Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Congressional biotech commission calls for $15B over 5 years to catch up to China

 

at 4/7/25 10:01pm

A close-up shot of a laboratory technicians gloved hand holding a test tube with a blue liquid among a rack of other test tubes. (Warut Lakam/Getty Images) WASHINGTON — China has spent two decades positioning its companies to dominate biotechnology, and now the US needs to pay up to catch up, a congressionally chartered commission warned today. In a report released today that distills two years of research, the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology calls upon Congress to rescue America’s struggling biotech sector by investing $15 billion over the next five years. About $1.2 billion of the money would be funneled through the Defense Department budget, according to a detailed appendix to the report. Committee chairman Sen. Todd Young told reporters ahead of the release he was cautiously optimistic he could get his fellow legislators to include the recommendations when they write the defense policy and spending bills for 2026 later this year. “The Chinese made biology a strategic priority two decades ago,”  Young said. “In some areas of biology, theyve already surpassed us. In other areas, on current trend lines, they will pass us … China has had a plan for two decades,” he continued. “We dont have a plan. We have relied on the private sector. But after a surge of promising startups in the early 2000s, private investment in biotech has faltered. Funds still flow to relatively safe bets on new pharmaceuticals, skin creams, and the like, which do have some value for military medicine. Beyond those applications, however, the commission argues that there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit left untouched on the cutting edge of biotech, much of it with military applications. Biologically-based processes could replace industrial chemistry for a host of purposes, the commission says: more effective lubricants and anti-corrosion coatings to keep military machinery operating in harsh conditions; new explosives, propellants, and other “energetics” for US weapons; separating rare-earth minerals from slag without poisoning the soil; even shelf-stable blood to keep wounded troops alive when refrigeration is unavailable. In the slightly longer term, large-scale biomanufacturing could create new industries in the United States, reducing dependence on foreign imports. Small-scale biomanufacturing systems — in essence, high-tech fermentation vats, set up at a forward operating base or even in the back of a Humvee — could let military units brew some of their own supplies on-site, instead of relying on vulnerable logistics convoys. At the very edge of plausibility, the report even talks of “super soldiers” with “greater intelligence and endurance. While such extreme human performance enhancement sounds fantastical, the report notes that the Beijing regime has publicly declared its interest in “population improvement” and that Chinese researchers often lack the ethical constraints on human experimentation found in the West. “This isnt science fiction,” said commission vice-chair Michelle Rozo, who’s worked on biotech at the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the CIA-backed investment agency In-Q-Tel. In particular, she said, the recent rapid advances in artificial intelligence are already accelerating biotech. Generative AI can dream up new molecular structures faster than any human, then AI simulations can model the biochemistry of these hypothetical compounds to see which might actually work. By allowing so much early exploration to be done digitally, instead of laboriously brewing up countless test batches in real-life labs, the ongoing AI revolution could spark a similar revolution in biotech, she argued. “Here in America, we are struggling to get to this ChatGPT moment for biotech, all the while China is having a DeepSeek moment: Theyre out-innovating the US in this key technology,” Rozo warned. “Today, this looks like making pharmaceuticals cheaper and faster. Tomorrow, this could be agriculture. After that, industry, energy and defense applications.” To catalyze a biotech revolution in America, Rozo said, requires a “public-private partnership,” similar to the CHIPS Act created for semiconductors. The difference, Young added, is that in biotech we have the opportunity to invest while there are still American companies to support, rather than waiting until the industry has to be rebuilt from scratch. “We can either pay now or pay a lot more later,” Young argued. “We’ve already dealt with this with the CHIPS Act … Even if one wants to quibble with how it was operationalized and how it was structured, we knew that there was no alternative to getting semiconductor production back to the United States, and we knew it would be costly — a hell of a lot more costly than had somebody made the requisite investment a number of years ago.” The report does call for a wide array of other measures, from streamlining approval processes for new biotech products to imposing new restrictions on Chinese investment. But the core of the commission’s strategy — and the hardest part to pass, given congressional gridlock, budget deficits, and President Donald Trump’s criticism of the CHIPS Act — is the federal government investing $15 billion over five years. That’s the bare minimum required to restore US competitiveness in biotech, Young said. “We’re looking under seat cushions for additional monies,” he told reporters. “We didn’t include second- or third-order priorities. This is what’s needed to stay ahead. If you want the Chinese to get ahead of us, spend less.”

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, biotechnology, China, cyber security, industrial base, logistics, networks, Sen. Todd Young, technology] [Link to media]

— F/A-XX hints, icebreaker ambitions and previewing day two of Sea Air Space [VIDEO]

 

at 4/7/25 8:31pm

SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — The first day of the Navy Leagues Sea Air Space 2025 edition played out in scenic National Harbor, Md., today, with talks from senior industry and naval officials on everything from next-generation aircraft to the (freezing) work to be done up north. In this video, Breaking Defense Editor-in-Chief Aaron Mehta and Managing Editor Lee Ferran run through the top news of the day and look forward to whats in store for day two. Check out the wrap-up below and click here to see Breaking Defenses continuous coverage from the team on the ground.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, f/a-xx, Icebreakers, Navy, SAS Multimedia 2025, video] [Link to media]

— A $1 trillion defense budget? Trump, Hegseth say it’s happening

 

at 4/7/25 7:25pm

US President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting in announcing the F-47 6th generation fighter jet in the Oval Office of the White House on Friday March 21, 2025. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images) WASHINGTON — Speaking Monday evening in the White House, President Donald Trump made a surprise announcement: The US appears poised for its first $1 trillion defense budget request. “We also essentially approved a budget, which is in the [vicinity], youll like to hear this, of a trillion dollars,” Trump said while meeting with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. “$1 trillion, and nobodys seen anything like it. We have to build our military, and were very cost conscious, but the military is something that we have to build, and we have to be strong, because you got a lot of bad forces out there now. “So were going to be approving a budget, and Im proud to say, actually, the biggest one weve ever done for the military. Afterwards, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seemed to confirm that Trump was referring to the fiscal year 2026 request, saying in a message on X, “COMING SOON: the first TRILLION dollar @DeptofDefense budget.” Exactly when the FY26 budget will drop, or what shape it will take, remains unclear. There has been talk of a “skinny budget” with few details coming first, and rumors that May is when budgets will be officially released, but nothing confirmed from the White House or Pentagon. In a note to investors, TD Cowen analyst Roman Schweizer wrote that “Based on last years Green Book, we assume this means a $50B increase for 050 National Defense, which was projected at $951B for the FY26 request.” He noted that while the majority of that funding likely will go to DoD, some may also be earmarked for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs. “We believe there has been discussion within the Administration and with Congress pitting advocates of more defense spending versus those in favor of restraining defense spending,” Schweizer wrote. “It seems — at least for now — the defense hawks have won.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Congress, Land Warfare, Naval Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, Air Force, Army, cyber security, Defense Budget 2026, Donald Trump, Navy, networks, Pete Hegseth, technology] [Link to media]

— PHOTOS: The sights of Sea Air Space 2025 Day 1

 

at 4/7/25 1:25pm

SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — Its that time of year, when the Navy Leagues major conference, Sea Air Space, comes to Washington, DC. The first day saw speeches and panels featuring senior Navy and industry figures, and the show floor was full of new tech and platforms from defense firms. Check out a selection of photos from day one below, and see Breaking Defenses full coverage of Sea Air Space 2025 here. A quadcopter unmanned aerial vehicle, the TRV-150c, sits on display at Maryland-based Survice Engineering Companys booth at Sea Air Space 2025. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) Shield AI shows off its V-Bat vertical-takeoff unmanned system. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) Ahead of Sea Air Space 2025, Anduril announced a new underwater unmanned system dubbed the Copperhead. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) At Leonardos booth at Sea Air Space 2025 sits a radar from its Gabbiano family of systems. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) Attendees at Sea Air Space 2025 may pass by the curious, almost fish-like shape of Aevexs Mako Lite, what the company calls a rugged, low-visibility unmanned surface vessel. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) The American arm of British defense MSI-Defence Systems attended Sea Air Space 2025, displaying its MK38 automated naval gun, which is in currently in service with the Navy. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense) Unmanned tech company firm Saildrone shows off its Voyager USV at Sea Air Space 2025. (Brendon Smith / Breaking Defense)

[Category: Naval Warfare, Navy, photo gallery, SAS Multimedia 2025] [Link to media]

— EXCLUSIVE: HII lifts the veil on secretive Dark Sea Labs tech integration office

