiliation Codes in their personnel records. The Department of the Air Force said the requirement exists only to improve chaplains’ knowledge of the force’s religious makeup.In the past, Hegseth has faced backlash from advocacy groups for hosting monthly Pentagon Christian prayer services and his religious rhetoric in public appearances, raising concerns that he is associating the Christian faith with politics and the military.“Our national motto is, after all, ‘In God We Trust,’” Hegseth said Wednesday. “Today, we reaffirm that trust. We’re placing spiritual health at the same level as physical health.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— Pentagon spent millions on migrant detention supplies that were never used, watchdog says

 

at 10/1/26 10:03am

The Pentagon spent $2.85 million assembling tents at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that were never used to house detained noncitizens, according to the Government Accountability Office.The government watchdog found that the Defense Department reported obligating approximately $68 million for immigration detention from Oct. 1, 2024, through May 31, 2026. The Guantanamo operation was one of six new detention-expansion initiatives U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursued without first developing a comprehensive strategic plan. By July 2026, ICE had scaled back four of the six initiatives, resulting in wasted or potentially wasted resources, the GAO said in a Sept. 24 report.A January 2025 presidential memorandum directed DHS and DOD to increase detention capacity at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to 30,000 beds. DOD assembled tents for an initial capacity of 5,000 beds, but the Department of Homeland Security determined they did not meet detention standards. The tents were taken down and never used to house detained noncitizens, in part because building facilities that met ICE standards was cost-prohibitive. DoD officials told the GAO, “detaining the planned population was deemed infeasible,” and the operation was downsized in mid-February 2025.DOD’s role in the detention expansion extended beyond Guantanamo. After DHS requested access to military installations in February 2025, DHS and DoD began planning detention facilities at Camp Atterbury in Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. By October 2025, DoD officials said they no longer planned to build detention facilities on other military installations, and DoD and ICE officials told GAO investigators the Indiana and New Jersey facilities did not move forward. ICE’s request for military assistance had not been rescinded, however, and the agreement has remained active as of August 2026.At Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, the Army awarded and administered a $1.3 billion task order on behalf of ICE for Camp East Montana, a soft-sided detention facility that opened in August 2025. The Army transferred contract administration responsibilities to ICE at the beginning of fiscal 2026.A separate GAO report found the Army wasted up to $11.5 million on services at Camp East Montana between Aug. 1 and Aug. 15, 2025, when there were no detained noncitizens housed there. The Army later paid about $423,000 for meals it did not need while the facility operated below planned capacity. After ICE took over the contract, it paid another $7.1 million for meals it did not need from Oct. 1, 2025, through March 12, 2026. As of August 2026, ICE had not incorporated recommended cost-saving measures into the contract and continued paying for services it did not need.GAO recommends that ICE develop a comprehensive strategic plan for its detention expansion efforts, including goals, activities and resource needs. DHS agreed, but said ICE does not expect to complete the plan until Aug. 31, 2027. GAO said more timely completion “may be warranted.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— Taiwan takes a page from Ukraine’s playbook in steeling society for an invasion

 

