Headlines: Bombs, Budgets, and Breakthrough Tech
Your rundown of the what's happening in acquiring defense tech.
Welcome to the latest edition of Defense Tech and Acquisition.
Midnight Hammer drops some bunker busters on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Congress and the DoD provide budget details - Our new budget post coming soon!
DoD rolls out some exciting autonomous air, sea, and ground systems.
Army continues to transform while the Navy embraces, priorities industry tech.
Air Force revives ARRW and kills E-7 while SDA launches new sats early.
We offer a large bounty of videos and pods from recent events to queue up.
Top Stories
Kudos to all the pilots, sailors, and others involved in this successful strike.
GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator Successor In The Works
The Air Force’s first combat employment of 30,000-pound GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs in recent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites draws new attention to work toward a successor. There was already very active U.S. military interest in a new Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) when the MOP first began entering service in the early 2010s.
The 20-and-a-half-feet-long GBU-57/B is a precision-guided bomb that consists of a penetrating warhead, which has its own designation (BLU-127/B), along with a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance package, specialized fuzes, and other components.
The Air Force put out in February 2024 calls for a warhead weighing 22,000 pounds or less, and that would be capable of blast / frag[mentation] / and penetration effects.
Bombs like the MOP and any future NGP that are designed to penetrate very deeply have additional specialized fuzing needs, especially for employment against targets where pre-strike intelligence about the exact depth and/or physical layout is limited.
An NGP bunker buster with standoff capability could also be not just valuable, but increasingly critical as the air defense ecosystem expands and evolves.
As it stands now, the current NGP effort, at least from what the Air Force has shared publicly, is still at a very early stage.
Related: CENTCOM leader needs more tech that can target underground sites
SASC Chairman Wicker Releases Updated Defense Reconciliation Bill
Changes Made Since June 3 Release:
Increases funding for critical minerals supply chains to $5B
Increases funding for defense industrial base efforts to $3.3B
Decreases funding for the National Defense Stockpile to $2B
Decreases funding for military border support ops to $1B
Removes all references to classified material (wait, what?)
Makes a handful of non-substantive changes for execution purposes
Senior Officials Outline President's Proposed FY26 Defense Budget
Some of the allocations in the proposed budget include:
$25B toward an initial investment in the proposed Golden Dome for America
$60B toward nuclear enterprise, including all three legs of the nuclear triad;
$3.1B for continued F-15EX Eagle II fighter jet production;
$3.5B for the Air Force's F-47 NGAD fighter
Funding for 19 new Navy battle force ships while maintaining 287 ships
$6.5B in conventional and non-hypersonic munitions
$3.9B in hypersonic weapons
$15.1B invested in cybersecurity
$1.3B for industrial base supply chain improvements
$2.5B for missile and munitions production expansion
$1.2B for the Office of Strategic Capital's loan program
Related Stories: DoD’s $961B budget hinges on one-time reconciliation bill
Stay tuned for our deep-dive of the FY26 defense budget for our paid subscribers.
Fixing the Pentagon’s Broken Innovation Pipeline
Michael Horowitz and Lauren Kahn
The Pentagon’s outdated budget process is stifling innovation and must be reformed to outpace rising threats.
In a world of rapid technological change and rising Chinese military power, there is broad agreement that the Pentagon must become far more agile in acquiring new military capabilities.
The use of inexpensive, AI-enabled drones, a capability that warfighters, Silicon Valley innovators, and armchair strategists alike believe the Pentagon must urgently adopt and scale for the US military. So why hasn’t it happened yet?
Congressional Budget Dynamics Slow the Adoption of New Capabilities
The PPBE process often turns innovation adoption into a long, grinding battle even in the best of times. Congressional committees line-edit the DoD’s $850B budget down to the thousand-dollar level and tend to favor legacy capabilities, further stacking the deck against change.
Numerous reports, commissions, and legislative proposals in recent years — from across the political spectrum — have echoed similar critiques of the PPBE system and called for reforms in budgeting and acquisition.
Four changes would substantially enhance the Pentagon’s ability to scale and adopt innovative capabilities at speed and scale.
The Pentagon Must Be Allowed to Reprogram Resources Quickly Enough to Match the Pace of Technological and Threat Changes
Congress Should Give the Pentagon More Flexible, Colorless Funding to Accelerate Capability Fielding
The Pentagon Must Replace a Broken Acquisition Process With More Open, Accountable, and Flexible Contracting
The Pentagon Needs Permanent Flexibility to Start New Programs When Congress Fails to Appropriate Funds on Time
Out Take: The DoD must move out on bold PPBE reforms to enable speed and flexibility. Instead of arguing over low reprogramming thresholds or making blanket statements of the whole acquisition process is broken, there needs to be a series of serious discussions between defense and Congressional leadership on getting to the root causes of the bureaucratic entanglements.
Defense Tech
Tech Firm Uses AI to Make Pentagon Budget, Spending Easier to Track
As lawmakers and Pentagon officials push for reforms to the defense acquisition system, a small tech firm is expanding a data-analysis platform it says could arm Pentagon weapons-buyers with the information they need to more effectively manage the DoD’s nearly trillion-dollar budget.
Obviant, was founded in 2023 and developed its defense acquisition platform as a means to help both DOD and the defense industry better understand how the Pentagon is spending its money and what stakeholders in Congress and in the department are prioritizing.
Navigating that system typically means combing through the thousands of pages of PDFs that make up the DoD’s budget request, tracking congressional markups through multiple committees and — in the FY26 cycle — keeping tabs on the status of a $150B budget reconciliation bill.
“There’s no source of truth. There’s no mapping for that. All this information is just loads of structured and unstructured sources.” Brendan Karp, Obviant CEO
On Tuesday, Obviant announced $7M in seed funding, led by Shield Capital, that it will use to increase the AI-based platform’s capabilities and make it available to more users.
Obviant maps and connects defense acquisition, budgeting, and contracting data—revealing the relationships and trends that matter. Our platform enables companies, investors, and government leaders to size markets, analyze program portfolios, and identify opportunities by capability area, turning fragmented data into a decision edge.
Nearly One in 10 Tier 1 Subs to Defense Primes are Chinese Firms
Despite a bipartisan push to disentangle the US economy from China, the military-industrial base still relies heavily on Chinese suppliers, a new study from analysis software firm Govini warns.
“Defense supply chains today are incredibly brittle. They’re not resilient. They’re very, very intricately tied to foreign suppliers. We try to quantify that.” Tara Murphy Dougherty, Govini CEO
Western defense firms have struggled just to meet the intense surge of demand from years of large-scale combat in Ukraine. A war with China would be much worse as US defense production, stockpiles and supply chains aren’t up to the task.
Drawing on its proprietary database of Defense Department spending and using its flagship analytics toolkit, Ark, Govini recently published its annual National Security Scorecard.
The study looks at the DoD’s prime contractors and their principal subcontractors, known as Tier 1 suppliers.
This year Govini breaks out the data into nine critical missions, ranging from aviation to missile defense to the nuclear arsenal.
In each of those nine areas, the majority of Tier 1 suppliers are foreign firms, and no country is home to more Tier 1 suppliers than China.
The Govini report emphasizes dependency on China in other ways as well. For example, for each mission area, it counts how many weapons systems depend on various critical minerals that are mostly mined in China, and it looks at the relative numbers of US versus Chinese patents issued in that area. But it goes into a host of other industrial base ailments as well.
