This effort will include finalizing a vision for what role the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel will play, with the range and payload capacity to do much more than the small drones currently conducting surveillance missions in the Middle East and Latin America, he said during a panel discussion at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space conference

The service is continuing down a path to incorporate unmanned technologies into routine fleet operations. One year into operating a hybrid manned-unmanned fleet, U.S. 4th Fleet is using unmanned surface vessels to map patterns of behavior and common trafficking routes in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said in a keynote speech at the event.

Rear Adm. James Aiken, the 4th Fleet commander, said during a panel discussion that these operations are beneficial.

“We’re putting unmanned vessels in the hands of operators, and so we see what the challenges are, being at sea for six, eight, nine months now with some of the unmanned surface vessels. And it really has challenged us” to reconsider where and how they employ these vessels, he explained.

Smith said during the same panel that learning by using basic unmanned systems — or the “minimum viable product,” as he put it — is important. But at some point, he added, “we need to get beyond surveillance” and begin using these sea drones for more warfare-focused operations.

To that end, he said, the Navy will conduct an analysis of alternatives this year to determine what payloads can equip the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel. He added that this would go beyond surveillance and instead incorporate that information-gathering capability into the detect-identify-track-engage kill chain.

Also speaking at the conference, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti said unmanned systems are not only tools for sailors but also “players on the field.”

Asked by Defense News about the move beyond experiments and into routine operations with this hybrid fleet, Franchetti said she doesn’t want to squash the momentum of experimentation just yet, as sailors are collaborating with industry to find new uses for unmanned systems.

“The most important thing,” she explained” “is to cohere [lessons from experimentation] together into a concept of operations that can apply broadly across our Navy, and I’m really focused on getting to that point. But right now, I really like the fleets having this creative spirit unleashed and being able to get all their ideas out there, so then we can think about how would we elevate that into a concept of operations that we can train to, that we can resource to and that we can continue to use.”

“I’m confident that the future of our Navy is going to be a mix of conventionally manned platforms with unmanned and autonomous platforms all teamed together, so these are all the building blocks that we need to take right now to be able to get there,” she added.

Even though 4th Fleet and 5th Fleet are focused on maritime domain awareness in support of counter-trafficking missions — whereas 7th Fleet focuses on using unmanned systems in support of sea denial and sea control missions — the CNO said there would have to be some sort of common concept of operations across the whole service.

“But you always need to have tailored concepts below it because each theater is different. The geostrategic environment is different. The adversaries are different. The partners are different. And so everything will need to be tailored to that,” Franchetti said. “But I think having a common understanding of the who, what, why we employ unmanned — I think that will be very important for our Navy going forward.”

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — This week, U.S. Navy leadership and some of the world’s largest defense contractors flocked to the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center south of the nation’s capital for the 2024 Sea-Air-Space defense conference.

Hosted by the Navy League, it’s the service’s largest annual trade show. Reporters with C4ISRNET, Defense News, and Military Times were on the ground, reporting on the latest remarks and industry insights.

From an eclipse that yanked attendees to the waterfront to a surprise appearance by Lance Cpl. Chesty XVI, here’s what you may have missed:

• As the Navy, Coast Guard and Maritime Administration press shipbuilders to increase production, the services are also considering other ideas to get ships in the water faster. What that means for the future.
• Creating a new robotics warfare specialist rating signified a critical step in achieving a “truly hybrid” fleet, according to the Navy’s top civilian. Learn more.
• Northrop Grumman said it finished building its prototype of the Manta Ray underwater drone, devised for assignments that demand long hours and extended ranges while minimizing human involvement. Interested?
• The Marine Corps plans to deploy its powerful new heavy-lift helicopter for the first time in 2026 — the year after it previously had anticipated. All the details here.
• The Navy recently wrapped a review of its shipbuilding programs. It found several shortfalls, including schedule slips attributed to a lack of workers and a brittle supply chain. For both issues, 3D printing could be the answer. How so?
• Shield AI in the next year plans to have its Hivemind digital pilot working aboard three additional types of aircraft, bringing the total to nine. Click me!
• A space-focused program spreading hundreds of small satellites in low orbit aims to bring clearer communications and faster data transfer to military units in the field. Why you should care.

