Douglas A. Macgregor's Blog, page 21

Is it time to bet on a government shutdown? [Video]

The US government is just a few days away from the end of the fiscal year, with online oddsmakers saying the chances of a government shutdown are high. But if you’re a gambler, where should you put your money?

In the above video, Breaking Defense’s Aaron Mehta walks you through the latest back and forth around the shutdown and makes his prediction for what happens on Oct. 1.

Featuring insights and analysis from our team of reporters, The Congressional Roundup is here to make sure you know what’s going on inside the halls of the Hill as news happens, all wrapped up in a tight package.

To make sure you don’t miss the latest episode — and that you’re getting all of our coverage from the Hill — subscribe to our congressional newsletter below.

hbspt.forms.create({ portalId: '2097098', formId: '1ae78672-6dbf-4528-ae72-18d629c6b1f4', target: '#hubspot-form-1ae78672-6dbf-4528-ae72-18d629c6b1f4', });

Is it time to bet on a government shutdown?

The US government is just a few days away from the end of the fiscal year, with online oddsmakers saying the chances of a government shutdown are high. But if you’re a gambler, where should you put your money?

In the above video, Breaking Defense’s Aaron Mehta walks you through the latest back and forth around the shutdown and makes his prediction for what happens on Oct. 1.

Featuring insights and analysis from our team of reporters, The Congressional Roundup is here to make sure you know what’s going on inside the halls of the Hill as news happens, all wrapped up in a tight package.

To make sure you don’t miss the latest episode — and that you’re getting all of our coverage from the Hill — subscribe to our congressional newsletter below.

hbspt.forms.create({ portalId: '2097098', formId: '1ae78672-6dbf-4528-ae72-18d629c6b1f4', target: '#hubspot-form-1ae78672-6dbf-4528-ae72-18d629c6b1f4', });

German military to invest $41B in space capabilities

WASHINGTON — German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius today announced that Berlin will invest €35 billion ($41 billion) over the next five years on space security, including improved cybersecurity.

“[W]e are building structures within the Bundeswehr to enable us to effectively defend and deter in space in the medium and long term,” he told the Federation of German Industries’ annual Space Congress in Berlin, according to an online translation of an MoD press release.

“We plan to acquire new satellite constellations — for early warning, reconnaissance, and communications. We will also utilize dual-use systems, meaning technologies that can be deployed for both civilian and military purposes,” Pistorius added.

That plan, according to the release, includes spending on:

hardening systems against disruptions and attacksimproved situational awareness through radars, telescopes and the future use of sentinel satellitesthe creation of redundancies through several networked satellite constellationssecured, also on-demand available, transport capacities into spacea dedicated military satellite operations center in the Bundeswehr Space Command

Pistorius specifically called out the need for improved cybersecurity for “all space systems” — and back in May Maj. Gen. Michael Traut, commander of German Space Command, said “self-protection measures [or] built-in self-protection” for satellites was on his “Christmas list.”

As for the motivating factor, Pistorius cited increasing threats to Western space assets from Russia and China as the impetus for the new spending plan.

“Satellite networks today are an Achilles’ heel of modern societies. Whoever attacks them paralyzes entire nations,” Pistorius said.

For example, he noted the February 2023 Russian cyberattack on Viasat’s communication satellite network in the run up to the invasion of Ukraine that also shut down German wind turbines, according to a report in Defense News.

Pistorius also alleged that Russian Luch/Olymp satellites have been shadowing two communications satellites operated by US firm Intelsat that are used by the Bundeswehr.

The Luch/Olymp birds, characterized by Moscow as “inspector satellites,” have been making close passes around a number of US and Western nation satellites in geosynchronous Earth orbit since at least 2015.

The MoD is reaching out to German and European industry for assistance in making its space plans a reality, Pistorius stressed.

He explained that Berlin wants to “promote innovations from small and medium-sized enterprises in the future in a non-bureaucratic and early stage — and use larger companies as system integrators to integrate small businesses and startups,” according to the MoD press release.

