Archive: November 30, 2023

AUKUS can work without gutting US export control laws

The United States has the most comprehensive series of military export controls in the world, implemented through the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Yet, this year those controls have faced their biggest challenge in a decade – an attempt from industry and some in Congress to tar it as a threat to U.S. national security, and a barrier to the AUKUS security partnership between the U.S., U.K., and Australia.

Lawmakers must resolve differences in AUKUS-related sections of the Senate National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) over the next few weeks. As they do so, representatives should preserve the traditional deal offered to allies requesting military-industrial partnerships: ITAR exemptions in exchange for export control alignment. This deal would encourage collaboration amongst AUKUS partners while ensuring that foreign adversaries can’t siphon U.S.-origin weapons and military technology through American allies because of discrepancies in our export control regimes.

The AUKUS-ITAR debate is a false dilemma created by the shifting focus of the partnership since its announcement in 2021. While AUKUS was originally about the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology for an Australian submarine fleet, it has since been reframed into an ambitious program to collaboratively develop advanced military capabilities in artificial intelligence, hypersonic speed, cyber and quantum technologies, among others.

It is true that ITAR compliance isn’t easy, and many military producers and governments would prefer to have the perks without the paperwork. Two bills currently before the House would do just that, by providing blanket exemptions to the ITAR for AUKUS partners – no strings attached.

Another proposal in the Senate (the TORPEDO Act), creates a more limited exemption while eliminating other export barriers, but ignores disparities between U.S., U.K., Australia military export controls. A third proposal, embedded in the Senate defense authorization legislation, provides the most responsible choice – targeted exemptions and expedited technology transfers in exchange for export control alignment with the United States.

After all, while accelerating AUKUS innovation in quantum, cyber, AI and other technologies is a laudable goal, doing so by reducing oversight on U.S.-origin technology undermines the purpose of the pact and increases the risk of both espionage and illicit technology transfer.

The ITAR regime has long been a source of friction between the United States and its allies, forcing military industry to keep a close eye on U.S.-origin military articles and services. Exporters are required to register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), and apply for export licenses for articles and services on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) – including both tangible weapons, equipment and components, and intangible technologies, software, and technical data.

The controls are “sticky” and extraterritorial; each subsequent transfer or reexport of an ITAR-controlled article or service requires another license, even if it has been incorporated into a larger product. While the ITAR doesn’t exclude dual- and foreign nationals from handling controlled articles and services, it does consider their access (even within the U.S.) to be an export requiring a license. Tracking these transfers and applying for licenses imposes rigorous compliance requirements on both U.S. and non-U.S. companies, and can limit open information-sharing and collaboration.

Indeed, ITAR critics like to argue that U.S. controls are an evolutionary throwback, locked in ice like a desiccated mammoth. Yet over the last 15 years, the US. government has revised the ITAR to ease the export of low-risk military goods and services to our partners. The USML has been shortened, the number of annual license requests has shrunk, and new mechanisms have been created to facilitate exports and transfers to trusted partners. Some of these reforms, like moving many firearms to the less restrictive Commerce Control List (CCL), are concerning for other reasons, yet many, like the creation of bilateral defense cooperation treaties with Australia and the U.K., their addition to the National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB), and the pilot Open General License (OGL) program have somewhat eased the burden of ITAR-compliance for Australian and British military producers.

Yet there are weaknesses in U.K. and Australian military export controls that closer alignment with U.S. controls would mitigate. Both lack regulatory mechanisms related to the transfer of data and technology, which could be exploited by China and Russia. To cite one example, a former U.S. Marine accused of training Chinese pilots in classified tactics is currently avoiding extradition from Australia because his crime (a violation under the ITAR) is not recognized under Australian export control law. Australian controls also don’t apply to controlled technology transfers that occur within Australia, no matter the nationality of the recipient.

