The Air Force’s proposal to cut the F-22s is part of a broader plan to divest 150 aircraft in fiscal 2023 to free funds for higher priorities such as the B-21 bomber, hypersonic weapons programs and Next-Generation Air Dominance systems.

The House Armed Services Committee’s defense policy bill offered a sharp rebuke of the strategy and of the planned F-22 retirements in particular. Not only did lawmakers reject the plan to cut the aircraft, they called for the older-model jets, which are used primarily for training missions, to be upgraded to the newest F-22 configuration.

The White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement to Congress last month it “strongly opposes” House efforts to block aircraft and ship retirements. Andrew Hunter, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, told reporters this week that preventing the service’s divestment plan would slow progress on the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which aims to field a fleet of unmanned aircraft to augment NGAD and other fighter aircraft during combat missions. The program is one of Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s top priorities.

“The concern I would have would be on our ability to deliver on a Collaborative Combat Aircraft system to complement NGAD. That’s where I think we start to see impacts,” Hunter told reporters during an Aug. 11 briefing at the Air Force’s Life Cycle Industry Days conference in Dayton, Ohio. “It would limit our ability to dedicate people and resources to an aggressive effort to field that capability.”

The Air Force requested $51.5 million in fiscal 2023 to transition technologies matured through the Skyborg program — the service’s effort to demonstrate the utility of teaming fighters and unmanned aircraft — to the Collaborative Combat Aircraft effort.

Asked whether additional funding from Congress would allow the Air Force to keep the F-22s and stay on track with the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, Hunter said there are infrastructure and manpower constraints that can’t necessarily be addressed with more money.

Brig. Gen. Dale White, program executive officer for fighters and advanced aircraft, told reporters during a separate Aug. 11 briefing the service is working with F-22 manufacturer Lockheed Martin to develop a cost estimate for modernizing the 33 older aircraft. A 2019 analysis projected it would cost about $50 million per jet, but White said a number of variables, including supply chain constraints, could change that estimate.

“We’re trying to put our arms around what has changed since the last time we did this,” he said.

The service plans to provide that data to Congress within the next month to inform budget deliberations, he added.

The Defense Health Agency’s Omnibus IV contract is a 10-year, multiple-award contract meant to deliver medical and technical services to the Pentagon, the company said in a statement on Aug. 9.

The Omnibus IV contract addresses four market segments that companies could be selected to provide services to the DoD: research and development; R&D support services; regulatory processes; and translational science and support services. Other contractors to receive work in all four market segments include General Dynamics Information Technology, Military Health Research Foundation and Leidos, according to the DHA ordering guide.

“As a trusted health solution provider, Battelle provides cross-disciplinary scientific and engineering expertise to improve public health and advance medical discoveries,” Nicole Brennan, division manager of health and research at Battelle, said in a statement. “We’re looking forward to working with our team to provide the most innovative solutions to the DoD that will improve health outcomes.”

Battelle conducts R&D, designs and manufactures products, and delivers critical services for government and commercial customers. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, since its founding in 1929, the company serves the national security, health and life sciences, and energy and environmental industries.

The Military Health System is one of America’s largest and most complex health care institutions. It’s responsible for providing health services through both direct and private care to some 9.6 million beneficiaries, composed of uniformed service members, military retirees and family members.

Analysts and experts are hoping the fiscal 2024 budget request will prove the Biden administration is committed to a layered homeland missile defense architecture.

Acknowledging the growing array of missile threats, the Trump administration in 2019 removed “ballistic” from its description of homeland missile defense when it released its Missile Defense Review. The Biden administration has not yet released an unclassified version of its review.

But John Plumb, the first-ever assistant secretary of defense for space policy, testified in May before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces panel that while China is the pacing threat in terms of military strategy, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine emphasizes the need for a broader missile defense strategy for the homeland.

“The sobering reality of the tragic events in Ukraine, in which Russia has used and continues to use a broad array of missiles to attack and, in my opinion, terrorize civilian populations, highlights the extent to which our adversaries are prepared to use missiles in a conflict,” Plumb said. “Missile defenses are critical for defending the U.S. homeland and for defending our deployed forces and our allies and partners.”

Plumb noted the FY23 budget request called for “significant investments in homeland missile defense,” including $2.8 billion to develop the Next Generation Interceptor and for the service-life extension of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system as well as $4.7 billion to transition to a “resilient missile warning and missile track satellite architecture.”

It also sought $4.7 billion for the Space Force, $278 million for new over-the-horizon radars to enhance the ability to detect cruise missile attacks on the homeland and nearly $1 billion for missile defense capabilities for Guam.

Development focus

The Missile Defense Agency has several efforts underway to address a wider variety of threats. One priority is ensuring the Ground-Based Interceptors in the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system are replaced by the Next Generation Interceptor.

While Ground-Based Interceptors only have one kill vehicle, allowing each to destroy a single intercontinental ballistic missile in flight, the Next Generation Interceptor is undergoing designs to house multiple kill vehicles, making it possible for one interceptor to simultaneously defeat several incoming missiles.

Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Technologies are competing against a team of Lockheed Martin and Aerojet Rocketdyne to design the Next Generation Interceptor. The Missile Defense Agency hopes to place the first future interceptor into a ground-based silo by 2028.

MDA is also using a competitive development strategy to develop a Glide Phase Interceptor capable of defeating a hypersonic weapon. Raytheon Technologies and Northrop Grumman were selected in June to continue developing the interceptors.

The agency will first focus on providing a capability to the Navy and, if successful, move to develop a land-based battery.

Meanwhile, the agency and U.S. Northern Command are working together to test a possible cruise missile defense capability for the homeland. They plan to conduct a capability demonstration in FY23 that integrates an elevated sensor into a so-called joint tactical integrated fire architecture with fire control for a naval long-range surface-to-air interceptor.

A major endeavor for MDA in the coming fiscal year is to kick off construction of a missile defense architecture in Guam. The agency set an FY26 fielding deadline for the capability and plans to spend $539 million in FY23 to begin the process.

The architecture will be mobile and include Navy SM-3 and SM-6 missiles, the Patriot air defense system, and the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System. The U.S. has operated that latter battery in Guam since 2013.

Those elements are to connect through the Army’s Integrated Battle Command System — command-and-control technology that connects sensors and shooters on the battlefield. The agency will also use the Aegis weapon system’s fire control capability.

Pentagon officials have said the architecture on Guam could serve as a proof of concept or a test bed to contribute to a homeland cruise missile defense architecture.

Money for missile defense

The Pentagon has said it budgeted roughly $20 billion to develop a “missile defeat” capability. This figure appears to be a big boost, Robert Soofer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy during the Trump administration, told Defense News.

But only about half of that funding will go toward traditional missile defense, Soofer noted. Some of the funding, for example, is for offensive hypersonic weapons development — an area set to receive about $3.8 billion in the FY23 request.

MDA requested $2.8 billion to continue to sustain and upgrade its Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, and $225 million to develop the Glide Phase Interceptor to counter hypersonic threats.

A total of $89 million would pay for delivering space vehicles for launch vehicle integration as well as complete development of the ground system for the second quarter of FY23, which will see the launch of two prototypes and on-orbit experimentations of the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor.

Congress is also moving to increase missile defense development funding in its FY23 defense authorization bills. The Senate Armed Services Committee released its version of the bill in July, which included $50.9 million in additional money for the cruise missile defense for the homeland demonstration.

The committee also doubled the Glide Phase Interceptor weapon account to $518 million.

For its part, the House Armed Services Committee in its version of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act approved $166 million in additional funding — more than double the request — for continued development of the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor.

Capitol demands

Both chambers’ versions of the FY23 authorization bill indicate Congress wants increased oversight and a better sense of who will manage missile defense programs.

The Senate version of the bill calls for a “rapid and complete modernization of legacy nuclear capabilities of the United States and the timely development of a range of ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic boost glide missiles.”

Senators ask for increased notification and reports, should the Pentagon run into issues that could delay or prevent the fielding of those critical capabilities. The legislation also requires Pentagon officials brief Congress twice a year on missile defense policies, operations and technology development.

Additionally, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee want the defense secretary to designate a senior Defense Department official to oversee the missile defense of Guam within 90 days of the bill’s passage.

The House version of the bill acknowledges the White House’s FY22 and FY23 budgets make “a needed and significant shift” to address missile tracking and warning architecture. The legislation also notes the Pentagon should continue to fund and deliver the capability from low Earth orbit in the mid-2020s.

Lawmakers also require the defense secretary and MDA to submit a comprehensive layered strategy to use “asymmetric capabilities” to defeat hypersonic missile threats.

Members of Congress appear to be backing off from a push to fund a homeland missile defense radar in Hawaii. MDA has not included funding for the radar for several years, but Congress had added funding the last several budget cycles to move forward on the program.

However, in the latest House Armed Services Committee bill, lawmakers noted they will wait to determine what’s needed in Hawaii until learning more about a review currently in the works by the Pentagon on the integrated air and missile defense sensor architecture of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

House lawmakers have also been pressuring the Pentagon to designate a department or agency to lead its homeland cruise missile defense efforts. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks in late July gave the Air Force lead acquisition authority over homeland cruise missile defense.

A memo from Hicks gives the Air Force 180 days to deliver a plan and proposed architecture that addresses meeting homeland cruise missile defense capability gaps “projected in Fiscal Year 2026 and 2030.”

‘We don’t really get a choice’

But some analysts and experts say the shift toward thinking about missile threats more broadly is inevitable.

“We don’t really get a choice about whether or not we go after this,” Tom Karako, a missile defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Defense News. “We have to counter all of these different pieces of the air-and-missile threat spectrum in some way, be it passive defense, be it active defense, be it distributed ops or what have you. That’s just the reality.”

