Air Force

Tanker Program
Running on Fumes
PAGE 24

Electronic Warfare
Key to Ukraine Fight
PAGE 21

NATIONALDEFENSEMAGAZINE.ORG

Countering
China’s Space
Aggression
Allies to Track
Suspicious
Activity
In Orbit
PAGE 28

MARCH 2024

NDIA’S BUSINESS &

TECHNOLOGY MAGA ZINE
AI not delivering?
You’ve got lazy data!

If your AI/BI/ML initiative isn’t performing, don’t blame the tool; take a look at your data.

We can help you transform your lazy data into active assets. Our DataInFormation SM suite of solutions,
powered by human-augmented technology, gets your data into the proper formation and structure
your AI tool needs. Whether it’s video, audio, images, or PDFs, our data preparation experts unlock
data that is sitting idle and put it to work adding value to your business.

• We operate 100% in the USA, so your data stays in the USA

• Our workforce is 80%+ veterans and military families

Contact us today and make your data more productive with DatalnFormation.

It’s not the tool,

it’s the data
dummy.

Liberty Source PBC  Fort Monroe, Hampton, VA  757-214-9643

sales@liberty-source.com  liberty-source.com
CAGE Code: 7EWU6 UEI: JE8WCRU4TGM7
 CONTENTS
March 2024 | Volume CVIII, Number 843 | NationalDefenseMagazine.org
NDIA’S
BUSINESS &
TECHNOLOGY
MAGA ZINE

COVER STORY 28
• It started with nuclear-
powered submarines,
continued with a host of
emerging technologies
and now the tri-nation
United States, United
Kingdom and Austra-
lia alliance known as
AUKUS is expanding
cooperation in space.

AIR FORCE TANKERS 24 LOOK FOR

• With the KC-135 slated for retirement, AUGMENTED
REALITY
just a few KC-10s still flying and their CONTENT
KC-46A replacements slow to come, ON:
the Air Force must find a path to field PAGE 25
a mandated 466 refueling aircraft. PAGE 34

ELECTRONIC
WARFARE 21
COVER: Illustration, iStock , Defense Dept. images

• The U.S. military after the EXPERIENCE

Cold War let its electronic THE MAGAZINE
IN AUGMENTED
warfare capabilities go by REALITY
the wayside. The war in
DOWNLOAD THE FREE NDIA AR APP
Ukraine has shown that
If previously installed, please update
it can be fatal to cede the to the latest version by checking
electromagnetic spec- the App Store or Google Play.
trum to adversaries.

National Defense (ISSN 0092–1491) is published monthly by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22201–3060. TEL (703)
522–1820; FAX (703) 522–1885. ADVERTISING SALES: Kathleen Kenney, 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22201–3060. TEL (703) 247–2576; FAX (703) 522–4602. The views
expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NDIA. Membership rates in the association are $40 annually; $15.00 is allocated to National Defense for a one-
year association basic subscription and is non-deductible from dues. Annual rates for NDIA members: $40 U.S. and possessions; District of Columbia add 6 percent sales tax; $45 foreign. A six-week notice
is required for change of address. Periodical postage paid at Arlington, VA and at additional mailing office. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to National Defense, 2101 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700, Arlington,
VA 22201–3060. The title National Defense is registered with the Library of Congress. Copyright 2024, NDIA

N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 1
 CONTENTS

STAFF
4 5 6 7 8 14 EDITOR IN CHIEF
Stew Magnuson
(703) 247-2545
SMagnuson@NDIA.org

4 NDIA PERSPECTIVE CREATIVE DIRECTOR

Views from the association’s leadership 28 FOCUS ON INDO-PACIFIC Brian Taylor
AUKUS in Space: U.S., U.K., Australia (703) 247-2546
5 EDITOR’S NOTES Teaming Up to Deter China in Orbit BTaylor@NDIA.org
From the desk of the editor in chief BY JOSH LUCKENBAUGH
MANAGING EDITOR
BY STEW MAGNUSON
32 COMMENTARY Sean Carberry
(703) 247-2542
6 EMERGING TECHNOLOGY HORIZONS AUKUS Is Not Only the Now, It Is the Future SCarberry@NDIA.org
Looking toward the tech of the future BY AMBASSADOR BONNIE JENKINS
SENIOR EDITOR
7 ALGORITHMIC WARFARE 34 European Navies Sailing to Secure Josh Luckenbaugh
What’s coming in artificial intelligence, big Indo-Pacific BY LAURA HECKMANN (703) 247-2585
data and cybersecurity BY JOSH LUCKENBAUGH JLuckenbaugh@NDIA.org
36 Marines Going Virtual to Address Lack
8 DISPATCHES Of Training Grounds in Indo-Pacific STAFF WRITER
Laura Heckmann
News from the U.S. and around the world BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY AND ALLYSON PARK
(703) 247-2543
COMPILED BY STEW MAGNUSON
LHeckmann@NDIA.org

14 BUDGET MATTERS 37 NAVY EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Who’s funding what in Washington Navy Chasing North Star of 75 Available Allyson Park
BY SEAN CARBERRY Surface Ships BY SEAN CARBERRY (703) 247-9469
APark@NDIA.org
15 COMMENTARY 39 TRAINING & SIMULATION
China’s Tech Goals Force U.S. to Navy’s Push for Blended
Rethink its Export Control Regime Training Picks Up Steam ADVERTISING
BY JENNIFER STEWART BY ALLYSON PARK
SVP, MEETINGS, DIVISIONS
17 VIEWPOINT 41 NDIA POLICY POINTS & PARTNERSHIPS
How One Army Plant Modernized to Views from the association's policy division Christine M. Klein
(703) 247-2593
Support Ukraine BY LT. COL. FRANK MUSISI
42 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING INSIGHTS CKlein@NDIA.org

19 INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE Analysis of the newest rules and regulations SALES DIRECTOR
The Intersection of X-Shoring, IP and CONTRIBUTED BY COVINGTON & BURLING Kathleen Kenney
National Security BY MISHA GOVSHTEYN (703) 247-2576
43 NDIA NEWS KKenney@NDIA.org
21 ANALYSIS Happenings at the association
Daily Fight for Ukraine Spectrum National Defense
Superiority Puts Electronic Warfare 43 NDIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2101 Wilson Blvd.
Front, Center BY STEW MAGNUSON Suite 700
44 NDIA CALENDAR Arlington, VA 22201
24 AIR FORCE A complete guide to NDIA events
Air Force Acquisition Strategy for
KC-135 Replacement in Limbo 48 NEXT MONTH
BY JAN TEGLER Preview of our next issue

26 SUPPLY CHAIN 48 INDEX OF ADVERTISERS

Pentagon Harnessing Data for
Predictive Logistics Planning
BY LAURA HECKMANN
19
Connect with our sponsors
NDIA MEMBERSHIP: The
National Defense Industrial
Association (NDIA) is the pre-
mier association representing
all facets of the defense and
technology industrial base and
serving all military services.
26 34 37 39 42 For more information please
call our membership depart-
ment at 703-522-1820 or visit
us on the web at NDIA.org/
Membership

2 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 WWW.NATIONALDEFENSEMAGAZINE.ORG
NDIA PERSPECTIVE BY MICHAEL J. BAYER
World Events, Budget Delays Test Nation’s Resolve
W
ith so much conflict
in the world, it has
not been the best
start to the new year. In the
last year, the People’s Repub-
lic of China conducted unsafe,
unprofessional and dangerous
maneuvers against U.S. military air-
craft and repeatedly sent fighter jets
and warships into the Taiwan Strait.
We are two years into watching
Russia’s vicious and illegal invasion
of its sovereign neighbor Ukraine.
Last year, we experienced Israel’s
horror of the sadistic slaying of its
population at the hands of terrorists.
This year brought the Houthis
directly attacking commercial ship-
ping and menacing regional stabil-
ity. And heartbreakingly, we have
lost too many U.S. service personnel
in recent months, including from a
drone attack at the end of January
that claimed the lives of three U.S.
soldiers and wounded more than 30
other service members. Our thoughts
are with their families and friends
and may they rest in Heaven’s peace.
Throughout the world, malign
forces are testing U.S. resolve.
Meanwhile in Washington,
the appropriations process has
been stalled since the
new fiscal year began
on Oct. 1. Congress has
passed three continuing
resolutions, the latest
of which keeps the
Defense Depart-
ment funded at
fiscal year 2023 lev-
els through March 8.
While the department’s
topline of $886.3 bil-
lion was agreed to under
the Fiscal Responsibil-
ity Act last summer and authorized
by the fiscal year 2024 National
Defense Authorization Act, which
was signed into law in December, it
is not clear if the House and Senate
will be able to agree on completion
of the 2024 defense appropria-
tions bill by the March deadline, or
deliver that vitally needed topline
amount to the nation’s warfighters.
The current impasse has raised
serious concerns that the depart-
ment may operate under a full-year
continuing resolution, which has
4 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
never happened before.
According to a bipartisan
assessment by the Senate
Appropriations Commit-
tee, under a full-year CR the
department would lose $26.6
billion, or 3 percent, from the
topline agreed to last summer.
In addition, the Fiscal Responsi-
bility Act’s Section 102 stipulated
that unless all 12 appropriations
bills were signed into law by Jan. 1,
2024, all federal departments and
agencies would face a 1 percent
sequester. This sequester has been
triggered, and lawmakers have until
April 30 to pass full-year appropria-
tions to avoid this 1 percent cut.
According to the congressional
appropriators, the current state of
the appropriations process could
result in an overall cut of $36.6 bil-
lion, or 4.1 percent, to the depart-
ment’s topline agreed to under the
act. Directly speaking, the department
could potentially lose $36.6 billion if
Congress does not complete its work.
In addition, in October the admin-
istration asked Congress to approve
$106 billion in supplemental fund-
ing to provide direct support to
Ukraine and Israel and to
provide support for mili-
tary requirements in the
Indo-Pacific theater.
Most of the supple-
mental request is
for Ukraine, for
which the administra-
tion requested $61.4
billion for equipment,
replenishing U.S. stockpiles,
supporting U.S. military intel-
ligence and providing eco-
nomic and humanitarian aid.
The Biden administration also
requested $14.3 billion for Israel, of
which the majority of the request was
for air and missile defense procure-
ment and replenishing U.S. stockpiles.
The supplemental also included
$3.4 billion for the U.S. subma-
rine industrial base to help indus-
try meet the pressurized schedules
for keeping construction of the
Virginia-class attack submarines
and the Columbia-class ballistic
missile submarines on schedule.
The threats are not waiting, and
neither is the National Defense
Industrial Association. In March,
NDIA is focused on bringing gov-
ernment and industry together on
some of the most consequential
issues facing the Pentagon and the
U.S. defense industrial base.
The month starts with the 2024
Pacific Operational Science and Tech-
nology (POST) Conference, hosted in
conjunction with U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command, March 4-7 at the Hawaii
Convention Center in Honolulu,
Hawaii. The conference focuses on
joint research, development and
experimentation, and we are honored
to have Heidi Shyu, undersecretary
of defense for research and engi-
neering, deliver a keynote address.
The remaining days are full of
opportunity with technical panels,
invitation-only breakout sessions,
classified sessions with the combatant
command’s military service compo-
nents and field experimentations.
Later in the month, NDIA is
excited to host the 2024 Under-
sea Warfare Spring Confer-
ence, which will take place March
18-20 in San Diego, California.
The conference includes presenta-
tions by U.S. Pacific Fleet’s Submarine
Forces commander and Naval Surface
Forces deputy commander, as well as
sessions by the program executive offi-
cers for undersea warfare systems and
for unmanned and small combatants.
In addition, the 2024 Muni-
tions Executive Summit has a ter-
rific program lined up for March
19-20 in Parsippany, New Jersey.
The summit includes require-
ments, acquisition and contracting
panels, as well as a keynote by James
Smith, former acquisition executive
for Special Operations Command.
We truly hope you will join
us for these incredibly timely
and relevant conferences.
The next few months will test the
nation’s resolve — both at home
and abroad. It has never been more
important for people who care about
our nation’s security — people
like you — to commit to getting
involved. There is so much work
to be done. Please join us. ND
iStock illustration
Michael Bayer is NDIA board
chair and president and CEO
of Dumbarton Strategies.
 EDITOR'S NOTES BY STEW MAGNUSON
Directed Energy Weapons: Here Now? Or 5 Years Off?
D
epending on who you
ask, directed energy
weapons are either
“here and now” or still not
ready for prime time.
Their potential as a weapon
of war has been touted since the
science fiction character Buck Rog-
ers showed up in newspaper comics
in 1929 carrying an atomic pistol.
But almost 100 years later, soldiers
still can’t say, “Set phasers on stun!”
Directed energy weapons come in
two categories: high-energy lasers
and high-powered microwaves.
The U.S. military has pursued
this technology for decades, with
promises of them being deploy-
able “in just a few years.”
On paper, they look great. As
long as a warfighter doesn’t have
to shoot down anything past the
curvature of the Earth — they can
only fire in a straight line — users
would have an almost “unlimited
magazine.” Imagine not having to
lug all that ammunition around.
A member of the “here and now”
crowd is one of the Pentagon’s point
persons on the technology, Mark
Spencer, director of the Joint Directed
Energy Transition Office, which is
within the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Critical
Technologies created by Under-
secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering Heidi Shyu.
The future is now for directed ener-
gy weapons, he asserted during a pan-
el discussion at the recent Association
of Old Crows annual conference. It is a
“game-changing technology,” he said.
“Is it the be-all and end-all of
technologies that’s going to solve
all of our problems? No. However,
when we start to think of how we’re
going to employ these future sys-
tems for these future fights, directed
energy does play a role from a sys-
tems perspective,” Spencer said.
He noted that directed energy
weapons have often been portrayed
as just five years and five million
dollars away. However, the days of
“overpromising and underdeliver-
ing” are coming to an end, he said.
Lockeed Martin photo
He listed six programs on a slide
called “Deployed DE Systems to Date.”
They included: the ODIN, Optical
Dazzling Interdictor (Navy); HELIOS,
High-Energy Laser with Inte-
grated Optical-Dazzler and
Surveillance (Navy); Solid State
Laser – Technology Maturation
(Navy); CLaWS, Compact Laser
Weapon System (Marine Corps);
HELWS, High Energy Laser Weap-
on System (Air Force); and THOR,
Tactical High Power Microwave
Operational Responder (Air Force).
But looking at the smaller print on
the slide showed that the weapons —
mostly envisioned as counter-drone
systems — may have been “deployed,”
but not in great numbers and mostly
for test and evaluation. There are
eight ODINs on Navy destroyers, one
HELIOS, one Solid State Laser on a
landing platform dock, five CLaWs,
three HELWS in an undisclosed loca-
tion and one THOR. That adds up
to 19 directed energy weapons.
Underwhelming to say the least.
One person who would agree with
that statement is Vice Adm. Brendan
McLane, the new commander of the
Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet,
who in a keynote speech at the Surface
Navy Association confab in January
called for a directed energy weapon
to be deployed on every Navy ship.
It had been almost a decade since
the Navy made history and installed
an experimental 30-kilowatt Laser
Weapon System, or LaWS, on the
then-USS Ponce Austin-class amphibi-
ous transport vessel, he noted.
“I am not content with the pace
of directed energy weapons. We
must deliver on the promise this
technology gives us,” he said.
As he spoke, the Navy was in a
high stakes battle in the Red Sea with
Houthi rebels, who were launch-
ing missiles and kamikaze drones
at commercial and military ships.
Many of those targets could be
taken down with directed energy
weapons if they were deployed on
Navy ships, he said. As of press time,
they were not being employed.
National Defense later in the confer-
ence asked DDG-51 Program Man-
ager Capt. Seth Miller if there were
any size or power restrictions that
would prevent them being deployed
— as McLane asked — on destroy-
ers. There were none, he answered.
A recent report by the National
Defense Industrial Association’s
Emerging Technologies Institute,
“Directed Energy Weapon Sup-
ply Chains: Securing the Path to the
Future,” spelled out a few reasons
why McLane and Spencer’s visions of
widespread fielding of directed energy
weapons will be difficult to realize.
Current directed energy weapon
“supply chains, including critical raw
materials, the manufacturing base and
workforce and testing infrastructure
are incapable of supporting [directed
energy weapon] deployment at scale,”
the report said. They are only able
to produce small quantities of sys-
tems with long lead times, it added.
The report had several recom-
mendations that would help the
Defense Department usher the way
to wider deployment: provide con-
sistent demand signals to industry;
secure rare earth elements needed to
operate the system such as gallium
and germanium; establish programs
of record; develop a workforce with
directed energy expertise; and diver-
sify the supply chain by including
international allies and partners.
While there are roadblocks to
widely deploying directed energy
weapons and a great deal of
uncertainty as to when they will be
common on battlefields, one thing is
certain — the demand.
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza,
the Navy battle in the Red Sea and
U.S. programs in development all
point to drone swarms being the
future of warfare.
Directed energy weapons with
autonomous targeting, wide
beams, nearly unlimited maga-
zines and low cost-to-shot ratios
are proving in experiments that
they can be an effective counter-
measure to kamikaze robots.
The question is whether they
are “here and now” or still five
years off? ND
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 5
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY HORIZONS BY WILSON MILES AND JACOB WINN
The Emerging Tech Needed in Indo-Pacific
I
f the United States is
serious about prevent-
ing a potential inva-
sion of Taiwan by China,
the Defense Department
will need to create an
overwhelming advantage
and mitigate urgent opera-
tional challenges. The Indo-
Pacific region is both vast and distant
from the continental United States.
The Defense Department will need
to be equipped with tools that provide
long-range precision strike capabilities,
penetrate enemy anti-access and area-
denial capabilities, enable interop-
erability between systems across
domains and ensure resilient logistics.
Credibly deterring aggression and
projecting power will depend on rap-
idly developing, testing and deploying
emerging technologies and systems
that can deliver effects against a
technologically sophisticated and
numerically superior adversary.
Hypersonic weapons — if fielded at
scale — would present commanders
with a capability that credibly raises
the costs of aggression by ensuring
that adversaries’ air defenses could
not prevent overwhelming attacks
on military facilities, infrastructure
and war-making industries. To scale
this capability, combatant com-
manders would need to make their
operational requirements clear to
industry and service leadership.
Electromagnetic spectrum domi-
nation is also a top priority for
Indo-Pacific Command leaders. 5G
and FutureG capabilities are criti-
cal for joint communication and for
the fielding of distributed manned
or unmanned systems. These capa-
bilities must be resilient in the face
of sophisticated jamming tech-
niques but provide decisive tacti-
cal advantages when available.
Directed energy weapons also pro-
vide a suite of capabilities with a lower
“cost-per-shot” and logistical burden
for countering both traditional air-
borne threats, such as rockets and
artillery, and next-generation threats
such as autonomous platforms.
Similarly to hypersonic weapons,
defining the use cases and articulat-
ing a plan for moving some of the
promising prototypes into production
can help ensure that these systems
6 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
are widely available
to warfighters across
multiple platforms.
New integration tools
can help the military
address technical interop-
erability challenges. One
difficulty lies in enabling
legacy and new systems
to work together across domains to
deliver joint operational effects. The
Defense Department’s focus has his-
torically centered around developing
one-size-fits-all standards and inter-
face controls. Now, promising software
integration tools can permit systems
with varying data formats and inter-
faces to exchange information effec-
tively and quickly to support joint fires
and command-and-control missions.
In addition to interoperability, the
assured ability to rapidly move person-
nel, equipment and supplies is criti-
cal to deterring or winning a conflict
in the Indo-Pacific. In fact, resilient
logistics is a key tenet of the Penta-
gon’s Joint Warfighting Concept.
The ability to enhance logistics
operations by automating sustainment
is central to distributed operations
in the Indo-Pacific region. Machine
learning algorithms can support deci-
sionmakers with analysis, such as
transportation optimization, network
modeling and advanced pattern rec-
ognition. Tools that aid planners in
reacting to rapidly changing opera-
tional environments, whether those
changes are due to weather patterns
or to enemy action, will be in align-
ment with the rapid decision-making
pace intrinsic to future warfare.
Additionally, defense planners need
a better understanding of the resource
constraints that warfighters will face
during operations. Wargames have
historically underestimated the con-
straints on U.S. forces. Wargames
that test operational concepts in the
Indo-Pacific should not assume that
the warfighter will be logistically sup-
ported throughout the entire exercise
or have the industrial base needed to
continuously support operations.
Incorporating operational and
system performance data into these
simulations would improve under-
standing of how supplies and equip-
ment will move over great distances,
likely within the weapons engage-
ment zone expected in theater.
The Indo-Pacific theater also pres-
ents unique operational energy chal-
lenges for forces. To deliver fuel to
forward deployed units, the military
will rely on an extraordinarily complex
and geographically distant network
of bases and other island outposts.
Opportunities to address these chal-
lenges could include more prototyping
of certain energy-efficient concepts like
blended wing body airframes, hybrid-
electric engines and modular nuclear
reactors for the electrification and
resiliency of forward operating bases.
However, despite the range of avail-
able prototypes across many technical
areas, more must be done across the
military to articulate quantifiable goals
for using these solutions. Doing so will
allow the services and combat support
agencies to plan out joint develop-
ment and procurement activities.
These emerging technologies, if
integrated across operational and
logistical missions, promise to make
operations in the Indo-Pacific more
effective, resilient and coordinated.
The command recognizes the chal-
lenge of synchronizing different
technology acceleration efforts.
To help plug in emerging tech-
nologies, the Defense Department
established the Joint Mission Accel-
erator Directorate, which Indo-
Pacom Commander Navy Adm.
John Aquilino announced during the
National Defense Industrial Asso-
ciation’s first Emerging Technologies
Conference and is designed to pull
together Defense Department ele-
ments for the command’s needs.
NDIA’s Emerging Technologies Insti-
tute has done a series of reports on
these issues including the Joint War-
fighting Concept, advanced technol-
ogy supply chains and data analytics
to support system maintenance — all
of which are available on our website.
The use of emerging technologies to
support operations in the Indo-Pacific
and other regions will be a focus at the
second Emerging Technologies Confer-
ence in Washington, D.C., Aug. 7-9. ND
Wilson Miles and Jacob Winn
are associate research fellows at the
iStock illustration
Emerging Technologies Institute. If
you are interested in working with us,
please reach out: ETI@NDIA.org.
 ALGORITHMIC WARFARE BY JOSH LUCKENBAUGH
Defense Cyber Hub Receives Major Refresh
T
he Defense Department recent-
ly released the latest version
of its Cyber Resilient Weapon
Systems Body of Knowledge, its online
repository of specifications, data and
best practices for building systems
resistant to today’s cyber threats.
In the unclassified summary of the
Defense Department’s 2023 Cyber
Strategy released in September, the
Pentagon said both China and Rus-
sia “have embraced malicious cyber
activity as a means to counter U.S.
conventional military power and
degrade the combat capability of the
Joint Force,” and across the globe,
“malicious cyber activity continues
to grow in both volume and sever-
ity, impacting the U.S. homeland
and placing Americans at risk.”
To respond to the myriad threats
in the cyber domain, the depart-
ment is committed to enhancing the
cyber resilience of the Joint Force to
ensure it can fight “in and through
contested and congested cyberspace,”
the strategy stated. “Cyberspace
operations represent an indispensable
element of U.S. and allied military
strength and form a core compo-
nent of integrated deterrence.”
To ensure its technology has the
necessary cyber defenses, the depart-
ment maintains the unclassified,
publicly available Cyber Resilient
Weapon Systems Body of Knowl-
edge, or CRWS-BoK, which “pro-
vides easy access to [more than]
600 publicly available authoritative
sources … to support secure cyber
resilient engineering activities,” said
Melinda Reed, director for system
security in the Office of the Under-
secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering’s Science and Tech-
nology Program Protection Office.
The CRWS-BoK provides high-
level guidance that can be applied
to any cyber-enabled system.
An example of the resources avail-
able in the repository is a series of
technical white papers to provide
design guidance “to establish the
secure cyber-resilient engineer-
ing discipline,” Reed said in an
interview. These white papers
include “strategic considerations”
iStock illustration
for design, loss control, design
principles and security and resil-
ience interpretation, she added.
Nearly three years since the
initial launch of CRWS-BoK
in May 2021, the Defense
Department in January
released Version 4.0. The
update “enhances the user’s
ability to find the best resources
for their needs,” building upon feed-
back the department has received
from prior versions, Reed said.
“New features include an updated
look and feel that allows for more
customized viewing options, and
enhanced navigation tools that sim-
plify resource discovery,” she said.
Version 4.0 also includes a refined
algorithm that improves overall rat-
ing detail to better reflect resource
quality and relevance and new guest
prompts that streamline the process
for new users and encourage them to
register to “take full advantage of the
personalized features or nominate
content to be added to the CRWS-BoK
repository,” an Office of the Under-
secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering release stated.
The CRWS-BoK uses a “review
board process to review and
approve community-nominated
resources using established accep-
tance criteria,” Reed said.
The CRWS-BoK review board
consists of representatives from
government, industry and aca-
demia and meets quarterly to review
nominated resources that have been
assessed and prepared by the sys-
tem’s curation team, she said.
The makeup of the review board
reflects the repository’s user base,
which cuts across the Defense Depart-
ment, other federal government agen-
cies, industry and academia, she said.
“We collaborate through
this body of knowledge
with government, indus-
try and academia to cap-
ture those best practices
that support all of the diverse
functional needs,” she added.
A major concern for many in
the cybersecurity world is the
Defense Department’s Cybersecu-
rity Maturity Model Certification
program, which when finalized will
require any company doing busi-
ness with the Pentagon to verify it
is compliant with the department’s
cybersecurity requirements.
The department published a pro-
posed rule for CMMC in December,
and as of press time the 60-day
comment period was set to end on
Feb. 26, despite several trade orga-
nizations requesting an extension.
Once the CMMC final rule is pub-
lished, resources pertaining to the
program will need to go through
the same review board process to
make it into the CRWS-BoK, Reed
said, adding that the system relies
on close collaboration between those
inside and outside the government.
“Without our partners in indus-
try and academia and government,
we really wouldn’t have the breadth
and the depth of the materials that
are” available in the CRWS-BoK, she
said. “So, we really do thank all of the
stakeholders who participate on this.”
As the cyber threat “continues to
evolve, we must continue to provide
the tools to adapt to this chang-
ing environment and cultivate this
workforce across government, indus-
try and academia, as well as our
allies and partners,” she said. ND
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 7

