The officials said that Naval Air Systems Command, which grounded the controversial tilt-rotor aircraft about three months ago, will lift it and allow the services to begin implementing their plans to get the Osprey back into the air. Austin met with the top service leaders, including for the Navy and Air Force, on Friday morning, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans not yet made public.

Air Force knows what failed in fatal Osprey crash but not why

The Osprey has been grounded for almost three months following a Nov. 29 Air Force Special Operations Command crash in Japan that killed eight service members. The Japan incident and an earlier August Osprey crash in Australia that killed three Marines are both still under investigation. The Air Force has said that it has identified what failed in the Japan crash, even though it does not know yet why it failed.

The decision to end the flight ban is up to Naval Air Systems Command, but Austin had asked for an informational briefing on the matter because of the significant safety concerns and the fact that three of the services and a critical ally are involved in the program. While Austin does not have approval authority in the return to flight process, U.S. officials said his endorsement of the services’ plan was considered a key step.

In the months since, the services have worked on plans to mitigate the known material failure by conducting additional safety checks and establishing a new, more conservative approach to how the Osprey is operated.

The Dutch Defence Ministry intends to work with local shipbuilder Damen Naval for the naval platform and with Thales for the above-water warfare system, though it still needs to reach agreement with the companies, the government said. The four existing air-defense frigates will be replaced one by one, with the first new vessel expected to be operational in 2036.

The current Zeven Provinciën-class frigates came into service between 2002 and 2005 and would need to be replaced in the 2030s, according to the ministry. In addition, modern weapons such as hypersonic anti-ship missiles and a proliferation of relatively simple systems such as drones have created a growing threat to naval vessels.

“The current frigates will be at the end of their lifespan in the next decade,” the ministry said in a statement. “The ships’ armament with anti-air missiles is also due for renewal. These projects are therefore being combined.”

The Dutch government is in discussion about cooperation with other European countries seeking to replace frigates, in particular Denmark, Germany and Norway, but has yet to reach any concrete agreement, the ministry said in its letter to parliament. Cooperation could include joint development and construction, as well as joint purchasing, training and maintenance, it said.

“The Netherlands is taking the lead on these ships, but we would welcome other countries joining us,” Van der Maat said in a video statement.

First delivery is scheduled for 2034 at the latest, with the final of the four new air-defense frigates becoming operational in 2041. That means the current fleet will continue to sail for two more years than initially planned, according to the ministry.

Van der Maat’s letter to parliament sets out the requirements for the new frigates, with budget discussions and project approval requests to follow in coming years.

The Netherlands plans to reuse some equipment being installed to modernize its existing air-defense frigates, including two new Active Phased Array Radars and four 127mm cannons against surface targets. The radar and fire control system in the works for two new anti-submarine warfare frigates will be further developed for the new air-defense vessels.

The replacement frigates will have layered air defense, with a preference for various ranges to be covered by missiles from the same manufacturer, the ministry said. The vessels will additionally be equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as with Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile.

The new frigates “will have long-range weapons at their disposal, enabling them to attack important enemy targets inland from a great distance,” Van der Maat said. “This way, the Netherlands can fulfill its role as a seafaring nation and make an important contribution to safety at sea.”

The frigate replacement is the ministry’s biggest maritime project, with a budget for the vessels of more than €2.5 billion, and an additional €1 billion to €2.5 billion investment for the weapon systems. The budget assumes the bare hull will be built elsewhere in Europe, as is the case for the new anti-submarine warfare frigates, though local construction isn’t ruled out, the ministry said.

The new ships will also include defense against hypersonic weapons, which is not part of the budget due to still being in development, the ministry said. The Netherlands is part of the Hypersonic Defence Interceptor Study project, led by pan-European missile maker MBDA.

The defense ministry is replacing most of its major naval surface combatants in the next 15 years, which it said will significantly improve Dutch maritime capabilities, while the resulting industrial cooperation will “provide a powerful boost to European strategic autonomy and the Dutch defense industry.”

The project is linked to the $9.6 billion jet procurement contract reached between Finland’s MOD and the American company Lockheed Martin in February 2022. The deal covers the delivery of 64 F-35s to the Finnish Air Force.

The building of the aircraft assembly facility forms part of the contract’s so-called stage one industrial component. The umbrella project required the signing of a lease for a suitable assembly plant development site. This was found near the town of Nokia. The site lease was signed in January between the Finnish Defence Forces and Defence Properties Finland, the state organization tasked with managing properties and assets owned by Finland’s defense administration.

Construction work on the engine assembly building is slated to commence during the second half of 2024. Under the terms of the industrial deal struck between Finland and Lockheed Martin, engine maintenance at the facility in Nokia will continue throughout the entire life cycle of the Air Force’s F-35 fleet.

“Industrial cooperation tied to the F-35 agreement will generate critical maintenance and repair expertise for Finland’s indigenous defense industry. This includes performance areas like reliability of maintenance. The agreement will also create significant know-how in Finland for F-35 engine assembly and testing,” Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen said.

The assembly plant will operate in close collaboration with the regional aircraft hub in Tampere run by Patria’s aviation division. An estimated 100 personnel will work in various assembly roles at the facility.

The government owns 50.1% of Patria, and the Norwegian company Kongsberg controls the remainder. Patria itself owns half of the Norwegian defense contractor Nammo.

The F-35s are set to replace the Air Force’s ageing McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet jets. These planes are scheduled to retire by 2030. The first batch of the F-35s on order are due for delivery and then deployment to Arctic air bases in Finland’s Lapland region by 2026.

The industrial cooperation component of the F-35 acquisition deal is expected to be scaled up in stages by 2030. The broadening of the industrial agreement may include the production or assembly in Finland of certain parts and systems used in the aircraft.

The Air Force has already tested the F-35′s suitability and adaptability to operate in extreme weather conditions, especially in Arctic areas of Finland during the country’s long winters that feature limited daylight.

In recent exercises, the service routinely used stretches of “closed highway” in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions as temporary airstrips. The Air Force is currently running such maneuvers as part of the weeklong Hanki drills in the north of the country, which are to continue until March 2.

The 74-page whitepaper, which the service unveiled during its annual symposium this week and which builds on a similar document published four years ago, details planned procurements out to 2037.

“The Air Force is aware of [the importance of] long-term development planning and spending of the national budget to achieve maximum value,” said the service’s commander, Air Chief Marshal Panpakdee Pattanakul.

Indeed, part of the whitepaper’s raison d’être is to stake claims for long-term funding as its aircraft inventories age. For instance, the 2020 version stated the fighter fleet had an average age of 26 years, a figure that continues to increase.

But the government’s procurement process is disjointed, according to Greg Raymond, an expert in Asia-Pacific affairs at the Australian National University. He cited factors like political instability, inadequate strategic planning, annual rather than multiyear budgeting measures, and weak civil oversight that allows each armed service to makes its own decisions.

In the latest whitepaper, the Air Force gives priority to a medium-range air defense system possessing a minimum 30-nautical-mile range from fiscal 2025 to fiscal 2028. Afterward, from FY33 to FY37, the service plans to carry out a second phase for a medium- or long-range air defense system.

From FY28 to FY32, the force plans to buy a short-range air defense system boasting gun-, missile and laser-based weapons. Credence is given to counter-drone systems, too, and a nine-year project to procure these is to commence in 2025.

The service is also eyeing 12-14 new fighters to replace the F-16 jets of 102 Squadron based at Korat. The procurement is scheduled to take place from FY25 to FY34, two years later than originally planned. The squadron’s F-16s from the late 1980s are to retire by 2028.

Two contenders have emerged for the aircraft requirement: Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70/72 and Saab’s Gripen.

“We’re confident the F-16 Block 70/72 will complement the RTAF’s existing F-16 fleet and deliver the advanced 21st century security capabilities and performance needed to address Thailand’s most pressing defense requirements,” a Lockheed spokesperson told Defense News.

Thailand ordered its first Gripen C/D fighters in 2008. Following a January 2021 contract, the aircraft were upgraded to what the manufacturer calls the MS20 configuration.

Robert Björklund, who markets the Gripen to Thailand for Saab, told Defense News the existing fleet is integrated into the Saab-supplied Link T data system and that the aircraft provides its user with “a very wide range of weapon options, including its highly effective RBS15 anti-ship missile.”

A second fighter replacement project for 12-14 aircraft is slated for FY31 to FY35 to replace F-5E/F jets of 211 Squadron at Ubon that are to retire around the end of the decade. An identical number of fighters are needed to replace F-16A/Bs of 403 Squadron at Takhli from FY37 to FY46.

