Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Army pushes industry to share costs as GE seeks more funding for ITEP testing

 

at 4/17/26 2:20pm

NASHVILLE — The Army wants companies to burden share costs when it comes to testing and development of programs, a senior aviation leader said. The comments come days after General Electric Aerospace’s statement that the company would need more money to wrap up qualification testing for the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) in the next 12-18 months. “Ill say this in general about programs out there, the Army wants to burden share with the developers, right? It shouldnt be the Army always putting all the upfront money,” Maj. Gen. Clair Gill, program acquisition executive for Maneuver Air, told reporters Thursday following a question about General Electric’s comments. He added that Army leadership has been “pretty intent” on making sure companies are coming to the table with funding to “share the cost with us” for testing and development.  “We dont want to do all the development, we want to do the procurement. We want to buy it for the long term, so that thats where were going back to the manufacturers and having negotiations about, how do we best position the development so that its not all on the government. But also… we understand that [the manufacturers] have to see that there is a production line so that they can make a profit in the future,” said Gill, who is dual-hatted as the commanding general of the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. RELATED: GE warns ITEP engine program needs ‘little bit more money’ for testing in FY27 budget ITEP has faced several delays over the years as the Army has adjusted its priorities for its aviation fleet. The service reportedly came close to cancelling the program in line with the Army Transformation Initiative.  Further, funding for the program was zeroed out in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2027 budget request. This happened in the FY26 budget request as well, but lawmakers ultimately pushed back, providing the service with $175 million in FY26 funding and $63 million in reconciliation money.  With the previously allocated funding, the Army and General Electric have been able to make significant progress in completing qualification testing, Brig. Gen. David Phillips, deputy PAE of Maneuver Air, told Breaking Defense last month.  Tom Champion, executive program director for T901 at General Electric, told reporters earlier this week that the company has delivered six flight test engines to the Army at this point and will continue to deliver more. He added that the company has invested around $500 million in the testing and development of the engine, and in the last two years, the company has invested over $600 million in its factory sites related to its defense engine business.  When Breaking Defense inquired about Gill’s comments, a spokesperson from General Electric pointed to Champion’s previous comments on investment figures, but declined to comment on any plans for future investments. 

[Category: Land Warfare, AAAA 2026, Army, General Electric, ITEP]

— Lockheed Martin nabs $105M ground system contract to support next-gen GPS

 

at 4/17/26 1:46pm

COLORADO SPRINGS — Lockheed Martins new contract worth up to $105 million for modernizing the ground control system for Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites covers not just the birds on orbit today, but also early operations for the future GPS IIIF variants, according to a company announcement Thursday. The new contract expands on a decade of work under the Space Force’s Architecture Evolution Plan, during which Lockheed Martin has steadily modernized the GPS ground segment. Under the agreement, the company will support launch, early orbit, and disposal operations for GPS IIIF space vehicles, the announcement elaborated. The contract, awarded April 8, comes as the Department of the Air Force considers cancelling the long-delayed, over-budget Next-Generation Operational Control System (OCX) system being built by RTX. As Air and Space Forces Magazine first reported, the Space Force has provided Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey with an analysis that compares options going forward, including cancelling OCX in favor of simply continuing to modernize the Architecture Evolution Plan (AEP). Upgrading the AEP to control GPS IIIF birds, also manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is a requirement that would allow the system to replace OCX in the future. The Space Force is planning to launch the last of the GPS III satellites in early May, and Lockheed Martin has already begun production of the 22 GPS IIIF satellites with the first expected to launch next year. OCX long has been a poster child for broken space acquisition programs. The program was originally supposed to be completed in 2016, and its price tag has risen from a projected $3.7 billion to almost $8 billion. A spokesperson for RTX referred all comments to the Space Force A service spokesperson said that OCX Block 0 is still being used for launch and checkout of the GPS III satellites, while AEP is used to command and control all GPS space vehicles, including GPS IIIs. Space News on April 2 reported that the service awarded RTX a $45 million contract to provide upgrades to that software block. OCX Block 0 was delivered in 2017, but does not include the critical command and control capabilities and cybersecurity protections for the current GPS III birds. The AEP program was originally designed as a stopgap to fill that gap; with Lockheed Martin winning a first contract in 2016. OCX Blocks 1 and 2 — which are supposed to provide launch, check out and command and control capabilities, and need to be up and running to be delivered — have been undergoing testing since being operationally accepted by the Space Force in July 2025. However, according to senior Space Force officials, that testing has revealed a series of serious flaws. OCX 3F is required for launch, check out and command and control of the future GPS IIIF satellites. According to the 2025 report of the Pentagons Director of Test and Evaluation, RTX is supposed to deliver OCX 3F in fiscal year 2027 and the Space Force has been hoping for it to reach operational acceptance in FY28. Thomas Ainsworth, who is performing the duties of the the Air Force Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and Integration told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on March 25 that the testing found extensive system issues across all sub-systems, many of which have not been resolved. He added that for over 15 years, the program has experienced significant technical challenges, schedule slips, and associated cost growth, putting at risk the launch and capability of future GPS satellites. Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman told the Mitchell Institute on April 1 that there are serious issues with OCX. As we start to put GPS IIIF, and beyond, on orbit, were going to require new ground system upgrades. We want it to be cyber, secure, all those things, he said.

[Category: Space, Architecture Evolution Plan (AEP), Global Positioning System, GPS, GPS IIIF, Lockheed Martin, Next Generation Operational Control System / OCX, OCX, RTX, Space Force, Space Symposium 2026]

— Fighting instructions, acquisition reform and Iran: What we expect from Sea Air Space 2026

 

at 4/17/26 1:01pm

Breaking Defense is heading to scenic National Harbor, Maryland for this years Sea Air Space conference. Naval warfare reporter Diana Stancy joins Aaron Mehta to discuss what shes expecting from Adm. Daryl Caudle’s first Sea Air Space as Chief of Naval Operations. Some of the major themes of this years show are expected to be the military-wide acquisition reform, along with the Navys role in the ongoing conflict in Iran. Well be tracking it all, so check back often to see our coverage from the show floor.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Adm Daryl Caudle, Navy, SAS Multimedia 2026, Video]

— Air Force secretary eyes multi-year deals for satellites, aircraft

 

at 4/17/26 12:20pm

COLORADO SPRINGS — The Department of the Air Force is seeking lawmakers’ blessing to award multi-year deals for aircraft and satellites, according to Secretary Troy Meink, expanding the Pentagon’s push to ramp up production for key weapons systems. Speaking Wednesday during a briefing with reporters at the Space Symposium conference here, Meink said Pentagon officials are “working with the Hill to help get that authority [for multi-year procurement] across the board, not only with munitions, but actually with the production of aircraft, with the production of spacecraft. And I think we’ve gotten really good support from the Hill on this.”  Particularly when it comes to spacecraft, “you can buy the first two [development satellites], then you buy them kind of one year at a time. That approach just doesn’t work at all with what we’re doing now,” he said.  The secretary did not say specifically what systems are under consideration, though officials have long discussed the possibility of a multi-year deal for the F-35.  “I would say in general, pretty much all the systems were looking at going forward have significant production runs. So how you structure those multi-year procurement becomes extremely effective in doing that,” Meink said. In contrast to standard contracts that are negotiated and awarded annually, multi-year deals issue dollars up front to cover several years of production. Pentagon officials argue the approach can save on unit costs by leveraging greater economies of scale, and industry often welcomes the arrangement since it can provide more predictable planning for the supply chain. “I mean, were demanding that the contractors do a lot of the facilization, the upfront [non-recurring engineering] on their own dime, right? The only way that works is that they have some sort of long-term commitment from a production perspective,” Meink said. Multi-year deals are a leading feature of the Trump administration’s record $1.5 trillion defense budget for fiscal 2027, which is seeking steep increases for munitions like PAC-3 interceptors for air defense and Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Pentagon has already issued framework deals for some of those weapons, which call for contractors to invest their own money to expand manufacturing capacity in exchange for larger orders. “For the industrial base to double and triple capabilities, and build more facilities — not just add shifts — it requires multi-year agreements to purchase into the future,” White House Office of Management and Budget Director Ross Vought said while testifying before lawmakers on Wednesday. “That cost has to be booked in the first year.” Estimates have shown savings reaped from multi-year deals could range from roughly five to 15 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service, which noted that actual savings compared to standard contracting are difficult to accurately measure.  