DISPATCHES
NEWS FROM THE U.S. AND AROUND THE WORLD COMPILED BY STEW MAGNUSON
New Manufacturing
Process Boosts
Military Semiconductor
Efficiency BY ALLYSON PARK
B
ALTIMORE – Northrop Grum-
man is utilizing a new pat-
ented transistor technology to
improve the speed and efficiency of
designing and manufacturing semi-
conductors for its military customers.
Super-lattice castellated field effect thin slices of semiconductor — that
transistors are a circuit technology
that use gallium nitride to boost per-
formance levels of semiconductors
by implementing “filters, switches
and components that are inside of
a multi-function sensor” and have
very low insertion loss and a smaller
footprint, Vern Boyle, vice president
of Northrop Grumman’s Microelec-
tronics Center, Mission Systems,
said during a recent media event.
The transistors allow future sys-
tems to operate equally efficiently
with a significant reduction in inser-
tion loss — or the loss of a trans-
mission signal — meaning fewer
chips are needed, less data is lost
and higher frequency abilities are
enabled because of those features,
according to the company website.
Using this transistor technology
“allows us to get the size, the weight,
the power and get the performance
[of our] semiconductors up,” Boyle
said. “This is a computing wafer, so
8 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
Northrop
Grumman’s
Space Park
foundry
we are building a lot of new technol-
ogy around superconducting elec-
tronics — that is, electronics that
[operate] at near zero-degree tem-
perature, very special materials.”
About half of the wafers — or
Northrop Grumman processes in
its Baltimore, Maryland, facility are
designed for multi-function sensing,
and the other half are designed for
computing. Using the new transis-
tor device improves the efficiency
and lowers the overall footprint
of manufacturing multi-function
semiconductors while maximiz-
ing performance and lowering
their size and weight, Boyle said.
Northrop Grumman has two inter-
nal semiconductor foundries, one in
Redondo Beach, California, and the one
in Maryland. Each location is focused
on different materials and applications: to the aircraft, is all part of that digital
the California foundry mostly manu-
factures chips for space applications,
and the Maryland foundry focuses
mainly on airborne applications and
advanced computing technology.
The Maryland foundry uses a “low
volume, high mix” approach to chip
manufacturing. Commercial micro-
chip fabrication plants, or fabs, make
“millions of chips,” Boyle said.
“We need lower volume, purpose-
built chips. … The high mix refers
to the variety of materials that we
work with,” he said. “A commercial
fab might make one or two prod-
ucts. We make 90 products across
our fabs. They might work
with a small mix of materi-
als. We work with a high mix
because we’re driving those
90 products into over 60 dif-
ferent programs and systems
across Northrop Grumman.”
When it comes to design-
ing and manufacturing
products for the military
— especially electronics —
the government’s unique
and specific requirements
must be addressed all the
way down to the semicon-
ductor level, Boyle said.
One application is for radars
with wide bandwidths and high
frequencies, he said. “When
you look at the front end of a
tactical fighter, there’s not a lot
of space, so size, weight and
power become really impor-
tant. And how we build and
design those custom chips
drives the performance of the
mission systems that they go into.”
Northrop Grumman is using
digital tools and spurring a digital
transformation on the semiconduc-
tor level through the design process
and product lines, Boyle said.
The company uses digital model-
ing and twins to “design the chip,
understand how it integrates up to
the next packaging level up onto the
board level, up into the chassis level,
so that when [we] make these custom
build parts, we can get it right the
first time, and that reduces the cost
and reduces the schedule,” he said.
On the production side, the com-
pany integrates product data into
a digital thread and uses automa-
tion and robots to ensure improved
assembly line efficiency.
“All the data and all the information
that tracks that [chip], from the wafer
transformation thread,” Boyle said.
“[If] you’re running a test, and you
find something isn’t working, and it’s
isolated down into the electronics, we
Northrop Grumman photo
can trace it all the way back to the pro-
cess that was used — the day, the hour
it was manufactured. ... We can do that
very fast because all that data is inte-
grated as part of the digital thread.” ND
 IN BRIEF
Integrated
Deterrence
In Special Ops’
‘Bone Marrow’
• Army Gen. Bryan Fen-
ton, head of Special Opera-
tions Command, said while SOCOM
has been at the forefront of the
counterterrorism fight this century,
the command is ideally suited for
the current era of great power com-
petition and integrated deterrence.
“We hear a lot about SOCOM
as CT-Com, and maybe it pigeon-
holes us a bit,” he told reporters.
“And while admittedly during the
20-plus years of the global war on
terrorism, counterterrorism was our
main mission … I think it under-
plays the total value proposition of
your and the nation’s Special Opera-
tions Command team,” he said.
The command “is born for the
integrated deterrence, great power
competition era,” he said. “It’s in
our bone marrow. It’s in our DNA,
and it’s in our very roots,” stemming
from the activities of the Office of
Strategic Services operating behind
enemy lines in World War II.
For example, SOCOM has been
active in integrated deterrence in
the Indo-Pacific by “developing and
maintaining relationships, building
partner capability and capacity” and
providing “indications and warnings
of an ever-increasing challenge that
we [see] from” China, he said. ND
iStock illustration, NATO photo, Army photo, iStock illustraton, Defense Dept. photo
STOLTENBERG
NATO Still in the Mix
• When it comes to Russia,
NATO wants to be clear: deter-
ring Russia and victory in Ukraine
are two different things.
“Our strategy is to deter Russia
from attacking us,” Jens Stolten-
berg, NATO secretary general, said
during a recent speech in Wash-
ington, D.C. “And that has been a
successful strategy for 75 years.”
Reporting by Sean Carberry, Laura Heckmann and Josh Luckenbaugh
But Ukraine — “that’s a
different issue,” he said. “We
must not mix those two.”
When it comes to Ukraine,
Stoltenberg said the strat-
egy is to ensure that Ukraine
prevails as a sovereign, inde-
pendent nation and that “Putin
realizes that the cost of trying to
control Ukraine is too high.”
When the Soviet Union was no
longer there, “people said NATO has
to go out of business or out [of] the
area,” he said. He delivered a long
list of crises NATO has responded
to from the Balkans to 9/11.
One of the reasons the organiza-
tion has remained what he called
“the most successful alliance in his-
tory” has been its ability to transform
over the past 40 years, he said. ND
For more on the Ukraine War, see
page 21.
Artillery
Production
A Team Sport
• The United States is working
closely with its allies around the
world to ensure everyone has the
munitions they need, said the Army’s
assistant secretary for acquisition,
logistics and technology Doug Bush.
“We’re all realizing that we do all
still depend on each other,” Bush
said at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. “So, no one
has a completely homegrown capa-
bility to make anything sophisti-
cated. We’re in a globalized world,
there will be interdependencies.”
Along with coordinating artillery
production ramp-ups with European
allies to support Ukraine, the Pen-
tagon is also working with partners
in the Pacific, such as supporting
Australia’s effort to build up its
own guided munitions production
capacity as part of the AUKUS secu-
rity partnership, he said. It is also
“working with Japan on a range of
things, including different elements
of some of our weapons where they
have high-quality capability” and
partnering with India, he said.
“So, there’s a range of things going
on with all of our allies,” Bush said.
“The democracies with advanced
economies all have something to
contribute. We just have to work
together more, and this conflict [in
Ukraine] has brought us together
like nothing in a long time.” ND
For more on munitions production,
see page 17.
Don’t Forget
‘Exportability’
• Partners and
allies can reap
the benefits of
the latest and
greatest in each
others’ weapons
technology, but
it needs to include
exportability, Amy
Sunshine Smith-Carroll, direc-
tor for surface warfare supporting
the deputy assistant secretary of
defense for platforms and weapons
portfolio management, said dur-
ing a panel discussion at NDIA’s
National Logistics Forum.
Sharing capabilities between
partner nations is happen-
ing — Ukraine being a timely
example — but it’s tedious.
“There has been a lot of work
with our partners to actually help
them donate capabilities that they
have,” Smith-Carroll said. “That does
require either third party transfer
agreements or some other agree-
ments to make sure that we’re
not giving away technology that
we don’t want them to have.”
Currently, there are too many
hoops to jump through to make sure
products are exportable, she said.
“We need to make sure that any-
thing that we’re designing now, and
going forward,
has exportability
designed into it as
a requirement. …
And that’s some-
thing we’ve been
trying to hammer
hard … because
that’s the first
thing that gets kind
of traded away.” ND
For more on U.S.
export controls, see
page 15. SMITH-CARROLL
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 9
Innovation Nation
DIU Wants to Cure Services’
Electric Vehicle Range Anxiety
BY HOPE HODGE SECK

F
Oshkosh Defense’s hybrid-electric Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
ALLS CHURCH, for responses by August.
Virginia — On the Now, DIU is in the process
road to full tactical of down-selecting from get to wherever they need to Dean McGrew, branch
vehicle electrification, one an undisclosed number of go,” Higier said. How much chief for Powertrain Elec-
obstacle looms above the respondents, energy portfo- these motors or generators trification in the Army’s
rest: the impracticality of lio director Andrew Higier will need to push out vehicle Combat Capabilities
deployed charging stations told National Defense. While range to meet DIU’s crite- Development Command,
large enough to “fuel” a big the form of the extender ria has not been specified. in an interview said with
combat vehicle fast and device is still up for deci- Range extenders, which range extenders, “We’re
get it back in the fight. sion, the goal is to deliver have been around as a com- really kicking the can
The Pentagon’s Defense the Army and Marine mercial concept for more on these huge megawatt
Innovation Unit wants Corps a product compat- than two decades, act as charging stations down
to fund a stop-gap solu- ible with the Joint Light backstop generators, kick- the road quite a ways.”
tion: a “Tactical Range Tactical Vehicle and similar ing in to provide power Range extenders will
Extender Enhancer” that platforms that will push when a vehicle battery is continue to be an asset,
will convert jet fuel to high- back their “range anxiety” depleted. Defense contrac- McGrew added, even after
voltage direct current power — the fear of running out tors have already begun the Army achieves its ambi-
and link up to electrified of charge with no nearby promoting military concept tious 2050 goal of fielding
ground vehicles to give power supply, he said. vehicles including range- fully electric tactical vehicles
them a rapid charge either “Whether it’s a fossil extending or enhancing with the accompanying
stationary or on the go. fuel-powered generator that technology, such as GM charging infrastructure to
DIU first posted its solici- can charge the batteries, or Defense’s Electric Military sustain them downrange.
tation for a commercial whether it’s literally a motor Concept Vehicle, which can “We are investing quite a
range-extending device that straps on, if they run be configured to include an bit into fast mobile charg-
in summer 2023, calling out of charge, they can still integrated diesel generator. ing capability,” he said. ND

FURTHER READING The vision of “tanks, armored infan-

The Arms of the Future: Technology and try and self-propelled artillery is pre-
mised upon a great deal of expensive
Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century hardware, doctrine, training, infra-
structure and culture that would be dif-
By Jack Watling, Bloomsbury Academic ficult to regenerate once lost,” he wrote.
One example is the U.S. Army’s
• Jack Watling, senior “Lack of vision of what future plan to develop new helicopters under
research fellow at London’s conflicts will look like means the Future Vertical Lift program.
Royal United Services Insti- they don’t have realizable goals “The survivability of those platforms
tute and consultant to the and clear paths,” he wrote. in terms of the concept of employ-
British army, was about to “The old playbook is now ment is pretty questionable in terms
go on a sabbatical to write liable to get you killed, it will of the increasing cost, complexity and
his book on future warfare lead to the loss of a large quan- signature of those platforms versus
when he got drawn into the tity of equipment if you try what they’re replacing,” he said at
Ukraine war as an observer. and apply that on the mod- a Center for Strategic and Interna-
Oshkosh Defense photo, Bloomsbury Academic book cover

He spent six months ern battlefield,” he added. tional Studies talk about the book.
of 2022 noting how the A central theme of the book The Black Hawk — one of the
Ukrainians fought against Rus- is his concern that as weapon plat- helicopters it is meant to replace —
sia as he penned what would forms become more complex and “is an extremely efficient, mature,
become The Arms of the Future. expensive, they will become harder established, effective platform. I
What is his definition of “arms to replace and maintain in a hot war. understand why the requirements
of the future?” They are “technolo- “How do you field and sustain these are what they are in the program.
gies that exist today, but which have complex weapon systems over the But when you look at the capabilities
not been fielded at scale and for course of a conflict?” he asked. of modern air defense systems, and
which there is not a supporting doc- Despite abundant evidence of the the concept of employments that go
trine on how to employ them.” need to change how armies fight, mili- with it, [Future Vertical Lift] starts to
His expertise mostly centers on land taries are struggling to modernize, he become quite dubious,” he said. ND
warfare. said. — Stew Magnuson

10 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
 Vendors Spotlight DISPATCHES
New Infrared Sights
sight, which allows engagement ranges
BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY
of approximately 2,200 meters.

L
AS VEGAS, Nevada — Two The sight was originally developed
new military sighting designs for the emerging .338 Norma Magnum
that expand short-range and Teledyne machine gun program — envisioned
FLIR’s HISS-HD
long-range tactical capabilities hit as replacing the 7.62 mm NATO
the market at a recent trade show. M240 and some .50 cal M2s — with
The Thales XTRAIM is designed come out from your night observation capabilities that can also be applied
for day or night operations as a device,” he continued. “As you raise to sniper systems, said Zach Fuller,
hybrid thermal with reflex optic the weapon, you’re staring through sales manager at Teledyne FLIR.
sight. Infrared range performance glass. So, whatever you would see in HISS-HD is a high definition,
on a human target is approximately the daytime with your naked eye is mid-wave thermal clip-on. It fea-
500 meters, Tom Saunders, an the exact same thing you’re going to tures an internal cryocooler, which
engineer at Thales Defense & Secu- see while you’re under night vision.” makes it more sensitive, Fuller said.
rity Inc., said on the sidelines of the Saunders said XTRAIM is now That increased sensitivity allows the
SHOT Show in Las Vegas, Nevada. entering production for an unspecified shooter to see the bullet in flight.
The XTRAIM design projects the international customer, adding that “And whether on a machine gun
thermal image through the same dis- a few pre-production units received or a sniper rifle, seeing your bul-
play channel as the reflex sight, he said. “extremely positive feedback” from let in flight is huge for your second
“In a typical thermal weapon sight, some “Tier 1” U.S. special opera- round hit probability,” Fuller said.
which would be either a clip-on or a tions elements with additional units It also allows the elimination of
standalone thermal, you are effec- slated for testing by Naval Special tracers, thereby reducing exposure of
tively looking at a display screen. This Warfare and other special ops units. firing position locations, he added.
sight allows you to look through an At the other end of the tactical range “It’s got over four times the resolu-
all glass projected image of what the spectrum, Teledyne FLIR used the tion and more field of view than most
thermal sight is seeing,” he said. show to introduce its new HISS-HD of what’s out there right now,” he said.
“With this sight, you don’t have to long-range, cooled thermal sniper ND

BY THE NUMBERS
#1
Top 10 Foreign AH-64E Apache

Military Sales, #5
P-8A
Fiscal Year
0 3 6 9 12
2023 by Value
Poland – AH-64E Apache Helicopters (Boeing) $12B

Poland – High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (Lockheed Martin) $10B

Germany – CH-47F Chinook Helicopters (Boeing) $8.5B

Australia – C-130J-30 Aircraft (Lockheed Martin) $6.35B #4

C-130J-30
Canada – P-8A Aircraft (Boeing) $5.9B

Czech Republic – F-35 Aircraft and Munitions (Lockheed Martin) $5.62B

Republic of Korea – F-35 Aircraft (Lockheed Martin) $5.06B

#3
CH-47F Poland – Integrated Air and Missile Defense
$4B
Teledyne FLIR photo, Defense Dept. photos

Chinook
Battle Command System (Northrop Grumman)

Poland - M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks $3.75B

#2
High
(General Dynamics Land Systems) Mobility
Artillery
Kuwait – National Advanced Surface-To-Air Missile System/ Rocket
$3B System
Medium Range Air Defense System (Raytheon)

Source: Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State

N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 11
 DISPATCHES The Joint Transportation Manage-
ment System, or JTMS, program
officially began in 2022 after
years of gap analysis, and the
effort is taking “a veritable
smorgasbord of systems —
some transportation, some
financial, most of which don’t
Transcom’s talk to each other — and bring-
‘Game-Changer’ ing this universe together,”
he said. There are currently
Management System 280 systems being used for
various transportation purposes
Moves Forward throughout the department.
BY LAURA HECKMANN Typically, conversa-
tion around optimization
has assumed it comes at
tation network, and what somebody is
spending — we’re not there, but that’s
what we’re trying to get at,” he said.
The past year has been heavy
with grunt work such as pro-
cess mapping, documentation and
systems architecture, work he
said is “well along,” he added.
Transcom delivered the system’s
acquisition strategy to the Defense
Department in early February, and
expects “solicitation in the relatively
near future, this year.” The program is
eyeing a 10-year, single-award indefi-
nite delivery, indefinite quantity con-
tract, and a planned award date within
the second quarter of 2025, he said.

