Anduril, Hanwha team up to bid for Army’s light payload robot

Anduril Industries and Hanwha Defense USA said they are teaming up to submit a bid for the U.S. Army’s Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport robot competition.

Anduril, serving as the prime contractor, plans to deliver “a modified, autonomy-ready Uncrewed Ground Vehicle (UGV) based on Hanwha’s proven Arion-SMET platform, which has already demonstrated its performance in highly-relevant and varied environments in the Indo-Pacific, including the latest Foreign Comparative Testing with the U.S. Army and Marine Corps in Hawaii,” the companies said in a Feb. 29 statement.

The Army chose General Dynamics Land Systems’ Multi-Utility Tactical Transport, or MUTT, for its SMET unmanned ground system in a first increment of the program. The $162.4 million contract, awarded in October 2019, would wrap up at the end of October 2024. GDLS won another follow-on contract in 2020.

Now the service has opened bids for the second increment of the program intended to carry gear and light payloads to decrease the burden to soldiers in the field. The Army is pursuing two major robotic combat vehicle platforms simultaneously: the Robotic Combat Vehicle meant to fight alongside Stryker and Bradley vehicles, and the SMET, which is likely to accompany lighter formations.

Anduril and the U.S. arm of South Korean defense firm Hanwha will also be working with Forterra, formerly RRAI, to incorporate its AutoDrive vehicle autonomy solution “to enable complex on and off-road maneuvers,” the statement reads.

“By combining Anduril’s electronics and software, Hanwha Defense USA’s proven hardware, and Forterra’s proven off-road vehicle autonomy stack, the partnership will bring speed, flexibility, and advanced capabilities to dismounted infantry,” Zach Mears, head of strategy at Anduril, said in the statement. “With a simplified user interface powered by Lattice, users will be able to quickly and easily command and control the S-MET to support lethal effects at the tactical edge.”

Lattice is Anduril’s software originally designed to counter drones and other threats, but has wider applicability for sharing battlefield information and data at a tactical level. Anduril is also teamed with American Rheinmetall Vehicles in the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle competition underway to eventually replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, bringing its Lattice capability to that effort as well.

The capability, Anduril states, will allow soldiers to operate the vehicle, manage payloads and communicate simultaneously in “complex environments.”

The team is focused on load-carrying, power generation capacity, reduced sustainment, survivability and a modular architecture for a wide array of payloads, the release details.

The robotic vehicle will have a low acoustic signature, “ensuring that it serves as an asset, not liability on the modern battlefield,” the statement adds.

Other expected competitors are Teledyne FLIR, GDLS, Rheinmetall, with teammate ST Engineering, and HDT.

Teledyne FLIR announced its bid in October at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

The Army has tightly held details on the competition such as the timeline for evaluating and choosing winners and what comes after and has not posted any solicitations on the public domain for federal contract opportunities, Sam.gov.

The service is focused on rigorous experimentation with robots and emerging technology to develop integrated fighting formations of both humans and robots. The Army calls it “human-machine integration” and is evaluating exactly how robotic technologies can be coupled with the best of what humans can bring to the table on the battlefield.

European states gather Soviet-style artillery rounds for Ukraine

MILAN — Several European nations have sourced hundreds of thousands of 122-millimeter artillery rounds from abroad to donate to Ukraine, a move that experts say will help bridge Kyiv’s ammunition shortage against invading Russian forces during a critical time of the war.

The latest military package bound for Ukraine, announced this month by the German government, included over 120,000 artillery projectiles of the Soviet-standard caliber. The Berlin government specified that the deliveries were coming from industry stocks financed with public funds.

Local newspaper Der Spiegel reported that rounds were ordered from Bulgaria, a key producer of this type of ammunition in Europe.

“Most of Ukraine’s artillery is still from the Soviet era – standards were 122mm, 130mm and 152mm, so getting more of this caliber ammunition for Kyiv is valuable,” Mark Cancian, senior adviser for the international security program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.

Ukrainian forces still rely on older equipment, including the D-30 or 2S1 Gvozdika howitzers, which can only fire non-NATO rounds.

At the Munich Conference, the President of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, said his government was also able to source nearly one million rounds from abroad, including 800,000 of the 155mm type and 300,000 of the 122mm type.