Thailand tries to maintain relations with several competing nations, including the United States, China, Russia and India, the whitepaper noted. Thailand previously purchase materiel from China, such as armored vehicles, air defense systems and a submarine.

Asked whether the Royal Thai Air Force would consider buying a Chinese fighter like the J-10CE, Raymond said the service values its relationship with the U.S. and likeminded allies too much to do so. He noted that Thai-U.S. relations have “largely stabilized,” despite the latter denying the former’s request to buy F-35A jets last year.

“They wouldn’t want to see themselves placed on the outer [circle] in terms of not getting invitations to things like [exercise] Pitch Black in Australia. I tend to think they’d be perhaps more careful about getting Chinese aircraft than the Thai Navy was about getting a submarine,” he said.

The whitepaper also detailed an effort starting this year to refurbish C-130H Hercules transport aircraft. The 2020 version recommended the service buy 12 replacements, but that idea was dropped.

As for pilot training, last year’s delivery of 12 T-6TH trainers allowed the Air Force to retire its Pilatus PC-9 fleet last month. New Zealand-built CT-4E trainers are to retire in 2031, so basic trainers will be needed from FY33. New lead-in fighter trainers are also sought from FY25, with Thailand already operating the South Korean T-50TH in this role.

The new whitepaper also emphasized unmanned technologies. One effort underway is the Thai-developed M Solar X solar-powered drone. Loitering munitions are also schedule for purchase by 2026, as are medium combat drones from FY26 to FY29 and high-altitude pseudo-satellites from FY24 to FY35.

The Air Force also mentioned procurement programs for micro- and nano-drone swarms from FY26, and a research and development effort for weaponized tactical drones from FY29.

And two Saab 340B Erieye airborne early warning aircraft are to receive enhanced command-and-control capabilities, with their dorsal-mounted radars to be replaced. This would take place from FY26 to FY29.

The government’s FY24 defense budget bill calls for a 198 billion baht (U.S. $5.5 billion) fund, of which $1 billion is for the Air Force. The service has already applied for an allocation of approximately $530 million for a first batch of four fighters.

Five months into the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, lawmakers have yet to pass a full FY24 budget. The uncertainty has raised concerns in the Pentagon that Congress may put the department on a one-year continuing resolution with a 1% sequester.

Without an FY24 defense budget, the Pentagon remains unable to implement new modernization programs and cannot take new steps to expand the defense-industrial base amid wars in Europe and the Middle East.

“The lack of full-year funding has put key government programs in purgatory, wasted taxpayer money on outdated budgets and hindered forward progress that will make the country more secure, push us to the next levels of technological advancement and support American competitiveness in key industries like aerospace,” Aerospace Industries Association chief executive Eric Fanning said in a statement.

The House voted 320-99 to pass its fourth temporary spending measure, and the Senate followed suit shortly thereafter in a 77-13 vote. Under the latest stopgap spending bill, funds appropriated for Veterans Affairs and military construction will expire on March 8, two weeks before Defense Department funding runs out.

Congress is expected to vote on the FY24 Veterans Affairs and military construction spending bill next week. But lawmakers have yet to finalize the FY24 Pentagon spending bill.

The right-wing House Freedom Caucus has insisted on several policy riders in the appropriations bill that Democrats have ruled out as poison pills, including bans on the Pentagon’s abortion travel leave policy and medical care for transgender troops.

Last year’s debt ceiling deal caps FY24 defense spending at $886 billion. If Congress does not pass a full FY24 federal budget by April 30, the debt ceiling agreement puts government funding on a one-year continuing resolution that would cut spending at the Pentagon and all other federal agencies by 1%.

Pentagon sounds the alarm

The undersecretaries of the Navy, Army and Air Force told reporters Wednesday a one-year stopgap funding measure at FY23 levels would result in billions of dollars in “misaligned” funds at the Defense Department.

To cope with a one-year stopgap measure, they said the Defense Department would first have to prioritize current operations in places like Europe and the Middle East, followed by personnel, then acquisition and modernization.

Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven noted this would result in the military submitting “unprecedented” reprogramming requests to Congress. The Navy, for instance, would need Congress to approve a $13 billion reprogramming request to address $26 billion in misaligned funds.

It would also result in a $2 billion shortfall for the Virginia-class attack submarine program and another $800 million shortfall for amphibious ship spending. Congress has provided a $2.2 billion carveout for the Navy to continue work on the Columbia-class ballistic submarine program, most at risk of falling behind schedule.

Other services would not be able to begin new initiatives either, including a highly prioritized munitions ramp-up following the influx of arms the U.S. has sent to Ukraine and Israel with more due for Taiwan.

“These are production rate increases, new starts — both in programs for acquisition as well as military construction projects — that we cannot start,” said Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo.

Congress has still not funded the multiyear munitions procurement plans it authorized for FY23 and FY24, and Camarillo noted those funds are needed “to give industry the incentive to be able to facilitize, invest in a workforce and be able to do those extra shifts that we know that we need in order to restore our munitions.”

The $95 billion foreign aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan also includes considerable funding to ramp up the munitions-industrial base. But House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has so far refused to put it on the floor for a vote after the Senate passed it 70-29 earlier this month.

For its part, the Air Force warned earlier this month a 1% sequester would reduce its buying power by $13 billion and put $2.8 billion in space modernization projects on hold.

Turkey has sought to lock down the sale, which includes 40 new F-16s made by Lockheed Martin as well as modernization kits for 79 fighter jets in its current fleet, for several years. The State Department finally approved the sale when Turkey ratified Sweden’s NATO membership after stalling for more than a year.

Sen Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Thursday forced the vote on the resolution to block the sale, citing “significant human rights issues, arbitrary killings, suspicious deaths of person in custody, torture, arbitrary arrests and continued detention of tens of thousands of persons.”

“I also remain deeply concerned about the negative strategic implications of this proposed sale, given Turkey’s reckless military actions in recent years,” Paul said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.

Paul noted that a U.S. F-16 shot down a Turkish drone in October in northeast Syria, where American troops back Kurdish-majority forces Ankara considers a terrorist organization. He also pointed to Turkey’s deployment of F-16s to Azerbaijan in 2020 during its war with Armenia over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Ben Cardin, D-Md., defended the sale on the floor after greenlighting it last month.

“I consulted closely with the highest levels of the Biden administration about this transaction over several months,” said Cardin. “I believe they share my concerns, and I believe we are making progress.”

Cardin argued Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presented a strategic imperative for Sweden’s NATO accession as well as the need to modernize Turkey’s capabilities within the alliance. He said the sale would upgrade Turkey’s “aging F-16 fleet to a more capable model, a model that is compatible with the United States.”

“Turkey is key to the defense of the southern flank of NATO,” said Cardin. “It is host to a major U.S. military presence, and Turkey’s F-16 fleet contributes to NATO, including in the Black Sea, which is critical to our national security.”

The State Department also approved an $8.6 billion sale of F-35 stealth fighter jets to Greece last month at the same time it greenlit Turkey’s F-16 purchase.

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

The U.S. and Italian firms signed a memorandum of understanding to “evaluate cooperation opportunities in the tiltrotor technology domain,” they said in a statement Thursday.

That cooperation will get underway in earnest with a NATO Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability concept study, where Leonardo will take the lead on a tiltrotor architecture proposal with Textron’s Bell in support, the firms said.

The agreement follows a long partnership between the firms on the BA609 tiltrotor program, which ended in 2011 when Bell pulled out, leaving Leonardo — then known as Finmeccanica — to push on with the effort.

Bell went on to win the U.S. Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program in 2022 with its V-280 tiltrotor, while Leonardo has kept faith with the BA609, now known as the AW609, albeit moving slowly with development. Officials have cited the lack of government development cash as a reason.

With a target of 2025 for certification for its tiltrotor, Leonardo officials were less than enthusiastic when the Italian Air Force encouraged them to team with Lockheed Martin and Boeing on their Defiant-X coaxial rotor helicopter.

When the Defiant was beaten out in the FLRAA competition by Bell’s tiltrotor, Leonardo officials felt vindicated in sticking with tiltrotor technology.

”Now we are the only European company with a tiltrotor close to certification, primarily for civil application but which can be converted to military applications,” said Leonardo CEO Roberto Cingolani on Thursday.

Cingolani was speaking during a presentation of Leonardo’s preliminary results for 2023, which showed it delivered 185 helicopters during the year, up from 149 in 2022. Electronics orders were up by 15.9%, buoyed by orders from the U.K. for new MK2 radars for its Eurofighters.

