Douglas A. Macgregor's Blog, page 8

Electronic warfare and information advantage added to Army principle cyber advisor portfolio

WASHINGTON — The Army secretary’s top advisor on cyber issues has now also been tasked with providing advice on electronic warfare and information advantage, elevating the focus on those topics at the highest level of the Army.

“From a civilian oversight perspective as it relates to cyber, EW, electronic warfare, and information advantage will now fall to our office,” Brandon Pugh, the Army’s principal cyber advisor, said in an interview this week. “That’s been a new addition as of two weeks ago.”

The move attempts to align civilian oversight with uniformed roles, Pugh said. Currently, the Department of the Army’s Management Office for Strategic Operations within the Army’s G-3/5/7 is tasked with overseeing cyber, EW and information advantage. Aligning these disciplines under the PCA isn’t meant to be duplicative, but rather, provide it with a civilian counterpart.

“Before they didn’t actually have a civilian or a secretariat counterpart to that. All of our functions at the Pentagon, we try to have a military leader in conjunction with a civilian leader, in realizing that the civilians ultimately play an oversight role, just like we have a chief and a secretary,” Pugh said.

The PCA position has been around for five years now, having been created by Congress in the 2019 annual defense policy bill. While there are statutory responsibilities each service PCA must fulfill, Pugh noted that each service performs their role a little differently. In this case, the addition of EW and information advantage to the Army’s role was directed by Dan Driscoll, the Army’s secretary.

Pugh is also the first political appointee in the job, providing some extra level of oomph to exercise the secretary’s priorities across the force when it comes to cyber.

“Ultimately, I report to the secretary, how are we enabling and supporting his effort in conjunction with the chief to get at Army continuous transformation,” he said. “What this chief and the secretary are looking to do when it comes to tech, cyber and EW, that’s a lot of what our portfolio is already dealing with.

“For us, it’s very easy to also meet our statutory responsibility and complement the work that our leaders are doing at the same time.”

There has been a growing convergence in recent years, especially within the Army, of cyber and electronic warfare. The Army’s 11th Cyber Battalion aims to blend these capabilities at the tactical edge providing cyber capabilities for commanders through radio frequency-enabled cyber.

Pugh has sought to proselytize cyber — and now electronic warfare — to a greater extent to make sure commanders know these capabilities exist and can be used by tactical commanders.

“I see myself as a champion. I’m supposed to be a champion for cyber, EW and even related tech efforts at the Pentagon. I realize there are so many priorities that the Army needs to focus on. But who is there is now saying, ‘how does cyber integrate into other efforts, who is there to help prioritize cyber,’” he said. “I see that as my role, not to duplicate [what] the G6 and CIO is doing, or [Army Cyber Command], but to be this standalone person that can have an independent evaluation of that. Same thing for EW now,”

Offensive Cyber Options

The Secretary of Defense sent a memo to the Secretary of the Army outlining five priority investment areas, with cyber being one of the five, Pugh said. Driscoll, in turn, has emphasized its importance going forward, which has resulted in Pugh seeking to ensure cyber options, including offensive cyber, are in the tool kit for the service.

“We’ve sometimes been at a disadvantage because we’ve been a little timid to leverage cyber capabilities of time. I think that’s something you see this White House not being shy about as a potential capability,” he said.

In his mind, the US has lost opportunities and ceded ground to adversaries by being too “timid” in the past to use offensive cyber capabilities.

For many years, there had been reservations for using offensive cyber due to restrictive rules of engagement and improper analogies. Previously, US military offensive cyber actions were considered on par with nuclear weapons in terms of requiring presidential sign-off for employment, for fear that effects could lead to escalation and possibly unintended consequences. These factors contributed to a bias for inaction in cyberspace.

“We see adversaries having no restraint when it comes to cyber. I’m not saying that we should take the minds of an adversary, necessarily, where they will use cyber without any bounds, without any respect to law and policy,” Pugh said. “We still are guided by law and policy here, but it should be a balance. We shouldn’t take one extreme, saying ‘no, law and policy forbids’ or we’re going to be very restrictive. But perhaps we don’t take the opposite extreme either. Where is that middle ground between allowing cyber to at least be an option and not shying away from it because of a potential fear that it might lead to escalation, or some fear a large conflict that could result.”

Any military action carries a degree of risk, Pugh added, saying commanders should have the responsibility to measure their level of risk, weigh the alternatives, and decide if cyber could be an addition or a stand alone capability they can use.