 

at 4/7/25 12:35pm

The crew of an HII-owned boat prepare to deploy a Remus 300 into the water. (Photo by Justin Katz/Breaking Defense) WASHINGTON — Shipbuilder HII has established an office focused on integrating technologies from across its various business units, with the aim of replicating similar cross-cutting endeavors at the Pentagon, a senior executive recently revealed to Breaking Defense. The idea for what HII calls its Dark Sea Labs (DSL) is to do what no single HII division can do on its own, Executive Vice President of Strategy and Development Eric Chewning told Breaking Defense in an exclusive interview. On paper, that means proactively looking for opportunities where the research and development of one business unit might stand to benefit another — if only the right conduit was in place to bring the two together. In practice, Chewning said DSL has had a hand in integrating the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike weapon onboard the Zumwalt-class destroyers; using artificial intelligence to improve HII’s shipyards’s output; and working on the launch and recovery of unmanned undersea vehicles from traditional submarines. RELATED: HII chief: Defense tech business will outpace shipyard growth going forward Much of the efforts revolve around HIIs Mission Technologies, which, in contrast to the companys shipyards in Virginia and Mississippi that hold premiere shipbuilding contracts, is focused on technologies such as unmanned systems, C5ISR and artificial intelligence. For example, Mission Technologies is largely responsible for developing the companys unmanned underwater vehciles (UUVs) that HII hopes will one day operate from the Navys submarines. In a similar vein, HII hopes DSLs efforts will help the company expand its work inside the Pentagon. Chewning pointed to the recent other transaction agreement (OTA) HII received from the US Army to develop a high-energy laser as a potential future opportunity. That weapon, HII’s first public debut into the field of directed energy, is envisioned to help Army bases and vehicles defend themselves from small- to medium-sized drones. “The Army is leading investment in the counter-UAS [mission] and so there’s an opportunity here for us to obviously excel in this program for the Army,” Chewning said. “As the technology is validated and proven, [the goal is to demonstrate] that to other services, and given our deep relationship with the Navy, being able to demonstrate that we’re able to marinize the capability to address the Navy’s problem sets with the same counter-UAS mission.” Directed energy has proven to be a stubborn technology for the Defense Department. Senior officers from all services have for years expressed interest in using laser weapon systems and funded dozens of research and development efforts. Despite that, the Navy still lacks a program of record to equip its ships with such a weapon. Chewning, who served in various senior civilian Pentagon roles during the first Trump administration, said demonstrating a technology’s capability successfully through OTAs will be the company’s approach to seeing them turned into programs of record — a strategy that HII has previously had success with through the Navy’s Lionfish program. Overall DSL, Chewning said, is about how we can take capability across the different portfolios, whether its Ingalls, Newport News or Mission Technologies, and then bring that together to solve a customer problem set that any single division couldnt solve on its own.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Business & Industry, Dark Sea Labs, Eric Chewning, Lionfish, Navy, Remus, Sea Air Space 2025, Unmanned] [Link to media]

— Strengthening the Aerospace and Defense industrial supply chain

 

at 4/7/25 12:19pm

Image courtesy of Voyager. The Aerospace and Defense industrial supply chain isn’t just a network of companies – it’s the backbone of our national security, our technological leadership and our economic strength. It’s what keeps our warfighters equipped, our allies supported and our country prepared for whatever comes next. But let’s be real – our supply chain is under strain like never before. Geopolitical tensions are rising, and global disruptions have exposed vulnerabilities we can no longer ignore. We must act now, with urgency, purpose and a relentless commitment to strengthening this foundation through a powerful combination of government support, strategic partnerships and an honest assessment of our own limitations. If we align our strengths and collaborate with intent, we don’t just build a more resilient and innovative supply chain, we create something far more valuable than what we could achieve alone. That is how we make one plus one equal three, and it’s the mindset required to win the future. The need for a strong and resilient A&D supply chain I’ve seen firsthand how fragile our supply chain can be. COVID-19 was a wake-up call, but even before that, we were already dealing with bottlenecks, workforce shortages and an overreliance on foreign suppliers. These aren’t just business risks. They’re threats to our national security. If we can’t deliver the critical systems and components our military depends on, we aren’t just missing deadlines – we’re failing the men and women who rely on us. That’s why we need a supply chain that is: Resilient – Capable of withstanding and recovering from disruptions. Agile – Able to adapt to evolving threats and technological advancements. Efficient – Optimized for demand at an effective cost, without sacrificing quality or security. Secure – Protected from cyber threats and intellectual property theft. This isn’t just a checklist. It’s a mindset. It’s the foundation for how we win the future. The role of the U.S. Government in strengthening the A&D supply chain The U.S. government knows the criticality of the A&D supply chain. That’s why agencies like the Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency and others have stepped up with initiatives designed to fortify our domestic supply chain. Key programs include: National Defense Industrial Strategy Implementation Plan – Transforming the defense industrial base into a more resilient, dynamic and modernized ecosystem. The Defense Production Act – Empowering domestic manufacturing to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. Supply Chain Resilience Programs – Providing funding and strategic support for small and mid-sized suppliers. These programs are game changers, but they’re just the starting point. The government can’t fix this alone. We, as an industry, must step up proactively, strategically and with a shared sense of purpose. The importance of realistic self-assessment Let’s be honest. Overpromising and underdelivering is a persistent issue. We all know companies that have taken on contracts beyond their capacity, leading to production delays, cost overruns and broken trust. That must stop. To move forward, we need brutal honesty about what we can – and can’t – deliver. That means: Assessing our true capabilities – Knowing exactly where we stand in terms of production, scalability and risk. Investing in workforce and infrastructure – Ensuring we’re prepared for long-term demand, not just short-term gains. Leveraging government support wisely – Using funding to build sustainable growth, not chasing the next contract. If we take an honest look at our industry, we’ll see that no company can do it alone. That’s where partnerships come in. The power of partnerships In A&D, collaboration isn’t optional, it’s essential. No single company – no matter its size – has all the answers. The real breakthroughs happen when prime contractors, small and mid-sized suppliers, and government agencies work together to create something greater than the sum of its parts. When we collaborate with intent, we: Accelerate innovation – Pairing established defense giants with agile startups can lead to faster breakthroughs. Increase supply chain redundancy – Multi-source agreements prevent single points of failure. Improve cost efficiency – Shared resources and joint investments lower production costs and increase competitiveness. Mitigate risk – A diversified supply chain that leverages joint problem-solving is a strong supply chain. I’ve seen it happen. When the right partners come together, one plus one doesn’t equal two. It equals three. We must reshape the A&D supply chain to make it stronger, smarter and more resilient. But it won’t happen through wishful thinking. It will take hard decisions, strategic investments and a commitment to working together. The future of our industry and our national security depends on it. And I, for one, am #MissionReady. Are you?

[Category: Space, Sponsored Post, Aerospace, COVID-19, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Production Act, National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS), Presented by Voyager, space, Space Force, Space Symposium 2025, sponsored content, Supply Chain Resiliency Working Group, Voyager Space Symposium] [Link to media]

— Saildrone taps retired 3-star admiral John Mustin as president

 

at 4/7/25 11:20am

Vice Adm. John Mustin salutes the sideboys during Officer Candidate School (OCS) Class 07-24 Graduation Ceremony. (Photo by Chief Petty Officer Joshua Montes.) SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — Unmanned maritime systems manufacturer Saildrone, announced today it has appointed John Mustin, the retired three-star admiral and former chief of Navy reserve, as its president. “John Mustin brings a truly unique blend of naval operational expertise and commercial experience to the company,” said Richard Jenkins, founder and CEO at Saildrone, in a statement. “As naval demand for Saildrone services grows exponentially, John will deliver the leadership firepower I need to grow both the team and the defense business, ensuring our products continue to meet the demands of high-end naval warfare.” Mustin served in the Navy for 34 years and as the vice of commander of US Fleet Forces prior to his four-year stint as the head of the Navys reserve force, which ended in September 2024. “I’m thrilled to join the Saildrone team at this critical moment for global maritime security characterized by a rapidly evolving geo-political environment, said Mustin. “Having spent my career focused on naval operations and technology innovation, I recognize Saildrone’s capabilities are transformational to delivering naval strength to our warfighters at a time when our nation’s shipbuilding capacity is floundering. We, and our allies and partners, need high-capability platforms, delivered at scale, immediately. Saildrone defined the category and is the only operationally proven USV technology that is ready to scale today.” Saildrone primarily manufacturers and operates unmanned surface vessels that conduct unclassified intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions for the US Navy as well as a number of civilian federal agencies. Separate from Mustins announcement as the companys president, Saildrone also said today it had successfully integrated Thales Australias Blue Sentry thin-line towed array with its own Surveyor drone creating a groundbreaking system for autonomous long-endurance undersea MDA. The project, funded by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), marks a significant leap forward in persistent, real-time, undersea surveillance, according to a company statement.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Business & Industry, Drones, John Mustin, Navy, Richard Jenkins, Saildrone, Sea Air Space 2025, Thales, Thales Australia] [Link to media]

— ‘Secretary-level and above’ officials ‘working’ F/A-XX fighter decision: Acting CNO

 

at 4/7/25 10:26am

Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby delivers remarks at the 83rd Annual Seabee Ball at the City Club of Washington in Washington D.C. March 1, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Mass Communication Specialist Elliott Fabrizio). SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — The much-anticipated final decision on who will build the Navys next-generation fighter aircraft is currently under discussion by senior-most officials, the Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said today. Its a decision at the secretary-level and above, and theyre working that now, Kilby told reporters on the first day of the Navy-centric Sea Air Space exhibition outside of Washington, DC. I don’t want to get ahead of the contract decision, but I will tell you we need F/A-XX in the United States Navy just like the Air Force says, he said. I mean we’re talking about a fight in the Pacific. We fight together as a joint force, so having that capability is very important for us. Kilbys comments come weeks after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a high-profile announcement from the Oval Office that Boeing had won the competition for the Air Forces Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, now dubbed the F-47. But despite a report in Reuters in late March that an F/A-XX decision was imminent, no similar announcement has been made for the Navys next-gen fighter. The competition for F/A-XX is believed to be between Boeing and Northrop Grumman, after Lockheed Martin dropped out, as Breaking Defense first reported. Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, director of the Air Warfare division for the CNO, said in a separate panel today that a core attribute of the plane is expected to be its range, up to probably 125 percent of the range that were currently seeing today to give us better flexibility [and] operational reach. Like the Air Forces NGAD, the F/A-XX is expected to fly with drone wingmen, known as Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Donnelly said the use of AI and other tech on the plane will allow us to have [a] fully integrated architecture with our unmanned systems that were going to be fielding. Justin Katz and Sydney Freedburg contributed to this report.

