Defense Tech and Acquisition News
Reform ideas abound, commercial sector remains poised and many decisions loom ahead for the new administration
Welcome to the latest edition of Defense Tech and Acquisition.
A SASC hearing and many op-eds go after how to improve DoD acquisition.
Critical decision on frequency sharing for 5G (and military radars) on the horizon
Army Secretary nominee champions speed of delivery and COTS procurement.
Navy’s struggles with ships continue and an analysis on the USV market.
Air Force’s CCA has potential to be paired with fighters in greater numbers.
Space Force trying to use Front Door to support entry in DoD ecosystem.
China is supporting space expansion at the local level - to great effect.
There may be a better way to decouple from China on the trade front.
Lets keep the pedal down!
Top Stories
Hegseth Plans Sweeping Overhaul of the Pentagon
The new SECDEF’s perspective of beleaguered DoD structures and a breathless industrial base is a valid one. The U.S. is trying to keep pace with the PRC, their strategic rival for the next few decades.
Proceeding with ambitious policies such as the creation of a missile defence shield to protect the U.S. This network of air defence systems would be based on the Israeli short-range Iron Dome air defence system, according to Trump’s executive order issued late on 27 January.
One particular project that has proven useful since its creation in August 2023 is the Replicator initiative. Replicator accelerates the delivery of innovative capabilities to the armed forces at speed and scale through non-traditional technology ecosystems largely in the commercial sector. A focus on timely delivery will fit neatly into Trump’s crusade for efficiency.
“Rebuilding the US military means reviving our defense industrial base, reforming our acquisition process, passing a financial audit, and rapidly fielding emerging technologies. We will remain the strongest and most lethal force in the world.” Pete Hegseth, SECDEF
SASC Hearing on Defense Innovation and Acquisition Reform
Written testimony: James “Hondo” Guerts, Shyam Sankar, and Nathan Diller
This was an interesting hearing where all the SASC members were actively engaged and contrary to recent confirmation hearings, there was strong bi-partisan unity in continuing to fuel innovation in defense acquisition.
Shyam discussed a Berlin Wall comparison dividing the commercial and defense sectors. On the commercial side of the wall, companies are free to compete and innovate. On the defense side, a dwindling number of contractors toll away for the monopsony. Mr. Chairman, if we’re going to win again, we need to tear down this wall.
Hondo discussed reducing the Reviewer-to-Doer ratio. Sen. Wicker followed up with a question on if this could be done immediately, without legislation, which Hondo replied, in some cases. One great example of this is the Middle Tier of Acquisition pathway. Congress per the FY16 NDAA provided the DoD with a novel acquisition pathway exempt from the JCIDS requirements and traditional acquisition regulations reserved for billion-dollar MDAPs to rapidly prototype and field capabilities. However in recent years, Congressional appropriators have required the DoD to certify major elements of all MTA program strategies and budgets as if they were a traditional lengthy billion-dollar MDAP. This was explicitly done to discourage use of MTA’s rapid acquisition pathway.
Nate championed digitizing the industrial base and provided an example of how the Air Force is emptying the museums and boneyards for C-130 hubcaps, which could instead be 3-D printed in days.
America Needs Better Defense Acquisition
Procurement is a mess, and given that the Pentagon purchases more goods, services, and software than all other federal agencies combined, this is a huge crisis. Waste is everywhere. In many ways, our defense establishment now resembles the Soviet system we defeated in the Cold War. The ideology of central planning took over the largest bureaucracy on the face of the Earth.
The DoD bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, seeks to sustain and grow itself. Each new inefficiency, like the service pistol mess, prompts shock from Congress.
To fix the inefficiency, the bureaucracy creates more inefficiency. New offices are created, new councils and oversight bodies formed.
Today, Pentagon officials write long lists of requirements — many of them strange and unnecessary – and take years to solicit and evaluate proposals.
Even when the Pentagon does hold competitions, and there is a clear winner that is orders of magnitude better than the others, the tortuous and often impractical requirements often lead to a big, established company earning selection over a superior innovative entrant. To win on paper is to win the contract.
The Navy’s Constellation-class frigate went from 85% design commonality to <15% driving massive cost overruns and delays.
Mission based requirements would scrap micromanagement by flag officers and risk-adverse administrators in favor of simple, 1–2 pages of a core military need.
Rigorous testing, refinement, more testing, and eventual selection in an open competition is where the military excels.
Since the end of the Cold War, over 2,500 US companies have been founded and reached a valuation >$1B. Less than a dozen have been in defense.
The FAR had doubled since 1984; Title X has become swollen with obsolete and choking legal requirements.
It took the State Dept and Pentagon 30 months to finalize a sale of Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan, even though they’ve been around since the 1980s.
Sen Wicker’s plan to cut red tape reduces the regulatory load.
The Private Sector on the Front Line
Big Tech and the Risky Blurring of Commercial and Security Interests
Three days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Starlink was active in Ukraine to provide Internet access.
Microsoft detected samples of Russian malware before the war began and warned Ukraine about how the impacting conflict could affect their information systems.
AWS and Microsoft migrated crucial government data to their cloud services and offered cybersecurity services.
Airbus, ICEYE, Capella Space, HawkEye 360, and Maxar Technologies all provided invaluable battlefield imagery and data.
The conflict in Ukraine has initiated a new era of warfare in which commercial companies, many American, are likely to provide and secure critical digital infrastructure themselves—crucially, at their own discretion and even for no cost.
Since the private sector drives innovation in so many of these digital technologies and can deploy them more nimbly than governments can, technology corporations are likely to play an ever more important role in future wars.
China’s plans would almost certainly include attacks on Taiwan’s digital infrastructure, scenarios that Beijing has already tested by launching cyberattacks and severing Internet cables.
Many of the same companies that protected Ukraine will be needed to protect Taiwan. Many U.S. tech firms today have a far greater economic stake in China than they did in Russia, and it’s uncertain whether they would support Taiwan.
The DoD should build strategies for protecting allies’ digital infrastructure ahead of potential conflicts. The U.S. government should manage public-private partnerships with active diplomacy, treating corporate entities and their leaders as it would allies.
In the decisive early days of a Taiwan conflict, resilient digital critical infrastructure may again prove vital, as it did in Ukraine. Securing that infrastructure for the future requires that the U.S. government act now.
Trump Team Signals Defense Acquisition Overhaul
The shift could mean fewer cost plus contracts, where businesses are compensated for expenses incurred as well as a fee, and fewer large programs of record. This would include more fixed-price contracts aimed at commercial suppliers.
Elon and other critics of the current system argue contractors have little incentive to control costs since their profit is tied to spending.
Space Force is experimenting with novel procurement vehicles such as the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve (CASR) program. Agencies such as SDA, Space RCO, and DIU are already following faster acquisition models that bypass the Pentagon’s JCIDS process, but broader reforms are needed
Reforming Defense Acquisitions To Promote Global Security
Letter from Linden Blue, General Atomics-ASI CEO to Elon Musk
GA-ASI is eager to work with the DOGE on the important task of reforming defense acquisition to enhance its efficiency and contribution to national security. We propose to apply our decades of experience with defense acquisition to address the policies, procedures, and organizational oddities that hinder timely delivery of critical capabilities to warfighters.
Delays: Use available authorities to expedite acquisitions, prioritizing warfighter needs over obsession with process.