In practice, Pugh is trying to help commanders understand these cyber capabilities can be enablers, either at the combatant command level or a very in the dirt tactical level. And this extends not just to the high end cyber operators that are part of US Cyber Command’s cyber mission force, of which the Army provides 45 teams, but the emerging tactical instantiation that blends cyber and EW on the battlefield.

“Something I’m always thinking about is, how do we support our cyber forces, then, how can our cyber forces also support other elements of the Army? I want to get away from the mindset is that cyber just rests at Fort Gordon. While, yes, that is where a lot of the Army activity happens, there are benefits to our division and corps commanders that they should be thinking it through. Or if you’re a geographic or a combat commander, how can you leverage cyber,” he said.

“This should not be seen as a capability of last resort. Matter of fact, it should be considered, how do we infuse it across all of our potential plans and actions in conflict, either as a standalone capability or in conjunction with another, another capability?”

No future for Space Futures Command, sources say

AUSA 2025 — Space Force’s much-touted plan to create a new Futures Command is on the chopping block, and as of yet there is no formal plan for any replacement organization, according to a handful of sources inside and outside of the Pentagon.

“Futures Command is dead,” one Pentagon official said bluntly.

Another Pentagon source noted that the “collapse of Army Futures Command” was a factor in the Air Force’s rethink about the approach to Space Futures Command, which was meant to assess service needs 10 to 15 years out. The Army on Oct. 2 deactivated Army Futures Command as well as Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and plans to combine them into a new organization dubbed the Transformation and Training Command.

Asked about the status of Space Futures Command, a Space Force spokesperson told Breaking Defense on Oct. 3 that the Department of the Air Force “is still exploring options and has not made an official decision to stand up Space Futures Command.”

Senior Space Force officials had signaled a Space Futures Command was coming for more than a year, after none other than Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman in February 2024 announced it was in works. At the time he said the Space Force was creating a task force to work out the details and expressing hope that it could begin operations by early 2025.

Space Futures Command, he said, would look holistically at future requirements for “the objective force” — the desired architecture of the Space Force including personnel, kit and operational concepts — taking into account things like “the training infrastructure, the operators, the manpower requirements.”

A month later, the head of that task force, Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, deputy chief of space operations, strategy, plans, programs and requirements, explained that Futures Command would be made up of two new subordinate centers — a Concepts and Technologies Center and a Wargaming Center — as well as the existing Space Warfighting and Analysis Center (SWAC).

Those plans shifted, however, with the incoming Trump administration.

In February, several Space Force officials told Breaking Defense that while former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall had signed off on the creation of Space Futures Command and named Maj. Gen. Dennis Bythewood as its head, activation of the command had been halted pending a re-look at the concept of “great power competition” with China.

Bythewood was nominated on Sept. 29 to pin on a third star and command Space Forces Space, the service’s component command providing operational forces to US Space Command.

At a Sept. 22 press conference during the annual Air and Space Forces Association (AFA) conference, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink was peppered with questions about whether previously launched “re-optimization” plans related to great power competition, including Futures Command, were going to move forward. In response, he said he did not believe in making “organizational changes” early into a new managerial job.

“I’ve been in job about four, four-and-a-half months. I wanted to make sure that I had time. … I know we’re getting close to making a number of those decisions, and so in the next couple of months, we’ll be rolling with them,” Meink said.

Should Space Futures Command officially perish, several sources inside and outside the Pentagon told Breaking Defense there has been internal discussion of a new structure to replace it, either a field command or a direct reporting unit, that would oversee SWAC.

SWAC, created in 2020, is responsible for developing future mission area “force designs” — in other words, figuring out how best to configure and acquire satellite and ground-system architectures for each mission, such as satellite communications and missile warning/tracking to meet needs over the next five to 10 years.

The new organization, tentatively dubbed Innovation and Simulation, would in essence be a super-SWAC, the two Pentagon sources said. It would include SWAC, but also, as one industry source put it, some other small organizational “cats and dogs” included.

Further, two sources said there is already hallway chatter that the new organization could be headed by Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, currently Air Force acting assistant secretary for space acquisition and innovation. Purdy is slated to leave his acting position at the latest in January to step back to wearing one hat as military deputy to the office — earlier if the Air Force can put in place a civilian deputy to take over before then, he told reporters at AFA on Sept. 24.

The discussions about a replacement command structure, however, remain in early stages, the sources all stressed and nothing has yet been finalized.

This is “not a good year to expand commands/bureaucracy in the Pentagon,” one industry source noted. “I would say 50/50 if the Space Force moves forward with something or not.”