He added that the ammunition could be sent swiftly to the embattled country if funding was secured from other allies.

“Buying ammunition on the world market makes a lot of sense because of limits on what Europe and the U.S. can produce – Washington has done a lot of that already, having provided 200,000 152mm, 40,000 130mm, and 40,000 of 122mm type,” Cancian said.

A recent report by the CSIS think tank noted that shortages of Soviet-standard shells – 122mm and 152mmm – have gradually decreased the value of Soviet-era artillery.

While the United States has scouted the globe to buy this type of ammunition, Cancian says that some states may just be more inclined to sell it to nations other than the U.S.

“There are likely some countries who will sell to the Czech Republic but not the U.S. and who may also want to remain anonymous,” he said.

Nick Reynolds, research fellow for land warfare at the London-based RUSI think tank, said Ukraine should still strive to convert its artillery equipment to the NATO standard over time, as newer munitions are superior in explosive power, range and accuracy.

But, he added, “the scale of the war and the material requirements are enormous. Ukraine is firing 155mm shells and wearing out 155mm barrels far faster than either can be produced in Europe.”

How can the Pentagon arm Ukraine amid stalled aid package?

The Pentagon is mulling workarounds to arm Ukraine as the country faces severe ammunition and artillery shortages amid recent Russian advances. But the department is limited in its ability to fill the gap given President Joe Biden’s funding request for additional Ukraine military aid remains stalled in Congress.

One stopgap option would transfer additional weapons from U.S. stocks without funding to replenish that equipment. Another option uses the Excess Defense Articles program to send U.S. equipment to third-party countries that then send older weapons to Kyiv.

The European Union is also stepping up its assistance. It passed $54 billion in economic support for Ukraine after Hungary dropped its opposition.

But none of these stopgap measures to staunch the bleeding come close to the influx of arms for Kyiv that Congress could unlock if it passes the $95 billion foreign aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

“The consequence of not doing so is likely Ukraine’s defeat,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Defense News last week after returning from a congressional delegation to Europe. “There is not a plan B there. There’s certainly more that Europe could do, but there are certain weapons systems that only the United States can provide and maintain. And there is a hard limit to the amount of resources Europe can put in if the United States chooses to leave the coalition.”

Ukrainian officials also attributed Russia’s recent conquest of Avdiivka to the lack of available weaponry when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., led a congressional delegation to the war-torn country last week.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has refused to hold a vote on the foreign aid bill, which includes $48.3 billion in additional military assistance for Ukraine. The Senate passed the bill 70-29 earlier this month over objections from former President Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee.

Congress passed a cumulative $113 billion in military and economic aid for Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, but has not provided additional funding since December 2022.

Biden hosted congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, where he joined Democrats and outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in pushing Johnson to pass the bill.

In the meantime, the Pentagon is weighing whether it should use roughly $4 billion left of drawdown authority to continue arming Ukraine from U.S. weapons stockpiles, even though it does not have the money to replenish those inventories without the foreign aid bill, CNN reported Wednesday.

The Pentagon did not directly address deliberations about transferring additional weapons without replenishment funding.

“The [Defense Department] continues to urge Congress to pass a supplemental to support Ukraine in its time of need and to replenish our stocks,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Garron Garn told Defense News in a statement.

The Pentagon used its last $1 billion in Ukraine replenishment funding to backfill U.S. stockpiles in December, with the White House noting that would be the last remaining assistance, absent congressional action.

“At issue here again is the question of impacting our own readiness, as a nation, and the responsibilities that we have,” Pentagon press secretary Gen. Patrick Ryder said last month. “While we do have that $4.2 billion in authority, we don’t have the funds available to replenish those stocks, should we expend that. And with no timeline in sight, we have to make those hard decisions.”

The remaining $4.2 billion in Ukraine transfer authority stems from an accounting error the Pentagon made last year. The error prompted Pentagon Inspector General Robert Storch to announce an audit of the valuation of weapons sent to Ukraine.

Excess Defense Articles

Another, more limited option involves third-party countries transferring Soviet-era equipment to Ukraine in exchange for more U.S. weapons through the Pentagon’s Excess Defense Articles program. The program also allows the U.S. to send equipment that helps countries transition away from Russian arms.

“The United States is providing security assistance to partners such as Ecuador and Zambia to help them transition off Russian equipment, but there’s more we can and must do,” the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, Jessica Lewis, said in December.

Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa said in January that the U.S. would send $200 million in refurbished weapons to help fight cartels in exchange for “scrap” equipment. But Noboa backtracked last week after Russia imposed a ban on Ecuadorian banana and clove imports.

“To our surprise, the United States has publicly stated that this equipment will be used in the armed conflict in Ukraine, and we do not want to be part of it,” Noboa said.

The Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported in January that the U.S. is providing Greece with equipment through the Excess Defense Articles program, including two C-130H aircraft, three Protector-class ships and 60 Bradley armored fighting vehicles.

“Greece has provided substantial military assistance to Ukraine, including Soviet-era BMP infantry fighting vehicles, artillery and small arms,” the U.S. State Department told Defense News. “We thank the government of Greece for its generosity and encourage additional donations, in the future.”

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees the Excess Defense Articles program, has not updated the public list of transfers since 2020, despite a congressional requirement that it do so. As such, it’s unclear what other countries are receiving U.S. weapons through the program.

The agency told Defense News it expects to update the list within “several weeks” but did not explain why updates stopped in 2020.

Noah Robertson contributed to this report.

ST Engineering inks aircraft repair deals with Airbus, Embraer

SINGAPORE — Singapore’s largest defense contractor has signed a series of preliminary maintenance, repair and overhaul agreements with French and Brazilian companies.

ST Engineering signed the deals for MRO work during last week’s Singapore Airshow. They cover Airbus’ C-295 medium transport aircraft and Embraer’s C-390 Millennium airlifter.

ST Engineering has experience providing MRO services to the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s legacy aircraft, including A-4SU Super Skyhawk jets, a company representative told Defense News.

The firm has also performed MRO services for Airbus’ commercial line and conducted freighter conversions, but the recent agreement looks to expand work to the C-295, which will include depot-level maintenance.

Airbus executives said they have been looking for MRO partners in Asia, where 28 C-295 are currently in service with armed forces in Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and Bangladesh. The agreement with ST Engineering would only cover C-295 aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region, Airbus told with Defense News, and will not include aircraft from Bangladesh.

The C-295 can be used for surveillance and maritime patrol missions. The French firm Airbus anticipates an increase in C-295 orders following a rising demand for surveillance aircraft in the region.

A spokesperson from ST Engineering told Defense News the firm has not yet finalized the specific C-295 variants involved in the MRO collaboration.

Brazilian company Embraer signed a memorandum of understanding on MRO collaboration with ST Engineering for the C-390. An ST Engineering spokesperson told Defense News via email that the agreement covers engineering, support services and maintenance for the aircraft.

Embraer has not yet announced sales in Southeast Asia but anticipates demand for the C-390 airlifter. The two firms will also cooperate on radars and land systems; border security; simulation; advanced production technologies; command-and-control, communications and computer technologies; and intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance, according to a news release.

Meanwhile, ST Engineering’s defense aviation services division announced a first-time collaboration with American company Honeywell amid ongoing overhaul work for two C-130s in service with the Tunisian Air Force.

The long-time agreement between the two companies will see Honeywell provide hardware and engineering support to ST Engineering for the Tunisian aircraft. This includes the integration of Honeywell’s Cockpit Display System Retrofit, a system composed of up to five large-format LCD color displays that provide flight controls, air data and altitude sensors.

UK refocuses on spiral development as key to successful programs

LONDON — The British military’s focus on increasing spiral development use means the Ministry of Defence is changing how it assesses new equipment being introduced into service.

The MoD will drop the use of the terms initial operating capability and full operating capability on spiral development programs. It will instead refer to new equipment as reaching “minimal deployable capability” as it is handed over to the military, procurement minister James Cartlidge told Parliament Feb. 28 in a statement about acquisition reforms.

“In a world where our adversaries are threatening to out-compete us in capability terms, we have no choice but to reform acquisition — or see our military competitiveness diminished,” Cartlidge told Parliament.

The changes to spiral development evaluation is one of five key areas of what the British call the Integrated Procurement Model.

Other areas of procurement marked for change include a greater emphasis on the exportability of equipment being purchased; more integrated requirements for the armed service and the breaking down of organizational stovepipes; earlier engagement with industry on future requirements; and new checks and balances to ensure better decisions at the start of programs.

