EU officials flag vulnerabilities to foreign control in defense sector

WASHINGTON — Not all European Union members have enacted national policies for screening foreign direct investments in their critical industries, hobbling attempts at fostering an integrated defense supply chain for the bloc, according to a European Defence Agency official.

Agency officials diagnosed the problem during a study of defense-industrial strategies published by members countries that concluded over the summer.

Pieter Taal, the head of the EDA’s industry strategy and EU policies unit, said the lack of control policies when it comes to non-EU companies buying stakes in potentially crucial suppliers remains a “complicating factor.”

Depending on the foreign investor, external control of key companies could directly challenge the vision of Europe’s strategic autonomy, he told reporters in an Oct. 26 video call from Brussels.

Roughly half of the 27 EU members lack requisite screening policies, Taal said. That is because setting up control mechanisms is each nation’s prerogative, he added. Some may find them needless, others have yet to enact them, Taal explained.

Vulnerabilities in critical supply chains are a major concern on both sides of the Atlantic. Pentagon officials have long worried about Chinese access, in particular, to critical nodes in the defense-industrial base that contribute to advanced weapon systems. The fear is that malicious actors could introduce manipulated parts into the supply chain, or steal trade secrets.

But simply discovering foreign-controlled lurkers in the multilayered web of the defense industry has turned out to be thorny task in its own right.

The European Commission flagged Russian and Belarusian foreign direct investment in Europe’s industry landscape in the spring following Moscow’s attack on Ukraine.

“In the current circumstances, there is a significantly heightened risk that FDI by Russian and Belarusian investors may pose a threat to security and public order,” commission officials wrote in a note to member states. “These risks may be exacerbated by the amount of Russian investments in the EU and the intensity of prior business relations between EU and Russian companies.”

Of the 27 member states, 18 have registered with the commission their existence of a national policy regime covering the screening of foreign direct investments, according to a list published by the EU.

Those without such policies should “urgently” create them and, in the meantime, use other legal avenues to ward off malicious foreign investments that could leave the bloc as a whole vulnerable, according to the commission document.

“It’s a complex issue,” said Taal, arguing that suitable screening criteria take time to develop. “It’s not something you can do overnight.”

The EDA and other defense-minded institutions have their own checks in place to ensure companies vying to be part of EU initiatives aren’t controlled by entities working against EU objectives, Taal said.

That definition is crucial. According to Taal, while companies from the United States, Canada or the U.K. would typically be considered trustworthy enough for cooperation — as opposed to Chinese or Russian firms, for example — their support for the bloc’s quest toward strategic autonomy may be unknown.

What a GOP win in November would mean for defense policy in 2023

If Republican lawmakers take control of either the House or Senate following midterm elections, experts expect bigger defense budgets, more debate over foreign military aid and more fighting about how “woke” military issues affect national security.

House Republicans in September unveiled their pre-election “Commitment to America” outlining a host of policy priorities and changes for if they win control of the chamber, including a promise to “support our troops” and “invest in an efficient, effective military.” Leadership hasn’t specified much of what that would entail, but outside observers say the public could see changes in Congress’ approach quickly if the party wins in November.

“We expect that a new Republican majority would execute an aggressive oversight agenda,” said Michele Pearce, a former Republican staff lead and counsel for the House Armed Services Committee who now works for Covington & Burling. “We expect both House and Senate defense committees to focus on the withdrawal of Afghanistan, supply chain risks, and defense topline funding.”

Senators confident defense budget work will finish this year

Unlike some past election cycles, foreign policy and national security are not at the forefront of this year’s midterm elections.

A recent Pew Research Center poll of more than 5,000 registered voters found 54% said those issues are “very important” in their candidate selection this November, just 12th on the list of top concerns. The economy (79%), democratic stability (70%) and education (64%) led the list.

But a Republican takeover of either congressional chamber will have wide-ranging impacts on the military, even if candidates on the campaign trail aren’t highlighting them now.

