Defense One - All Content

With launches slated to grow a hundredfold, Space Force seeks more sites, money, people, and AI

Thomas Novelly — Thu, 07 May 2026 16:34:42 -0400

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida—The guardians manning screens in the mission-ops center here oversaw the launch of five types of rockets in April, a new record that involved NASA’s Artemis II, the first reused New Glenn booster, and a Falcon 9 lofting the final GPS III satellite. But tomorrow's Space Force may have no time to mark even epochal missions. Within a decade, service leaders say, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station will be launching hundreds of rockets a year.

To facilitate the Pentagon’s fast-growing demand for orbital capability, the Space Force is looking for more launch sites, more money, more troops, and more AI.

“In 2025, the Space Force saw a drastic increase in mission requirements across space access, global mission operations, and space control. This trend shows no signs of slowing,” Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top uniformed leader, told House lawmakers last week. “The Space Force we have today is not the Space Force we will need in the future.”

Nestled on a thin stretch of land just miles from nature preserves and cruise-ship ports, the historic Cape Canaveral facility launched 36 rockets in 2021, its first year as a Space Force facility. Last year, it sent 110 into the heavens, while its California counterpart, Vandenberg Space Force Base, launched another 65.

This year, Space Force leaders intend to launch more than 200 rockets from their two main launch sites. And by 2036, they project, the pair will launch as many as 3,000 annually, according to a service document released last month.

That’s going to take more launchpads.

“As far as other launch locations, that's something that we've looked at quite a bit as well,” said Col. Ryan Hiserote, who leads Space Systems Command’s System Delta 80 and runs the National Security Space Launch program. “In terms of heavy launch, it's really just the two bases we have now—with Vandenberg and the Cape—I don't have a good solution for that one yet. But we're certainly open to other locations, and the team has been exploring those.”

Hiserote said he was initially focusing on sites for smaller vehicles, like Rocket Lab’s work out of NASA’s Wallops Island flight facility.

Walt Lauderdale, System Delta 80’s system program director for the Falcon product line, said the service might use private sites such as SpaceX’s Starbase in Texas.

But even as the Space Force looks to spread its launches around, Lauderdale said, it also needs to expand and improve its two main bases and “pivot to invest in ways we never did before.”

Pushing policy

The Space Force’s top brass has been making that pitch as well.

Last month at the Space Symposium in Colorado, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman unveiled “Objective Force 2040,” an ambitious vision with a section on expanding the service’s launch capabilities.

“As the space domain becomes increasingly linked both to national security and to economic

prosperity, the importance of space access grows commensurately,” the document said. “This is a significant challenge because the Space Force has supported exponential growth in launch cadence over the past few years using the same physical infrastructure first built decades ago. The future operating environment will only exacerbate this strain, with booming government and commercial demand as well as new mission requirements for responsive and scalable space access.”

The document noted that the service will “expand and certify state, commercial, and private launch sites to address routine launches, increase surge capacity, and provide geographic diversity,” but also noted some spaceports won’t be fully suitable for some missions.

“These sites will increase overall launch capacity, but security and mission assurance requirements will limit their suitability for the most sensitive national security launches,” the document said.

And the document adds a warning about overreliance on Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, which “creates enduring vulnerability to natural hazards, operational disruption, and degraded performance during periods of peak demand.”

Defense space expert Todd Harrison agreed.

“It would make sense to diversify, because right now we are incredibly dependent on just two locations,” said Harrison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “One is at risk of hurricanes, and the other is at risk of wildfires and earthquakes.”

Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act directed the Space Force to analyze the long-term suitability of Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg and develop a list of alternative locations. Lawmakers have floated Wallops Island; Pacific Spaceport Complex, Alaska; and Spaceport America in New Mexico, as potential alternative national-security launch sites.

In this year’s NDAA, lawmakers directed the service to report on the maintenance costs and age of infrastructure at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, as well as “potential strategies to mitigate adverse environmental effects.” The deadline was March 31.

Space Force launch officials said in April that their extensive report had not yet been delivered to Congress. A service spokesperson did not respond to a request for an update.

People problems

Increasing the number of launches will require more than money. Top Space Force officers have recently called for doubling the service’s end-strength over the next decade.

But even that won’t be enough, they say. Guardians will need to lean on AI to help.

“Our manpower is going to change,” said Air Force Col. Douglas Oltmer, commander of Cape Canaveral’s 45th Weather Squadron. “It’s going to have to change to be able to flex to that launch cadence, but we will not be able to do the job in the future the way we’re doing it now. We’re going to have to leverage technology, AI tools a lot more than we’re doing now.”

The Objective Force document calls for a service that can “operate at machine speed, leveraging artificial intelligence and autonomous systems while maintaining the primacy of human judgment for critical decisions.”

While Congress debates the future of the Space Force’s launch sites and service leaders push space-launch goals to new heights, guardians at Cape Canaveral said they don’t feel those additional pressures weighing down on them. Hiserote, of System Delta 80, said he’s working with what he’s got until new resources and manpower come.

“It will mean more missions for us, so we’re working through how to balance that with the resources that we have and look at areas where we can accept more risk that maybe traditionally we haven’t before,” Hiserote said. “I think there’s a lot that we can do to automate some processes so we can handle a larger manifest with a team that we have.”

]]>

Pentagon will ‘never again’ rely on a single AI provider, official says

Alexandra Kelley — Thu, 07 May 2026 14:41:00 -0400

The U.S. military will never again rely on just one vendor of AI tools as it did with Anthropic, the defense undersecretary for research and engineering said Thursday.

“We were single-threaded on one vendor, one AI vendor at the Department of War, and to integrate into classified systems is not just putting your software on a public cloud and having it work,” Emil Michael said at the Special Competitive Studies Project’s AI+ Expo event in Washington, D.C. “These are sophisticated, protective systems that take a lot of work to integrate on, so it wasn't like I could just turn on a few other models that easily. But never again we’ll be single-threaded with any one model.”

Michael said that his department's recent deals with eight leading AI developers represented a statement of support by a tech industry that not so long ago shied away from military work, as well as a promise to allow the Pentagon to use their tools "for all lawful use cases."

Anthropic has sued the Defense Department and other federal agencies and their leaders for declaring the company a national-security risk after it declined to allow the Pentagon to use its tools for autonomous weaponry and mass surveillance of Americans. A judge has ordered the White House to stop telling agencies to remove the company's products as the lawsuit proceeds.

Moreover, a new Anthropic product has drawn the Pentagon's interest: Mythos Preview, which has shown groundbreaking ability to spot cyber vulnerabilities. The U.S. government has drafted internal policies that would allow agencies to use Mythos.

Michael said that the Anthropic product heralds an era of AI-powered cyber operations.

“The Mythos moment is really a cyber moment, and it's: ‘How is the U.S. government going to deal with cyber?’” Michael said.

Major tech companies are responding to Michael’s drive to diversify the Pentagon’s vendor portfolio. Rand Waldron, the vice president of the Global Government Sector for Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, told Nextgov/FCW that Defense officials are asking cloud service providers like Oracle to prioritize interconnectedness in the effort to avoid vendor lock-in.

“From what I can see, the Department of War has some very savvy people who … don't want to go all in on one [model] because then six months later, they may need to go all in on another,” Waldron said.

He explained that there will likely be models that are more finely tuned to particular use cases, such as code generation, data analytics, supply chain management or targeting in warfighter operations. One model from a single provider may not effectively serve each of these workflows.

“I don't believe that all those different use cases will end up being the exact same model at any given time,” Waldron said.

The Pentagon’s desire to expand the service offerings available for its workforce has precedent. Waldron said that DOD and the intelligence community have laid the foundation for a flexible approach to AI services acquisition, citing the creation of the Commercial Cloud Enterprise and Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contracting vehicles as the blueprints for future contracting structure.

“It's not like they're trying to replace Anthropic with another model provider,” Waldron said. “They want to replace Anthropic with four model providers.”

]]>

CISA's sharp reductions in election-security assistance could leave midterms vulnerable, senator says

David DiMolfetta — Thu, 07 May 2026 10:34:00 -0400

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., is demanding answers from the Department of Homeland Security over what he says is a sharp decline in federal election-security support ahead of the 2026 midterms, warning that cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency could leave states more exposed to cyber threats and foreign interference.

In a letter sent Wednesday to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Warner said state and local officials have reported that CISA is no longer providing the same level of election-security training, intelligence-sharing, and cybersecurity assistance it offered in prior election cycles.

The letter adds to growing criticism over the Trump administration’s handling of CISA and its election-security mission, which has faced deep staffing reductions enacted over the last year.

“While the states are taking valiant and expensive measures to protect their elections, it is impossible for states to independently obtain intelligence, subject-matter expertise, and real-time incident reporting, and information at the scale and speed required to protect state elections from physical and cyber threats,” Warner wrote.

After this story was published, a DHS spokesperson said that, under President Joe Biden, CISA “was focused on censorship, branding, and electioneering instead of defending America’s critical infrastructure.”

Under President Donald Trump, the spokesperson said the agency is “committed to delivering timely, actionable cyber threat intelligence, supporting federal, state, and local partners, and defending against both nation-state and criminal cyber threats.”

“CISA’s mission is ensuring state and local election officials are cognizant of and utilize the most capable and timely threat intelligence, expertise, resources they need to defend against risks, and identify critical infrastructure security needs to maintain electoral functions,” the spokesperson said.

Efforts under the Trump administration to shrink CISA and its election-security resources have strained relationships with state and local officials and have raised concerns that jurisdictions may be far less prepared to counter threats in November, officials in Michigan and Georgia said late last month.

The administration’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal would eliminate the agency’s election security program funding, including information-sharing efforts and election security advisor positions.

Warner’s letter also cited testimony delivered last week by the head of U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, who said that foreign adversaries are expected to target the 2026 elections.

The senator asked DHS to explain what CISA is doing to warn state and local officials about malign influence campaigns and cyber threats targeting election infrastructure. He also requested records of election-related training, cybersecurity reviews, incident responses and outreach efforts that have been conducted by the agency since January 2025.

