Estonian-made combat robots in Ukraine now come with Starlink

MILAN — Estonian-made THeMIS unmanned ground vehicles operating in Ukraine will feature Starlink satellite connectivity, enabling their operation from thousands of kilometers away, the robot manufacturer announced on Wednesday.

A vehicle equipped to that effect, made by United Arab Emirates-owned and Estonia-based Milrem Robotics, will be unveiled at the company’s during Eurosatory 2024 trade show that begins next week, according to a company statement,

Specifically, a THeMIS variant devoted to cargo transportation will feature the Starlink hookup, a constellation of internet satellites operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX. Milrem has given more than dozen THeMIS vehicles to Ukrainian forces.

The Estonian company sought out the expertise of the Dutch datalinks firm AEC Skyline for the integration of the vehicles’ latest add-on feature, Milrem said.

“By leveraging satellite connectivity, the THeMIS robotic vehicle, which is currently assisting Ukrainian soldiers in the war with Russia, can seamlessly transmit data, receive commands, and relay vital information in real-time, regardless of its location on the battlefield,” the Milrem statement reads.

Using the Starlink satellite system requires a ground terminal, which SpaceX started shipping to Kyiv only hours after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, according to the BBC. As of June 2023, the British broadcaster reported that there were tens of thousands of terminals in Ukraine, including 500 bought by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Starlink satellites operate in low-Earth orbit at less than 600 kilometers (370 miles) above the earth, according to the company. Being closer to Earth translates into better performance for the system’s intended applications.

Last month, Russian Telegram channels published photos of what they alleged showed a badly damaged, captured model of the combat robot. A Milrem spokesman declined at the time to comment, stating only that the company was aware of the images.

Bill aims to strengthen contested logistics strategy in Pacific

As the U.S. and its allies and partners in the Pacific face down an increasingly aggressive China, a bi[artisan bill introduced in the Senate aims to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and key countries in the region in order to better protect supply lines and ensure sustained operations, should a conflict occur.

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, of Utah, who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, of Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee co-introduced the proposed legislation today.

“With each passing day, China’s military continues to improve and expand its capabilities.” Romney said in a statement to Defense News. “The Chinese Communist Party’s ambitions are clear. In the event of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific, the United States could face challenges effectively moving personnel and equipment in an area that comprises about half of the earth’s surface.”

The legislation “will help us address vulnerabilities and maintain our readiness in contested environments. By strengthening partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, we can better support our troops and uphold our commitments to our allies in the region,” Kelly added in the statement.

The bill would require increased oversight over the U.S. military’s various efforts to conduct logistics and sustainment in a contested environment and also lays the groundwork for increased partnerships specifically for maintenance and repair with allies and partners in the Pacific.

The Defense Department has been working on how to tackle contested logistics from fort to port to foxhole, but the bill would require a review and a report be submitted to Congress accounting for all of the various efforts across military departments.

The legislation would require the secretary of defense to assess each military services’ role within the joint force in a contested logistics environment, the bill states. Specifically, a review would focus on the services’ ability to effectively maintain and repair capabilities, preposition or store materials needed to surge capability or support operations, examine the ability to repair and maintain without dedicated maintenance facilities, and figure out the resources needed to “reduce or mitigate the risks associated with operations in a contested logistics environment.”

A report would be due no later than one year following the enactment of the act.

Local supply chain

Additionally, while Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K. are all able to provide product support to the U.S. in a contested logistics environment such as transferring spare parts to the U.S. in order to more efficiently repair equipment in conflict, the bill would require Japan and South Korea to be included in that group of allies.

Japan and the U.S. recently took new steps to strengthen its relationship, vowing to improve command-and-control systems, form an industrial council to build weapons together, network their missile defense systems with Australia’s and start a joint exercise in the United Kingdom.

South Korea and the U.S. are also exploring whether the country’s defense industry could help maintain, repair and overhaul American warships and weapons.

Lastly, the proposed legislation would authorize the Defense Department to conduct maintenance on certain surface vessels in foreign ports under a U.S. Navy pilot program called Ship Wartime Repair and Maintenance, or SWaRM.

In order to ensure ships can be repaired quickly and easily at foreign ports, the Navy’s SWaRM pilot program aims to test out the process of undergoing repairs away from U.S. ports and would allow the service to figure out how to navigate the contracting process, allowing foreign workers to work on American ships and ensuring those workers are trained in accordance with American standards and regulations.

Keeping ships operational to deliver capability to ports throughout the Pacific is critical to sustaining Navy readiness, the bill emphasizes.

The U.S. Army is also considering, as a part of its watercraft strategy still taking shape, how it might use ships, even commercial ones under contract, from allies and partners.

