Defense Tech and Acquisition News
Regenerating U.S. Shipyard Potential and Restoring Munition Capacity
Welcome to the latest edition of Defense Tech and Acquisition. The big stories that interest us this week is:
Some interesting approaches for regenerating the U.S. maritime industry but TBD if the Navy will push for those over other priorities.
A number of new entrants and allies/partners to address the dangerous shortage of munitions for a great power competition fight.
CDAO and Air Force pushing forward on the AI front - paving the way for expanded use in multiple warfighting and business applications.
Army unleashing its experimental drone units to work out new CONOPS using low cost and easily assembled FPV systems.
Air Force might finally be realizing that they have too many bills and too many exquisite systems in the pipeline - and that CCA might work fine in lieu of NGAD.
Space Force seems to be getting really serious about leveraging commercial space capabilities, but we still want to see the money.
More international partners are focusing on defense and building internal to their nations - but FMS/DCS sales are increasing, and they still need components from other countries so it’s a net win.
Enjoy!
Top Stories
Project vs Product Funding
We procure and fund software as if it were static, and thus make it both worse and more expensive. There are two fundamentally different approaches to funding software - Project vs Product.
Contrast this with a typical “product” model, in which, instead of a requirement gathering phase up front, a small team conducts what are called discovery sprints to better understand the problems the software is supposed to address.
Product teams almost always leverage contractors, but the contractors are there to complement a core internal team which holds the product vision and provides clear direction to vendors.
The traditional model requires regular modernization upgrades.
Cost is far from the only reason to prefer a product model.
Having a consistent team over time may look like an unwanted ongoing expense, if we assume that development work is at some point “done,” but that is not the case (software is never done).
If software isn’t updated often, it rots in a variety of ways (O&M = ROT).
Our Take: We fully agree. This is why we developed the Software Acquisition Pathway to break from the traditional hardware centric acquisition models and use iterative approaches (sprints) and user agreements to regularly deliver software that meets warfighter needs. We have also helped pilot and advocate for radically different funding approaches for software that expands flexibility and aligns with modern software development practices. We recommend anyone involved in software acquisition across DoD, USG, and Congress read Jennifer’s full post along with her Congressional testimony. Then when you’re done with those, read Recoding America.
It’s Time to Make a New International Cooperation Office Within the Pentagon
As the SASC marks up its version of the FY25 NDAA this week, one idea deserves close consideration: A new role that would bolster the Pentagon’s global coordination with partners and allies.
The Defense MoU Attachés Group (DMAG), supported by the Chamber of Commerce and AIA, has proposed the creation of an Undersecretary of Defense for International Cooperation.
This would enhance the harmonization and efficiency of international armaments cooperation and provide interoperable and interchangeable capabilities to our warfighters at this critical time and into the future.
How this is done, however, is key, and I am not convinced an undersecretary role — and its inevitable large staff, reporting directly to the deputy secretary of defense — is the best way forward.
While efforts at joint weapons development are beginning to deliver results, challenges remain.
Export controls and technology release procedures, for example, continue to frustrate the ability of firms based in the U.S. and allied countries to collaborate.
The FY24 NDAA did create an AUKUS exemption for Australia and the UK in the ITAR, but ongoing State Department rulemaking may still fall short in implementation as past efforts like the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties.
Additional defense-related Buy American provisions, meanwhile, continue to be introduced each year, ignoring the extent to which ally and partner industrial capacity advantages DoD and US companies alike.
It is important to demonstrate empirically how international defense cooperation directly and indirectly impacts the US industrial base.
A broad independent analysis of the impact of international defense cooperation would help to illuminate how US subsidiaries of allied-headquartered firms, foreign and direct commercial sales, international cooperative programs, and other efforts contribute to the US and overall global industrial base.
The lack of a single office within DoD that has primary responsibility for fostering collaboration with allies and partners is not a new problem.
The lead offices for FMS, defense technology security, and international cooperative programs have been split between the Under Secretaries of Policy and Acquisition and Sustainment for decades, and the services each have strong offices dedicated to international programs.
A better approach would be to create an Assistant Secretary for International Cooperation, one rung down on the defense bureaucracy ladder.
Our Take: We agree with Jerry. Caution is needed when establishing new OSD offices and ensuring additional bureaucracy is not unnecessarily created. The likely effectiveness of this role will be the ability to create partnerships across OSD and other government agencies…and effectively convince OMB and the Hill of the changes needed to ensure our allies and friends can contribute to global security.
Air Force Announces New Generative AI Program: NIPRGPT
NIPRGPT will help airmen and guardians with correspondence, research and coding tasks all while being connected to a secure online environment.
The goal of NIPRGPT, an AI chatbot with human-like responses, is to help the Air Force learn how AI can advance access to information and determine if generative AI is necessary within the Air Force.
The platform will help airmen and guardians with correspondence, research and coding tasks, all while being connected to a secure online environment.
The Air Force has yet to pick a specific vendor or approach as it builds the criterion for NIPRGPT.
NIPRGPT is derived from the Dark Saber software platform developed at the AFRL Information Directorate.
“We’re hoping that not only will this kick off the curiosity and experimentation that we can see in our users, but it will also, for those providers that have models, it will give us a way to actually test those. We fully expect that some models are going to be great at some use cases and not so great at others.” Alexis Bonnell, AFRL CIO
“Our recent GenAI Roundtables with industry and academia have shown us this is an actively growing field. Now is the time to give our Airmen and Guardians the flexibility to develop the necessary skills in parallel. There are multiple modernization efforts going on right now to get tools in the hands of the workforce. This tool is another one of those efforts.” Venice Goodwine, Air Force CIO
Related Article: Air Force, Space Force unveil tool for AI experimentation
ACQCON: PEOs and CEOs
Kudos to the team for a very successful ACOCON: PEOs and CEOs event last week sponsored by Palantir, Govini, Hudson Institute, NDIA ETI, SCSP, Pallas Foundation, and the Defense Tech and Acquisition Substack. Attendees heard from new CDAO Dr. Radha Plumb, Defense Acquisition Historian Eric Lofgren, SAEs, PEOs, CEOs, CTOs, CROs, VCs, NSC, and thought leaders in defense tech. The afternoon featured workshops (with whiteboards!) on Requirements in Reverse, Picking Winners, and Aligning DoD Procurement with Commercial Business Models. While the discussions were covered under Chatham House rules, we believe they were helpful to share an understanding of DoD and industry perspectives. We dove into priorities, incentives, and conflicting models to harness top tech and talent to rapidly deliver superior military capabilities.
Defense Tech
Army, Navy Reduce Dependence on China for Critical Technology
Govini issued a report, built with its Ark data-analytics platform, that assessed DoD purchases of 15 critical technologies.
It found that last year:
The Navy reduced the number of Chinese suppliers in its “critical technologies” supply chains by 40%.
The Army achieved a 17% reduction in Chinese suppliers.
The Air Force and defense agencies increased their dependence on China.
Pentagon leaders and lawmakers have been pressing DoD components to reduce their dependence on Chinese-made components and gear as part of an effort to develop more resilient supply chains.
The call to action is managing the presence of lots of different foreign suppliers and aligning those to the right level of capability or component or parts, making sure we have redundancy where we need it and that the most sensitive parts are fully protected and coming either directly from the U.S. or allies
Earlier this year, the Pentagon released its first strategic document for defense contractors, followed by a cyber-focused strategy, both of which stressed supply chain security and risks.
“When we're working with these program offices on a day-to-day basis, it remains just problem after problem after problem. And I think the good-news story is that…the department, in places, in certain spots, is really starting to become proactive about managing their supply chains.” Tara Murphy Dougherty, Govini CEO
Related story: US Falls Further Behind in AI Race, Could Make Conflict with China Unwinnable
Why CENTCOM Wants Self-Service Computer Vision for Warfighters
CENTCOM is moving to explore and quickly adopt intuitive, user-driven commercial platforms that can enable military analysts and operators with limited technical expertise to rapidly create and apply advanced computer vision capabilities for real-time, current operations.
CENTCOM’s Desert Century CSO, per CDAO’s Tradewinds, is to pave the way for self-service platforms that allow warfighters to produce custom, performant computer vision models in seven days or less.
CENTCOM invites solution providers to submit a three-page Discovery Paper pitching their capabilities, via the CDAO-aligned TradewindAI platform.
A formal pitch round will follow in the Aug. 5-16 time frame.
Based on results stemming from there, CENTCOM might make none, one, or multiple pilot project awards, likely in the form of OTAs.
The mandatory features must be met in order to be a viable solution.
The end game is to enable a small group of users — operators and analysts — to self-serve the entirety of the process.
That doesn’t work if it gets broken across a segmented group of tools, so CENTCOM is trying to get an integrated, streamlined interface that addresses the totality of mandatory features.
“That’s the unique thing here — we’re trying to enable our broader workforce to be able to self-serve their urgent model gaps and build things quickly, so that we can respond to those emergent threats concerns.” Michael Foster, CENTCOM’s Chief Data Officer
Our Take: It is incredible to see all the tech innovations coming out of CENTCOM’s CTO shop. Their partnership with CDAO leveraging Tradewinds and using OTs is an excellent teaming and process combination. It is also encouraging to see CENTCOM working more with Services like the Navy. Listen to this excellent WOTR podcast where Schuyler Moore and Justin Fanelli talk about how they are teaming on projects.