“You’re going to see [House Armed Services Committee] Republicans focused on boosting the U.S. military’s lethality and capability,” a senior Republican congressional aide said. “Congress has been focused on what is needed to deter China — right now, the top of the list includes munitions replenishment, military modernization and fixing recruitment issues.”

The defense budget

The defense budget is likely to rise again in fiscal 2024, but just how much depends on how much control Republicans have in next year’s appropriations debates.

The fiscal 2023 defense budget still has not yet been finalized, but lawmakers are nearing agreement on a plan to spend around $815 billion on military programs, equipment and personnel. That’s about 9% above fiscal 2022 spending levels, and 4% more than the White House requested for defense last spring.

Much of that increase has to do with higher inflation costs not accounted for in the original administration request.

But it also reflects success by minority Republican lawmakers in arguing for a sizable annual boost to the Pentagon. Moderate Democrats have largely sided with them in recent budget debates, rejecting calls from progressives to cut defense spending in favor of other domestic priorities.

“If Republicans win, they’ll try and push for even more,” said Valerie Shen, vice president for the national security program at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank. “And they’ll probably be successful, given the recent history.”

Senate Armed Services ranking member Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and others in his caucus, have pushed for an annual 5% increase above inflation in defense spending as a floor for future budget packages. For fiscal 2023, that would have meant a military appropriations boost of somewhere around 13%.

Whether they can get that sort of boost — as they did with a Republican-controlled House and Senate under the last Republican president, Donald Trump — will depend on how well election night goes for them.

“Defense spending is part of a federal budget, and it will inevitably get tied up in debates over non-defense discretionary spending, taxation, the federal debt and entitlement spending,” said Byron Callan, managing director at the investment research firm Capital Alpha Partners.

“The idea that somehow you’re going to open the floodgates of defense spending with Republicans in control of the House or the Senate, that’s not a bet that I would take.”

But Seamus Daniels, a fellow for defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he thinks it is a possibility — but only if Republicans win control of both chambers.

“If Republicans only take one chamber in the midterm elections, we may just see more parity,” he said

“And if we have a partisan divide in Congress and with the White House, that can only lead to more gridlock and longer continuing resolutions, which is not what the Defense Department wants,” Daniels added. “The fear is that even as [Republicans] push for bigger defense budgets, those fights may ultimately lead to longer delays in getting [a budget] for defense done.”

Is the military too ‘woke’ to recruit?

The ‘woke’ military

Republican lawmakers have made issues of diversity, gender equity and “cancel culture” a fixture of the 2022 campaign trail. And those same issues have crept into defense policy hearings over the last year, leading to some tense fights between conservative lawmakers and Pentagon leaders.

Outside observers expect that to become even more heated if Republicans control the gavel of either armed services committee next year.

“I don’t think they can be successful at changing many of these policies in any significant way, because the military brass has been open to these social policies,” Shen said. “But I expect public statements and hearings and letters and whatnot, to keep the issues at the front.”

In recent weeks, key members of the House Armed Services Committee have questioned military policies on abortion access and the teaching of critical race theory issues.

A senior Republican aide said House Armed Services ranking member Mike Rogers, R-Ala., is already planning “questions regarding DoD’s vaccine mandate and how it’s affected readiness.”

Party members have also strongly criticized efforts in 2021 by the Pentagon and White House to investigate extremism in the ranks, questioning whether the real goal was to demonize some conservative and religious beliefs.

Thomas Spoehr, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, wrote in an open commentary last month that “wokeness in the military has become ingrained” and said lawmakers need to rein in the time and resources spent on the issues.

But Pentagon leaders have pushed back, saying the policies are geared toward improving morale and readiness, not pushing a social agenda.

GOP lawmakers plan more hearings, oversight on Afghanistan withdrawal

Afghanistan oversight

As part of their planned oversight work, House Republicans have promised intense investigations into the August 2021 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan if they gain control of the chamber next year.

Last week, House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., sent a letter to Pentagon leaders blasting them for a months-long overdue briefing on how Afghan intelligence was secured and archived in the wake of the withdrawal, and accusing leaders of trying to ignore the problems still there.

“The intelligence is clear: Al-Qaeda is re-forming in Afghanistan,” he wrote. “We will once again be facing the prospect of terrorist attacks on American interests abroad and possibly the homeland itself.”

Unlike Democratic lawmakers — who thus far have focused much of their oversight on 20 years of missteps in Afghanistan — Republican leaders have called for a closer look at what they call the rushed withdrawal from the country, including potentially ignored signs that the Biden administration’s plans imperiled U.S. service members’ lives.

In August, Rogers said officials involved in the chaotic drawdown “must be held accountable for their actions,” adding that so far they have not.

Congressional hearings in his committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and others could begin as early as February, before the annual defense budget process begins.

Pelosi vows more Ukraine aid amid brewing congressional fight

Ukraine aid

The question as to whether the Biden administration can continue sending billions in aid to support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion may also hinge on the midterm results, as Republicans are dealing with a split on the issue between Trump-style populists and establishment party members.

McCarthy said earlier this month the House would be less likely to pass generous Ukraine aid packages should his party win the November elections.

“People are going to be sitting in a recession, and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy told Punchbowl News. “Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank check.”

A Morning Consult poll released October 24 found that only 29% of Republicans believe the U.S. has a responsibility to protect and defend Ukraine against Russia, versus 56% of Democrats. Overall, only 42% of U.S. voters believe that Washington should help Ukraine.

Nonetheless, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has vowed that a Republican-held Senate would go further than the Biden administration on Ukraine aid, noting it would “focus its oversight on ensuring timely delivery of needed weapons and greater allied assistance to Ukraine.”

US Army brigade in Africa seeks to ward off Chinese, Russian influence

China

China is the rare issue where there seems to be little conflict between Republicans and Democrats. Still, the issue is likely to be highlighted more by Republican lawmakers if they control congressional debate next year.

The House GOP’s “Commitment to America” vows that Republicans will establish a Select Committee on China. Republicans established their China taskforce early in 2020 after Democrats refused to participate, accusing former president Donald Trump of scapegoating Beijing for his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the current House China Task Force remains an entirely partisan Republican initiative for now, it has advanced hundreds of proposals — many of which enjoy robust bipartisan support. The task force has worked closely with Taiwan’s diplomatic office and pushed to provide Taipei with more U.S. weapons at a faster pace.

That also includes a congressional bipartisan consensus on nuclear modernization as China races to do the same.

“You’ve also seen Republicans make nuclear modernization a priority — as adversaries like Russia and North Korea threaten the use of nuclear weapons and as China has rapidly increased their nuclear arsenal,” said the senior Republican aide.

Centrist Democrats have joined Republicans in the draft text of the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act program to block the Biden administration from defunding the sea-launched cruise missile nuclear development program.

The House China task force also proposed subsidies and tax incentives to persuade manufacturers to develop semiconductors in the U.S. instead of China and other Asian countries as part of a broader effort to shore up the U.S. defense industrial base. Congress ultimately passed $52 billion worth of these subsidies into law in July.

Pentagon seeks additive manufacturing to spur hypersonic development

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon wants to use an advanced technology process known as additive manufacturing to design and build hypersonic weapon and vehicle systems that can operate in extreme conditions.

As the U.S. Department of Defense looks to field its first hypersonic capability in fiscal 2023, officials emphasize the need to shore up the industrial base and ensure programs can smoothly transition from development to production. Through an initiative called Growing Additive Manufacturing Maturity for Airbreathing Hypersonics, or GAMMA-H, it’s targeting materials and processes used to build systems that travel and maneuver above Mach 5.

In a request for proposals issued Oct. 28, the department asked companies large and small, as well as academia, to submit prototype proposals for developing hypersonic components using additive manufacturing, which leverages computer-aided design software and often advanced materials to build components.

“We need to be pushing the envelope with materials produced using the additive manufacturing process,” Kevin DeVries, deputy director of the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Manufacturing Technology Program, said in a statement. “The science has proven it’s possible, but the practice is not widespread enough. GAMMA-H will encourage further adoption of groundbreaking technology.”

Because the parts used to build hypersonic systems must operate under extreme conditions, they require advanced specifications and materials that can withstand high temperatures and other mechanical stress. The premise of GAMMA-H is that additive manufacturing techniques could help improve the quality of those parts and reduce the number of components needed to build a vehicle or weapon.

The Navy is leading the effort in partnership with the Manufacturing Technology program office. Proposals are due Dec. 12, and the department aims to move through the selection process quickly, though it gave no timeline.

Speaking during the Defense News conference in September, Pentagon acquisition executive Bill LaPlante said the department and its industrial base need to focus on addressing these types of manufacturing challenges to prepare for increased production.

“You have very difficult materials issues, thermal management issues, aerodynamics issues,” he said. “And so, production is an art. And when you haven’t done it before or you haven’t done it for a long time, you have to relearn it.”

‘Secure, survive, strike’: The Navy’s new approach for cyber dominance

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy this month highlighted the values the service is using to shape its cyberspace investments and improve its day-to-day digital posture, including what one official described as the ability to “fight hurt.”

The Cyberspace Superiority Vision, announced Oct. 28, contains three tenets: secure, survive and strike. The pillars, according to the documents, are “fundamental to maintaining maritime dominance” and ensuring Navy and Marine Corps operations proceed smoothly across increasingly cyber-contested environments.

The right cyber investments are critical, officials say, as the U.S. positions itself for a fight against technologically advanced opponents such as China and Russia after decades of focusing on counterterrorism and less-equipped forces in the Middle East.

The superiority plan was teased earlier this year by Chris Cleary, the Navy’s principal cyber adviser.

“It’s not only important that we build the foundation — data science, all the things that enable almost everything that we do right now — but how do we really apply this to warfighting techniques,” Cleary said last month at the Defense Talks conference in Pentagon City. “We talk about secure, survive, strike.”

The three factors are meant to work in concert, producing a sum that is great than its parts. The combination is also meant to fortify cybersecurity, shielding sensitive information from prying eyes, while providing commanders the tools they need to virtually reach out and ding a target.

US Navy hunting for info warfare experts, Aeschbach tells Old Crows

“At the end of the day, the Department of Defense is here to engage our adversaries. The Columbia-class submarine does not deliver humanitarian aid,” Cleary said. “And as we look at our ability to deliver effects in and through cyberspace, I want our adversaries to be every bit as nervous looking down the barrel of our non-kinetic capabilities as they are every one of our kinetic capabilities.”

An analysis published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2021 ranked the U.S. as the world’s top cyber power. Both China and Russia were placed in the second tier, alongside Australia, France, the U.K. and others.

Sailors and other military members in February were warned they are targets for cyberattacks amid turbulent Sino-U.S. relations and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In a memo at the time, Navy Vice Adm. Jeffrey Trussler said cyberattacks against U.S. infrastructure and businesses were “increasing in frequency and complexity,” and that most anyone can be baited for access and information.

Hackers previously exploited mistakes on Navy and private networks by stealing or brute-forcing credentials as well as installing malware, according to Trussler’s unclassified bulletin. Defense News in June 2018 reported Chinese-sponsored cyberattacks breached a Navy contractor’s computers, jeopardizing information related to secret work on an anti-ship missile.

“As we engage with our adversaries, our critical infrastructure, our weapon systems are going to be targeted,” said Cleary, who advises Navy and Marine Corps leadership and works to implement the Pentagon’s broader cyber strategy. “The Department of Navy has to learn how to fight hurt. We all really need to learn how to fight hurt.”