Crooked Bough News Round-up

— From requirement-driven to market-ready: Rethinking how defense technology reaches the warfighter

 

at 10/13/26 6:24am

For decades, the defense industry has been built around a familiar model: The government defines a mission need, establishes a detailed set of requirements and industry develops a solution specifically to meet them. That model has produced some of the most sophisticated defense technology in the world. However, todays fluid operating environment is challenging industry and government to think differently about when that approach is necessary, and when it is not.  Threats are evolving faster and technology cycles are contracting. Demand is increasing across critical capability areas. At the same time, the Department of War is placing greater emphasis on speed, production capacity and solutions that can move into the hands of warfighters faster. Recent acquisition reforms have emphasized industry-driven solutions and commercial products, along with more flexible approaches to getting capability into the field.  For industry, that creates an opportunity to rethink not only what we develop, but how we do so. Moving Beyond a One-Program, One-Solution Mindset A more commercial approach starts from a different place. Rather than designing a new solution every time a requirement emerges, industry can invest ahead of demand in core products and technologies that address capability gaps shared across multiple customers, platforms and missions, using common architectures and modular designs that can adapt as threats evolve. At L3Harris, we see opportunities for this approach across technologies ranging from advanced sensing and navigation to antennas and thermal management solutions. Our modernized GPS portfolio, for example, includes configurable solutions designed for applications spanning weapons systems, ground vehicles, unmanned aircraft and handheld navigation platforms. The same product-based approach extends to our sensing and cooling technologies, where common designs and proven technology can provide a foundation for use across different platforms and mission needs rather than requiring an entirely new development effort for every application.  The point isnt simply to make defense products look more like commercial products. It is to bring some of the advantages of a commercial product mindset into a market with very different mission, security and reliability demands. Commercialization Does Not Mean Lowering the Bar There is an important distinction between commercializing how a capability is developed and delivered and simply adopting an off-the-shelf business model that treats defense technology like a consumer product. Defense systems still have to operate in demanding environments. Security, reliability, qualification and mission performance remain critical. Unique needs will still require engineering changes or customization. It’s not a binary choice between customization or commercialization, but rather a determination of where each makes sense. A mature core product can provide a starting point, allowing engineering teams to focus on mission-specific changes rather than recreating capabilities that already exist.  That approach can also create benefits beyond speed. Broader product applicability can support more predictable production, greater reuse of engineering investment and opportunities to strengthen supply chains through demand across multiple applications. Industry Has to Invest Differently A commercial approach also changes the role of industry. Under a traditional model, investment frequently follows a defined government requirement and program opportunity. A commercial model requires companies to identify emerging needs and make earlier decisions to invest internal resources and develop technology before a specific acquisition program fully materializes. That introduces risk: Invest too narrowly and a product may have limited applicability; move too far ahead of customers and industry risks developing technology without sufficient demand. Success requires understanding the customer well enough to identify capability gaps and develop solutions that can meet warfighter needs across applications. When the need is clear, earlier investment can give government customers something increasingly valuable: options and edge. Instead of asking how quickly industry can begin developing a defined solution, the conversation can become how we can work more closely with industry to acquire their solutions that solve capability gaps and provide warfighters the best in emerging technology.  That is a fundamentally different starting point. A Model Built for Continuous Change The government is already moving in this direction. Army modernization efforts are emphasizing faster prototyping, soldier feedback and scaling technologies that prove their value.  Industry needs to evolve toward this new acquisition model. That does not mean abandoning the traditional development process. Some of the nations hardest technical problems will continue to demand highly specialized solutions built around exacting requirements. The opportunity is to build more technologies with reuse, adaptability and production in mind from the beginning, creating products that can serve as common building blocks while preserving the ability to tailor them for the mission. For L3Harris, commercialization is ultimately less about borrowing a model from another industry and instead, changing the starting point for defense innovation: invest earlier, design for broader applicability and give customers mature options they can evaluate and field faster. As threats continue to evolve, speed will increasingly depend on what is already available when the need emerges. Companies that can anticipate that need, and have capable, adaptable technology ready when it arrives, will be better positioned to help the warfighter stay ahead. For L3Harris, that capability is being built now. About the Author Ryan Scirocco is the Director of Business Development, Advanced Effects, Missile Solutions at L3Harris, where she supports a portfolio spanning sensing, precision weapons and seekers, advanced electronic warfare systems, resilient navigation and weapons release systems. Ryan brings deep expertise in identifying emerging capability gaps and building strategies that connect innovative technology to warfighter needs.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Sponsored Post, cyber security, defense acquisition, L3Harris, L3Harris Commercialization, networks, Presented by L3Harris, Sponsored Content, technology]

— Army to take a (cautious) step toward employing AI agents to defend networks: Official

 

at 10/13/26 5:00am

WASHINGTON — The Army is poised to take its next step toward potentially unleashing defensive AI agents on its networks, as plans to award contracts to two companies by the end of the week, a key official said. “The one that we plan to award on Friday is our take action element. So essentially, how are we not only autonomously detecting a potential adversary? How are we now doing something — having an autonomous response within prescribed parameters of a human operator, or even in conjunction with that? Brandon Pugh, the services principal cyber advisor, said at the annual AUSA conference on Monday. That is extraordinary. Something we havent done and were very excited about. Pugh declined to provide the names of the awardees ahead of the Friday announcement. The network AI effort, dubbed Project Griffin, stemmed from a tabletop exercise with top industry executives and service leaders. The Army published a commercial solutions opening in August, spurring 108 submissions that were narrowed to 10 finalists. Pugh explained that the Army has tools, such as its Panoptic Junction capability, that he said have a nearly 90 percent success rate at identifying malicious activity on the network. But they don’t currently have a way at remediating or remedying those threats, especially with limited humans. Despite the award on Friday, officials said agents won’t begin work on government networks immediately. “For us, its going to be: Are we as humans ready to let the agent actually take action? You think about that for how many years a human has been the person making the patch, remediating something, so were walking ourselves through what does it mean to have an agent to do that work and then how do you check that agent’s work. So a lot still to do in this space,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Eubank, commander of Army Cyber Command, told reporters at the conference. He added that the service is working with companies to understand where what they can do in this space and determine what does it actually mean to take action, noting they’re working “hand in hand with the companies to build out what it looks like” and then put it through a deliberate process on the Armys portion of the network. The two companies awarded could work in tandem on the effort or do their own thing. Pugh said that using a commercial solutions opening to gather ideas was actually suggested by members of industry, as a way to keep responses broad as opposed to prescribing what companies should provide to the Army. Industry oftentimes has capabilities or ideas that aren’t even on the government’s radar, he said. Given the big aperture, the Army wants to figure out what the companies are capable of providing as they put it through its paces.

[Category: Land Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, AI, Army, AUSA 2026, cyber security, networks, technology]

— Telle talks ‘manufacturing rodeo,’ supply chain ‘weak links’: AUSA Day 1

 

at 10/12/26 6:30pm

Its that time of year again, where thousands of soldiers, industry figures, foreign officials and general tank- and helicopter-lovers flood to the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC, for the annual AUSA conference. Land Warfare Reporter Carley Welch and Editor-in-Chief Aaron Mehta run down some of the biggest stories from the day, including what Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle said in his largest address to soldiers and industry since taking on the role. Then the two discuss a swarm of balloons sent by the Army to the Middle East. Plus, they make their predictions for whats still to come at the show. Be sure to check back each day for more wrap-up videos from the show. And you can find the rest of our coverage here.

[Category: Land Warfare, Adam Telle, Army, AUSA Multimedia 2026, balloon, Video]

— At Warsaw Security Forum, Poland’s Tusk raises alarm over ‘real threat’ from Russia

 

at 10/12/26 2:39pm

WARSAW — The prime minister of Poland today used his keynote address at a security conference here to attempt to rally Europe to do more to combat what he said was the “real threat” from Russia. “No one wants escalation or war. We all dream of peace,” Donald Tusk said to an audience of European political, military and defense industry figures. “The path to peace does not lie through weakness. The path to peace lies in stopping the aggressor with all available means and forces.” Tusk said Russia would “not stop” with Ukraine and, given the chance, would seek to “reshape Poland’s security architecture” in a bid to “dismantle the security architecture in Europe so that Russian dominance returns to the state it was before 1989. We have no doubt about this.” Tusk said a new NATO “theory of victory,” revealed in a separate speech today by Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. Alexus Grynkewich left him “filled with optimism.” In Grynkewich, he said, he “had a partner who also harbors no illusions, no miconceptions, regarding Russia’s intentions toward Ukraine, as well as toward Europe and the entire world.” The prime minister said he was traveling to Brussels to call on Europe to increase pressure on Europe and toughen sanctions targeting Moscow. Ukraine will not be broken or intimidated. Poland will not be broken or intimidated. Europe, NATO, and the entire free world will not be broken or intimidated. That message must go out today from every capital—from Warsaw to Washington,” concluded Tusk. Immediately following Tusk’s address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued his own virtual address to the audience, saying that Moscow had launched attacks on Ukrainian cities despite US President Donald Trump’s claim that both sides had agreed not to strike energy targets. “If Russia wants us to stop our long-range strikes against its oil refineries and oil exports, then Russia must stop its strikes against our energy system and critical infrastructure and stop killing our people,” he said. Zelenskyy also claimed that recent Ukrainian strikes on Russian data centers had diminished the amount of disinformation online — suggesting the centers had been used by Russian online provocateurs. A day after Trump announced a controversial oil deal with Russia, Zelenskyy implored the US to not give “concessions” but instead put “real pressure” on Moscow. To Poland, Zelenskyy said Warsaw and Kyiv were “natural allies.” “And when we stand together, Russia has no chance,” he said. “We need to end Russia’s war. We need to guarantee security. We need to stand together, Europe and the United States.”