[Category: Air Warfare, All Domain, Naval Warfare, Air Force, f/a-xx, Navy, Next Generation Air Dominance NGAD, Sea Air Space 2025] [Link to media]

— Israeli firm Rafael, General Atomics ink deal to produce ‘Bullseye’ missile stateside

 

at 4/7/25 9:25am

A Bullseye missile being manufactured by General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems. (Image courtesy of General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems) SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said today it signed a memorandum of understanding with Israeli defense contractor Rafael to manufacture a new long-range, precision-guided strike missile in the United States. The missile, dubbed Bullseye, will be capable of launching from air, ground or sea and will leverage the design used for Rafael’s Ice Breaker missile. “We are excited to work with Rafael to introduce Bullseye, a highly effective deep-strike missile. Bullseye will be built in the U.S. for delivery to U.S. military customers to support a variety of critical Department of Defense and coalition partners’ precision-fires missions,“ said Scott Forney, president of GA-EMS. “By leveraging Rafael’s extensive investment in the design, maturation and testing of a unique, modular missile, we can reduce risk and development costs and provide production-scale delivery of a highly capable, high-performance precision-guided missile at significant per-unit cost-savings.” Bullseye, which is not currently being purchased by the Pentagon, is at technology readiness level (TRL) 8. TRL is a system the Defense Department uses to rate how immature or advanced a technology is, with one indicating the tech is largely theoretical while a 10 means it is fully operational and has been proven in real-world scenarios. A General Atomics spokesperson told Breaking Defense the company is “actively engaged with potential U.S. customers across multiple services” about how the missile may match their needs. The spokesperson also said Rafael has approximately 1,200 missiles on order from undisclosed customers, and deliveries are expected to begin by the end of this year. “By combining Rafael’s Combat-proven innovative 5th Generation missile technologies with GA-EMS’s advanced manufacturing, assembly, integration and test expertise, Bullseye will deliver unprecedented accuracy, flexibility and affordability, giving warfighters a state-of-the-art missile system that hits its mark and adapts to evolving mission needs,” said Yuval Miller, executive vice president and head of Rafael’s Air & C4ISR Systems Division.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, Bullseye, General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems, Israel, Middle East, Navy, Rafael, Scott Forney, Sea Air Space 2025, Yuval Miller] [Link to media]

— EXCLUSIVE: NRO, Space Force in ‘final stages’ of commercial ISR arrangement

 

at 4/7/25 8:30am

ULA CEO Tory Bruno (left), then Space Force Space Systems Command head Lt. Gen. Michael Guetlein (center) and NRO Director Chris Scolese (right) at an Aug. 28, 2023 press conference prior to the launch of SILENTBARKER. (Screengrab: NRO Twitter feed) WASHINGTON — After more than two years of negotiations, the US Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office are on the brink of signing a baseline agreement on how they will share acquisition authority for, and access to, imagery from commercial remote sensing satellites. Col. Richard Kniseley, head of Space System Commands Commercial Space Office (COMSO), told Breaking Defense that he signed an unclassified version of the new agreement on March 20. In a nutshell, it allows us, COMSO, to pass them money, and for them to pass us money. So, if we have an entity on contract and they want to do a task order, or even put some money on the Global Data Marketplace, thats how theyre going to be able to do that, he explained. And then, now I have the ability to work with [NROs Commercial Systems Program Office] and [Director] Pete Muend and utilize some of the contracts that he has. An NRO spokesperson on March 26 confirmed in an email that an agreement was pending  — stressing that commercial satellite imagery and data have become increasingly important to the NROs capabilities. To further enhance sharing of commercial imagery with the Space Force, there is a pending Interagency Agreement between NRO’s Commercial Systems Program Office and U.S. Space Force’s Commercial Space Office that will help maximize the utility and availability of commercial remote sensing products across the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community. The Interagency Agreement is currently in the final stages of coordination and signature, the spokesperson said. Specifically, the two sides plan to sign a Treasury Department Bureau of the Fiscal Service Form 7600A [PDF], which outlines the general terms and conditions for allowing one agency to buy products and services from another, Kniseley said. This has allowed NRO and the Space Force to abandon trying to hash out a formal memorandum or agreement (MOA), he explained, and instead creates a generalized pathway for the two sides commercial offices to make case-by-case payments for obtaining each others imagery and analytical products. As Breaking Defense first reported, COMSO and the NRO Commercial Systems Program Office reached an informal accord in 2023 that each side would leverage each others commercial imagery whenever possible. However, that agreement didnt detail exactly when those evers were. Instead of having a five-page MOA, this thing is like, no kidding, a two-page, very streamlined document. So, I was very happy it came into our lives, Kniseley said. Further, he added, COMSO now in the early stages of working on a similar agreement with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) with regard to sharing of imagery analysis and downstream products such as maps. When asked about the status of those discussions, an NGA spokesperson told Breaking Defense only that: NRO purchases commercial pixels and would have lead on any agreement such as this. NGA’s role is in distributing the data. The pending financial accords are expected to resolve the immediate issue of how the Intelligence Communitys space agencies and the Space Force can fairly share each others commercial acquisitions, or even jointly acquire commercial data and products. IC, Space Force Boundaries Remain Fuzzy But they do not answer the larger question of where to set the overarching boundaries between the newest military service and the Intelligence Community about who does what, when, with regard to gathering intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) from space. NRO has maintained acquisition authority for commercial remote sensing imagery since 2018, taking over from NGA. NGA remains legally in charge of acquiring analytical services and products from commercial space providers, as well as for disseminating ISR to users across the federal government from POTUS to military commanders in the field to US civil agencies charged with disaster response, as well as allies. The Space Force has tried to ease the tensions by arguing that it is interested only in directly obtaining what it originally called tactical ISR — and in 2023 re-dubbed tactical surveillance, reconnaissance and tracking or TacSRT — affecting immediate battlefield needs. And indeed, NRO and the Space Force seem to have reached at least a public modus vivendi despite what sources have previously described as a behind-the-scenes tug of war about their respective roles and responsibilities for ISR acquisition that has simmered almost since the service was created in 2019. For example, senior Space Force leaders from Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman on down the chain have been careful to say that the services TacSRT pilot project, launched in 2023 with a marketplace for vendors, does not involve buying raw imagery so as to avoid stepping on NROs toes. The Space Force and NRO also are working together to fund and operate the SILENTBARKER program to build and deploy a new generation of satellites designed to keep an eye on adversary satellites in space. I have never seen so much collaboration on the Title 10 [military authorities], Title 50 [including intelligence authorities] side as I do right now. I thought SILENTBARKER was kind of a one-off. And, you know, we do stuff together and launch. But there theres a lot more stuff going on, and its great, Kniseley said. That relationship can only be expected to improve if and when Troy Meink, NROs deputy director, is confirmed by the Senate to be the new Air Force secretary. More recently, the hotter battle for authority has pitted the Space Force against the NGA over the latters satellite tasking role as well as respective authorities to acquire commercial ISR products. The Biden administration spent a good deal of time and White House energy in the second half of last year on the Space Force-NGA feud, but was unable to formalize a solution before the transition in January to the new Trump administration. Kniseley acknowledged that the three agencies are still trying to hash out the the larger questions related to the Space Forces plans for TacSRT. Theres still a three-party MOA going [around] with regards to TacSRT, he said. In testimony Thursday to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional advisory body, Saltzman suggested that a Space Force roles and missions discussion, including between military space and IC space, will be required in the not too distance future. We stood up an organization for military space, now we need to clearly define what those roles and responsibilities are, or even establish a process by which we will evaluate new missions as theyre developed to make sure we give them to the right organization.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, Space, cyber security, networks, Space Force, Space Symposium 2025, technology] [Link to media]

— Space Force awards first next-gen critical launch contracts to Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA

 

at 4/7/25 7:56am

New Glenn at liftoff during the NG-1 mission, Jan. 16, 2025. (Photo: Blue Origin) SPACE SYMPOSIUM 2025 — The Space Force has awarded the first contracts under the National Security Space Launch Program (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 2, with awards going to United Launch Alliance (ULA), SpaceX and newcomer Blue Origin — the first big-ticket national security launch contract for the Jeff Bezos-backed firm. The overall NSSL Phase 3 Mission Manifest has almost doubled compared to Phase 2, with an anticipated 84 missions being awarded from fiscal year 2025 through 2029, Space Systems Command announced April 4. This will include approximately 30 commercial-like Lane 1 missions and approximately 54 Lane 2 missions. NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 launches carry high-value, must-go payloads and/or those headed to orbits that are more difficult to achieve. Space Force is using firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery contracts for these types of launches. Lane 2 differs from Lane 1, which are more risk-tolerant payloads, going to easier to reach orbits. These launches are being contracted via a vendor pool created by a set of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts, under which the Space Force uses a specific task order to one company for each launch. Under the new awards, SpaceX is anticipated to undertake 28 NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 missions, about 60 percent of the launches contracted from FY25-FY29, for a sum of around $5.9 billion, and ULA 19 missions, about 40 percent, Space Systems Command (SSC) announced April 4. Blue Origin, is projected to be awarded seven Phase 3 Lane 2 missions starting in Order Year 2, of FY26, SSC added. SSC usually contracts for NSSL launches two years in advance, so the contract awards would cover  missions actually lofted between FY27 and FY32. While the number of contracted to Blue Origin is small, the award represents a vote of confidence for the company given that its New Glenn heavy lifter has yet to be fully certified by the service to carry NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 missions. New Glenn made its first successful certification flight Jan. 16,  and according to an April 4 press release the company expects the required second certification flight to go up in late spring. New Glenn last June was okayed by the Space Force to carry NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 missions carrying lighter payloads going to lower, less stressing orbits, along with ULA and SpaceX. SSC on March 28 announced it had added Rocket Lab USA and Stoke Space to the Lane 1 pool.

[Category: Space, Blue Origin, Business & Industry, National Security Space Launch, Space Force, space launch, Space Symposium 2025, Space Systems Command, United Launch Alliance] [Link to media]

— Raytheon awards Northrop, Nammo solid rocket motor development contracts

 

at 4/7/25 7:00am

A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block 1B interceptor missile is launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Navy test in the mid-Pacific.  (U.S. Navy photo/Released) SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — Raytheon, maker of the Navys Standard Missile, announced today it has awarded contracts to Northrop Grumman and Norwegian defense firm Nammo that could allow each to develop their own Mk 72 solid rocket motor production line. The aim of the contract is for Northrop and Nammo to prove they can build a solid rocket motor that meets requirements, and produce them at scale, Raytheon parent company RTX said in a news release. Under the contract, the companies will “verify design requirements and specifications” for the Mk 72, culminating with a Systems Requirements Review that will further refine the each company’s design concept. Currently, the Mk72 is built by L3Harris, but constraints on the wider solid rocket motor supply chain —comprised in the United States solely by L3Harris and Northrop — have led weapons makers such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to seek out new sources. “These contracts are an important step toward increasing capacity and source options to meet global demand for critical defense systems, such as Standard Missile,” said Barbara Borgonovi, president of Raytheon’s naval power division. “In addition to dual sourcing, we’re doubling down with support and oversight of our supply base and making strategic investments to address constraints and reduce risk so we can deliver more capabilities, faster.” Nammo and Northrop are not the only company angling to become a new provider of the Mk72. Last June, the Navy awarded startup X-Bow Systems contracts to develop a Mk 72 booster and Mk 104 dual-thrust solid rocket motor. Raytheon and Nammo previously announced a plan to expand Nammo’s manufacturing facility in Perry, Fla., to accommodate the production of solid rocket motors, the companies said in May 2024.  Nammo currently provides solid rocket motors for the AMRAAM, Sidewinder and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile using its facilities in Norway, the company stated.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Pentagon, Business & Industry, L3Harris, Nammo, Navy, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, RTX, Sea Air Space 2025, solid rocket motors, X-Bow] [Link to media]

— Three hard lessons about speed from the Red Sea

 

at 4/7/25 6:24am

Image courtesy of Lockheed Martin. Operations in the Red Sea have been a triumph for the U.S. Navy. In some of the most intense combat operations since World War II, Navy ships and crews took down countless ballistic missiles1 and drones threatening U.S. allies and commercial shipping vessels. While the mission has been successful – thanks to the skill and bravery of American Sailors – the speed and sophistication of today’s threats have been eye opening. For industry, it’s a reality check: the bad guys aren’t sitting still, and we can’t just match their pace, we need to go even faster. Here are three hard lessons industry learned from the Red Sea, and what Lockheed Martin is doing to ensure our military always remains ahead of ready. Lesson #1: Threats won’t wait – the time is now to accelerate software processes Software is fundamental to the fight. And in the Red Sea, Sailors need immediate software updates to adjust to new threats and sharpen radar feeds. But our traditional processes were not built for that kind of speed. There are a lot of reasons software updates move slower for the Department of Defense than in commercial industry. Limited bandwidth, security requirements, and the criticality of the mission all mean it’s vital to get software right the first time. When Sailors are staring down an incoming missile, you cannot afford to be in a beta test. Mission-critical software must be rigorously tested and certified before it’s deployed. That said, it is time to modernize processes to get updates built and shipped much, much faster. At Lockheed Martin, we are doing just that! We just proved how industry can move faster to meet the threats faced by the U.S. Navy and its allies. Thanks to the U.S. Navy’s vision, for the first time, we worked side-by-side with Navy engineers to push in-theater and crew-performed Aegis software updates “over the air” to forces in the Red Sea. This process allowed for small changes to be rapidly fielded, instead of waiting to incorporate them into the next major baseline upgrade. In a matter of days, the Navy and Lockheed Martin team went from a mission need to a certified, mission-ready update in operation. Industry and government must continue to work together to define new, streamlined processes that drive speed without sacrificing mission assurance. At the same time, we must also capitalize on secure satellite communication and other wireless links to push software to deployed forces in real time. We have learned a lot about what works. It is time to continue to feed those lessons back into smarter processes and make this speed of delivery an everyday occurrence. Image courtesy of Lockheed Martin. Lesson #2: Commanders have plenty of data – they need the most relevant data, and now Industry is great at generating data. We have sensors that can see tiny targets from miles away, and combat systems that show far-flung blue and red forces on real-time maps. But for decision cycles measured in seconds, we need to be better. In the midst of ballistic missile volleys, watchstanders aboard the USS Carney had less than a minute to spot, identify, and decide on engaging targets screaming over the water. Operators don’t have time to synthesize data in combat. The network must provide that capability for them, and give them a clear, relevant picture of the advancing threats, whether it is an adversary or bad weather. That’s where AI comes in. Amongst a deluge of data, AI sifts through the noise to uncover clear targets, and instantly declutters the picture for decision-makers, so they can focus on what matters most. We are currently working with the Navy to integrate AI into both current Aegis-equipped vessels and the next-generation Integrated Combat System, to cut through the clutter and deliver the most relevant data. We will enable AI-powered systems to give an operator a flash assessment of the threat and a set of options for engaging the threat, ranked by probability of success. To effectively leverage AI and accelerate operations while keeping a human in the loop, we must continue to collaborate across the commercial sector and integrate cutting-edge AI technologies into the DoD. By forming strategic, commercial partnerships with industry leaders like NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Intel, we are bridging the gap at Lockheed Martin to bring innovative commercial solutions with our in-depth understanding of the mission, enabling AI to drive meaningful impacts for the DoD. Lesson #3: The problem isn’t just about more ammo – it’s about more options A lot has been said about the need for more interceptors to meet high-volume threats. And that’s very true, which is why we have been working with the Navy to integrate additional interceptors like PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement into the fleet, increasing capacity. But crews need more than just more ammo. When they are staring down dozens of drones and missiles, they must have multiple ways of taking them down to ensure the strategic advantage. Directed energy, electronic warfare, and precision chain guns all offer options for neutralizing a wide range of targets. And all those effectors – regardless of who manufactures them – need to plug in to a common network. The Navy cannot afford to have more separate, non-integrated systems. At Lockheed Martin, we are bringing these solutions to the Navy now! We are making sure that Aegis and the next-gen Integrated Combat System can connect with any effector, and any interceptor built by any supplier, so the Navy has maximum options for affordable and available access to combat threats. This isn’t an either/or scenario. It’s a yes/and. We must ramp up production and we must rapidly mature and deploy multiple options for engaging threats. And that will take companies across industry working together to build capacity and improve connectivity. At Lockheed Martin, we are doing just that as we have chosen a path to collaborate with other industry partners to continue ensuring our U.S. Navy always remains ahead of ready. 1 Testimony by Admiral James W. Kilby, USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the Navy before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on March 12, 2025.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Sponsored Post, aegis, Houthi attacks, Houthis, Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Red Sea, Navy, Presented by Lockheed Martin, Red Sea, Sea Air Space 2025, sponsored content, USS Carney] [Link to media]

