Crooked Bough News Round-up

— A non-American as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO? That’d be ‘problematic,’ Cavoli says

 

at 4/3/25 12:35pm

U.S. Army Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, and U.S. Ambassador to Moldova Kent D. Logsdon discuss mutual security priorities and strengthening the U.S.-Moldovan partnership with Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean in Chisinau, Moldova, Sept. 2, 2023. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Aaron Daugherty) WASHINGTON — It would be problematic for the US to abandon its tradition of insisting an American serve as NATOs commanding general, the officer currently in the position of Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) warned lawmakers today. “I think that would bring some challenges in terms of nuclear command and control,” Gen. Christopher Cavoli, who is dual-hatted as SACEUR and head of the US militarys European Command, said in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “It would put us in a position where, in an Article 5 [mutual defense] situation, we could have for the first time since the First World War, large numbers of American troops under non-US command. So I think those are things that would have to be considered carefully.” As part of a larger restructuring of the US military’s combatant commands, the Defense Department is considering relinquishing the role atop the NATO chain of command, which has always been held by an American four-star, historically by the head of US European Command, since the alliances founding, NBC reported last month. A Pentagon spokesperson did not immediately respond to Breaking Defenses request for comment on the status of those deliberations. Cavoli told lawmakers  that his intention was to lay out the potential advantages or disadvantages of the change, noting it would be up to the Trump administration to make the final policy decision on whether to relinquish the SACEUR role. But, he said, “from a military perspective [its] problematic.” The United States maintains a number of nuclear weapons for use by NATO that — upon agreement by the United States and its NATO allies — could be employed by SACEUR during a conflict and delivered by a variety of NATO nations. Currently, there is no middleman involved in that process. If instructed, Cavoli would simply pass the weapons under his command as the head of EUCOM to himself to use as SACEUR, he explained. If SACEUR was not an American officer, “we would have to find some other way to do that and it would certainly not be as integrated with the rest of SACEUR’s operations as it is now,” he said. He added that there are also training and integration benefits, as a American SACEUR can rehearse operational procedures with US Strategic Command as well as with NATO allies. “We are able to be the link in that chain that makes it seamless, he said. Asked later about concerns about control of US nuclear weapons during a NATO operation triggered by an Article 5 declaration, Cavoli said, “We would want those under the command of a US officer clearly. Cavoli’s general comments echoed those by retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine, Trump’s nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was asked during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday whether there was value in keeping an American in the SACEUR role. “Any time we have US forces deployed, we generally have wanted them under a US commander,” Caine said. “And that was the history behind the establishment of SACEUR and putting the dual-hat EUCOM commander and SACEUR together. And I think it is an opportunity for global leadership, particular in Europe, but again would defer to the president as he considers what the future policy may look like.” Questions about the proposed change in SACEUR leadership came from both sides of the aisle, with Sens. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Joni Ernst, R-Iowa and others all asking Cavoli about his take on the potential move. SASC Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., have also previously weighed in, issuing a statement in March expressing concern about the potential withdrawal from the SACEUR job, as well as other changes to combatant commands and the cancelation of modernization plans for US Forces Japan also reportedly under consideration by the administration. “We support President [Donald] Trump’s efforts to ensure our allies and partners increase their contributions to strengthen our alliance structure, and we support continuing America’s leadership abroad,” Wicker and Reed stated. “As such, we will not accept significant changes to our warfighting structure that are made without a rigorous interagency process, coordination with combatant commanders and the Joint Staff, and collaboration with Congress. Such moves risk undermining American deterrence around the globe and detracting from our negotiating positions with America’s adversaries.”

[Category: Global, Pentagon, Europe, European Command, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, NATO, Supreme Allied Commander Europe] [Link to media]

— Australia, Canada should build out polar partnership

 

at 4/3/25 11:57am

U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw breaks ice in Whitefish Bay, Mich., in support of Operation Spring Breakout, March 16, 2009. Spring Breakout encompasses northern Lake Michigan, northern Lake Huron, the St. Marys River and helps facilitate the spring shipping season in the Great lakes. (U.S. Coast Guard photo/Petty Officer 3rd Class George Degener) Canada is set to purchase Australia’s Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN), an over-the-horizon radar system. The sale is being billed as Australia’s largest defense export ever, and a new tie between the two nations — a fair description for the deal. But that can’t be the end of it. To truly capitalize on this deal, Ottawa and Canberra should follow up with a new polar partnership. Australia and Canada are two fellow polar powers. Each have vital national interests in the Arctic and Antarctica. And yet, from burden-sharing to asset pooling, Ottawa and Canberra continue to overlook their mutual polar interests. A partnership makes sense on a number of levels, but as geopolitical tension redefine the polar theatres, there is now a sense of urgency. By way of geography, each nation leads at either end of the earth. But they share the security challenge posed by a rising China with ever-expanding polar capabilities. In the North Pole, both nations have sovereign rights to economic development on Svalbard, by way of the Svalbard Treaty. Both have a stake in the effective and lawful operation of UNCLOS in Arctic Ocean; monitoring Chinese activity and commitment to fisheries agreements like the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Ban is a further shared interest. Global commons are just that — global. Canada, as an Arctic-rim state, has obvious territorial and national security interests: Some 40 percent of Canada’s territory is above the Arctic Circle, and 70 percent of its coastline front the Arctic. Australia’s Arctic interests are less obvious to most, but largely boil down to mineral rights. Australian-based critical resource firms (like Greenland Minerals) are operating throughout the region. One of the only approved mineral exploitation permits in Greenland is held by an Aussie company. More broadly, the Arctic holds applicable lessons for Canberra’s sovereign interest in Antarctica — where Australia claims 42 percent of the continent. Patterns of geostrategic behavior in the Arctic, and of Beijing’s emerging polar identity, offer incredible insights into what might come in the Antarctic. A joint diplomatic agreement between Canberra and Ottawa could also help strengthen each nation’s position in multi-national bodies relevant for the region. The Arctic Council used to adequately facilitate intragovernmental engagement on regional affairs. While strategic or military issues were necessarily beyond the remit, the Arctic Council enabled a climate of ‘low tension’ for many decades. Now, environmental changes are manipulating the monsoon season in Asia, and new trade routes opening in the Arctic will impact the economies of Southeast Asia. Both shifts have direct impact on Australian security. Australia should follow the steps of Singapore, South Korea, China, the United Kingdom, and India, to request Council observer status. All are non-Arctic states by virtue of geography, yet all have intrinsic security interests tied to the Arctic. Australia could use Canadian support to get a seat at the Arctic table. In the South Pole, shared interests are now rapidly emerging. Just last week, Canada marked its first ever deployment to Antarctica. Ottawa’s naval commander underscored the significance of the expedition to “serve to strengthen Canada’s polar security. He went further, to do what Australian officials continue to avoid, to state he is “concerned that the whole agreement that we would not [militarize and mine Antarctica] … would, could change. Vice-Admiral Topshee is referring to the 1961 Antarctic Treaty. Australia is an original signatory with consultative status; essentially, Canberra has a vote in the management of the Antarctic continent, as well as  a territorial claim to 42 percent of it. Canada, in turn, has no claim and is a non-consultative member of the Antarctic Treaty, something it has been trying to change since 2021. To achieve consultative status, Ottawa must illustrate significant scientific research records and intent. However, the existing 29 consultative parties (inclusive of China and Russia) must agree to admit Canada. Consensus is proving to be consistently elusive. Ottawa needs vocal support from Australia to assist in shaping the discourse within the Antarctic Treaty community. An agreement between the two countries could help strengthen Canada’s case for consultative status. (Belarus, another state waiting in the wing to gain consultative status, has received active support from its partner Russia in its goal.) Putting aside larger geopolitical pressures, there are straightforward capability gains apparent in a formal polar partnership. Despite its polar identity, Australia has woeful icebreaking capability, with just a sole icebreaker, Nuyina, meant to stretch across a litany of tasks from research to rescue to resupply. Last year, Canberra lost its “back-up” rental icebreaker (Aiviq) to Washington in the midst of the US scrambling to bolster her own icebreaking capacity. Hence, icebreaker building, as well as polar asset pooling and sharing is an obvious opportunity for Canada and Australia. Australia is notably not part of the recent ICE Pact struck by the US, Canada and Finland. The Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE) intends to “uphold international rules and maintain security in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. That is certainly of Australian national interest too. Indeed, when it comes to Antarctica — protecting her sovereign territory is arguably a vital national interest. ICE Pact is a door Australia must be knocking on, and having an agreement in place with Canada would help make it happen. (And if the Trump administration kills ICE Pact, Australia could, in theory, take on some of that purchasing role.) Intelligence sharing at the poles is likely well-established. However, the Five Eye nations should be put on ‘war footing’ when it comes to the polar maritime environment. Domain awareness Such vessels will no doubt soon arrive in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Arctic theatre. Of course, there is no easy way to get to the Antarctica, so having a base of operations as close as possible is important. Australia’s Antarctic gateway city, Hobart, is celebrated for hosting of many national Antarctic programs over time — from China to South Korea, Germany to France. Russia, too. Canada opted for Chile on its maiden Antarctic endeavor, signing several MOUs to further collaborate with Chile on Antarctic affairs, and to base its Antarctic logistics program for the next decade. This is a missed opportunity for Australia and Canada. A polar strategic partnership would see Ottawa utilizing Australia as a gateway to Antarctica. Economic benefit for Australia aside, both nations would be able to asset-share icebreakers and pool their polar research capabilities for research, scientists and defense and national security interests. Underscoring and celebrating Australian innovation and defense capability is important, but Canberra should not stop here. The government must lean into this deal to strike a meaningful partnership across the wide array of polar security and defense interests shared by Canada and Australia. If handled correctly, JORN should be just the beginning. Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan is senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). Views are her own. @BuchananLiz

