Archive: October 22, 2024

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy sees some allies warm to NATO membership bid

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine’s president is hoping allies will take a more positive stance on his so-called “victory plan” after the U.S. election, but concedes that its key demand — an invitation to join NATO — is not welcome by some major Western partners, in particular Germany.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia was also likely looking at the postelection scenario in the U.S. to assess the possibility of cease-fire talks with Ukraine. He assessed that if partial cease-fire deals could be reached over attacks on energy infrastructure and Black Sea shipping routes, it would signal the end of the “hot phase” of the war.

Zelenskyy spoke to journalists on Monday and his comments were embargoed until Tuesday.

He said the U.S. is analyzing his plan, but he doesn’t expect a meaningful response until after the Nov. 5 election.

“They said, yes, we’ve started working on the Victory Plan, they want to analyze everything, and so on. But it’s very clear to me that all the major partners, especially during the election period, will be afraid of Russia’s reaction,” he said. “Because they understand that with this package, we can destroy them.”

On NATO, Zelenskyy said France, Britain and Italy have shown signs of support. Germany has reservations, however, and Zelenskyy believes only a U.S. green light will convince Berlin to accept the idea.

“But the fact is that the German side is skeptical about our NATO membership — that’s a fact. I believe their stance is softer than it was before — this is also a fact.

“But when it comes to the invitation I’m talking about now, they are afraid of … Russia’s reaction,” he said.

“I believe that their position will be influenced by a bigger alliance. A bigger alliance in supporting us — a confident “Yes” from the United States.”

Many significant issues will hinge on decisions taken following the fraught election period, the president said.

“After the elections, we hope for a more positive reaction from the U.S. — not because of a change in the president, but because the focus of the United States is now on the elections, and I believe that any sharp statements from the U.S. today might be inappropriate or carry risks. I think they don’t want unnecessary risks,” he said.

Asked if he faced pressure from allies to end the war, Zelenskyy joked, saying, “Over the years, people’s overall blood pressure rises.”

He dismissed reports of a possible cease-fire scenario in which Ukraine exchanged occupied territories for NATO membership.

“We are not discussing this. But I think that these media leaks are not accidental. Perhaps some partners may have such thoughts. They don’t communicate this directly with me, but through the media, it’s clear they’re testing its reception.”

He said the end of the “hot phase” of the war would commence if a deal could be reached with Russia to halt attacks on energy infrastructure and Black Sea ports and shipping routes. In this case, attacks on military targets would continue as well as front-line fighting, he said.

He said he plans to convince countries of the Global South to embrace Ukraine’s plan as another way to push Moscow to agree to Kyiv’s terms.

Zelenskyy said his country is not pursuing nuclear weapons to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We are not asking to be given or returned nuclear weapons,” he said. “My position is very clear. We gave them up, but we got nothing in return. And we only received a full-scale war and many casualties, so today we have only one way out. That’s why we need NATO, because we don’t have the weapons that can stop Putin.”

The Army’s black and gold PT uniforms are here to stay

Rumors of the demise of the Army’s black and gold physical training gear were greatly exaggerated, and a redesign is not in the works, despite recent leadership comments suggesting otherwise.

The Army on Monday clarified comments made by its top enlisted soldier at last week’s Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition about the service’s approved PT uniform.

“We’re redesigning the Army PTs,” Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Weimer said last week. “We’re not going to get locked into the same T-shirt, [where] everybody is just going out and buying a new T-shirt anyway for their unit.”

But on Monday, Weimer told reporters he was referring to the Army providing additional options for soldier workout clothing, not a wholesale revamp of the iconic soldier PT gear.

Instead, the Army wants to give soldiers more comfortable options if they need them without spending Army money redesigning or issuing a new PT uniform, he said.

Those options will be presented to Army senior leaders by the end of 2025, the service clarified.

Either way, Weimar said, the black and gold design is here to stay.