Europe’s major launch company, Arianespace, announced today that it has been awarded a contract by the Bundeswehr to launch two SATCOMBw Stufe 3 satellites on heavy-lift Ariane 6 rockets. The new satellites are to replace the COMSATBw 1 and 2 military communications birds.

At the same time, Pitorius said, MoD is “also currently looking at market-available solutions. Specifically where this technological shortcut makes sense.”

While the company didn’t cite the specific agency involved due to security concerns, Planet Labs Germany GmbH, the American firm’s European headquarters, announced on July 1 that it had received a “multi-year €240 million agreement, funded by the German government, in support of European peace and security” for “high-resolution imagery and timely intelligence.”

Today in Berlin, the company announced plans “to begin production of next-generation, high-resolution Pelican satellites in Germany” under a deal “expected to exceed 8 figures” in capital investment.

Caleb Henry, director of research at Quilty Space, told Breaking Defense that one big winner from the MoD’s plan will be OHB, headquartered in Bremen, which Henry described as Germany’s “biggest space prime.”

OHB operates five aging SAR-Lupe synthetic aperture radar satellites that provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to the German military. In 2023, the company launched two replacements, called SARah, but were moribund until a recovery maneuver to deploy their jammed antennas this spring brought them into service, according to a May 27 report by market analysis firm Seradata.

Henry said he would also “be watching to see if this proposal has any impact on Germany’s emerging launch providers, notably Isar Aerospace and RFA.”

“Germany has discussed its own MEO [medium Earth orbit] constellation as well, which would be a notable investment in sovereign space systems,” Henry added.

He noted that the move may be the start of a trend away from France being the only big player in European space.

“What’s interesting to me is that for a long time, when looking at where Europe, if you kind of ask the the old Henry Kissinger question, ‘when I call Europe, who do I call?’ for the space industry that has always been France. But in recent years, we’ve started to see more of a pendulum swing towards Germany,” he said.

“And so to me, it’s the culmination of a … growing desire in Germany for greater space autonomy, and a willingness to pursue that, if necessary, on an independent basis,” Henry said.

Amid strike, Boeing taking rare step of hiring permanent replacements for union workers

AFA 2025 — With Boeing still at an impasse with its St. Louis-based union almost two months into a strike, the company is in the process of making an unusual move: bringing on permanent nonunion hires to replace them.  

About 3,200 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) went on strike on Aug. 4, and on Sept. 12 rejected a subsequent contract offer from Boeing. With no date set for Boeing and IAM to come back to the negotiating table, Boeing is interviewing prospective candidates to start taking what were once union jobs, said Dan Gillian, Boeing’s vice president of Air Dominance and senior executive at the St. Louis site.

“We’ve had our first hiring event. We’ve received hundreds of qualified applicants. We’re working through that now,” he said in a Tuesday interview at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference.  

Gillian declined to provide specifics on how many permanent workers it intends to bring on and what jobs it will try to fill first, but said that “we certainly have some areas where we think we can more rapidly bring people online than in other areas.”

“I won’t comment on specific job codes,” he added, “but we do think that based on the protracted nature of the strike, and per our contingency plans, now is the time to be making some of these decisions to begin bringing on additional staff.”

Boeing’s IAM workforce in St. Louis is overwhelmingly focused on its defense business, producing legacy fighters, several aircraft still in their development stages and a portion of its weapons portfolio. Those workers will also build the sixth-generation F-47 fighter, the first of which is currently being manufactured, according to the Air Force’s top general. 

Any new hires to the company’s defense unit will join the business at a pivotal moment. Boeing’s defense division has started to show signs of recovery from supply chain and technical challenges that’s cost billions in losses across numerous fixed-price aircraft development programs. At the same time, the company is ramping up production of the F-15EX, sunsetting the Super Hornet line, and standing up production of the F-47, with a sixth-generation Navy fighter contract potentially looming.

