Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Senate passes stopgap funding bill

 

at 8/8/26 10:31am

WASHINGTON — The Senate today passed a bipartisan stopgap funding bill to keep federal agencies funded until Dec. 11, a key — but not final — step forward to prevent a government shutdown in October. Senators voted 90-6-1 to push forward the continuing resolution, which would keep funding for the Pentagon at fiscal 2026 levels and forbid the start of new programs. However, Congress still has work to do before a CR can be sent to the desk of President Donald Trump. Before leaving for August recess last month, the House passed its own version of the CR which would run until Dec. 4. That bill does not include the anomalies, or special funding exemptions, included in the Senate bill, and was opposed by most House Democrats. Rather than pass that version of the bill, the Senate unveiled its own CR version on Aug. 2, which includes some funding exemptions and provisions backed by Democrats. Once Congress returns to Washington in September, the House and Senate will either need to work out a compromise version of the CR and pass it through both chambers, or one chamber will have to adopt the other’s bill. Neither the House nor Senate bills contain most of the Pentagon-specific anomalies requested by the White House, including $1 billion in funding for the Trump-class battleship and permission to obligate funding on five multiyear munitions contracts. For more about the Senate version of the continuing resolution, click here. Should Congress fail to pass a continuing resolution by the Sept. 30 deadline, the government would face a shut down, potentially extending until after midterm elections in November.  

[Category: Congress, Pentagon, 2027 defense appropriations, continuing resolution, Defense Budget 2027]

— The state of DoD Zero Trust: Progress toward target level

 

at 8/7/26 2:54pm

Live Webinar:Date: August 26, 2026Time: 2p ET / 11am PT TITLE: Zero Trust leaders to level set status and discuss new initiativesParticipants can earn 1 CPE credit AGENDA: We’ll discuss the following: The current state of Zero Trust across the DoD and defense industrial base. The expansion of Zero Trust principles to not only users and devices, but to data, operational technology, and weapon systems. Zero Trust coordination across the services. Quantifying Zero Trust success. Enterprise Zero Trust and Zero Trust at the tactical edge. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: An understanding of the specific pain points that the various services are experiencing in securing users, devices, and operational technology. Familiarity with the technical elements/capabilities that need to be combined to execute a Zero Trust implementation. Understand how Zero Trust elements differ at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. An understanding about steps to take in accomplishing Zero Trust compliance? How to apply Zero Trust at the tactical edge. Knowledge of the DoD’s Zero Trust roadmap for the next 12-24 months. The Pentagon is well down its path to implementing Zero Trust principles and architecture for information technology systems related to users and devices. For its next step, many of those same Zero Trust targets and goals will be applied to not only users and devices but also to operational technology such as industrial control systems and Internet of Things devices, along with weapon systems. In this Breaking Defense webinar, we examine the status of Zero Trust implementations across the Defense Department on their way to full compliance with DoD CIO directives and service-specific requirements in the next two years. We’ll also discuss how to measure success in Zero Trust implementation, as well as what Zero Trust looks like at the tactical edge. 1 CPE credit eligibleField of Study: Business Management & OrganizationIn order to receive full credit, you must respond to all three polling questions asked during the live program. hbspt.forms.create({ portalId: '2097098', formId: 'f8ca5611-de48-4f1e-a54e-7db7d0f44839', target: '#hubspot-form-f8ca5611-de48-4f1e-a54e-7db7d0f44839', });

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, cyber security, digital warfare, DOD, networks, technology, Webinar, Webinar Zero Trust, zero trust]

— GDIT scores $1.3 billion National Guard IT contract

 

at 8/7/26 1:51pm

WASHINGTON — General Dynamics Information Technology announced today it was awarded a $1.3 billion contract to provide enterprise IT and cybersecurity capabilities for the Army National Guard and other federal partners. The Army National Guard depends on resilient, modern networks to support communities and government partners and safeguard the nation, Brian Sheridan, GDIT senior vice president for Defense, said in a release. We look forward to bringing the full strength of GDITs digital modernization, AI and cyber capabilities to enhance the mission readiness of the Guard and its partners. Though announced today, the contract — dubbed the Enterprise Network Operations and Cybersecurity Support — was awarded June 29, a GDIT spokesperson told Breaking Defense. The contract has a one-year base period with six one-year option periods and provides upgrades and new enterprise IT environments that support mission needs, new operations centers, workforce support, technology provisioning and on-site services, the company announced. Additionally, GDIT will operate and defend the Guards classified and unclassified networks. Todays announcement did not specify who the other federal government partners GDIT will provide services for. GDIT has secured several contracts in the past with the active duty Army and joint and international partners, particularly working Zero Trust technologies at the edge in the Pacific. The Guard often plays key roles in augmenting active duty units. Officials over the years have maintained the criticality of keeping the Guard on pace with the active duty force to ensure interoperability and security of mission.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Army, Army National Guard, cyber security, GDIT, networks, technology]

— Army opens ranges in US, Morocco to speed interceptor testing, development

 

at 8/7/26 1:10pm

WASHINGTON — The Army has officially opened up four of its domestic testing ranges and one international range where private industry can blast off interceptor missiles they have developed with their own funds, in hopes of getting promising candidates into the acquisition pipeline faster. Currently, defense companies, particularly smaller nontraditional vendors, often face wait times of up to 12 to 18 months to secure a spot on ranges — namely White Sands Missile Range — to test their systems, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll told reporters today.  “That is not sufficient,” Driscoll said. “If you look at what Ukraine has done so incredibly well, its this innovation through necessity and its innovation at the speed that is near or close to matching the commercial sector. So what we, the Army, are trying to do is break down every single barrier that we have put up over the last 20 or 30 years.”  Driscoll said the Army’s goal is to get companies onto testing ranges within 30 days of when they submit a request through a newly launched website which Driscoll said will provide “concierge access to every range.” Participating firms are expected to use Internal Research and Development (IRAD) money to develop their offers. Maj. Gen. Patrick Gaydon, commanding general of Army Test and Evaluation Command, said the four domestic ranges open for IRAD testing are Camp Grayling in Michigan, Camp Shelby in Mississippi, Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, and West Cibola, which is an “unused part” of Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The location in Arizona is currently being used for IRAD funding at a small scale, Gaydon explained, but the initiative announced today expands its use. The international range is the Multidomain Training Area hosted in Morocco, Driscoll added. He said a private start-up company, called Covenant Industries, successfully tested their Anthem missile there on Thursday. Covenant executive Abby Denburg told reporters that the company is “preparing to begin delivering production-ready assets for our manufacturing line at the beginning of 2027 and put Anthem into the hands of the operators that need it.” Neither Denburg nor Driscoll would say if the Army was currently in contract negotiations with the California-based firm.  The multidomain training center in Morocco is one of the primary elements of a new Africa Multidomain Training and Experimentation Center, created through a memorandum of understanding signed between US Africa Command and the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces last month. Driscoll added that he hopes to work with other allied nations to gain access to additional testing ranges. “In a perfect world [] this will continue to grow — double, triple, quadruple in the coming weeks and months. What we are hopeful for is that its not just American companies that can come in and [test] on these ranges, but its also allies, companies, and allied nations around the world, because that is how we and our allies will continue to outpace the threats that exist,” he said.  Beyond requiring companies to spend their own money on the interceptor development, Driscoll said the Army didnt plan on subsidizing travel or other accommodations. “The intent is not to artificially get companies who are not quite ready yet, whether theyre not in their funding journey far enough along, or that they have a good idea but havent quite gotten it to the place that it is ready to be tested. Those are not what we are talking about today,” he said. “What we are talking about today is the pent up demand.”“Theres this concept in startup world — sometimes called escape velocity — where if you build a product and you bring it to the right market, what you want is you want so much demand to have just been sitting there, and all of a sudden your sales skyrocket, even if your products still in MVP [minimum viable product] stage, because its just been so necessary,” Driscoll continued.  The Army aims to “unleash escape velocity here,” he said. 