The Soft Cyber Underbelly of the U.S. Military
The Oct 7th Hamas attacks on Israel were notable for many reasons, one of which was their integrated employment of the information environment before, during, and after.
Not visible from the attacks were the hackers who eroded the ability of the country’s security organizations to provide warning and took advantage of civilian safety apps to install malware, not to mention the years of reconnaissance they conducted through the personal devices of Israelis.
Hamas’s attacks demonstrate the asymmetric and nontraditional cyber threats in the information environment that must be addressed to keep U.S. forces secure.
The integrated attacks illustrate the effects of attacks on individuals within a force unprotected in cyberspace.
The 2023 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community highlights the growing cyber threat major strategic competitors pose.
Hamas used cyber capabilities to complement its air and ground attacks.
approximately 12 minutes after Hamas launched the initial rocket salvo, cybersecurity firms detected DDoS attacks aimed at shutting down websites that provide rocket alerts to Israeli civilians.
In the days that followed, other groups began attacking sites and services connected to the conflict.
Some cyberattacks exploited code issues in apps to send fake rocket alerts, intercept requests, and expose servers - counterfeit versions of those apps allowed hackers to collect sensitive data from users.
The IDF has not taken Hamas’s cyber activities lightly as it correctly sees them as a serious component of the threat picture.
The Navy’s cyber strategy prioritizes improvements to cybersecurity training.
Human error is the number one vector for cyberattacks on an organization.
Given the crucial role cyber plays in the information environment, it is critical to protect that space by improving the training given to all service members, providing real tools for them to use to protect themselves, and furnishing some basic cyber personal protective equipment.
Our Take: For too long, cybersecurity training in DoD has been somewhat of a joke given its monotonous and predictable nature. The Oct 7 attacks can hopefully serve as a wake-up call that this is likely what the U.S. will face in the next conflict given the relatively low cost of these types of operations.
CDAO Plans Big Initiatives for Fall, From Back Office to Battlefield
Less than two months into her new post as the CDAO, Radha Plumb is working on some big plans for the coming months.
Her first big move since taking office was to hand out a set of awards for a new model of AI and big data analytics that CDAO calls Open DAGIR, short for “Open Data and Applications Government-owned Interoperable Repositories.”
That initiative gives upstart defense contractor Palantir up to $513M to build “mission command” data and planning tools for the Combatant Commands as part of the Pentagon’s high-priority CJADC2.
The way CDAO structured Open DAGIR — both the technological architecture and the contract language — creates a model that Plumb plans to expand.
This new architecture imagines a spectrum of systems, with AI-powered enterprise analytics at one end, tactical data on the other, and theater-level mission command somewhere in the middle.
The “enterprise” is the Pentagon’s back-office business functions, ranging from financial management and HR to weapons development and acquisition.
At the other extreme, units in combat need to get updated tactical data in hours or minutes, and they need it delivered over rugged radio networks that can withstand not just extremes of climate but enemy hacking, jamming, and attempts to triangulate the source of signals for precision strike.
“Our goal is to at least start some of those announcements by the end of the summer. But certainly, between the end of the summer through the fall, you’ll start seeing those publicly in terms of solicitations, solutions. Palantir is tasked with integration because they are the contract operator for the stack, but the selection of third-party vendors and negotiations on data rights and IP is done in partnership with the government. Rather than Palantir deciding what third-party vendor it wants to integrate and offer up to the government, we’re deciding what are our requirements, who are our third-party vendors, what is the data they need, and then pushing them into the stack that we own.” Radha Plumb
DIU Announces Maj Gen Steven Butow as Military Deputy
“As a member of the reserve component, Maj Gen Bucky Butow possesses the dual fluency as both an experienced military leader and technologist with significant experience working with the commercial technology sector. Bucky’s experience helping lead the Department’s leveraging of commercial space technology and experience in integrating and fielding new and emergent commercial technology will help to create asymmetric advantage for the joint force and allied warfighters.” Doug Beck, DIU’s Director.
Our Take: Bucky is a key leader and linchpin for space innovation across the DoD! Very happy to see him recognized with this additional role as part of the scaling DIU.
The Lords of Silicon Valley Are Thrilled to Present a Handheld Iron Dome
ZeroMark wants to build a system that will let soldiers easily shoot a drone out of the sky with the weapons they’re already carrying—and venture capital firm a16z is betting the startup can pull it off.
Drones have changed war. Small, cheap, and deadly robots buzz in the skies high above the world’s battlefields, taking pictures and dropping explosives.
They’re hard to counter but ZeroMark, a U.S. defense startup thinks it has a solution - turning the rifles of frontline soldiers into “handheld Iron Domes.”
The idea is simple: Make it easier to shoot a drone out of the sky with a bullet.
The problem is that drones are fast and maneuverable, making them hard for even a skilled marksman to hit but ZeroMark’s system would add aim assistance to existing rifles, ostensibly helping soldiers put a bullet in just the right place.
A soldier beset by a drone would point their rifle at the target, turn on the system, and let the actuators solidify their aim before pulling the trigger.
There’s a machine perception, computer vision component. Lidar and EO sensors are used to detect drones, classify them, and determine what they’re doing.
ZeroMark makes a tantalizing pitch—one so attractive that venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz invested $7M in the project.
Our Take: These types of common sense and lower cost solutions excite us and demonstrate why we need many different vendors in this space bringing those novel ideas and innovative approaches.
Pentagon Pauses Development of Its Go-To Data Analytics Tool
New data chief orders infrastructure improvements to Advana platform, which tracks Ukraine aid and many other things.
The Pentagon is pausing development of Advana—its default data-analytics platform—so it can be upgraded to handle increased demand.
CDAO directed developers of the Advana platform to “pause much of the active work and additional features” until “infrastructure” changes are complete.
Department's demand for enterprise data and analytics services have outgrown the original architecture of the Advana platform.
CDAO directed the team to focus on upgrading the technical framework of Advana to better meet the requirements of our customers and the whole Department and develop a sustainable enterprise solution for the future.
The Advana platform is the single enterprise authoritative data management and analytics platform for the SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, and PSAs, with inputs from all DoD Components.
The use of other data management and analytics platforms must be approved by the DoD CDO and appropriate Component CDO to ensure adherence to an open data standard architecture.
Study Finds 268% Higher Failure Rates for Agile Software Projects
Research commissioned by consultancy Engprax feeds into the suspicion that the Agile Manifesto might not be all it's cracked up to be.
The study's fieldwork was conducted between May 3 - 7 with 600 software engineers (250 in the UK and 350 in the US).
One standout statistic was that projects with clear requirements documented before development started were 97% more likely to succeed.
Putting a specification in place before development begins can result in a 50% increase in success, and making sure the requirements are accurate to the real-world problem can lead to a 57% increase.
Many sins of today's tech world tend to be attributed to the Agile Manifesto: A never-ending stream of patches indicates that quality might not be what it once was, and code turning up in an unfinished or ill-considered state have all been attributed to Agile practices.
Most Interesting Points
While the Agile Manifesto might have its problems, those stem more from its implementation rather than the principles themselves. "We don't need a test team because we're Agile" is a cost-saving abdication of responsibility.
Projects where engineers felt they had the freedom to discuss and address problems were 87% more likely to succeed.
In highlighting the need to understand the requirements before development begins, the research charts a path between Agile purists and Waterfall advocates
“Our research has shown that what matters when it comes to delivering high-quality software on time and within budget is a robust requirements engineering process and having the psychological safety to discuss and solve problems when they emerge, whilst taking steps to prevent developer burnout."
Our Take: While we remain big fans of Agile because we have seen firsthand what waterfall techniques have resulted in for DoD, we also try to be open-minded and not dogmatic that we can’t keep improving. The “speed with rigor” mentality is what we have always advocated for during our time in DoD. The points raised in this article are important. You need the architectural backbone to build your software and a specification can help lay out some of those details. You need open communication to identify and fix issues early (especially with users but also across product teams). Understanding the requirements can be a well-informed backlog that factors in both user needs and technical coherence. Agile does not mean stop planning - it means rigorously planning in shorter timeframes.
It’s Not Replicator, CCA, or Weapon, yet. What Is the Enterprise Test Vehicle?
The Enterprise Test Vehicle program the Air Force and DIU are working will explore high-rate-of-production technologies and platforms for testing other systems.
It is not a part of similar Pentagon programs like Replicator or Collaborative Combat Aircraft, and it is not meant to produce prototypes for weapons.
A breakthrough success in lowering cost and speed of production could pave the way for a weapons program.
Four ETV competitors were announced: Anduril Industries; Integrated Solutions for Systems, Inc.; Leidos Dynetics; and Zone 5 Technologies.
The goal of the ETV is to produce inexpensive, rapidly-producible air vehicles that can serve as test platforms for modular gear that could be used on weapons or platforms.
Part of the program is to achieve high-speed production by avoiding the use of hard-to-get materials or components requiring long lead time.
Using COTS components is a priority.
“The Enterprise Test Vehicle (ETV) will serve as a research and development platform for the USAF to explore open system architecture and modularity concepts.”
Our Take: This is an important program since the active munition programs are not able to produce in the quantities needed for a high-end fight (multi-year contracts and increased funding is insufficient especially in the near-term). ETV will hopefully demonstrate that there are lower cost, commercially derived solutions that can scale much easier and provide significant effects.