“We are very, very reliant on a small number of companies at the prime level. We are talking in this space so much about new entrants and challenging defense primes and all of that, [but] the reality is that vendor concentration in the defense market is incredibly high, and essentially your top 10 companies in defense still carry the day.” Tara Murphy Dougherty, Govini CEO
Winter Is Coming: The Pentagon’s Game of Thrones
Greg has an entertaining Game of Thrones themed piece on the defense industry.
House Stark—noble, relentless, and often underestimated—, which represents the non-traditional defense tech companies: think Anduril, Shield AI, Saildrone, and Saronic. They aren’t the biggest, but they’re the fastest. They see winter for what it truly is: a data-driven, software-defined battlefield where speed, autonomy, and intelligence are as vital as firepower.
House Lannister—the powerful, golden, and ruthlessly calculating dynasty—represents the traditional primes: think Lockheed, BAE, and HII. They’ve ruled for decades, shaping programs of record, dominating Pentagon budgets, and building exquisite, hardware-centric platforms like the F‑35, missile defense systems, and naval warships. These are touted as the crown jewels of American deterrence.
House Tyrell—wealthy, shrewd, and always hedging their bets—, which represents the systems integrators and consultancies: SAIC, IBM, BCG. For years, they’ve sat at the right hand of the king, brokering deals, managing programs, and advising on strategy. They are the trusted stewards of bureaucracy, helping the Pentagon navigate complexity and stand up new initiatives.
Players like the Maesters. In the world of defense, these are the FFRDCs and warfighting labs. Institutions like MITRE, the Aerospace Corporation, MIT Lincoln Lab, and military research labs serve as the scholar-warriors of the Pentagon. They claim neutrality but shape decisions, set standards, and often build systems themselves—competing directly with the Starks, Lannisters, and Tyrells while insisting they serve only the realm.
Debates over contract vehicles, ownership of requirements, and turf wars between program offices won’t matter if our adversaries move faster and hit harder. This isn’t about who wins the next program or who gets the prime slot.
It’s about whether we can field autonomous systems in weeks instead of years.
Whether we can build mass quantities of equipment and munitions at the speed of relevance.
Whether we can push software updates to deployed platforms in real time.
Whether our analysts are empowered by AI Agents or buried under manual spreadsheets and drudgery.
The winner will be the side that figures out how to fight like a pack, not like a collection of feuding houses
New Viper Drone-Missile from Mach Industries Combines the Range of HIMARS with the Punch of a Hellfire
Mach Industries’ new-generation Viper drone-missile captured the attention of defense analysts worldwide by combining long-range precision strike capability, low cost, and front-line usability, an unprecedented mix that promises to transform tactical doctrine.
Born out of lessons learned from the Ukraine conflict and the growing demand for autonomous, cost-effective munitions, the Viper integrates the range of ATACMS with the velocity of a cruise missile and the firepower of a Hellfire.
Viper is described as a VTOL cruise missile that blurs the line between drone and loitering munition. With a maximum range of 290 kilometers, a 10-kilogram warhead, and an airframe built for high subsonic flight, the system is tailored for use with HIMARS or similar mobile platforms but without the logistical burden or strategic risks of larger, more expensive missile systems.
Its navigation is based on AI and multi-frequency RF guidance, allowing the Viper to operate even in GPS-denied zones.
At under $100,000 per unit, it stands out as a scalable, attritable precision weapon that can be mass-produced for tactical-level missions. Legacy systems like ATACMS can exceed $1M per missile.
Unlike the larger cruise missiles such as Tomahawk, Viper is vertically launched and does not require fixed launch infrastructure or runway access. It compresses the mission of Cold War-era tactical ballistic missiles into a man-portable, drone-like format, aligning with the trend of democratizing firepower across echelons.
DARPA Pivots Shipboard Drones to Rapidly Field Tech Later This Year
An experimental Pentagon program focused on developing shipboard unmanned aerial systems is aiming to transition its technology to the broader DoD later this year, following a change of plans centered on more rapidly fielding the drones to servicemembers.
AdvaNced airCraft Infrastructure-Less Launch And RecoverY (ANCILLARY), was initiated by the DARPA in 2022 and aims to produce a relatively small UAS that can be easily launched and recovered from US warships.
The program will refocus its efforts on rapidly fielding a capable UAS in 2026.
DARPA’s Navy partner could not proceed with shipboard testing or a Phase 2 down-select as planned. The Marine Corps was eager to get these UAS in 2025.
The spinoff effort, Early VTOL Aircraft DEmonstration (EVADE), focuses on drone designs from five different companies: AeroVironment, Griffon Aerospace, Karem Aircraft, Method Aeronautics and Sikorsky.
The five missions they must be capable of accomplishing are logistics; communications relay; carrying a weapons payload; carrying a SAR; and ISR.
In addition to being capable of operating from Navy ships, the UAS also must not exceed 330 pounds, or 150 kilograms, in weight. Smaller UAS may be piloted by drone operators, while larger drones require a fully trained pilot.
DARPA’s No. 2 Sees Quantum Sensing as Threat to Stealth
The rise of quantum sensing is could someday overcome the advantages of stealth aircraft, making them easier to identify and increasing the need for speed, self-defense measures and other means of evading an enemy.
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to hide, in an operational sense, in a realistic way, due to the sophistication of sensor fusion and track, using AI and other techniques.” Rob McHenry, DARPA Deputy Director
The stealth era may be coming to a close as future sensors emerge.
How soon that will happen is still anyone’s guess, as quantum remains an attractive but elusive technology.
Stealth increases the probability of penetration, and decreases the probability of intercept of the stealthy aircraft. Modern stealth aircraft operates with an associated set of other mission assets that employ real-time effects using advanced electronic warfare, cyber, space effects, and kinetics. It is in combination with these that stealth is most effective.
The U.S. needs to develop more defensive capabilities, particularly in the air domain. While naval vessels are designed to take a hit and keep fighting.
Quantum’s threat to stealth could also benefit U.S. defense, enabling U.S. defenders to more quickly recognize stealthy aircraft fielded by rival nations
The Gentle Singularity
We are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started. Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence, and at least so far it’s much less weird than it seems like it should be.
2025 has seen the arrival of agents that can do real cognitive work; writing computer code will never be the same.
2026 will likely see the arrival of systems that can figure out novel insights.
2027 may see the arrival of robots that can do tasks in the real world.
Generally speaking, the ability for one person to get much more done in 2030 than they could in 2020 will be a striking change.
We already hear from scientists that they are two or three times more productive than they were before AI.
We may be able to discover new computing substrates, better algorithms, and and conduct a decade’s worth of research in a year, or even a month.
As datacenter production gets automated, the cost of intelligence should eventually converge to near the cost of electricity.
Regular AI Use Growing Rapidly Among U.S. Workers
We suspect Defense Tech and Acquisition readers are ahead of the curve.
Logistics Tonnage Today Compared to 1950
Although history is never a perfect model it can serve as a useful comparative tool. The military is not ready for a fight in the Pacific, in terms of front line transportation and logistics. That is not hyperbole---data backs it up.
Comparing 1950 surface logistics fleet (pre Korea) to 2025, there is much more tonnage and container ships today but far fewer ships for pure cargo, tanker, and transport missions.
The Korean War had massive WW2 stores to fall in on in Japan and a much larger basing network in Pacific.