[Category: Air Warfare, Space, Air Force, Department of the Air Force, F-35, PAC-3, Russ Vought, Space Force, Space Symposium 2026, Tomahawk, Troy Meink]

— 9 firms win orbital AMTI deals, Space Force says

 

at 4/17/26 11:10am

WASHINGTON — The US Space Force has awarded nine firms nascent deals to build out a satellite constellation that can track aircraft from orbit, a Space Force spokesperson announced today. The “base contracts” were issued as “competitive Other Transaction Agreements,” the spokesperson said in a statement to Breaking Defense. They did not disclose when the contracts were awarded or their individual dollar values, adding that winning vendors identities’ are being withheld “in the interest of national security to protect sensitive operations capabilities.” (The spokesperson said other transaction awards are not required to be publicly announced, but that Congress was notified.) The contracts were revealed by Air Force Secretary Troy Meink on Wednesday during a press briefing at the Space Symposium conference, who claimed that satellites capable of what’s known as airborne moving target indication (AMTI) have already been demonstrated and will “far and away” be “the most capable AMTI system” ever fielded.  The AMTI deals come on the heels of the Space Force’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which seeks a whopping $7 billion to start buying space-based AMTI systems, after requesting no procurement money for those assets in FY26. The Space Force is developing both AMTI space systems and satellites that can track ground targets (GMTI) with the National Reconnaissance Office, where Meink previously served as principal deputy director. The Pentagon’s bullishness on AMTI satellites in particular has helped fuel resistance within the department to the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail AMTI aircraft program, which lawmakers forced the Air Force to continue after the service attempted to cancel the radar plane last year.  The Space Force spokesperson said the service “is pursuing a ‘system-of-systems’ approach, aiming to build a multi-vendor space segment that will form the industrial base for the [space-based] AMTI program. This request represents the first of numerous Task Orders the Space Forces plans to issue. Forthcoming task orders “will focus on expanding capabilities toward Full Operational Capability, and promoting greater interoperability within the industrial base,” they said.  

[Category: Air Warfare, Space, Air Force, airborne moving target indication (AMTI), E-7, Space Force, Troy Meink]

— Army exploring refueling requirement for Cheyenne II MV-75: Official

 

at 4/17/26 10:45am

NASHVILLE — The Army is weighing the possibility of creating a requirement to provide air refueling to the service’s Bell-made Cheyenne II MV-75 tiltrotor fleet, a senior Army aviation official said.  Maj. Gen. Clair Gill, program acquisition executive for Maneuver Air, said Thursday that the Army is exploring the option of adding a refueling kit similar to ones designed for a different variant of the MV-75. “We’re also thinking creatively about if we put aerial refueling, which you’re gonna see on the SOCOM variants, if we put that on a conventional variant, then how do we refuel it?” Gill said during a media roundtable at the AAAA conference Thursday. “We’re thinking through, do we need to develop a requirement for aerial refueling for ourselves now that we have really enhanced our capability?” Frank Lazzara, director of sales and strategy for advanced vertical lift systems at Bell, told Breaking Defense that the MV-75 was designed with the option for a removable refueling kit, mostly to be used by the Special Operations Command. Gill, who is dual-hatted as the commanding general of the Army Aviation Center of Excellence, explained that one of the “most challenging tasks” for Army special operation aviators is helicopter aerial refueling. Oftentimes people assume the challenge is just with training aviators how do the refueling, which is a part of the issue he said, but the lack of an “asset” that does the refueling is the main issue.  “We don’t have those organic to the Army. So I think we need to solve our own problems, and think about how do we do our own, let’s call it logistical resupply in the air, of an MV-75,” Gill said, adding that a fixed-wing option would be the best solution for the refueling, since traditional rotorcraft “certainly” couldn’t do the job. “We don’t have a requirement written right now, but I’ve talked with Army leaders,” Gill added.  Though Gill did not give exact details on what the refueling capability could look like, Bell released a video Wednesday of an MV-75 seemingly being refueled by the Boeing-made MQ-25 Stingray. The Stingray is slated to be the Navy’s first carrier-based unmanned aircraft that’s central goal is for unmanned refueling.  Though Gill did not explicitly call out the Stingray, he did say during a keynote address Wednesday when introducing the new name of the MV-75 that the Navy has “got some pretty good unmanned ideas there, if you want to kind of follow where we’re going” while talking about air refueling.

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, AAAA 2026, Air Force, Army, Army Aviation Center of Excellence, MV-75, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM)]

— The history of America’s long-term efforts to plan for a war with China [BOOK EXCERPT]

 