Of course, even if the Air Force decides to torpedo Space Futures Command, it is always possible that higher ups in the Defense Department could reverse course — a phenomena that has manifested across government agencies since the beginning of the new administration.

Evolving under strain: Networks, cyber and EW in transition

As government reorganizations and cutbacks, the rise of artificial intelligence and an unrelenting workload redefine the military’s digital workforce, we’ve got you covered.

Our latest eBook recaps the biggest news from AFCEA’s TechNet conference in Augusta, Georgia, where leaders in the military’s digital sphere gathered to discuss the future of networks, cyber operations and electronic warfare at a time of transition for the federal government.

Read the five best stories from Carley Welch, our reporter on the ground in Augusta, and check back at Breaking Defense for more throughout the year.

Sign up below to receive your free copy.

hbspt.forms.create({ portalId: '2097098', formId: 'a29ea6df-605f-4144-8028-4f4c3066214d', target: '#hubspot-form-a29ea6df-605f-4144-8028-4f4c3066214d', });

Netherlands joins US for drone wingmen development

WASHINGTON — The US and the Netherlands signed a pact today for the European nation to participate in the development of the US Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program.

The two parties’ letter of intent was inked by Netherlands State Secretary for Defense Gijs Tuinman at the Netherlands embassy in Washington, paving the way for a transatlantic exchange of autonomous drone wingmen technologies.

“We’re really grateful and [have] been working hard with our US partners and the US Air Force to actually get into the CCA program. So for us, that’s a big thing,” Tuinman told reporters at the Dutch embassy following the announcement. “And I think it also makes the world a lot safer if in the near future, we can actually also operate CCA type of aircraft in the European theater.”

As a result of the new partnership, Tuinman said that the Netherlands has now unlocked “total access” into the US Air Force’s CCA program “on all levels,” enabling Dutch officials to input their own requirements unique to the European theater. Pointing to an expected pairing of two drone wingmen with a fighter, Tuinman said there could be a need for over a 1,000 CCA in the near future — a boon to US industry and European partners alike.

Acknowledging the desire by American firms to seek customers in Europe, where a continental push for greater defense spending also comes with an emphasis on indigenous tech, Tuinman said the new partnership could serve as a pathway to sales for US companies. 

“I also want to express that the Netherlands is like the jumping pad for the United States to get into Europe,” he said. 

A US Air Force official told Breaking Defense in a statement that the new drone collaboration “builds on decades of U.S.–Dutch defense cooperation and reflects a shared commitment to fielding next-generation airpower.” Under the program “both nations will explore opportunities to jointly develop, test, and evaluate CCA technologies, mission systems, and employment concepts that strengthen interoperability across allied air forces,” added the official.

The first round of the Air Force’s CCA program is well underway, and officials have chiefly discussed its next iteration, or “increment,” as the primary opportunity for foreign buyers. An Air Force official told reporters in September that international partnerships may even result in separate use cases in the second increment that drive different designs for the US and a foreign partner.

Nevertheless, the Dutch press release announcing the partnership includes photos of drone prototypes developed by Anduril and General Atomics for the CCA program’s first increment. Whether the Netherlands may seek to buy exported versions of those unmanned aircraft developed by the US as a result of the new partnership is unknown. 

Other countries, like Australia and Japan, have likewise announced cooperation with the US on drone wingman development, but it’s unclear what other nations have the same “total access” to the CCA program like the Netherlands now enjoys.

Alongside the announcement with the US, the Netherlands unveiled a separate letter of intent with the American firm General Atomics, which the company said in a press release will initially focus on developing small drones that can provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The agreement includes collaboration between General Atomics and the Dutch to “establish UAS [unmanned aerial system] manufacturing capability,” the release says, where the American firm has tapped Dutch company VDL Defentec for producing the small drones.

Tuinman said the agreement with General Atomics would help boost production between the US and Europe, especially by leveraging Dutch “production ecosystems” that can quickly scale up manufacturing. The minister then said a key need driving the partnership is for drones that are in “intermediate layers” that can penetrate air defense bubbles and provide both surveillance and strike capabilities. The Dutch press release announcing the partnership on the CCA program says the drones developed separately with General Atomics should be able to enter service by next year.

Russian forces of late have been using their own drones to violate NATO airspace, which some European officials have accused as a deliberate act of provocation that also prompts questions about the collective defense of the alliance.