SOFWERX to Help Special Operations Forces Tackle Contested Logistics Challenges
The innovation foundry event will bring together officials, technology developers and other subject matter experts to brainstorm high-tech capabilities and their potential applications.
SOFWERX — a hub focused on solving SOCOM’s toughest problems — is gearing up for a confab to address a major impediment that commandos are expected to face in future wars: contested logistics.
The gathering, which will be the next round in SOFWERX’s innovation foundry series, is being organized as DoD worries that supply lines could be interrupted by advanced adversaries armed with precision guided munitions and other weapons capable of taking out ships, aircraft and other logistics platforms.
Experts in AI, ML, autonomous systems, robotics, additive manufacturing, and large-scale, multi-material and smart 3D printing, among other categories, can apply to attend the three-day event.
Submissions are due Jul 5 to get an invite.
“The future of warfare demands innovation in supply and sustainment capability to keep pace with large-scale, multidomain combat against peer adversaries. The intensity of future conflicts may lead to rapid depletion of stockpiles and resources, and deployments to remote locations far from established supply hubs will necessitate unconventional solutions for resupply, local procurement, and point-of-need production. This presents new challenges and opportunities for SOF in addressing strategic-to-tactical distribution and supply gaps for the untethered operator.”
Is The Government Losing $500M a Year in Cloud Savings?
A quirk in government fiscal law may be costing the government as much as $500M a year in savings for cloud computing.
Cloud service providers typically offer significant discounts for contractual commitments of three years or more because it locks in revenue, and it assists in their need to forecast and provision capacity in their data centers.
The discounts are significant. It has been estimated that a typical three-year contract saves users at least 25% over a single-year contract.
A recent analysis by Deltek indicated that the government spent about $2B on infrastructure as a service in FY22.
An additional 25% discount applied to this estimated IaaS spend would total $500M in savings or cost avoidance for the government.
However, the Anti-Deficiency Act mandates that the government cannot pre-commit to out-year expenditures prior to Congress allocating funds.
In most cases, with some exceptions, this means that government buyers of cloud can only commit annually to procuring cloud services, one year at a time.
While the government usually negotiates 3 years of service (1 base year with 2 options), the market dominant CSPs do not consider them to be the equivalent of three-year commercial contracts.
As a result, cloud providers provide the government with single year pricing.
In reality, option years are generally only optional on paper and the risk of mid-term cancellation is almost non-existent.
Commercial cloud companies should treat multiyear government contracts with option years as firm commitments for the entire duration of the term and discount accordingly.
How to Build an Effective Information Network in the Indo-Pacific
In an era defined by complex geopolitical dynamics and emerging security threats, the Indo-Pacific region stands as a pivotal theater where strategic alliances and partnerships are crucial for maintaining stability and safeguarding common interests.
Despite advancements in strengthening senior relationships, a significant gap remains apparent—a deficient information sharing network that fails to adequately reflect the depth and scope of our evolving partnerships.
While the U.S.-Japan-South Korea have a trilateral sharing agreement, exchange between Tokyo and Seoul remains in its early stages and largely centered on threats by North Korea, less so on other security and economic threats.
Efforts to establish information sharing among the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India are still ongoing, with discussions centered on how to cooperate on cybersecurity.
We are still a long way off in establishing a secure network that connects these separate channels together, allowing concurrent secure communications under one system that incorporates databases and exchanges via email, text, or video.
Having a joint capability to track maritime, ground, and air activities or any other coercive activities in the Indo-Pacific would be immensely useful.
It is even more important for the U.S. and its partners to identify and mitigate economic security risks, critical technology concerns, and supply chain vulnerabilities and to collaborate effectively against these risks.
To be effective, we need to create a secure, zero-based trust network that would allow the transfer of sensitive information, enhance situational awareness, and fortify joint operations and operating pictures.
Much of this could be built on the zero-trust architecture that DoD directed to be built by 2027 to enable secure data-sharing.
Last year, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) accelerated efforts to construct such a network called the INDOPACOM Mission Network (IMN), which has its pedigree to the DoD’s larger Mission Partner Environment (MPE).
This would allow the command to rapidly share information as well as operate a common operating picture with allies and partners, representing a critical step towards overcoming these challenges.
Three things are needed to make this a reality: (1) baseline security standards and protocols; (2) country-unique secure infrastructure and common operating picture; and (3) adequate funding and support for IMN.
Our Take: This problem has been going on for too long and it will impact the ability to conduct seamless operations in a highly chaotic environment - let’s solve this once for and for all.
EpiSci Selected for DARPA AI Reinforcements Program
EpiSci, with teammate PhysicsAI has been awarded an 18-month $6M contract by DARPA to develop trusted Tactical AI algorithms for missionized, team-based air combat under the Artificial Intelligence Reinforcements (AIR) program.
Leveraging the company’s innovative TacticalAI technologies and its recent work in DARPA's AlphaDogfight Trials and Air Combat Evolution (ACE) programs, EpiSci will design highly capable multi-agent solutions.
This will provide “dominant tactical autonomy for multi-ship, beyond visual range air combat missions.”
Autonomy solutions will initially be developed and demonstrated on human-on-the-loop F-16 testbeds and then transferred to an uncrewed combat aerial vehicle.
The Quest for a New Offensive Doctrine
For a long time, military theorists and senior military leaders believed an attacking force would be successful regardless of the regime established by a defending force.
After two years of fighting between Ukraine and Russia, and some early successes in offensive operations, adaptations on both sides have led to an increasingly difficult environment for the conduct of offensive operations.
As the Ukrainian counteroffensive last year, and the lack of significant progress in Russia’s 2024 offensives against a much weaker Ukrainian force demonstrate, the defense is now the stronger form of war – at least in Ukraine.
The problem is that wars are not won by staying on the defensive.
Even coming to the aid of an ally or security partner such as Taiwan may require some form of strategic or operational offensive.
It is a critical skill set in the armor of any modern military, notwithstanding the current dominance of the defense.
The military environment is being increasingly impacted by several new technologies and processes - with the transformative trinity including:
The autonomy - counter autonomy system, which includes autonomous and semi-autonomous systems in the air, ground and maritime environments and the developing counter autonomy systems.
The meshing of civil and military sensors and analysis capacity that is transforming the level of situational awareness available to all levels of military command and streamlining kill webs/meshes.
The democratizing of battlefield digital C2 systems, which is seeing digital C2 becoming available to nearly all combatants and support personnel.
Principles for a new offensive doctrine
Command and Control. Span of control, unity of command, mission focus, mission command, alignment of political goals with military missions, and cross-domain integration will be part of any new offensive doctrine.
Surprise. This is one of the most basic aspects of an offensive doctrine. Surprise is a sure way to be able to generate shock in an enemy system, degrade their response times and corrode their ability to fight cohesively.
Deception. Closely linked to surprise is the central concept of deception. This both a science and an art. It is focused on leading an enemy commander or commanders to believe something they are already inclined to believe in order to deceive them about our tactical, operational or strategic intentions.
Human – machine balancing. New offensive doctrine will need to achieve a balance of new and old technologies. This includes force structures that balance the smaller numbers of expensive, exquisite capabilities with large numbers of cheaper, attritable systems.
Kinetic – non-kinetic balancing. Equipment and close combat still matter, but so do newer methods of degrading the cognitive ability of enemy commanders at all levels, as well as corroding the morale and cohesion of enemy forces. EW, cyber and cognitive warfare must be balanced with fires of all types.
Integration. There is unlikely to be a solution that can be provided by a single service. Any future concept of the offensive will undoubtedly require the integration of effects from across all domains.
Sustainability. While this is partially about logistics, which must be capable of moving faster in the tactical environment, and lower signatures in the tactical and operational environments, sustainability is also about the strategic and national capacity to provide the resources for offensive operations.
People quality. Finally, regardless of how much technology might be absorbed into military organizations, how much intellectual development takes place, or how many new organizations are established, quality people will be the foundation of any new offensive doctrine in the 21st century. Training and education regimes will need to evolve, as will military leadership development models.
Our Take: This is excellent food for thought as we consider the types of scenarios that could play out in the Indo-Pacific and the different operational approaches that may be needed. Current conflicts continue to inform us of how combat in the 21st century might require new skills to be victorious.
Army
Army Debates Path to Buy Long-Range Precision Munitions
The Army spent roughly five years assessing what a helicopter-fired, long-range precision munition would look like but during that time other options have emerged that could achieve greater commonality with weapons that can be launched from a greater number of platforms, according to the service’s lead for force development.
The Army has procured an interim system for its Long-Range Precision Munition (LRPM) program — Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ Spike non-line-of-site missile.
The Army is fielding it on a portion of its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.
It is possible that LPRM becomes an element of the Launched Effects-Medium Range program where a common capability at that range in that form factor could be air-delivered or ground-delivered from a platform.
The Army is prioritizing the development and acquisition of launched effects that are capable of flying at different ranges and deploying from a variety of air and ground vehicles.
The service also released a request for proposals in March for a short-range launched effect. A prototyping process for that effort will begin in early FY25.
A long-range version is considered more of a corps-level asset, and prototyping will begin to develop the capability at the tail end of FY25.
Our Take: We love to see the Army focus on commonality to launch across platforms given the ability to maintain competition and continually deliver better systems at lower cost. Prototyping and experimenting with mature solutions are sound acquisition strategies and inclusion of Allies only adds benefits. In this case, it enabled rapid delivery of a partial solution while companies worked on the next iteration. This is where Middle Tier of Acquisition and Other Transaction Authority are valuable tools to leverage in this environment.