— What you need to know before you go to Sea Air Space 2025 [VIDEO]

 

at 4/7/25 5:25am

SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — Happy Monday, and greetings from scenic National Harbor, Md., where the 2025 edition of the Navy Leagues Sea Air Space conference kicks off today. If youre headed to the show, chances are youre sitting in the conferences infamously long registration line. So take a few minutes and watch as Editor-in-Chief Aaron Mehta and Managing Editor Lee Ferran discuss what the Breaking Defense team is going to be keeping an eye on over the next few days. Of course, just because this is the start of the conference doesnt mean its the start of our coverage, with a number of stories and op-eds already live at our landing page for the show. Make sure to check that link often, and also make sure that check back every day for our recap videos from the show on our multimedia page.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Business & Industry, Navy, SAS Multimedia 2025, video] [Link to media]

— Anduril unveils ‘Copperhead’ underwater drone

 

at 4/6/25 10:01pm

Andurils Copperhead UUV is shown in art provided by the company. (Anduril) SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — Defense tech company Anduril today unveiled a new unmanned undersea vehicle, dubbed Copperhead, built specifically to be launched from larger underwater drones. “Victory at sea will require large fleets of autonomous subsea, surface, and air vehicles capable of bringing advanced awareness and overwhelming adversaries with mass maritime effects,” according to a company statement. “With the Dive-LD and Dive-XL, Copperhead enables a comprehensive, intelligent maritime capability that allows operators to quickly respond to threats in the undersea battlespace, at a fraction of the cost of legacy options.” Dive-LD and Dive-XL are both relatively large UUVs, also built by Anduril, that can carry and deploy the new Copperhead system. The newer system comes in two models, Copperhead-100 and Copperhead-500, each a different size. When equipped with a warhead, the company terms the system Copperhead-M, and the design operates essentially as a torpedo. But the firm emphasizes the fact Copperhead can carry a number of payloads and perform a number of missions. “UUVs are proliferating. USVs are proliferating. The picture, if you will, or the environment above and below the waves is completely changing,” Shane Arnott, senior vice president of programs and engineering at Anduril, told reporters ahead of the Sea Air Space exposition this week. “So, in order to address what is, candidly, a very wide waterfront — the fight against the [People’s Republic of China] in particular is primarily a water-based fight — these types of technologies and products are built to deal with that.” Arnott declined to comment on Copperhead’s price or whether Anduril has secured contracts with the Defense Department or any foreign government for the product. Anduril’s announcement comes at a time when numerous companies in the defense industrial base are releasing new models of unmanned vehicles. Defense start-up Saronic in October debuted the largest USV from its Corsair product line. Internationally, France’s Naval Group late last year also unveiled its own new USV, dubbed “Seaquest.” And Textron in January announced its “Tsunami” family of unmanned surface vehicles. For its part, the US Navy has spent the last several years experimenting with a wide range of commercial-off-the-shelf unmanned systems, while slowly and arduously advancing the programs of record it hopes will one day make up its hybrid fleet’s most advanced capabilities. In general, Navy officials have expressed the most interest in unmanned systems that act like trucks — vehicles designed to carry wide varieties of other payloads and capabilities. In the meantime, the Navy has also used partnerships with agencies such as the Defense Innovation Unit to select a handful of industry systems for transition into programs of record. Corrected 4/7/25 at 5:18 pm: The original story stated that Copperhead-M was a different system than Copperhead, instead of just a variant. This story has been updated with corrected information.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Anduril, Copperhead, Copperhead-M, Drones, Navy, Sea Air Space 2025, Shane Arnott, Unmanned, uuv] [Link to media]

— Anduril unveils torpedo-launching ‘Copperhead’ underwater drone

 

at 4/6/25 10:01pm

Andurils Copperhead UUV is shown in art provided by the company. (Anduril) SEA AIR SPACE 2025 — Defense tech company Anduril today unveiled a new unmanned undersea vehicle, dubbed Copperhead, built specifically to be launched from larger underwater drones — and in turn, launch an associated torpedo dubbed Copperhead-M. “Victory at sea will require large fleets of autonomous subsea, surface, and air vehicles capable of bringing advanced awareness and overwhelming adversaries with mass maritime effects,” according to a company statement. “With the Dive-LD and Dive-XL, Copperhead enables a comprehensive, intelligent maritime capability that allows operators to quickly respond to threats in the undersea battlespace, at a fraction of the cost of legacy options.” Dive-LD and Dive-XL are both relatively large UUVs, also built by Anduril, that can carry and deploy the new Copperhead system — essentially an underwater version of the Air Forces turducken-like LongShot system. The newer system comes in two models, Copperhead-100 and Copperhead-500, each a different size. “UUVs are proliferating. USVs are proliferating. The picture, if you will, or the environment above and below the waves is completely changing,” Shane Arnott, senior vice president of programs and engineering at Anduril, told reporters ahead of the Sea Air Space exposition this week. “So, in order to address what is, candidly, a very wide waterfront — the fight against the [People’s Republic of China] in particular is primarily a water-based fight — these types of technologies and products are built to deal with that.” Arnott declined to comment on Copperhead’s price or whether Anduril has secured contracts with the Defense Department or any foreign government for the product. Anduril’s announcement comes at a time when numerous companies in the defense industrial base are releasing new models of unmanned vehicles. Defense start-up Saronic in October debuted the largest USV from its Corsair product line. Internationally, France’s Naval Group late last year also unveiled its own new USV, dubbed “Seaquest.” And Textron in January announced its “Tsunami” family of unmanned surface vehicles. For its part, the US Navy has spent the last several years experimenting with a wide range of commercial-off-the-shelf unmanned systems, while slowly and arduously advancing the programs of record it hopes will one day make up its hybrid fleet’s most advanced capabilities. In general, Navy officials have expressed the most interest in unmanned systems that act like trucks — vehicles designed to carry wide varieties of other payloads and capabilities. In the meantime, the Navy has also used partnerships with agencies such as the Defense Innovation Unit to select a handful of industry systems for transition into programs of record.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Anduril, Copperhead, Copperhead-M, Drones, Navy, Sea Air Space 2025, Shane Arnott, Unmanned, uuv] [Link to media]

— From support to ‘warfighting’: Space Force releases first ‘capstone’ operations doctrine

 

at 4/4/25 1:17pm

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman delivers a keynote address on the state of the Space Force during the Air and Space Forces Association 2024 Warfare Symposium in Aurora, Colo., Feb. 13, 2024. (US Air Force photo by Eric Dietrich) WASHINGTON — The Space Forces new capstone doctrine document officially puts into action the two-year campaign by Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman to refocus the services traditional mission of providing critical support functions to the rest of the US military toward waging war in, from and to space. Space is a warfighting domain, not a collection of supporting activities. In conflict, space will be a contested environment. We are the military Service dedicated to fighting in it. We do not merely provide support functions — we also employ military force to achieve space superiority in order to ensure our freedom of maneuver, Saltzman stresses in his forward to Space Force Doctrine Document 1 (SFDD-1), released today ahead of next weeks annual Space Symposium. It is our job to organize, train, and equip space forces, but we are also responsible for conducting warfighting operations in space, he adds. Guardians are, and always will be, warfighters. According to the Space Force announcement, SFDD-1 codifies why we fight, who we are, what we do, and how we integrate into the joint force. It lays out the criticality of national and military spacepower, our guiding foundations and statutory roles, as well as the service’s mission. SFDD-1 also codifies our values, officer, enlisted, and civilian roles, how the USSF functionally organizes, and key relationships. It further describes the employment of spacepower, and its core functions of space control, global mission operations, and space access, and key principles of command and control, mission command, and battle management. The new doctrine document, which will supercede earlier doctrine publications, builds on a flurry of less formal writings issued by Saltzman over the past several years that have taken an increasingly martial tone — including a series of Commanders Notes, and a somewhat controversial Sept. 24 memo on “Military Space Operations Terms of Reference,” obtained by Breaking Defense, that in some cases diverted from the space warfighting concepts currently laid out in Joint Force doctrine. SFDD-1 states in no uncertain terms that the Space Force mission is first and foremost space warfare, and by implication putting support of other types of military missions via capabilities such as satellite communications as a secondary focus. That said, the doctrine paper does detail the importance of what it now calls Global Mission Operations to ensure that the US military can can out-see, out-shoot, out-maneuver, and out-communicate any adversary — SATCOM, navigation warfare, missile warning and tracking, space-based sensing and targeting and theater electromagnetic warfare. It also also asserts that space forces enable significant effects in cooperation and competition below armed conflict.  Under the section titled Space Warfare, SFDD-1 stresses that to achieve its overarching mission, the service must be prepared to conduct warfare to deter or compel adversary behavior, undermine adversary intent, and enable joint all-domain application of force, through force or the threat of force in, from, and to the space domain. It then elaborates that this involves four key activities: Deterring or denying attacks on friendly space capabilities by holding adversary space forces at risk. Compelling an adversary to cease aggressive action in any domain by disrupting, denying, degrading, or destroying the space capabilities they rely on to achieve their military objectives. Undermining an adversary’s strategy and their intent to attrit friendly space capabilities through forcible action in, from, and to the space domain. Enabling the application of force in all domains by providing a space-enabled combat edge to terrestrial forces.