In terms of DWT (Dead weight tons), here is the 1950 fleet:
Cargo: 37 ships, 288,100 DWT
Tanker: 49 ships, 793,800 DWT
Transport: 50 ships, 335,100 DWT
Total: 136 ships, 1,417,000 DWT
Chartered: 11 ships, 122,333 DWT
In terms of DWT (Dead weight tons), here is the fleet today:
Cargo: 35 ships, 1,050,000 DWT
Tanker: 20 ships, 900,000 DWT
Transport: 25 ships, 625,000DWT
Other: 60 ships, 1,500,000 DWT
Total: 140 ships, 4,075,000 DWT
Chartered: 20–25 ships, 750,000 DWT
Putting the Defense Industry Through Wargames
The U.S. military is going through its reps and sets via training, exercises, and wargames to make sure it is ready for a major war. The defense industrial base is only just getting started on serious wargaming, and that needs to accelerate.
Testing industry through different types of wargames, involving both military personnel and representatives from industry, is critical. These should simulate complex military scenarios and their commercial dimensions, forcing collaborative problem-solving.
They should use real data that reflects the real capacities of different companies and their supply chains. Failing to address policy constraints, supply chain bottlenecks, and competing military and civilian needs before a conflict arises will leave American forces unprepared, especially against a major adversary like China.
The government should integrate industry engagement in wargaming
Industry partners should contribute their expertise during the planning phase.
Industry should send their executives with experts who have deep and relevant knowledge to participate directly throughout exercises
Industry should help develop actionable solutions after the wargame.
Collaborative wargaming between government and the defense industry is essential. By jointly exercising scenarios focused on industrial base capacity, both sides can understand requirements, identify deficiencies — in commodities, plans, policies, or materials — and develop solutions before a crisis.
Revolutionary FAR Overhaul Updates
Per Executive Order, the FAR Council is iteratively streamlining the FAR to only statutory or otherwise necessary elements to create the most agile, effective, and efficient procurement system possible. Here are the latest updates
FAR Part 6 Competition Requirements and the Practitioner Album
Applicability of FAR part 6 includes the streamlining of Competition Requirements to strengthen clarity and focus, ensuring procedures that support full and open competition are easier to understand and apply.
CO retains discretion to set aside solicitations to allow only small business concerns to compete. The prescriptions around socioeconomic concerns have been removed from FAR part 6.
Other Defense Tech News:
Researchers use evolutionary algorithms to enhance AI coding skills
11-pound EW weapon lets drones sniff out enemy radio signals mid-air
Anduril to Supply Rocket Motors for Saab-Boeing Ground-Launched Bomb System
New DoD memo outlines review process for IT consulting contracts
Palantir to help make nuclear reactors faster, better with new AI platform
Army
The Army Is Transforming in Contact. Here’s How
Our goal with TiC is to kill the old model and build something better by centering all change around feedback from the field—from users in contact. This requires us to institutionalize listening to the field instead of intermediaries. The steps we’re taking in TiC are fundamentally about changing behaviors and incentives within the ‘process.’ This change will require continuously working backwards from a desired outcome and being ruthless about cutting both unnecessary actions and innovation theater.
Our goal with TiC is changing behaviors.
The best user representatives are users. This is the core tenant of TiC: let users tell us directly what works and what doesn’t.
Implementing a Trail Boss: What we did with TiC was put one person in charge of the entire network architecture. The Trail Boss, a Colonel and PM, has unilateral control of his peers and their subordinates to make sure that everyone is directionally, technically, and tactically aligned to solve problems for our TiC units.
Flexible Funding: We asked for an exception to consolidate the Budget Activity 6 lines within the Army’s budget. we asked for flexible funding and budget line item consolidation in three function areas: C-UAS, UAS, and EW. We asked for changes to a mechanism available to the DoD to move money around called below threshold reprogramming (BTR).
Deliberate Experimentation: TiC forces technology and technology providers, regardless if they are industry, programs, or labs, to actually get their projects into the fight and engage with real users. Soldiers at all levels get to integrate capabilities into their formation instantly and assess them based on mission needs and the environment.
Tranche Buys: It forces a different buying model for end items like drones, EW kit, C-UAS sensors, and missiles. Rather than trying to orchestrate a buy for 50+ brigades over five to 10 years, we buy for a few brigades at a time, allowing units to provide feedback and allowing industry to continuously compete for the next purchase window.
The uphill battle the Army faces is institutionalizing these radical changes.
Axed Army Vehicle Programs Leave Unanswered Questions
The Army is moving on from both its battle-worn High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle Humvee and the program intended to replace it, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The decision has been met with varying degrees of surprise and uncertainty from those left in its dust.
A recent SECDEF memo listed the Humvee as an example of a wasteful program that is outdated and obsolete, declaring that the Army would end procurement of excess ground vehicles.
A following Army leadership memo named both the Humvee and JLTV as excess ground vehicles of which the service will cancel procurement.
The cancellation of the JLTV — a joint program with the Marine Corps — was relatively surprising, with the vehicle having achieved IOC in 2019.
Army Plans to Acquire Two Different Sizes of Autonomous Launchers
The Army is interested in acquiring two new autonomous platforms under a new initiative it’s calling the Common Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher (CAML).
RCCTO posted a request for solutions brief to find two separate CAML variants — a heavy and a medium — on a rapid timeline.
CAML is an autonomous/optionally crewed, highly mobile, air transportable, cross domain fires launcher with the potential to augment or replace existing Army launchers.
CAML reduces emplacement and displacement times, provides improved crew survivability, adds cross-country mobility, increases overall effectiveness, and allows commanders to weight the force appropriately during both offensive and defensive operation.
CAML-H, integrate a launcher onto a M1075 Palletized Loading System tactical vehicle that can then fire the Tomahawk or PAC-3.
CAML-M, using a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) as the base to launch Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions or the new Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) with AIM-9X interceptors.
Army Expects to Make More than a Million Artillery Shells Next Year
The Army has nearly tripled its production of 155mm howitzer shells since the Ukraine war began, millions of which have been sent to that country’s front lines.
It’s going to miss its goal of making 100,000 per month by October, but likely by just a few months.
The current monthly output stands at 40,000, up from 14,500 when Russia launched its full-scale invasion more than three years ago. The original plan called for making about twice as many by now.
The Army has funneled nearly $5B into the project, mostly through supplemental funding, upgrading existing plants as well as opening new ones.
“Several of the investments that we made are just coming online now, a little later than we had hoped, but these were big bets, and we were given the mission to go fast. We put multiple bets down, and realized some risk…but we will continue to work through that.” MG John Reim, PEO Joint Armaments and Ammo
Army Merging Key Units in Move to Reshape Ground Warfare
The Army is merging two of its newest strategic units in Europe into one headquarters as part of a broader transformation that could serve as a template for the whole service. The 56th Artillery Command and 2nd Multi-Domain Task Force, both under U.S. Army Europe and Africa, are being combined.
Going forward, multidomain task forces and artillery units are probably going to morph into something a little bit different.
GEN Donahue laid out a series of initiatives underway aimed at transforming how U.S. and allied ground forces fight together, drawing heavily from recent global conflicts and ongoing experimentation. Among the areas being reexamined is how the Army manages artillery firing and air defense.
The standard for industry is that anything we shoot, it has to be cheaper than what we’re shooting down.
Army Tailoring Pacific Commands for Multi-Domain Force
The Army in the Pacific has begun working through how it will build two Multi-Domain Commands in the theater to oversee and direct the service’s Multi-Domain Task Force units as it continues to expand and refine its presence as part of an overall effort to deter China’s increasing aggression in the region.
The new Multi-Domain Commands are coming as part of the Army’s new transformation initiative.
The Army plans to build four. Indicative of the Army’s desire to continue to prioritize building up capability in the Pacific theater, two will be focused there: Multi-Domain Command — Pacific and Multi-Domain Command — Japan.