The next Sea-Air-Space conference is scheduled for April 2025.

But for one U.S. Navy commander, there’s another more-promising application.

“For unmanned systems, I think electronic warfare- and cyber-related mission areas are the ‘killer app,’ if you will,” Rear Adm. Doug Small said April 10 at the Sea-Air-Space defense conference here. “That is the growth imperative.”

Small is the leader of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, what he calls the service’s “Geek Squad.” He’s also the head of Project Overmatch, which seeks to digitally link sailors, Marines and their vessels over vast distances. Little has been shared about the project since its inception in 2020, with officials attributing the secrecy to Russian and Chinese monitoring.

Outfitting unmanned vehicles or vessels with jammers, spoofers and other gear capable of wreaking electronic havoc is “absolutely critical,” according to Small. EW represents a battle over the electromagnetic spectrum, which militaries for decades have relied upon to communicate, identify friend from foe, and guide weapons to their targets.

“These smaller vehicles, commercial vehicles, have the capability to provide effects,” he said. “And if we architect it correctly, and make sure that, again, we can bring those AI-enabled autonomous behaviors to those vehicles, there are any number of missions that we can accomplish.”

The Navy is investing in unmanned systems — on the water, as well as above and below it — to augment existing and near-future firepower. A service strategy known as the Navigation Plan at one point included an outline of a fleet comprising roughly 373 manned ships and 150 uncrewed vessels.

Defense News previously reported the Navy was realizing its manned-unmanned teams in three phases: experimentation from fiscal 2024 to 2028; deployment in fiscal 2029 through 2033; and full-fledged operations in the years thereafter.

“One of the key things is establishing and expanding this naval operational architecture throughout the Navy, to include unmanned systems. Part of our role is extending that connectivity to these unmanned systems,” Small said. “Our North Star is a hybrid fleet.”

Former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday last year said unmanned vessels with the ability to confuse adversary electronics, spy on distant activities and coordinate the flow of fighting would play an increasingly important role in the service’s mission.

Work to realize such a concept, he said at the time, is underway.

Information warfare becoming a critical submarine capability: Aeschbach

“Think about medium unmanned vessels that have [command-and-control] capabilities, that have [EW] capabilities, that can, perhaps, even have cyber capabilities,” Gilday said. “That kind of work is happening now.”

The defense industry is taking the hint, too. Northrop Grumman plans to participate in two events this year to demonstrate autonomy and EW kits it is developing for unmanned surface vessels under its Project Scion initiative.

The project leans on tech in other domains, such as aerial drones, ground robotics and smart buoys, to quickly produce equipment that can turn platforms into “true combat-and-surveillance systems for our customers,” a Northrop business development manager told C4ISRNET in February.

A tender published by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration earlier this month lists a budget of 49.63 billion won (U.S. $36.56 million) for multipurpose variants of the ground robots.

The vehicles will be purchased domestically, said the notice, via a competitive tender. After contract signature, production of an unspecified quantity will proceed till December 2026.

The bid marks the first major acquisition program for Seoul’s ground troops to procure operational UGVs, Kim Jae Yeop, a senior researcher at the Sungkyun Institute for Global Strategy in Seoul, told Defense News. The vehicles are envisioned to carry out reconnaissance, transportation and lightly armed missions alongside manned ground formations.

According to Kim, there are two leading candidates for the bid: Hyundai Rotem and Hanwha Aerospace. “Both companies are important Korean defense contractors, especially for land systems, and have been proceeding with their own UGV development programs,” he said.

Hyundai Rotem confirmed to Defense News that it will participate in the tender, though it declined to specify what platform it will offer.

As for its credentials, a spokesperson noted that the company “was the sole bidder selected for a rapid demonstration acquisition project after initially proposing it to the Korean Army” in November 2020.