Air Launched Effects (ALE) are a Family of Systems (FoS) consisting of an air vehicle, payload(s), mission system applications, and associated support equipment designed to autonomously or semi-autonomously deliver effects as a single agent or as a member of a team. In FY20, Raytheon, Leonardo Electronics US Inc., Technology Service Corporation, and Alliant Techsystems Operations LLC received contracts to develop ALE payloads. Of interest, the Altius 700 was successfully launched from a Black Hawk helicopter.
Across the Army, Units Lean into Drone Experimentation
A growing number of Army units, and particularly their junior officers and enlisted soldiers, are engaged in wide-ranging experiments to learn to train for, field, and operate their new unmanned systems.
Gainey Company is an experimental unit that serves as a hub for trying new technologies and tactics in the 82nd Airborne Division.
They have seen first-person-view, or FPV, drones prove particularly useful, in part because their low cost means they’re easier to experiment with. The unit builds its own FPVs from scratch by assembling components from approved suppliers.
By contrast, experimenting with the costly commercially available drones from the military’s pre-approved Blue List can create “heartache” for soldiers given they cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.
In addition to technical experimentation—from drones to ground robots—the unit has grappled with the training and organization of drone operators.
The unit now staffs itself with permanently assigned drone operators with a high level of skill, including drone master trainers and even a former drone surveyor.
Some units are already informally experimenting with grouping drone operators together with one idea being to form Multi-Functional Reconnaissance Company that will employ electronic warfare and small drone operators to identify enemy units and then target them with indirect fire.
Amid the service’s growing focus on drones, the Army should consider seeking out talented drone operators across its force.
Our Take: This is why we have been such vocal proponents of fielding more unmanned tech faster. We just won’t be able to learn all the ways to employ it until you get it in the hands of experienced operators like those from the 82nd and 101st.
Robotic Vehicles to Fight with Enemy Forces in Army Training Event
The Army’s Robotic Combat Vehicles will fight with the opposing force in an upcoming training rotation.
While the Army has experimented with RCV surrogates and prototypes in recent years, including a major event that evaluated how humans and machines will fight together on a future battlefield, the opportunity to evaluate how the service will fight an opposing force with similar robotic capability has been limited until now.
A unit out of Fort Stewart in Georgia will go up against an RCV platoon.
The next unit out of Fort Riley in Kansas will take the same RCV platoon and attach it to blue force.
This summer, the Army will receive two prototypes each from four teams competing to build the Army’s Robotic Combat Vehicle platform.
The service will then kick off a competition and “pick the best of breed.”
The prototypes will undergo automotive testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, beginning in August.
The government can choose one or more of those prototypes to go forward into phase two of the program of record effort.
The Army selected last year McQ, Textron Systems, General Dynamics Land Systems and Oshkosh Defense to build the light RCV prototypes.
America’s War Machine Can’t Make Basic Artillery Fast Enough
Since the Cold War ended in the 1990s, the Pentagon has divested or neglected facilities once used to make everything from shells to explosive powder and focused instead on transforming warfare with high-tech weaponry.
What’s left is crumbling infrastructure, outdated machinery and a tiny workforce that can’t keep up with growing international demand.
Before Ukraine was invaded, US production averaged 14,400 shells a month.
The US is now spending more than $5B to overhaul aging factories from Scranton, PA, to rural Louisiana to southwest Virginia, with the goal of cranking out 100,000 155mm shells every month by the end of next year.
It is a mobilization that in its speed and breadth is unlike anything since WWII.
The US once made 155mm shells in vast quantities entering the Korean War with more than 6 million rounds on hand.
In 1980, defense planners said government plants could make as many as 84,000 shells a month—and ramp up to 438,000 a month if a war broke out.
In recent months, US supplies of 155mm shells have been drained by shipments to Ukraine and Washington’s support of Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip.
Black powder, the critical propellant for the shells, is also in short supply because the US produces little of it compared with the past.
TNT, another basic component of ammunition, hasn’t been made in the U.S. since the 1980s—forcing the Pentagon to buy it from countries like Poland and Turkey.
Higher-tech shells that were intended to replace the traditional 155mm munitions failed an early test in Ukraine, when their targeting systems were thwarted by Russia.
The Army is now playing a costly game of catchup. Congress has allocated $650M for a TNT production facility that will take two years to build.
The US must bring old buildings up to snuff, build new ones, buy updated machinery and hire and train workers.
Environmental regulations stand in the way and plants will need to be run safely given munitions-making is prone to fires, explosions and other accidents.
To keep its mobilization efforts on track, the Army’s goal is to produce 68,000 projectiles a month by the start of 2025. By May, output had reached 36,000 shells.
Navy
How Portfolio Management is Helping the Navy Divest Old Tech, Invest in New
The Navy is upping its game in experimenting with new tech, largely because of a portfolio management approach that helps put older systems out to pasture.
The Navy has a big appetite for modern technology, but also a lot of technology debt. One answer to that problem: a move to portfolio management.
Officials think by focusing their acquisition management energy on portfolios, not individual products, they can embrace commercial tech more quickly while also saying goodbye to expensive legacy systems.
The new approach is well underway within the Navy’s PEO Digital, one of the Navy Department’s main organizations for buying and building enterprise IT capabilities.
Rather than program managers focusing on programs, as they’re defined in the DoD budget, they’re now in charge of portfolios of capabilities.
Starting in 2021, PEO Digital eliminated its traditional program management offices and reorganized itself into eight portfolios as part of a broader initiative called modern service delivery.
If we’re going to talk to the budget folks or the congressional staffers on the hill, we can say we’ve got four major portfolio areas: digital workplace, cybersecurity, IT platforms and IT infrastructure. They consistently talk about capabilities.
One way PEO Digital is filtering commercial technologies is through something called the Technology Business Management (TBM) framework.
A second big change is to start thinking about tech in terms of four “horizons.”
Horizon 3 is made up of commercial tech that the Navy is only starting to experiment with, through programs like SBIR.
Horizon 2 is when the Navy has started to put more serious money into scaling a tech into pilot programs with a clear place in one of its portfolios.
Horizon 1 is made up of products that are in full production mode with a focus on continuous upgrades
Horizon 0 covers systems the Navy is ready to decommission.
A third new framework the Navy is using is called “World-Class Alignment Metrics (WAMs).” That’s how the Navy decides which IT solutions might make sense as a candidate in one of its Horizon 3 entry points.
There are very clear signs that the portfolio approach is letting the Navy examine and adopt more new technologies. One data point: The Navy has made 10 times more SBIR awards over the past 14 months than it had in the prior decade.
“Horizons is an agile framework that came from top consulting firms, and it says three to two to one to zero is the only way you divest. We have a parking lot full of cars, we keep having cars pulling in on top of other cars, and we can’t even get cars out effectively right now. New private sector organizations have no tech debt, and that’s why they’re so agile; the longer you’re around, the better you have to be at divestment. This is why we have horizons: You need to do trade offs.” Justin Fanelli, Navy Acting CTO
“Portfolios, to me, are a way to take the burden off from a traditional program and project management view. We want those to be cohesive portfolios and products, aligned towards an integrated mission outcome view. Sometimes we’re asked to provide all of the features, and we then discover that the whole is less than the sum of the parts. The portfolio view allows us to break that paradigm, and lets us shed some of that daily toil of project and program management that seems to actually impede our ability to deliver the outcomes.” Louis Koplin, Acting PEO Digital
Our Take: We’re huge fans of PEO Digital’s leadership in portfolio management and Justin Fanelli’s leaders in technology innovation including shaping the culture. We were proud to repeatedly cite PEO Digital as best practice vignettes in the Atlantic Council Commission on Defense Innovation Adoption report. BZ team!!
Navy Investment in BlueForge Alliance up to $500M and Growing
The Navy to date has invested $500M into working with the Texas-based non-profit BlueForge Alliance to strengthen the submarine industrial base — and that investment will likely continue to rise.
The non-profit organization, born in November 2022 from two engineers formerly working at Texas A&M University, has rapidly made a name for itself in recent months as its worked with the US Navy and General Dynamics Electric Boat to help the service strengthen the submarine industrial base.
That work has manifested as the website BuildSubmarines.com, which aims to convey the need the Navy has — 100,000 new workers over 10 years — for more people to enter the workforce.
BlueForge has run billboards and advertisements at high profile events, including the first day of the Major League Baseball season, NASCAR races, and the Oscars.
BlueForge’s work has expanded to leading an additive manufacturing consortium across several universities as well as working with certain original equipment manufacturers and additive manufacturing companies.
Navy Conducts Unplanned Exercises with Taiwan in the West Pacific
Amid heightened tensions between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China, ahead of the inauguration of president-elect Lai Ching-te in Taiwan, the U.S. and Taiwan conducted unannounced and ‘unplanned’ exercises in the West Pacific.
The exercise featured half a dozen ships ranging from supply vessels to frigates.
Activities ranged from basic communications and resupply operations to joint anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations.
The drills were conducted in accordance with the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) used to manage interactions between different militaries at sea.
These high profile exercises conducted across the West Pacific set the stage for RIMPAC 24 planned for June 28 to August 2.