Cartlidge said the key to the reforms is delivering new equipment more quickly.

In the future, “rather than striving for perfection before delivering to the frontline, capabilities at 60%-80% of their full potential will be provided to the user, allowing early application, and subsequent improvements to reach their full potential,” Cartlidge said. “We will pursue spiral development by default.”

Cartlidge told lawmakers the MoD’s new procurement model is being introduced starting next month, with the primary aim avoiding programs like the Ajax armored vehicle and the Crowsnest airborne early warning radar, which he described as “over-complex, over budget and over time”.

“For contractual reasons, existing programs will continue under their current procurement mode,” he added. On April 8, “we will publish our new spiral development playbook so that extant programs which can adopt spiral features will be empowered to do so.”

In a document supporting the procurement reform announcement, the MoD said by the end of this year it will have assessed the defense equipment portfolio to identify opportunities to apply spiral development to new and already underway programs.

John Louth, an independent defense analyst here, said “good enough, rather than perfect, is smart in terms of obtaining an early capability that can be matured and moved through the technology readiness levels.”

“The caveat though is that with the speed of technological change, you may never achieve a full operating capability,” he added. “That may be a good thing, we may never want to freeze requirements in an old style, full operating capability, but always strive to develop and enhance the equipment as technology matures.”

Missile warning payload delay could push back 2025 launch plans

A key missile warning satellite’s sensor payload is a year behind schedule, according to the Space Force’s top acquisition official.

Receiving that payload, built by RTX, and integrating it onto the first Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared satellite is a top acquisition priority for the service, Frank Calvelli said during a Feb. 27 speech at the National Security Space Association’s Defense and Intelligence Space Conference.

He told C4ISRNET on the sidelines of the conference he’s concerned further delays could push the planned launch date past its 2025 target.

“Given that the payload is a year late, yeah, I’m worried,” Calvelli said.

Next-Gen OPIR is the successor to today’s Space-Based Infrared System, which detects and tracks ballistic missiles. It includes three satellites built by Lockheed Martin that will reside in geostationary orbit, about 22,000 miles above Earth, and two Northrop Grumman-built polar satellites destined for a highly elliptical orbit.

Lockheed in 2022 selected RTX, formerly Raytheon, to develop the primary payloads for two of the geosynchronous satellites and chose a Northrop Grumman-Ball Aerospace team to build the third. The mission payloads feature advanced sensors the Space Force will use to detect missile launches around the world.

The Government Accountability Office has issued repeated warnings of potential delays to the program, most recently in a June 2023 report. Program officials told GAO at the time mission payload delivery was the main driver of program risk.

“Our review of this program indicates that delivery of both payloads and the first launch are likely to be delayed,” GAO said. “According to program officials, each payload developer is working to overcome supply chain issues that could delay payload deliveries. Additionally, the complex integration of a novel payload and a modified spacecraft continue to present significant risk to the launch schedule.”

Calvelli said in his speech the payload needs to be delivered to Lockheed this spring to maintain the launch schedule, at which point the company will integrate it onto the satellite. He told C4ISRNET that while he’s concerned about the delay postponing launch, the program team is working to prevent that.

One way to do that, he said, is by changing the sequence by which Lockheed integrates other payloads and subsystems onto the satellite.

“Lockheed, quite honestly, is the best of the best at shuffling around their [integration and test] schedule,” Calvelli said. “Right now, they’re absorbing most of the impact by putting other stuff on first.”

A spokesperson for RTX deferred comment to Lockheed as the program’s prime contractor.

Michael Corriea, Lockheed’s vice president of warning programs, told C4ISRNET in a statement the company expects the re-sequencing to save time while it awaits the payload.

“Lockheed Martin is committed to delivering the first Next Gen GEO satellite to meet the Space Force’s planned 2025 launch date,” Corriea said. “To ensure that, we have been working closely with our payload provider, including having staff at their site, to help with payload integration.”

Air Force reorg must happen fast and needs funding, chief says

The Air Force wants to start putting in place key parts of its sweeping reorganization as soon as possible so it can better plan for its future needs, the service’s chief of staff said Wednesday.

But budget uncertainties and a possible 1% cut to funding levels could jeopardize the Air Force’s ability to set up a new Integrated Capabilities Command and other changes in time to have the right impact, Gen. Dave Allvin said at a Brookings Institution event.