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Army, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Warsaw Security Forum 2026]

— From drones to ground vehicles: Check out day 1 of AUSA

 

at 10/12/26 1:58pm

WASHINGTON — International defense firms carted out a variety of air and ground vehicles to the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in downtown Washington for this years Association of the United States Army conference. The largest annual trade show in the US draws thousands of attendees every year, and this year were expecting lots of drones and counter-drone tech on display, along with some other heavier-equipment items. You can see that and more in a collection of images from day one of the expo below. And be sure to check out our comprehensive coverage of the trade show right here. Patriot, who is expected to go to a wounded veteran when the dogs training finishes, is happy to greet attendees outside the Shield AI booth on the show floor. (Breaking Defense) A close-up look at a munition from Sierra Nevadas Brawlr (Battery Revolving Advanced Weapons Launcher Reconfigurable) air-defense system, as seen at the 2026 AUSA conference. (Breaking Defense) Sierra Nevadas Brawlr air defense system at the 2026 AUSA conference. (Breaking Defense) Oshkoshs electric Joint Light Tactical Vehicle on the AUSA show floor Oct. 12, 2026. (Breaking Defense) Hanwha Defense USA showed off its 155 mm artillery shells at the 2026 AUSA expo. (Breaking Defense) AEO Night Hawk Systems displayed their surveillance assembly, with sensors honing in on bystanders on the AUSA conference floor. (Breaking Defense) AeroVironment’s VAPOR is an all-electric, single-rotor vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) helicopter unmanned aircraft system. Here it is suspended above attendees at the 2026 AUSA conference. (Breaking Defense) Goodyear representatives brought a sturdy, but very unusual, moon tire for lunar exploration to the 2026 AUSA expo. (Breaking Defense) Colt Optics had one of the busier displays, with dozens of attendees observing a wall of assault rifles with specialized optics at the 2026 AUSA expo. (Breaking Defense)

[Category: Land Warfare, AEO Night Hawk Systems, Aerovironment, Army, AUSA Multimedia 2026, Brawlr, Colt Optics, Hanwha Defense USA, moon tire, Oshkosh, photo gallery, VAPOR]

— Army sent balloon swarms to Middle East to support CENTCOM operations

 

at 10/12/26 1:30pm

WASHINGTON — After scrubbing a large-scale, high-altitude balloon demonstration in the Indo-Pacific last year to send the assets over to the Middle East, the US Army has gleaned a series of observations for future use, according to a senior service official.  “We were asked to pivot and do some experimentation in combination with operations, and we pivoted and supported operations in CENTCOM [US Central Command],” Andrew Evans, the director for the Strategy & Transformation Office inside the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence shop (G-2), told Breaking Defense today.  “They were effective for the mission that they were assigned,” he added, though he was not able to disclose the exact location and operational scenarios in which they were used. The Army has tested out high-altitude balloons multiple times in the last few decades, and the service has revived the push to deploy them in recent years for added battlefield sensing and communications. Testing has typically included one or two balloons at a time, but the Army was looking to experiment with over a hundred high-altitude balloons in the skies over waters in the Indo-Pacific in 2026. While that didn’t come to fruition, smaller balloon swarms were used in CENTCOM. “From a scale perspective, we went from one to two to dozens simultaneously,” Evans said on the sidelines of the Annual Association of the US Army conference. The smaller swarms were enough to highlight a trio of challenges associated with operating those autonomous balloons inside a theater with active military operations. First, there were logistical challenges tied to transporting the balloons into the Middle East and then storing them.  “Balloons can be a little finicky in terms of temperature, and you have to contend with environmental characteristics,” Evans said. Then, there were questions about how to support and operate the balloons — something the Army and joint force will need to do “a little bit of additional thinking” about regarding what force structure will need to look like, Evans said. “We had a lot of help from vendors in this space, but as you think about employing your systems and going from something like a Pacific [theater] to something like a CENTCOM [theater], you learn where those friction points might exist between what the military might need to inherently own, and … what a vendor could help provide in terms of the service,” Evens said.  Given the ongoing regional options, industry had to put the military in “drivers seat” to ensure everything was in accordance with the proper authorities the US military had.  “And theres just not a lot of folks that are trained on how to operate it, so weve learned some things along the way and were going to take those back,” Evans said. Another challenge, albeit one expected, was related to airspace control. While Evans did not expand on this point, airspace control has been a point of contention as the military seeks to add aerial drones into airspace that also includes manned military aircraft and commercials planes. “There were some challenges. That was not a new finding, [but] a consistent observation,” Evans said. As for what’s next for balloon experiments and buys, Evans said Army leaders are pretty certain that they need stratospheric sensing capabilities, but it is “unclear” how they will be delivered.  “Would it be a balloon? Would it be a solar glider? Would it be some sort of pseudo satellite?” he said. “Its unclear. No decision has been made.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Middle East, Pentagon, Air Force, andrew evans, Army, AUSA 2026, balloons, CENTCOM, Indo-Pacific, intel, Iran, spy balloon]

— Mojave STOL and Gray Eagle® 25M: Complementary capabilities for the modern battlefield

 

at 10/12/26 12:34pm

A new, more challenging operational environment means the U.S. Army must field platforms that generate strategic advantages while conducting missions from the tactical edge. Today’s battlefield is contested across all domains. The proliferation of low-cost, effective systems, as well as high-tech munitions, long-range missiles, and advanced air defenses, means platforms must operate effectively in denied conditions without imposing unsustainable costs or maintenance demands. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) offers two aircraft tailored to the Army’s need to operate in this threat environment, with the flexibility to adapt as those needs evolve: the Mojave Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft and the Gray Eagle® 25M. Although the aircraft share elements of the Gray Eagle family, they are optimized for different operational challenges.  Mojave STOL is designed to deliver expeditionary access from austere locations, while Gray Eagle 25M offers the endurance and range necessary for the Pacific theater, along with the payload capacity to support the Army’s multi-domain operations concept. Bringing Aviation Closer to the Mission Mojave STOL is designed for missions where runways are undesirable, unavailable, damaged, or vulnerable. Its STOL capability enables operations from unimproved surfaces, including roads and dirt tracks, as well as from amphibious vessels. Runway independence expands commanders’ options in remote or contested areas. The aircraft can operate closer to distributed forces, take on fuel and munitions at austere locations, and return to the fight without relying on airfield infrastructure. This approach reflects an enduring operational lesson: in demanding environments, rugged, reliable, and plentiful platforms can provide an advantage over systems that are more complex, expensive, or difficult to maintain.  Mojave STOL provides options for overwhelming mass at the right time and place while retaining key sensor and payload capabilities and supporting long-range, persistent mission profiles. While modern electric and vertical-lift concepts offer tactical flexibility, their high unit costs, mechanical complexity, undetermined supply chain security, and maintenance burdens present challenges for sustained expeditionary operations driving cost, manpower, and risk. Mojave STOL is built around a straightforward, time-tested aircraft, a proven design, and an established production and sustainment philosophy, enabling the flexibility to move with expeditionary forces while avoiding complex infrastructure demands. Its ability to operate from smaller naval vessels also creates potential applications for maritime, contested logistics, and special operations missions. Modernizing Gray Eagle for Contested Operations Gray Eagle 25M is an extensively modernized version of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle, designed to support long-endurance missions in complex threat environments. Its roles include persistent, real-time threat detection/identification and support for long-range targeting operations. A central feature of the aircraft is its Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) architecture.  MOSA uses defined interfaces and modular components to help integrate new technologies more quickly and affordably. This open architecture approach is intended to help the Army respond to changing threats while reducing the time and cost associated with future upgrades. Another significant improvement comes in the form of the expeditionary laptop-based ground control station and ground support equipment. This portable system eliminates the need for large, containerized GCS satellite systems, transport vehicles, and ground support equipment, reducing equipment weight by 130,000 pounds per platoon.  Combined with the new, more powerful turbo-diesel Heavy Fuel Engine (HFE) 2.0, these improvements reduce field service representative and soldier workload while increasing maintenance-free operational periods, with a sustainment cost savings of roughly $200 million annually. Gray Eagle 25M delivers critical RSTA capabilities for a decisive battlefield advantage. The EagleEye® multi-mode radar, for example, is designed to provide substantially greater range than legacy systems, with an increase of up to five times.  Together, these capabilities support Gray Eagle 25M’s mission to maintain persistent awareness and contribute to decision-making in high-threat environments. Complementary Aircraft for the Army The two aircraft offer the Army a complementary range of capabilities. Mojave STOL is optimized for expeditionary access, operational flexibility, and runway-independent operations in regions such as the Indo-Pacific, where forces cannot count on reliable access to paved runways. Gray Eagle 25M is optimized for endurance, sensing, processing, and survivability in contested environments. Its advanced sensor suite, combined with tactics refined through millions of hours of combat operations by Gray Eagle and other GA-ASI aircraft, enables the platform to operate over long distances and remain effective in high-threat conditions. Both aircraft are designed to evolve as threats and mission requirements change.  Gray Eagle 25M and Mojave’s open architecture support the integration of new capabilities, helping maintain relevance across different areas of operation. What’s more, they cover the full breadth of conflict, from peacetime to large-scale combat operations, with adaptable, responsive, critical capability.  Mojave STOL can likewise accommodate expanded payload options, including electronic warfare systems and air-launched effects. Investing in Scalable Capability Mojave STOL conducts short-field operations from a rough maneuver trail during a demonstration with Hanwha Aerospace in South Korea on September 16, 2026. GA-ASI has made manufacturing and engineering investments intended to support continued modernization and larger-scale production.  Collaboration with Hanwha Aerospace is expanding production facilities and research and development activities, helping create the infrastructure needed to support scalable output. The partnership is aimed at advancing Mojave STOL’s capabilities while supporting more affordable production. That means the Army will not necessarily have to choose between capability and mass. In addition, GA-ASI’s existing millions of square feet of manufacturing infrastructure, skilled in-house workforce, and available capacity position the company to begin building and delivering aircraft today.  By choosing Gray Eagle 25M and Mojave STOL, the Army would be investing in mature, adaptable capabilities designed for rapid delivery and scalable employment.  Visitors to GA-ASI’s Booth 6619 at the Association of the United States Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition can discuss with experts how these systems are prepared to support Army operations in today’s high-threat environments and adapt to the challenges ahead.