at 4/17/26 10:19am

The following is an excerpt from War Plan Taiwan: OPLAN 5077 and the U.S. Struggle for the Pacific, published by the Naval Institute Press. The standard talking points on the imminent threat China poses to Taiwan and the associated risk of a conflict between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) hardly need reciting. Headlines warning of the PRC preparing to invade the Republic of China (ROC) in the near future have become almost clichés. Even the US Navy’s 2024 Navigation Plan from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has 2027 set as the deadline to be ready for war. More broadly, the United States has designated China its defense “pacing challenge,” stating that “a Taiwan contingency is the pacing scenario.”  The US government has claimed that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is developing a capability to invade Taiwan by 2027 but has not asserted that there is an intent by Chinas leadership to execute such an operation at that point. For its part, Beijing has continued to accelerate its defense-modernization efforts and exert increasing military pressure on the ROC while denying having an invasion timetable. Since its founding, the United States has prepared for conflicts with a range of state actors. The War Plan Orange model for the Japanese Empire became the standard-bearer contingency after World War I, with many of the lessons derived from the planning process absorbed into the Pacific component of the global Rainbow 5 plan, whose execution ended with the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan in Tokyo Bay in September 1945. Planning for war with the USSR evolved from envisioning something akin to a World War II–type model to a one-sided atomic emaciation of the communist world, then to mutual destruction, and finally to a more adaptable approach that preserved hope of avoiding global nuclear catastrophe. From the fall of the Berlin Wall to the mid-2010s, contingency planning focused on lesser regional challenges, with the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 being the high point of this model. The position of China in the US threat matrix has oscillated since the 1949 communist victory in the Chinese Civil War, but until recently it was only secondary at best, being overshadowed by the USSR during the Cold War and the rogue states and terrorism that dominated the international narrative after-ward. While wars in Korea (1950–53) and Indochina (1955–75) were transient low points in relations between Washington and Beijing, the continued existence of the ROC has been the most persistent irritant, with the period between President Harry S. Truman’s decision to “neutralize” the Taiwan Strait in June 1950 and 2025 exceeding the average human lifespan and approaching double the length of the Cold War. The First and Third Taiwan Strait Crises (1954–55, 1995–96) alone were separated by over forty years. For its part, the post-1949 ROC has transformed itself from the last bastion of Chiang Kai-shek’s corrupt and authoritarian government that once held sway across most of mainland China to an economically advanced liberal democracy. During the early Cold War, the United States was willing to go to war with China to defend Taiwan, with the use of nuclear weapons codified as part of the plan, even if that risked triggering Soviet intervention and a global war. The subsequent US derecognition of the ROC came not out of distaste for the regime but because of the value of a partnership with the PRC in the confrontation with the USSR—dealignment with Taiwan was part of the price Beijing required paid. After the Soviet Union’s fall in the late 1980s, Taiwan’s democratization and China’s rising power and human rights abuses gave new incentives for the United States to support the island. The geographical separation provided by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to the United States from the threats it faces has resulted in a maritime emphasis on its defense engagement with the world. Most major US land and air campaigns from the world wars to the early twenty-first century took place on the Eurasian periphery, frequently requiring American forces to secure supply lines from the homeland and establish themselves in the relevant region. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the USSR all presented some degree of what is today termed anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) challenge. The former component, “anti-access,” is officially defined as “action, activity, or capability, usually long-range, designed to prevent an advancing enemy force from enter-ing an operational area,” while the latter, “area denial,” is “action, activity, or capability, usually short-range, designed to limit an enemy force’s freedom of action within an operational area.” Many lesser opponents have paid a price for their inability to prevent the United States from entering the theater of operations. While “A2/AD” as a concept encountered criticism, countering what it describes encapsulates a major part of the central challenges the United States would face in a modern conflict over Taiwan. Following the Gulf War (1990–91), American analysts anticipated adversaries adopting advanced A2/AD systems to combat the United States. Beijing mirrored this by concluding that the PRC required such a capability from its observations of both Iraq’s defeat and the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, when it had no credible conventional options to counter deployed US forces. In Washington it was also clear to many that the US hegemonic moment of the 1990s and the early twenty-first century would be transient, with China, rapidly developing economically, high on the list of potential future peer competitors. The United States has long prepared for a conflict with the PRC. From the defense of the ROC’s territories, to China’s incorporation into a general nuclear war between the United States and the “Sino-Soviet bloc,” to downgraded regional contingencies later in the Cold War, the notion of a threat from Beijing never dissipated entirely. Even when the last US forces departed Taiwan after derecognition by Washington in 1979, it appears that some plans remained in place to support the island. More detailed revised plans—initially at least centered upon the regionally focused operation plan (OPLAN) 5077—were reportedly put in place in the twenty-first century’s first decade. Since then, contingencies have further evolved as the PRC’s mili-tary potential has grown, with war plans to counter Beijing now likely led by a globe-spanning integrated contingencyplan (ICP). Literature exists that examines individual components of the above. Ian Easton’s The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia (2017) provides an account of China’s war plans and Taiwan’s defensive approach. Volumes that provide histories of U.S. relations with the ROC include John W. Garver’s The Sino-American Alliance: Nationalist China and American Cold War Strategy in Asia (1997) and Nancy Bernkopf Tucker’s Strait Talk: United States–Taiwan Relations and the Crisis with China (2009). Sam Tangredi’s Anti-Access Warfare: Countering A2/AD Strategies (2013) gives an overview of the history of A2/AD warfare using select case studies and provides examples of near-future regional contingencies that will require the United States to defeat its opponent’s anti-access capabilities, including those of the PLA in East Asia. Other books, as well as reports from think tanks such as the CSBA and the RAND Corporation, explore the potential timing and course of a conflict between the United States, Taiwan, and China. War Plan Taiwan builds on these works and develops and integrates the matters they address within the wider context of US war planning to provide the reader with an understanding of how — while of course, we cannot know the detailed plans for a conflict with China — it is possible to identify the nature, hazards, and form of such a war. This book has four central arguments. First, war planning, both historically and in the current era of great power competition, is both important and perilous. The US record of planning for conflict over the last century has seen common themes, with the identification of threats frequently proving a national strength, while the nature of the contingency plans to counter them falling vulnerable to excessive optimism and failure of imagination. Learning lessons from such historical tendencies can inform planning for conflict with the PRC—including on how to end a war on favorable terms. Second, the A2/AD challenge that now faces the United States in the context of a conflict with China is more familiar than it may appear. The Pacific War against Japan is the most well-known instance of the United States having to overcome suchdefenses. But important to study are the plans for wars that did not take place—most notably against the USSR during the Cold War—and those fought by others, with the Falklands War (1982) being the most cogent post–World War II case study. Third, it is important to have strong allies in the region in which the conflict is taking place. Attempts by the United States to project power and enforce its will have been least successful where allies have been absent, passive, or “Potemkin” in nature. In this context War Plan Taiwan will examine the relationship between the United States and the ROC from shortly after the end of World War II to the present day. Washington has swung between times of support and cooperation with Taipei andperiods when favoring Beijing was perceived as being politically expedient. Only by fully realizing Taiwan’s potential strengthcan the resilience of American regional interests be optimally supported. If the United States is serious about countering China’s malign influence, abandoning the ROC is not a credible policy position. Fourth, the threat the United States faces from China is more profound than any in living memory. Unlike Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union—each of which fell short as to be comprehensive peer competitors—the PRC increasingly poses a credible challenge to the United States across the spectrum. This should not prompt a counsel of despair: there are measures that can and in many cases are being taken to deter and, if necessary, to combat the threat. Yet it is important not to lose sight of the magnitude of the task at hand or the amount of work still ahead Rowan Allport is a deputy director at the Human Security Centre, a London-based foreign policy think tank. He has previously worked as a senior analyst for RAND Europe’s Defence, Security and Infrastructure team. Rowan is the author of the book War Plan Taiwan: OPLAN 5077 and the U.S. Struggle for the Pacific, published by the Naval Institute Press.

[Category: Opinion, Asia, China, Op-Ed Commentary, PLA, Sea Air Space 2026, Taiwan]

— Northrop Grumman’s Talon IQ testbed hot-swaps AI brains mid-flight

 

at 4/17/26 9:04am

WASHINGTON — Northrop Grumman and three artificial intelligence firms — Shield AI, Accelint and Applied Intuition — showcased how different AIs could swap control of a single aircraft “seamlessly” mid-flight in recent testing, the companies said, which could offer US forces unprecedented flexibility in future fights. The flight tests — one last month involving Shield, the latest Wednesday with Accelint and Applied — were part of a Northrop initiative called Talon IQ (formerly Beacon), which turned a manned demonstrator, Scaled Composite’s Vanguard Model 437, into a testbed for both Northrop’s own Prism autonomy system and AI software from a growing group of partner companies. “We just completed our eighth flight test of the Talon IQ platform,” said Dan Salluce, Northrop’s senior director for aerospace systems. “While the aircraft was flying, the software was queued up so that we could have different companies’ behaviors take control of the platform and fly [it].” In essence, the AIs took turns controlling the aircraft, the companies said. What made that possible is a layered and modular open architecture that lets the airplane plug-and-play different software programs — either specialist AIs for specific tasks or generalist ones to run an entire mission — without disrupting the microsecond-by-microsecond operations of the flight controls that keep the airplane from falling out of the sky. “The mission autonomy is really about what do you do with that airplane to perform the mission,” Salluce explained. “Where do you go? How fast do you fly? What direction? What altitude?” In this week’s flight test, Northrop’s Prism handled the overall mission, but it handed control to Applied Intuition’s Acuity AI at one point, and to Accelint’s AI at another, for them to execute specific functions or “skills” such as performing a Combat Air Patrol. In the March test flight, by contrast, once the aircraft was aloft, Prism handed full control to Shield’s Hivemind AI. Shield’s AI then put the aircraft through some standard military maneuvers — “Combat Air Patrol maneuvers, then doing simulated target engagement maneuvers,” explained Shield’s Vice President for Hivemind, Todd Wesley — before returning control to Prism. Because the baseline software handles the flight controls, the higher-level mission-autonomy AIs don’t have to be tailored to the specific characteristics of a given aircraft, the executives said: Instead, you can test AI on one plane and then port it over to another, much like an experienced pilot can fly several kinds of (related) aircraft. “[After] we develop our capability on one platform, it can rapidly be deployed and integrated and show value on another platform,” said Wesley. “This really shows we can rapidly port the software using that standard interface layer, and that when youve got good code quality and good architectures, you can mature and go through flight testing activities very quickly.” For now, the aircraft still flies with a human pilot aboard as back-up, which allows new software to go straight to test flights after a day or so of ground tests, without the full and time-consuming test regimen required for entirely unmanned aircraft, executives told reporters. But, Scaled Composites Vice President Jenn Santiago told reporters that the pilots “mostly hands-off” while algorithms fly the plane.