‘Mesh network of friends’

The Pentagon as well as the individual services have been ringing the alarm bells to ensure the U.S. is ready to supply and sustain the force in conflict in the Pacific. The Pacific accounts for over a quarter of the globe and the vast distances the U.S. must travel to within the theater creates an enormous challenge alone.

The U.S. Army has been working to adapt its approach to logistics to prepare for possible conflict with China but also deter it from increased aggression in the region. The service recognized contested logistics as a key contribution to its Multidomain Operations doctrine published in 2022 in a special annex and created a contested logistics cross-functional team in 2023 to develop capabilities critical to operations where projecting, supplying, maintaining and sustaining the force will be contested across the board by near peer adversaries.

The U.S. military has been working with allies and partners to create capability through exercises like Talisman Sabre in Australia, Operation Pathways and RIMPAC. These exercises give the U.S. the opportunity to see what ports might be ideal for delivering supplies via watercraft and where weapons and supplies can be kept on a more permanent basis.

The Army has been building a “mesh network of friends, partners and allies,” Lt. Gen. Xavier Brunson, who commands the service’s I Corps, said last fall.

Relationships are growing and strengthening, U.S. Army Pacific commander, Gen. Charles Flynn, emphasized in May at a conference in Hawaii. Flynn noted in his speech that the opportunity to increase multilateral cooperation is the highest he has ever seen.

Commanders are working on strategies to lighten the logistics tail in contested environments and keep more capability forward in theater.

Conversations are ongoing with foreign partners about the possibility of tapping local industry in the Pacific to provide repair parts, supplies (even blood) and other capabilities, arrangements that are likely to be essential when the U.S. cannot rely on bringing everything with it to respond to a crisis or conflict.

Following Talisman Sabre, for instance, the U.S. military was given permission to leave behind equipment in prepositioned stock in Australia.

“As logisticians, we need to be successful and to understand the theater and to really set conditions for those joint interior lines,” Maj. Gen. Jared Helwig, the Army’s 8th Theater Sustainment Command commander in the Pacific, said last fall “and build out that architecture that we know that, if we don’t rehearse in competition, will be very difficult to execute in crisis.”

White House takes aim at shipbuilding, other measures in defense bill

The White House on Tuesday released a statement taking aim at several measures in the House’s fiscal 2025 defense policy bill ahead of votes scheduled for later this week.

While the statement praised the House Armed Services Committee for its “strong, bipartisan” work on the $884 billion bill, it raised objections to some of its provisions on shipbuilding, the creation of an Army drone corps, missile defense and pricing transparency for defense contractors.

The White House also said it “strongly urges” Congress to create an Indo-Pacific Security Assistance Initiative, which the bill does not include despite a Pentagon request. The Pentagon’s proposal would mirror a similar program used to arm Ukraine.

“The administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to set appropriate and responsible levels of defense and non-defense spending to support the security of the nation,” according to the statement from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. “The administration looks forward to working with Congress to address our concerns.”

Despite its specific objections, the White House did not issue a veto threat on the bill. That could change if the House adopts some of the socially conservative policy riders introduced by the right-flank of the Republican caucus during amendment votes later this week.

Republicans opted for this approach last year with a bill that only narrowly passed the House after they voted to add amendments from the right-wing Freedom caucus that turned the usually bipartisan bill into a partisan endeavor. Lawmakers dropped those provisions during conference negotiations with the Senate before passing a bipartisan compromise bill for FY24 in December.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to mark up its version of the FY25 defense policy bill later this week.

House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the committee’s top Democrat, both asked the Rules Committee on Tuesday to focus on non-divisive provisions as they decide which of the 1,386 proposed amendments to put on the floor for votes.

“The bill we are presenting today is truly bipartisan,” said Rogers, noting his committee advanced it 57-1 last month. “As you consider which amendments to make in order, I would respectfully request that you focus on amendments that advance the security of our nation and the needs of our servicemembers.”

And Smith said that “any effort to go after reproductive healthcare, any effort to go after the rights of the LGBTQ community, are going be problems, as is any effort to block the efforts of DoD to have a truly inclusive military.”

Shipbuilding loggerheads

In addition to possible partisan divides over social issues, the Armed Services Committee has found itself at loggerheads with defense appropriators over their draft spending bill that overrides numerous provisions in the defense policy bill.

For instance, the draft FY25 defense spending bill – which the Appropriations Committee is set to mark up on Thursday – does not fund the policy bill’s $1 billion authorization in incremental funding for a second Virginia-class attack submarine.

In doing so, defense appropriators have sided with the White House and Navy in their decision to fund the procurement of just one Virginia-class submarine for FY25 due to production delays instead of the usual two vessels.

“The authorization of incremental funding for a second [Virginia-class submarine] would result in a significant unplanned bill in FY26, competing for funding with additional [submarine industrial base investments] and Columbia-class submarines,” noted the White House statement. “This will force the Navy to make reductions in other priorities to accommodate the balance of funds for the second FY25″ submarine.