U.K. government reporting indicates a surprisingly high proportion of strategic exporters are non-compliant with U.K. regulations – even after repeat visits. Despite this fact, the U.K. has only successfully prosecuted four strategic export violations since 2016.

Additionally, any ITAR exemption given to Australia and the U.K. will need to be defended to NATO member countries and other close allies should they demand similar exemptions. It would be best if Congress continued to require recipients of an ITAR exemption to align their export control regimes with the U.S. (as it did with Canada decades ago), since this sets a high bar for any future AUKUS expansion. Lowering the bar could catalyze a flurry of AUKUS “applications” from other allies and a series of diplomatic dilemmas in Washington – especially if New Zealand and Canada join, and AUKUS (like the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership) begins to resemble a new Anglo alliance.

Despite pressure from industry, Congress shouldn’t abandon the normal deal: ITAR exemptions for regime alignment. Only the “AUKUS Matters” proposal attached to the Senate NDAA insists that the U.K. and Australia reach this standard before benefiting from increased access to U.S.-origin military articles and services. Congress must not allow AUKUS to become a “trojan horse” to undermine ITAR for the sake of commercial interests and at the expense of national security.

Paul Esau is a 2023 Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow at the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control; Valerie Lincy is Executive Director of the Wisconsin Project.

Facing failure, Estonia pushes EU ammunition target for Ukraine

MILAN — The European Union’s sluggish progress in drastically increasing ammunition supplies to Ukraine has Baltic nation Estonia nervous about some member nations’ internal politics getting in the way, according to a senior Estonian defense official.

“On our part, we are constantly pushing different nations to not give up because the timeline of deliveries is next March, so we still have a couple of months ahead of us to either fully reach it or at least get as close to it as possible,” Tuuli Duneton, undersecretary for defense policy said, told Defense News in an interview.

“I wouldn’t say I am entirely pessimistic about the EU target, but a lot remains to be done,” she added.

Estonia was a key initiator last spring of an EU plan to jointly deliver 1 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine by March 2024.

Duneton’s comments came after Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called on Kyiv’s backers to ensure that the country has enough 155mm artillery shells to repel invading Russian forces, with companies synced to execute substantial production increases.

For now, the number of shells delivered is 300,000, according to Kuleba.

“We need to create a Euro-Atlantic common area of defense industries,” he said ahead of a meeting with his NATO counterparts in Brussels this week.

In Tallinn’s view, the diagnosis of what went wrong so far in producing the envisioned amount is more complicated than EU leaders’ initial reaction of pointing the finger at industry.

“Altogether, European nations have not in previous years placed significant orders for 155mm ammunition, and all of a sudden there is a need to put peak orders on the market right away,” Duneton said. “Simultaneously, many bigger states, the same who are struggling to fulfill NATO’s 2%, are scrambling to achieve that target while facing their own domestic issues.”

A contributing factor is the secrecy with which some governments treat Ukraine support and related domestic production increases, which makes to difficult to compare notes among member nations.

“One of the big things we struggle with in Europe, is there is little visibility on what have been the bigger orders from different nations’ to their defense industry and what they are doing. A majority of nations do not share the information,” she said.

The overall vagueness could also be due to political hedging, Duneton added, without wanting to name specific countries. “A possibility could be that they haven’t put any orders into the pipelines, in which case we must ask: Are they really willing to finance those orders? Industry cannot extend its production infinitely if they do not see orders coming in.”

The outcome of Ukraine’s defense is considered existential for Estonia, as officials there believe a victorious Moscow could target the Baltics next, Duneton said.

“It is possible that this threat perception is not as widely shared by all, as of course it always depends on where one is geographically located, but from our perspective, we need to pull all the stops to make Ukraine win,” she said.

Poll finds strong support for arming Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan

WASHINGTON ― An annual poll commissioned by the Ronald Reagan Institute found strong public support for arming Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, as Congress negotiates a path forward on President Joe Biden’s $106 billion supplemental spending request to arm all three security partners in the weeks ahead.

