Crooked Bough News Round-up

— New ‘America First Arms Transfer Strategy’ to create a list of priority weapons to sell

 

at 2/6/26 4:06pm

WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump inked a new executive order today, calling for national production interests to be taken into greater account when the US sells foreign nations weapons, creating a new list of platforms to push on the market, and prioritizing arms sales for countries who invest more in their own defense spending.   “To maintain our military dominance and technological superiority, the time has come to establish, implement, and execute an America First Arms Transfer Strategy,” Trump’s EO said. “As the first strategy of its kind, it will ensure that future arms sales prioritize American interests by using foreign purchases and capital to build American production and capacity.” The United States will use arms sales and transfers to reinforce [Pentagon] acquisition and sustainment activities, including by building critical supply chain resilience and avoiding adding to backlogs on priority components and end-items that impact United States or ally and partner readiness, the EO later adds.The new policy centers around three prongs — creating clear direction and implementation guidance to arms transfer stakeholders, establishing a strategy that provides direction and implementation guidance to arms transfer, and streamlining processes across departments and agencies. To get there, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio now have 90 days to develop “clear criteria” for determining which weapons and capabilities require Enhanced End Use Monitoring. Then within 120 days of the order, the two department heads, along with the Secretary of Commerce, are tasked with drafting a “sales catalog of prioritized platforms” that the US will encourage allies and partners to buy from, while a future “Promoting American Military Sales Task Force” will be stood up to work on an implementation plan. “This strategy will advance a technologically superior, ready, and resilient national security industrial enterprise,” Trumps EO said. “It will strengthen the United States defense industrial base to ensure it has the capacity to support our military and our allies and partners, especially as we increase burden-sharing.” Trump continues that countries who investment more heavily in their own self-defense and capabilities and have a critical role or geography in US plans will get priority in arm sales deals.

[Category: Pentagon, America First Arms Transfer Strategy, end use monitoring, FMS. foreign military sales, Pete Hegseth]

— ‘Preparing for war:’ At French naval conference, a grim realism

 

at 2/6/26 1:59pm

PARIS — As he stood on the stage to deliver a keynote speech, Gen. Fabien Mandon, France’s military chief of staff, summed up the theme of the Paris Naval Conference in six direct words. “Today,” he said, “we are preparing for war.” The tone of the event, which saw leaders from NATO sea services gather in Paris Feb. 2-3, was decidedly direct: that France and its allies need to consider the reality that high-intensity conflict is likely in the near future. And, according to Mandon, France is not yet fully prepared. He warned that currently France has an “insufficient number of ships and armaments” and especially needs “more missiles with greater range and lethality.” As a result, he has “to make a bet that whatever we order today will still be appropriate in 60 years time.” Vice Adm. Alban Lapointe, the deputy chief of the French Navy, later added that Europe must be prepared by 2030 for war “in every compartment” and “to achieve that we must reinforce our means, our support and our minds.” The vibes were matched by a panel of the naval chiefs of staff, featuring Adm. Nicolas Vaujour of France, Adm. Giuseppe Berutti-Bergotto of Italy, Vice-Admiral Harold Liebregs of the Netherlands (and Benelux), Gen. Sir Gwyn Jenkins of the United Kingdom and Adm. Daryl Caudle of the United States. In their respective speeches all five mentioned the diversity of threats, but only Caudle mentioned China. The others, perhaps naturally given that Moscow is waging a war in Europe, earmarked Russia as the principal threat. Vaujour remarked that the “tools of international regulation are no longer functional” and that the threat is diversifying not only to include states and proxies such as the Houthis in the Red Sea but also “from the sea-bed to space” which was not the case a decade ago. Noting the remarkable success of Ukraine against the Russian fleet using drones “this shows us that the key to success is in agility and so the navy must be adaptable by design” — something, he admitted, was “real tricky.” Caudle remarked that the “cost of entry for very significant capabilities” was “ever lowering” also mentioning the ballistic missiles the Houthis had fired in the Red Sea. Jenkins said that the combination of the pace of technological change and the “very difficult to predict” fragmentation of the world order “lead to uncertainty.” He regretted that “we’ve almost normalized the war in Ukraine” with media attention captured by other events such as Greenland and the Epstein files. But, he warned, “the Russian investment in the northern fleet is undiminished” and therefore “frigates and subs are not enough, we have to develop a different approach.” Liebregs noted that “Russian affiliated ships loiter over vital infrastructure, drones fly over our territory, we suffer from GPS jamming and denial. We should not accept this as the new normal.” And he stressed that “we need to step up the game and prepare for war.” Speaking to media after this speech, Liebregs added that “if the war in Ukraine ends we’ll be facing a new war by this adversary.” Italy’s concerns are more tuned to the Mediterranean than the Baltic and the Arctic but there too “the southern flank of the Alliance is not very stable. New players are entering and old ones are coming back.” Berutti-Bergotto pointed out that the Mediterranean is a relatively shallow sea, its deepest point is the 5,112 (16,771 feet) Calypso deep off the western coast of Greece but elsewhere the deepest areas are about 3,000 meters (9842,52 ft) “and today these depths are accessible with modern technology.” They all talked about sharing the workload between manned and unmanned systems and the modularity of ships. “The key is how to get humans and machines to work together,” Jenkins said. Industry, Technology Keys For Naval Future But all is not lost, according to attendees. Officials pointed to two key roles industry can play to support NATO’s naval capabilities: expanding the speed of production, and helping navies understand the use of data. Gen. Marie David of the DGA French procurement agency said Paris is purposefully spreading its naval build orders across several different shipyards, which provides resilience for both the military and industry’s bottom line. “There are about 1,000 companies in the French naval defense sector, of which 250 are critically important. These are not saturated with public sector contracts at the moment so the model we’re aiming for is that about 20 percent of their turnover should be from military contracts,” David explained. For example, the contracts to build the 10 “patrouilleur hauturier” (ocean patrol vessels) designed by Naval Group were awarded in 2023 to three different shipyards: CMM Naval, Piriou and Socaranam meaning they will be delivered much faster than if just one shipyard was building them. David remarked that another key to speeding up delivery of assets is “to cut down on our specifications and simplify our needs.” She added that “European cooperation is part of our strategy.” Thierry Weulersse, Thales’ “ReArm Europe” vice-president, told attendees that his company is attempting to raise the speed of production on radars by two-to-four times and of dipping sonars by even eightfold.” He added that industry was also responsible for ensuring that “the materiel we deliver remains in good working order so we must provide more support [in situ].” He added that hundreds of Thales staff were also military reservists “so if they need to go into a combat zone to maintain or repair one of our bits of equipment that is not a problem as they would not be considered civilians.” Former French navy Captain Olivier Burin des Roziers, now director of navigation programs with Safran Electronics & Defense, suggested that another key was for industry to “build-up our stocks of critical materiel and be able to produce large quantities of inexpensive equipment.” As to how to use systems at sea, Capt. Bryan McCavour, deputy assistant chief of staff for information warfare in Britain’s Royal Navy, said that mastery of data as “essential for military operations.” He said that “if we don’t have mastery of data we’re going to lose,” explaining in firepower terms that “data is the ammunition, but we need a gun and that gun is computing power.” For him “computing power, both ashore and at sea, must be resilient and redundant. We need this capability and this power as a society, not just within the military, in order to make sense of data. Therefore, we need to look to the commercial sector; we cannot rely solely on sovereign military capabilities for computing.” However, Capt. Jérome Henry, currently head of training with the French navy, made an interesting counterpoint — saying that he needs his sailors to go “back to the 80s” to relearn how to use sextants and other mechanical equipment, which cannot be interfered with by hacking or other data impeding actions. He added that after the experience of being the captain of the Alsace frigate which had to fire Aster missiles against ballistic missiles launched by the Houthis in the Red Sea, “We realized that our crew were suffering a level of stress they had not been trained for” so “now we are using simulators to put our crews into high levels of stress after they’ve run or done some push-ups to get their heartbeat rate up even before the exercise.” Marc Aussedat, a retired Vice Admiral who commanded FRSTRIKEFOR from 2019-2021 and was deputy director of the DGA from 2023-2025, raised another concern that needs to be addressed: the supply chain to the front lines. “By essence the navy is expeditionary, so we have built-in knowledge of what we need [fuel, food, ammunition etc.] before we have to stop,” he said. “Everything is front-line, every node is a front-line,” so “we need to design and train for resilient logistics from the outset.” He revealed that France, like China, is looking into the feasibility of using civilian ships to support the military.

[Category: Naval Warfare, Adm. Daryl Caudle, Europe, france, Navy, submarines]

— Army and Marine Corps successfully shared fire mission data at recent exercise

 