[Category: Air Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Accelint, AI & Autonomy, Air Force, Applied Intuition, artificial intelligence, cyber security, networks, Northrop Grumman, open architecture, project talon, Shield AI, technology]

— Marines starting early work on sixth-gen fighter jet concepts

 

at 4/17/26 8:28am

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps is starting to mull concepts for a new sixth-generation fighter jet, one that will likely look like, but not necessarily be, whatever the Navy picks for its F/A-XX program. When the Marine Corps released its 2026 Aviation Plan in February, it included a small nod to the concept of having a sixth-generation fighter after 2041. The process of fleshing that out is now underway, according to Lt. Gen. William Swan, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for aviation, who told reporters in a Thursday roundtable that service leaders discussed plans during a Quantico meeting earlier this week.  “I think right now, if you had to say, ‘Hey, what is it going to look like?’ I think itll look a lot more like what the Navys doing because we still fly off the carriers, were part of the Department of the Navy,” Swan said. “I think, you know, I dont know that were going to get high end, and thats really not a Marine Corps mission. Its an Air Force [mission]. So I think if I had to, if you said, make a decision right now, it would be yes, some amount to augment the fifth-gen force, and it would probably look something like the F/A-XX or whatever the Navy ends up being.” Swan said he ordered his team to include the mention of a sixth-gen fighter in the aviation plan because he wanted the Corps to be thinking about a couple different ways of how to get there. “Were fast following with the Air Force, right? They got the F-47, the Navys looking at F/A-XX, and theyre just starting on that. So we are going to watch. We want an all Block 4 F-35 fleet, and thats probably going to take another 10 years, Swan said. So were probably five to 10 years away from ultimately making that decision, and well see what they have, see what the threat looks like.”  Despite a few moments where it appeared the Navys sixth-gen fighter program might be in trouble, the FY26 defense spending bill ultimately included nearly $900 million for F/A-XX, and said that the Pentagon should use the funds “for the purposes of awarding the EMD contract limited to one performer in accordance with the acquisition strategy to achieve an accelerated Initial Operational Capability (IOC).” The move came after the program’s future appeared uncertain, after the White House voiced concerns in July 2025 about the industrial base working on two sixth-generation fighters at the same time, and said that doing so could mean delays for the Air Force’s F-47 program.  Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s budget request released on April 3 includes $140 million for F/A-XX, with roughly $68.5 million of that stemming from the base budget and $72 million from reconciliation funds.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, F-47, f/a-xx, Marine Corps, Marine Corps Aviation Plan, Navy, Sea Air Space 2026]

— NATO revamps air surveillance approach for the ‘cost-war’ of low-flying drones, missiles

 

at 4/17/26 7:20am

MILAN — The lethal effectiveness of low-altitude drones and missiles in the conflicts in Ukraine and now Iran has pushed NATO to rethink its aerial surveillance capabilities, a senior alliance official told Breaking Defense. “We’ve seen what is going on in these places. Today the only thing we have is cost-war, where we need to think on an economical basis: the price per shot, the best ways to alert, detect or kill at the better cost [than the enemy],” Adm. Pierre Vandier, NATOs Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (ACT), said in an interview earlier this month. Vandier said NATO is rethinking the full gamut of surveillance and defense, including integrated airspace monitoring, command-and-control systems, and air defenses, which are now more critical for sustained warfare than missile quantities alone. The official pointed to the ongoing Allied Federated Surveillance & Control (AFSC) program as a key element in reinforcing such capabilities. The project seeks to replace the alliance’s aging Boeing E-3A airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) aircraft, which have been in service since the 1980s and are nearing the end of their service life.  The NATO-owned assets are easily identifiable by the distinctive radar domes mounted on their fuselages and are equipped with long-range radars and passive sensors to detect air and surface targets over long distances. They have conducted hundreds of patrol missions along the Baltic and Black Seas and have played a key role in surveying the skies over Ukraine.  Vandier stressed, however, that the next AWACS will not be a single platform, but rather a “system of systems.” NATO wants to move away from reliance on a single asset toward creating a multi-domain surveillance network built from a variety of command-and-control and intelligence systems. (The US is currently pouring money into space-based tracking satellites as part of its multi-domain surveillance system). It will use space, airborne, ground components, among others, as well as enhanced radars — that will be very difficult to kill [speaking about AFSC program], Vandier added. In November 2025, a multi-billion-dollar deal for the procurement of six Boeing E-7A Wedgetail AWACS as an interim platform to supersede NATO’s E-3A fleet collapsed due to the loss of “strategic and financial foundations.” To accelerate the program, NATO ACT issued a request for information to industry last month to identify immediate and emerging technologies for detecting, tracking, and identifying aerial threats. The notice identified the targets of interest as those flying at altitudes up to 10,000 feet above ground level. To prevent a capability gap, a subgroup of 10 member states has agreed to purchase a replacement fleet of airborne early warning platforms as part of the initial AFSC initiative. However, the exact type has yet to be selected, a NATO military officer from the AFSC program at NATO ACT told Breaking Defense.NATO expects the enhanced air surveillance program to complement and support the growing air surveillance requirements that were previously cover[ed] by the NATO E-3A fleet by interconnecting and fusing air surveillance data provided by not only i-AFSC platforms but also by air (podded or manned), ground, maritime or space assets from NATO nations, added the officer. The NATO military officer said that, based on the responses, ACT will prepare a capability program plan aimed at producing the first increment of this enhanced air surveillance before the end of 2026.

[Category: Air Warfare, Allies, Global, Air Force, AWACS, Boeing, Drones, Europe, Iran, NATO, Ukraine]

— Army plans initial contract for HADES ‘ultra long-range’ effects in coming months

 

at 4/16/26 2:35pm

NASHVILLE — The Army plans to award vendors contracts in the next few months to experiment with ultra long-range launched effects that will ultimately outfit spy planes like the future High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES), an Army senior official told Breaking Defense today. Andrew Evans, director for the new Strategy & Transformation Office inside the G-2, said the initial set of awards are likely to be short-term experimentation contracts ahead of a planned demonstration later this year. Longer-term contracts for the effects, meant to fly up to 1,000 km (620 miles), are expected to follow next year, likely to go to more than one vendor. “Everything we do currently in the future has to be teams-of-teams, and it has to be, Ill call it, a hyper-competitive environment. So heres where we lose as a Department of War, when we lock in with somebody and were beholden to that one, somebody for the rest of our future,” Evans said. “Were going to force people to continuously compete in the space, which includes teams, lots of teams, lots of people.”  The teams-of-teams approach is something the Army has adapted in the last several months with programs such as with the new M1E3 tank, the Common Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher, Next Generation Command and Control and more. Under such an approach, there’s not one lead company for an initiative, but multiple vendors working together, and it allows for both large prime vendors and smaller non-traditional vendors to become involved, Evans said. He said that having multiple vendors on the contract allows for not only innovation but also accelerated timelines.  “Our secretary and our Army leaders are interested in pathways to the small companies, in addition to the bigs that can scale better, theyre interested in those pathways, and we want to be part of that, right? he said. For the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions like those that HADES will undertake, thats where were finding some breakthrough technologies [from] small companies that literally have to have the breakthrough or they cant pay their staff the salary. Thats the type of people you want to partner with, because theyre passionate to deliver the right results,” Evans said.  The mandate for a launched effect that can go 1,000 km, he said, is the kind of thing that drives innovation and creative solutions. “If you give industry a standard that seems a little bit out of reach, youd be surprised at how they mobilize around it,” he said. “I dont want to be in the business of defining somebodys objective criteria, because they will build to the objective. Thats it. Thats all theyll do. They might be able to say, well, ‘I could go like, three times further, but you only asked to go this far.’” He added that they don’t know exactly how far the launched effect can go, but it is “further than we thought,” and they may be able to do it for a lower cost as well.  “If you dont constrain a company, and you just tell them, I want this as cheap as possible, give me your best possible product, typically theyll respond in meaningful ways,” Evans added.  After the short-term experimental contracts are awarded, the Army will start testing the launched effects from the ground and eventually work up to air-launched effects when the tech is advanced enough, Evans said. The goal is to start launching those effects from the sky within a year. “We cannot get this wrong. The nation’s security depends on our ability to get this right long term,” he said. 

