Defense Tech and Acquisition News
Significant focus on manufacturing, supply chains and fielding faster.
Welcome to the latest edition of Defense Tech and Acquisition. There was a lot of news in defense and tech this week. Some of the top stories include:
Replicator 2.0 details regarding contract awards and way ahead.
Rethinking reindustrialization and strategies to improve supply chains.
New logical thinking on why acquisition innovation struggles in DoD.
See the full list of OSC-SBIC awards - a lot was accomplished quickly.
AI might be better at war planning but needs good data and gov’t support.
The Army is learning from its first digital design of its combat vehicle.
The Navy is at risk of losing its critical shipbuilding workforce.
Air Force increasingly focused on integration and CCA passes hurdles.
EU focused on building up its Navy with new shipbuilding plans.
Taiwan presents challenges for China and enormous consequences for the U.S.
China unveils new platforms at its air show - maybe concepts or future threats.
Have a great weekend and week ahead - keep pushing the boundaries to deliver fast.
Acquisition and Sustainment: 2024 in Review, and a Look Ahead
Dr. William LaPlante, USD(A&S)
DoD has launched a number of initiatives to deliver with greater speed and scale to the national defense modernization and military logistics enterprise. The efforts were a response to the exigency of multiple armed conflicts and global competition against aggressive and technologically advanced powers led by the PRC.
Joint Production Accelerator Cell (JPAC) continued conducting rigorous, deep-dive analyses to alleviate bottlenecks for critical weapons systems. Those included the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), Tomahawk, Harpoon, and F-16 production.
DoD launched the Regional Sustainment Framework (RSF) to regenerate readiness through deliberate alignment with allies and partners, an initiative developed collaboratively with industry.
DoD’s first-ever National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) was released in January. In FY24 alone, DoD awarded more than $670M in new Defense Production Act grants to expand domestic manufacturing capacity and diversify the supply base.
Competitive Advantage Pathfinders (CAPs), which employ modular open systems approaches and cross-Service integration to streamline development and fielding.
The Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) enacted by Congress can provide an effective “Goldilocks” solution to rapidly prototype emerging technologies or accelerate the fielding of capabilities that are mature enough to move into production.
Creation of the Software Acquisition Pathway was likewise among the biggest transformations to DoD’s acquisition enterprise of recent years.
A significant 2024 milestone was NNSA’s production of the first stockpile-ready plutonium pits—a critical component of our nuclear weapons—last accomplished some 20 years ago.
This year the department released its Resilient Healthy Defense Communities (RHDC) Strategy, emphasizing our continued commitment to improving the installations on which our Warfighters and their families live and work.
“Wars are won and lost in program offices, often years before the shooting starts. As we’ve seen in current events, multiple conflicts afflicting U.S. allies and partners rage unabated while America’s primary strategic competitor continues expanding its defense capacity and capabilities to a level that challenges the unquestioned superiority our forces have enjoyed for more than 30 years.”
DEPSECDEF Announces Additional Replicator All-Domain Attritable Autonomous Capabilities (Replicator)
Kathleen Hicks announced additional capabilities selected for accelerated fielding as part of the Replicator initiative. This second tranche, or Replicator 1.2, will include systems in the air and maritime domains, as well as integrated software enablers that will enhance the autonomy and resilience of other Replicator systems.
More than 500 commercial firms were considered for Replicator opportunities. Contracts have been awarded to more than 30 hardware and software companies, of which 75% are non-traditional defense contractors, in addition to more than 50 subcontractors.
Included in Replicator-1, Tranche 2 (1.2) is the Army's Company-Level Small UAS effort, which has selected the Anduril Industries Ghost-X and the Performance Drone Works C-100 UAS.
The DoD is also scaling loitering munitions through fielding and expanded experimentation of the Anduril Industries Altius-600 as part of the U.S. Marine Corps Organic Precision Fires program. This system complements the Switchblade-600 loitering munition produced by AeroVironment Inc. that was included in the first tranche of Replicator.
Replicator initiative has selected the Air Force's Enterprise Test Vehicle (ETV). Four vendors are currently providing prototypes: Anduril Industries, Integrated Solutions for Systems Inc., Leidos Dynetics, and Zone 5 Technologies.
"The Replicator initiative is demonstrably reducing barriers to innovation, and delivering capabilities to warfighters at a rapid pace. We are creating opportunities for a broad range of traditional and nontraditional defense and technology companies, including system vendors, component manufacturers, and software developers, to deliver critical capabilities that our warfighters need, and we are building the capability to do that again and again." Dr. Kathleen Hicks, DEPSECDEF
"Combining cutting-edge hardware with cutting-edge software — the capabilities and needs of each pushing the bounds of what is possible with the other — is at the heart of the very best of tech in the commercial sector. Replicator is harnessing this same synergy, ensuring we can adopt commercial best practices to iteratively develop, test, and ultimately field autonomous systems at scale." Doug Beck, DIU Director
Related Story: Newest Replicator drones proven on battlefields of Ukraine
CRS: DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress
Strategies to Secure America's Supply Chains
Yann Calvo Lopez and Ben Golub
In their first post, they identify America's supply chains are a disaster waiting to happen. This post discusses solutions.
The Aggregate Advantage: Self-Organizing Robustness
Economies are far more adaptable than individual companies—they have more substitution possibilities.
We should wonder what makes supply networks agile or brittle, and how economic policy can affect which outcome we reach.
The Economic Fabric
Companies live in a business environment which allows their complex supply networks to rewire in response to disruptions—or not.
Institutions and the Wealth of Nations
All the ingredients of the tissue connecting the economy are underpinned by what economists and political scientists have come to call institutions—the rules of the game in a society.
When courts work efficiently, they don't just resolve disputes—they create an environment where businesses can confidently forge partnerships, specialize, and innovate.
What is to Be Done: Takeaways for Businesses
By mapping their supply networks beyond the first few tiers, businesses can see past the mirage in order to understand and address hidden vulnerabilities in their sourcing.
The Data Frontier
One obstacle to rich quantitative analysis of supply chain robustness is that much of the relevant data is text-based—emails and Slack messages complaining about delays, earnings calls estimating the financial stakes of supply chain risks, etc. This has just changed from a curse into a blessing
What Can Governments Do?
Queues of ships at ports have no mechanism for priority service: a ship holding up ten million dollars of delayed production has the same priority as one delivering low-value souvenirs that will sit in a warehouse for months.
Quick mobilization of government resources to directly relieve pressure in a crisis can be a surprisingly wise antidote to the gridlock caused by a complexity trap.
Supply Networks and Geopolitics
The economic damage of war in the Pacific would likely be drastically amplified through damage to the fabric of world commerce. The harm would go beyond what happened after COVID, and would pose corresponding challenges to economic governance—with inflation being a key threat.