at 2/6/26 12:17pm

WASHINGTON — This week the Army successfully executed a live fire mission from a M777 howitzer against a Marine Corps-provided target, using Marine Corps data — the kind of integration that sounds like it should be easy, but has historically proven to be shockingly difficult. The event was part of an ongoing series at 4th Infantry Division called Ivy Sting, incremental and serialized events that aim to build up capability to scale the Army’s Next Generation Command and Control ecosystem to an entire division. Ivy Sting 4, which took place this week, saw integration with the Marine Corps and coalition integration from Austrian and British allies for the first time. The Marine Corps team integrated into 4ID’s data layer, building interoperability between the Corps and Navy systems, according to the Army. “I think this is all about getting after the [Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or CJADC2] approach, Brig. Gen. Michael Kaloostian, director of the C2 Future Capabilities Directorate, said in a Jan. 30 interview ahead of the test. “Were all looking at the same data, modernized data architectures. This is just verifying that were moving in the same track and that we will be able to share data. Because theyre looking at different AI platforms, [they] are looking for ways that theyre moving into their integrated data layer to be able to do that.” CJADC2 refers the Pentagon’s vision for how systems across the entire battlespace, from all the services and key international partners, could be more effectively and holistically networked to provide the right data, faster, to commanders. The word “combined” in the parlance of CJADC2 refers to bringing foreign partners into the mix. Between the last Ivy Sting that took place in December and Ivy Sting 4, the Army employed Marine Corps data to enable two-way data sharing with Marine systems. The test this week also included 48 joint force nodes that primarily included the Marines, connected to the NGC2 ecosystem, which allows information to move across different networks and command levels, according to Andruil, the lead contractor on the 4ID NGC2 effort. In the case of the fires mission, the Army-generated fires data was shared back into Marine Corps systems, which demonstrated bidirectional data exchange and coordinated joint fires using the NGC2 data layer, Anduril said. Tom Keene, senior vice president at Anduril and head of the connected warfare division, said the Marine Corps data was taken from sensors like radars and sensors at Camp Pendleton or even at Indo-Pacific Command and brought in to enrich the Armys understanding of a target or of a sensor. “Youve heard a lot about JADC2 and CJADC2. What were doing is making that real here at this event where the Marines are collaborating with the Army, the Armys collaborating with the Marines and were taking systems that literally werent designed to talk to each other and enabling them to share very rich data in a time sensitive way thats secure, thats reliable, and thats robust,” he told reporters this week. Additionally, during Ivy Sting 4, the US Navy received Joint Fires C2 data to be processed through a lab-based AEGIS system, according to officials. What Else Is New Officials also described a major increase in the number of nodes, sensors and external data feeds connected as part of Ivy Sting 4. Organic sensors from drones to electronic warfare and Stryker vehicles, expanded from 12 to 20 distinct sensor types, increasing the amount of data generated directly by unit-owned and operated systems, Anduril said. Moreover, NGC2 expanded from supporting 14 internal and external data feeds in Ivy Sting 3 to integrating over 70 internal and external data feeds in Ivy Sting 4. That included data from higher headquarters, joint partners, and other operational systems, allowing units to access a much broader set of information without needing to deploy or manage more of their own sensors. “Within NGC2 we have this key concept of nodes, and thats a place where data is created or processed or a user experience that the user has within a vehicle. Those could be command posts, or it could be a fixed site, like a tactical operation center, or it could be on a soldier warn device,” James Craven, a program manager with NGC2 for Anduril, told reporters this week. “By distributing these nodes across the battlefield, were leveraging the Lattice mesh to find the best path through the network to get back to either cloud access or to regions where we dont have denied, degraded, intermittent, latent network environment. It really allows them to can you continue to fight even if the traditional means of communication back are limited.” Additionally, 4th ID created an airspace management tool aimed at improving how air assets are controlled. Previously, managing airspace was a manual process and stovepiped. The tool will allow a single airspace picture that is more automated to see the flight paths of all air assets and plan fires as to not hit air assets. “Obviously, we dont want to fly our helicopters into other helicopters. We dont want to fly them into one way attack drones or drones or in the airspace. But one of the main reasons Im really interested in airspace clearance is to make sure that airspace deconflictions to make sure its clear so that we can shoot fires through it,” Maj. Gen. Pat Ellis, 4th ID commander, told reporters this week. “Now this is all in one single interface and all of that can be seen by our folks that are managing the airspace and theyre able to, one with high confidence, make recommendations about when and where we shoot and also with really high confidence to tell the aviators that are flying through that airspace that the air is clear.”

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Anduril, Army, Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control (CJADC2), cyber security, Marine Corps, networks, ngc2, technology, West 2026]

— How Mike Rogers wants to hit $1.5 trillion for defense

 

at 2/6/26 11:04am

Rep. Mike Rogers is no stranger to enormous defense budgets. Now the Alabama Republican in charge of the House Armed Services Committee is aiming for a new record-busting number in 2027: $1.5 trillion. In part one of an exclusive interview with Breaking Defenses Congress and Industry Reporter Valerie Insinna, Rogers argues for spending five percent of US gross domestic product on defense and how offering $450 billion to the Pentagon in a new reconciliation bill can help get there. Stay tuned for part two of the interview on a future episode of the Congressional Roundup. hbspt.forms.create({ portalId: '2097098', formId: '1ae78672-6dbf-4528-ae72-18d629c6b1f4', target: '#hubspot-form-1ae78672-6dbf-4528-ae72-18d629c6b1f4', });

[Category: Congress, Pentagon, appropriations, Congressional Roundup Video Series, Video]

— Army’s new space career field won’t ‘encroach’ on Space Force: Official

 

at 2/6/26 10:55am

WASHINGTON — A top service official at the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command recently attempted to reassure skeptics that the services new space career field will not interfere with the Space Forces missions. “It is not like were trying to encroach on their requirements, or their mission set,” Col. Felix Torres, commandant of the Army’s SMDC Center of Excellence, said in a recent interview. Though the Army is looking to fill 1,000 new positions for a new space-centric military occupational specialty, he noted that services capabilities often overlap. We look at the Army, we have tons of rotary wing aircraft that do close air support. The Navy probably has, if not mistaken, has more airplanes than the Air Force does. The Marines have their own airplanes too. We didnt say, ‘Give it all to the Air Force,’ because it wouldnt work that way. Because we each have our unique skills and sets and schemes.” The new Army MOS, dubbed 40D Tactical Space Operations Specialist, aims to equip the service with best and brightest space professionals to deter and defeat adversaries in the space domain, Torres said.  Following the announcement last spring that 40D would be established, arguments, some published in the opinion pages of Breaking Defense, emerged about whether the Army should have such an organization given the existence of the Space Force. One side, backed by some defense analysts, argued that having a space specialty career field within the Army is a waste of resources, “undermines” the joint force, and “drives organizational fissures,” which will lead to the US’ inability to “fight and win.”  On the other hand, Army officials argued that each service is not only directed by the Defense Department (in Directive 5100.01) to man, train and equip space forces, but it is also necessary for each service to have its own space operations, adding that “the Space Force can’t do it all” and each service has its own space capabilities that have “distinct purposes based on service-specific requirements.”  “Were directed to do it. It is not that were trying to take over their job, or anything like that,” Torres echoed in the interview. “Ive seen all the articles and stuff too, and I laugh to be honest with you, but we have very specific mission sets.”  Further, Torres added that 40D’s mission will be operating the Army’s ground-based electronic warfare and satellite communications in the tactical realm focused on supporting and protecting the ground force, while the Space Force tends to focus more on on-orbit operations and orbital warfare.  “When you look at it from a Space Force perspective, [] theyre controlling satellites, theyre flying them. Theyre uploading the communications payloads and things like that, synchronizing those capabilities on orbit. Theyre doing rendezvous and proximity operations. We dont do that,” he said. “I dont do any of that, and no Army folks do that.”  Torres told Breaking Defense that while the service is looking for those 1,000 40Ds, a large majority of the soldiers will come from existing units that have expertise in areas such as detecting aerial threats, satellite communications and other space-based intelligence operations. He added that while all soldiers in 40D must be of the grades of E-4 (a specialist) to E-9 (sergeant major), they don’t necessarily have to have a space-related background.  “Does it help if theyve had a space experience? Yes, from an Army perspective, it helps us financially so we don’t have to put people through schools, and it also allows us to get them to the operational force faster. But it doesnt necessarily mean theyre the only ones we want, because it really comes down to a matter of performance, and we want the best and the brightest to get into this job,” Torres said.  Torres said where the nearly 1,000 space soldiers will be assigned varies. Some will be working with Army combatant commands like Army Europe, Africa and Pacific. Others may provide support for multi-domain task forces or theater strike effect groups. Others could work at SMDC proper where they will be in support of the Space Force, Space Command, North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Northern Command. They could also work for SMDC’s center of excellence in the school house, Torres added.  In these roles the soldiers will have a variety of tasks, which include: the early detection and tracking of ballistic missiles; high altitude navigation warfare; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions; counter ISR missions and instructing among others, Torres explained.  In terms of training, Torres said that Army space professionals will be training soldiers enlisted in 40D, and they will not receive any training from the Space Force. The reason is simply because the missions between the two services are different, Torres said.  Torres said the Army still “100 percent collaborate[s]” with the Space Force and the other services on space-based operations. He said in order to achieve space superiority and defeat adversarial threats posed by Russia and China, such collaboration will continue with the existence of 40D to synchronize terrestrial based effects, target development and weaponeering through its space control planning teams.  “Both China and Russia pose grave stress to US and international space capabilities. They both have a broad array of counter-space weapons and via open source support, and you can see how impactful those systems are to modern warfare,” Torres said, adding that to defeat both countries, the US military will have to fight a joint fight.

[Category: Land Warfare, Space, Army, Space and Missile Defense Command, space command, Space Force]

— Why Xi Jinping has been purging China’s military leadership, and what may come next

 