[Category: Naval Warfare, Opinion, arctic, AUKUS, australia, ICE Pact, Navy, Op-Ed Commentary, Sea Air Space 2025] [Link to media]

— Space Force’s Saltzman: US national security space policy ‘lagging’ needs

 

at 4/3/25 11:25am

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman testifying to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, April 3, 2025. (Screengrab) WASHINGTON — A lack of high level US government attention to crafting national security space policy is creating constraints on the Space Forces ability to quickly evolve to counter todays threats, particularly from Chinas growing space power, says Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman. I just feel like were lagging in the importance of establishing declaratory policy, you know, and establishing the kind of policies we need to move fast, he told the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan congressional advisory group, in a hearing today. Space has been a little bit out of sight, out of mind — literally out of sight, out of mind — and so it just hasnt risen to the level where serious policy considerations need to be, Saltzman said. Thus, he explained, the Space Force often has to petition up the chain of command to garner adjustments to national security policy on a case-by-case basis, including simply for putting resources into a particular kind of capability. One example, he said, is that the Space Force still has to go to very high levels of approval to do some of the basic op things that you would think are just normal operations: testing, tactics, development, training. We do that all in simulation, not in actual live practice. Saltzman elaborated in his written testimony that in some cases the US government and the Defense Department continue to struggle with overly restrictive space policy and outdated ways of thinking — hampering the Space Forces ability to do what it needs to do to counter the growing threats to US space assets, especially from China. In particular, he argued, we restrain ourselves from doing what is needful to avoid creating improper perceptions of weaponizing space. In reality, space has been weaponized for at least two decades, and our slowness to absorb that reality has held back our progress. He also reiterated the long-time concern among military brass and experts about DoD policies with regard to the classification status of all things space. We struggle with significant over-classification challenges, which impede us from sharing essential information across the Joint Force, with potential industry partners, and with allies and partners. While we have advocated strongly for increased authorities to reduce classification where reasonable, change has been slow and bureaucratic, with a continued emphasis on need to know rather than a more progressive need to share.' As he has done numerous times in recent months, Saltzman stressed his worries that the Space Force does not have the resources it needs to be able to achieve what the service sees as its fundamental mission: establishing space superiority. We have to make decisions based on resourcing and prioritization of those resources, he said. I will tell you that I believe we have more left unfunded than we have funded. I think the new missions that have been given to the Space Force, we still havent developed the size and set of capabilities necessary to perform those new missions. As I mentioned, space control being first and foremost in those new missions that weve been given. New mission requires new resources. In addition, Saltzman suggested that resource decisions also are tied up with a need for a roles and missions discussion to more clearly establish the Space Forces roles and missions vice other US space players — including the other military services, the Intelligence Community and even NASA. Weve kind of evolved the roles and missions, he said, but I dont know if, based on the new security environment, we really crystallize whos responsible for what, and define that in terms that we can say, because Im responsible for this, these are the resources Im going to need. Were kind of backing into it to some degree, and so a level of formalization of those responsibilities is probably the next step. Because the Space Force has been established a an organization for military space, Saltzman said, now we need to clearly define what those roles and responsibilities are, or even establish a process by which we will evaluate new missions as theyre developed to make sure we give them to the right organization.

[Category: Space, China, classification, Gen. Chance "Salty" Saltzman, space control, Space Force, space policy, space warfare, US-China Economic and Security Review Commission] [Link to media]

— CSO Saltzman: US national security space policy ‘lagging’ needs

 

at 4/3/25 11:25am

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman testifying to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, April 3, 2025. (Screengrab) WASHINGTON — A lack of high level US government attention to crafting national security space policy is creating constraints on the Space Forces ability to quickly evolve to counter todays threats, particularly from Chinas growing space power, says Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman. I just feel like were lagging in the importance of establishing declaratory policy, you know, and establishing the kind of policies we need to move fast, he told the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan congressional advisory group, in a hearing today. Space has been a little bit out of sight, out of mind — literally out of sight, out of mind — and so it just hasnt risen to the level where serious policy considerations need to be, Saltzman said. Thus, he explained, the Space Force often has to petition up the chain of command to garner adjustments to national security policy on a case-by-case basis, including simply for putting resources into a particular kind of capability. One example, he said, is that the Space Force still has to go to very high levels of approval to do some of the basic op things that you would think are just normal operations: testing, tactics, development, training. We do that all in simulation, not in actual live practice. Saltzman elaborated in his written testimony that in some cases the US government and the Defense Department continue to struggle with overly restrictive space policy and outdated ways of thinking — hampering the Space Forces ability to do what it needs to do to counter the growing threats to US space assets, especially from China. In particular, he argued, we restrain ourselves from doing what is needful to avoid creating improper perceptions of weaponizing space. In reality, space has been weaponized for at least two decades, and our slowness to absorb that reality has held back our progress. He also reiterated the long-time concern among military brass and experts about DoD policies with regard to the classification status of all things space. We struggle with significant over-classification challenges, which impede us from sharing essential information across the Joint Force, with potential industry partners, and with allies and partners. While we have advocated strongly for increased authorities to reduce classification where reasonable, change has been slow and bureaucratic, with a continued emphasis on need to know rather than a more progressive need to share.' As he has done numerous times in recent months, Saltzman stressed his worries that the Space Force does not have the resources it needs to be able to achieve what the service sees as its fundamental mission: establishing space superiority. We have to make decisions based on resourcing and prioritization of those resources, he said. I will tell you that I believe we have more left unfunded than we have funded. I think the new missions that have been given to the Space Force, we still havent developed the size and set of capabilities necessary to perform those new missions. As I mentioned, space control being first and foremost in those new missions that weve been given. New mission requires new resources. In addition, Saltzman suggested that resource decisions also are tied up with a need for a roles and missions discussion to more clearly establish the Space Forces roles and missions vice other US space players — including the other military services, the Intelligence Community and even NASA. Weve kind of evolved the roles and missions, he said, but I dont know if, based on the new security environment, we really crystallize whos responsible for what, and define that in terms that we can say, because Im responsible for this, these are the resources Im going to need. Were kind of backing into it to some degree, and so a level of formalization of those responsibilities is probably the next step. Because the Space Force has been established a an organization for military space, Saltzman said, now we need to clearly define what those roles and responsibilities are, or even establish a process by which we will evaluate new missions as theyre developed to make sure we give them to the right organization.

[Category: Space, China, classification, Gen. Chance "Salty" Saltzman, space control, Space Force, space policy, space warfare, US-China Economic and Security Review Commission] [Link to media]

— Rafael’s Typhoon 30mm gun confronts drone threats on new modular platform

 

at 4/3/25 11:01am

The Typhoon 30mm gun mounted on a 20-foot modular platform during a test in February. A radar and electro-optic are also deployed on the same platform. (Rafael Advanced Defense Systems) JERUSALEM — Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems is eyeing more uses for its Typhoon 30 Remote Controlled Weapon Station, having installed the gun on a modular platform that it says can be more easily used in different situations. The company conducted counter-drone tests of the gun installed on the 20-foot platform last month and reported it “demonstrated the system’s advanced ability to neutralize drones at various ranges,” according to a company statement on Monday. The Typhoon is already in use by the Israeli military, as well as by the militaries of the US, Australia and Canada, but in the last couple years Rafael has highlighted the 30mm gun as a solution to the growing threat of waves of unmanned aerial systems. (The Israeli military included the Typhoon in a series of counter-UAS experiments in the Negev Desert last year.) Rafael said that in its recent test it emphasized the “adaptability” of the system as it can be mounted on the 20-foot surface. That platform resembles the rectangular footprint of a sea container, with a small radar mounted on a kind of mast near the gun, and an optical hub next to the gun itself. The ability to deploy the system in a modular form would mean it could be deployed and incorporated more quickly on various platforms and in different configurations — from ground vehicles to fixed installations — rather than being restricted to the bows of naval vessels as its currently used. The company said the development step reflects a “commitment to delivering and installing its systems in modular configurations, ensuring flexibility and rapid deployment in diverse operational environments.” Rafael says that the system is paired with electro-optical targeting and automatic fire correction. It uses Rada’s RPS-42 radar and the iSea-25 electro-optics made by Controp, a Rafael subsidiary. Rafael’s offering of the Typhoon as a counter-drone system comes amid a rush in the defense industry to produce such solutions, brought on by the experience of combat in Ukraine. There drones have established themselves as a defining, inescapable threat, and by Israel’s own defense of its homeland from drones launched by Iran and Iran-backed groups in the region following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack.