Leonardo’s U.S. unit DRS saw revenues rise 4.9% to $2.8 billion. Overall group revenue rose 3.9% to €15.3 billion (U.S. $16.5 billion).

At the presentation, Cingolani said talks were back on with German electronics firm Hensoldt about a joint venture. Leonardo purchased a 25.1% stake in the firm in 2021, but declined to participate in a capital increase in December and saw its stake in the firm drop to 22.8%, prompting suggestions its interest in the tie-up was fading.

”We didn’t participate in the capital increase because the German government and the previous top management of Hensoldt didn’t say clearly whether the possibility of a Leonardo-Hensoldt alliance or joint venture was still open,” said Cingolani.

“A few weeks ago the new CEO of Hensoldt came to Rome, and we had a long and constructive discussion and he told me they are reconsidering a joint venture,” Cingolani added. “Now we are studying what we can do together.”

A full-year continuing resolution that would keep fiscal 2023 spending levels through the rest of 2024 means the U.S. Army, for instance, would run out of operations and maintenance funding in the European theater as it trains Ukrainian soldiers to defend against Russia’s ongoing invasion of the country, which has entered its third year.

The financial strain is compounded by the lack of certainty over whether Congress will pass a supplemental funding package that would reimburse the Army for expenses incurred so far in bankrolling support to Ukraine.

The Army already spent $500 million in the European theater in operations and maintenance, and “we were counting on a supplemental to be able to sort of replenish us for that,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said at a Feb. 27 Defense Writers Group event. “What that means is probably by late spring, summer, we would have to make some difficult choices about other [NATO] exercises, for example, that our forces participate in.”

Additionally, the Army has been funding support to Israel to include deployments of units to the Middle East in the event they are needed, she added.

Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo told reporters Feb. 28 at the Pentagon that the service spent $100 million in U.S. Central Command’s area of operations as well as another $500 million to support the U.S. Southwest border security mission.

“I do worry. Our budget has been flat for the last couple years. We don’t have a lot of cash under the sofa cushions, and if we don’t get a budget and we don’t get a supplemental, we’re going to probably have to cancel some things,” Wormuth said.

The Army is prioritizing current operations, Camarillo said, which means it is “going to have to look to other areas of O&M spending where they “can potentially take some risk,” including “exercises and the degree to which we participate in some around the globe. We might have to scale some of that back in the absence of an appropriation this year.”

For the Air Force, Kristyn Jones, who is performing the duties of the service’s undersecretary, told reporters alongside Camarillo that in order to pay its personnel, training exercises would take the hit.

“Anything that’s already on a [Foreign Military Sales] case won’t have a dramatic impact, but all of the replenishment that we’re expecting in the supplemental is currently impacted. And even things like F-35 [fighter jet] training that we’re planning … with our allies and partners, that’s impacted by not having this appropriation as well.”

The Air Force is focused on trying to ensure flight hours are maintained, but it’s also important, Jones noted, that pilots receive training.

Despite the military’s experience in warfare, “we’re in a different strategic environment and we need to do the exercises, often joint and allied, to prepare for that environment. And the lack of our ability to do that doesn’t allow us to, again, to test the new techniques, the new military tactics that we’d like to have primarily for an Indo-Pacific fight,” Jones said. “That’s really where we need to stretch our muscles a little bit more.”

Learning from sequestration

With a possible extended or full-year continuing resolution, the service undersecretaries said the last time the military felt such a painful budget crunch was during the 2013 sequestration, where the services were required by law to make percentage cuts evenly across spending lines.

One of the fallouts of the 2013 sequestration was a rise in aviation mishaps because vital training flight hours were cut. Military Times and Defense News took a deep dive into aviation mishaps from FY11 through FY18 and uncovered the trend.

“Safety is always going to come first,” said Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven, “but we did look at the lessons of 2013 and sequestration, where we spread risk around the enterprise, and I think the concerns about maintaining ready and trained forces are part of the lessons that we’re using to inform if we get into this worst-case scenario where we don’t have our ’24 budget enacted and we are under a CR.”

“We’re not going to repeat that same peanut butter spread,” he added.

But trade-offs will be inevitable, he acknowledged, and “we’ll have to look across the board to see how to maintain the focus on current operations.”

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — The Indian government is closer to buying a multibillion-dollar package of cruise missiles, air defense weapons, surveillance radars and fighter jet engines following approval from the country’s highest decision-making body on security affairs.

At a Feb. 21 meeting, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the four procurement projects cumulatively worth about 350 billion rupees (U.S. $4 billion).

According to local media reports quoting government sources, the approved items were BrahMos cruise missiles for the Navy, air defense guns for the Army, ground-based air surveillance radars and new engines for the Air Force’s MiG-29 fighters.

Approval by the committee, which Prime Minister Narendra Modi chairs, is a necessary step along the Defence Ministry’s contractual pathway.

Local media reported the BrahMos missile deal would be signed in March. The consolidated contract would include some 220 weapons to arm Indian frigates and destroyers — the largest-ever individual BrahMos order for India.

The contract will reportedly involve a mix of standard 290-kilometer-range (180-mile-range) and extended 450-kilometer-range (280-mile-range) BrahMos missiles, of which 75% is locally made.

“The BrahMos is expected to considerably enhance the potential for surface-to-surface attacks by Indian Navy ships, especially with extended-range missiles,” Rahul Bhonsle, a director of the New Delhi-based consultancy Security Risks Asia, told Defense News.

India is also exporting BrahMos missiles to the Philippines under a deal worth about $375 million signed in January 2022. Atul Rane, who leads the missile manufacturer BrahMos Aerospace, said last year the company has set a goal of exporting $5 billion worth of BrahMos weapons by 2025.

The committee also approved the purchase of Sudarshan air defense systems from private firm Larsen & Toubro — an acquisition worth approximately $844 million. The Army would use the systems, which feature radars and 40mm guns, to protect its installations and the country’s border areas.

The Sudarshan approval followed an October 2022 request for procurement seeking 141,576 ammunition rounds to accompany 220 guns, including pre-fragmented, programmable proximity fuses and smart rounds.

The Sudarshan is also competing in an Air Force competition for 244 close-in weapon systems.

“Air defense guns have assumed importance because of the overall weak air and missile defense profile with dated equipment, with the Indian Army in particular, and the add-on threat from drones,” Bhonsle explained.

The Indian Army relies on antiquated Bofors L/70 and ZU-23-2B towed guns, and their replacement has become urgent given the emerging threat of drones and loitering munitions.

Larsen & Toubro is also set to provide the air surveillance radars, worth about $723 million. India is prioritizing better radar coverage of its northern and western borders to guard against Chinese and Pakistani aircraft, respectively. Augmenting the existing radar network in phases, the Air Force will operate the new indigenous sensors.

And Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is to manufacture new RD-33MK engines for MiG-29 fighters in collaboration with Russia, with the project worth about $639 million.

These projects underscore India’s attempts to maximize indigenous input. The Make in India economic policy seems to be gaining groud, Bhonsle said.

“However, it should be noted there is also considerable foreign collaboration involved in many of the projects, as up to 50% or more is permissible under existing rules for acquisition,” Bhonsle added.

Deliveries are scheduled for the years 2024 to 2031. Poland intends to use the system to operate its Patriot missile launchers, which are part of the Wisla medium-range, air-defense program, and the Narew short-range equivalent, which relies on MBDA’s Common Anti-Air Modular Missile, or CAMM.

The acquired systems will be used for six Wisla batteries and 23 Narew batteries, the country’s defense ministry said in a statement

Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, Poland’s deputy prime minister and national defense minister, signed the contract during an official ceremony on Feb. 29. “We will be the second country, after the United States, to have this system, an integrated command system,” he said.

Kosiniak-Kamysz was sworn in on Dec. 13 as a new Cabinet replaced the ousted government of the right-wing Law and Justice party.

Poland’s Oct. 15, 2023, parliamentary election, which paved the way for a change in government, prompted U.S. manufacturer Northrop Grumman to host an event with top executives in Warsaw in November to advertise the program during the transition.

With the purchase now secured, it appears that the new defense leadership here will stick to the previous government’s procurement schedule for the key components of the Wisla and Narew programs.

The U.K. arms of Belgian-based company Rhea and American firm Lockheed Martin won separate contracts, cumulatively worth £4 million (U.S. $5 million).

The deals were announced Feb. 14, although both contractors have worked on their potential offerings since mid-2023, when they were selected from six firms initially tasked to undertake work on what is known as Project Beroe.