That $3.6 million project, a precursor to today’s procurement effort, involved battery-powered HR-Sherpa-based 6x6 UGVs. “Hyundai Rotem’s UGV is the only vehicle that has been in actual operation for more than two years in various terrains in Korea,” the company spokesperson said.

Hanwha Aerospace also has been active in the UGV field, and the company can point to overseas experience. For example, the U.S. military chose Hanwha’s Arion-SMET 6x6 UGV to participate in a Foreign Comparative Testing program that occurred in Hawaii last December. It was the first Korean UGV ever evaluated for potential adoption by the United States.

The Arion-SMET, its name standing for Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport, weighs 1.8 tons, and its batteries permit a road range of 100km. South Korea’s army tested it in 2021, and it was demonstrated to U.S. Forces Korea the following year.

In separate news, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration approved a two-year pilot project, beginning in the third quarter of this year, for a UGV-based air defense system for the Marine Corps. A prototype is to be ready by the second half of 2026.

Armed with a 40mm weapon, the vehicle is meant to automatically detect, track and destroy intruding drones. The new platform is intended to replace existing manned antiaircraft systems, thus streamlining personnel numbers.

Nearby Japan is also adopting UGVs. According to a Rheinmetall press release issued April 8, the German company will supply three Mission Master SP vehicles. Japan is slated to receive these UGVs equipped with cargo, surveillance and remote weapon station payloads in January 2025.

The defense committees of the upper and lower houses of the Italian parliament were due last week to start evaluating a proposal by the Italian defense ministry to purchase three of the torpedo-shaped BlueWhale drones designed for intelligence gathering, anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.

Equipped with sonars, including towed array sonar, the 5.5 tonne platform also boasts a raisable, satellite-linked turret offering radar and electro-optic capabilities.

The program was listed, without naming Elta, in last year’s Italian defense budget, which priced the purchase at €254 million ($273 million), with payments to be spread between 2023 and 2035, including logistic support, control stations and recovery and deployment systems for ships and submarines.

The Italian parliament’s defense committees generally approve all purchase proposals sent to them by the Italian defense ministry, marking the last formal step before a procurement goes ahead.

But last week, just before the BlueWhale purchase was due to be debated and voted on, the plan was withdrawn by the defense ministry.

Sources knowledgeable of the planned procurement said it was blocked over concerns that the technology could be entirely produced by Italian industry without the need to involve overseas firms.

The decision suggests that plans to partly involve Italian firms in work share on the 10.9 meter long BlueWhale were deemed insufficient.

Italy is raising its profile in sub-sea warfare with a new centre at La Spezia which brings together the Navy, industry and universities to develop systems.

A second reason, the sources said, was the political sensitivity involved in buying Israeli defense products amid the international outcry over Israel’s military operation in Gaza which has led to the deaths of over 33,000 Palestinians.

The Israeli operation followed the Hamas attack on Israel which killed around 1,200.

Italy’s right wing government is solidly pro-Israel, but opposition members of parliament sitting on defense committees hail from parties which have been vocal in criticizing the Israeli operation.

Two sources, who could not be named because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the program, told Defense News the decision to block it was also related to doubts raised by Italian officials over the performance of the platform, with criticism of the acoustic signal emitted by its propellor, its maneuverability and its cost.

A third source however said the BlueWhale’s performance had not been a factor.

“We continue to adopt the identities of our people in uniform to match the changing character of war,” Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space conference. “This year, CNO Franchetti introduced the robotics warfare specialist, or RW rating, into the fleet. RW’s will be the subject matter experts for computer vision, mission autonomy, navigation autonomy, data systems, artificial intelligence and machine learning.”

“The establishment of the robotic rating is a significant milestone in our journey towards achieving a truly hybrid fleet,” he added. “And the state of the world today highlights the importance of building a culture of warfighting excellence through integrated training environments.”

Navy introduces new robotics warfare rating

The Navy unveiled the robotics warfare specialist rating in February, which will involve operating and maintaining active and passive payload systems and sensors.