“It’s not a matter to me of: this is an optional thing that we think is a good idea to do,” Allvin said. “The strategic environment compels us to do this. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a situation next year, then the year after and the year after that, where we fall further behind.”

Allvin, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, and other top officials unveiled the revamp — the service’s largest since the post-Cold War period in the 1990s — earlier this month at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air Warfare Symposium. The shift is part of the service’s effort to better position to counter major adversaries, particularly China, and win a high-tech, modern war, all while dealing with budgetary limitations.

The creation of a new Integrated Capabilities Command is one of the biggest changes in the works for the Air Force.

Today, the Air Force often develops the future capabilities it will need partially within its major commands and piecemeal.

But the single, centralized Integrated Capabilities Command in the works will take charge of developing the Air Force’s future requirements into new systems or other capabilities and allow a more unified approach.

This new command “understands the impacts of modernizing one part of our Air Force with the other part of our Air Force, and it helps us develop a more cohesive and coherent force design into the future,” Allvin said. “We have to make quality decisions faster. And sometimes, when you diffuse the power structures and the decision-making authority across the functions, it’s very hard to get an enterprise solution on time.”

These changes might not be noticed outside of the Air Force, Allvin said, but he predicted they would have a significant effect internally.

The service is working on setting up the Integrated Capabilities Command as soon as possible, he said, so it can start changing the way it conducts long-term planning for the future force. But he acknowledged the full reorganization could be done in pieces and take years — and may not be completely finished when his tenure as chief of staff ends in four years.

“It’s all I’m going to be doing … from start to finish,” Allvin said. “If I do my job, and get the support and I’m able to build a team and build the advocacy, you’re going to see a drastically changed Air Force.”

He said it is too early to tell how much the reorganization might cost, though he doesn’t expect it to be “a large fiscal burden.” He believes the Air Force already has most of the resources and abilities it needs, and must start moving on these changes immediately.

“This Integrated Capabilities Command, I can’t tell you, to the airman, how many are going to be there,” Allvin said. “But we also can’t wait for that in order to get started. We need to know that we’re going to move forward and adapt on the fly.”

But with the fiscal 2024 budget languishing in Congress, the Air Force — like the rest of the government — is still operating on a continuing resolution funding it at 2023 levels. If lawmakers don’t pass this year’s budget by April 30, a further 1% cut will kick in.

That would not only jeopardize the Air Force’s ability to make these changes, Allvin said, it would also create “a more existential issue.”

“The one thing that we really lose is time, and our ability to be able to spend the precious resources on the things that we had planned on in order to keep pace,” Allvin said.

Continuing resolution would slow military modernization, services warn

The U.S. military may run out of personnel funds before the end of the year, be forced to scale back operations and see ongoing modernization efforts harmed if Congress fails to pass a defense spending bill by the end of next week, service leaders warned Tuesday.

The undersecretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force said they’d have billions of dollars in “misaligned” funds — money that exists but not in the right budget lines to support their current spending needs — if they’re stuck with a full-year continuing resolution that keeps fiscal 2023 spending levels through the rest of 2024.

They agree that they’d have to prioritize current operations first, then people and then acquisition and modernization in a CR.

“You see sailors and Marines across the globe today, performing important missions: the Red Sea is an excellent example of how current operations take precedence,” Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters at the Pentagon.

Without sufficient funds, he said, “we have to make tough choices. But between the ability to fight tonight and be ready for all the threats, versus preparing for the future and modernizing our forces — it is a tough decision, but we have to lay our chips somewhere, and that’s on the ability to perform our missions today.”

Raven said the Navy’s ability to make that prioritization, though, would require Congress to grant the services some “unprecedented flexibilities” in the form of massive reprogrammings, or moving money from one line item into another.

The Navy, for example, would have $26 billion in the wrong places, and would need Congress to approve $13 billion in formal reprogrammings — more than twice the money Congress approves for the entire Defense Department in a typical year, he said.

But the reprogramming frenzy would be vital to mitigate the risk the services would take in their modernization efforts and industry would face if contracts are delayed or nixed altogether.

The Army is facing a similar misalignment in funds, to the tune of $6 billion.

“These are production rate increases, new starts — both in programs for acquisition as well as military construction projects that we cannot start,” Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo said,.