[Category: Land Warfare, Sponsored Post, Air Force, Army, AUSA 2026, EagleEye, General Atomics AUSA, Gray Eagle 25M, Modular Open System Approach / MOSA, Mojave, MOSA, MQ-1C Gray Eagle, Presented by General Atomics GA-ASI, Sponsored Content, STOL]

— Amid unease in Europe, NATO SACEUR bullish on ‘block, blunt, break’ theory of victory

 

at 10/12/26 12:20pm

BELFAST — Despite assuring an audience today that a conflict on NATO territory is neither “imminent or inevitable,” Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the alliance’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, outlined a strategic “theory of victory” and offered a warning to potential aggressors. He told the Warsaw Security Forum that NATO’s aim is to deter adversaries, “but if someone is foolish enough to attack us, we will fight,” adding that “any attack against any ally” will end up “utterly futile.” NATO is capable of carrying out this vision by implementing its “theory of victory, a classified version of which was agreed upon by all 32 alliance members about three months ago, according to Grynkewich. Grynkewich, who also serves as commander of United States European Command, did not say against whom, exactly, the alliance would fight, but the speech comes as European capitals have increasingly called out Russia for what they alleged are a string of sabotage cases across the continent. Grynkewich said the incidents were making allied populations “a bit nervous. “What I want to do is assure the one billion citizens of the alliance that we’ve got this. We know what we need to do, he said. Grynkewich warned, “I want others to know who might be thinking about doing harm against us, that weve got this, and that they better not take any shot at the alliance.” The theory of victory is structured around blocking, blunting and breaking an enemy — beginning with stymieing an initial attack and preventing an enemy advance by weakening it. Drawing on the final part of the theory, said Grynkewich, “we will break the enemys forces and the operational warfighting system that is arrayed against us.” Concentrating more on the warfighting elements to execute the new doctrine, he noted the “synchronized employment of multi-domain effects down to the tactical level” in order to “overwhelm enemy formations in contact.” The end result would see enemy forces degraded to such an extent that they would be unable to continue an attack, explained Grynkewich. “Across the alliance, were taking steps to operationalize this theory and maximize the readiness of our forces,” he made clear. “If attacked, we are ready to fight tonight.” Grynkewichs comments come as Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski warned today that NATO allies must be prepared to deal with a deadly Russian hybrid attack.Separately, when assessing the state of the Ukraine war, Grynkewich noted that the frontline has largely stabilized and that Russian long range attacks on Ukraines energy infrastructure, probably wont break the will of the countrys civilian population.

[Category: Allies, Global, Europe, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, Warsaw Security Forum 2026]

— CHAOS Industries joins low-cost interceptor parade with VESPID design

 

at 10/12/26 12:00pm

WASHINGTON — Defense tech startup CHAOS Industries has unveiled a new family of small low-cost interceptors, dubbed VESPID. The system comes in two sizes: the Mk 0, which is “man-portable and designed for austere environments,” and the Mk 1, which is “a faster, more maneuverable variant designed for high-density installations with a multitube launcher,” according to a company press release. That multitube launcher is an existing system from ISS Aerospace, a UK company, according to a company spokesperson, who added that the Mk 1 can be integrated with Coyote launchers as well. That’s notable, as integration with Coyote is a key requirement for the Army’s Next Generation C-sUAS Missile program, which the service launched in August. The spokesperson said that while the firm is not under contract at this time with any militaries, “We are participating in several domestic and international competitions with both Mk 0 and Mk 1 variants.” The press release also highlights an “[a]bility to operate in congested electromagnetic environments.” According to the spokesperson, that line is in reference to a plan to use CHAOS’s radar transmitter “as a datalink to burn through jamming. In addition, the datalink waveform contains means for error detection and correction.” Production wise, CHAOS claims plans are in place for a production capacity of 12,000 interceptors per year, with “a manufacturing architecture capable of expanding to 50,000” as needed. Work would be done at the company’s recently opened El Segundo, Calif. location. The Los Angeles-based firm, which launched in 2022, becomes one of many to roll out new missile defense systems during this year’s AUSA conference, including low-cost interceptors from Anduril and Lockheed Martin, and a host of c-UAS radars and EW systems on the show floor.

[Category: Land Warfare, Army, AUSA 2026, CHAOS Industries, Drones, Golden Dome, interceptor]

— Acting army secretary announces ‘manufacturing rodeo’ to tackle ‘weak links’ in supply chain

 

at 10/12/26 11:29am

WASHINGTON — Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle today announced the service will hold an event aimed at finding weak spots in the service’s supply chain, which the service is calling a manufacturing rodeo.”  “We need to make the things we need here in America, and to keep making them when demand surges. Thats why Im announcing today that the US Army is going to do something weve never done before,” Telle said today at the annual AUSA conference, marking his largest address to soldiers and industry since taking on the acting secretary role. “Early next year, we will conduct what Im calling a manufacturing rodeo, a race between our industrial base partners.”  Telle did not divulge many details about the upcoming event, but said since the Army has invested “a lot in our organic industrial base,” the service will now hold a competition of sorts between industry where they will “strain” and “stress test” the supply chain to “see where it breaks.”  “The magic is that this is an early indicator that were acquiring a new system of seamless, frictionless symbiosis between the Army and American commercial excellence,” Telle said. “We built those muscles in World War II, but we havent flexed them since the Cold War, and as I said, the script has flipped. Take a basic attack drone. We need to be able to make millions of these. It may look simple, but its a flying supply chain we dont control enough of.”  Though Telle said the Army is focused on modernization efforts such as bolstering its supply chain, he also wants to put an increased emphasis on getting “back to the basics.”  “Im going to take it back to the basics, back to the dirt that lies beneath that foundation, because government agencies are in such a race trying to one up each other on the path to technocratic superiority that we often blow right past the fundamentals,” Telle said. “Were so eager to talk about how were playing with the shiniest, newest, most headline-worthy gadgets that we forget what we were trying to do in the first place.”  Getting back to the basics includes focusing on “controlling and securing land,” Telle said. [C]ontrolling land is fundamental to humanity. The Army does it better than anyone, and its on us, the people in this room, to keep it that way. Humanitys connection to the land is biblical, and it even transcends faith.