The architecture at Guam will give the Pentagon an opportunity to look at what’s possible, Karako added.

He said he’ll be watching the president’s FY24 budget request for proof the White House is committed to a more robust defense of the homeland. “Will it go after homeland cruise missile defense like we mean it?” he wondered.

If the White House and the Defense Department don’t commit more money to solving the homeland cruise missile defense mission in FY24, “it sends a signal that there are [other], higher priorities,” Soofer said.

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, in consultation with the Missile Defense Agency and the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization, are closing in on a design framework for the mission, Brig. Gen. Paul Murray, NORAD deputy director of operations, said last month. The next step is to show decision-makers it will work, he explained.

Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Defense News that “you can tell if an administration is serious by scrutinizing whether they produce well-formulated missile defense acquisition strategies in a timely manner and request the necessary funding to field capabilities as quickly as possible.”

“Too often, we have seen a dissonance between words and actions,” he added. “I worry we will pay a steeper price for that dissonance in the future.”

The nominees include key Defense Department positions such as the inspector general, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, an acquisitions official and another who would oversee industrial policy.

“It leaves big gaps, particularly in many of the key acquisition positions,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., told Defense News. “And of course, it takes away time from other people who have to fill in.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has blocked unanimous consent requests on the Senate floor for most of these otherwise noncontroversial nominees as part of his year-long hold on confirming all Pentagon and State Department nominees in protest of the administration’s chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal.

And Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, announced a hold last month on the three nominees in the Armed Services Committee who would work on defense acquisitions and industrial base policy.

Sullivan placed the holds in protest of the Biden administration s decision to stall Alaska’s Ambler Mining District industrial access road, which he said would inhibit the mining of critical minerals – a market where China’s domination has created several vulnerabilities in the defense supply chain.

“This decision was a huge setback for our domestic critical mineral supply chains, really undermining our national security,” Sullivan said last month. “I haven’t been able to get answers from anybody in the Pentagon or at the Department of the Interior.”

The nominees that Sullivan has held over in committee include Radha Plumb as deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment and Laura Taylor-Kale as assistant secretary of defense for industrial base policy. He is also holding Brendan Owens as assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and environment.

Sullivan called all three nominees “well-qualified” but vowed to keep the holds in place until the Biden administration answers his queries as to why it blocked the industrial access road for the Ambler Mining District.

“One of the discoveries we’ve made – that everyone’s made – is that our industrial base is not as strong as we thought it was,” said Reed.

The Hawley Blockade

Reed went on the Senate floor last month in an attempt to confirm three other key Defense Department nominees by unanimous consent, only for Hawley to stymie his efforts.

Hawley’s objection to Reed’s request blocked the confirmation of Robert Storch to serve as the Defense Department’s inspector general – a key post that has not had a Senate-confirmed official since January 2016. Hawley also blocked Reed from confirming Tia Johnson as a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and Russell Rumbaugh as the Navy comptroller.

“I have always said that it is better for national security and for our country to have Senate-confirmed officials leading the Department of Defense,” James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, told Defense News. “Every member has a right to ask for a vote, and it’s up to the Majority Leader to schedule those votes, so of course I’d like to see those votes happen soon.”

Byzantine Senate procedures ensure that floor votes eat up hours or even days of valuable floor time that can slow-walk the majority party’s agenda. This makes the majority party reluctant to use precious floor time on noncontroversial, lower-level nominees that would typically pass with bipartisan unanimous consent requests.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., did schedule a floor vote in May for Christopher Lowman to serve as the assistant secretary of defense for sustainment – a position deemed particularly vital given its role in overseeing Ukraine aid delivery logistics.

The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Lowman to the post 94-1. Hawley was the lone no vote after blocking several requests to confirm Lowman by unanimous consent in the months before the floor vote.

Hawley first insisted he would keep his holds in place until Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken resign over the Afghanistan withdrawal.

In recent months, he has scaled back his ultimatum and now says he will lift the hold in exchange for a public hearing on last year’s Abbey Gate attack at Hamid Karzai International Airport that killed 13 American service members and more than 160 Afghan civilians.

“We need to have a hearing in public – not behind closed doors, not closed press – we at a minimum need to have a hearing on CENTCOM’s report on the Abbey Gate disaster,” Hawley told Defense News. “And we need to have the principals testify.”

Reed has pushed back against scheduling such a hearing, noting that the Senate has held a combined total of seven public and private hearings since the withdrawal and that the Fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act mandates quarterly briefings on the security situation in Afghanistan. But Hawley remains unsatisfied.

“They don’t want to talk about the withdrawal,” said Hawley. “They don’t want any public accountability. They will do it behind closed doors, but they don’t want any public accountability.”

It’s the second delay for the Minuteman III test after Austin ordered one in March be called off to quell tension with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. The unarmed missile was due to be fired from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, and splash down at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

The Pentagon’s decision to delay the test came as China conducted “precision missile strikes” Thursday in waters off Taiwan’s coasts as part of military exercises that have raised tension in the region following a visit by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“This is a long-planned test. It will be rescheduled in future at a time of our choosing,” a defense official told Defense News.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby formally announced the delay in a briefing Thursday afternoon, calling it “the responsible thing to do” to show how serious the United States is about easing tension with China.

Kirby condemned China’s overnight launch of an estimated 11 ballistic missiles near Taiwan as “irresponsible and at odds with the long-standing goal to maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

Kirby stressed that the ICBM postponement would last a short time, later suggesting it would be “a couple of weeks.” He said a new date is already set for the test.

The shortness of the delay means the nation’s nuclear readiness will not be affected, Kirby said.

“The decision [to postpone] came in light and in context of the tensions that we’re seeing right now, and they’re pretty escalated,” Kirby said. “Temperature’s pretty high, and the president believed, and the national security team believed, that a strong, confident, capable nuclear power can afford to wait a couple of weeks for a test to make it clear — not just in word but in deed — how serious we are when we say we have no interest in escalating the tensions.”

The Wall Street Journal was first to report the delay.

China earlier announced that military exercises by its Navy, Air Force and other departments were underway in six zones surrounding Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own territory and has threatened to annex by force if necessary.

On Thursday, the U.S. Navy said its aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan was operating in the Philippine Sea, east of Taiwan, as part of “normal scheduled operations.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken addressed the drills Thursday, saying: “I hope very much that Beijing will not manufacture a crisis or seek a pretext to increase its aggressive military activity. We countries around the world believe that escalation serves no one and could have unintended consequences that serve no one’s interests.”

Kirby said at the White House that the United States does not want a crisis, but that it will not be deterred from operating in the Indo-Pacific region. Air and maritime transit through the Taiwan Strait will continue over the next few weeks, he added, and the U.S. will take steps to show its commitment to the security of regional allies, including Japan.

The delay triggered Capitol Hill pushback from Republicans. House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mike Rogers, R-Ala., framed the delays as concessions to Russia and China.

“These weak-kneed pearl-clutching attempts at appeasement hurt our readiness and will only invite further aggression by our adversaries,” Rogers said in a statement.

Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told Defense News the test’s delay is the wrong move.

“I hope at some point we figure out neither the Russians nor the Chinese are really going to be all that impressed by this kind of thing,” Karako said. “They probably respect strength more than weakness, action more than inaction.”

U.S. Air Force crews with the 576th Flight Test Squadron test four Minuteman III rockets per year from Vandenberg, according to the Pentagon. The tests are planned years in advance and publicized to avoid miscalculations.

In March, U.S. Strategic Command chief Adm. Charles Richard told lawmakers the U.S. had not altered the posture of its nuclear forces in response to Russia’s decision to put its forces on higher alert.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

“NRO has a long legacy of innovation, and launching two missions in less than one month from an overseas location is yet another example of our progress,” Col. Chad Davis, who leads the agency’s Office of Space Launch, said in a statement announcing the event.

The NROL-199 satellite mission, run in partnership with Australia’s Defence Department, was launched with a Rocket Lab Electron rocket from the Mahia Peninsula on New Zealand’s North Island. The event follows the NROL-166 mission, which launched July 13 from the same peninsula. The NRO did not specify the payload.

As initially planned, however, the two missions would have taken place in even quicker succession. The second launch was scheduled for July 22 — nine days after the first launch — but was delayed by two weeks, first because the NRO needed to update the payload software, and later because of strong winds.

MISSION SUCCESS! Electron's Kick Stage has successfully deployed the @NatReconOfC's payload to orbit. Welcome to your new home in space, #NROL199! pic.twitter.com/hOOryOsATG

— Rocket Lab (@RocketLab) August 4, 2022

The New Zealand Space Agency licensed the launch, and Rocket Lab, the private company that built the rocket, was the launch provider.

This summer’s NROL-166 and NROL-199 missions are the third and fourth Rocket Lab Electron launches from New Zealand, respectively, with two previous launches occurring Jan. 31, 2020, and June 13, 2020.

The NRO is a Pentagon agency that designs, builds and operates spy satellites.

Ryder, the Air Force public affairs director, replaces John Kirby, who left the Pentagon in May to became a White House spokesman on national security matters.

Then-Rear Adm. Kirby was the last uniformed officer to hold the job, under then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter replaced Kirby with Peter Cook, a former journalist, in 2015.

Ryder served as spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2017 to 2019. He worked for Austin from 2013 to 2016 as his top spokesman at U.S. Central Command when Austin was the commander.

In a statement, Austin said Ryder would lead the Pentagon’s “efforts to provide timely, accurate information to the media, and through the media to the American people.” Austin praised Ryder’s “wealth of experience, including joint and deployed assignments that will serve him well as he informs the media of our activities around the world.”

The Department of Defense on Aug. 2 said it committed $1.77 million to the Open6G industry-university cooperative, which will serve as a hub for development, testing and integration, and “aims to jumpstart 6G systems research on open radio access networks,” or Open RAN.