[Category: Land Warfare, Army, Daniel Driscoll, Drones, interceptors, IRAD, Morocco, US AFRICOM]

— Senate confirms nominees for Pentagon comptroller, space acquisition and NRO chief

 

at 8/7/26 12:21pm

WASHINGTON — After a year and a half without a confirmed Pentagon comptroller, today the Senate voted 51-47 for Jules “Jay” Hurst to officially take on the role, along with greenlighting key Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) nominees. Hurst, who performed the duties of comptroller from August 2025 until May, when he stepped away after the White House appointed him to take over the role full time, will now slide back into the role overseeing defense budgets and spend plans once sworn in. During his mid-July confirmation hearing, Hurst vowed to focus on three main priorities if confirmed — passing a clean audit by 2028, constructing budgets that align with the ongoing evolutions in warfare while also expanding the industrial base, and improving financial management systems and processes. Once he is back in the comptroller seat, Hurst will be overseeing Iran spending and the associated supplemental funding expected to be in the tens of billions of dollars, along with the fiscal 2027 spending request that has yet to be approved. He will also be responsible for crafting the FY28 budget request. At the same time, Hurst’s office is also under pressure to get $152 billion in 2025 reconciliation spending under contract by the end of September or risk an 8.3 percent cut to the remaining balance. In the same voting bloc with 74 nominees, lawmakers confirmed Erich Hernandez-Baquero as the next Air Force assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration, a role that’s charged with overseeing all Space Force acquisition programs. Hernandez-Bacquero, who goes by “HB,” will take over from Thomas Ainsworth, who is currently acting as the Pentagon’s space acquisition czar. He will be only the second person permanently appointed to the role, which was created by Congress in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, following in the footsteps of Frank Calvelli. Once in place, Hernandez-Baquero will manage a rapidly growing Space Force investment budget. The service’s FY27 budget includes some $59 billion in research and procurement, up from $18.9 billion in FY26. He also will be faced with implementing the major workforce realignment under the service’s new portfolio acquisition executive (PAE) structure mandated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The Space Force on June 10 announced that it had finalized its acquisition reorganization, adding three more PAEs to the six previously announced — for a total of nine. The three newest PAEs cover Advanced Capabilities, Electromagnetic Warfare and Cyber, and Space Combat Power. The Senate’s vote also included a thumbs up for the Trump administration’s nominee to head the NRO, Roger Mason. Mason, who currently is an executive at defense contractor V2X, has a background in intelligence — having served as the first assistant director of national intelligence for systems and resource analyses within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) from 2009 to 2014. He will replace the long-serving Chris Scolese at the helm of the spy satellite agency.

[Category: Air Warfare, Pentagon, Space, Air Force, Jules Hurst, National Reconnaissance Office, Pentagon comptroller, Space Force]

— EU lays out $18B satellite constellation plan, with Spanish firm winning key role

 

at 8/7/26 11:03am

BELFAST — European officials have agreed to a rollout plan for the continent’s flagship satellite constellation, adding 66 low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites to the hundreds already envisioned and naming a Spanish firm as prime contractor for ground-based communications and networking. Altogether, the plan for the European Unions (EU) answer to SpaceXs Starlink broadband communications network, called Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS2), is valued in excess of €15.6 billion ($18 billion). The first satellite launches are slated for 2029, according to HispaSat, part of Spains Indra Group, which said it had been selected as the prime contractor for the ground portion of the effort. The European Commission, the EUs executive arm, said in a statement today that the decision to acquire more satellites under the high dollar program, will help “strengthen capabilities” for defense, security and emergency services. The move will also “increase secure governmental capacity” by 60 percent inside the EU and 54 percent globally, per the statement. The deal is tied to the commission reaching an implementation agreement with the SpaceRise consortium, made up of operators Eutelsat (France), HispaSat (Spain) and SES (Luxembourg). Other key items that have been finalized, the commission said, include advanced satellite constellation design, preparation related to construction of satellites and secure ground infrastructure, securing launch services, and gradual deployment of operational connectivity services from 2029 onwards. In a company statement, HispaSat said the budget for the ground-related segment is valued at €1.6 billion ($1.85 billion) and covered antenna infrastructure, control systems and land-based network connectivity across the whole IRIS2 constellation. HispaSat noted that “all the facilities necessary for the management and operation of the constellation’s various orbital layers, as well as the interconnection with ground networks, which will be located in multiple sites,” are included under the new agreement. The ground based prime contractor selection means that Indra will be the first Spanish company to take charge of a consortium involved in a major European space-based project. Additionally, the firm noted it will also lead development of the very low Earth orbit (vLEO) constellation, planned to operate at altitudes below 75 kilometers (466 miles). The commission’s statement did not make any reference to a vLEO layer, stating only that the multi-sat constellation will comprise of 348 satellites, split between 330 LEO sats and 18 medium Earth orbit units. The latest developments follow the commission and the SpaceRise consortium inking a 12-year concession contract centered on the founding of a “public-private partnership to enable both governmental and commercial connectivity services by 2030.” IRIS2 is one of three European space strategy pillars, sitting alongside the Copernicus program for Earth observation, and the Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) effort. Progress on IRIS2, initiated in 2022, comes as Europe is pushing for, and investing in, what leaders have dubbed strategic autonomy in space ― that is, breaking away from the regions long-standing dependence on the US government and US industry for space technology and services. Strategic autonomy starts with independent connectivity. IRIS2 is Europe’s answer to a changing geopolitical reality, Josef Aschbacher, European Space Agency director, said today in a post on LinkedIn. Theresa Hitchens contributed to this article from Washington, DC.

[Category: Space, Europe, European Commission, European Space Agency, European union, HispaSat, IRIS2, satellite communications, Space Force, Spain]

— Pentagon wants ‘expanding options’ for nuclear weapons, officials say

 

at 8/7/26 10:21am

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has launched a review of Americas nuclear posture, focused on providing more “options” for the White House, two top officials said this week. The comments come after over a decade of concerns that Russia and China are developing lower-yield “tactical” nuclear warheads, while the US arsenal is largely reliant on heavier “strategic” nuclear weapons. The theory is that a foreign country could use lower-yield weapons and lock the US president into a no-win situation: either not responding, or having to respond with overwhelming, world-ending force.  The start of the review was announced by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby during a keynote speech Wednesday. In his comments, Colby repeatedly emphasized the term “options,” though he stressed that as of right now, he had “no announcement of any kind of change” regarding the Pentagon’s nuclear policy.   “Theres, you know, a review or sort of relook at the employment guidance, which is more about the commander of STRATCOM [Strategic Command] and his responsibilities and [the defense] secretarys authorities, etcetera,” he said in Omaha, Neb., during the 2026 Deterrence Symposium. Colby also noted that the review will not be released to the general public.  Colby’s comments were not publicly broadcast, but a copy of the audio was shared with Breaking Defense. They came hours after NBC first reported that the review is expected to emphasize the possibility of using shorter-range tactical weapons if there is a regional war with China or Russia.  On center stage, Colby didn’t dovetail into that level of specificity but broadly touched on the topic of regional wars and a growing focus on smaller, tactical nuclear weapons as a way to limit mass destruction, saying the US needs more “rational nuclear options” to respond.“What I would fear more” than a “mass attack” on the US, he said, “is a regional war …kind of local war, a conventional war that might have local employment, God forbid, of [nuclear] weapons that could escalate from there.”  US Strategic Command head Adm. Richard Correll hosted a call with reporters about the review shortly after Colby got off stage.While he declined to comment on internal Pentagon discussions, Correll emphasized that the US has not changed its declaratory policy when it comes to nuclear and strategic capabilities, and the department is looking at ways of “expanding options” available to the president and providing the “decision space for any conceivable escalation scenario.” “The way I think about that,” the four-star admiral said, “is escalation maneuver. “I think about it much more broadly than our nuclear capability,” Correll added. “[It] is from our exquisite non-kinetic capability to our conventional capability, to if you would envision, some kind of limited nuclear exchange to high-end escalation.” Those theater needs, he explained, require a diversity of platforms and launchers, while also creating “ambiguity” for the other side about what is actually in the region.  “By doing that, you raise the threshold for consideration of theater nuclear employment by any potential adversary,” the four-star admiral said. “So it is about deterrence first and foremost.” Stanton Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Ankit Panda said that US strategists “traditionally” link smaller nuclear warheads to the start of an escalation ladder. “In the context of today’s nuclear environment, the key question is whether or not the US will try to keep ahead of Russia and China simultaneously with damage limitation capabilities — especially by the mid-2030s,” he told Breaking Defese. “The administration’s choice to prioritize regional capabilities suggests the answer, at least in the short-term, is no.” “That doesn’t mean the US will move away from sustaining damage limitation capabilities for either Russia or China; it does mean the two-front simultaneous damage limitation problem is being punted for another day,” Panda added.  The nuclear review comes at a time when the administration is working to modernize its nuclear triad, an effort that goes back to the Obama administration as part of a trade-off to get Congress to sign onto the Iran nuclear deal. That modernization wave included upgrading the B61 nuclear gravity bomb, the W88 warhead used by the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, and the W93, which will be used on Ohio- and Columbia-class subs.  Since that Obama-era effort began, however, two new “low-yield” weapons have been funded, under the aegis of giving the White House a way to use nuclear weapons without resorting to “last resort use of larger yield weapons. During the first Trump administration, a sea-launched cruise missile known as the SLCM-N was launched. And under the Biden administration, a lower-yield version of the B61, the B61-13, was approved.  Given that context, it is possible the upcoming review may conclude that more tactical nuclear weapons are needed. Warhead development is managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous arm of the Department of Energy, while the delivery systems are managed by the Defense Department. 