The amount of money involved may be small, but the outcome of the research and development work by the two companies could be key, according to Commodore David Moody, the head of capability at UK Space Command.

“This is a pivotal moment for UK Defence and the UK Space Sector as we develop software and partnerships that will determine the future of how we manage our activities in space,” Moody said in a statement released at the time of the announcement. “This project will enable us to define and understand how we will control and optimise the use of our satellites in a safe and sustainable way and is an important part of UK MOD’s future satellite aspirations.”

The 20-month-long contracts are scheduled to conclude in March 2025. There is no public timeline regarding the possible acquisition or future development phases of the software.

Existing British satellite control is focused around the Skynet 5 communications spacecraft network but Project Beroe is expected to enable satellite taskings from a much wider group of government entities and satellite types, individually or in concert.

Project Beroe is not directly related to Skynet and will support future non-Skynet satellite constellations like the low-Earth orbit ISTARI and Minerva programs.

Together, ISTARI and Minerva are to form the building blocks of a low-Earth orbit ISR capability for the British military.

ISTARI is a 10-year, £968 million program planned to deliver a multi-satellite system supporting surveillance and intelligence gathering for military operations.

Minerva is a £127 million project to develop four concept demonstrator satellites: Titania, Tyche, Oberon and Juno.

Tyche, which is the first of the four to launch, is scheduled to enter orbit this year. The Minerva group is meant to demonstrate the ability to autonomously collect, process and disseminate data from British and allied space assets, and this will inform how the ISTARI project moves forward.

Both programs are part of a planned £6.4 billion fund spread out over 10 years, as announced by the MoD when it rolled out its space defense strategy in 2022.

At a cost of about £5 billion, the lion’s share of that spending will go toward the procurement of a new generation of satellites and ground facilities under the Skynet 6 program.

Airbus is already building the first of those satellites, known as Skynet 6A, and a further competition is underway to provide a new generation of narrowband and wideband satellites under the Skynet 6 banner.

In an interview with Defense News, Northrop Grumman executive Doug Shaffer said the company is on track to deliver those aircraft, newly modified into Range Hawks, to the Defense Department’s Test Resource Management Center by early 2025.

These two Range Hawks are the first to be modified from a batch of 24 Global Hawk drones the Air Force has retired in recent years and passed on to TRMC for a second life as flexible and airborne test data collectors.

In the past, the government has used sensors mounted on ships to collect test launch data for hypersonic systems. But moving those ships into the proper positions can be a lengthy and laborious process that requires a substantial number of people.

So in recent years, the Air Force, NASA and TRMC have been working on a concept called SkyRange to mount sensors onto Global Hawks that could more easily collect this data. The program’s first three adapted RQ-4s — which were older Block 10 models — in recent years have been supporting tests for programs such as NASA’s Artemis Moon exploration program and hypersonic vehicles. They are stationed at the Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

In an interview with sister publication C4ISRNet, TRMC director George Rumford said having those early Range Hawks allowed the Pentagon to conduct virtually back-to-back hypersonic flight tests in early 2023, 10 days apart over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Northrop Grumman said the first three Range Hawks performed so well that TRMC is moving to expand the SkyRange program. The two dozen Block 20 and 30 RQ-4s that are slated to be modified into the next several batches of Range Hawks are more capable than the older model.

Technology has advanced enough in recent years to be able to shrink the sensing equipment down enough to be mounted on a drone, said Shaffer, vice president of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting programs for Northrop Grumman’s aeronautics systems sector.

Shaffer said Northrop Grumman has started breaking down these first two RQ-4s at the Grand Sky facility near Grand Forks, North Dakota, and will start installing the new suite of sensors as parts come in. Once mounted on the Range Hawks, the sensors will be able to gather telemetry data on hypersonic launches such as speed and trajectory, he said.

These Range Hawks have now passed their critical design review, and the design process is now finished, Shaffer said. Northrop Grumman used digital design techniques, he said, which has sped up the process.

Northrop Grumman plans to modify the remaining RQ-4s in batches of four, Shaffer added, starting with the Block 30s. And with each RQ-4′s modification taking roughly eight months to complete, he said, updating the entire fleet could take several years. He cautioned that schedule will depend on whether the program continues to get enough funding.

Shaffer declined to say how much each updated Range Hawk will cost, but said later modifications will grow cheaper as work on the program progresses.

The Air Force now has nine RQ-4s left in its inventory and plans to eventually retire them. But in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers moved to prevent the Air Force from mothballing the remainder of its fleet until after fiscal 2028.

Defense News reported earlier this month that Banco do Brasil declared its intention to stop financing defense companies, citing governance and sustainability policies.

The U-turn follows a meeting held Feb. 26 involving the bank’s president, Tarciana Medeiros; Brazil’s vice president and the minister of development, industry, commerce and services, Geraldo Alckmin; the minister of the civil house, Rui Costa; and the defense minister, José Múcio Monteiro.

“The decision will prevent losses to companies in the sector that were at risk of losing contracts and will contribute to the sustainability and autonomy of the Defense Industrial Base,” the Ministry of Development, Industry, Commerce and Services said in a statement this week.

The ministry noted the latest decision reinforces the importance of structured financial policies that ensure “not only the economic viability of companies but also national security and sovereignty.”

If the bank had gone through with its initial plan, the move would have impacted many Brazilian defense players and the Proex program — a government mechanism, managed by the bank, that provides resources for domestic companies exporting goods and services.

The Brazilian defense contractor Mac Jee has celebrated the decision.

“The Mac Jee Group believes that this measure is a crucial step towards the sustainability and autonomy of our Defense Industrial Base,” the company said in a statement. “The initiative also ensures the preservation of vital contracts for companies in the sector, contributing to the generation of foreign exchange and jobs in the country, in addition to strengthening national security and sovereignty.”

Banco do Brasil declined to comment for this story.

Rear Adm. Brad Andros, the commander of NECC, told Defense News he’s been tasked with drawing up ideas for the “NECC of the future,” in line with a broader Navy Force Design 2045 effort.

Using the Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces as an example, he said over the last two decades they evolved from a riverine force into one that now conducts escort missions and port security operations.

“They’ve got to develop into creating a bastion for the ships and submarines” on patrol or even in combat overseas. The 2000 attack on Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Cole highlighted the importance of scanning the waters for asymmetric threats — in that case, a bomb-laden small boat — but current events show this maritime security force will have to keep an eye out for unmanned boats as well as unmanned drones in the air and unmanned craft under the water, too.

If the Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces will have to become counter-unmanned experts to conduct their mission, “while I’m at it, why don’t I just be able to do the offensive side of it as well?”

Andros said this led to a larger conversation about NECC’s role, partially inspired by current events.

“Taking what we’re seeing in the Black Sea, taking what we’re seeing in the Red Sea: how do we become that dilemma-creator?” he said.

Ukrainian forces have been able to alter what activities Russian ships can conduct in the Black Sea based on their shore-based drone operations. Similarly, the Houthi forces ashore in Yemen have severely restricted shipping in the Red Sea due to their shore-based attacks.

In both cases, the forces didn’t need to be at sea on expensive ships; they have been effective controlling a confined body of water from land.

Andros said the Marine Corps is pursuing its own version of this with the Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concept. He said NECC wants to find a way for its force to be additive to what the Marines are doing.

If done right, though, he said NECC could free up a capital ship from having to protect a confined body of water, assuming the U.S. had the right agreements in place to put NECC forces on the ground.

Andros acknowledged this is a departure from NECC’s traditional work, but it may be necessary to have offensive capabilities in order to adequately create a safe haven for U.S. ships and subs overseas.

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command today is “built on protect: law enforcement and patrolling,” the admiral said.

To go after these offensive capabilities, he said the command would have to look into what technical skills the sailors would need for this work, ensure the right ratings and structures are in place to man these units, and realign resources to equip these sailors with offensive drones and other systems.

“It’s not a wholesale change, but it’s enough of a tweak that it’s got to be very deliberate, and it’s going to probably be a good five- to seven-year process to get after it,” Andros said.

Equipment reset

As part of the modernization effort, Andros is looking at NECC’s mismatched gear and considering resetting the inventory.

The force has done a lot of acquisition outside the formal capability development process so it could move fast, he said. It typically bought things that were commercial-off-the-shelf, not expensive, and in small quantities.

As a result, there’s not always commonality throughout the whole NECC force, creating a particular challenge for the sailors tasked with maintaining them.

Asked what he wanted from industry as NECC considers this equipment reset, Andros said the two most important things are that capabilities are packaged into small form factors, and that unit-level sailors can repair themselves.