The Open6G venture is part of the defense community’s Innovate Beyond 5G Program, under the purview of the under secretary of defense for research and engineering.

“The DoD has a vital interest in advancing 5G-to-NextG wireless technologies and concept demonstrations,” Sumit Roy, the IB5G program director, said in a statement. “These efforts represent our continuing investments via public and private sector collaboration on research and development for critical beyond 5G technology enablers necessary to realize high performance, secure, and resilient network operations for the future warfighter.”

Open6G is managed by Northeastern University’s Kostas Research Institute alongside the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Technical work will be housed at the university’s Institute for Wireless Internet of Things. The institute specializes in 5G and 6G, artificial intelligence and machine learning, and unmanned aerial systems for both civil and defense use.

The Defense Department has for years invested in 5G while keeping eyes on the horizon. The fifth generation of wireless technologies — now available to hundreds of millions of Americans, with Verizon, AT&T and other carriers spending billions of dollars to rapidly expand their 5G networks — touts faster speeds and the ability to accommodate advanced devices. Future generations are expected to be even better.

Watchdogs such as the Government Accountability Office have warned of pitfalls, though. They include steep infrastructure costs, difficulties with implementation and cybersecurity woes.

Military leaders have promoted 5G, and what’s beyond, as a means to better connect forces on the battlefield and shuttle vital information between them, a tenet of Joint All-Domain Command and Control. The fifth generation is also being used to improve logistics in so-called smart warehouses, where private networks are powering experiments with virtual and augmented reality, high-definition video surveillance and artificial intelligence extended from the cloud.

The Defense Department secured approximately $338 million for 5G and microelectronics in fiscal 2022. It requested $250 million for fiscal 2023.

The department in 2020 announced a $600 million investment in 5G testing across a handful of U.S. military installations. Follow-up investments were made in 2021.

The addition of six months to the deal accounts for the inclusion of the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, in the zero-trust program and the “complete development, testing and deployment planning for the original unclassified prototype,” DISA said in an announcement July 28.

SIPRNet is a communications network used by the Defense Department to transmit classified information across the world. DISA, the Pentagon’s top IT office, described the framework as “antiquated” and in need of updating.

The agency awarded Booz Allen a $6.8 million contract in January to develop a Thunderdome prototype, its approach to zero-trust cyber protections. Folding in SIPRNet is a significant evolution. The extension lengthens the pilot to a full year, with completion now expected at the start of 2023.

“With this additional time, we can conduct operational and security testing that was not originally planned for in the initial pilot,” Jason Martin, director of DISA’s Digital Capabilities and Security Center, said in a statement. “It will also permit us the necessary time to strategize on the best way to transition current Joint Regional Security Stacks users who will be moving to Thunderdome.”

The Pentagon in 2021 decided to sunset Joint Regional Security Stacks — meant to reduce cyberattack surface and consolidate classified entry points — in favor of the zero-trust Thunderdome approach, C4ISRNET previously reported.

The six-month add-on comes amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which was preceded by cyberattacks that jeopardized command and control and forced offline government websites. Ukrainian networks continue to be buffeted, with hackers often targeting the defense, financial and telecommunications sectors.

Such attacks, DISA said in its announcement, highlight the importance of SIPRNet and the Pentagon’s need for a modernized, classified network with steadfast data protections. Defense Department systems are under constant attack, as is the defense industrial base.

“DISA has made clear that we will not forget that the ‘fight’ is fought on SIPRNet,” said Christopher Barnhurst, the agency’s deputy director. “While we have been working on developing a zero trust prototype for the unclassified network, we realized early on that we must develop one, in tandem, for the classified side. This extension will enable us to produce the necessary prototypes that will get us to a true zero trust concept.”

SIPRNet is already undergoing several other renovations. The secure network was among those accessed by Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who provided thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks.

Zero trust is an approach to cybersecurity that assumes networks are always at risk and, thus, continuous validation of users and devices is necessary. The model is often likened to “never trust, always verify.”

President Joe Biden last year ordered federal agencies to move toward zero trust and to produce the requisite plans. His executive order included several other cybersecurity provisions, as well. The Biden administration followed up in January with a memorandum focused on improving the cybersecurity of Defense Department and intelligence community systems.

“Thunderdome will be a completely comprehensive and holistic approach to how the network operates,” DISA said, “a major shift from the current architecture.”

Those are small, though important, changes in how they can better combat a growing list of nasty threats that do not always involve bullets and missiles.

But what will really change their work is a combined threat review, new strategy and increased funding to push CBRN to the forefront of defense thinking.

The larger “pivot” and “transformation” that one senior defense official signaled at a conference devoted to the trade of defeating such threats, is a comprehensive posture review, increased funding across multiple years and a new way to integrate CBRN defense into everything troops do.

With that new prioritization and funding, officials hope CBRN gear and strategy seep into the total force.

Adding another layer of data mining and machine learning will help frontline CBRN better face currently unknown dangers that threaten to overwhelm defense, civilian and emergency response in ways that could exceed the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense programs Deborah Rosenblum laid out the big picture in her remarks on July 28, the second day of the annual National Defense Industrial Association’s CBRN conference here in Baltimore, Maryland.

“We are not going to figure it out as we go,” Rosenblum said. “We need a radical transformation.”

Rosenblum characterized the growing chemical and biological threat as “vastly more difficult” and “rapidly changing.”

Multiple speakers throughout the two-day event hammered away that the old days of “one bug, one drug” are gone. That is the methodology that existed for decades with threats such as smallpox or anthrax, both deadly viruses that do have existing vaccinations.

While COVID-19 came from human-animal contact, current and future threats may be designed by adversaries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or non-state actors specifically to confound existing identification tools. That masks who made it, what it is and how to treat it.

And those are not casual references. The 2022 State Department Report on Adherence and Compliance for arms control, including chemical and bioweapons programs, made specific notes as to these adversaries.

“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) continued to engage in activities with dual-use applications, which raise concerns regarding its compliance with Article I of the BWC,” the report read.

The bulk of the State Department report regarding alleged weapons programs, specifically dual-use ones, includes estimated activity and fears of malign uses of biological and chemical technology due to incomplete, inaccurate, or sometimes misleading information.

The United States also has its own biodefense and biological technology programs, which could themselves be switched to “dual-use.” The United States also pursued and created vast stores of chemical weapons and biological agents before committing to end offensive bioweapons programs and joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, along with most other states in the world.

Russia maintained a robust biological and chemical weapons infrastructure while part of the Soviet Union. Despite public denial of such programs, Russian officials admitted in the early 1990s that its bioweapons program continued into the late days of the Cold War.

Media reports have also pointed to multiple political assassinations that the Kremlin, at the behest of Russian President Vladmir Putin, conducted using radiological elements and the fourth-generation nerve agent Novichok.

Then there’s North Korea, which has had a bioweapons capability since the 1960s, according to the State Department report.

“North Korea probably has the capability to produce sufficient quantities of biological agents for military purposes upon leadership demand,” the report stated.

However, outside experts, such as those with the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, note that depictions of North Korean military capabilities want for tangible evidence. The closed-border country’s leadership could be touting strong bioweapons programs simply as a strategic bluff.

“One must be prudent when discussing North Korea, and not jump to conclusions or ascribe a threatening meaning to any sliver of information that manages to emerge, particularly when it emerges in a time of crisis,” wrote Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, then an associate professor studying biodefense at George Mason University, in a 2017 article on the Bulletin.

A 2020 report by the thinktank Stimson drew a similar conclusion. The Stimson report noted that the U.S. government has made these claims for years without a clear definition of a bioweapons program.

“However, based on a definition by United Nations (UN) inspectors investigating Iraq’s BW activities, probably the most that can be said in the case of North Korea is that it may have or have had a BW program,” the Stimson report stated.

Regardless, biological and chemical threats still present a challenge for the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin sent a memo in late 2021 calling for a Biodefense Posture Review both for naturally occurring and manufactured biological threats.

That review kicked off in January and is expected to take about a year, according to Rosenblum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs.

Ian Watson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for chemical, biological defense, said in a separate panel in Baltimore that the posture review will “outline critical aspects of the threat.” The move will raise the profile of CBRN in the national defense strategy, concepts of operations and operation plans across the force, he added.

“Early warning is critical,” Watson said. That is because the use of biological or chemical attacks could preclude the start of armed conflict to prepare the battlespace.

But already, the Pentagon bumped up spending on chemical and biological defense with $300 million more in the currently proposed budget and a total of $1.2 billion additional funding over the next five years of budgeting.

Major moves that Rosenblum is pushing include adding CBRN sensors on most existing tactical platforms, as well as future platforms, from manned to unmanned, troop carriers to individual drones.

The Pentagon also needs to use advanced algorithms and technical solutions to do better satellite and thermal imaging that could spot and track the spread of chemical weapons releases.

A variety of entities across the Defense Department are developing modern vaccines that can be used before exposure as a protective measure and afterward as a treatment.

That same vaccine research is also solving the “one bug, one drug” problem by building vaccines that address a family of viruses or even attack the symptom, such as upper respiratory problems, which exist across several viruses.

A major initiative comes down to the lowest level — the individual soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. And that is through a program that seeks to have detection capabilities on wearable devices.

The Pentagon tried this before, with old chemical detection strips that often got contaminated by other debris. They also built a white-faced watch-like device to detect exposure called the DT236. The problem with that device was that it had to be sent to a lab for analysis.

That meant a soldier in the field unsure if they had been exposed was waiting days or longer to find out.

But the new wearables, such as commercially available smartwatches with certain sensors, could provide real time updates to chemical and bioweapons exposure.

“With these efforts, every warfighter can be a chemical or biological sensor themselves,” Rosenblum said.