He also asked DHS whether any CISA personnel were involved in an FBI raid tied to election systems in Fulton County, Georgia — where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was publicly seen alongside federal officials — or in her office’s seizure and testing of voting machines in Puerto Rico.

The letter comes as the future of CISA’s election-security role has become increasingly uncertain. Republican lawmakers have long criticized the agency’s election-related activities, particularly after CISA publicly pushed back on Donald Trump's false claims about the 2020 election.

]]>

Why the War Powers Resolution deadline doesn’t actually constrain presidents

, The Conversation — Thu, 07 May 2026 09:02:04 -0400

May 1, 2026, marked the 60th day of Operation Epic Fury in Iran – a symbolically significant date designating when a president who has mounted unilateral military operations must receive Congressional approval or wind it down.

However, the complex history of the War Powers Resolution clock demonstrates it is a toothless milestone.

The Trump administration signaled on April 30, 2026, that it would ignore that deadline, set by the War Powers Resolution. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “we are in a cease-fire right now, which my understanding is that the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a cease-fire. That’s our understanding, so you know.”

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, responded that the 60-day threshold poses a “legal question” and “constitutional concerns.”

This is not the first time presidents and members of Congress have sparred on the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. What happens next will play out through regular politics, because the conflict is not a matter of simple legal interpretation.

In the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the president share war powers.

In the shadow of political struggles in the final years of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”

A crucial section of the resolution reasserts legislators’ role, and makes clear that the constitutional power of the president to make war is subject to, or exercised with, the following conditions: a Congressional declaration of war; specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces.

For new military campaigns that do not meet these criteria, the resolution included a 60-day clock that begins when a president reports the action to congressional leadership within 48 hours of the action beginning.

The clock can be expanded to up to 90 days upon presidential determination and certification of “unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces” related to removal of troops.

After 60 to 90 days, the resolution originally said this type of unilateral military action would be terminated automatically unless both chambers of Congress approved some form of legislative authorization.

Congress could also choose to terminate an unauthorized military operation any time before the 60 days with a concurrent resolution, which doesn’t require a president’s signature – essentially, a “legislative veto.”

And to make sure the president couldn’t stretch the definition of congressional approval, the resolution said neither existing treaties nor new budget appropriations could substitute for legislative authorization of a military action.

Since 1973, actions by all three branches across a variety of political and policy landscapes have undermined its intents and procedures.

Veto, vetoed

In 1983, the Supreme Court declared various kinds of legislative vetoes unconstitutional, which led Congress to reinterpret its War Powers Resolution procedures and powers and effectively amend its processes to expedite any joint resolution or bill that “requires the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities outside the United States.”

Now, if members want to stop a presidential military campaign already in progress, they must act affirmatively and pass a disapproval resolution, which a president could veto like any other bill. Congress has sent only one such disapproval – to President Donald Trump in his first term – which he vetoed. Congress did not have the two-thirds required in the Constitution to override.

Both chambers of Congress now have to vote twice, once to disapprove a military action and then again to overcome a likely veto, to stop something it never approved in the first place.

House Majority Leader Mike Johnson explains on March 4, 2026, why his party rejects a Democratic-led measure to assert Congress’ war powers and stop the Iran military action.

The 60-day mark for the current Iran operation has therefore loomed as more of a politically charged symbol of this longstanding imbalance on war powers than a real deadline for action by either branch.

Parallels to Kosovo and Libya

The House and Senate have tried to pass legislation to stop military operations against Iran six times since operations began. All attempts have failed, including the most recent vote on April 30. Democrats are considering filing suit against President Trump if operations go beyond 60 days without authorization.

Yet federal courts have long expressed disinterest in getting involved in constitutional questions related to the War Powers Resolution, especially if members of Congress are the plaintiffs.

Although most presidents from Richard Nixon onward have claimed that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional check on their institutional powers, they usually filed the required reports on new military actions 48 hours after they began.

While the current Iran conflict is different in many ways, presidential unilateralism, inconclusive chamber actions and even member lawsuits all echo controversies over U.S. military action in Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011.

Where Trump administration may lean on Clinton

Operation Epic Fury against Iran began Feb. 28, 2026, and President Trump sent the required report to Congress on March 2, 2026.

After detailing the rationale for military action, Trump added “Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary.”

He concluded the memo with his interpretation of constitutional power to act unilaterally.

“I directed this military action consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests both at home and abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests,” the president wrote. He acted, he said, “pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.” He said he made the report “consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.”

Similarly, on March 26, 1999, President Bill Clinton sent a War Powers Resolution letter explaining his decision two days earlier to take part in a NATO-led operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, known as FRY.

Clinton wrote to Congress using mostly the same words and phrases Trump did in his 2026 letter. Clinton also said that he took the action “in response to the FRY government’s continued campaign of violence and repression against the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo.”

President Bill Clinton after his television address to the nation on the NATO bombing of Serbian forces in Kosovo, March 24, 1999. Pool/Getty Images

Clinton explained his authority in virtually the same language as Trump and, like Trump, said it was hard to predict how long the operations would continue.

The House and Senate repeatedly failed to either approve or disapprove of Clinton’s actions through a series of votes across March and April 1999. But lawmakers did send him supplemental appropriations for the operations in May.

NATO suspended the operation after 78 days. Almost a year later, a federal appellate court upheld a district court’s decision rejecting a lawsuit led by Rep. Tom Campbell, a California Republican, alleging Clinton violated the War Powers Resolution. Rather than deciding on the merits, the decision rejected the lawmakers’ claims of injury as not reviewable by the court.

Obama did it, too

In a very different context, a similar rhythm played out during President Barack Obama’s presidency.

During the “Arab Spring” revolts of 2010-2011, the U.N. Security Council passed two resolutions condemning violence against Libyan civilians by security forces under the direction of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi.

On March 21, 2011, two days after NATO operations began against Gadhafi’s forces, which included American air support, Obama sent his War Powers Resolution letter to the Republican House and Democratic Senate. Obama had not received prior legislative authority from Congress.

Obama’s letter included language almost identical to Clinton’s earlier letter and Trump’s later one.

As with Kosovo, the House and Senate did not ultimately agree to either approve or disapprove of the president’s actions in support of the UN and NATO over the operation’s 222 days. In addition, Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio led a group of mostly Republican House members in a failed War Powers Resolution lawsuit to stop the president.

Unilateral action endures

The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice has published legal opinions that explain and defend presidential war powers, including with Kosovoand Libya. In December 2025, that office published a memo defending the imminent January 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro. On April 21, 2026, the State Department published a defense of ongoing U.S. actions in Iran.

Within the current dynamics of the War Powers Resolution, until Congress musters bipartisan supermajorities to connect its own institutional ambition with constitutional power, presidents from either party will decide alone if, and when, the country goes to war. Instead of Congress, presidents may heed public opinionand economic indicators, especially in election years.

]]>

Defense Business Brief: Pitching America first; Visa deal?; Skunk Works exec moves up; plus a little more

Lauren C. Williams — Wed, 06 May 2026 20:22:27 -0400

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Putting yourself first doesn’t mean you can’t have friends, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested on Monday at the SelectUSA Investment Summit just outside Washington, D.C.

His department’s annual event aims to woo foreign investment in the United States, an objective complicated by the Trump administration’s “America First” approach.

“We’re here to make deals happen,” Lutnick told the crowd on Monday. “To our foreign partners, we want you here. If you build here and commit to build here, the Department of Commerce will have the ability to assist you getting L-1 visas so that you can bring your employees in to launch the project. You'll train American workers over time, but you can bring your people here, and we will set that infrastructure for you. The Department of Commerce has made a deal with the Secretary of State and the State Department that we will assist you in helping you get visas so you can build your factories here.”

The comments come as the Trump administration has levied heavy tariffs, strained relationships with allies and partners, and launched a war on Iran that has set off a chain reaction of economic effects, including skyrocketing gas and increased fertilizer prices, which could boost food costs and supply down the line.

Lutnick’s speech was largely a pep rally to push the idea that the U.S. is the land of opportunity. America First “doesn't mean America alone,” he said. “It just means that we're open for business, that we're here for our workers, we're here for our communities, and we're here also to make sure that we can take care of ourselves for national security.”

Delegations from U.S. states seemed undeterred by political headwinds as they pitched projects to foreign attendees. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt announced a memorandum of understanding with Hitachi, which already has a presence in the state, to explore ways to use AI in developing data centers, energy and transportation infrastructure, biotechnology development, and advanced manufacturing.

Even amid the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, the state of Iowa is pressing on with goals to work with countries in the Middle East. Juliet Abdel, who leads the Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance, said the organization wants business relationships with Turkey, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

“We are pushing ahead with conversations…being more forward and having those conversations, because most organizations have not had an international focus before, and so it really has opened up the opportunity for us to have dialogue and really put this as a priority,” Abdel told Defense One.

She said Cedar Rapids hopes to convince more defense and aerospace companies to join London-based BAE Systems and RTX’s Collin Aerospace.

“There's also over 1,000 acres of available land near our airport. Of that, over 500 acres of certified sites are certified through the state of Iowa as being ready for development. And then over the last several months, the state has invested in a study, commenced to really identify …categories within the aerospace and avionics that we can really target as having the most potential. And we're developing that into a tool” expected to be released this summer.

Welcome

You’ve reached the Defense Business Brief, where we dig into what the Pentagon buys, who they’re buying from, and why. Send along your tips, feedback, and song recommendations to lwilliams@defenseone.com. Check out the Defense Business Brief archive here, and tell your friends to subscribe!

Overheard at SelectUSA. Amy Tachco, the State Department senior adviser and industry liaison for the visa office, gave an overview on visa requirements for foreign business travelers at the conference, including a continuous vetting process.