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Naval Warfare, Pentagon, Adm. Richard Correll, Air Force, Army, China, elbridge colby, Navy, Nuclear Posture Review, nuclear weapons, Russia, STRATCOM]

— Updating Navy warships at the speed of software

 

at 8/7/26 9:40am

The Navy is now pushing over-the-air software updates to some of its most important and complex systems aboard ships. What a phone does overnight next to your bed, a warship can increasingly do while underway at sea. It was only a few years ago that we started adding this capability for business systems afloat —the backbone of email, collaboration, and other network utilities aboard Navy ships. Now, its being applied to combat systems, like radar, sonar, and weapons. This signals a sea change in speed of delivery. An update that once waited for a maintenance availability, a formal test event, and a calendar measured in years can reach the Fleet far faster. The ship may set sail with one software baseline and fight with a better one. That is not simply an information technology improvement. It changes how naval power is generated. It is a force designed to absorb new capabilities, reconfigure mission threads, and adapt faster than threats change in front of them. The Chief of Naval Operations’ Fighting Instructions describe our Hedge Strategy, built to increase the Navy’s impact, adapt to dynamic adversaries, field asymmetric capabilities, and empower a distributed force. In service to this strategy, rapid software updates can strengthen the main battle force with tailored offsets against specific threats, without waiting for every platform to be redesigned, replaced, or overhauled in home port. Recent combat from Ukraine to the Red Sea shows why this matters. Sensors are detected and countered. Communications pathways are jammed. Algorithms and tactics are revised. An advantage can disappear in weeks, days or hours. Hardware still matters, but software compresses the time between observation, adaptation, and renewed effectiveness. The United States does not need to match every adversary platform one for one. It needs to make its force harder to predict, easier to reconfigure, and faster to improve. Rate of change can become an asymmetric hedge. That requires an adaptive mission architecture. The Navy’s approach, the Adaptable Mission Architecture or AMA, is both a technical design philosophy and an operational mindset. It builds systems, teams, and decision processes that can evolve continuously as missions, threats, and technology change. Its standard is not whether a system meets todays threshold requirement, but whether the force can continue to learn, integrate, and improve after fielding. AMA connects four areas that are too often treated as separate initiatives: a common modular open systems approach to computing; common cloud and transport architecture, right down to enterprise services; a software-defined naval force; and the human talent required to integrate them. Published interfaces, automated testing, secure delivery pathways, and constant Fleet feedback make components replaceable without rebuilding the entire mission thread. Every component is a tenant not a permanent owner. While AMA describes how mission systems should fit and evolve, Modern Service Delivery (MSD) describes how new capabilities can move through the institution in a streamlined and repeatable process, rather than laboriously reinventing the wheel for each innovation. MSD applies systems engineering to the delivery system itself and scales whats already been working. Reusable services, secure defaults, automated evidence, and clear paths for exceptions reduce repeated debates over first principles. This has allowed for starting on second base, with fewer conversations about basics and more conversations about the specific mission. To jumpstart those in-depth conversations, Navy leaders have conducted Demand Signal Forums with industry partners around the nation. . Clearer technical guidance, the AMA and MSD processes, and better communications with industry are means, however, not ends. . The outcome is capability that reaches the Fleet safely and repeatedly before the problem changes. Execution must match the architecture. Under Secretary Hegseth’s new Warfighting Acquisition System, the Department of the Navy established a Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Mission Systems to serve as a central integrator. The shift moves the Navy beyond stovepiped program execution toward integrated mission capability delivered at operational speed. Legacy acquisition divided accountability by component: Each individual program could succeed while the end-to-end mission thread still failed at the seams. Portfolio accountability, by contrast, makes the seams someones job. It connects resources, integration, testing, and fielding to an operational effect, rather than a collection of programs. The Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Mission Systems and Department of Navy Chief Information Office accept this charge. The Fighting Instructions also combine hedge investment with a Fleet adoption plan, because  the Navy gains no advantage when technology is merely invented, contracted, or demonstrated. Advantage appears when Sailors and Marines can employ it reliably under operational conditions. Adoption has become a primary measure of innovation. The question is no longer only, What did we build? It is, How quickly did it become a trusted part of the fight? First movers get the credit. Fast adopters get the outcomes. This only works when our organizations can adapt as quickly as the technology they are fielding. The hardest part of modernization is rarely the engineering alone. It is changing how decisions are made, how teams work together, and how quickly the institution learns. These are human factors, not technological ones, and they require Battle Ready Sailors as much as better software. The Navy increasingly needs, has, and recruits operators who can explain the mission problem, technologists who understand the operational environment, and acquisition professionals who can translate both into fielded capability. Software fluency is now being treated as warfighting proficiency, not as a contractor service that can be outsourced or delegated. The speed of adaptation is now a defining measure of readiness. Programs are reporting how long it takes to deliver and certify an update, how quickly a component can be replaced, and how often Fleet feedback changes the product. What we increasingly need are modular Lego blocks of capability and partners who help us  phase out stovepiped systems and integration hogs — what the Navy calls Operation Cattle Drive. Industry and allies are our acceleration partners in this era of faster execution. For industry, the request is simple:  stop pitching monoliths. A brilliant but closed system is still a stovepipe, doomed to become a legacy system with a long integration tail. Bring us severable divestments and modular improvements. Publish the interfaces. Price for portability. That is how the Navy creates additional room to maneuver. Friction in integration and interoperability are disqualifiers. The future force must be built from Lego blocks, not stovepipes. Seapower has always depended on range, payload, endurance, logistics, and skilled Sailors. It now also depends on update speed and adaptation speed. Technology compresses timelines if you can adopt it well. Smart architecture accelerates integration. Culture determines whether either delivers lasting operational advantage. The ship can sail with one software baseline and fight with a better one. That is more than a software update. It is a new way to generate combat power. James Day is the Department of the Navys Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Mission Systems and has served the Navy as both a uniformed officer and a civilian leader. Justin Fanelli is the Chief Technology Officer of the Department of the Navy and teaches software-defined warfare at Georgetown University.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Networks & Digital Warfare, Opinion, acquisition reform, cyber security, fighting instructions, Navy, navy chief information officer, Navy Department, networks, Op-Ed Commentary, PAE Mission Systems, software, technology]

— Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan ink ‘joint defense’ agreement

 

at 8/7/26 6:26am

WASHINGTON — The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan today signed a new joint defense agreement, creating a NATO-style collective defense alliance that could soon be tested amid complex regional conflicts. The Agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression, and stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three States shall be regarded as an attack against them all, a joint statement reads. It further provides for the enhancement of all aspects of defence cooperation among the three States. The agreement was signed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Sharif at the Makkah Al-Mukarramah Summit for Joint Defence in the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The countries said the idea was [g]uided by the longstanding historical ties among the three states, based on the enduring bonds of brotherhood and Islamic solidarity that unite them, and building upon their shared strategic interests and longstanding defense cooperation. The agreement, the countries added, reflect[s] the three states shared commitment to further strengthening their collective security and to promoting peace, security, and stability in the region and beyond, in pursuit of a secure and prosperous future. The agreement comes nearly a year after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed their own defense accord on Sept. 17, bringing Riyadh under Pakistans nuclear umbrella. A Turkish official said todays deal does not replace any existing bilateral agreements, according to The Associated Press. The budding alliance could be put to the test shortly. Saudi Arabia has come under attack repeatedly this year from Iran-backed forces as Tehran lashes out in the wake of the US-Israeli military campaign against it. Just hours before the pact was signed, a senior Saudi official told Reuters the Islamic kingdom was bracing for attacks from Irans proxies in Yemen and Iraq based on intelligence collected domestically and from regional allies and the US. Pakistan, meanwhile, has for months played a diplomatic role in the Iran conflict, one of several venues for complex peace talks. The inclusion of Turkey, a NATO member, in the defense alliance could further heighten tensions with Israel, but also provide an opening for Riyadh and Islamabad to more easily tap into Ankaras booming defense export market.