Instead, the Biden administration “encourages Congress to fully support the near-term submarine industrial base investments proposed in the president’s FY25 budget request.”

Authorizers on the Armed Services Committee argue the decision to drop a second Virginia-class vessel in FY25 will set back companies further down the submarine supply chain. At the same time, the defense policy bill cuts $1.17 billion in procurement of a frigate for FY25 – drawing further objections from the White House.

Additionally, the White House took aim at a provision that would block the retirement of guided-missile cruisers.

“Divesting ships on a case-by-case basis allows the Navy to prioritize investments,” noted the statement. “The USS Shiloh and USS Lake Erie are currently in a condition that renders modernization and restoration to full operational capability cost-prohibitive.”

Army and missile defense

The White House also said it “strongly opposes” a provision in the defense policy bill creating a drone corps within the Army, arguing it “would create an unwarranted degree of specialization and limit flexibility to employ evolving capabilities.”

Additionally, it “strongly opposes” another provision requiring the establishment of a third continental missile interceptor site on the east coast by 2030.

“There is no operational need for such a site to protect the homeland against potential ballistic missiles originating from Iran or” North Korea, noted the statement.

Instead, the White House notes that the Defense Department will field 20 Next-Generation Interceptors in silos in Alaska by 2028 to defend all 50 states.

Defense contractor pricing data

Another provision the White House “strongly opposes” raises the cap at which prime defense contractors must obtain certified cost or pricing data from a subcontractor to $5 million, up from the current $2 million.

“This would reduce the incentive for sole-source prime contractors to negotiate contracts with their subcontractors, such as for spare parts, to keep costs under control, creating unnecessary risk for taxpayers,” notes the White House statement.

The Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, is also lobbying against this provision.

Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, the group’s senior government affairs manager, said the provision would allow prime contractors to provide the Pentagon with “historical data, which is old data, and wouldn’t justify the current price hike.”

“That makes the contracting officers’ jobs even harder when they’re trying to figure out if the price is reasonable and fair – and they already have a hard time trying to figure that out under the current system,” Hedtler-Gaudette told Defense News.

KNDS-Leonardo rupture could nix Italian Leopard 2 tank buy

ROME — A major Italian acquisition of Leopard tanks is on the brink of collapsing after a cooperation deal between tank manufacturer KNDS and Italy’s Leonardo was scrapped on Tuesday due to a row over technology transfer.

Announced in December 2023, the partnership between Leonardo and the German-French alliance was due to lead to an industrial role for the Italian defense giant in a large planned Italian purchase of Leopard tanks, including 130 combat versions.

Leonardo aimed to add its own components and electronics to the tank, which was to be assembled at its facility in La Spezia, Italy, but the surprise announcement by KNDS on Tuesday indicated Leonardo wanted more input that KNDS was prepared to offer.

“With 18 European user countries, Leopard 2 is the battle tank standard of our continent and of NATO. It is more important than ever to safeguard this standard, which makes a significant contribution to the interoperability and joint combat power of the European and NATO armies. The parties did not manage to agree on configuration,” Frank Haun, KNDS CEO, said in the statement.

KNDS, the statement added, “is no longer in talks with Leonardo regarding a potential partnership with the Italian company.”

Cash in hand for armored vehicles, Italy weighs its clout in Europe

Hours after KNDS issued its statement, Leonardo put out its own press release. “Leonardo announces, despite the efforts undertaken, the interruption of the negotiations with KNDS to define a common configuration for the Main Battle Tank program of the Italian Army and to develop a broader cooperation,” it stated.

”Leonardo confirms its commitment to provide the Italian Army with a performant, interoperable and up-to-date solution, satisfying the present requirements and remaining well positioned for future developments toward Main Ground Combat System, also through cooperation with other qualified international partners,” it added.

The breakdown in talks could yet have further fallout for Italian plans for a new tracked fighting vehicle and a possible entry by Leonardo into KNDS as a stake holder – a move which would have boosted the much vaunted and long delayed consolidation of the European land defense industry.

“Talks about Leonardo’s strategic participation in KNDS have also fallen short,” said Haun.

KNDS is a consortium of Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter.

Instead, the divorce shows that national interests in the industry are still paramount, despite the pressure from politicians to create synergies and bulk up in the face of Russian aggression and global competition.

While KNDS was keen to suggest in its statement that Leonardo was at fault for wanting to disrupt the uniformity of the Leopard model, one industry insider also pointed the finger at KNDS. “During talks, Italy was offered zero technology transfer, but you can’t offer an off-the-shelf tank when Leonardo has its own systems it can integrate,” said the source, who spoke on condition of not being identified.

A Leonardo official told Defense News earlier this year that the Italian firm was mulling supplying an electro-optical sensor, software defined radio, the command and control system and possibly the gun barrel to the tank.