Andros anticipates increasingly operating in locations without a mature logistics infrastructure, which makes the ability for the sailors to fix their own gear pivotal. He noted that configuration management — ensuring all the radios are common, all the drones are common, and so on — is important for maintainability and one of the reasons NECC is considering this gear reset.

Rearming ships at sea

NECC already has the ability to reload missiles into ships’ vertical launching system cells from ashore or from a barge at the pier, through its Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support Group.

But the idea of being able to reload VLS cells at sea has taken on a new importance in the last year, after Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro highlighted it as a key gap the Navy needed to fill to prepare for a potential war in the Pacific.

So expeditionary reload teams from NECC have been called in as subject matter experts during testing, including an August 2023 demonstration involving destroyer Porter and Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ship William McLean.

This took place during the Large Scale Exercise 2023 event, which Andros said was important.

“At the tactical level — the humans doing it, taking an object, swinging it over and putting it in — we’re good,” he said, even if the specific systems being tested as part of Del Toro’s effort are new.

But who would command and control this evolution — who would call for the rearm-at-sea to take place, who would be in charge of safety, who would actually operate the cranes and more — still hasn’t been decided. Incorporating this evolution into a major fleet exercise allowed fleet leaders to start working through some of those questions, he said.

As for whether his NECC sailors would ultimately be the ones to embark on Military Sealift Command ships and conduct the rearming themselves, or if MSC would train its crews to operate the cranes, Andros said, “either way is fine by me, just as long as whoever does it is certified to operate the equipment.”

The German vessel, newly arrived in the theater of operations, fired two Standard Missile-2 interceptors at the U.S. drone, but both missed, as German military news website Augengeradeaus first reported.

The attempted shoot-down came after a query with nearby allies about the status of the drone, which flew without a transponder turned on that would allow coalition forces to identify it as friendly, according to the report.

“We can confirm that a U.S. MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle was targeted in the Red Sea Feb. 27,” a U.S. defense official told Defense News, adding that the aircraft was undamaged and continued its mission.

“CENTCOM is in close coordination with the EU and Operation Aspides to investigate the circumstances that led to this event and to ensure safe deconfliction of airspace,” the official added, using shorthand for U.S. Central Command, the command overseeing American operations in the Middle East.

Germany’s air defense frigate Hessen received parliamentary approval to partake in the European Union’s Operation Aspides last week while already underway to the Red Sea. It is joining a collection of allied warships organized under the EU auspices or the U.S.-led Operation Prosperity Guardian to protect marine traffic in the vital cargo route from drone and missile attacks by the Yemen-based Houthi militia.

The group’s fighters are targeting civilian ships claiming support for Hamas in its war against Israel.

A German military spokesman declined to comment on the incident, pointing instead to comments by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius on Feb. 27 in which Pistorious confirmed the downing of two hostile drones and two failed attempts to intercept an additional, unspecified aircraft.

The F-35A purchase would be on top of earlier orders for 12 F-35Bs from the American defense company Lockheed Martin.

Addressing Parliament during Wednesday’s budget deliberations, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said his ministry wants to take advantage of the competitive price of the F-35As, which are now “comparable” to Boeing’s F-15 jets.

“We have to de-prioritize other projects for this opportunity, but we’ve done our calculations and we think this is the best time to put orders for F-35As,” he said, adding that accelerating the F-35 acquisition plan will put the Republic of Singapore Air Force in the “premier league.”

F-35As are built for conventional takeoff and landing, have dependable endurance, can carry higher capacity payloads, and provide more operational flexibility, Ng explained.

Both the “A” and “B” variants are suitable for Singapore’s limited land spaces, the ministry has noted.

Singapore ordered four F-35Bs in a 2020 deal worth an estimated $2.75 billion, then added eight more F-35B units in 2023. The aircraft are on track to arrive during the 2026-2028 time frame.

If Parliament approves the current F-35A acquisition, Ng said the additional fighter jets would arrive by 2030, the same year Singapore’s military plans to retire its F-16 fleet. By the end of the decade, the Air Force would operate a combined fleet of F-15SG, F-35A and F-35B fighter jets.

The ministry has also proposed a SG$20.2 billion (U.S. $15 billion) defense budget — an increase from last year’s SG$17.98 billion (U.S. $13.36 billion) allocation.

For several years Singapore has steadily allocated around 3% of its gross domestic product for defense spending, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute think tank. This consistency has allowed the country to upgrade its aircraft fleet as well as modernize existing platforms.

The military had undertaken a massive modernization push set to materialize in 2040.

“Today we are reaping dividends of the sum we put up steadily over the past 20 years [on defense spending],” Ng said.

Singaporean leaders during the budget deliberations expressed concerns over Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and economic disagreements between the U.S. and China.

“We are all concerned that the U.S. and China can clash over Taiwan, and if that happens it will be a very bleak Asia for a very long time,” Ng acknowledged. “I want to make clear that if ever something similar happens to us here in Singapore, [the Ministry of Defence and the Singaporea Armed Forces] do not plan to depend on another country to come to our rescue.”

Paparo’s confirmation was advanced by a voice vote without any objections late Wednesday evening, alongside 25 other senior military promotions. The chamber also confirmed Aprille Joy Ericsson as assistant secretary of defense within the Department of Defense’s research office in a voice vote.

Paparo will replace Adm. John Aquilino, who has served in the INDOPACOM role since April 2021. Paparo currently serves as commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, and was nominated for the new role last August.

How Adm. Paparo will lead the US military in the Indo-Pacific

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 1, Paparo listed China, Russia and North Korea as the most pressing threats to U.S. military interests in the Pacific.

“If confirmed, I will ensure that we maintain the overmatch that preserves stability today, tomorrow, next week and for the decades to come,” he said.

Paparo is the son of an enlisted Marine and the grandson of an enlisted sailor who fought in World War II, according to his command biography. The Pennsylvania native has served in a variety of leadership roles during his 37-year military career.

A TOPGUN graduate, Paparo has logged more than 6,000 hours flying the F-14 Tomcat, the F-15 Eagle and the F/A-18 Super Hornet and has 1,100 carrier landings under his belt. As a fighter pilot, he took out a surface-to-air missile site in Kandahar during the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

He was one of hundreds of military leaders whose promotions and confirmations were held up for months last year after Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., staged a protest over the Defense Department’s abortion access policies.

Tuberville dropped those holds in December, but Paparo’s confirmation took several more weeks because of lingering background work by the Senate committee.

INDOPACOM oversees more than 380,000 American servicemembers stationed overseas and is responsible for all U.S. military activities in 36 nations.

Troops fired the XM7 rifle and XM250 automatic rifle, part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon program, at the Cold Regions Test Center at Fort Greeley, Alaska, according to an Army release.

That testing began in late January and ran through Feb. 9.

The XM7 rifle will replace the M4 carbine while the XM250 automatic rifle will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. Both are chambered in 6.8mm and slated for the close combat forces such as infantry, special operations, scouts, combat engineers, combat medics and forward observers.

The 6.8mm round intermediate caliber round is the first of its kind for U.S. forces and provides users a heavier round that can have lethal effects at greater distances and punch through barriers that stop the standard issue 5.56mm round, which is the caliber of the M4 and SAW.

Both weapons come with an advanced fire control, dubbed the XM157, that houses a ballistics computer to help shooters compensate for bullet drop and distance.

In 2022 the Army chose Sig Sauer to build the two weapons and produce the 6.8mm ammunition until the service upgrades the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant with a production line devoted exclusively to 6.8mm.

The same year the service chose Vortex Optics/Sheltered Wings to provide the XM157 fire control.

The 10-year weapons contract has a ceiling value of $4.5 billion, XM157 fire control cost ceiling is set at $2.7 billion, Army Times previously reported.

The M4 and SAW are expected to remain the primary small arms of non-close combat forces for the coming decades. Once fielded, the XM7 and XM250 will drop the “X” designator.

A platoon with the 101st Airborne Division conducted limited user tests of the rifle, carbine and optic in November. A not-yet-identified platoon with the 101st will officially field the weapon in September, Army Times previously reported.

Staff with the Army’s Cross Functional Team-Soldier Lethality, Program Executive Office-Soldier and the Joint Program Executive Office Armaments and Ammunitions worked with soldiers at the Alaska testing center to evaluate the weapon’s performance in extreme cold weather.