Army to expand holistic health and fitness program to all soldiers

Weimer said the goal of providing additional options emerged after frequent soldier feedback regarding the comfort and fit of the existing PT clothing.

“It really comes down to fit,” Weimer said. “It’s about performance and functionality.”

Sgt. Maj. Rob Haynie, senior enlisted soldier at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, began leading the service’s review of options about two months ago and will continue that through next year.

So far, Weimer and Haynie said, some of the biggest complaints are about how the shorts fit, including problems with fabric bunching.

Small features also mean a lot, and soldiers griped about a lack of shorts pockets for stowing ID cards.

As Haynie gathers soldier feedback, his team will review existing, available options from the clothing industry, he said. A finalized list of types of PT clothing that meet the Army’s regulations and standards and maintain uniformity among the troops will then be delivered to Army senior leaders for review.

Soldiers will still get their PT uniforms issued at basic training and use that clothing through their Advanced Individual Training, Weimer said. But once they join their unit, they could have the option to get some different gear.

The 2025 review could wind up giving soldiers additional options for each of their basic PT gear clothing items, officials said.

The current basic gear includes short-sleeve and long-sleeve T-shirts, shorts, pants and a jacket, all in the black and gold color scheme, according to Army regulations.

Additionally, soldiers may wear calf or ankle-length socks, athletic shoes, a fleece watch cap, a compression shirt, shorts and a reflective belt for inclement weather conditions.

The service previously changed the PT uniform in 2017 when it switched from the black and gray design it had used for years to the current black and gold color scheme, among other changes.

Whatever gear gets approved for soldiers to add to their training wardrobe should provide options that better-fit soldiers’ comfort and performance needs while maintaining a uniform appearance, Weimer said.

The potential workout clothing options fall in line with several non-issue items that are approved for wear. The Army allows soldiers to select from an approved list of protective eyewear, and to choose between different types of combat boots to find the best fit.

Some units also allow soldiers to wear unit-specific, command-approved T-shirts that showcase the specific unit for their PT uniform.

Pentagon chief unveils $400 million in Ukraine aid during Kyiv visit

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made an unannounced visit to Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, on Monday, where he met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and unveiled a package of $400 million in security aid — the second such package within a week.

The assistance includes artillery and other munitions, armored vehicles and anti-tank weapons like the shoulder-launched Javelin system.

Austin announced the aid in a meeting with Zelenskyy, who last week outlined a proposal to end the war.

This “victory plan,” as Zelenskyy calls it, would require enduring Western support, particularly NATO membership and the long-term commitment of security aid. The U.S. has so far resisted issuing an immediate invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance, along with another top priority for Kyiv: the permission to fire western weapons deep into Russian territory.

In a social media post after the meeting with Austin, Zelenskyy said that the two discussed air defense and “the expansion of long-range weapon use against Russian military targets.” In a $425 million package announced last week, the White House committed to sending “hundreds” of vital air defense interceptors in the coming months.

Despite such support, Zelenskyy’s proposal is a sign of how Ukraine views the state of the war. The Ukrainian president still publicly calls for regaining all territory lost to Russia, going back to the 2014 seizure of Crimea. But as Moscow’s forces steadily advance in eastern Ukraine and reclaim territory lost in Russia’s Kursk province, the future of the war looks increasingly bleak for Kyiv.

In an October briefing, senior Pentagon officials said Russia’s casualties were accelerating in the east and had reached 600,000 throughout the war.

Austin’s trip to Kyiv marks his fourth visit to Ukraine and likely his last as secretary of defense. Aiding Ukraine’s defense has been a signature achievement during his tenure. The U.S. has sent Ukraine over $61 billion in security aid in the last two and a half years, and Austin has helped coordinate the assistance of other countries through a monthly forum held in Ramstein, Germany.

Polish government eyes Chinook buy as heavy-lift military workhorse

WARSAW, Poland — Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz has announced the country is mulling plans to purchase heavy-lift helicopters for its armed forces, opening the door for another sizable U.S. arms export to the European nation.