“The administration has really made vetting a priority, and consular officers will take to ensure applicants meet all the eligibility requirements. As Secretary [Marco] Rubio has said, a visa is a privilege, not a right, so every single visa adjudication is treated as a national security matter,” she said Tuesday.
A little background: The Trump administration recently expanded efforts to limit entry of certain foreign nationals, including broadening the State Department’s visa bond program, adding 12 new countries for a total of 50, to deter overstays.
Who attended? The Gaylord convention center was bustling but it wasn’t immediately clear just how many of the attendees were foreign. (Defense One requested attendee stats for this year’s summit but hadn’t heard back by press time.) At a Monday networking reception, I spotted reps from Argentina and Switzerland. Earlier in the day, the U.S. ambassador to India announced that a dozen companies from the subcontinent had plans to invest in the United States. Geraldine Byrne Nason, Ireland’s ambassador to the U.S., said the country had sent its largest delegation ever to SelectUSA this year. Last year’s summit drew more than 5,500 participants from more than 100 countries, “and catalyzed nearly $1 billion in new investment announcements,” according to a Sept. 30 news release.

Making moves + other news

Lockheed Martin will get a new aeronautics president. Starting June 1, Orlando Sanchez, Jr., who leads the company’s top-secret development Skunk Works division, will take over from Greg Ulmer, who is retiring after more than 30 years.
Powerus adds another former Pentagon official. Milton “Jamie” Sands III, who will join the drone company’s advisory board, is a retired rear admiral who led U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command.
BAE Systems opened a 150,000-square-foot factory in upstate New York to build high-voltage batteries for hybrid and electric aircraft and ground vehicles. The $65 million facility in Endicott was announced last year.
Anduril will head an integration team for companies contracted for Golden Dome’s space-based interceptor program, including Impulse Space, Inversion Space, K2 Space, Sandia National Labs, and Voyager Technologies.

]]>

Pentagon leaders love agentic AI. But it’s giving cyber criminals nation-state-like powers

Patrick Tucker — Wed, 06 May 2026 20:08:04 -0400

Pentagon leaders say workers are using new agentic AI tools to compress weeks of work into hours. But the same tools are opening new frontiers of digital crime and changing the very nature of cybersecurity.

The rollout of agentic tools on the department’s GenAI.mil platform since December has been a “tremendous success,” Emil Michael, defense undersecretary for research and engineering, told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

Michael said people were using the tools to do “the mundane part of their job” and take a “two-week task and compress it down to three hours.”

The platform recently added Google’s Gemini and is looking for more such.

We’re “trying to have options so we're not single-threaded on any one vendor, and each of these models is trained in a somewhat different way on different data. So we're going to learn which ones are more capable on which dimensions,” he said.

In its quest for AI tools that can help find vulnerabilities, the Pentagon is even evaluating Mythos, a powerful agentic model made by Anthropic—a company that has officially been labeled a national-security risk. Anthropic has sued the government over the designation.

Michael said the government is in a “testing and evaluation period” with Mythos, which is already being used by agencies and a select group of large companies to find vulnerabilities. He tried to explain why the Pentagon was still using tools from a company that allegedly threatens national security, saying that Mythos is “a different product in some ways. Different probably than the company itself.”

What the Pentagon and the rest of the federal government must do now, Michael said, is “look at what this model can do, not only to the government software and hardware infrastructure, but to the private sector…for the rural hospitals, for the wastewater treatment plants, to all the things. So that we have the ability to patch them before adversaries get the same ability.”

When criminals use agentic AI

Michael said agent-based AI tools like Mythos, which can find and patch vulnerabilities without human oversight, will become more standard.

“All the big tech companies now are using these cyber models to find vulnerabilities. They're trying to make automatic patching using agents and using the same models. So we expect that to grow across the industry, across the government.”

But that won’t be enough to protect against future AI-enabled attacks.

Jackson Reed, founder of AI startup Barding Defense, says that agentic tools will change cybersecurity in ways that many institutions don’t yet appreciate.

“We're going to see criminal groups look a lot more like state actors,” Reed said.

What does that mean? Today, most cybercriminals ocus on fast-payoff attacks like stealing data or encrypting it for ransom. But soon, he said, they will mimic some state-backed Chinese and Russian groups by trying to stay in a network to spy, move “laterally,” or manipulate data.

“Changes in attacker skill are going to produce entire new taxonomies of attack (like the industrialized insider trading example, or industry-wide ransomware deployments) that will pose risks to society and raise questions about the feasibility of current constitutional approaches,” Reed said in a followup email.

That will create business models for cyber criminals and states such as Russia that routinely work with those criminal groups. Reed said using AI to automatically detect and patch software holes won’t protect against that. For instance, Opus 4.6, Anthropic’s latest model for coding and reasoning, can find and fix software vulnerabilities but it misses things like lateral movement, he says.

Reed is working with Breakpoint Labs, a cybersecurity company that works with the U.S. military, to develop a new sort of agent platform to help cybersecurity professionals find the new kinds of attacks that agentic AI tools enable but can’t spot.

]]>

Cyberattacks are now part of US counterterrorism strategy

David DiMolfetta — Wed, 06 May 2026 17:04:00 -0400

Offensive cyber operations may be used against groups deemed threats to U.S. interests, the Trump administration says in its new counterterrorism strategy.

Counter-terror activities against state actors “include offensive cyber operations against those planning to kill Americans or who support those plotting to do so,” says the strategy, which was released on Wednesday.

Groups who present threats include narcoterrorists and transnational gangs, Islamic terrorist groups, and “violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists,” the document says.

Diplomatic, financial, cyber, and covert actions may be used to deter or otherwise hinder state actors from helping foreign terrorist organizations, the strategy says. Cyber operations would continue against Iran-backed proxy groups, it adds.

The overt mention of offensive cyberattacks underscores the White House’s broader push to shape foreign hackers’ behavior and follows several public acknowledgments of U.S. cyber warriors’ involvement in the administration’s military activities.

The document does not detail the nature of these offensive cyber operations.

The White House has helped shape a budding market for offensive cyber tools and capabilities, but executives and officials are grappling with legal questions over definitions of cyber offense and defense, as well as who would bear responsibility when private firms are involved in digital operations.

]]>

Air Force wants AI in its air-ops command-and-control system

Nick Wakeman — Tue, 05 May 2026 14:35:53 -0400

The Air Force is in the early stages of improving its command-and-control system for regional air, space, and cyber forces.

The Next-Generation Air Operations Center Weapon System effort aims to upgrade the Air Operations Center (AOC) Weapon System to bring AI-powered tools to planners and operators at combatant commands. Since February, the Air Force has released a request for information and two sets of Q&As.

The contract is managed by the Air Operations Center Program Office of Kessel Run, the Air Force software factory now housed under the service's Portfolio Acquisition Executive for command, control, communications and battle management. Postings on Sam.gov indicate that the service wants a fast, flexible acquisition plan, perhaps through the use of other transaction agreements.

The RFI calls for a prime contractor to work as a systems integrator. Several of the documents, such as the statement of need, have not been publicly disclosed.

Some technical requirements include: IL6 or higher for cloud, Secret or higher for edge computing, and a continuity of operations/disconnected state requirement.

The solicitation will include a requirement for a top-secret facility clearance. The Air Force expects to release a bidder’s library with the draft solicitation.

The documents ask industry to suggest ways to meet program objectives. They also ask about agreement structures, including an OTA.

In Q&A documents released Tuesday, the Air Force again said it was considering all acquisition strategies.

An OTA with follow-on production is one approach that could bring the speed and flexibility the Air Force is looking for. But a traditional procurement will likely be used for sustainment, according to the Q&A.

No procurement timeline has been given, but the Air Force has signaled it wants a competitive field. Industry is already pressing the program office on that point.

One question submitted by a prospective offeror asked how the government would ensure a level playing field and avoid "carve outs and pay-to-play relationships with a small group of vendors."

The Air Force response was brief: "The government is engaging with industry as part of market research and seeks to maximize competition for this requirement."

]]>

Army turns to ‘hackathons’ to better connect dozens of weapons, systems

Meghann Myers — Tue, 05 May 2026 12:51:13 -0400

The Army is opening a new front in its battle to get contractors to make their weapons and systems easier to connect: “hackathons.”

Later this month, the service will host some of its biggest vendors for the first of a series of one-day brainstorming sessions about how to integrate the command-and-control software for dozens of military systems.

“Right to Integrate,” the service’s name for the effort, will ensure the Army’s battlefield and business systems can better share data and communicate, according to a Tuesday news release.

“We’ve known for a long time that our systems, weapons, and sensors need to talk to each other so that we can dominate the battlefield,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said in the release. “The war in Ukraine showed the world that speed matters and an open architecture construct is highly effective in high-intensity warfare. We haven’t been moving fast enough.”

The Ukrainian military requires that its drone, sensors, and weapons platforms all have a common operating system, while the U.S. has long allowed contractors to make custom systems that can’t easily connect to each other.

“We have seen standards come and go in the department for decades, but are still beholden to sub-par implementation, closed and proprietary interfaces, or systems that lack the flexibility to adapt over time,” Alex Miller, the Army’s chief technology officer, said in the release.

The service has tried to turn that around with its next-generation C2 platform, which is being built with an open-architecture approach. The hackathons are meant to help existing platforms deconflict their operating systems to be able to start talking to each other.

Engineers and scientists from Anduril, Boeing, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Leidos, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Palantir, Perennial Autonomy, and RTX are all supporting with dozens of pieces of technology and equipment will meet up for the first event later this month at Fort Carson, Colo.

]]>

US escort of ships through Hormuz is a ‘gift to the world,’ Hegseth says

Meghann Myers — Tue, 05 May 2026 12:21:50 -0400

The Trump administration has dubbed its military effort to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz “Project Freedom,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday, calling it “separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury,” “defensive in nature,” and “temporary.”

Hegseth said that Epic Fury, the war begun in February by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, is on pause during the ongoing ceasefire, erroneously asserting that the “clock stops” on the 60-day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution on U.S. military campaigns without congressional approval. Even if the U.S. is no longer dropping bombs on Iran, its continued blockade is an act of war on its own.

“As a direct gift from the United States to the world, we have established a powerful red, white and blue dome over the strait,” Hegseth said during a Pentagon press briefing.

Two ships have transited the strait since escorts began Monday, Hegseth said.

There remain more than 1,550 commercial ships trapped in the Arabian Gulf, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the briefing.