And while all those efforts are necessary for new threats, a new strategy will drive better protection, she said.

“We can have the best material in the world, but if culture and mindset are not integrated…it’s going to sit on the side,” Rosenblum added.

Past practices did not always allow CBRN experts to know what they were dealing with, at what concentration and at what scale. That often meant pulling entire units out or cordoning off swaths of the battlespace.

Those measures are great for adversaries because it reduces troops in the fight and restricts the battlefield.

But, if leaders can take a more tailored approach to how they prepare for such attacks and react to them when they occur, they can be more effective on the battlefield, experts said.

Ukraine has 16 HIMARs, which have proved effective in repelling Russian forces in the east. The Ukrainians want additional air defense support, including more HIMARs and fighter jets. The country needs 50 HIMARs and 100 launchers to start retaking Russian-held territory, according to Ukrainian officials.

Ukraine’s Olena Zelenska reiterated this request when she gave a speech to Congress last month, marking the first time that a first lady from another state addressed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“I’m asking for air defense systems in order for rockets not to kill children in their strollers,” Zelenska said.

The advanced rocket systems have a range of 80 kilometers (50 miles), enabling the Ukrainians to hit the Russian positions from beyond the reach of most of the enemy’s artillery, and to strike logistics and command and control nodes.

Monday’s announcement came after Ukraine Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said four more HIMARS had arrived in the country.

“We have proven to be smart operators of this weapon,” Reznikov’s said in a tweet. “The sound of the #HIMARS volley has become a top hit of this summer at the front lines!”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley spoke together with their Ukrainian counterparts to inform them of the new package, the White House said in a statement. Austin held a call with Reznikov on Friday.

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman is among lawmakers who have been pressing the Biden administration to step up lethal aid, saying Ukrainian HIMARS strikes have degraded Russia’s war effort significantly.

“I urge the admin to continue sending more HIMARS and ammo to #Ukraine,” Portman said on Twitter.

Bipartisan frustration at pace of roll out

Republicans and some Democrats have started to voice frustration with what they view as the slow pace of rolling out HIMARs to Ukraine.

“It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand why this administration’s pace of military aid is not increasing to meet Ukraine’s needs so they can improve their leverage and bring [Russian President Vladimir Putin] to the negotiating table,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, told Defense News in a statement. “Ukraine is relying on us and our allies at this critical moment, and they need us to move with both speed and regularity so they don’t run out of these weapons and other much-needed munitions.”

A bipartisan group of six senators urged the Biden administration to expedite HIMARS delivery to Ukraine and provide fourth-generation fighter jets in a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Blinken last month. Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut joined Republicans Portman, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in signing the letter.

“These systems must be delivered at a pace and in quantity sufficient to impact the outcome of the fighting in the Donbas, Kherson and other regions,” the senators wrote. “Our assistance must be decisive, not incremental.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., attributed the incremental approach to the logistics of training Ukrainian forces to use the artillery.

“They’ve been sending them, and in the process of delivering they have to train troops,” Reed told Defense News. “And that takes really seasoned artillery men out of the country of Ukraine and then put them back in.”

Graham emphasized that advanced air capabilities would help get Ukrainian children “back to school” and allow Ukrainians to “get their economy up and running again.” He told Defense News that the Biden administration should send Ukraine the Lockheed Martin-made F-16 fighter aircraft.

Training Ukrainian pilots to use U.S. aircraft

The House’s annual defense authorization bill, which passed 329-101 last month, contained a provision from Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., that would provide $100 million in funding to train Ukrainian pilots to use U.S. aircraft.

Even as Moscow’s war machine crawls across Ukraine’s east, trying to achieve the Kremlin’s goal of securing full control over the country’s industrial heartland, Ukrainian forces are scaling up attacks to reclaim territory in the Russian-occupied south, The Associated Press reported Aug. 1.

The Ukrainians have used American-supplied rocket launchers to strike bridges and military infrastructure in the south, forcing Russia to divert its forces from the Donbas in the east to counter the new threat, AP said.

The U.S. has committed some $8.8 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration. Since 2014, the U.S. has committed more than $10 billion in security assistance to Ukraine.

President Joe Biden and his administration had been making a full-court press in Congress to pass signature legislation aimed at competing with China economically and technologically, but his National Defense Strategy remains secret, fueling frustrations from Capitol Hill that open discussions about strategy-driven budgeting are being hamstrung.

The White House roll-out of its overarching National Security Strategy can’t come soon enough for national security-focused lawmakers on both sides of the aisle because the unclassified version of the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy, now four months old, is behind it in the Biden administration’s queue.

The White House contends the broader document needed extra time after the invasion and a personnel shakeup on the National Security Council, but, even from within Biden’s own party, the heat is on. Mandated by Congress, the strategy helps lawmakers weigh the president’s national security priorities for budgeting, shows allies and adversaries those priorities and helps government officials speak with a single voice on national security matters.

“We keep making clear that this is a necessary requirement for the Senate and insisting [the strategy come] as soon as possible,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., told Defense News last week. The benefits “are a coherent operational view of the world, starting with threats, and then capabilities against those threats. It gives us insight into how much to fund and where to fund.”

‘Impeding our ability to do our jobs’

Then-President Donald Trump’s 2018 strategy is best known for its profound shift away from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars toward prioritizing China and Russia ― a focus that’s since driven innumerable national security budget and policy decisions in the U.S. and among allies. In Washington, the recommendation from the National Defense Strategy Commission for 3%-5% annual defense spending increases became an oft-repeated Republican talking point in Capitol Hill budget debates.

By law, Congress must establish its Commission on the National Defense Strategy no later than 30 days after the defense secretary submits the strategy, but congressional leaders have so far named only a handful of the eight members. According to Reed, Congress must first wait for the unclassified strategy.

Where Trump in 2018 issued a 14-page unclassified summary of his National Defense Strategy, Biden has so far released only a two-page summary in March, with the promise of a fuller version later. In the meantime, lawmakers have had access to the classified defense strategy, but because it’s considered secret, they are barred from discussing it publicly.

The National Defense Strategy is traditionally followed by other topic-specific reviews focused on nuclear weapons and missile defense.

In recent days, lawmakers on the armed services committees have included near-identical language in the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2023 that would order the Pentagon to submit both a classified and unclassified National Defense Strategy ― an expansion from the “summary” required under existing law.

“The unclassified version of the Trump administration strategy was pretty beefy, and it was a document serious enough that we could have a conversation about it in public. Now what we’ve gotten from this Department of Defense is just a fact sheet, and that fact sheet actually says nothing,” said one Republican aide who was not authorized to speak with the press. “I just think it’s a massive middle finger to the Congress.”

Members of Congress are not only seeking answers about how to fix defense industrial base weaknesses laid bare by U.S. efforts to arm Ukraine from its own military supplies, but they’re getting deeper into their debate of the federal budget and mammoth NDAA for 2023.

So far, lawmakers have yet to reach a spending deal, but increases backed by the armed services committees would rebuke Biden’s $802 billion request and instead approve more than $850 billion.

“It has made it very difficult and we’ve expressed our aggravation with the administration — both me and Adam Smith — about it,” House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said, referencing the panel’s chairman. “We’re gonna go on and do our work. If they don’t want us to factor in what they think, we’re going to do it our own way.”

Smith, in a statement, downplayed those concerns, saying the committee had been aided in its work by its access to and briefings on the classified version, but didn’t deny pushing the administration to release its strategy.

“I do agree that we should get an unclassified version as soon as possible, but we do already have some very deep visibility on the NDS, and that visibility is informing the work of the committee,” said Smith, D-Wash.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s top Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe, wants to discuss how, in his view, the strategy’s view of China’s designs on Taiwan are clearer-eyed than Trump’s in 2018.

Inhofe in April called for the administration to let Congress know when lawmakers can expect the National Security Strategy, but has yet to receive a timeline, he said in a statement last week. There are “zero excuses” for delaying public debate and “a lot of reasons to move faster,” he said.

“It’s way past overdue, and it’s impeding our ability to do our jobs — and help the military get what it needs, according to the strategy itself,” Inhofe said.

“We know China is our pacing threat — this strategy does a good job of laying that out — and we know the world has gotten even more dangerous since the last National Defense Strategy was released four years ago, but it’s hard to impress on the American people the scale, scope and urgency of the challenges we face if the strategy isn’t public.”

“There’s also some things in the strategy I’m concerned with, and we need to debate those things in public,” Inhofe added.

The Defense Department said in a statement it would release the unclassified National Defense Strategy “after the President’s National Security Strategy is published.” Its classified strategy “was released on March 28, 2022 to inform the budgetary process, and the Department is currently focused on NDS implementation,” said Pentagon spokesman Oscar Seára.

Not ‘China down, Russia up’

While the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy documents aren’t public, the strategies themselves have not been a complete mystery.

Just 45 days into Biden’s administration, he took the unique step of publicly issuing an Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, months before the administration was required to do so. Its emphasis on alliances was seen as a rebuke and reversal of Trump’s “America First” strategy ― as was the Biden strategy’s broad focus on the COVID-19 pandemic and economic shocks associated with it, racial injustice and climate change.

Like Trump’s strategy, Biden’s guidance identified China, Russia, North Korea and Iran as potential adversaries, but Biden has drawn fire from GOP hawks for playing up diplomacy and playing down the role of nuclear weapons. The guidance also codified a call for the military to “shift our emphasis from unneeded legacy platforms and weapon systems to free up resources for investments in cutting-edge technologies.”

The White House had a National Security Strategy drafted in January, when it hit pause to see how the Russia-Ukraine conflict would unfold. Then in February, the official drafting the strategy, Sasha Baker, left NSC to become deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. In late April, she was replaced as NSC’s senior director of strategy by Thomas Wright, an expert on trans-Atlantic relations and foreign policy.