Tuinman said the Russian drone incursions were an attempt to divide the alliance, but stressed they would not be successful, pointing to shared sacrifices like a cemetery for American soldiers who died fighting in World War II near where he grew up.

“So that’s in my memory,” he said, adding that “our futures are intertwined and connected, and nobody can drive a wedge between those.” 

Battlefield and domestic drone threats show the need for mobile counter-UAS

The drone threat on today’s battlefield is evolving quickly, and counter-UAS systems must be able to keep pace. Mobility and adaptability are key to implementing systems that can respond to the threat of drones and their flexibility. 

Breaking Defense spoke to Honeywell’s Tom Konicki about the challenges of drone warfare and how they’re meeting the challenge with an on-the-move system.

Army picks Anduril for counter-drone fire control system

AUSA 2025 — Anduril has prevailed in an Army and Defense Innovation Unit competition to provide a new system for managing defenses against drone threats, the Army announced Wednesday.

In a press release disclosing Anduril’s win, the Army said the company will furnish the service with a modernized fire control system for counter-drone operations, also known as c-UAS. A fire control system fuses together sensor data to ensure an operator can effectively strike a target.

“The Army will continue working closely with Anduril to refine and integrate this cutting-edge technology into its C-UAS architecture, ensuring the highest level of protection for our warfighters,” the service said in the announcement, without disclosing the contract value. Anduril did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The company’s selection comes amid an Army plan to hold “recurring” competitions for counter-drone technologies, ranging from equipment that could be carried by the common soldier to electronic warfare systems. Officials have reportedly said they want the new fire control system to handle a wide variety of short-range air defenses, but are focusing initially on the counter-drone mission.

“We need to ensure that we continuously outpace the threat,” Col. Guy Yelverton, the project lead for the Army’s counter-drone product office, said during a Monday panel discussion at the annual AUSA conference in Washington. “So we will have these competitions at least at an every two-year cycle, to make sure that we know and understand the capabilities out there from our industry partners, and that we continue to provide our warfighters the best capability so that we outpace that threat that’s evolving.” 

In an apparent preview of the Anduril win, Yelverton said the winning fire control solution would replace the FAAD C2 (Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control) system currently provided by Northrop Grumman. The Northrop system combines sensor data to provide a comprehensive picture of the air space that can then direct a range of defenses to knock down an inbound threat.

Northrop previously revealed it was competing to replace its FAAD C2 system with a new offering dubbed AiON, though it’s not clear what other firms bid in the competition.

“We are incredibly proud of the groundbreaking innovation and dedication demonstrated by our talented team in developing and successfully testing AiON, our next-generation counter-drone system. In just a few months, we delivered a cutting-edge capability that enhances warfighter protection in dynamic and evolving threat environments,” Kenn Todorov, vice president and general manager of command and control and weapons integration at Northrop, said in a statement to Breaking Defense.

“We see significant future opportunities to partner with other customers and allies who recognize the critical need for innovative solutions like AiON,” Todorov added.

Amid shifting priorities, transparency is key, says Army acquisition head

AUSA 2025 — The Army is reprioritizing some of its programs in line with its Army Transformation Initiative and looming acquisition shakeup, the head of acquisition told Breaking Defense. But, he added, amid these changes it’s vital the service is transparent with vendors on what it is and isn’t going to purchase.

“When I think about the little bit of budget that the Army has to actually modernize, we’ve got to be much more effective with that, and that’s how we think about programs that are maybe not as effective on the battlefield today and how we could use that money to modernize the Army with the right capabilities,” Brett Ingraham, head of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology ASA(ALT) shop said in an interview.

Ingraham, who just last month took over as the leader of the weapons-buying office, noted that the service’s ongoing Transformation in Contact (TiC) exercises will help inform leadership on what weapons and platforms it will and won’t go forward with as part of the ATI. TiC is the service’s push to rapidly test new equipment with units both inside the US and abroad to understand how that technology will operate in real-world environments. 

“I think as we continue to execute some of the Transformation in Contact, we will learn about what other priorities popped at the top of [our] list as we continue to evolve. So from an acquisition approach we have been putting units in the field … so that we could get that feedback as they’re getting that sort of current feedback on what they need. It helps us be much more effective and efficient at delivering,” he added. 