On Monday, Iran attacked U.S. forces with cruise missiles, drones, and small boats, which were countered by U.S. Navy and Army attack helicopters, Caine said.

“Thus far, today is quieter,” he said.

Hegseth and President Donald Trump have said multiple times that the rest of the world needs the strait more than the U.S. does, though the international community has deferred to the U.S., which began striking Iranian nuclear and conventional weapons facilities on Feb. 28, to take the lead in confronting Iran’s closing of the strait in response to those attacks.

“As I've said before, the world needs this waterway a lot more than we do,” Hegseth said. “We're stabilizing the situation so commerce can flow again, but we expect the world to step up at the appropriate time, and soon we will hand responsibility back to you.”

Hegseth did not offer a timeline for that transition.

Asked whether Iran’s attacks on U.S. ships in the strait would violate the ceasefire and restart strikes within the country, Hegseth deferred to Trump.

“Ultimately, the president is going to make a decision whether anything were to escalate into a violation of a ceasefire,” he said.

It’s unclear under what legal authority the president would resume strikes against Iran. His administration has offered several rationales for the war, some of which were contradicted by available evidence.

On Friday, the administration gave Congress written notice that hostilities have “terminated,” as the 60-day deadline for Congress to vote on an authorization of military force passed.

“Despite the success of United States operations against the Iranian regime and continued efforts to secure a lasting peace, the threat posed by Iran to the United States and our Armed Forces remains significant,” Trump wrote in the letter, leaving the door open to more strikes.

]]>

'This is how we prevail in the Pacific': US, allies train to repel amphibious assault

Jennifer Hlad — Tue, 05 May 2026 10:54:47 -0400

LAOAG, Philippines—Just off the windswept beach, a camouflage-painted unmanned vessel reminiscent of a Chinese amphibious fighting vehicle advanced through the sapphire waters of the South China Sea.

Drones buzzed ahead as American, Filipino, and Japanese soldiers waited nearby. Then two rockets whooshed from HIMARS launchers hidden in the sand dunes, heading out to target simulated enemy warships in deep water. The battle had begun.

This counter-landing live-fire training, performed less than 400 miles from the southern tip of Taiwan as part of the annual Balikatan military exercise, “is where you get to really prove if you can do what you say you’re going to do,” Maj. Gen. James Bartholomees, commander of the U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division, told a small group of journalists.

One of the things the 25th ID has said it will do is “synchronize sensing through fires in a coordinated manner against multiple adversaries,” Bartholomees said, from the brigade level to battalions, “down to companies, down to platoons, down to squads, into the individual foxhole.” But “the synchronization is not real until you can actually prove it with live munitions,” he said.

“This is the modernization of our Army. This is the modernization of joint forces. This is how we prevail in the Pacific under Adm. [Samuel] Paparo’s vision.”

Last month, Paparo, the leader of Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the “strategy is clear: We must deny China the ability to achieve its objectives through military aggression while strengthening the network of alliances and partnerships that constitutes our greatest asymmetric advantage.”

He continued: “Credible, prompt and sustained combat power, visible across the Indo-Pacific region, will deter acts of military aggression that destabilize the region, undermine security and stability, and threaten the security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States.”

Here at La Paz Sand Dunes, the division’s artillery battalion worked in a small tactical operations center out of sight of enemy forces, using data from a Stalker long-range reconnaissance drone, multiple short- and medium-range loitering aerial drones, and unmanned surface vessels to coordinate fires from the battalion’s new HIMARS, one-way attack drones, 105-millimeter artillery, and more on targets in the air, on the sand, and in the water.

At the beach, automatic weapons and rifles peppered the shallows while longer-range munitions sent sprays of sea water and billowing gray smoke high into the air. Buzzing drones in orange and neon green, built in-house by the unit’s Lightning Lab, added to the cacophony as they drew incoming fire. Further out at sea, Apache helicopters and Navy and Air Force assets hunted robotic boats.

“When you think of the Army, you think of it as the land-based component. But here in the Pacific theater, we don’t have that luxury,” Col. Daniel Von Benken, the commander of 25th Infantry Division Artillery, told Defense One. “The Army has to compete and win in both environments, or help another service compete and win in another environment. So ‘maritime deep battle’ is trying to figure out, where do our echelons connect with joint services like the Navy and Marines? Where does it connect with our partner forces on the flanks, and how can we echelon onto a direct fire conflict? So what we'll generally try to do is echelon our fires into the maritime environment and then shape an enemy to a favorable force calculus, onto a beach where we finish the job.”

Bartholomees called the Army “absolutely essential to the joint force in the Pacific.” He invoked the activation of the division just three months before Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, saying that since then, “we prepared to fight on islands, to lead from islands and to fight forward.”

This week’s exercise in repelling a force invading from the sea showed “our ability not only to control and fight through land with our allies and partners, but also to have effects and capability in all domains,” he said.

Von Benken noted that many of the weapons and drones used this year were new to the division since last year’s Balikatan, making the exercise a key experiment as the unit works to determine what is the “best solution in terms of massing fires.”

The pace of change can be breathtaking, but Von Benken said his focus is “really balancing the modernization piece with your core function, the core function at the end of the day being: Are you good at artillery? Are you good at infantry? Are you good at the combined arms fight? And if you never lose sight of that, the modernization won’t overwhelm you. It won’t make you feel like you’re off track. Bring yourself back to the center every time. ‘Can I shoot farther? Can I see faster? Can I sense faster?’ If the answer to that is ‘yes,’ put it back together with your core competency and move forward.”

]]>

Pentagon seeks smarter, self-organizing drones as autonomous-warfare budget is poised to skyrocket

Patrick Tucker — Mon, 04 May 2026 21:47:59 -0400

Two requests to industry may help the Pentagon address one of the emerging challenges of warfare: enabling a relatively small number of human operators to direct a far larger number of robots.

The Materials for Physical Compute in Untethered Robotics effort seeks to make autonomous systems more intelligent, while Decentralized Artificial Intelligence through Controlled Emergence aims to help robots form teams and carry out missions. These DARPA projects may feed ideas to the Defense Autonomous Working Group, the lead Pentagon office for drone warfare, whose budget would soar from $226 million this year to $54 billion under the new 2027 spending proposal.

Much of that huge sum will be wasted if the military spends it before establishing a clear understanding of how operators will buy, train on, use, and maintain autonomous weapons, according to a recent commentary piece by David Petraeus, the retired Army general and former CIA director, and scholar Isaac Flanagan. Writing for The Hill, they argue that the lack of such understanding constrained the use of drones during the past decade of U.S. wars in the Middle East.

“Each Predator combat air patrol of continuous surveillance required nearly 150 personnel,” they write. “As demand for drone coverage surged, the limiting factor was not the number of aircraft but of the trained personnel and the organizational structure to enable them.”

Until the military fixes this, they write, any new drone is “not a weapons system at all—it is an asset on a spreadsheet.”

The new DARPA efforts aim to help change that.

Materials for Physical Compute in Untethered Robotics seeks to help robots think and reason without relying on connections to vulnerable data centers and without using valuable battery life to upload video and receive commands. Even the most advanced robotics “still require constant internal data processing, with either the end-users or data centers, creating delayed actions through latency and consuming power for data transmission,” the request for information says.

The RFI also urges industry to move beyond the conception of autonomous systems as assemblages of wire, metal frames, and motors. This mindset has been “yielding a robot with small behavior diversity. Therefore, current robot capabilities are limited in ever-changing and contact-rich environments.” It seeks new concepts at the “material, component, and kernel level”—down to chemistry and physics—that can change the very nature of machine intelligence.

DICE aims to enable machines to talk and collaborate with each other, to “dynamically form teams using peer-to-peer coordination to execute complex missions.”

The two DARPA projects are hardly the Pentagon’s only efforts to answer fundamental questions about robots. A contest run by DIU, the Defense Department’s innovation arm, seeks ways to control drones with plain language commands, as one might direct a soldier or a large-language-model tool.

The problem that Petraeus and Flanagan discuss is not as simple as it seems. Technology is moving faster than doctrine. So should doctrine come first? Or the other way around?

U.S. Southern Command is moving to answer that sort of question. Last week, Gen. Frank Donovan announced the SOUTHCOM Autonomous Warfare Command to “maximize the efficient fielding of autonomous systems.”

]]>

First B-52s to get new engines this year

Thomas Novelly — Mon, 04 May 2026 18:14:35 -0400

Two B-52 bombers will head back to their manufacturer for new engines this year, kicking off a long-awaited upgrade meant to help keep flying the Stratofortress until nearly their 100th birthday.

On Monday, Air Force officials announced that the Commercial Engine Replacement Program had passed a critical design review originally scheduled for 2023. That clears Boeing to begin replacing the B-52’s 1960s-era Pratt & Whitney TF33-PW-103 engines with new Rolls-Royce F130s.

The first re-engined B-52s will be tested at Edwards Air Force Base, California, before the go-ahead is given for the rest of the fleet. As the 76 B-52H bombers receive their new powerplants and a radar upgrade, they will be redesignated B-52Js.

“Boeing, the prime contractor for integration, is procuring and manufacturing parts, and will begin modifying the first two B-52H aircraft into the B-52J configuration at its facility in San Antonio, Texas,” the Air Force said in a press release. “The first bomber is scheduled to arrive for modification later this year.”

In 2021, the Air Force awarded Rolls Royce a $2.6 billion contract to build the F130 engines, which passed their own critical design review in late 2024 and completed operability and altitude testing in February, Defense One first reported.

The B-52 upgrade plan received heavy scrutiny last year after Boeing was blamed for F130 integration problems and after radar-upgrade costs triggered a Nunn-McCurdy Act breach.

“This CERP critical design review is the culmination of an enormous amount of engineering and integration work from Boeing, Rolls Royce, and the Air Force that will enable the B-52J to remain in the fight for future generations,” Lt. Col. Tim Cleaver, the CERP program manager, said in the news release.

Air Force officials view the engine upgrades as “crucial for keeping the B-52 Stratofortress a formidable asset in the nation’s long range strike arsenal through 2050 and beyond,” the news release said. The B-52, which entered service in 1955, has flown missions ever since—most recently in the war on Iran.

The Air Force is developing the next-generation B-21 bomber to replace its B-1s and B-2—but not its B-52s. Even defense experts who want the service to double its planned purchase of 100 B-21s agree that the B-52 will remain relevant.

“A future force of 200 B-21s combined with remaining B-52s would more than double the Air Force’s current longrange strike sortie capacity,” a February report from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies said. “Since more than 70 percent of this force mix would consist of stealthy B-21s, it would also restore the Air Force’s historical capacity to penetrate the most challenging air defenses to deny sanctuaries and attack an adversary’s centers of gravity.”

]]>

Navy EA-18Gs over Iran, Venezuela show rise in aerial electronic attack

Andrew Dardine, Forecast International — Mon, 04 May 2026 17:12:50 -0400

The Pentagon is using the Navy’s EA-18G Growlers more than ever, suggesting more development and a bigger role for aerial electronic attack are on the way.

Flying from the carriers Abraham Lincoln and Gerald R. Ford in recent months, the Growlers have used jammers and missiles to confuse, suppress, and destroy Iranian communications and radar systems and surface-to-air missile batteries.

They were also key to January's seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, when they suppressed and destroyed Russian and Chinese-derived air defenses and other infrastructure to allow the abduction team to reach their Caracas target with virtually no resistance. As usual in these types of operations, Venezuelan air defense operators learned of the attack only when their radar screens went dark.

Development of the electronic warfare variant of the F/A-18F began in earnest in late 2003, when Super Hornet maker Boeing received the system development and demonstration contract. The first Growler was delivered on schedule in 2006. The Navy, which originally planned to buy 90 Growlers, increased its buy to 114, then 135, then 160. The last of the aircraft was delivered in 2018.

Plans call for developing the heart of the aircraft’s electronic attack, the ALQ-249 Next-Generation Jammer pod, in three variants: Increment 1 (Mid-Band), Increment 2 (Low-Band), and Increment 3 (High-Band).

In 2023, Mid-Band prime contractor Raytheon received a $650.4 million contract to make Lot III NGJ-MBs, including a low-rate initial production order for 15 pairs of the pods—including four pairs for the Royal Australian Air Force, which operates a dozen Growlers. Two years later, Raytheon received a three-year, $580 million contract to continue production, including covering pods, spare parts, and support equipment, for the two operators.

Work on development of the Low-Band version is moving ahead. In 2020, L3Harris won a $495.5 million contract award to make and deliver 10 NGJ-LB pod simulators, eight operational prototype pods, four jettison mass model pods, two captive mass models, and other support systems. The company received a further $587.3 million for Low-Band development in 2024. Last year, L3Harris hired Honeywell for undisclosed help in developing the Low-Band variant.

Two months ago, the Navy awarded Boeing a four-year, $489.3 million order for jamming upgrades: four ALQ-264(V) Beowulf A-Kits, four Gunbay Pallet A-Kits, 12 Beowulf B-Kits, 15 sensor control unit B-Kits, and nine power control unit B-Kits, as well as various support equipment.

AI and machine-learning algorithms are said to be a growing element of the aircraft’s electronic attack, enabling faster analysis of hostile signals and production of tailored noise to degrade enemy air defenses. The aircraft’s active electronically scanned arrays, powered by gallium nitride transmitters, can shoot precise, high-powered beams of electronic noise at several targets at once.

The Navy has already spent more than $5 billion to develop the NGJ. The new budget proposal requests $428.6 million for fiscal 2027.

Australia is also working on upgrades for its Growlers. In February 2023, Project AIR 5349 Phase 6 – Advanced Growler awarded CEA Technologies, an Australian radar company, a $277 million contract to improve some fixed and portable emitters.

Andrew Dardine is lead analyst for Forecast International's Defense Electronic Systems group.

]]>

The next president must reimagine, not just restore, the administrative state

Tom Shoop — Mon, 04 May 2026 07:00:00 -0400

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently addressed the issue of what happens after the Trump administration’s assault on America’s administrative state is over. The work needed to restore the country’s governing capacity, he argued, involves more than just putting the bureaucratic Humpty Dumpty back together again.

The next president can’t “go around and just find all the little bits and pieces of everything that they smashed and tape it together and say: ‘Here you go. I give you the world as it looked in 2023,’” Buttigieg said.

The Trump team is “destroying a lot of good, important things,” he added. “They’re destroying some useless things, too, because they’re destroying everything. So now we get a chance to put things together on different terms.”

The list of “good, important things” destroyed by Elon Musk’s chainsaw-wielding attack on government is long:

More than 200,000 federal jobs were eliminated. That includes 7,000 employees at the Social Security Administration, another 7,000 at the IRS, 3,500 at the Food and Drug Administration, 1,200 at the National Institutes of Health, and 1,300 at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No federal departments escaped the slashing, and some agencies saw virtually all of their positions eliminated.
The U.S. Agency for International Development was dismantled, bringing an abrupt halt to food aid and disease prevention efforts all over the world.
Employees at other agencies, such as the National Nuclear Security Administration, were fired without an understanding of exactly what they did, necessitating a panicked rehiring effort.
Contracts and grants were summarily canceled, sometimes after using rudimentary artificial intelligence programs to identify programs affiliated with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

When DOGE burst onto the scene, chaos ensued. Yet the crusade failed to come close to Musk’s promise to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget. DOGE’s claim to have saved taxpayers more than $200 billion is suspect due to accounting errors. And even if that figure is accurate, it represents a small percentage of the federal budget. DOGE was a thoroughly haphazard operation, lacking any significant degree of planning or strategy. It operated according to the whims of Musk—then one of Trump’s strongest allies—and of Trump himself.

In that sense, DOGE was a key part of the president’s shift to what scholar Jonathan Rauch has argued is a form of government new to the United States: patrimonialism. This type of regime is based on personal loyalty to a country’s leader, driven by the leader’s ability to dole out rewards and punishments. This explains why Trump has moved so aggressively to expand his own power via executive orders and to politicize the career civil service, especially at the senior executive level.

The enemy of patrimonialism is bureaucracy, a well-functioning administrative state that is not driven by personal fealty to a ruler. A highly functioning country of the size and influence of the United States needs bureaucracy. It requires rules and regulations, not just norms, to provide guardrails against ill-advised policymaking and public administration—or worse, corruption and illegality. It needs a large cadre of nonpartisan experts to administer complex programs and provide support to policymakers.

It’s easy to take for granted what the federal government, and its attendant bureaucracy, have accomplished. In just the last two decades, federal agencies have:

Facilitated the development of a covid vaccine
Averted financial catastrophe in 2008
Expanded access to health insurance
Improved children’s health
Increased infrastructure investment
Significantly improved highway safety

That’s just a short list of achievements at the federal level. The first step toward ensuring government can take on these kinds of challenges again is restoration. That doesn’t mean trying to piece things together exactly as they were before, but it does involve reopening shuttered agencies like USAID and rehiring the workers necessary for agencies like the IRS to do their jobs.

In their popular and influential book Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson offer a critique of bureaucracy from the left. Government at all levels, they argue, has prized procedure over results. Layer upon layer of regulations have made it too easy for opponents of initiatives to manipulate systems so that action is all but impossible.

It’s not just conservatives who feel this way. None other than Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., said last year, “If the argument is that we have a horrendous bureaucracy—absolutely correct. It is terrible.…That is common sense.”

The solution to that problem is not dramatically fewer bureaucrats and more constraints on their actions. It’s redesigning systems so they don’t overemphasize laudable goals such as fairness and diversity at the expense of efficient operations and real-world results.

For example, it has long been too hard to hire federal employees, and to fire those that aren’t measuring up. That’s a result of risk aversion baked into a system encrusted with restrictions on managers’ ability to manage. The solution is more trust in them to do their jobs and to help elected leaders implement their agendas while following the rule of law.

This kind of recalibration of government is essential. And it can’t be accomplished with a chainsaw.

]]>

Trump’s assumptions are running his Iran policy aground—again

Daniel DePetris — Fri, 01 May 2026 14:30:51 -0400

President Trump’s April 21 decision on to extend his original two-week ceasefire with Iran, less than 12 hours after he expressed reluctance to do precisely that, is giving the U.S. and Iran more time to salvage a diplomatic process defined by misleading statements, rhetorical chest-thumping, and conflicting agendas.

While shooting has stopped for the time being, the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz remains. The good news is that neither the United States’ nor Iran’s best interests are served by a long-term conflict, which suggests both sides are at the very least keen to keep the diplomatic option open in order to determine whether a settlement to the nearly two-month long war is possible. The bad news is that Trump’s poor assumptions about how Iran would react to U.S. pressure tactics have led to poor decisions and a conflict in the Persian Gulf whose outcome remains in doubt. Far from squeezing Iranian leaders into concessions, the U.S. president has repeatedly ceded leverage in negotiation.

Trump is notoriously unpredictable on a lot of subjects, but he’s been quite consistent on Iran throughout his presidency. His objective is clear: to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all had a similar policy, even if they adopted different strategies for getting there. The difference is Trump’s unwillingness to adapt, his propensity to wield the stick without the carrot, and most of all, his unwarranted confidence in his assumptions.

Trump’s blunders have made the goal harder. The first occurred in 2018, when he withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. Trump, who said JCPOA offered too much relief from sanctions while imposing too few limits on Tehran’s nuclear activity, launched a “maximum-pressure” strategy on Iran’s leaders that sought to prevent Iranian oil from reaching the global market and to cut off Iranian-linked banks from the international financial system. The hope was that Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader at the time, would come back to the table on U.S. terms.

This calculation was mistaken. Instead of capitulating, Iran took advantage of the U.S. withdrawal by freeing itself from the deal's nuclear restrictions. More and faster centrifuges were manufactured, installed, and used. Iranian scientists began growing Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. Enrichment, which was capped at 3.67 percent under the deal, moved closer to weapons-grade. And the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access became limited as the Iranians retaliated to U.S. sanctions and IAEA censure.

By November 2023, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was roughly 22 times larger than the deal had allowed. Today, despite last June’s U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and the thousands since Feb. 28, Iran still has roughly 1,000 pounds of 60-percent enriched uranium—leverage that Tehran wouldn’t have if Trump had chosen to stay in the agreement.

Some would call this ancient history. If so, it’s ancient history that has repeated itself. Trump’s war strategy against Iran leans on the same assumptions and theories at play during his first term: with enough coercion, the Iranian regime will be weakened to the point where the United States can run the table and dictate terms the Iranians will have no choice but to accept. Yet Trump’s war of choice in the Persian Gulf has merely afforded Iran more chips to play with.

Look no further than the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war, the international waterway was open for business. About 120 tankers transited the narrow chokepoint into the Gulf of Oman on a daily basis, servicing approximately one-fifth of the world’s crude oil supply.

The U.S. and Israeli military campaign changed the status quo virtually overnight. Trump, inexplicably, believed Iran would give up before closing the strait. This proved to be a massive error of judgment. Perceiving the war as an existential one, Iran effectively closed the chokepoint, picking and choosing which vessels could enter and interdicting those that tried to bypass its rules.

Traffic through the waterway has since plunged by 95 percent, resulting in price hikes on everything from fuel to fertilizer. Meanwhile, the ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports has merely incentivized Tehran to drag out its own closure. Tehran has since offered to re-open the waterway if Washington ends the war, lifts the blockade and guarantees not to bomb in the future. Once again, the Iranians successfully exploited Trump’s strategy, using it as an excuse to turn the strait into a de facto Iranian lake, which before the war was a non-issue.

Unplugging the strait is now at least as important to the Trump administration as accounting for Iran’s nuclear material, a reality Tehran no doubt understands as it continues deliberating internally about how to manage diplomacy with Washington. Whatever tactics the regime does use, it’s highly unlikely it will agree to Trump’s wishes without a whole host of U.S. concessions in return. Some of those concessions, such as an internationally guaranteed security commitment that the United States will refrain from going to war against Iran in the future, will be difficult for Trump to swallow. Either way, any settlement is bound to be more satisfying to the regime than it needed to be.

There is a fundamental lesson in all of this, one U.S. officials present and future should take heed of: if you’re unwilling to recognize your mistakes out of stubbornness or genuine belief, then they risk exacerbating the very problems you seek to solve. This is why a robust, operational inter-agency process is so important and why Trump himself would do well to expand an inner circle that has thus far been highly restricted. Different departments and agencies will have different opinions on how a particular problem should be managed, what the policy should be and how it should be enacted. Presidents in the past may view these conflicting viewpoints as hindrances to effective decision-making at best and obstructionism at worst. In reality, a full-fledged debate and the existence of a constant feedback loop over what is and isn’t working is precisely how the process should function.

The principals need to speak truth to power. And the president needs to be smart enough to listen.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

]]>

8 AI firms cleared to provide tools for classified Pentagon networks

Alexandra Kelley — Fri, 01 May 2026 11:49:00 -0400

Eight leading AI developers have deals to install tools in classified Defense Department networks, a wide spread meant to prevent "vendor lock," Pentagon officials said Friday.

Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft, NVIDIA, OpenAI, Reflection, Oracle and SpaceX are cleared for Impact Level 6 and Impact Level 7 network environments, part of a bid to streamline data synthesis, improve warfighter decision-making, and increase situational understanding and awareness.

“Together, the War Department and these strategic partners share the conviction that American leadership in AI is indispensable to national security,” a press release said. “This leadership depends on a thriving domestic ecosystem of capable model developers that enable the full and effective use of their capabilities in support of Department missions. As mandated by President [Donald] Trump and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth, the Department will continue to envelop our warfighters with advanced AI to meet the unprecedented emerging threats of tomorrow and to strengthen our Arsenal of Freedom.”

The new AI tools will be available via GenAI.mil, the Pentagon’s central AI platform. In late April, Google rolled out its Gemini 3.1 Pro model on the platform.

The announcement follows tensions that exploded in late February between the Pentagon and Anthropic after the AI company refused to allow its products to be used for autonomous weapons and surveillance of Americans. The Pentagon subsequently designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk and Trump ordered federal agencies to begin offloading use of its products, though a judge has issued an injunction on those actions.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the addition of Oracle in the Department of Defense press release.

]]>

Space Force wraps decades-long GPS upgrade—and the next one is on tap

Thomas Novelly — Fri, 01 May 2026 11:43:28 -0400

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — After decades of development, a rocket switch in March, and a last-minute weather delay, the U.S. Space Force finally launched the last satellite of the world’s most modern GPS system into orbit.

The final GPS III space vehicle, known as SV-10, broke through the Florida skies and into the heavens aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket last month. The new satellite offers position data three times more accurate and eight times more jamproof than previous ones, according to the Space Force. For civilians, it means more precise road directions and better food delivery. For troops, it means more sophisticated targeting and higher-security communications in austere environments.

It’s a no-fail mission that people—from parents getting their kids to soccer games to Air Force pilots in enemy airspace—are counting on, said Space Force Col. Stephen Hobbs, Combat Forces Command’s Mission Delta 31 commander.

“We can talk about the captain of industry who owns a banking conglomerate and they want to make sure they have precise timing for their ATMs,” Hobbs said. “On the military side, we talk about an Army captain on the ground wanting to make sure that he or she can get from point A to point B in order to achieve their objective. We talk about a Navy captain in charge of a ship who’s trying to find their way into port … All of those captains care about this signal.”

As commerce and combat grow more reliant on space systems, the tempo and stakes of Space Force’s GPS launches are also rising. Defense One spoke to guardians at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station last month ahead of the GPS III launch and what it takes to keep up the demand the military and companies have for the upgraded satellite capabilities.

The guardians said it’s a notable milestone to celebrate, but it's a brief, and short-lived recognition. The way they see it, there’s more work to be done.

The GPS III system, which was approved by Congress in 2000, already has a replacement on its heels. The first launch of the next system, known as GPSIIIF, or Follow-On, is slated for May 2027. It’s pitched as an even more resilient signal that should allow for “over 60 times more anti-jam capabilities than legacy space vehicles," the service said.

While preparing for those next launches, guardians are also maintaining today’s constellation, including some satellites that are decades past their planned retirement.

“Maintaining a cadence of keeping GPS satellites on orbit, that’s the best approach,” said Capt. Brahn Kush, the government mission integration manager. “The same way they do routine oil changes is the best approach. You never realize that impact, because you kept a consistent cadence.”

Moving faster and accepting risk

The final launch of the a GPS III satellite had some bumps. In late February, service officials paused planned national-security launches aboard United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket because an anomaly had been discovered on one of the solid rocket motors.

Service leaders told reporters at Space Symposium in Colorado Springs last month that the anomaly is still under investigation and they’re evaluating the manifest for Vulcan’s scheduled launches as they look for the cause of the problem.

The SV-10, nicknamed the “Hedy Lamarr” for the Hollywood star and inventor, was among the affected missions. In just weeks, guardians had to switch the mission to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 instead. After those preparations were made, bad weather pushed the April 20 launch back another day.

Guardians involved with the mission said those obstacles, while unexpected, have become easier to navigate. In 2024, the service debuted a protocol called “Rapid Response Trailblazer,” which aims to reduce the time between mission start and launch.

Capt. Austin Guerrero, the chief of GPS III/IIIF launch operations, told Defense One that exercise was vital to getting the most recent satellites on orbit.

“The asked us, ‘Hey, if we were to switch to a different launch provider, how fast can we get moving?’ So our team moved out, and we did that in about four months. The typical timeline for our launch processing is six. So we got that down on our first shot down to four months,” Guerrero said. “So, that kind of set the standard.”

That framework boosted flexibility for the remaining GPS III space vehicles launches. He said each iteration of the last three satellites was quicker and more streamlined.

“Each launch, we take lessons learned and apply them to the next,” Guerrero said. “That’s allowed us to kind of establish a rhythm and be ready to execute very quickly.”

GPS IIIF satellites are to be launched in May 2027, top Space Force leaders have told Congress. The same day as the SV-10 launch, Pentagon officials unveiled the 2027 budget request, which called for 31 space launches, two new GPS satellites and their supporting infrastructure, and nearly $6 billion for satellite communications systems.

If Congress approves that funding, guardians at Cape Canaveral are ready to get the latest technology into the skies.

"There's always a want or need for a new capability, and our job is to deliver on those capabilities,” Guerrero said. “And so providing capabilities again, and again, only strengthens our ability to deliver that to the world.”

From the ground up

Even as the final GPS III soared into orbit, the Space Force wrestled with challenges on the ground.

A day before the SV-10 launch, the service announced it was canceling a key program meant to modernize the ground stations to keep the GPS constellation competitive and protected.

The Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control System, known as OCX, was canceled after the 15-plus-year effort faced multiple delays and consumed a staggering $6.3 billion. The Space Force formally accepted OCX from Raytheon in July, but the service discovered persistent problems within the system, the service said in a news release.

“Despite repeated collaborative approaches by the entire government and contractor team, the challenges of onboarding the system in an operationally relevant timeline proved insurmountable,” Hobbs said in the news release. “We discovered problems across a broad range of capability areas that would put current GPS military and civilian capabilities at risk.”

Meanwhile, the Space Force continues to improve the existing ground system. Called AEP, it can use the GPS III constellation’s upgraded capabilities such as M-Code, a highly encrypted signal for military use, the service said.

“AEP has been repeatedly upgraded over the years to deliver new mission capabilities,” a Space Force spokesperson said. “For example, AEP provides M-Code signal broadcast to warfighters for operational use today. In addition, AEP upgrades have made it far more cyber resilient than in the past. Our plan is to make additional AEP upgrades to satisfy near-term mission needs now that OCX is cancelled. We are developing plans to increase competition in this mission area longer term.”

The next GPS IIIF satellites will have Regional Military Protection, which will permit allied militaries to use the U.S. military’s upgraded satellite communications.

Today’s GPS constellation includes 31 satellites, according to Autonomy Global, including some that have reported operated three times longer than initially planned..

Hobbs attributes that to the engineers, navigators, and guardians who’ve kept those satellites functioning and on orbit. As the service works to get the next generation of satellites into the skies, he knows they’ll be called upon again to keep them functioning for decades to come.

“Now that we’ve launched all the IIIs that we’re going to have, are there ways that we can extend the life of that capability to make sure it’s there for the warfighter when he or she needs it?,” the Mission Delta 31 commander said. “If all we did was launch the III and then not try and do everything we can to keep it alive as long as possible…then we wouldn’t be doing our due diligence for the American taxpayer.”

]]>

Former head of ‘Pentagon’s think tank’ joins Anthropic

Patrick Tucker — Fri, 01 May 2026 09:24:27 -0400

The United States has “a tight time window to adapt” to the “civilizational" challenge of AI, according to a former senior Pentagon thinker who's joining Anthropic as a “strategist-in-residence.”

James Baker led the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment—often referred to as the “Pentagon’s Think Tank”—from 2015 to 2025, when it was temporarily closed by the Trump administration. At Anthropic—the AI company now amid a six-month withdrawal from federal service, as ordered by President Trump—Baker will to lead analysis of how AI is affecting U.S. institutions and competition with China, the company announced Friday.

As ONA director, Baker advised defense secretaries and national security advisors on the long-term effects of emerging technology on national security; he had earlier served on the Joint Staff and in other advisory roles.

For decades, ONA helped the U.S. military adapt to social, economic, environmental, and technological trends. The office was established in 1973 by Andrew Marshall, a policy strategist in the Nixon administration. Using a data-driven, “system-of-systems” approach, it sought to predict the interrelation and effects of trends from tech development to military affairs to labor. The office forecast how information technology would greatly increase the speed of warfare and the availability and precision of new weapons, including cyber and electromagnetic effects. These ideas prompted rethinking of force structure and underscored the need to accelerate acquisition reform.

In its final decade, ONA sought to understand implications of accelerating artificial intelligence, especially by Cold War institutions that Congress has been slow to change. A 2016 summary study, which formed the basis for an unclassified 2017 Belfer Center examination, identified a “Cambrian explosion” in robotics and artificial intelligence that would make warfare cheaper and faster, and reduce the advantage of expensive investments in "exquisite platforms” such as $90 million jets.

That trend is playing out today in Ukraine, which is using drones to decimate expensive Russian naval and air defense assets.

But in an interview, Baker said the national-security effects of AI stretch far beyond the military. Only by appreciating the vulnerability of all institutions, including the Defense Department, will society be able to adapt to the changes that are coming.

“We aren't spending enough time thinking about the implications of recursive self-improvement,” he said, meaning intelligent systems that improve themselves far faster than their creators anticipate. “The greatest risk is the long-term viability of present institutions in war and in peace. That’s one of the questions I came to Anthropic to work on. It’s a multi-decade structural—even civilizational—problem.”

The Defense Department shuttered ONA last March, which a spokesperson said at the time was part a series of cuts to basic research not immediately application to weapons. The spokesperson said that the reorganization would help the Pentagon address “pressing national security challenges.” In October, the department reinstated a smaller version of ONA.

In March, the White House designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk after company executives declined to make their tools available for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens or to guide fully autonomous weapons.

In April, Anthropic announced that it would limit the release of a new AI tool dubbed Mythos to a handful of federal agencies and corporations to help find discover cyber vulnerabilities. The number of new vulnerabilities logged in the National Vulnerability Database nearly doubled this month.

]]>

Marine commandant: Every combatant command has requested an amphibious ready group

Meghann Myers — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:50:57 -0400

The Marine Corps has long insisted that it needs enough amphibious ships to keep three ready groups deployed at all times, but the demand for those units is much higher than that, the service’s commandant said Thursday.

Every combatant commander—from U.S. Central Command to Africa to Southern—has requested an ARG with a Marine Expeditionary Unit on board, Gen. Eric Smith told an audience at the Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C.

“I won't say how many of the ARG-MEUs our combat commanders ask for, but it is well north of three,” he said. “I'll just say that it is well north of three—like double that.”

The 22nd MEU is off the coast of South America supporting Operation Southern Spear, the administration’s anti-drug trafficking effort, while the 31st MEU is in the Middle East supporting the U.S. blockade of Iran.

They’ll soon be joined by the 11th MEU, Smith said, which just finished typhoon disaster response in the Northern Mariana Islands.

“I just wish I had more of them to offer,” he said.

Having an ARG-MEU constantly off both coasts of the U.S. and in the Indo-Pacific is the goal, and while the Corps has the Marines to do it, it does not have the ships.

Out of the Navy’s 32 amphibious ships, only about half are in good enough condition to keep deploying, according to a 2024 Government Accountability Office report. The Navy would need to have nine in deployable condition at any given time to get to the 3.0 presence the commandant wants, with the rest in various stages of maintenance and pre-deployment training in order to keep the pipeline primed.

The service needs more like 40 to support the effort, Lt. Gen. Jay Bargeron, deputy commandant for plans, policies, and operations, said during a presentation Wednesday at Modern Day Marine, but an ongoing analysis is working on a precise number. By law, the Navy has to have 31, but the law doesn’t govern whether they are deployable.

“The Navy and the Marine Corps are aligned on this: 31 is not the right number,” Bargeron said. “It’s a floor, as was described.”

The Navy is working on building more amphibs, while also tackling the problem of delayed and backlogged maintenance to its existing fleet with the Amphibious Force Readiness Board.

“Its purpose is simple: to increase operational availability, to reduce maintenance delays, to prioritize modernization that actually improves readiness, to improve accountability across the enterprise, better synchronize daily Marine Corps demand signals, and last, generate more usable presence from the force we already have,” Adm. Daryl Caudle, the chief of naval operations, said Thursday at Modern Day Marine.

Caudle said he is encouraged by some of the maintenance that West Coast ships have been able to fast-track, and acknowledged that the East Coast is making a similar effort.

“But we are not declaring victory early,” he added. “This will take sustained pressure and leadership from the Pentagon to the commanding officers on the waterfront.”

]]>

Admin mum on whether Trump will seek to legalize Iran war

Meghann Myers — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:35:34 -0400

It’s been two months since the U.S. began strikes on Iran without authorization from Congress, so the clock is about to run out on the legal amount of time a president has to carry out a military operation without congressional approval. But the administration has given no indications they hope to make Operation Epic Fury legal.

Asked during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday whether an authorization or extension request are coming, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demurred, arguing that the current ceasefire with Iran has paused the 30-day clock.

“I do not believe the statute supports that,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told Hegseth. “We have serious constitutional concerns and we don’t want to layer those with additional statutory concerns.”

A White House spokeswoman did not respond to a request from Defense One to clarify whether the president has asked Congress to vote on an authorization for use of force in Iran, or whether he will submit a written request for a 30-day extension that would give troops time to withdraw.

One or the other is required to extend a military operation past 60 days, per the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

“The current ceasefire does not affect the clock,” David Janovsky, acting director of the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, said in a statement Thursday. “The War Powers Resolution is written in very broad terms. It refers to ‘hostilities,’ not ‘war,’ and it even covers situations where hostilities are imminent but not actually occurring.”

Though the ceasefire began April 8, the U.S. has since instituted a blockade against Iran, Janovsky said, “an act of war in its own right, and one that has included U.S. troops boarding multiple Iranian ships.”

“And yet, Secretary Hegseth, you declared victory a month ago,” SASC ranking member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said during Thursday’s hearing. “On April 8, you said, ‘Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory … By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come.’ “

Republican lawmakers have blocked multiple attempts by Democrats to hold a war powers vote. Senate Democrats on Thursday announced they would force an initial same-day vote, though a final vote wouldn’t be scheduled until Friday, despite the 60-day clock running out Thursday night.

]]>

Air Force’s top general: Supplemental funding needed to replace US aircraft lost in Iran

Thomas Novelly — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:29:43 -0400

Replacing the dozens of U.S. aircraft that have been damaged or destroyed in the Iran war will require more money than the staggering $1.5 trillion defense budget, the Air Force’s top general said.

Air Force Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the service’s top uniformed leader, told House lawmakers Thursday that the historic defense budget is focused on buying more fighters, bombers, and tankers for the service’s fleet. Those losses in Iran have made additional funding from Congress outside the 13-figure budget request necessary, he said during a defense appropriations subcommittee hearing.

“We hope to be able to address this in a supplemental, for the aircraft that we’ve lost, and the procurement, going forward, is meant to increase the number of tails we have, especially in the fighter force, but it also includes bombers and tankers as well,” Wilsbach said. “Both supplemental and the budget, the ‘27 budget, is supposed to address those losses.”

Key U.S. Air Force assets, including a $500 million E-3 Sentry and four F-15E fighter jets, have been lost since Operation Epic Fury began in late February. Overall, nearly 40 U.S. aircraft have been destroyed and roughly 10 have been damaged, according to The War Zone’s tally of open-source information. Jules W. Hurst III, who is performing the duties of the Pentagon comptroller and chief financial officer, told reporters earlier this month that the $1.5 trillion budget, consisting of yet-to-be-approved reconciliation funds, was formulated “before we went into conflict with Iran.”

Hurst told House lawmakers Wednesday that the Defense Department has spent an estimated $25 billion during the two months of Iran war operations—a figure is reportedly much higher when accounting for base and aircraft damage. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif, said during the hearing that figure appeared to be “totally off.”

The administration has been seeking anywhere from $98 billion to more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for the ongoing war in Iran.

But Rep. Ken Calvert, the defense appropriations subcommittee chairman, told Air and Space Force leaders during the opening of Thursday’s hearing that lawmakers haven’t gotten details on an Iran war supplemental yet.

“I also want to acknowledge the aircraft we’ve lost and munitions we’ve expended in Iran, which is not insignificant,” the California Republican said. “We may see a request for a supplemental at some point, but we have not seen it yet. And it’s unclear how we plan to replenish stocks and address losses we’ve taken in our Air Force inventory.”