[Category: Global, Land Warfare, Army, Asia, Iran, Middle East, pakistan, Saudi Arabia, turkey]

— Schiess confirmed as third Space Force chief

 

at 8/7/26 5:31am

WASHINGTON ― In a unanimous consent vote late on Thursday, the Senate confirmed Lt. Gen. Doug Schiess as the next chief of space operations (CSO) — the third person to pick up the reins of the almost seven-year-old Space Force. As expected, the confirmation was swift and non-controversial. Schiess, who currently serves as Space Force deputy, will replace Gen. Chance Saltzman, who is expected to retire in mid-August. Schiess will earn a fourth star and inherit a much larger Space Force in both budget and end strength than what existed when the branch was established in 2019 by the first Trump administration. In fiscal 2022, when Saltzman took up the CSO post, the Space Force was appropriated $17.4 billion and comprised about 8,700 active duty Guardians, as the branchs service members are called. The service’s FY27 budget request asks for $71.2 billion, and includes a proposed increase in end strength from today’s 10,657 active forces to 13,200. Further, Saltzman, Schiess and other top Space Force brass have been lobbying for the service to roughly double in size by 2030, to around 20,000 Guardians and civilians. However, Schiess also will inherit a complex set of acquisition and workforce challenges as the services mission and priorities increasingly shift from traditional support functions towards warfighting. According to a July 14 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Space Force has yet to determine how many civilians and active duty Guardians its requires as its mission sets and priorities become increasingly geared towards combat roles and its satellite systems morph in response. The Space Force has not established a process or guidance to consistently and accurately determine its personnel needs to accomplish its missions, the congressional watchdog found. Relatedly, although it has estimated the number of contractor personnel supporting it, the Space Force does not have a process or guidance to accurately measure the number of contractor personnel and the nature of work they perform. GAO warned that in the absence of a solid planning process, the service risks failing to properly assign and manage personnel for current and future mission needs, even if it wins congressional approval for a double-digit jump. Nonetheless, the GAO found that the service is currently facing at least a 25 percent shortfall in personnel, including in the areas of cybersecurity and intelligence. Further, senior Space Force officials responsible for acquisition are pushing to rapidly rehire civilians following cuts due to the Trump administration’s push to slash federal employees and contractors — and marching orders from Capitol Hill to beef up its acquisition workforce.

[Category: Space, civilian workforce, Congress, Gen. Chance "Salty" Saltzman, Government Accountability Office GAO, Lt. Gen. Doug Schiess, Pentagon, space acquisition, Space Force]

— Army awards contracts to four companies to boost Hydra-70 rocket production

 

at 8/6/26 12:30pm

WASHINGTON — The Army has awarded Other Transaction Authority (OTA) prototype agreements to four companies in a bid to increase production for the service’s Hydra-70 rockets, which are commonly fired from helicopters like the AH-64 Apache. The four companies, which will specifically supply the M151 high-explosive fragmentation warheads for the rockets, are Firehawk, iRocket, Nammo Perry and Albers, according to a release published by the Program Acquisition Executive Fires on Wednesday. The prototype OTAs are aimed at increasing competitive pricing and surging industrial capacity, according to the service. “This acquisition strategy secures vital industrial base surge capacity, ensuring the Army can swiftly meet emergent mission requirements and maintain uninterrupted readiness for Army lethality,” the release read.  The awards also give the vendors the opportunity to “improve the government owned Hydra-70 Technical Data Package (TDP),” per the release. A TDP consists of the technical design and manufacturing info, often including blueprints and other plans, that are used to produce or manufacture the platform.  Hydra-70 rockets are air-to-ground, 2.75-inch (70mm) munitions typically fired from tube launchers that can be mounted on most rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft. They can also be launched from the ground. With the new OTAs, each vendor will provide 24 prototype warheads for the Hydra-70 rockets and a “modernized TDP” within 18 months, per the release. As it stands, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS) is the current supplier for the Army’s Hydra-70 program, including its warheads.  The Army did not respond to a request for comment regarding when the awards were finalized, the dollar amount of the awards or what GD-OTS’s role will be in the Hydra-70 program moving forward. GD-OTS also did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.  Wednesday’s announcement comes after the Army has urged nontraditional vendors to become more involved in munitions production, namely as the US potentially faces dwindling stockpiles amid its war with Iran. Firehawk told Breaking Defense in a statement that its recent award comes after the company stood up a 636-acre rocket production campus in Crawford, Mississippi, “designed to rapidly scale rocket production.” “Our goal is to deliver the Hydra-70 rockets faster and at scale using modern manufacturing approaches that can help strengthen America’s munitions supply chain,” the company’s CEO, Will Edwards, said in the statement.  The three other companies selected for OTA agreements did not respond to Breaking Defense by the time of publication.  According to the Army’s announcement, if the selected vendors are successful in their demonstrations, follow-on agreements may be made to broaden the effort to other variants in the Hydra-70 family of rockets beyond the M151 warheads. Other warheads include the M156, M229 and more.

[Category: Land Warfare, Army, GD-OTS, Hydra rocket, munitions, OTA]

— Top cover and clear metrics: How to make the new PAE structure work

 

at 8/6/26 11:44am

What will it take for acquisition reform to finally succeed? New org charts aren’t enough: The people in the organization need new incentives. Since last fall, in a sweeping organizational overhaul, all three military departments have replaced program executive officers with Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs). The Army stood up six, the Navy nine. The Space Force completed its transition in July with nine. The Air Force redesignated all of its program executive officers as PAEs effective July 4.  These new executives have the power to launch sustainable reform that, at long last, shifts defense acquisition from a focus on procedural compliance to one on accomplishing the mission — if and only if they use that power to take two crucial and complementary steps. First, they must provide believable, executable top cover for contracting officers, not just lip service about taking risks. Second, they must refocus performance metrics to measure whether and how quickly acquisition outcomes produce mission results. Both moves fall within the PAEs’ authority under Section 1802 of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. Modeling of acquisition workforce behavior shows that the two together break a portfolio out of the compliance trap; neither one alone does. RELATED: Service acquisition leaders: Why this time will be different for defense acquisition Prior reforms aimed at the acquisition workforce, but none changed the conditions under which it worked. What the PAEs do next will determine whether 30 years of acquisition reform produces yet another wave of promise, then reverts back to the bureaucratic mean, or delivers the change previous waves promised. The PAE is the first acquisition official made responsible by statute for delivering capability across a portfolio rather than simply for milestone compliance on individual programs. Compliance culture is not an attitude problem. The acquisition workforce is not timid or indifferent — it is rational. Consider the contracting officers (COs) in any PAEs portfolio today. The COs aren’t ignorant: They know the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) permits commercial procedures, oral presentations, Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs), and statements of objectives (SOOs) instead of detailed statements of work (SOWs). They know that the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, triggered by Executive Order 14275, signed in April 2025, has expanded that legal operating space, stripping non-statutory content from most of the FAR. They know the Defense Secretarys November 2025 directive [PDF] launched the transition to a Warfighting Acquisition System, with speed of capability delivery as the organizing principle. That’s well and good, but when COs exercise flexible methods and face a protest, an audit, or a congressional inquiry, they are personally exposed. They’re the ones who sign for the government: Their name is literally on the line. When COs follow standard procedures and an acquisition produces a poor outcome, bad career consequences rarely follow. Under those conditions, rational COs default to the safest available procedure — not from cowardice, but from judgment. Compliance remains the smart choice. Section 1802 alters that calculus. The PAE now holds direct authority over the program managers (PMs) and COs within a portfolio: a group of related programs managed together so resources can shift across them as missions evolve. Section 1802 makes the PAE responsible for capability delivery across that portfolio as a whole, not just for milestone compliance on any single program.  For the first time, the leaders with institutional authority over COs have a mission that requires them to provide real top cover, because the PAEs own success depends on the outcomes that cover enables. This is what every past reform lacked. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policys procurement innovation guidance, and the Section 809 Panel each sought to enable better behavior at the CO level. But none altered the chain of authority above the CO to link senior leaders performance to portfolio outcomes. Section 1802 does. That is the structural difference. Of course, top cover and outcome metrics are not new ideas. The reform literature has called for them for decades. What simulating the acquisition system reveals, and previous reform efforts missed, is that the order of deployment determines whether the reforms take off or are absorbed. Deploy outcome metrics first, and the CO sees a dashboard that measures behaviors the system still punishes. The metrics are accurate. The career risk is unchanged. The CO does not move. Deploy top cover first, and the CO begins exercising flexible methods, because the risk that mattered most — professional exposure — has been removed. When metrics arrive, they make the resulting outcomes visible. The PAE can see what is working. Resources flow toward what works. The loop closes. Simulation showed that top cover paired with outcome metrics revolutionized portfolio management, a “phase change” as dramatic as solid ice melting into liquid water. But neither one alone was sufficient to break the hold of compliance culture. A second simulation finding sharpens the urgency: Building the outcome culture is harder than losing it. It takes roughly twice the institutional commitment to establish the new pattern as to maintain it. Reforms that fail to reach the threshold collapse, and the system reverts, as it has after every previous reform wave. Reforms that cross the threshold stick. The system is now closer to that threshold than at any point in three decades, but it has not yet crossed it. The PAE is the binding constraint. The first decision — whether to provide real institutional protection for contracting officers who exercise flexible methods — determines whether everything else can be sustained or is absorbed by the old pattern. Top cover is not a memo encouraging innovation or a speech about speed. It is a written, public commitment by the PAE, by name, to defend specific contracting decisions made in good faith using specific flexible methods. It specifies which methods the institution will support, from oral presentations to OTA prototype agreements. It commits dedicated legal resources and senior leadership engagement when a flexible-method award is challenged. It assures that a CO acting in good faith, with a documented rationale, will not face career consequences for an imperfect outcome or a sustained protest. And it changes how COs are evaluated. Documented business judgment replaces procedural perfection as the standard, with mission delivery and procedural compliance carrying equal weight. Three metrics constitute a viable starting set. First, time-to-mission-effect tracks elapsed time from a validated operational need to capability in the operators hands — the full pipeline that traditional metrics like procurement administrative lead time (PALT) cannot capture, since it runs only from solicitation to award. Second, post-award mission satisfaction, a structured assessment conducted by the requiring activity at six and 12 months, links the contract to the operators lived experience of how the product actually performs, rather than to technical acceptance alone. Third, competitive yield, the number and quality of offers received, makes visible the firms that did not bid because the solicitation signaled that innovative vendors were unwelcome. None of this requires new authorities now that the system structure has changed with the creation of PAEs. It requires a decision to measure what matters. The PAE does not need to push every program through Other Transaction Authority or exotic procurement vehicles. Moving the portfolios default requirements format from the detailed SOW to the outcome-focused SOO, paired with credible cover, is sufficient. A CO who can describe what the operator needs rather than which technical solution to pursue, and who is protected when the resulting award attracts a protest, will make the trades that get capability to the warfighter faster. This is well within Section 1802 authority. All thats needed to start the journey is the decision, the top-cover document, and the outcome metrics. The PAE need not transform an entire portfolio at once. Pick one or two programs as pathfinders. Apply maximum cover and flexibility. Measure the results. The first successful pathfinders become seeds visible to the next CO, the next PM, the next portfolio, and the effects propagate. The authority exists. The regulatory space exists. The leadership signal exists. The statutory foundation exists. The system is closer to the threshold than it has ever been. The question is whether this generation of acquisition leaders will push it across. Timothy W. Cooke is president and CEO of ASI Government LLC, which advises federal agencies on acquisition strategy and organizational transformation.

[Category: Opinion, Pentagon, 2026 NDAA, acquisition reform, contracting officers - COs, Op-Ed Commentary, Other Transaction Authority, portfolio acquisition executives]

— Australia commits to buying secretive AIM-260 JATM missiles, first non-US user

 

at 8/6/26 10:37am

MELBOURNE — Australia will be the first export customer for the American-made beyond-visual-range air-to-air AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM).  Defense Minister Richard Marles announced during a visit to a multinational air combat exercise in northern Australia that the country will invest almost $736 million AUD ($518 million USD) to buy “up to 450” missiles for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).  The Department of Defence said, The acquisition of the AIM-260 JATM will provide Air Force platforms with a credible deterrent against airborne targets, complementing existing air-to-air missile capabilities and other surface-based missile capabilities across the Australian Defence Force (ADF). It will also further enhance Australia’s interoperability with the United States. The Lockheed Martin-made missile is a closely held weapon for the US, only having been publicly photographed for the first time in May, according to Air and Space Forces Magazine. Australia had been cleared by the State Department to buy the JATM in March — though the price tag for all the missiles, plus several test articles and associated equipment, should Australia pursue the full purchase, was at the time estimated to come to over $3 billion USD. Canberra first plans to integrate the AIM-260 on the RAAF’s Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet multi-role fighters, followed by its fleet of Lockheed-Martin F-35A Lightning II fifth-generation fighters and then its Boeing EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack aircraft.  Speaking at a media doorstop during the visit to the Pitch Black air combat exercise in RAAF Base Darwin, Marles called the acquisition a “really significant purchase to upgrade the capability” of the RAAF, adding that it was in line with the force structure and posture set out in Australia’s Defence Strategic Review.  Test Of First Indigenous Solid Rocket Motor Separately, Australia also announced today that it had successfully flight tested an indigenously developed solid fuel rocket motor to be used in guided weapons.  The Koonibba Rising 3.0 solid rocket motor was tested at a range in the south of the country, said Australia’s defense department in another release. The motor was developed under a partnership between Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group and Thales Australia. The department added that the 100kg (220 pound-) class solid rocket motor incorporated “technologies and design features required for high-performance, military-relevant applications” and with the flight test conducted by Australian company Southern Launch. The DoD said that it performed “as designed” during the test.  “This milestone marks another significant step towards Australia’s sovereign guided weapons capability, demonstrating the ability of Australian industry to design, manufacture, integrate and test rocket motor technologies relevant to future tactical missile systems” and “demonstrates a viable pathway for the domestic development, manufacture, testing and evaluation of future rocket motors,” said the announcement.  Echoing Marles comments on the AIM-260, Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy called the test a significant step for Australia’s defense industry.  “It showcases the strength of collaboration between Defence, Australian industry and research organisations in delivering cutting-edge capabilities that support our national security and sovereign industrial resilience, he said.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, AIM-260, Air Force, Asia, australia, Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise (GWEO), Indo-Pacific, RAAF]

— Australian commits to buying secretive AIM-260 JATM missiles, first non-US user

 

at 8/6/26 10:37am

MELBOURNE — Australia will be the first export customer for the American-made beyond-visual-range air-to-air AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM).  Defense Minister Richard Marles announced during a visit to a multinational air combat exercise in northern Australia that the country will invest almost $736 million AUD ($518 million USD) to buy “up to 450” missiles for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).  The Department of Defence said, The acquisition of the AIM-260 JATM will provide Air Force platforms with a credible deterrent against airborne targets, complementing existing air-to-air missile capabilities and other surface-based missile capabilities across the Australian Defence Force (ADF). It will also further enhance Australia’s interoperability with the United States. The Lockheed Martin-made missile is a closely held weapon for the US, only having been publicly photographed for the first time in May, according to Air and Space Forces Magazine. Australia had been cleared by the State Department to buy the JATM in March — though the price tag for all the missiles, plus several test articles and associated equipment, should Australia pursue the full purchase, was at the time estimated to come to over $3 billion USD. Canberra first plans to integrate the AIM-260 on the RAAF’s Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet multi-role fighters, followed by its fleet of Lockheed-Martin F-35A Lightning II fifth-generation fighters and then its Boeing EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack aircraft.  Speaking at a media doorstop during the visit to the Pitch Black air combat exercise in RAAF Base Darwin, Marles called the acquisition a “really significant purchase to upgrade the capability” of the RAAF, adding that it was in line with the force structure and posture set out in Australia’s Defence Strategic Review.  Test Of First Indigenous Solid Rocket Motor Separately, Australia also announced today that it had successfully flight tested an indigenously developed solid fuel rocket motor to be used in guided weapons.  The Koonibba Rising 3.0 solid rocket motor was tested at a range in the south of the country, said Australia’s defense department in another release. The motor was developed under a partnership between Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group and Thales Australia. The department added that the 100kg (220 pound-) class solid rocket motor incorporated “technologies and design features required for high-performance, military-relevant applications” and with the flight test conducted by Australian company Southern Launch. The DoD said that it performed “as designed” during the test.  “This milestone marks another significant step towards Australia’s sovereign guided weapons capability, demonstrating the ability of Australian industry to design, manufacture, integrate and test rocket motor technologies relevant to future tactical missile systems” and “demonstrates a viable pathway for the domestic development, manufacture, testing and evaluation of future rocket motors,” said the announcement.  Echoing Marles comments on the AIM-260, Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy called the test a significant step for Australia’s defense industry.  “It showcases the strength of collaboration between Defence, Australian industry and research organisations in delivering cutting-edge capabilities that support our national security and sovereign industrial resilience, he said.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, AIM-260, Air Force, Asia, australia, Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise (GWEO), Indo-Pacific, RAAF]

— Air Force signs off on production of long-range JDAM

 

at 8/6/26 9:45am

WASHINGTON — The Air Force has approved production of a turbojet-boosted Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), offering a new, long-range strike option for US aircraft, according to manufacturer Boeing.  The production deal was awarded as a $75 million undefinitized contract, paving the way for the Navy to receive the first kits for the precision munition dubbed the JDAM Long Range, Boeing said in a Wednesday press release. The JDAM, which first saw combat over two decades ago, is a joint program between the Air Force and Navy that cheaply converts unguided bombs into precision munitions using a bolt-on kit, but the standard range was limited to roughly a dozen miles. The press release did not disclose how many JDAM LR kits would be ordered under the initial contract. According to Boeing, the contract orders what’s called the BSU-111/B Payload Delivery Unit, essentially the full-up kit that when slapped on a dumb bomb creates the new JDAM LR.   The engine-equipped JDAM dramatically extends the weapon’s range out to over 340 miles for a 500-pound class payload, according to Boeing. An “extended range” variant of the JDAM thats already in service functions as a glide bomb, but only has a range of over 45 miles, a company fact sheet says.  “This first production contract is a major milestone for the JDAM LR program, demonstrating our ability to deliver long-range precision-strike capability at a significantly lower cost,” Bob Ciesla, vice president of Boeing precision engagement systems, said in the company’s release. The release added that Boeing invested roughly $100 million internally to develop the weapon, and that “leveraging existing JDAM infrastructure” can help quickly scale production.  The Navy revealed the long-range modification for the JDAM kit in April. A dual set of flight tests demonstrated the weapon “maintaining consistent guidance directly to its target” at a distance of “approximately 200 nautical miles,” the Navy said at the time. Boeing said in an April press release the first shot of the weapon “landed within meters of its planned target” and a second “successfully incorporat[ed] altitude changes and weapon maneuvering during an otherwise similar flight.”   The weapon’s green-lit production comes as the Pentagon is pushing industry for cheaper alternatives to pricey munitions, and follows concerns that the US military’s stockpile is being drained by war with Iran. A diminished inventory of ground-launched, precision munitions previously reported by Reuters could raise the stakes for any US escalation in the conflict, which may have to rely on air-delivered weapons from manned aircraft like fighters and bombers. The JDAM LR could offer those aircraft an opportunity to strike targets at a safer distance.  Boeing, which tested the JDAM LR on an F/A-18 Super Hornet, said the new weapon can be rapid[ly] integrat[ed] with any aircraft capable of carrying JDAM predecessors, which would include fighter jets like the F-15, bombers like the B-52 or even MQ-9A Reaper drones, which have reportedly sustained dozens of losses over Iran.

[Category: Air Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, Air Force Central Command AFCENT, Boeing, Iran, Iran air defense, JDAM, Navy]

— Acquisition reform at the speed of war

 

at 8/6/26 9:16am

Defense acquisition reform has been a priority for Congress and the current administration, as they have focused on streamlining processes and boosting production capacity to replenish stockpiles. However, there is still much to be done to ensure the defense industrial base is prepared to meet the needed ramp-up in production. Breaking Defense discussed the current state of defense acquisition, what reforms are still needed and how Congress, the administration and industry need to collaborate to meet both current and future needs with Sam Mehta, President, Space & Mission Systems and Communications & Spectrum Dominance, L3Harris. Breaking Defense: Whats the threat scenario that makes defense acquisition reform so urgent right now? Mehta: Were seeing the urgent threat scenario play out around the world right now with current conflicts and current capabilities. This isnt a “what will warfare look like in 2035?” scenario. The future of warfare has come and its come in a few different forms. Sam Mehta, President, Space & Mission Systems and Communications & Spectrum Dominance, L3Harris One is asymmetric warfare. What weve seen in Ukraine, the Middle East and other engagements is the threat of highly capable, low-cost, highly proliferated UAS (unmanned aerial systems) vehicles delivering unprecedented amounts of challenge and damage to more exquisite, higher-cost systems that the US and our allies employ. That has significantly changed the equation of warfare. Now, its incumbent upon us to adapt. The second one I would call the “invisible war,” which is being fought within the electromagnetic spectrum every day. Its not just about kinetic force – two objects colliding. This is rendering communication systems and radar systems ineffective so that your enemies can’t communicate or get an early warning of incoming threats. Third is the ability to be able to scale quickly. Weve really seen that play out in Ukraine, where the Ukrainians were outmatched when the conflict started, but have shown their ability to adapt and scale. Theyre becoming an exporter of those technologies and capabilities I talked about earlier that are changing the equation on the battlefield, which I dont think anyone would have expected even a few short years ago. L3Harris Technologies has reached full-scale production at its newly expanded Satellite Integration and Test facility in Florida. The advanced missile tracking satellites produced there will play a role in the defense of the U.S. and allied nations. (Photo courtesy of L3Harris) Are industry and government treating defense acquisition reform with the proper urgency? Theres much more determination to implement meaningful reforms and realize the practical benefits of those changes sooner rather than later. Were starting to see conversion into policy and process through increased use of some commercial acquisition pathways and Other Transaction Authorities, as well as the leveraging of existing contract vehicles. We’re also seeing customers embrace solutions that are “good enough,” rather than developing and testing for years until you get the absolute perfect solution for a specific scenario. I give the Department of War (DoW) a lot of credit for not only fast-tracking from a policy standpoint, but now starting to proliferate the mindset that a technology thats perfect 20 years from now isnt going to help us with deterring and defeating the threats we face now. They’re saying, “Can our warfighters take this out to fight tonight?” Perfect is the enemy of good, as the saying goes. It has to be a mindset of, “This is good enough for right now and we’ll continue to iterate and evolve this solution.” Technology is moving at such a rapid pace that version 1.0 may be very different from version 5.0, and thats OK. We dont need to wait for version 5.0. We can field 1.0, get feedback from the warfighter and improve on an iterative basis. Ive seen a real market shift toward the idea that capacity is the new capability. America has the best engineers, the best capabilities and the best warfighters in the world. But in this new era of industrial-scale warfare, we must invest in the long-term health of an industrial base that can produce those capabilities at the speed and scale those warfighters need to deter and defeat our enemies. What needs to happen from not only the Pentagon, but also from Congress and from the administration for the defense industrial base to be able to go full speed ahead on increasing production? Congress can ensure that the Pentagon has stable and predictable funding. Thats an important thing to provide industry with the confidence to continue to invest in increased production capacity. Expanding the use of multi-year agreements is a great way to do that. In our industry, we have some very long-cycle products – solid rocket motors being one, satellites being another – and the ability to do multi-year acquisition instead of relying upon that individual year-by-year demand signal provides the incentive to make long-term investments. At L3Harris, we’re already investing billions of dollars to increase production of solid rocket motors for missiles and space-based missile warning and defense payloads. With multi-year contracts, we would have five years, seven years, 10 years of demand laid out, and we would have every incentive to continue to add factories and make further investments in third- or fourth-tier suppliers and those small- and medium-sized businesses that form the backbone of our supply chain. It’s vitally important that those small- and medium-sized businesses that are three, four, five tiers down in our supply chain have that long-term demand signal they can count on so they can make their own investments in their people and facilities. Weve talked about what this administration is doing, but is part of the issue that administrations change, priorities change, and then everybodys back to square one? The lessons we’ve learned from the last few conflicts will outlast any short-term political considerations. Its a bipartisan issue. We have members of both political parties that are equally committed to transforming our defense acquisition system. The idea that we need to be more ready than we have been is common across both sides of the aisle. Its not only because of the conflicts, but also because of what were learning from them. I mentioned asymmetric warfare – the ability of an adversary to be able to adapt very quickly and employ things like software attacks and electronic warfare attacks that dont expend kinetics. All those things have taught us on a bipartisan basis that in modern warfare, especially against a peer threat, we need advanced capability at speed and scale. Why havent commercial products been more widely accepted in the past? Why is it that there needs to be a push now to be able to get the military to buy commercial products? The concern in the past has always been two-fold. One is that something thats specifically designed for the commercial market wouldnt stand up well to the rigors of war or warfighting. An aircraft that was designed for commercial civil aviation purposes wouldnt function well in a military context because it wasnt made according to specifications for the military context. It was made to be able to fly people safely according to civil aviation standards. So there was a bit of compartmentalization to say, “Thats made specifically for commercial, this is made specifically for military.” The second thing is theres now enough market data out there that can provide the DoW and others comfort that theyre paying a fair price for something. Whats gotten in the way in the past is this idea that unless you show me cost and pricing data, how do I know that Im paying a fair price? The transition thats taking place is the ability to be able to go and get market data, market pricing, because the technological tools that we have make it much easier for the procurement community to say, “I think Im paying a fair price.” Secretary Hegseth has made a “commercial-first” approach a key element of his Acquisition Transformation Strategy. Delivering solutions to warfighters at speed is paramount, and leveraging streamlined commercial acquisition processes is one way to meet urgent needs in a more cost-effective manner. By broadening the definition and application of what constitutes a “commercial item” that can be purchased through these streamlined pathways, the DoW can take an important step toward implementing the Secretarys commercial-first approach. In early 2025, L3Harris sent a letter outlining four policy recommendations for acquisition reform. What kind of movement have you seen in those areas? Were starting to see some trending in the right direction. The most tangible example is Cost Accounting Standards. The threshold for CAS implementation through the Truth in Negotiations Act went from $50 million to $100 million. Just doubling it is an important indicator. The challenge we have is we need to make sure that the entire defense ecosystem gets the benefit of these reforms. We agree with the vast majority of reforms that the DoW has been articulating, but they have to be applied to the whole of industry. We cant have two separate groups of companies where we say, “Heres a set of ‘non-traditional’ contractors and you guys are going to be exempt from all these requirements and specifications,” but then we say for the “traditional” contractors, “Were going to make some incremental changes to make it easier.” What thats doing is a couple things. Number one, its skewing competitive balance, so the government in many cases may not be getting the best that industry has to offer because one group is being weighed down by requirements that the other group may not be weighed down by. That creates a real imbalance, which means it could be thwarting competition and discouraging some of the most innovative aspects of the so-called “traditional” defense industrial base from even participating in some of these opportunities and bringing their technology to bear. The second thing it’s doing is over the long-term. Creating these two separate groups and two different sets of rules will end up in a situation where youre going to have talent migrate in a way that is not going to be helpful to the industry. If you have one group where you create the conditions for thriving success and the other one you say, “Were going to make it a little bit better, but you largely have to continue being weighed down by these requirements,” some of the innovation and talent is going to skew more toward one than the other.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Pentagon, Sponsored Post, cyber security, defense acquisition, In Focus Acquisition Reform, L3Harris, networks, Presented by L3Harris, Sponsored Content, technology]

— Navy creates new robotic and autonomous systems DRPM

 

at 8/6/26 8:35am

WASHINGTON — The Navy is establishing a new Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Robotic and Autonomous Systems (DRPM RAS) amid a broader shakeup to the services RAS leadership. Chris Miller, who currently leads the Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE) Maritime office, will serve as the acting DRPM RAS and will report to William Toti, who is currently performing the duties of undersecretary of the Navy, the service announced Wednesday.  The DRPM RAS position is an attempt to streamline the process for developing and acquiring RAS capabilities across the Navy and Marine Corps in line with guidance from Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, per the Navy. “We are at an inflection point in naval warfare, and the Department has been approaching robotic and autonomous systems through arcane processes that do not deliver capabilities at the speed our Sailors and Marines need,” Toti said in a Navy news release. “Secretary Cao has directed us to replace that model with clear accountability, faster decisions, and a relentless focus on the warfighter.” Miller will now also serve as acting PAE RAS to lead acquisition efforts for a host of Navy and Marine Corps unmanned programs — including the Navy’s medium unmanned surface vessel (MUSV) program — replacing Rebecca Gassler. Gassler was selected to oversee the office in December when the Navy initially stood it up. Additional details were not provided, and the Navy did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Breaking Defense about Gassler’s departure from her post leading PAE RAS.  The Navy is also examining whether it should transfer DRPM RAS staff from Washington to other locations “close to Fleet warfighters,” according to the service release. The review aims to determine whether doing so would bolster “collaboration with operational forces and ensure Fleet feedback remains closely connected to capability development and fielding,” the release said.  The DRPM RAS role comes after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signed a memo in June establishing a DRPM for autonomy, Breaking Defense first reported. The organization oversees a series of unmanned programs including all ground vehicles, all small air vehicles, and nearly all sea vessels — but not the Navy’s medium unmanned surface vessel (MUSV) program.  That role, known as DRPM-UxS, reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, just like the DRPM for submarines and the DRPM for Golden Dome.  DRPM RAS will work closely with DRPM-UxS on unmanned efforts, according to the Navy. 

[Category: Naval Warfare, Drones, Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel, Navy, portfolio acquisition executives, Unmanned]

— Rheinmetall projects $346 million naval loss after F126 frigate cancellation 

 

at 8/6/26 7:51am

BELFAST — Germany’s decision to cancel its planned F126 frigate has forced Rheinmetall to reduce an annual naval business sales forecast by €300 million ($346 million), the company said today. The acknowledgement came in a semi-annual financial report that said despite the expected high-dollar loss on the program, fiscal 2026 sales across the company as a whole are expected to reach between €13.7 billion to €14.2 billion. Those figures far exceed the firm’s 2025 annual sales haul, valued at 9.9 billion. The security policy situation with significantly increased defence budgets in numerous countries ensures demand in the military business. The promising market situation and the persistently strong order book remain unchanged, the company said. However, the business development previously anticipated for the current 2026 fiscal year is being affected by the cancellation of the F126 frigate programme. Berlin had planned to buy six F126 frigates, originally contracted to Dutch shipbuilder Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS). Issues with the project, however, prompted Germany to consider shifting it to German shipbuilder Naval Vessels Lürssen (NVL). Rheinmetall acquired NVL in March, with the potential to take on the F126 program. But after a government review found transferring the program could cost in excess of €18 billion, in June Germany formally scrapped the six-ship project and moved immediately to a new plan to acquire eight ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS)-produced MEKO frigates to conduct anti-submarine warfare and satisfy NATO requirements, as Breaking Defense previously reported. The procurement is dependent on approval by the approval by Germanys parliamentary Budget Committee. Following this move and over the course of the last four months, Rheinmetall’s naval systems division still pulled in sales of €334 million, according to the half-year results statement. New build ship programs largely accounted for the sales return, including construction of intelligence vessels (FDB424), Braunschweig-class corvettes (K130), replenishment oilers (MBV707) and the Bulgarian multi-purpose modular patrol vessel programme (MMPV90). In keeping with plans to expand maritime business, the Dusseldorf-based company also unveiled a new guided-missile frigate, dubbed the GMF 140, earlier this week. Rheinmetall said the ship could be available to an unnamed North American customer, with a mission set including air and ballistic missile defense, anti-submarine warfare, and long-range strikes. Elsewhere, the company said vehicle system sales reached a half-year figure of €2.43 billion, a jump of 28 percent compared with 2025. The spike, noted the firm, is a result of Rheinmetall delivering on German tactical vehicle programs, alongside other business including wheeled armored vehicles for Berlin and European customers. Weapon systems, ammunition and protection systems drew sales of €1.76 billion over the latest reporting period, a 33 percent increase over the first half of 2025. Key drivers of the sales total were an ammunition package for Hungary and supplies of artillery and medium-caliber ammunition for Ukraine. Air defense sales also registered a 62 percent year-on-year increase, returning a total of €478 million and broadly based on production of Skynex and Skyranger air defense systems for European buyers.

[Category: Global, Naval Warfare, Business & Industry, Damen, Europe, f126, frigate, Germany, NATO, Navy, Rheinmetall, TKMS]

— How Ukraine tries to intercept Russian drones more effectively — and affordably

 

at 8/6/26 6:37am

MILAN — From new fighter jet tactics to arming up other aircraft, Ukraine has altered its strategies to make intercepting Russian drones and missiles more affordable and better suited to record wartime attacks launched by Moscow in recent months, according to a new analysis. A report published last week by the London-based Royal United Services Institute noted the radically different nature of air warfare in the Ukraine war as of July 2026. Whereas the bulk of Russia’s air campaign initially consisted in the first years of launching long-range strikes and using cruise and ballistic missiles to degrade Ukrainian communications and industry, today the situation is much different.  Russian strikes now traditionally begin with waves of many hundreds of one-way attack (OWA) drones and jet-powered Shaheds alongside decoy drones sent towards Ukraine to saturate its air defenses, the report said.  Closely following was the deployment of dozens of cruise missiles. According to the New York Times, last month alone Russian forces fired at least 126 ballistic missiles, a record high of the conflict. From the beginning of the war, Ukraine has employed high-end air defense systems, such as the in-demand, American-made Patriot system. But stocks are dwindling, so now, for the initial line of defense against these barrages, Ukraine has relied on a dense, layered network of inexpensive short-range air defense systems (SHORAD), operated by dispersed air defense teams.  Since massing and placing these units behind borders and frontlines at extensive depth, these systems are now able to counter the majority of Russian Geran OWA drones, the report found. Capt. Daine Van de Wall, a US Army infantry officer who served with the Security Assistance Group–Ukraine, described the organizational advantages to the mobile teams in a Small Wars Journal essay in May. Ukraine’s most significant adaptation is not the technology itself, but how formations from the brigade level down to the squad have absorbed and operationalized it. Lower-echelon units routinely assume responsibility for localized air defense, fires, and other functions traditionally associated with higher headquarters, Van de Wall wrote. These developments are driven by necessity. Ukrainian units cannot assume air superiority, spectrum dominance, or the successful suppression of enemy air defenses before maneuver. Instead, they operate under the expectation that these domains will remain contested throughout the fight. Justin Bronk, senior research fellow of airpower at RUSI and the author of the think-tanks report, called the mobile air defense teams increasingly successful, but also pointed to innovative air defense concepts like the helicopters and fixed-wing propellor and turboprop-powered gunship interceptors [transport aircraft modified with onboard machine guns] that are a much more affordable, sustainable way to interceptor as many of the OWA drones as possible — accepting that there will always be more. A photograph taken on December 27, 2025 shows an Iranian-designed Shahed 136, (Geranium-2) drone used by Russian Army flying over Kyiv during a Russian drones and missiles attack, amid the Russian invasion in Ukraine. (Photo by Sergei SUPINSKY / AFP via Getty Images) Since last year, Kyiv has also often turned to Western fighter jets, such as the F-16 and Mirage 2000-5, to shoot down these aerial threats, with RUSI reporting significant successes, destroying “well-over” 2,500 Geran and Gerbera OWA drones. Here too, Ukrainian F-16 pilots push for affordability, Bronk noted, using the 20 mm cannon and US-supplied AGR-20 rockets to save missiles. At the same time, they have developed more effective — and safer — methods for doing so in the current battlefield environment.   “They’ve developed much more suitable tactics in contexts that minimize the very real danger of being hit by fragments from exploding Geran-2s and 3s — it is very difficult to safely engage relatively slow flying, small targets like these with a fighter like the F-16,” he said. “This is due to high-closure speeds and having to get quite close to get a good visual solution on the small drone through the HUD [heads-up display].” Images appearing to show an F-16 flying with AGR-20 rocket pods surfaced back in December 2025 on Ukrainian military Telegram channels, according to Ukrainian media. Similar to Van de Walls point, the war-torn country has also implemented other shifts in its command-structure doctrine. On Wednesday, the New York Times cited Ukrainian commanders as saying that Air Force pilots now have authorization to change course from planned mission targets if they detect a window to hit a priority target, such as a Russian radar or launcher, rather than having to wait for centralized approval. However, the extensive use of Ukrainian F-16s to intercept increased volumes and waves of enemy drones, with Russian industry now producing over 6,000 OWA-types monthly, has resulted in several issues. The main one being that it has led to an unmaintainable number of airframe flying hours, as Bronk pointed out.  “[This issue] can only be meaningfully reduced by not regularly tasking fighters against such targets — saving finite flying hours, airframe fatigue life and air-to-air missiles for strike missions and intercepting high-priority threats that few affordable/scalable systems can reliably engage, notably cruise missiles,” he said. A spokesperson for the Ukrainian drone manufacturer Skyfall told Breaking Defense last month that Russia was increasingly using jet-powered Shaheds, also called Geran-3 and Geran-4s, to hit inside Ukraine. These systems have posed an additional challenge for the Ukrainians because their faster speeds make interceptor drones or first-person-view ones — the countrys previous cheap alternative to counter earlier variants — insufficient to counter them. 

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, air defense, Air Force, Army, cruise missiles, Drones, Europe, f16, FPV, Russia, Ukraine]

— Japanese MoD report highlights push to bolster defense industry

 

at 8/6/26 4:46am

MELBOURNE — The Japanese government aims to boost its domestic defense industry, according to a newly released white paper, which warned that China’s posture and military activities continue to present the greatest strategic challenge to the Indo-Pacific region. It also pledged to continue to ensure the US-Japan alliance’s technological edge by reinforcing cooperation with the US on defense innovation. The papers themes were consistent with previous Japanese defense analyses. It was released Tuesday, along with an anime-style English language video summary and pamphlet, diving into topics like AI and other military developments. The summary said the Russian invasion of Ukraine had shown countries the “new ways of warfare” and that domestic defense technology will be critical to achieving uniquely Japanese” effects in response. The new ways included using relatively simple and inexpensive unmanned systems on the battlefield, such as striking much more sophisticated equipment and key infrastructure of the adversary. Therefore, “the active utilization of Japan’s advanced technological capabilities developed by both its public and private sectors over the years in the area of national security without being constrained by existing approaches is an essential activity for strengthening Japan’s architecture for national defense,” the paper stated. Japan has taken measures in recent years to bolster its domestic defense industry, with an example of this being the 2023 Act on Enhancing Defense Production and Technology Bases, which almost doubled the allowable profit margin for government contractors by raising it from eight to 15 percent. The white paper also noted that defense contractors had taken steps to improve processes, with the number of initiatives and plans submitted by defense companies that were subsequently approved by the minister increasing to 164 in fiscal 2025, from 36 two years before. However, the white paper cautioned that challenges remained for the countrys domestic defense industrial base, among these being some Japanese companies withdrawing from defense contracting altogether in recent years. Two notable examples of this was Komatsu’s withdrawal from armored vehicle production in 2019, and Mitsui selling off its naval shipbuilding business to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2021. That not only undermines the stable procurement of defense equipment essential for JSDF operations, but also causes the loss of a proper competitive environment and innovation in the long term, potentially leading to a loss of Japan’s technological superiority in security,” said the document. The white paper nevertheless stated that Japan will continue to look outward for opportunities to bolster its defense industry, with the recent sale of Mogami-class frigates and participation in the Global Combat Air Programme cited as ways it is “striving to enhance its partners’ military capabilities and strengthen mid- and long-term relationships with those countries.” It will also continue to enhance defense cooperation with its treaty ally the US “to ensure the Alliance’s technological edge, interoperability, readiness, and sustained operational capability.” “Japan will further reinforce cooperation on defense equipment and technology through cooperative analysis and cooperative research in cutting-edge technology, cooperative development and production of defense equipment, improvement in mutual interchangeability, shared use and reinforcement of various networks, expansion of production and maintenance capabilities of U.S.-made equipment in Japan, and efforts to strengthen supply chains,” the white paper stated. The document also cited the establishment of the Forum on Defense Industrial Cooperation, Acquisition and Sustainment (DICAS) in 2024 “to leverage each country’s industrial base to meet long-term critical capability needs and maintain readiness,” with both countries working towards plans for co-production of systems such as SM-3 Block IIA interceptors and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs).

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Land Warfare, Naval Warfare, Air Force, Army, Asia, defense industrial base, Indo-Pacific, Japan, Navy]

— First Trump-class battleship could cost more than $23B: CBO

 

at 8/5/26 3:21pm

WASHINGTON — The first Trump-class battleship could cost $23.4 billion, with the 14 subsequent ships the Navy plans to purchase averaging $18 billion, a new Congressional Budget Office report released today said.  This would bring the battleship program total to $275 billion for 15 nuclear-powered battleships, each weighing roughly 35,000 tons, the report said. A 35,000-ton battleship would clock in as the biggest surface combatant in the world at roughly three and half times the size of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, all while adding “considerable firepower to the Navy’s fleet,” according to the report.   However, the Navy’s budget request justification for the battleship says the vessel will ultimately range between 35,000 to 41,000 tons. If the ship ends up with a full-load displacement of 41,000 tons, the cost for the lead ship would increase by 16 percent, the report said. “The Navy has stated that the ship would be equipped to carry the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, or SLCM-N,” the report said. “The number of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles the ship would carry is unknown but would probably be small given the Navy’s descriptions of the nuclear cruise missile program. Nevertheless, carrying nuclear weapons would give the battleship more firepower than any ship in the fleet other than the Navy’s 14 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines, which carry 70 percent of the nation’s deployed strategic nuclear warheads.” The Navy confirmed in May in its latest shipbuilding plan that the battleship would be nuclear-powered, and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle told lawmakers that month that the ship would feature the same nuclear reactor as the one on the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford.  Prior to the announcement that the battleship would be nuclear powered, CBO estimated in January that the first Trump-class battleship could cost up to roughly $20.6 billion if ordered immediately, with costs expected to increase over time. The report released today said that an initial, conventionally powered battleship would total around $21.3 billion, and all 15 ships would total roughly $243 billion. “The total cost of $275 billion estimated for the 15 nuclear-powered ships would be about 13 percent greater,” the report said.  Still, the analysis noted that a nuclear-powered ship would ultimately cut down operating costs since fuel wouldn’t be purchased — although further details weren’t readily available.  “CBO does not have enough information to estimate those potential savings, which would depend on the final design of the ship and the specifications of the conventional propulsion plant it otherwise would have used,” the report said.  CBOs $23.4 billion estimate for the first battleship is based on several assumptions about the program, including that the initial ship is ordered in 2028, that the Navy purchases a total of 15 vessels through 2056 at the rate outlined in its shipbuilding plan, and that one shipyard completes final assembly of the ship — with others pitching in to build portions or sections of the ship.  Regardless, CBO said that the estimates are “highly uncertain and rely on CBO’s assessments of the ship’s design and the overall battleship program.” The Navy is requesting approximately $1 billion in advance procurement and roughly $837 million in research and development funds for the battleship in its fiscal 2027 budget request. According to budget documents released in April, the Navy is planning to request roughly $17 billion in procurement funding for the first ship in FY28, and approximately $13 billion in 2030 for the second battleship. President Donald Trump unveiled plans for the battleship in December as part of his “Golden Fleet” initiative, and the ship is expected to carry a host of weapons, including hypersonic weapons, electronic rail guns and high-powered, laser-based weaponry.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Adm. Daryl Caudle, Congressional Budget Office, Navy, Trump-class battleship]

As of 8/9/26 11:19am. Last new 8/8/26 11:00am.