The strike also comes as Boeing’s commercial arm refocuses on production quality following a 2024 incident where a door plug blew off the fuselage of a 737 MAX in mid-flight. The National Transportation Safety Board in its investigation found that “Boeing’s failure to provide adequate training, guidance and oversight” of its factory staff ultimately led to the incident, according to an executive summary of the report published in June. (Boeing responded at the time that it regretted the accident and was focusing on improving its safety culture.)

Gillian said that Boeing’s current offer, which includes a 24 percent general wage increase and 45 percent average wage growth, is a “compelling” deal that “represents a lot of respect” for the workers in St. Louis. However, he added that the company’s previous two-tier wage structure allowed wages to become “out of control relative to the market.”

“I think my teammates should be paid at the very top of the scale. They build airplanes and weapon systems and all kinds of complex things that make sense for them to be paid at the very top of the scale,” he said. At the same time, “I have to balance that with the needs that our customers have and the economics of our business, and I think we’ve done that. And I remain open to talking about how to move things around, but the answer cannot be more.”

Just an hour after the interview, the union held a press conference to discuss the ongoing strike. Informed of Gillian’s comments, Jody Bennett, IAM’s lead negotiator, didn’t mince words.

“Why don’t you ask Dan if they’ve ever presented a deal to a union that they didn’t say was a very good deal? Obviously, anything the company slides across, they’re going to say it’s a very good deal,” he said. “Our membership doesn’t think it’s a very good deal. Matter of fact, they rejected it. … So please feel free to ask him if he’s ever given a final offer in which he said, ‘Hey, you ought to turn this down because it’s not worth a shit.’” 

Boeing’s plans to hire permanent workers is damaging its relationship with its workforce, he said, adding that many machinists were considered essential personnel during the COVID pandemic and have years of experience that cannot be replaced by new hires.

“What’s going to happen is they continue to push forward with replacement workers, they’re going to put their product at risk, in my estimation. … It’s hard to find people that can do this work, and when you do get people in and you get them trained, you certainly want to retain their expertise, because they’re very high skilled,” Bennett said. “They’re going to damage the reputation, plus they’re already sending a statement out to our folks by even talking about permanent replacement workers, that a lot of these folks are already talking about looking for other jobs elsewhere, because it’s pretty clear to them that Boeing doesn’t care about them.”

Gillian said that any new employees hired permanently to take over union roles either already have aerospace manufacturing experience or will be trained by Boeing in the skills needed to successfully do the job.

“We won’t compromise on that,” he said. “I also appreciate our partnership with the Defense Contract Management Agency, who is helping with their second set of eyes to make sure that we’re doing things the right way, and I am very confident that the product we’re delivering to our customer meets the highest standard that we have.”

Although both Gillian and Bennett indicated that they are willing to restart negotiations to work out a contract agreement, the path forward remains unclear.

Last week, IAM members ratified their own proposed deal, which was developed without Boeing’s input.

According to Bennett, the union proposal differs from Boeing’s offer in three ways. The proposal keeps wage increases the same as Boeing’s offer, but makes some changes to allow for growth at the top of the pay scale. It increases Boeing’s match on St. Louis workers’ retirement accounts to be at the same level as its union employees in the Pacific Northwest, and it bumps the ratification bonus from $4,000 to $10,000.

Gillian said that from Boeing’s perspective, the union’s proposal is “way beyond the economics of what we put on the table” and “isn’t real” because it was not a result of collective bargaining between the company and IAM leadership.

Impacts To Aircraft Production

During a July earnings call, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg downplayed the impacts of a potential strike, saying that one wouldn’t reach the magnitude of last year’s machinist strike in Seattle, which lasted about two months and cost Boeing, its suppliers and its customers about $9.6 billion.

“The order of magnitude of this is much, much less than what we saw last fall. That was roughly 30,000 machinists,” he said. “So we’ll manage through this. I wouldn’t worry too much about the implications of the strike.”

Steve Parker, the chief executive of Boeing’s defense unit, declined to comment Tuesday when asked whether the strike could lead to additional losses on fixed-price defense contracts in Boeing’s third quarter.