[Category: Land Warfare, Army, AUSA 2026, organic industrial base, Supply Chain]

— Mine hunting goes remote as the Navy replaces minesweepers with robots

 

at 10/12/26 8:12am

Maritime mines are a concern for the US and its allies in a number of regions, including the Strait of Hormuz and the South China Sea. In addition to being a threat to military vessels, mines can slow or halt commercial traffic through important trade and oil routes. Breaking Defense spoke with Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institutes Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, on the threat of mines, how they can be neutralized and the role of remote mine hunting in keeping personnel out of harm’s way. Breaking Defense: Why are maritime mines such a serious threat in some of these strategic choke points like the Strait of Hormuz or the South China Sea? Clark: Partly because theyre so easy to obtain or build, and then deploy. The Iranians even have rockets that can deploy mines at a standoff distance into the strait. Thats just an example of how easy it is to put these mines out there because you dont need to precision guide them. You just drop them into the approximate area of the channel and thats going to be sufficient to hold up traffic. Mines dont have to be sophisticated. There are obviously very sophisticated ones that look for particular acoustic or magnetic signatures. There are some thatll measure how many ships go across and detonate on the third or fourth ship, but they dont need to be smart in order to be effective. All you need is somebody to detect the mine and know that its there, and its going to cause vessel traffic to stop until the mine threat has been eliminated. The barrier to entry is low. Countries can easily field a capable mine-laying capability or mine-laying force and then deny access in a critical strait or choke point. You have countries out there for whom mines are the main weapon, like Finland. When they think about having to face off against the Russians, the first thing they plan on doing is mining the Gulf of Finland, which prevents access to and from Sevastopol or St. Petersburg. Youve cut off one of Russias only warm water ports by closing off the Gulf of Finland, and thats for them their primary offensive capability. For Iran, obviously the drone revolution has given them another offensive weapon, but mines have always been one of their main go-tos in terms of offensive weapons. Its always been perceived that they would try to use them to close off the Strait of Hormuz because it is such a narrow choke point and so vital to global commerce. The other thing about mines that makes them more potent as a threat is that youd only need the threat of a mine in order to close off access. If you have a mine detection or even a concern about mines, vessel traffic will generally stop until the threats been verified or validated, or shipping companies decide to accept the risk and either pay higher insurance rates or accept the potential loss of their own ship. Itll impact shipping even if you just have the threat of a mine without the physical presence of them. That makes them an effective tool even for small countries. US Navy explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) technicians assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) 2 and Peruvian Navy EOD technicians assigned to Peruvian Special Operations conduct mine countermeasure operations while participating in UNITAS 2026, a US Naval Forces Southern Command and US Fourth Fleet-sponsored training exercise, El Paraiso, Peru, Sept. 19, 2026. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jackson Adkins.) How do you determine if a mine is a valid threat? You cant discount the threat. Because shipping companies dont want to accept the risk of them being wrong or you being wrong if you say, ‘theres not really a mine threat’ You have to take it at face value. The first thing you do is find a channel thats mine-free. That’s what the US did early on in the war. They used the remote-mine hunting systems they had to verify that the channel along the Omani coast was free of mines. Once youve verified a channel free of mines, it doesnt necessarily matter that there might be mines elsewhere. You can lead ships through that safe passage, and then if you want to increase traffic or provide for more two-way traffic, then you have to expand the channel and search a larger area. How does the Navy currently hunt and neutralize mines, and how has that task become less dangerous? It used to be very dangerous, because youd have to send a human-operated minesweeper out, which puts people at risk. Mine-hunting ships have been traditionally wooden or fiberglass to avoid creating a magnetic signature. They use a sonar system on the front to detect the mines and then they will have a sweep system they tow on the back or theyll use neutralization systems to neutralize the mines after they find them. Now the systems they use are robots. They have active sonars on board that they use to search for mines. It becomes kind of like a Roomba, where the robots go up and down the route looking for mines in the water column. Theyll stay near the surface and then look down into the water, and as long as the water is not extremely deep, theyll be able to see the first 100 or 200 feet of water and detect mine-like objects.  Theyll identify things that they think are mines. When they do their run and come back, you download all the data off of them into a computer, which has processing software that helps you to figure out what are things that need further investigation. Then you can send out another set of robots to investigate the things that might be mines to get a better idea of whether theyre really mines or if they were objects dumped on the seafloor or, things floating in the water that arent mines. That usually narrows down how many things you have to investigate further. At the point youve determined theres mine or mine-like objects in the water that have to be neutralized, you then send out a helicopter or a small boat with a mine neutralization system on it, which is a floating vehicle that has little torpedoes thatll come off of it and those are fiber-optically guided to the target. You have a video screen and a joystick, and you steer those mine neutralizers to the mine and they detonate on that object. Either they blow up the mine – if its a mine – or they punch a hole in it and it sinks to the bottom. These mine neutralizers have been around for 20 years or so, but they do keep the people out of the minefield. It keeps people out of the minefield because now you dont have to have the minesweeper driving into the minefield anymore. You can also do it at a greater scale. Because I can buy a lot more robots than I can buy minesweepers, because every minesweeper needs a crew and people are expensive. If you want to expand your mine-hunting fleet, you end up having to buy a bunch of manned ships. If youre buying robots instead, you can buy a bunch of robots, store them, and then bring them out when you need to do the mine-hunting operation. As you look forward, what do you see as the capabilities that will be needed most for counter-mine operations? Onboard processing and communications. One of the limitations of the current way of doing it is you have to have the vessels or the vehicles doing the mine hunting come back and download all their data, then analyze it and then send out another set of vehicles to go investigate the likely mine areas to verify, and then send out another set of vehicles to go do the mine neutralization – helicopters and small boats with mine-neutralization systems. Its a multi-pass setup the way it is now. If instead you had onboard processing from these mine-hunting vehicles, the underwater vehicles looking for the mines could come up and transmit data back to you immediately and say, ‘I finished path one. I found a bunch of mines or potential mines. Theyre here. Then you can quickly decide whether to send another vehicle out there right now to  investigate, or to just send the mine neutralization system out immediately.  You should be able to get to a point where you can do this in a way that is just robot after robot after robot.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Drones, Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise (GWEO), Mine Hunting, Minesweeper, Navy, robotics, Spotlight, Spotlight Remote Mine Hunting, Thales, Unmanned]

— AGVs vs. UGVs: A new class of ground autonomy takes the field

 

at 10/12/26 6:20am

Ground robots have proven their value in recent conflicts, handling logistics runs, evacuating the wounded, and keeping troops away from the most dangerous environments. But unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) have a critical limitation: they aren’t fully autonomous. UGVs are remote-controlled or teleoperated, tethered to a communications link that can be jammed, spoofed, or severed. They also require the full attention of their human operator, which is cognitively expensive. Overland AI’s fully autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs) represent a significant advancement over UGVs.  Leveraging proprietary software and hardware, Overland AI’s AGVs can sense and navigate the world around them independently, overcoming obstacles such as boulders, dense vegetation, steep slopes, and unexpected ditches at tactically relevant speeds. They can do this even when signals are degraded or lost entirely. Using natural language prompts, a single operator can task and orchestrate an entire fleet of these AGVs simultaneously—without teleoperation or remote control. Overland AI’s technology has been refined and validated through rigorous field testing and extensive work with warfighters. In a joint U.S. military exercise in Africa this year, Army officers estimated that two AGVs replaced 40 humans, allowing troops to move faster with more protection. The vehicles reduced distribution time on a drop zone by 52 percent at another recent military event. During breaching, one of the most dangerous tasks for troops, service members face extreme casualty rates. When fully autonomous vehicles are deployed, humans are removed from the most dangerous places on the battlefield, life expectancy skyrockets, and more U.S. troops can return home to their families.  Photo: Courtesy of Overland AI. Overland AI recently became the first ground autonomy company to prime a production contract for the U.S. military. Under a $20 million agreement through the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies (APFIT) program, the company is working with the U.S. Marine Corps to produce and field AGVs in support of the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS). The APFIT award is the culmination of a push within the Department of War to move autonomous systems into programs of record and operational use. Missions such as breaching fortified positions, delivering critical supplies under fire, and detecting and defeating enemy drones are ready for autonomous deployment.  Truly autonomous ground vehicles are not a future capability—they are operational now. This is important because however the battlefield evolves, wars are still won on the ground. Territory must be taken, held, and defended by forces operating across austere environments marked by uncertain conditions and degraded communications.  The robotics revolution in land warfare is here, and Overland AI is driving it. The next step is fielding this technology broadly across the services.

[Category: Land Warfare, Sponsored Post, AGV, Army, AUSA 2026, autonomous, autonomous ground vehicles, Drones, ground autonomy, Overland AI, Overland AI Custom, Presented by Overland AI, Sponsored Content, Unmanned, unmanned ground vehicles, US Marine Corp]

— US-Norwegian startup Heaviside launches Tyr loitering munition

 

at 10/12/26 6:00am

WASHINGTON — Heaviside, a two-year-old US-Norwegian drone startup, has joined the competition for low-cost, expendable drones with its Tyr loitering munition, the company announced today. The weapon is named after a Norse god, and while the company’s headquarters and most of its staff are in Los Angeles, most of the engineering, development, and testing are being done in Norway, explained Heaviside president Nils Haagenrud in an interview. In fact, Haagenrud told Breaking Defense, the Scandinavian facility is just up the road from the company’s most important partner: Norwegian defense firm Nammo. Nammo provides Tyr’s anti-tank warheads, which are all derived from the companys M72 LAW series, as well as a test range where Heaviside can not only fly its Tyr prototypes but use live explosives on practice targets. “We’re just an hour and a half away from each other,” Haagenrud said. “We can do all the testing internally and move very fast. …. They can build and test the same day.” In some tests, he said, Tyr has successfully flown to and detonated targets in Norwegian winter weather of 20 degrees below zero. While Nammo isn’t an investor in Heaviside — the firm is VC-funded— Haagenrud argues the close relationship and strong backing by a well-resourced prime contractor is something that distinguishes the startup from other small, young firms rushing into the expendable-drone business. Another strength, he said, is the decades of experience many key staff have in drone development. That includes his own time at Teledyne FLIR working on the palm-top Black Hornet, which became the centerpiece of the US Army’s Soldier-Borne Sensor system. Tyr is bigger than Black Hornet but still on the small end for drones, easily portable by a single soldier and weighing in at roughly 15 pounds. A third of that is warhead with enough explosive power to kill a main battle tank like the Russian T-72 or T-80. Though he didnt give a price for the drone, Haagenrud says it’s “way under $100,000,” with extensive use of commercial off-the-shelf components to keep costs down and supply chains robust. (Those price and weight figures are for the drone itself, not including a reusable launcher). The drone also incorporates some of the AI targeting features being field tested in Ukraine, although the company says it’s scrupulous about requiring a human in the loop to make the final call. “We are doing video navigation … fusing the EO [electro-optical] and the IR [infrared] sensors,” Haagenrud said. The drone can fly itself to a human-designated strike zone, autonomously hunt for recognizable targets like a tank, and then ask the operator for permission to attack. “The only thing I have to do is press ‘engage,” he said. Heaviside also has an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) called Nyx in the works. While the firm isn’t disclosing details and no contract has been announced, Haagenrud told Breaking Defense “we are working directly with the DoW,” using the semiformal alternative name for the Department of Defense. Heaviside’s one publicly announced defense contract is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) award, with a ceiling of $99 million, from the Army’s Rapid Electronic Warfare and Signals Intelligence (REWSI) initiative. That’s for a handheld spectrum analyzer called MOTH, used to detect the telltale radio emissions from incoming drones.