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, AAAA 2026, Air Force, Army, High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES)]

— Australia pledges to boost defense spend to 3% of GDP, says US remains key partner

 

at 4/16/26 2:00pm

MELBOURNE — Australia has outlined plans to boost its defense spending to three percent of its Gross Domestic Product in the coming years, while reaffirming that the US remains its closest ally and principal strategic partner. The country’s defense department released its National Defence Strategy (NDS) and Integrated Investment Plan (IIP) earlier today, outlining a plan to get defense spending to $96.6 billion AUD, or three percent of GDP, by 2033. That total is calculated through NATO methodology, which includes figures from defense-related spending in areas like pensions. But the department also set an even more ambitious goal, targeting spending of $113 billion AUD by 2036, which would mark an increase of $53 billion AUD over previous projections. The boost in defense spending comes with a warning that the coming decade will likely be defined by continuing fracture of the global rules-based global order “which has underpinned Australia’s security and prosperity” with the resultant end state “difficult to predict,” the report reads. “The net effect is that Australia will face elevated levels of geopolitical risk over the coming decade and our exposure to force projection and military coercion will reach levels not seen since the Second World War.” It noted that China’s “growing national power and increasingly potent military capabilities remain the primary driver of changes to Indo-Pacific security dynamics” and warned that its “regional strategic weight will increase with the growth of its national power and its quest for greater strategic depth.” Speaking at an Australian national press club event for the release of NDS and IIP, Australian defense minister Richard Marles emphasised that only the continued presence of the United States in the Indo-Pacific will bring about an effective balance of power Nevertheless, the NDS acknowledged that the US expected its allies and partners to invest more and increase their contributions to collective defense. Australia, it says, will maintain its strong contribution to the alliance through increased investment in defense capability and continued force posture cooperation with the US, particularly in hosting US military forces. It will also continue to strengthen industrial base collaboration with the US, including through AUKUS and Australia’s Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance enterprise (GWEO), with the IIP projecting up to A$36 billion in planned investment in the program to manufacture and sustain guided missiles along with other precision munitions in Australia. It will also seek to increase Australia’s stockpiles of weapons such as the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) and AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, which Australia has just been cleared to acquire.   Like minded partners The NDS also paid attention to Australia’s partnership with other countries within and beyond the region, calling its “bilateral, trilateral and multilateral defence arrangements” critical components of the country’s global engagement. It highlighted cooperation with NATO, emphasized by the announcement the same day the NDS was released that NATO held its first ever meeting with the Australian defense department to discuss opportunities to increase defense industrial cooperation and capabilities. This staff-to-staff meeting focused on how to enhance NATO’s cooperation with Australia, including through multinational projects and standardisation, supply chain security as well as other possible areas for cooperation. Japan was also mentioned with the NDS, with the country referred to as an “indispensable partner for achieving regional peace and prosperity.” Further efforts to deepen defense ties outlined include enhancing high-end interoperability and increased information sharing between both militaries. Australia has announced Japan’s Mogami-class frigate as the winner of its Project SEA 3000 general purpose frigate program last year, and Japanese defense minister Shinjiro Koizumi is expected to sign the contract during his visit to Australia this weekend.   India also got a shout out, with Australias ambassador to New Delhi, Philip Green, saying on X that the NDS reaffirms India as a top-tier security partner—and our most important defence partner in the Northeast Indian Ocean.

[Category: All Domain, Global, Asia, australia, Indo-Pacific]

— Shifting gears: Space Force moves to embrace space mobility for orbital warfare

 

at 4/16/26 1:18pm

COLORADO SPRINGS — After years of open skepticism about US Space Commands push for development of satellites with the ability to move freely on orbit over long periods of time, the Space Force now is embracing the concept as a foundation for orbital warfare. Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman told reporters on Wednesday here at the annual Space Symposium that the service is working very closely with SPACECOM on orbital warfare, and to explore the technology and the operational concepts to enable on-orbit maneuverability and satellite refueling as part of its 15-year Objective Force plan. SPACECOM head Gen. Stephen Whiting has been an unflagging advocate for on-orbit mobility and logistics over the past year, as was his predecessor Gen. James Dickinson. Whiting in his Tuesday symposium presentation called for a new space maneuver warfare strategy, explaining later to reporters that it is a strength of the United States Joint Force that we we outmaneuver our adversaries, and thats what we want to bring to the space domain as well in ongoing operations. Space Force officials have historically been more hesitant about mobility operations, questioning its near-term military utility. But this week Saltzman suggested he has come around, saying, When [Whiting] says dynamic maneuvering, I agree. We need a maneuver force. But he said key questions remain. Okay, what does that look like? Lets model it. Lets simulate it. If they can maneuver, do you need as many or does that drive a different set of requirements? [W]e have a starting point: the Future Operating Environment, the Objective Force. He explained that the purpose of including space mobility in the Objective Force plan was to raise those questions, including what are the unknowns that we need to resolve in the coming years so we can get our programming and our resourcing and our acquisition strategies right? Saltzman said the Space Force will work closely with US Space Command on war games, modeling and simulation. We will have to do continual analysis and then refinement as it marches its way closer and closer. The Future Operating Environment and the Objective Force, both released by the Space Force on Wednesday, are aimed at defining threats and the services future needs — ranging from kit to personnel to infrastructure to training — in five-year increments through 2040. The Objective Force plan asserts that due to competitors seeking to degrade US space capabilities, the most successful space architectures will be designed to include maneuverable and serviceable platforms. It calls for demonstrating on-orbit refueling and fielding operational space tugs that it characterizes as Augmented Maneuver systems between 2025 and 2030. Between 2030 and 2035, the plan envisions making re-fueling operational and demonstrating high thrust reusable orbital transfer vehicles. Finally, between 2035 and 2040, the plan calls for fielding an initial on-orbit logistics architecture. Saltzman noted that the Space Force recognizes refueling as a valuable contributor to that operational concept of maneuvering without regret, and noted that the fiscal 2027 budget is funding demonstrations of that capability. The Space Force also for the first time included refueling capacity as a requirement in its Jan. 17 bid solicitation for its new Andromeda (RG-XX) constellation to replace the aging Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP) neighborhood watch satellites. Whiting told reporters he is optimistic about the FY27 budget for refueling and maneuver capabilities. Were excited about the opportunity with the budget. The presidents budget that hes announced is, you know, truly a generational investment. And we are expecting some additional good news in the area of sustained space maneuver. I believe its a departmental priority, he said. Now well see exactly what form that takes. We certainly need to do some prototyping. Need to demonstrate some capability. But from US space plan perspective, we want that to be heading in a direction of then fielding operational capability. Meanwhile, citing this apparent increase in Space Force demand, executives from both Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems announced plans to self-fund on-orbit maneuver demonstrations. Tim Lynch, Lockheed Martin vice president for space security missions, mission strategy and advanced capabilities, told reporters here on Monday that the firm intends to undertake experiments in 2028 and 2029, launching an asset into geosynchronous orbit to undertake a subset of maneuvers to prove out our capabilities when it comes to RPO [remote proximity operations] and also command and control mission management. He added that Lockheed Martin has already proven that it can provide some capabilities with current technologies, the the new demo is more showing that we can do it at scale. Brad Shogrin, BAE vice president and general manager of national space, also told reporters on Monday that the company is developing a new spacecraft bus called Ascent that is capable of high delta V, high maneuverability, [and] multi-payload hosting capability, as well as refueling and high thrust propulsion capabilities. BAE is targeting the bus for missions in medium and geosynchronous Earth orbits, as well as cislunar orbits between the Earth and the Moon. Thai Sheridan, vice president and general manager for BAEs military space business, said that the firm is poised to deliver the first Ascent spacecraft to demonstrate dynamic space operations in 2027 — a demo that is being both funded by an undisclosed US government customer and BAE itself. He added that the new bus provides a platform for diverse mission solutions, multi-mission, multi-domain, maneuver, mobility, rendezvous and proximity, operations and docking that can communicate, maneuver, refuel, sense, defend and engage, and positions the nation for space maneuver warfare, supporting space superiority.