O
KLAHOMA CITY — Trans-
portation Command’s Joint
Transportation Management
System — a visionary concept con-
ceived nearly a decade ago to unify
hundreds of fragmented transporta-
tion and financial systems across the
Defense Department — will move to
a request for proposal later this year,
Army Lt. Gen. John Sullivan, Transcom
deputy commander, said at the Nation-
al Defense Industrial Association’s
National Logistics Forum recently.
the expense of effectiveness, Sul-
livan said. “I believe now that’s a
false choice. I think you can opti-
mize for efficiency, and thereby,
effectiveness. And that’s what we’re
attempting to do with the Joint Trans-
portation Management System.”
The system will also improve audit-
ability, something “many in the depart-
ment continue to struggle with — to be
able to trace a requirement from origin
to payment, and to have complete vis-
ibility at each segment of the transpor-
The program has “a lot of steam
behind it,” across all services, the
Defense Logistics Agency and
“multiple organizations through-
out the department,” he said.
“I don’t want to oversell it, but it
is a game-changer,” Sullivan said.
“We’re on the right path right now
and looking forward to moving to
an RFP … a little later this year.”
A procurement forecast placed the
system’s projected value range between
$25 million and $49 million. ND

Hello, Goodbye Heather Armentrout

• Anthony Cordesman, 84,
former emeritus chair in
strategy at the Center for
Strategic and International
Studies, passed away
on Jan. 29. Cordes-
man had previ-
ously served in
the Office of
the Secretary
of Defense, the
National Secu-
rity Council, the CORDESMAN
State Department
and the Department of
Energy and was awarded
the Distinguished Service
Medal by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Space Systems Com-
mand’s Gen. Michael
Guetlein relinquished com-
mand to Lt. Gen. Philip
Garrant at Los Angeles Air
Force Base in El Segundo,
was appointed U.S. presi-
engagement efforts and
prioritize and meet research
dent and general manager and development objectives.
of Norway-based Kongsberg The Naval Information
Defence and Aerospace Inc., Warfare Center Atlantic
representing the defense cut the ribbon on a new
contractor’s activi- Network Integration and
ties in the United Engineering Facility Con-
States. Armentrout solidated Afloat Networks
joins Kongsberg and Enterprise Services lab
from Northrop in Norfolk, Virginia. The
Grumman. lab is the newest addition
Kraken Tech- to NIWC’s Tactical Net-
nology announced works Deployment Inte-
the appointment grated Product Team labs.
of Mark Exeter as The National Geospatial-
its new chief operating Intelligence Agency opened
officer. Exeter was previ- a new 24/7 operations
ously with L3Harris as center at its Springfield,
managing director of its Virginia, headquarters to
U.K.-based autonomous provide geospatial intelli-
surface vehicles division. gence to U.S. policymakers
Julia Filiberti Allen, and military forces around
formerly chief scientist the world. The center deliv-
at the U.S. subsidiary of ers visual products and
Swedish defense contrac- geospatial information
tor Saab, was promoted to to military and national-
chase its 50 percent share of
their Airbus OneWeb Satel-
lites joint venture. Airbus
now has sole ownership of
the venture and the satel-
lite manufacturing facility
in Merritt Island, Florida.
Boeing’s India Engineer-
ing and Technology Centre
campus was inaugurated by
Prime Minister Narendra
Modi near Bengaluru, India.
The 43-acre campus is Boe-
ing’s largest investment
outside of the United States.
The campus will assist in
the development of next-
generation products and
services for the global aero-
space and defense industry.
RTC Aerospace LLC,
a manufacturer of high-
precision components for
commercial and military
aircraft, announced that
it has acquired Vander-
horst Brothers Industries.
iStock illustration, CSIS photo

California. The ceremony
was Space Systems Com-
mand’s first change of
command for its most
senior ranking officer
since its establishment.
vice president and chief level decision makers in an This is RTC’s second
technology officer at Saab expanded watch center. acquisition under Stel-
Inc. She will oversee the Airbus U.S. Space and lex Capital Management,
development of technical Defense Inc. announced a private equity firm. ND
strategy for the company, completion of a deal with — Compiled by Laura
lead research community Eutelsat OneWeb to pur- Heckmann

12 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
 Best of the Web Read NationalDefenseMagazine.org for daily updates and news
Air Force Battle Network Is Here and Now BY SEAN CARBERRY
A
URORA, Colo-
rado — The Air
Force’s contri-
bution to the Defense
Department’s Combined
Joint All-Domain Com-
mand and Control effort
has expanded over the
last two years, and it is
now fielding capabili-
ties, service leaders said.
While the Advanced
Battle Management
System still exists as
a program of record
and budget line, the
service has broadened
its CJADC2 efforts to the
Department of the Air
Force Battle Network. And
the service is pushing out
capabilities in “thin slices,”
Brig. Gen. Luke Cropsey,
program executive officer
for command, control,
communications and
battle management, told
reporters at the Air & Space
Forces Association’s War-
fare Symposium Feb. 14.
Since September, the
Air Force has deployed
cloud-based command
and control into the East-
ern and Canadian Air
Defense Sectors, and the
technology is operational,
Cropsey said. “We will
continue to knock down
those pins as we’re mov-
ing forward to the rest of
those air defense sectors.”
The Air Force has
also deployed 16 tactical
operation center-light kits,
“which is really … the basic
building block for where
we’re going for infra-
structure for [command
and control],” he said.
Those kits — which
he described as a “high-
powered computer sit-
ting in front of you” with
some “wicked good fusion
and data integration” of
Air Force illustration
hundreds of feeds — are
deployed to various loca-
tions globally and are being
integrated into joint com-
batant command-level and
service-sponsored exer-
cises, including the Army’s
upcoming Project Conver-
gence exercise, he said.
“We’re giving the opera-
tor an opportunity to go
muck around with it and
figure out what works,
what doesn’t work, what
we need to modify, how we
need to maybe improve or
change some of the” user
interface, Cropsey said.
In addition, the service
needs to figure out “which
data for what person for
what decisions so that you
can simplify as much as
you can” and empower
the operator to make the
best decisions, he said.
“And that’s where we’re
spending a lot of our time
in that interaction with
the operational team say-
ing, ‘Okay, did that help,
or did that distract you?
Did you need more data or
less data? Was it the right
data or the wrong data?’”
The service plans to
move into a phase two for
that program to scale the
capability — which he said
is needed in the hundreds
of units. However, the lack
of fiscal year 2024 fund-
ing has that in limbo.
“Not having a budget …
it’s killing me, because my
budget was supposed to
double this year,” he con-
tinued. “So, my ability to do
what we need to do at scale
is literally completely ham-
strung right now. I have
[acquisition] strategies that
I’ve had to basically put on
the shelf because contract-
ing officers don’t like you
to put [requests for propos-
als] out when you don’t
have money for them.”
His office has burned
through money available
under the continuing reso-
lution to complete initial
delivery of the tactical
operation center-light kits,
but other things are getting
pushed, such as “all the
other parts of the architec-
ture that would have been
expansions off of what I
was already doing,” he said.
Cloud-based command
and control, or CBC2, has
to get delivered, he said.
“So, I will kick everything
else to the curb in order
to keep CBC2 on schedule
and on delivery, which we
have done. But it’s been at
the expense of being able
to expand that software
pipeline into other places
and other capabilities.”
Still, his office rolled
out some other small
contracts in recent weeks
using funds available under
the continuing resolu-
tion, he added. The office
issued two contracts for
track-fusion integration.
One went to Lockheed
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
Martin and Kinetica and
the other to SciTec.
“And they’re both
going to be on basically a
six-month sprint,” Crop-
sey said. “They’re going
to be charging the hill
with regards to what we
need to do on that front
with algorithms and
data fusion,” he said.
“Our digital infra-
structure program is
also mature and [is] a
whole portfolio of differ-
ent processing nodes and
network capabilities that
you’re going to start seeing
deployed as well,” he said.
“And then the other thing
that we’ve got going, our
distributive battle manage-
ment node, is an element
that goes out and grabs
these individual pieces
and integrates them into a
single capability offering.
That’s also ready to start
getting into initial deliver-
ies under our phase one,
with air control squadrons
in multiple different” areas
of responsibility, he said.
Cropsey described the
work his office is doing
as “starting at the center
and then … growing that
out incrementally and as
rapidly as we can.” ND
Posted on Feb. 14 at
NationalDefenseMaga-
zine.Org. To read the
rest of the story, go to
https://bit.ly/AFBN
13
BUDGET MATTERS BY SEAN CARBERRY
Army Retreats on Another Helicopter Program
J
ust when the Army
seemed to be turn-
ing a corner on its
habit of sinking billions
into questionable weapons
programs, it slipped. In a
Thursday evening news dump
Feb. 8, the service announced it was
killing the Future Attack Reconnais-
sance Aircraft program after invest-
ing $2.4 billion in the latest effort
to develop a new scout helicopter.
The Army’s announcement scrap-
ping the fourth program intended to
replace the Bell OH-58 Kiowa scout
helicopter the service retired about
a decade ago stated: “In review-
ing the FARA program in light of
new technological developments,
battlefield developments and cur-
rent budget projections, Army lead-
ers assessed that the increased
capabilities it offered could be more
affordably and effectively achieved
by relying on a mix of enduring,
unmanned and space-based assets.”
There was plenty of chatter for years
that “enduring, unmanned and space-
based assets” could be a better solution.
National Defense reported in 2014 that
Army leaders were kicking around the
idea of turning to unmanned systems
instead of fielding a new helicopter.
The $2.4 billion flameout is bad
enough, but it follows three other failed
efforts to field a Kiowa replacement:
the 2004 cancellation of the Comanche
helicopter program after $9 billion
invested, the Armed Reconnaissance
Helicopter program that was scrapped
in 2008 and the Armed Aerial Scout
program which was canceled in 2013.
In March 2020, the Army
downselected Bell’s 360 Invic-
tus and Sikorsky’s Raider X
with a flyoff expected in
2023. However, delays
to both prototypes,
and more critically
the General Electric
Aerospace T901 engine
— pushed that to late
2024 at the earliest.
The FARA flop comes
after a string of acqui-
sition successes for
the Army. As National
Defense reported in
October, the Army
was largely suc-
14 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
cessful in its “24-by-23” initia-
tive, launched by then-Army
Chief of Staff Gen. James
McConville in 2021. The goal
was to have “24 signature
systems in the hands of sol-
diers through fielding or testing
in fiscal year ’23,” he said in 2022.
For the most part, the service
delivered using Other Transaction
Authority, Middle Tier of Acquisi-
tion and other agile pathways to
deliver platforms faster than the
traditional processes could.
Some of the successes include the
Next Generation Squad Weapon, the
Integrated Air and Missile Defense
Battle Command System, Long-
Range Hypersonic Weapon and the
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.
Yet, FARA didn’t follow that path. In
many ways, the question isn’t why the
Army canceled FARA, it’s why it took
so long to cancel it amid all the delays
— many brought on by COVID-19 and
Congress’ inability to pass budgets on
time — and the general skepticism
about the need for the new helicopter.
The “good news” aspect of the
story is the Army will avoid fur-
ther costs on FARA and redirect the
money to other priorities, such as
the UH-60M Black Hawk variant
and the CH-47F Block II Chinook.
“Without reprioritizing funds in
its constrained aviation portfolio, the
Army faced the unacceptable risk
of decline and closure of produc-
tion and sustainment lines for the
Chinook and Black Hawk fleets,” the
release stated. “The Army’s new plan
will renew and extend production of
both aircraft, while also sustaining
the experienced workforce and
vendor base that underpin the
Army’s aviation capabilities.”
Ray Jaworowski, senior
aerospace analyst at
Forecast International,
in an email said:
“Cancellation of FARA
is undoubtedly a blow
to industry, particularly
as it comes at a time
when widespread con-
cerns exist about the
defense industrial base.
“The Army is ame-
liorating some
of the impact
of the decision, however, with the
announcement of its decision to
proceed” with the investments in
the Block II Chinook and the UH-
60M Black Hawk, he added.
The FARA cancellation is the
second big hit for Sikorsky, which
lost the Future Long Range Assault
Aircraft, or FLRAA, competition to
Bell Textron’s V-280 Valor tiltro-
tor submission in late 2022.
According to a Sikorsky official
speaking on background, the company
is looking at international options
for its X2 coaxial rotorcraft, which
the company has spent $1 billion and
15 years developing. In February,
NATO awarded Sikorsky a contract
to inform the Next Generation Rotor-
craft Capability program through the
vendor’s open systems architecture
concept, the company official said.
Bell did not provide details of its
investments or potential losses from
the cancellation, and simply said in
an official statement it was disap-
pointed by the decision. “Bell remains
confident in our ready-to-test FARA
prototype for the Army’s require-
ments. We will apply the knowledge
and demonstrated successes of our
FARA development efforts on future
aircraft,” the statement said.
Jaworowski said Bell should be fine
because of the FLRAA contract.
“Bell has a very strong presence in
the civil market but — prior to the
FLRAA award — had been faced with a
dwindling position in the military mar-
ket as production declined of the V-22
and the AH-1/UH-1 helicopter series.
Cancellation of FARA does represent
a lost opportunity, however,” he said.
“However, the ramifications for
Sikorsky of the FARA cancellation
should not be overstated,” he added.
But it’s not all doom and gloom as
the company will continue produc-
ing the popular Black Hawk “into
the early 2030s, as the service’s
UH-60M acquisition is completed,”
he said, adding Sikorsky, which
seemed to be the favored candidate
for FARA, will likely find a market
somewhere for its X2 technology.
So, the vendors will likely land
on their feet, but taxpayers are out
iStock illustration
another $2.4 billion, and the Army is
out a lot of time, energy and money
it could have put to better use. ND
 COMMENTARY
China’s Tech Goals Force
U.S. to Rethink its Export
Control Regime BY JENNIFER STEWART
B
reaking with his most
recent predecessors,
China’s President
Xi Jinping has pur-
sued a more forceful
approach to achieving the Chinese
Communist Party’s vision for both
the People’s Republic of China’s
domestic affairs and its regional
and global security posture.
As part of this effort, the party
is focused on building its “com-
prehensive national power,” a
term it uses to quantify the coun-
try’s combined military, economic
and technological power as well
as its foreign policy influence.
Concurrently, the party is also
focused on building internal resil-
iency and decreasing China’s external
dependence in the strategic sectors of
industry, infrastructure, technology
and human capital. The strategy is
also intentionally designed to increase
the vulnerability of other countries by
deepening their dependence on China.
As part of this vision, the party
launched “Made in China 2025,”
which was designed to establish its
leadership in emerging technolo-
gies it assesses are critical to eclips-
ing U.S. economic, technological and
military competitive advantages. This
includes: advanced manufacturing
and materials; aerospace; artificial
intelligence; biotechnology; informa-
tion technology; quantum computing
and information sciences; robotics
and autonomous systems; and semi-
conductors and microelectronics.
The strategy intends to shift
competitive advantages toward
China in these strategic industries
in part by obtaining both technol-
ogy and expertise from the United
States and other countries.
Therefore, under two very differ-
ent U.S. administrations in the last
decade, there have been comparable
iStock photo-illustration
assessments that a strategic eco-
nomic and technological competition
is under way between the United
States and China and similar conclu-
sions that business as usual would
undermine U.S. economic
and national security.
In 2022, National Security
Advisor Jake Sullivan suc-
cinctly stated to a convened
group of national security and
innovation leaders that U.S. “rela-
tive advantages are no longer suf-
ficient.” From the point of view of the
U.S. government, the nation needs
to identify new approaches and solu-
tions to protect and expand U.S. tech-
nological competitive advantages.
One area where the U.S. government
is implementing a new, more assertive
approach is through its export control
policies. Dating back to the aftermath
of World War II, federal government
controls on U.S.-developed technology
and capabilities has been viewed as a
powerful tool in U.S. national security
strategies. In addition to unilateral
controls, the United States also partici-
pates in four major multilateral con-
trol regimes: the Australia Group for
chemical and biological weapons; the
Missile Technology Control Regime
for missiles and missile technol-
ogy; the Nuclear Suppliers Group for
nuclear weapons; and the Wassenaar
Arrangement for conventional arms
and dual-use goods and technologies.
After the Cold War, the U.S. govern-
ment prioritized its export control
policies on limiting the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and
missile technology. However, with the
public emphasis — including in both
the 2018 and 2022 National Defense
Strategies — on the re-emergence of
great power competition, U.S. export
control policy debates are broaden-
ing in scope as both the executive
branch and Congress consider export
controls a central pillar in preserv-
ing U.S. technological leadership.
This re-emphasis on technologi-
cal leadership also has a U.S. values
and foreign policy focus, as the cur-
rent administration, the previous
administration and Congress have
all emphasized strengthening export
controls on items that assist repressive
regimes in surveilling and controlling
their country’s citizens, such as facial
and voice recognition technology. As a
result, U.S. policy and political debates
regarding dual-use export controls
have shifted in a profound way due
to the U.S. government’s assessment
of Chinese capabilities and intent.
For example, in 2018, Congress
passed the Export Control Reform
Act, which established a permanent
authorization for the president
to control dual-use goods and
certain military parts and
components. The law also
authorized the president to
establish policy requirements
for setting controls and to coor-
dinate multilateral export control
regimes. It is noteworthy that the act
was the first export control statute to
explicitly state U.S. economic security
is an element of national security.
Importantly, the act also required
the president to establish an inter-
agency process led by the Department
of Commerce to identify emerg-
ing and foundational technologies
and for it to establish a licensing
process for those technologies.
Commerce’s Bureau of Industry
and Security is responsible for admin-
istering these controls through the
Export Administration Regulations,
which set licensing policy for specific
destinations, end use and end user
controls and include the Commerce
Control List of dual-use technolo-
gies that are subject to the controls.
In the process of implementing the
requirement to establish a licensing
process for emerging and foundational
technologies, the U.S. government has
been wrestling with how to define and
control AI and quantum computing.
Each technology encapsulates the
biggest tension points in export con-
trols: disputes over determining the
state of the art and therefore what
is worth controlling; scoping what
should be controlled; an accurate
assessment of foreign availability —
items of comparable quality and in
sufficient quantity from a non-U.S.
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 15
 COMMENTARY
source as to render a U.S. export
control or denial of an export con-
trol license ineffective — including
what is available or similar in China;
and identifying and controlling tech-
nology at the speed of adoption.
At the same time, both current and
former Commerce senior officials have
emphasized that export controls are a
time-limited solution and that they are
likely to become less effective as tech-
nology advances and/or competitors
and adversaries find work arounds.
Therefore, since the passage of the
Export Control Reform Act, the focus
has also been on effective enforce-
ment of U.S. export controls, continu-
ous evaluation of foreign availability
and pursuit of plurilateral coopera-
tion with like-minded nations.
As an illustrative case, in October
2022, the U.S. government issued a
rule imposing controls on items that
supported China’s advanced comput-
ing capabilities, which can also sup-
port AI applications. The rule also
attempted to limit its indigenous
semiconductor companies’ produc-
tion to their current levels, which is
roughly two generations behind the
current leading-edge semiconductors.
Following the unilateral imposition of
U.S. export controls, the U.S. govern-
ment worked to secure plurilateral
acceptance from the Japanese and
Dutch governments because unilat-
eral U.S. export controls would have
been less effective, as these coun-
tries have companies with some of
the most advanced manufacturing
equipment covered by the controls.
It is important to note in this con-
text that there have been discussions
about adding a fifth multilateral
export control regime to specifically
address the China challenge. However,
apart from the lack of consensus on
the nature and severity of the chal-
lenge, some allies and partners lack
the legal framework to impose con-
trols comparable to U.S. standards.
The speed of technological change
also informs the viability assess-
ment of a fifth multilateral control
regime because it takes years to get
16 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
a technology controlled by the cur-
rent multilateral regimes. In the
case of the semiconductor industry,
the planning assumption is a new
technology node will be available
roughly every two years. Therefore,
the strategy Commerce pursued
with the Japanese and Dutch govern-
ments offers important insight into
the most likely approach Commerce
will pursue in future situations.
In addition, in the aftermath of the
October 2022 semiconductor control
rule, there were reports that Chinese
AI companies on the Entity List —
a Commerce list of entities acting
contrary to the national security and
foreign policy interests of the United
States — were using intermediar-
ies to rent or otherwise acquire
chips that were export-controlled.
It would be prudent for industry to
assume Commerce will put increas-
ing emphasis moving forward on
ensuring companies and their sup-
ply chains “know their customers.”
The 2022 rule and its aftermath
also provide context for additional
steps Commerce is currently under-
taking. In December, Commerce
Secretary Gina Raimondo partici-
pated in a public forum to discuss the
department’s strategy to stay ahead
of the rapidly growing and evolv-
ing technological threat from China.
Describing the strategy as an aggres-
sive, new and innovative approach,
she emphasized that U.S. national
security rests on its economic secu-
rity and highlighted the increased
dependence the military has on tech-
nology in the digital age, including
AI, spectrum and electronic warfare,
supercomputing, cybersecurity and
microelectronics and semiconductors.
Therefore, Commerce is exploring a
new model for export controls. Rather
than continuing a company-by-compa-
ny approach to determining issuance
or denial of licenses, the department is
pursuing a model of country-specific
controls that deny particular classes
of technology across the board.
In addition, Commerce re-estab-
lished the President’s Export Council
Subcommittee on Export Admin-
istration, which is a subcommittee
on the President’s Export Council.
Its purpose is to serve as an advi-
sory committee on export controls
for the secretary of commerce.
The subcommittee’s membership
composition is intended to draw on
the expertise and experience of stra-
tegic industry sectors to identify ways
to protect U.S. economic security and
national security and promote U.S.
values and foreign policy priorities
without unduly harming technology
leadership and commercial trade,
including the defense industrial base.
In the re-establishment of the
subcommittee, Commerce has
emphasized it is seeking partici-
pants who are not only conversant
with technological product design
and production but who are also
involved in their companies’ cor-
porate strategy development and
who can therefore speak to the time,
resources and challenges involved
in identifying foreign availability,
diversifying and building increased
resilience in supply chains and bal-
ancing approaches to de-risking U.S.
companies’ operations in China.
Finally, given the pace of technologi-
cal innovation and China’s aggressive
blending of civil-military fusion of
technology, policy conversations have
resurfaced in Washington again as
to whether there would be utility in
moving to a single licensing system.
Currently, there are multiple fed-
eral departments and agencies with
responsibility for export controls,
and it can be confusing for industry
to navigate the byzantine system.
For instance, the Commerce
Department’s Bureau of Industry
and Security stated it worked with
the State Department on more than
200 requests to determine whether a
particular item was subject to State’s
International Traffic in Arms Regula-
tions or Commerce’s Export Admin-
istration Regulations, according to
the bureau’s fiscal year 2021 annual
report. In many cases, those adjudi-
cations took months to complete.
Back in 2009, there were conver-
sations about reforming how the
executive branch handles export
controls. The review effort at the
time established four goals: a single
licensing agency for dual-use items
and munitions; a single control list;
a single agency for export control
enforcement; and a single integrated
information technology system.
It will be important for industry to
be prepared to offer technical feed-
back on the viability and effective-
ness of similar proposals should they
— as anticipated — resurface. ND
iStock photo-illustration
Jennifer Stewart is the National
Defense Industrial Association’s execu-
tive vice president for strategy and
policy.