China and the Indo-Pacific will remain a top theme, but for Europe, the strategy will recognize the land war in Europe’s major geopolitical implications, a senior administration official told Defense News. The first six months of the war have seen NATO begin to expand and enhance its force posture, while Ukraine has fought Russia to a near standstill using western aid.

“I think it would be a mistake to look at it and say ‘China down, Russia up,’” said the senior administration official, who spoke with Defense News on condition of anonymity. “That’s definitely not the case, but it will reflect some of the big geopolitical events that we’ve seen.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in a speech on May 26, called Russia “a clear and present threat” and China “the most serious long-term challenge to the international order,” but said the U.S. is determined to avoid conflict or a new Cold War.

That’s a subtly different construction from the National Defense Strategy, whose fact sheet released March 28 says it judges China as the “most consequential strategic competitor and the pacing challenge for the Department,” and identifies Russia as an “acute threat.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Pentagon leaders are caught in “an intellectual straitjacket” in their strategy’s emphasis on China, the complex future threat that they want to confront, while Russia causes the worst security crisis in Europe since 1945. The solution, in O’Hanlon’s view, is to prioritize Russia and China equally.

“There’s this sort of cognitive dissonance, where they are trying to prioritize China, even as Russia is the one that’s obviously threatening global order much more acutely. Their stance doesn’t quite accommodate that reality,” O’Hanlon said.

Beyond a geopolitical view, the strategy lays out three priorities: “integrated deterrence,” or coordinating military, diplomatic and economic levers from across the U.S. government to deter an adversary from taking an aggressive action; “campaigning forward” to build up the capability of international coalitions and complicate adversaries’ actions; and “building enduring advantages” through investing in the right technologies and people.

Military leaders privy to the classified strategy have meanwhile been linking their plans to those public principles. The chief of naval operations, Adm. Mike Gilday, recently issued an updated Navigation Plan 2022 that reframes the role of the service in terms of the strategy, saying, for instance, the U.S. needs a larger and more capable Navy to, “build enduring warfighting advantages.”

Former Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, now a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Washington needs to publicly discuss how to budget for a National Security Strategy that prioritizes China, Russia and ― potentially, given Biden’s recent visit there ― the Mideast.

“The interim strategy’s been overcome by events,” Zakheim said of the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. “That version talked about China being the No. 1 threat, but we’ve done so much for Ukraine and will continue to do so. And the president’s visit to the Middle East shows that one hasn’t diminished entirely. So it begs the question, how can we fund all of that?”

Bryant Harris contributed to this report.

Northrop will provide design, development, verification, deployment and sustainment support of new capabilities for the GMD Weapon System Program, the company said in an Aug. 1 statement.

The effort will include enhancing and upgrading the GMD’s capability to go up against evolving threats, according to Scott Lehr, Northrop’s vice president of launch and missile defense systems.

“GWS is part of Northrop Grumman’s land and sea-based missile defense systems that are enabled by our advanced missile warning and tracking space satellites,” he said in the statement. “Together, we are delivering end-to-end capabilities that will protect the United States and its allies.”

The program will take current ground system components of the GMD system, and through “proven digital transformation processes,” Northrop will update and modernize legacy code, add capabilities and incorporate the Next-Generation Interceptor when it comes online, it said.

A Northrop and Raytheon Technologies team is competing against a Lockheed Martin and Aerojet Rocketdyne team to replace the GMD’s Ground-Based Interceptors with NGIs.

There are 44 GBIs in silos buried in the ground at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The system also includes ground control stations, detection and fire control systems and other support infrastructure.

The GWS program team will primarily be located in Huntsville, Alabama.

The Northrop contract is step toward revamping how the GMD system is managed and was part of an MDA effort to inject competition into the required modernization and sustainment of the system.

Boeing has held the development and sustainment contract for the GMD system, which is set to expire in 2023.

“I will tell you that our lead system integrator does a great job today and the partnerships with industry within that construct do a great job, but we think that it’s so large and complex we should be doing everybody a favor by being able to split that up without losing the integration among all those pieces so our intent is to move in that direction,” Vice Adm. Jon Hill, MDA’s director said in 2020 when he announced the plan to hold a competition that would divide up the work needed for GMD modernization and sustainment.

A Request for Information released that year laid out a plan to split up the contract into separate pieces. One contractor would provide the NGI, which is being addressed through a separate request for proposals. Another would be responsible for legacy and future ground systems, and another for sustaining the existing GBIs.

And a company would operate the weapon system along with military operators and would run fleet maintenance scheduling and deconfliction, site operations, test support, and depot and parts management, the RFI lays out.

Lastly, a contractor would serve as the weapon systems integrator, making it responsible for overall GMD integration “including physical and logical integration of the GMD components, GMD system and MDA enterprise level integration, planning and execution of all necessary testing to verify and validate overall requirements compliance,” the RFI states.

The appropriations bill, unveiled one month after House Democrats backed a smaller $761 billion defense spending plan for next year, includes money for a 4.6% pay raise for troops, $1.4 billion to expand industrial base capacity, and $2.2 billion to accelerate the development of new military capabilities in space.

The Senate plan also includes $53 billion to address higher inflation “for acquisition programs, goods and services, and higher compensation costs.”

The spending plan is nearly 9% above current year spending levels and about 4% above the White House and House proposals for military funding.

“This bill modernizes our armed forces to address the evolving threats of the 21st Century, ensuring the Defense Department is able to compete with China and other adversaries across the globe,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement.

“It includes additional funds to help address the consequences of inflation, which has impacted government programs at every level – both defense and non-defense …This is a strong bill for our national security.”

Republican lawmakers disagreed.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said that the proposals “fail to appropriately allocate resources to our national defense.”

Shelby said the bills fall nearly $10 billion short of the spending level agreed to in the Senate National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which the Armed Services Committee advanced last month.

The divergent budget targets from different congressional committees set up a showdown this fall over what the actual defense spending total for fiscal 2023 will be.

White House officials have not raised objections over increasing the budget over their proposal, but have emphasized that money should be used to help modernize the force and not simply maintain legacy programs.

The Senate proposal provides $25 million in funding for the sea-launched cruise missile nuclear development program (SLCM-N), which the Biden administration seeks to defund. The House defense spending bill would defund SLCM-N, whereas the House passed defense authorization bill authorized $45 million in funding for the program.

Proponents of SLCM-N such as Admiral Charles Richard – the head of U.S. Strategic Command – argue that it’s necessary to enhance the U.S. nuclear posture, whereas opponents posit that it undermines the mission of the Navy’s attack submarines while adding relatively little to deterrence.

All of the differing budget bills have included money for a 4.6% pay raise, which would be the largest for troops in 20 years.

For junior enlisted troops, the 4.6% hike would mean about $1,300 more next year in take-home pay. For senior enlisted and junior officers, the hike equals about $2,500 more. For an O-4 with 12 years’ service, it’s more than $4,500 in extra pay.

“This legislation will keep America safe by giving our troops a well-earned pay raise, ensuring our servicemen and women are well-trained and well-equipped with the most up-to-date technology and shifting resources toward programs that’ll maintain our fighting edge over adversaries like China and Russia,” said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel.

Senate officials said the measure also includes $4.7 billion to upgrade outdated Defense Department infrastructure, including $680 million to enhance shipyards and $1.8 billion to “modernize our nation’s critical test and evaluation infrastructure for emerging technologies.”

Senate lawmakers are scheduled to break for an August recess next week. Officials from both chambers are expected to start negotiations over a compromise budget plan in coming weeks, but that work is unlikely to be finished by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

As such, lawmakers expect to need a short-term budget extension to prevent a government shutdown in October.

“Every service has their own interpretation of JADC2,” Wanda Jones-Heath said July 26 at an event hosted by the Potomac Officers Club, adding that they are “all different.”

“I’ve looked at all of the documentation associated with all three,” she said. “We are not aligned with what we need to be to be interoperable.”

Jones-Heath advises the Air Force secretary on all cyber programs. She also oversees cyberspace recruitment and the training of cyber mission forces, as well as assessing their readiness. She previously served as a chief information security officer.

To make JADC2 a reality, the Army, Air Force and Navy have taken their own tack.

The Army has Project Convergence, a crucible at which cutting-edge technologies are put to the test. This year’s event, PC 22, will include international players, both participating and observing.

The Air Force has the Advanced Battle Management System, a next-generation command-and-control approach from which the service’s secretary, Frank Kendall, has sought more tangible results after expressing doubts in 2021.

The Navy has Project Overmatch, arguably the most clandestine of the bunch, as officials rarely disclose information about it.

A formal strategy, an implementation plan and a cross-functional team are also meant to help bring the concept to fruition. A public version of the strategy was published in March. The implementation plan was approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks that same month.

Jones-Heath’s comments are the among the latest doubts raised about JADC2 feasibility and execution — how, exactly, three multibillion-dollar endeavors, each with their own idiosyncrasies, will coalesce to create seamless streams of information flow across land, air, sea, space and cyberspace.

Lawmakers in versions of the annual defense bill this year sought a review of JADC2 price and progress; a digest of timelines, goals and potential shortfalls; as well as related investment in the Indo-Pacific region, where a joint headquarters alongside a combatant command could soon rise.

House staff have said audits will help gauge the state of play and will inform where and when resources are applied.

The assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, Doug Bush, on July 11 floated the idea of a dedicated office that could organize JADC2 efforts. He likened it to the Army’s counter-drone office, which he said “actually helps prioritize our investments from a joint perspective” and ensures requirements align.

Jones-Heath on Tuesday similarly said a unifying force is necessary.

“Someone needs to just push us where we need to go,” she said, “because we are way out here.”