Kosiniak-Kamysz said Boeing’s CH-47F Chinook is a considered option because its capabilities “are unique and immense.” He did not disclose the number of copters that would be acquired under the program.

“I believe that [the Polish military] also needs larger helicopters which could provide efficient support by transporting ‘big bags,’ or soldiers, into locations that are difficult to access,” the minister said in an interview with local news site Portal Obronny. “I have not talked about it anywhere else, but, at the ministry, we are thinking about it because … we need such gear.”

In addition to their use for military operations, the new copters could also be used by the armed forces for disaster relief operations, according to Kosiniak-Kamysz. The politician was referring to the widespread floods which hit Poland’s south-western regions last month. On Sept. 18, the Polish Ministry of National Defence announced that around 14,000 soldiers were involved in the response to the floods.

With the potential purchase in mind, Boeing, the manufacturer of the Chinook, has intensified its efforts to promote the helo in the Polish market. The company presented the aircraft at the MSPO defense industry show, the country’s largest annual industry event, which was held between Sept. 2 and 5 in Kielce, central Poland.

Should Poland decide to purchase Chinook copters for its military, this would mark another major deal to be awarded by Warsaw to Boeing. In August 2024, the Polish ministry signed a contract with the United States government to buy 96 AH-64E Apache attack copters with related gear and weapons. The deal is worth around $10 billion.

US Navy ousts top commanders of ship repair facility in Japan

The Navy fired both the commanding and executive officers of the U.S. Naval Ship Repair Facility and Japan Regional Maintenance Center in Yokosuka, Japan, this weekend.

Capt. Zaldy Valenzuela, the CO, and Cmdr. Art Palalay, his second-in-command, were removed from their respective positions on Sunday due to a “loss of confidence in their ability to command,” according to the Navy.

Capt. Dan Lannamann, the former commanding officer of Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center in Norfolk, Virginia, is now leading the facility while Cmdr. Timothy Emge, the center’s operations officer, is filling in as executive officer until a permanent replacement is identified.

“The Navy holds commanding officers and others in authority to the highest standards,” the Navy said in a statement. “Naval leaders are entrusted with significant responsibilities to their Sailors and commands.”

Navy ousts CO of Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams amid soft grounding probe

The Navy rarely shares any rationale behind firing commanding officers aside from the “loss of confidence” statement, and no additional details were provided on Valenzuela and Palalay’s reliefs.

Valenzuela’s previous assignments include ship superintendent and carrier type desk officer at SRF-JRMC, electrical division officer aboard the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard, and the combat and communications officer aboard the amphibious command ship Blue Ridge.

Palalay, who enlisted in the Navy in 1993 and commissioned in 2006, previously served as the readiness officer at Commander Naval Surface Forces Pacific before becoming the XO of SRF-JRMC in 2023.

The maintenance center, equipped with six dry docks, conducts intermediate and depot-level maintenance and repairs for Navy ships across the 7th Fleet.

Ukraine should lift export ban on reconnaissance drones, vendor says

MILAN — Ukraine may lift an export ban on drone systems to generate revenue for local companies, a move one manufacturer argues is overdue.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 Kyiv has prohibited the export of military goods to other countries to guarantee that the Ukrainian armed forces are supplied with the equipment they need to continue defending their territory.

While the ban has allowed smaller local defense companies to grow at a fast rate, thanks to an initial boost of orders by the state, the policy is now hurting their business, Anatolii Khrapchynskyi, deputy director general of Piranha Tech said.

“It has opened up opportunities for private companies to produce weapons and led to the emergence of numerous firms that, in two and a half years, have grown from garage-based startups to stable companies capable of fulfilling a large number of orders,” he told Defense News. “At the same time, as firms have scaled up their capabilities, they’ve accelerated to a level the state cannot fully procure from.”

Piranha Tech has specialized in the development and production of electronic-warfare systems, radio-jamming as well as drones and counter-drone systems since 2014.