VIEWPOINT
How One
Army Plant
Modernized
To Support
Ukraine
BY LT. COL. FRANK MUSISI
T
he Army recog-
nizes the urgent
need to increase
artillery pro-
duction and
expedite the modernization of
the organic defense industrial base.
Before Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine, the U.S. Army’s focus
was its capability to function in a
multi-domain operational environ-
ment. This focus included funding
efforts related to the development of
a 155 mm high-explosive, extended-
Need a Contract Vehicle?
Partner with Us.
The appearance of U.S. DoD visual
information does not imply or
constitute DoD endorsement.
Our pre-competed DLA contracts allow us to rapidly deliver
your products and services to your Federal customers.
Darley Partner Advantage
4th generation family business serving our military customers for 100+ years
Expedite your sales cycle
Expand your customer reach
Avoid federal contracting hurdles
Connect with Darley at Sea Air Space, Booth T204
range cannon artillery projectile
with a range of 70 kilometers.
The Army also planned a decrease
in the production of the legacy M795
projectile — 22-kilometer maxi-
mum range — and replacement
with the M1128 projectile, which has
a 30-kilometer maximum range, for
war reserve, while retaining the M795
projectile for training purposes.
The Scranton Army Ammunition
Plant has been the leading source
of U.S. joint large-caliber artillery
metal parts for more than 60 years.
Artillery shells are produced there,
then shipped to another govern-
ment facility in Iowa for explosive
filling before being brought
into the Army inventory.
The plant is a government-
owned, contractor-operated
facility currently run by
General Dynamics Ord-
nance and Tactical Systems.
The Army’s strategy was to mod-
ernize the Scranton facility infra-
structure and production capabilities
by capitalizing on state-of-the-art
manufacturing equipment and tech-
nologies while maintaining the same
level of hardware production.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine
completely changed the dynamics
of the 155 mm high-explosive muni-
tions production strategy at the
plant and its modernization pace.
The demands of the Ukrainian
battlefield generated an urgent need
for increasing production and accel-
erating modernization efforts in
Scranton. The urgent need to support
the Ukrainian defense strategy with
U.S. munitions forced the Army to
develop rapid production strategies
to increase capacity at the plant and
leverage the commercial industrial
base for additional sources of supply.
The primary goal was to increase
capacity production for 155 mm HE,
especially the M795 metal parts pro-
jectile. The M795’s success in the
war has made the Scranton Army
Ammunition Plant one of the most
important organic industrial facilities.
The urgent need to provide Ukraine
with ready, reliable and lethal artil-
lery ammunition brought an increased
demand to accelerate the plant’s
modernization efforts along with
the expansion of production capac-
ity. But it had challenges of degraded
infrastructure and legacy produc-
tion equipment that had exceeded
their useful life. This equipment
Audrey Darley | 4th Generation Darley
VP Supply Chain, Defense
audreydarley@darley.com
Scan to inquire about a partnership.
You Serve Others. We Serve You.™
 VIEWPOINT
had to be replaced by capitalizing
on state-of-the-art manufacturing
equipment and technologies while
expanding capacity and production.
To support this, the Army was
able to expedite funding to sup-
port modernization and capacity
expansion. To this effect, the Army
Ammunition Plant Modernization
Plan was increased by 86 percent
to meet the rapid modernization
efforts and current war demand for
fiscal years 2023 through 2029.
Before the Russia-Ukraine war,
the Scranton plant was produc-
ing an average of 7,000 artillery
shells per month. The Army’s goal
is for it to produce 35,000 artil-
lery shells per month by 2027.
Support to Ukraine has also accel-
erated funding and contracting. The
Army is leveraging the undefinitized
contract action process to expedite
the procurement of equipment con-
tract awards to support both facility
modernization and rapid production
capacity expansion for artillery shells.
Under this process, the Army can
award 50 percent to the contrac-
tor before the contract is definitized
or finalized. Under the fiscal year
2023 National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act, the Army can award up to
100 percent of the contract funding
for undefinitized contract actions
that support Ukraine. Project Direc-
tor Joint Services has leveraged
this authority to fund the Scranton
155 mm casings go through the heat treating process at Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, Pennsylvania.
18 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
plant’s contract actions up to 75
percent to purchase critical produc-
tion equipment and urgently needed
facility modernization repairs.
According to the project direc-
tor, as of May 3, 2023, the Army
awarded more than $243 million to
procure equipment for Scranton’s
production capacity increase and
facility modernization in fiscal years
2022 and 2023 through Ukraine
supplemental appropriations.
The equipment includes new pro-
duction lines for the M1128, XM1113/
XM1210 — new rocket-assisted pro-
jectiles for increased range — and for
M795 capacity expansion to 35,000
artillery shells per month. The Army
is also leveraging multi-year produc-
tion contract awards at the facility to
mitigate inflation costs in raw mate-
rials for a seamless supply chain to
avoid artillery production shortfalls.
The Scranton Army Ammuni-
tion Plant’s rapid capacity expan-
sion challenge must be in sync
with the total munitions require-
ment. Despite the need to support
Ukraine’s defense, senior Army lead-
ers and Army planners must bal-
ance replenishment requirements
and rapid capacity expansion to
minimize high maintenance costs
of unused production capacity.
The current expansion strategy is
primarily driven by the urgent need
to support Ukraine’s war efforts
and with limited consideration of
replenishment requirements.
Project Manager Combat Ammu-
nition Systems is also expand-
ing the capacity of metal parts
artillery production at the Gen-
eral Dynamics facility in Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania, which is
contractor-owned and operated.
In addition, the Army has lever-
aged other sources of metal parts
supplies from IMT Canada and
authorized General Dynamics to
purchase the REPKON flow forming
metal parts production technology
from Turkey and set up new produc-
tion lines in Mesquite, Texas. These
expansion activities will enable the
Army’s goal for a production capac-
ity of greater than 85,000 shells
per month by 2027 to be met.
The combined artillery shells
monthly throughput capacity may also
raise challenges when the war ends.
However, capacity expansion require-
ment forecasts are to support the war
and replenish the depleted inventory.
Once the war ends, the Army will
have an excess inventory on hand
and excessive production capacity.
The new contracts have the flex-
ibility to accommodate both war surge
requirements and peacetime down-
turns with a clearly defined minimum
sustainment rate. Determining that
minimum sustainment rate is going
to involve all major stakeholders.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine
has completely changed the dynamics
of government-owned, contractor-
operated, and industry’s rapid mod-
ernization and 155 mm high-explosive
artillery production increases. The
rapid production expansion strat-
egy of the M795 and extended-range
projectiles is crucial to pro-
vide freedom of action to
Ukraine’s commanders as they
face off with the Russians.
The M795 projectiles are
essential to the survival of
Ukraine in the near term and
will likely have a high demand
among other allied countries.
Army contracts must be flex-
ible, robust and postured for
a minimum sustainment rate
in peacetime. This mitigation
will ensure artillery production
PD Joint Services photo, Defense Dept. photo
is effectively postured for both
wartime and peacetime. ND
Army Lt. Col. Frank Musisi
is the assistant project direc-
tor at Project Director Joint
Services within the Joint
Program Executive Office
Armaments and Ammuni-
tion, Picatinny, New Jersey.
 INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
The Intersection of X-Shoring,
IP and National Security BY MISHA GOVSHTEYN
F
or elec-
tronics
manufactur-
ers, change often
represents the only
constant. Ongoing disruptions
to supply chains due to global
geopolitical and trade tensions
have been at the forefront of
that changing macro environ-
ment for several years now.
The reshoring/nearshoring
— collectively known as x-shoring
— trend has proven effective at
diversifying and strengthening sup-
ply chains while protecting intellec-
tual property and national security.
It is, however, challenging to
navigate x-shoring in an unpredict-
able global environment. As original
equipment manufacturers — nota-
bly tech companies — look to move
their operations to North America,
concerns over intellectual prop-
erty protection and national security
should be carefully considered.
Amid market uncertainties, the
electronics industry is strategically
embracing supply chain and manu-
facturing diversification as a key
operational strategy. This approach
iStock illustration
serves as a safeguard against esca-
lating trade tensions, political
instability and military conflicts.
Electronics compa-
nies are actively expanding
their network of suppli-
ers, sourcing locations and
manufacturing sites through
x-shoring. This proactive mea-
sure aims to strengthen resilience
against potential disruptions.
More than 90 percent of manufac-
turing companies in North America
have relocated some of their pro-
duction or supply chains in the
last five years, according to a Sep-
tember Boston Consulting Group
report, “Harnessing the Tectonic
Shifts in Global Manufacturing.”
Among them, half reported moving
more than 20 percent of their manu-
facturing and supply chain spending.
Additionally, due to ongoing geopoliti-
cal uncertainties and high U.S. tariffs,
more than 90 percent of respondents
expressed intentions to make simi-
lar moves in the next five years.
By broadening their supplier
base and dispersing manufactur-
ing operations, these companies can
effectively minimize risks associ-
ated with offshoring to
countries where political
unrest and geopolitical ten-
sions may lead to disruptions.
Collaborating with a North
American supplier can help alleviate
these negative impacts. By partner-
ing with a manufacturer equipped
with a robust strategic sourcing team
and well-established partnerships,
businesses may gain access to parts
that might otherwise be challeng-
ing to find. This is especially vital
for safeguarding national security
and having access to essential com-
ponents for defense-related projects
in electronics manufacturing.
Choosing nearshoring — espe-
cially in countries like Mexico with
robust intellectual property laws
akin to those in the United States —
can be a smart move for electronics
manufacturers looking to enhance
IP protection. This approach helps
minimize potential risks associated
with offshore manufacturing such as
theft or unauthorized replication.
When companies opt for nearshor-
ing in nations with strong IP laws,
they actively work to reduce the
risk of their proprietary informa-
tion being misused. These countries
provide a secure environment for
manufacturers to diversify their sup-
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 19
 INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
ply chains (x-shore) while innovation
and technologies are shielded from
unauthorized use or replication.
Balancing the desire to diver-
sify supply chains with the need
for intellectual property protection
can be challenging. The ongoing
trade and political tensions between
the United States and China add
complexity as electronics manufac-
turers weigh the pros and cons of
nearshoring to North America.
Notably, China’s regulatory frame-
work poses higher risks for intellec-
tual property, making countries with
robust legal protections a more secure
choice. China remains a concern and
is on the United States Trade Repre-
sentative’s Priority Watch List due to
perceived deficiencies in its IP regime.
Electronics manufacturers operat-
ing in the defense and aerospace sec-
tors consider safeguarding intellectual
property an imperative for protecting
the national security of the United
States. Compliance with International
Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR,
is another critical driver for reshoring
to North America, where working with
We deliver technology with velocity to
accelerate insights, secure joint connectivity,
and speed innovation. Explore AI-powered
solutions sculpted from the mission up.
ITAR-compliant facilities is possible.
As technological advances continue
at an unprecedented pace, protecting
information and innovations from
falling into the hands of adversar-
ies becomes more than a business
consideration. ITAR not only applies
to those more obviously sensi-
tive sectors but also to companies
working in the electronics, telecom-
munications and energy sectors.
In all these sectors, original equip-
ment manufacturers are on the
front lines of protecting national
interests by guarding national secu-
rity and maintaining the integrity of
the defense industry supply chain.
Amid geopolitical uncertainties,
protecting the defense industry
supply chain is paramount to the
United States’ national interests.
As new threats and challenges
continually surface, from cyberat-
tacks to geopolitical conflicts, near-
shoring creates a strategic national
security advantage. Nearshoring
serves as a critical safeguard, not
only preserving the technological
advantage of the United States but
also contributing to global stabil-
ity by thwarting the diversion and
proliferation of crucial technology.
YOUR MISSION:
First.
OUR SOLUTIONS:
Fast.
We innovate. You accelerate.
By manufacturing critical elec-
tronics components in North
America, companies can further
ensure their operations are not at
risk of disruption by unexpected
military conflicts or trade restric-
tions aimed at preventing the transfer
of strategically significant innova-
tions to adversarial nations or other
bad actors around the globe.
The x-shoring trend is top-of-mind
for manufacturers as they navigate
an ever-changing macro environ-
ment, offering a means of establishing
a more diverse and resilient supply
chain. As companies, particularly
those in the tech sector, contemplate
the relocation of their operations
to North America, concerns about
safeguarding intellectual property
and national security are foremost
in the minds of decision makers.
In essence, the x-shoring approach
encapsulates a multifaceted solu-
tion — a dynamic response to
address several challenges elec-
tronics manufacturers are fac-
ing in a tumultuous world. ND
Misha Govshteyn is CEO of
MacroFab, an electronics manufac-
turer based in Houston, Texas.
BoozAllen.com/Defense
 Invisible
Battlefield
Daily Fight for Ukraine
Spectrum Superiority Puts
Electronic Warfare Front,
Center ANALYSIS BY STEW MAGNUSON
T
he hapless Russian sol-
dier in a film clip shown
at a recent industry
trade show was — ironi-
cally perhaps — setting
up a jammer when a Ukrai-
nian soldier remotely operating a
drone spied him from above.
The Russian apparently didn’t flip
the switch on the device in time to
block the drone’s signals. The Ukrai-
nian soldier watching through a pair
of goggles kilometers away dispatched
a grenade, destroying the jammer
and presumably taking the Rus-
sian permanently off the battlefield
as another of that day’s casualties.
The traits of war are easy to spot
in eastern Ukraine. Trenches pro-
tect troops squaring off with Rus-
sian forces. Long-range artillery is
both seen and heard. Burned out
fighting vehicles litter the landscape
and several Russian ships are now
at the bottom of the Black Sea.
What isn’t seen is the minute-by-
minute battle over the electromag-
netic spectrum. Russian-made Pole-21
and RP-377 jammers are intended
to thwart Ukrainian small drone
attacks. U.S. Air Force GPS satel-
lites fly overhead as Russian forces
attempt to block their signals.
Remote-controlled kamikaze
drones connect back via radio
waves to Ukrainian soldiers wear-
ing goggles that help guide the loi-
iStock illustration, Kvertus photo
tering munitions to targets. The
jammers attempt to stop them.
Battlefield control over the electro-
magnetic spectrum — also known
as electronic warfare — is becoming
more crucial as modern militaries
observe what is happening in Ukraine.
Kvertus’
backpack
jammer
that blocks
frequencies
in the 850-940
MHz range
Experts are now debating whether
it should be elevated to a “warfight-
ing domain” — on par with land,
air, sea, space and cyberspace.
It’s a purely academic question for
Ukrainian and Russian ground forces.
They only know if they don’t domi-
nate key bands of the spectrum, the
last thing they hear on Earth will be
the buzzing of a kamikaze drone.
Ukrainian Air Force Maj. Gen.
Borys Kremenetskyi, defense attaché
at Ukraine’s embassy in Washing-
ton, gave attendees at the Associa-
tion of Old Crows annual conference
a picture of what the daily fight to
maintain superiority in the elec-
tromagnetic spectrum looks like.
It’s not new, he noted. Ukraine has
been dealing with electronic warfare
since Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
“What they’re trying to do is
break through our battlespace cov-
erage by electronic warfare ... in
the full spectrum,” he said.
They use it to disrupt commu-
nications and jam GPS signals.
Targeting by precision-guided muni-
tions can be jammed or they can
“spoof” the coordinates, sending
the round to the wrong location.
“You need to be very smart to
be able to shoot at the place where
there’s no electronic signal,” he said.
The Russians can interfere with
signals emitting from space-based
systems or terrestrial radio stations
preventing the government from
communicating with its citizens.
While much attention has focused
on the drone warfare taking place in
the skies and Black Sea in Ukraine,
it often goes unmentioned that nei-
ther side could remotely operate their
robotic systems without master-
ing the electromagnetic spectrum.
Estimates have Russia devoting
18,000 to 20,000 troops to electronic
warfare units, Kremenetskyi said.
“For this we need our own elec-
tronic warfare system, which
can suppress Russian electronic
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 21
 ELECTRONIC WARFARE
warfare systems,” he said.
Necessity is the mother of inven-
tion, as the saying goes. For example,
Ukrainian company Kvertus is field-
ing a backpackable jammer weighing
8 kilograms for individual soldiers
intended to block signals in the
850-to-940-megahertz range, the
most commonly used bands for first-
person view, or FPV, small drones,
according to the company’s website.
The U.S. Defense Department in
a 2020 “Electromagnetic Spectrum
Superiority Strategy” and its imple-
mentation plan approved the fol-
lowing year stated the United States
must achieve spectrum dominance
and integrate electronic warfare in
all domains but stopped short of
declaring it a domain unto itself.
Jeffrey Fischer, a retired Air Force
colonel and now an author and jour-
nalist, said he wrote an opinion piece
more than a decade ago arguing that
the electromagnetic spectrum should
be considered its own warfighting
domain. The idea found a welcom-
ing audience with the Association of
Old Crows, an organization devoted
to electronic warfare. It promoted
Fischer’s article on the cover of its
academic journal. But the idea has
yet to take hold in the U.S. military.
“If it’s in the electronic spec-
trum, it can be intercepted and
it can be jammed,” Fischer said.
That includes GPS, which the U.S.
military has come to rely upon.
“For decades … when we talked
about war, we talked about preci-
sion strike, and we never really
thought we would be talking about a
war where we didn’t have precision.
But lo and behold, the West became
really, really dependent on precision
by GPS — and now those are being
jammed,” he said at the conference.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is put-
ting a great deal of its energy and
resources into pursuing its Combined
Joint All-Domain Command and Con-
trol concept, or CJADC2, which would
link sensors and shooters in a combat
cloud and use artificial intelligence
to present options to decision mak-
ers faster than the speed of thought.
The last two words in the acro-
nym are “command and control,”
two actions that cannot be accom-
plished on modern battlefields without
22 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
EC-130H Compass Call
dominating radio waves. “Command”
requires uninterrupted communica-
tion links, and “control” requires the
same, along with precision navigation
and timing that comes with GPS.
“Joint” means the six military
branches must be able to communi-
cate with each other and “combined”
throws partners and allies into the
mix with all their different commu-
nication and navigation systems.
Fischer said: “If you can stop the
enemy’s ability to communicate,
you really, really hinder them.”
The whole CJADC2 concept quickly
falls apart if an enemy can dominate or
disrupt the electromagnetic spectrum.
“Interoperability from the get-go
is incredibly important” for CJADC2
to succeed, Navy Rear Adm. Susan
BryerJoyner, deputy director of com-
mand, control, communications and
computer/cyber systems, J6 at the
Joint Staff, said at the conference.
The Ukraine War and the battle for
spectrum dominance is taking place
in a warzone, but the Pentagon oper-
ates globally and within U.S. borders.
It must share the spectrum with
other sectors, most notably telecom-
munications companies that spend
and earn billions maintaining net-
works that connect to smartphones.
The Defense Department must
ensure it has adequate bandwidth to
operate its radars and communica-
tion systems and can do so without
interfering with civilian-controlled
airwaves — both domestically and in
the allied nations where it operates.
The U.S. military operates a host of
electronic warfare systems including
the Navy’s EA-18G Growler carrier-
based aircraft and the Air Force’s
EC-130H Compass Call, along with
ground forces that have various jam-
mers integrated onto their vehicles.
When the United States invaded
Iraq in 2003, it soon found itself
engaged in a battle for spectrum
superiority similar to what Ukraine
is experiencing today. But instead
of small drones, it was dealing with
insurgents who were using common
devices such as garage door open-
ers to detonate roadside bombs.
The U.S. Army — by its own
admission at the time — had let
its electronic warfare skills atro-
phy, and it was forced to scramble
and quickly integrate Warlock
jammers into its vehicles.
Almost 20 years later, in Octo-
ber 2021, when former Vice Chair-
man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air
Force Gen. John Hyten was doing
his final meeting with the press
before retirement, he said the armed
forces were still struggling to mas-
ter the electromagnetic spectrum.
“We used to be the best in the
world at electronic warfare. Now we
don’t train it. We don’t educate it. We
don’t equip it. And so, it’s been rec-
ognized, and we have to fix it because
spectrum was key to every domain
— it’s key to every operation, key to
every functional battle,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Biden administra-
tion in November released the lat-
est “National Spectrum Strategy.”
Air Force photo
Spectrum is a finite resource, and
the Defense Department is only one of
many players vying to occupy swaths
of bands. The federal government help the Defense Department spectrum use to anticipate and avoid
auctions off these bans, making bil- and its industry partners. contested and congested frequencies,”
lions of dollars to put in its coffers. One potential area for research and he said at the Old Crows conference.
BryerJoyner noted the Pentagon has development is applying artificial “I also expect that AI algorithms can
to monitor upcoming auctions that will intelligence to spectrum management. assist in managing the spectrum sig-
sell off unclaimed bands of spectrum. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. John Sha- nature of assets that we have out there,
“It’s very important for eco- nahan — who served as the inaugural reducing the risk of detection,” he said.
nomic security, but there is friction director of the Defense Department’s Meanwhile, “companies have
with what DoD needs,” she said. Joint Artificial Intelligence Center — worked really hard on this over the
There’s a moonshot proj- saw promise in AI to both deconflict past few years. So, I fully expect we’re
ect highlighted in the “National military and civilian spectrum use getting closer to seeing some solutions
Spectrum Strategy” that calls in benign environments and when that are going to work. But I just don’t
for the development and test- the military vies for electromagnetic know how close those are,” he said.
ing for large scale dynamic spec- spectrum dominance when at war. To get there and return U.S. armed
trum sharing across multiple “AI can optimize the use of elec- forces to what Hyten called “the best
types of equipment, she noted. tromagnetic spectrum, reducing in the world,” senior U.S. military
Such systems automatically interference and end-to-end commu- leaders should take a hard look at
switch from crowded bands to less nication reliability in contested envi- what is happening in Ukraine and
crowded ones if they detect inter- ronments. There’s also great potential acknowledge that the electromagnetic
ference, natural or man-made. for dynamic predictive analytics of spectrum is a warfighting domain. ND
“Because what we don’t see right
now is well balanced industry versus
DoD spectrum sharing. So how do
we dynamically share spectrum? …
There are absolutely military appli-
cations for that in contested envi-
ronments overseas,” she added.
The strategy puts the National Tele-
communications and Information
Administration as the lead agency
in charge of coordinating who uses
the airwaves and for what purpose.
The Defense Department is only one
of the NTIA’s many constituents.
“This is going to be really impor-
tant and a whole-of-nation effort
to get after. How do we balance
those competing demands not just
domestically, but in a contested
environment?” BryerJoyner asked.
There are parts of the strategy that
could ultimately benefit the Defense
Department. The NTIA has identi-
fied five bands — 3.1 to 3.45 GHz,
5.03 to 5.091 GHz, 7.125 to 8.4 GHz,
18.1 to 18.6 GHz and 37.0 to 37.6
GHz — that might be up for grabs
and available for a range of uses,
including wireless broadband, drones
and satellite operations. NTIA will
complete a study on what to do with
the spectrum within two years.
The strategy has some goals that
may ultimately help the Defense
Department. It seeks to bolster the
nation’s expertise in the technology
and the science of spectrum manage-
ment. It wants to highlight its impor-
tance to the public, create investment
opportunities and increase research-
and-development dollars going into
improving spectrum management.
It will also seek to grow work-
force expertise in the highly spe-
cialized field, which could also