A second industry source said Italy would now almost certainly cancel its purchase of Leopard tanks even though the process will be complicated by the fact the Italian parliament has voted for it.

“Italy may now consider buying the Rheinmetall Panther KF51 tank, even though it is just a prototype, unless the Italian army steps in and says it still wants the Leopard,” said the source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak on the record.

Last year’s Leonardo-KNDS cooperation deal also mentioned possible teaming on a separate Italian €5 billion ($5.4 billion) program to build 1,050 tracked fighting vehicles.

Leonardo and Italy’s Iveco Defence Vehicles are currently in the process of selecting a European partner to work with on the so-called A2CS program, with candidates including KNDS, which would propose its tracked Boxer vehicle as a baseline, while Rheinmetall has offered its Lynx.

“After this announcement today it is more difficult to imagine Italy working with KNDS on the A2CS program,” said the second source.

The rupture between KNDS and Leonardo could also have ramifications for Italy’s hoped-for entry into the European battle tank program known as the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), which KNDS is running.

Lockheed offers Polish industry a seat at its rocket launcher table

WARSAW, Poland — Lockheed Martin is offering Poland’s defense industry an opportunity to participate in the production of guided multiple-launch rocket systems, which neighboring Ukraine has used against Russian invaders.

The offer from the American defense firm comes as Poland considers buying up to 486 launchers and launcher-loader module kits with related gear for its M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, which Lockheed makes.

A Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Defense News during a briefing in Warsaw that the missiles could undergo production at Mesko, a subsidiary of PGZ, the nation’s state-run defense giant. The U.S. company is currently holding talks with Polish officials.

“Under the Homar-A program, we plan to locate production of GMLRS [guided multiple-launch rocket system] ammunition in Poland with the phased introduction of two GMLRS variants initially to meet the needs of the Polish Armed Forces. Initial production, likely to be from kit sets provided from the U.S., could begin in 2026,” the spokesperson said on the condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

In September 2023, then-Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak signed a framework deal to buy up to 486 HIMARS units. The framework agreement came more than seven months after the U.S. State Department approved the Polish bid to acquire advanced rockets and rocket launchers worth about $10 billion.

However, a new centrist government formed in Poland three months later, and since then an executive deal has not been signed.

Under a contract inked in February 2019, Poland bought 20 HIMARS launchers for about $414 million.

In both the unitary and alternative warhead variants of the GMLRS, the weapon’s round carries a 200-pound unitary warhead and is enabled with a range exceeding 70 kilometers (44 miles), according to data from the U.S. manufacturer.

Junior enlisted pay bump to cost as much as two new aircraft carriers

House plans for a massive pay bump for junior enlisted troops will cost more than $24 billion over the next five years, more than the price tag for two new aircraft carriers, congressional analysts confirmed on Monday.

The calculation comes as both House and Senate leaders debate how to help young military families avoid financial difficulties while ensuring the armed forces have sufficient funding for maintaining operations.

House lawmakers will vote on the enlisted pay raise plan — which would guarantee nearly every service member a base pay of $30,000 a year — in coming days as part of the chamber’s draft of the annual defense authorization bill.

The measure outlines policy and spending targets for nearly $885 billion in national security programs, including an across-the-board 4.5% pay raise for all troops in 2025 and a further pay raise of up to 15% for troops in ranks E-4 and below. E-5s with less than 10 years service will see an average bump of 7%.

Junior enlisted to get 20% pay bump, E5s get 13% more under House plan

For an E-2 with two years of military service, that increase will mean about $5,000 in extra pay next year. For an E-4 with four years of military service, it’s almost $7,500 more.

House appropriators have already signaled they intend to fund the plan in their budget bills later this month, but the financial investment is significant. The Congressional Budget Office on Monday estimated the plan will add $24.4 billion in extra defense spending from fiscal 2025 through fiscal 2029.

The White House on Tuesday put the five-year estimate at just under $22 billion, and at a cost of $3.3 billion next year alone.

Defense planners have balked at similar pay plans in the past because of the significant monetary strain such moves put on the entire military budget.

In recent months, they have lobbied lawmakers behind the scenes to delay any action on junior enlisted pay until next year, when a Pentagon analysis on service member compensation is complete. White House officials on Tuesday issued a new statement of opposition to the pay plan, citing the cost.

For the two aircraft carrier comparison, the USS John F. Kennedy is scheduled to be completed next year at a total construction cost of about $11.4 billion. The USS Enterprise, meanwhile, is set to be finished in 2028 at a price tag of around $12.3 billion, according to statistics from the Congressional Research Service.

The pay plan also approaches the total cost of the Space Force budget for fiscal 2025, estimated by service leaders to be $29.6 billion.