It will include 29 nations, 40 surface ships, 3 submarines, 14 national land forces, 150+ aircraft and more than 25,000 personnel.
“Although the ‘unplanned encounters’ of the two navies involved mostly basic exercises, such drills are vital to ensure the two militaries can operate together in times of emergency. The two navies also practiced various tactical maneuvers, including searching for underwater targets.”
Congress Is Right to Focus on America’s Maritime Strategy
A newly released Congressional report, entitled “Congressional Guidance for a National Maritime Strategy: Reversing the Decline of America’s Maritime Power,” confirms the unfortunate trend that the U.S. faces major maritime challenges today that must be reversed.
China now not only has a navy that is larger than our own, but they have become the world’s largest shipbuilding and shipping player on the planet.
The communist Chinese regime has 230 times more shipbuilding capacity than us.
If the totalitarian Chinese regime has a stranglehold on international shipping, they will use it to disadvantage their adversaries.
If their navy continues to grow beyond that of the U.S., we should not be surprised to see more provocations.
We must find innovative ways to grow our shipbuilding capacity and develop advanced technologies to make our maritime industry the envy of the world so that it attracts the attention and interest of our economic allies.
Congress should establish tax incentives for the government and American companies to ship their goods on U.S. flagged ships and to grow the U.S. flagged international fleet’s size and shipping capacity.
They should also create a National Maritime Council that monitors and reports on laws, regulations, and other issues that hamstring our maritime industry.
The U.S. Coast Guard and Navy need to be properly funded.
Private industry and innovation will be key to a resurgence of our maritime industry, but our elected officials ought to be willing to make sure that our regulatory and tax policies unleash American investment and innovation.
Anduril Wins Solid Rocket Motor Test, Development Contract for Navy’s SM-6
Anduril Industries announced today it received a $19M contract to “design, build and test second stage rocket motors” for use in the Navy’s Standard Missile-6.
The contract is Anduril’s first with the Pentagon for rocket motors and gives the company a foot in the door with one of the Navy’s favored interceptors used to counter air, surface and hypersonic missile threats.
Palmer Luckey, Anduril’s founder, said his company is “going after everything that’s on DoD’s list…all the way from Javelin-class all the way up to intermediate range missiles.”
His remarks came just weeks after his company announced the acquisition of Adranos, a manufacturer of solid rocket motors.
Anduril announced it was investing $75M in its solid rocket motor production facility in McHenry, MS.
The new development and testing for the SM-6 motors will occur both at Anduril’s office in Huntsville, AL, as well as the facilities in McHenry.
“As threats from near-peer and non-state adversaries become increasingly advanced and widespread, it is imperative that we expand the supply base for solid rocket motors to meet and deter the threat.” Neil Thurgood, a senior vice president at Anduril
Analysts Warn House’s 100% Ship Design Policy Goes a Step Too Far
When the HASC released its markup of the annual defense policy bill, it included a surprising provision: one dictating the Navy should complete a ship’s design “100%” before starting lead ship construction.
The rule seemingly has the potential to delay the already infamously long shipbuilding process, or lead to ships launching into the water with obsolescent technology.
Marine engineers, former Navy officials and defense analysts expressed skepticism about the value of trying to govern the Pentagon’s shipbuilding process with such a blanket policy.
Multiple other sources questioned whether the mandate would block the service from ensuring that new warships — which are usually conceived of years before steel touches water — incorporate state-of-the-art technologies.
Rep. Joe Courtney, the key lawmaker that spearheaded the provision noted that there is little ambiguity about what 100% means.
Courtney said the requirement is not meant to lock down every “nut and screw,” and that changes for upgrades and modifications should be permissible for follow-on ships.
It was clarified that the law applies only to the “basic and functional design” of the lead ship, which is defined as setting the major hull structure, establishing the hydrodynamics and routing “major portions of all distributive systems of the vessel.”
University of Michigan professors note that “to have the design fully complete to every last detail is unrealistic.”
“What does 100% mean? How are they going to define that? How are they going to measure that? And I think that in and of itself would be very problematic.” Lorin Selby, a retired Navy rear admiral and previous Navy chief engineer.
Our Take: NDAA provisions that get too deep into acquisition, contracting and engineering strategies…and that mandate one approach over another usually have unintended consequences. We trust ADM Selby when he says this isn’t a good idea and think the authorization committees should approach this from a different angle. Namely, ensuring that the Navy stops overengineering its vessels and saddling them with laundry lists of requirements that attempt to turn a frigate into a destroyer-lite.
Charting a New Course: The Untapped Potential of American Shipyards
Amid escalating demand, aging infrastructure, and a strained talent supply, the American shipbuilding, sustainment, and repair industries can accelerate growth by activating latent domestic capacity.
The Navy has increased its shipbuilding budget by 12.5% per year from FY20 to FY24, and its most recent 30-year plan calls for the construction of 290 to 340 new ships by 2053.
Beyond this domestic demand, there is additional demand to meet the anticipated needs of the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership among the Australian, US, and UK defense agencies.
US shipbuilding output has decreased by more than 85% since the 1950s, while the number of American shipyards capable of building large vessels has fallen by more than 80%.
China, Japan, and South Korea now combine for more than 90% of global commercial shipbuilding.
Shipyards, once the backbone of flourishing communities, now face myriad challenges—from talent gaps to outdated operating models—that threaten their ability to grow and thrive.
Despite the obstacles, there is reason for optimism: the industry does not have to start from scratch.
The U.S. has substantial latent shipbuilding, sustainment, and repair capacity, including aging but not obsolete capital assets, a strong base of potential skilled-trade labor, and a middle-management and engineering talent base that has become geographically separated from shipyards.
Rapidly increasing output requires tapping into this latent capacity quickly and confidently.
To do so, shipbuilders and suppliers can prioritize five focused interventions:
Rebuild the workforce from the frontline through middle management to the next generation of leaders.
Jobs in adjacent areas of manufacturing relevant to modern shipbuilding—including electrical equipment, appliances, and components—are projected to grow rapidly.
Reenergize the existing shipyard footprint to bolster near-term capacity
Despite their age, domestic shipyards still have a great deal of life: the existence of robust ecosystems for sustainment and repair have allowed them to remain functional and relevant, though often in need of targeted operational and productivity improvements.
Modernize digital systems and tools, focusing first on low-hanging, high-ROI opportunities.
To accelerate digital maturity and maximize near-term benefit, shipyards can take four immediate and accessible steps that close information gaps, create digital transparency, and enable the benefits of cutting-edge technology.
Align the organization and culture around performance to create transparency and promote accountability.
Shipbuilders are plagued by legacy norms around slow and siloed decision making, with a 30% gap in perceived speed of decision making compared with other sectors.
Shipbuilders can break free of these counterproductive ways of working and inject speed into their operations by ensuring that the organizational structure is clearly set up around sources of value and by resetting the culture to focus on value, accountability, safety, and speed.
Engage in strategic economic development to support long-term sustainability of the industry, the workforce, and the business.
Strategic investments in centers of excellence, which themselves are strategically located near shipyard communities, can foster the development of skilled trades, engineering, and management talent.
Our Take: This is an excellent report worth reading in full. It provides detailed actions that we can undertake today to get these old shipyards that are not being used to their max extent running at max capacity to rebuild our naval fleet and possibly to being competing with other maritime builders on the commercial side.
Air Force
Air National Guard gets service’s first combat-ready F-15EX
The Air Force received its first combat-ready F-15EX Eagle II fighter June 5th.
It is the first of 18 F-15EXs to be completed at the St. Louis factory that will be assigned to the Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing in Portland, and the first of nearly 100 operational F-15EXs expected to be delivered to the Air Force overall.
It is unusual for the Air National Guard to receive a new weapon system before active duty units. But the skill of the 142nd’s pilots, maintainers, fuelers and logisticians made the wing the ideal to be the first to fly operational Eagle IIs.
Boeing had previously delivered six test F-15EXs starting in 2021.
The Air Force is now planning to buy 98 F-15EXs, an updated version of the fourth-generation F-15 with advanced avionics such as fly-by-wire controls and improved electronic warfare capabilities.
The F-15EX will replace some F-15C and D-model jets as the Air Force retires the older fighters. But the Air Force’s proposed FY25 Budget would only buy 18 F-15EXs, six fewer than originally expected, and would halt further purchases in subsequent years.
The House’s proposed 2025 [NDAA] would reverse the decision to cap the F-15EX line. Instead, it would add $271M to buy 24 more F-15EXs in 2026 and keep the production line going.
Our Take: Very happy to see new programs delivered to operational commands as that’s the primary measure of the acquisition system. The F-15EX leverages the Middle Tier of Acquisition pathway to accelerate timelines to deliver fighters.
Air Force Chief of Staff Won’t Commit to Fielding NGAD
In what would be a stark reversal for a high-profile program, Gen. David Allvin appeared to include the NGAD fighter among "choices" the service is still making amid budget constraints.
Gen David Allvin said they need to make choices across the landscape to include fielding NGAD as planned or change into something that turns over every couple of years as they work the FY26 POM budget.
The NGAD fighter is one of the Air Force’s most high-profile programs, a next-gen fighter that Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall last year called a “vital element” of the “family of systems” the service envisioned dominating rival militaries.