at 2/6/26 10:20am

Since 2023, the senior leadership of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been decimated. The most recent casualty is Zhang Youxia, one of the two vice chairmen of the PLA’s Central Military Commission (CMC), and therefore one of the two most senior uniformed members of the Chinese security establishment.  Zhang’s removal follows the relief of Gen. Li Yuchao of the PLA Rocket Force in 2023, defense minister (Li Shangfu) in 2024, the other vice chairman (He Weidong) and the head of the Political Work Department (Miao Hua) in 2025, and the head of the Joint Staff Department (Liu Zhenli) alongside Zhang in the current cycle. Those roles have yet to be formally filled, leaving only two official members of the CMC: Xi Jinping, as chairman, and Gen. Zhang Shengmin, head of the CMC Commission for Discipline Inspection (CMCCDI) who has also been promoted to vice chairman.  Nor have the removals only been from the CMC. In the October 2025 purges that took down Hua, the Army and Navy political officers were also relieved. So was Gen. Lin Xiangyang, head of the Eastern Theater Command (ETC). Much of the PLA Rocket Force leadership was relieved in an earlier cycle, all on charges of corruption.  But why has this been happening? There are at least three angles to consider: corruption, relationships and bureaucratic politics.  “Corruption” tends to be the default term used in most of these cases. Given the endemic nature of corruption within the PRC and CCP, these accusations are broadly credible. One of the more egregious cases in recent years involved Lt. Gen. Gu Junshan, head of military housing in the then-General Logistics Department who was given a suspended death sentence for corruption in 2015. Gu reportedly had amassed several houses, a variety of art work, and even a solid gold bust of Mao Zedong.  Given that corruption contributed to the failings of the Russian military in its Ukraine invasion, corruption has real implications for the PLA’s performance in event of any major contingency, be it in the Taiwan Straits, the South China Sea, or the Sino-Indian border.  Another consideration, tied to the corruption issue, is that of “guanxi (关系),” or relationship, networks. Like any nation, there are a variety of bureaucratic authorities that allow the PRC to fulfill state functions. But undergirding and cross-cutting the formal line-and-block charts are relationship networks, comprised of familial, educational, career, hometown, provincial, and other ties. This is true across Chinese society, and is not unique to the PLA. In a low-trust society where there is no rule of law and there are few “objective” dispute resolution mechanisms, relationships assume a paramount role in getting work done, positions staffed, and information flowing. Indeed, much of what is termed “corruption” that marks Chinese society is comprised of goods and services that are part of the day-to-day operations of these unofficial networks, whether it is part of seeking entry into a network, or reinforcing already existing relationships.  When Xi acted against former Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai, the resulting dragnet included not only Bo and his family, but both civilian and military officials that were reportedly tied to him in Chongqing and Chengdu province. This included Zhou Yongkang, Minister of Public Security and Politburo member. Gu was reportedly part of a relationship network that included former CMC vice chairman Gen. Xu Caihou, who was literally dragged from his sickbed and put under investigation. Similarly, the removal of defense minister Gen. Li Shangfu, who had previously served in China’s aerospace and rocket forces, was tied to the arrest of a number of senior PLA Rocket Force generals. As important, Li had reportedly been recommended for his position by Zhang Youxia; Li’s fall likely entangled Zhang because of these relationship networks.  The relationship aspect may be a double-edged sword for Xi. In reporting the investigation into Zhang Youxia, one of the other officers also named was Zhong Shaojun — a long-time associate of Xi, reportedly helping draft statements for the Chinese leader when the latter was Zhejiang Party Secretary in the early 2000s. Despite never having served in the military, Zhong became a senior commissioned officer assigned key positions within the CMC internal bureaucracy. By 2024, he was head of the CMC General Office, responsible for managing the CMC schedule, agenda, and overall activities, with the rank of major general. At the time of his investigation, he had been promoted to lieutenant general and become a political officer for the PLA’s National Defense University. Zhong’s fall indicates that Xi is not afraid to turn the investigatory spotlight even on old associates, despite their “guanxi,” but also highlights that members of those networks may nonetheless be unreliable.  PLA officers who are part of any “guanxi” network with any nascent anti-Xi movement are therefore likely to be purged. This is very different from suggesting the military itself is somehow opposing Xi. But because “guanxi” networks span civilian and military communities, ethnic and regional groupings, it is inevitable that military figures will be part of various networks that, in turn, may have become the focus of Xi’s attention.  A third consideration is that of bureaucratic politics. In the context of the ongoing purges, this could take on at least two forms. One is the potential rivalry between the Political Work Department (PWD) and the CMCCDI. Prior to 2015’s massive reorganization, the General Political Department (GPD) was responsible for both enforcing political orthodoxy and overseeing anti-corruption measures. With the reorganization, the GPD was divided into the PWD, which retained responsibility for political warfare, political training, and promotion reviews, and the CMCCDI, responsible for countering corruption. The CMCCDI reports not only to the CMC, but also to the CCP’s Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection, the entity that polices the broader CCP for corruption.  The promotion of so many officers who have subsequently been found to be corrupt (assuming that the charges are legitimate) suggests that the GPD and now PWD have failed to root out corruption. Similarly, if the problem is with the relationship networks, the PWD has also failed to curtail or control them.  It is notable how many senior political officers have been removed in the various purges. These include not only Adm. Miao Hua, who as head of the PWD was the most senior political commissar in the PLA, but also the political officers for the ground forces, the navy, and the PLA Rocket Force. This suggests that whatever rot is at work in the PLA is as deeply rooted among its political officers as the staff officer corps. It is arguably not an accident that the only surviving uniformed member of the CMC is the head of the CMCCDI.  Another aspect of the bureaucratic politics aspect, however, may be more directly related to the military reforms of the last two decades. The PLA of 2026 is a radically different organization from the one Xi inherited in 2012.  The CMC has been thoroughly shaken up and radically reorganized. The elevation of the CMCCDI alone, where it now is equivalent to the Joint Staff Department and the PWD, is a major change.  The PLA’s service structure has been significantly reformed. The PLA is now organized as four services (PLA Ground Force, PLA Navy, PLA Air Force, PLA Rocket Force) and four “arms” (Joint Logistics Support Force, Military Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force), with the services and arms responsible for training, equipping, and providing forces, but not, apparently, for warfighting.  The seven military regions have been replaced with five theater commands. Where the military regions were peacetime organizations, always under de facto ground force leadership, the theater commands are wartime command structures, with several headed by non-ground force officers.  Such massive changes have been accompanied by major doctrinal shifts, as the PLA has pushed for greater joint operations at lower and lower operational levels. The Mao-era focus on mass has been replaced by a recognition of the enormous importance of advanced technology in fighting and winning future wars.  The result has been comprehensive bureaucratic upheaval, whether in terms of funding priorities, bureaucratic clout, or promotion opportunities. In any organization, such a raft of changes would generate bureaucratic push-back, as even clean officers would see promotion opportunities lost, and service chiefs (especially the PLA Ground Forces) have watched their authority wane.  It is notable that both Gen. Zhang Yongxia and Liu Zhenli were accused of “severely trampling and disrupting the Chairman responsibility system,” an accusation not leveled at many of the officers removed in earlier purges. The “Chairman responsibility system,” enshrined in both the PRC state constitution and CCP constitution, makes the CMC chairman (who is also the head of the CCP) the ultimate authority for all military decisions. As the State Council Information Office notes, “The CMC chairperson responsibility system is the institutional arrangement for practicing the Partys absolute leadership over the military. It represents the top of the military chain of command, a role that combines central direction functions of both the Party and the state.”  This suggests that their fall may be due to professional differences, even resistance to the slew of changes implemented by Xi. From Xi’s perspective, such professional differences could nonetheless pose a challenge to “the Party’s absolute leadership over the military,” requiring the imposition of the severest sanctions.   Consequences?  Despite the removal of so many senior leaders, the broader forces of the PLA appear to be operating normally, rather than pulling back. PLA forces continue to operate around Taiwan, with China’s third aircraft carrier transiting the Taiwan Straits. There is little indication of reduced Chinese cyber or space activities.  And despite the various charges of corruption, Chinese military modernization, including major acquisition programs, does not appear to have been affected.  What may be less visible is the impact of these major disruptions on commanders’ discretion. Those in networks under investigation are likely to avoid drawing attention to themselves; that in turn may well mean adhering to the letter of regulations, standards, and norms. Training may be less flexible and decision space more restricted. Ironically, those who are corrupt may well suspend their activities, so that unit readiness in terms of stockpiles, spare part inventories, etc., may well improve.  It is also noteworthy that, with the exception of the Eastern Theater Commander, the purges thus far have not affected too many of the theater commands — the organizations responsible for actually planning and implementing any Chinese use of force under the reorganized structure.  What does this imply for PLA readiness at the war-fighter level? Xi will presumably repopulate the CMC. The wholesale removal of officers creates an opportunity for elevating new thinkers, and, ironically, accessing new networks. Those officers and networks will, in turn, potentially mark another major shift for the PLA.  And how that shakes out, and whether another major purge is due in the future, will only be seen with time.  Dean Cheng is a non-resident fellow with the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and with the George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute. When not translating Chinese articles, he can often be found feeding quarters into pinball machines.

[Category: Global, Opinion, Asia, China, Indo-Pacific, Op-Ed Commentary, PLA, Xi Jinping]

— Defense’s biggest players are heading to the World Defense Show. Here’s what to expect.

 

at 2/6/26 8:00am

BEIRUT — In just a few days, defense firms from around the world will flock to Riyadh for the third edition of the World Defense Show to show off their wares, make product announcements and sign contracts. The host nation in particular is expected to have a slew of announcements. Defense firm Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI) will showcase more than 60 national products and capabilities across its various subsidiaries, the firm said in a statement Wednesday. These include advanced electronics, land systems, aerospace capabilities, command-and-control systems, and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) solutions for various platforms, in addition to the unveiling of new national systems considered among the most prominent of their kind. Specifically, SAMI is expected to give an update on its concept of a futuristic unmanned aerial vehicle that CEO Walid Abukhaled spoke to Breaking Defense about at the last World Defense Show in 2024. Private Saudi companies, like hardware manufacturer AIC Steel, are exhibiting their steel hardware this year. In 2024, AIC Steel displayed a Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system as a subcontractor of the platform. The show is expected to feature a number of Saudi startups as well, per the exhibition list. In line with Vision 2030, our all new Saudi Supply Chain Zone brings Saudi SMEs, startups, and entrepreneurs to the heart of the exhibition, giving local innovation a seat at the global table, said World Defense Shows CEO in a 2025 statement. Also in the Middle East, UAE defense conglomerate EDGE Group will be present in Riyadh. It is unclear the size of the companys display and whether EDGE leadership will attend WDS after the Saudi-Emirati incidents in Yemen in January. China And Russia China and Russia will also be on the show floor. The exhibitors list shows more than 50 Chinese defense firms are participating in WDS 2026, including giants like CATIC and NORINCO. Since the first edition of the show in 2022, China has always had a large presence on the floor. In 2024, Chinese firms had a considerably large space on the show floor indoors and displayed full-sized Wing Loong drones, precision guided bombs and surface to air missiles. Meanwhile, Russian state-owned Rosoboronexport announced that it is making its international debut at the show, displaying its full-scale multiple rocket launcher Sarma, remote controlled weapon station Ballista, loitering munition RUS-PE and grenade launcher RPG-29M. Rostec, a state-owned sister company for Rosoboronexport, will unveil its 30mm shrapnel shell, which is detonated with remote control designed specifically to destroy drones. “The World Defense Show is one of the largest arms and military equipment exhibitions in the world. For Rosoboronexport it has become a platform for showcasing the latest developments in the Russian defense industry to partners in the Middle East and other key regions of our operation,” said Alexander Mikheev, director general of Rosoboronexport, said in a statement. Western Presence At The Show The US and Europe are also planning to show up in a big way in Riyadh. Lockheed Martin will highlight its F-35 fighter jet. Its also planning to display air and missile defense capabilities such as the THAAD system and PAC-3 missiles, both of which are used by Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, L3Harris will show off its electronic and autonomy platforms such as Vampire counter UAS systems and the electronic warfare platform Viper Shield, according to a company statement. Boeing said it will be displaying its aircraft, including the F-15E, KC-46A, AH-64 and Chinook. The show will have no shortage of European firms either, from giants like Thales to MBDA and BAE Systems to smaller firms such as CMN Naval. Monaco-based MARSS plans on exhibiting counter-drone systems including live NiDAR C4. The exhibitors list shows a considerable number of drone manufacturers from Europe.