[Category: Space, Defense Budget 2027, Gen. Chance "Salty" Saltzman, Gen. Stephen Whiting, Objective Force, on-orbit refueling, space command, Space Force, space maneuver and logistics, space mobility, Space Symposium 2026]

— Army asks lawmakers to back production halt to Paladin line

 

at 4/16/26 1:01pm

WASHINGTON — If the US Army gets its way, it will not be buying additional M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) howitzers next year as it looks at alternative options to fill the gap, service Secretary Dan Driscoll told lawmakers today.  “We are looking at a mobile tactical cannon, which can in place … [in] 40 seconds versus 15 minutes [with the PIM] which matters a lot with the drone threat,” Driscoll told members of a House Appropriations subcommittee today.   “If you look at the [fight] in Ukraine on either side, its really hard to move out and get fires ready to go. … The Paladin is just incapable of it at speed,” he added. “And so while we think the Paladin will be in our lives for a while, because we want to be good custodians of the assets the American taxpayer has given us, we think that new purchases to balance that platform out should be something different.” Driscoll appeared before the subcommittee to discuss the service’s plans to spend $60.5 billion in fiscal 2027, with $36 billion in the base budget request and $24 billion in a future reconciliation request. Although the Army has not yet released justification documents detailing in-depth spending plans, initial documents lay out a steep cut to the PIM line with only $84 million requested for procurement. Those dollars, though, will not be used to purchase additional PIMs, according to the documents. The cut comes after the service received $715 million in FY26 for 40 Paladins. “Were looking forward to our pacing threat,” Army Acting Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve told lawmakers today. “We need to move to systems that weigh a lot less, so we can get it where it needs to be in a time.” BAE Systems, which produces the the PIM, did not immediately respond to questions about the projected budget cuts. However, the service has been looking for alternatives to the Paladin line for decades, including the work on the XM2001 Crusader that was cancelled in 2002. More recently, the service embarked on the ill-fated internal development of the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) platform. That prototype added a 30-foot, 58-caliber gun tube to the Paladin M109A7 to launch 155-mm rounds out to 70 kilometers, an increase from the current max range of up to 30 kilometers. However, in 2024 the service announced that it had stopped work on that platform after encountering technical challenges during live fire testing that included excessive wear and tear on the cannon. Service officials were then torn over whether to relaunch development of a new platform or pull an existing one from industry, and launched an international roadshow to visit a handful of companies from Europe to Asia to the Middle East — Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Hanwha, General Dynamics and Elbit Systems.  Their decision? Forgo a lengthy development process and find an existing self-propelled howitzer. If all goes as planned, the Army wants to award a contract for the new self-propelled howitzer program by July, a spokesperson for the Program Acquisition Executive for Fires said in February. 

[Category: Congress, Land Warfare, Army, BAE Systems, Christopher LaNeve, Daniel Driscoll, Defense Budget 2027, Paladin Integrated Management PIM, self-propelled howitzer]

— Defense reconciliation bill could come after ICE, border patrol effort: Graham

 

at 4/16/26 12:20pm

WASHINGTON — Senate Budget Committee chairman Lindsey Graham wants to keep the years first GOP-led reconciliation bill focused on funds for immigration enforcement and not defense, he said today — while leaving open the possibility of a second, defense-focused reconciliation bill in the future. During a hearing on the fiscal 2027 budget, Graham opened by saying that the Senate would move on a reconciliation bill narrowly-tailored on funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term. Instead, he seemed to point to a forthcoming supplemental funding request — which will include money for equipment expended during US-Israeli operations against Iran — as a venue to pay for some defense funding requirements laid out in the White House’s $350 billion reconciliation request for defense. “Defense hawks want defense money in the reconciliation bill. I’m trying to keep it as small and focused as possible,” said Graham, R-S.C., said to Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought. “I have hope that the supplemental will get passed — whenever you send one over — with what you need for the military, that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, pass that supplemental. Well have some things in it that my Democratic colleagues want, as well as military funding.” “If that fails, I will urge the president to do another reconciliation bill for defense,” he said, adding that in that case, “the appropriations process would have failed, and we cant accept failure when it comes to funding the Border Patrol, ICE or additional money for the military.” Graham plays a crucial role in any reconciliation process, as the congressional budget committees write the overarching legislation that determines where, and how much, funding will be obligated. In last years reconciliation process, the House and Senate armed services committee crafted the defense-specific funding lines for the reconciliation deal after a budget blueprint with $150 billion for the Pentagon was passed. While Graham expressed enthusiasm for the hike in defense funding, the funding strategy he laid out appears to differ from the White House’s FY27 request, which proposes $1.15 trillion in the base discretionary budget and $350 billion in reconciliation. Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought, who testified at the hearing, said later in the hearing that “we’re going to need more than one reconciliation bill.” Compared to the House Budget Committee’s hearing on the FY27 budget on Wednesday, senators were much more outspoken about the Pentagon’s spending plan. GOP lawmakers frequently asked questions of Vought that allowed him to highlight the current threat environment and investments in weapons, while Democrats slammed the administration’s cuts to nondefense funding. Asked by Washington state Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, about reports that Vought — a notorious budget hawk — had opposed the proposed hike in defense spending, the OMB director said he “fully” supports the budget request. “Ive never been more confident that the administration is doing whatever it can to be efficient at the Department of War, but there are bills that need to be paid with regard to drones and munitions and planes,” he said, noting that the it is a “one-time” increase. Vought declined to give cost estimates for the war in Iran, stating that the figure changes on a daily basis. He also said the administration is “reviewing” the supplemental funding bill but did not give a timeline for when it would be sent to Capitol Hill.

[Category: Congress, Pentagon, Defense Budget 2027, Lindsey Graham, reconciliation, Russ Vought]

— Germany’s TKMS, Spain’s Navantia to explore Spanish-based submarine production

 

at 4/16/26 11:15am

BELFAST — Two of Europe’s leading shipbuilders have formally agreed to collaborate on naval projects that could lead see a submarine produced by German firm ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) at a Navantia shipyard in Spain. The plan falls under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed by both manufacturers on Wednesday and comes as Europe’s maritime industry faces strain and uncertainty.  “Geopolitical developments in recent years have significantly increased demand for modern naval products,” said Navantia in a statement. “At the same time, there are considerable bottlenecks in shipyard capacity and technological resources across Europe.” Faced with these issues, the two companies “intend to explore how closer industrial cooperation can help implement projects more efficiently, quickly, and cost-effectively,” according to Navantia. The company noted that each side has agreed to launch “management level” talks that are built on mutual trust and in “full compliance” with competition and export control regulations. It remains unclear how new submarine business would be prioritized as the two shipbuilders have separate products to consider. TKMS is under contract to produce Type 212CD subs for Germany and Norway, with Navantia concentrating on an order for four Spanish S-80 class boats. Last year, the Type 212CD was also selected as one of two rival “qualified suppliers” for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project, alongside South Korean Hanwha Oceans KSS-III design. Ottawa decided against an S-80 proposal. More broadly, the TKMS surface combatant range includes Class 123, 124, 125 frigates, Class 130 corvettes and MEKO vessels. By comparison, Navantia’s surface product line covers vessels like F-100, F-110, F-310 frigates, the Hobart class destroyer and the Strategic Protection Ship Juan Carlos I.

[Category: Global, Naval Warfare, canada, Europe, Germany, NATO, Navantia, Navy, Spain, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, Type 212CD]

— The Army is now relevant to the Pacific. Congress should budget accordingly. 

 