Two others, Multi-Domain Command — Europe and Multi-Domain Command — Army, are taking shape, as well.
The units are designed to operate across all domains — land, air, sea, space and cyberspace — are equipped with the Army’s growing capabilities, such as the Precision Strike Missile, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Mid-Range Capability Missile.
MDTFs will also have units devoted to the critical sourcing of intelligence across domains and spectrums and info sharing with the joint force to enable targeting.
Army Swapping Leadership at Aberdeen PEOs
PEO IEW&S: BG Wayne “Ed” Barker is retiring and replaced by BG Kevin Chaney
PEO IEW&S is perhaps the most expansive and diverse organization of its kind, responsible for delivering, among other things, electronic warfare; biometric systems; intelligence capabilities that span ground and air domains; position, navigation and timing gear; space systems; and offensive and defensive cyber tools for both the Army and the joint cyber mission force at CYBERCOM.
PEO C3N, BG Kevin Chaney will be replaced by BG Shane Taylor.
C3N is currently delivering on the chief of staff of the Army’s number one priority, Next Generation C2, which aims to provide commanders and units with a new approach to manage information, data, and command and control with agile and software-based architectures.
Other Army News:
The Army launched a website so tech bros can sign up to serve
Next-Gen Squad Weapon Clears Fume Problems to Reach Army Milestone
Navy
Navy CTO Priority Technology Areas
Justin Fanelli, Navy CTO (Acting) issued a memo to outline the priority technology areas to guide modernization efforts and drive future success.
AI / Autonomy - The DON seeks AI driven solutions for real-time data analysis and automated decision-making to enhance operational effectiveness.
Quantum - Quantum technologies will transform secure communications, computing, and sensing for information warfare.
Transport / Connectivity - The DON prioritizes advanced networking, secure communications, and 5G / FutureG technologies to enable real-time data sharing and C2.
C5ISR / Naval Space - The DON seeks to integrate advanced sensor networks, improve automated data fusion, and develop resilient space-based architectures to support real-time intelligence gathering.
Cyberspace Operations / Zero Trust - Priorities include advanced cyber defense frameworks, threat intelligence automation, and proactive security measures to counter adversarial cyber operations.
The memo maps the Priority Technology Areas to SECDEF’s Priority Requirements.
Related: Navy CTO unveils list of priority areas for tech investment
The Navy is More Aggressively Telling Startups, We Want You
While Silicon Valley executives like those from Palantir, Meta, and OpenAI are grabbing headlines for trading their Brunello Cucinelli vests for Army Reserve uniforms, a quieter transformation has been underway in the Navy.
The Navy’s CTO Justin Fanelli, says he has spent the last two and a half years cutting through the red tape and shrinking the protracted procurement cycles that once made working with the military a nightmare for startups.
The efforts represent a less visible but potentially more meaningful remaking that aims to see the government move faster and be smarter about where it’s committing dollars.
Many of these partnerships are being facilitated through the Navy’s innovation adoption kit, a series of frameworks and tools that aim to bridge the so-called Valley of Death, where promising tech dies on its path from prototype to production.
The Navy’s new approach operates on a horizon model, borrowed and adapted from McKinsey’s innovation framework. Companies move through three phases: evaluation, structured piloting, and scaling to enterprise services. The key difference from traditional government contracting is that the Navy now leads with problems rather than predetermined solutions.
“We’re more open for business and partnerships than we’ve ever been before. We’re humble and listening more than before, and we recognize that if an organization shows us how we can do business differently, we want that to be a partnership.” Justin Fanelli,
Supplying Troops with On-Demand Autonomous Watercraft
Kanna Rajan and Karlyn Stanley
In any drawn-out military confrontation, the U.S. must support its ground forces with food, fuel, ammunition and weapons. In a conflict with China over Taiwan, however, that material will be coming from as far away as the Philippines and Japan.
That means relying on the large, mostly unarmed, civilian-crewed ships, such as those operated by the Military Sealift Command, which are highly visible and vulnerable to attack.
A less vulnerable and more scalable method would be to use low-cost, rapidly built, small autonomous surface vessels to deliver supplies.
Each could carry one or two standard shipping containers. They could work together in swarms of tens or hundreds, presenting a more dispersed, and therefore, challenging target. Even if a substantial number were to be attacked, damaged or sunk, it is unlikely that the adversary could destroy the entire logistical supply chain to the front line.
This would be a radical departure from traditional logistics supply using large manned cargo ships. Spreading cargo between many smaller watercraft almost eliminates the risk that all supplies would be lost to an attack. Water-line hugging vessels present a far smaller signature for detection.
Such small watercraft also don’t require a port; they could arrive almost anywhere, bringing materiel closer to the fight. They might even deliver supplies just-in-time, loitering near conflict zones as an offshore warehouse.
Importantly, a fleet of such small ships could be manufactured quickly in the U.S. Adaptive manufacturing techniques like 3D printing could ramp up production in the event of a conflict, while being able to ramp down in its aftermath.
Our Take: The U.S. should rapidly pursue this for commercial logistics operations along U.S. coastlines and major rivers as part of the shipbuilding executive order and related initiatives. Cost benefit analysis of transitioning some of the containers shipped by trucks and rail today to autonomous ships would be interesting. A viable commercial fleet that can deploy and scale for wartime operations is vital to contested logistics operations.
Lightning Carriers: The Marines’ Secret Weapon in the Pacific
The Marine Corps is turning the Navy’s amphibious assault ships into small and agile carriers loaded with F-35B Lightning II aircraft in preparation for a fight in the Pacific.
As the DoD prepares for the possibility of a conflict in the Pacific, the Navy and Marines are working on a new way to project airpower - the Lightning Carrier.
The concept turns amphibious assault ships, like the Navy’s America-class USS America, which is both easy to remember and ultra patriotic in a “Team America” kind of way, into small, agile flat-top carriers bristling with F-35B Lightning II aircraft and about 1,800 Marines.
With the F-35B vertical take-off and landing capability, they can fit up to 20 on the deck that can support Marines as they secure or defend remote outposts through the Pacific.
The Lightning Carrier concept comes out of Force Design 2030, which has resulted in some radical changes across the Corps, such as getting rid of Abrams tanks and even creating entirely new units.
Lightning Carriers offer the Marines speed, flexibility, and a smaller operational footprint. They can operate from smaller ports, reach shallower waters, and function with fewer ships in support.
Where a Carrier Strike Group consists of as many as 10 ships, including submarines, an Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) has just three.
Lightning Carriers lack the defenses of larger carriers and other ships, making them more vulnerable to anti-ship missiles and other threats.
Video: The Marines' Secret Weapon in a Pacific Fight: Lightning Carriers
The Navy’s Dynamic Sub-Hunting Duo
The Navy envisions future submarine-hunting operations with seamless data sharing between robot and human-piloted aircraft, and a boost from AI to make sense of a complex maritime environment.
Platforms like Northrop Grumman’s MQ-4C Triton and Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon siphon a lot of data from their environment in real time.To make sense of it all and create a comprehensive intelligence and surveillance picture, the Navy uses Minotaur software to stitch several systems together—cameras, comms systems, and radars.
The Triton program now has 25 operational aircraft and one test aircraft.
In FY28, the Navy plans to deliver the first two units of its EO/IR camera upgrade, which has a better turret and wide-area search mode allowing the camera to be used for video, stills and to search for both sea-based targets as well as littoral land-based targets, where you can actually use the camera almost like a radar.