N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 23
Aerial
Refueling
Air Force Acquisition Strategy for
KC-135 Replacement in Limbo BY JAN TEGLER
T
he Air Force has yet
to determine a strat-
egy for buying new
aerial refueling air-
craft that will replace
much of its aged KC-135 fleet.
And as 2024 gets underway, the
service still hasn’t stated whether
it will proceed with a competi-
tion for its KC-135 Tanker Recapi-
talization Program or negotiate a
sole source agreement with KC-
46A Pegasus maker Boeing.
Brian Brackens, spokesman for the
service’s Mobility and Training Aircraft
Directorate, said: “We anticipate hav-
ing an approved strategy later in 2024,
but are unable to confirm with any
precision when a [request for propos-
als] and contract award would follow.”
That lack of clarity gives rise to ques-
tions including how soon the recapital-
ization effort can produce operational
replacements for retiring KC-135s and
the almost-retired 59-jet KC-10 fleet
once currently programmed deliver-
ies of KC-46As end in 2029. All KC-
10s will be retired by September.
Also in question is whether the
number of aircraft purchased as part
of the tanker recapitalization program
will provide sufficient capacity until
24 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
KC-135
the service’s Next-Generation Air-
Refueling System program, known
as NGAS, becomes operational.
Congress expressed its concerns
about refueling capacity in mid-
December with the release of the
compromise National Defense Autho-
rization Act for fiscal year 2024.
Signed into law by the president just
before Christmas, the bill prohibits
the Air Force’s use of 2024 funding
to retire a number of KC-135s within
the service’s reserve components.
According to Air Mobility Command,
the prohibition shouldn’t impact the
command’s 2024 KC-135 planning.
“AMC plans to maintain the con-
gressionally mandated air refueling
inventory of 466 aircraft,” command
spokesman 1st Lt. Peyton Craven said.
“AMC will meter KC-135 retirements
accordingly to maintain this number.
Future [Air Force] acquisition deci-
sions will drive the exact number of
KC-135s planned to remain in service.”
Last summer, the Air Force con-
ducted two proof-of-concept and
compatibility demonstrations using
contract aerial refueling services from
Washington, D.C.-based Metrea and
Alexandria, Virginia-based Omega
Air Refueling Services. Metrea and
A KC-10 performs its final mission in 2020.
Omega carried out further work
with fighters in October and
November, refueling A-10s and
F-16s respectively.
“Overall, short-
term to mid-term
tanker capacity is
not a concern for the Air Force,” said
service spokesperson Ann Stefanek.
But she added that the Air Force
is exploring how it could potentially
leverage commercial aerial refueling in
the future, revealing that the service’s
transition from legacy tankers to the
KC-46A and the aircraft that will be
procured under the tanker recapital-
ization program does strain capacity.
“As the Air Force retires KC-10 and
KC-135 aircraft, there is a short con-
version period where aircrews and
maintainers are trained on the new
KC-46A aircraft,” Stefanek explained.
“During each KC-46A unit conversion,
there is a reduced availability of day-
to-day tanker sorties until airmen in a
unit are qualified. The Air Force does
experience periodic day-to-day limita-
tions on availability of tanker aircraft
and crews as global demand shifts.”
Late last September, the Air Force
issued a formal request to industry for
information on tanker recapitaliza-
tion with an approved requirement
for up to 140 aircraft. At the end of
October, Lockheed Martin, which had
teamed with Airbus to offer a spe-
cial version of the European maker’s
A330 multi-role tanker transport, or
MRTT, for the recapitalization pro-
gram, unexpectedly announced its
withdrawal from the partnership.
Lockheed’s only public statements to
date regarding its decision explained
that the firm would redirect its focus
to new opportunities, including
developing solutions for the Next-
Generation Air-Refueling System.
Asked how quickly it might be able
to take a design from concept to real-
ity, the company declined to answer.
The Air Force announced an accel-
erated schedule for the program last
year. Andrew Hunter, the service’s
assistant secretary for acquisition,
technology and logistics, said, “We
are looking at what is going to get
us to NGAS. We think we will need
about five years of tanker production
from the current end of deliveries
of KC-46 to get to increment one.”
The current procurement rate of
15 KC-46As annually would amount
Air Force photos
to 75 tankers for the recapitaliza-
tion program, roughly half of what
had been expected, Hunter said at
the Air & Space Forces Association’s
Warfare Symposium in March 2023.
The smaller buy is one of sev-
eral reasons Lockheed Martin may
have opted to bow out, according to
Richard Aboulafia, managing direc-
tor for AeroDynamic Advisory.
“You’ve got a competition that’s
always been a price shootout,” he said.
“You’re up against a hot [KC-46A] pro-
duction line. You’ve got the need to cre- last KC-X program aircraft deliv-
ate a large new assembly facility here
in the United States, and you’re sell-
ing a more expensive plane. Oh, and
you’ve got to satisfy the profitability
requirements for two different con-
tractors. How could you possibly come
up with a competitive bid that wins?”
In the wake of Lockheed Mar-
tin’s withdrawal, Airbus announced
that it would respond to the KC-135
recapitalization request with a U.S.
version of the A330 MRTT. But Air-
bus has been tight-lipped since then,
declining to comment about
whether it might base its
offering on an upgraded ver-
sion of the A330 known as
the A330neo or if the tanker
could include the Auto’Mate
autonomous refueling system
the company is developing.
Boeing, the only other firm
that responded to the Air
Force’s request, will offer a
version of the KC-46 with
enhanced communications
and airborne battle man-
agement systems as well as
upgraded protection systems
to improve aircraft surviv-
ability and “boom operator KC-46A Pegasus
in-the-loop autonomous air
refueling,” according to Mike
Hafer, the company’s KC-46
business development director.
That aligns with Air Force IMAGE
requirements calling for an
air-refuelable tanker derived
from a commercial aircraft
with minimal development.
“These aircraft are expected
to have capabilities simi-
lar to a KC-46A with Block
1 installed and potentially a
digital backbone capable of
Advanced Battle Management Sys-
tem/Joint All-Domain Command and
Control integration,” Stefanek said.
The Air Force awarded Boeing
a $184 million contract for Block 1
upgrades, including line-of-sight
and beyond-line-of-sight commu-
nications with anti-jamming and
encryption features last March.
Hafer said that Boeing’s hot KC-46
production line and its ability to
quickly transition to building upgraded
Pegasus tankers for recapitalization
offers “the most economically benefi-
cial solution for the U.S. Air Force.”
“We’ll emphasize that it’s very
important to keep production roll-
ing if the Air Force decides to go
with the KC-46,” he said. “When the
ers then we want to roll right into
the 135 replacement airplane.”
Boeing’s argument for choosing the
KC-46 seems to dovetail with previ-
ous statements from Air Force lead-
ers — including Air Force secretary
Frank Kendall and Hunter — who
previously suggested the service
could skip a competition for the
KC-135 Tanker Recapitalization Pro-
gram and buy improved KC-46s.
By the end of December, Boeing had
delivered 79 Pegasus tankers to the Air
Force. But the KC-46 still suf-
SCAN fers from six category 1 defi-
THIS
ciencies including its flawed
remote vision system, or RVS.
Hafer confirmed that Boeing’s
improved RVS 2.0 is still on
track for “a late 2025 delivery.”
Asked how Boeing might
retrofit RVS 2.0 to the KC-46s
SEE THE
KC-46A delivered to date and to fur-
IN ACTION ther deliveries while simul-
taneously building upgraded
versions of the tanker if chosen for
the recapitalization program, Hafer
said: “We do the retrofits at another
location. I think we’re looking at
Cecil Field near Jacksonville, so it
doesn’t impact the production line.”
If chosen, Boeing would prefer to
deliver recapitalization tankers in
blocks, he said. “Don’t do a wholesale
AIR FORCE NEWS
swap over of buying the next super
tanker that has loads of requirements
in it. Let’s do it incrementally then
cut that into the production line —
just keep building the block upgrades
to get you where you need to be.”
With the Air Force’s acquisition
strategy still undetermined, Stefanek
didn’t comment on the idea of block
deliveries. She said the service will
“examine the best path forward in
terms of meeting continuous, unin-
terrupted tanker recapitalization,
and industry’s ability to deliver new
aircraft with specific capabilities.”
Like Aboulafia, Tim Walton, a
senior fellow with the Hudson Insti-
tute’s Center for Defense Concepts
and Technology, suggested that it
will be hard for Airbus to offer a
cost-competitive solution for the
tanker recapitalization program.
“To provide stability for the indus-
trial base and cost savings to the gov-
ernment, the Air Force should reach a
sole-source agreement with Boeing to
procure additional KC-46s as soon as
possible, and well before the end of the
KC-46A contract,” he recommended.
“Assuming NGAS will be ready for
procurement by 2034, a buy of 75
aircraft would ensure KC-46 could
be delivered until NGAS is ready
for procurement,” Walton said.
The ability to procure up to 140
tankers provides the Air Force with
a hedge in case NGAS takes longer
to develop than desired. KC-46 pro-
curement should continue until that
aircraft is ready so that the size of the
Air Force’s tanker fleet can remain
stable and grow, he added. ND
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 25
Crystal Ball
Pentagon Harnessing Data for Predictive
Logistics Planning BY LAURA HECKMANN
O
KLAHOMA CITY —
“Logistics wins wars”
is an age-old adage,
but its application has
evolved from logbooks
and spreadsheets to data streams
and analytics. The Defense Depart-
ment now wants to harness these
new practices to predict the future.
Christopher Lowman, assistant
secretary of defense for sustainment,
described predictive logistics as a
method of utilizing data generated
across various platforms — some-
thing the Defense Department has no
shortage of — to better understand
what tools need to be employed to turn
data into actionable logistics decisions.
“It’s all about regenerating readi-
ness and pushing the capability to
satisfy demand closer to the point of
need within the theaters of opera-
tion,” Lowman said at the National
Defense Industrial Association’s
recent National Logistics Forum.
Army Gen. Charles Hamilton, com-
manding general of Army Materiel
Command, said precision and predic-
tive sustainment means “not only
knowing when, where and how much
a unit is using something like ammo
[or] water or maybe certain parts, it
also means knowing precisely where
and when, and how much of a com-
modity that you will need in the future.
26 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
And the key is getting out in front.”
The ability to predict is also the
ability to stay steps ahead of an
adversary — one that requires
“that we go into the next fight”
with a “data-informed decision-
making process,” Hamilton said.
The “crystal ball” of data analyt-
ics is taking all of the data gathered
across the government and indus-
try and analyzing and interpreting
meaningful patterns. Hot button solu-
tions like artificial intelligence and
machine learning are tools that can
help but need to be recognized as such
— tools, and not the ultimate salva-
tion, participants at a forum panel
discussion suggested. The fundamen-
tal input is the data they rely on.
Kevin Gaudette, a retired Air Force
colonel and senior vice president of
integrated analytics and support at
LinQuest, said AI and machine learn-
ing are, just like optimization and
simulation, “tools — and they’re
reliant on data. We throw these buzz-
words out, everybody gets excited …
and starts asking for things that they
don’t even know what they’re asking.”
The question needs to be, “What
is it that you’re trying to do?” he
said. “Let’s start with your under-
standing of what it is. Because [AI
and ML] may not be the answer.
In a lot of cases, it’s not.”
An Air Force
staff sergeant
logs data in a
cargo move-
ment opera-
tions system.
But sometimes it is.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Keith
Reventlow, commander of Marine
Corps Logistics Command, called
artificial intelligence and ChatGPT
“awesome tools.” While they may
be associated with cheating on term
papers, the concept of “going through
every source that’s on the inter-
net on [a] subject, comparing it all
and giving you an answer” could be
revolutionary for logistics, he said.
“What if we could do something
similar when we think of sustain-
ment, and understanding our weapons
systems, understanding predict-
ability of conditions-based mainte-
nance,” he said, such as predicting
time between failures, “and give the
commander the option of chang-
ing it out before it actually breaks.
I think there are all kinds of oppor-
tunities we are working on to try
to understand how we are going to
leverage data using those tools.”
AI and machine learning are just
a few tools across a broad spectrum
of projects and research underway
across the Defense Department to bet-
ter understand how to leverage data.
One such effort is the Defense Logis-
Defense Dept. photo
tics Agency’s Joint Additive Manufac-
turing Model Exchange, or JAMMEX
— a tool that consolidates technical
data packages and allows users to
 download and print models from mul-
tiple sources through a single system.
Adarryl Roberts, chief informa-
tion officer for the Defense Logistics
Agency’s information operations,
highlighted a program building on
JAMMEX called the Digital Sustain-
ment Platform, “to not just be able to
take the technical data packages, but
also create a single platform where
all our engineers … and digital twins
can reside department-wide in order
to get that efficiency” across combat-
ant commands and the services.
Other DLA efforts include Digital-
Business Transformation and a
Warehouse Modernization Project,
Roberts said. These efforts are buy-
ing down on what he called 20 years
of technical debt, saying the depart-
ment “got left behind in terms of …
our ability to be flexible and have
agility to move with technology.”
The Army last year stood up its
Contested Logistics Cross-Functional
Team, which Hamilton said “will
never go away because it’s inte-
grated with everything else that we’re
doing.” Part of the team’s “very nar-
row problem set” is precision and
predictive sustainment, he said.
Air Force Materiel Command
launched its Digital Materiel Man-
agement initiative last year — an
effort to integrate and employ digi-
tal methods across the entire capa-
bility lifecycle, from invention to
retirement, leveraging digital tools,
structured data and security.
Jim Sutton, senior director of strat-
egy at Shipcom Wireless, said a recent
kickoff event for the initiative involved
conversations about the “idea of cre-
ating organizational constructs and
aggregating data and identifying all the
risks and setting up teams to reduce
the risks,” but a near-complete absence
of conversations around zero trust.
Zero trust is a Defense Department
security framework that assumes a
“never trust, always verify” mind-
set. Trust around data sharing is a
well-documented hesitation between
government and industry, and
another speed bump on the way to
effectively harnessing data analytics.
While there are many “underlying
uncertainties” with data sharing as
industry and government
intersect on the delivery of
capabilities, Sutton said the
iStock illustration
primary point of entry from
a service leadership stand-
point should be to press
the implementation of the
White House’s 2022 zero trust memo-
randum, which requires agencies
to meet specific cybersecurity stan-
dards by the end of fiscal year 2024.
“If that were in place, essentially
90 percent of all of the discussion
around risk evaporates,” he said.
“And as a result of that, we would
then focus on places where risks
really matter in terms of getting
to that actionable, decision-worthy
information at the point of use.”
Aaron Jaffe, head of supply chain
and logistics at Palantir Technolo-
gies, said data linkages between
industry and the Defense Depart-
ment need to be thought of in the
broader community of the industrial
base “as inputs that are limiting fac-
tors to how the DoD can operate as
well as being able to integrate and
work with our allies and partners in
any decision that we’re making.”
The question becomes how to better
understand the gaps and the seams,
and the technology that will protect
security while enabling seamless
interoperability “across that much
larger community than what we
would historically look at,” he said.
The gaps present “tremendous
challenges,” but not unprecedented
ones, he said. The COVID-19 vaccine
accelerator Operation Warp Speed
and support to Ukraine are examples
of industry and government col-
laborating on rapid timelines and
“moving at the pace of conflict.”
A core enabler across those efforts
— and one that industry needs now
— is a clear sense of mission, he
suggested — “a clear purpose and
objective … is incredibly helpful and
enabling for both us as an individual
company but also for how we work
with others and build on that approach
that’s open and interoperable. You can
leverage existing programs and new
technologies that can help increase
the pace of change across the DoD.”
While trusted data is crucial, the
Defense Department also needs
to get comfortable with dirty data,
one industry representative said.
Justin Woulfe, chief technology
officer at Systecon, said achieving
perfect data is likely impossible,
and while a noble and necessary
LOGISTICS
pursuit, the department needs
to accept some risk as well.
“What we really need to do is actu-
ally just start doing analytics,” he
said. The idea of dirty data is “fas-
cinating,” but not a hindrance, he
added, suggesting no major acquisi-
tion program has perfect data, but can
still use “data as dirty as it is today”
to predict mission capable and full
mission capable rates within 3 per-
cent of what it set out to achieve.
Pristine data is ideal, but “it’s not
an excuse to not do analysis,” Woulfe
said. “So, the idea that we can’t start
doing anything until we get perfect
data is nonsense. When we think
about contested logistics, we’re plan-
ning for things that are unknown. …
So why do we expect to need to have a
perfect viewpoint of our maintenance
data or supply transaction history?”
Fuzziness is a certainty, he said,
“but I think there’s this analysis
paralysis that happens where the idea
of, ‘We must know everything before
we can start’ needs to be tossed to the
side and just use the analysis, use the
process of analytics, to learn more
about our systems … and [accept] that
[there are] some things that we don’t
know perfectly and then move on from
there and apply the risk and under-
stand the risk and make decisions.”
Gaudette said for the first time “in a
long time, we’ve got integrated strategy
documents, and we’ve got integrated
architectures, we just still don’t do
data — it ends up going in a million
different directions. So we have lots
of pockets of excellence, but not an
integrated solution still to this day.”
The ultimate solution may not
exist, but the Pentagon is looking,
and Sutton said that is the most
important thing: “get started.”
Utilizing data to make informed,
predictive decisions means putting
tools in the hands of operators, he
said, and “the more you do it, the bet-
ter you are at it. … And the more we
encourage our people to try using it
in a space that is useful to their job,
the more ubiquitous it will become
— the easier it will be to adopt.” ND
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 27
 COVER STORY

AUKUS
In Space
U.S., U.K., Australia
Teaming Up to Deter
China in Orbit
BY JOSH LUCKENBAUGH
 W
hen Australia, the
United Kingdom
and the United
States announced
the AUKUS secu-
rity partnership in
September 2021,
they did not include
space capabilities on the initial list of emerg-
ing technologies the three countries would
jointly develop as part of the trilateral alliance.
However, the AUKUS partners are
now embarking on a new initiative to
track objects in deep space they hope will
improve interoperability between the three
nations and deter Chinese aggression.
The launch of AUKUS — Pillar I of which is
to provide Australia nuclear-powered subma-
rines, and Pillar II is trilateral collaboration on
emerging technologies — came at a time when
all three countries were recognizing space’s
growing importance to national security.
NATO — of which the United States and
the United Kingdom are two of the found-
ing members, and Australia is a major part-
ner — declared space an operational domain
in November 2019, and the United States
iStock illustration
established its Space Force a month later.
In September 2021 — the same month as
the AUKUS announcement — the United
Kingdom unveiled its “National Space Strat-
egy,” and Australia stood up its Defence Space
Command not long after in early 2022.
In September, the AUKUS partners signed
a memorandum of understanding to col-
lectively operate and sustain the Deep Space
Advanced Radar Capability, or DARC, a net-
work of three ground-based space radar
sites that will provide 24/7, all-weather space
domain awareness and “increase the ability to
detect, track, identify and characterize objects
in deep space, or near geosynchronous orbit
altitudes,” a defense official who spoke on the
condition of anonymity said in an email.
The radar sites will enable the three countries
“to address emerging threats in an increas-
ingly congested domain,” the defense official
said. “This will provide benefit to all three
nations’ land, air and maritime forces, as well
as protecting critical infrastructure and ben-
efitting our domestic space industries.”
The U.S. Space Force had been working on the
DARC program for several years prior, award-
ing a $341 million contract in February 2022 to
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 29
Northrop Grumman to develop, test
and deliver the radars. The company
confirmed in a Jan. 11 press release
that it is now developing the sites for
the three AUKUS partners. Making it
a collaborative effort allows the pro-
gram to “expand beyond what indi-
vidual nations could achieve alone in
mouse games” in GEO, she added.
“We’ve seen China over the last cou-
ple of years launch these satellites into
GEO, and they’re maneuvering them.
They’re coming up close to some of
our satellites, backing away, coming
up close, doing what we call proxim-
ity operations around them, checking
in critical space-traffic management
and provide an assurance that actors
in space are attributable for their
actions.” The system features higher
sensitivity, better accuracy, increased
capacity and more agile tracking than
current radars, the official said.
Charles Edel, a senior adviser and

Space Force photo, Northrop Grumman rendering

one of the most critical domains for them out,” she said. “Now, the United the Australia chair at the Center for
future security,” the release stated. States is also doing some of that, but Strategic and International Studies,
The radar sites will be established you’re seeing a lot more of these … said: “The logic behind AUKUS is
in all three countries by the end of rendezvous proximity operations.” that the United States and its allies
the decade, with the first in West- The defense official said: “Space and partners need to field more
ern Australia operational by 2026, domain awareness information credible capabilities … to address a
according to a joint statement from enables our continued efforts to security situation that has evolved
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd maintain freedom of access in, and rapidly over the last 10 to 15 years”
Austin, Australian Deputy Prime support our ability to, protect our and shifted away from their “perspec-
Minister and Minister for Defence interests in space. DARC will pro- tive about what would be conducive
Richard Marles and U.K. Secretary vide better space awareness, assist to a favorable balance of power.”
of State for Defence Grant Shapps.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense A United Launch Alliance
for Space Policy John Plumb said Atlas V rocket carrying a
his office is working closely with Space Based Infrared System
Geosynchronous Earth Orbit
Australia and the United Kingdom satellite launches from Cape
— along with the Space Force — to Canaveral Space Force Sta-
make space “just one more domain in tion, Florida.
which we can cooperate with allies.”
“DARC provides a really inter-
esting opportunity geographically
… between the United Kingdom,
the United States and Australia,”
Plumb said during a media round-
table in January. Once complete,
the system will give the three allies
“360-degree coverage of the [geo-
synchronous] belt and beyond.”
Kari Bingen, director of the Aero-
space Security Project and a senior
fellow in the International Security
Program at the Center for Strate-
gic and International Studies, said
in an interview that greater space
domain awareness has been a point
of emphasis for each of the three
countries, so it isn’t a surprise that
they’ve “come together in a program
that delivers a capability that all
three have set as a policy priority.”
While there has been an “architec-
tural shift” from larger, more exquisite
systems to smaller satellites prolifer-
ated in different orbits, many critical
U.S. Space Force capabilities such
as missile tracking,
nuclear command
and control and warf- SCAN
THIS
ighting communica- IMAGE
tions satellites — not
to mention a lot of
commercial capabili-
ties — still reside in
geosynchronous orbit,
or GEO, Bingen said. SEE THE
China has recently ATLAS V
begun playing “cat and IN ACTION

30 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4

Artist rendering of the Deep Space
Advanced Radar Capability
Thus, the more capabilities the allies
field, the more questions they intro-
duce “into Xi Jinping’s and the PLA’s
thinking and create more options for
deterrence,” Edel said. “That’s I think
the logic behind all of AUKUS … we’ll
all benefit from an ecosystem where
we collaborate further, but the idea
is to get capabilities into warfighters’
hands” like DARC that change “the
calculations in Beijing about what
they think they can get away with and
whether they think they’re operating
in a permissive security environment.”
Additionally, while the radar
sites and other space capabilities
are important from a warfight-
ing perspective, there is also “a race
on in terms of who has the most
advanced and the best technology
in the space arena,” Bingen said.
“In the broader Indo-Pacific region,
you have quite a few countries that
want to get into the space game,” and
“while they’re working on develop-
ing it themselves, they’re also going
to others, and they now have a choice.
They can go to U.S. companies, Brit-
ish [and] Australian companies, [or]
they can go to Chinese companies,
and we want to ensure that we are
that partner of choice, not China.
“We’ve seen what China does —
we’ve seen what they’ve done with
5G — we’ve seen that when they
get those [kinds] of access points,
your data is not secure, they can
censor and control information,
etc.,” she continued. “So, I would
expect space to be no different.”
There are still some hurdles to
overcome to get DARC up and run-
COVER STORY
ning. Bingen noted the program
is “not fully funded yet, so it will
need to be a priority” in Defense
Department and Space Force bud-
geting in the next couple of years.
Also, the three nations are continu-
ing to work through technical and
regulatory barriers to sharing sensitive
information, Edel said. “There’s been
a clear signal on the U.S. side that our
systems are well suited to work with
the Australians and the Brits because
we have forever. But … the guidelines,
regulations and some of the laws
that we have on the book need to be
more synchronized across all three
countries than they are currently.”
The 2024 National Defense Autho-
rization Act included provisions to
change export controls and stream-
line the sharing of advanced tech-
nologies under AUKUS, “but now
we move into the phase of defining
how that actually works in a regula-
tory fashion and ensuring … that
we have something that’s not just
on the books but that is lived and
breathed by the bureaucracy in order
to move things forward,” Edel said.
“We have been down this road
before where we have good words
on the books and then didn’t quite
produce what we were hoping
they would enable,” he added.
Australia has introduced legisla-
tion regarding information controls,
“but there’s not yet been a vote on
it,” Edel said, adding that the United
Kingdom had not introduced any
legislation of that kind to his knowl-
edge. “One of the challenges that we
have here is that the Brits and the
Australians are terrific partners on
all sorts of ventures from the U.S.
perspective — and that’s true in the
intel world, too — but also have dif-
ferent ways of protecting information.
“About six to eight months ago,
I heard from both the Australian
and British side, ‘Our systems are
complementary, but they’re differ-
ent — and don’t worry, we cover each
other’s gaps.’ That wasn’t answer-
ing the mail for the U.S. Congress,”
Edel said. “That’s why you’ve seen
some progression on the Austra-
lian side. I’m not quite sure on the
state of play where the Brits are on
this, but I think they haven’t moved
quite as far as the Aussies have.”
Plumb said while information
sharing is an issue that’s “always
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 31
hard to work through … one of the
points is to work through it.”
“We have to be able to figure out
how to move information around
at speed — and of course, [in the
United Kingdom] and Australia you
couldn’t have closer allies, so it’s
maybe a little bit of an easier button
there,” he said. “I’m not saying it’s
100 percent solved yet, but we will
solve that — that’s one of the forc-
ing functions of this architecture.”
The defense official said DARC
“will support security and stability
on a global scale, including through
benefits to the current participants
of the Combined Space Opera-
tions Center” — which include the
United States, United Kingdom
and Australia — “via the sharing
of enhanced space domain aware-
ness information and intelligence.”
Bingen said she hopes that going
forward the AUKUS partners
jointly develop “not just activities
that were already in the pipeline”
such as DARC “but new initia-
tives that focus more on technology
and operational collaboration.”
There’s more that can be done to
improve space domain awareness
— “not just land-based but in orbit”
— as well as in missile warning and
tracking and intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance, she said. “And
not just the technical capabilities,
but greater operational collabora-
tion, and collaboration on advancing
our mutual policy interests” such

COMMENTARY
AUKUS Is Not
Only the Now,
It Is the Future
BY AMBASSADOR BONNIE JENKINS

A
s President States enhanced
Joe Biden said security part-
in October, nership, bet-
the United ter known
States is at as AUKUS.
an inflection point. We are This innovative
facing monumental shifts partnership builds on
in geopolitics and security. a longstanding rela-
In this moment, it is tionship with two of
critical that we build on the nation’s greatest
the partnerships that we allies, demonstrating
hold with our most long- U.S. commitment to
standing allies. We may the advancement of a
not know what the world free and open Indo-
will look like in the next Pacific. AUKUS is an
50 years, but what we do opportunity for inno-
know is that by strengthen- vation, generational
ing diplomacy, competitive transformation and
advantage, innovation and greater progress toward
collective capability, we strengthening and
can sustain and strengthen reinvigorating U.S. alli-
security and stability in the ances and partnerships. its partners, including while setting the highest
Indo-Pacific and beyond. AUKUS is a project for inviting Australian person- nuclear nonproliferation
Resilience is rooted in the future, but work has nel to Pearl Harbor Navy standard and strength-
the country’s unwavering already begun. The three Shipyard in Hawaii. ening the nuclear non-
commitment to the sover- partners have taken steps We are also educating proliferation regime.
eignty, safety and security to implement Pillar I, current and future genera- We are making progress
of U.S. allies and partners which supports Australia’s tions who will be working on advanced capability col-
across the globe. In today’s acquisition of convention- on the AUKUS initiative. laboration. For example,
constantly changing geopo- ally armed, nuclear-pow- For instance, Royal Aus- we are developing com-
litical landscape, one way ered submarines. As noted tralian Navy officers are mon advanced artificial
we enforce this commit- in the Dec. 1 “AUKUS already graduating from intelligence algorithms,
ment is by undertaking the Defense Ministers Meet- the U.S. naval nuclear which were demonstrated
generational opportunity ing Joint Statement,” the power training pipeline. last year in the United
presented by the Australia- United States increased We remain committed Kingdom. The work saw
United Kingdom-United side-by-side training with to this implementation the initial joint deploy-

32 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
 as “making sure in these interna-
tional forums that we are aligned on
some of the messaging … in terms
of responsible behaviors in space,
developing responsible norms, how
we operate, calling out irresponsible
behavior by China and by Russia.”
The defense official said: “Through
AUKUS, Australia, the United Kingdom
and [the] United States are meeting
the challenges of the 21st century and
responding to a global security envi-
ronment which is being reshaped by
rapid technological change. Enhanced
defense capabilities, including DARC,
will enable AUKUS partners to bet-
ter deter conflict as well as support
stability and strategic balance both
in the Indo-Pacific and globally.”
To provide stability in the Indo-
Pacific, the AUKUS partners must
ensure “deterrence of China is under-
scored in multiple domains,” Edel said.
“We do not have a deterrence prob-
lem that might materialize in 2035
or 2045 when the new SSN-AUKUS
COVER STORY
submarines begin being built and
rolled off the line. We have a deter-
rence problem staring us in the face,
so the more things that can be fielded
under the sea, on ground, in the air
and way up in space soon will aid
in that effort — and I think have
the added bonus of helping to cre-
ate an ecosystem that has advantage
for all the players involved.” ND

While we take steps a positive, shared vision

ment of AI-enabled assets
in a collaborative swarm to
detect and track military
targets in a representative
environment in real time.
We are also working
to strengthen uncrewed
undersea capabilities by
taking part in joint exercises
in Australia last Novem-
ber to test new equipment
iStock illustration
coupled with continued
advancement in areas like
quantum and advanced
cyber, are helping the three
nations build the capabili-
ties necessary to promote
security and stability in
the Indo-Pacific region.
To advance a trilateral
enabling environment, the
United States is streamlin-
toward the future through
cooperation on emerg-
ing technologies in Pillar
II — focused on advanced
capabilities — each part-
ner remains committed
to protecting sensitive
technologies that are
foundational to security.
With strong bipartisan
backing from Congress,
AUKUS is continuing to
gain momentum. In the
recent National Defense
Authorization Act, which
was passed by Congress and
signed into law by President
Biden, we are on track to
enact a pathway for exempt-
ing Australia and the United
Kingdom from a range of
U.S. defense export control
licensing requirements.
This is not the finish
line — we recognize there
is still more to be done
and will continue to work
together to institute swift
and secure defense trade to
deliver on leaders’ commit-
ment to deeper integration
of our scientists, industrial
bases and supply chains.
The success of AUKUS
not only aids in the stabil-
ity and prosperity of the
Indo-Pacific region but also
strengthens deterrence and
interoperability with key
allies to face the security
challenges of the future.
AUKUS is not about any
one country, it is about
of the future. It is a vision
rooted in partnership that
will positively move us
forward to greater peace,
stability and security.
Over the past year, I have
held conversations with
diplomats, military leaders,
scientists, academics and
industry experts from each
of the three nations, met
with U.S. workers at ship-
yards in Virginia and spo-
ken to students across the
United States. Everyone is
committed to delivering on
the generational opportu-
nity that AUKUS presents.
With current and future
generations gearing up to
lead the way with AUKUS, I
know we are in good hands.
Our Australian partners
call AUKUS a “whole-
of-nation” project, and I
wholeheartedly agree. It
is going to take all of us to
get the job done. We are
pulling talent from across
this great nation, integrat-
ing the diversity that is
required to encourage the
innovation and ingenuity
to complete this initiative.
It will bring together
sailors, scientists and
industries to showcase the
best of American ingenu-
ity and technology, along
with that of our allies.
AUKUS is not only the
now, it is the future. ND

that will increase the pro- ing its export control laws, working together with Ambassador Bonnie
tection of critical under- regulations, policies and allies and partners across Jenkins is undersecretary
water infrastructure. processes to achieve swift continents in mutually of state for international
These capabilities, and secure defense trade. reinforcing ways to advance security and arms control.

N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 33
Joining
Forces
European Navies
Sailing to Secure
Indo-Pacific
BY LAURA HECKMANN
C
hina’s military buildup
and increasingly hostile
behavior in the Indo-
Pacific region is no lon-
ger just a concern of the
United States, Japan and Australia
— European nations that also rely
on free and open trade routes are
looking at what ships and technolo-
gies they can deploy in the region.
“As European-Atlantic countries,
surely we should focus on our own
backyard,” U.K. Royal Navy Com-
modore and British Embassy naval
attaché Roger Readwin said during
a panel discussion at the Surface
Navy Association’s 36th National
Symposium, citing what he called
an “oft-misquoted misconception.”
European countries not only have
a vested interest in the Indo-Pacific,
but are and have been intrinsi-
cally linked to the region, he said.
France, for example, has “specific
interests” in the region, Capt. Jean-
Olivier Grall, French naval attaché,
said — starting with its 1.5 million
French nationals scattered across its
34 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
overseas territories, making regional
stability and security a “core sov-
ereignty and security interest.”
Maritime trading routes are vital
to European countries, and the Indo-
Pacific accounts for more than 60
percent of global gross domestic prod-
uct, and about half of international
trade crosses its waters, he said.
“Because of globalization, we all rely
on those supply chains,” he said — a
fact that navies can hardly ignore,
“as it is one of their historical core
tasks: to protect those trade routes.”
When considering contributions to
a secure Indo-Pacific, navies across
the globe need to consider a bal-
ance between resources at home and
what is “proportionate and appro-
priate” to the situation, Readwin
said. However, the United States
and many allies have concluded
that the balance needs to shift in
the direction of the Indo-Pacific.
While the U.S. Navy has had an
established presence in the region
since what is now called Indo-Pacific
Command was stood up in 1947, the
The Italian Navy’s aircraft carrier Cavour
White House’s 2022 Indo-Pacific
Strategy said both the United States
and “much of the world” have viewed
Asia too narrowly “for centuries” as
an area of geopolitical competition.
“Allies and partners around the
world have a stake in its outcomes,”
the strategy stated. “Our approach,
therefore, draws from and aligns
with those of our closest friends. …
We do so at a time when many of
our allies and partners, including
in Europe, are increasingly turning
their own attention to the region.”
As European nations work
to integrate with U.S. efforts in
the Indo-Pacific, two concepts
inevitably emerge: interoper-
ability and interchangeability.
“I think there is sometimes a
confusion between interchange-
ability and interoperability,” Grall
said. “At its core, interoperability
is being able to operate and basi-
cally fight together side by side.”
Interchangeability is often associ-
ated with compatible equipment, he
said, “but there’s actually much more
than equipment to that interoperabil-
ity and that ability to fight together.”
Grall quoted Adm. Michael Gil-
day, retired U.S. naval officer and
former Chief of Naval Operations,
who once cited the French Carrier
Strike Group’s command takeover of
U.S. Task Force 50 as an example of
interchangeability — what he meant,
Grall said, is that “the ultimate goal
of interchangeability is that any of
iStock illustration, Italian Navy photo
the allied assets can actually take
over one specific function … in any
operation. So, that ties into more than
just the question of equipment.”
It also ties into exercises, training,
tactics and procedures, he said, not-
ing that European navies are “quite
used to working” with the U.S. Navy’s
 Fifth and Sixth Fleets, which use
NATO procedures and publications.
“Those publications are not used in
the Indo-Pacific, and so this is prob-
ably where we need to work — pro-
cedures, communications, tactics.”
Learning to speak the same tech-
nical and procedural languages is
part of interoperability, and infor-
mation sharing is key, Capt. Marco
Bagni, Italian naval attaché, said.
The Italian navy launched an ini-
tiative 20 years ago establishing a
virtual network connecting mari-
time operation centers of member
navies. The system allows sharing
of selected unclassified informa-
tion related to merchant shipping.
“What this means is effective instru-
ments that can enhance maritime
situational awareness, of course, but
basically strengthens mutual trust,
builds confidence among shareholders
and furthers the safety of seafarers,”
Bagni said. This information shar-
ing model “could be a tool to promote
global understanding and active coop-
eration in the Indo-Pacific region.”
The Italian navy participated in a
series of high-end training events
with the Gerald R. Ford Carrier
Strike Group in the Ionian Sea last
October “to increase interoperabil-
ity as NATO allies and strengthen
regional stability in the Mediterranean
region,” a U.S. Navy release said.
Italy’s Cavour Carrier Strike Group
— pending political approval — will
be deployed to the Indo-Pacific region
for six months beginning in June,
Bagni said. The carrier strike group
will also participate in Australia’s
Exercise Pitch Black this summer
— a biennial three-week multina-
tional large-force employment exer-
cise conducted from Royal Australian
Air Force Bases Darwin and Tindal.
Bagni said exercises and coop-
erative deployments provide both
improved training and “real-life
operations,” improving cooperation
and understanding of procedures.
Italy will add the U.S. Navy-led
Rim of the Pacific Exercise — the
world’s largest international mari-
time warfare exercise — to its
list of global campaign participa-
tion for the first time this year.
“Of course, when we talk about
Royal Norwegian Navy photo
interoperability and interchange-
ability in the Indo-Pacific region,”
participating in exercises is the
best way to improve it, he said.
Bagni said the Italian navy is work-
ing with the U.S. Navy on “multiple
opportunities of interaction” and
exercises with the U.S. Marine Corps,
the Royal Australian Navy and the
Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force.
French naval participation in the
region includes the “Mission Jeanne
D’Arc” amphibious ready group,
an integrated at-sea exercise in the
Western Pacific in June 2023 with
the United States, Japan and Canada
and a permanently deployed frig-
ate in the South Red Sea, Grall said.
While Norway has been invest-
ing in its own naval assets such
as new submarines, F-35 combat
aircraft, P-8 maritime patrol air-
craft, MH-60 Romeo helicopters
and unmanned mine warfare sys-
tems, bringing them to the Indo-
Pacific is easier said than done.
Members
of the Royal Capt. Egil Vasstrand,
Norwegian
Navy’s explo- Norwegian naval atta-
sive ordnance ché, said his navy has
disposal unit the intention to deploy a
frigate to the Indo-Pacif-
ic as part of the British Carrier Strike
Group in 2025. The small nation relies
heavily on partnerships to make an
impact in the Indo-Pacific, he added.
“Despite all our investments …
the armed forces depend on being
a part of NATO, together with hav-
ing strong bilateral relationships
with close allies and partners,”
Vasstrand said. “The Norwegian
navy will never have a force with
sufficient capabilities to cope with
all its potential requirements.”
Norway, like many other countries,
is trying to boost capacity through the
development of unmanned systems,
he said.
Several European nations are look-
ing to deploy unmanned systems to
the Indo-Pacific in coordination with
the United States and its allies in the
region.
“I would like to emphasize the
importance of continuing [to develop]
advanced unmanned capabilities,”
Vasstrand said. “This will be as impor-
NAVY NEWS
tant in the Indo-Pacific as in the Euro-
Atlantic area.” An example, he said,
is the underwater domain “with all
the critical infrastructure challenges
like fiber cables and oil and gas pipe-
lines. You can find such infrastructure
on the seabed all over the world.”
While no specific systems were
discussed, Vasstrand said the Norwe-
gian navy plans to mix crewed and
uncrewed systems and transition from
traditional mine countermeasures to
unmanned autonomous systems.
Bagni said the Italian navy’s
focus on developing unmanned
systems is also in the underwater
domain, where there is “deep con-
cern about security over our under-
water fiber lines and pipelines.”
“It is definitely complex,” Grall
said of operating robots in the mine
warfare and seabed domains. “And it
is even more so when you add that,
for instance, you will want to deploy
unmanned undersea vehicles from
an unmanned surface vehicle. So,
that adds a layer of complexity.”
The U.S. Navy has dedicated train-
ing exercises to this very challenge,
including portions of Rim of the
Pacific and U.S. Pacific Fleet’s second
multi-domain unmanned capabilities
exercise last May in San Diego. The
exercise focused on “proving the con-
cept of unmanned systems employ-
ment to maintain a free and open
Indo-Pacific,” a U.S. Navy release said.
Capt. Dan Brown, assistant chief
of staff for experimentation at U.S.
3rd Fleet, said in the release, “Suc-
cessfully integrating unmanned
platforms provides our command-
ers with better options to fight
and win in contested spaces.”
Grall said the current crisis in the
Red Sea, Russia’s war in Ukraine and
the ongoing conflict between Israel
and Hamas show that “no substantial
crisis nowadays can remain con-
tained geographically, if that were
ever the case. So there’s no reason
to believe that a crisis in the Indo-
Pacific wouldn’t have important ripple
effects across the region and beyond.”
As such, a rules-based interna-
tional order is a global concern, he
said, and “holds, as the name sug-
gests, because it’s international. So
the corollary is that erosion of that
order in one area may affect it glob-
ally. We are all custodians of that
order, whatever the location.” ND
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 35

Marines Going Virtual to
Address Lack of Training
Grounds in Indo-Pacific
BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY AND ALLYSON PARK
O
RLANDO, Florida —
The Indo-Pacific may
be vast, but the areas
where Marines can train
in the region are not.
There is only so much space on
islands such as Okinawa, Guam and
Hawaii — and host countries have
restrictions on who can train and
where, Col. Marcus Reynolds, Marine
Corps Systems Command’s program
manager for training systems, said.
For example, “you can’t do indi-
rect fire in Okinawa,” he noted in an
interview, which first appeared in
the Interservice/Industry Training,
Simulation and Education Confer-
ence show daily. That is reserved for
the Combined Arms Training Center
at Camp Fuji on mainland Japan on
leased lands. But the Marines must
coordinate with local farmers so they
can periodically access their fields.
Unexploded ordnance is a prob-
lem. “As we’re out there, and we’re
training, we always have to count the
impacts and make sure [the bombs]
go off. If they don’t, then we have to
send out [explosive ordnance disposal
teams] to clear those ranges,” he said.
To alleviate restrictions, Camp
Fuji will be expanding its live,
virtual and constructive train-
ing capabilities, which blend real-
36 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
world training with simulators and
computer-generated forces, he said.
Col. Craig Clarkson, command-
ing officer of the Marine Corps
Tactical Systems Support Activ-
ity, during a panel discussion at the
conference said: “We’re going to
have to be able to see the entire bat-
tlespace in all the domains, includ-
ing the information domain, the
cyber domain, and understand the
effects that are being had downrange
in order to be effective in the future
fight against the peer adversary.”
The Marines must use such
training to educate warfighters on
new capabilities and weapons sys-
tems more effectively, he added.
Project Tripoli is an initiative dedi-
cated to providing Marines with its
live, virtual and constructive train-
ing environment. It aims to “elimi-
Marines during
Stand-In Force
Exercise 24
nate gaps between experimentation
efforts, the training continuum and
real-world mission rehearsals and
operations,” Thomas Johnson, senior
principal engineer at Marine Corps
Tactical Systems Support Activity,
said during the panel discussion.
One of the gaps the Marine Corps
faces today is the lack of a “real
construct for simulated people,
virtual constructive environments
and real systems,” Johnson said.
Reynolds said along with bring-
ing the latest technology to Camp
Fuji, the Marines are building a new
Military Operations in Urban Ter-
rain facility in Guam using aban-
doned buildings in a former Air
Force housing complex. That will be
rigged with cameras and other tech
so trainers can review exercises after-
ward to provide feedback, he said.
Since it will be on U.S. soil,
the Marines can bring in joint
partners and allies without
any restrictions, he noted.
Over the next five years, the Marines
have plans to build other high-tech
training facilities on the island
such as a battle staff training facil-
ity, training simulation center and
physical training complex, he said.
“We’re very limited on what you can
do for things like live fire training.
So, we’re starting to leverage our live,
virtual, constructive training environ-
ment to supplement that,” he said.
The service is also looking at
ways to support Marines on rota-
tion in Darwin, Australia, whose
training is often hampered by the
long rainy season, he added.
Johnson said the Marine Corps
still places great value on live
Indo-Pacific-centric exercises but
blending them with virtual and con-
structive training is the most effi-
cient way to teach warfighters.
One recent live exercise was the
Marine Air-Ground Task Force Stand-
In Force Exercise 24 in November
and December 2023 in Shizuoka,
Japan, Johnson said. Marines dem-
onstrated their tactical proficiency
and readiness in the Indo-Pacific
theater, conducting stand-in force
operations and force-on-force
exercises at Camp Fuji, he said.
Reynolds said: “Having to lever-
age our live, virtual, constructive
training environment to get that
Marine Corps photos
type of reps and sets for the Marines
is going to be paramount in the
future,” especially to meet train-
ing needs in the Indo-Pacific. ND
 Getting Ready
Navy Chasing North Star of 75
Available Surface Ships BY SEAN CARBERRY
W
hile the Navy,
Defense Depart-
ment and Congress
continue to debate
how many ships
the Navy needs — with assess-
ments ranging from some 290 to 380
manned ships — the service has set
a “North Star” of always having 75 of
its surface vessels mission-ready.
Yet reaching even that target
is a tall order for a service strug-
gling with shortages of spare parts,
maintenance capacity and people.
During a January 2023 call with
reporters, then-Commander of Naval
Surface Forces and Naval Surface
Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet Vice Adm. Roy
Kitchener outlined the roughly two-
year initiative, which would ensure
a little less than half the Navy’s 165
surface ships — destroyers, cruis-
ers, littoral combat ships, counter-
mine ships and various
amphibious ships — are
maintained and manned
for deployment.
“That goal is not arbi-
trary. It’s not random.
It was born from our
investments in our data
analytics and a really
good, thorough assess-
ment across the fleet
operational require-
ments,” he said. “And I
would tell you that 75
drives every program and
action we take across our USS Howard fires a 5-inch gun
during a live-fire exercise.
force in our enterprise.”
Cmdr. Arlo Abraham-
son, spokesperson for Naval Surface
Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, said in an
email North Star 75 is achievable
based on current ship inventory,
combatant commander requirements
and partnership with industry.
“The demand signal for afloat capa-
bilities around the world is increas-
ing,” he said. “With this increase in
demand for surface ships, we are
focusing on the improvement of
force-wide manpower, equipment,
Navy photo
training, supply and ordnance.”
As a goal, it’s reasonable and achiev-
able, but it will require tradeoffs,
Brad Martin, retired Navy surface
warfare captain and director of the
RAND National Security Supply
Chain Institute, said in an interview.
“As we’re seeing in the Red Sea, you
don’t always know when there’s going
to be some demand for ships,” he said.
“I think that part of the challenge will
be that if we ever really get into a big
surge where most of the fleet is need-
ed because there’s a war going on in
the Western Pacific and there’s chal-
lenges in the Middle East and there’s
still stuff going on in Europe, what it
might have taken to get those 75 ready
is that you may have had to scrimp
on readiness in the rest of the fleet.”
A year into the initiative, the cur-
rent Commander of Naval Surface
Forces Vice Adm. Brendan McLane
provided an update during the Sur-
face Navy Association’s annual
conference. He said the service
peaked at 66 mission-ready sur-
face ships in the middle of 2023.
“And since then, it’s been kind
of going on a sinusoidal curve
between 55 and hovering around
55, maybe up to 60, and then
back down again,” he said.
“We’ve learned a lot, particularly
on data analytics there,” he said. “But
I think the next step is we’re really
going to have to do things [differently]
on the maintenance side. We need to
reduce the days of maintenance delay.”
Getting ships into and out of
maintenance on time is a persis-
tent problem for the Navy. And it’s
the one variable in the readiness
equation the service can change
the quickest, Abrahamson said.
“A near-term goal is reduc-
ing days of maintenance delay,” he
said. “We’ve made steady progress
in reducing maintenance delays,
but more must be done. Reducing
days of maintenance delay during
pre-deployment shipyard periods is
integral to addressing our North Star
goal, and we are working as a team
with Navy and industry stakehold-
ers to reduce maintenance delays and
deliver ships on time and on budget.”
Rear Adm. William Greene, com-
mander of the Navy Regional Mainte-
nance Center and director of surface
ship maintenance, modernization
and sustainment, said at the confer-
ence the service completed the first
six maintenance availabilities of fis-
cal year 2024 early or on time.
“And as of today, we are 10 for
14,” he continued. “Our goal is obvi-
ously 100 percent. But we have come
a long way even from last year where
we finished at about 41 percent
complete, which was an improve-
ment from the prior year. So, we’re
continuing to get after that.”
Martin noted the Navy and indus-
try have improved on-time perfor-
mance in the last couple of years. “But
it’s still a thing that it just seems to
defeat everybody’s effort, and ships
will come into availability, and they
end up getting delayed because the
maintenance demands are greater
than they thought, and that just
seems to be a consistent problem.”
During his time as commander,
Naval Surface Force Atlantic, McLane
saw that the Navy’s forward-
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 37
 NAVY NEWS
deployed regional maintenance cen-
ter in Rota, Spain, which services
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, had
a 100 percent on-time comple-
tion rate of 100-day availabilities,
he said at the SNA conference.
McLane oversaw the standup in
2021 of Task Group Greyhound,
which provides continuously ready
destroyers for counter-Russian sub-
marine operations in the Western
Atlantic, and he said that similar 100-
day incremental selected restricted
availabilities — basically interme-
diate-level maintenance between
major overhauls — were built into
the design of the task group.
“One of the side benefits of that is
it brings small business into the avail
business. East Coast Repair did their
first avail on [the USS] Cole and did
it on time successfully,” he said.
“So, I’m a big fan of that. I’m try-
ing to see how we could scale that
— combine it maybe with taking a
look at our nine-year docking sched-
ule, seeing if we can reduce that to
maybe something less like six years
and then put in the incremental
selected restricted availabilities in
USS Manchester and Formidable-class stealth frigate RSS Tenacious (right)
the middle. That would give us more,
and it would increase the ability for
us to be able to finish on time.”
While improvements in data
gathering and analytics, planning
and management all play a role in
improving maintenance perfor-
mance, Navy officers and analysts
like Martin said progress is subject to
the same overarching limitation that
affects readiness: workforce supply.
“And that’s a huge problem, and it’s
not a matter of just having bodies, it’s
having the right bodies,” Martin said.
38 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
“If there’s one place you really have to
emphasize, it is really in the person-
nel force structure. I think that’s the
thing that’s been really the long pole
because that’s actually part of the
problem when you get to the main-
tenance piece. You’re not necessarily
talking about the uniformed people,
we’re talking about qualified people
who actually work in the shipyards.”
James Holmes, J. C. Wylie Chair
of Maritime Strategy at the Naval
War College, emphasized the
importance of the human ele-
ment of achieving North Star 75.
“If you have enough well-trained
people to meet the requirements in the
ship’s manning document, they will
be able to find spare parts, maintain
their gear and work with shore facili-
ties to overhaul the ship when need
be,” he said. “Without human excel-
lence, the ship is just a hull, inert.
With it, even a crappy vessel stands a
chance of accomplishing its missions.”
While the Navy is generally meet-
ing retention goals, it missed its
recruiting target in fiscal year
2023 by nearly 7,500 accessions.
“The manning piece is kind of the
big problem. I don’t know that there’s
such a thing as quick wins when
you come to these things because
it’s a long-term problem,” Martin
said. “I think when we start talk-
ing about where should the Navy
be focusing, I think very much
in the realm of trying to get the
right people in the right place.”
Rear Adm. Fred Pyle, the Navy’s
director of surface warfare, said
at the SNA conference the service
is putting resources toward man-
power and reaching 100 percent
manning on surface combatants.
“As you’ve heard … we have a non-
trivial recruiting challenge,” he said.
“And we’re laser-focused on that.”
In addition to addressing the
personnel shortage, the Navy is
looking at how technology can
help achieve North Star 75.
“From a technology standpoint, we
are focused on anything that applies
to getting after 75 mission-capable
ships and readiness,” he said.
One factor is training. “We’ve
invested up to $5.6 billion since
2012 in training … things like the
integrated air and missile defense,
[anti-submarine warfare] train-
ers, things like our virtual operator
training and virtual maintenance
training that allow us to gain profi-
ciency and self-resiliency and self-
sufficiency of our sailors as they’re
working on equipment,” he said.
Working on equipment requires
having the right spare parts on hand.
“We continue to cannibalize parts, and
we need to fix that,” Pyle said. “And
we need to fund the requirement. And
we’ve done that over multiple [future
years defense programs]. And we’re
going to stay committed to that curve
because it’s the right thing to do.”
Martin said funding is a big part
of the problem as most ships have
space to store spare parts, but ships
need to have the right spare parts.
“One of the problems
is that the model for
replenishment … tends
to focus on what’s being
used a lot, not necessarily
what’s most important,”
he said. “So, ships will
have lots and lots of things
that get replaced all the
time, but they may or may
not be the thing that the
ship really has to have in
order to keep operating.
“So, the whole sparing
concept probably needs a
revisit,” he said. “Now, if
we get to the point where
additive manufacturing is
a fact … that helps quite a bit because
then you could manufacture stuff
on the ship. But until we get to that
point, spares are often a shortfall.”
Lastly, maintaining readiness
requires something the Navy has never
been good at: saying no, Martin said.
“The Navy in general has just
not figured out how to balance the
demands for ships with the needs of
readiness,” he said. “When was the
last time we said no to somebody who
Navy photo
said, ‘I have to have a ship, I really,
really need a ship right now’?” ND
 Live-Virtual-Constructive
Navy’s Push for Blended Training Picks Up Steam BY ALLYSON PARK
O
RLANDO, Florida —
While using a blend of
live, virtual and con-
structive techniques
to prepare warfight-
ers for battle is not new, Navy offi-
cials have said the sea service has
lagged implementing the concept.
However, that appears to be chang-
ing.
In 2017, the Navy completed 917
manhours of live-virtual-constructive
training. In 2023, that jumped to
60,000 hours, Capt. Sean Anderson,
commanding officer of the Navy’s
Tactical Training Group Atlantic,
said during a panel at the Interser-
vice/Industry Training, Simula-
tion and Education Conference.
Such training might have real
sailors operating actual ships, while
F-35C Lightning II pilots sit in high-
fidelity simulators. Both the sailors
and the pilots might see enemy air-
craft or drones approaching on their
radar screen, but they are computer
generated — the constructive part.
While the use of live, virtual and
constructive training is growing
in the Navy, there are still many
Navy photo
areas in which it must be imple-
mented effectively, Anderson said.
“For us, it’s about that tactical
warfighting picture. … When we
talk LVC, that’s where it all comes
together, where that tactical pic-
ture that the tactical operators are
looking at feeds [into] other shared
information systems,” he said.
“There are some areas we still need
to grow to get fully there across the
enterprise, but that’s kind of where
we’re at. The LVC trend is exciting,
and it’s still a growth industry.”
The Navy will reach a major mile-
stone in live-virtual-constructive
training when its new integrated
training facility at Naval Air Sta-
tion Fallon, Nevada, reaches initial
operating capability in March, Capt.
Michael Langbehn, deputy of Naval
Air Warfare Development Com-
mand, said at the conference.
The facility is designed to host and
leverage modern working models,
rehearse missions in simulated envi-
ronments and execute on a live range,
and capable of running multiple
engagements at one time. Langbehn
called the facility “the best develop-
ment we’ve had in a long time.”
As the Navy invests in modern
capabilities, the main focus must
be on integrating all the domains:
sea, land and air along with space
and cyberspace, the officials said.
Live, virtual and constructive train-
ing also offers a solution for how the
Navy can integrate with the Joint
Force, Rear Adm. Michael Don-
nelly, director of the Air Warfare
Division, said at the conference.
“There’s not a single platform or
a single unit that has the capabil-
ity to fight the array of capabilities
that we’re up against with mod-
ern adversaries,” Langbehn said.
While the Navy is integrating live,
virtual and constructive training effi-
ciently on ships, Anderson said it is
not being used effectively for naval
aviation, specifically for pilots in the
cockpit, which is a vital part of inte-
grating the entire carrier strike group.
“We’ve got to get LVC into the
cockpit. [We have a] little of the good
stuff, but it’s a baby step, and it’s
not enough.” Anderson said. “Invest-
ments there will be a game-changer
in our exercises, because there’s a
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 39
 NAVY NEWS
lot of artificial boundaries when the
guy in the air can’t see and [isn’t]
plugged into the entire battlespace.”
Rear Adm. Richard Brophy, chief of
Naval Air Training, said during an I/
ITSEC panel that his department is
looking to employ LVC for air-to-air
training, or target practice for airborne
threats, specifically for Navy pilots.
While there may be gaps in live,
virtual and constructive use for
aircraft, the Navy is “successfully”
integrating it onto ships, specifi-
cally for rapid deployment, Capt.
Brian Miller, director of Maritime
Operations, Carrier Strike Group
Four, said at the conference.
“If somebody has to deploy early,
we don’t have to leverage a bunch
of other live ships and live aircraft,
he said. “We have been able to put
together some exercises for folks that
need to deploy quickly, and we have
leveraged that in a matter of weeks.”
The main limiting factor of live,
virtual and constructive train-
ing on ships is the vast amount of
data generated using virtual train-
ing scenarios. These exercises “push
out a lot of information, and it just
can’t handle the amount that we
need for an exercise,” he said.
The training should be used to
help the Navy improve data gather-
ing and data analysis in training and
simulation exercises. The service is
currently failing to utilize the correct
data to its advantage, Brophy said.
“The thing that continues to
frustrate me is we, the Navy, buy
systems that are bespoke, and I
got all this data that I [generate]
when I’m doing a simulator, and
we don’t keep it. We don’t use it.
We don’t analyze it,” he said.
In order to get the proper sets and
reps in, operators and warfighters
must be able to not only see the gen-
erated data but also know how to use
it to their advantage. After a train-
ing simulation, they must be able to
see that, for example, a pilot “was off
when he flew his pattern, he was at
900 feet, and he should’ve been at 600.
Check. And now you’re able to take
that data time and time again that I fly,
and I go and correlate it to see what
do I need to work on?” Brophy said.
“Are we tracking that? The answer
is no. We’re not,” he added.
Live, virtual and constructive train-
ing offers the opportunity to under-
40 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
stand where operation outcomes
are affected at a very low level, like
fleet maintenance and logistics, and
understand how the Navy can imple-
ment those changes where there is
a finite manned force and still get
the necessary results, he said.
The Navy cannot further develop
and improve live, virtual and con-
structive training “without industry
partners. [Their] ability to ask these
hard questions, and then quite frankly,
really challenge us is key,” Brophy said.
Live, virtual and constructive train-
ing must provide data, feedback and
capability validation across the Navy’s
entire spectrum of operations, from
intel preparation and assessment of
the environment through operational
planning and orders production,
command and control, operational
maneuvers, sustainment and the
logistics of how to maintain a pres-
ence and how to replenish a force.
“LVC [has] the ability to recognize,
collect and potentially assess data that
allows us to maintain that continuum
across individual training events
and connect them together, with
the ability to get at what is too often
[thrown aside] in that sustainment
portion and understand our ability
to endure in a fight,” Donnelly said.
One thing blended training cur-
rently helps the Navy track is mission
capability of aircraft in the fleet, and
it’s been “a massive improvement
in our business,” Donnelly said.
“We’re looking at evolving to track
full mission capability for the differ-
ent platforms in the fleet. But until
we understand what is contributing
to the lack of full mission capabil-
ity, whether it’s training, whether it’s
maintenance process, how we collect
all that data and assess that, because
it’s huge, is going to be important.”
The Navy must also ensure that
live, virtual and constructive train-
ing is able to operate in austere
environments as wars in Ukraine
and Gaza continue, using it to gen-
erate ranges in remote locations in
real time, integrate ad hoc exercise
scenarios with service counter-
parts and joint partners and provide
feedback and validation across its
entire spectrum of operations.
With industry’s help, the Navy must
focus on achieving a multi-layered
security environment using LVC,
which is “essential” for training for
maintenance, for austere, deployable
solutions that allow warfighters to
go out to the field and for integration
with the Joint Force, Donnelly said.
“We need a network of virtual capa-
bility that allows us to plug all those
disparate and different platforms
into this seamlessly to get the value
training that the deck point needs,”
he said. “And all of this to provide an
efficiency and effectiveness of training
that we are going to rely on in the aus-
tere environment [that] we are facing.”
When it comes to industry, the Navy
must rely on “transparency of com-
munication” in order to elevate live,
virtual and constructive training for
Joint Force integration and require-
ments development, Donnelly said.
“You need the right level of
expertise to just understand what
questions to ask,” he said. “[That]
innovation that comes from pri-
vate industry — it certainly doesn’t
come from government — helps us
shape where we need requirements,
where we have the opportunity [to]
set requirements so we can continue
to take things to the next level.”
As the Navy and the Joint Force
continue to explore and implement
modern training capabilities, the
focus must be on integration, Ander-
son said. While live, virtual and con-
structive training is improving, its
expansion may be in jeopardy due
to budget uncertainty in the Penta-
gon, and continued investment from
Navy photo
both government and industry is
extremely important, he added. ND
 NDIA POLICY POINTS BY CHRIS SAX
Implementation Essential for Industrial Strategy
T
he Defense Department Jan. 11
released the first-ever National
Defense Industrial Strategy,
which rightfully identifies the defense
industrial base as a significant contrib-
utor to the nation’s military readiness.
It recognizes that the health and
resiliency of the industrial base directly
impacts the nation’s ability to suc-
cessfully support warfighters, allies,
partners and U.S. values abroad.
In doing so, the strategy largely
hewed to the same issues and recom-
mended actions industry and its advo-
cates —including the National Defense
Industrial Association — have also
identified as critical areas to address.
Building resilient supply chains,
workforce readiness, flexible
acquisition and economic deter-
rence are admirable aims sup-
ported across industry.
Absent from the strategy, how-
ever, are the specific means and
ways the Pentagon will accom-
plish its stated goals for industry
and the formal metrics for success
beyond illustrative outcomes.
The department plans to
detail these elements through-
out 2024 via an unclassified
operational annex and a clas-
sified implementation plan.
If the strategy is to suc-
cessfully “catalyze generational rather
than incremental change in order for
our industrial base to meet the stra-
tegic moment,” implementation must
focus on securing adequate and reli-
able resourcing and introduce metrics
that incentivize industry behavior.
When reading the strategy, two
questions come to mind for indus-
try: who is paying, and what are they
paying for? Put another way, will the
burden to fund implementation fall
on the government or industry?
In the forthcoming implementa-
tion plan and operational annex,
defense officials should seriously
consider identifying how they plan
to pay for the programs, incentives
and actions detailed in the strategy.
Industry expects resourcing will be
split between government funding
and industrial investments. By clearly
indicating how it plans to resource
the strategy during the implementa-
iStock photo
tion phase, the department can help
industry prepare for the impacts of the
strategy’s implemented actions.
These demand signals will
enable industry to forecast the
investments and economic
decisions that companies will
need to make to adhere to gov-
ernment desires while remaining
competitive in the defense market.
Even if the intention is for the gov-
ernment to fully fund implementation,
the Defense Department should also
plan for a future where they may not
receive the necessary funding from
Congress. This is particularly true
given the budget process’s enduring
instability. Congress has been unable
to reliably pass a defense spending
bill — or any funding bill — on time
and has instead relied on continuing
resolutions for 14 of the last 15 years.
One of the impacts of this pat-
tern is reduced confidence in the
federal government’s ability and
discipline to reliably fund long-term
contracts and initiatives, such as
the ones proposed in the strategy.
Companies make rational business
decisions based on risk and future
expectations. The current level of bud-
get instability displayed by the govern-
ment does not engender confidence
that they can rely on continued fund-
ing to support the industrial invest-
ments spelled out in the strategy.
In turn, without guaranteed, reli-
able funding, companies will not
be properly incentivized to make
the investments and other eco-
nomic decisions needed to sup-
port the department’s needs.
The United States does not have
a command economy with state-
owned companies like authoritarian
adversaries abroad. Instead, the free
market system trades direct control
for the efficiency, innovation and
vigor brought about by market com-
petition. Market freedom is one of
the key strengths of the U.S. indus-
trial base over its near-peer rivals.
The strategy’s framers agree. The
National Defense Industrial Strategy
notes that “failure to promote competi-
tion, especially at home, could also lead
to slower technological advance-
ments, quality issues and even
the loss of our technological
edge in key areas.” The Defense
Department has an opportunity
during the strategy’s implemen-
tation to be more specific about
the steps the executive branch itself
can take to improve this situation.
The ability to attract investors and
resource capital also informs the
actions of defense contractors. In
today’s economy, investors are pri-
oritizing companies with streamlined
costs and the opportunity for large
profit margins. This is a different
mindset than in the past that priori-
tized the sure, steady, but lower profit
margin that defense contractors can
garner under government oversight.
In this environment, both
the Defense Department and
Congress need to be cognizant
of the pressures defense compa-
nies are under to raise capital.
There remains one buyer in the
defense market — the U.S. govern-
ment — which maintains a special
level of influence over
industry’s actions. The
department should rec-
ognize the true economic
realities facing industry as
it implements the strategy.
If the department wants indus-
try to balance the demands from
its customer and from investors
— such as encouraging invest-
ment in excess capacity — it will
need to establish clear metrics and
incentives to allow companies to
shift in the desired direction.
The Defense Department can
avoid pitfalls and ensure the suc-
cessful implementation of the
strategy by bringing industry
into the fold early in the process,
which industry is eager to do.
By relying on industry experts
and by treating industry as partners
to build the implementation, the
department can achieve the goals of
the nation’s first National Defense
Industrial Strategy and build an indus-
trial base more than ready to support a
new era of great power competition. ND
Chris Sax is the National Defense
Industrial Association’s associate
director for strategy.
N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 41
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING INSIGHTS BY RYAN BURNETTE, SUSAN B. CASSIDY AND DARBY ROURICK
Contractor Charged for Selling Chinese Tech
A
major theme in U.S. procure-
ment policy in recent years
has been a broad skepti-
cism of — and sometimes out-
right hostility to — the inclusion
of companies and technology from
the People’s Republic of China in
the U.S. defense industrial base.
One manifestation of this theme
is the prohibition against deliver-
ing or utilizing certain covered tele-
communications equipment and
services by federal government
contractors, a rule arising from
Section 889 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019.
While Section 889 has been a focal
point for contract compliance efforts
by contractors, a recent announce-
ment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office
for the District of New Jersey illus-
trates the government may be will-
ing to use federal criminal statutes to
enforce these types of prohibitions.
The statutory language of Section
889 and the implementing procure-
ment regulations contain two related
prohibitions against these covered
telecommunications equipment and
services, which includes all equipment
or services produced and provided by
Huawei Technologies Co. or ZTE Corp.
and video surveillance and telecom-
munications equipment or services
produced and provided by Hytera
Communications Corp., Hangzhou
Hikvision Digital Technology Co. or
Dahua Technology Co. or any subsid-
iaries or affiliates of the five entities.
The first prohibition took effect
on Aug. 13, 2019 and provides that
“the head of an executive agency may
not … procure or obtain or extend
or renew a contract to procure or
obtain any equipment, system or
service that uses covered telecom-
munications equipment or services
as a substantial or essential com-
42 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
ponent of any system or as critical
technology as part of any system.”
Effective on Aug. 13, 2020, this
prohibition was extended to federal
loan and grant funds and prohibits
agencies from expending any such
funds on covered telecommunica-
tions equipment or services. Because
state and local governments regu-
larly receive federal loans and grants,
they are generally prohibited from
using any of those funds to purchase
covered telecommunications equip-
ment or services. This prohibition
on delivery to the government of
covered equipment and services was
viewed as the easier to implement
of the two statutory requirements.
That is because the second part
of the rule, which took effect on
Aug. 13, 2020, prohibits government
agencies from contracting with any
“entity” that “uses” these “covered
telecommunications equipment or
services as a substantial or essential
component of any system or as a
critical technology of any system.”
This prohibition applies even if the
use of the equipment or services is
wholly unrelated to the delivery of
products or services to a government
customer, and this has pushed the
defense industrial base to undertake
a comprehensive review of its infor-
mation technology systems to ensure
equipment from these Chinese com-
panies is identified and removed.
This prohibition on use has posed
particular challenges in parts of
the world where Chinese telecom-
munications technology may be
ubiquitous and/or built into the local
communications infrastructure.
Compliance with Section 889
typically has been viewed as a mat-
ter of compliance with contrac-
tual requirements and, potentially,
a matter of contractor responsibil-
ity. Notably, Section 889 was part
of the NDAA and dictates federal
procurement policy but was not
drafted to include any specific crimi-
nal penalty for non-compliance.
Hence it was notable when on
Jan. 4, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
announced that it has filed crimi-
nal wire fraud and false statement
charges against the CEO of a com-
pany that is alleged to have knowingly
sold certain surveillance and secu-
rity cameras to prosecutors’ offices,
sheriffs’ offices and police depart-
ments in the state of New Jersey.
The government’s complaint alleges
that the CEO knew that state and local
customers were subject to Section 889
prohibitions when expending certain
funds used to buy cameras manufac-
tured by Hangzhou Hikvision Digital
Technology Co. and falsely represented
to those customers that the cameras
that he was selling were compliant
with Section 889 requirements.
The complaint specifically notes
that the CEO helped certain custom-
ers obtain federal funding to purchase
products that he was selling and that
approximately $15 million of the $35
million in cameras and equipment
purchased by state and local govern-
ment customers from the CEO’s
company was federally funded.
The complaint further alleges that
the CEO’s company sent wire transac-
tions to an unnamed entity that was
identified as one of the five entities
or their affiliates that are defined
within Section 889 as providers of
covered telecommunications equip-
ment. When purchasing cameras from
the prohibited company, the CEO’s
company allegedly would take steps
to conceal the origins of the cam-
eras, including by requesting that the
branding of the cameras be removed.
The CEO allegedly informed state
and local customers that his company
had previously sold these cameras to
federal agencies when he had not.
The alleged facts paint a picture
of particularly extreme and will-
ful efforts to skirt the Section 889
requirements, which may have pushed
the U.S. attorney to file criminal
charges against this individual.
However, these charges also reflect
that the U.S. government at large is
increasingly focused on supply chain
security, particularly as it relates to
China and that the government may
be willing to utilize criminal stat-
utes to pursue egregious instances
of non-compliance with supply
chain security requirements. ND
Ryan Burnette is a special coun-
sel, Susan B. Cassidy is a partner
iStock illustration
and Darby Rourick is an associate
in the Washington, D.C., office of
Covington and Burling LLP.
NDIA NEWS COMPILED BY ALLYSON PARK
divisions: Arma-
ments, Electron-
ics and Integrated Haley Masternak
elected Armaments vice chair.
Neil Schumacher, partner and
client executive for public sector
Precision Warfare. and federal cybersecurity at IBM,
Nicholas Perry, was elected Electronics Division
NDIA Announces director of global chair. Dr. Caprice Gray Haley,
New Division Chairs strategy at Northrop director of BAE Fast Labs, was
Grumman Defense Perry Schumacher elected Electronics vice chair.

T
he National Defense Industrial
Association announced newly
elected chairs and vice chairs
for three of its functionally focused
Systems, was elected Dan Shaffer, who works at
Armaments Division chair. Todd Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission
Masternak, associate director of mili- Systems, was elected Integrated
tary programs at Olin Winchester, was Precision Warfare chair. ND

Nominations Open tally shaped the simulation of endeavors as the com- Being elected a fel-
and training capabilities munity moves forward. low is the highest honor
For I/ITSEC Fellows being delivered today. Nominees must meet bestowed by NTSA on behalf
The conference leader- the criteria set forth in the of the worldwide model-

T
he National Defense
Industrial Association
and National Training
and Simulation Association
are now accepting nomina-
tions for I/ITSEC Fel-
lows, technical leaders
responsible for the
seminal contributions
that have fundamen-
ship invites iconic visionar-
ies to share their insight for
future developments and to
describe their part in reach-
ing our current posture,
relating both their suc-
cesses and challenges
as enduring lessons
learned that will apply
across a broad range
nomination application,
which should be completed
and submitted on behalf
of the nominee as outlined
in the instructions in the
application forms. Anyone
may submit an individual
for consideration. The can-
didate’s nomination package
must be received by April 1.
ing, simulation and train-
ing community. Selection
recognizes individuals that
have provided significant
influence in advancing the
state of modeling, simula-
tion, education and training.
Nominations can be
submitted through the
NDIA website. ND

NDIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS As of 02/06/24

Hon. Michael J. Bayer - Board Chair Lt. Gen. Thomas A. Horlander, USA (Ret) Brian E. Perry
Hon. Lisa S. Disbrow - Board Vice Chair Raanan I. Horowitz Hon. Stephen W. Preston
Maj. Gen. Arnold L. Punaro, USMC Vice Adm. Richard W. Hunt, USN (Ret) Marisa Rhode
(Ret) - Immediate Past Board Chair Gretchen Larsen Idsinga Lt. Gen. Darryl Roberson, USAF (Ret)
Hon. David L. Norquist, President & CEO Tamara Jack Col. Reginald O. Robinson, USAF (Ret)
Angela M. Ambrose Logan Jones Betsy Schmid
Paul Arcangeli John M. Kelly Dan Sennott
Col. John Armellino, USMC (Ret) Dr. Richard “Doc” H. Klodnicki Raj Shah
Jeffrey W. Bohling Matthew J. Kuta Edward J. Sheehan, Jr.
John A. Bonsell Brett B. Lambert Lt. Gen. Jay B. Silveria, USAF (Ret)
Vice Adm. Sean Buck, USN (Ret) Louis Lauter Robert Simmons
Rodney D. Bullard Col. Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski, USAF (Ret) Kraig M. Siracuse
Maj. Gen. Timothy Byers, USAF (Ret) Daniel A. Lerner Mary N. Springer
Dr. David Caswell Maj. Gen. Lee K. Levy II, USAF (Ret) Dr. J. Mitch Stevison
John Chadbourne Meagan S. Linn Robert Stewart
Mark Cherry Col. Armando “Mandy” Lopez, Jr., Dr. Robert H. Sues
Lt. Gen. John B. Cooper, USAF (Ret) USA (Ret) Col. Pete Trainer, USAF (Ret)
Col. Kenny Cushing, USAFR ML Mackey Tricia Ward
Paul DellaNeve Leigh Madden John Wason
Joe DeVooght Dr. Theresa Mayer Maj. Gen. Martin Whelan, USAF (Ret)
Dr. Tomás Díaz de la Rubia Laura McAleer Brent Wildasin
Michael P. Dietz Elaine McCusker
Tara Murphy Dougherty Kris McGuire Dr. Joseph Bravman - Emeritus
Jaymie A. Durnan Andrew McKenna Dale W. Church - Emeritus
Paula Edwards Megan Milam Edward M. Fortunato - Emeritus
Lt. Gen. Richard P. Formica, USA (Ret) Jamie Jones Miller John D. Illgen - Emeritus
Ken Garber Kevin “Morty” Mortensen Joanna T. Lau - Emeritus
Robert A. Geckle, Jr. Mara Motherway James McAleese, Jr. - Emeritus
Pete Giambastiani Amy Motko Terrance J. McKearney - Emeritus
Bruce Gjovig Jana Weir Murphy Hon. Michael Wynne - Emeritus
Will Goodman Michael Niggel Col. William Glenn Yarborough, Jr., USA
Lt. Gen. David D. Halverson, USA (Ret) Fola Ojumu (Ret) - Emeritus
Tania Hanna Gen. Terrence “Shags” O’Shaughnessy, Harold L. Yoh III - Emeritus
David Hathaway USAF (Ret)
Hon. Stephen C. Hedger Michele Pearce
NDIA CALENDAR 9-11 IT²EC 2024
ExCeL, London
itec.co.uk

March 19-21 2024 Munitions 16-17 2024 Missile

4-7 Pacific Operational Executive Summit Defense Conference
Parsippany, NJ Washington, DC
Science & Technology
NDIA.org/MES NDIA.org/RRMDC
(POST) Conference
Honolulu, HI 21-22 2024 Human 23-24 DLA Supply Chain
NDIA.org/POST Systems Conference Alliance Conference &
Arlington, VA
13-14 2024 IPMD NDIA.org/HS24 Exhibition
Meeting and Program Columbus, OH
Management Tools & 26 U.S. Coast Guard NDIA.org/DLA24

Services Forum C5I Industry Day 24 Simulation & Training

Tucson, AZ Washington, DC
Community Forum 2024
NDIA.org/IPMDSpring24 NDIA.org
Dayton, OH

14 Tech 101: April NTSA.org

Forever Chemicals
Virtual
3 Dwight D. Eisenhower May
NDIA.org/Forever-Chemicals-101
Award Dinner 6-8 NDIA/AIA Industrial
Arlington, VA Security Conference
18-20 Undersea Warfare NDIA.org Jacksonville, FL
Spring Conference NDIA.org
San Diego, CA
NDIA.org/USWSpring24

2024 Department of the Air Force

Modeling and
Simulation Summit
TRAINING IN A DIGITAL WORLD
This year’s theme, Training in a Digital World, highlights the Department of the Air Force’s drive to upskill personnel through digital
training. The goal of the M&S Summit is to gather Air Force and Space Force M&S experts to learn about new M&S initiatives and
techniques, network across military services and with industry experts, and to hear our technological leaders’ perspectives on how
M&S can transition more training from the real world to digital.

The 2024 DAF M&S Summit will provide a forum for shared information, ideas, and connection of M&S professionals across the DoD, industry,
academia, and international partners. The three-day summit agenda includes: Eminent Keynote Speakers from Military, Government,
and Industry Leaders | Distinguished Panel Discussions and Q&A sessions | Track Session Presentation Focus Areas | VIP Tour for
Distinguished Visitors | M&S Industry Exhibition Hall | Classified M&S Briefing Sessions | M&S Tool Overview.

Register Today! 7 – 9 May 2024 | San Antonio, TX | DAFMSS.org

44 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
2024 Pacific Operational
Science & Technology
(POST) Conference
Posturing for Tomorrow - Partnered / Positioned / Prepared
Join NDIA and the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command as we examine the theme Posturing for
Tomorrow - Partnered / Positioned / Prepared. This groundbreaking event promises to deliver an
unparalleled platform for collaboration, innovation, and exploration of Department of Defense
(DoD) opportunities for joint research, development, and experimentation. Experience workshops
that will push the boundaries of knowledge and foster new ideas, network with renowned industry
names, and visit more than 50 industry companies showcasing their cutting-edge technologies
and services in the exhibit hall. POST 2024 is not to be missed! This is your chance to be at the
forefront of operational science and technology, to collaborate with the industry’s finest, and to
shape the future of this dynamic field!

Registration Now Open!

March 4 – 7, 2024 | Honolulu, HI | NDIA.org/POST
 2024
MISSILE DEFENSE
CONFERENCE
and Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Award Ceremony

Register Today!
Join us at the highly anticipated 2024 Missile Defense Conference. This
annual gathering is the premier event for prominent policymakers, military
leaders, experts, and industry professionals to convene and address the
latest breakthroughs in the missile defense. Explore key topics such as
cooperative missile defense ties with allies and partners, building an
enhanced and efficient missile defense system, and understanding the
emerging threats and opportunities in 21st-century missile defense. The
need for effective missile defense systems has never been more pressing.

April 16 – 17, 2024 | Washington, DC | NDIA.org/MDC

U.S. COAST
Sponsored by

GUARD C5I
I N DUST R Y DA Y
Register Today!
C5ISC Industry Day will bring together the Coast Guard
and industry partners to discuss C5I mission, needs,
and requirements. Discover vital insights into pending
procurements, ensuring fair competition and equal
opportunities. Foster meaningful partnerships, offering
industry a chance to tailor solutions that align with C5ISC’s
strategic needs. Take the opportunity to collaborate with
experts and assist in shaping the future of U.S. Coast
Guard’s C5ISC. Don’t miss out on this essential Coast
Guard event to position your organization for success!

March 26, 2024 | Washington, DC | NDIA.org/USCG

46 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
2024
HUMAN SYSTEMS
CONFERENCE
Register Today!
This year’s Human Systems conference will feature conversations
related to implementation of Human Systems Integration (HSI) within
existing defense platforms, as well as an activity designed to help
designers and acquisition managers keep pace with the evolving
role of the human in order to meet user needs and minimize lifecycle
costs. In addition to this discourse, we will hear from industry,
government, and academic partners about ongoing HSI work and
how the evolving role of the human leads to new dynamics between
warfighters and the systems they use.

March 21 – 22, 2024 | Arlington, VA | NDIA.org/HS24

DLA SUPPLY
CHAIN ALLIANCE
CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION
Register Today!
This year’s conference promises to be one of the best, with
government and industry leaders focusing on future logistics
support strategies, challenges, and streamlining efforts to better
support the warfighter. Join us as we host dynamic speakers
from industry and defense with backgrounds in logistics and
acquisition, aviation, and land and maritime. No matter if you
are a small business looking to begin a working relationship
with DLA or an established large business that wants to
strengthen the relationship you have already developed,
we look forward to your participation at this event!

April 23 – 24, 2024 | Columbus, OH | NDIA.org/DLA24

N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4 47
NEXT
MONTH
Littoral Combat Ship
• From failed weapons systems to a
doubled price tag, the Navy’s Littoral
Combat Ship program has a long and
troubled history, but service officials
continue to defend the platform.
What are they saying, where is the
program now and what concerns
remain from outside the service?
Augmented Reality
• Army leadership has described the
Microsoft-built Integrated Visual
Augmentation System as one of the
most transformational capabilities for
the future battlefield, but poor per-
formance during testing has slowed
its development. With a new form
Singapore Airshow
• After the previous two editions were
scaled down due to the COVID-19 pan-
demic, the biennial Singapore Airshow
returned in full force this February.
Army Network
• The Army faces vulnerabilities in
military communications and cyber-
security in contested and disrupted
environments. Addressing these
challenges requires leveraging and
protecting a unified data network,
human-machine integration and reli-
ance on industry partnerships.
Project Convergence
• Once every year or two, the
Army and some invited partners
gather to experiment with technolo-
gies that will serve the Pentagon’s
vision for Combined Joint All-
Domain Command and Control.
Middle East Navies
• National Defense travels to the
Middle East’s largest maritime secu-
rity conference as a naval task force
takes on Houthi rebels determined

Defense Dept. photo

factor and upgraded sensors, will the National Defense explores the latest to disrupt regional trade. ND
latest version finally hit the mark? trends in aerospace technology in the
Asia-Pacific, as the region’s geopoliti-
cal significance continues to grow.

INDEX OF ADVERTISERS Interact with the companies whose products and services are advertised in National Defense
ADVERTISER INTERACT PAGE NO.

Abacode ....................................................www.abacode.com/cmmc................................................. Back cover

Arizona State University ......................microelectronics.asu.edu .................................................................. 23
Booz Allen ................................................BoozAllen.com/Defense ....................................................................20
Coalfire Federal ......................................CoalfireFederal.com ............................................... Inside back cover
Darley Defense .......................................darley.com .............................................................................................17
Liberty Source ........................................liberty-source.com ................................................ Inside front cover
National Security Agency .....................nsa.gov/ccc ............................................................................................. 3

For information on advertising in National Defense or one of NDIA’s electronic offerings contact: NDIA MEMBERSHIP:
The National Defense
Industrial Association
ADVERTISING (NDIA) is the premier
association represent-
ing all facets of the
SVP, MEETINGS, DIVISIONS SALES DIRECTOR defense and technology
NDIA’S & PARTNERSHIPS Kathleen Kenney industrial base and
serving all military
BUSINESS & Christine M. Klein (703) 247-2576 services. For more
TECHNOLOGY (703) 247-2593 KKenney@NDIA.org information please
MAGA ZINE CKlein@NDIA.org call our membership
department at 703-
522-1820 or visit us on
the web at NDIA.org/
National Defense | 2101 Wilson Blvd. | Suite 700 | Arlington, VA 22201 | NationalDefenseMagazine.org Membership

48 N AT I O N A L D E F E N S E | M A R C H 2 0 2 4
 Coalfire
CMMC
Coalfire
CMMC
Coalfire Federal
Assessment
Federal
Assessment
Federal CMMC
CMMC
CMMC Services
Readiness
Services
Readiness
Services
CMMCSUCCESS
Assessment
GET CERTIFICATION
GET CERTIFICATION
Readiness
READY
ON THE FIRST READY
ATTEMPT
GET CERTIFICATION
SUCCESS
SUCCESS ON
ON THE
THE FIRST
READY
FIRST ATTEMPT
ATTEMPT

CMMC
CMMC Advisory Services
CMMC Advisory
Advisory Services
Services
INCLUDING:
INCLUDING:
INCLUDING:
CUI Boundary Analysis
CUI Boundary Analysis
CUI Boundary
CMMC Analysis
Gap Analysis
CMMC Gap Analysis
CMMC Gap Analysis
Experienced.
Experienced. Accurate. Remediation Support

Experienced. Accurate.
Remediation Support
Accurate. Remediation Support
LEARN MORE
LEARN MORE
As
As an authorized C3PAO and a Department LEARN MORE
As an
an authorized
authorized C3PAO
C3PAO andand a a Department
Department coalfirefederal.com/cmmc/advisory
coalfirefederal.com/cmmc/advisory
of
of Defense contractor also subject to CMMC coalfirefederal.com/cmmc/advisory
of Defense
Defense contractor
contractor also
also subject
subject to
to CMMC
CMMC
requirements,
requirements, Coalfire Federal is uniquely
requirements, Coalfire
Coalfire Federal
Federal isis uniquely
uniquely
qualified,
qualified, and armed with first-hand experience,
qualified, and
and armed
armed with
with first-hand
first-hand experience,
experience,
to
to help you ensure CMMC certification success
to help
help you
you ensure
ensure CMMC
CMMC certification
certification success
success
on
on the first attempt.
on the
the first
first attempt.
attempt.

Protect
Protect the mission.
Protect the
the mission.
mission.

CoalfireFederal.com
CoalfireFederal.com
CoalfireFederal.com
info@coalfirefederal.com
info@coalfirefederal.com
info@coalfirefederal.com
 SECURE YOUR FUTURE IN
THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
WITH ABACODE

Any company within the defense

supply chain, regardless of
size, must comply with CMMC.
Abacode is a CMMC-AB
Certified Registered Provider
Organization (RPO) that fully
manages the process to get
you CMMC compliant and
keep you there.

Contact us today to discover

how we can get you there in
half the time, at half the cost!

www.abacode.com/cmmc