at 4/16/26 10:43am

Ten years ago, the emerging conventional wisdom among many defense planners was that the United States Army would not serve a meaningful role in a potential conflict with China — that there would be little role for tanks, howitzers or infantry in a conflict that would be dominated by the Air Force and the Navy.  Today, thanks to a series of reorganization efforts and investments in long range fires, the reality is far different. The Army now has the capabilities to impact China from a distance. But progress cannot stop. As budget season spins up, Congress and defense leaders must double down on these in order to ensure that the Army can play a meaningful and potentially decisive role in a future conflict in the Pacific.  Let’s take a moment to understand how the Army went from out of a China fight to having an integral role in one. Start in 2018, with the establishment of Army Futures Command to in part answer questions about the Army’s role in the Pacific. That led to a focus and commiserate investment in long range fires to hold enemy targets at range at risk.  That decision was backed by a 2019 analysis by the RAND Corporation which suggested that long-range Army fires had a role to playing in targeting “critical targets in China, such as command-and-control (C2) sites, airfields, missile sites, and ports,” as well as defending controlled land from Chinese attacks.  That same study went on to suggest that the Army do two things to make itself relevant in a Pacific conflict: Develop a “long-range surface-to-surface missile system, with a range of 1,000 km or more,” in order to strike the Chinese mainland from controlled territory, and secondly, develop a Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile to keep Chinese ships at arms length.  Informed by this and other similar analyses, the Army established new program offices. Over time that morphed into the recently formed Portfolio Acquisition Executive Fires, or PAE Fires, to integrate, develop, and field offensive and defensive fires. Organized under a three-star general, the effort is part of the broader Army Transformation Initiative, and gives a single office to lead the effort — an important bureaucratic step to making sure new weapons don’t get bogged down. The other half of the Army’s effort is technological. Much of that is being led out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord, where the Army’s 7th Infantry Division is fielding the 1st Multi-Domain Taks Force, or MDTF.  These forces are deploying systems such as the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, a long-range missile that can travel at hypersonic speeds and destroy targets with precise conventional warheads. They also field the Typhon system, a mid-range capability that can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles or SM-6s, and operates the Aegis Weapon System (or AWS) fires command and control system. At the same time, the Army has invested in highly capable dedicated missile defense systems, to include Patriot missile defenses (PAC-3) and the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) systems.  The combination enables Army units to engage maritime or land targets and provide credible air and missile defenses, thereby creating an effective A2/AD capability of its own. And at the heart of the future of fires is the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), which fires among US and allied forces. IBCS’ ability to serve as a decision support tool helps warfighters reduce air and missile interceptor expenditures, an important consideration of modern conflict, particularly given recent lessons from Operation Epic Fury. (Last year, the then-Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. James Mingus said capabilities like IBCS, when coupled with Patriot interceptors, results essentially in a doubling of effective interceptor magazine depth.) Now, the trick is to merge the back-end reorganization and the front-end technological developments into something operational for the Pacific. Fundamentally, this means getting Army forces and mobile shooters, such as the Typhon and other systems, inside adversary A2/AD bubbles before the initiation of conflict. This is already happening, as the Army is putting additional Typhon systems into the Philippines, augmenting the systems that were placed there in 2024 and in Japan in 2025. By having capabilities in place before the onset of a conflict, Army units can not only be combat relevant at the start of hostilities, but they will not be encumbered by trying to flow forces into theater — stressing American air-refueling and airlift capabilities trying to get into theater — and past an adversary’s own air defenses and A2/AD capabilities.  Once in theater, Army units can intercept enemy air and missile threats, target and engage enemy surface ships, and conduct long-range strikes on strategic targets on the enemy’s mainland. Further, by being able to engage and destroy enemy air, maritime, and land-based threats, the Army can create effective “friendly” A2/AD bubbles that are difficult for enemy forces to penetrate and from which American and coalition forces can operate and strike additional enemy targets.  In this way, the Army is positioning itself to act as a key player in a Pacific conflict. However, systems such as IBCS must continue to evolve and improve rapidly in order to address the ever advancing threats posed by our adversaries, particularly Chinese missile forces. And Army stockpiles must not be allowed to fall empty. On April 2, the White House delivered its fiscal 2027 budget request to Congress. The Pentagon is slated for $1.5 trillion in funding, with $350 billion of that proposed funding coming from reconciliation.  The budget request quadruples the procurement budget of the Army’s intermediate range Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), which is a good start. But Congress should use the historic defense budget to similarly procure far greater numbers of PAC-3s, THAAD systems, and LRHWs.  The Army has done the hard work internally to make itself relevant for a Pacific fight. Now is the time to reward that work by helping arm the nation’s oldest military service. Doing so may be the best way to deter Chinese aggression in the Western Pacific. Robert Peters is the Senior Research Fellow for Strategic Deterrence and Assistant Director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation.

[Category: Land Warfare, Opinion, Army, Asia, China, Congress, Indo-Pacific, PAC-3, Pentagon, Precision Strike Missile - PRSM, thaad]

— Army making ‘significant headway’ in ATI aviation overhaul

 

at 4/16/26 9:28am

NASHVILLE — The Army has made significant headway” in its efforts to replace its Apache helicopters as part of the sweeping changes under the Army Transformation Initiative, one senior Army official said Wednesday.  The ATI, announced nearly a year ago, came with drastic cuts and reprioritizing the service’s aviation fleet — one of the most grandiose being replacing the Apache AH-64D models with the AH-64E models. “Im pleased to report weve made significant headway,” Col. Tim Jaeger, director of Army aviation at the G3/5/7, said Wednesday at the AAAA conference. “To put this into perspective, weve already transferred two thirds. Were already two thirds of the way through to this complex process of rebalancing our fleet. “We’re successfully replacing legacy airframes with modern ones and divested nearly 60 percent of our 64 [Ds] while simultaneously yielding roughly 80 percent of our [E models],” he added, explaining that entailed the transfer of 1,100 aircraft within a year. Though it has received various rounds of updates since, the 64D model was first fielded in 1997, and the E-model came later in 2013. The E-model is equipped with increased engine power, enhanced digital connectivity, the ability to fly in more severe weather and modernized rotor blades.  Jaeger’s comments Wednesday come as procurement funding for Apaches in the Pentagon’s budget request decreased dramatically from $361.7 million in FY26 to $1.5 million in FY27. However, Jaeger said that Apaches likely aren’t going anywhere even if the Army doesn’t procure as many.  “For the foreseeable future, when we go to war, well fight with our Apaches, our Blackhawks, our Chinooks and then well be complimented by the Cheyenne coming,” he said, referring to the newly-named MV-75.  Switching out the old Apache models with the newer ones is not the only headway the service has made in terms of modernizing its fleet, Jaeger said. Another considerable change spurred by ATI is the reduction of Army Combat Aviation Brigades by removing one Aerial Cavalry Squadron per CAB. As of late last year, seven ACSs have been deactivated, with one, the 3rd Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, being redesignated, or “re-flagged” to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Aviation Regiment, Jaeger explained.  He added that the next CABs to face transformation will be within the 101st Airborne Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. 

[Category: Land Warfare, AAAA 2026, AH-64 Apache, Army, Army Transformation Initiative]

— US can intercept any Iran-linked ship globally, Caine says

 

at 4/16/26 8:31am

WASHINGTON — As the US naval blockade of vessels in and out of Iranian ports enters day four, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine delivered a warning: Any vessel around the globe carrying supplies to or from Iran is a potential target.  “The joint force, through operations and activities in other areas of responsibility, like the Pacific area of responsibility, under the command of Adm. [Samuel] Paparo, will actively pursue any Iranian flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” the four-star general told reporters this morning. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil. Caine did not disclose if the US military has boarded any such vessels yet outside of Central Command’s purview, though he did say no ships have been boarded as part of the blockade involving the Strait of Hormuz. His comments follow the April 8 announcement that Washington and Tehran reached a two-week ceasefire deal, with US President Donald Trump saying it was made on the condition that Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway where a fifth of the worlds oil transits through.  However, as Israel continued its attacks on Hezbollah inside Lebanon, Iran cried foul and said vessels traveling through the waterway could become targets. That then prompted Trump to call for a US naval blockade to go into effect Monday morning for all vessels entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, to include the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said approximately 10 percent of US naval power is now being used to enforce this.  “This blockade applies to all ships, regardless of nationality, heading into or from Iranian ports,” Caine added today. “The US action is a blockade of Irans ports and coastline, not a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Enforcement will occur inside Irans territorial seas, and in international waters.” Caine explained that on Monday, CENTCOM was eyeing seven ships as possible blockade violators. In some cases, he added, a lead US ship, likely a destroyer, would move toward the suspected violator transmitting a message: “Do not attempt to breach the blockade. Vessels will be boarded for interdiction and seizure, transiting to or from Iranian ports. Turn around or prepare to be boarded. If you do not comply with this blockade, we will use force.” As of his briefing from the Pentagon this morning, Caine said the US military had not boarded another ship in the region. 