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, AI & Autonomy, Air Force, Army, artificial intelligence AI, AUSA 2026, Drones, Europe, Heaviside Industries, Nammo, Norway]

— Army again tweaks acquisition structure to remove unwanted layer of bureaucracy 

 

at 10/12/26 4:00am

WASHINGTON — A year after the Army’s sprawling acquisition overhaul, the service has again realigned the structure of its weapons portfolios, albeit at a much smaller scale, senior service members recently told reporters.  With the new changes, the Army has attempted to remove a layer of bureaucracy between its Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs) and its program managers after Congress ordered it to do so in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Brig. Gen. Troy Denomy, PAE for Maneuver Ground, said this will better ensure the acquisition and operational sides of the service are in tandem with each other.  “What’s critically important for the PAEs to deliver for the Army is the alignment, synchronization, and staying closely connected to our operational counterparts,” Denomy said Oct. 8 ahead of the annual AUSA conference “We cannot deliver those formation-based outcomes if we are not tied at the hip and synchronized closely together.”  The adjusted acquisition structure comes nearly a year after the Army underwent a major acquisition reorganization, which consolidated the original 12 Program Executive Offices under the six PAEs for a reduction on the number of general officers at the top rank. The goal: to remove constraints and hone its processes to move much faster.  Under last years changes, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)), along with the Army’s secretary, would direct acquisition orders down to the Army’s six PAEs and their deputies. The PAEs would then communicate orders down to their Capability Portfolio Executives (CPEs) which then pushed those down to the relevant program managers — the latter being the individuals who most often collaborate with soldiers in the field to see what they need.  However, those changes were rolled out prior to the 2026 NDAA becoming law, meaning the mandates from the legislation were not fully implemented until recently, Ingraham explained.  To meet the legislative guidelines, the Army has removed CPEs from where they formerly lay and placed them to work alongside the PAEs. The purpose of this is to ensure that a specific program is being managed appropriately on behalf of the PAE” but there is no official reporting structure between them and the program managers, Brent Ingraham, the head of ASA(ALT), told reporters Oct. 8.  The Army also renamed the CPEs to Program Manager Executives (PMEs), Ingraham said.  The PMEs are needed, Denomy said, as they help to keep track of the day to day duties of the program managers and their “enablers” within each PAE, which would be too burdensome a task for one person. For example, he said he has nine program managers under him and each one comes with an “enabler.”  “So 18 direct reports will be very difficult to manage day-to-day. So how do we use and empower the PMEs [] to help with that day to day management?” Denomy said. “In a metaphor that doesnt follow exactly, but it’s almost like CEO versus COO or CFO from a C-suite perspective. A much similar organization, and it seems to also, when I talk to industry about how were organized, seems to resonate with them because its very akin to how they tend to organize.”  Another change spurred by the 2026 NDAA was to have all PAEs be certified acquisition officials.” Prior to this change, three out of the Army’s six PAEs fell into that category and the other three had backgrounds in more of an “operational role,” or served as the heads of the Army’s various Centers of Excellence (CoE), Ingraham explained. Now, Ingraham said, all deputies come from CoEs or prior operationally-based roles. “We put requirements, resources, and acquisition authority all under the PAEs, where you can make those decisions in parallel instead of waiting for those sequential handoffs we always had in the past,” Ingraham said. “I can say, one year in this, we can point at real results.”

[Category: Land Warfare, acquisition reform, Army, ASAALT, AUSA 2026, Brent Ingraham]

— Three years of war, 100,000 targets struck: IDF releases new conflict data

 

at 10/12/26 2:00am

JERSUALEM — The Israel Defense Forces struck 100,000 targets over three years of war on multiple fronts, the Israeli military said in a release of data marking the third anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks.   The IDF does not define what a “target” means in this context, but the size of the figure, which includes strikes in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran, shows the breadth of conflict Israel has waged since the Hamas terrorist attacks upended the region. The data release also included information on new units formed during the war and the changes in IDF reserve forces, as Israel has had to adapt its military structures on the fly. Unsurprisingly, the majority of strikes were in Gaza, where the IDF claims it has struck 65,000 targets, with around 30,000 of these in just the first three months of the conflict — a pace that shows in the widespread destruction of buildings and displacement of the population that was evident quickly after the war began. Outside Gaza, the IDF said Israel also struck 28,000 targets in Lebanon and Syria, as well as 4,500 in Iran and 80 in Yemen. The Iran targets were struck during a 12-day conflict in June 2025, as well as an exchange of fire on Feb. 28, 2026. Syria, for its part, has become more outspoken in recent weeks about what it says are Israeli violations within Syrian territory near the Golan. The IDF has also increased its tempo of operations in the West Bank. It says it has confiscated 3,800 weapons and arrested “45,000 wanted individuals.” The IDF believes it has eliminated four Hamas military branch heads, as well as 17 Hamas brigade commanders, 60 battalion commanders and 300 company commanders. This means most of Hamas’ five brigades and 24 battalions have seen their commanders eliminated several times in the war. A total of 970 Israeli soldiers and service personnel have fallen in the war. This is in addition to more than 800 civilians killed on Oct. 7. Overall Palestinian casualty figures were not included in the new dataset, but Israel has reportedly accepted assertions by Gazas health ministry that over 70,000 have been killed. The ministry does not distinguish between civilians and militants. Additionally, the new figures show that Israel’s missile defenses were sorely tested over the last three years: The IDF said that approximately 31,540 projectiles were launched at Israel from multiple fronts, including approximately 10,200 from Gaza, 20,000 from Lebanon, 1,200 from Iran, 50 from Syria, and 90 from Yemen. While the IDF does not release interception rates, during the recent conflict with Iran local reports put the success rate at 92 percent. The new data are the latest in several data sets that the IDF released throughout the war. The IDF’s first data set was released after three months of conflict, but a link to its appears to have been taken down. The Israeli Air Force said that by February 2024 it had struck 31,000 targets, and the IDF released data sets for six months of war in April 2024 and nine months of conflict in July 2024. However, since then the military appeared to stop releasing this type of data until this week’s milestone. Breaking Defenses team has been on the ground during the conflicts. Read some of their personal reflections here: In South Lebanon, empty villages, ruined crops and fears of what comes next (June 2024) In Northern Israel, emptied villages and talk of war in Lebanon (June 2024) What life looks like in Lebanon after 1 year of conflict between Hezbollah and Israel (October 2024) Modernizing The Military The data release also emphasized how the war has caused major changes within the Israeli military. One lesson is that the IDF needs more ground forces to confront threats on multiple fronts, a reversal of  a decade in which Israel had been reducing the ground forces and focusing more on technological innovation and small units. The IDF notes that it created several new brigades and divisions, including a new Mountain Brigade on the northern border and a new division to coordinate defense of the Jordan Valley. The IDF also expanded its armored corps with new regular service tank companies. In addition, the IDF said it “has worked to expand its personnel pool and establish new frameworks in accordance with operational needs that have emerged during combat.” This includes new unspecified units within the intelligence and air defense sectors. A second lesson is the need to manage the reserve forces in a long conflict. When the Oct. 7 war began, the IDF called up hundreds of thousands of reservists, many of whom spent most of the next year with their units. One IDF Division, the 162nd, spent 500 days in combat. The long war led to fatigue and challenges within the ranks, including a major strain on the reserve system that sustains Israel’s operations. The latest military data says that “since the beginning of the war, the size of the reserve forces has increased by approximately 36%. … The scale of reserve mobilization remains unprecedented, with combat reservists serving an average of 80–100 days annually, significantly exceeding the originally planned average of 55 days due to evolving operational requirements.” The Israeli military has also sought to implement reforms across its various branches due to the lessons of three years of conflict. The IDF Intelligence Directorate has prioritized early warning of attacks, according to the release. Although the changes are discussed generally by the IDF, they relate to intelligence collection as well as new warning operations rooms and new training for analysts. The IDF also put in place new oversight and a new data division within the directorate that will integrate artificial intelligence and advanced computing. The regional commands have also changed. Southern Command, which was in charge of the Gaza border during the Oct. 7 disaster, has strengthened defenses along the border. It has also led the war’s strikes on Hamas commanders. In Northern Command, which has dealt with the war on Hezbollah and also has led the advance into a buffer zone in Syria, the IDF says it has created 10 new military posts in Syria. Local civilian-led armed security squads have tripled in size. Reforms have also affected the air force and navy. The IDF says the air force now has four times the number of forces on alert, a direct lessons learned from Oct. 7, when the air force had only a small number of helicopters and assets ready to respond. The navy has also increased its coastal defenses and integrated patrol vessels with the ground forces. Overall, the reforms emphasize forward defense, faster response times, and operational changes in the field, along with bolstering defenses and new technologies. The military also stresses the need to be prepared for “multi-arena” responses, clearly tailored to the kind of multi-front war Israel has faced. 