“That Minotaur framework is the same framework that will be installed on the future P-8A increment 3 aircraft that are currently under development. An operator on a Triton will have all the feeds that are provided by a Triton as well as P-8A. Support staff on the deck will have that same feed. So they'll see, in real time, what all the operators are seeing across the board.” CAPT Josh Guerre, PM for Persistent Maritime UAS Office
America’s Maritime Future Depends on Building Our Workforce Today
The Navy’s Maritime Industrial Base (MIB) Office will celebrate hundreds of new maritime workers at our National Signing Day in Washington, DC. These men and women represent America’s answer to perhaps the most critical national security challenge we face: rebuilding our maritime industrial engineering and skilled trades workforce through focused efforts to improve attraction, build and scale world-class training, and improve retention.
While it won’t garner headlines, this workforce crisis threatens America’s naval dominance more directly than many realize.
Our nation’s manufacturing workforce has collapsed from more than 30% of Americans to roughly 11% today.
By 2028, we must deliver three submarines annually, while simultaneously constructing over 10 classes of surface ships, building highly capable unmanned vessels, and maintaining our existing fleet.
Building and maintaining these vessels requires skills that are increasingly rare in America: “hands-on work” such as welding, electrical work, machining, pipefitting, and quality inspection.
Each submarine contains more than a million parts.
This is why the MIB created the Talent Pipeline Program in 2021. Unlike traditional workforce initiatives, TPP doesn’t simply connect workers to careers — it transforms entire regional ecosystems by aligning educators, employers, and career-seekers toward a shared mission of maritime excellence.
Since launching, we’ve established seven pipelines across the country, placed over 9,550 skilled workers, and partnered with more than 450 companies. This month alone, our regional Signing Day ceremonies recognized over 4,200 new hires entering the workforce in 2025.
To employers across the maritime sector: Join this national movement.
To policymakers and community leaders: Recognize maritime manufacturing as essential infrastructure.
To Americans seeking meaningful careers: Consider the maritime sector.
The security of our nation has always depended on seapower.
This was realized in shipyards and manufacturing facilities powered by great engineering prowess and wonderfully skilled American workers.
Navy Seeks Ultra-Large Submarine Drone With Extended Endurance
The Navy’s Broad Agency Announcement calls for the development of an Ocean Explorer (OEX) large underwater vehicle capable of long-endurance operations.
Revealed by the ONR, the project requires an ultra-large autonomous system designed to carry a huge modular payload on extended ocean-scale tasks.
Tenders should include a full-cost plan for the preliminary design phase, a detailed design option, and a rapid prototype design and fabrication plan for OEX.
Industry partners interested in bidding on the effort can submit their full proposals until October 2025, with white papers until July 2025.
The US Navy’s OEX project is being conducted in parallel with the LDUUV initiative, which aims to deliver long-endurance and deep-water autonomous assets that can distribute key solutions, such as sensing payloads and effectors, across fleets in the Pacific and other austere theaters. Among the LDUUV’s industry partners are Kongsberg, Anduril, and Oceaneering International.
The force is also working on the XLUUV framework, a new class of autonomous submarines with diesel-electric hybrid propulsion and a payload section for various operations. The XLUUV project is led by Boeing and will be designated as the Orca-class fleet once commissioned into service.
Jones Act Is Vital to Restoring U.S. Maritime Dominance
In the late 1980s, the U.S. Navy consisted of roughly 600 ships, including fourteen large aircraft carriers. Today, the size of the U.S. Navy has shrunk to < 300 ships.
The American commercial cargo fleet had between 2,500 and 3,000 U.S.-flagged oceangoing vessels. Over the last three decades, the number of oceangoing U.S.-flagged cargo ships of all kinds has decreased by nearly 90%.
PLA Navy is now nearly 100 battle force ships larger than the U.S. Navy.
China is outproducing the U.S. in virtually all categories with respect to major combat vessels.
The Jones Act’s goals are more critical today than when it was promulgated. Maintaining a fleet of U.S.-flagged, active, commercially viable, militarily useful, and privately owned cargo vessels is vital to ensuring that the military can respond to any wartime need.
The Jones Act helps to maintain a pool of U.S. merchant sailors who can be called upon to man government-owned sealift ships that are reactivated to support a wartime sealift effort.
The Jones Act supports the President’s goals of reindustrializing America and returning critical manufacturing capabilities to this country. It also helps to support the maintenance of a cadre of skilled seamen and maritime workers.
“China currently has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity over the U.S. We need to reshore and safe-shore our supply chains, and restore our domestic manufacturing and building capabilities, while safeguarding our military from another sequestration.” Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House
Marine Tapped to Lead F-35 Joint Program Office
President Trump nominated Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Masiello to lead the F-35 JSF program. Masiello, who now heads DCMA, is a former naval aviator who flew the UH-1N and VH-3 presidential transports, and spent time as the V-22 Joint Program Manager. From 2013-2014, he was the senior military deputy to USD(AT&L). He then moved on to become the F-35 Joint Program Director for Follow-On development. Before DCMA, he was PEO for the Navy’s airborne anti-submarine warfare programs.
Other Navy News:
Air Force
Air Force Leaders Outline Strategies, Priorities to Secure the Nation
The highest-ranking leaders of the Department of the Air Force highlighted the recent U.S. strike on Iran as a vivid example for what is possible – but also at risk – unless Congress ensures sufficient funding for the Air Force and Space Force.
“The Air Force is at an inflection point. We are engaged in a fast-paced race for military superiority against a well-resourced strategic opponent. However, we simultaneously face personnel and platform challenges affecting our immediate readiness. We must rebuild our military and develop new capabilities so that we can continue deterring our adversaries in the future.” SECAF Troy Meink
“We don’t just need more Air Force; we need a more capable one.” Gen. David Allvin
“It is imperative that we match the dramatic rise in threats and increasing importance of space with resources to arm the Space Force effectively.” Gen. Chance Saltzman
Split to Win: Why the Air Force Must Become 4 Services
The Air Force, once at the technological vanguard, has become burdened by decades of bureaucratic growth and failed weapons procurement. It is time for our leaders to make radical change.
The Air Force must be broken up to meet the demands of 21st-century warfare.
Ukraine’s drone attacks on Russian strategic bombers exposed the fallacy of depending on small numbers of exquisite weapons for defense, which is our current strategy (Air Force messaging is buy more of the same).
While the other services like the Army have made changes, the Air Force still retains bloated structures, overlapping authorities and failed acquisition programs that strangle innovation.
The current administration should double down on the Space Force breakout by forming 3 new services: Tactical Air, Strategic and Lift (and Space Force).
Each would have its own chief, budget and systems for acquiring its weapons, but still report to the same top-level political leadership.
The Tactical Air Service would focus on defeating advanced enemies in direct, high-end air combat with America’s most elite fighter jets, attack drones and older air support platforms - highly deployable and joint focused.
The decision to create the Space Force was the right one, but a piece of unfinished business is to integrate it directly with the warfighter. This can be done by combining the Space Combatant Command with the Space Force into one organization, led by a single four-star general.
Like the space service, the new Strategic organization would combine the combatant command, Strategic Command, with the force provider into one seamless organization.
The final pillar of this reorganization is creating a Global Lift and Logistics Service. Just like the American economy depends on truckers, our Air Force relies on planes that move, refuel and deploy our forces. They are indispensable, but too often lose budget battles to flashy programs like fighter jets and stealth bombers.
Splitting these assets off into their own service, then combining it with its combatant command, Transportation Command, would alleviate this issue and ensure the United States retains its unmatched ability to deploy power globally.