The Air Force’s misalignment in funds equates to over $13 billion and “impacts are particularly challenging in the Space Force, who has seen their budgets rising over the last couple of years,” Air Force Under Secretary Jones said.

‘Burning hotter’

Further complicating funding this fiscal year is the fact that Congress has yet to pass a sweeping supplemental request, which the Pentagon hoped would supply weapons to Ukraine and Israel in support of ongoing wars for both countries and would also fund the Southwest border mission. The lack of supplemental funding compounds the impact of a long-term CR, Camarillo said.

The Army is spending $500 million out of its base budget for operations costs in the European theater, another $100 million in the U.S. Central Command area of operations and another $400 million for the operations along the U.S. Southwest border.

“At one point in time, there was a thought that all of this could be funded through a supplemental, and it is now currently, today, in FY24, being funded 100% out of the Army’s base budget,” Camarillo said.

“We are just burning hotter than we normally would across all of our appropriations accounts,” he said. “[U.S. Army Europe and Africa] in Germany has explained that … they will run out of money this summer in the absence of extraordinary relief, aka a reprogramming.”

This will be a problem across the board, he added, to include running out of funds in the Army’s military personnel account.

Industry impacts

The services planned to ramp up munitions spending in FY24, to bolster their own stockpiles as a hedge against a future fight and to replenish allies’ and partners’ stocks.

A year-long CR puts that industry ramp-up in peril.

Camarillo said he was “particularly concerned” the CR would not allow the services to “send that strong signal to give industry the incentive to be able to facilitize, invest in a workforce and be able to do those extra shifts that we know that we need in order to restore our munitions.”

Camarillo said the Army intended to kick off a multiyear procurement effort for the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) interceptors in FY24. Under a full-year CR, it would be $1.2 billion short to reach the production rates needed to achieve the economic order quantities and savings associated with the multiyear procurement deal.

Lockheed Martin has invested significantly in the PAC-3 MSE line to grow production from 550 missiles per year to 650. The Army requested in its FY24 budget $775 million to ramp up that production. The company intends to grow production beyond 650 in the following year, as demand increases due to the war in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East.

Camarillo added the Army could not begin to field its Mid Range Capability missile to the first unit, which is important to its Pacific deterrence, due to new programs not being allowed to start under continuing resolutions. Nor could it increase production levels for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, Javelin missile, and 155mm munitions.

“I will just say that we have always said our goal was to get on 155 artillery 100,000 per month rounds by the end of calendar year ‘25. We cannot get there unless we get both the appropriation and we get the supplemental,” Camarillo said.

“It’s very challenging, because we’re asking industry to lean as far forward as they possibly can and to make investments both in additional personnel, unique tooling and machining that’s required to ramp up production capacity,” Camarillo said.

And the Army planned to buy 225 Coyote counter-unmanned aerial system interceptors – a spending need that hits home, he said, due to the recent deaths of three soldiers in Jordan who were killed by a drone strike from Iran-backed militants — but those, too, could not be purchased in a year-long CR.

For the Navy, Raven said the sea service wanted to double its Standard Missile 6 spending — something particularly timely, as Navy ships are expending the older SM-2 missiles almost daily in the Red Sea, shooting down Houthi missiles and drones — but that cannot happen under the full-year CR.

After the Navy just last week awarded a maintenance contract to HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding to overhaul the attack submarine Boise – which has languished at the pier since 2015 and has been unable to undergo repairs at either a public or private repair yard – Raven said a full-year CR would render the Navy unable to actually fund and execute that contract this year due to a $600 million shortfall in the submarine maintenance funds.

It would also see a $800 million shortfall in amphibious ship spending that could put at risk America-class amphibious assault ship construction, a $2 billion shortfall in submarine construction spending that would threaten the Virginia-class attack sub program, and more.

For the Air Force, Kristyn Jones, who is performing the duties of the under secretary of the Air Force, said the service has five contractors onboard for its collaborative combat aircraft effort, but that wouldn’t be able to move forward.

The full-year CR would also hamper production increases on the Joint Strike Missile and the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, both of which the Air Force says it needs for a high-end fight, as well as spending on the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile for facilitization to support future production increases.