[Category: Air Warfare, Pentagon, Space, Air Force, doctrine, Gen. Chance "Salty" Saltzman, Space Force, Space Symposium 2025, space warfare] [Link to media]

— Aboard the Ford: What it’s like on a US Navy aircraft carrier preparing for deployment

 

at 4/4/25 12:30pm

An F/A-18 Super Hornet from Strike Fighter Squadron 213 lands aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (Photo by Justin Katz/Breaking Defense.) FLIGHT DECK OF THE USS GERALD R. FORD — “Here we go!” the air crew chief yells, waving his hands back and forth to grab the attention of the two dozen reporters and sailors sitting in the cabin of this US Navy C-2A Greyhound transport aircraft as it comes in for a landing. Moments later, everyone is pinned to the back of their seats as the tailhook on the Greyhound catches one of the flight deck’s wires upon landing and, through the power of electromagnetism, the plane comes to a dead stop in a matter of seconds. As the reporters exhale and the plane’s aft door opens, it reveals the deck of an aircraft carrier where numerous sleek F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets come into view, surrounded by sailors wearing their iconic, brightly colored jerseys. When the Greyhound finishes taxiing, its passengers follow a sailor sporting a white jersey — signifying personnel responsible for safety — off the flight deck. As the ship steams somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean not far away from Naval Station Norfolk, another Super Hornet soon roars to life and launches off the carrier, visible to the ship’s guests on a nearby monitor in one of the carriers internal rooms. The Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is the US Navy’s newest and most technologically advanced operational aircraft carrier. Embarked with thousands of sailors and officers — and on this sunny but cold March day, a small group of reporters — the crew is conducting their Composite Unit Training Exercise (COMPTUEX), a major event every carrier strike group must complete before beginning a new deployment to ensure the warships are prepared for whatever they encounter. “We have everybody on board getting to know each other and working on that synchronicity that’s required, and that’s really kind of the heart of COMPTUEX. This is a rehearsal, and we’re going to get it right,” Capt. Rick Burgess, the Ford’s commanding officer, tells reporters while standing in the carrier’s hangar, flanked by two Super Hornets in the background. The Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is one of the US Navys newest and most technologically advanced aircraft carriers. (Photo by Justin Katz/Breaking Defense.) COMPTUEX is designed to prepare a carrier strike group for operations in all of the worlds hot spots: the Middle East (US 5th Fleet), the Mediterranean (US 6th Fleet) and the Pacific (US 7th Fleet). For now, officials say, the strike groups next deployment will likely begin this summer in the Mediterranean, but those plans are always subject to change — particularly given the volatility of the Middle East. A carrier strike group can take any number of different configurations depending on what ships the Navy has available and what missions the Pentagon needs accomplished. Today, the Ford is the centerpiece of Carrier Strike Group 12, and the most senior officer aboard is Rear Adm. Paul Lanzilotta, a naval aviator who also once held Burgess’ spot as the ship’s commanding officer. “Everything from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief all the way to major combat operations” are potential assignments, he tells reporters while standing next to Burgess. “What we typically do is plan for all of the above so that we’re deployed and ready to go into harm’s way regardless of what we’re asked to do.” Carrier Air Wing 8, led by Capt. David Dartez, is also aboard and equipped with the full gamut of naval airpower squadrons, including Super Hornets, Growlers, Hawkeyes, Seahawk helicopters and Greyhounds. (The one noticeably absent aircraft is the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which has not yet undergone necessary integration to operate from the newer carrier class.) Dartez says the Navy’s recent operations in the Red Sea, in which ships have been fending off missile and drone threats from Houthi rebels in Yemen, have informed changes to the current training regimen, which sailors will be practicing during COMPTUEX. “A big example [of training changes] is a lot of unmanned aircraft and training against those unmanned aircraft. We know that they’re a threat. We know that they’re out there,” he tells reporters. “I can’t get into the tactics and procedures [of combating them] but I will just say that they are small, they are hard to find, and we work hard to get after that.” Not visible from the Ford’s flight deck are a total of six Arleigh Burke-class destroyers nearby conducting their own training events. Four of those ships make up Destroyer Squadron 2 and are commanded by Capt. Mark Lawrence. A fifth ship, Roosevelt (DDG-80), is usually based in Rota, Spain, but is joining the strike group for COMPTUEX. The sixth destroyer is Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81), which has been designated the air and missile defense commander. The Churchill’s designation is significant. The air and missile defense commander role is “massive,” Lawrence tells reporters, and is traditionally assigned to a cruiser, but the Navy is in the midst of retiring those ships. The destroyers assignment as lead for air and missile defense is a fleet first, according to officials, and required some adjustments of their own. The ship “has an additional department head. We’ve reconfigured to some extent her combat center to increase the number of terminals to allow that ship to do air [and] missile defense coordination.” Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander of US Fleet Forces, told reporters days before their embark on Ford. “Effectively, that’s the wave of the future. This is our first instantiation of that.” Capt. Sage is a mutt with a mission aboard the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. (Photo by Justin Katz/Breaking Defense.) Aboard the Ford, as reporters continue to question Lanzilotta, Burgess and the other officers in the hangar, yet another Navy captain approaches from the rear accompanied by an enlisted sailor. Capt. Sage, sporting an aquamarine bandana, is a five-year-old labrador retriever who joined Ford’s crew during a previous deployment. She is clearly accustomed to life aboard an aircraft carrier and doesn’t react to the overwhelming noise of flight deck operations — or a group of reporters eager to take pictures and say hello. Beyond having a photogenic face and pleasant demeanor, Capt. Sage and other “mutts with a mission” are trained to detect increased levels of cortisol — a hormone the human body produces in response to stress — and proactively approach sailors who might benefit from her company, according to Navy officials. That she is called “Capt. Sage” is not an inside joke by the crew, her handler says. The Defense Department has a history of bestowing ranks on animals who play their part in the military, and the Navy in turn officially made the dogs who embark their warships captains. Back on the flight deck, fighter jet launch and recovery operations are in full swing. Every sailor wears a colored jersey that indicates their range of responsibilities. Purple jerseys refuel aircraft. The ship’s public affairs staff shepherding reporters on this tour are wearing green. Yellow jerseys direct pilots taxiing around the flight deck. The deafening sounds of the jets mean virtually all commands are conveyed through sign language. Perhaps the most iconic of those signs is the angled-one-knee-on-the-ground position two sailors, both sporting white jerseys, will take at the rear of a jet just moments before it takes off. A Super Hornet about to take off from the flight deck. (Photo by Justin Katz/Breaking Defense.) The one exception to the all-sign language rule is commands from aircraft handling officer overseeing operations. Using a public announcement system which the Navy calls the “5MC,” the handler routinely calls out the names of the jets launching and landing, and makes other announcements to let the crew know the current stage of operations. At one point, he abruptly shouts “Clear the LA!” using an acronym for “landing area.” It’s not immediately clear what the officer spotted, but the sea of colored jerseys all back away from the runway when they hear it. Seconds later, a big screen sitting adjacent to the runway that shows green stoplight-like circles goes partially red, signalling to a pilot coming in for a landing that something has gone wrong, and they must abort that landing attempt. After observing flight deck operations for half an hour, it is time to return to shore, which means boarding another C-2A Greyhound. The Navy plans to retire the Greyhound fleet next year in exchange for the V-22 Ospreys, which can take off and land on a ship vertically like a helicopter rather than the rollercoaster-like ride of a catapult and trap required for fixed-wing aircraft like the Greyhound. But for anyone who does find themselves sitting in the cabin of a Greyhound about to be catapulted off the flight deck using the incredible power of electromagnetism, then this reporter has a piece of advice: The passenger seats in the Greyhound’s cabin face backwards, which is why the abrupt landing can pin people into their seats, as a opposed to a car where braking results in a passenger leaning forward, away from the seat. This means that, inversely, the G force of launching will pull passengers forward. If someone were to lift their feet in the seconds before launch to try to properly brace, it could result in that person’s shins being forcefully thrown into the seat in front of them. “Here we go!” the air crew chief yells, once again waving his hands frantically to get everyone’s attention. The plane’s engines roar. The catapult jolts the Greyhound forward, shooting off into the air. Ow. That is going to leave a mark.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Adm. Daryl Caudle, C-2A Greyhound, COMPTUEX, CVN-78, David Dartez, featured, Mark Lawrence, Middle East, Navy, Paul Lanzilotta, Rick Burgess, Sea Air Space 2025, USS Gerald R. Ford] [Link to media]