Our Take: Combining the functional combatant commands with the dedicated service makes a lot of sense - it has always felt duplicative to have an Air Mobility Commander and a TRANSCOM Commander (even though there is a substantial sea element). However, where this construct falls apart is that it would still be under one secretary - which would not necessarily change the funding challenges or acquisition approaches since those functions are statutorily controlled by the SECAF. From an efficiency point of view, this proposal should be considered in the next NDAA.
How the 2026 Budget Shapes the Future Air Force Fighter Fleet: What’s In, What’s Out
In the proposed FY26 budget, The Air Force is planning on buying only 24 F-35s —half the previously planned amount—but acquire 21 more F-15EXs. The Air Force also plans to retire all of its A-10 close air support aircraft two years ahead of schedule, while pouring $3.5B into the new F-47 fighter and increasing production capacity for the B-21 bomber.
Here are the 340 aircraft slated for retirement in FY26:
162 A-10s
14 C-130Hs
3 EC-130Hs
13 F-15 C/Ds
21 F-15Es
62 F-16C/Ds
14 KC-135s
11 HH-60Gs
35 T-1s
4 UH-1Ns
1 B-1
We Need to Double the Production Rate of the B-21
Robert Peters and Shawn Barnes
The Air Force’s newest strategic bomber, the B-21 Raider, is a technological marvel many years in the making. It builds on decades of stealth technology and provides vital long-range, deep-strike capability necessary to deter adversaries for the next several decades.
The bad news: we aren’t producing as many of them as quickly as we should.
The Air Force has stated it needs at least 100 aircraft and expects to procure 10 aircraft per year once in full-rate production. At best, the nation is unlikely to have even 100 aircraft until the late 2030s. This is both too little and too late.
DoD should set a production rate of 20 aircraft per year. This demand signal will allow the B-21’s producer, Northrop Grumman, to build a second production plant, which is is expected to approach $800M but is desperately needed.
An additional facility will increase the rate at which the nation can build, field, and operate the B-21 fleet and potentially help deter China from aggression.
Capacity is a quality all its own. This is true for both the industrial capacity to build, and the operational capacity to deter and fight our nation’s wars.
F-15EX Planned Fleet Size Grows To 129 Jets
The FY26 budget (+ reconciliation) will allocate ~$3B to F-15EX fighters and update the program of record from 98 to 129 aircraft.
The Michigan Air National Guard, which is losing its A-10 Warthogs, will be reequipped with the F-15EX.
Our Take: We love to see another Middle Tier of Acquisition born program succeed. It had its hurdles and took longer than we wanted but MTA enabled it to bypass what could have been years of analysis and move faster into production.
Related: F-15EX and Its Electronic Warfare Suite Both Face Supply Chain Issues
Air Force Cancels E-7 Wedgetail, Citing Survivability And Cost Concerns
The Air Force has canceled the E-7 Wedgetail program due to ballooning costs and concerns about survivability.
The current administration has increasingly set its sights on using space-based capabilities to help warplanes find and track enemy aircraft, known as the air moving target indicator (AMTI) mission.
Gen Saltzman confirmed that the government is evaluating data on space-based sensor capabilities, which look “promising,” and doubled down on Gen Guetlein’s prior projections of fielding AMTI in the 2030’s.
“If we want to go there, we have to do a large investment in space-based sensing, which also supports Golden Dome. It covers homeland defense, It covers the Indo-Pacific, which is our priority theater, and also services the globe,” the official stated. “So that investment [in Wedgetail] was pushed that way [to space-based sensors]. We are bullish on space, and we think that’s a capability that can be achieved actually faster than the E-7 will deliver at this point.” Air Force Official
Our Take: While The Merge highlighted some good reasons why the E-2D might be a reasonable gapfiller, we still posit that the Air Force is not really interested in the ACE construct and would very likely not station E-2Ds in harms way (especially not with the numbers projected). Their slow speed, limited range and small size would quickly become liabilities in a stand-off INDOPACOM fight. AMTI might be online in the next 4-5 years but it could also be delayed or be jeopardized by the PLA’s evolving counterspace capabilities. We suspect that this E-7 decision will be rued by the Air Force in the coming years.
Dual-Use Military and Civil Airports Face Cyber Threats—and Policy Challenges
To deploy during wartime, the U.S. military will rely on civilian infrastructure that’s vulnerable to cyberattack by America’s adversaries.
In a major conflict with China, the U.S. would have to move tens of thousands of troops—not to mention vehicles and aircraft—quickly to ports and airports for deployment to the Pacific.
The sheer scale would require the military to rely on civilian aviation.
This reliance makes the civil aviation system a potential target for an enemy sneak attack.
A ransomware infection at Seattle-Tacoma Airport last year showed the level of disruption possible from a single, partially successful cyberattack.
Some have also pushed back and noted that military aircraft have minimal reliance on civilian infrastructure and would be relatively unaffected.
“U.S. adversaries know that compromising this critical infrastructure through cyber and physical attacks would impede America’s ability to deploy, supply, and sustain large forces.” Report
Air Force revives ARRW hypersonic missile with procurement plans for fiscal 2026
The Air Force wants to spend $387.1M in FY26 to acquire its first hypersonic missile known as the AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW).
ARRW is a boost-glide missile that can be launched from larger aircraft such as the B-52 Stratofortress bomber, and like all hypersonics can fly at speeds of Mach 5 or faster and maneuver during flight.
Budget documents did not indicate the precise numbers that would be procured.
Other Air Force News:
Space Force
Space Force Spending Could Hit $40B in 2026
Extra funds for the Golden Dome missile defense shield could push Space Force spending to $40B in 2026, a 30% leap from this year, if the reconciliation bill passes.
Reconciliation, the critics say, only provides a temporary increase, and since budget planners base future spending on the prior year’s base budget, relying on supplemental spending adds risk to major programs.
Most of that of the reconciliation money earmarked for the Space Force is for Golden Dome-related research, development, test, and evaluation.
SDA Accelerates Launch of First Experimental Tactical SATCOM Satellite
Space Development Agency has successfully launched its first satellite designed to demonstrate experimental tactical data delivery capabilities from low-Earth orbit (LEO) four months ahead of schedule.
In 2022, York Space Systems received a $200M OT agreement from SDA to develop and deliver 12 T1DES platforms that were slated for launch in FY26.
However, the company accelerated delivery of the first payload to prepare it for Monday’s mission in response to an identified agency need.
SDA’s Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System (T1DES) will augment the Tranche 1 transport layer of the agency’s future mega-constellation known as the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA).
The remaining 11 T1DES satellites are on track to launch sometime in FY26.
Once deployed, the constellation will conduct demonstrations and experimentation of TACSATCOM, advanced waveforms, and Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) capabilities, which are key for future connectivity of joint warfighters around the globe.
Bunch of SCARS: Space Force’s Hammett Speeds Phased Array Antenna Integration
The Space Force hopes to soon be able provide new orbital warfare capability to operators through integrating the modern phased-array antennas being developed under its Satellite Communications Augmentation Resource (SCAR) program with its R2C2 satellite command and control software.
SCAR antennas are being designed to modernize the antiquate old-style parabolic antennas now used by the Satellite Control Network (SCN) — specifically optimized to work with future satellites that can maneuver rapidly to avoid, or potentially attack, other satellites.
The SCN comprises 19 fixed antennas located at seven locations around the world and performs control functions consisting of tracking (determining where a satellite is located), telemetry (collecting information about its health and status) and command (transmitting signals to control subsystems and maneuvering satellites if necessary) for a large portion of Space Force birds.