But House lawmakers have argued the investment is necessary to ensure that the military services can keep pace with recruiting and retention goals, and to properly reward young troops and their spouses for the sacrifices of military life.

The House plan also includes a boost in service member housing stipends and more money for on-base daycare services. The plan received bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee last month but faces a difficult path on the chamber floor because of potential social issue amendments on issues such as abortion and transgender medical care.

Senate Armed Services officials thus far have been noncommittal on the House’s ambitious enlisted raises. They are expected to unveil the first draft of their service member quality of life ideas on Wednesday, with a committee vote on their draft of the authorization bill later in the week.

A compromise between the separate House and Senate versions of the authorization and appropriations bills is not expected until sometime this fall or winter, possibly leaving the fate of the pay raises unsettled until just a few weeks before the start of 2025.

Rheinmetall opens repair facility for combat vehicles in Ukraine

MILAN — Rheinmetall has established a maintenance center in western Ukraine to repair German-donated military equipment damaged in combat, as more arms manufacturers are setting up shop in the embattled country.

The Rheinmetall Ukrainian Defense Industry repair facility, a joint venture project between the German company and the Ukraine state-owned enterprise Ukroboronprom, was inaugurated on June 10.

“Marder infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) are already being maintained and overhauled at the hub, and in the future, Leopard 1 and 2 main battle tanks as well as other German-made systems will also be repaired at other locations in Ukraine,” a company statement said.

Rheinmetall will rely on local labor and equipment in addition to providing its own resources to the hub. According to the statement, Ukrainian specialists were trained in servicing armored vehicles at company sites in Germany last year.

By the end of 2023, the German manufacturer had sent over 100 Marder IFVs to Ukraine, and additional deliveries in the “double-digit range” were planned for this year, per company information.

Rheinmetall has also been tapped to deliver Leopard 1 and 2 main battle tanks as well as armored recovery vehicles to Kyiv.

Company officials have previously floated the idea of setting up as many as four factories in the embattled country to produce a wider range of weapons.

There has been a stronger push from the Ukrainian government recently to localize the production of military equipment as well as a growing inclination of Western defense companies to open plants in Kyiv.

Earlier this month, KNDS, the French-German manufacturer of combat vehicles, said it was close to opening a subsidiary in Ukraine that will work with local firms to make spare parts and produce 155mm artillery shells.

Other Western land vehicles producers have weighed the option of opening a Ukraine production site as a more sustainable form of military aid, but few have made the move in light of security risks.

US Space Force plans to boost competition for launch business. Will it work?

Whenever the U.S. military launched a satellite over the last six years, the rocket carrying that payload bore the logo of SpaceX or the United Launch Alliance — the only companies eligible to fly National Security Space Launch missions.

Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck has watched those launches while smaller and emerging providers like his own company lacked a clear pathway to compete for the missions.

He and other launch executives have encouraged the Space Force to create entry points for firms building new rockets. And now they may have a way forward.

The Space Force announced last year that the next phase of its strategy for procuring launches would set aside missions for new providers. It was welcome news for Beck, who believes his company’s Neutron rocket, still in development, will be a top contender.

“That was the right approach,” Beck told C4ISRNET in an interview. “We really wanted that approach to occur, and we were very vocal that that’s the way it should be.”

The strategy for Phase 3 of the Space Force’s National Security Space Launch program, or NSSL, includes two lanes in which companies can compete to launch military satellites.

Lane 1, which will include 30 launches from 2025 through 2034, is for new providers. Missions in this category have less stringent requirements, and companies will have a chance to join annually as they prove their rockets are ready.

The service plans to select initial, eligible Lane 1 companies this spring but won’t award the first round of contracts until next year. While launch vehicles don’t need to move through the traditional certification process, firms must fly their rockets by Dec. 15, 2024, to receive an initial contract.

The remaining 49 launches will carry heavier Space Force payloads and are reserved for companies able to meet a more stringent set of security and performance requirements. Contracts for Lane 2 are expected this summer.

Most of those missions will go to two firms — likely incumbents SpaceX and ULA — but the service has the option to choose a third provider if a company presents a sound plan to certify its rocket for Lane 2 launches by 2026.

If the government selects a third firm, it will likely be Blue Origin, whose New Glenn vehicle — designed to fly large payloads — is slated to fly this year.

Smaller companies have long-term ambitions to compete for more lucrative contracts, like those in Lane 2, but are targeting the more accessible missions in Lane 1 in the near term. As the deadline approaches for the Space Force’s first round of selections, none of those newcomers expect to have their rockets off the ground in time to qualify.

Rocket Lab’s Neutron was closest, according to its internal projections, but the firm announced May 6 it is now targeting mid-2025 for the vehicle’s debut.