Khrapchynskyi noted that most of the investments in research and development came either from the companies’ own funds or small grants provided by platforms like Brave1, a Ukrainian government entity responsible for fast-tracking the delivery of weapon samples to the frontlines.

At the rate defense systems have evolved on the battlefield, research and development has become more expensive, and having the state as the sole customer is no longer sufficient for many firms, the argument for lifting the export ban goes.

According to Ukrainian media, a government working group on arms exports has been working since August on assessing risks that would come with the country re-entering the global arms market, and setting conditions that could make this possible.

Khrapchynskyi told Defense News he supports the initiative, saying reconnaissance drones could serve as a test case because they are useful in military and civilian applications alike.

“Security and the end-user are of the utmost importance – we could also consider selling earlier versions that are not cutting edge, but companies must guarantee that state contracts remain a priority and be fulfilled on time,” Khrapchynskyi said.

A requirement to invest some of the profits into company research and development also should be on the table, he added.

One of the biggest issues associated with lifting the wartime ban on these weapons is the possibility for Russian forces to get their hands on information and technology.

“We see how Russia circumvents sanctions, so we understand that they will certainly start looking for ways to obtain certain means for copying [weapons] or developing countermeasures against them,” Khrapchynskyi said.

Russia flaunts doomsday weapons to curb Western support for Ukraine

This year has seen President Vladimir Putin repeatedly brandish the nuclear sword, reminding everyone that Russia has the world’s largest atomic arsenal to try to deter the West from ramping up support for Ukraine.

He ordered his military to hold drills involving battlefield nuclear weapons with ally Belarus.

He announced Russia will start producing ground-based intermediate range missiles that were outlawed by a now-defunct U.S.-Soviet treaty in 1987.

And last month, he lowered the threshold for unleashing his arsenal by revising the country’s nuclear doctrine.

Putin is relying on those thousands of warheads and hundreds of missiles as an enormous doomsday machine to offset NATO’s massive edge in conventional weapons to discourage what he sees as threats to Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

A look at Russia’s atomic arsenal and the issues surrounding it:

Russia’s strategic weapons

The Federation of American Scientists estimated this year that Russia has an inventory totaling 5,580 deployed and nondeployed nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,044. Together, that’s about 88% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Most of these are strategic, or intercontinental-range weapons. Like the U.S., Russia has a nuclear triad of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, long-range bombers and ICBM-armed submarines.

Since Putin came to power in 2000, the Kremlin has worked to upgrade the Soviet-built components of the triad, deploying hundreds of new land-based missiles, commissioning new nuclear submarines and modernizing nuclear-capable bombers. Russia’s effort to revamp its nuclear forces has helped prompt the U.S. to launch a costly modernization of its arsenal.

Russia has reequipped its land-based strategic missile forces with mobile Yars ICBMs and recently began deploying the heavy, silo-based Sarmat ICBMs — designated “Satan II” missiles in the West — to gradually replace about 40 Soviet-built R-36M missiles. Sarmat has had only one known successful test, and reportedly suffered a massive explosion during an abortive test last month.

The navy commissioned seven new Borei-class atomic-powered submarines, each with 16 Bulava nuclear-tipped missiles, and plans to build five more. They are intended to form the core of the triad’s naval component alongside a few Soviet-era nuclear subs still operating.

Russia still relies on Soviet-built Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Moscow has restarted production of the supersonic Tu-160 that was halted after the 1991 Soviet collapse, aiming to build several dozen modernized aircraft with new engines and avionics.

Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons

The U.S. estimates that Russia has between 1,000 and 2,000 nonstrategic, or tactical, nuclear weapons intended for use on the battlefield that typically are far less powerful than the strategic warheads capable of destroying entire cities.

Russia has high-precision ground-launched Iskander missiles with a range of up to 310 miles, which can be fitted with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead.