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Israeli Defense Forces IDF, lebanon, syria, yemen]

— Anduril unveils Steelfin interceptor as cheaper option to PAC-3 missiles

 

at 10/11/26 10:01pm

WASHINGTON — Anduril today unveiled its new Steelfin interceptor, which company executives are aiming to cost a third of the price of the Patriot’s current PAC-3 missile segment enhancement (MSE).  “One-way attack drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic weapons… our military and our allies militaries are struggling with a set of legacy interceptors that are not scalable, and are not able to match the volume of the threat that theyre facing,” Chris Brose, Anduril’s president and chief strategy officer, told reporters in a preview call ahead of the announcement. Brose said the company has been working on Steefin for a couple of years,” driven by a belief that the market would soon have a desire for cheaper interceptors. The new interceptor is “modular,” Brose said, meaning it can fly with different rocket motors, different seekers and be launched from different platforms ranging from PAC-3, CAML and Typhoon systems to containerized munitions canisters. Brose said the system can be “reconfigured” to be tailored from defeating low-cost systems like the Iranian Shaheds to more exquisite systems like ballistic cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons.  Steve Milano, the company’s senior director of missiles, said the company is vying for the Army’s low-cost interceptor program with the Steelfin. Anduril was one of many vendors chosen to move forward with testing and demonstrations following the service’s recent xTech Apex Intercept competition — the event the Army held to try to find as many effective yet affordable interceptors as it could.  However, there may be a different competition that Anduril is also running Steelfin in. On Friday, Breaking Defense first reported that Lockheed Martin and one other undisclosed company were selected for the Army’s Future Interceptor program, a previously unknown effort which seeks to find a next-gen version of the current PAC-3 MSE.  Anduril executives declined to comment on if the Steelfin was selected for the Future Interceptor program, however, Milano said the Steelfin is a “natural fit in that domain space.” Under that competition, Milano said, the Army is looking for a seven to 10 inch terminal storage interceptor with a 10 to 13 inch booster to fit into the existing Patriot launcher and Common Autonomous Multi Domain Launcher (CAML), and Steelfin “fits very well” with those requirements.  Regarding production, Milano said he expects Anduril to reach full rate production for the Steelfin at the end of 2028 or the beginning of 2029. He said he suspects “on the low end” the company will target producing “multiple thousands” of Steelfins per year, with a higher end of closer to hundreds of thousands per year, depending on the demand signal from the US and customers abroad. Milano said Andurils “intent” is to build most of the sub assemblies for Steelfin at the company’s Arsenal-1 facility in Ohio, and then do the “final integration” of the interceptor with a handful of our partners.” As to the solid rocket motors for Steelfin, Milano added that some will come from Anduril and some from other companies.  “Weve intentionally designed the Steelfin configuration with a modular mounting, so we can take in new providers as well as utilize our integrated and internal rocket motor systems,” Milano explained. 

[Category: Land Warfare, Anduril, Army, AUSA 2026, Golden Dome, Missile Defense, PAC-3 missile, Patriot PAC-3]

— Coast Guard places $248 million order for first MQ-9B drones

 

at 10/9/26 2:10pm

WASHINGTON — The Coast Guard is purchasing MQ-9B drones for the first time, ordering four of the high-flying unmanned aerial vehicles for just under $250 million. The aircraft will support the service to oversee offshore waters, conduct search and rescue operations, and help counter drug trafficking operations, among other things, the Coast Guard said in a news release today. They are not expected to carry weapons, a service spokesperson told Breaking Defense. “The MQ-9B long-range unmanned aircraft systems will expand our reach and strengthen our ability to protect the nation,” Anthony Antognoli, the assistant commandant and program executive officer for robotics and autonomous systems for the Coast Guard, said in a statement. “This investment will give Coast Guard crews a longer-range view of our maritime domain, helping them detect threats earlier, make better-informed decisions and act faster across our missions.” The Coast Guard first revealed its plans to purchase the drones last year, thanks to funding the service received from President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that passed in July 2025, Military Times previously reported.  The Coast Guard said today that funding for the MQ-9B acquisition stemmed from the FY25 reconciliation package that included nearly $25 billion for the service, along with FY26 appropriations. The MQ-9B purchase totaled $247.8 million for the four aircraft, along with ground control stations and other supporting equipment, the Coast Guard said.  The Coast Guard has previously teamed up with the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and flown CBP’s MQ-9A drones for operations out of Texas, according to a Coast Guard factsheet. The Coast Guard noted in today’s release that the aircraft supported CBP to seize 60,700 pounds of illegal drugs and the apprehension of roughly 20 “smugglers” in FY26.  The MQ-9B SeaGuardian is designed to conduct maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations for more than 30 hours at a time with a mission radius of roughly 1,200 nautical miles, according to General Atomics, which builds the aircraft.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, coast guard, MQ-9 Sea Guardian, Navy, United States Coast Guard]

— One year in, Army’s FUZE leader eyes ‘bigger’ acquisition challenges

 

at 10/9/26 2:00pm

WASHINGTON — After a first year focused on adapting prototype technologies for military use, the Army’s FUZE innovation hub is setting sights on more complex acquisition challenges in fiscal 2027.  “A lot of what well see in FY27 is leveraging mechanisms within the Army FUZE portfolio to address bigger Army acquisition problems, and I think again this demonstrates that the Army recognizes we need to diversify the defense industrial base,” FUZE Director Matt Willis told Breaking Defense in an interview last month.  Established in September 2025 by then-Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, FUZE is the service’s flagship venture-capital innovation engine designed to accelerate deployment of new technologies using pre-existing acquisition mechanisms. The office falls under the Army’s Pathway for Innovation and Technology (PIT) portfolio, which is facilitated by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology office.  According to Willis, the organization’s overall goal is to find new tech and deliver it to the warfighter faster. But FUZE’s first year also showed the challenge of making sure promising technologies don’t stop at the prototype stage where they can fall into the ever-dreadful tech valley of death. That prompted the organization to focus on getting Army acquisition officials involved earlier to create a clearer path toward procurement in FY27, he said.   “We need to incentivize innovation, and we need to invest in emerging or bleeding-edge capabilities to stay ahead of the rapidly evolving threat landscape … or how fast war is changing. We can see that in Ukraine and elsewhere,” Willis said. Igniting the FUZE  Broadly, the PIT acts as a “plus one” structure in tandem with the Army’s six Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs), bringing together multiple offices focused on fielding emerging capabilities. All organizations within the PIT are geared toward harnessing innovation and getting tech to the warfighter sooner, but FUZE specifically uses a venture-capital style model to do so.  FUZE is allocated $750 million in annual, “non-dilutive” research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds. The money is pulled together from four existing innovation efforts — xTech, Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) Programs, the Technology Maturation Initiative and the Army Manufacturing Technology Program. Before FUZE, the four funding streams were dispersed throughout the Army, making it difficult for companies to understand how to acquire funding for a promising capability, Willis said.   “The big piece and the power of the Army FUZE program is this sort of continuity, or seamlessness — or as seamless as we can make it in the government,” Willis said.  First, companies demonstrate their capabilities during Army xTech competitions and if they are placed among the top contenders they win a cash prize. Then, the SBIR program gives those vendors additional money to develop initial prototypes, while the TMI funding helps with “scaling that prototype,” Willis said. The final step is securing the ManTech investment, which vendors use to reduce manufacturing costs.  Once this process is complete, the Army’s network of venture and private capital partners “inject” funding into the companies so they can eventually scale their products and get on contract with the service through the PAEs, Willis explained.  This has really been foundational in terms of bridging the gap between [the Army’s] mission needs and private sector venture capital, he said. Rather than expecting startups to just rely solely on government R&D funding, were actively signaling defense priorities to private markets. But FUZE is still refining the process to ensure vendors come out with a contract instead of a box full of prototypes, he said. To achieve this, the office wants to engage with PAEs from the outset to ensure there’s a clear pathway for tech to advance.  “Id say we’re doubling down or tripling down on this sort of mandate that, for all of our FUZE investments — for all the project investments that were making — were building in this piece where we have buy-in from the warfighting unit,” Willis said.  Drones Dominate, EW Less So  FUZE held about 16 xTech competitions in fiscal 2026 focused primarily on drones, counter-drone systems, electronic warfare and energy resiliency. Willis said the office “exceeded” its goal of getting capabilities into the field within 60 to 75 days of posting a solicitation — a process that can traditionally take several months or even years.  In some cases, the organization was able to go from a solicitation to contracts in less than five days. All four technology areas have made it into the field in some capacity, meaning the tech was either delivered to a unit for permanent use or as part of a “soldier experimentation event,” Willis said. Vendors were more receptive to some capabilities than others, with drone and counter-drone tech being the most popular among industry, Willis said.  “The commercial sector is already mass producing these platforms at high volume, and what were looking for in the Army is not starting with basic research and matriculating all the way up through a prototype,” he said. “Then a big piece for us from an adaptation perspective is — how can we make them military grade?”  By contrast, electronic warfare drew less industry interest because “it has the least overlap with commercial applications,” Willis said. As for energy resiliency capabilities, FUZE has provided some solutions to the field, but it’s still definitely the latest push,” he added.  FUZE now wants to tackle more challenging acquisition problems, including low-cost interceptors. While these systems are not considered widely commercially available or affordable, they can be built using off-the-shelf, inexpensive components, Willis explained.  To kickstart the effort, FUZE launched the xTech Disrupt Fires competition to search for a second low-cost interceptor for the Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 program specifically designed to hit low-flying and supersonic targets.  During the annual AUSA conference this year, FUZE will award up to four companies a $1 million cash prize each for the program, “which is intended to jumpstart capability development for the second interceptor,” Willis said.  The prize pool is far smaller than the funding required to build the IFPC Increment 2 interceptors currently being developed. Lockheed Martin and a Boeing-Anduril team were recently selected to move onto the second phase of the initial competition, but Willis clarified that while FUZE tech could feed into the larger Army IFPC Inc 2 program, the two are separate for now.  “We’re executing this [FUZE] competition to see if we can incentivize or identify novel technology approaches to meet this mission. So this is in parallel,” he said. “If successful at the end, there will be an opportunity to integrate within the broader program of record, but the vendors that were selected for IFPC Inc 2 second interceptor are moving along their way.” Apart from the low-cost interceptor competition, Willis said there are other larger acquisition issues FUZE plans to tackle in FY27, but declined to share them as he said they are “not fully baked.”  “Id say we’ve moved away from the prior acquisition methodology of spending years, if not decades, developing some bespoke, eloquent solution that really didnt work in the field to recognizing that we need to move quickly and take risks to make sure that our soldiers have access to the best technology,” Willis said. 