Even with the ongoing strike, Boeing has been able to keep deliveries of its Joint Direct Attack Munitions roughly at the same pace they were prior to the strike and has continued to deliver F-15EXs and F/A-18s, with Gillian stating that from the customer’s perspective, those aircraft deliveries are “coming about as expected.”

As part of its contingency plan, Boeing has qualified some of its managers to perform work on the production line and brought on temporary workers “to add capacity,” he said. Nonetheless, the production pace for programs like the F-15EX has slowed.

“Definitely not having everybody at work every day has an impact down throughout the production system on something like an F-15, and through our contingency plans, we’re working to mitigate that as much as possible, and we are able to continue delivering airplanes. I’d say we are slowing our rate ramp increase a bit as a result of that.”

Boeing planned to increase F-15EX production from one to two aircraft a month by the end of 2026, Flight Global reported earlier this year. Asked whether Boeing would be able to keep to that timeline, Gillian said the company would not be able to forecast the timing for the ramp up until the end of the strike. 

However, he added that the company has been working to incorporate additional process and engineering improvements during the strike in the hopes of increasing efficiency when workers do return.

“I’m optimistic that those improvements will help me meet those rate ramp requirements in front of me,” he said. 

Updated at 9/25/2025 at 3:37pm EST to provide more information about wage increases in Boeing’s proposed contract.

DoD issues replacement for risk management framework

WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense unveiled a new five-phased framework for assessing cyber risks on its networks, dubbed the Cybersecurity Risk Management Construct, to replace its old risk management system.

“The previous Risk Management Framework was overly reliant on static checklists and manual processes that failed to account for operational needs and cyber survivability requirements. These limitations left defense systems vulnerable to sophisticated adversaries and slowed the delivery of secure capabilities to the field,” a statement from the department said. “The CSRMC addresses these gaps by shifting from ‘snapshot in time’ assessments to dynamic, automated, and continuous risk management, enabling cyber defense at the speed of relevance required for modern warfare.”

According to the statement, the new framework involves a five-phase lifecycle aligned to system development and operations with an additional ten foundational tenets.

The five-phased lifecycle includes:

a design phase where security is embedded at the outset, ensuring resilience is built into system architectures;a build phase where secure designs are implemented as systems achieve Initial Operating Capability;a test phase where comprehensive validation and stress testing are performed prior to Full Operating Capability;an onboard phase where automated continuous monitoring is activated at deployment to sustain system visibility; andan operations phase where real-time dashboards and alerting mechanisms provide immediate threat detection and rapid response.

Among the ten core principles, the DoD listed automation to drive efficiency; continuous monitoring and authority to operate to enable real-time situational awareness; DevSecOps to support secure and agile development; cyber survivability to enable operations in contested environments; and cybersecurity assessment to integrate threat informed testing to validate security.

“This construct represents a cultural fundamental shift in how the Department approaches cybersecurity,” Katie Arrington, who is performing the duties of the DoD chief information officer said. “With automation, continuous monitoring, and resilience at its core, the CSRMC empowers the DoW [Department of War] to defend against today’s adversaries while preparing for tomorrow’s challenges,” she added, using the Trump administration’s new moniker for the DoD.

Arrington has derided the old process, on several occasions vowing to blow up the old RMF, describing it as outdated and not operationally effective.

The DoD notes in its statement that by institutionalizing the new construct, it is ensuring cyber survivability and mission assurance in every domain.

But one expert isn’t so sure the new process differs much from the previous.

“Overall, I am not seeing how this process will expedite the risk management framework process or how it addresses the supply chain vulnerabilities,” Georgianna Shea, chief technologist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, said. “It seems more like a rearranging of current processes under a new name without substantial change.” 

For example, she noted the first phase, design, could be stronger on cyber-informed engineering and adding penetration testing to identify design vulnerabilities. As it currently stands, it keeps cybersecurity as an add on to the design.

Phase two, build, doesn’t articulate quantifiable metrics yet. Instead, she noted, it should include measurable survivability parameters.

On phase five, operation, Shea raised concerns with empowering cybersecurity service providers as watch officers that can disconnect systems in real time is the potential for unintended mission disruption.