— The Navy needs a high/low mix of manned and unmanned platforms

 

at 4/4/25 11:01am

DARPA’s NOMARS is a 180-footlong warship designed from the ground up to not have humans aboard. (Photo courtesy of DARPA) A recent Breaking Defense opinion piece by retired Army general John Ferrari suggests a massive restructuring of the Navy away from manned aviation, largely by shrinking the numbers of larger surface ships in favor of AI-driven, unmanned small ships like gunboats or patrol craft, and cheap, attritable drone aircraft. The Navy does have several shipbuilding challenges that need to be corrected, but the replacement of existing ships by small (i.e., cheap) ships, something critics have been saying since the 1982 Falklands war, is not the solution. In truth, this approach is fundamentally at odds with the global battlespace where the Navy operates, often far from land base support. Combat in Ukraine is often used as the example that suggests mass swarms of small, attritable drones will overcome “legacy” weapons like the tank, the helicopter, and the surface warship. But the applicability of the Ukraine situation to sea, especially with the large oceans that would be in play in a great power battle, is limited. Land battle offers infinite space from which to deploy these small drones, often in short-range combat well within their operating parameters. That’s why naval combat in the Black Sea by Ukraine has been primarily land-based in terms of its launch point. Naval combat outside the immediate littoral space usually takes place over much longer ranges and/or at a much faster pace, as shown recently in Red Sea missile and drone engagements. Iranian and Houthi drones were forced to travel hundreds of miles at relatively low speeds due to power limitations to reach their potential targets. There was plenty of time for US surveillance assets and systems to locate, target and destroy those drones. Drones, like other weapons such as cruise missiles, are best employed at shorter ranges, and littoral areas where drones work best are already dangerous for surface warships, with cruise missiles and mines being the most significant threats. The Navy will need to better prepare for drone threats in those confined waters, but that’s just another component of what the ghost of Donald Rumsfeld would say is a known known. Focus on the short-range drone conflict in Ukraine also fails to understand the Navy’s operational geography. The Navy must bring all its assets to any fight from remote locations including the continental United States. Gunboats and small platforms, manned or unmanned, take time to cross global ocean spaces to the fight, often arrive in theater not ready for operations due to damage incurred from weather or just crew fatigue and require more frequent servicing with fuel and weapons to remain in the fight. Unlike ground forces, the Navy must stage operations from the sea and needs larger platforms to carry, support and provide force protection to smaller units. There will always need to be a sizable number of larger and more capable ships to support a sustained fight in the maritime and littoral environments, and if needed later, over the beach and ashore. No mass pivot to smaller warships will support such forward-deployed operations. These realities are why the Navy has focused on the concept of manned and unmanned teaming, rather than the wholesale replacement of manned systems. While Ferrari acknowledges that, “longer ranges will require larger unmanned systems due to weight and power,” he does not suggest how such systems will be controlled in a contested environment — another major challenge.  AI alone is not enough, and the Navy’s current approach of manned and unmanned teaming represents a better method for an expeditionary force without land bases to best operate unmanned systems. Air teaming of manned and unmanned units is demonstrated in the short film Sea Strike 2043, which details the use of unmanned strike and electronic warfare units with the F-35C in a future scenario. The DARPA Defiant unmanned/minimum manned ship, with sixteen vertical launch missile cells, has been suggested for employment as an adjunct magazine, electronic warfare support and possible fuel carrier for surface ships. Finally, the ORCA large unmanned underwater vehicle is moving toward dangerous missions like minelaying and reconnaissance inside hostile waters. These platforms and larger units can all bring small, numerous unmanned systems and drone weapons to the fight as well. None of the Navy’s unmanned systems have the full potential to support operations in the absence of manned warships, whose mission they ultimately support. All-or-nothing force structure changes are often ill-informed and fail in global combat. Germany’s World War two decision to drop focus on its surface fleet and naval air arm and exclusively build submarines condemned those submersibles to destruction at the hands of Allied air and surface forces they could not combat. A US Navy shift to a much larger fleet of small, unmanned and drone units would be equally disastrous in the operational and tactical levels of war. Manned and unmanned teaming represents the best way forward for unmanned weapons employment. It’s not a 180-degree course change, but rather a continuous turn to take advantage of the revolution of the unmanned systems. Steven Wills, PhD is the navalist at the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League of the United States. He is the editor of  Returning from Ebb Tide, Renewing the United States Commercial Maritime Enterprise, published by Marine Corps University Press this year, Strategy Shelved, the Collapse of Cold War Maritime Strategic Planning, published by U.S. Naval Institute Press in 2021, and with former Navy Secretary John Lehman, Where are the Carriers, U.S. National Strategy and the Choices Ahead, published by Foreign Policy Research Institute in 2021. 

[Category: Naval Warfare, Opinion, Drones, Navy, Op-Ed Commentary, Sea Air Space 2025] [Link to media]

— UK aerospace and defense group warns of ‘scarcity mindset and price hikes’ in wake of Trump tariffs

 

at 4/4/25 9:44am

F-35B fighter jets from the UK Carrier Strike Group launch from the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to undertake sorties under NATO command in the Atlantic (UK MoD) BELFAST — President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a 10 percent tariff on British exports is fueling concern in the UK defense industry that the move could “instigate a scarcity mindset and price hikes,” according to a leading UK aerospace and defense trade body. Kevan Craven, CEO of ADS Group, which represents UK aerospace, defense, security and space companies, told Breaking Defense in a statement that his nearly 1,500 prime and lower-tier suppliers are broadly forecasting that their businesses will suffer “additional costs of tens of millions of pounds,” predominately linked to aluminum and steel markets. Trump’s so-called Liberation Day on Wednesday included the imposition of tariffs on around 90 countries in a bid, he claimed, to wipe out a trade deficit between the US and international trading partners. Others did not fare as well as the UK, with Asia-Pacific nations hit with some of the harshest penalties, while the European Union was targeted with a 20 percent rate. Craven said the tariffs fit within the “small, not catastrophic category” of economic disruption but warned that even though Britain had received a relatively low tariff, it will ultimately feel the impact of the “wider environment, resulting cost pressure and behaviour of businesses to stockpile, which will drive up costs.” “UK supply chains are vital for many areas of US capability in advanced manufacturing, and vice versa,” said Craven. “Industry does need reassurance that this will not change, and while tariffs themselves are disappointing, confirmation that existing agreements will be upheld will be pivotal to confidence.” The UK MoD declined to comment on the potential impact of the tariffs on UK defense exports, referring Breaking Defense to a statement made to lawmakers on Thursday by Jonathan Reynolds, UK secretary of state for business and trade. As part of that statement, Reynolds launched a “request for input on the implications for British businesses of possible retaliatory action,” to the US tariffs. The process is open until May 1 and encourages industry to share products that “could potentially be included in any UK tariff response.” In 2023, according to figures from UK Defence and Security Exports, military equipment sold to North America amounted to nearly £2 billion ($2.58 billion), though an exact figure for the US alone and weapon systems in question remain unclear. “We don’t provide data on individual countries due to commercial sensitivities and cannot disclose individual orders,” a spokesperson for the Department for Business and Trade said in a statement to Breaking Defense. F-35 Bargaining Chip? British suppliers play a key role in US defense capabilities, most notably manufacturing components of Lockheed Martin F-35 fifth generation fighter jets, ranging from rear fuselages and batteries to ejector seats and actuators. UK officials consistently claim that 15 percent “by value” of every F-35 manufactured is the work of local industry, though analysts dispute the figure. UK lawmakers are also concerned that a future order of F-35 aircraft, reportedly set to be agreed by ministers soon, could be used as a bargaining tool, linked to negotiations aimed at securing a new US-UK trade deal. Reynolds said in a parliamentary statement on Thursday that he had “no knowledge” of a F-35 bargaining chip plan. Operated by both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, the UK has committed to a program of record of 138 aircraft over the life of the stealth plane. So far, it has received 37 of 48 F-35 jets, but has still to confirm a second tranche order. Reports that decisionmakers will side again with the US and place a new F-35 order, instead of additional Eurofighter Typhoons, forsaking local prime BAE Systems in the process, have frustrated the British firms trade union Unite. “We have serious concerns that without a domestic order for Typhoon there will be no GCAP [Global Combat Air Programme] due to the loss of the skills necessary to build and fly aircraft,” wrote Steve McGuinness, an aerospace and defense executive council member at Unite, last year.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Business & Industry, Europe, F-35, NATO, Trump tariffs, UK] [Link to media]

— With NGAD loss and hazy future for F-35, Lockheed Martin weathers scrutiny from Wall Street