Other companies developing medium-lift launch vehicles — which can carry 4,400-44,100 pounds into orbit — to compete for Lane 1 contracts include ABL Space Systems, which is targeting next year for the first launch of its RS1 rocket; Firefly Aerospace and Northrop Grumman, who are working together to develop the Medium Launch Vehicle and also aiming for a 2025 flight; and Relativity Space, which expects to fly its Terran R rocket in 2026.

Those timelines mean that — despite the Space Force creating opportunities for emerging launch vehicles to compete — initial contracts for those missions could end up going to NSSL program incumbents and potentially Blue Origin in Lane 2.

Development delays

Launch executives and outside experts aren’t surprised by the rockets that remain ineligible to receive contracts next year, despite the Space Force’s strategy.

While the initially slow on-ramp to competition may present a symbolic blow to the service’s approach and raise eyebrows in Congress, the reality is that developing launch systems is challenging and schedules tend to slip — as evidenced by Rocket Lab’s latest setback.

“Getting Neutron to the pad this year was an ambitious greenlight schedule that we had — a path to closing if every single aspect went according to plan,” Beck said in the company’s May 6 earnings call. “As we’ve always said, this is a rocket development program and this is always filled with gremlins, some in our control and some not.”

Gen. Chance Saltzman, chief of space operations for the Space Force, cautioned against downplaying the significance of the on-ramp opportunities that the service is providing in its strategy.

“The on ramps and off ramps — we shouldn’t just cast those aside because there are companies at different stages of development,” he told reporters April 10 at the Space Symposium in Colorado. “We’ve tried to account for that in our acquisition strategy so that as they develop, as they mature, there’s pathways into contractual arrangements.”

The bigger question, experts said, is how many of these companies can, in the coming years, make a place for themselves within a multibillion-dollar national security launch market dominated by a single player — SpaceX.

The answer to that question will depend on several variables, including commercial launch demand and the continued pursuit of proliferated satellite constellations from both government and private sector customers, according to Joshua Huminski, senior vice president for national security and intelligence programs at the U.S.-based Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. The organization partly focuses on how leaders can address national challenges.

“The demand from the commercial market — which is really going to keep a lot of these companies afloat and in operation — is going to be almost a driver, and it’s a question of: Can the national security space enterprise keep up?” he told C4ISRNET.

Another factor is whether the Space Force can keep its launch procurement strategy agile enough to adapt to that dynamic market. Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the Space Force should focus on creating an environment that fosters competition rather than try to choose winners and losers through a more restrictive approach.

“I think what we should do is try to create the conditions so that the next SpaceX can emerge,” he told C4ISRNET.

SpaceX dominance

That “next SpaceX,” of course, would be competing with the actual SpaceX, which is owned by billionaire Elon Musk and has a tight hold on the U.S. launch market. The company’s Falcon 9 rocket flew 207 of the 256 domestic launches conducted between 2020 and 2023, according to data compiled by Harrison.

The firm’s dominance in the military market traces back to 2014, following Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. At the time, ULA — a joint venture of defense giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing — was the sole-source provider of military launches for the U.S. government.

The Russian-made RD-180 engine powered ULA’s workhorse rocket, the Atlas V. Concerned that the U.S. was too reliant on the Russian propulsion system, Congress called for the Pentagon to end its use of the engine and ensure the military is not dependent on a single company to carry national security payloads.

The Defense Department responded in two ways. It developed a process for certifying more rockets to fly these missions. And it provided seed funding to three firms so they could mature their designs for domestically produced rockets: ULA’s Vulcan, Blue Origin’s New Glenn and Northrop Grumman’s OmegA.

Ultimately, SpaceX — which received no DOD development funding but did get money from NASA for its Falcon 9 rocket — was the first new company to successfully onboard an American-made launch vehicle through the Space Force’s certification process. In 2018, SpaceX launched its first national security payload. And in 2020, along with ULA, it won a five-year contract to fly military missions.

Meanwhile, ULA began phasing out its Atlas V rocket and shifted its focus to a new U.S.-sourced launch vehicle, the Vulcan Centaur. The rocket, initially slated to fly in 2019, took its maiden flight in January 2024, after repeated development delays. It must fly one more non-DOD mission before it is certified for NSSL launches.

Surging demand

These events ultimately positioned SpaceX as one of the U.S. military’s primary source of launch services and have helped support its rise in the commercial market.

Following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Western militaries followed the Pentagon’s earlier course of action and divested Russian-made components from their supply chains. That included Russia’s Soyuz rocket, which at the time held about half of the global launch market share.

Bonnie Triezenberg, a senior engineer at the think tank Rand, described the Soyuz rocket, prior to the 2022 invasion, as “the only counterweight to the Falcon 9.”

“When the Ukraine invasion happened was really when Soyuz was taken off the market,” she told C4ISRNET. “All of that backlog that was on the Soyuz, a couple of them went to India, but the bulk of it all went onto the Falcon 9.”