Buck-passing: Establish accountability within the FMS system, in which execution is fragmented across the State Dept., multiple DoD agencies, and the military services, with none of them able to direct the others.
Self-shackling: Reform the U.S. interpretation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) to focus on missile technology tied to weapons of mass destruction rather than UAS.
The Key to Modernizing Defense Acquisitions
Acquisitions professionals have had faster and better contract vehicles for years; they simply choose to stick to the status quo, i.e. buying from Primes using FAR-based contracts, because they are following path of least resistance and have no incentives to experiment or take risks.
Unsurprisingly therefore, in each of the past five years, less than one half of a percent of the DoD budget has been employed via non-traditional contracts, and in 2023, 75% of vehicles and weapons DoD contract dollars went to Primes.
The best example of a DoD entity defying the acquisitions status quo is the SDA. SDA’s motto “Semper citius” says it all: always faster.
The SDA boasts an average of 111 days from posting a solicitation to awarding a contract, far fewer than the DoD average of 209 days.
SDA is the only one at DoD fully leveraging Middle Tier of Acquisition and Other Transaction (e.g., simpler, non-FAR contracts) at the scale and speed they were designed.
SDA has done this all quickly, deploying satellites in just 2.1 years, compared to the DoD satellite program averages of 7+ years.
This has all been possible because of the leadership of SDA Director Dr. Derek Tournear. He created a culture focused on speed, capability, and value by mandating that employees only use FAR vehicles as a last resort–a novel phenomenon within the DoD.
The results speak for themselves. In SDA’s new satellite constellation, the DoD estimated each satellite would cost $150M apiece. The SDA disagreed and instead delivered at a price point once deemed unachievable: $14M per satellite.
The SDA’s success proves that acquisitions culture can still be changed within the DoD. You cannot copy and paste Dr. Tournear across the Department, but you can install leaders like him who can adopt the SDA model.
The DoD must drive real and radical change by installing visionary leaders and removing the personnel impediments to progress. Small innovative acquisitions pockets like the SDA will not be enough to enable the U.S. to deter and defeat near-peer adversaries–we need a systemic acquisitions cultural overhaul now.
New SASC Chair Sets Sight on $200B Defense Boost, Major Acquisition Reform Push
The new SASC Chairman has two goals as he takes the gavel in 2025: boost defense funding by about $200B in the Republican’s reconciliation package and pass a sweeping acquisition reform proposal in the next defense policy bill.
The budget reconciliation bill, which uses a special procedure that allows bills to avoid filibuster and pass with a simple majority, could include funding for Trump priorities like tax cuts and border security and is targeted to go to the president’s desk in April.
Wicker who has argued that US defense spending should grow to 5% of GDP and HASC chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., are hoping to make the case to GOP leadership that additional money for defense should be included as part of the legislation.
The FY26 NDAA as a vehicle to pass Wicker’s acquisition reform vision, laid out in December as the Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency in Defense (FORGED) Act.
The plus-up could be used to accelerate the construction of warships, amphibious ships and submarines, he said, as well as to start development of an American Iron Dome missile defense shield, an investment that Wicker acknowledged will be a technical challenge as well as a costly expenditure.
Wicker’s FORGED Act could radically reshape the Pentagon’s contracting apparatus by injecting new policies meant to ramp up competition, make the acquisition process more agile and responsive to changes in threat, and untether nontraditional defense firms and commercial companies from some of the most onerous Pentagon contracting procedures.
One of the FORGED Act’s biggest shifts would make commercial procurement processes the default contracting method for the Pentagon, making defense-specific contracting procedures used by bespoke weapon systems like fighter jets and aircraft carriers the exception rather than the rule.
In what could be a controversial move, it directs the Chairman of the JROC and Director of CAPE to co-chair a Joint Requirements & Programming Board.
Breaking Down How the Pentagon Could Spend $200B Extra
Wicker’s original plan, which was for a $110B increase over two years, or $55B of additional funding per year. To start with nearly 85% of this $55B would go towards Defense/COCOM agencies, the Air Force and the Navy. What is striking is how little funding is allocated to the Army, Marines and the Space Force.
The DoD is limping along under a six-month long continuing resolution that Elaine McCusker calculates wastes billions of dollars per month. Additionally, inflation has eaten away at least 3% of the Pentagon’s buying power, which seems small unless you actually do the math and realize that this is almost $25B.
Assuming a 3% inflation rate, the FY25 budget would need to be $25B higher just to have the same buying power as in FY24 and $30B higher in FY26.
if the Trump administration is serious about DOGE and transforming the DoD, then the Congress should allocate $35B to the DEPSECDEF, Stephen Feinberg.
The funds should be used to execute a 180-degree pivot away from exquisite, large, and costly platforms towards a future of mass production and mass customization. This would manifest itself as a full embrace of autonomy in the air, a massive embrace of autonomy at sea, and a new IT backbone.
We Need Different Generals
The Air Force has been led for three decades by generals raised and housed in a paradigm that is bureaucratic, unprincipled, and padlocked on budgets rather than people. As a result, our Air Force is in deep shit. And as a result, so too is our defense.
I encourage Pete Hegseth and his team to review how our most senior generals, admirals, and enlisted advisors are selected, and how they are developed in the years leading to selection.
We’ll also have to put Goldwater-Nichols on the table. We passed it four decades ago to force the services to work together. That part worked. But it’s since been weaponized by various trough-feeding or bureaucracy-protecting interests.
The generals who have led our service since Ron Fogleman resigned in 1997 have been strikingly similar. All cut from more or less the same cloth.
They favor centralized control and centralized execution, because their nostalgia and status-driven arrogance trap them into thinking today's airmen are less capable than they were in their heyday. Which is exactly backwards.
They are drawn too easily into small issues, creating the perception among airmen that they prefer inconsequential details and distractions to the major challenges confronting the service.
Gen David Allvin is clear in laying out the argument that the Air Force is underfunded. He says America needs more Air Force. I agree with him.
He rests his entire argument on a coming war with China.
He's focused, as ever, on modernization.
He doesn’t mention the service is short of pilots.
He admits that readiness has been eroded to pay for other imperatives.
Generals obsess over uniforms because they feel unable to attack the real issues. The big problems. So they default to issues within their grasp. We need generals to do something else: Leadership.
“You don’t know you’ve lost situational awareness until you regain it. And sometimes, it’s too late.”
Same Old Other Transaction Question, Worse Answers
For all the bragging about how innovative we are in 2025, the aperture for using new tools—or new-to-us tools—is smaller now than it was a whole generation ago. Choosing a business arrangement type or an acquisition pathway based solely on how much additional bureaucracy will be added to the already slow acquisition process is going in the wrong direction.
Choosing between an OT agreement or FAR-based contract depends on a lot of things.
What are you buying?
What are the risks?
How can you mitigate those risks?
Do you want to incentivize the contractor?
Are you looking for more flexibility?
Are you looking for more control?
What are your concerns about IP and data rights?
What does your market research say?
What economic conditions, climate conditions, real-world wars, supply chain issues, obsolescence issues, and more affect your situation?
What’s the risk of falling behind if we don’t move fast enough?
Who’s the customer, and how many lives will be lost if we’re late to a solution?
Despite High-Profile Exits, Most Defense Business, Innovation Boards Intact
DBB Departures: Deborah Lee James (Chair), Sally Donnelly, Oscar Munoz, Safroadu Yeboah-Amankawy, and Gen (Ret) Joseph Votel.