The Air Force in May 2023 announced its intent to award the NGAD contract this calendar year, stating that a sole vendor would be selected to begin work at the engineering and manufacturing development phase. The competition is believed to be down to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
In the time since, lawmakers have passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which capped total defense spending in FY24 and FY25, and the costs for the service’s new Sentinel ICBM have soared. Other key priorities like the B-21 Raider are also crowding out the service’s budget as lower, but still stubborn, inflation persists.
Kendall said the service planned a “nominal” initial buy of up to 200 NGAD fighters, as well as 1,000 CCA. The pricetag of the NGAD jet itself is not clear, though Kendall has said it will be expensive, likely amounting to multiples of an F-35.
Space Force
SDA Calls on Satellite Builders to Diversify Suppliers
SDA is pushing prime contractors to line up secondary and tertiary suppliers for key satellite components amid fears of supply chain shortfalls that could delay the agency’s ambitious schedule for deploying a new proliferated architecture in LEO.
Col. Alexander Rasmussen, chief of SDA’s Tracking Layer program, said the agency is in discussions with all its major vendors about “diversifying the supplier base” as much as possible after issues emerged with contractors being overly reliant on single sources for critical subsystems.
SDA has plans to spend about $4B a year on a proliferated constellation of hundreds of small satellites to be deployed on a frequent cadence.
In order to leverage the commercial satellite market, SDA is ordering satellites from multiple vendors and requiring manufacturers to make their spacecraft interoperable via optical links.
He said SDA’s prime contractors understand that they have to have a “different mentality” when it comes to ordering parts and components for satellites.
The industry hasn’t responded to the demand signal for this new volume of satellites quite as well as we had hoped — at least not yet — largely due to some structural issues.
One problem, is that SDA still appears heavily reliant on the traditional major prime contractors rather than tapping more mid-tier companies that could help expand supply chain capacity.
This fuels concern among startups and private investors that all the new demand will simply flow to the incumbent behemoths, distorting the demand signals.
SDA this month announced it’s starting a new prototyping program that signals an effort to widen the agency’s industrial base. The “Hybrid Acquisition for Proliferated LEO” (HALO) program would be an avenue for non-traditional companies to gain experience working on demonstration projects.
“We’re not going to do a milestone and then order some parts and then another milestone. We have to have pretty mature designs at kickoff, and start ordering those long-lead items really early to make sure we understand if there is enough supply chain diversity.” Col. Alexander Rasmussen
Space Force Almanac 2024
Space Force Plans to Boost Competition for Launch Business. Will it Work?
Whenever the U.S. military launched a satellite over the last six years, the rocket carrying that payload bore the logo of SpaceX or the United Launch Alliance — the only companies eligible to fly National Security Space Launch missions.
Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck has watched those launches while smaller and emerging providers like his own company lacked a clear pathway to compete for the missions.
He and other launch executives have encouraged the Space Force to create entry points for firms building new rockets. And now they may have a way forward.
The Space Force announced last year that the next phase of its strategy for procuring launches would set aside missions for new providers.
The strategy for Phase 3 of the Space Force’s National Security Space Launch program, or NSSL, includes two lanes in which companies can compete to launch military satellites.
Lane 1, which will include 30 launches from 2025 - 2034, is for new providers. Missions in this category have less stringent requirements, and companies will have a chance to join annually as they prove their rockets are ready.
The remaining 49 launches will carry heavier Space Force payloads and are reserved for companies able to meet a more stringent set of security and performance requirements. Contracts for Lane 2 are expected this summer.
Most of those missions will go to two firms — likely incumbents SpaceX and ULA — but the service has the option to choose a third provider if a company presents a sound plan to certify its rocket for Lane 2 launches by 2026.
The bigger question, experts said, is how many of these companies can, in the coming years, make a place for themselves within a multibillion-dollar national security launch market dominated by a single player — SpaceX.
The company’s Falcon 9 rocket flew 207 of the 256 domestic launches conducted between 2020 and 2023.
“The on ramps and off ramps — we shouldn’t just cast those aside because there are companies at different stages of development. We’ve tried to account for that in our acquisition strategy so that as they develop, as they mature, there’s pathways into contractual arrangements.” Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, CSO
Our Take: We’ve very happy to see the Space Force’s continued push for commercial acquisition and strategies to fuel competition across all space sectors. Having a lane with less stringent requirements and joining the pool when rockets are ready is fantastic. This runs counter to the traditional well defined program requirements that only the market leading primes dominate and crowd out the competition. However, SpaceX has disrupted the global launch sector with radically new approaches, so they will be the clear leader to compete with.
Related Story: Space Force picks three firms to compete for $5.6B in launch contracts which adds that Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin can compete with ULA and SpaceX for $5.6B in launch missions. It further identifies companies like Firefly Aerospace and Relativity Space to join Rocket Lab to compete for Lane 1 missions.
How the Space Force plans to surge a commercial fleet during wartime
A new program called the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve (CASR) will ensure the Space Force can rely on commercial vendors’ space systems throughout a spectrum of conflict.
“The goal of CASR is to have a contractual framework that provides a level amount of peacetime capabilities in order for us to integrate, operate, and utilize these commercial capabilities and get our operators comfortable with them, but through the contract, we will have surge and scale of those capabilities, pre-priced across the spectrum of conflict.” Col. Richard Kniseley
New program is based on the concept of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Using commercial systems during wartime comes with a host of new considerations for the Pentagon. It remains to be seen how the Pentagon will provide financial compensation if a vendor’s system is damaged or destroyed while being used during conflict.
The Space Force is also figuring out how to incentivize joining the space reserve. In the CRAF model, the pecking order in which contracts are awarded is determined by how many aircraft a company has enrolled in the CRAF program.
The Space Force will unveil an incentive plan to industry at the end of August.
The program needs to finish analysis to see exactly how much commercial capability they will need for each mission area
Why Tight Space Budgets Will Save Us All
Today, our nation’s near-term space future faces seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Russian made nuclear weapons looming on orbit, insufficient budgets in a divided government, monstrous deficits, cost overruns, and an election year posturing instead of governing.
But fear not fellow space veterans and enthusiasts, not only have we survived insufficient funding before – in retrospect, the future has often turned out better because of it.
Ironically, the greatest innovations in air warfare were not conceived and tested during boom times but between the two world wars, when defense budgets were slashed.
The two most important strategic inventions: aerial refueling and strategic bombing, happened during the most restrictive years of the Army Air Corps budget.
Amid sequestration and an underfunded NASA Constellation program space leaders rose to the challenge without accounting gimmicks.
NASA fashioned the Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew programs to replace the current programs of record. Privatizing human space flight saved America’s space program and unleashed it to lead the world for the next decade.
NASA’s solution to partner with private industry to accommodate the draconian cuts spawned whole new commercial industries to include SpaceX.
These dramatic cuts forced us to address the missions that still had to be accomplished, prompting an urgency to quickly innovate new solutions.
From those difficult years, ideas like public-private partnerships, reusable rockets, mesh networking, and even the idea of using commercial manufacturing techniques became real, leaving our industry forever changed for the better.
Constellations of low cost, highly resilient satellites costing less than $10M a piece can replace satellites that cost billions to build and operate.
Many missions can be opened to robust paths of international partnering, commercial augmentation, and privatization, much like NASA has done successfully with Artemis.
Many companies and countries around the world are ready to help, but they should be invited in, not forced to sue their way in, the way SpaceX had to.
These ideas and others will actually save money and expand our space dominance, just as gutsy, innovative leaders were able to do in previous generations.
Our greatest strength in the face of adversity has always been ingenuity, sincere commitment, and grit.
Pentagon Embracing SpaceX’s Starshield for Future Military SATCOM
DoD currently buys Starlink’s commercial internet service but in the future it also plans to acquire more than 100 Starshield satellites that would be government-owned.
In a stark illustration of how rapidly the satellite communications landscape is shifting toward large constellations of smaller satellites in low-Earth orbit, the DoD plans to add more than 100 of SpaceX’s Starshield satellites to its future satcom architecture.
Starshield is a militarized version of SpaceX’s Starlink internet satellites, with enhanced encryption and other security features. And unlike Starlink, which is a commercial service, the Starshield satellites would be owned and controlled by the U.S. government.
Col. Eric Felt, director of space architecture at the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, said the plan is to acquire a constellation of Starshield satellites by 2029, contingent upon receiving the necessary funding appropriations from Congress.
A key advantage of the Starshield architecture is its proliferated nature, with a large number of relatively small satellites able to provide global communications coverage. This design offers significant resiliency compared to the traditional paradigm of a few large geostationary satellites that are expected to be targeted by enemies in a conflict.
“We still have to figure out how we best embrace PLEO. Do we buy it as a service? Do we double down on the Starshield government owned architecture? There’s various different ways that we can embrace proliferated LEO, but it’s absolutely essential that we do.” Col. Eric Felt
Why the Space Force Wants to Flip the Script on Space Domain Awareness
The Space Force wants to “pivot” and change how it does space domain awareness with a new generation of capabilities, and it wants industry to take a leading role in shaping that future.
Gen B. Chance Saltzman, CSO, said “actionable” space domain awareness is essential for his Competitive Endurance theory, which is meant to guide the entire service.
Col. Bryon McClain is leading that push as PEO for SDA and Combat Power.
McClain’s released a RFI from industry about ideas for SDA in GEO orbit.
The Space Force relies on five Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program sats to monitor GEO, along with one Space Based Space Surveillance satellite and the secretive “SILENTBARKER” collaboration with the NRO.