[Category: Land Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, Army, AUSA 2026, Counter UAS cUAS, cyber security, Drones, FUZE, networks, technology, venture capital VC]

— Lockheed unveils PAC-3 Edge, its next-gen Patriot interceptor

 

at 10/9/26 1:45pm

WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin today revealed the PAC-3 Edge, its offering for the Army’s future Patriot interceptor that the company says can fly further and hit more capable targets than the current PAC-3 missile. Tim Cahill, president of Lockheeds missiles and fire control unit, said the new interceptor is meant for what Lockheed called the Armys Future Interceptor program, which he indicated seeks to develop a next-gen version of the Patriots current PAC-3 missile segment enhancement (MSE). Cahill said Lockheed was one of two companies selected to advance in the program. He did not identify the other company, and the Army did not respond to a request for more information today. Lockheed is set to unveil a full-scale model of the new missile on Monday at the Association for the US Army conference, Cahill said. “PAC-3 Edge is designed to go after the most stressing targets that we — and, more importantly, that the Department of War — believes are the next-generation [threats] that theyre going to be seeing in the fight from our adversaries,” Cahill said in an interview with Breaking Defense ahead of AUSA, using the secondary name for the Department of Defense. “PAC-3 Edge will be longer ranged. Itll be higher altitude. Itll be more capable to take on targets that are trying to hide,” he added. “Itll have greater sensitivity in its seeker. Itll have greater capability to maneuver and to respond to threats.” Lockheed intends to invest hundreds of millions of dollars of its own cash in the missile alone, alongside additional investments in its seeker and solid rocket motor, Cahill said. “Weve already probably somewhere between $50 [million] and $100 million or better put into this,” he said. Lockheed is developing the seeker in-house, with the intent of being able to use the new technology across other offensive and defensive systems, Cahill said. The company plans to invest about $800 million into the seeker, having invested “several $100 million dollars” into it so far.   For the solid rocket motor, Lockheed is working with Northrop Grumman on a three-pulse motor intended to provide greater range and altitude compared with the legacy PAC-3 missile, he said. Lockheed intends to begin testing PAC-3 Edge in 2027, ahead of its first deployment in 2031, the company said in a news release. The PAC-3 Edge will be made on Lockheed’s existing PAC-3 line in Camden, Ark. The company currently is ramping up production of the PAC-3 MSE under an agreement with the Pentagon to triple interceptor production over the next seven years. To support that effort, Lockheed is building a new MSE production facility outfitted with robotics, automation and AI meant to improve manufacturing efficiency, Cahill said. PAC-3 production will move to the new facility once its complete, and the legacy facility will receive the same upgrades. “Thatll be available then to build Edge in the future,” he said. “Before we ever get to the point where were producing Edge, we will have already outfitted the entire factory from end to end with the most modern manufacturing capability available, frankly, in the world.” The Army has weathered fits and starts in its efforts to develop a next-generation interceptor for the Patriot missile defense system. In 2024, the service announced plans to cancel the Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI) program, which saw both Raytheon and Lockheed competing to build the new missile. But a year later, an Army official suggested the program could move forward after all. “There are some aspects of the LTFI program that are still somewhat pre-decisional, but I believe that we will get support for the program, and I may be in a position this time next year to begin program-of-record execution,” Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, then the program executive officer for missiles and space, said in October 2025. “I think right now the glass is probably half full that we’ll get to run that program, and so we’re really in the planning process in figuring out what that’s going to look like moving forward,” he added. Earlier this year, Lockheed announced the development of the PAC-3 ACE, a less capable, lower-cost version of the MSE that would be available to international customers. Moving Forward on the Weapons Boom Since the start of the year, the Pentagon has raced to increase munitions production, inking multiyear framework agreements with weapons makers and suppliers meant to entice companies into modernizing facilities and making major capital investments. Some of those agreements have been turned into undefinitized contract actions, allowing money to start flowing to companies for production. The department recently awarded Lockheed undefinitized contract actions (UCAs) to ramp up PAC-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) production. “We were moving forward anyway on our own investment, so we didnt lose time on that. But clearly the UCAs get us all the contractual authority we need to move forward,” Cahill said. “Definitization of the final contracts — they’ll happen when they happen. Those wont hold us up.” Eventually, Congress will need to appropriate the money linked with production increases, but foreign military sales contracts and current domestic orders could help pad out any short-term delays as lawmakers work out the budget, Cahill added. Lockheed’s partnership with General Dynamics to expand solid rocket motor production is also progressing well, Cahill said. The companies announced the partnership in 2024 with the plan for General Dynamics to produce solid rocket motors for Lockheed’s Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS). “We just had a motor firing here in the last few days,” he said. “There was a Lockheed Martin-designed GMLRS motor that was partnered with General Dynamics to put propellant in it and to actually fire the motor.”

[Category: Land Warfare, Pentagon, Army, AUSA 2026, Golden Dome, Lower-Tier Future Interceptor, Missile Defense, PAC-3, Patriot, Tim Cahill]

— Drones and autonomous warfare: ‘One-way attack’ and reshaping ISR

 