The Navy described the rating as a “major milestone” for the service, one that has been in the works for more than three years. Establishment of the rating means the Navy is the first branch of the military to create a specific enlisted workforce that oversees unmanned and autonomous technology, according to the service.

Those converting to the new rating will primarily come from those assigned to billets in unmanned vehicle divisions, as well as those with applicable Navy enlisted classification codes, according to the service.

Master Chief Christopher Rambert became the first robotics warfare specialist in February.

Active duty sailors between the ranks of E-4 and E-9 may submit a request to convert. Commands will coordinate with their superior command and enlisted community manager so they can apply.

The Navy-wide robotics warfare advancement exam will launch in September for E-5 and E-6 sailors, while higher ranks will complete the exam and screening board in 2025.

The Virginia-based defense contractor teased a photo of the novel unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, on April 8, coinciding with the first day of the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference in Maryland. The image — darkened along the edges and sporting a sparse backdrop — shows its glider-like body and a rounded nose. Little can be seen of its tail, and its dimensions are unclear.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 2020 kicked off the Manta Ray program with the thought of creating a large underwater drone that can operate independently of manned vessels and ports once underway. DARPA later tapped Northrop and PacMar Technologies to design and build preliminary versions.

“At Northrop Grumman, we’re creating a new type of unmanned underwater vehicle,” Todd Leavitt, a company executive, said in a statement at the time. “Our design can carry large payloads over long distances without the need for maintenance or refueling.”

Northrop harnesses machine learning to aid Space Force missile parsing

The U.S. military is increasingly interested in uncrewed technologies and their battlefield application. The Navy is seeking to establish a so-called hybrid fleet, augmenting sailors and Marines with smart machinery and their specialty equipment. Defense News previously reported the service was maturing its manned-unmanned teams in three phases: prototyping and experimenting from fiscal 2024 to 2028; buying and using in fiscal 2029 through 2033; and becoming fully operational in the years thereafter.

Key considerations for Manta Ray development include communication capabilities, high-efficiency propulsion systems and low-power means of threat detection and classification. Having a drone that can survive on its own for protracted periods of time would reduce logistical demands and free up manpower.

Northrop is the third-largest defense contractor in the world when ranked by defense-related revenue. The company earned $32.4 billion in 2022, according to Defense News Top 100 analysis.

The California-based company has already folded the autonomous flight software into three classes of quadcopters, its own V-Bat drone, the F-16 fighter jet and the Kratos-made MQM-178 Firejet drone.

Up next are two more Kratos products, the XQ-58 and BQM-177, according to Brandon Tseng, the president of Shield AI. The firm has not picked a third candidate.

“We want to put our AI pilot on every aircraft under the sun. The V-Bat is fantastic for what it does, but we also recognize we’re not going to build every single aircraft,” Tseng told C4ISRNET on April 8 at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference. “We’ll work with any original equipment manufacturer who wants to play ball.”

The U.S. Defense Department is increasingly interested in the confluence of artificial intelligence and unmanned technologies. Autonomous drones and machinery with control beamed in from afar can explore places deemed too dangerous for troops, assist with targeting, and introduce additional firepower.

The department in fiscal 2025 sought $1.8 billion for AI — the same amount as the year prior. It also recently launched the Replicator initiative, which seeks to deploy thousands of attritable systems to counter the perceived mass of China.

Hivemind’s ability to integrate with different aircraft is the result of Shield AI’s “software infrastructure, design tools and pipelines,” Tseng said, describing it as the “secret sauce.”

“Google has invested billions of dollars into the Android operating system. Tesla has invested billions of dollars into Tesla’s self-driving, which they’re putting on car to car to car to car,” he added. “We’ve invested a lot into a software ecosystem, where we can quickly put it on aircraft to aircraft to aircraft.”

The envisioned transformation comes after studying the lessons gleaned from Russia’s full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine and Kyiv’s ensuing defensive operations, now in their third year.

“Unmanned systems allow to gain advantage at relatively low costs,” a spokesperson for the National Ministry of Defense told Defense News. “The ministry will intensify the dronization process of the Polish military in specific areas of their use: reconnaissance, combat, and support.”