The exit of Soyuz from the global market came amid a surge in demand for launch services that analysts expect to continue for some time. Quilty Space, a Florida-based consulting firm, estimated in a 2023 report that 20,000 new satellites will be sent to orbit by 2030.

That demand and the state of the Soyuz — combined with recent retirements of many medium and heavy rockets — created a gap in the number of launch vehicles available to meet that demand, Triezenberg said. That gap has drawn companies like Rocket Lab and Firefly, who have a foot in the small launch market, to branch out to medium-lift systems.

Caleb Henry, the director of research at Quilty, said there’s room for more firms to compete in the medium-lift market, but that questions remain about demand, which could shape how much capacity is needed in the long term.

“I do think there’s a role, certainly, for one or more companies to fill that gap,” he told C4ISRNET. “But I don’t have a good guess on how many medium launch vehicles the market will support.”

Triezenberg echoed that sentiment, noting she’s surprised at how many rocket providers started developing medium-lift rockets in recent years. It’s only a matter of time, she said, before the competition starts to thin.

“Things have gotten pretty frothy in the last few years. Everybody’s throwing their hat in the ring,” she added. “You’re going to see some of that froth come out.”

Building a backlog

The lack of affordable launch capacity in the medium and heavy lift markets is what is driving Relativity Space’s development of its Terran R rocket, according to Chief Revenue Officer Josh Brost.

The company has described its approach as customer-centric, focused on containing costs by 3D printing major parts and designing others to be reusable. And while the 270-foot-tall Terran R is “optimized” for launches to low Earth orbit — about 1,200 miles above the planet’s surface — Brost said the vision is for it to fly more stressing missions to higher orbits.

One of the most important parts of Relativity’s strategy, according to Brost, is early spending on manufacturing capacity, which the company hopes will allow it to quickly scale Terran R production.

“Even if you’re reliable and provide great economics, if you can only launch a handful of times a year, you don’t actually move the needle on the market,” Brost said. “The supply-demand imbalance is strong enough now that to be compelling, you need to be coming into the market with lots of capacity.”

Like many of the other emerging rocket companies, Relativity has secured a strong backlog of business for Terran R, despite it never having flown. The company has already signed commercial launch contracts cumulatively worth about $2 billion.

“We have people signing deals today for 2027, 2028, despite the fact that we’re still evolving, because they see the need for the capability we’re developing,” he said. “The commercial market is becoming the first buyer of capability, and then the defense market can benefit from that commercial marketplace.”

The Space Force may not be the biggest customer for Relativity and other growing rocket firms, but its launch needs are still a significant part of its business case. Military launch will likely account for about 30% to 50% of the addressable market for these companies, according to Rand’s Triezenberg.

Although it’s not the Defense Department’s goal to choose which rockets will succeed in the broader market, Triezenberg said the backlog many of these companies have secured indicates that the service’s Phase 3 strategy, and ultimately its procurement decisions, will play a role in how these companies fare.

“I think what the government is trying to do here with the Phase 3 Lane 1 contracts is sort of [build] up the backlog for these emerging providers,” Triezenberg said. “That’s going to help these firms when they go to the capital markets and try to raise money.

“Launch is a very capital-intensive business,” she added. “Those backlogs are important.”

Conditions for competition

While the Space Force’s launch procurement strategy offers the opportunity for new launch providers to compete, some experts and members of Congress have questioned whether there’s more the Pentagon can do to lower barriers for these companies.

Rep. Dale Strong, R-Ala., said May 1 during a House Armed Services Committee hearing that while he applauds the Space Force’s Phase 3 approach, he’s worried established players like SpaceX and ULA will encroach on Lane 1, underbidding on those missions in order to edge out smaller firms.

“I do have concerns about Lane 1,” he said. “I would personally like to see something a bit more concrete to protect them.”

Beck, Rocket Lab’s CEO, told C4ISRNET he’d like to see rules addressing which missions Lane 2 companies can and cannot compete for.

“The real risk you run is competitors in Lane 2 not wanting new entrants to come in and going in there and very aggressively bidding that work or doing other things to make it very difficult for new providers,” he said. “If the whole goal is to on-ramp new providers and utilize the commercial-industrial base, I think there is risk there that it gets stifled by some poor behavior of the incumbents.”

Another way to better foster competition, according to AEI’s Harrison, would be to allow companies to join Lane 1 as soon as they’ve flown their rockets. As the strategy stands, firms must wait until the annual on-ramp period opens.

“Commercial innovation moves faster than a 12-month cycle sometimes,” Harrison said. “Let’s say the on-ramp is in May and a company isn’t ready to bid until that June; they have to wait until the next May to on-ramp again — an 11-month, 12-month delay. That could be the end of that company.”

For smaller firms, building the infrastructure required to support new rockets is also a barrier. Bill Weber, CEO of Firefly Aerospace, said he has talked with the Space Force about pursuing more public-private partnerships to alleviate some costs.