A supplemental would require more Congressional buy-in and oversight, versus additional reconciliation spending, which would be approved by a simple majority. While the Trump administration relied heavily on reconciliation funding for last year’s defense priorities, top lawmakers have said it’s not a certainty this year.

Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said supplemental funding is preferred to reconciliation funds for the Air Force’s priorities because it can also be more easily accounted for, which has been a concern for lawmakers after the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“We have no idea what is going to be happening in future base budgets,” said McCollum, the ranking member of the defense appropriation subcommittee. “That's why having things built into the base or in a supplemental where we can track and know how the money is going to happen, versus a reconciliation, is so very important.”

]]>

Defense Business Brief: Satellite firm’s ‘secret sauce’ | 3D-print factory in a box | Ship-lobby ad

Bradley Peniston and Lauren C. Williams — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:00:00 -0400

Apex wants to provide satellite buses to primes building proliferated constellations, which means building at scale, CEO Ian Cinnamon says.

The company recently announced plans to make an XL version of its Comet satellite bus, adding power and mass yet still remaining small enough to fit 16 on a Falcon 9, Apex CEO Ian Cinnamon said in a recent interview.

But, he said, “I think what everybody tends to forget about is the need to really build these at really high rate production. And that's really the focus around Comet.”

Cinnamon said Apex builds at scale by reusing avionics and other systems from its earlier, medium-sized Nova bus—but also by using Octopus, the custom software that he calls his company’s “secret sauce.”

“Effectively, it's not even our manufacturing operating system; it's our entire company operating system,” he said. “It controls everything from, you know, forecasting demand, understanding on inventory, receiving quality from suppliers. How many, you know, kits we're holding on inventory at any given time, all the way to work, instructions on the factory floor, tracking, NCRs, traceability on orbit.”

Like seemingly everything else these days, Octopus “uses a significant amount of artificial intelligence, a significant amount of software automation for processes,” the CEO said.

But what Apex doesn’t use—at least not yet—is industrial robotics.

“We do not believe that automation and robots, in terms of the hardware manufacturing, makes sense at all at the scale that we're building,” he said. “It does not make sense at the scale of hundreds of vehicles per year…When you go above that scale, it may begin to make sense.”

Welcome

A new ad is pushing Congress to fund American shipbuilding to combat China and its growing commercial and naval fleets—and also increase jobs and domestic manufacturing. The USA Shipbuilding Coalition, composed of shipbuilders and unions, released the video Wednesday—with timing that appears to coincide with SHIPS Act legislation challenges.

The ad, which targets national streaming platforms and local TV markets in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, highlights the decades-long decline in American shipbuilding capacity as China’s has increased, something the second Trump administration has focused on.
“We cannot out-China the Chinese, competing in a system they have bent to their advantage.
We need to alter the terms of competition and that means beginning where maritime strength begins, cargo. It means using public policy to create the conditions for predictable demand, fleet formation, shipyard investment and workforce continuity,” Capt. Stephen Carmel, maritime administrator for the Transportation Department told Congress last week.
“Without cargo, there is no requirement for ship construction, no vessel deployments, no utilization of port infrastructure, and no operating environment within which maritime services can occur,” he said in written testimony.

Defense tech startup Firestorm Labs snags $82 million in its Series B funding round led by Washington Harbour Partners, which said the company is “building a new model for manufacturing.” The new capital will help Firestorm increase production of its mobile 3D-printing xCell platform that can be set up in a matter of hours, manufacturing everything from drones to prosthetics to tools.

Background: The company announced a $100 million deal with the Air Force for additive manufactured drones earlier this year and boasts a $153 million total investment counting this latest funding round.
Just a thought: What’s interesting is the idea of bringing digital-based one stop manufacturing shops that could help troops fill basic needs, like printing knee braces instead of ordering them, in tactical environments. I wonder if these platforms could make an appearance in an upcoming military exercise…

One more manufacturing thing: Pentagon-funded institution BioMADE is putting up $21.4 million to expand domestic biomanufacturing. The funds will support 14 projects in areas like biosensors to help detect disease, plastics used for 3D printing, and proteins for wound healing and chemical defenses.

]]>

Marine Corps considering Army’s MV-75 as an attack helo replacement

Meghann Myers — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:25:07 -0400

The Marine Corps may take its relationship with tiltrotor aircraft to the next level in the coming years with an attack platform to join the V-22 Osprey transport aircraft it’s been operating for the last two decades.

The service is looking for aircraft to fill gaps as it prepares to retire its AV-8 Harriers and F/A-18A-C variants, then eventually replace UH-1 Venom and AH-1 Viper attack helicopters. The Army-developed MV-75 Cheyenne II is a possibility, the Corps’ assistant deputy commandant for aviation said Wednesday at the Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C.

“So I would say we're exploring every option when it comes to the [Future Attack Strike] program,” Brig. Gen. Bob Finneran said during an update on the state of Marine Corps aviation. “MV-75, or the like, certainly could be one of the options that we look at.”

With that in mind, Bell-Textron unveiled a miniature model of its tiltrotor aircraft on the conference’s show floor Tuesday, armed with missiles and painted to look like it belongs to Marine Light Attack Squadron 267, which currently flies Venoms and Vipers.

“We're just solidifying our top-level requirements and finalizing the request for information back from industry,” Finneran said.

The Army selected the MV-75 to be its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft in 2022, announcing earlier this year that it planned to field prototypes to units for testing by the end of the year.

That timeline is still somewhat flexible, the head of Army aviation told reporters earlier this month, but the service officially brought the airframe into the Army family with a naming ceremony April 17 at the Army Aviation Warfighting Summit in Nashville.

Bell’s offering would take the MV-75 from a transport platform—designed to take over troop transport missions from the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter—to a first-of-its-kind attack tiltrotor that would provide close-air support or launch drones to protect troops on the ground or in the air.

The Future Attack Strike program will also explore what comes after the Osprey, Col. Richard Rusnok, who heads Marine aviation’s Cunningham Group, said Wednesday.

“The V-22 as I said, will remain a relevant platform into the 2050s and then, as we start to complete the FASt program, we will look at the next-generation assault support platform to replace the V-22, that will have many of the same attributes, as far as size as the current V-22 fleet with, obviously, advanced capabilities, to include potential advances in propulsion, sensors and things like that.”

]]>

Sixty days in, Pentagon estimates $25B spent on Iran war

Meghann Myers — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 15:04:35 -0400

The Defense Department has spent an estimated $25 billion in 60 days of operations against Iran so far, the Pentagon’s comptroller said during a congressional hearing Wednesday.

The administration plans to send a supplemental budget request to Congress to cover spent munitions and operational costs once they’re more fully fleshed out, Jay Hurst, the official performing the duties of the Pentagon’s chief financial officer, told House Armed Services Committee lawmakers during testimony on the department’s 2027 budget request.

“Okay, interesting…I'm glad you answered that question, because we've been asking for a hell of a long time, and no one's given us the number,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., told Hurst. “So if you could get those details over to us, that would be great.”

The hearing also marked the first time Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have publicly answered questions from Congress since Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28. Lawmakers dug into the Pentagon’s most recent budget request, as well as the war with Iran, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and the status of negotiations to end both.

“For the first time in over 40 years, we've been presented a budget that accounts for the true cost of American deterrence,” HASC Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, D-Ala., said of the $1.5 trillion defense spending proposal for fiscal year 2027.

Increases in acquisition funding, operations and maintenance balance both modernization and readiness, he said, compared to past budgets that made near-term readiness tradeoffs in favor of focusing funding toward new technology.

“This will enable us to truly catch up in our modernization efforts, by quickly fielding new munitions, aircraft, ships, land, space and autonomous systems to replenish and expand our arsenal,” Rogers said.

But there are questions about how that 50-percent increase over last year’s budget will be spent. Last year, Hegseth promised during his first weeks in office that DoD would pass an audit by the end of the second Trump administration, but a Government Accountability Office report released last year found that the Pentagon hadn’t laid enough groundwork to change its accounting processes to meet that milestone.

“I think last year's bill put us on a good trajectory to get to the point where we can, in fact, innovate faster at scale,” Smith said. “But we’ve got a long way to go. Can the Pentagon really absorb another five, $600 billion, depending on what the supplemental and the reconciliation package are? I don't think so. We need to pay as much attention to how we're spending the money as to how much we're spending, and we never seem to do that.”

Smith then turned to the Iran war as a core reason to question how the Pentagon will spend the funding increase.

“And one of the big questions that we need to get answered today is, where is this going? What is the plan to achieve our objectives? We've seen the cost, and the cost is very, very high,” Smith said. “All we keep hearing, on the objectives, is we keep seeing all of the targets that we have struck.”

While that’s a laudable tactical accomplishment, he said, the stated purpose of the war has been to “fundamentally” change Iran, though the country continues to block the Strait of Hormuz and has not agreed to end its nuclear ambitions or conventional weapons programs.

“And most disturbingly, the president keeps telling us that it's over. What was it? A week ago, Friday, the President announced that Iran had agreed to give up their nuclear program, to give up their ballistic missile program, to stop support for terrorist groups, to re-open the Strait of Hormuz,” Smith said. “The only problem with that is literally none of that was true. He was completely making it up. Iran hadn't even agreed to meet with us.”

Hegseth deflected criticism of the administration’s Iran war strategy to service members, accusing lawmakers who questioned his leadership of spreading propaganda and bristling at the charge that he is leading the U.S. into another “quagmire.”

“The way you stain the troops when you tell them—two months in, Congressman—you should know better. Shame on you calling this a quagmire, two months into the effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran—and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies,” Hegseth said.

But lawmakers clarified that their issue is with the overall strategy, not the performance of the military.

“Their professionalism and selfless service are not in question and never have been,” Rep. Jim Garamendi, D-Calif., said. “What is in question is the purposes and the strategic direction of this war. Any unvarnished review of what is happening right now in the Middle East would reveal a geopolitical calamity, a strategic blunder resulting in worldwide economic crisis. The result of Trump's war of choice is a serious, self-inflicted wound to America. It will take years and a new administration to recover from the grave damage to our standing in the world, as well as our economy and our military.”

]]>