at 10/1/26 8:13am

NEW TAIPEI CITY, Taiwan — Taiwan President Lai Ching-te told a forum in late September he was seeking “resilience through unity” with a new alliance that would let world officials and non-governmental groups prepare together in case of disaster.For Taiwan, that could mean an attack or blockade by the militarily more powerful China.Lai’s pitch to 500 experts and guests augured an international expansion of a roughly five-year-old domestic, military-civilian, whole-of-society awareness campaign similar to that seen overseas when larger countries bear down on smaller rivals.Taiwan’s “efforts promoting whole-of-society defense resilience have progressed toward closer international connections and cooperation,” Lai said.The domestic whole-of-society defense effort has grown visibly since its inception here, at the time when Russia was gearing up for its war in Ukraine, but where it’s going now depends who you ask.It includes the November 2025 distribution of the cartoon-style Case of Crisis: Taiwan’s National Public Safety Guide to a targeted 9.83 million households with tips on stockpiling food and water and finding shelter.Citizens in turn have prepared “go-bags” of daily rations and basic supplies plus emergency first aid kids and civilian-led civil defense preparation courses have sprung up.“A potential conflict involving Taiwan would not affect only military targets but also the entire population and our critical infrastructure,” said Wen Liu, Taipei-based chairperson of the non-governmental civil defense group Kuma Civil Defense Education Promotion Association.“That means the question is not only whether Taiwan’s armed forces can defend the island,” Liu said. “It is also a question of whether Taiwanese society can continue functioning under sustained pressure.”The association also known as the Kuma Academy launched in 2021 to train civilians in emergency preparedness and cognitive warfare awareness. Liu said it had received backing from a retired billionaire and reached 100,000 people through hundreds of in-person courses.The whole-of-society movement was enshrined in January 2022 under ex-president Tsai Ing-wen, whose Ministry of National Defense created its All-out Defense Mobilization Agency.Lai formed the presidential office committee two years later to bind the government and society in learning how to maintain normal operations during attacks or natural disasters. The committee meets four times annually.Finland, Switzerland and Singapore have long practiced a whole-of-society approach, said David Silbey, a military Historian and associate teaching professor with the Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy at Cornell University.“Finland notably [prepared] against Russia in the 1950s through 1960s, Switzerland against Germany in World War II, and civilians in Singapore who have prepared for any move from Malaysia, all smaller countries resisting bigger ones,” Silbey said.“The goal is to deter as much as it is to win an actual conflict, as actually fighting that way would be cataclysmically destructive to the smaller country,” he said. “In Taiwan’s case, the threat obviously comes from China and they’re trying to establish and standardize a resistance model where everyone fights back against a potential invasion.”Hospitals must stay open, food must keep reaching supermarket shelves and families still need to get around during a crisis, said Sean Su, a Taiwan-based independent political analyst.“What [whole-of-society resilience] actually does is keep a country running while the soldiers do their thing,” Su said. “You can see that in places like Ukraine.“Taiwan’s foundation in dealing with a crisis is our experience with typhoons and earthquakes,” he said. “But a blockade is not designed to end in a few weeks so we’ll have to adjust accordingly.”China claims sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan and has threatened to take the island by force, if needed. Over the past four years People’s Liberation Army forces have stepped up military exercises near Taiwan, often in the 160-kilometer (100-mile) strait between them.The idea is “synchronizing” civilian and military responses to war or other crises, said Brian Hioe, a non-resident fellow at the Taiwan Research Hub of the University of Nottingham. The number of non-military, civil defense groups, he said, is rising – an indication that Taiwan is “serious about defense at the grassroots of society.”But the military hasn’t embraced those civilian-led groups, Hioe said.“The challenge to date remains how to synchronize civilian and military efforts, with the military continuing to view itself as primarily responsible for defense and taking the view that civilians should stay in their lane and leave fighting to professional soldiers,” he said.Civilian activity has gone flat overall since the survival guides were issued, said Joanna Lei, a former legislator and current chairwoman of the National Women’s League in Taiwan. “There’s no mass hysteria, and people are living their normal lives,” she said. Whole-of-society momentum is expected to make only a neutral or vaguely positive impact on President Donald Trump’s decision whether to approve a stalled $14 billion U.S. arms package for Taiwan, analysts say. China opposes U.S. weapons sales to the island and Trump has sought unrelated deals with Chinese President Xi Jinping at meetings in May and September.Taiwan advocacy group the Formosan Association for Public Affairs on Sept. 28 urged Trump to approve the sale without delay, saying China’s military and maritime “gray-zone” pressure had reached “unprecedented levels.”But Trump doesn’t “care one way or the other” about activity in Taiwan, Silbey said, because “it’s not about how serious Taiwan is for him, it’s about wooing China.”

[Category: / Pentagon & Congress] [Link to media]

— Neros, Perennial Autonomy lead in Pentagon’s drone competition

 

at 10/1/26 8:02am

Two California-based startups took the top spots in the latest phase of the Drone Dominance competition, a Pentagon effort to find companies that can produce high-quality, low-cost commercial drones at scale.According to the competition’s leaderboard, Neros Technologies scored highest in the confined-environment testing category. Perennial Autonomy claimed the top spot in “deep-strike” testing, in which operators launched attacks beyond the range of enemy defenses.The Pentagon uses the companies’ rankings to determine how many drones to buy, meaning higher-scoring companies receive larger orders. In total, the department ordered 14,000 drones from Neros — which also ranked third in deep-strike testing — and 8,000 from Perennial.Neros, founded by competitive drone racers in 2023, identified its winning design as the Archer AI drone. The company said the 10-inch model was “built with Terminal Guidance functionality that allows the drone to fly itself to an operator-selected target, a critical feature in the comms-denied environments military operators face today.”In a statement, Soren Monroe-Anderson, Neros’ chief executive and co-founder, called the Archer “highly modular and easily adapted to end-user needs.”“Pairing real warfighter feedback with our deep engineering talent is the reason Neros is the only manufacturer to have placed in the top three across two fundamentally different mission sets — deep strike and close-quarters battle — with the same drone platform,” he said.The Defense Department launched Drone Dominance in December 2025, with plans to invest $1 billion directly into the domestic drone market and build up the military’s supply of commercial drones.Since then, the Pentagon has completed one-and-a-half phases, known as “Gauntlets,” along with three operational tests. Neros has ranked second, third and first in those competitions, earning the company roughly $100 million in orders.Perennial said its design was “tested across rigorous find-fix-finish objectives at various long-range beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) distances” and flown by operators during day and night missions.“The systems proved their operational reliability under heavily contested conditions, to deliver precise, autonomous engagement when it counted,” the company said in a press release.Earlier this year, the Defense Department awarded Perennial a $500 million contract through Joint Interagency Task Force 401, or JIATF-401, which is responsible for researching, testing and procuring counter-drone technology for the department.The company was founded in 2023 by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and developed the Merops interceptor for Ukrainian forces to counter Russia’s one-way attack drones.Beginning in October, the Drone Dominance competition will enter Gauntlet 2.5, in which officials will test bomber platforms. The third phase is expected to begin next spring, with the competition scheduled to conclude next fall.

[Category: / MilTech] [Link to media]

As of 10/13/26 6:46am. Last new 10/12/26 11:26am.