 

at 4/4/25 8:56am

U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Lee Cutshaw, an aircrew flight equipment technician assigned to the F-35 Demonstration Team, marshals the a USAF F-35A Lightning II during an airshow at Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Florida, on 20 October, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Nicholas Rupiper) WASHINGTON — After a loss on the Air Force’s F-47 program and its withdrawal from the Navy’s F/A-XX competition, Lockheed Martin is facing questions from Wall Street about how the company responsible for both of the US military’s fifth-generation fighters now finds itself shut out of the sixth-generation fighter market. On March 21, President Donald Trump announced that Boeing had beaten Lockheed to win the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to build the newly dubbed F-47 — a decision that shocked analysts, which had largely favored Lockheed for the win based on the company’s development of the F-22 and F-35, along with Boeing’s continued execution problems. Meanwhile, the Navy is rumored to announce the winner of its own sixth generation fighter program imminently, but the only thing certain is that Lockheed won’t find itself part of the winner’s circle — as only Boeing and Northrop Grumman remain after Lockheed departed the competition, as first reported by Breaking Defense last month. Wall Street has noticed, and are raising early red flags. Analysts from Bank of America, Melius and RBC Capital all downgraded the company’s rating to “neutral” last week, with Ron Epstein of Bank of America citing the lack of major competitions left on the horizon, Lockheed’s recently lackluster earnings, and questions about future F-35 sales. “Given recent US geopolitical re-posturing (tariffs, reducing support for NATO and sovereignty threats targeted at Canada and Greenland), the F-35 international partners are naturally concerned about their reliance on the program and rethinking their commitments,” Epstein said in an investor note. “This begs the question as to what LMTs future is as a Prime Contractor in a sixth gen fighter world if they are not leading the development of any of the manned sixth gen programs.” That question was echoed by Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners, who looked beyond the F-47 to a series of losses for the world’s largest defense firm over the last decade: to Northrop on the B-21 bomber, to Boeing on the T-7 trainer, and to Bell Textron on the Army’s Future Long Range Assault Aircraft. “An open question for Lockheed Martin is why it has not been able to win major new military aerospace competitions,” he said in a note to investors. “Possibly, Lockheed Martin believed it had a solid position on F-35, though we’d argue that may have changed on possible interest by DoD in more autonomous attritable aircraft, and U.S. policy/posture changes that might erode international F-35 sales prospects.” Lockheed isn’t backing away from future airpower opportunities despite its defeat on NGAD, a company spokesperson said in a statement to Breaking Defense.  “While we are disappointed with the outcome, we continue to advance the state of the art in air dominance, ensuring that America has the most revolutionary systems to counter the rapidly evolving threat environment. Further questions can be addressed following our earnings quiet period,” the spokesperson said. (Lockheed’s next earnings call is April 22.) Not all analysts believe that Lockheed’s NGAD loss indicates some wider failure to book cutting-edge aircraft contracts.  TD Cowen analyst Roman Schweizer pointed to Lockheed’s recent earnings calls, where executives disclosed charges to a classified program within its aeronautics portfolio. In January, Lockheed’s Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave said the program involves “highly complex design and systems integration” and that the company recorded losses on the fixed-price incentive fee contract after discovering “higher projected costs in engineering and integration activities” associated with near term milestones. “People have proposed that it might be something like an SR-72 or maybe some advanced unmanned program,” Schweizer said, referring to a rumored successor to the legendary SR-71 spyplane that has been the subject of speculation amongst aviation geeks for decades.  “So I wouldnt necessarily agree that Lockheed is shut out of a six-gen aircraft,” he continued. “It would appear that Lockheed has some sort of advanced aviation program at aeronautics.” Rebecca Grant, vice president of the Lexington Institute, said that despite the loss on NGAD, Lockheed’s fighter aircraft portfolio “remain[s] very strong,” with a huge F-35 backlog that will likely dwarf future sales of F-47 and F/A-XX, as well as F-22 modernization work that shows no signs of sunsetting. “Under any scenario, the F-35 are still the bulk of the advanced fighter force for many, many years to come,” she said. But Lockheed may have underestimated the importance of a sixth-generation fighter to its future, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisories. “Leadership at the top was clearly viewing this as a long term harvest story,” where it would continually be able to reap profit off the F-35 account, he said.  However, new geopolitical tensions potentially undercut future F-35 sales to countries like Canada, and other longtime moneymakers are either facing competition — such as the once ubiquitous C-130, which is seeing its market share attacked by Embraer’s C-390 — or, like the F-16, have suffered from a lack of corporate focus, he said “Lockheed should be very concerned about complacency,” Aboulafia said. “I’m not so sure they saw the bigger picture.” ‘They Couldn’t Win Everything’ The decision on whether to continue the Air Force’s sixth-gen fighter went all the way to the White House, with Trump himself receiving briefings from Air Force officials on the program and ultimately making the contract announcement during an Oval Office press conference.  RELATED: No smoke and mirrors with Boeing NGAD win, executive says That level of involvement in NGAD — as well as the forthcoming contract decision for F/A-XX — signals that the administration sees the value in “strengthen[ing] the advanced aircraft industrial base” so that US airpower remains ahead of China, Grant said. It’s unclear exactly when the F/A-XX decision will come. Reuters, citing people familiar with the decision, reported on March 25 that the Navy intended to downselect to a single vendor that week, but the service has yet to announce a contract award. (Sources told Breaking Defense one contributor to the delay is thought to be White House interest in the program.) The future F/A-XX fighter is intended to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and complement F-35Cs aboard the carrier deck. Navy officials have kept most details of the secretive program under wraps, including whether a demonstrator has flown.  Overall, analysts view Northrop Grumman as the most likely winner of the F/A-XX program, citing Northrop’s strong performance on the B-21 bomber program, its work developing the YF-17 — the precursor of the F/A-18 Hornet (later manufactured by Boeing) — and the legacy of the  “Grumman Cats,” a famed run of naval fighters named after wildcats built by Grumman Corp prior to its merger with Northrop. “The proposal is what matters, and so that comes down to technical capabilities, cost, and maybe past performance, if thats factored in,” Schweizer said. “However, it would perhaps be fortuitous for the defense department if Lockheed were building F-35s, Boeing was building F- 47s and Northrop was building F/A-whatevers, because then you would have each major prime building a manned fighter program in the future, and you would have all of their R&D [research and development] and production workforces employed and three semi-separate supply chains.” If Northrop wins the Navy jet, that leaves Lockheed with “just” the F-35 — a blockbuster program with thousands of orders spread across about 20 nations, including orders for the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.  In most timelines, that would be more than enough to reassure investors, but the Trump administration’s current geopolitical positions may be “potentially catastrophic” to future F-35 sales, including Canada and Germany, Aboulafia said.  In the wake of tariffs and rhetoric from Trump that Canada should become “the 51st state,” the Canadian government has said it would move forward with buying its first tranche of F-35A, but would review the remainder of its planned 88-jet program of record.  And while German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorious recently reaffirmed Germany’s commitment to the F-35 in an exchange with local media, according to the Aviationist, experts have suggested that the incoming conservative government could seek greater independence from American products. The F-47 has received Trump’s blessing: Its name itself is a reference to the 47th president, as well as the founding year of the Air Force. But beyond that, Aboulafia argued that the plane reflects Trump’s values, having been developed wholly inside of the United States by American businesses, a contrast from the global supply chain of the F-35. Shown is a artist rendering of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, also known as the F-47. (U.S. Air Force graphic) If it follows the pattern of the F-22 it will one day replace, the F-47 will be based on US soil — a potential selling point for an administration that is prioritizing homeland defense, and a break from the F-35, which was designed to operate in expeditionary and maritime environments across the globe, he said.  “The thing they [Lockheed] should have seen is political challenges on the horizons,” he said. “What should have been seen is that this administration would shift his emphasis away from a coalition and expeditionary combat aircraft towards an America First fighter, which is what NGAD is.” But Schweizer and Grant both said that they believe that current geopolitical tensions are unlikely to have a lasting impact on F-35 sales as there are no other fifth-generation jets on the market, and its stealth capabilities and interoperability with a wide swath of NATO allies and partner nations in the Indo-Pacific are too simply too attractive to pass by.  European sixth-generation fighters, like the Global Combat Air Programme fighter under development by the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan, are unlikely to become operational for at least another decade, Schweizer said.  “Theres going to be a lot of harsh words around the rebalancing of American trade policy, but I think the F-35 comes out in the end basically unscathed,” Grant said. There’s also a possibility that Lockheed, or other aircraft makers, could re-enter the NGAD program at a later date – if the Trump administration follows a path laid out by the Biden team. In a March 27 episode of the Defense and Aerospace Air Power podcast, former Air Force acquisition czar Andrew Hunter said that both Lockheed and Boeing submitted creative proposals for NGAD. Hunter attributed that outcome to the structure of the program itself, which splits the NGAD buy into multiple increments of “roughly” 100 aircraft a piece. “It was designed not to be this all or nothing, ‘Hey if you don’t win this you’re out for the next three decades competition,” he said. “There will be other orders coming down the pike, and so you stay in the game and you continue to compete. And obviously [the] future will tell, time will tell how many increments ever get built.” In the meantime, Lockheed could refocus on widening F-16 exports or increase the intensity of its investments in combat drones for the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft, Schweizer said. Ultimately, he said, “They couldn’t win everything.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Pentagon, Air Force, Boeing, Business & Industry, F-47, f/a-xx, Lockheed Martin, Navy, Next Generation Air Dominance NGAD, Northrop Grumman] [Link to media]

As of 4/8/25 2:27am. Last new 4/8/25 12:11am.