The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted by Beacon Research and Shaw & Co., polled 2,506 U.S. adults between Oct. 27 and Nov. 5 on national security issues. The Reagan Institute released the results on Thursday ahead of its annual National Defense Forum on Saturday.

“Despite kind of a media narrative or what you might expect watching the debate on Ukraine aid in the U.S. Congress, there is not waning support for Ukraine,” said Rachel Hoff, the policy director at the Reagan Institute. “In fact, there is steady and strong consistent support for Ukraine.”

“A plurality of Republicans, a majority of Democrats, support continued U.S. military assistance to Ukraine,” she said.

The poll found that 59% of respondents support U.S. military aid for Ukraine while 30% oppose it.

Support for arming Ukraine jumps even higher – up to 67% – when respondents are asked the question couched in the Reagan doctrine promising to support allies against aggressors.

“Framing security assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in this context generates higher levels of support—both overall and among partisan subgroups— than when asked outside of this context,” notes a Reagan Institute summary accompanying the poll.

For instance, the poll found 56% of respondents support and 28% oppose sending military equipment to Taiwan. As in the case with Ukraine, support for arming Taiwan jumped to 65% when the question was prefaced with a line stating “The U.S. has historically provided security assistance to help its allies and friends defend themselves if they are willing to fight aggression against their own countries.”

The poll only asked about arming Israel in the context of the Reagan doctrine, and found that 71% of respondents supported military aid for the U.S. ally while 23% opposed it.

A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted over an overlapping timeframe also found majority support for arming Ukraine and Israel. That poll found 53% of respondents favored sending weapons to Ukraine and 55% support arming Israel.

But a Reuters/IPSOS poll conducted later in November found that only 41% of respondents backed arming Ukraine with 32% opposed it. That same poll found 31% of respondents in favor of arming Israel with 43% opposed.

And an August CNN poll found that 55% of respondents opposed Congress passing another Ukraine package, though that question included both economic and military support for Kyiv.

Still, the Reagan Institute survey found that support for arming Ukraine has remained remarkably consistent with the two prior polls it conducted in June 2023 and November 2022, even when asked outside of the context of the Reagan doctrine.

Biden submitted his $106 billion supplemental spending request to Congress shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. It asks for $44.4 billion to continue arming Ukraine, $14.3 billion in additional military aid for Israel and $2 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Indo-Pacific security partners, including Taiwan.

Congress is currently negotiating the package, but the debate has become complicated amid Republican demands for policy changes on the U.S. southern border, growing House GOP opposition to Ukraine assistance and a push among some Democrats to condition Israel military aid.

Aside from foreign military aid, the Reagan Institute poll found that 77% of respondents favored increased military spending while 20% opposed it. The May debt ceiling agreement caps fiscal 2024 base defense budget at $886 billion, a 3.3% increase over FY23 in line with Biden’s military spending request that nonetheless excludes his $106 billion supplemental package Congress is debating.

The Reagan Institute poll also found that 67% of respondents were concerned that congressional budget cuts could reduce military capabilities while 29% remained unconcerned. If Congress does not pass full FY24 appropriations legislation, the debt ceiling agreement stipulates that a full year continuing resolution will go into effect funding the military with a 1% cut from FY23 levels.

The poll also added a new question this year gauging public support for U.S. military action in Mexico to counter drug cartels. It found only 41% of respondents favored U.S. military intervention in Mexico while 46% oppose it.

The majority of Republican presidential candidates, including frontrunner former President Donald Trump, have proposed using the U.S. military to attack drug cartels in Mexico.

Navy creates program office to manage nuclear carrier defuelings

ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Navy has established a new program office to plan and manage aircraft carrier inactivations, defuelings and dismantlements, as the service readies for that work to become more common.

The Navy still hasn’t fully completed the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier it decommissioned: the former Enterprise was inactivated and defueled at HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding from 2013 through 2018, but the hull — with contaminated components still inside — remains at an HII pier.