“That’s a $100 million launch complex for a medium launch vehicle,” he told C4ISRNET. “These launch complexes that are required in order to support these national security missions — they’re exorbitantly expensive, and the utility of it is used by the government customer. So there has to be some public-private partnerships.”

Turkish shipbuilder STM to construct three vessels for Malaysia

ISTANBUL — Turkey will build three vessels for the Royal Malaysian Navy under the latter’s Littoral Mission Ship Batch 2 Project as part of a deal signed by the two nations.

This marks the first time Malaysia has signed a government-to-government agreement to procure defense equipment.

The countries inked the deal at a ceremony Monday, during which Turkish defense industry chief Haluk Görgün and Malaysian Defence Minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin said STM will build the littoral missions ships in Turkey.

“During the customization of the ships, products from a number of Turkish defense industry firms, including Havelsan, Aselsan and Roketsan, will be used. I wholeheartedly believe that the LMS Batch 2 Project is just the beginning of long-term collaborations on naval platforms between the two countries,” Görgün said.

STM’s general manager, Özgür Güleryüz, said that following work on naval platforms for the Pakistan Navy, the firm is now focused on continuing the construction of two corvettes for Ukraine.

Güleryüz added that construction for Malaysia’s ships will begin in 2024, with the planned delivery to take place in three and a half years.

As part of the project, STM will construct and equip the ships in Turkey with significant participation from other local defense companies, including outfitting them with the 30mm Muhafiz remote controlled stabilized gun system; the Cenk 3D search radar; the Ares electronic support system; the Akrep fire control radar; a chaff decoy system; an identification friend or foe system; and other electronic sensors.

Additionally, the ships will be equipped with the Atmaca anti-ship missile developed by Roketsan, and the combat management system and 76mm gun fire control system developed by Havelsan. There was no information about air defense missiles.

The specifications of the ships are:

Length: 99.56 metersWidth: 14.42 metersDraft: 3.94 metersDisplacement: about 2,500 tonsMaximum speed: about 26 knotsCruising speed: 14 knotsRange: 4000-plus nautical miles at 14 knotsPersonnel capacity: 111Endurance: 14 days

Air National Guard gets service’s first combat-ready F-15EX

The Air Force on June 5 received its first combat-ready F-15EX Eagle II fighter.

The Boeing-made jet was flown from the company’s facility in St. Louis, Missouri, where it was built, to Portland Air National Guard Base in Oregon.

It is the first of 18 F-15EXs to be completed at the St. Louis factory that will be assigned to the Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing in Portland, and the first of nearly 100 operational F-15EXs expected to be delivered to the Air Force overall.

Wing Commander Col. Michael Kosderka said in a video the Air Force posted online that it is unusual for the Air National Guard to receive a new weapon system before active duty units. But he said the skill of the 142nd’s pilots, maintainers, fuelers and logisticians made the wing the ideal to be the first to fly operational Eagle IIs.

“This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an Air National Guard base got a major weapon system before the active component,” Kosderka said. “It’s a super big deal.”

Maj. Calvin “Knife” Conner and Maj. Brandon “Wiggles” Wigton, of the 142nd Wing’s 123rd Fighter Squadron, flew the two-seater fighter jet to Oregon. Air National Guard deputy director Maj. Gen. Duke Pirak attended the jet’s departure from the St. Louis factory.

“We’re here to protect the Pacific Northwest with our 24/7 alert mission,” Kosderka said. “We’re also here to now get this new weapon system that will allow us to participate and survive in major combat operations.”

Boeing said the Air Force’s second operational F-15EX will fly out to Portland in the next few weeks, completing the first production lot of the jet. Boeing had previously delivered six test F-15EXs starting in 2021.

The Air Force is now planning to buy 98 F-15EXs, an updated version of the fourth-generation F-15 with advanced avionics such as fly-by-wire controls and improved electronic warfare capabilities. Boeing said it is now building about three jets every two months, and wants to pick up the pace to two per month beginning in 2025. The second lot of jets will start being delivered in late 2024.

The F-15EX will replace some F-15C and D-model jets as the Air Force retires the older fighters. But the Air Force’s proposed budget for fiscal 2025 would only buy 18 F-15EXs, six fewer than originally expected, and would halt further purchases in subsequent years.

The House’s proposed 2025 defense policy bill would reverse the decision to cap the F-15EX line. Instead, it would add $271 million to buy 24 more F-15EXs in 2026 and keep the production line going.

Kosderka said his first impression of the jet was that while it looks almost identical to its predecessor, its engines were quieter than previous versions of the F-15. He said hundreds of people from around the base turned out to see the jet arrive.

“When they popped the canopy open [after landing], the cheers, the clapping, it’s incredibly exciting,” Kosderka said.