The air force has a fleet of MiG-31 fighter jets that carry a hypersonic Kinzhal missile, which can be equipped with a nuclear or conventional warhead. Russia has widely used conventional versions of both Iskander and Kinzhal against Ukraine.

As part of the Kremlin’s nuclear messaging, Russia and ally Belarus held drills to train their troops with the battlefield nuclear weapons in May, shortly after Putin began his fifth term.

MAD and Russia’s nuclear doctrine

Moscow and Washington have relied for decades on nuclear deterrence under the concept of mutually assured destruction — MAD for short — based on the assumption that an overwhelming retaliation would discourage either side from launching an attack.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine adopted in 2020 envisaged using such ultimate weapons in response to a nuclear strike or an attack with conventional weapons that threatens “the very existence of the Russian state.” Moscow hawks criticized that document as too vague, urging Putin to toughen it.

Last month, he warned the U.S. and NATO allies that allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied longer-range weapons for strikes deep inside Russia would put NATO at war with his country.

He reinforced the message by announcing a new version of the nuclear doctrine that considers a conventional attack on Russia by a nonnuclear nation that is supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack on his country — a clear warning to the U.S. and other allies of Kyiv.

Putin also declared the revised document envisages possible nuclear weapons use in case of a massive air attack, holding the door open to a potential nuclear response to any aerial assault — an ambiguity intended to deter the West.

Changes in the doctrine suggest Russia “is doubling down on its strategy of relying on nuclear weapons for coercive purposes” in the war in Ukraine, said Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a commentary.

The future for arms control

The 2010 New START U.S.-Russian arms reduction treaty, the last remaining arms control pact between Moscow and Washington that expires in 2026, limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

In February 2023, Putin suspended Russia’s participation in New START, but vowed that Russia would abide by its limits.

In July, Putin declared Russia will launch production of ground-based intermediate range missiles that were banned under the now-defunct U.S. Soviet INF Treaty. The 1987 pact banned missiles with a range of 310 to 3,410 miles. He said Moscow will respond in kind to the planned deployment of U.S. intermediate-range missiles to Germany, taking steps to “mirror” Washington’s move.

Even as U.S.-Russian tensions soared to their highest point since the Cold War amid fighting in Ukraine, Washington has urged Moscow to resume dialogue on nuclear arms control. Putin rejected the offer, saying such negotiations are meaningless while the U.S. is openly seeking to inflict a strategic defeat to Russia in Ukraine.

Resuming nuclear testing

Russian hawks are calling for a resumption of nuclear tests to demonstrate Moscow’s readiness to use its atomic arsenal and force the West to limit aid for Kyiv.

Putin said Russia could resume testing if the U.S. does so first, a move that would end a global ban in place after the demise of the USSR.

Last month, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the nuclear test range on the Arctic archipelago of Novaya Zemlya is ready to resume tests if the U.S. does so.

Prospective new weapons

In 2018, Putin revealed an array of new weapons, claiming they would render any prospective U.S. missile defenses useless.

They include the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, capable of flying 27 times faster than the speed of sound and making sharp maneuvers to dodge an enemy’s missile shield. The first such units have already entered service.

Putin also mentioned the nuclear-armed and atomic-powered Poseidon underwater drone, designed to explode near coastlines and cause a radioactive tsunami. Earlier this year, he said Poseidon tests are nearing completion, without giving details.

Also under development is an atomic-powered cruise missile, a concept that dates to the Cold War. But the missile, called the Burevestnik, or Petrel, has raised skepticism among experts, who cite technological obstacles and radiation safety concerns. During tests in 2019, an explosion at a naval range on the White Sea reportedly involving the Burevestnik killed five engineers and two servicemen, and caused a brief spike in radiation.

Putin said this year its development was in the final stages and the military has reportedly built a base for the missiles in the Vologda region of northwestern Russia.

The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

How one warship thwarting a Houthi attack a year ago changed the Navy

The men and women aboard the Navy destroyer Carney could be forgiven for thinking they were headed toward a quiet cruise on Oct. 7, 2023, as the warship steamed east across the Atlantic Ocean to begin its latest deployment.