Parabolic antennas can only talk to one satellite at a time, where as phased array antennas can connect with multiple satellites simultaneously.
SCN already is being overwhelmed as the Space Force fields a flock of new satellites, and will be even more important in the future when the service deploys more satellites capable of moving faster, farther and for longer time spans in order to conduct satellite warfare.
Pentagon to Consider SpaceX Alternative for Space Force Satellite Program
The Air Force is reconsidering its procurement of satellites for a LEO constellation, pausing funding for the program in FY26 while examining whether SpaceX’s Starshield satellites could provide the same capabilities at lower cost.
The Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget would suspend procurement of data-transport satellites for the PWSA.
The outcome of the review could impact the procurement of as many as 140 satellites for Transport Layer Tranche 3, which the SDA had planned to order in 2026 for deployment in 2028.
The program has been structured around regular competitive procurements, with different tranches or batches of satellites awarded to various contractors to maintain competition and drive down costs.
The potential shift has raised concerns among lawmakers about reducing competition in the defense space sector.
The potential cancellation of Transport Layer Tranche 3 could significantly impact satellite manufacturers and their supply chains, which have invested heavily in building capacity to support the SDA’s programs.
Related Articles:
Space Force ponders shakeup to LEO satellite strategy, potentially hiring SpaceX for data relay
Space Force rethinking plans for proliferated satellite communications
Other Space Force News:
Golden Dome
Sen Sullivan, Cramer, and Messmer Introduce Golden Dome Legislation
The Ground and Orbital Launched Defeat of Emergent Nuclear Destruction and Other Missile Engagements (GOLDEN DOME) Act. authorizes more than $23B to begin developing a modernized, layered homeland missile defense system that can counter, detect, track, and defeat existing and evolving threats as envisioned by President Trump in his January 27, 2025 executive order. Key elements include:
SDA Director shall use authorities available to accelerate development and rapid fielding of satellites and associated systems for tranches 3, 4, and 5 of the proliferated warfighter space architecture of the Agency.
SDA shall remain an independent element of the U.S. Space Force, and shall be exempt from the JCIDS requirements process.
Each CCMD shall include missile defense, terrestrial-based sensor, and C-UAS requirements in the supporting information for the DoD budget submissions.
Sect 7 authorizes appropriations that include the following. These authorized amounts would still have to be appropriated in FY26.
$1B for additional ground mobile interceptors and radars.
$1.5B for PAC-2, PAC-3, and MM-104 Patriot batteries
$2.5B for R&D of non-kinetic missile defense capabilities
$5.9B for R&D aof space-based missile defense and senor networks
$3.1B for Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor space vehicles
$1.5B for PNT R&D
$2.5B for procurement of air moving target indicator systems
“The escalating missile threats we’ve witnessed from the Iranian terrorist regime and the rapidly evolving missile threats from Russia and China demonstrate why we need to develop a robust, modernized missile defense system to protect the entire country—which the GOLDEN DOME Act will do.” Sen Dan Sullivan
US Tests Radar That Could Detect China, Russia Threats
The Pentagon has successfully tested a long-range radar in Alaska that can detect missile threats from Russia or China, and could someday serve as a sensor in the Golden Dome missile defense shield.
The Long Range Discrimination Radar successfully acquired, tracked, and reported missile target data, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.
These are key tasks for Golden Dome, a $175B program aimed at protecting the U.S. and possibly allies from ballistic missiles.
The Key to Golden Dome’s Success: Make It Usable
The Golden Dome is a system of systems that will integrate existing defense capabilities with next-generation technologies across land, sea and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors.
Success hinges on how quickly joint mission commanders and operators will be able to assess threats and act on them.
Every additional click, every confusing interface, every moment spent translating between incompatible systems reduces our response time when we can least afford it. In a domain where seconds determine outcomes, system usability becomes a strategic imperative.
The challenge is compounded by Golden Dome’s ambitious scope: simultaneously and rapidly fielding new capabilities, modernizing legacy systems and integrating cutting-edge commercial solutions.
This is where User-Centered Design (UCD) — the practice of designing systems based on deep understanding of mission objectives, operational contexts and operator needs — becomes critical.
Without User-Centered Design-driven standardization of the User Experience (UX) — how operators interact with and navigate these systems — the ambitious scope of Golden Dome becomes impossible.
This complexity is further amplified as AI and ML accelerate the introduction of new technologies. Every new system added without standardized UX principles exponentially multiplies training requirements, integration challenges and the stakes of usability.
To succeed, the DoD must:
Integrate UCD into strategic planning: Make user experience a key consideration when defining the Golden Dome’s architecture and requirements, ensuring warfighter needs shape the program from conception.
Embed UCD in acquisition: Require User-Centered Design standards in all Golden Dome contracts and procurement vehicles, making usability and interoperability evaluation criteria alongside traditional performance metrics.
Create a Golden Dome design system: Establish standards for critical interfaces, workflows and data visualization — common patterns that enable natural information flow without forcing uniformity.
Measure what matters: Track training time, threat processing speed and cross-unit collaboration effectiveness to validate strategic decisions and drive continuous improvement.
Golden Dome to Expand Army’s Homeland Defense Role
The Army is expecting to take on a larger role in protecting the homeland as the Defense Department develops the Golden Dome missile defense architecture.
Golden Dome development comes at a time when the Army is modernizing its missile defense architecture. The service is working to bring online the Integrated Battle Command System, or IBCS, which can connect several different sensors and shooters through one command-and-control platform.
Given the role Army Space and Missile Defense Command already plays in protecting the homeland, there will be a natural potential for them to grow in the operational framework under NORTHCOM when Golden Dome comes online.
International
UK F-35 Buy Paves Way for a Return to Warplane-Based Nuclear Deterrent
The United Kingdom is expected to buy 12 F-35A fighter jets, marking a significant boost to the country’s nuclear deterrence posture.
The new procurements will allow Britain to “join NATO’s nuclear mission” by reintroducing to the Royal Air Force so-called dual-capable aircraft: airframes that can carry both conventional and atomic payloads.
France also has dual-capable aircraft, though these platforms operate solely under the country’s national authority.
Related Article: UK releases security strategy and plans for future defence spending boost
Exposed Undersea: PLA Navy Officer Reflections on China’s Not-So-Silent Service
While much of the international attention on China’s naval buildup is focused on its rapidly modernizing surface fleet, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is also taking bold steps to field a first-rate submarine force.
By the end of this year, the service could have as many as 25 Yuan-class submarines, which are among the world’s most advanced diesel-electric boats.
Its small-but-growing fleet of nuclear-powered attack (SSN), guided missile (SSGN), and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines has achieved major technological upgrades, and with the benefit of a massive production facility in Huludao, may be on the cusp of significant expansion.
The PLAN is investing in submarines because it recognizes their tremendous potential deterrent and warfighting value. That value, however, hinges on the ability of their boats to operate undetected.
According to Chinese military experts however, that basic requirement cannot be guaranteed—not even close.
Writing in the November 2023 issue of Military Art, a prestigious journal published by the Chinese Academy of Military Science, three PLAN officers revealed that the peacetime operations of Chinese submarines are highly vulnerable to the U.S. Navy’s undersea surveillance system, raising serious questions about their strategic and operational utility.
One senior officer and his coauthors emphasize that while the U.S. system is highly effective, it is not without certain vulnerabilities.
In fact, these weaknesses have grown increasingly apparent, in part due to proactive PRC measures.