Rethinking Reindustrialization for Real National Security
Reindustrialization has enjoyed an almost bipartisan embrace in recent years.
The elephant in the room is China — not only the U.S.’s major strategic rival, but a nation that has achieved enormous socioeconomic and technological leaps through export-oriented manufacturing since 1978, partially backed by the very kind of industrial policy that the U.S. is only now starting to experiment with.
The national security rationale for insulating a limited number of critical supply chains is well-founded.
The compelling argument for limited reindustrialization is national security.
After all, the war in Ukraine has underscored the vulnerability of U.S. defense supply chains, from 155mm artillery ammunition to Javelin anti-tank missiles.
Most of these critical industries are already based in the U.S. or allied countries, and policymakers should continue to ensure their supply chains are beyond the reach of potential adversaries such as Russia or China.
Reindustrialization may make the nation safer, but it is unlikely to make the nation wealthier or to make our economy more efficient.
It is worth reevaluating the manufacturing economy overall, in what is essentially walking backwards. China itself is trying its utmost to escape a manufacturing focus, with Xi Jinping recently emphasizing “high quality development” at China’s critical Two Sessions.
“China-Plus” is an increasingly common phenomenon, where one produces in China and a more geopolitically friendly location, such as Vietnam or Mexico.
Creating redundancies in supply chains can serve the same purpose.
While national security and political appeal are understandable motivations to advocate for reindustrialization, policymakers should not expect reindustrialization to contribute to broad-based economic growth.
Our Take: We believe there are broad-based economic growth opportunities by reindustrialization. America needs to get back to building again. We can harness new technologies like AI along with manufacturing complex and simple systems to transform many industries and generate new ones. Our national security and economic future must reduce dependencies on China. If we were to institute a modern day Freedom’s Forge, we don’t have the manufacturing capacity and broad based knowledge to scale production of thousands of aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles.
Re-industrializing Defense through Smarter Testing
America doesn’t build ships and submarines on time, at a reasonable cost, or in sufficient quantity. These are critical defense systems, and transforming speed and output - while controlling costs - is critical to national security. Where should industry leading technology be inserted to solve this problem?
One area for high impact is component testing across the supply chain.
Critical defense systems must undergo rigorous testing to meet DoD’s high accreditation standards.
Legacy methods have created a situation where components languish in forges, foundries, shipyards, and depots for weeks, months, even years.
These challenges can be addressed to a very significant extent through existing commercial capabilities for strategic automation and digitization.
Similar structural reasons create paralysis at different gates in the supply chain, so solving or ameliorating the issue at one gate provides a replicable and faster-to-deployment model for other gates.
Re-industrialization is not just about simply building more platforms, or adopting new technologies that hitherto were excluded from the defense industrial base.
It should be about holistically revitalizing the processes that we use to build, and unblocking the hurdles that currently constrain them.
How the Pentagon (Quietly) Spent $1B of Inflation Relief Money
When inflation soared in the wake of the pandemic, the defense industry emphatically warned the Pentagon of a problem: Climbing prices had begun pushing key projects across the military well past their planned budgets, raising the risk of those programs coming up short.
As part of the FY23 spending deal, Capitol Hill earmarked ~$1B to offer relief to a range of projects across the Pentagon for revised economic assumptions.
Of the 68 total projects selected for relief,
13 received >$10M
35 received between $1M and $10M
Remaining projects were awarded < $1M.
The top five programs by dollar amounts pulled in three quarters of the $1B pot, infusing cash into large-scale purchases of platforms like ships, fighter jets and helicopters.
The leading recipient of relief was the Navy’s Constellation-class frigates, built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine, at a combined $310M. That included two different pools of money: $223M to cover expenses for ships FFG 62, 63 and 64, as well as a second $87M payment for FFG 65.
Why Acquisition Innovation Struggles: Misunderstanding Decision-Making Styles
I realized how critical it is to understand these styles in acquisition innovation—and how much goes wrong when we don’t. Many innovation teams, led by Relational Innovators (RIs), are filled with big ideas and enthusiasm for change. But when their initiatives hit barriers in implementation, RIs often blame what they call the “frozen middle”—a perceived lack of support from middle management. They view this “frozen middle” as resistant to innovation, when, in reality, this friction often stems from misunderstanding the essential roles of other decision-making styles.
Most middle managers are Logical Processors (LPs) who focus on structure, feasibility, and detail, necessary qualities for turning ideas into actionable plans. Additionally, Hypothetical Analyzers (HAs) in legal and security roles bring caution to ensure innovations align with regulations and minimize risks.
RIs’ tendency for fundamental attribution error can lead them to misinterpret LPs’ and HAs’ need for concrete plans as reluctance to change, rather than a legitimate requirement for details to make innovation viable.
This misunderstanding then gets communicated to Reactive Stimulators (RSs) in leadership and public committees, who are eager to push for fast results.
When innovation stalls, the problem isn’t always a frozen middle resisting change; it’s that big ideas need to be grounded in an understanding of all styles to succeed.
True innovation in acquisition doesn’t happen through forceful ideas alone—it requires valuing the diverse thinking that bridges vision and practicality.
Other Top News
Defense Tech
Full List of OSC-SBA SBIC Funds
Props to Austin Gray for FOIAing the list of funds that received investments from this relatively new funding source.
DARPA’s Freedom's Forge 2.0
The "Freedom's Forge 2.0" effort is focused on transforming manufacturing, maintainability, and testing capabilities.
The strategy aims to both rapidly field new concepts as well as accelerate existing production assets to ensure we can adapt and scale to surge defense production when needed.
New ideas often live at the intersection of different disciplines, and by bringing diverse perspectives the workshop intends to stimulate new insights to solve critical problems.
We are seeking applications from researchers, engineers, and subject matter experts; non-traditional performers including small businesses, academic and research institutions, and first-time government contractors are strongly encouraged to apply.
For more information and the link to our upcoming workshop please visit
The workshop is Jan. 22-24 in Houston, TX.
Tabletop Exercises Are Old School. But Are LLMs Better at War Planning?
How LLMs complement or compete with other quantitative based military planning approaches: Dialogue, Interpretation, Orchestration, and Creation.
AI and more specifically LLMs may hold the potential to radically simplify how we approach the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) and Course of Action (COA) analysis.
Unlike traditional tools like simulation and optimization, which rely on structured inputs and are often challenging to adapt in real-time, LLMs bring something new: the ability to engage conversationally, interpret complex contexts, and navigate the unstructured realities of multi-domain warfare in ways that classic models can’t.
In military planning, tabletop exercises (TTXs), mathematical optimization, and simulations are foundational tools. Each has distinct strengths and a well-established place in COA analysis and the MDMP.
Tabletop Exercises (TTXs): From Simple Rules to Realistic Modeling
Mathematical Optimization: Structured, Efficient Decision Support
Simulation: Bridging Theory and Reality
Where Do LLMs Fit? Dialogue, Interpretation, Orchestration, and Creation
Real-Time Synthesis and Intuitive Interaction
Translating Complex Strategies and Doctrines into Real-Time Insight
Orchestrating Dynamic, Multi-Agent Feedback Loops
Everything Everywhere All at Once: LLMs as Dynamic Model Generators
GAMS Code Example for Military Planning Model Generated by an LLM
Integrating LLMs into COA analysis and MDMP is just beginning, so a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted, but the potential is unmistakable.
Simulation and optimization remain the backbone of military planning, indispensable for structured analysis and deep scenario exploration.
But LLMs add something groundbreaking: they don’t just enhance these existing tools—they fundamentally expand what’s possible, how we engage with them, orchestrate them, and generate new models in real-time to meet immediate, complex needs.
The AI Revolution Must Be Fueled By Good Data
The boom in AI has brought with it many new capabilities, from speeding up time-consuming processes like drug discovery to ushering in the next generation of search engines.
Some companies are already positively taking advantage of this powerful technology, while others are learning that, if left unchecked, AI is capable of delivering unsavory results that can cause harm.
Recent examples include AI telling someone to eat rocks, demonstrating discriminatory behavior, and giving incorrect information to a customer that resulted in legal liability.
Organizing and managing data to ensure its quality is one of the most important things a company can do when using AI.
Good data unlocks insights, saves time, and drives growth. Companies that rely on incomplete or inaccurate data may have AI that creates bad outcomes that range from costly mistakes and legal issues to damage to customer loyalty—or worse.
The average business has hundreds of tools in its tech stack and roughly 185 apps in its workflow. These disparate data sources make it nearly impossible for an organization to have the cohesive, accurate, and up-to-date information necessary to generate a reliable view of their customer.
89% of survey respondents believe personalization is invaluable to their business’ success in the next three years, but 61% of survey respondents are worried about inaccurate data compromising their personalization efforts.
The first step on the journey to good data is to invest in a system, such as a CDP, that can capture and validate customer data from across channels in real time.
By ensuring that data collection, storage, integration, and analysis are streamlined, and that the data is clean and trustworthy, a company can use that high-quality data to feed its AI and transform it into actionable insights, such as real-time product recommendations.
As AI applications continue to advance, smart companies that invest in good data practices and a solid tech stack now, will be equipped to get ahead and be ready for whatever comes next.
Understanding the Military AI Ecosystem of Ukraine
This report focuses on two critical aspects of AI adoption in Ukraine’s military:
The conditions and factors that contributed to military AI development from the beginning of the war with Russia in 2014
The key government institutions and initiatives responsible for driving AI adoption, along with a summary of their major AI-related initiatives.
Key Findings
AI is in experimental deployment and is overwhelmingly geared toward supportive functions.
There is growing government involvement in AI development in Ukraine through organizational, regulative, and technological initiatives led by various government stakeholders.
The Ukrainian government is focusing on the adoption of commercial AI rather than on developing new technology within government institutions.
The absence of a long-term strategy for military AI development poses significant challenges to the sustained and effective adoption of these technologies.
Between 2014- 2022, two grassroots applications—analytics for situational awareness and drones for ISR—laid the groundwork for the post-2022 surge in military AI. Military AI expanded significantly across six major applications, with a growing number of companies focusing on autonomy.
Several factors have facilitated the rapid development of military AI in Ukraine, creating a unique environment for defense innovation.
Collaboration on AI between Ukraine and the U.S. can be mutually beneficial.
When the Drone Threat Comes Home
The next war may not start with missiles or boots on the ground. It could begin with small, undetectable drones that rain destruction on America’s most vital infrastructure.
UAVs have evolved rapidly in sophistication. But by and large, our defenses against them have not. And if the situation persists, it could lead to catastrophe.
We don’t need to look far to see how drone warfare is reshaping conflicts. On the battlefields of Ukraine, UAVs have revolutionized combat, leveled the playing field for Ukraine’s defenders.
Small first-person drones flood the battlefield. These multi-role drones are fast, cheap, easy to train on, and extremely difficult to detect and defeat. They help with artillery targeting, conduct battle damage assessments, drop ordinance on vehicles, or be used as a weapon directly.
That’s why leading technologists like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have argued that the U.S. Army should be developing drones instead of tanks.
Picture foreign-backed terrorists deploying a swarm of explosive-laden drones over a busy U.S. airport. In minutes, these nearly invisible machines could destroy an airplane on the runway, claiming lives and paralyzing air travel nationwide.
Imagine if a team attacked an Air Force base housing air-to-air refueling planes.
They require minimal cost or planning, which is precisely what would make them attractive to our enemies. Nor are they far-fetched. The technology to accomplish such disruptive missions is already here, and some of these drones can be purchased off-the-shelf from major retail chains around the nation.
Defeating a drone the size of a small bird is immensely difficult. Kinetically, firing weapons at such drones is nearly impossible due to their size and speed.
These global advancements highlight the urgency for of the drone threat, and the need for the U.S. to catch up and prioritize counter-drone technologies as well.
Our policymakers, military, law enforcement, and defense industry must urgently develop strategies and tools to keep Americans safe—or risk disaster.
DoD Seeks Innovation Manufacturing Solutions Through New OTA
DoD is seeking to identify novel manufacturing process and emerging technologies from industry, already at mid or high readiness levels, to innovate manufacturing for commercial solutions and DoD-developed technologies within the industrial base.
The Broad OTA will be open until 2027.
The announcement seeks white papers from vendors for defense-relevant prototype manufacturing projects.
As funding opportunities emerge, the ManTech office will use Capabilities Focus Areas (CFAs) to solicit data calls that will be open for 45 days.
White papers received outside of a CFA call are eligible for a non-funded information exchange agreement with the ManTech office.
Other Defense Tech News:
NSF names three new I-Corps Hubs expanding the National Innovation Network across the U.S.
Pentagon invests another $160M from CHIPS Act to boost semiconductor manufacturing
Major Federal IT Contracts to Remove Unnecessary’ degree Requirements
Army
What the Army Learned From its First All-Digital Ground Vehicle Design
The Army is betting on digital engineering to save time and money as it develops its new infantry combat vehicle.
The Army has traditionally deployed an updated combat vehicle every 10 years.
By leaning on digital engineering—a practice the Army has been embracing more broadly—the Army can spot deficiencies in vehicle designs sooner.
The Army in 2023 selected Rheinmetall Vehicles and General Dynamics Land Systems, to produce prototypes for the XM-30. The contracts are worth $1.6B.
That demonstrator platform will allow each contractor to install and change out their systems to see how quickly it can be done. And that's tied to our digital engineering effort, which XM-30 is a born-digital program. All of its design work is essentially being done in the cloud, tied to model-based assessment.