[Category: Global, China, General Authority of Military Industries, Navy, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian Military Industries, WDS 2026]

— PHOTOS: Sights from the 2026 Singapore Airshow

 

at 2/6/26 7:37am

SINGAPORE — The biannual Singapore Airshow is taking place at Singapore’s Changi Exhibition Centre between Feb. 3 and Feb. 8. This years show has seen more than 1,000 defense and aviation businesses and organizations from over 50 countries descend onto the show site. You can check out some of the photos from show below. Click here to read our coverage from the show so far, and check back for more as the show continues. Artwork of the US Air Force’s 319th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron seen on the ventral fin of a General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft on the static display. The Reaper flew from Kadena Air Base on the Japanese island of Okinawa where it was based to attend the show. (Mike Yeo/Breaking Defense) US Air Force personnel interact with a visitor to the Singapore Airshow. (Mike Yeo/Breaking Defense) An Elbit Hermes 900 medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aircraft belonging to the RSAF was also on the static display. Singapore announced it had selected the type to replace its older and smaller Hermes 450s in November 2025. (Mike Yeo/Breaking Defense) The Chinese military and its defense companies were also present in Singapore, with this mockup of a Shenyang J-35A stealth fighter at the stand belonging to the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC)/ China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation. (Mike Yeo/Breaking Defense)   A view of some of the aircraft at the static display of the Singapore Airshow. (Mike Yeo/Breaking Defense)  A Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Lockheed-Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter performs an afterburner turn during its flying display at the show. Host Singapore has ordered 20 F-35s, with the first jet expected to be delivered later this year. (Mike Yeo/Breaking Defense)

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Apache, Elbit, F-35A, Lockheed Martin, MQ-9 Reaper, singapore, Singapore Airshow 2026, technology]

— What to watch for at World Defense Show 2026 in Saudi Arabia

 

at 2/6/26 2:00am

Breaking Defense is heading out to the desert next week to cover the third edition of the World Defense Show in Saudi Arabia. Heres what were expecting to see at the largest defense conference in the Kingdom.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Naval Warfare, Air Force, Army, Business & Industry, canada, Navy, President Donald Trump, Video, WDS Multimedia 2026]

— To overcome Golden Dome ‘affordability’ hurdle, DoD needs acquisition reform, AI: Official

 

at 2/5/26 2:21pm

WASHINGTON — The Defense Departments Golden Dome program office is tackling the real challenge of affordability via acquisition reform, with a key focus on spurring development of artificial intelligence, according to a senior Pentagon official. Marcia Holmes, DoD deputy director for Golden Dome, told the Miami Space Summit today that innovative approaches to acquisition are foundational to lowering the costs while quickly ramping up capabilities to integrate data from missile tracking satellites, develop space-based interceptors (SBIs) and automate a comprehensive command and control (C2) network to link sensors to shooters. The real challenge that we have today is how we integrate all of these space assets into an integrated architecture to provide a layered defense affordably and at scale, she said. To enable the acceleration and innovation of Golden Dome the secretary has provided a very comprehensive and sweeping acquisition transformation strategy. AI and autonomy, meanwhile, are going to play a larger role, she said. It will change how we deploy and use our weapons. Increased autonomy will help us reduce our manning and in turn, will reduce our sustainment costs. Increased use of AI will allow us to parse large amounts of data and help to rapidly present options to decision-makers for the appropriate response, she elaborated. Echoing remarks made on Jan. 23 by Golden Dome czar Gen. Michael Guetlein at the Space System Commands annual Space Industry Days in Los Angeles, Holmes said that the program office acknowledges that to reduce the cost equation DoD has to pursue technology and innovation that will reduce our cost-per-kill and enable a layered, reliable, affordable defense in depth [and] weapon designs that can address multiple phases of threat trajectories. SBIs: A Key Cost Driver Multiple outside analysts and lawmakers have raised concerns in particular about the cost of deploying enough SBIs on orbit to realistically have a chance of shooting down more than one or two enemy missiles launched simultaneously. The laws of physics dictate that interceptors in low Earth orbit (LEO) only stay over the horizon within shooting distance of a ground target for only about seven to 10 minutes. Thus multiple interceptors are required to target each adversary missile. This problem, known as the absentee ratio, is particularly acute for space-based interception of adversary ballistic missiles in their boost-phase just after launch because the window for a hit is only a few minutes long at best. Therefore, while the Space Force on Nov. 25 granted awards to 18 undisclosed contractors for boost-phase SBI prototypes, it followed up on Dec. 7 with a request for prototype proposals to industry for mid-course interceptors using kinetic energy kill vehicles. Holmes stressed that AI will be particularly important for empowering a C2 network capable of relaying data in near-real time from missile tracking sensors to SBIs and other shooters on the land, sea and in the air. Another significant initiative for Golden Dome is the instantiation of an integrated, advanced and a resilient battle management command and control powered by AI, artificial intelligence, to coordinate the vast network of sensors and interceptors that will be part of Golden dome. The C2 is a crucial element to the success of Golden Dome, she said. Missile Tracking to Include Commercial Solutions Holmes further noted that a key element for Golden Dome will be developing and integrating data from tracking satellites developed by both DoD and private firms. It includes leveraging and upgrading our existing systems while pursuing commercial solutions and building advanced capabilities for future threats, she said. Holmes did not go into detail, but the Space Development Agency (SDA) is developing a Tracking Layer constellation optimized for tracking both ballistic and hypersonic missiles in LEO, with the intention of deploying a network with global coverage beginning in 2029. SDA further is developing fire control sensors capable of providing highly precise targeting data to missile defense platforms. However, its missile tracking effort has come under some criticism from the Government Accountability Office for underestimating the risks of tech development hurdles, schedule delays and cost overruns. Space Systems Command also is working on a new set of some 30 tracking satellites with the same mission but stationed in medium Earth orbit able to provide persistent global coverage by the early 2030s. The command in June 2025 awarded $1.2 billion for a second generation of 10 satellites, called Epoch 2, of the service’s planned Resilient Missile Warning and Tracking (MWT) Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) program, to BAE Systems Space and Mission Systems. The birds are expected to begin launching in 2029. Most recently, the Pentagons Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) on Wednesday announced that it is seeking high fidelity commercial sensors not just for tracking ballistic and hypersonic missiles, but also for discriminating between actual missiles and dummies as well as for fire control. The effort has two key objects, the announcement said: Threat Detection, Tracking, and Discrimination: Demonstrate capabilities to detect, track and support the engagement of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) or Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) across multiple flight phases (boost, midcourse, and glide). Advanced technologies to deliver the precise positional data and target characteristics required to reliably discriminate lethal payloads from non-threats, such as debris and countermeasures. Fire Control Enablement: Provide high-accuracy, real-time tracking data (including precise range, angular resolution and high update rates) necessary for successful Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) engagements in endo-atmospheric and/or exo-atmospheric environments. Key characteristics for consideration: The announcement stresses that the effort has an aggressive schedule, with prototypes ready for lab demonstration within six to eight months of award and on-orbit hosted payload demonstrations within 12 to 24 months. Interested vendors have until Feb. 17 to respond with proposals.

[Category: Space, acquisition reform, AI & Autonomy, Boost Phase Intercept, commercial space, Golden Dome, midcourse missile defense, missile tracking, Resilient Global Positioning System (R-GPS), Space Development Agency, Space Force, Space Systems Command, space-based interceptors, Tracking Layer]

— As defense primes try to mollify Trump, dividends seem likely to continue

 

at 2/5/26 1:21pm

WASHINGTON — In the first earnings calls since President Donald Trump unloaded on the industry, leaders at the biggest defense firms tried to walk a fine line, promising to meet the White House demand for more investments while pledging to not abandon dividends to shareholders.    Analysts say that might not be a problem, as long as contractors demonstrate that they are willing to show significant growth in capital expenditures that Pentagon leaders say are pivotal for scaling up weapons production. “The amount of cash that these companies expect to generate should leave them with an ability to pay their dividend and invest more in the business,” said Seth Seifman of JP Morgan. “And to the extent that something has to give, its going to be in share repurchases, because thats considered more discretionary. Last month, Trump signed off on an executive order that allows the Defense Department to take action against “underperforming” defense firms and to write future contracts to enable the department to constrain executive pay, share buybacks and dividends during periods of poor performance. Trump’s own statements on the matter, made in Jan. 7 posts on Truth Social, directly targeted the practices of buybacks and dividends.   “Defense Contractors are currently issuing massive Dividends to their Shareholders and massive Stock Buybacks, at the expense and detriment of investing in Plants and Equipment. This situation will no longer be allowed or tolerated!” he wrote. Despite the tough rhetoric from the White House, executives from RTX, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and L3Harris all affirmed their commitment to dividends as they rolled out their financial expectations for 2026. “Weve paid a dividend for over 25 years, and every year, in March, the board decides the extent of any increase,” GD CEO Phebe Novakovic during an earnings call last week. “But were committed to the dividend.” RTX CEO Chris Calio noted that shareholders “rely” on and “have come to expect” dividends from the company. “That said, again, we’re comfortable we can accommodate both the investment needs that come with delivering the current backlog and the potential future volumes on key programs,” he added.  Companies were more reticent to talk about plans for future share repurchases. Northrop Grumman Chief Financial Officer John Greene confirmed that the company would not engage in stock buybacks moving forward, while L3Harris CFO Kenneth Bedingfield said that he expects share count “to be relatively consistent with year end 2025.” Shipbuilder HII did not conduct any stock buybacks in 2025, and CEO Chris Kastner appeared to close the door on repurchases in the near future in his response to a question on whether the company would consider restarting the practice if performance improved. “We think the overwhelming opportunity, from a value standpoint, is to continue to invest in the shipyards,” he said during an earnings call today. “So were going to do that. Its going to improve both the top and bottom line, so thats our focus right now.” Still, other executives didn’t entirely rule out the prospect of share repurchases going forward. Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet declined to comment specifically on the company’s approach on dividends and share buybacks, saying, “We will be evaluating all of our capital deployment options as time progresses.” Novakovic also declined to comment on whether General Dynamics would conduct share buybacks in the future, stating that “its not particularly popular right now, so our habit and penchant for not commenting on share repurchases is, I believe, appropriate.” Boeing — which has logged a cash burn for the past several years amid turmoil in its commercial and defense businesses — was not asked about its approach to stock buybacks and dividends. Breaking Defense asked the White House to weigh in on whether the Trump administration was satisfied with defense companies’ most recent statements on capital expenditures, stock buy backs and dividends. “President Trump has been clear that all defense contractors should be prioritizing the on-time delivery of weapons to our warfighters over their own stock buy-backs, excessive corporate dividends, and inflated executive salaries,” White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said. “If defense contractors refuse to honor their commitments to our military, there will be consequences. For defense executives parsing that statement, the key word on dividends may be “excessive.” One defense analyst, who is not authorized to speak to the press, said the Pentagon may see a distinction between buybacks and dividends.  “Many of these companies have said they plan to limit their buybacks or keep share counts flat. Dividends are long standing and will continue,” the analyst wrote in an email to Breaking Defense. “I think  [the Pentagon] views buybacks [as] poor uses of cash when these [companies] can be investing in growth. Dividends may be viewed as acceptable forms of returning cash to shareholders.” Seifman, of JP Morgan, added that a halt on dividends would cause “a fair amount of disruption” in the shareholder base of the largest defense contractors. “For large blue chip companies like the big defense primes, to step back from their dividends is a very big deal because of what it signals to their investors,” he said. “Some of the investors that are their shareholders are specifically dividend funds, or they might have a guideline around the way that they invest that says ‘Well only invest in companies that pay dividends.’” A Shot In the Arm for CapEx Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Pentagon called on the defense industry to boost weapons production. However, defense company investments in facility modernization and internal research and development has shown little growth in recent years, Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, wrote in a Sunday note to investors. “For example, capital expenditures as a percent of sales for General Dynamics three defense segments was 2.1% in 2025, compared to 1.9% in 2024 and 2.1% in 2023. In 2021-22, they were 2.6%,” he wrote. “Northrop Grumman’s R&D expense was 2.6% of 2025 sales. That was lower than 2019-24, when it was 2.8%-3.3%,” he continued. “Lockheed Martin’s capex to sales was 2.2%, the same, more or less, as in 2022-24. R&D increased to 2.7% of sales in 2025 from 2.3% in 2024, but it was 2.6% in 2022.” In the wake of pressure from the White House, all of the defense primes have pledged sizable increases to investments in factories and facilities over 2026, though Seifman noted they were not “shockingly high numbers” in light of the executive order. Boeing, which led spending on capital expenditures in 2025, will bring CapEx up to about $4 billion in 2026, executives said. “Weve invested ahead of contract on F-47. I think it was a key part of our win strategy, and I think the department clearly recognizes that we went out at risk and made significant investments,” said CEO Kelly Ortberg, adding that the bulk of the company’s defense related CapEx would continue to flow to the F-47 program. General Dynamics intends to increase its capital expenditures by about $900 million in 2026 — about a 75 percent bump compared to last year, and the largest increase by percentage of the US defense primes. Novakovic said about half of that will go toward its Electric Boat division, which manufactures the Virginia-class attack submarine and Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, and that the heightened level of investment would continue for the near future. “Well continue to invest year-over-year in our businesses, because we have a long term growth there and its embedded in our backlog,” she said. “The investments year-over-year in CapEx may vary a bit, but you should expect that strategy going forward.” HII plans to raise capital spending from $396 million in 2025 to somewhere between $500 million and $600 million this year, executives said during an earnings call today. “In 2026 we will again target hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment in the shipyards, specifically at Newport News,” Kastner said. “These projects include finishing a multi-purpose carrier refueling and overhaul work center, making pier updates to support carrier inactivation, significant investments in manufacturing centers of excellence to support higher submarine throughput and completion of a new parking garage that began construction in 2025.” RTX will raise capital expenditures from $2.9 billion to $3.1 billion in 2026. The company was previously called out by Trump in January for being the “least responsive” to the Pentagon’s needs, but earlier this week announced a multiyear agreement with the Pentagon to boost munitions production for five weapons, including the Tomahawk cruise missile, just days after it declared earnings. Lockheed forecasted a range between $2.5 billion and $2.8 billion for its CapEx spending, up from $1.6 billion last year. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman plans to grow its CapEx spending from $1.45 billion to $1.65 billion this year. L3Harris anticipates spending about $600 million on capital improvements in 2026, up from $424 million in 2025. Despite White House pressure on companies to step up their investments and demands from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for primes to speed up the pace of weapons development and development, the Trump administration’s vision for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for fiscal 2027 has largely soothed Wall Street fears and pushed defense stocks in a positive direction, analysts said. “DoW acquisition reform appears less of an issue than feared, as growth accelerates and cash is little changed,” NP Paribas Equity Research analyst Matthew Akers wrote in a note on Monday. When the Trump administration returned to office, traditional defense companies had concerns that tech start ups could eat into their market share and the White House’s emphasis on investment would erode returns, Seifman said. “Those concerns were already there, and to some degree, were being reflected in investor perception,” he said. “But if the budget is going to grow significantly, then theres room for everybody to participate.”