That means even small formations of soldiers will have access to an arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, the official explained. “Experience with the use of drones across our eastern border [with Ukraine] indicates the validity of their use at the lowest levels of command, so that, for instance, a platoon commander could have reconnaissance UAVs at their disposal, and be able to hit close targets with UAVs or use so-called ‘kamikaze’ drones.”

Observations from the war in Ukraine also have prompted Polish plans to launch a new military component, the Drone Forces, according to Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, the country’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence.

Speaking earlier this year at a session of the National Defence Committee of the Sejm, the parliament’s lower chamber, Kosiniak-Kamysz described the envisioned organization as a “separate component at operational level.” The idea came from Gen. Wiesław Kukuła, the chief of the General Staff, he said.

Amid those plans, buying and fielding new drones is a priority for officials here, with ongoing acquisitions to be accelerated.

The Polish military has acquired various types of UAVs over the past years. These include Bayraktar TB2 drones equipped with anti-tank missiles. Warsaw ordered 24 such drones from Turkish manufacturer Baykar in 2021, and their deliveries began in 2022.

“The last of the four sets [ordered from Baykar] is currently in the process of being transferred to the armed forces,” the defense spokesperson said.

Poland is also negotiating the acquisition of MQ-9B SkyGuardian drones from General Atomics, following a period of leasing the MQ-9A Reaper model. The potential purchase of an undisclosed number of aircraft is poised to make the nation’s armed forces the first military on NATO’s eastern flank to buy the medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) UAV.

Asked by Defense News about the program, the spokesperson would only confirm that “there is a plan to purchase MQ-9B unmanned reconnaissance and strike systems.”

“Looking at the next programs, as part of the Zefir program, we intend to acquire MALE-class unmanned aerial systems,” the spokesperson said, noting that a separate effort is ongoing under the Gryf program to field a shorter-range variant. For the Polish Navy, a separate effort exists to buy rotorcraft drones under the Albatros program.

Polish privately-owned defense company WB Group has supplied two types of drones to the country’s military: FlyEye mini UAVs, which are used for reconnaissance, artillery guidance, search and rescue, but also to extend the range of battle management systems; and Warmate drones, which combine reconnaissance capacities and combat capabilities as loitering munition.

While orders placed with foreign UAV manufacturers and privately-owned Polish drone makers have allowed Poland to gain new capabilities, the troubled UAV contract the previous government awarded to state-owned PGZ in 2018 has become a model example of inefficient procurement, local observers say.

Under the deal, a consortium of state-owned defense companies was to deliver 30 short-range reconnaissance Orlik drones for about 790 million zloty ($200 million). Since then, numerous annexes were added to the contract to extend the delivery schedule.

Kosiniak-Kamysz said that he expects PGZ to immediately come through with the work. “The military has lost patience in this matter,” he said. “In 2021, those drones were to be delivered, and they have not been delivered to date,” he said said April 5.

The coming months will demonstrate how PGZ’s new management intends to tackle the problematic drone contract. Last month, Krzysztof Trofiniak was named as the company’s new chief executive. A seasoned defense industry manager, Trofiniak’s track record includes serving as the president of local defense company Huta Stalowa Wola and as vice president of PGZ. His return to the defense giant was facilitated by the October 2023 election in which a new coalition government was sworn in, ousting the right-wing Law and Justice party from power after eight years of rule.

U.S.-based Saildrone and Thales Australia, a division of France-based Thales Group, on April 8 said they would outfit the former’s Surveyor unmanned surface vessels with the latter’s BlueSentry towed arrays capable of detecting and classifying crafts on or below the waves.

The announcement coincided with the start of the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference here.

The Department of Defense has long sought an unmanned or autonomous ability to surveil stealthy submersibles; DARPA, for example, more than a decade ago launched the Anti-Submarine Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel effort. Navy leadership has since advocated for a hybrid fleet, with sailors and Marines augmented by smart machines and the equipment they carry.