Before contractors can build physical XM-30 prototypes to test, the Army needs to finalize the vehicle’s design through a critical design review in FY25.
We're training, now, people to operate in a digital environment that I think is going to pay us forward for generations.
“XM-30 is being built through a modular open standard that allows us, in theory, to more rapidly replace components, which allows us to modernize more quickly.” MG Glenn Dean, PEO GCS
Mobile Launcher That Can Fire Four Times More Weapons Than HIMARS Emerges
A new palletized ground-based launcher concept that can be loaded with up to two dozen 227mm guided artillery rockets at a time – four times what an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) can pack at once – recently broke cover.
The launch system is designed to be carried on a 10-wheeled cargo truck and can also fire other weapons, including short-range ballistic missiles and surface-to-air interceptors.
Lockheed Martin displayed the launcher on a Marine Corps 10×10 MKR18 Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) truck at the Human-Machine Integration Summit IV last week.
The LVSR is very similar, but not identical to the Army’s 10×10 M1075 Palletized Load System (PLS) truck. Oshkosh Defense manufactures both vehicles.
Army officials have publicly disclosed an interest in finding ways, if possible, to shrink down the size of its Typhon ground-based missile system to make it easier to deploy and operate.
The Army has also been experimenting with an uncrewed HIMARS derivative called the Autonomous Multi-domain Launcher (AML) with a particular focus on expanding ground-based, stand-off strike capacity without significant additional manpower requirements.
Navy
The Navy is at Risk of Losing Vital Shipbuilding Skills
By 2030, the U.S. could have approximately 2.1 million unfilled manufacturing jobs. Not only are these lost opportunities for American workers, but this magnitude of unfilled manufacturing jobs could negatively impact the U.S. economy, costing us more than $1T by the end of the decade. Beyond the economic implications, our nation’s unfilled defense manufacturing jobs have significant national security implications for our country.
When looking at the maritime industrial base, it was post-Cold War budget cuts in the mid-1990s that led to reduced maritime production and left the once-robust industry fractured and fragile.
Today, we are short nearly 140,000 workers to support the building of subs alone.
And for today’s remaining suppliers, there is a lack of new, younger skilled workers to replace veteran employees who are retiring and taking their years of production and maintenance experience with them.
All of this contributes to the backlogs in ship production and maintenance at a time of broadening global threats.
This requires a neutral, integrated, whole of nation approach that empowers local suppliers and workforce initiatives, while building a cohesive, nationwide network that is focused on revitalizing the entire maritime industry and renewing the pride and satisfaction that comes with a career in manufacturing.
In less than two years, Blue Forge Alliance provided more than $273M to suppliers directly connected to the submarine industrial base to expand capacity and capability. More than 4,000 individuals have been trained in skilled trades directly tied to the submarine and maritime industrial base needs, and over 10,000 employees were hired in 2023, a 41% increase over the previous year.
If we work together, locally and nationally – across government, businesses and community – we can boost the American economy through a resurgence of manufacturing.
NRL Completes Development of Satellite-Servicing Robotics
Naval Research Laboratory Naval Center for Space Technology, in partnership with DARPA, has successfully completed development of a spaceflight qualified robotics suite capable of servicing satellites in orbit, Oct. 8.
The Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites Integrated Robotic Payload was delivered to Northrop Grumman's SpaceLogistics, for integration with its spacecraft bus, the Mission Robotics Vehicle.
Currently, spacecraft face significant challenges, in part because of the inability to perform in-orbit repairs or upgrades.
To compensate for the lack of servicing options, satellites are often loaded with backup systems and excess fuel, leading to increased complexity, weight and cost.
Should this project prove successful, satellites can receive in-orbit upgrades based on new technology to extend their service life.
“…promises to transform satellite operations in geostationary orbit, reduce costs for satellite operators, and enable capabilities well beyond what we have today. In fact, the anticipated capabilities are potentially revolutionary for both national security and civil applications." NRL Director of Research Bruce Danly
I Blame the Navy’s Strategic Woes on the Chiefs of Naval Operations
There is no shortage of problems confronting the Navy, as salvo after salvo of embarrassing stories attest. The range of problems is spectacularly depressing from the design, production, maintenance, and crewing of its warships to the lack of commercial shipyard capacity, civilian shipbuilders, government drydocks, force structure, recruits, civilian mariners, and an adequate budget.
The Navy’s path to this predicament is complex but the lack of consistent strategic guidance between the chiefs of naval operations is a major cause.
Too often chiefs of naval operations have produced strategic documents littered with generalities, aspirational desires, and insubstantial arguments to express their rationale for the Navy’s national defense contribution.
The cumulative result is the Navy acts without strategic intent, neglects strategic planning, focuses on short-term issues, and makes incremental decisions.
The Navy’s force mix in terms of capabilities and numbers cannot be changed in less than a decade. Continuity of the Navy’s strategic approach is required.
Chiefs of naval operations seem to believe that they must differentiate themselves from their predecessors and mimic American presidents with their naval versions of presidential campaign platforms.
Their planning guidance frequently lacks comprehensive prioritization, explicit assumptions, risk assessments, clear time schedules, assignment of responsibilities, and metrics of success.
How to Achieve Consistency
A Dedicated Strategic Planning Staff
The Process
Leadership
Our Take: This entire article is worth a read. Its conclusions are not unique to the Navy and gives interesting insights into the workings of the back offices of the Pentagon.
Eyeing Future CCA Missions, Navy Teams with Lockheed, GA to Test New Drone Control System
US Navy pilots sitting comfortably in Maryland recently took a new carrier-based drone control center out for a spin for the first time, piloting a General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger thousands of miles away using autonomous tech made by Lockheed Martin’s secretive Skunk Works division.
The live-flight test of the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control Station (UMCS), conducted Nov. 5, was done as part of an effort to advance technology for future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).
While both the Air Force and the Navy hope to see CCAs flying alongside their fighters and bombers within a few years, the services are pursuing the efforts separately. The Air Force has selected two platforms for its first tranche of aircraft, an aircraft from General Atomics’s Gambit family and Anduril’s Fury.
Navy to Field MQ-25 Unmanned Refueler in 2025
The Navy expects to take delivery the MQ-25 unmanned refueler in 2025, in what the head of US Naval Forces Central Command said offers a “glimpse into the future of naval aviation.”
The MQ-25 will set a new standard for future unmanned operations from the sea.
The MQ-25, which is still in development, should free F-18s from their current refeuling missions, allowing them to concentrate more on strike operations.
The MQ-25 gives us a glimpse into the future of naval aviation, demonstrating the potential force multiplier advanced uncrewed systems will play in the carrier air wing moving forward.
The MQ-4C Triton, a large, long-range UAV that reached initial operating capability last year, has begun operating in the Middle East.
Related Articles:
Trump Admin Must Reform how Navy Designs, Builds Warships
Among the first actions it takes in the Pentagon, the incoming Trump administration should commission a top-to-bottom review and reform of the Navy bureaucracy that develops new warships.
The recent history of Navy surface warship building has been in many ways a mixed bag of successes like the transition to the Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer and severe challenges such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the new Constellation-class frigate.
Where were the naval architects in NAVSEA to call out the LCS program for trying to add too many new systems and concepts in one generation of vessel?
Where were the managers who should have put the brakes on the Navy transforming the successful FREMM frigate design operated by several U.S. allies into a brand new design for the Constellation class?
The CRS and CBO regularly highlight the challenges in Navy shipbuilding, yet the issues they identify occur again and again in new construction.
Recent issues with the Constellation-class frigate suggest the replacement for trained naval architects has been an autopilot systems of regulations that made major changes to the parent FREMM design.
A recipe for fixing NAVSEA
Take a cue from the Maritime Administration. TOTE Services, serves as the adjudicator between the government and the yard.
Do a sweeping review. The incoming civilian Navy leadership should appoint a commission to study NAVSEA in detail in terms of its regulations, personnel staffing and relationships with civilian shipyards.
Hire more naval architects. Naval architects should assess designs up front, and better management of design regulations is needed to help prevent changes that cause construction delays and increased costs.
Undersea Infrastructure Defenses Must be Active, Not Reactive
Global commerce is becoming increasingly reliant on undersea infrastructure, and protecting it requires not just systems that can rapidly respond to malicious activities, but deter them altogether.
The dependence on undersea cables and pipes for telecommunications, internet access and energy transport has created a very unbalanced situation globally.
While it’s important to have platforms like drones or submarines that can respond quickly to attacks on critical undersea infrastructure, it would take thousands, probably millions of systems to cover every cable and pipe.
If you can target the ability of your adversary to map infrastructure, to collect the data … and if your adversaries are not able to do that, they will not be able to target this infrastructure.
Both governments and industry still have work to do to develop data-sharing procedures that are both secure and usable so that nations can communicate with one another to jointly protect undersea infrastructure.
Other Navy News
Kongsberg wins biggest-ever missile contract from Navy, Marines
Mine Countermeasure Operations in a Cross-Strait Island Landing Campaign
Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs to Develop Sea-Launched Cruise Missile
Air Force
Anduril, General Atomics Drone Wingmen Clear Critical Design Review
Anduril Industries and General Atomics have both completed a key assessment of their designs for the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, paving the way for both companies’ drone wingmen to take to the skies next year.
Both industry teammates are on the path to get to first flight in a timeline that allows us to get operational capability by the end of the decade.
Anduril is offering a drone dubbed Fury, whereas General Atomics is pitching Gambit, which the company says is a modular system that draws from the firm’s work for the Air Force’s Off-Board Sensing Station program.
After the prototyping phase, whose first flight is expected next year, the Air Force could choose to carry one or both of the vendors into production.
Officials have also floated the possibility of selecting a different vendor for production that did not win the prototyping contract.
Several efforts are feeding into the CCA program, including an experimental operations unit (EOU) that is exploring how to employ the drones in combat.
Related Article: Air Force ordering more robot wingmen for its experimentation unit
U.S. Air Force to Refine CCA Increment 2 Concept, As Service Announces Buy of More Increment 1 Aircraft
The U.S. Air Force plans to refine its concept for the future Increment 2 of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).
The first CCAs are to be air-to-air, but others may be those for intelligence or jamming missions.
The Air Force has said that it plans to field 150 CCAs in the next five years to complement F-35s and possibly other manned fighters, including a manned Next Generation Air Dominance aircraft and the F-15EX.
Increment 2 may feature more advanced, stealthier designs than Increment 1.
“Increment 2–we are ‘danger’ close to getting started in earnest on that. We’re doing government analysis right now with FFRDCs [federally funded research development centers] and internal government agencies to look to make sure we understand the right mission use cases for Increment 2 and the top level attributes. This fiscal year–we will kick off concept refinement where we bring in industry to help us further refine what those attributes are and whittle down those use cases. It’s the same approach we did for CCA Increment 1, but now CCA Increment 1 is a new player in the environment as we do the analysis. You’ll see us begin concept refinement later this year.” Col. Timothy Helfrich, Senior Materiel Leader for Advanced Aircraft Division
Cockpit or Command Center? C2 Options for CCA
There is a new theory of airpower on the horizon. Over the next five years, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) plans to invest billions in research and development for a force of over 1,000 collaborative combat aircraft (CCA).
The vision includes working with allies and partners to pair fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft with versatile unmanned systems, creating aerial networks that can rapidly adapt to changes in the battlespace.
Questions that linger however relate to how CCAs will be controlled:
How will military organizations command and control distributed networks of CCAs in future air operations?
Will such networks be proverbial “loyal wingmen,” subject only to the tactical commands of a pilot in a cockpit?
Or will drones do the bidding of the command centers, like Combined Air Operations Centers (CAOCs)?
The command and control (C2) architecture surrounding CCAs will almost certainly prove to be as consequential as the systems themselves in forging the future of air power.
There is a fundamental tradeoff between tactical responsiveness and operational effectiveness.
Where missions require time-sensitive adjustments, CCA C2 should center on the mission leader and ensure pilots have the right mix of high-bandwidth, low-latency comms and human-factor-optimized software to help them respond to the chaos and complexity of aerial combat.
Where missions require concentration and unity of effort—the alignment of mass and objective—CCA C2 should focus on operational planning and mission execution directed from command centers.
The Air Force and other aviation arms across the services need to invest in flexible battle networks and in concepts and training regimes that help adapt the core processes of command and control to the realities of modern warfare.
To achieve this, the USAF should start conducting more robust studies and war games involving C2, alongside an accelerated series of experiments.
Our Take: We don’t know what the right answer is here and its likely that it depends (as noted above) but we certainly support improving experiments to expose pilots and combat planners to realistic scenarios in what is likely to be a chaotic conflict in the Pacific theater. This paper proposes 3 primary missions (counterair, interdiction, and close air support)…and is worth an entire read. Full of insights on this important decision for the Air Force.
‘Cheap’ Cruise Missile Program To Speed Up With Replicator Initiative Help
The U.S. Air Force is accelerating work on low-cost air vehicles that could evolve into relatively cheap cruise missiles, and it plans to scale up production of selected designs, with the help of the Pentagon’s Replicator initiative.
Demand across the U.S. military for more stand-off munitions, and less expensive ones that can be produced faster, is only growing, especially amid planning for future high-end conflicts, especially one against China in the Pacific.
The Pentagon announced yesterday that the Enterprise Test Vehicle (ETV) program, which the Air Force is running in cooperation with DIU, was among a second tranche of “capabilities” to get a boost through the Replicator initiative.