“We hear over and over: the industry wants that solid demand signal so they know how to invest, they can support the facilitization — and by having this uncertainty, it really has negative impacts across the defense industrial base,” Jones said.

Australia to more than double naval surface fleet, grow defense budget

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — The Royal Australian Navy will have its largest fleet since the end of World War II if it implements recommendations from a new independent review of its surface combat ships.

The government’s “Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet” review, released Feb. 20, advocates for a flotilla of 26 warships, more than double the 11 hulls the service currently possesses. The government has accepted the recommendations except for one regarding the continuation of an upgrade for aging Anzac-class frigates.

“The size, lethality and capabilities of the future surface combatant fleet ensures that our Navy is equipped to meet the evolving strategic challenges of our region,” Chief of Navy Vice Adm. Mark Hammond said in a statement following the report’s unveiling.

Jennifer Parker, an expert associate at the National Security College within the Australian National University, told Defense News the force could achieve its new goal, even if “plans of this magnitude are going to have challenges.”

The plan

To supplement its forthcoming nuclear-powered submarines, to be acquired under the AUKUS agreement with the U.K. and U.S., the future surface combatant fleet will feature nine so-called tier 1 destroyers and frigates, 11 smaller tier 2 frigates, and six optionally manned vessels.

Tier 1 vessels will comprise three existing Hobart-class air warfare destroyers — to receive an upgrade to the Aegis combat system and the installation of Tomahawk missiles — and six new Hunter-class anti-submarine frigates. BAE Systems was originally supposed to produce nine frigates, with the first to be commissioned in 2034.

Parker, a former naval officer, said the most significant problem for the service is a looming capability gap, as the first-of-class Anzac frigate will not sail again, and a second is set to retire in 2026, meaning the Navy will have nine total warships by the end of this decade.

“Most predict an increased period of risk in the late 2020s, and that is where Australia has the capability gap,” Parker said, noting the the service should consider how to maximize its remaining capability and operational availability during this time.

With this pending shortfall, the review recommended commissioning 11 general-purpose frigates at least the size of the Anzacs to “provide maritime and land strike, air defence and escort capabilities,” the government explained in a summary of the report.

Australia plans to procure the first three frigates from overseas, with the remainder constructed in Henderson, Western Australia. The Navy has narrowed contenders to Germany’s MEKO A-200, Japan’s Mogami class, South Korea’s FFX Batch II/III, and Spain’s Alfa 3000. The government will make a selection next year, with the first delivery scheduled in 2030.

The planned six large optionally crewed surface vessels are based on an American design and feature 32 missile cells. Built in Henderson and destined to enter service from the mid-2030s, Parker said these are not traditional surface combatants because “their role will be to extend the magazine capability” of other ships.

Although Defence Minister Richard Marles said they would be crewed, Parker predicted they could end up as unmanned platforms.

“There are legal issues with lethal autonomous weapons and operating uncrewed surface vessels, so until those legal issues are overcome, the Australian government wasn’t about to announce that we’re going to have some sort of floating magazine that can launch missiles,” she said.

Apart from surface combatants, the review proposed a fleet of 25 “minor war vessels” for constabulary tasks. These include six Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels, or OPV, slashed from the original 12 that Luerssen Australia is constructing.

“The OPV is an inefficient use of resources for civil maritime security operations and does not possess the survivability and self-defence systems to contribute to a surface combatant mission,” the review stated.

The money

Marles said the entire plan is “fully funded” thanks to an additional AU$11.1 billion (U.S. $7.3 billion) allocated over the next decade, including AU$1.7 billion (U.S. $1.1 billion) in the next four years.

Parker said this amount is “probably feasible,” but added that the Treasury plans to only increase defense spending from 2027 to 2028. “I don’t know how they’re going to be able to resource those things without increasing defense spending in May,” she explained.

But even with the budget allocation, it doesn’t mean the Defence Department can spend that money, she said.

“They still need to go through the approval processes for that specific project,” she added. “I think the challenge is they need to convince the Australian public that defense requires increased spending.

Marles had promised defense expenditure would move from an anticipated 2.1% of gross domestic product by 2030 to 2.4% by that time, but Parker said that is insufficient to fund so many naval acquisitions.

The people

Amid the plans for new construction, a new shipbuilding plan is due later this year.

Parker noted many questions remain over that sector’s workforce, but a nationwide approach addressing education, migration and infrastructure factors would help.