[Category: Land Warfare, Naval Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Army, cyber security, Drones, Gaza, Israel, Middle East, Navy, networks, Rafael, technology] [Link to media]

— DARPA adds 18 companies to spooky science Quantum Benchmarking Initiative

 

at 4/3/25 9:32am

Abstract image of circuit board and CPU generated ai brain. (Getty) WASHINGTON — DARPA is dramatically expanding its Quantum Benchmarking Initiative to help the private sector build a workable quantum computer by 2033, the Pentagons top R&D agency announced this morning. Almost 20 new companies will join prior award recipients Microsoft and PsiQuantum, which won awards under a pilot phase of the program that began in 2023. Todays announcement named 15 new entrants, ranging from giants like IBM and Hewlett-Packard to small startups such as Alice & Bob, a US-French joint venture. They include five foreign firms: two Australian, two Canadian, and one British. Another three awardees remain unnamed while contract negotiations are finalized, bringing the expected total to 18. That so many proposals made it through QBI’s rigorous assessment process is a vote of confidence from DARPA in the rapidly growing quantum computing industry. QBI is run by a self-proclaimed “quantum skeptic,” physicist Joe Altepeter, who told Breaking Defense just six weeks ago that he was still “definitely trying to eliminate companies” from the competition. Altepeter designed the program, not as easy money for long-shot ventures, but as a daunting gauntlet to sort the most serious quantum proposals from the hype. For the winning teams, the value of QBI is not just the money. Indeed, first-round grants like those being announced today have typically been under $1 million — small change not just for the Pentagon but for tech firms and venture capitalists already investing billions into quantum ventures. What’s unique about a QBI award is that it gives the winning companies access to a DARPA-led team of quantum experts, pulled from both US government labs, including the famous Los Alamos, and federally funded research institutions. Their job is to act as independent testers, fresh eyes, and devil’s advocates, rigorously scrutinizing each participant’s quantum strategy. RELATED: DIU to start field testing quantum sensors in tough conditions The 15 award recipients announced today are all getting what QBI calls “Stage A” contracts for a six-month “sprint,” in which they must flesh out their plan to achieve a workable quantum computer that can perform calculations no current machine can handle. If that Stage A plan meets the approval of DARPA’s assessment team — which is far from guaranteed — companies can move on to a more in-depth Stage B, lasting 12 months, and ultimately to Phase C, which goes on indefinitely as the DARPA team tests each company’s quantum hardware. Microsoft and PsiQuantum, which were awarded their Phase C contracts in February, are pursuing two very different technical approaches. Tech giant Microsoft is using what are called topological qubits, whose construction exploits a long-theorized but never-before-seen state of matter called Majorana particles. PsiQuantum, a startup, is employing photonic qubits, using particles of light (photons), which is particularly promising for long-range quantum networks. The awardees announced today bring even more approaches to the table, DARPA’s announcement says, “including superconducting qubits, trapped ion qubits, neutral atom qubits… and semiconductor spin qubits.” This multi-pronged attack on the problem speaks to a basic truth about quantum computing: While there’s clearly tremendous potential to using quantum-mechanical qubits instead of binary 1-or-0 digits to run computations — from new kinds of drug-development simulations to breaking most internet security — there’s absolutely no consensus on the best way to actually build those qubits and get them to operate reliably, without errors scrambling the output into garbage. DARPA’s QBI program is meant to find the methods that work and thoroughly disprove the ones that don’t.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, cyber security, darpa, networks, Quantum Benchmarking Initiative - QBI, quantum computing, technology] [Link to media]

— Colombia picks Saab Gripen for next fighter jet

 

at 4/3/25 9:18am

A Saab JAS-39C Gripen flies at Airpower 24 on September 7, 2024 in Zeltweg, Austria. (Mario Skraban/Getty Images) Stockholm — A letter of intent has been signed between the Republic of Colombia and the Kingdom of Sweden for the purchase of Saab Gripen fighters, according to Colombian President Gustavo Petro. The fleet of aircraft to be acquired is completely new, “with the latest technology, already deployed in Brazil, and is a Saab 39 Gripen brand,” Petro wrote in a translated statement on X.  In response, Swedens Minister of Defense Pål Jonson wrote on X that It is gratifying that President Petro has announced that Colombia is choosing the Gripen as its fighter jet … Negotiations will now begin.” Key specifics remain under wraps regarding a potential deal between Saab and Colombia, including the number of aircraft involved, delivery timelines, and the total cost of the agreement. However, Petros statement claims that the deal comes with commercial offsets, including the development of a solar panel production plant. It is very positive for Saab and Sweden that Colombias President Petro has announced his intention to acquire the Gripen E/F advanced multi-role fighter, Saab’s Mattias Rådström wrote in a statement to Breaking Defense.  RELATED: South American nations add ‘upgrading air forces’ to 2025 resolutions Although no contract is yet in place, “we look forward to finalising negotiations with Colombia.” according to Rådström.  Colombia has been weighing such a Gripen purchase for some time, but a hiccup briefly appeared last month when a local news report claimed the US government would not sanction re-export of the fighter jets General Electric F414 engine. In theory such a tactic could have been used as leverage to convince or strong-arm Colombia into accepting a rival F-16 bid. However, officials from Saab quickly moved to knock that report down, and the issue has not reemerged since that initial unverified report.  In a statement to Breaking Defense, Saab said, “Fighter aircraft procurement is often surrounded by rumours. Saab has for many years had all the necessary licenses and permits in place for Colombia and therefore we have no reason to speculate further on the topic.” A win in Colombia gives the Swedish firm another fighter operator in South America.  Saab already has a key collaboration in South America through its Gripen deal with Brazil, which has led to a facility for the development, final assembly, testing, and evaluation of the Gripen in São Paulo.  Back in 2014, the Brazilian government signed a contract with Saab for the development and production of 36 Gripen aircraft, featuring 28 single-seat Gripen E models and 8 two-seat Gripen F variants. The delivery of these units remains on track for completion by 2027, according to a Saab factsheet.  Tim Martin in Belfast contributed to this report.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Business & Industry, colombia, Gripen, JAS 39 Gripen, Sweden] [Link to media]

— India to double Hanwha self-propelled howitzer buy, will manufacture locally

 

at 4/3/25 8:09am

The K9 Howitzer and K10 Ammunition Resupply Vehicle is featured in a promotional photo from Hanwha Aerospace. (Hanwha) SYDNEY — South Koreas Hanwha Aerospace announced today a $253 million contract with India for a second round of 100 K9 Vajra-T self-propelled howitzers. This follow-up order reflects the deepening defense partnership between Korea and India, Jae-il Son, CEO and president of Hanwha Aerospace, said in todays statement. We will continue to be a trusted, reliable partner for Indias defense capabilities in the years ahead, supporting Indias vision for defense manufacturing self-reliance. The 155mm howitzers will be built in India by Larsen & Toubro, an Indian manufacturing conglomerate, as part of the countrys vigorous effort to increase the amount and value of weapons built in India. The contract was signed at the South Korean embassy in New Delhi. An initial order of 100 of the same self-propelled howitzers was placed in 2017. (Prime Minister Narendra Modi rode in one at the plant.) The first K9 Vajra-T order used more than 50 percent local materials and parts, according to todays Hanwha release. The new contract plans to hit 60 percent. Defense cooperation between Korea and India has expanded significantly in recent years, encompassing various domains including land systems, aerospace, and maritime technologies, the Hanwha release says, mentioning air defense systems and advanced military technologies. Thats likely a reference to a Hanwha product called Hybrid BiHo, reportedly still under consideration for acquisition by New Dehlis famously sluggish and often unpredictable acquisition system. Hanwah Aerospace says in the release that it remains committed to expanding its partnership with India beyond the K9 Vajra program. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi noted his countrys strong momentum in our cooperation with Republic of Korea at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore. The two countries elevated their cooperation to that of a Special Strategic Partnership in 2015 and have reinvigorated it since.

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Army, Asia, Business & Industry, Hanwha Aerospace, India, Indo-Pacific, K9 Vajra-T self-propelled howitzer, self-propelled howitzer] [Link to media]

— Elevating the mission by modernizing the E-2D to keep threats at bay

 

at 4/3/25 6:24am

Over the 17-year life of the E-2s latest iteration, Northrop Grumman has delivered five major updates. (Northrop Grumman photo) How many aircraft can stand the test of time, adapting to meet ever-changing global threats? At Northrop Grumman, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is redefining mission excellence, evolving with modernized capabilities to stay ahead in an increasingly complex battlespace. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye represents the latest in a line of airborne early warning and command and control aircraft that stretches back over 60 years. The E-2D has redefined its role by providing strategic oversight, flexibility and advanced capabilities. More than an early-warning aircraft, it now supports a broad variety of missions. The aircraft is so valuable, in fact, that every U.S. Navy aircraft carrier deploys with an E-2C or an E-2D. Japan, France, Egypt and Taiwan also operate E-2 platforms. With 70 E-2Ds currently supporting global operations, the Advanced Hawkeye delivers decision dominance to allied forces. Modernizing for unmatched mission edge The key to the E-2D’s continued relevance is Northrop Grumman’s commitment to modernization of the platform. Over the 17-year life of the aircraft’s latest iteration, Northrop Grumman has delivered five major updates, expanding its capabilities to include integrated air and missile defense, electronic warfare, air traffic control, combat search and rescue, humanitarian relief, border security, and counter-drug operations. The E-2D airborne early warning command and control aircraft provides a 360-degree surveillance picture of all targets in its area, whether over water or land. Its advanced radar system — powered by digital computing and techniques like advanced electronic scanning — provides powerful detection capability and ensures a unified Common Operating Picture that connects all command levels Automation has also revolutionized the E-2D’s operations. Tasks like target tracking, radar fine-tuning and reporting are now largely automated, freeing the crew to focus on mission-critical objectives. Additionally, pilots can access a full range of mission functions directly from the cockpit, significantly reducing manpower requirements compared to earlier aircraft generations. Another breakthrough is the aerial refueling capability, which extends the flight endurance of the Advanced Hawkeye to more than eight hours, enhancing fleet protection and efficiency. From its beginnings as a niche platform operated by the U.S. Navy, the E-2 has grown into a modernized airborne command-and-control system. (Northrop Grumman photo) Collaborating for next-generation innovation Building on a rich history of innovation, Northrop Grumman has ensured the E-2D remains integral to global defense forces well into the future. “Northrop Grumman collaborated with the U.S. Navy on the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program to ensure with this fleet modernization that we continue to outpace evolving threats into the 2040s and beyond,” said Janice Zilch, vice president, Multi-Domain Command and Control programs. We continue to invest in digital capabilities across the enterprise to assist in rapidly designing, building, testing and sustaining programs for our customers, and we will incorporate these advanced capabilities into the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye as part of Delta System Software Configuration 6 (DSSC 6).” This next upgrade will improve operational availability, software resiliency and security, and strengthen interoperability for a seamless command and control experience. To achieve this, Northrop Grumman has embraced a strategic shift to model-based systems engineering and is converting legacy efforts to modern digital environments. The new mission computers and displays use an agile, open-mission-systems approach, allowing the rapid integration of new technologies and ensuring the E-2D remains adaptable to future threats. “Threats advance,” said Zyad Hajo, Northrop Grumman airborne systems operator. “You have to change things and constantly think of the next incremental leap to keep ahead – always advancing the technology.” The E-2Ds open architecture also reduces integration risks and supports third-party software, leveraging commercial off-the-shelf equipment to maximize flexibility. Investing in new capabilities and sustainment Northrop Grumman is also modernizing the E-2D’s maintenance and sustainability to ensure its longevity. By incorporating machine learning and artificial intelligence, the company has introduced predictive maintenance technologies that optimize readiness and reduce downtime. Augmented reality solutions are speeding up maintenance processes, while virtual reality platforms are reshaping training, enabling sustainment teams to master aircraft systems long before engaging with the hardware. From its beginnings as a niche platform operated by the U.S. Navy, the E-2 has grown into a modernized airborne command-and-control system. With the E-2D named one of the Navy’s top five acquisition programs by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and several nations upgrading to this platform, the E-2D’s superior technology underscores Northrop Grumman’s commitment to innovation, adaptability and mission success.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Sponsored Post, Air Force, Army, cyber security, digital warfare, E-2D, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, Multi-Domain Operations, Navy, networks, Northrop Grumman, Northrop Grumman E-2D, Presented by Northrop Grumman, sponsored content, technology] [Link to media]

— Counterspace capabilities advancing around the globe: Secure World Foundation

 

at 4/3/25 4:00am

Artists rendering of satellites orbiting Earth. (Getty) WASHINGTON — Perhaps the most telling indicator of how far and how fast space attack capabilities — ranging from stun to kill — have grown over the past decade is simply the size of this years Global Counterspace Capabilities report by the Secure World Foundation. The 2025 edition weighs in at a whopping 316 pages, whereas the first version published in 2018 numbered 148. Thats the result of all of the significant research and development of a broad range of destructive and non-destructive counterspace capabilities in multiple countries, the report says, based on open-source evidence compiled from February 2024 to February 2025. While the report didnt add any new countries to the tally of the 12 cited last year that are at least researching related capabilities, it shows that China, Russia and the United States are growing ever-more entangled in an arms race to develop, test and deploy counterspace weapons based on the ground, in the air, at sea and in increasingly in space. The big three space powers over the past year have made headway on counterspace weapons using technologies ranging from radio frequency jamming to potentially even nuclear explosions (heres looking at you, Russia). Still, at least so far, the Secure World Foundation authors find that only non-destructive capabilities are actively being used against satellites in current military operations. The Secure World Foundations 2025 Global Counterspace Capabilities report shows 12 countries are at least researching some technologies that could be used to harm satellite systems. Space Jam(ming) Specifically, the report lists a litany of incidents in terrestrial hot zones from Ukraine to the Gaza Strip involving radio frequency jamming of Global Positioning System (GPS) and communication satellite signals. Russia has been the main culprit, with its electronic warfare operations to thwart attacks by Ukrainian drones in the ongoing war spilling over to disrupt third-country satellites — with Moscow earning a rare public rebuke last year by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which regulates global use of the radio frequency spectrum. OPINION: As Baltics see spike in GPS jamming, NATO must respond The Secure World report quotes a July 2024 statement from the ITUs Radio Regulations Board expressing grave concern regarding the use of signals to cause intentional harmful interference, and noting that extremely worrisome and unacceptable interference to Swedish and French satellites “seemed to originate from sources on the ground in Moscow, Kaliningrad and Pavlovka. The report finds that Russia has been increasingly successful at blocking Ukraines use of SpaceXs Starlink communications constellation over the past year, citing media reports in December 2024 about a new system specifically targeting Starlink called Kalinka and developed by the Russian Center for Unmanned Systems and Technologies. The centers chair in (CBST), Andrei Bezrukov, touted the system to reporters as being able to locate drones, boats, and other devices linked to Starlink terminals within a range of up to 15 kilometers (less than 10 miles). However, Russia isnt the only country picking up its jamming game. The Secure World report points to the US Space Forces move late last year, first reported by Defense News, to approve new satellite jammers called Remote Modular Terminals for deployment; Israels use of GPS jamming and spoofing in its ongoing war with Hamas; and internal Peoples Liberation Army reports suggesting that China has deployed a satellite in geosynchronous orbit to test jamming capabilities in that orbital regime, which is home to many commercial and military communications satellites. Everyone is jamming, Victoria Samson, director of Secure Worlds Washington office and one of the reports primary authors, told Breaking Defense on Tuesday. Space Moves A model of Frances YODA patrol satellite. (Photo: Victoria Samson) Beyond electronic warfare, China and the United States continue to test on-orbit rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) that could be used in a number of ways to disable or destroy target satellites, the report finds. Chinas most recent RPO foray involved five satellites — identified by Secure World as three Shiyan-24C series satellites (SY-24C 01, 02 and 03) and two Shijan series birds (SJ-6 05A and SJ-6 05B) — that US Space Force officials have called out as practicing dogfighting in space. The report cites a Feb. 21 Space Threat Fact Sheet issued by US Space Force Headquarters Space Intelligence [PDF] as saying that RPOs were conducted from mid-March 2024 through the end of April 2024, at times separated by less than 1 km, and undertaking two simultaneous proximity events at the same time.” The report also cites the US Space Forces upcoming Victus Haze, Victus Surgo and Victus Salo RPO demonstrations being planned as part of its overarching quick-launch Tactically Responsive Space (TacRS) program. Victus Haze, expected to launch this fall, will involve a Rocket Lab satellite conducting maneuvers around a Jackal satellite built by True Anomaly. Victus Surgo and Victus Sol are set to launch in early 2026 under an October 2024 contract with Impulse Space, and will demonstrate how payloads prepositioned in low Earth orbit can be rapidly moved to other orbits. The Secure World report further notes that both China and the US continue to test their respective secretive space planes, the Shenlong and the X-37B. Both space planes have released mysterious payloads into orbit that have not been registered with the United Nations as required under international law, it stresses. Frances Space Command last September kicked off a new program designed not just to demonstrate RPO and close inspection capabilities, the report shows, but also explicitly to respond counter threatening satellites. France considers satellites that can shoot back as an active defense capability, Laetitia Cesari, a French space lawyer and Secure World reports main co-author, told reporters in a pre-briefing on Tuesday. Frances TOUTATIS (In-Orbit Test of Action Techniques against Attempted Spatial Interference) program is expected to launch two nanosatellites to low Earth orbit in 2026: LISA-1 that the report calls a spotter satellite for close-up observation and SPLINTER, designed to be able to autonomously undertake (relatively) rapid maneuvers to approach and take unspecified counterspace actions. TOUTATIS is being developed as a companion to the French militarys YODA (Yeux en Orbite pour un Démonstrateur Agile) experimental patrol nanosatellite that is expected to be launched to geosynchronous orbit in 2026 or 2027, the report explains. Both programs are linked to a project known as FLAMHE to develop on-board lasers for satellites that could neutralize unfriendly satellites without creating any debris, the report stresses. France intends, by 2030, to develop EGIDE (Geodrifting Intervention and Discouragement Device), a new generation of space assets constituting the operational version of these capabilities with the objective of protecting other satellites, it adds. Finally, India also got into the RPO groove over the past year, the report says. In January 2025, India successfully showcased its ability to maneuver civilian space assets in orbit, marking an important step toward developing rendezvous and docking technology for space assets. All told, the Secure World report finds that of the 12 countries countries covered all but two (South Korea and Britain) possess some level of capability to degrade, disable or destroy satellites and space systems. With a warning, it sums up: Today there are increased incentives for development, and potential use, of offensive counterspace capabilities. There are also greater potential consequences from their widespread use that could have global repercussions well beyond the military, as huge parts of the global economy and society are increasingly reliant on space applications.

[Category: Global, Space, Asia, China, Cosmos 2543 satellite, counterspace, Europe, france, jamming and spoofing, offensive space weapons, Rendezvous and Proximity Operations RPO, Russia, Secure World Foundation, Space Force, Space Symposium 2025, Starlink, tactically responsive space, United States] [Link to media]

— As tariffs loom, HII’s Kastner confident in company’s American supply chain

 

at 4/2/25 12:35pm

HII President Chris Kastner greets interns at HI-PIC, Monday, Aug. 15, 2022, in Honolulu. (Photo by Marco Garcia courtesy of HII) WASHINGTON — HII President Chris Kastner expressed confidence that the Trump administration’s tariffs on aluminum and steel will have little impact on his supply chain given the company’s reliance on buying and building domestically. “We’re obviously a little different. We buy and build in America,” he told a group of reporters on Wednesday ahead of next weeks Sea Air Space exposition. “Ultimately, if tariffs bring more manufacturing into the United States and creates more jobs for manufacturing workers in the United States, I’m happy, because we need to broaden that base.” The comments come as the White House has rolled out, and at times delayed, a variety of tariffs aimed at the European Union, China, Canada and Mexico, all of which have responded in kind with reciprocal actions. Most concerning for shipbuilders is a 25 percent tariff on imports of steel and aluminum. In general, Congress has enacted laws that require the US Navy to “Buy American,” which limits the amount of foreign-made materials allowed to be used in the production of a Navy ship. But such laws do not insulate the supply chain from the changes in pricing American manufacturers may make in response to retaliatory tariffs from foreign countries. When pressed, Kastner declined to comment on the secondary and tertiary effects of the tariffs, saying, “Tariffs is not a story for us. It just isn’t … It’s clear that there’s demand for manufacturing talent in the United States right now. If we can expand that, that’s only positive.” During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Brett Seidle, the Navy’s acting acquisition executive, said that half of the Navy’s aluminum and a third of its steel in 2023 was sourced from Canada. “Clearly tariffs in those arenas could drive cost,” he told lawmakers at a March 25 hearing. “We are expecting impacts, but we don’t have our hands around yet just what those impacts are.” When asked by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., about the difficulty of shifting the service’s supply chain to 100 percent American “overnight,” Seidle repeated that the service doesn’t yet have a full grasp of the potential impacts. “It would be hard,” Kaine added, responding to his own question. For its part, the Canadian government on March 13 enacted a 25 percent reciprocal tariff on a “list of steel products worth $12.6 billion and aluminum products worth $3 billion, as well as additional imported goods worth $14.2 billion, for a total of $29.8 billion.” “Canadian steel and aluminum make the U.S. stronger, and these unjustified tariffs will raise prices for everyone and threaten jobs on both sides of the border,” said Mélanie Joly, Canadian minister of foreign affairs.

[Category: Naval Warfare, canada, Chris Kastner, HII, Navy, Sea Air Space 2025, Trump, Trump steel and aluminum tariffs] [Link to media]

— DoD floats 2035 as goal for zero trust in weapons systems

 

at 4/2/25 11:45am

Chief of the Department of Defense Zero Trust Portfolio Management Office Randy Resnick. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jack Sanders) WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense is looking to meet a soft deadline of achieving zero-trust architecture for weapons systems by 2035, the director of the Zero Trust Office within the Pentagon’s Chief Information Office said today.  This means building zero-trust architectures into systems like aircraft, tanks and ships. It will be no easy feat, Randy Resnick said, but he hopes it can be achieved within the next decade.  “Were talking about stuff that potentially is inside the skin of this, of the weapon system. Thats not our expertise. That would require us to work with other elements in the Pentagon, as well as the vendors who are designing these systems, especially ones new that havent been designed yet,” Resnick said during ATARC’s DoD Zero Trust Symposium.  “We are far away. Im suggesting fiscal [year 20]35 and beyond. That might actually be a 10-year effort or more.”  Language in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act mandated that the Pentagon focus on zero trust for information technology (IT), operational technology (OT) and weapons systems, with weapons systems being the last element to achieve zero trust implementation, according to the DoDs Zero Trust Strategy. In 2022, the Pentagon began planning to achieve full target zero trust implementation for the department’s IT systems by the end of FY27 — something Resnick said was a lofty but achievable goal in just five years from the time the planning began.  “You could argue whether or not its too slow. But I could tell you, in the worlds biggest bureaucracy, where everybody has an opinion, five years is lightning speed for the type of thing that were describing needs to get done,” Resnick said. As Breaking Defense previously reported, Resnick announced in November that his office was “shifting” its focus to implementing zero trust for OT due to increased adversarial attacks on critical infrastructure. Unlike IT that primarily deals with software and data, OT generally refers to systems and devices that control physical processes, like thermostats, water tanks and machinery on a factory floor.  Resnick said today that official guidance on implementing zero trust for OT will be released by October of this year, but his office “could possibly even do that a little sooner” as it depends on what type of feedback is received once they start circulating the plans within the Pentagon in the coming weeks. Resnick previously said the zero trust guidance for OT would be released at the end of this summer.  Further, he said he hopes zero trust for operational technology will be fully implemented by 2030, which will help inform guidance on weapons systems. He emphasized that though Congress mandated implementing zero trust for weapons systems, it may not make sense for every system to be zero trust compliant.  “We need to start thinking and talking about how can we put elements of zero trust in it [weapons systems], and whether or not it even makes sense. Its very green in the thinking, Resnick said. The spirit of wanting to do some more things to control those systems is there. Were open minded. “But were putting it down just as a placeholder, because I want everybody to understand that even in the commercial world, maybe not just for weapon systems, that ZT [zero trust] doesnt end with IT.”

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, cyber security, DoD CIO, Information Technology, networks, operational technology, randy resnick, technology, zero trust, zero trust architecture] [Link to media]

— America’s arsenal is failing. We need an industrial mobilization board now.

 

at 4/2/25 9:39am

Stock photo of a production line manager. (Getty/Vithun Khamsong) If our country fails to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan — or worse — loses to China in a shooting war, the most likely culprit will be insufficient defense industrial capacity. American industry is operating in peacetime mode, while Chinas is on a wartime footing. This isnt the first time our country has faced an adversary with superior industrial might. On the eve of World War II, the United States transformed its peacetime economy into the Arsenal of Democracy. We did this not through central planning, but by coordinating government policy, priorities and funding with Americas entrepreneurial spirit. The result: An industrial mobilization of unprecedented speed and scale. And we can do this again, by stealing a play from the past and establishing a modern Industrial Mobilization Board (IMB). The IMB would report directly to the president, and have a straightforward mission: Cut red tape, catalyze private sector scale-up, and focus — but not direct — market forces toward our defense needs. In other words, it would help America outproduce China by unleashing capitalism and empowering ALL of Americas industry. This means looking beyond the prime defense contractors to include the innovative businesses that are the backbone of American industry: well-financed new entrants, scrappy startups with good ideas and gumption, and experienced small companies with proven capabilities. The IMB would create pathways for all these companies to contribute to national security, whether theyre already in the defense ecosystem or completely new to it. Done right, this would be more than just a national security initiative — its a strategy for renewing American manufacturing. Three key IMB Initiatives The IMBs first priority would be to remove structural barriers to production. The IMB would identify and eliminate regulatory friction points that slow industrial mobilization — everything from construction permitting delays, to unnecessary export controls, to contracting rules that keep capable firms on the sidelines. There are companies with eye-watering capabilities not entering the defense market because of acquisition regulations never designed for dual-use technologies or commercial entrants; we need to avoid handicapping our own technologists. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic bottlenecks dont end at contract award. I can personally attest that the paperwork required to test new hardware on DoD ranges can take longer to fill out than it does to design and deliver the technology itself. These delays arent the fault of the DoD personnel complying with outdated policies and regulations — but they are strategic vulnerabilities. Every month lost to paperwork is a month China uses to build its advantage. And these types of policies are precisely the low-hanging fruits the IMB could identify and eliminate to accelerate industrial production. Second, the IMB would identify critical manufacturing priorities based on an understanding of US production gaps and existing technologies, then take steps to accelerate policies that allow their introduction across the defense industrial base. For example, 3D printing — hardly new technology at this point — remains the exception rather than the norm in defense manufacturing because theres no AS 9100 equivalent for this capability. Programs can only use it by exception, preventing the defense ecosystem from leveraging a commonplace technology that could turbocharge production. The IMB could fix this with an executive-level push. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar policy shortcomings. By identifying and addressing these issues at the executive level, the IMB would help drive down costs, accelerate production capabilities, and encourage new companies to enter the defense ecosystem. Third, the IMB would coordinate a National Mobilization Strategy, aligning industrial requirements across agencies to help the president drive industrial mobilization throughout government. That includes coordination with the Department of Government Efficiency to ensure cost savings efforts work hand-in-glove with mobilization needs. The goal of the NMS is not to centralize control, but to synchronize planning, remove redundancies, and give industry and all of government a coherent view of what mobilization will require. The IMB would, of course, take on many more challenges, but these key first steps would accelerate industrial mobilization. An Opportunity for President Trump Defense industrial mobilization would create jobs, rebuild US manufacturing, and enable America to outproduce our Chinese adversary. It would also help President Donald Trump deliver on two key administration priorities — revitalizing industry and strengthening national security — both of which have long enjoyed bipartisan support. Ultimately, the IMB wont make mobilization happen — American businesses will. But establishing an IMB sets the stage for a rapid and successful industrial mobilization. With each passing day, Chinas industrial machine pulls further into the lead. And the stakes of this industrial race — credible military deterrence and failing that, a swift and decisive victory — couldnt be higher. If we hope to win it, we need to mobilize industry swiftly, and mobilize now. Sheila Cummings is CEO & Founder of Cummings Aerospace.

[Category: Global, Opinion, Asia, Business & Industry, China, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Op-Ed Commentary] [Link to media]

— Lebanon and Syria’s plan to formalize borders a ‘positive’ step, needs follow-through: Experts

 

at 4/2/25 8:04am

The Syrian Defense Ministry dispatch reinforcement convoys, consisting of dozens of military vehicles, to the border line following the killing of 3 of Syrian soldiers by Hezbollah on the border with Lebanon, in Homs, Syria on March 17, 2025. (Photo by Ebu Bekr Sakka/Anadolu via Getty Images) BEIRUT — After decades of undefined and at times contentious borders between the two countries, the Lebanese and Syrian governments have signed an agreement to demarcate where each nations territory ends. Its a step that former Lebanese military officers and outside experts said could signal the beginning of a new era of cooperation, but one that will depend greatly on political will. The agreement, signed late last week in Saudi Arabia, includes “forming legal and specialized committees between them [Lebanon and Syria] in a number of fields, and activating coordination mechanisms between the two sides to deal with security and military challenges, especially those that may arise on the border between them, according to the Saudi Press Agency. It was signed by Lebanese Minister of Defense Gen. Michel Mansa and his counterpart in Syria, Maj. Gen. Marhaf Abu Qasra. “During the meeting, issues of common interest between Syria and Lebanon were discussed, with a view to enhancing security and stability between them,” SPA said. A follow-up meeting will be expected in the Kingdom, according to the agency. The agreement comes during an especially delicate and historically consequential time for both nations: Syria is rebuilding amid continued violence following the stunning fall of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad, while Lebanons new president is attempting to navigate a tenuous ceasefire with Israel and aiding the reconstruction of parts of his country — including parts of Beirut — destroyed by Israeli forces. The fragility of the moment for both countries was on display earlier this month when violent border clashes reportedly resulted in the deaths of 10 people. As such, former senior Lebanese officers and experts told Breaking Defense that the new agreement, including plans for demarcation along the approximately 230-mile border, certainly signals a positive step in relations between the two nations, but will be dependent on the political and operational will to turn the talks into policy and action. “If the administrative agreement and security coordination are implemented on both sides of the border, it will mark a new era for both countries and a good basis for further development towards border demarcation,” retired Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) Gen. Wehbe Katicha told Breaking Defense. Analyst Aram Nerguizian agreed. “That the Lebanese and the Syrians are engaged in any discussion on border demarcation, let alone border security, can only be positive. The alternative is more instability and cross-border risk in a frontier where Lebanese and Syrian maps diverge in key ways,” Nerguizian, who specializes in the Middle East and North Africa for the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Breaking Defense. He said that currently the “Lebanese are more than able to defend what they and their international allies recognize to be Lebanese territory. But he said right now it is far from certain that military and paramilitary forces in Syria are part of a stable and predictable chain of command leading back to the new leadership in Damascus.” Retired LAF Gen. Khalil Helou cautioned that the public words must be met with on-the-ground progress, which will take time. “Border demarcation doesnt happen overnight. Its a very long process. There are several border issues that first require rework to determine and resolve the problematic border points,” he said. Helou added that it will take years “to implement the scientific requirements of [border demarcation], but the scientific [demarcation] method requires a permanent political will from both sides. This exists on the Lebanese side, but from the Syrian side remains to be seen.” In his opinion, retired Lebanese security forces Gen. Naji Mlaeb said that “the intention from the Syrians to acknowledge for the first time that the borders need to be demarcated is an achievement, and the details remain for the future.” He added that population overlap at some points on the border may pause a problem but “if there is a future Saudi guarantee for some solutions that may include demarcating the land borders, this will exempt us in the future from many problematic matters.” Nerguizian said that whether any of this will lead to a durable set of arrangements on a shared understanding of where the border is, and how communities that live across the frontier are to accommodate Lebanese and Syrian sovereignty, is difficult to say. There are early days to say the least, but that the Lebanese and Syrians are at least engaging is encouraging, and all the more so that Saudi Arabia is taking an active role in mediating between the two countries,” he said. Lebanese Armed Forces Stretched Capabilities A formal demarcation of the border could also clarify the mission of the LAF, as border security comes under its mission profile and it in the past has faced criticism from Hezbollah environment that its not up to the task. The LAF already has been stretched thin in the south of the country as it took up position after Israels invasion, but Nerguizian said that, for the most part, has not affected its deployments to the border with Syria. “One reason that the LAF has struggled to make progress in standing up its forces in the SLS [South Lebanon Sector] to meet the expectations of the cessation of hostilities is that the Lebanese military has made the choice not to diminish its posture along the border with Syria, in Tripoli and Akkar, or in the greater metropolitan Beirut area,” Nerguizian said. He assured that LAF can accomplish its mission on the borders with Syria, as “the LAFs [four] land border regiments — supported by a mix of intervention regiments, infantry brigades, and a SOF [Special Operation Forces] reserve of three full regiments — constitute a credible defensive posture and deterrent against HTS and other Syrian elements operating in the frontier region.” Helou agreed that the LAF already has the correct framework for a border security mission, especially since its not supposed to involve directly fighting the Syrian army, but he emphasized that the LAFs four border regiments are supposed to be reinforced with personnel and capabilities. There are [already] watchtowers along the borders that would replace a large number of troops, and LAF has reconnaissance drones,” Helou said. With the United Kingdoms help, Lebanese armed forces established several surveillance towers at the borders with Syria since 2017. Nerguizian said there will also continue to be a need to maintain and modernize LAF ISTAR [Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance] capabilities, jointness with LAF air power — both manned and otherwise — and to continue to bolster and modernize the LAFs emerging medium endurance UAS systems. All experts agree that continuous communication between the two armies is key for border control issues, especially as Syrian army is in the restructuring phase. “The best way to avoid cross-border clashes is constant military communication between the Lebanese and Syrian armies, political efforts with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and even a Lebanese military effort on the border to prevent the tribes and Hezbollah members from approaching the border,” Helou said.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, border demarcation, Drones, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, lebanon, Lebanon Syria border, Middle East, syria] [Link to media]

— An innovation imperative: Advancing the next generation of solid rocket motors

 

at 4/2/25 6:24am

Image: Courtesy of L3Harris Technologies. Defending U.S. and allied warfighters against an increasingly sophisticated array of drones and airborne threats demands more capable missiles. These next-generation missiles require advanced propulsion that offers longer range and higher speed within existing form factors, as well as a marked increase in production capacity and affordability. The Department of Defense has rightly noted the need for industry to develop advanced propellants and propulsion systems to enable these missiles to go faster and farther. The challenge is straightforward: Missiles must be more powerful while ensuring they remain easy to transport, deploy and fire, and be sufficiently affordable so they can be procured in the volumes necessary to assert overwhelming force. Scott Alexander, President, Missile Solutions, Aerojet Rocketdyne, L3Harris L3Harris, a leader in solid rocket motor (SRM) technology and production for more than 80 years, is answering this call. We are investing in next-generation propellant formulations that extend missile range, increase lethality and reduce cost without adding logistical complexity. This innovation is occurring not only in our propulsion systems but also in our factories that produce them. That’s why, along with our partners at the DOD, we are modernizing our SRM manufacturing infrastructure across the nation to increase capacity, yields and efficiency while upholding the highest safety and quality standards. L3Harris has been at the forefront of SRM advancements for decades. Our propulsion has been on every U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ever fielded. Many of our past breakthroughs, such as our Divert and Attitude Control Systems, have become the industry standard for the “Art of the Possible.” But we’re not interested in resting on past success, which is why we’ve woven innovation into our core operations. Our Rocket Shop advanced development group serves as a hub for cutting-edge propulsion research and rapid prototyping, pioneering advances in manufacturing techniques such as additive manufacturing to develop next-generation solid-, liquid-, and air-fueled propulsion systems for national security applications. For our Rocket Shop team, innovation is quite literally their day job. Within Rocket Shop, our new Rapid Prototype Group is accelerating SRM development with a focus on refining high-performance propellant technologies and propulsion systems for future defense needs. An example is the advancement of new propulsion materials and production methods that pack more propulsive punch in a given motor volume, allowing missiles to achieve greater standoff distances without increasing their size. This is a game changer that provides extended reach and enhances safety and missile lethality while maintaining existing launcher capacity. We are also pushing the limits of solid-fueled ramjet technology, a key enabler for supersonic missiles that must maneuver within the atmosphere at extreme speeds. Because they are air-breathing, they also provide greater range than traditional SRMs. These breakthrough technologies are only as valuable as the ability to achieve affordable mass designs and produce them at scale. Our existing propulsion manufacturing infrastructure stretches well over 4,000 acres of space, accommodating the production of more than 100,000 solid rocket motors and 6,000 hot fire tests a year. This manufacturing foundation provides us the all-important ability to scale affordable mass designs. Today, we’re building the factories of the future that will allow us to significantly increase output, doubling solid rocket motor production capacity in some cases. We’re applying internal and government investments to build new SRM production facilities at our site in Camden, Arkansas. For example, in February, we began major construction on four new SRM facilities, including a 60,000-square-foot facility that will consolidate and streamline production by integrating automation, robotics and digital processing to enhance efficiency, capacity and safety. Additionally, we are optimizing production across multiple sites, adding additional SRM energetic manufacturing at our Orange County, Virginia, site and more inert component production at our Huntsville, Alabama, sites. To our defense leaders calling for faster, more capable missile solutions: We hear you loud and clear, and we’ll continue to answer the call to provide propulsion systems that give our nation and our allies the competitive edge. For nearly a century, L3Harris has been at the forefront of SRM technology, and we remain committed to pushing the boundaries of performance, reliability and manufacturability. As adversaries develop increasingly advanced threats, the U.S. and its allies cannot afford to fall behind. The men and women at L3Harris are dedicated to ensuring America stays ahead. In today’s rapidly evolving security landscape, maintaining technological superiority and the ability to produce it at scale is not optional – it’s imperative.

[Category: Air Warfare, All Domain, Sponsored Post, Air Force, Army, Defense supply chain, Department of Defense, DOD, Drones, intercontinental ballistic missile, L3Harris, L3Harris Missile Solutions, L3Harris Technologies, Missile Solutions, networks, Presented by L3Harris, propulsion, rockets, solid rocket motors, solid-rocket propulsion, sponsored content, technology] [Link to media]

— India puts Metrea on contract for commercial air refueling, invests in helicopters

 

at 4/2/25 2:05am

Metrea refueled German Typhoons during the Pacific Skies exercise in 2024. (Metrea) WASHINGTON — New Delhi has put private American firm Metrea under contract to provide air refueling for Indian Air Force training operations, as part of a military aviation modernization effort that also includes spending billions on new helicopters. The agreement, which mirrors one Metrea has to support the US Navy, will see the firm’s aerial tankers and staff provide mid-air refueling during training flights out of Indian Air Force Station Agra, located in central India, with operations to begin within the next six months, according to the Indian Ministry of Defence and the company. It marks the first international long-term agreement signed by Metrea, which claims to operate the fifth-largest fleet of air refueling planes in the world, with 18 C-135FR and KC-135RG tankers. “Metrea is honored to be working with the Indian Air Force. Our contract will quickly expand their AAR [air-to-air refueling] training capability and will facilitate extensive training, exercise, and movement opportunities to improve IAF readiness,” James Morgan, the company’s head of strategic mobility, said in a statement on Monday. Last month, Breaking Defense profiled Metrea’s attempts to break into the international market, including an extended operation in 2024 with the German Luftwaffe. The Indian Ministry of Defence announcement Friday concerning Metrea also came hand in hand with news of a major investment in India’s rotorcraft capabilities, with the defense ministry announcing a $7.3 billion deal to purchase 156 Prachand light combat helicopters from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Of those, 90 will be sent to the Army and the remainder sent to the Air Force, with deliveries planned over the next five years. “Capable of operating from high altitude terrain and carrying out precision strike at high altitude targets, Helicopter ‘Prachand’ is a powerful machine,” Rajnath Singh, India’s defense minister, said in a post on X. “The Cabinet’s decision taken today will create more than 8500 jobs.” According to a government statement, the total value of contracts signed by the MoD since the start of 2024 exceeds $24.4 billion, over 80 percent of which will go to Indian firms.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, airborne tankers, Asia, Business & Industry, India, Indo-Pacific, kc-135, Metrea] [Link to media]

— Philippines cleared to buy F-16s at estimated $5.6B

 

at 4/1/25 1:44pm

An F-16C Fighting Falcon flies over Afghanistan after an in-air refueling mission in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, July 22, 2014. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Vernon Young Jr./Released) WASHINGTON — The US State Department has approved a potential Foreign Military Sale of 20 F-16 fighters to the Philippines, with an estimated price tag of $5.58 billion. The approved package, which covers 16 F-16C Block 70/72 jets and four F-16B Block 70/72 fighters, comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Manilla and pledged greater defense ties between the two countries. The announcement, issued in the form of congressional notifications from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), is not final. Quantities and dollar totals often shift during negotiations, and today’s announcement technically tees up an opportunity for lawmakers to block the deal within a 30-day period, though such a step is rare. The overall package includes 24 engines, 22 AESA radars, and a host of internal systems. It also comes with a collection of munitions: 112 AIM-120C-8 or equivalent missiles, 36 Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-39/B Small Diameter Bombs Increment 1 (SDB-1); 40 AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder missiles, 32 AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); 60 MK-82 500-lb general purpose bombs; and 60 MK-84 2,000-lb general purpose bombs, plus associated equipment. “This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner that continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in Southeast Asia,” a statement announcing the sale on the DSCA’s website reads. “The proposed sale will enhance the Philippine Air Force’s ability to conduct maritime domain awareness and close air support missions and enhance its suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and aerial interdiction capabilities” the statement continues. “This sale will also increase the ability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to protect vital interests and territory, as well as expand interoperability with the U.S. forces.” Lockheed Martin is the primary contractor for the sale. While no commercial offsets are currently proposed, the DSCA notice leaves open the possibility that those will be “defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Asia, f-16, FMS. foreign military sales, Indo-Pacific, philippines] [Link to media]

— Finland pledges defense spending increase to 3 percent GDP by 2029

 

at 4/1/25 12:45pm

Finnish soldiers take part in the Arrow 22 exercise at the Niinisalo garrison in Kankaanpää, western Finland (AFP via Getty Images) BELFAST — Citing Russian threats and Europe’s changing security environment, Finland announced today that it plans on increasing defense spending to a minimum of 3 percent GDP in the next four years and that government preparations are underway to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention, which is focused on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Finland’s Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy approved the 3 percent GDP target after it was proposed by Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen, the Finnish government said in a statement. Häkkänen added that the uplift in spending “will strengthen Finlands defence even further” and pledged to “launch the modernisation of the Army and the strengthening of other defence capabilities based on a threat-informed basis.” The new funding decision lets Finland “answer to the current security situation in Europe and the military threat posed by Russia,” according to Häkkänen. He shared that Finnish Defence Forces will receive additional funding amounting to €3.7 billion ($4 billion) out to 2029. Helsinki said that Russias development of its military capabilities and its political aspirations pose a long-term security threat to Europe and to Finland. By way of response, it must sustain its capability to counter broad-spectrum influencing, resist long-term military pressure and fight large-scale wars that drag on for years, using national resources and as part of NATO, added todays statement. What we are seeing now is a more naked, aggressive and authoritarian Russian leadership [compared to decades past] and as many Baltic and Eastern European countries have stated, while they currently are preoccupied in Ukraine, things could change quite quickly, Robin Häggblom, a Finnish defense expert told Breaking Defense. There is a worry [including in Finland] that Russia turning to a wartime economy means that they will have problems going back to some kind of of peaceful coexistence, even if somehow the Ukraine situation magically was resolved. The Finnish Government has today taken two key decisions, reflecting the changes in our security environment. First, Finland will raise its defence expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2029. This is a part of Finland’s contribution to Europe taking greater responsibility for our own… — Alexander Stubb (@alexstubb) April 1, 2025 In its statement, Helsinki talked of a decision to launch materiel projects for the Army in a frontloaded manner, and committed to increase resources as well as accelerate the process for selecting priorities for further boosting Finlands expertise. Häggblom labelled the new spending pledge a significant increase from current spending levels that see Helsinkis regular military budget hovering at around 2 percent GDP, in line with the NATO target. When acquisitions outside of the defense budget are added, however — including an order for 64 Lockheed Martin F-35A fifth-generation fighter jets and four Rauma Marine Constructions-made Pohjanmaa-class multi-purpose corvettes — the Scandinavian nation spends around 2.4 percent GDP, according to Häggblom. Considering local public finances are in poor shape, he said the spending pledge sends a strong signal that both the government and opposition are in agreement that things need to be done and done differently. Häggblom commented that the decision to make Army modernization a priority is also significant because aging East German, Polish and Russian equipment acquired during the 1990s — such as heavy artillery systems, rocket launchers, armored personnel carriers and the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle — are rapidly approaching obsolescence. All these [weapon systems] will need to be replaced rather soon, said Häggblom, adding that new investment in primary units of the army will also be needed, related to more modern helmets and weapon sights. Additionally, he expects a decision on an upgrade or replacement of German made Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks to go ahead very soon. Plans to bolster air defense capabilities are already in motion, courtesy of the 2023 decision to acquire Davids Sling, produced by Israels Rafael. In parallel, Finland has donated quite a lot of ex-Soviet artillery to Ukraine [and] that has also increased the urgency of getting these replacements on the books, noted Häggblom. According to figures from the Finnish MoD, it has submitted over €2.5 billion worth of military aid packages to Ukraine. In February, Helsinki also announced plans for a new €660 million fiscal package that would enable Kyiv to order equipment directly from Finnish suppliers. Häggblom noted that Finnish government officials stressed today at a press conference that new orders need to be placed quickly because equipment deliveries could take several years to arrive, but, added authorizing the army to start making these procurements now means that the actual invoices will be sent approximately in four years. In a separate statement released today, Helsinki said it is initiating preparations to withdraw from the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the so-called Ottawa Convention). The change in policy, according to the statement, is due to the weapons being able to complement the capabilities of the Defence Forces.   Finlands approach mirrors that of the Baltic states and Poland, which all publicly voiced support for leaving the treaty last month.

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Army, Finland, Russia, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— NORTHCOM commander: ‘Strong concern’ spectrum auctioning could jeopardize Golden Dome 

 

at 4/1/25 12:08pm

Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, testifies before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington, D.C. March 21, 2024. (DoD photo by EJ Hersom) WASHINGTON — Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of US Northern Command, warned members of Congress today that auctioning off parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to industry could negatively impact President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome initiative. When asked by Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, if there are worries that auctioning the 3.1-3.45 GHz band could jeopardize Golden Dome, Guillot told the committee he has a “strong concern.” “Almost all the systems that we use for homeland defense rely on that part of the spectrum thats being considered to be either sold or shared,” Guillot added.  During Rogers opening remarks, he initially raised concerns over the dangers losing access to the spectrum would have on Golden Dome.  “There is an effort afoot to auction off parts of the spectrum of DoD and DoD needs to track incoming missiles. This spectrum supports most of our military radar systems, including our early warning and homeland missile defense. Losing it would put President Trumps Golden Dome initiative at serious risk and undermine our security,” Rogers said.  For years the Defense Department and commercial providers have tussled over the usage of this band of the spectrum — widely considered to be the “Goldilocks” zone. The DoD long has contended that the 3.1-3.45 GHz band is essential for its various satellite communications, radars and navigation systems. However, US and foreign commercial companies covet those frequencies for providing high-speed wireless service to civilian and military users alike. RELATED: Not on the same wavelength: Trump inherits spectrum fight between DoD, commercial industry Rogers bringing up Golden Dome — a US-built, multilayered missile defense system that the Trump administration has made a key feature of its defense plans — by name may be an attempt to seed the ground for an expected tug of war within the Trump administration over spectrum sharing.  Notably, a similar line of questioning tying Golden Dome to the spectrum issue unfolded across the hill, as a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing for Trumps nominee to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lt. Gen. John Caine. Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota asked Caine whether he was aware that Trumps Golden Dome would require a number of radar systems that fall between the 3.1-3.45 GHz band.  Caine responded that he was “familiar with the basics of that frequency spectrum,” and while he didn’t know “what particular radars Golden Dome has brought into their mix of equipment,” it wouldn’t “surprise” him.  Additionally, when Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, asked Caine if he agrees that the DoD should have a “meaningful” co-leadership with any inter-agency efforts to determine the future use of federal spectrum, Caine replied that “we certainly want to have a voice in the conversation.” He added that while he is not in the position of Chairman yet, if he is confirmed he will have “that conversation with the Secretary about co-leadership.”  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are the two organizations responsible for setting US spectrum policy, and governing which users get access when to what bandwidths for what functions. The FCC regulates commercial spectrum usage while the NTIA is responsible for advocating for spectrum usage for military departments. When asked by Fischer what national security risks would arise if the department was “forced to vacate” the 3.1-3.45 GHz band, Caine replied that he would need to answer that in a closed session as he wouldn’t want to “tip that off to our adversaries who might be listening.”  However he said, “if we lose portions of that spectrum, will lose some exclusivity related to our combat capability.” In written testimony, Caine was able to share with lawmakers some examples on why the S-band of the spectrum (2-4 GHz) is vital for electronic warfare operations. The DODs use of the S-band for spectrum operations is essential for maintaining operational advantage, and its loss or disruption could have significant impacts on military effectiveness affecting the defense of the Homeland from strategic and missile attack, he wrote. He specifically said that the loss of the S-band could hinder the performance of the Navys Aegis Combat System, which relies on S-band radar to detect and engage airborne targets. He also said that the loss of S-band could disrupt the operation of the Armys Patriot air defense system, which uses S-band radar to detect and track incoming missiles. Furthermore, the loss of S band spectrum could also impact the DoDs ability to conduct electronic warfare operations, as many EW systems, such as the Navys SLQ-32 and the Air Forces ALQ-211, rely on S-band spectrum to detect and disrupt enemy radar and communication systems, he added.