[Category: Global, Pentagon, Ceasefire, Central Command, Dan Caine, Iran, Israel, Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump, Strait of Hormuz]

— Air Force kicks off AMTI program with competition for first ‘increment’

 

at 4/15/26 4:25pm

COLORADO SPRINGS — The Department of the Air Force (DAF) has launched a competition for satellites that can track airborne targets, according to Secretary Troy Meink, rebuffing skepticism over whether the technology known as airborne moving target indication (AMTI) is ready for prime time.  “Weve awarded the base contract for the new space-based airborne moving target indication capability, and are competing a contract for the first operational increment,” Meink said during a keynote address at the Space Symposium conference here. In a later briefing with reporters, Meink explained that the AMTI program consists of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract issued to “multiple vendors” to kick off “development activities.” The Department of the Air Force will issue “multiple operational contracts” over time, Meink added, with one coming “fairly shortly” for “the first operational increment of those systems.” (Meink didnt identify the winner(s) of the base contract, and a DAF spokesperson wasnt able to immediately clarify.) News of the AMTI contract comes on the heels of the Space Force’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which is seeking a whopping $7 billion to start buying space-based AMTI systems, after requesting no procurement money for those assets in FY26. Asked about the maturity of space-based AMTI — which faces the daunting physics of an orbiting satellite keeping track of fast-flying aircraft — Meink said the technology has already been demonstrated, and asserted whatever the DAF buys will “far and away” be “the most capable AMTI system” ever fielded. “Theres not a question anymore about whether or not the technology” works, Meink said. “We know it does. Now its just, how do we build it affordably and get it on orbit and make sure we have competition going forward.” Gen. Chance Saltzman, Space Force chief, told reporters here today that because the service wasn’t looking to develop an exquisite capability for AMTI, “we have designed the requirements around scalability so we can use the procurement funding lines to actually achieve that economy of scale with industry.” The Space Force is developing both AMTI space systems and satellites that can track ground targets (GMTI) with the National Reconnaissance Office, where Meink previously served as principal deputy director. The Pentagon’s bullishness on AMTI satellites in particular has helped fuel resistance within the department to the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail AMTI aircraft program, which lawmakers forced the Air Force to continue after the service attempted to cancel the radar plane last year.  The Space Force’s new Objective Force plan projecting its future needs through 2040 characterizes moving target indication as an “emerging mission” for the service, required to meet the needs of US combatant commanders for warfighting in heavily contested contingencies. “With the advent of autonomous vehicles, drone swarms, and hybrid force packages, the future battlefield demands the Joint Force act quickly across multiple domains with limited time for sense or decision making. As such, it requires the ability to identify, track, and engage numerous moving targets simultaneously, closing long-range kill chains on demand,” says the plan, revealed today by Saltzman. Space-based moving target indication satellites “offer the persistent and global long-range sensing required for beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) targeting and fires against moving air, land, and sea targets. Lastly, they can connect with each other, providing global battlespace awareness of contested environments across Combatant Commands,” it adds.

[Category: Air Warfare, Space, Air Force, airborne moving target indication (AMTI), Gen. Chance "Salty" Saltzman, Ground Moving Target Indicator, National Reconnaissance Office, Space Force, Space Symposium 2026, Space-based Moving Target Indication, Troy Meink]

— Golden Dome czar signals space-based interceptors not guaranteed, as DoD weighs cost

 

at 4/15/26 4:22pm

WASHINGTON — The general in charge of Americas Golden Dome missile defense shield said today that a high-profile and technologically ambitious element of the project, space-based interceptors (SBIs), may not make it into the final architecture as originally envisioned if the tech is shown to be prohibitively costly. “We are so focused on affordability. If we cannot do it affordab[ly], we will not go into production,” Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein told members of a House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee today. “Because we are looking at the threats from a multi-domain perspective to make sure I have redundant capabilities and I dont have single points of failure,” he added. “So, if boost-phase intercept from space is not affordable and scalable, we will not produce it, because we have other options to get after it.” As in past engagements, the four-star general heading up the sprawling, multilayered homeland air defense system maintained that SBI technology exists today, but coupled the optimisim with reassurance before lawmakers that the price tag will be a key driver. (Though Guetlein was discussing boost-phase intercept, in which adversary missiles are destroyed shortly after launch, the Space Force has expressed interest in space-based mid-course intercept as well.) RELATED: To overcome Golden Dome affordability hurdle, DoD needs acquisition reform, AI Late last year Space Force began awarding SBI prototype deals to multiple vendors, and the service’s fiscal 2027 budget request includes $2 billion in procurement funding for “Special Space Activities.” Given that nowhere in the Space Force’s request is there any mention of funding for the classified contracts issued last year to begin SBI prototyping for Golden Dome, its possible some SBI funding is held in the special activities pot. Guetlein, appoint Golden Dome czar by President Donald Trump in May 2025, was testifying today alongside several other senior military officials about Americas missile defense enterprise and the administrations newly revealed FY27 $1.5 trillion budget request. However, few details about Golden Dome spending plans were discussed. And while subcommittee Chairman Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., praised the department for becoming more transparent with its Golden Dome plan. However, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., the panel’s top Democrat, pushed back on it from a “technical and fiscal perspective. It is clear to me now that the reality does not match what President Trump has promised to the American people: An impenetrable shield … against all threats, he said. So far, Pentagon officials including Guetlein have remained relatively tight lipped in public about the plan they contend will cost $185 billion, but FY27 budget documents shed a bit more light on their spending projections. The potential for SBIs was briefly touched on in a newly released an unclassified version of the Space Forces Objective Force plan for the next 15 years. It notes, If the Space Force builds space-based interceptors or supports their employment, it should undertake a focused study into the specification required to do so. By The Numbers  Earlier this month the White House submitted its fiscal 2027 (FY27) budget request to Capitol Hill. That request included $1.5 trillion in defense spending for next year with $1.15 trillion in the base budget request and an additional $350 billion from a forthcoming reconciliation ask. (A separate supplemental funding request for operations in the Middle East may also be forthcoming.) Although the in-depth budget justification documents detailing specific plans and timelines has not yet been released, initial documents outline broader Golden Dome and missile defense spending plans.  For Golden Dome the Pentagon wants to spend $17.5 billion in FY27, but with only $398 million in the base budget — a potentially risky move if lawmakers do not pass the reconciliation bill.  Tom Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called that decision part of a larger “legislative strategy” where by placing Golden Dome dollars and items like critical munitions in the reconciliation plan it forces lawmakers’ hand and provides the department with more flexibility and time to spend the dollars. “[It] is a little bit of a risk, but I think its probably a good one, because it makes it must pass,” Karako told Breaking Defense last week.  As for the actual numbers, the Golden Dome request parses out spending among the services and agencies across three pots of money: research and development, procurement, and maintenance (O&M), procurement. The bulk of the request, $14.2 billion, is spread across the services and agencies to cover research and development efforts, with nearly $4.5 billion coming from MDA’s pot, $4.5 billion from the Space Force, $615 million from the Air Force, $427 million from the Army and $174 million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Another $2.3 billion pot is placed under a nondescript Golden Dome umbrella, while $452 million is allocated for developmental work on directed energy systems development, and $497 derived from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security budget. In total, Pentagon budget documents lay out plans to spend $2.2 billion in procurement on Golden Dome next year, with MDA’s budget covering $1.8 billion while Air Force coffers cover $365.7 million.  And when it comes to the $1.2 billion O&M spending plan for Golden Dome next year, MDA’s budget could cover the lions share with a $893 million ask, followed by $143.5 million from the Air Force budget and $7 million from the Army. There is also another $106 million slated to come from a broad Golden Dome account too, according to budget documents. While budget documents released so far do not detail just which service and agency programs fit under the Golden Dome homeland defense umbrella, there are various technology candidates scattered throughout.  MDA’s FY27 budget request, for example, includes nearly $12.4 billion for research and development funding, up from the $8.2 billion allocated for FY26. Almost $1.5 billion from that total would go towards ballistic missile defense “enabling programs,” another $1.7 billion towards special programs” and $1.3 billion for “improved homeland defense interceptors.” The administration is also requesting $5.7 billion to pad the agency’s procurement coffers next year, an increase from the $2.5 allocated this year. That includes $800 million for an unspecified type and number of  Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, $1.2 billion for Aegis ballistic missile defense, and $4.2 billion to purchase 136 Standard Missile-3 Block IIAs.

[Category: Congress, Pentagon, C-UAS, Defense Budget 2027, directed energy, Drones, Gen. Michael Guetlein, Golden Dome, homeland defense, SM-3 Block IIA, Tom Karako, Trump administration]

As of 4/18/26 2:58pm. Last new 4/17/26 6:00pm.