at 10/9/26 1:19pm

Whether it’s seaborne reconnaissance platforms such as the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft (GARC) – now called LYNX – or semi-submersible logistics such as AEVEX Maritime Systems’ NightTrain or high-flying drones providing ISR, autonomous systems are playing a growing role in multi-domain missions, offering longer time on site, greater coverage in contested areas and carrying out missions without putting crew members in harm’s way. Breaking Defense spoke with Craig Anders, SVP of Growth at AEVEX, about the need for autonomy, how the company is building multi-domain solutions and lessons learned from the use of uncrewed systems in Ukraine and Iran. Whats the threat scenario right now that is driving the need for air and maritime autonomy? Craig Anders, SVP of Growth, AEVEX Anders: Were operating under this environment with persistent surveillance, ships, comms, everythings exposed to attack. Everybody can see everything everywhere. Adversaries are out there deploying inexpensive systems at volume, at scale, and it disrupts the navigation and communications that we depend on to fight. GPS is a mess, comms are a mess, everythings being jammed. By creating the distributed capability to help grow reach and reduce the exposure of the manned side of things, both air and maritime autonomy can help maintain awareness, mission effects and keep the forces operating across way larger areas and swaths of the area of responsibility (AOR). These systems need to remain useful when navigation and communications are degraded and operating conditions change. Its such a dynamic battlefield these days that having autonomy that doesnt rely on traditional methods of fighting is now this situation that is critical to mission success. How have the lessons learned from Ukraine and Iran shaped the thinking around air and maritime autonomy? Weve learned both what to do and what not to do over the past four to five years. I was in the military and we started off the Phoenix Ghost program on the government side, and I was able to come here and continue that mission. One of the things we learned there is if you cant cycle fast, if you dont have people on the ground near the fight, youre going to get left behind because being able to dynamically flex, have short engineering cycles, short stroke changes to systems outside the normal build process, youre just going to lose. Iran reinforces that pressure. They mass inexpensive threats on the battlefield. They levy pressure on our defenses, our inventories and our maritime access at a level weve never seen before. Affordability is key. Resilience of the system is key. Being able to adapt to keep it all working together is the only way to succeed in this environment. We need functional systems in a degraded environment. We need to be able to have close connections between the operators and the engineers, and our production approach needs to be flexible enough to incorporate those changes fast. Otherwise, were not going to have what we need to fight. Even if we do deliver it, its not going to be very effective. We strive to shorten those engineering cycles, shorten those production cycles and continue to get users the things they need in a short timeline. That’s because the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, RDT&E, cycle has to move at the pace of combat. Right, and heres the deal. Over time, airplanes arent going to grow extra wings or weird new kinds of propellers. This becomes largely an autonomy and a software fight. You have to have a good solid vehicle by which to implement these capabilities, whether its air, sea or subsea. We’re taking the background we have in airborne intelligence, ISR, one-way attack and what weve learned on the battlefield, and producing that in a method that ties up with the way the US wants to fight. What is evolving rapidly is how the US employs affordable unmanned systems at scale, across domains and as part of a broader force. That requires more than platforms. It requires concepts of operations, force structure, storage, forward support, and sustainment that keep those systems effective as conditions change. What multi-domain capabilities are needed, and how has AEVEX evolved into a company that can offer them? A key to this coming fight is understanding what layered defense and offense looks like. You dont want to just send a couple long-range, one-way assets out there. Theyll probably just get shot down and you wont know what happened. You dont want to have a USV just floating out there in the water by itself. You want these things working together autonomously, but also passing information back to be used for the rest of the fight. Ultimately, this whole multi-domain concept is important to ensuring mission success in these AORs because of the uncertainty. We believe that bringing in this BlackSea piece – theres one-way attack boats, ISR boats, security, theres mine sweeping. You have high-flying ISR assets that work with the boats. You have one-way attack that gets tied together by the boats on the water and the planes in the sky. When you bring systems together to accomplish different parts of a mission, a common autonomy architecture and compatible interfaces can help them share information and coordinate more effectively. That is the opportunity we are pursuing across air, surface, and subsea capabilities. Our CompassX family of navigation and autonomy capabilities supports that approach, with modular hardware and software tailored to the platform and mission. There are so many different capabilities you can bring to bear using these types of systems, whether its ISR, non-kinetic effects, EW/EA, mine sweeping, mine neutralization, critical infrastructure protection, long-range logistics. Theres so much you can bring to bear that helps take people out of harms way, but still accomplish the mission set. When you start to tie all these together across our divisions, it tells a story and sets a new standard on the battlefield. How does having all of these systems working in conjunction give a more comprehensive picture of the battlefield to decision makers? Youre going to see things you couldnt see before. Youre going to see patterns develop. Every platform the military owns, operates or uses generates data, and that data, a lot of times, largely goes unused. As you start to pull together these systems of systems and these whole concepts of operations, you start to see different points where you can pull and utilize data to help make better decisions, target better, communicate better, share data across multiple common operating pictures, and enable the fighting man to make better decisions across the board. You mentioned BlackSea Technologies, which you recently acquired and is now AEVEX Maritime Systems. What capabilities do they bring? AEVEX already had surface capabilities through Mako. Our Maritime Systems division adds substantially greater maritime engineering, vessel manufacturing, and operational depth. That broadens both our portfolio and the expertise we can bring to customers. When you look at their main system, it used to be called the GARC, now it’s LYNX. Thats a US Navy Program of Record. We’ve delivered 350 vessels, and now were revamping them to increase the comm/nav solution on it to make it even more adaptable in the current environment. The LYNX – formerly the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft (GARC) – reconnaissance platform is an uncrewed vessel that can stay on site for long periods of time to conduct reconnaissance operations. (Photo courtesy of AEVEX Maritime Systems.) Those systems are fantastic. Theyre all aluminum. We have more than 25,000 operational hours in them. Theyre doing mine sweeping in the straits right now. Theyre doing countermeasures. They have some unique reconfigurable capabilities that a lot of other people do not. Affordability is also central to our approach. When you look at that, coupled with some of the other things we’re doing such as the NightTrain, low visibility container transport and delivery; thats a semi-submersible, large ship, has a couple storage containers on the back. It has a wet bay and it does 2,700 nautical miles. We have the sea-based petroleum distribution, which is a tanker that holds 185,000 gallons of gas that you can sink down to the sea floor and cache petroleum in place for contingency operations. It creates just a whole other level of how you would operate and fight in that environment. What else should people know about AEVEX and what you’re doing in the field? The biggest thing is multi-domain matters, because every mission out there crosses multiple domains. Bringing air, surface, and subsea capabilities together is going to give the warfighter what they need and create opportunities for more coordinated operations. Its hard to fight in a vacuum. If youre just focused on air, youre just focused on sea, youre missing out. Youre missing out on the CONOPS that help you win effectively and spend less doing it. Autonomy is changing the way forces see and operate and deliver effects, sustain themselves. Autonomy is bringing capability to bear. Autonomy is also the back side, where youre using data to analyze and grow your models in an effort to continue to iterate these systems to success. Its value is in real-world performance and real-world operating conditions, but you take that back and you grow your systems based on data and not conjecture. Thats exciting for me. We bring substantial operational experience delivering and supporting these capabilities. That experience gives us a strong foundation for incorporating lessons from the field and continually improving our systems as requirements evolve. The production process has to keep pace as well, so we can move those improvements into repeatable builds and deliver them at the volume customers need. That’s what we’re building at AEVEX: the ability to turn evolving mission requirements into capability customers can field and use. We help customers develop concepts of operations, integrate capabilities, and sustain them in the field. That is how we deliver solutions that remain useful as the mission changes.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Sponsored Post, AEVEX, AEVEX Custom, Air Force, AUSA 2026, autonomy, Craig Anders, cyber security, Drones, Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft (GARC), ISR, Multi-Domain Operations, naval, Navy, networks, NightTrain, Presented by Aevex, Sponsored Content, technology]

— Ideal Aerosmith debuts ‘Troublemaker’ for one-way attack

 

at 10/9/26 12:02pm

WASHINGTON — The small firm Ideal Aerosmith is pivoting to defense, debuting an in-house developed attack drone in a bid to capitalize on surging interest in low-cost munitions. Founded in 1938, North Dakota-based Ideal Aerosmith — not to be confused with the name of your favorite playlist — has undergone a few “instantiations” throughout its decades-long history, David Markert, the company’s senior vice president and general manager of government systems, told Breaking Defense in an Oct. 2 interview. The firm has been “defense adjacent” in more recent years, Markert said, manufacturing test equipment for navigation systems. But about three years ago amid rising demand for defense tech, Ideal Aerosmith decided to pursue military customers directly, according to Markert. The company chose a low-cost, one-way attack drone, now dubbed “Troublemaker,” and publicly unveiled the system Thursday as a chief platform to market to prospective customers. Ideal is now entering low-rate production for the Troublemaker, according to Markert, who said the company has a “Department of the Navy sponsor” for the system when asked about current contracts. He said the company has built 26 of Troublemakers so far, and is manufacturing the drones at a rate of two per week. With sufficient demand, he added the company could build up to 20 Troublemakers weekly within existing infrastructure. “We felt that was a sweet spot in the market,” Markert said of a one-way attack drone. “And as the market turned away from exquisite systems to low-cost, affordable mass, it seemed like the ideal time to go after that. Given our engineering pedigree [and] our precision manufacturing, it gave us a pretty solid base to transfer some of those skills over to building drones.” With a 15-foot wingspan, the Troublemaker is classified as a Group 3 system and can be launched from a catapult or truck. The company says the drone can fly in swarms, boasts a range of over 750 nautical miles (863 miles), has an endurance time exceeding 10 hours and can carry a payload of 30 pounds for missions spanning attack to reconnaissance.  Markert said the company views the Troublemaker as filling a different niche compared to other strike options, particularly amid surging interest in low-cost cruise missiles. He argued key differences, like the ability to reuse the drone — which can be recovered via a skid landing — and the systems ability to launch without the need for more specialized infrastructure or platforms, such as aircraft. “We looked at the air launch or the palletized launch,” he said. “Theres a ton of guys in that low-cost cruise missile space. Were differentiated from that because were in the drone space, and in our definition of that, drones give you post-flight options that missiles dont give you.” Troublemaker is not the companys only planned defense product. Markert said Ideal is also working on other systems with greater range and payload capacity. But for the time being, there are more immediate concerns, like the effects of a continuing resolution (CR) that began Oct. 1 and freezes new-start programs while holding funding at prior-year levels. Ideal has thrown its hat into the ring for relevant solicitations, Markert said, but added that “clearly, the CR has impact.  “How much of an impact it has, we dont know at this point. Were kind of keeping our fingers crossed and holding our breath that this stuff was funded under the [fiscal 2026] budget,” he said.     

[Category: Air Warfare, Air Force, continuing resolution, cruise missile, Drones, FAMM Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, kamikaze drone, Navy, unmanned aerial systems]

As of 10/13/26 6:45am. Last new 10/13/26 6:45am.