But as the entire service shifts towards smaller, proliferated satellites and dynamic operations, space domain awareness will likely follow suit.
Frank Calvelli emphasized larger numbers of small satellites, delivered quickly and Vice CSO Gen. Michael Guetlein has argued the service should only build new satellites when it cannot use existing systems or buy commercial capabilities.
“Instead of the more traditional system, we just opened up the door and said, Hey, I don’t want to share any requirements documents, because that starts getting into the classified world. But I want to figure out what you think you can do in this area. Huge number of responses.” Col. Bryon McClain
Our Take: Yes, 1000X Yes! In lieu of spending years writing an awful requirements document, communicate to industry your operational needs. Identify what commercial technology is readily available and what capabilities industry could provide. Buy before build is the law!
Related Article: Space Force turning to commercial sats to enhance in-space monitoring
AI Powering Commercial Insights into the Final Frontier
The Space Force, which is responsible for providing space domain awareness data for military operations, is currently refining its plan to leverage commercial innovations.
By continuously analyzing the trajectories and behaviors of satellites, AI can rapidly analyze vast amounts of data from space sensors and help identify anomalies or potential threats. Notably, the capabilities of AI are enabling an array of commercial SDA services.
Companies like ExoAnalytic Solutions, which operates a global network of optical sensors, are offering satellite tracking services to operators in geostationary orbit. For prices between $1,000 and $4,500 per satellite per month, the company informs operators of what they need to know, when they need to know it, so they can ensure their satellites are safe.
Another company in the SDA business, Slingshot Aerospace, recently unveiled an AI tool capable of flagging unusual satellite behavior and identifying needles in haystacks in orbit, such as a potential anti-satellite weapon.
“As highlighted in the U.S. Space Force’s new commercial strategy, the idea is to figure out how to partner with industry. And it requires us in the DoD to look at those marketplaces, look at those market forces. For example, the government needs to have insight into whether a company is truly commercial or expects DoD to be the anchor customer.” Col. Bryon McClain
MDA to Test Satellite Hypersonic Tracking Technology
MDA is preparing to conduct its first test of its two Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor-equipped satellites that it launched into orbit in February.
Given the speed of hypersonic threats, the traditional ground-based ballistic missile tracking systems don’t provide enough warning time.
It'll be the first hypersonic target they've seen and run through the entire fire control kill chain, looking at sensitivity, timeliness and accuracy of those two systems to feed into and be applied against the demonstration objectives.
MDA will conduct a second test of the system later in the year.
MDA’s FY25 budget request of $10.4B was 4.5% less than FY24. The FY25 budget had to balance the sustainment costs of existing systems with the expenses of developing the new systems needed for future threats.
“On the hypersonic side, big challenge is as we're looking up to the sky for a ballistic missile, the hypersonic missile has turned over and come back into the atmosphere, and we see it so late in the fight, going so fast, really, really small shot window. So instead of being down, looking up to find a hypersonic, you really want to be high, looking down to track hypersonic.” Lt. Gen. Heath Collins
Space RCO Slates $1B for Dynamic Space Ops C2
SpRCO has tapped 20 firms to compete for up to $1B in task orders for C2 software to manage future highly maneuverable satellites.
Under the contract, SpRCO's Rapid Resilient Command and Control project, nicknamed R2C2, will buy ground software in "bite-sized pieces" to support new Space Force satellites capable of rapid and sustained maneuver.
The SpRCO IDIQ contract will develop, integrate, and demonstrate capabilities for an end-to-end satellite operations (SatOps) ground system with the capability to fly Dynamic Space Operations (DSO) missions, leveraging a commercial cloud architecture.
The R2C2 project is being managed by SpRCO’s Combined Program Office (CPO), which was stood up to combine “legacy elements” from SpRCO and the Space Force’s primary acquisition unit SSC.
Planet’s First Hyperspectral Satellite is Ready to Launch
Planet’s first hyperspectral satellite is ready for launch to help push the Earth observation operator to profitability by early next year.
Tanager-1 has arrived at California’s Vandenberg Space Force Base ahead of a SpaceX rideshare mission that could take off as soon as July, the operator said June 6 amid earnings results.
Will Marshall, Planet’s co-founder, CEO and chair, told investors the 30-meter resolution satellite will augment its optical constellation by collecting data in more than 400 spectral bands to capture phenomena invisible to the human eye.
Planet, which has outlined plans to build and operate two hyperspectral satellites initially targeting a launch in 2023, is the latest company seeking to forge a commercial market for hyperspectral services that have traditionally focused on the defense market.
International
Readout of Under Secretary of Defense Dr. Bill LaPlante's Visit to Japan
Dr. Bill LaPlante traveled to Tokyo, Japan to launch the Inaugural U.S. — Japan Defense Industrial Cooperation, Acquisition, and Sustainment (DICAS) Forum with his Japanese counterpart, Masaki Fukasawa, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency Commissioner (ATLA).
Both sides agreed to promote greater U.S. — Japan defense industrial cooperation under the DICAS and accelerate coordination towards co-development, co-production, and co-sustainment.
The co-chairs concurred on the following principles to further defense industrial cooperation:
Making projects mutually beneficial to both sides by, including but not limited to, promoting technology transfer.
Each side should remain flexible in the pursuit of actions and policies enabling the advancement of our respective defense industrial bases.
All relevant stakeholders should work together to overcome identified challenges/hurdles.
DOD should work to deepen its understanding of Japanese industrial capabilities.
U.S. Looks to Japan for Help in Boosting Weapons Production
U.S. and Japanese officials have held their first talks under a new framework to deepen defense-industrial collaboration, taking the security relationship to new heights as they partner in repairing U.S. warships and aircraft in Japan and jointly developing and producing advanced weapons.
One key goal of the forum is to figure out how Japanese companies can help expand production of jointly fielded weapons systems that the U.S. can’t make in sufficient numbers.
Japan acquires much of its advanced defense equipment from the U.S., meaning that the allies possess a number of jointly fielded weapon systems.
This provides a logical basis from which to make easy decisions on what to co-produce in the partnership.
“Items that both countries currently do not have in large quantities are the likely low-hanging fruits they could aim for, with things like munitions, such as Patriot interceptors or other types of antiair or anti-ship munitions, being perfect candidates.”
Unpacking China’s Naval Buildup
China’s rapid military buildup has left the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) poised to overtake the U.S. Navy in several measures of maritime might more quickly than sometimes assumed.
If China continues to expand its fleet at the current pace and the U.S. does not revitalize its shipbuilding industry, China will grow increasingly likely to emerge victorious from interstate war, especially a prolonged great power war.
China now possesses the world’s largest maritime fighting force, operating 234 warships to the U.S. Navy’s 219.
One recent study concluded that larger fleets won 25 out of 28 historical wars.
Like those historical combatants, China has the numbers to absorb more losses than the U.S. and keep fighting.
In one recent set of wargames, China lost 52 major surface warships compared to between 7 and 20 U.S. equivalents.
China’s productive advantage is reflected in the relative ages of active Chinese and U.S. ships with about 70% of Chinese warships launched after 2010, while only about 25% of the U.S. Navy’s were.
The U.S. holds an advantage in guided missile cruisers and destroyers.
Destroyers in particular serve as the backbone of any modern fleet due to their multi-mission capabilities, speed, and cruising range.
The U.S.’ 73 destroyers allow it to exert sea control and project power to a greater extent than do the PLAN’s 42 destroyers.
But China is closing the gap, having doubled its destroyer fleet from 20 in 2003 to 42 in 2023.
The U.S. preponderance of cruisers and destroyers may also be a distraction from the Chinese advantage in frigates and corvettes.
These smaller ships played a key role in World War II, in which they served as convoy escorts, fleet protection vessels, and radar picket ships.
In a modern conflict, they might serve similar roles, fight enemy ships in the Indo-Pacific’s littoral waters, or perform other missions that naval strategists have not yet foreseen.
A continued imbalance will result is a China growing more confident projecting power, threatening its less powerful neighbors, and disregarding U.S. efforts to deter such behavior.
The decline of U.S. naval dominance will be difficult to reverse given the process has spanned decades and rests on slow-moving economic and industrial trends.
The U.S. can still maintain superiority by:
Investing in smaller surface combatants like corvettes, frigates, and unmanned naval systems paired with alternative platforms like aircraft or ground-based missile launchers
Deepening its partnerships with Pacific nations like Japan and South Korea; and investing more in its domestic shipbuilding industry—particularly the highly specialized submarine industrial base.
U.S. partners can help overcome China’s numerical advantage.
The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force operates 4 cruisers, 34 destroyers, 10 frigates, and 4 helicopter carriers, two of which will soon be capable of launching and recovering F-35s.
The South Korean navy operates 3 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 16 frigates, and 5 corvettes.
If either navy fights alongside the U.S., the PLAN will lose its numerical advantage but effectively integrating U.S. and partner forces is difficult, and whether these nations will fight alongside the U.S. is beyond the control of U.S. defense planners.
Solving the problem therefore depends both on strengthening U.S. partnerships and building a larger U.S. Navy.
Taiwan Needs Weapons and Training Now, not 2027 or 2030
Matt Quan
Taiwan needs weapons and training now, not in 2027, 2030, or a disingenuous timeline given China has repeatedly stated that it is willing to use force to take Taiwan, and that it will be ready by 2027.