The Navy determined this fall it would send Enterprise to a commercial yard for dismantling and disposal rather than tie up its own public shipyards with the work.

Rear Adm. Jim Downey, who previously served as the Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers and now awaits Senate confirmation to lead Naval Sea Systems Command, said the Navy spent a decade working through its plans for Enterprise. It won’t have that kind of time with the Nimitz class: In just two years, carriers will begin retiring one after another — Nimitz is planned to decommission in fiscal 2026, Dwight D. Eisenhower in FY27, and the class should continue decommissioning at a rate of one ship about every four years after that.

Downey, speaking at an American Society for Naval Engineers conference here, said the Navy stood up a program office within the last couple months to work with industry, government agencies like the Department of Energy, and other groups to plan for this upcoming workload and ensure a workforce is in place.

“The point of a new program office and acquisition strategy is, do we think we have untapped capacity right now, looking at our shipbuilding? And in general, you could conclude, with COVID impacts on the workforce, not all of our programs being on schedule, that no, we do not. So we need to do some things a bit differently,” the admiral said.

He said the strategy will be to defuel the carriers “where we fuel and defuel nuclear carriers” —a reference to Newport News Shipbuilding, which both builds the carriers and does the mid-life refueling work — and then dismantle the carriers at a different commercial yard.

He noted the Navy’s four public shipyards that maintain nuclear-powered carriers and submarines do not have excess capacity to help with the inactivation and dismantling work, which may take four or more years per ship and cost billions of dollars.

“Considering that much money, that much engagement with industry and military entities, other U.S. government [agencies], you really need that team focus” and therefore a dedicated program office, Downey said. ‘We don’t want to get this wrong.”

Northrop exit from UK satellite bid recasts big-ticket Skynet 6 race

LONDON — Defense contractors have been given until March next year to submit bids to provide the U.K. military with a new generation of wideband communication satellites as part of the Ministry of Defence’s Skynet 6 program.

Procurement officials for Skynet 6 released an invitation earlier this month to Airbus Defence and Space, Lockheed Martin and Thales Alenia Space with instructions to respond no later than March 2024, said an industry executive who asked not to be named while discussing internal discussions with the government.

The three companies were announced by the MoD as being shortlisted earlier this year after responding to a pre-qualification questionnaire for that segment of the program, known as Skynet Enduring Capability Wideband Satellite System.

The British are in the midst of a competition to build a network of geostationary-orbit, narrow- and wideband communication satellites to replace existing Skynet 5 capabilities, built and operated by Airbus, as part of a wider £6 billion ($7.6 billion) program.

Babcock wins $480 million bid to run Britain’s Skynet SATCOM program

Submission of the bids for the wideband requirement will trigger a period of negotiations, followed by the MoD launching a second phase of the competition starting December 2024. A winner is expected to be announced the following year.

The government’s new solicitation came just days before a separate competition to build narrowband satellites for Skynet 6 was thrown into disarray when the Financial Times reported that Northrop Grumman was pulling out of the contest, seemingly leaving Thales Alenia Space as the only bidder left in the race.

The withdrawal has raised concerns here over whether the competition should be reset or proceed on a sole-source basis with the Franco-Italian bidder.

Thales Alenia Space declined to comment for this article.

For the moment, defense officials said the narrowband procurement is going ahead. But, according to the industry insider, they were furious about Northrop’s withdrawal announcement, which came as a surprise.

Northrop Grumman told the FT that it had withdrawn from the narrowband competition “after thoroughly reviewing” the government’s invitation to negotiate.

The U.S. space giant was to be the prime bidder in a partnership with Airbus Defence and Space. In return Airbus is taking the lead for the transatlantic bid for the wideband business, with Northrop Grumman as its junior partner.

Northrop Grumman declined to comment on the reasons for its withdrawal. Airbus said it wouldn’t comment on the commercial decisions of other companies.

Airbus and Northrop Grumman announced Oct. 23 that they had signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue the wideband satellite requirement in what the companies termed a “strategic partnership.”

That element of the Skynet tie-up between the two space companies continues.

Airbus is already building a satellite, known as Skynet 6A, to fill a capability gap ahead of the new generation of spacecraft becoming available in 2028.

Skynet 6A is scheduled to launch in 2025.

Lockheed, Northrop win US Army contract for spy gear on launched drones

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army picked two of the world’s largest defense contractors to develop spying and jamming payloads for drones that can be catapulted from a moving vehicle or larger aircraft.

The service’s Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, or PEO IEW&S, on Nov. 29 named Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman as the winners of other transaction authority deals for a launched-effects program “within the infrared and electronic warfare realms.”

Further details about the planned payloads were not provided.

The initial awards are worth hundreds of thousand of dollars and are aimed at maturing existing technologies, according to the office, which helps develop everything from biometric tools to surveillance aerostats. Tens of millions of dollars are up for grabs in the long run.

The Army is exploring launched effects — previously divided into camps, ground-launched and air-launched — to extend its reach without putting additional lives on the line.

Marine Corps leader eyes drone swarm launched from above, beneath waves

After spending decades in the Middle East waging counterinsurgency campaigns, the U.S. is now focusing on potential large-scale conflicts with Russia and China. The two powers have constructed anti-access and area-denial infrastructure to keep at bay U.S. weapons or forces that could overwhelm.

Launched effects, hurtling outward from tanks or helicopters or something else, are meant to complement existing equipment soldiers rely on to scout, target, jam and kill. The technology is considered a critical part of the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft and Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft endeavors.

Launched effects have been successfully tested by the Army in the past, including at Project Convergence, its emerging-tech crucible. In January, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems announced its Eaglet launched-effect flew for the first time, dropping off an Army-owned Gray Eagle Extended Range Unmanned Aircraft System during a demonstration in Utah.

Lockheed is the largest contractor in the world when ranked by defense-related revenue, according to Defense News Top 100 analysis. The Maryland-based company earned $63 billion in 2022. Northrop is the third largest contractor by the same measure, reaping $32 billion in same period.

Air Force awards Boeing $2.3B contract for 15 more KC-46s

WASHINGTON — The Air Force has awarded Boeing a $2.3 billion contract for 15 more KC-46A Pegasus refueling tankers.

The award, announced by the Pentagon Tuesday evening, brings to 153 the number of KC-46s Boeing has on contract to build for the United States and allies. The Air Force plans to buy 179 KC-46s, and Boeing said it has so far delivered 76 of those.

The Japanese Air Self-Defense Force has two KC-46s in its fleet and four more on contract with Boeing, and Israel has ordered four of its own.

The Pentagon said work on these aircraft, which will be the KC-46′s tenth production lot, is expected to be complete by the end of July 2027. Boeing builds KC-46s at its factory in Everett, Washington.

This contract follows another issued in January for the ninth production lot, which was also for 15 tankers and valued at $2.3 billion.

The Air Force has steadily increased the presence of the KC-46 in its fleet and its abilities. In September 2022, the service cleared the KC-46 to refuel all aircraft, except the A-10 Warthog, and carry out all refueling missions around the world.

In July, Travis Air Force Base in California received its first of 24 planned KC-46s, which will replace the base’s aging KC-10 Extenders. Travis, the largest and furthest west of Air Mobility Command’s installations, is nicknamed the “Gateway to the Pacific” due to its location and status as a major hub for logistics and other mobility operations.

KC-46s also took part in July’s Mobility Guardian 23 exercise in the Indo-Pacific region, during which the tankers flew sorties of up to 35 hours straight. The service said in a release this showed the aircraft’s ability to carry out complex long-distance, long-duration missions to refuel fighters and other aircraft during operations.

And this fall, five KC-46s and about 12 service members from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey took part in a force generation certification event during the two-week Neptune Series exercise at Travis.

In addition to aerial refueling, the KC-46 can transport cargo, passengers and medical patients in aeromedical evacuation support missions, and can share data among other aircraft and ground operations centers to provide a fuller picture of the battlefield.

The Air Force awarded Boeing a $184 million contract in March to upgrade the KC-46′s communications systems with capabilities including antijamming and encryption features for its line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight communications technologies.

The Air Force also may buy an additional wave of 75 KC-46s as part of its planned recapitalization of its KC-135 fleet. Boeing’s chances of scoring that contract rose in October, when Lockheed Martin announced it would not compete for the interim tanker. But Airbus, which had partnered with Lockheed to jointly pitch their LMXT tanker, said it still plans to compete to replace the KC-135s.

Congress must advance nuanced Buy American policies

The fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill, which moves into conference negotiations this week, includes key provisions to ensure U.S military equipment is made in America.

In particular, the legislation includes provisions that would increase DoD domestic content requirements to 75% by 2029, exclude foreign content from naval ships and expand Defense Production Act investments to overseas locations.

Critics from the free-trade camp oppose these common-sense policies, disregarding Congress’s obligations to the taxpayer and the devastation that Wall Street-led outsourcing has wreaked on the nation’s manufacturing workers and dwindling middle class.

They also argue the United States has an obligation to support our allies through outbound overseas investment and procurement of foreign military equipment, lest they be unwilling to support mutual policy objectives.

Supporting American foreign policy, however, is clearly in the best interests of our NATO and major non-NATO allies, regardless of whether they have access to the U.S. defense budget. Also absent from free-trader objections are recognition of the dangers of domestic supply chain gaps, acknowledgment of the opportunity costs associated with foreign investment, recommendations for any conditions on U.S. foreign investment and, most importantly, acknowledgment of the U.S. taxpayer’s interest and the impact of outsourcing on domestic manufacturing.

The U.S. government is undertaking major industrial base investments through programs like the Defense Production Act and Innovation Capability and Modernization, both designed to close supply chain gaps through direct investment in manufacturing capability. These efforts have awarded more than $700 million in 2023 alone, largely filling voids in the U.S. industrial base.

Additionally, Congress is considering a DoD proposal to expand Defense Production Act investment authority to both the U.K. and Australia, an effort that failed in Congress last year. Absent from the conversation, however, are any proposed conditions on sending these funds overseas. Unaddressed, Congress could enact policy that outsources thousands of manufacturing jobs, further harming the U.S. working class.

Though it is unrealistic and impractical to mandate that every U.S. dollar must be spent at home, Congress should carefully consider its responsibility to enact industrial base policy that allows allies access to the U.S. defense budget only if certain conditions are met.

For example, allies receiving DoD industrial base funding for overseas manufacturing locations should be required to co-invest 75% or more in the project. Additionally, DoD-developed capabilities overseas should be subject to the Defense Priorities and Allocations System, meaning the U.S. would be guaranteed by the foreign partner that it would prioritize U.S. defense orders and be prohibited from filling its own country’s orders first. This is already a requirement for any U.S. company contracting with the Pentagon.

As Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante recently said, “co-development, co-production, and co-sustainment with our partners” is key to addressing challenges from Russia, China, and other threats to global security. But such agreements must be accompanied by proper safeguards, or else they risk harming American businesses and taxpayers.

Put simply, government funds should serve the taxpayers first, and they should provide tangible returns on investment. The U.S. needs a nuanced policy that is not pure domestic preference, but rather buy American when you can, from allies when you must, but never from adversaries.

In today’s increasingly unpredictable world, in which Covid-19 taught every American about the risk of weak supply chains, taxpayer dollars should not flow overseas without strong guarantees of return on that investment. Safeguards such as proportional co-investment requirements and agreements to buy American-made products should be the bare minimum for receiving access to the U.S. defense budget. To these ends, the Congress should support properly calibrated Buy American policies that balance supply security, national security needs, and U.S. taxpayer equities.

Jeff Green is president and founder of J.A. Green & Company, a bipartisan government relations firm based in Washington. Green previously was staff director of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee.

Top air force officials ponder new leadership styles as AI takes root

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The advent of artificial intelligence in defense is prompting a reevaluation of decades-old military leadership traditions, top air force officials from across the globe said at a gathering here earlier this month.

The Nov. 12 Dubai Air Chiefs Conference, or DIACC, that kicked off this year’s iteration of the Dubai Air Show explored the fundamental changes airmen should expect as a result of AI permeating their professions.

“Traditional leadership style is seen as somewhat archaic or outdated, and understandably,” Brig. Gen. Azzan Ali A. Al Nuaimi, commander of the UAE’s air warfare and missile center, told the audience. “A top-down approach or hierarchy-based decision making is no longer well-suited for an operational environment where information is more fluid and rapid,” he added.

Armed forces across the globe are embracing the promise of artificial intelligence in military tasks. The level of complexity in the technologies varies greatly, from speeding up rote analysis tasks that previously took days or weeks for humans, to generating novel courses of action on the battlefield based on a vast amount of contextual data.

Sophisticated AI algorithms carry the risk of making undesirable calls, especially when it comes to targeting and killing. That fear has prompted leaders to keep humans in the loop for sensitive tasks. “It is key to strike a balance between trusting AI and human decision-making,” Al Nuaimi said.

Air Vice Marshal Glen Braz, who manages readiness for the Australian Air Force, argued that the speed of future conflicts means command-and-control networks must keep up.

“AI has increased the space and pace of warfare,” he said. “There will be more needs moving forward to delegate decision making in a fast-paced environment, where disconnectivity is present.”

Italian Air Force Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Luca Goretti struck a similar chord, arguing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proven the need to prize connectivity above all else.

“If you can manage the data, you win. If you cannot manage or process it, you lose,” he said. “If you keep a piece of information to yourself, you lose. The Ukraine war has taught us the need for that, to share the data.”

While the consensus among top officers here was to favor shorter chains of command to accommodate next-generation of AI in the military, other experts believe there is another side to the argument.

“While there may be some compression of chains of commands due to the increased potential speed of AI-supported decision making, this will not always be the case,” said retired Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan. “Sometimes we may use it to slow down decision-making so we can be more strategic in our thinking.”

Senate Democrats eye Israel conditions in latest defense package snarl

WASHINGTON ― Senate Democrats discussed the prospect of placing conditions on a $14.3 billion Israel military aid package during their weekly caucus meeting on Tuesday.

The discussion marks another possible legislative snarl as Congress negotiates a massive defense supplemental President Joe Biden has requested for Israel, Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific and the southern U.S. border. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., indicated Monday that he’s open to a separate Ukraine aid vote but Republicans are now asking for policy changes on the southern border before passing the supplemental request.

Biden proposed no Israel aid conditions in his supplemental request but called the idea “a worthwhile thought” on Friday.

“But I don’t think if I started off with that we ever would have gotten to where we are today,” he added, referring to a temporary hostages-for-ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas that began last week.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of Israel’s staunchest supporters, told reporters after the meeting that he would discuss the idea further with the Biden administration and lawmakers.

“It’s been spoken out in our caucus meeting on many occasions and today there was a meeting with [National Security Adviser] Jake Sullivan on the issue,” said Schumer.

“There are different views on that, and we’re going to have a discussion with the caucus and the administration, but above all we’ve got to pass the four bills,” he added, referring to Biden’s $106 billion defense supplemental request.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told reporters after the caucus meeting that senators discussed equipping Israel to fight Hamas while decreasing civilian casualties in Gaza and ramping up humanitarian aid to the besieged enclave on top of reducing Israeli violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

“We’re going to do an aid package, but we’re going to put expectations as we would for other countries,” said Kaine.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lambasted Democrats’ discussions on Israel aid on Tuesday.