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, has led the charge against having Morocco host the African Lion exercise to push back against its control of the disputed Western Sahara.

“For more than five decades, the Sahrawi people have been subjected to repeated broken promises and vicious attacks by the Moroccan government,” Inhofe said last week at a confirmation hearing for the nominees to lead Africa Command and Special Operations Command.

“I have pushed [the Defense Department] to look at alternative locations for the annual African Lion military exercise that’s been hosted in Morocco previously,” Inhofe added. “I’m pleased that [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin] is in agreement with me on this issue.”

Inhofe’s office told Defense News he secured a commitment from Austin in a private meeting to look at alternative locations for the annual exercise, which the United States and 10 partner countries conduct jointly in Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal and Ghana.

The report accompanying the Senate’s version of the Fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act also directs Austin to “develop a plan to rotate the hosting arrangements and locations” of all multilateral exercises, including African Lion, within AFRICOM’s purview and submit a report by December.

Lt. Gen. Michael Langley and Lt. Gen. Bryan Fenton, the nominees to head AFRICOM and SOCOM respectively, told Inhofe during their confirmation hearing they agreed with finding alternative locations for the African Lion exercises.

“I will follow up on this serious issue,” said Langley. “I know the Department of Defense has been looking at it. I think it’s time to see if Morocco’s making progress.”

Inhofe has long been critical of Morocco’s control over the Western Sahara, which pits Rabat against the Algeria-backed Polisario Front — a Sahrawi independence movement.

He called it “shocking and deeply disappointing” when former President Donald Trump upended decades of U.S. policy by recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara at the same time Morocco signed onto the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel. President Joe Biden has left Trump’s policy intact.

Former Moroccan prime minister Saadeddine Othmani tweeted last year the African Lion exercise, which has been held for nearly two decades, “marks the consecration of American recognition of the Moroccan Sahara.” Othamni tweeted at the time that part of the 2021 drills would be held in the Western Sahara, but deleted the tweet after AFRICOM denied the exercise would be held in the disputed territory.

After that, the Senate added a provision to the 2022 NDAA banning U.S. forces from participating in multilateral exercises hosted in Morocco unless the defense secretary certifies the country is “committed to seeking a mutually acceptable political solution in the Western Sahara.”

Austin did not make that certification for this year’s exercises, which took place last month, and instead submitted a national security waiver permissible under the 2022 NDAA to allow the drills to proceed.

“U.S. Africa Command continues to explore alternatives to further diversify the locations of multilateral exercises and continues to consult closely with the Department of Defense and Department of State to ensure full compliance with future requirements as directed by the NDAA,” a Defense Department spokesman told Defense News in a statement.

Neither the Senate nor House versions of the 2023 NDAA contain the language banning Morocco from hosting U.S.-led exercises that Congress added to last year’s bill. However, the Senate report accompanying this year’s bill authorizes $10 million for AFRICOM to “assess alternative locations and host arrangements for multilateral exercises with African partners.”

“The committee further believes that diversifying the hosts and locations of these exercises may help the [Defense Department] expand partnerships in Africa, increase the capabilities of African partners and further U.S. access and influence on the continent,” states the report.

Other AFRICOM-led exercises include the Navy’s Cutlass Express near the Horn of Africa, Obangame Express on the west African coast and Phoenix Express in the Mediterranean.

With Inhofe retiring at the end of the year, the Sahrawis will lose one of their most powerful advocates on Capitol Hill. But Morocco’s status as a key host in the African Lion exercise may remain in peril.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., also sits on the Armed Services Committee and indicated at last week’s confirmation hearing he intends to continue pushing Morocco on its Western Sahara policy. He expressed concern the long-simmering conflict with the Polisario Front could once again devolve into open war.

“This could be a powder keg,” said Rounds. “With other outside interests priming the pump, should we not get this issue resolved, it could be another one of these hot spots that does not go away and a little bit of attention right now may go a long way.”

“Semiconductors, it’s not an overstatement to say, are the ground zero of our tech competition with China,” Hicks said, adding that they’re vital for technologies from artificial intelligence to hypersonic weapons to next-generation networking.

Hicks said the Pentagon has become largely dependent on the commercial market for computer chips and that 98% of the commercial microelectronics the Pentagon needs are assembled, packaged and tested in Asia. The legislation, she said, would help ensure the military has assured access to chips.

“Just making sure that ... when we [deploy troops] their weapons will operate as intended, and that the United States will retain control of that technology is incredibly important,” Hicks said.

The bill making its way through the Senate is a top priority of the Biden administration. It would add about $79 billion to the deficit over 10 years, mostly as a result of new grants and tax breaks that would subsidize the costs computer chip manufacturers incur when building or expanding chip plants in the United States.

Supporters say countries all over the world are spending billons of dollars to lure chipmakers. The U.S. must do the same or risk losing a secure supply of the semiconductors that power the nation’s automobiles, computers, appliances and some of the military’s most advanced weapons systems.

Jim Taiclet, Lockheed’s chief executive, told Biden continued supplies of semiconductors are “essential both to national security and to the health of the defense industrial base in the aerospace industry as a whole.”

Advanced super-thin semiconductors, he said, are critical to the company’s development of hypersonic weapons and space sensors, its work on stealth aircraft like the F-35 fighter, and the defense giant’s plans to integrate advanced technologies into existing systems.

“We’ve got a lot of emphasis and importance on those latest-technology chips because they are the building blocks of those defense systems of the future,” Taiclet said.

He warned that if China, a major semiconductor manufacturer alongside Taiwan, can constrain global supplies, it would endanger national security.

The virtual meeting also included the chief executives of Cummins, Medtronic, labor leaders, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

With reporting by the Associated Press.

White House national security council spokesman John Kirby also acknowledged that U.S. officials have begun discussions on potential aircraft acquisition for Ukrainian pilots as part of long-term partnering with America. But he said that work is not likely to produce any short-term changes for Ukraine’s air forces.

“[The White House] is making some preliminary explorations in the feasibility of potentially providing fighter aircraft to the Ukranianas, but it’s not going to be something that they’re going to be able to execute immediately,” he said.

“Integrating and operating any kind of aircraft, especially advanced fighter aircraft, involves complex systems and weapons capabilities, and that’s a difficult endeavor. So this is not something that’s going to happen anytime soon.”

But the White House confirmation solidifies comments from senior U.S. Air Force officials earlier this week that they will work with Ukrainian leaders to shift its air force away from legacy Russian MiG and Sukhoi fighters and toward more modern Western-made aircraft.

Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly said his nation needs more advanced fighters, such as F-15s and F-16s, to counter Russian air forces.

The drones and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, are part of the 16th package of military equipment being sent to Ukraine by the United States. Kirby said altogether the White House has authorized more than $8.2 billion in weapons transfers since the start of fighting in February.

In coming weeks Ukrainian forces will have access to more than 20 HIMARS, including contributions from Britain and Germany.

The rocket launcher has a range of more than 50 miles and has been hailed by Ukrainian leaders as a key tool in halting Russian attempts to advance further into their country. A senior U.S. military official said the skill of Ukrainian forces in using HIMARS, a wheeled platform, has kept them from being destroyed by Russian forces.

“All of the HIMARS have continued to really be a thorn in the Russian side, and ... continue to prosecute [Russian] targets related to command and control, ammunition, logistics, support areas ― all of those having a very significant effect on the Russians’ ability to mount offensive operations,” the official said.

But this week, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that his forces “would need at least 100″ of the long-range weapons systems to sustain an effective counter-offense against advancing Russian forces.

The Phoenix Ghost is a munitions drone which operates similar to the Switchblade, and was rapidly developed by the U.S. military specifically for Ukraine. The latest shipment would more than quadruple Ukraine’s arsenal of the drones.

While the HIMARS would be drawn from U.S. military stocks, the Pentagon plans to buy the drones through Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds. A senior U.S. defense official said the procurement would enable “steady deliveries,” starting in August, to ensure Ukrainian force shave a continuous supply.

Kirby said that more security assistance is expected to be announced in coming months.

“Russia continues launching deadly strikes across the country, at strip malls, apartment buildings, killing innocent Ukrainian civilians,” he said. “In the face of these atrocities, President Biden has been clear that we’re going to continue to support the government of Ukraine and their people for as long as it takes.”

Joe Gould contributed to this report.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon announced that it renamed and expanded the authority of the government’s chief UFO office. Formerly known as the Airborne Object Identification and Management Group, the office will now be known as the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO.

With the new name comes increased responsibilities, the Defense Department said in a statement. While the group was mostly focused on airborne and threats in space, the renamed office will also look into unidentified objects that are submerged in water or deemed “transmedium.”

Transmedium typically refers to the ability of an object to fly across multiple environments. For example, an object could be considered “transmedium” if it could fly through Earth’s atmosphere in addition to another environment, such as space or underwater.

The office’s new scope and name result from a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2022. The bill included a provision to establish an office with responsibilities that were broader than those originally assigned to the old office.

The renaming comes amid an uptick in interest in UFOs in Washington.

Congress takes renewed interest in issue

Earlier this year, Congress held its first hearing on UFOs in over a half century. During the hearing, lawmakers questioned Pentagon officials for more information about sightings of UFOs, with many lawmakers voicing criticism about a lack of transparency surrounding the issue.

The House voted last week to create a government system for reporting UFOs as an amendment to this year’s defense bill. The amendment would also compel current and former defense officials to reveal information about the phenomena.

In June 2021, the intelligence community released a long-awaited report on what it knows about a series of flying objects observed over the past few decades. The release of the report, while revealing little about the sightings, marked one of the first times the government acknowledged the mysterious sightings.

In addition to investigating objects, the renamed office will also be tasked with synchronizing efforts across the Department of Defense and with other U.S. federal departments and agencies to detect and identify objects of interest near locations pertinent to national security, such as training areas or military installations.