The U.S. system suffers from geographic constraints. The Near Seas are right on China’s doorstep, giving the PLAN a significant advantage.
In recent years, they explain, it has become increasingly difficult for U.S. manned platforms to conduct reconnaissance close to the Chinese coast.
After summarizing the main weaknesses of the U.S. system, they offer several recommendations for how best to exploit them.
China needs to recognize that the goal of undersea security cannot be achieved overnight; it requires long-term planning.
China needs to combine both defensive measures and countermeasures, but it must place greater emphasis on countermeasures.
China needs to fully mobilize maritime militia and civilian fishing vessels without describing their specific roles in this endeavor.
China needs to develop new technologies, conduct reconnaissance against nodes in the U.S. Navy undersea surveillance network, and enhance the disposition and readiness of its undersea forces.
Our Take: This is good intel for understanding where we may need increased investments to counter this growing threat to U.S. forces in the region.
China's Burgeoning Drone Arsenal Shows Power of Civil-Military Fusion
The PLA’s interest in drones is extensive, as is often observed around Taiwan. Drones participated in joint exercises around the island in August 2022, April 2023, May 2024, October 2024, and April 2025.
UAVs are a regular presence in PLA incursions around Taiwan’s periphery, indicating that they would likely factor heavily in any Taiwan Strait conflict. And high- and low-end UAVs reportedly figure in its simulations of Strait scenarios.
Nevertheless, the PLA is apparently still determining what kind of UAVs it needs:
long-endurance drones operating alone on strike or ISR missions
autonomous drone swarms of different types (including “mothership warfare”)
manned-unmanned teams like larger drones as “loyal wingmen” for piloted fighter jets.
A recent report highlights how these goals have been paired with the modernization and expansion of China’s military drone industry.
China’s defense industrial base has used the military-civil fusion, or MCF, national development strategy to benefit from China’s dominance of the commercial drone industry.
Drones, an inherently dual-use technology, have been a major MCF success story, due in part to their scalability, customizability, and generally lower start-up and production costs.
While most Chinese defense-export sectors have been stagnant, drone exports have boomed.
This success story reflects three categories of actors working together: state-owned enterprises; universities, especially those with a defense focus; and private or mixed-ownership companies.
Like other sectors of China’s defense industry, UAV production is dominated by major defense- and aerospace-focused state-owned enterprises. Among these are:
Aviation Industry Corporation of China. Ranked last year as the world’s second-largest defense firm, AVIC manufactures the medium-altitude, long-endurance Wing-Loong UAV series used by the PLA and exported globally.
China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. CASC makes the Caihong (“Rainbow”) series of drones used by the PLA and exported globally.
China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) is a growing player in the UAV field, including through its 2023 acquisition of Xi’an Aisheng Group, long a major producer of drones for the PLA.
Other major players include China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) and China Electronics Technology Group Corporation.
Defense-focused universities have also been key players in the development of China’s UAV sector. Ever since Beihang University carried out China’s first successful drone test in 1959, research on military drones in China has been spearheaded by universities—particularly members of the defense-focused consortium known as the “Seven Sons of National Defense.”
The final key set of actors in the troika advancing China’s military UAV industry are private or mixed-ownership companies. Most of the firms in this category manufacture drone components or parts.
Our Take: If you’re interested in the MCF, check out a paper published a few years where we hypothesized about the effectiveness of China’s approach.
I Fought in Ukraine and Here’s Why FPV Drones Kind of Suck
Jakub Jajcay
First-person view drones are unmanned aerial vehicles with four propellers located at the four corners of the craft, roughly in the shape of a square of 7-12 inches on each side. They are controlled by an operator wearing virtual-reality goggles that receive the image from the drone’s forward-facing camera (hence the name first-person view).
During my time in Ukraine, I collected statistics on the success of our drone operations. I found that 43% of sorties resulted in a hit on the intended target in that the drone was able to successfully fly all the way to the target, identify it correctly, hit it, and the drone’s explosive charge detonated as it was supposed to.
The goal however of the majority of our missions was to deliver the second tap in a double-tap strike against a target that had already been successfully prosecuted by a different weapons system.
The proportion of missions when we successfully carried out a task that only a first-person view drone can fulfill — delivering a precision strike on a target that could not be hit by other means — was in the single-digit percent.
There are two reasons why these drones rarely successfully do what they were designed to do.
The first has to do with how commanders choose to employ first-person view drones. While first-person view drones are cheap, they are usually not the cheapest option available to commanders.
This is the problem with using them in double-tap strikes or for missions that can be achieved by other systems.
One of these drone sorties costs about $500 in materiel. A mortar shell costs less than $100. A munition dropped from a reusable drone, also costs less than $100.
The second reason why these drones rarely do what they were designed to do is technical. They are finicky, unreliable, hard to use, and susceptible to electronic interference. Few first-person view drones have night-vision capability. Those that do are in short supply and cost twice as much as the base model.
For sophisticated NATO militaries, instead of investing heavily in the development of first-person view drone capabilities, I would, first of all, recommend ensuring that troops in the field have well-trained organic mortar support with an ample supply of ammunition.
Mortars, like artillery, can’t be stopped by bad weather, jamming, or crowded frequencies. Nor can they be impeded by the dark.
A well-trained mortar crew can reliably put rounds on a target in less than five minutes. Our first-person view sorties took about 15 minutes from the initial request to the moment the drone struck the target, and that was only when conditions were optimal.
Related Articles:
Other International News:
Podcasts, Books, and Videos
The Need for Speed: Transforming Defense Procurement for a Dangerous World w/ Rep Mike Rogers, Rep Adam Smith, Dan Patt, and Bryan Clark
Obviant: Building the Decision Edge for Defense Acquisition, Gray Matters
Shipping Change Inside the DoD w. Justin Fanelli, Steve Escarvage, and Jennifer McArdle, Second Front
Delivering the Army of the Future w/Dan Driscoll and GEN George, SCSP
Improving Defense Tech Supply Chain w/Tara Murphy Dougherty, Bloomberg
Navy Says Welcome Aboard to New Startup Partnerships w/Justin Fanelli, StrictlyVC Download
Air Force Airpower Over Iran: Key Insights, Mitchell Institute
DARPA with Deputy Director Rob McHenry, Mitchell Institute
Reindustializing America w/Austin Bishop, Kevin Czinger, Ed Mehr, SCSP
Robotics in the AI Era w/Torsten Kroeger, Brendan Schulman, and Damion Shelton, SCSP
Future of AI and Advanced Technology in Shipbuilding w/Glen Kim, Tom Bosco, and Justin Davis, SCSP
AI for National Security Missions w/Greg Forrest and Dr. Kathleen Fisher, SCSP
Building Bridges to Operationalize Commercial Tech for National Security w/Doug Beck and Kent Walker, SCSP
Delivering Military Advantage: Space Force w/Gen Saltzman, SCSP
Upcoming Events and Webinars
The Future of Federal Acquisition, GMU, Jul 9, Virtual
Capitol Hill Modeling and Sim Expo, NTSA, Jul 10, Washington DC
Reindustrialize, Jul 16-17, Detroit, MI
Ascend, Jul 22-24, Las Vegas, NV
Space and Missile Defense Symposium, Aug 5-7, Huntsville, AL
Fed Supernova, Aug 19-21, Austin, TX
2025 Space Warfighter Forum, NDIA, Aug 26-28, Colorado Springs, CO
Emerging Tech for Defense Conference, NDIA, Aug 27-29, Washington DC
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.