Linnie Haynesworth will serve as acting chair. Current members.
DIB Departures: Michael Bloomberg (Chair), Reid Hoffman, Mac Thornberry, and ADM (Ret) Michael Mullen.
Six remaining members: Dr. Gilda Barabino, Mary Meekr, Charles Phillips, Dr. Will Roper, and Ryan Swann
Report Finds Large Gap in CMMC Readiness Among Defense Industrial Base
Despite having years to get ready, a majority of defense contractors still feel unprepared to implement necessary protocols required by the Pentagon’s CMMC 2.0 initiative, according to a new report.
The final rule for the revamped CMMC 2.0 program went into effect, meaning defense contractors working with controlled unclassified information (CUI) or federal contract information (FCI) must meet one of three levels of CMMC compliance depending on the sensitivity of the information they handle.
The Pentagon plans to implement the new cybersecurity requirements for contractors by mid-2025.
However, a report published Tuesday by Redspin — an authorized CMMC third-party assessment organization (C3PAO) — found there is a significant gap in readiness for CMMC 2.0 requirements across the defense industrial base.
The assessment is based on a survey conducted in September 2024 that received 107 responses from a range of military contractors.
The largest share (42%) of respondents feel Moderately Prepared
16% still have a long way to go by being Slightly Prepared or Not at All Prepared.
This means that 58% of respondents are not ready for a rule that is now final and effective,”
CMMC assessment costs are crippling for small businesses, with some exceeding $100k. As a CMMC 3rd Party Assessor Organization (C3PAO), ATX Defense offers assessments that small businesses can afford. Don't let CMMC certification put you out of business. Secure your future in the DIB and strengthen our national security. atxdefense.com/cmmc
Defense Tech
Three Myths about AI in National Security
The US needs to pursue AI-enabled autonomy because China is doing it.
The PLA’s investments in more traditional weapons systems capable of threatening the US’s traditionally crewed systems is driving the US to develop autonomous systems.
“Tomorrow’s Airmen are more likely to fight in highly contested environments, and must be prepared to fight through combat attrition rates and risks to the Nation that are more akin to the World War II era than the uncontested environment to which we have since become accustomed.” Gen CQ Brown, CJCS
The Military Needs to Worry about Accidentally Building Skynet.
The US government is no longer the driving force behind much of the US’s tech development. Instead, the private sector drives technology development and the US Government plays the role of a “fast follower.”
The Ethics Issues in Military AI Are All About Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems.
Even as AI technology is applied to autonomous weapons systems, AI will increasingly play a role in the vast array of military missions and tasks that are only tangentially related to autonomous weapons.
AI will help intelligence analysts to sift through massive imagery datasets; it will help planners to conduct mission analysis and to develop possible COAs; and it will help crewed military systems to identify objects of interest.
How DeepSeek Changed the Future of AI—And What That Means for National Security
China’s breakthrough is an opportunity for American companies to build more efficient tools. That will also help the U.S. military.
Days after China’s DeepSeek detailed an approach to generative AI that needs just a fraction of the computing power used to build prominent U.S. tools, the global conversation around AI and national security—from how the Pentagon buys and uses AI to how foreign powers might disrupt American life, including privacy—is changing.
President Trump called it a “wake-up for our industries that we need to be laser focused on competing” against China. The NSC is reviewing the app. The Navy has already banned it.
If you believe the U.S. must win the AI competition that is intensifying strategic competition with China, then DeepSeek is a big deal.
DeepSeek is much more open-source than other models. But the defining technical innovation lies in the model’s ability to distill advanced reasoning capabilities from massive models into smaller, more efficient counterparts. One DeepSeek model often outperforms larger open-source alternatives, setting a new standard (or at least a very public one) for compact AI performance.
Alex Wang, CEO of Scale AI, whose company also evaluates AI models, described DeepSeek as comparable to OpenAI in a CNBC interview. He also said China has obtained roughly 50,000 of Nvidia’s H100 chips despite export controls.
While companies like OpenAI achieved their results based on huge data sets, very large models, and ever-expanding computer resources, the next phase of AI will likely usher in smaller models that need fewer compute resources.
“I would not be surprised to see the DOD embrace open-source American reproductions of DeepSeek and Qwen. The DOD has always had the pull to ask for special, on-premise versions of otherwise cloud-only service offerings. I would not be surprised if they make this ask of OpenAI and Claude.” Ritwik Gupta, Berkeley AI PhD student
Not On The Same Wavelength: Trump Inherits Spectrum Fight Between DoD, Commercial Industry
A major issue the new SECDEF is going to have to handle is what to do about the ongoing war over the electromagnetic spectrum.
For years DoD and commercial providers have tussled over usage of mid-band spectrum — 3.1-3.45 and 3.5 GHz S-band — widely considered to be the “Goldilocks” zone of the spectrum.
The DoD long has contended that this part of the spectrum band is essential for its various satellite communications, radars (including ones for critical counter-UAS targeting) and navigation systems.
However, US and foreign commercial companies covet those frequencies for providing high-speed wireless service to civilian and military users alike.
Issues
Spectrum space cannot be used by both parties at the same, and crowding too many broadcasters into nearby frequency bands causes interference that would have a crippling effect on critical warfighting missions.
It technically would be possible for the DoD to move its signals from the 3.1-3.5 range frequencies so they can be given to commercial industry, but Sherman said that amounts to a massive undertaking that would require replacing countless US military radar systems, costing “hundreds of billions” of dollars and creating a major security risk as the Pentagon scrambles to replace systems.
Agencies / Governing Boards
The FCC and the NTIA are the two organizations with responsibility for setting US spectrum policy, and governing which users get access.
Within NTIA, it is the Office of Spectrum Management that sets the regulations for spectrum allocations to federal agencies, as well as certifying that government equipment meets the necessary standards.
There are two other interagency bodies that coordinate federal agency spectrum use.
The Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) is made up of most of the spectrum using agencies, including each of the military departments, according to the group’s website.
The IRAC, which also has a liaison function with the FCC, is chaired by NTIA and is primarily a technical body. It meets monthly.
The second body is the Interagency Spectrum Advisory Council (ISAC), a top-level policy group composed of the principal members of each federal department that have an oversight control over spectrum use.
It provides advice to NTIA and ensures “that all decisions made by NTIA, including those involving representations to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), take into consideration the diverse missions of the Federal Government.”
DoD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence both have seats on this council; for DoD it is the chief information officer.
There is a Feb. 13 meeting of the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) where the Pentagon will have to defend its turf if it wants to avoid losing spectrum.
The DoD did start to undertake a study, along with the NTIA, on what is called “advanced dynamic spectrum sharing” to support easier sharing but that study is expected to take years and may not be timely enough for this decision.
“It is a zero sum game. There is finite spectrum, and the physics of the spectrum, about the desirability of the lower [3 GHz band] both for our target acquisition radars and for 5G, this makes it very difficult.” John Sherman, former DoD chief information officer and now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M
Startup Castelion Raises $100M for Hypersonic Strike Weapons
Silicon Valley’s enthusiasm for superfast weapons has picked up speed, with defense-tech startup Castelion raising $100 million through debt and equity to build hypersonic missile systems.
The company is vying to sell long-range strike weapons to the U.S. military.
Castelion raised $70 million from venture investors and $30 million in debt to help finance a new manufacturing plant to add to its facilities in CA and TX.
The funding round, led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, brings the company’s total funding to $114M. Andreessen Horowitz also invested.
Castelion’s three founders were each previously in senior positions at SpaceX, and roughly half the company’s 60 employees joined from Musk’s firm.
A number of startups are focused on building hypersonic-speed aircraft as well as launching services and engines.
Castelion is pitching an entire weapons system. It builds nearly all of the weapon—from the solid rocket motors to the electronics—and is considering beginning warhead production as well.
Castelion says its frequent flight tests, quick engineering upgrades and economical manufacturing will produce cheaper and better hypersonic weapons. It does about three test flights a month in the California desert.
Castelion said it would have a finished product ready for the military in 2027 and will have its first hypersonic-speed test flight for its weapon this summer.
Supernova Wins Contract to 3D Print Military-Grade Energetics
Supernova Industries Corp has won a contract to 3D print military-grade energetic materials in a pilot program with an eye on bolstering the U.S. defense industrial base.
Military-grade energetic materials are necessary for the proper functioning of defense systems, however, traditional processing techniques limit their potential.
According to the company, Supernova’s new VLM processing techniques will provide key innovations crucial to enhance safety, ensure material consistency, reduce waste stream and unlock new performance capabilities.
The company has named its proprietary technology “Viscous Lithography Manufacturing,” or VLM, which is an additive manufacturing process using a transparent film to transfer high viscosity materials onto a build platform, where they are cured by light to form printed parts.
“Our technology has the potential to overcome the design constraints of conventional manufacturing methods to produce the next generation of military-grade energetic material components, including solid rocket motors (SRMs), explosives and pyrotechnics.” Roger Antunez, the company’s founder and CEO
US Firm to Extract Rare Earths From E-waste for Defense
A Texas-based company is pioneering a new method to recycle electronic waste (e-waste) into rare earth elements crucial for national defense.
REEcycle aims to recover four key elements vital for neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) magnets, which are essential in various defense applications, such as electric motors for air platforms, missiles, submarines, and drones.
REEcycle’s proprietary processes recover over 98% of the rare earth elements neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium, which are crucial for the NdFeB magnets used in key national defense systems.
The REEcycle story began when Dr. Samarasekere, a chemist, discovered a chemical reaction that could extract 15 of the 17 rare earth elements from discarded electronic waste.
Army
Daniel Driscoll Confirmation Hearing for Secretary of the Army
Acquisition leaders must consider both immediate and potential demand for major weapon systems and munitions as they formulate acquisition plans. An ability to scale capacity, or at least calculations concerning cost and time to scale that capacity should accompany acquisition strategies.
If confirmed, I would work with the Army’s acquisition workforce and leaders to remove as many barriers as possible to doing business with the Army. The Army needs to be a better customer. Many actions that the government took in the 1980s to ensure fair competition have now become barriers to entry.
Middle Tier Acquisition authority offers a pathway for the Army to rapidly prototype or rapidly field capabilities in under five years. Use of this pathway can save the Department time and money as it develops and fields new technology, particularly when requirements are not fully mature. The Army has used this authority to accelerate programs like the XM30 combat vehicle, M-SHORAD Inc 3, and IFPC Inc 2 among others.
If confirmed, I will instruct the ASA (ALT) to create an incentive structure that rewards outcomes and calculated risk-taking, not compliance with procedures. Success is the creation of a capability, not completion of a checklist.
I will require requirements developers and acquisition officials to more carefully evaluate when the Army can purchase a fully developed, commercial or non-commercial and satisfy requirements with minimal acquisition risk, and when we must mature technology and develop an organic capability. Purchasing a fully developed system lowers development costs and delivery time. Some capabilities must be bespoke, but the Army can save time and money by buying as many noncommercial and commercial products as possible that meet warfighter needs.
The current process of constructing requirements has many faults. It takes too long to develop requirements, requirements are often developed without sufficient interaction with warfighters or acquisition professionals, and in many cases, requirements are overly difficult to achieve for industry or from a technological maturation perspective. Any revision to the requirements process needs to make it faster, more iterative, and less rigid.
Trump’s Nominee for Army Secretary Calls For Buying More COTS Tech
Daniel Driscoll told lawmakers that the Army should purchase more non-developmental solutions for drones and other technologies to help speed the delivery of new capabilities to soldiers.
Trump expects Driscoll to be a “disruptor and change agent” at the Army.
In APQs, he believes the Army should exploit COTS to meet its requirements.
“Wherever possible, and as required by FAR, the Army should purchase non-development and COTS solutions to meet requirements. Some capabilities require the Army to undertake independent development, but many of the Army’s most pressing needs: sUAS, counter-UAS, EW systems, and comms gear have already been developed.”
“Our technological edge is shrinking. The Army needs to accelerate its modernization and better prepare our forces for the advances in drone and autonomous warfare the world has witnessed in Ukraine.”
“Some commercial products and NDIs should move immediately into the field without testing or with minimal testing because the Army currently has no existing capability. In other situations, the Army can thoroughly test non-developmental and commercial items because the operational need is less dire.”
Blockchain, Big Data and GenAI: Army Uses Novel Tech to Track Billions in Ukraine Aid
Moving masses of military materiel requires managing masses of data, from automated Pentagon logistics feeds to late-night Signal chats with Ukrainian officers. Army Materiel Command’s latest digital tracking tool: blockchain.
There’s never been more pressure on the Pentagon to prove that military aid to Kyiv — almost $70B to date — is being managed efficiently and accountably.
The lion’s share of that burden falls on Army Materiel Command which oversees everything from arsenals building cannon barrels, to warehouses of equipment being transferred under Presidential Drawdown Authority, to an international distribution network spanning private companies, NATO allies, and frontline Ukrainian brigades.
Inside of the Army, I would say near 100% of that data is automated.
Standard DoD data systems were never built to tame such a mad menagerie of different sources. So soldiers and civilians across AMC have innovated, improvised, and on occasion outright kludged together a digital toolkit including big-data analytics, generative AI, and blockchain.
Once the LLM was tamed, and its outputs double-checked, it has provided an efficient way to turn unstructured Presidential Drawdown Authority PDFs into structured data that’s digestible by Army Materiel Command’s big-data system.
The Army is learning a lot about the challenging logistics of modern war as it supports Ukraine.
Army Launching Self-Propelled Howitzer Competition in Mid-February, After Globetrotting Evaluation Tour
After globetrotting to evaluate existing self-propelled howitzers, the Army decided to forgo another foray into developing their own and will launch a full and open competition.
The Army is planning to pick an unspecified number of companies to proceed and award Phase I contracts around the July to September timeframe. Those vendors will then participate in additional competitive evaluation testing that will run through FY26.
Army leaders plan to evaluate competing systems on range, precision, and volume, as well as the platform characteristics like mobility and supportability.
And that test data from Phase I, will be used to inform evaluation in Phase II.
If all goes as planned, that second round of downselects will occur in early FY27 ahead of initial fielding in the 2030 timeframe — but possibly with multiple self-propelled howitzer lines of effort, as the Army reexamines its force structure.
To support current and future operations, next generation artillery must deliver precise and effective fires at range and be able to mass fires to support operations.
Our Take: This sounds like a solid approach. Instead of staffing a requirements document, they evaluating existing operational systems for suitability to meet needs and shape the scope and elements of the program. A competition to bring multiple vendors in the mix to demonstrate their solutions across a number of operational performance priorities. Exploring multiple lines of effort - which one may call Portfolio Management - ideally with multiple vendors contributing sounds like a plan coming together.
Navy
The sUSV Market: Small, Saturated... but Strategic
Admirals are amped about sea denial. They’ve realized that small unmanned surface vessels (USVs) are perfect for holding chokepoints, denying conventional warships maneuver in constrained bodies of water, and blocking amphibious assaults. Yet it’s a tiny market that might already be saturated.
I’ve identified 20 critical maritime bodies of water. These are mainly the geographic chokepoints and Straits through which 90% of world trade flows, like the Suez Canal and Straits of Gibraltar.
Very narrow canals can be physically blocked off from land. Narrow straits can be defended with simple land-based weapons.
The Taiwan Strait has maritime chokepoints called Sea Lines of Communication could use USVs or be denied by their usage.
Saildrone, SeaSats, and OceanAero offer navies high endurance sensor deployment at very low cost. The main drawback: very low speed.
Speedboats are what Ukraine and the Houthis are using against much better equipped adversaries. But they have very limited range.
Saronic, a VC-backed company, has raised $245M and is supposedly raising $500M more. I’ll take a wild swing and say they have at least $200M of contracts.
Our Take: It’s worth reading Austin’s full post which goes into more detailed market analysis.
A Shipbuilding Action Plan for the Trump Administration
Shipbuilding will clearly be a top priority for the Pentagon, the NSC, and even the president himself.
China is leveraging its booming commercial shipbuilding industry to expand its military capabilities, whereas shipbuilding in the U.S. is virtually a monopsony, with the Navy being the near-exclusive customer.
Use the tools at hand. Any plan to improve shipbuilding must begin with a bottom-up review of the root causes of the differing challenges within each program.
Friends can help. The strengths of American naval technology are being challenged by China’s hyperscaling of shipbuilding capacity.
Get real about how much ships cost. Each year, the president’s budget tells Congress that a certain number of ships can be bought for a precise amount of money. Those numbers are wrong more often than they are right.
Get the right people in the right seats. There is no position more important to shipbuilding than ASN/RDA.
It’s not just the Navy. It’s America. Look beyond the Navy as the source of, and solution to, our nation’s eroding maritime industrial strength.
The Nation Needs a Shipbuilding Revolution
Envisioning and then taking action to lead what could be a revolution in shipping is imperative for regaining U.S. maritime strength.
The U.S. Navy is in a fight for survival, a quickening battle being waged from the halls of the Pentagon to the boardrooms of industry to hearings on Capitol Hill.
The consequence of this contest will determine if the nation is destined for maritime irrelevance and the laying of its prosperity at the whims of autocrats a world away.
At the core: What sort of Navy does the nation need; and how can it be built?
A classic exchange between Churchill and Fisher occurred in a January 1912 letter in which they discussed the importance of modernization and investment in future capacity: “The luxuries of the present are the necessities of the future.”
Some have argued that it is capability that matters, not the number of ships, but this misses the critical necessity of closing with the enemy in any naval battle.
Unsurprisingly, years of modest increases in naval funding have not expanded shipbuilding capacity or grown the shipyard workforce.
Today, the U.S. fleet numbers 296 battle force ships; but it should have been at 321 to stay on pace with earlier plans to reach 355 ships by 2034.
Four public shipyards that perform maintenance on nuclear-powered submarines are understaffed. Only 1/3 of maintenance across the fleet is completed on time.
The last major change to the maritime industry was thanks to two American innovations perfected during and after World War II: modular ship construction and containerization of cargo.
Congress has urged the executive branch to strengthen U.S. maritime industry and introduced the bipartisan SHIPS for America Act in December.
The act calls for, among other things, adding 250 ships within the decade to the U.S.-flagged merchant fleet by establishing a Strategic Commercial Fleet Program, and it encourages an expansion of the shipbuilding base by offering a 25-percent tax credit for shipyard investments.
The Navy Is Too Important To Be Left to the Admirals
At a time when the incoming administration wants to position itself to challenge China's growing strengths, namely its rapidly expanding naval fleet, it is curious that the Navy continues to decommission perfectly good warships.
The Navy has been rapidly decommissioning a variety of ships such as the failed littoral combat ship, but more troubling is the loss of needed amphibious ships and needlessly retiring the capable and vital class of cruisers.
An egregious example is the replacement of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers with the new Arleigh Burke III destroyers.
The Arleigh Burke Flight III class destroyers will have paradigm shifting SPY 6 radar and Aegis Baseline 10 fire control systems along with increased propulsion.
The new destroyer will ensure the Navy’s technological edge but at the cost of creating a gap in capability and readiness by prematurely decommissioning the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
With the current rate of building new destroyers at only two hulls per year, clearly the gap in capability and readiness will be long term since the Ticonderoga-class ships will by gone by 2027.
It will be interesting to see how many retired admirals who took part in the decision making are now working for companies building the Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers.
The decision to buy the misnamed Landing Ship Medium (LSM) to support the Marine Corps' Force Design at the cost of reducing the real amphibious force from thirty-eight to thirty-one hulls is proving disastrous. Cost estimates for the LSM are so far over budget that it will likely never be built.
A careful scrub by DOGE of the Navy's shipbuilding plans and policies is necessary to align the Navy’s goals with that of President Trump, eliminating cronyism, expanding shipbuilding, and revisiting the way things have already been done.
Surface Warfare: The Competitive Edge 2.0
The Surface Navy must achieve higher fleet readiness while simultaneously integrating new and upgraded platforms and capabilities.
LOE 1: Develop the Leader, Warrior, Mariner, and Manager
Invest in Warfighter Competency; Recruit and Retain Talent
LOE 2: Produce More Ready Ships
Ready Our Platforms
LOE 3: Achieve Excellence in Capability Introduction
Ready our Platforms; Operationalize Robotic and Autonomous Systems
LOE 4: Create Clear and Innovative Operational Concepts
Ready our Platforms; Operationalize Robotic and Autonomous Systems
LOE 5: Strengthen the Foundation for the Future Force
Restore our Critical Infrastructure; Ready our Platforms
Navy to Establish USVRON 7, Adding Another Robotic Ship Squadron to the Force
The Navy is preparing to create a new unit focused on small unmanned surface vessels amid a push by the chief of naval operations to bring more robotic and autonomous systems into the fleet.
Unmanned Surface Vessel Squadron 7 is slated to be established in May in San Diego, California and will be “primarily tasked with operating and maintaining” a variety of small USVs including the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft and future RAS systems.”
The Navy is looking to ramp up GARC production to 32 vessels per month later this year.
The establishment of USVRON 7 this spring will come about a year after the sea service stood up USVRON 3 — tasked with overseeing a fleet of GARCs and helping the sea service integrate, scale, experiment and employ those types of platforms.
MQ-25 Will Fly in 2025, Fly Off Carriers in 2026
The US Navy’s top operational aviator says he’s confident the service will have its new unmanned aerial tanker flying this year and operating off aircraft carriers in 2026, characterizing it as a key point in paving the way for future next generation aircraft.
“We’re going after that thing in a big way so we can do manned-unmanned teaming off an aircraft carrier and that is a different world. It opens up the future of sixth-gen collaborative combat aircraft and everything that comes after it.” VADM Daniel Cheever
The MQ-25, also dubbed Stingray, is an unmanned tanker designed to refuel the strike fighter fleet while performing a secondary ISR mission.
Its fielding is also expected to relieve pressure on the service’s F/A-18s which have had to act as aerial refuelers in the meantime, taking them from strike missions.
Report to Congress on Navy Medium Landing Ship
The Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM) program envisions procuring a class of 18-35 new amphibious ships to support the Marine Corps, particularly in implementing their operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO).
The Navy’s proposed FY25 budget requests $268.1M to procure the first ship.
Second in FY26 $200M
Third and fourth in FY27 for a combined $349.5M ($174.7M each)
Fifth and sixth in FY28 at $305M ($152M each)
Seventh and eighth in FY29 at $312M ($156M each)
Navy, Marines Want More Energy Storage to Supply Power Hungry Warships, Bases
The DoD last month issued a small contract for a Navy project to develop and provide a modular energy storage system for its newest vessels including its all-electric DDG-1000 class of surface combatants.
DIU in working with PEO Ships awarded a $14.2M contract to Siemens Energy for a prototype called Long Operation Combatant Naval Energy Storage System (LOC-NESS).
This modularized system is intended to be scalable and compatible with existing and future needs of Navy maritime platforms.
The energy demands of the all-electric Zumwalt-class ships when in port will put a greater burden on existing installation power grids, so the Navy is looking for solutions to ensure power and energy resiliency for both the fleet and its installations.
The rapid growth of AI data centers is putting additional strain on the regional power grids that supply bases and stations.
Aging infrastructure remains a top concern. In some cases, outdated infrastructure, including utilities, can’t support newer technologies’ power demands. What’s needed are smart investments in operational energy with an eye on the future.
Military Services Need to Sync Up Replicator Software
As the Pentagon approaches its two-year deadline to get thousands of autonomous systems operational as part of the Replicator initiative, officials urged the services and the Pentagon to do more to coordinate their efforts, especially when it comes to software used on the systems.
To implement such an enterprise level strategy, not only do Navy fleet commanders have to work together, but the services as a whole must do so too to truly make Replicator a multi-domain operation. Right now, that’s not happening as much as it should.
Program managers are rewarded on cost schedule performance, not on connecting the dots and saying, Hey, you know what? This information is really good, and not only is this information good, but I’m going to figure out a way to unlock my information and give it to the other services in a way that’s meaningful for somebody else.
“I can't have every fleet commander buying their software or their robot. Some of that can happen, obviously, but we do have to settle up." RADM Christopher Sweeney, N9I.
“A government reference architecture would serve as a database that keeps track of all the various software the Pentagon is buying and how it will all work together. The government needs to be a bit more assertive on some critical things that will set those conditions on how software capabilities come together across the entire mission element.” Chris Brose, Anduril Chief Strategy Officer.
Air Force
Now CCAs Can Do Things We Didn’t Think Were Possible
The Air Force now believes a single manned fighter can control a larger number of drones than previously thought, and can do so using less-sophisticated autonomous technology.
No one is saying yet how many CCAs can be teamed with a single manned fighter, but testing and simulations demonstrate these larger combinations “present dilemmas to our adversary that we didn’t think were possible.”
L:ockheed leadership claims that they can already control up to eight autonomous drones out of an F-35 based on demos conducted this year.
The new Tech Refresh 3 upgrades gives the F-35 the three things that you need for an effective node: data processing, storage, and connection to the cloud.
The critical design review was a crucial step in this plan to field something very quickly,” Kunkel said. “The fact that both of them passed and they met the requirements that were levied upon them and frankly, they’re ready to fly, and in some cases, are flying, puts us in a really, really good spot. I feel like the next steps are to actually get them in the air.”
“What we thought was going to be this requirement for a great amount of autonomy and a significant amount of artificial intelligence, and really, really complex algorithms. Frankly, simple autonomy, simple algorithms, a little bit of AI sprinkled in. … We’ve been able to decrease pilot workload to a degree where they can really, really effectively utilize these capabilities.” Gen Kunkel
Related Article: F-35 AI-Enabled Drone Controller Capability Successfully Demonstrated
Our Take: While we never like to hear the words “AI” and “Sprinkle” in the same sentence, it does appear that Lockheed has invested their own funds (potentially up to $100M) to enable manned-unmanned teaming that could include the CCA (although its unclear how close the ties are between its demo and the formal Air Force CCA architecture). It will be exciting to see the first flight where an F-22 or F-35 is actively controlling multiple autonomous wingmen.
Air Force Pondering CCA Drones That Don’t Require Runways
The Air Force is conducting mission-level modeling for the next increment of its CCA program, and options being considered include drones that don’t require runways to be launched.
Having drones that don’t require runways would give the Air Force more options and operational flexibility.
Increment 2 planning is ongoing right now. And there’s a lot of operational analysis that goes into it, and industry has been providing a lot of operational analysis in this space as well, because there are benefits to having something that’s less exquisite, and there are also benefits to having something that’s more exquisite and has more capability.” Gen Kunkel
Our Take: While launched drones have always been on the Air Force’s radar, it seems rather unlikely that CCA Increment 2 (which is likely to have expanded requirements from Increment 1) would be limited in this way. It would drive limits on fuel and range as well as payloads - and requires complex recovery methods. It could make sense in a future increment as part of a more limited use case.
NORAD Sends Fighter Patrols to Monitor Russian Military Flights in the Arctic
U.S. Air Force F-35s and Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18s conducted combat air patrols in response to Russian military aircraft operating in the Arctic early this week.
The Russian aircraft were operating in international airspace and did not enter the Alaskan or Canadian Air Defense Identification Zones or sovereign airspace.
“Under its mission of maintaining comprehensive domain awareness in the Arctic, NORAD launched a combat air patrol from its Canadian NORAD Region (CANR) to the northern region of Canada, and an air patrol from its Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR) off the coast of the Alaska/Yukon border, to further track the activity.” NORAD Statement
Our Take: Its clear that Russia will continue to probe NATO defenses in the Arctic as it looks to stake a claim and gain control of portions of the High North. Sadly, the alliance does not look as prepared to counter that effort with its limited supply of icebreakers. Luckily, it does have Finland as part of the alliance who designs 80% of the world’s icebreakers and builds more than 60% of them in Finnish shipyards. The ICE Pact–a trilateral partnership between the United States, Canada, and Finland to share technical information will go a long way to restoring this balance.
KC-135 fuels Agile Combat Employment for Operation Agile Spartan 25.1
The Ninth Air Force launched Operation Agile Spartan 25 across the Arabian Peninsula to evaluate the U.S. Air Force’s ability to react and respond to regional threats as a unified coalition force.
Agile Spartan 25.1 served as U.S. Air Forces Central’s capstone Agile Combat Employment exercise to validate the ability to integrate with regional partners and generate combat air power in support of operational objectives.
The intent of the exercise is to shift generation of airpower from large, centralized bases to networks of smaller, dispersed locations to increase survivability, complicate adversary planning and gain an advantage.
A vital component of the exercise, air refueling enables the ability to maneuver and mass forces to coerce or defeat the adversary where they are least prepared by increasing the range, payload, persistence and flexibility of air forces.
With the potential future of conflicts, air refueling brings personnel, cargo and weapons to the fight via aircraft operating from multiple locations across a tyranny of distances.
Our Take: Its good to see the Air Force exercising for ACE scenarios more as this will be an important skillset to have for the Indo-Pacific fight.
Billions For Next Generation Fighter Jet Engines Greenlit By Air Force
The U.S. Air Force has dramatically plused-up contracts with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, both of which now have a ceiling of $3.5B , to continue work on prototype next-generation jet engines.
The contract modifications are described as funding additional “technology maturation and risk reduction services” in support of work on prototype engines.
The contract modifications announced today for the ongoing prototyping effort now cover work through 2032.
While NGAD combat jet’s future is now an open question, but NGAP might also feed into other advanced aviation programs.
GE’s XA102 passed a major design review in 2023 and P&W’s XA103 did the same last year.
They both leverage work on earlier engines that the two companies developed as potential options for re-engining F-35 Joint Strike Fighters as part of the Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP).
Like the XA100 and XA101, the XA102 and XA103 are known to be so-called adaptive cycle designs. What this means in broad strokes is that their bypass ratios can be adjusted on demand while in flight between modes that are more fuel-efficient or provide more power, depending on what the situation requires.
Related Article: Air Force triples funding for prototype sixth-gen fighter engine
Our Take: While it is still unclear what decision the new administration will make on NGAD, it appears that NGAP will likely be spared. That is good news. While we have shared thoughts on how NGAD funds might be better spent given near-term needs, we also realize the engine industrial base is critical and these funds will advance the state of propulsion technology in important ways for the defense industrial base.
Northrop Reveals Another B-21 Contract, in Talks with USAF About Faster Production
Northrop Grumman received a second low-rate initial production contract on the B-21 bomber before the end of 2024, the company said, and it has held preliminary talks with the Air Force about accelerating the rate of production on the new bomber.
Executives also said Northrop is meeting milestones on the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program and suggested the company could compete for the NGAD program if it is re-opened.
The Air Force has acknowledged there are at least six B-21s in some stage of production, and at least one has been in flight test since November 2023.
The actual production rate on the aircraft is classified, although Air Force and Pentagon officials have suggested it is around seven per year.
Due to aggressive pricing, there will be little if any profit on the B-21 in the early years, but that the company expects it to be a good financial performer beyond the initial lots.
The B-21 team is driving efficiencies and implementing performance improvement initiatives and as a result, headwinds on the program are milder than expected.
Our Take: The B-21 will remain an important component of the Air Force’s arsenal as the threat increases in the Indo-Pacific. It is supposed to be adaptable enough in its hardware and software configuration to enable more rapid upgrades as needed. If so, then expanding production makes sense as a tradeoff for the NGAD program. If not, then it may not be financially viable as the cost per aircraft is likely to significantly rise and the Air Force will have to maintain the expanded production for many years to make the investment worthwhile. This means it becomes essentially a “must-pay” bill - so any decision here will have to be made deliberatively.
Space Force
Space companies can dock satellites in orbit, but can they navigate the Pentagon?
Commercial space companies are revolutionizing the global economy with groundbreaking technologies, from autonomous satellite docking to cutting-edge data services.
Yet, despite their innovation prowess, companies face significant challenges navigating the labyrinthine corridors of military space acquisition.
For many, understanding the United States government’s sprawling and fragmented procurement system remains a daunting task.
Lee Rosen, co-founder and CEO of space infrastructure startup ThinkOrbital and a retired U.S. Air Force officer with more than two decades of experience in military acquisitions and space operations described his difficulty navigating the military’s procurement system as “absolutely crazy.”
For startups seeking government customers, identifying the right door to knock on often feels like a guessing game.
Major players can afford teams dedicated to deciphering government solicitations and responding to proposals, while startups often struggle with these labor-intensive requirements.
Even responding to Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) proposals can drain resources for contracts that provide only modest funding.
Private sector firms also face conflicting signals from potential customers.
Companies in the remote-sensing sector, for instance, are unsure whether the government prefers to buy satellite data as a service or to acquire and operate the satellites directly.
To address these challenges, the Space Force expanded its “Front Door” initiative, a portal designed to connect commercial firms with government buyers.
The program now includes over 20 agencies, including NASA and the NRO, offering a streamlined way for companies to engage with customers.
The Space Force’s outreach efforts, combined with the private sector’s eagerness to innovate, suggest that a more efficient partnership is possible.
But until the maze of military space acquisition is simplified, commercial space companies will continue to struggle to turn their technological breakthroughs into operational realities for the U.S. government.
Our Take: This is why we are excited about the FORGED Act and the potential for it to lower the bar on doing business with DoD. See our analysis of the legislation here.
Chinese Provinces Are Fueling the Country’s Commercial Space Expansion
China’s national space endeavors have frequently grabbed headlines, but a transformation at the local level is playing another role in China’s broader space strategy.
Across the country, local governments are rolling out policies to cultivate commercial space industries and attempting to position their regions as key players in the burgeoning space sector.
New initiatives include tax incentives, subsidies, industrial clusters, and commercial spaceports. This approach allows provinces to experiment with commercial space initiatives as part of decentralized efforts for economic growth.
China’s provincial policies in support of so-called New Space need to be seen as a major contributing factor to the emergence and current flourishing of the Chinese commercial space industry
This year may see a number of Chinese launch startups debuting larger, reusable rockets, potentially marking a breakthrough year for the country’s commercial space sector.
Our Take: This is why we need to make sure that DoD supports the commercial space economy in the right way and that there is both a national and local strategy for promoting this technology sector.
Space RCO Wants Satellites to Sense Nearby Threats, Hazards
The Space Force operates satellites that can track threats hundreds of miles away, like missile launches on Earth or other spacecraft in orbit. Now, the SpRCO wants to make sure USSF satellites can also spot dangers right next to or on board them.
The SpRCO announced its new “Prime Fusion Pilot Accelerator” program with the venture studio FedTech, pairing small, innovative companies to work together on what the office is calling “own-ship awareness.”
It’s a new term the Space RCO has come up with to describe a mission that’s slightly different from space domain awareness and space situational awareness.
That means putting sensors and software on-board that can give operators awareness of “anomalies, hazards, and threats” to their satellite.
Putting things like cameras, imaging systems, and radio frequency sensors on satellites is nothing new but there are challenges to doing so for own-ship awareness that need to be solved.
One is finding the right balance of own-ship awareness sensors to other payloads as one could load up its satellites with awareness sensors and overwhelm the satellite for other payloads.
Another is making sure these self-protection sensors come integrated or standard on satellite buses as the Space Force often buys its payloads and buses separately and has to integrate them after.
The SpRCO doesn’t want to follow that model, given its focus on fielding things fast.
To attack the problem, the Space RCO is pairing 10 companies into five teams to work on solutions and new technology for own-ship awareness over the next eight weeks. The teams are:
Active Vigilance, which has developed an automated, on-board diagnostic system for spacecraft, and Turion Space, a satellite builder focused on cleaning up orbital debris and non-Earth imaging.
Digantara, which is working space situational awareness capabilities, and Anduril, the defense startup looking to break into space with its automation software
Geost, a payload builder that makes small cameras and sensors, and Impulse Space, which focuses on “space transportation” and maneuvering in orbit.
Raptor Dynamix, a software firm focused on “AI-enabled space operations, on-orbit dynamic space operations, and threat characterization” and True Anomaly, which builds both spacecraft and mission control software to create a common operating picture.
TRL11, which touts the use of video and AI for spacecraft operations and situational awareness, and BlackVe, a new, little-known firm working on national security missions for spacecraft.
International
More Work to Lower Barriers to Tech-Sharing for AUKUS Pillar II
The AUKUS nations have made progress in loosening regulatory barriers when it comes to the exchange of defense technology for the alliance’s Pillar II initiative, but an Australian official said much more red tape still needs to be cut.
A major barrier is licenses under the Excluded Technology List (ELT), that’s controlled by onerous export rules such as ITAR.
In August the US approved new ITAR rules to speed along AUKUS-related tech sharing, but experts and lawmakers have called for the alliance to go further.
Narrowing down the excluded tech list will help strengthen not only Pillar II efforts — which include capabilities such as hypersonics, autonomy, AI and other advanced weapons — but also would give small businesses the opportunity to showcase their capabilities.
Sweden Unveils Drone Swarm to be Paired with Ground Troops
Sweden has unveiled a cluster of swarming aerial drones envisioned to equip ground and air units of the Swedish Armed Forces for intelligence and surveillance applications.
In a demonstration video, a formation of 10 quadcopters is seen taking off and relaying footage of their flight trajectory above snowy forests to ground operators.
A Swedish voice-over explains that the drones’ high-resolution imagery and artificial intelligence-driven analyses enable commanders to have immediate and actionable insights for faster decision-making.
The initiative has involved the participation of the Swedish aerospace company Saab in cooperation with the Swedish military, the Swedish Defense Material Administration and the Swedish Defense Research Agency.
“The individual UAVs in the swarm are equipped with different capabilities, such as varying sensors, payload, and communication capacities – the swarms are controlled by a single operator who can assign … tasks to one or more swarms, for instance via a mobile phone.” Saab Spokesperson
Sweden To Provide Ukraine with $1.2B Military Aid Package
The Nordic country will double the amount of Stridsbåt 90 combat boats it’s donating from Swedish armed forces stocks to 32 boats and provide 1,500 TOW anti-tank missiles and 200 AT4 anti-tank weapons.
They will also provide about 5.9B kronor to buy newly produced defense equipment for Ukraine from Swedish and international manufacturers, the government said in a statement. That financing can be directed to priority needs such as artillery, long-range strike capabilities and drones,
Another $71M kronor will go to repair and maintenance of equipment already donated such as Leopard 2 battle tanks, CV90 combat vehicles and Archer self-propelled howitzers.
The intention is to allocate about 1B kronor to the production of Ukrainian long-range missiles and long-range drones
The Case for “Avalanche Decoupling” From China
Eyck Freymann and Hugo Bromley
As tensions rise in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, U.S. efforts to deter Chinese aggression suffer from a fundamental credibility problem. The United States has conventional and strategic tools to deter Beijing, including the threat of punishing economic sanctions. But China is much too big and integrated into the global trading system to expel it from the world economy overnight.
Financial panic and supply chain disruptions would fracture the international economic order and undermine U.S. leadership.
Punishing Beijing for unprovoked aggression would be essential to maintaining U.S. credibility and leverage, but it would have to be balanced with U.S. interests.
These include preserving macroeconomic and financial stability, dollar hegemony, and a functional and rules-based international trading system, as well as breaking U.S. and allied dependence on the Chinese market.
Rather than threatening economic Armageddon if China crossed U.S. redlines in East Asia, Washington could offer an affirmative vision for how the international economic system can evolve to protect the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and third countries.
This vision should include a U.S.-led allied agenda to protect economic security in peacetime, as well as a contingency plan to broaden and accelerate that program during and after a potential crisis of Chinese aggression.
The plan is “avalanche decoupling.” If Beijing crossed one of Washington’s redlines, the United States could work with its allies to manage the resulting global financial crisis, reshore critical supply chains away from China as fast as possible, and trigger a ratcheting trade policy to unlink noncritical supply chains over the longer term.
The plan would also initiate the creation of an Economic Security Cooperation Board, a new institution with membership open to all countries except rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, Russia, and of course China.
The ESCB would ensure that the decoupling process was rules-based, driven by market forces rather than command and control, and protective of its members’ national and economic security interests, while acknowledging that most countries would continue to trade with both the United States and China.
Congress
DoD and the rest of the federal government is still operating on a continuing resolution than runs through Mar 14. The Administration and Congress are seeking to use Reconciliation to approve the FY25 budget with changes and new initiatives.
In order for the reconciliation process to begin, the House and Senate must pass a concurrent budget resolution that includes a deficit reduction or cost target for relevant committees. Each committee would then propose policies to meet those targets and compile them into reconciliation legislation. The final package would be eligible to be privileged in the Senate, meaning that it would not be subject to the filibuster. Since Congress never enacted a budget resolution for FY25, that resolution is still available to pass and begin the reconciliation process. Congress could also use an FY26 budget resolution. Source: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Confirmation Hearings
Stephen Feinberg, DEPSECDEF, Feb 11
Podcasts, Books, and Videos
Affording Defense: A Conversation with Representative Ken Calvert
Exposing DoD’s Billion Dollar Procurement Problem w/Warren Katz, Defense Mavericks
Why Government Space Missions Need the Commercial Sector w/MG (Dr.) Heather Pringle, USAF (Ret.), NDIA ETI
The Man Behind the Military's Smartest Self-Driving Vehicles w/Byron Boots, American Optimist
Connecting Silicon Valley to Defense Industry w/Daniel Ateya, NDIA ETI
AI Agents And The Path To AGI w/Bob McGrew, Y Combinator
More than Microchips w/Dr. Whitney Mason, Voices from DARPA
Upcoming Events and Webinars
Prodacity 2025, Rise8, Feb 4-6, Nashville, TN
DOGE: Implications, Opps for Gov’t Contracting, Feat Matt, GMU, Feb 5
NCMA Nexus, Feb 9-12, Long Beach, CA
Defense and Intelligence Space Conference, NSSA, Feb 10-12, Reston, VA
National Logistics Forum, NDIA, Feb 11-13, Orlando, FL
Munich Security Conference Innovation Day feat. DIU, Feb 13, Munich, GE
Congressional M&S Leadership Summit, NTSA, Feb 18, Jacksonville, FL
Special Operations Symposium, NDIA, Feb 19-20, Washington DC
Accelerating Capability to the Field, DAU, Feb 19-20, Virtual
Creative Disruptors in the Desert, Feat. Pete and Matt, CDF, Feb 21-22, Indian Wells, CA
Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference, NDIA, Feb 24-26, Reston, VA
National Summit on UAVs, ACI, Feb 25-26, San Diego, CA
Defense Software and Data Summit 2025, Govini, Feb 26, Washington DC
Power of Prototyping Symposium, NDIA and GMU, Feb 28, Arlington, VA
Pacific Operational Science & Tech (POST) Conf, NDIA, Mar 3-7, Honolulu, HI
McAleese Defense Programs Conference, Mar 7, Washington DC
Human Systems Conference, NDIA, Mar 11-12, Arlington, VA
Manifest: Demo Day, Long Walk Tech, Mar 17, Navy Yard, Washington DC
Undersea Warfare Spring Conference, NDIA, Mar 17-19, San Diego, CA
McAleese Defense Programs Conf, Mar 18, Washington DC
Munitions Executive Summit, NDIA, Mar 18-19, Parsippany, NJ
See our Events Page for all the other events over the next year.
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.