But another challenge is crewing. The Defence Department planned to raise the number of military members by 2,201 in the 2022-2023 time frame, but instead it suffered a net loss of 1,389 uniformed personnel.

How Europe can build its defense while maintaining US support

Two years after invading Ukraine again, Russian President Vladimir Putin has accomplished two things for NATO. First, he has helped to expand and reinvigorate the alliance; Sweden is set to join NATO. Second, and more concerning, he has deepened Europe’s dependence on the United States. That problem requires urgent attention.

Faced with an aggressive Russia, a war of attrition in Ukraine and uncertainty about U.S. reliability, anxious European allies are accelerating their defense spending. This year they are to collectively meet NATO’s target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense. And they have logged nine consecutive years of growth in their defense budgets.

Spending more, however, doesn’t necessarily mean spending well. NATO’s 2% goal is important as a baseline input metric, but it is unlikely to be enough to ensure that Europe strengthens its defenses before Russia reconstitutes its depleted forces. To assure that defense resources are spent well, some clear output metrics are needed to define what Europe’s military capabilities should be.

As the alliance continues its most urgent task — helping Ukraine win — it must address this important longer-term challenge of rebalancing trans-Atlantic defense. Doing so will mean squaring a triangle: ensuring Europe’s capacity to better defend itself against Russia and manage crises along its southern periphery; addressing European aspirations for greater strategic autonomy; and maintaining confidence that the United States can adequately uphold its commitments in both the North Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region.

We have called squaring this triangle “achieving European strategic responsibility.”

In the past, Europe has sought “autonomy” without providing adequate defense resources, while the United States has wanted greater European defense contributions without diminishing U.S. influence. These tensions have been exacerbated by inadequate cooperation between U.S. and European defense industries.

NATO’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington this summer provides an opportunity to reconcile these two perspectives and find a new strategic balance. To do so, European allies should focus on achieving two military capability or output goals as quickly as possible.

First, Europe should build its conventional military capabilities to a level that would provide at least half of all the forces and capabilities — including the strategic enablers such as strategic lift, air-to-air refueling and operational intelligence — required to deter and, if needed, to defeat a major-power aggressor.

Should a conflict simultaneously break out with China in Asia and with Russia in Europe, the United States may not be able to deploy adequate reinforcements to Europe. European allies need to be able to pick up the slack.

Second, European allies should develop capabilities to conduct crisis management operations in Europe’s neighborhood without today’s heavy reliance on U.S. enablers. The European Union’s goal to develop the capacity to generate an “intervention force” of 5,000 individuals who could deploy beyond EU boundaries is a small yet useful start. Much more is needed.

Meeting these two output goals would allow Europe to become the first responder to most crises in its neighborhood, acting through NATO, through the EU or through ad hoc coalitions of the willing. It would permit the United States to shift some of its forces and strategic focus to the Indo-Pacific region without significant reduction in the capabilities needed to deter Russia.

To achieve these two output goals, NATO allies could agree at the summit to use NATO’s Defense Planning Process to create a minimum level of military ambition necessary to attain European strategic responsibility. European allies and Canada should firmly commit to investing sufficient resources to ensure that within a few years they can meet 50% of all of NATO’s minimum capability requirements. Similar informal goals already exist; now they should be formalized and implemented at the summit.

Doing half of what’s needed within the alliance is an absolute minimal requirement for Europe to attain strategic responsibility. It assumes the Europeans can still count on the Americans. But if former President Donald Trump wins the November election and reneges on America’s NATO commitments, doing half will not be nearly enough. So Europe should not delay a moment longer. A delay could be fatal, as Russia is on a war footing, has attained significant combat experience and will reconstitute its drained forces as quickly as possible.

Achieving strategic responsibility for Europe will require more — not less — trans-Atlantic consultations. New mechanisms for NATO-EU coordination and industrial cooperation will be needed. Now is the moment for the U.S. and Europe to shed their contending views and to make European strategic responsibility a win-win for both sides of the Atlantic.

Hans Binnendijk, formerly a senior director for defense policy on the U.S. National Security Council, is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank. Daniel S. Hamilton, formerly a US deputy assistant secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council. Alexander R. Vershbow, formerly a NATO deputy secretary general is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank.