Archive: April 28, 2023

Congress solved acquisition reform. Now we must fix incentives.

Don’t worry, this isn’t another op-ed arguing for defense acquisition reform. Yes, like any large government apparatus, the Department of Defense has challenges, but to say acquisition reform is needed is dead wrong. Congress has instituted the correct rules for the DoD to follow with regard to procurement, but the DoD still faces an inherent challenge to rapidly deliver technology from science and technology to programs of record.

Far too many innovations are mired in the world of research and development that never reach the warfighter. The reasons for the lack of progress are twofold. First, there is a critical gap in how collaboration is fostered between the S&T community, program executive offices and tech companies. Collaboration among these stakeholders is crucial to accelerate the pace at which our defense-industrial base can deploy rapidly fielded capabilities.

Second, institutional incentives must align with the desire to fast-track technology to warfighters. Currently, the DoD is failing to provide sufficient incentives to transition from research and development to actual procurement. Additionally, there are far too many innovation offices that lack ties to programs and program executive offices. The DoD should reduce or remove these offices, and focus on those that work and can transition programs like the Defense Innovation Unit and AFWERX. In this regard, the recent announcement to elevate the DIU director to a direct report to the defense secretary reflects a positive step forward.

Fostering greater collaboration between S&T, acquisition and tech communities requires a cultural shift in the DoD’s mindset. This shift will not occur on its own.

One idea: Force S&T offices that receive more than $10 million in funding to align themselves with and become subordinate to program executive offices to which they plan to transition.

In addition, S&T must be required to first look for available commercial technology before using research, development, testing and evaluation funding to avoid duplication with the commercial market and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. If this is not an option, the Defense Department should enable program executive offices to use procurement funding for early testing, evaluation and modification.

For instances where S&T must pursue RDT&E funding, there should be an opportunity for open competition or a “bake-off” before said funding is obligated. As a corollary measure, when RDT&E is needed, such as for emerging technology capabilities, S&T should only be allowed to use research funding for a maximum of four years. In the second year, the office should be required to identify a program executive office for transition. If the technology is not transitioned within a four-year period, then the program should be canceled or require senior acquisition executive approval to continue.

The concepts above not only bring about the “fail fast” mentality of rapidly developing and testing key technology areas, but also reduce the “experiment forever” mindset. The result is a better equipped warfighter ready for the fight tomorrow.

Aside from implementing these guardrails, several incentives should be implemented to accelerate the deployment of new technology capabilities. For example, the DoD should adjust the ratio of RDT&E to procurement funding to motivate services to purchase and modify existing technologies rather than waste time by developing (or redeveloping) new ones from the ground up.

As it stands, outsized RDT&E funding, coupled with insufficient funding for procurement, results in a lack of incentives to advance programs from S&T. Very often the commercial world has already solved the DoD’s problems; they just need the ability to leverage it.

The Department of Defense must also incentivize greater private sector involvement by increasing procurement funding for innovative technology. This is a critical imperative because we live in a world where most new and emerging technology is built by the private sector.

All these proposals engender a cultural change in how the DoD approaches procurement for new technological capabilities. Some might argue that shifting the paradigm on such a massive scale is impossible. However, parts of the armed services have already taken proactive steps to rapidly field new technological capabilities with success. Two concepts come to mind.

The first is the Marine Corps’ Force Design 2030 — a complete transformational effort with a central focus on using cutting-edge technology. The Marines moved into low-rate initial production for a highly innovative autonomy program. This progress occurred because the Marine Corps went directly to a program office and simultaneously conducted fielding and development.

How the Marines will use uncrewed tech, according to acquisitions boss

Second, within the Space Force — an armed service organized under the Department of the Air Force — a new mantra emphasizing the need to “go fast in space acquisition” is taking shape, with a goal of three years or less from contract authority to launch. All branches and every program executive office should follow the same path.

The Department of Defense can either respond to incentives that Congress gives it, or change from within. Those incentives should be to field capable systems quickly. The key to successful reform lies in enhancing accountability, fostering collaboration and creating incentives for rapid capability fielding. By addressing these challenges, the DoD will improve its ability to field new capabilities and therefore maintain its competitive edge in a constantly changing global security landscape.

The real valley of death is not funding — it’s the transition from S&T to programs of record. Make no mistake: The DoD is already equipped to succeed with current authorities and without new rules.

Scott Sanders is chief growth officer at autonomous technology firm RRAI. He previously led business development efforts for the national security technology firm Vannevar Labs, worked as the senior director for Anduril’s counter-drone division and served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Adi Raval is the head of communications for RRAI. He previously served in the U.S. government as the communications director for the Obama administration’s Power Africa initiative, and as a diplomat based in Afghanistan.

Congress solved acquisition reform. Now we must fix incentives.

Don’t worry, this isn’t another op-ed arguing for defense acquisition reform. Yes, like any large government apparatus, the Department of Defense has challenges, but to say acquisition reform is needed is dead wrong. Congress has instituted the correct rules for the DoD to follow with regard to procurement, but the DoD still faces an inherent challenge to rapidly deliver technology from science and technology to programs of record.

Far too many innovations are mired in the world of research and development that never reach the warfighter. The reasons for the lack of progress are twofold. First, there is a critical gap in how collaboration is fostered between the S&T community, program executive offices and tech companies. Collaboration among these stakeholders is crucial to accelerate the pace at which our defense-industrial base can deploy rapidly fielded capabilities.

Second, institutional incentives must align with the desire to fast-track technology to warfighters. Currently, the DoD is failing to provide sufficient incentives to transition from research and development to actual procurement. Additionally, there are far too many innovation offices that lack ties to programs and program executive offices. The DoD should reduce or remove these offices, and focus on those that work and can transition programs like the Defense Innovation Unit and AFWERX. In this regard, the recent announcement to elevate the DIU director to a direct report to the defense secretary reflects a positive step forward.

Fostering greater collaboration between S&T, acquisition and tech communities requires a cultural shift in the DoD’s mindset. This shift will not occur on its own.

One idea: Force S&T offices that receive more than $10 million in funding to align themselves with and become subordinate to program executive offices to which they plan to transition.

In addition, S&T must be required to first look for available commercial technology before using research, development, testing and evaluation funding to avoid duplication with the commercial market and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. If this is not an option, the Defense Department should enable program executive offices to use procurement funding for early testing, evaluation and modification.

For instances where S&T must pursue RDT&E funding, there should be an opportunity for open competition or a “bake-off” before said funding is obligated. As a corollary measure, when RDT&E is needed, such as for emerging technology capabilities, S&T should only be allowed to use research funding for a maximum of four years. In the second year, the office should be required to identify a program executive office for transition. If the technology is not transitioned within a four-year period, then the program should be canceled or require senior acquisition executive approval to continue.

The concepts above not only bring about the “fail fast” mentality of rapidly developing and testing key technology areas, but also reduce the “experiment forever” mindset. The result is a better equipped warfighter ready for the fight tomorrow.

Aside from implementing these guardrails, several incentives should be implemented to accelerate the deployment of new technology capabilities. For example, the DoD should adjust the ratio of RDT&E to procurement funding to motivate services to purchase and modify existing technologies rather than waste time by developing (or redeveloping) new ones from the ground up.

As it stands, outsized RDT&E funding, coupled with insufficient funding for procurement, results in a lack of incentives to advance programs from S&T. Very often the commercial world has already solved the DoD’s problems; they just need the ability to leverage it.

The Department of Defense must also incentivize greater private sector involvement by increasing procurement funding for innovative technology. This is a critical imperative because we live in a world where most new and emerging technology is built by the private sector.

All these proposals engender a cultural change in how the DoD approaches procurement for new technological capabilities. Some might argue that shifting the paradigm on such a massive scale is impossible. However, parts of the armed services have already taken proactive steps to rapidly field new technological capabilities with success. Two concepts come to mind.

The first is the Marine Corps’ Force Design 2030 — a complete transformational effort with a central focus on using cutting-edge technology. The Marines moved into low-rate initial production for a highly innovative autonomy program. This progress occurred because the Marine Corps went directly to a program office and simultaneously conducted fielding and development.

How the Marines will use uncrewed tech, according to acquisitions boss

Second, within the Space Force — an armed service organized under the Department of the Air Force — a new mantra emphasizing the need to “go fast in space acquisition” is taking shape, with a goal of three years or less from contract authority to launch. All branches and every program executive office should follow the same path.

The Department of Defense can either respond to incentives that Congress gives it, or change from within. Those incentives should be to field capable systems quickly. The key to successful reform lies in enhancing accountability, fostering collaboration and creating incentives for rapid capability fielding. By addressing these challenges, the DoD will improve its ability to field new capabilities and therefore maintain its competitive edge in a constantly changing global security landscape.

The real valley of death is not funding — it’s the transition from S&T to programs of record. Make no mistake: The DoD is already equipped to succeed with current authorities and without new rules.

Scott Sanders is chief growth officer at autonomous technology firm RRAI. He previously led business development efforts for the national security technology firm Vannevar Labs, worked as the senior director for Anduril’s counter-drone division and served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Adi Raval is the head of communications for RRAI. He previously served in the U.S. government as the communications director for the Obama administration’s Power Africa initiative, and as a diplomat based in Afghanistan.

More international forces to join US Army’s aviation experiment Edge

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Now entering its third year, the U.S. Army plans to bring more international partners into the Experimental Demonstration Gateway Exercise next month to improve the ability to connect, share information and execute missions together more seamlessly, according to the service’s two-star general in charge of aviation modernization.

“We have a much larger coalition presence,” Maj. Gen. Wally Rugen, the Army’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team lead, told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Army Aviation Association of America’s summit in Tennessee.

Australia, Canada, France and the United Kingdom — all of which observed the exercise last year — are now participating, Rugen said. Those nations will join the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, which participated in the exercise in 2022 at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.

“I don’t want to oversell it, but we have seven that are bringing technology, two that are observers, and we have actually others who have sent in some late requests, so that number may grow by the time May happens. It may be up to 10 with us,” he added. “We are working through the paperwork and foreign disclosure stuff, but that coalition piece is really good.”

With the addition of more partners, the Army will continue to work on its secret enclave that connects countries on the battlefield at a classified level not previously achieved. The coalition force plans to go through hundreds if not thousands of iterations of a machine-to-machine call for fire, while also testing message traffic, Rugen explained.

If the force at the Experimental Demonstration Gateway Exercise — otherwise known as Edge — can solve such a challenge “I’ll be very, very excited,” he said at a press briefing during the AAAA summit.

Edge will take place at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in May, where events will challenge the U.S. Army and its growing number of partners as the service experiment with concepts and capabilities meant to enhance mission performance in the aerial tier.

The campaign applies space, aviation and network capabilities to show how the Army and the joint force would fight in various theaters. The 2021 iterance focused on the Indo-Pacific region.

The experimentation exercise is meant to feed into Project Convergence, a larger campaign of learning that examines and tests how the Army plans to fight against advanced adversaries across all domains of warfare using capability slated for fielding about 2030 and beyond. The next Project Convergence capstone event will take place in the spring of 2024.

Last year, Edge focused on the European theater and centered around a wet-gap crossing. The U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and other allied units were tasked with defeating an enemy’s integrated air defense systems. That led to a second phase, introducing maneuver forces through air assaults to seize two different pieces of terrain.

This year, the exercise will focus on the Indo-Pacific theater and will test capability across a vast expanse of territory by tying the Yuma-based exercise to Northern Edge, a joint military training event at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, down to Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. Two of the Army’s three established multidomain task force units will participate in the exercise. The other task force is European-based.

Participants will use more than 120 technologies at the exercise, an increase over previous years, Rugen said.

The Army will continue to experiment with what it calls “deep sensing” capabilities using aircraft, air-launched effects, unmanned aircraft, sensors, and command-and-control capabilities to see farther, communicate faster and penetrate enemy territory while keeping piloted aircraft out of the range of threats.

To achieve deep sensing on the battlefield, Rugen said, the Army is working to integrate technology developed in the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force and within Army Cyber Command.

Edge will also help the Army develop and refine its Ariel Tier Network. The Army Requirements Oversight Council will make a decision on the way forward for the capability this calendar year, Rugen noted.

Contested logistics will have a stronger focus in the exercise as well, Rugen said, given its increasing priority as the Army modernizes and prepares to operate in environments under constant surveillance or threat from fort to port.

With the introduction of new partners, some new capability in development with allies will also undergo testing. For instance, Rugen said, Canada is bringing an uncrewed rotorcraft to continue working on related concepts, and the Netherlands is bringing a fifth-generation fighter jet.

More international forces to join US Army’s aviation experiment Edge

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Now entering its third year, the U.S. Army plans to bring more international partners into the Experimental Demonstration Gateway Exercise next month to improve the ability to connect, share information and execute missions together more seamlessly, according to the service’s two-star general in charge of aviation modernization.

“We have a much larger coalition presence,” Maj. Gen. Wally Rugen, the Army’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team lead, told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Army Aviation Association of America’s summit in Tennessee.

Australia, Canada, France and the United Kingdom — all of which observed the exercise last year — are now participating, Rugen said. Those nations will join the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, which participated in the exercise in 2022 at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.

“I don’t want to oversell it, but we have seven that are bringing technology, two that are observers, and we have actually others who have sent in some late requests, so that number may grow by the time May happens. It may be up to 10 with us,” he added. “We are working through the paperwork and foreign disclosure stuff, but that coalition piece is really good.”

With the addition of more partners, the Army will continue to work on its secret enclave that connects countries on the battlefield at a classified level not previously achieved. The coalition force plans to go through hundreds if not thousands of iterations of a machine-to-machine call for fire, while also testing message traffic, Rugen explained.

If the force at the Experimental Demonstration Gateway Exercise — otherwise known as Edge — can solve such a challenge “I’ll be very, very excited,” he said at a press briefing during the AAAA summit.

Edge will take place at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in May, where events will challenge the U.S. Army and its growing number of partners as the service experiment with concepts and capabilities meant to enhance mission performance in the aerial tier.

The campaign applies space, aviation and network capabilities to show how the Army and the joint force would fight in various theaters. The 2021 iterance focused on the Indo-Pacific region.

The experimentation exercise is meant to feed into Project Convergence, a larger campaign of learning that examines and tests how the Army plans to fight against advanced adversaries across all domains of warfare using capability slated for fielding about 2030 and beyond. The next Project Convergence capstone event will take place in the spring of 2024.

Last year, Edge focused on the European theater and centered around a wet-gap crossing. The U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and other allied units were tasked with defeating an enemy’s integrated air defense systems. That led to a second phase, introducing maneuver forces through air assaults to seize two different pieces of terrain.

This year, the exercise will focus on the Indo-Pacific theater and will test capability across a vast expanse of territory by tying the Yuma-based exercise to Northern Edge, a joint military training event at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, down to Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. Two of the Army’s three established multidomain task force units will participate in the exercise. The other task force is European-based.

Participants will use more than 120 technologies at the exercise, an increase over previous years, Rugen said.

The Army will continue to experiment with what it calls “deep sensing” capabilities using aircraft, air-launched effects, unmanned aircraft, sensors, and command-and-control capabilities to see farther, communicate faster and penetrate enemy territory while keeping piloted aircraft out of the range of threats.

To achieve deep sensing on the battlefield, Rugen said, the Army is working to integrate technology developed in the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force and within Army Cyber Command.

Edge will also help the Army develop and refine its Ariel Tier Network. The Army Requirements Oversight Council will make a decision on the way forward for the capability this calendar year, Rugen noted.

Contested logistics will have a stronger focus in the exercise as well, Rugen said, given its increasing priority as the Army modernizes and prepares to operate in environments under constant surveillance or threat from fort to port.

With the introduction of new partners, some new capability in development with allies will also undergo testing. For instance, Rugen said, Canada is bringing an uncrewed rotorcraft to continue working on related concepts, and the Netherlands is bringing a fifth-generation fighter jet.

Lockheed wins $4.8B guided rockets contract

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Army on Thursday awarded Lockheed Martin a $4.8 billion deal for Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, which the U.S. has sent in large numbers to Ukraine.

The U.S. has been providing GMLRS, along with the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers used to fire them, to Ukraine since last summer to help it fend off Russia’s invasion. (The Pentagon has not disclosed the number of GMLRS sent to the country.)

The service plans to ramp up GMLRS production from 6,000 rockets a year to 14,000 and expects to sign a multiyear deal for them in fiscal 2024, thanks to a new congressional authority. Multiyear contracts, usually reserved for expensive and large programs, provide longer-term certainty that can lower the cost.

Work on the contract announced Wednesday is expected to be completed by Oct. 30, 2026, according to the Pentagon notification.

How the war in Ukraine is driving growth in Arkansas

Jay Price, vice president of Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control business, said in a statement the company is “working closely with our Army customer and supply chain partners, who are moving with unprecedented speed, to ramp production capacity supporting the urgent need for this highly-reliable, combat-proven rocket.”

In addition to a boosting GMLRS production, Lockheed is also working on an extended range version of the rocket and plans to conduct another flight test of the upgraded system later this year, Becky Withrow, senior business development manager at Lockheed’s missiles business, told Defense News on Thursday at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual conference here.

Lockheed is hoping the Army will make a decision in 2024 on whether to move the extended range version into the production line, Withrow added.

Boeing’s tanker losses top $7 billion

WASHINGTON — Boeing reported a $245 million charge on the KC-46A Pegasus tanker in the first quarter of 2023, due to a supplier’s quality issues.

The penalty means the KC-46 has now racked up more than $7 billion in charges, and follow a $1.2 billion hit the company took on the Air Force tanker in the third quarter of 2022.

The KC-46′s charge brought Boeing Defense, Space and Security into the red for the quarter, with the unit reporting a loss of $212 million, the company said Wednesday. Boeing said ongoing labor and supply chain disruptions also hindered the company’s results.

However, the outlook for Boeing’s defense unit showed signs of improvement from the first quarter of 2022, when it reported a $929 million loss. Boeing defense also brought in $6.5 billion in revenues in this year’s first quarter, a more than $1 billion increase over 2022′s first quarter.

Boeing also trimmed its overall losses in the quarter by about $1 billion from the same period in 2022, while overall revenues grew to nearly $18 billion in the first three months of this year.

Boeing said the charge was largely driven by a previously disclosed quality issue due to a supplier, but did not offer further details in a call with analysts. The aviation news website the Air Current reported in March a subcontractor had not followed proper painting and priming procedures on the center fuel tanks of some KC-46s and 767s, on which the KC-46 is based, which has held up deliveries. That quality issue could risk contamination of the aircrafts’ fuel systems, Air Current reported.

Brian West, Boeing’s chief financial officer, confirmed the quality issue with the 767 center fuel tanks later that month at a Bank of America conference.

David Calhoun, Boeing’s chief executive, said on Wednesday’s call work is progressing on fixing that problem. But the company warned investors more losses on the KC-46 could come during the remainder of the year.

Calhoun said the company is seeing bright spots in its defense business, with the Air Force possibly buying additional, modified KC-46s as an interim step until it can bring on a next-generation tanker. He also pointed to the up to $1.2 billion contract the Air Force awarded Boeing in February to start building the E-7A battle management aircraft, to replace the aging E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft.

Awards in the first quarter for 15 more KC-46s and 184 Apache helicopters for the Army also reflected strong demand, Calhoun said.

Congressional China panel preps proposals to rapidly arm Taiwan

WASHINGTON — The House committee dedicated to countering China is preparing bipartisan proposals for the fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill that would accelerate U.S. munitions production and arms transfers to Taiwan, its chairman told Defense News in an exclusive interview.

The committee is drawing on lessons learned from the Taiwan tabletop wargame it held last week as it drafts its proposals, which aim to ramp up production of high-priority munitions, help clear the $19 billion arms sale backlog to Taipei and bolster Pentagon cybersecurity cooperation with the island nation.

“We’re hoping to get consensus on a series of proposals that the committee can endorse that would be tailor-made for insertion into this year’s [National Defense Authorization Act],” Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., said Thursday.

He’s also using his position as a subcommittee chairman on the Armed Services Committee to introduce those Taiwan recommendations as amendments when the House marks up the FY24 NDAA in early June.

Gallagher discussed lessons from the wargame on Wednesday with members of three external groups: retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Stacie Pettyjohn from the Center for a New American Security and Jimmy Goodrich from the Semiconductor Industry Association. In addition to shattering the global economy and potentially killing many people, the wargame found that a U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan would rapidly deplete long-range missile stockpiles.

Beijing considers the island a rogue province, and has threatened to take it back by force.

“Whatever we do to deter the war has to happen before the war,” Gallagher told Defense News. “We need to jump-start industry now if we want to actually stockpile munitions that give us a chance of preserving the peace, which means in my opinion that you need multiyear appropriations for critical munitions like the long-range anti-ship missile.”

“We need about 1,000 to 12,000 [long-range anti-ship missiles] if you believe the unclassified wargames,” he added. “Our inventory is less than 250, and we’re just not producing them at a rapid rate. I believe we can get up to above 200 a year.”

Other high-priority munitions Gallagher identified are the Naval Strike Missiles, which U.S. Marines are fielding in Japan and the Philippines as part of an expeditionary ship interdiction system; Joint Strike Missiles; Joint Direct Attack Munitions; and SM-6 missiles.

“We need multiyear appropriations to make that happen,” he said. “We’re talking about a relatively small amount of money compared to the overall defense budget.”

Multiyear procurement authorities historically have been used for big-ticket items like ships and aircraft, but the Pentagon and some lawmakers have recently expressed interest in using them for munitions acquisition to encourage defense companies to ramp up production amid concern about insufficient U.S. stockpiles.

The FY23 NDAA sought to jump-start high-priority U.S. munitions production by authorizing multiyear procurement contracts for thousands of critical munitions. That includes 950 long-range anti-ship missiles, 1,250 Naval Strike Missiles and 1,500 SM-6 weapons, as well as thousands of other munitions — some of which the U.S. is backfilling after sending some of its stocks to Ukraine.

But appropriators did not fully fund the critical munitions authorization in the FY23 government funding bill. The spending bill allocated $687 million for the Army for two years to accelerate production “of critical munitions to replace defense articles” provided to Ukraine and its backers.

Gallagher said that this funding level in the appropriations bill “fell far short of what was authorized” and that he’s talking to appropriators “to get to some sort of compromise.”

“I understand why they usually resist multiyear authority and why they are skeptical about the way [the Defense Department] spends money,” he said. “Sometimes [the department] spends money in a stupid fashion.”

The Pentagon requested multiyear procurement authorities for munitions for the first time in March as part of its FY24 budget request, which asks Congress for $30.6 billion in missile and munition procurement. That includes the long-range anti-ship missile, the Naval Strike Missile and the SM-6.

Arming Taiwan

The FY23 NDAA also authorized up to $2 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing grants for arms to Taiwan and another $1 billion in presidential drawdown authority to give it weapons from existing U.S. stockpiles — the same authority President Joe Biden has used to arm Ukraine. But like multiyear procurement authorities, the FY23 appropriations bill did not fund either Taiwan aid authorization.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told the Senate in March that the Pentagon is preparing a weapons drawdown package from U.S. stocks for Taiwan, but that he’ll need lawmakers to follow through with appropriations to backfill those munitions.

Additionally, industrial capacity issues have contributed to a $19 billion arms sale backlog to Taiwan — something Gallagher also hopes to ameliorate. That will also require reforms to the Foreign Military Sales process. Montgomery, the retired Navy officer, told the House’s China committee that it can take more than 30 months from the announcement of a Taiwan arms sale until the Defense Department inks a contract for the weapon system.

“Once the sale is approved, there’s nobody in [the Defense Department] that then rides herd on the contract to actually get it done,” said Gallagher, noting that the Foreign Military Sales process “exists in this weird no-man’sland” between the Pentagon and State Department.

The chairman also wants to move Taiwan to the front of the line for certain arms sales, including Harpoon missiles. Saudi Arabia stands ahead of Taiwan in the queue for those anti-ship weapons, which Gallagher said “makes no sense.”

An initial draft of last year’s Taiwan aid legislation in the Senate would have required defense manufacturers to “prioritize and expedite” weapons for Taiwan in their queues, but lawmakers dropped that provision when they added parts of the bill to the FY23 NDAA due to concerns it would violate U.S. contracting law.

Lastly, Gallagher — who chairs the Armed Services Committee’s cyber panel — hopes to enhance the U.S.-Taiwan cybersecurity partnership to improve the island’s “resiliency and critical infrastructure.” He has introduced a bill, the Taiwan Cybersecurity Resilience Act, which would require the Pentagon to work with the Asian nation to improve cooperation on military cyber operations.

Will German purchase of Boeing Chinooks relieve pressure on US Army?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Boeing hopes Congress will fund more CH-47F Block II Chinook helicopters for the Army in the fiscal 2024 budget — against the service’s wishes — in order to keep the company’s production line busy. But the service’s acquisition chief said in a recent hearing that Germany’s plan to buy the aircraft should be enough to support Boeing and avoid the Army having to buy more.

The Army decided in 2019 that it would not procure the CH-47F Block II for the active fleet so it could begin heavier investments in its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft and the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft it wants to field in the early 2030s. The service is still seeking 69 of the latest Chinook variant for special operations in the form of the MH-47 “G” model.

Boeing won a contract last year to build 60 CH-47 Chinook helicopters for Germany.

The Block II version of the Chinook featured new rotor blades, but the Army abandoned the effort a year ago due to excessive rotor blade vibrations that, according to the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, posed a flight risk. The version also incorporates a new fuel system, electrical system and stronger airframe to increase lift capability.

Since the 2019 decision, Congress has pushed back on the Army’s decision and injected funding into the its budget, forcing the service to buy the Block II variant for the active force. Over the last three budget cycles, Congress has funded a total of 10 Block II Chinooks for the regular Army.

Again in the FY24 request, the Army asked for only six G model helicopters, and none for the active force.

“The Army does recognize the importance of [the CH-47] industrial base and especially the human capital aspect of it. It’s vital,” Army acquisition chief Doug Bush said during a House Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing last week.

“The budget request did include, once again, our six aircraft for special operations forces,” he added. “One thing that has changed is the good news that the German military has decided to buy the CH-47 … which gives us the opportunity to retain that workforce. Whichever direction the Army ultimately goes, [it] buys us some more time.”

The Army had hoped foreign military sales might help shore up Boeing’s production line to keep the industrial base for the Chinook going strong. Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville argued shortly after the service decided to curb the Block II variant for the regular Army that foreign military sales could bolster the line.

Army officials pointed to both Germany and Israel as potential customers. Israel ultimately chose the Sikorsky-made CH-53K King Stallion for its heavy-lift program in 2021.

Boeing officials told Defense News in 2019 that even if Germany and Israel each went with the CH-47, it wouldn’t be enough to support the production line while also keeping the workforce and sub-tier suppliers active over time.

Boeing’s senior director for international government services, Mark Ballew, told Defense News on April 27 at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual conference that the sale to Germany is a “huge help,” but it only keeps the production line in Pennsylvania at a minimum sustainment rate.

The company also signed a contract with Egypt to build 12 additional Chinooks, and South Korea has signed a letter of agreement for 18, which will also help fill the gap, according to Ken Eland, Boeing’s Chinook program manager.

Eland said he is hopeful Congress will again fund more Block II Chinooks to the active force in its FY24 budget, which will contribute to the health of the supply chain and the production line.

Boeing and Congress are due for a more definitive answer on the Army’s plan for the active force this year. Bush noted that there is a decision point in 2023, which would feed into the FY25 budget request being built right now, on where it will ultimately land when it comes to providing the latest variant to the active force.

“The aircraft that Congress has added for the Army to procure, we have procured and we are going to field,” Bush said. “But I think at this time, it’s a question of balancing resources across the entire Army. That is the question in front of senior Army leaders with regard to where this falls in the mix.”

But the Army has set its sites on future vertical lift endeavors.

“What I think’s important right now is to get FARA and FLRAA over the hump … get it fielded and there is a program of record,” McConville told reporters at the AAAA conference on April 27. “Having that transformational capability is where [we] want to go. We’d love to continue building out the CH-47, which really comes down to money.”

House rejects Gaetz pitch to withdraw all US forces from Somalia

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday voted 101-321 against withdrawing U.S. troops in Somalia even as Africa Command asks Congress for more funds to establish a “persistent presence” in the war-torn country.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., used expedited measures laid out in the War Powers Act to force a floor vote on his resolution, which would have directed President Joe Biden to remove all U.S. troops from Somalia – except for those assigned to protect the embassy – within a year.

“The future of Somalia must be determined by Somalia,” Gaetz said on the House floor ahead of the vote. “I would argue that the African Union is far better positioned to build a stronger sense of national identity and national unity among clans that have been warring in Somalia for generations than U.S. troops.”

Biden has reintroduced troops into Somalia to help local forces fight al-Shabaab – an al-Qaeda affiliate – after Trump withdrew from the country following his 2020 election defeat and placed them in neighboring countries such as Kenya and Djbouti.

Gaetz said the U.S. currently has approximately 900 troops stationed in Somalia. The White House has said that it deployed less than 500 to the country, but it did not disclose Somalia troop levels in the unclassified portion of the war powers report it submitted to Congress in March.

Defense News in March obtained an unfunded priorities request from AFRICOM Commander Gen. Michael Langley, who asked Congress for $152 million to carry out a three-month assessment on U.S. troop levels in Somalia. That amount includes $42 million for airfield improvements, $43 million for life support area improvements and $11 million for communications improvements.

“Funding is required to establish a Somalian persistent presence to further ensure strategic access, confine violent extremist organizations, secure sea lines of communication and limit competitor military expansion,” Langley wrote. “More precisely, a lodgment in Somalia will serve to degrade the growing threat from Al Shabaab, assure freedom of navigation through the Bab Al Mandab sea-lane chokepoint and monitor the expanding Chinese presence in Djibouti.”

Rep. John James, R-Mich., also pointed to China’s Djbouti base and expanding military presence in the Horn of Africa when arguing against the Gaetz amendment, arguing that Beijing “will rush to fill the void” in the region.

Langley noted the funding request for the review was not included in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2024 base budget request due to the “emergent nature” of the Somalia mission since Biden’s 2021 decision to reintroduce troops there. He also wrote that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “further endorsed this adjustment to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of U.S. Special Forces.”

The U.S. conducted 15 airstrikes on al-Shabaab forces in Somalia in 2022, a 30% increase over the previous year, killing 107. U.S. Special Forces also killed Islamic State leader Bilal Al Sudani and 10 of his associates in a January raid this year.

War powers

U.S. troops are stationed in Somalia under a 2001 military authorization, which Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

Four presidents have since used the 2001 military authorization to justify at least 41 military operations in at least 19 countries across the globe.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., joined in the opposition to the Gaetz resolution, arguing that “our forces on the ground in Somalia are there to provide security training and intelligence support” and said the legislation did not address the issue of over-the-horizon strikes on Al Shabaab after the withdrawal.

Meeks instead argued in favor of his bill to repeal and replace the 2001 military authorization with a narrower authority. The Meeks bill would take away the legal basis for stationing U.S. soldiers in Somalia by limiting the mission to al-Qaida and the Islamic State in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. His bill does not currently have any Republican cosponsors.

It’s unclear whether the Gaetz resolution would force Biden’s hand on Somalia even if Congress had passed it. The lawmaker introduced the legislation as concurrent resolution instead of a joint resolution, meaning the president would not have the opportunity to veto it. A Congressional Research Service report notes that a 1983 Supreme Court decision ruled that concurrent resolutions aren’t binding, but it caveats that this ruling may not apply to war powers resolutions.

“While we should not mistake this poorly crafted resolution for an honest assessment of U.S. policy on Somalia, it is important that we support the question before us,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn, a Somali-American refugee, said before voting in favor of the bill. But she added that there should be a broader debate over “the expansive use” of the 2001 military authorization as well as “a clear-eyed analysis of U.S. counterterrorism policies, including airstrikes and drones and the consistent problem of civilian casualties.”

Despite the tepid support from even some of the bill’s backers, Gaetz remains undeterred. He previously forced a war powers vote in March to withdraw 900 U.S. troops from Syria, which the House voted down 103-321. He also hinted on Thursday that he would next force a war powers vote on withdrawing U.S. soldiers from Niger.

Davis-Monthan to launch new special operations wing as A-10 retires

This story was updated April 27 at 10:52 a.m. to correct which missions are moving from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, to Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona appears poised to trade its stalwart fleet of A-10C “Warthog” attack planes for a new special operations wing.

The move follows years of debate in Washington over the future of the A-10, which the Air Force plans to retire by the end of the decade in favor of more advanced fighter jets. Bringing in a special operations wing would keep jobs at the Tucson installation while taking it in a different direction than the service had planned.

A service spokesperson said Tuesday the Air Force is still “working through the details” of the new organization, which is listed in the service’s fiscal 2024 budget request as the “492nd Power Projection Wing.”

It’s unclear what, precisely, the wing will do. Most wings that fall under Air Force Special Operations Command oversee multiple specialized aircraft — from the AC-130 gunship to the U-28 surveillance plane — that allow troops to move around warzones quietly and quickly, and with the substantial firepower needed to protect ground forces.

Members of Arizona’s congressional delegation raised the prospect of a new “special operations capability” with a flying mission at Davis-Monthan in a public letter to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall earlier this month.

The bipartisan group of Arizona lawmakers — Sen. Mark Kelly and Rep. Ruben Gallego, both Democrats; Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent who caucuses with Democrats; and Rep. Juan Ciscomani, a Republican — said they are encouraged by the service’s vision and urged transparency as its work moves forward.

“The Air Force has laid out an ambitious timeline for executing this transition at Davis-Monthan through a series of facility reviews, military construction and incoming flying missions,” the group wrote in its April 6 letter. “Delivering on this five-year plan requires meeting a number of targets that must be consistently met to avoid delays that negatively impact the base and the local economy.”

Davis-Monthan will continue to host the Compass Call electronic attack mission with a slightly smaller fleet of new EC-37B jets, which will replace the 40-year-old EC-130Hs, and the combat search-and-rescue mission using the fixed-wing HC-130J Combat Kings and the new HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopter.

Lawmakers said Davis-Monthan will still employ around 11,000 airmen in five years, the same size workforce as it has now, despite changes to its core missions. The Air Force must still work through its official basing process before making any firm decisions to bring new missions to Tucson.

The service’s pivot to establish a new special operations wing at Davis-Monthan indicates it has ditched an earlier plan to move the test and training enterprise for A-10s from Nellis AFB, Nevada, to Arizona. It still expects to move those units for the HH-60 fleet to Arizona.

The service plans to continue downsizing its A-10 fleet from 260 to 218 aircraft by the end of September 2024, with the rest to follow over the next five years. Congress ended its yearslong opposition to retiring the A-10 last December, paving the way for divestment of the venerable close air support platform that has protected ground troops on the front lines of America’s wars for decades.

A-10 retirement is one piece of the Air Force’s broader vision to modernize its inventory with equipment that would be most useful and durable in a potential conflict with China. Critics argue the Warthog would be too vulnerable against advanced surface-to-air missiles and lacks the long-range strike capabilities needed for war in the Pacific.

“The A-10 is a great airplane … in an uncontested environment,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. said in March. “The challenge is, we’re going to be in more contested environments in the future.”