But that day heralded the start of a great upending for the U.S. Navy, after Hamas militants streamed into Israel and murdered more than 1,200 people, sparking a war that continues to threaten to engulf the Middle East to this day.

All the Houthi-US Navy incidents in the Middle East (that we know of)

The moment that would change the Navy forever actually took place aboard the Carney 12 days later, on Oct. 19, when it became the first American warship to take out a barrage of Iran-backed Houthi rebel missiles and drones fired from Yemen.

Such intercepts have since become a harrowing, near-daily occurrence for destroyers in those waters, and the year that followed Oct. 19, 2023, has irrevocably changed the Navy for the foreseeable future, Navy leaders and outside analysts say.

On this day one year ago, starting around 4 p.m. local time, Carney took out a Houthi attack the Pentagon later said was headed for Israel, downing 15 drones and four land-attack cruise missiles over 10 hours.

While their pre-deployment training prepared them for anything, the Carney was not expecting to find itself taking on the Houthis in a near-daily battle to keep the claustrophobic Red Sea lanes open for commerce, Cmdr. Jeremy Robertson, the ship’s commanding officer for that cruise, told Navy Times this week.

“None of us really could have known what we were going to get into once Oct. 7 happened,” he said.

Since those fateful 10 hours a year ago, the Red Sea has become the arena for the longest sustained “direct and deliberate attacks at sea” that the fleet has faced since World War II, Fleet Forces Command head Adm. Daryl Caudle said in a statement to Navy Times.

“While I could not have predicted the complexity and interrelationships of all that has transpired since [Oct. 19, 2023], I am not surprised,” said Caudle, who commands the Navy East Coast-based fleet.

Inside the USS Carney’s harrowing and unprecedented deployment

“The world is a very tense place right now given the vast range of power-seeking agendas between peer competitors and opportunistic regional proxies. Any small spark can have serious consequences, which is why we take every situation so seriously.”

Since Carney’s first victory, the surface fleet has subsequently honed its tactics and tuned its radars for such a fight, instances when a ship’s Combat Information Center sometimes has mere seconds to ascertain and take out a Houthi attack.

Combat lessons are being routed back to schoolhouses and training centers, giving the Navy real-time knowledge on its combat systems and how to best use them.

Skippers also report that their crews have been galvanized by such experiences, finding meaning to their seemingly endless training in the life-and-death minutes they endure in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

“This really gave our sailors the why,” Robertson said. “Why do we train so hard, why do we do all the reps and sets.”

“The stage was not too big, the lights were not too bright. They were able to draw a connection.”

These successes at sea “validate our readiness to respond, our Sailors’ warfighting spirit and the technological superiority of our exquisite combat systems,” Caudle said.

But despite the tactical successes and demonstrated proficiencies, some question how fast the Navy is burning through munitions, sometimes to take out cheap Houthi drones, and whether a drawdown of missiles could one day impact a long-feared war with China in the West Pacific.

The Houthi menace in the Middle East has also caused the Navy’s aircraft carriers to be run hard, and some have been scrambled to the region when others weren’t ready to go, further raising readiness alarms in some corners.

And while tactical battles have been won, strategic wars have not, according to James Holmes, a retired Navy gunnery officer and professor of maritime strategy at the Naval War College.

“The tacticians have done their work magnificently … and the combination of sensors, fire control and weaponry has performed as advertised against an array of threats similar to what [Iran, Russia and China] field,” Holmes told Navy Times. “Bringing down anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles is no easy feat, but they have done it.”

What the Navy is learning from its fight in the Red Sea

And while such successes will reverberate on other maritime battlefields, the Navy to date has been unable to stop the Houthis from attacking merchant vessels traveling through the vital economic waterway that is the Red Sea, he said.