“Extreme cold can affect the weapon’s functionality, of course, but it also hinders a Soldier’s movement and mobility,” said Maj. Brandon Davis, a member of the SL CFT operations team. “So which sling does he prefer in these conditions? Can he or she effectively manipulate the widgets on the weapon wearing gloves? We’re getting after every aspect of how the NGSW impacts lethality and mobility under extreme conditions.”

The service has scheduled testing for the NGSW in extreme heat and humidity later this year, according to the release.

Anduril, serving as the prime contractor, plans to deliver “a modified, autonomy-ready Uncrewed Ground Vehicle (UGV) based on Hanwha’s proven Arion-SMET platform, which has already demonstrated its performance in highly-relevant and varied environments in the Indo-Pacific, including the latest Foreign Comparative Testing with the U.S. Army and Marine Corps in Hawaii,” the companies said in a Feb. 29 statement.

The Army chose General Dynamics Land Systems’ Multi-Utility Tactical Transport, or MUTT, for its SMET unmanned ground system in a first increment of the program. The $162.4 million contract, awarded in October 2019, would wrap up at the end of October 2024. GDLS won another follow-on contract in 2020.

Now the service has opened bids for the second increment of the program intended to carry gear and light payloads to decrease the burden to soldiers in the field. The Army is pursuing two major robotic combat vehicle platforms simultaneously: the Robotic Combat Vehicle meant to fight alongside Stryker and Bradley vehicles, and the SMET, which is likely to accompany lighter formations.

Anduril and the U.S. arm of South Korean defense firm Hanwha will also be working with Forterra, formerly RRAI, to incorporate its AutoDrive vehicle autonomy solution “to enable complex on and off-road maneuvers,” the statement reads.

“By combining Anduril’s electronics and software, Hanwha Defense USA’s proven hardware, and Forterra’s proven off-road vehicle autonomy stack, the partnership will bring speed, flexibility, and advanced capabilities to dismounted infantry,” Zach Mears, head of strategy at Anduril, said in the statement. “With a simplified user interface powered by Lattice, users will be able to quickly and easily command and control the S-MET to support lethal effects at the tactical edge.”

Lattice is Anduril’s software originally designed to counter drones and other threats, but has wider applicability for sharing battlefield information and data at a tactical level. Anduril is also teamed with American Rheinmetall Vehicles in the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle competition underway to eventually replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, bringing its Lattice capability to that effort as well.

The capability, Anduril states, will allow soldiers to operate the vehicle, manage payloads and communicate simultaneously in “complex environments.”

The team is focused on load-carrying, power generation capacity, reduced sustainment, survivability and a modular architecture for a wide array of payloads, the release details.

The robotic vehicle will have a low acoustic signature, “ensuring that it serves as an asset, not liability on the modern battlefield,” the statement adds.

Other expected competitors are Teledyne FLIR, GDLS, Rheinmetall, with teammate ST Engineering, and HDT.

Teledyne FLIR announced its bid in October at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

The Army has tightly held details on the competition such as the timeline for evaluating and choosing winners and what comes after and has not posted any solicitations on the public domain for federal contract opportunities, Sam.gov.

The service is focused on rigorous experimentation with robots and emerging technology to develop integrated fighting formations of both humans and robots. The Army calls it “human-machine integration” and is evaluating exactly how robotic technologies can be coupled with the best of what humans can bring to the table on the battlefield.

The latest military package bound for Ukraine, announced this month by the German government, included over 120,000 artillery projectiles of the Soviet-standard caliber. The Berlin government specified that the deliveries were coming from industry stocks financed with public funds.

Local newspaper Der Spiegel reported that rounds were ordered from Bulgaria, a key producer of this type of ammunition in Europe.

“Most of Ukraine’s artillery is still from the Soviet era – standards were 122mm, 130mm and 152mm, so getting more of this caliber ammunition for Kyiv is valuable,” Mark Cancian, senior adviser for the international security program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.

Ukrainian forces still rely on older equipment, including the D-30 or 2S1 Gvozdika howitzers, which can only fire non-NATO rounds.

At the Munich Conference, the President of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, said his government was also able to source nearly one million rounds from abroad, including 800,000 of the 155mm type and 300,000 of the 122mm type.

He added that the ammunition could be sent swiftly to the embattled country if funding was secured from other allies.

“Buying ammunition on the world market makes a lot of sense because of limits on what Europe and the U.S. can produce – Washington has done a lot of that already, having provided 200,000 152mm, 40,000 130mm, and 40,000 of 122mm type,” Cancian said.

A recent report by the CSIS think tank noted that shortages of Soviet-standard shells – 122mm and 152mmm – have gradually decreased the value of Soviet-era artillery.

While the United States has scouted the globe to buy this type of ammunition, Cancian says that some states may just be more inclined to sell it to nations other than the U.S.

“There are likely some countries who will sell to the Czech Republic but not the U.S. and who may also want to remain anonymous,” he said.

Nick Reynolds, research fellow for land warfare at the London-based RUSI think tank, said Ukraine should still strive to convert its artillery equipment to the NATO standard over time, as newer munitions are superior in explosive power, range and accuracy.

But, he added, “the scale of the war and the material requirements are enormous. Ukraine is firing 155mm shells and wearing out 155mm barrels far faster than either can be produced in Europe.”

One stopgap option would transfer additional weapons from U.S. stocks without funding to replenish that equipment. Another option uses the Excess Defense Articles program to send U.S. equipment to third-party countries that then send older weapons to Kyiv.

The European Union is also stepping up its assistance. It passed $54 billion in economic support for Ukraine after Hungary dropped its opposition.

But none of these stopgap measures to staunch the bleeding come close to the influx of arms for Kyiv that Congress could unlock if it passes the $95 billion foreign aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

“The consequence of not doing so is likely Ukraine’s defeat,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Defense News last week after returning from a congressional delegation to Europe. “There is not a plan B there. There’s certainly more that Europe could do, but there are certain weapons systems that only the United States can provide and maintain. And there is a hard limit to the amount of resources Europe can put in if the United States chooses to leave the coalition.”

Ukrainian officials also attributed Russia’s recent conquest of Avdiivka to the lack of available weaponry when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., led a congressional delegation to the war-torn country last week.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has refused to hold a vote on the foreign aid bill, which includes $48.3 billion in additional military assistance for Ukraine. The Senate passed the bill 70-29 earlier this month over objections from former President Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee.

Congress passed a cumulative $113 billion in military and economic aid for Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, but has not provided additional funding since December 2022.

Biden hosted congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, where he joined Democrats and outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in pushing Johnson to pass the bill.

In the meantime, the Pentagon is weighing whether it should use roughly $4 billion left of drawdown authority to continue arming Ukraine from U.S. weapons stockpiles, even though it does not have the money to replenish those inventories without the foreign aid bill, CNN reported Wednesday.

The Pentagon did not directly address deliberations about transferring additional weapons without replenishment funding.

“The [Defense Department] continues to urge Congress to pass a supplemental to support Ukraine in its time of need and to replenish our stocks,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Garron Garn told Defense News in a statement.

The Pentagon used its last $1 billion in Ukraine replenishment funding to backfill U.S. stockpiles in December, with the White House noting that would be the last remaining assistance, absent congressional action.

“At issue here again is the question of impacting our own readiness, as a nation, and the responsibilities that we have,” Pentagon press secretary Gen. Patrick Ryder said last month. “While we do have that $4.2 billion in authority, we don’t have the funds available to replenish those stocks, should we expend that. And with no timeline in sight, we have to make those hard decisions.”

The remaining $4.2 billion in Ukraine transfer authority stems from an accounting error the Pentagon made last year. The error prompted Pentagon Inspector General Robert Storch to announce an audit of the valuation of weapons sent to Ukraine.

Excess Defense Articles

Another, more limited option involves third-party countries transferring Soviet-era equipment to Ukraine in exchange for more U.S. weapons through the Pentagon’s Excess Defense Articles program. The program also allows the U.S. to send equipment that helps countries transition away from Russian arms.

“The United States is providing security assistance to partners such as Ecuador and Zambia to help them transition off Russian equipment, but there’s more we can and must do,” the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, Jessica Lewis, said in December.

Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa said in January that the U.S. would send $200 million in refurbished weapons to help fight cartels in exchange for “scrap” equipment. But Noboa backtracked last week after Russia imposed a ban on Ecuadorian banana and clove imports.

“To our surprise, the United States has publicly stated that this equipment will be used in the armed conflict in Ukraine, and we do not want to be part of it,” Noboa said.

The Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported in January that the U.S. is providing Greece with equipment through the Excess Defense Articles program, including two C-130H aircraft, three Protector-class ships and 60 Bradley armored fighting vehicles.