At present, four companies – Anduril Industries, Integrated Solutions for Systems, Inc., Dynetics, and Zone 5 Technologies – are currently building prototypes for ETV with the expectation that all of them will be flight-tested.
ETV’s selection to be part of Replicator 1.2 highlights the effort’s very vocal focus on exploring new manufacturing techniques and expanding the industrial base for stand-off munitions beyond large established prime contractors.
“The ETV’s modular design and open system architecture make it an ideal platform for program offices to test out new capabilities at the sub-system level, reducing risk, and demonstrating various options for weapon employment. We are excited to be a part of Replicator 1.2 and to increase the speed of the ETV effort.” Gen. Jim Slife
Integration is the Manhattan Project Facing Air Force Leaders
“Integration” will be the key to future Air Force success and will be the key to achieving war-winning advantage over adversaries in the future.
Integration is a central theme to the Air Force’s “re-optimization” drive.
The push includes multiple references to integration, including the creation of a new office to oversee integration and a new command responsible for integrating requirements and capabilities.
The Integrated Capabilities Command will absorb the requirements roles that now belong to Air Combat Command, Air Force Global Strike Command, and Air Mobility Command, centralizing the requirements process in a single command.
That decision remains controversial among some AF leaders, who worry that divorcing requirements from operations could undermine combat effectiveness.
“We talk a lot about platforms and weapons, and those are very important, but the network and integration piece is key. It’s so important, I would offer that it’s the Manhattan Project of our generation, and hopefully, we can get there first.” Lt. Gen. Michael G. Koscheski, ACC Deputy Commander
USAF’s New Force Design, Still a Secret, Will Be ‘Fiscally Informed’
As the Air Force completes a highly anticipated force design—its first real overhaul in a generation—the leaders overseeing the work drew a narrow distinction over how the resulting future force will be funded.
Gen Harris intentionally did not mention China in his keynote, noting that an effective force design must be adaptive and able to evolve as threats and technology change.
The force design is focused on identifying the best mix of capabilities, systems, technologies, and personnel to achieve all of the Air Force’s five core functions:
Air superiority
Global strike
Rapid global mobility
Command and control
Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
The Air Force is thinking about Force Design around three Mission Areas:
Mission Area One: A high-intensity, high-threat peer conflict, such as a war with China
Mission Area Two: A medium-intensity, mid-threat conflict, such as a fight with a sophisticated but less capable foe
Mission Area Three: Low-intensity conflict, where the threat is minimal
The Air Force does not see any major changes to force design if NGAD is not procured but acknowledged that it would challenge the way that certain mission areas are executed.
“I can build you the world’s best Air Force but we probably can’t afford it. What we can do, … is actually develop a logic and rationale … to argue for additional resources about why these systems need to come together. It’s less about the platform and more about the systems and how they are coming together. There’s a lot of ways that we can actually achieve air superiority.” Gen Harris
Air Force Electronic Warfare Chief Sees Limits to AI
Artificial intelligence and machine learning may in the future offer important capabilities to the Air Force’s radio frequency warriors, who confront America’s enemies in the electromagnetic spectrum—but that day is still some time off.
Cognitive EW refers to the use of AI/ML to replace time-consuming and labor-intensive manual work involved in the processing of spectrum data collected by aircraft on a mission, to turn it into actionable intelligence, which can then be used to engineer electronic countermeasures or protective measures.
This would also allow the rapid scaling up of capabilities, which is important in a high-end electromagnetic spectrum, or EMS, conflict with a peer adversary.
There were several barriers identified including funding, resources, infrastructure and personnel some of which are man-made, while others are policy-made.
“Automating anomaly detection allows me to go quicker. So now my engineers know exactly the target signal to go after to start doing their engineering processes to produce defensive techniques or countermeasures. Not having hours and hours of manpower, pouring over this particular one signal, but being able to do it at scale with hundreds of signals. That, to me, is the game changer, because now I can adapt quickly to that environment and get that back to the warfighter at the speed of relevance for that fight.” Col. Larry Fenner Jr., 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing Commander
Other Air Force Articles
KC-135 Tanker With Artificial Intelligence Copilot Set To Fly Next Year
Supporters Say Price Is Right For U.S. Air Force B-21 Order Boost
‘The U.S. Needs More Air Force’: Allvin Makes the Case for More Funding
Space Force
New Space Force ‘Mission Deltas’ Handle Missile Warning, Domain Awareness
The Space Force has officially expanded its concept for combining operations, sustainment, cyber, and intelligence functions all under one roof, dropping the “provisional” tag from units that kicked off the idea last year and transitioning two more Deltas and missions to the structure.
Originally the service called the new units Integrated Mission Deltas, but as part of the transition it has shortened that to Mission Deltas.
Leaders have also noted the arrangement better aligns cyber and intelligence units and personnel according to the mission area they support, giving them better insight into their needs and capabilities.
Not all deltas will become Mission Deltas, but those that are will transition within the next 12 months.
Space Delta 6 and Space Delta 7 handle cyber and intelligence, respectively, and are unlikely to transition.
That leaves just two of SpOC’s eight deltas left: Space Delta 8, which is responsible for satellite communications, and Space Delta 9, which handles orbital warfare.
The Wild West of Space: Can Government IT Tame the Risks?
Space—the final frontier—is becoming the next battleground for IT. The insatiable demand for bandwidth is driving both government and commercial entities to look to space-based technologies for solutions.
Remote sensing, global communications, and ubiquitous internet access are just a few of the promises.
The "move fast and break things" mentality of the private sector is about to collide head-on with the bureaucratic nature of government IT—and crucial decisions are at stake.
While the private sector adapts on the fly, government agencies are stuck in a quagmire of regulations and approvals, making them vulnerable to quick-fix solutions like readily available satellite internet.
This vulnerability is amplified by the sheer scale of potential applications for space-based technologies.
A proactive, multi-pronged strategy is required. Agencies must:
Develop a comprehensive space strategy: Spinning up a space-based internet operation can’t be done without first knowing what you want to get out of it and where it needs to land. Planning is necessary to prevent an initiative as massive as this from failing. Have clearly define objectives, and develop a long-term strategy that addresses security, procurement, workforce development, and ethical considerations.
Centralize reporting: Establish a trusted team (internal or external) to provide ongoing management of space-based internet access to ensure that all the moving pieces are visible and moving in the direction outlined in your strategy
Embrace automation: Supporting that team should be robust monitoring tools that can automate and track satellite internet usage and costs across the organization to ensure visibility and accountability. This is what will lift shadow IT into the light.
Centralize & modernize satellite procurement: Streamline acquisition processes for agility and collaboration with private sector innovators while leveraging centralized control to enhance buying power, enforce security protocols, and ensure compliance through a dedicated space-focused IT team.
Weaponizing Space
Offensive weapons to hold adversaries’ space systems at risk are top priorities for both the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command.
Yet details on what kinds of weapons they want remain scarce, and the implications of a space war still gave some officials pause when discussing counterspace and space dominance—reflecting a persistent tension between deterrence, classification, and deep-rooted fears of weaponizing space.
For years, talk of developing, let alone using, offensive weapons in space was taboo in U.S. military circles.
As China and Russia have tested anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons and built up rival space capabilities designed to counter U.S. advantages in the heavens, those basic premises have changed.
There are six general types of counterspace weapons, three in orbit and three terrestrial:
Kinetic, destructive weapons;
Directed energy; and
Radio frequency energy and jamming.
“You can’t deter solely by defense. Defense is really important. Disaggregation [by increasing the number of satellites in a constellation] to make the problem harder for them to eliminate a capability, that’s a really good way to go. … But you also have to have offense if you really want to deter somebody. I can’t think of a castle wall thick enough or high enough that it ever deterred an adversary from attacking it. It is offensive capability that deters them. It’s the threat of losing their forces.” Retired Gen. Kevin P. Chilton
Other Space Force Articles
Could Trump establish a Space National Guard? Officials and experts say it’s likely
DIU Launches INDUS-X Challenge To Detect and Track Satellites in Contested Environments
International
Sec. Austin Heads to the Pacific Focused on Accelerating Emerging Tech
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin departed on his twelfth and final trip to the Indo-Pacific region, where he will engage in a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings with some of his closest colleagues across Australia, the Philippines, Laos and Fiji.
The goals promote deeper research and technology-driving partnerships and further the U.S. military’s interoperability with partners in the region.
Senior U.S. defense officials said those involved plan to make “significant strides” to evolve their joint air and missile defense and information-sharing capabilities.
Austin will visit Philippines Western Command headquarters, which is a key node for ongoing naval operations in the South China Sea.
Russian Defense Official Visits China’s Premier Military Showcase in a Sign of Unity
A top Russian defense official has attended China’s premier military showcase in a show of unity between the countries as Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine.
Shoigu, a former defense minister, appeared to be on a mission to reaffirm ties between the countries as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has largely stalemated and Moscow has turned to North Korean soldiers to boost its troop numbers.
China is not known to have directly provided military support to Russia, but has sold it dual-use technologies that boost its ability to attack Ukrainian targets.
The countries have held several joint military exercises and aligned their foreign policies to challenge the U.S.-led liberal Western order.
Related Articles: Russia's Su-57 Fifth-Generation Fighter Mocked On Chinese Social Media. See Video on X showing one example of shoddy workmanship.
Russia and China in Central Asia: Cooperate, Compete, or De-conflict?
Despite the many proclamations that Russian and Chinese interests would collide in Central Asia, Moscow and Beijing continue to work together in service of their shared objectives.
These include, most importantly, keeping the U.S. and the West—and democracy—out of the region, maintaining stability, and pursuing economic benefits.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has heightened the Central Asian states’ apprehensions about Russia, including about its capacity to uphold its security role in the region.
Looking forward, the most significant change in Russia-China relations in Central Asia is likely to occur in the security sphere, where China is likely to take on a greater role.
The United States has an opportunity to redouble its engagement in Central Asia.
The Central Asian states highly value U.S. political support for their independence and sovereignty, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Washington can encourage greater connectivity and cohesion among the countries, demonstrating its support for their increasing cooperation with one another in ways that could strengthen the region’s economic attractiveness and political agency.
A Peace Plan for Ukraine?
In the past few days, speculation about a potential ‘Ukraine solution’ from the incoming Trump administration has accelerated.
A plan may be in the works that includes a buffer zone, freezing the conflict, Russia retaining currently held territory, ‘pumping Ukraine full of US weapons’ to deter Russia and deferring Ukraine’s NATO membership for years.
Possible Ukraine Plan Components
Freezing the conflict. If the conflict were to be frozen along current lines, this would leave Russia occupying almost 20% of Ukrainian sovereign territory.
A Buffer Zone. The most recent leak of information includes the creation of a 1200-kilometre buffer zone. In essence, this will be similar to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that separates north and south Korea.
A Peace Keeping Force. Trump insiders have been reported to have stated that troops to enforce the buffer zone should come from the UK and Europe.
Verification Measures. If there is a ceasefire or armistice, verification measures will be required.
Supplying More Weapons to Ukraine. The key question is this: do the U.S. and Europe actually have the capacity to step up the shipment of weapons to Ukraine in the short to medium term.
No NATO or deferred NATO for Ukraine. This will be a significant blow for Ukraine, given membership of NATO, as well as other security guarantees, has been the centerpiece of Zelenskyy’s peace proposals.
Related Article: North Korea Enters Ukraine Fight for First Time, Officials Say
EU Developing ‘Full Spectrum’ Combat Vessel for 2040s
The European Union is building out the requirements for a new class of multi-purpose combat vessels to enter service in the 2040s, and these new ships will need to be equipped to deal with threats from every domain
The EU wants to develop a more assertive European presence at sea to project power and stability in regions of strategic importance and safeguard the interests of the EU and its member states.
Along with upgrades to onboard systems, this next generation of vessels will likely act as a “mothership” for smaller unmanned systems that can also help detect threats faster than current platforms, he said.
To defeat next-generation threats, these ships will need next-generation weapons such as lasers or railguns, which will require new types of onboard power generation.
Related Articles:
NATO Allies Ready Sea Drones for the Task of Repelling Enemy Warships
French Carrier Strike Group Prepares for Indo-Pacific Deployment
US Olympic Defender Allies Seek Common Space Picture
The US and some of its closest allies in Operation Olympic Defender (OOD) this week launched “initial” efforts to create new standards for sharing space monitoring data — the necessary foundation for developing a common view of the space battlefield.
Operation Olympic Defender is the US military’s plan for space warfighting, alongside a select group of key allies.
SPACECOM’s CSpOC brings together the US, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to collaborate on space command and control.
The UK and Australia are in the process of standing up two of three planned sites for the US Deep Space Advanced Radar (DARC) to track satellites and dangerous space junk in far away orbits with more precision.
Many Ways to Fail: The Costs to China of an Unsuccessful Taiwan Invasion
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be an extremely difficult military, complex operation but the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been thinking seriously since the early 2000s about what such a landing would require.
For over two decades, its force development efforts have been focused on the weapons, equipment, doctrine and operational concepts required to conquer the island in the face of full U.S. military intervention.
The PLA has made considerable progress toward that goal and may deem itself fully capable by the 2027 force development target set by Xi Jinping.
A failed attempt to take Taiwan by force could have dire consequences for China’s global standing and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) hold on power.
There are many ways a Chinese invasion could go wrong, here are a few:
Failure to Gain Air Superiority. Before the PLA can begin moving hundreds of thousands of soldiers across the Taiwan Strait, it must protect the enormous fleet of troop carriers and support ships from enemy air attack. That in turn requires neutralizing Taiwan’s long-range air defense weapons, grounding the Taiwan air force and holding off U.S. air strike forces launched from aircraft carriers and land bases in Japan, Guam and elsewhere.
Failure to Get Enough Forces Ashore. Foreign analysts assess that the PLA would attempt to put some 400,000 troops ashore through a very limited set of landing beaches, seized ports and air landing sites. For comparison, the Normandy invasion involved roughly 130,000 personnel ashore on D-Day and 326,000 by the end of the first week across much more hospitable beaches.
Failure after Getting Ashore. Achieving a beachhead does not secure victory for the PLA. If Taiwan defenders resist vigorously and the island’s people and leaders maintain the will to fight (granted, a significant “if”), the PLA faces a difficult task in compelling Taiwan’s surrender and gaining effective control of the island.
A military failure would mean Taiwan is lost to China forever and the U.S. and others might grant formal recognition of Taiwan independence.
Annexation of Taiwan: A Defeat From Which the US and Its Allies Could Not Retreat
The aftermath of a U.S. - China conflict would likely trigger the worst economic shocks experienced in more than a century, unleashing a cycle of repression and diminishing the quality of life for populations across Asia and beyond, with devastating impacts on American interests and Americans’ well-being.
SELECT KEY FINDINGS
Xi has strong motivations to annex Taiwan through the threat or use of force. The key objective would be to assert political control over the island and capture much of its industrial and technological infrastructure intact while attempting to limit escalation and thwart intervention.
Due to Taiwan’s global dominance in the semiconductor industry, it is important to emphasize that America could not fully retreat from such a defeat.
A major semiconductor supply disruption triggered by PRC coercive annexation of Taiwan could result in the largest decline in GDP in the past 120 years.
The PRC’s successful annexation of Taiwan would cripple U.S. regional credibility and seriously damage its alliance relationships.
China’s gaining control of Taiwan would compromise sensitive technologies and information, degrade monitoring of PRC military operations, and enable PRC dominance over the primary approaches to South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.
China unveils J-35A and other new fighters at Zhuhai Airshow
China’s premier defense exhibition, Zhuhai Airshow, opened its gates this week headlined by the J-35A fifth-generation fighter as well as a J-15T fighter designed for catapult operations aboard aircraft carriers.
As the J-35A joins the J-20 in service, China becomes the second nation in the world to operate two different fifth-generation, stealthy fighters. The U.S. is the other with the F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.
Manufacturer Chengdu’s J-20 production has likely already surpassed 300 aircraft.
Forget the B-21: China's H-20 Stealth Bomber Could Be Coming Soon
While minimal information surrounding the H-20 bomber is available, the PRC is certainly aiming to achieve air superiority with this new platform. Like its upcoming American counterpart, the H-20 will serve as a key asset in China’s strategic arsenal.
The bomber is designed to carry large payloads, travel extended ranges, and feature survivability in highly contested environments.
The recently released renderings of the platform showcase its sleek flying-wing design, which will contribute to the bomber’s minimal radar visibility and ability to circumvent detection from even the most advanced missile and radar systems.
Some Western analysts believe the Chinese bomber could have an extended range of 8,500 kilometers.
If this is true, the H-20 could reach beyond the first Island Chain off the coast of China and into Japan, the Philippines, or even the U.S. territory of Guam.
China’s Stealth CH-7 Long-Endurance Drone Emerges
The first example of China’s mysterious CH-7 stealthy flying-wing drone seems to have been revealed, although with a somewhat different look compared to previous mockups, and a very impressive size.
This points to China’s accelerated efforts to develop low-observable, long-endurance drones and while this one appears to be tailored for intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR), there have long been claims that it will also undertake strike missions as an uncrewed combat aerial vehicle (UCAV).
The CH-7 is a high-altitude UCAV that is widely understood to be optimized for penetrating deep into hostile airspace would achieve this through a combination of a low-observable (stealth) design and flying at very high altitudes, leading it to operate for extended periods of time without ever being detected.
China has been busy with a growing portfolio of stealthy drones, developing new ones as well as refining the low-observable characteristics of existing platforms like the GJ-11 Sharp Sword, testing of which continues apace.
India’s JSW Group To Invest $90 Million In Shield AI, Manufacture V-BATs
Indian conglomerate JSW Group will invest $90M in U.S. startup Shield AI over the next two years to license and manufacture the small company’s V-BAT unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in-country.
Other Interesting News
It is encouraging to see that TSMC is making progress in its Arizona endeavors to build up its chip manufacturing presence in another country outside of Taiwan.
Podcasts, Books, and Videos
National Defense Industrial Association Budget Podcast w/Arun Seraphin
Thanks to Arun for having Matt on to discuss budget details and other fun topics.
TechnologIST Talks: Why Venture Capital Is Indispensable for U.S. Industrial Strategy. Michael A. Brown and Pavneet Singh
Innovation and Dominance in Space is Essential to US Security w/Tony Bruno, Arsenal of Democracy
Marines’ 5G Training Program, T-7A Red Hawk’s Ground Based Training System and the Navy Using LVC at Sea, National Defense
How Blockchain in Revolutionizing Manufacturing at AFRL w/Keith Scheffler, Defense Mavericks
Don’t Forget What It’s Like to be in a Gunfight w/John Goodson, Second Front
Upcoming Events and Webinars
Schriever Spacepower Series w/Dr. Derek Tournear, Nov 19, Webinar
RCV Software Pathway Industry Day, Nov 20, Sterling Height, MI
Big Ideas for America’s New National Security Team, Hudson, Nov 21, Webinar
Mike Gallagher, Nadia Schadlow, Peter Rough, and Shyam Sankar
Modernizing PPBE Business Systems & Data Analytics, GMU, Nov 21, Webinar
Phil Anton, Mark Krzysko, Yousra Fazili, Greg Little, and Jerry McGinn
Tech and Maritime Security Cooperation between NATO and the Indo-Pacific, Hudson Institute, Nov 22, Washington DC
Defense Manufacturing Conference, JDMTP, Dec 2-5, Austin, TX
Defense TechConnect Innovation Summit and Expo, Dec 3-5, Austin, TX
I/ITSEC Training/Simulation Conf, NTSA, Dec 2-6, Orlando, FL
Space Resiliency Summit, DSI Group, Dec 4-5, National Harbor, MD
Reagan National Defense Forum, Dec 6-7, Sumi Valley, CA
Army IT Day, AFCEA Nova, Jan 8, VA
WEST 2025, AFCEA, Jan 28-30, San Diego, CA
See our Events Page for all the other events over the next year.
Have a big event to add to our list for thousands of subscribers? Let us know.
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.