[Category: Congress, Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, 5G, Aegis Combat System, cyber security, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Gen. Gregory Guillot, House Armed Services Commitee, John Caine, Mike Rogers, networks, northern command, NTIA, patriot missile, Sen. Deb Fischer, Sen. Mike Rounds, Senate Armed Services Committee, spectrum sharing, technology] [Link to media]

— If annual appropriations are dead, it’s an opportunity for defense

 

at 4/1/25 11:25am

On March 11, 2024 the Pentagon and military services presented their fiscal year 2025 budget requests. (Graphic by Breaking Defense, original images courtesy DVIDS, Getty) America has three co-equal branches of government. Or does it? Congress has been unable to complete its fundamental responsibility — passage of annual appropriations legislation for the operations of the federal government — on time for decades now. This year, for the first time ever, the Department of Defense is covered under a full year continuing resolution (CR) and prospects for a return to regular order — meaning passage and enactment of individual agency appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year — are highly questionable. The implications of this new state of affairs offer interesting opportunities. Setting aside the immediate and accumulating national security, economic competitiveness and international reputation impacts of the reoccurring CR debacle — are we moving into a new era? One in which we no longer have annual appropriations at all, but instead just continuations of what has come before? And if so, what could, or should, this mean for congressional committee functions and federal budgets, particularly for defense? The year-long CR contains important exceptions for defense that could signal changes for the future. It allows new starts. It provides more general transfer authority so the department can make adjustments between appropriations to better reflect updated priorities. Additionally, it increases the straight annualized budget from the previous year, albeit only by a small amount. These exceptions demonstrate that CRs can deviate from traditional CR restrictions. By recognizing the need for these flexibilities, Congress has admitted that defense budget structure changes are long overdue and that it no longer has the capability to manage its constitutionally-granted power of the purse. Congress could save some face and shift to primarily an oversight role by accepting several changes to this new way of doing business for the nation. The DoD has been handcuffed for decades in ways that other agencies are not and cannot effectively operate under a traditional CR. Other federal agencies do not need any flexibilities because they already have them, as was documented in a congressionally mandated report by RAND to support the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform. RAND’s research expertly details the impacts of restrictions on DoD that other agencies don’t have, such as arrangement of appropriations by mission or theme, funding that does not expire, advance appropriations that provide more budget stability, non-recurring expenses funds and the ability to carry funds over fiscal years. These flexibilities should be provided to DoD so it can be a smarter, faster, and a more agile customer on behalf of the warfighter and the nation’s security. Any future appropriation measures should include all the changes necessary to give DoD at least the same level of maneuver room others already have. This would include multiyear and carryover funding and removal of restrictions on types of funds that other agencies do not have. Additionally, the DoD budget should be organized by mission, theme, and specific programs, with program elements and budget lines consolidated to simplify both oversight and execution. Similar to NASA, this change would replace legacy statutory appropriations titles with portfolio or outcome-focused funding bundles. Current budget divisions were created to track a program as it progresses through research, development, testing, procurement and sustainment. Many programs no longer march through this process linearly, and even when they do, the intended transparency for program costing and oversight is missing since these accounts are fenced by type of money rather than by fully burdened cost estimates for an outcome or capability. This change would also allow for agility in responding to changing warfighter needs and encourage broader participation by industry in developing, producing and fielding solutions. Republican appropriations leadership have signaled their own fall from relevance by sending over 181 pages of funding tables to DoD to indicate their congressional intent for the fiscal 2025 CR. These tables are the annual source of power for congressional appropriators. While the legal binding power of these tables has been an open question, this year there is not even an attempt to portray these tables as part of the law. Consistent with the budget structures changes above, Congress should do away with the dual authorization and appropriations detailed funding tables and combine any relevant oversight and program direction into one annual defense legislative measure that would actually pass on time each year. Through congressional failure to pass a budget, the administration has been given an opportunity for DoD to be able to more flexibly manage its budget, and limit congressionally mandated micromanagement in favor of strategic oversight and routine transparency. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration and Congress will conclude that the best way forward is to keep funding the government through a new brand of appropriations that provides necessary budget increases for defense while limiting restrictions to those specified in law. But time is already short between now and the end of the next fiscal year, so the time is now to turn failure into success in funding the nation’s security. Elaine McCusker is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). She previously served as the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary of defense (comptroller). Bill Greenwalt is a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) think tank, a former senior staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy. 

[Category: Congress, Opinion, Pentagon, continuing resolution, Defense Budget 2026, Op-Ed Commentary] [Link to media]

— Who’s Who in Defense: Stephen Feinberg, Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSD)

 

at 4/1/25 10:31am

Deputy Secretary of Defense Hon. Stephen Feinberg   Responsibilities On March 17, 2025, Feinberg became the nation’s 36th Deputy Defense Secretary, succeeding former DSD Kathleen Hicks. Feinberg is responsible for the management and budget of Pentagon operations and for implementing the vision of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Reportedly a private individual, Feinberg is stepping into a high intensity spotlight. In Hegseth’s congratulatory statement he wrote that the “appointment is well-deserved, and he’s the right man for the job, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Let’s get to work.”   Priorities Pass the DoD audit. Called the “essential building blocks of meeting the priorities outlined in the National Defense Strategy” by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon has consistently failed to pass its audit since the requirement first became legal in 2018. While DoD leadership has openly prioritized its commitment to consolidating financial systems and “enforcing the integrity of data at the enterprise level,” the task of providing an accurate accounting of one of the world’s largest organizations under which the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force budgetarily reside, still remains a challenge, often igniting political firestorms. In his new role, Feinberg, a self-made billionaire, proposes to use his experience in private enterprise as his calling card to lead DoD toward an enterprise-level operation. “Initially, it’s difficult, but the top people will step up,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a show of his commitment, Feinberg said he is prepared to assemble a “war room” to comb through programs and their related costs “line by line, with an army of people, until its done. The audit categories to be addressed: Workforce Modernization, Improved Business Operations, Reliable Networks, Quality Decision-Making, Enhanced Public Confidence.   Quote Our supply chain is definitely weak. Our workforce needs to be improved, said Feinberg during his confirmation hearing. A big piece of improving our supply chain is working more closely with our private sector. We need people inside of government who understand their issues, understand what drives their boards, what drives the pressure they get from shareholders.   Political Career Chaired President Trumps Intelligence Advisory Board during his first administration (2018 to 2021), giving counsel on national security related intelligence. Served on the Trump Economic Advisory Council during his presidential campaign in 2016.   Business Career Trader for Drexel Burnham (1982), and later, for Gruntal & Co. Co-founded Cerberus Capital Management at age 32. Since its inception in 1992, the Manhattan-based investment firm, named after the three-headed, Greek mythological dog who guards the gates of Hades, credits itself as “a global leader in alternative investing with approximately $65 billion in assets across complementary credit, real estate, and private equity strategies.” Under Feinberg’s leadership, the firm has grown significantly, although some investments have drawn criticism along the way, such as the bid to amass a portfolio of gun-related companies. In 2006, Cerberus bought Bushmaster Firearms (known for its AR-15-style rifles), then went on to purchase the venerable Remington Arms in 2007, and Marlin Firearms in 2008. The investments were inopportune as they came against the public backlash over the mass school shootings at the time. Remington went into bankruptcy in 2018 when it was still part of Cerberus’ holding company. Cerberus has multiple investments with defense contractors. From 2010 to 2020, it owned DynCorp, a major private security contractor. Amid concerns over any political conflicts of interest, Feinberg divested himself from Cerberus before joining the DoD.   Education Graduated with a B.A. from Princeton University (1982). Captain of the tennis team. While in school, he joined the Reserve Officers Training Corps.   Personal Stephen Andrew Feinberg was born March 29, 1960, and raised in The Bronx, NY, until age 8, when his father, a steel salesman, moved the family out to the suburb of Spring Valley. He lives with his wife, Gisela (née Sanchez) and three daughters in Greenwich, CT, and Manhattan. His interests range from game hunting to motorcycle riding.

[Category: Pentagon, Department of Defense, Deputy Defense Secretary, DOD, Intelligence Advisory Board, National Defense Strategy, Stephen Feinberg, Who’s Who 2025] [Link to media]

As of 4/3/25 3:17pm. Last new 4/3/25 12:57pm.