ATI is the service’s sprawling initiative that has involved a rethinking of major programs, appearing to paint a dim future for vehicles like Humvees and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, Breaking Defense previously reported. For aviation, the Army has halted buys of General Atomics’ Gray Eagle drone, stopped a Future Tactical Uncrewed Aircraft System competition, and is looking to shelve AH-64D Apaches. The service is also looking to potentially end General Electric’s development of the Improved Turbine Engine Program and reduce the quantity of High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation Systems. Such cuts and potential cuts to aviation are to pay for its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program, per the ATI.

According to Ingraham, with more units completing TiC exercises, there will likely be more programs that the Army will stop buying new products for as priorities change. Further, he noted that the Army’s flexible funding will allow it to shift its priorities in response to the demand signal. 

As priorities shift, the Army must be a “better partner” with industry by being more up front about its plans, Ingraham said. 

“One word, ‘transparency.’ That needs to be done from day one,” he said. “We’ve got to be better buyers. We’ve got to let industry know where we’re going, what sort of capabilities we’re looking for and just be open with them about what we need to buy [and] we don’t need to buy.

In the fiscal 2026 defense budget request, the Army received three pots of flexible funding. Such pots of money, commonly referred to as “colorless money,” allow the services to have more control over money that is not tied to one specific requirement.  

Ingraham said that he would ideally have even more flexible funding, however, he admitted that he does see this as a potential concern for industry since vendors lean on specific line items to see what the Army will buy. 

“We have not necessarily always been that open and transparent with industry, and so they go off and use IRAD [independent research and development] dollars to go off, develop things that maybe are not where we’re headed. So getting a tighter loop between industry and the government’s understanding where there’s opportunity to share risk on programs and projects, I think, is really the key and how we can continue to transform,” he added.

A ‘modern concept’: Turkey’s Aselsan reveals new Steel Dome details

ANKARA — Company officials at Turkish aerospace giant Aselsan are slowly revealing new details about Anakara’s ambitious Steel Dome air defense project, showing off some completed components and those still in the works to journalists on a recent tour.

As in other “dome” projects abroad, the idea behind Steel Dome — or Celik Kubbe in Turkish — is to execute a “modern concept” of integrated, interconnected radar and air defense systems, Aselsan CEO Ahmet Akyol told reporters. It’s a concept Aselsan had been working on for some time, but he said has been thrown into stark relief due to recent conflicts in the region.

From the outside, the Aselsan facility here is a stern black-glass building with a gray concrete exterior, hiding much of the work that goes into making Steel Dome a reality. On the roof, two of the company’s radars monitor the site.

But while Aselsan has hosted media at the location before, this recent tour offered new glimpses into the sprawling facility that Aselsan hopes will double its production capacity after work on the new buildings are completed. (Breaking Defense accepted travel and accommodation from the Aselsan for the trip, as did other media outlets.)

During the tour, with knocking sounds in the background familiar in production facilities the world over, reporters saw a HISAR 100 medium-range air and missile defense on display in what company official referred to as an integration area of the facility, sitting near a Goksur point missile defense system.

In a bus ride around the facility, reporters viewed an outdoor display area for other Steel Dome completed components, including rotating radars highlighted by flashing red lights.

Company officials told reporters that the Steel Dome configuration consists of one large surveillance radar and a command and control station for every battalion, controlling three fire units. Each fire unit has one station for control radar for three launchers. They said that every system is a field-proven system.

Using Hakim air space command and control system, Hakim 100 radar network management system and Turan tactical military network, Aselsan officials said Steel Dome’s backbone will be T-link, which is tactical data-link specifically for Turkey’s air defense systems. Company officials said that Steel Dome uses high-powered AI-based system to support decision making.

Each piece is meant to play a part in keeping Turkish skies safe — and potentially the skies of international customers. In July, Akyol said Steel Dome could be co-produced with foreign buyers, and during this more recent tour he noted that interest in air defense systems has only risen, especially since Israel’s strike on Hamas targets in the heart of the Qatari capital of Doha.

While Steel Dome is easily among Aselsan’s biggest projects, the company works in six main domains: integrated defense system technologies, radar and electronic warfare, communication and information technologies, microelectronics and electro-optics, avionics and guidance systems technologies, and transportation, security energy and healthcare.

The tour also included a briefing on other Aselsan projects, including what was a quick glimpse of a stand-off jammer aircraft, according to a slide presentation. Among the projects highlighted were Aselsan’s radars and payloads integrated on Baykar’s Akinci UAV, payloads expected to be integrated onto KAAN, the Turkish fifth-generation fighter jet, along with the firm’s platforms integrated on-board the Turkish satellite Turksat 6A.