Wars in Ukraine and Israel reveal significant shortfalls in weapons procurement and expenditures, which were already deficient for the deterrence and defense of Taiwan against China.
It is no longer about cost, but time and years of production.
Prior to the now multiple wars, AIM-120, PAC-3, SM-3 and other procurement was for normal training and sustainment, and all come from the same three facilities - not potential wars in the Pacific, on top of Europe and the Middle East.
The U.S. must expand the fleet to at least 13 aircraft carriers and build 13 combat air wings, funding to extend the retirement of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers through 2030.
The U.S. and its allies must expand training and exercises with Taiwan’s entire military. Exercises are the foundation of security cooperation, and are the difference between isolated militaries, and those with experience in operations.
Taiwan needs to join the State Partnership Program, where countries are partnered with states and the National Guard for regular exchanges and relationships.
U.S. needs to supplement Taiwan basic training capacity, by replicating the equivalent of Parris Island producing up to 20,000 Marines annually.
This needs to happen before 2027, not after, as demonstrated by the late training in Ukraine just to meet attrition.
These last policies are the most difficult because unlike procurement, it requires Taiwan to commit to its own defense.
The island is divided, there is a passive fear of antagonizing China, denial that war will not happen, that they are too valuable to the world, or that everyone respects their right to exist.
Growing Defense Sovereignty Efforts Can Help Exports
Defense sovereignty is all the rage with more countries than ever wanting their own industry for reasons of national security or economic development.
In theory, this could be bad for legacy defense exporters and for defense trade. If a country has its own national fighter jet, it’s less likely to buy an imported Lockheed Martin F-35 or Dassault Rafale, right?
It’s more complicated than that. Defense exports are booming relative to defense spending growth and some of this boom in the defense trade, paradoxically, is due to the move toward sovereignty.
Numerous countries also have ambitious plans for their defense industries beyond aircraft.
Most remarkably, Australia has gone from complete apathy about its defense industry to enormous plans for indigenous development, including hypersonic missiles and nuclear submarines under the AUKUS program.
Even Indonesia has defense industry ambitions.
Defense spending has grown at a 3.1% CAGR for the five years ending in 2023. Arms transfers have grown at a 5.7% CAGR. The arms trade is clearly outpacing spending.
Foreign Military Sales notifications—a good indicator of future exports—grew to $80.9B in FY23 from $34.8B in FY21.
Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) authorizations—another leading indicator—have grown to $157.5B in FY23 from $103.4B in FY21.
Strong defense trade growth reflects global demand. But two factors explain this paradoxical combination of trade and national self-sufficiency.
First, more national industries and platforms mean more trade in subsystems. These homegrown platforms need lots of imported systems to make them work, and it will be a long time, if ever, before countries can establish national capabilities for them.
Second, new national industries need mentors, partners and technology transfer. Japan’s role in a transnational program like Tempest means trade. Australia wants a loyal wingman program, which involves working with Boeing on its MQ-28 Ghost Bat program.
Emerging defense players are creating a defense export opportunity boom for legacy producers. But the factors determining success are more complicated.
China’s South Sea Aggression Is Backfiring
China’s aggressive behavior—including chasing away fishing vessels, attacking other ships with water cannons, and virtually smothering other countries’ vessels with a swarm of Chinese coast guard and navy vessels—has been going on for at least a decade,
The problem for Beijing is that its tactics aren’t working.
The Philippines has only become more assertive, especially under Marcos, who reversed early efforts at Philippine appeasement of China by his predecessor.
China’s other targets haven’t backed down, either. Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia are all plunging ahead with ambitious offshore oil and gas projects.
All three countries have intensified maritime security cooperation with the Philippines to manage potential clashes in the region.
“China is stuck doing the same thing over and over every month. All they are really doing is creating this anti-China coalition.” Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
Australia Fast-Tracks its Hunt for Replacement Frigates
Australia has approached several foreign shipbuilders in an urgent quest to procure general-purpose frigates under Project Sea 3000.
The government sent requests for information to German, Japanese, South Korean and Spanish shipbuilders on May 24.
A government review unveiled in February, titled “Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet,” recommended 11 general-purpose frigates replace eight existing Anzac-class frigates.
To speed up the process, the first three would undergo construction overseas and the remainder in Western Australia.
The shipbuilders were reportedly given four weeks to respond to the initial request, plus another three weeks to explain how follow-on frigates can be built in Australia.
The shipbuilders were reportedly given four weeks to respond to the initial request, plus another three weeks to explain how follow-on frigates can be built in Australia.
Northrop Grumman Signs Long-Term Supply Agreement with Chemring Nobel
Northrop Grumman has entered into a long-term sourcing agreement with Chemring Nobel, a Norwegian specialty chemicals company, to secure the supply of high-energy explosive powder known as HMX.
This agreement will support warhead production at Northrop Grumman’s Missile Products manufacturing facility in Rocket Center, West Virginia.
The 15-year agreement ensures a stable supply of HMX amid increasing demand for the critical chemical used in smart tactical missile warheads.
It guarantees lead times, annual quantities, and predictable pricing, which are crucial due to the strict performance, safety, and reliability requirements associated with HMX.
Estonian-Made Combat Robots in Ukraine Now Come with Starlink
Estonian-made THeMIS unmanned ground vehicles operating in Ukraine will feature Starlink satellite connectivity, enabling their operation from thousands of kilometers away.
THeMIS variant devoted to cargo transportation will feature the Starlink hookup, a constellation of internet satellites operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
Milrem has given more than dozen THeMIS vehicles to Ukrainian forces.
“By leveraging satellite connectivity, the THeMIS robotic vehicle, which is currently assisting Ukrainian soldiers in the war with Russia, can seamlessly transmit data, receive commands, and relay vital information in real-time, regardless of its location on the battlefield.”
Congress
With the House FY25 Defense Appropriations bill and the SASC FY25 NDAA, we’ll have those summaries and analysis to you shortly.
Podcasts, Books, and Videos
Offset Symposium 2024
Defense Modernization Caucus Fireside Chat w/Rep. Rob Wittman, Rep. Pat Ryan, and Tyler Sweatt
AUKUS and the Future of Global Defense Collaboration w/Hon Scott Morrison, 30th PM of Australia
Software Agility as a Competitive Advantage w/Corey Jaskloski, Daniel Ridge, TJ Rowe, and Derek Strausbaugh
2030 and Beyond: Building for the Next Ridgeline w/Jonathan Chavkin, Donald Gansberger, Matt Glinski, and David Michelson
Delivering Tech Capability to Warfighters and the Future Global Landscape w/Peter Dixon, Lauren Knausenberger, Schuyler Moore, and Jacqueline Tame
The Role of SIs and Venture in DoD Software Adoption w/Jackie Davalos, Steven Escarvage, Guy Fiippelli, and Alex O’Toole
The Path Forward w/Justin Fanelli, Enrique Oti, Jared Summers, and Katie Sutton
The State of JADC2 w/Mark Kitz and Bryan Clark
AI Use Cases in the DoD w/Tyler Sweatt, Jason Preisser, Alexis Bonnell, and Bonnie Evangelista, Defense Mavericks
How the US Can Win the Cold War Against China in the 21st Century feat. Dmitri Alperovitch, Arsenal of Democracy
Navigating the Misinformation Maze w/Wasim Khaled, Second Front
Defending Against Drones w/COL Scott Wence, Modern War Institute
Venture Meets Mission w/Arun Gupta, Building the Base
Upcoming Events and Webinars
Eurosatory, Jun 17-21, Paris, FR
Federal Acquisition Conference, PSC, Jun 20-24, Arlington, VA
Reindustrialize: Modernize the US Industrial Base, Jun 25-26, Detroit, MI
TechNetCyber, AFCEA, Jun 25-27, Baltimore, MD
Digital Engineering for Defense, DSI, Jun 26-27, National Harbor, MD
DIA TECHINT 2024, AFCEA, Jul 9, Springfield, VA
Capitol Hill Modeling and Simulation Expo, NTSA, Jul 11, Washington DC
GIDE Industry Insights Forum, CDAO, Jul 16, Reston, VA
Aspen Security Forum, Aspen, CO, Jul 16-19
Zero Trust Government, DSI, Jul 17-18, National Harbor, MD
See our Events Page for all the other events over the next year.
Happy Flag Day, 249th Army Birthday, and Father’s Day.
Join the thousands of subscribers to get our weekly recaps and thought pieces. Paid subscribers also get budget and legislative analysis and are valued supporters of our work.
Thanks for including my article!
The interplay between the various items here is interesting. The study of failure rates for agile projects is interesting... the way I read it, it's proof that agile development doesn't work well in a waterfall world, which gets back to my point about how tech is both funded -- If it's funded as a project, you're already in waterfall territory -- and overseen -- if the oversight bodies are all expecting the artifacts of a waterfall project, again, good luck delivering agile artifacts. And it is often sorely misused, as you say, sometimes as an excuse to cut corners, rather than deliver value early so you have more time for testing, not less. There's something in here about giving up on moving to the trappings of agile and getting back to the core principles, figuring out how to apply them appropriately in a defense (and wider govt) context, and shaping the environment around tech development to support the outcomes we want, regardless of what we call it.
Also interesting interplay with the piece on 100% ship design. What does 100% actually mean? All these terms that sound good in a bill will end up being hugely contested in practice.
Nice helpful summary of key articles at the beginning.