“The failure part is that the mission has fallen short of its strategic goal, namely allowing merchant shipping through the Gulf of Aden, Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and Red Sea to resume unmolested,” Holmes said. “We can flip strategic failure to success when shipping firms — and the all-important maritime insurance companies — feel comfortable enough to start using that route again.”

A year in, the Navy is getting more judicious about how it fights Houthi attacks, according to Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst at the Hudson Institute think tank.

Navy ships threw the “kitchen sink” at incoming drones and missiles after the Carney’s first intercept a year ago, but the fleet is becoming more adept at using electronic warfare, guns and less-expensive interceptors to counter such Houthi attacks, Clark said.

Questions of sustainability of effort are now arising, he said, noting that the Navy has in some instances used carrier-based fighter jets to shoot down Houthi drones and missiles, an expensive and inefficient approach.

“The challenge going forward will be how to sustain this level of presence in the region,” Clark said. “The Pentagon may need to consider putting missile defense systems on barges or ashore so [destroyers] can deploy elsewhere or return home for maintenance.”

Robertson left the Carney after it returned to Mayport, Florida, in May, and is now the Navy’s Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training, or SWATT, director, passing on his hard-earned knowledge.

“It’s certainly surreal,” he said of his time commanding Carney. “I love every one of the sailors and officers and chiefs I worked with. Just a great crew. They’ll remember this for the rest of their lives.”

As the one-year anniversary of Oct. 19 comes and goes with no end in sight for the Navy’s Red Sea fight against the Houthis, Caudle noted that it’s difficult to forecast how the conflict will end.

“While I won’t speculate on how our involvement with the Houthis will culminate, I can tell you that I’m laser-focused on readiness, sustainment and lethality,” he said. “We’re ready for this fight, not matter how long it lasts.”

Future of US defense depends on culture shift prioritizing innovation

To get our national security right and to ensure that we maintain a strong national defense, we must figure out how the Defense Department can innovate quickly enough to keep pace with potential adversaries. Though increasing authorities have been given to DOD, it continues to struggle to adapt and pivot at the same rate as some competitors.

As senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are concerned that unless we recalibrate our approach to defense technology acquisition, we will continue on the slow, costly and unsustainable path that threatens our national defense and the rules-based international order.

Over the last 10 years, through numerous National Defense Authorization Acts, Congress has passed a variety of authorities to help streamline research and development and acquisition. These include more flexible other transaction authorities, mid-tier acquisition authorities, the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies program and protections for commercial technology to help better attract nontraditional companies to the defense sector.

Similarly, DOD has taken some steps of its own. The efforts of the late Defense Secretary Ash Carter, continued and expanded by leaders in subsequent administrations on a bipartisan basis, led to the creation of the Defense Innovation Unit, the Strategic Capabilities Office and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office. Current efforts — such as Replicator and the Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve — show promise in accelerating acquisition and development for certain capabilities.

These legislative and policy efforts intended to streamline, enhance and wring efficiencies from the acquisition system have left a dizzying array of authorities available to program managers and procurement officials. However, rather than fully utilizing these authorities, DOD still largely follows a slow and costly acquisition process hamstrung by a focus on the process and rigid requirements rather than fielding a capability and achieving results.

Furthermore, officials are more reliably punished for failures than rewarded for creativity and adaptability. Worse yet, they are incentivized to make decisions that may look good during their tenure but create unacceptable risks, cost growth or program management problems for successors. Cultural risk aversion drives a dangerous and costly tendency — one that too often results in cutting-edge technology becoming stale and outdated by the time it is put into play, if not earlier.

We also need to change how DOD interacts with Congress. Bold ideas require early collaboration which does not fit into the model where nothing can be disclosed or discussed with Congress until the president’s budget is released. Surprising Congress with new ideas historically has not benefited any part of the government. No one should be surprised when those ideas go unsupported.