Company officials also said Aselsan is looking to expand abroad. Akyol revealed that the firm plans to open a new design office in Saudi Arabia dedicated for radar, electronic warfare and air defense systems by next year.

Other company officials said the firm plans to increase its maintenance, repair and operations centers globally, to ensure support for their systems abroad. The company already has affiliates in 24 countries, the officials said.

Lawmakers press Pentagon on cuts to oversight of key missile defense programs

WASHINGTON — Two democratic lawmakers are raising concerns that the Pentagon’s weapons testing office has reduced the number of programs under its remit and will no longer provide oversight of several space and missile defense efforts that could potentially be linked to Golden Dome.  

The Defense Department has cut 94 programs overseen by its office of the director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) — a 37 percent reduction of the 251 programs previously on the list, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Rep. Donald Norcross said in an Oct. 15 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“To date you have refused to provide any analysis to justify or support these reductions,” said the lawmakers, who are members of the House and Senate armed services committees. “We remain concerned these reckless decisions undermine readiness and will result in substantial waste of taxpayer dollars while putting servicemembers’ lives at risk. We urge you to immediately reverse the decision to cut the size and scope of this office, and to restore oversight to the nearly 100 programs from the DOT&E oversight list.”

The Pentagon declined to comment on Warren’s letter, with a spokesperson stating that the department does not comment on congressional correspondence.

The lawmakers called out several space and missile defense programs that had been removed from the oversight list, including the Enterprise Space-Based Missile Warning, Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture Tranche 2 Enterprise, Space-Based Infrared Systems Survivable and Endurable Evolution, and Upgraded Early Warning Radar. While the Defense Department has not publicly laid out which systems will be a part of the Golden Dome missile shield — one of the administration’s top defense priorities —Warren and Norcross note that some of the programs eliminated from the list “could enable the Golden Dome architecture” by providing tracking and data transport capabilities needed by the missile defense system.

“If homeland missile defense is truly a top priority for the Department, rigorous testing and oversight is vital to ensure the systems are integrated and that funding is not being wasted on systems that do not tie into the broader architecture,” Warren and Norcross said.

Established in 1983, the DOT&E office provides the Pentagon with an independent assessment of whether a weapons program is meeting performance and safety requirements — often supplying a more critical view than the services’ own program offices. In May, Hegseth laid out a plan to restructure DOT&E, slashing its staff to 30 civilian positions, with no more than one senior executive service member and 15 assigned military personnel posts. Warren, in July, said the office is now operating with just 26 percent of its staff and 20 percent of its previous budget.  

Days after the shakeup, Defense News reported that the cuts at the office were primarily driven over concerns about DOT&E’s plans to provide oversight of Golden Dome.

In response to the changes at DOT&E, Warren issued a letter to Hegseth in June expressing concerns over the personnel cuts, requesting more information about what analysis had been done to substantiate the office’s restructure and an updated version of DOT&E’s oversight list.  

In an Aug. 5 response to Warren, Carroll Quade, who Hegseth put in charge of the office, stated that the department had conducted a “comprehensive internal review” that found “redundant, non-essential, non statutory functions” within DOT&E.

“The Golden Dome for America program is a DoD priority. The DOT&E will work with the relevant stakeholders to determine the appropriate level of oversight for the Golden Dome for America program,” he wrote at the time.

The Aug. 5 response to Warren included a DOT&E oversight list that include 251 programs, but two days later a new list — dated July 31— was posted on the office’s website that showed 94 programs had been removed. Warren and Norcross said that timing raises concerns that the department’s initial response to Warren “was purposely inaccurate.”

The two lawmakers requested that the Pentagon respond by Oct. 29 to a list of questions about why nearly 100 programs were cut from the oversight list as well as how the department would ensure the operational effectiveness of those weapon systems.

“If taxpayers are investing at the very least $74.5 billion into new weapon systems removed from DOT&E’s oversight list, DoD must ensure that they work for our servicemembers,” they wrote. “The decision to further purge the DOT&E office by cutting nearly 100 programs from its oversight list jeopardizes military readiness, puts the safety of our servicemembers at risk, and increases the risk of waste and abuse of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.”

How AI-driven decision-making is shaping Army modernization

Artificial intelligence is a cornerstone of the Army’s modernization efforts. AI’s biggest impact is when it is applied to decision-making processes, enabling troops in both command centers and the field to make informed decisions with real-time information.

Breaking Defense spoke with Appian’s Jason Adolf and Li Ma about how AI is enabling the Army to provide warfighters with better tools for decision making and mission execution.