A disconnect action could remove critical capabilities at a key moment.

US, Western allies should look to ‘friendshoring’ defense production in the Middle East: Report

BEIRUT — To ease the burden on US and Western defense industrial bases and fill supply chain gaps, officials should look to “friendshoring” some defense production to allies in the Middle East, according to a new report.

“[T]here is a unique opportunity now to enhance the capacity of our partners in the Middle East, and thus our collective capacity as well,” the report states.

The report, published Wednesday by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, says the West should look to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, in particular, and take “crawl, walk, run” approach to benefit from untapped Middle East potential.

First, partners should take advantage of such low hanging fruit: the raw materials, shells, fuses, propellant charges for 155 mm artillery and unmanned aerial systems UAS, that can be coproduced with these states, benefiting from their national strategy for localization of defense production. (Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have launched ambitious initiatives to produce 50 percent of defense articles in-country by 2030.)

For example, by “pairing Israel’s high-technology defense sector and its growing DIB [defense industrial base] capacity with our Gulf partners’ massive capital and demonstrated ambitions to diversify global supply chains that support national security needs, the United States could expedite production of directed energy systems to counter, at sustainable cost, shared asymmetric threats from attritable drones, rockets, and missiles like those used in abundance by Iran’s proxy axis and by Russian forces attacking Ukraine,” the report says.

Those kinds of projects would build toward longer-term efforts like coproducing air/missile defense interceptor components and codeveloping new systems and technologies.

The report says that working closely with the Middle Eastern states will help boost security in the region and “contribute to solving the aggregate global DIB [Defense Industrial Base] challenge.” The report also highlighted the need to streamline and simply the US Foreign Military Sales process to help in technology transfer to these states.

“Our Middle East partners have all expressed the need to bolster their capabilities to defend themselves. They have also significantly increased their defense spending. The United States can help accelerate these positive trends by supporting our partners in developing and maintaining sufficient defense production capacity, resilient supply chains, and access to technology,” the report says.

From a strategic perspective, the report highlights the significance of coproduction with these countries to face shared adversaries.

“Iran’s capacity and willingness to endanger the regional order is abetted by China, Russia, and North Korea, each of whom wants to divert U.S. attention and assets back into the Middle East and away from its own doorstep. By the same token, stoking conflicts that unleash violent extremism and waves of refugees threatens to undermine America’s partners in the Middle East, Europe, and elsewhere,” says the report.

It also highlighted that boosting defense coproduction with these states will reinforce US regional role.

Defense coproduction intiatives “are also complementary to our ongoing regional diplomatic efforts, and would build upon the Abraham Accords, support Israel-Saudi normalization, and enhance security and stability while making America’s regional presence more sustainable,” said the report.

Germany’s Helsing unveils AI enabled CA-1 Europa UCAV, targets 2029 entry to service

BELFAST — German AI firm Helsing showcased an autonomous uncrewed combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) dubbed CA-1 Europa for the first time today, with the company eyeing frontline operations for the aircraft in the next four years.

In a statement coinciding with the unveiling of the drone at its subsidiary Grob Aircraft’s facility in Bavaria, Helsing described the vehicle as a “full-size design study” with development of a more mature production platform supported by European suppliers.

CA-1 Europa will be equipped with Helsing’s Centaur AI agent — an autonomous fighter jet pilot — and sits within the three- to five-ton weight class.

“Designed as an autonomous multi-role jet achieving high subsonic speeds, CA-1 Europa is tailored to the requirements of intelligent mass,” added the company statement. “The platform combines a mass-produceable airframe with powerful but affordable payload and world-leading software for situational awareness and mission execution.”

Additionally, Helsing noted the UCAV will be able to operate as a single aircraft or as part of a swarm.

It also stressed that design of the aircraft will “focus on scalability and a resilient European supply and logistics chain.”

CA-1 test and development activities are already taking place at the Grob Aircraft facility. Helsing acquired Grob, a training aircraft manufacturer, in June in a deal aimed at developing “the next generation of capabilities for aerial warfare.”