In cases where a relevant object is identified and deemed a hazard to national security, the office is also responsible for mitigating the threat.

The new M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, will bring the total number committed to Ukraine to 16. The light, wheeled multiple rocket launcher allows Ukraine to strike at ranges of 85 kilometers, or 53 miles, and with more precision than previously sent artillery.

The added HIMARS would be included in its upcoming 16th package of equipment from U.S. military stockpiles, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said as he hosted a virtual meeting of the Ukraine-focused contact group with allies. The package will also include rounds for guided multiple-launch rocket systems, or GMLRS, and artillery.

“As this fight rages on, the contact group will keep finding innovative ways to sustain our long-term support for the brave men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces, and we will tailor our assistance to ensure that Ukraine has the technology, the ammunition and the sheer firepower to defend itself,” Austin said.

Austin also spoke alongside Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Pentagon press conference, where Milley said the five-month-old invasion has evolved into a battle of attrition, waged through long-range fires and in which Russian forces are expected to continue using heavy artillery bombardments.

This week Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu ordered the military to prioritize the destruction of Ukraine’s long-range missiles and artillery, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday that Russia’s objectives now extend beyond the eastern Donbas region.

Pentagon officials say the Donbas isn’t securely in Russian hands. Ukrainian forces are challenging Russian front and rear areas, while Russian forces ― despite their manpower and stocks of equipment ― are expending resources rapidly without securing much ground, according to Milley.

“There is a grinding war of attrition that is occurring in the Luhansk-Donbas region … No, it’s not lost yet,” Milley said. “The Ukrainians are making the Russians pay for every inch of territory that they gain. Advances are measured in literally hundreds of meters on some days ― you might give a kilometer to the Russians, but not much more than that.”

To prepare for a long conflict, Kyiv, the U.S. and allies at the meeting focused efforts to train Ukrainian forces to maintain and repair donated equipment. The training is already underway outside Ukraine, and the group wants ways to track donated equipment so it can anticipate Ukraine’s logistical needs, Austin said.

“It’s not good enough just to provide a piece of equipment. We need to have that piece of gear, plus spare parts, plus tools to repair it ― at the operational level, down at the forward edge of the battlefield,” Austin said.

Will the US send even longer-range missiles to Ukraine?

When asked whether the U.S. will eventually send longer-range weapons, such as Army Tactical Missile System, which has a 140 mile range, Austin and Milley would not rule it out, but they said that the current systems have been working well.

Milley said that in his meetings with Ukraine’s top general, he’s hearing that the current mix of weapons and launch systems they have are “very, very successful.”

Weeks after the Pentagon’s inspector general in June launched an evaluation of Pentagon efforts to replenish stockpiles, Milley said Pentagon officials are looking closely at rates of ammunition consumption, which he said will be a decisive factor in the conflict.

“As we project forward into the next month or two or three, we think we’re gonna be okay,” Milley said, adding that Pentagon leaders are talking with the defense industry about how to continue to produce weapons used in the fight.

In addition to training on artillery systems, the Pentagon has weighed whether Ukrainian pilots would also benefit from U.S. training. The question came after the U.S. House approved $100 million in funding to train Ukrainian pilots to use U.S. aircraft last week as part of its version of the annual defense policy bill.

“So we’re looking at a lot of things, everything. But in terms of predicting where we’re going to be with pilot training, in months or years, I won’t venture to do that,” Austin said. “At this point. I will say that the Ukrainians do have – their air force does have a capability, as we speak, and are using some of that capability on a daily basis.”

How many HIMARS systems does Ukraine need?

Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said Tuesday that Kyiv needs more long-range, high-precision weapons, and more flying drones to aid reconnaissance and precision strikes. To protect Ukraine’s massive borders and launch an effective counter-offense against advancing Russian forces, would take many more HIMARS, he said.

“We would need at least 100. I think that would become a game-changer on the battlefield,” Reznikov, who participated in Wednesday’s meeting, said at the Atlantic Council on Tuesday.

Ukraine used the first eight HIMARS systems to destroy 30 command stations and ammunition storage facilities, which has dramatically decreased the intensity of Russian shelling and slowed Russia’s advance, according to Reznikov.

“Saving the lives of our people is of crucial importance to us, and that’s why we’re using HIMARS systems precisely, like scalpel of a doctor, surgeon,” Reznikov said, adding that he’d assured western defense chiefs that Ukraine won’t copy the imprecise “meat grinder” tactics Russia’s employed against civilian targets.

The Biden administration last pledged HIMARS to Ukraine as part of a $450 million military aid package announced last month. The U.S. has sent $6.1 billion in military aid to Ukraine since Russia invaded in February, though allies have also donated long-range fires, as well as other arms and equipment.

Austin hailed the UK’s provision of M270 MLRS, Poland’s transfer of 155mm self-propelled howitzers and Norway’s cooperation on the recent U.S. transfer of the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, or NASAMS. He said Ukraine’s use of donated Harpoon missiles allowed it to reclaim Snake Island in the Black Sea from Russian forces.

The U.K. is pushing toward net zero emissions across its economy after becoming the first country to mandate the reduction of greenhouse emissions in 2008. The country’s Department for Transport rolled out a detailed, aviation-focused strategy called “Jet Zero” this week at the Farnborough Airshow in England.

Against the backdrop of record-setting high temperatures this week across Great Britain, the strategy calls for U.K. aviation emissions to stay below pre-pandemic levels. The document builds on the country’s previous 2050 mandate and assigns a more aggressive target for domestic flights and airport operations to reach zero emissions by 2040.

“At current rates, aviation is expected to become one of the largest emitting sectors by 2050,” the strategy states. “We have to break the link between air travel and rising global temperatures. Aviation’s success must no longer damage the planet.”

Throughout the week at the show, U.S. companies showcased their investments in propulsion technologies and alternative fuels as well as internal targets for reducing emissions. Boeing unveiled a new digital modeling tool called Cascade that can predict the impact of different technologies on the industry’s carbon footprint and inform future flight concepts. Raytheon Technologies highlighted efforts to improve the efficiency of its propulsion systems and investments in electrification and sustainable fuel sources.

While much of this work is driven by the U.K.’s mandate and focused on commercial aviation, executives said it will have ripple effects across business areas. They also pointed to a growing interest from the U.S. government, including the Department of Defense, in developing a more robust climate policy.

Last year, the U.S. transportation, agriculture and energy departments agreed to use sustainable aviation fuel to meet 100% of U.S. demand by 2050. And President Joe Biden is expected to announce executive orders this week that target the climate crisis.

Will the US mandate sustainable aviation fuel?

Congress is also developing policies to regulate climate impact across several sectors, including defense. House lawmakers just passed a version of the Fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act that features energy resiliency initiatives, including a requirement that DoD establish a pilot program to test the use of sustainable aviation fuel in military aircraft.

Chris Raymond, chief sustainability officer at Boeing, said he expects the company’s sustainability targets will have far-reaching impact across business units, in the same way that its defense-focused autonomy efforts have been applied to its commercial work.

“One of the reasons I think I’m at the corporate level with a dedicated team is that this issue doesn’t just stop with commercial aviation,” Raymond said during a July 18 media briefing. “We have governments that have declared net-zero ambitions, ministries of defense are focused on this increasingly going forward.”

Defense-sector requirements are also driving the need for sustainability. Raymond pointed to the importance of fuel and energy security in increasingly contested logistics environments. Eric Fanning, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, added that as the U.S. Department of Defense shifts its focus to the Indo-Pacific region, it will need to ability to fly longer distances with more efficient propulsion systems

“They have their eye on that,” Fanning said July 18. “You want to make sure you’re more efficient not just for sustainability, but so that you can cover those ranges.”

Graham Webb, Chief Sustainability Officer at Pratt & Whitney, said he’s had briefings with the U.S. Navy, Air Force and other DoD agencies to share the company’s progress on the use of sustainable aviation fuel. He said he expects the department to make some decisions soon about adopting more alternative fuel sources and he pointed to the provisions in the House’s NDAA as a good sign of progress.

“I would anticipate to see building momentum in that area,” he said.

Pentagon officials may embrace aviation efficiency

Pam Melroy, deputy administrator of NASA, echoed Webb’s comments. NASA, whose origins are in aeronautics research, leads science and technology efforts to support aviation efficiency. Melroy said she’s been disappointed in the past by DoD’s lack of urgency in this area. However, recent discussions with Pentagon leaders, including Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, have been encouraging.

“The DoD has said they want to go forward and are very interested in that,” Melroy said July 18 at Farnborough. “I see the potential to have an enormous impact.”

Melroy said fuel efficiency and alternative sourcing are two areas ripe for NASA-DOD collaboration, noting that the combination of NASA’s research expertise and DoD’s test aircraft inventory provide a great opportunity for experimentation.

“If we have a technology that we’d like to push out for a flight-test demonstration, we’ve got a whole fleet that’s ready to experiment and . . . knows how to do tests,” she said.

Panagiotopoulos said Tuesday that he discussed Greece’s potential entry into the F-35 program with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin as well as Sean Burke, the director of the Pentagon’s F-35 joint program office. He also noted that he would tour Lockheed’s F-35 production line Fort Worth, Texas on Wednesday alongside the company’s CEO, Jim Taiclet.

“We already have made our interest known,” he told Defense News. “We sent a letter of request, and we have to wait for a time – that’s the procedure – for the letter of acceptance. But everything that needs to be done on a procedural level for a swift entrance into this program is being done.”

Greece sent its official letter of request to buy 20 F-35As last month with an eye on delivery after 2028. Athens has also expressed interest in purchasing an additional batch of F-35s down the line. Joining Lockheed’s co-production program alongside the U.S. and eight other countries would also require Greece to stake its own equities in manufacturing the advanced fighter jets.