“If Senate Democrats want to vote to tie the hands of Israeli soldiers as they defend their country against vicious terrorists, I welcome such a debate,” he said on the Senate floor.

McConnell also demanded changes to the Biden administration’s border policies in the supplemental, but it’s unclear what sort of concessions Democrats are willing to offer.

Some pro-Israel Democrats including Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Ben Cardin of Maryland also oppose Israel aid conditions.

In addition to Biden’s $14.3 billion request, Israel receives an annual $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid each year.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., first called for the conditions last week in a statement insisting “that not one penny will be coming to Israel from the U.S. unless there is a fundamental change in their military and political positions.”

Sanders called for “an end to indiscriminate bombing which has taken thousands of civilian lives,” the right of displaced Palestinians in Gaza to return home, no long-term Israeli re-occupation of the strip, a freeze on West Bank settlement expansion and a commitment to peace talks for a two-state solution following the war.

Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of the Gaza Strip has killed approximately 15,000 Palestinians per the Gaza Health Ministry and internally displaced more than 1.7 million of the enclave’s approximately 2.2 million people. Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre that sparked the war killed roughly 1,200 Israelis per the Israel Defense Forces, or IDF. Israeli forces and settlers have also killed more than 200 Palestinians in the West Bank since Oct. 7, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

After leveling most of northern Gaza, Israel dropped leaflets last weekend telling Palestinians to leave Khan Younis in southern Gaza, raising fears of even more displacement and civilian casualties after the ceasefire ends.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., organized a briefing on Monday with senior IDF officials with more than a dozen Senate Democrats, with some raising concerns about the Palestinian civilian casualties and humanitarian situation in Gaza.

“I wanted my colleagues to see exactly where the IDF was and what their plans are moving into the future and what are the next phases that they’re looking at,” Duckworth said on Tuesday.

Ukraine and Indo-Pacific

Duckworth also noted that she’s “concerned” about the timeline for passing both Israel aid and $61 billion worth of military and economic aid for Ukraine.

Ukraine is running out of munitions and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Congress in September that Kyiv would lose the war against Russia’s invasion if the U.S. fails to provide additional aid. The Biden administration has less than $5 billion in drawdown authority to continue arming Kyiv from U.S. stockpiles.

Johnson, the new House speaker who has previously voted against Ukraine assistance, expressed confidence on Monday that Congress will pass both Ukraine and Israel aid. Still, numerous members in his caucus have expressed opposition to combining both in one package.

“Of course, we can’t allow Vladimir Putin to march through Europe,” said Johnson. “And we understand the necessity of assisting there. What we’ve said is that if there is to be additional assistance to Ukraine — which most members of Congress believe is important — we have to also work on changing our own border policy.”

The House passed 226-196 a stand-alone Israel aid bill based on Biden’s supplemental request earlier this month, but Senate Democrats ignored it because it added $14.3 billion in cuts to the Internal Revenue Service.

Meanwhile Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and several other Republicans on the China Committee the chairs are pushing for a $12 billion plus-up the Indo-Pacific portion of Biden’s request.

The White House supplemental asked for $2 billion on Foreign Military Financing for Indo-Pacific allies, including Taiwan, and $3.4 billion to expand the submarine-industrial base to help implement the trilateral AUKUS agreement with Australia and Britain.

“To appropriately meet the urgency of the [Chinese Communist Party] threat, we need to go further than the supplemental request,” Gallagher wrote to Johnson, Schumer and McConnell. “The Indo-Pacific, our priority theater, must not be an afterthought.”

Gallagher’s proposal would add another $2 billion to backfill U.S. weapons sent to Taiwan under presidential drawdown authority and another $10 billion for munitions and military construction.