Helsing’s statement does not include details about an estimated unit cost of the aircraft or which engine will be used to power it.

Development of CA-1 marks the defense technology firm’s entry to the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) market and adds to its growing weapon systems portfolio that includes HX-2 loitering munitions and SG-1 Fathom subsurface autonomous gliders.

Helsing’s decision to move out with an all-European solution comes amid a series of CCA-type partnerships forged between European and US manufacturers.

Earlier this month, Lockheed Martin’s SkunkWorks and BAE Systems’s rapid prototyping division FalconWorks linked arms on development of a family of autonomous drones, due to begin with a platform equipped with electronic attack capabilities.

Other transatlantic tie-ups include a partnership between Germany’s Rheinmetall and Anduril to develop European versions of the US start-ups Barracuda and Fury autonomous systems.  

SPACECOM discussing expansion of joint space monitoring missions with allies

AFA 2025 — US Space Command (SPACECOM) is planning a second space domain awareness mission with France, after recently completing a similar mission with the United Kingdom, according to a senior Space Force official.

It also is in early discussions about similar missions with other allied partners in the Multinational Force Operation Olympic Defender, Lt. Gen. Douglas Schiess, who is dual-hatted as head of Space Forces-Space command and SPACECOM’s Combined Joint Forces Space Component Command, said today.

“We’re not in the planning phase for [any new missions beyond that with France], but I can see that that there will be others,” he said.

Operation Olympic Defender largely serves as a combined space operations planning cell, involving six US allies: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Its focus is to “optimize space operations, improve mission assurance, enhance resilience of space-based systems, synchronize efforts to strengthen deterrence against hostile actors and reduce the spread of debris orbiting the Earth,” according to a SPACECOM fact sheet.

However, Schiess told reporters during the annual Air and Space Forces Association conference in National Harbor, Md., that SPACECOM Commander Gen. Stephen Whiting has been pushing to move “beyond just planning and working together” into actual “operations” — starting with keeping collective eyes on the heavens.

The first bilateral mission was held with France and involved a rendezvous and proximity operation (RPO) in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), he said.

A Space Force spokesperson said the joint operation happened during “the last quarter of 2024.”

SPACECOM announced on Sept. 18 that it had successfully completed a similar RPO mission with UK Space Command. That demonstration “repositioned a U.S. satellite to examine a U.K. satellite and assure our ally of its nominal operation in orbit,” the release said.

Schiess would not elaborate on the US satellites used in either operation.

That said, the Space Force operates the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP) constellation for keeping eyes on adversary satellites in GEO, and also has orbited experimental RPO satellites in low Earth orbit under its Tactically Responsive Space (TacRS) program series of Victus satellites.

The exact nature of the follow-up mission with France and its timing are still up in the air as the two sides work out planning, Schiess said.

France has been working on development of small satellites for GEO surveillance through the experimental Yoda program. In August, France’s Space Command signed an agreement worth 50 million Euro (about $58 million) with Infinite Orbits for a micro-satellite mission in GEO, called Paladin, for launch in 2027.

Back to Key West: The Army must own air base defense, not chase Air Force missions

The 1948 Key West Agreement resolved postwar interservice rivalries by assigning clear roles: The Army is responsible for land combat, including ground-based air defense to protect troops and bases, while the Air Force handles air superiority, strategic bombing, and deep strikes. Refined by the 1956 Wilson Memorandum, this framework aimed to eliminate redundancy and boost efficiency.

With the Army kicking off its “Army Transformation Initiative” with big changes, now is the perfect time for an updated version of the Key West Agreement to be hashed out. And among other key issues, such as who controls space assets, a final decision should result in the Army abandoning its push for long-range strike systems, such as the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), and the vague, undefined in joint doctrine “Air Littoral” concept, which directly encroaches on Air Force functions.

Instead, the Army must prioritize its critical air base defense mission to ensure joint readiness against hypersonic missiles and small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), thereby freeing the underfunded Air Force to secure air dominance.

The Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires program, developing hypersonic weapons and LRHW, targets enemy air defenses and command nodes —missions the Air Force has executed since 1948. Former Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville pitched these types of capabilities as cost-effective, citing Gulf War Apache strikes as historic evidence. Yet this overlooks the Air Force’s decisive F-117 missions and the extensive employment of Navy Tomahawk missiles, which, combined with other air campaign elements, crushed Iraqi defenses and defeated Saddam’s military.

Prior to the mid-2000s, the US Army integrated short-range air defense (SHORAD) to protect maneuver forces from low-altitude threats. However, as US Army Air Defense Artillery Capt. Leopoldo Negrete explained two years ago, the absence of significant fixed-wing or rotary-wing threats during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq shifted the Army’s focus to point-defense systems like the Patriot, reducing air defense support for mobile ground units.

The Army’s encroachment on Air Force missions at the expense of air defense is a strategic error that wastes money, particularly against China’s DF-26 missiles, which have a 4,000-kilometer range and are capable of targeting Guam. Further, China’s 2024 exercises showcased drone swarms threatening airfields, underscoring the need for a robust Army air defense presence to protect bases like Andersen Air Force Base. Beyond China, the conflict in Ukraine highlights the potential threat posed by Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic missiles and Orlan-10 drones, which have been used in Ukraine for swarm attacks. Ukraine’s 10,000 drone types and thousands lost monthly highlight the scale of modern air threats.

The Army’s Patriot and THAAD systems are critical for joint base protection, but funding lags as deep-strike programs dominate. Shifting air defense to the Air Force would strain its budget, which has been below 25 percent of the Department of Defense total since 1992, with over $50 billion in annual pass-throughs for programs completely outside the Air Force budget. As David Deptula and Mark Gunzinger note, adding ground defense would divert funds from B-21 bombers, F-35 fighters, and E-7 aircraft, all of which are needed to recapitalize the Air Force and secure future air superiority for joint force operations.

This is not to say that long-range strike systems like LRHW do not have a role to play in layered deterrence, complementing the Air Force’s and Navy’s capabilities. LRHW 400-mile range enables rapid, land-based strikes in contested areas, such as the Pacific, supporting joint operations without relying solely on air or sea platforms that could be employed elsewhere to exploit their inherent mobility and flexibility.

However, Army deep-strike systems lack the Air Force’s stealth and flexibility, and fixed-site missiles are vulnerable to preemptive strikes. The Army should continue to explore these long-range strike capabilities, but should not pursue them at the expense of its core Key West air base defense mission.

Underfunding base defense capabilities such as Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and other emerging air defense systems risks leaving joint bases vulnerable, undermining the platforms—Air Force jets and Navy ships—that LRHW purports to complement. Nor should these programs be transferred to the Air Force, as such programs would overburden the Air Force’s already-strained budget and dilute its rightful focus on air superiority.

Anti-Doctrinal Distraction: The Air Littoral

Another aspect that needs to be sorted out between the services is the Army’s “Air Littoral” concept, which aims to achieve dominance in low-altitude airspace (from the surface to several thousand feet) for Army aviation and small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS). This redundant, fabricated “subdomain,” supposedly dominated by “drones,” blurs lines with Air Force roles like air superiority and close air support, risking confusion with naval “littoral” terminology. Lacking doctrinal clarity—and not an approved term in the U.S. military—it diverts resources from air defense.

Proponents argue that it reflects the complexity of multi-domain warfare, as seen in Ukraine’s frustrating air and ground operations. However, air superiority, accomplished through defended airfields, solves the stalemate unfolding between Ukraine and Russia. Desert Storm showcased joint strength through specialization: Army ground forces, Air Force air dominance, and Navy sea control. Unnecessary overlap fosters friction, not synergy.

The Army’s cancellation of a $2 billion reconnaissance helicopter and rapid buy of 600 Coyote counter-UAS systems show it’s learning from Ukraine, as George noted in 2024: “Aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed.” The air littoral notion, while acknowledging UAS threats, is entirely unnecessary, as established doctrine already addresses the issue of control over low-altitude airspace. The Army would be better served focusing on securing air bases in the Pacific, and allowing codified airspace management procedures to counter sUAS threats in the air, by exception.