Panagiotopoulos said that joining the program reflects the commitment of Greece and the U.S. to intensify cooperation “in the domain of defense procurement.”

He made the remarks after a meeting with Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who exercises considerable leverage over arms sales to other nations as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Menendez’s home state of New Jersey boasts the sixth largest Greek American population in the U.S. and the fourth largest Armenian American population, making Greece’s adversarial NATO ally Turkey particularly unpopular among many of his constituents.

Greece, Turkey jockey for position in Washington

Menendez has threatened to use his leverage to block the $6 billion sale of 40 Lockheed Martin Block 70 F-16 fighter jets to Turkey. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis directly appealed to Congress to block the F-16 sale during an address before a joint meeting of Congress in May – immediately after he announced Greece’s intention to acquire the F-35 at the White House.

The U.S. kicked Turkey out of the F-35 co-production program in 2019 over Ankara’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense amid fears its advanced radar system could allow Moscow to spy on the stealth fighter jets.

The Greeks have found a critical ally in Menendez as they seek to block the F-16 sale to Turkey amid repeated Turkish violations of Greek airspace, the ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus and maritime disputes over gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean.

This puts Athens at odds with President Joe Biden, who voiced support for the F-16 sale at the NATO summit in Madrid last month after Turkey dropped its opposition to Swedish and Finnish accession to the alliance. The Turks are also seeking a separate $400 million sale to upgrade their current F-16 jets with new missiles, radar and electronics.

“We should sell them the F-16 jets and modernize those jets as well,” Biden said in Madrid. “But I need congressional approval to be able to do that, and I think we can get that.”

It remains unclear how the White House plans to persuade Menendez, who remains committed to using his position to block the sale.

Menendez told Defense News on Monday that he remains a hard no on the F-16s but said he could consider the sale if Turkey addresses issues he has previously raised with Ankara. Those include its actions in the eastern Mediterranean, its continued possession of the S-400s, it human rights record and ongoing attacks against the US-backed fighters in northeast Syria.

‘The situation is fluid right now’

The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Council has also lobbied Congress and the Biden administration against the sale, noting that Turkey has used F-16s to target civilian infrastructure in areas under its control as recently as February.

Sinam Mohamad, the Syrian Democratic Council’s envoy to Washington, told Defense News in May that she has engaged lawmakers and the State Department “at senior levels” to urge them not to approve the F-16 sale.

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Risch of Idaho, also has the authority to block the F-16 sale and noted that “the situation is fluid right now.”

Risch has not yet given the green light for the sale to proceed. Still, he told Defense News in May that he was “positively disposed in that direction, but I’m not completely there yet.”

Turkey’s reputation on Capitol Hill plummeted following its 2019 S-400 acquisition and attack on the Syrian Kurds that same year, but recently Ankara has managed to claw back some goodwill in Congress over its support for Ukraine.

The chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Democrat Gregory Meeks of New York and Republican Mike McCaul of Texas, have both indicated that they would not block the sale so long as Turkey continue to work with the U.S. to address outstanding issues.

The House voted 244-179 last week to add an amendment from Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., to its annual defense authorization that would require Biden to submit “a detailed description of concrete steps” to ensure that Turkey does not use the F-16s to violate Greek airspace before proceeding with any sale. The amendment also requires that Biden certify that the F-16 sale is in U.S. national security interests.

Jim Taiclet said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February and China’s more aggressive actions and rhetoric have upended a “relatively benign global security environment” in a matter of months. Still, it’s unclear exactly what that will mean for Lockheed, he said.

“The clutch isn’t engaged yet,” Taiclet said. “And the clutch engaged means there are contracts in place, there’s a demand signal out there that’s clear, there’s funding appropriated by the U.S. Congress ― in the case of the United States ― and we’re producing ... with a supply chain that’s robust enough to support it.”

“To get the clutch to engage, it’s going to take two to three years, and that’s for our allies as well, because they not only have to go through their own processes internally, they then have to go through generally the [U.S.] foreign military sales process,” he added.

The assessment came during a downbeat quarterly earnings call; the contractor disclosed its ongoing supply chain challenges and reported significantly lower sales and profit. Lockheed said quarterly sales totaled $15.4 billion, down 9% from the same three-month period the prior year. Profit sunk to $309 million, down from $1.8 billion a year earlier.

Lockheed lowered its full-year earnings per share outlook $21.55, down 19%, which the company said reflects a $1.5 billion pension settlement charge and other one-time occurrences. The company cut its 2022 sales outlook from $66 billion to $65.3 billion.

Though news broke Tuesday morning that Lockheed reached a handshake deal with the Pentagon for three lots of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the contract wasn’t finalized or reflected in the earnings report.

Sales in the quarter were “lower than expected due to the delay in the contract agreement on the F-35 and supply chain impacts,” Taiclet said. “We anticipate supply chain challenges to continue for the remainder of the year, and we’ve reduced our 2022 outlook to reflect that.”

A number of countries in Europe have committed to increased defense spending, and Congress appears on track to increase the FY23 budget above the Biden administration’s request. Lockheed has further advocated for streamlining the U.S. foreign military sales approval process, which involves the State Department, Pentagon and Congress, to speed up its anticipated deals.

“The demand and the situation that our customer base is facing has dramatically changed over the last three, four months,” Taiclet said.

International customers have expressed interest in Lockheed fighter jets, and the administration in February announced a $4.2 billion deal with Jordan for the F-16. A recent $1.6 billion deal with Saudi Arabia to produce THAAD interceptors helped buoy Lockheed’s missiles and fire control segment in its most recent quarter.

As the U.S. military has sent Ukraine its Javelin anti-tank weapons, which Lockheed coproduces with Raytheon Technologies, and the Lockheed-made M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, the company said it expects increased sales of those systems. Taiclet said Lockheed is also increasing production of its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 surface-to-air missile.

“The question is, how much higher can we take it over the next number of years?” he said. “The reality is today, none of it is under contract. And so we’re trying to get a better understanding with the timing that these will come into contract, and then get a better understanding of our supply chain capability to determine when we can actually deliver.”

The U.S. and other NATO countries have been supplying Ukraine with a range of weapons, and U.S. President Joe Biden has exercised his authority to draw donations from U.S. military stockpiles 14 times. But those transfers have also raised concerns about the defense industry’s access to critical components and other potential supply chain kinks, especially as the Pentagon looks to replenish its supplies.

Taiclet said it’s “too soon to tell” how the U.S. would backfill equipment it has sent to Ukraine, and the company is awaiting decisions by the armed services, the Pentagon and the Biden administration.

“There’s some initiatives ongoing from some of the services in the Department of Defense to put more energy behind replenishment, but that’s early in their process, so we don’t have full visibility,” he said. “We’re supporting it of course and making sure they understand what the capacity ― capabilities are over the next two three years to get up to higher volumes.”

Over the course of several years, the Virginia-based division of General Dynamics will upgrade existing infrastructure and cyber systems as well as perform operations and maintenance. Work on the Europe-Wide Information Technology and Enterprise Network contract, or EITN, also spans legacy communications equipment and annual accreditations, among other tasks.

“This contract will equip airmen across Europe with the knowledge, tools and data they need to mobilize and operate at any place and any time,” Brian Sheridan, senior vice president for GDIT’s defense division, said in a statement July 18. “Consolidating multiple mission-critical services under a single contract will also allow for greater speed, flexibility and accessibility of IT services needed across the region.”

Work will be done in Germany, Italy, Turkey, the U.K. and other locations across Europe.

The indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract was awarded July 14 by the 764th Enterprise Sourcing Squadron at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, according to Department of Defense records. It has a five-year base period with one three-year option available.

Six offers were received. The Defense Department did not name other bidders.

The Space Development Agency on July 18 said the companies will each produce 14 prototype satellites for the Tranche 1 Tracking Layer, a key component of the National Defense Space Architecture, which will consist of hundreds of satellites operating primarily in low-Earth orbit.

Together, the agreements are valued at more than $1.3 billion. The L3Harris deal came in at $700 million, making each satellite and related service package worth roughly $50 million. The Northrop Grumman deal came in at $617 million.

Seven proposals were received. SDA Director Derek Tournear on Monday declined to say who else was interested in furnishing the systems, but did say the competition was healthy and heating up.

The SDA published the Tranche 1 Tracking Layer solicitation in March.

“The primary purpose of this contract is so that we can provide, for the department and for the nation, missile warning and missile tracking capability for the advanced missile threats and to deliver that as rapidly as possible,” Tournear told reporters.

The first launch is expected in April 2025. Three more are expected to follow.

The satellites will be installed in different locations, traveling north to south on polar orbits, and will carry overhead persistent infrared sensors. They will be constructed with the contemporary space environment in mind, according to Tournear, who emphasized the threat of attrition and the real-world value of strength in numbers.

“Historically, our architecture was designed in an environment that was very benign. In other words, an environment that was not threatened at all,” he said. “Now, we’re in an environment where space is challenged, people talk about space as a warfighting domain. Because of that, we’ve had to completely change the way that we do our space architecture. The space architecture now is designed to be more resilient, based on proliferation.”

Congress in fiscal 2022 gave the SDA an extra $550 million, accelerating the agency’s schedules and helping almost double total development and prototyping funds to $1.2 billion from $636 million, C4ISRNET reported.

The Pentagon reiterated the point Monday, adding that specific attention was to be paid to the Indo-Pacific, where the U.S. is investing much time and money to counter China.

“As you as you see in the news, our adversaries, primarily Russia and China, have been developing and testing hypersonic glide vehicles, these advanced missiles that are extremely maneuverable,” Tournear said. “These satellites are specifically designed to go after that next-generation version of threats out there.”