“Greece has provided substantial military assistance to Ukraine, including Soviet-era BMP infantry fighting vehicles, artillery and small arms,” the U.S. State Department told Defense News. “We thank the government of Greece for its generosity and encourage additional donations, in the future.”

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees the Excess Defense Articles program, has not updated the public list of transfers since 2020, despite a congressional requirement that it do so. As such, it’s unclear what other countries are receiving U.S. weapons through the program.

The agency told Defense News it expects to update the list within “several weeks” but did not explain why updates stopped in 2020.

Noah Robertson contributed to this report.

Faced with an aggressive Russia, a war of attrition in Ukraine and uncertainty about U.S. reliability, anxious European allies are accelerating their defense spending. This year they are to collectively meet NATO’s target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense. And they have logged nine consecutive years of growth in their defense budgets.

Spending more, however, doesn’t necessarily mean spending well. NATO’s 2% goal is important as a baseline input metric, but it is unlikely to be enough to ensure that Europe strengthens its defenses before Russia reconstitutes its depleted forces. To assure that defense resources are spent well, some clear output metrics are needed to define what Europe’s military capabilities should be.

As the alliance continues its most urgent task — helping Ukraine win — it must address this important longer-term challenge of rebalancing trans-Atlantic defense. Doing so will mean squaring a triangle: ensuring Europe’s capacity to better defend itself against Russia and manage crises along its southern periphery; addressing European aspirations for greater strategic autonomy; and maintaining confidence that the United States can adequately uphold its commitments in both the North Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region.

We have called squaring this triangle “achieving European strategic responsibility.”

In the past, Europe has sought “autonomy” without providing adequate defense resources, while the United States has wanted greater European defense contributions without diminishing U.S. influence. These tensions have been exacerbated by inadequate cooperation between U.S. and European defense industries.

NATO’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington this summer provides an opportunity to reconcile these two perspectives and find a new strategic balance. To do so, European allies should focus on achieving two military capability or output goals as quickly as possible.

First, Europe should build its conventional military capabilities to a level that would provide at least half of all the forces and capabilities — including the strategic enablers such as strategic lift, air-to-air refueling and operational intelligence — required to deter and, if needed, to defeat a major-power aggressor.

Should a conflict simultaneously break out with China in Asia and with Russia in Europe, the United States may not be able to deploy adequate reinforcements to Europe. European allies need to be able to pick up the slack.

Second, European allies should develop capabilities to conduct crisis management operations in Europe’s neighborhood without today’s heavy reliance on U.S. enablers. The European Union’s goal to develop the capacity to generate an “intervention force” of 5,000 individuals who could deploy beyond EU boundaries is a small yet useful start. Much more is needed.

Meeting these two output goals would allow Europe to become the first responder to most crises in its neighborhood, acting through NATO, through the EU or through ad hoc coalitions of the willing. It would permit the United States to shift some of its forces and strategic focus to the Indo-Pacific region without significant reduction in the capabilities needed to deter Russia.

To achieve these two output goals, NATO allies could agree at the summit to use NATO’s Defense Planning Process to create a minimum level of military ambition necessary to attain European strategic responsibility. European allies and Canada should firmly commit to investing sufficient resources to ensure that within a few years they can meet 50% of all of NATO’s minimum capability requirements. Similar informal goals already exist; now they should be formalized and implemented at the summit.

Doing half of what’s needed within the alliance is an absolute minimal requirement for Europe to attain strategic responsibility. It assumes the Europeans can still count on the Americans. But if former President Donald Trump wins the November election and reneges on America’s NATO commitments, doing half will not be nearly enough. So Europe should not delay a moment longer. A delay could be fatal, as Russia is on a war footing, has attained significant combat experience and will reconstitute its drained forces as quickly as possible.

Achieving strategic responsibility for Europe will require more — not less — trans-Atlantic consultations. New mechanisms for NATO-EU coordination and industrial cooperation will be needed. Now is the moment for the U.S. and Europe to shed their contending views and to make European strategic responsibility a win-win for both sides of the Atlantic.

Hans Binnendijk, formerly a senior director for defense policy on the U.S. National Security Council, is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank. Daniel S. Hamilton, formerly a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state, is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank. Alexander R. Vershbow, formerly a NATO deputy secretary general, is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council.

The government’s “Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet” review, released Feb. 20, advocates for a flotilla of 26 warships, more than double the 11 hulls the service currently possesses. The government has accepted the recommendations except for one regarding the continuation of an upgrade for aging Anzac-class frigates.

“The size, lethality and capabilities of the future surface combatant fleet ensures that our Navy is equipped to meet the evolving strategic challenges of our region,” Chief of Navy Vice Adm. Mark Hammond said in a statement following the report’s unveiling.

Jennifer Parker, an expert associate at the National Security College within the Australian National University, told Defense News the force could achieve its new goal, even if “plans of this magnitude are going to have challenges.”

The plan

To supplement its forthcoming nuclear-powered submarines, to be acquired under the AUKUS agreement with the U.K. and U.S., the future surface combatant fleet will feature nine so-called tier 1 destroyers and frigates, 11 smaller tier 2 frigates, and six optionally manned vessels.

Tier 1 vessels will comprise three existing Hobart-class air warfare destroyers — to receive an upgrade to the Aegis combat system and the installation of Tomahawk missiles — and six new Hunter-class anti-submarine frigates. BAE Systems was originally supposed to produce nine frigates, with the first to be commissioned in 2034.

Parker, a former naval officer, said the most significant problem for the service is a looming capability gap, as the first-of-class Anzac frigate will not sail again, and a second is set to retire in 2026, meaning the Navy will have nine total warships by the end of this decade.

“Most predict an increased period of risk in the late 2020s, and that is where Australia has the capability gap,” Parker said, noting the the service should consider how to maximize its remaining capability and operational availability during this time.

With this pending shortfall, the review recommended commissioning 11 general-purpose frigates at least the size of the Anzacs to “provide maritime and land strike, air defence and escort capabilities,” the government explained in a summary of the report.

Australia plans to procure the first three frigates from overseas, with the remainder constructed in Henderson, Western Australia. The Navy has narrowed contenders to Germany’s MEKO A-200, Japan’s Mogami class, South Korea’s FFX Batch II/III, and Spain’s Alfa 3000. The government will make a selection next year, with the first delivery scheduled in 2030.

The planned six large optionally crewed surface vessels are based on an American design and feature 32 missile cells. Built in Henderson and destined to enter service from the mid-2030s, Parker said these are not traditional surface combatants because “their role will be to extend the magazine capability” of other ships.

Although Defence Minister Richard Marles said they would be crewed, Parker predicted they could end up as unmanned platforms.

“There are legal issues with lethal autonomous weapons and operating uncrewed surface vessels, so until those legal issues are overcome, the Australian government wasn’t about to announce that we’re going to have some sort of floating magazine that can launch missiles,” she said.

Apart from surface combatants, the review proposed a fleet of 25 “minor war vessels” for constabulary tasks. These include six Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels, or OPV, slashed from the original 12 that Luerssen Australia is constructing.

“The OPV is an inefficient use of resources for civil maritime security operations and does not possess the survivability and self-defence systems to contribute to a surface combatant mission,” the review stated.

The money

Marles said the entire plan is “fully funded” thanks to an additional AU$11.1 billion (U.S. $7.3 billion) allocated over the next decade, including AU$1.7 billion (U.S. $1.1 billion) in the next four years.

Parker said this amount is “probably feasible,” but added that the Treasury plans to only increase defense spending from 2027 to 2028. “I don’t know how they’re going to be able to resource those things without increasing defense spending in May,” she explained.

But even with the budget allocation, it doesn’t mean the Defence Department can spend that money, she said.

“They still need to go through the approval processes for that specific project,” she added. “I think the challenge is they need to convince the Australian public that defense requires increased spending.

Marles had promised defense expenditure would move from an anticipated 2.1% of gross domestic product by 2030 to 2.4% by that time, but Parker said that is insufficient to fund so many naval acquisitions.

The people

Amid the plans for new construction, a new shipbuilding plan is due later this year.

Parker noted many questions remain over that sector’s workforce, but a nationwide approach addressing education, migration and infrastructure factors would help.

But another challenge is crewing. The Defence Department planned to raise the number of military members by 2,201 in the 2022-2023 time frame, but instead it suffered a net loss of 1,389 uniformed personnel.

The U.S. military may run out of personnel funds before the end of the year, be forced to scale back operations and see ongoing modernization efforts harmed if Congress fails to pass a defense spending bill by the end of next week, service leaders warned Tuesday.

The undersecretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force said they’d have billions of dollars in “misaligned” funds — money that exists but not in the right budget lines to support their current spending needs — if they’re stuck with a full-year continuing resolution that keeps fiscal 2023 spending levels through the rest of 2024.

They agree that they’d have to prioritize current operations first, then people and then acquisition and modernization in a CR.

“You see sailors and Marines across the globe today, performing important missions: the Red Sea is an excellent example of how current operations take precedence,” Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters at the Pentagon.

Without sufficient funds, he said, “we have to make tough choices. But between the ability to fight tonight and be ready for all the threats, versus preparing for the future and modernizing our forces — it is a tough decision, but we have to lay our chips somewhere, and that’s on the ability to perform our missions today.”

Raven said the Navy’s ability to make that prioritization, though, would require Congress to grant the services some “unprecedented flexibilities” in the form of massive reprogrammings, or moving money from one line item into another.

The Navy, for example, would have $26 billion in the wrong places, and would need Congress to approve $13 billion in formal reprogrammings — more than twice the money Congress approves for the entire Defense Department in a typical year, he said.

But the reprogramming frenzy would be vital to mitigate the risk the services would take in their modernization efforts and industry would face if contracts are delayed or nixed altogether.

The Army is facing a similar misalignment in funds, to the tune of $6 billion.

“These are production rate increases, new starts — both in programs for acquisition as well as military construction projects that we cannot start,” Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo said.

The Air Force’s misalignment in funds equates to over $13 billion and “impacts are particularly challenging in the Space Force, who has seen their budgets rising over the last couple of years,” Air Force Under Secretary Jones said.

‘Burning hotter’

Further complicating funding this fiscal year is the fact that Congress has yet to pass a sweeping supplemental request, which the Pentagon hoped would supply weapons to Ukraine and Israel in support of ongoing wars for both countries and would also fund the Southwest border mission. The lack of supplemental funding compounds the impact of a long-term CR, Camarillo said.

The Army is spending $500 million out of its base budget for operations costs in the European theater, another $100 million in the U.S. Central Command area of operations and another $500 million for the operations along the U.S. Southwest border.

“At one point in time, there was a thought that all of this could be funded through a supplemental, and it is now currently, today, in FY24, being funded 100% out of the Army’s base budget,” Camarillo said.

“We are just burning hotter than we normally would across all of our appropriations accounts,” he said. “[U.S. Army Europe and Africa] in Germany has explained that … they will run out of money this summer in the absence of extraordinary relief, aka a reprogramming.”

This will be a problem across the board, he added, to include running out of funds in the Army’s military personnel account.

Industry impacts

The services planned to ramp up munitions spending in FY24, to bolster their own stockpiles as a hedge against a future fight and to replenish allies’ and partners’ stocks.

A year-long CR puts that industry ramp-up in peril.

Camarillo said he was “particularly concerned” the CR would not allow the services to “send that strong signal to give industry the incentive to be able to facilitize, invest in a workforce and be able to do those extra shifts that we know that we need in order to restore our munitions.”

Camarillo said the Army intended to kick off a multiyear procurement effort for the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) interceptors in FY24. Under a full-year CR, it would be $1.2 billion short to reach the production rates needed to achieve the economic order quantities and savings associated with the multiyear procurement deal.

Lockheed Martin has invested significantly in the PAC-3 MSE line to grow production from 550 missiles per year to 650. The Army requested in its FY24 budget $775 million to ramp up that production. The company intends to grow production beyond 650 in the following year, as demand increases due to the war in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East.

Camarillo added the Army could not begin to field its Mid Range Capability missile to the first unit, which is important to its Pacific deterrence, due to new programs not being allowed to start under continuing resolutions. Nor could it increase production levels for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, Javelin missile, and 155mm munitions.

“I will just say that we have always said our goal was to get on 155 artillery 100,000 per month rounds by the end of calendar year ‘25. We cannot get there unless we get both the appropriation and we get the supplemental,” Camarillo said.

“It’s very challenging, because we’re asking industry to lean as far forward as they possibly can and to make investments both in additional personnel, unique tooling and machining that’s required to ramp up production capacity,” Camarillo said.

And the Army planned to buy 225 Coyote counter-unmanned aerial system interceptors – a spending need that hits home, he said, due to the recent deaths of three soldiers in Jordan who were killed by a drone strike from Iran-backed militants — but those, too, could not be purchased in a year-long CR.

For the Navy, Raven said the sea service wanted to double its Standard Missile 6 spending — something particularly timely, as Navy ships are expending the older SM-2 missiles almost daily in the Red Sea, shooting down Houthi missiles and drones — but that cannot happen under the full-year CR.

After the Navy just last week awarded a maintenance contract to HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding to overhaul the attack submarine Boise – which has languished at the pier since 2015 and has been unable to undergo repairs at either a public or private repair yard – Raven said a full-year CR would render the Navy unable to actually fund and execute that contract this year due to a $600 million shortfall in the submarine maintenance funds.

It would also see a $800 million shortfall in amphibious ship spending that could put at risk America-class amphibious assault ship construction, a $2 billion shortfall in submarine construction spending that would threaten the Virginia-class attack sub program, and more.

For the Air Force, Kristyn Jones, who is performing the duties of the under secretary of the Air Force, said the service has five contractors onboard for its collaborative combat aircraft effort, but that wouldn’t be able to move forward.

The full-year CR would also hamper production increases on the Joint Strike Missile and the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, both of which the Air Force says it needs for a high-end fight, as well as spending on the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile for facilitization to support future production increases.

“We hear over and over: the industry wants that solid demand signal so they know how to invest, they can support the facilitization — and by having this uncertainty, it really has negative impacts across the defense industrial base,” Jones said.

But budget uncertainties and a possible 1% cut to funding levels could jeopardize the Air Force’s ability to set up a new Integrated Capabilities Command and other changes in time to have the right impact, Gen. Dave Allvin said at a Brookings Institution event.

“It’s not a matter to me of: this is an optional thing that we think is a good idea to do,” Allvin said. “The strategic environment compels us to do this. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a situation next year, then the year after and the year after that, where we fall further behind.”

Allvin, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, and other top officials unveiled the revamp — the service’s largest since the post-Cold War period in the 1990s — earlier this month at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air Warfare Symposium. The shift is part of the service’s effort to better position to counter major adversaries, particularly China, and win a high-tech, modern war, all while dealing with budgetary limitations.

The creation of a new Integrated Capabilities Command is one of the biggest changes in the works for the Air Force.

Today, the Air Force often develops the future capabilities it will need partially within its major commands and piecemeal.

But the single, centralized Integrated Capabilities Command in the works will take charge of developing the Air Force’s future requirements into new systems or other capabilities and allow a more unified approach.

This new command “understands the impacts of modernizing one part of our Air Force with the other part of our Air Force, and it helps us develop a more cohesive and coherent force design into the future,” Allvin said. “We have to make quality decisions faster. And sometimes, when you diffuse the power structures and the decision-making authority across the functions, it’s very hard to get an enterprise solution on time.”

These changes might not be noticed outside of the Air Force, Allvin said, but he predicted they would have a significant effect internally.

The service is working on setting up the Integrated Capabilities Command as soon as possible, he said, so it can start changing the way it conducts long-term planning for the future force. But he acknowledged the full reorganization could be done in pieces and take years — and may not be completely finished when his tenure as chief of staff ends in four years.

“It’s all I’m going to be doing … from start to finish,” Allvin said. “If I do my job, and get the support and I’m able to build a team and build the advocacy, you’re going to see a drastically changed Air Force.”

He said it is too early to tell how much the reorganization might cost, though he doesn’t expect it to be “a large fiscal burden.” He believes the Air Force already has most of the resources and abilities it needs, and must start moving on these changes immediately.

“This Integrated Capabilities Command, I can’t tell you, to the airman, how many are going to be there,” Allvin said. “But we also can’t wait for that in order to get started. We need to know that we’re going to move forward and adapt on the fly.”

But with the fiscal 2024 budget languishing in Congress, the Air Force — like the rest of the government — is still operating on a continuing resolution funding it at 2023 levels. If lawmakers don’t pass this year’s budget by April 30, a further 1% cut will kick in.

That would not only jeopardize the Air Force’s ability to make these changes, Allvin said, it would also create “a more existential issue.”

“The one thing that we really lose is time, and our ability to be able to spend the precious resources on the things that we had planned on in order to keep pace,” Allvin said.