Some argue that deep-strike and air littoral roles enhance Army relevance in multi-domain warfare. However, that overlooks the fact that the Army excels in several key missions it undertakes — indeed, the service is vital to how the US conducts integrated operations. No one doubts that the US Army is ready to stand up and defend its country in any way possible. 

But not duplicating missions already assigned to other services will allow the Army to focus on its important core competencies. The Army’s strength lies in ground-based defense, complemented by new long-range strike capabilities, such as the LRHW. Programs like Directed Energy Maneuver-SHORAD lasers and Patriot can counter evolving aerial threats, protecting both maneuver forces and airbases. By focusing on service-specific discrete roles rather than pursuing duplicative new capabilities, the Army can remain relevant as a critical enabler to the joint force of the future.

The Army must return to its Key West roots: prioritize air base defense while sustaining long-range strike development as a complementary capability. By fully funding Patriot, THAAD, SHORAD, and other emerging air defense and counter-UAS capabilities, the Army could shield joint forces, thereby allowing the Air Force to focus on its core competency — air dominance.

As stated in Congressional testimony by David Deptula, Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, “A dollar spent on duplicative capability comes at the expense of essential capacity or capability elsewhere.”

Congress and the Pentagon should redirect funds from Army long-range fires to air defense, codify roles (Army for primarily ground-based air defense and some complementary long-range strike capability, Air Force for aerial dominance), and stop the redundancies inherent in Army mission overreach that undermine the entire concept of jointness. The strength of joint operations resides in the separateness of the service capabilities.

With China and Russia advancing, an updated Key West roles and missions agreement optimizes joint force operations in the Pacific.

Lt. Col. Grant “SWAT” Georgulis, USAF, is a Master Air Battle Manager and currently assigned as the Deputy Chief of C2 Inspections as part of the Headquarters NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM Inspector General team. The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the United States Air Force.

Maritime tech startup Blue Water Autonomy, Conrad Shipyard sign deal for USV production

WASHINGTON — Blue Water Autonomy, a maritime tech startup, announced it is partnering with Louisiana-based Conrad Shipyard to assemble the new company’s first class of autonomous ships.

“Conrad is a world-class shipbuilder with proven capability, and this partnership puts us in a position to deliver ships quickly, while demonstrating the expertise and scale of existing U.S. shipbuilding capacity,” said Rylan Hamilton, cofounder of Blue Water Autonomy.

The Boston-based startup, launched earlier this year, was founded by Navy veterans in 2024 and is focused on designing and building unmanned surface vessels en masse.

RELATED: ‘Be uncomfortable’: Navy wants new USV to challenge the ‘status quo’

To date, Blue Water has raised $61 million in Series A funding and recruited senior executives from General Dynamics and Serco.

Conrad Shipyard, which has five facilities along the Gulf Coast, specializes in building steel and aluminum auxiliary ships such as offshore support vessels, tugs, ferries and barges.

“Blue Water Autonomy’s design reflects the kind of forward-looking innovation that U.S. shipbuilders are ready to deliver,” said Cecil Hernandez, president and CEO of Conrad Shipyard. “We’re proud to support this program and help bring autonomous naval capabilities to life with the speed, precision, and craftsmanship we’ve been trusted to deliver for over 75 years across commercial and military shipbuilding.”

Blue Water’s partnership is one in a series of fresh announcements from unmanned surface vessel producers since the Navy hosted industry earlier this year to discuss its new Modular Attack Surface Craft program. That program aims to outfit the service’s future fleet with easy-to-produce autonomous surface vessels that can be equipped with a variety of payloads.

Since that industry day, companies such as Senesco Marine, BlackSea Technologies and shipbuilding giant HII have all unveiled new unmanned vessels and partnership agreements, either ostensibly or explicitly aimed at capturing a piece of the Navy’s pending program of record.