Even when empowered offices overcome these structural disincentives, the efforts tend to be narrowly scoped. Large programs of record for complex systems or large services contracts are built around onerous requirements or meaningless metrics rather than problem-solving ideas or desired outcomes. Narrow technical requirements need to change to broad capability requirements.

The fiscal 2024 NDAA tasks DOD with modernizing the requirements process by avoiding prescriptive language, focusing on mission outcomes and assessed threats, enabling a more iterative and collaborative approach with the services and maximizing the use of commercial products. We expect to be briefed on an interim implementation report in the coming weeks. Getting this right is an absolute imperative.

We are likewise concerned that our research and development proving grounds are dangerously overtaxed. Years of chronic underinvestment have created unacceptable delays in test schedules. Rigorous exercise and experimentation, vital to transitioning technologies into capabilities, are hamstrung by the lack of facilities needed to develop disruptive technologies.

Finally, Congress itself is part of the problem. Parochialism, overly restrictive and inflexible appropriations, risk aversion and an unfortunate habit of killing messengers — to say nothing of the corrosive and wasteful use of continuing resolutions — create dangerous barriers to agility and innovation. The final report of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform Commission lays out many of these issues in more detail.

We cannot legislate cultural change, nor can the Defense Department implement it by policy. But we can adjust the incentives, behaviors and signals that drive cultural change over time and our ability to do so is unparalleled.

We have the most innovative economy in the world. We have the best universities, capital markets and entrepreneurial spirit. It is our duty to make sure the government can access that unmatched advantage in an effective way to give our military what it needs to meet our national security needs.

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, D-Ala., is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee; Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., is chairman of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies and Innovation; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies and Innovation.

How changes in Army training could limit troop brain injuries

Sending soldiers to the firing range once a week for a month instead of four days in a row might be able to improve their long-term brain health.

That’s one of the preliminary findings from Army researchers conducting baseline cognitive screenings in an effort to better track — and prevent — brain injuries among troops.

The project, which kicked off in August, created a database of troops’ normal brain functions to provide health officials with a baseline to compare against soldier brains following long deployments, head trauma or other potential damaging incidents. Officials are currently screening new enlistees and individuals in some high-risk jobs, with the goal of reaching all troops by fall 2026.

The service also plans to re-screen soldiers every few years.

“There are times that service members may sustain or have a cognitive change that they have not even recognized yet,” Dr. Steven Porter, a neuroscientist at the U.S. Army Office of the Surgeon General working on the project, said Tuesday at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference. “What the testing will be able to do for us is to identify that change and catch it early, so we can prevent any sort of ongoing or continued injury.”

Army launches cognitive screening to track new soldiers’ brain health

The project is still in its early phases, so plans for new training schedules, new equipment development and new recovery programs for injured troops are still mostly theoretical.

But Sgt. Maj. Chris McNamara, human weapon system expert at Army Special Operations Command, told reporters during a presentation at the AUSA conference that preliminary data from blast sensors and brain screenings have started to show activities that cause low-level problems in troops’ heads, giving commanders tools to intervene early.

“When we used to go to our shooting ranges, we would stack [those sessions] all together so that you got training density,” he said. “Now most of our leaders, because they have better decision support tools with a blast profile, spread that out. Now it’s one day every week. And the blast density is lower, and they get more time to recover.”

Col. Jama VanHorne-Sealy, director of the Army’s Occupational Health Directorate, said officials hope to release a new servicemember brain health strategy next spring.

“What that strategy seeks to do is to address the brain health needs of the warfighter, to optimize brain health in multiple environments … and to address the readiness of the force and force health protection against known and emerging hazards,” she said.

“It’s important for the Department of Defense and for the Army to have solutions that really allow us to do the best that we can, to triage personnel, to diagnose folks in austere environments so that we can make smart practice decisions about how to best take care of warfighters.”

From 2000 to 2022, nearly 460,000 servicemembers were diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury during training or in combat, according to the Defense Department Inspector General. Officials said finding ways to treat those issues earlier could result in long-term benefits for individuals and force readiness.