[Category: Pentagon, Boeing, Business & Industry, General Dynamics, HII, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX]

— L3Harris begins militarizing Bombardier business jets for South Korean AEW&C order

 

at 2/5/26 12:10pm

SINGAPORE — American defense firm L3Harris has started work to convert two Bombardier business jets into Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft for South Korea, according to a company official. “We have already received two aircraft to begin mission system integration work, demonstrating both program momentum and the maturity of the AERIS solution,” L3Harris Principal for International Business Development Jason Whitford told Breaking Defense at the Singapore Airshow. AERIS is the name for what L3Harris calls the next-generation AEW&C family of systems that go into the militarized jets. The work will eventually see four Bombardier Global Express 6500 business jets converted in AEW&C aircraft for the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF). The team made up of L3Harris together with Korean Air, Israels IAI-Elta and Canadas Bombardier had won the bid to supply the US ally with the aircraft in September 2025. RELATED: Trumps threats to Canadian jets raise questions about a key customer: The Pentagon The aircraft will be fitted with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system from IAI-Elta on board, with radar modules fitted in housings on the aircraft’s nose, tail and conformal side cheek panels on each side of the fuselage to give it all round radar coverage, said Whitford.   L3Harris will be responsible for integration of the mission systems for the program. The company has already had experience in this field, having done similar work for the US Air Force’s EA-37 Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft and Australia’s MC-55A Peregrine Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance and Electronic Warfare platform. Both L3Harris and IAI-Elta declined to identify the exact radar that will be used, but South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency had previously reported that it was the EL/L2085 dual-band AESA radar. Whitford told Breaking Defense that the all-round radar coverage capabilities of the conformal radar configuration is one of a number of advantages over the alternatives. The planes can fly faster and higher than turboprop-powered platforms, enabling them to reach their assigned patrol station quicker and see further. They were also cheaper to operate and sustain than more complex solutions, he added.   Whitford also said that he has seen extensive interest from around the world in the AERIS platform, although he declined to reveal who these customers were. However, Taiwan’s Upmedia has reported that the company attended an industry day held by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and also briefed Taiwanese air force personnel on their AEW&C portfolio. Taiwan is currently seeking to replace six Northrop-Grumman E-2K Hawkeye aircraft. L3Harris is currently offering the AERIS in two versions: the AERIS-X based on the Global Express 6500 and the AERIS-A based on the Gulfstream G550s. The latter is based on the same airframe modifications to the AEW&C aircraft in service with Israel, Italy and Singapore as well as the US Air Force’s EA-37 Compass Call. However, the G550 is no longer in production, and Whitford says that the Global Express 6500 the solution is a new-build aircraft with its longer lifespan was required.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Asia, Bombardier, Elta, Global 6500, L3 Harris, Singapore Airshow 2026, south korea]

— Saab shares ‘detailed information’ on Gripen with Canada as part of ‘dual fleet’ pitch

 

at 2/5/26 10:39am

BELFAST — Sweden’s Saab appears to be capitalizing on deteriorating political relations between the US and Canada by pushing for Ottawa to fly its Gripen E/F fighter jets along with US-made F-35s, and offering domestic production to sweeten the deal. In a call with investors today Saab CEO Micael Johansson claimed Canada was considering ways not to be too dependent on the US by having a dual fleet, both F-35 and the Gripens. “We are providing all [the] detailed information that they need to understand, he said. Specifically, the Swedish manufacturer has shared details around speed of technology transfer and “how quickly” it could stand up a local Gripen production facility. Johansson also suggested that, should a deal be completed, the manufacturing site will play host to future Gripen export aircraft. “How would they [Canada] be involved in the full export market perspective of a fighter business?” he said, adding that Saab is also providing that kind of information to the government. The manufacturer currently operates two production lines for the multirole combat jet in Sweden and Brazil. In November 2025, Colombia also signed off on a €3.1 billion ($3.7 billion) contract for 17 aircraft. A much more lucrative opportunity rests with Ukraine after the war torn nation and Sweden signed a letter of intent that could see Kyiv ordering between 100 to 150 aircraft. Additionally, Thailand agreed to a 5.3 billion Swedish kroner Gripen buy, for four aircraft last year. For weeks Sweden has pitched Gripens as an alternative to Canada, a plan that a senior Canadian official said in November was very interesting. The potential for Ottawa to cut its long-planned F-35 buy also prompted what appeared to be a veiled threat from US Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra last month. Pointing to “high-level political decisions that will determine if Canada eventually acquires Gripen, Johansson said today, “I don’t know” when a contract award decision might happen. “But of course, we have intensive discussions around this, he said. In a note to investors, Bryon Callan of Capital Alpha Partners said this week that the potential for Canada to truncate its current plan for 88 F-35s may explain the threats from Hoekstra and President Donald Trump. RELATED: Trumps threats to Canadian jets raise questions about a key customer: The Pentagon In his view, a Canadian Gripen sale could face complications because “we would expect F-35 subcontract work to be pulled from Canadian subcontractors, and the U.S. might still have leverage as the Gripen E relies on a GE Aerospace F414G engine.” According to a Canadian Auditor General report, more than 30 local aerospace companies hold F-35 contracts, largely related to production of the stealth fighter. Callan acknowledged, however, that Canada’s move to diversify its defense supply chain “is a prudent step” on account of Trump’s threats against his neighbours sovereign power. Ottawa is working off a $27.7 billion CAD ($20.3 billion ) budget for the F-35 acquisition initially announced in 2023 (to replace its Boeing CF-18 fleet) but currently under review to “ensure” that the aircraft is the “best choice,” per the Auditor General. Despite political disagreement, Canada remains committed to buying a first tranche of 16 F-35s, with eight units set for delivery to Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., between 2026 and 2027. Though it remains to be seen if Canada will commit to a Gripen order, near term, Saab is moving forward with “many initiatives and investments” to deliver on a planned production ramp up of the plane, said Johansson. On Wednesday, another Saab executive told Aviation Week that the existing production target sits at an annual rate of 36 aircraft. On other aviation business, Johansson said that he is awaiting a new Canadian surveillance plane acquisition to take shape, and which is expected to see Saab make a GlobalEye aircraft offer. He is also hopeful that NATO will “come to a decision” regarding a possible contract for the airborne early warning platform, as a replacement for the alliance’s aging E-3 Sentry fleet. GlobalEye is under assessment again by NATO, after it ended interest in procurement of Boeing’s E-7A Wedgetail last year.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Boeing, Brazil, Business & Industry, canada, Europe, GlobalEye, Gripen, Lockheed Martin, NATO, Peru, SAAB, Thailand, Ukraine]

— To finance the $1.5T defense budget, push for $600B in reconciliation

 

at 2/5/26 10:25am

The president recently announced his desire for a $1.5 trillion defense budget in fiscal year 2027, which would represent a substantial increase of $600 billion over current figures. As large a sum as that is, it is money the department could realistically use to address shortfalls in modernization and readiness.  With Congress working out a budget deal, a full year defense continuing resolution looks unlikely for the remainder of 2026. But many experts predict a chance of a split Congress after the mid-term elections.  If that happens, divided control of Congress creates a high probability of another full year defense continuing resolution in FY27, rendering the president’s request for $1.5 trillion as collateral damage.     But there is still a way to ensure that the warfighters get desperately needed funding. Congress should work with the White House to develop and pass another budget reconciliation bill with defense spending in 2026. And Pentagon leadership should engage now to make sure the legislation contains funding for what the military needs most.    The reconciliation process requires only majority support in each chamber, it is mandatory spending and provides more flexibility in funding accounts. And most importantly, it provides the military with the money right away, not a year or more from now.  The Congress provided us with a roadmap on how to do this through the 2025 budget reconciliation process.  They allocated $150 billion into twelve broad investment categories although with an emphasis on shipbuilding. They also made these funds both “colorless” and multi-year, sending an important signal in support of much needed updates to the appropriations structure. This must be replicated, except it should be larger in scale and bolder in its outcomes.  EXCLUSIVE: HASC chair seeking $450B for defense in reconciliation To support this approach, the Pentagon needs to act fast, collaborating with congress to propose what they need. The two key issues to resolve: how best to split a conceptual $1.5 trillion defense budget between the FY26 reconciliation bill and FY27 base budget request, and to provide clarity to lawmakers on exactly how they want to spend the proposed $600 billion increase.  The first answer is straight forward. First, increase the actual defense budget request to a sustainable $1.1 trillion baseline for FY27.  Then ask for $400 billion in the reconciliation bill. As to how it should be spent? While the FY27 base budget would cover the basic needs of the department, the reconciliation funding should be targeted at long-term shortfalls that would benefit most from more flexible spending.  Below, and detailed in a recent paper, is a proposal for six categories into which the Pentagon should request that Congress allocate that $400 billion in reconciliation money.  Munitions. $100 billion for procuring more munitions and integrating AI/autonomy into existing munitions should be made available for development, testing, production, storage, operations, and maintenance, through 2030. Ground Systems and Artificial Intelligence Integration. $50 billion for procuring more ground combat systems and integrating AI/autonomy into existing systems should be made available for development, testing, production, storage, operations, and maintenance. Air and Sea Drones. $100 billion for procuring more air and sea drones, while also funding key initiatives for AI and autonomy should be made available for development, testing, production, storage, operations, and maintenance. Golden Dome and Space: $40 billion for the development and fielding of the Golden Dome and associated space and ground systems, along with the development of AI/autonomy should be made available for development, testing, production, storage, operations, and maintenance. People: $30 billion to be allocated by the Secretary of War for military and civilian personnel bonuses, recruiting and retention, special pays, quality of life, and family programs. Readiness: $80 billion for facility repairs and modernization, military construction, training, and equipment maintenance and parts should be made available. This administration and congress are off to a strong start in changing America’s military posture from one that is sized for one short war, to one that is sized for protracted multi-theater war. America is the wealthiest and most advanced country in the world.  Consistent with recent national security and defense strategies that put America first and pursue peace through strength, it also has the resources needed to protect itself from those that want to do it harm. Now is the time to work with Congress to make that happen. Elaine McCusker is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She previously served as the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary of defense (comptroller). Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John G. Ferrari is a senior nonresident fellow at AEI. He previously served as a director of program analysis and evaluation for the service.

[Category: Congress, Opinion, Pentagon, budget, Elaine McCusker, John Ferrari, Op-Ed Commentary]

— Israel’s new Apache buy a result of lessons learned since Oct. 7: Analysts

 

at 2/5/26 9:20am

JERUSALEM — Last week’s announcement that Israel has been approved to buy 30 new AH-64E Apache attack helicopters represents a shift in priorities for the Israel Defense Forces, as Israel seeks to bolster the armed forces in the wake of two years of a multi-front wars, analysts tell Breaking Defense. The proposed sale comes with an estimated $3.8 billion price tag, although quantities and total costs of which could still shift during negotiations. But beyond the money, the decision to procure the newest E model represents a reversal from just a few years ago, when the IDF had made a conscious decision to move away from manned rotorcraft.  “This is lesson from the war in Gaza. After it appeared that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were pushing attack helicopters out, making them seem obsolete on the battlefield, the lesson learned during [the war] was different,” Eitan Ben Eliyahu, a retired Maj. Gen. and former Commander of the Israeli Air Force, told Breaking Defense.  The last two years of war have shown that the Apaches “remain a vital necessity on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare and commando operations.” Jacob Nagel, a Brigadier General (Res.) and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who also previously served as acting National Security Advisor for Israel’s Prime Minister, echoed similar sentiments. He noted that prior to the recent war “the dominant concept was indeed to slowly close the helicopter squadrons and move to performing missions using unmanned arrays.” Israel began practicing with the Apache in the 1980s, and acquired its first helicopters in 1990 — a set of aged AH-64As that had seen action in the Gulf War. They were integrated into the 113th Hornet squadron. Later, with the acquisition of the Apache AH-64D Longbow, Israel opened a second squadron, dubbed the 190th Magic Touch, which have been a mainstay of Israeli airpower since, aside from being briefly grounded  in the summer of 2023 due to a technical issue. By the time of the 2023 war, however, the Apaches were aging, Nagel said. And while decisions were made to replace Israel’s aging heavy lifters in 2021 and refuelers in 2022, there was a lack of movement to recapitalize the manned rotorcraft fleet.  In fact, Nagel said, before the Oct. 7 attacks, “the intention was to immediately close the Alpha helicopter squadron and maintain the Delta squadron until its natural ‘death.’” However, the war “proved the vitality of the array for unique missions, and therefore a decision was made to continue to maintain the two old types of helicopters and simultaneously acquire new ones, called ‘Echo’ [Ah-64E], in a volume to be determined according to budgetary constraints.” Last week’s approval by the US to purchase the AH-64E models did not come out of thin air. In January 2024 reports in Israeli media indicated that Israel wanted 12 Apaches. A subsequent report at The Jerusalem Post noted that the plan was to acquire 15 helicopters, with the option of acquiring another 15 later. (Given how FMS deals work, the fact that 30 helicopters have been cleared does not mean Israel will buy all 30, or buy them all at once, but this way the logistics are clear should they move towards that number.) Yaakov Katz, author of Shadow Strike, a book about Israel’s raid on Syria’s nuclear program, and a Fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, said that the Israeli military is working to improve its capabilities to prevent the kind of ground assault that occurred on Oct. 7.  “Israel had been more focused on drones, standoff capabilities and its longer-range aircraft, but this shows a clear importance that the military is putting on the need to have close air support for ground forces and border security,” Katz said. Nagel says the Israeli Air Force is facing a complex and difficult logistical task. “Israel is the only country in the world that continues to operate ‘Alpha’ helicopters, which causes significant logistical difficulties, a shortage of spare parts, and more.”  Nagel played a key role during the war, helping examine Israel’s security budget force buildup plans, as head of what became known as the Nagel Committee.  Asked whether the acquisition of the 30 new helicopters is primarily a replacement for the aging airframes, he noted that the move is part of a broader decision to keep the helicopter capabilities and that the overall number of helicopters will be determined by future budgets. It is not clear if this will mean adding a new squadron, but the older helicopters will be retained.

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, AH-64E, air, Air Force, Apache, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, Middle East]

— New START expires: Will a new US-Russia nuclear arms race follow?

 

at 2/5/26 7:56am

WASHINGTON — The last remaining US-Russian treaty setting caps on nuclear weapons expired at the stroke of midnight, ending five decades of nearly continuous, if not always harmonious, negotiated efforts to lower the risk of Armageddon through mutual superpower restraint on the size of their respective weapons caches. In the wake of reporting early today that US and Russian officials were close to a deal to observe some of the treatys obligations, President Donald Trump wrote online that New START was a badly negotiated deal and called for our Nuclear Experts [to] work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future. As it is, the formal demise of New START raises the risk of a new nuclear arms race arising between Moscow and Washington, with strategic and budgetary consequences for both, according to a number of experts who sounded the alarm in the days leading up to its expiration. Signed in 2010, the treaty limited Russia and the United States each to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles (meaning ICBMs, submarines and bombers). It also required significant information exchanges designed to assure each party of the other’s compliance. The 10-year accord allowed a one-time five-year extension, which the two sides agreed to do in 2021.  However, in February 2023 Russia suspended its compliance with New START, claiming US and NATO support for Ukraine following Moscow’s invasion the year before made it impossible for Russia to allow required inspections of its nuclear weapons facilities. President Vladimir Putin at the time also pledged to uphold New START’s weapons caps, and refrained from a formal withdrawal — and thus the Biden administration also continued to abide by the limits, although it took some countermeasures.   Fast forward to this year and Yury Ushakov, a senior aide to Putin, said on Wednesday that despite an initially favorable response by US President Donald Trump, Washington never officially responded to a September proposal by Moscow to voluntarily extend the treaty’s limitations for a year with no verification measures, according to Russia’s state-run news service TASS. A White House official told Breaking Defense the same day that Trump “has spoken repeatedly of addressing the threat nuclear weapons pose to the world and indicated that he would like to keep limits on nuclear weapons and involve China in arms control talks.” However, the official added, the president “will decide the path forward on nuclear arms control, which he will clarify on his own timeline.” In the meantime, experts warned that should a new arms race break out, it might be Russia, not the US, that starts a lap ahead — both due to Russia’s head start on modernization and new weapons development, and the sorry state of current US nuclear modernization programs and the infrastructure required.  Americas Untied Nuclear Shoe Laces Rose Gottemoeller, who was the Obama administration’s chief negotiator for New START, told a Senate Arms Services Committee hearing this week that she believes the US should take up Putin’s proposal for a year-long extension because the Russian military has the ability to “very rapidly” take warheads out of storage and mate them to delivery vehicles (i.e., ground- and sea-based missiles and bombers). “My whole view of keeping the US and Russia under New START limits for the coming year is to prevent them from sprinting away from us in an upload campaign,” she said. Tim Morrison, deputy assistant to the president for national security in the first Trump administration, told the SASC hearing the fact that the US nuclear arsenal is out of date already is threatening the militarys ability to deter a nuclear attack. Morrison emphasized that by 2035, 100 percent of US nuclear weapons, the warheads and the bombs themselves, will have exceeded their design lives by an average of 30 years. They wont be 30 years old; they will have exceeded their design life by 30 years. This asymmetry undermines not only armed control but deterrence itself, he said. John Plumb, assistant secretary of defense for  nuclear and space policy under the Biden administration, told Breaking Defense on Wednesday that the US nuclear weapons complex has been neglected for many years.  Instead of continuously modernizing like good stewardship demands, the United States has unfortunately underinvested in our nuclear infrastructure for decades, he said. Through multiple Congresses and multiple administrations, we have deferred needed spending even as legacy weapons systems and legacy infrastructure continue to age. And when new money has been appropriated it has often been consumed by cost overruns without providing additional capability. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the overall cost of modernizing and maintaining the US nuclear enterprise, including ICBMs, submarine-based missiles, bombers, warheads and the necessary infrastructure to manufacture and test those warheads, will cost $946 billion from 2025 through 2034. A new nuclear arms race is in no nation’s interest, but in the long run our US nuclear deterrent will only be as credible as our nuclear weapons infrastructure, Plumb said. Ankit Panda, a long-time nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told reporters on Wednesday that Russia too has challenges in pushing forward a nuclear buildup, in part due to the resources it has had to extend in its protracted war with Ukraine. Both the United States and Russia have strong incentives to not arms race. But of course, that was true during the Cold War, when, in fact, they did arms race, he said. And this is where I think the loss of predictability and transparency is going to be troublesome for national strategic debates in the United States and Russia, Panda added. That said, US European Command announced today that the US and Russian militaries have agreed to re-open their bilateral dialogue that has been suspended since 2021 that could serve as a conduit for voluntary agreements to restrain respective nuclear buildups or destabilizing activities. The reestablishment of high-level military-to-military talks follows a series of meetings in the United Arab Emirates capital between EUCOM Commander Gen. Alexus Grynkewich and senior Russian and Ukrainian military officials seeking a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine. And Then Theres China Whether theres a year extension to New START or not, there has been a growing chorus of advocacy from government officials, lawmakers and independent nuclear strategists for beefing up traditional US nuclear forces and developing new, theater-range weapons — not just to counter Russia’s nuclear modernization efforts — and past treaty violations — but also the relatively small but rapidly growing Chinese arsenal.  China, obviously not party to New START, is believed to possess around 600 nuclear weapons, compared to Americas 5,177 and Russias 5,459. Beijing could reach a maximum projected number of 1,500 warheads by 2035, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It could be time, critics say, to ditch New START for a different arms control strategy that relies on a stronger US deterrent posture to push China to the table as well as Russia. “Here is the reality today: Russia has been in noncompliance with New START since 2022 and continues to hold a massive numerical advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. China is growing its nuclear arsenal at a breathtaking pace. Both countries are outpacing us in developing novel, destabilizing weapons,” Sen. Deb Fischer, R.-Neb., said Feb. 3 at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the treaty. Tactical nukes generally refer to shorter-range nuclear devices designed for regional use rather than long-range missiles and bombers. “In 2023, the bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission released its final report, which unanimously agreed that our current nuclear modernization plans — predicated on New START limits — are not sufficient to meet the new threats posed by Russia and China,” she added. An analysis by CSIS shows that during the New STARTs 15-year existence, the number of nuclear weapons systems in both Russia and China increased, while dropping in the United States. (Center for Strategic and International Studies) “Under New START, US [nuclear] systems have gone down by 17 percent whereas Russia has gone up by 22 percent and China has gone up by 29 percent,” Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said at a CSIS event Tuesday. Further, she charged, “Russia has violated at least nine arms control agreements since Putin came to power.” Retired Adm. Charles Richard, former head of US Strategic Command, told the SASC hearing that Russia isnt the only nuclear threat the US military needs to be able to deter, as China in particular is rapidly expanding its arsenal. And beyond the threat of China alone, Richard warned there is a potential for Moscow and Beijing to hit the US with a double-whammy. I didnt have the luxury when I was at STRATCOM of deterring our opponents one at a time. I had to look at the collective. I am very concerned about the possibility of opportunistic or coordinated aggression, either between major powers such as Russia and China and or the regional ones, he said, New START or not. Trump administration officials, as well as many congressional Republicans and experts on the political right, argue that any nuclear arms control agreement that does not include China will put the US at a disadvantage. At a minimum, I would include Russia, China and the United States in any arms control agreement, Richard said. Absent that simply extending the New START Treaty for one year does not constrain Russia to the same way that it constrains us. It prevents us from answering the challenge that China has added to this. Dating back to his first administration, Trump himself has repeatedly said he is interested in negotiating a trilateral pact. Beijing, however, has shown no inclination to engage, and experts say this in unlikely to change until the PLAs nuclear arsenal has at least reached parity with the Russian and US militaries. UPDATED at 1:57pm ET on 2/5/2026 to include a new statement from President Donald Trump.

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Air Force, arms control, Army, Asia, Chinese nuclear modernization, Europe, Global, New START, nuclear modernization, nuclear weapons]

— Lockheed Martin to launch C2 software factory in Saudi Arabia

 

at 2/5/26 4:24am

WDS 2026 — Lockheed Martin is opening a command and control software factory in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in accordance with Riyadh’s efforts to localize defense production. “The new facility will introduce the company’s advanced software development ecosystem to the Kingdom, enabling the rapid development of sovereign software applications and supporting their integration into Lockheed Martin platforms and systems,” Lockeed said in a statement on Jan. 28. Joseph Rank, chief executive for Lockheed in Saudi Arabia and Africa, described the facility as a long-term development platform that creates a structured pathway for Saudi engineers and companies to design, develop and integrate software into Lockheed Martin systems in a way that supports shared security and interoperability. The American defense giant said that the new factory will enable the “integration of third-party applications supporting host-nation development within a secure and interoperable command-and-control ecosystem.” Rank told Breaking Defense that software developed by the platform can be Saudi-owned intellectual property and tailored to the Kingdoms operational requirements. Over time, the Software Factory will serve as a hub for software collaboration across our portfolio in the Kingdom, helping grow sovereign technical expertise in Saudi Arabia while strengthening innovation, integration and long-term industrial capacity that supports both nations, Rank said. This is not the first coproduction agreement Lockheed has with the Kingdom. In 2024 it contracted two Saudi firms to manufacture subsystems of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) air defense system. RELATED: US clears $6.7B in new weapon sales to Israel, $9B in Patriot missiles for Saudi Arabia But experts told Breaking Defense that establishing the software factory signals a subtle shift for the better for the Kingdom. “This is a notable achievement for Saudi Arabias localization efforts, particularly in its defense sector, as it brings in-country software that Saudis can develop on their own to work with Lockheed systems. That gives Saudi Arabia a notable advantage in its usage of Lockheed systems, like THAAD, as it cuts down on the time needed for code to be deployed in THAAD systems,” senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at the RANE Network Ryan Bohl told Breaking Defense. He added that the new facility “will help deepen cooperation between the US and Saudi defense sectors, allowing the Saudis the ability to develop their own software and apps that have applications outside of Saudi Arabia, benefiting both countries.” Gulf defense analyst Leonardo Jacopo Maria Mazzucco agreed. “While past collaboration focused on MRO [modernization, repair and operations], licensed manufacturing, and component production, this initiative aligns with Saudi Arabia’s ambition to develop a full-spectrum military-industrial base that includes command-and-control software, systems integration, and sovereign digital capabilities,” Mazzucco told Breaking Defense. He added that this “reflects a move up the defense value chain and supports Vision 2030 goals around localization, talent development, and technological autonomy.” Vision 2030 is a broad push by the Saudi government to become more self-reliant, including mandating that by 2030 at least 50 percent of defense production be done in-country. Lockheed said in its statement that close cooperation has already seen success in early software integration. “In less than two weeks, Saudi interns at Lockheed Martin worked alongside engineers from Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI) Advanced Electronics Company to develop a solution that integrates commercial aircraft location data directly into Lockheed Martin’s CommandIQ TM common operating picture,” according to the statement. SAMI AEC is an electronics firm, subsidiary of the Saudi government-owned defense giant Saudi Arabian Military Industries. SAMI is expected to have a large presence at the third edition of the World Defense Show taking place next week in Riyadh. As for the new Lockheed facility, both experts agreed that while the new facility may not play a major role in Lockheeds international supply chain, it could limit disruptions related to regional turmoil. Bohl said the current Lockheed global supply chain is still very US/NATO-centric, but the facility is part of a wider goal of resiliency and back-ups; Saudi Arabia can now play a role in preventing supply chain disruption and/or find innovate solutions for its own market that will strengthen Lockheed Martins overall supply chain.” Mazzucco said the factory is less about supplying parts and more about accelerating software integration, customization, and experimentation within a secure framework. Over time, its importance will depend on how effectively it contributes to reusable software components, rapid prototyping, and regional command-and-control solutions that can be scaled across Lockheed Martin platforms.

[Category: Global, Lockheed Martin, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, thaad, WDS 2026]

— Boeing’s Block 3 MQ-28 Ghost Bat to gain weapons bays, longer wings

 

at 2/5/26 1:02am

SINGAPORE — Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) will gain internal weapons bays along with an increased wingspan, the global program director announced during this weeks Singapore Airshow. Speaking at a media briefing here on Wednesday, Glen Ferguson told reporters that Block 3 aircraft will be able to carry weapons such as the AIM-120 medium range air-to-air missile and the Small Diameter Bomb. Ferguson was keen to stress, however, that the only constraint on the types of payloads that could be carried in the bays was physical, with the Ghost Bat’s modularity and open architecture meaning that a variety of weapons could be integrated on it as long as it fit the bays. This modularity and open architecture also mean that the CCA is able to carry different payloads in its nose depending on user or mission requirements, including electronic warfare payloads as well as infra-red search and track systems. “It’s really up to the customers what they want,” he said. Boeing is working on “three or four” other sensor payloads, although Ferguson declined to go into further details about these.   Also changing for Block 3 is the aircrafts wingspan, which will expand from 6 meters to 7.3 meters, or 20 to 24 feet. The increased wingspan will allow the Ghost Bat to carry more fuel, increasing its range, Ferguson said. Boeing is currently developing the Ghost Bat in Australia for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), which has ordered an additional seven aircraft, including the first in Block 3 configuration for delivery in 2028 to develop an operational capability with the type. He also touched on foreign interest on the Ghost Bat, revealing that there are ongoing conversations with “a lot” of potential customers and highlighting an agreement between Australia and Japan to collaborate on the program during a bilateral defense ministers’ meeting in September 2025. Ferguson emphasized that the modularity and the flexibility of the CCA’s design will allow foreign users of the aircraft to integrate their own capabilities on the platform. “They can adopt their own sensors if they wish, and they can apply their own weapons without needing to have to involve us at the levels you might expect on a normal crewed platform.” That sovereign capability and development is all about partnerships and relationships, and we are looking to share that with other countries as they look to embrace a CCA capability.”

[Category: Air Warfare, Global, Air Force, Asia, australia, Boeing Australia, Drones, MQ-28 Ghost Bat, RAAF, Singapore Airshow 2026]

— EXCLUSIVE: HASC chair seeking $450B for defense in reconciliation

 

at 2/4/26 3:26pm

WASHINGTON — The fiscal 2027 budget season has barely started, but the head of the House Armed Services Committee is setting two major goals for the year: securing $450 billion for defense in an upcoming reconciliation bill, and using the next defense policy bill to expand the defense industrial base. In an exclusive interview with Breaking Defense, HASC Chairman Mike Rogers said that he is working with his Senate counterpart, Sen. Roger Wicker, to lock that funding in. “Weve informed our leadership of that,” he said Wednesday. “Were not talking about something frivolous here. Were talking about national defense.” That $450 billion would be three times the $150 billion secured for defense in last year’s reconciliation effort — which itself represented the first time defense money was secured through the reconciliation procedure. However, Rogers argued that the funding would be necessary to achieve the target, laid down by President Donald Trump, of a $1.5 trillion defense budget for FY27. Rogers explained his math thusly: If the White House requests a budget equivalent to last year’s, at about $1.03 trillion, and rolls over the $20 billion left over from last year’s reconciliation bill, that leaves a gap of about $450 billion to hit $1.5 trillion. And while appropriators have final say on defense spending during the normal budget process, authorizers, such as Rogers, have control in reconciliation.  RELATED: Could DoD buck congressional intent on billions in reconciliation? However, getting $450 billion in defense spending into a reconciliation bill and passed into law could be an uphill battle.  While Republicans are able to pass a reconciliation bill without help from Democrat votes, they will face tight margins and a narrow timeframe for doing so, as Democrats are projected to take back the House in the upcoming midterm elections. And securing Republican support for additional defense funding in reconciliation is not a given: A recent blueprint for the second reconciliation bill put out by the House Republican Study Committee did not list defense among other priority areas such as home ownership and health care.  However, Rogers stressed that a $1.5 trillion defense budget is necessary to be able to pay for major modernization projects including the Golden Dome missile shield, sixth-generation F-47 fighter jet, and Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program. “We have all these big ticket items that we have to do, and you cant do that on a trillion-dollar budget. You just cant,” he said. “So thats the sobering side of the story that I think were going to be able to offer to our colleagues when it comes to getting the votes to do this.” What To Expect In The FY27 NDAA Meanwhile, HASC has already begun early work on the FY27 National Defense Authorization Act, which will prioritize the expansion of the defense industrial base, Rogers said. “We tilled the soil last year by trying to improve acquisition processes to make it more commercial, so that its easier for industry to work with the government,” he said. “That was on purpose, because we do have to expand the defense industrial base. Its gotten very small, and its atrophied, and it needs a lot of attention.” Following the end of the Cold War, the defense industry narrowed to just six prime contractors, after the infamous Last Supper meeting in 1993 where Pentagon leaders told defense executives to consolidate or risk going out of business. Over the past decade, the industrial base has grown, as venture capital-backed defense tech startups like Anduril and Palantir entered the scene. But Rogers said he would like to see a larger number of commercial companies start making products for the Defense Department. “That’s our question to these folks, and weve already started bringing them in and asking them, ‘What can we do to incentivize you to get into the defense production?’” he said. “Taking the traditionals and non-traditionals, what can we do to incentivize you to grow? [For] the primes, what can we do to incentivize you to expand? HASC still is in its early stages of understanding the problem and doesn’t have “preconceived ideas” about exactly what legislative steps may need to be taken to widen the aperture for new entrants to the defense sector, Rogers said. “I dont know what all the obstacles are going to be,” he said. “Im expecting some of them may be outside our jurisdiction. For example, tax policy. There may be something about our tax structure that disincentivizes expansion. If so, let us know so we can work with our counterparts on the Ways and Means Committee to address that.”

[Category: Congress, Pentagon, 2027 NDAA, Defense Budget, defense industrial base, Mike Rogers, National Defense Authorization Act, reconciliation, Roger Wicker]

— Army plans for division to receive NGC2 production ecosystem in FY27

 

at 2/4/26 1:41pm

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — The Army has budgeted for the first division in fiscal 2027 to receive the production full stack Next Generation Command and Control ecosystem, according to officials. From a prototyping into production FY27 youll see, the Armys working through right now identifying the next division beyond 25th and 4th and that would be a production representative full stack of capability, Brig. Gen. Shane Taylor, the capability program executive for Command, Control, Communications, and Network, said in an interview at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting Jan. 30. This new division, which has yet to be revealed, joins the 4th Infantry Division — whose NGC2 prototype is produced by Anduril and a team of vendors and encompasses a transport layer, an integration layer, a data layer and an application layer, known as the full stack — and the 25th Infantry Division, which is also prototyping a data and applications layer made by Lockheed and a team of vendors. Team Lockheeds is not considered full stack as it is only looking at a component. Both aim to help inform the ultimate fielding of the NGC2 ecosystem across the Army. Officials have recognized that, unlike in years past, each division will likely look somewhat different based on how they fight or what region they’re in, which is why the 4th ID and 25th ID are experimenting with different aspects of NGC2. As the effort moves forward, the Army will continue to have to figure out how much commonality there is between the baseline level of capability and how much divisions will have to be somewhat customized. Taylor said there will be somewhere around 60 to 70 percent commonality within the ecosystem between divisions. The Army will enter into discussions with the other division commanders to see what that 40 to 30 percent difference is and what theyll need specific to their formation. “What we want to be able to get to is identify what that is for the next division. Again, we dont want to be too rigid and we dont want to constrain ourselves. Those deltas are what those commanders will be able to shape and inform,” Taylor said. The commonality will exist to a degree within transport, infrastructure and data, he said. Taylor added that the 4th ID architecture is pretty close to what it will eventually look like, though, individual materiel solutions within that architecture are still to be determined. There will also likely be multiple tech stacks and capabilities brought by different vendors, as Anduril won’t be the prime for the entirety of the Army’s C2 portfolio. Alex Miller, chief technology officer for the Army chief of staff, said Brig. Gen. Mike Kaloostian, director of the C2 Future Capability Directorate, will have to make sure how does he prioritize all of the micro changes, or identify patterns that are common across all those divisions that he goes, ‘Okay, I see this thing in seven divisions thats a need. Okay, thats at the top of the list now.’” He added, “A year from now, I think we will see multiple tech stacks that all work together, but the things that really work well, everyone will have nominated independently, and we will institutionalize.” The NGC2 budget is expected to continue to grow in future years. Officials said from a top line, the portfolio received an additional 20 percent from FY25 to FY26 and anticipate that will remain steady going forward. One factor impacting how fast the Army can begin fielding to divisions is how fast the Army is modernizing the underlying hardware for all formations. The service’s G6 is undertaking an effort dubbed C2 Now that aims to replace all the legacy Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) equipment that is still in formations. “Thats a 30-month plan to replace all the upper tactical internet capabilities across the force,” Taylor said. “In 27 well do the first division of production unit division, and then were also later this year, and really into 27 is when the C2 Now or the hardware acceleration and tech, or transport acceleration efforts [will start]. That will set conditions for where were going with full up Next Gen C2 because all the divisions will have that capability as soon as we field them the C2 Now capabilities. Right now, were targeted for one division in 27 along with acceleration that is C2 Now, he said.

[Category: Networks & Digital Warfare, Army, CPE C3N, cyber security, networks, ngc2, technology]

— Army moves 3 companies to Phase III of Flight School Next competition

 

at 2/4/26 12:08pm

WASHINGTON — The Army has selected three companies to move on to the next phase of its Flight School Next competition, the service’s new multi-faceted program to train helicopter pilots at Fort Rucker.  Today Bell, M1 and Lockheed Martin confirmed to Breaking Defense that they have been selected to move on to Phase III of the competition, which entails submitting a full written Commercial Solution Proposal for their offering, per the original commercial solutions opening (CSO) posted in December. “We are grateful for the Army’s confidence in our Flight School Next solution to move on to Phase III,” Todd Morar, vice president of Air and Commercial Solutions at Lockheed Martin said in a company statement today. “For years we have been refining a comprehensive solution that aligns with the Army’s vision for a modern, affordable and high quality training pipeline that will produce fundamentally better aviators.” Today’s announcement comes after the same three companies were selected to move to the second phase of the competition last month. That phase involved giving presentations on pricing, innovation and the companies overall frameworks for the program according to the CSO.  Lockheed had previously identified itself as a prime contractor for the overall competition, and today revealed that it would be partnering with civilian helicopter manufacturer Robinson for the program. Robinson will be competing as a sub contractor with its R-66 aircraft for both Lockheed and M1. RELATED: Army advances Bell, M1, Lockheed to second phase of Flight School Next competition “We are proud to be selected by Lockheed Martin as the platform of choice for the Army’s next primary trainer, a decision that aligns mission requirements with fiscal reality, President and CEO of Robinson David Smith said in Lockheed’s statement today. M1 also confirmed to Breaking Defense that the company is moving forward in the competition with Robinsons R-66. “We are proud to have multiple proposals selected to advance to Phase III,” George Krivo, chairman and CEO of M1 said in a company statement today.  “This is M1’s top priority.  Every day we work to further refine and improve our solution to ensure the Army can produce more proficient Army Aviators in an efficient, effective, and innovative manner.” As for Bell, it is competing as its own entity and is offering its 505 model for the competition.  “Our team is proud and excited to move on to the next phase of Flight School Next,” John Novalis, strategic director of Flight School Next at Bell, said in a company announcement today. “This next phase is a critical point in the competition and Bell along with our teammates are ready to demonstrate what we believe is the most cost-effective and low-risk solution for the Armys next-generation flight training program. The Flight School Next program includes more than the airframes itself, as the service is also looking for a new curriculum and a new acquisition model. Per the original CSO, Flight School Next will have a contractor-owned, contractor-operated (COCO) model, which allows the company to own and run the program instead of the government. The primes role in Flight School Next will be to handle the finances, big-picture repairs, supply chain management, logistical support and more, while the subs will handle supplying the helicopters and its spare parts, component-level repairs, technical support, most of the curriculum and upgrades.  RELATED: Inside six helo companies gunning for the Army’s Flight School Next program The services goal is to make an award by the end of September, and it is looking to provide training for 900 to 1,500 rotary wing pilots per year with a period of performance of 26 years, according to the CSO. Along with Bell, Lockheed, M1 and Robinson, the incumbent flight school vendor Airbus replied to the original call-for-solutions notice in November, and told Breaking Defense it was bidding its UH-72 Lakota fleet. A spokesperson for the company last week referred all queries regarding Flight School Next to the Army, but the Army declined to comment on the program.   Other companies originally vying for the program include Leonardo with its TH-73 helo and Boeing as its prime; MD Helicopters with its 530 helo; and Enstrom Helicopters with its 480B model. Spokespeople for Boeing, MD Helicopters and Enstrom Helicopters declined to comment if they would be moving forward in the program. UPDATED 2/04/2026 at 3:42 p.m. EST to include a statement from M1.

[Category: Air Warfare, Land Warfare, Air Force, Army, army aviation, Bell, Flight School Next, Lockheed Martin]

As of 2/6/26 6:33pm. Last new 2/6/26 4:11pm.