Defense News last year reported the Navy pictured its manned-unmanned fleet maturing in three phases: prototyping and experimenting from fiscal 2024 to 2028; buying and using in fiscal 2029 through 2033; and becoming fully operational in the years thereafter.

Epirus directed energy to face off against vessels in US Navy testing

Troy Stephen, vice president of underwater systems at Thales Australia and New Zealand, in a statement said the Surveyor “offers a unique capability within the field of USVs,” adding that his team looks forward to contributing to its “impressive maritime domain awareness” capabilities. Maritime domain awareness provides a deep understanding of the potential repercussions of what’s happening on, below or near the water.

“Thales Australia has a proud history of exporting specialized sonar and acoustic products in support of one of our closest allies, the United States,” Stephen said. “Over two decades, these products have spanned the fields of seismic survey to mine warfare and, more recently, surface ship anti-submarine warfare.”

A Surveyor USV weighs 15 tons and stretches 65 feet. It sports an aluminum hull and keel manufactured by Austal USA.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Christopher Mahoney viewed Surveyor construction last month during shipbuilding tours along the Gulf Coast.

“Using unmanned assets helps put more players on the field by freeing up manned assets for more specific and important tasks,” Franchetti said in a statement at the time. “It’s good to see high tech industry partnering with the traditional shipbuilding industrial base to rapidly deliver cutting-edge products at scale.”

The fallback tactics towards mobile, low-cost defenses come as sophisticated interceptor missiles donated by Western allies are running low.

Last month alone, Moscow fired more than 3,000 guided aerial bombs, 600 drones and 400 missiles at Ukraine, according to remarks made by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The Kremlin has used Iranian Shahed-type exploding drones, which Russia now reportedly also produces domestically, to carry out attacks against Ukrainian population centers. The threat posed by these weapons are the primary focus of the new class of nimble counter-drone setups that can be moved where they are most needed.

How Ukraine’s defense companies have adapted to two years of war

“Mobile air defense in Ukraine is probably responsible for over 40% intercepts of these systems [Shahed-type drones],” Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment think tank who frequently travels to Ukraine for research, told Defense News. “This is partly due to the deficit of munitions for valuable interceptive systems like Patriots, IRIS-T, amongst others,” he said.

The cheaper option, he explained, consists of “heavy machine guns, with thermal scopes and tablets, paired on a gun mount.”

Kofman said that the tactics of using firearms to shoot down Russian drones are part of an intricate web of detection systems scattered around the country.

“This system works because the gun crew is part of an elaborate sensor network set up around Ukrainian cities; there is an integrated system for tracking incoming drones, including radar and acoustics, and a robust network of electronic warfare systems,” Kofman said.

“That forces Shahed drones to increase in altitude from their standard low-altitude flight in order to navigate,” he added.

Another cheap sensor network Ukrainians have established to track Russian aerial threats consists thousands of cell phones placed next to microphones atop six-foot poles throughout the country, forwarding incoming engine noise to anti-aircraft artillery units for processing.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, the commander of U.S. Air Forces Europe, Gen. James Hecker, praised the technique’s success rate.

“They had 84 of them that came in the other day – they detected 84 and shot down 80 with the anti-aircraft artillery units,” Hecker said.

At a NATO meeting of foreign affairs ministers, held this week in Brussels, Ukraine’s top diplomat Dmytro Kuleba called for allies to provide more air defense weapons.

“Partners did provide us with different systems, we appreciated that, but it’s just simply insufficient, given the scale of the war,” Kuleba was quoted as saying by Reuters.

The company announced the deal April 3 without providing details about contract length. A spokesperson declined to say how much the agreement is worth.

Robotic combat vehicles are unmanned systems envisioned to work alongside soldiers, schlepping supplies or surveilling adversaries with sophisticated sensors. The RCVs are also part of a larger Army overhaul dubbed Next Generation Combat Vehicle, which includes the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle, formerly the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle.

Anduril’s digital effort will enable RCV variants to navigate terrain, swap and adopt government-owned and third-party autonomy stacks, and allow remote management of a vehicle’s equipment, according to its announcement.

“Integrating disparate hardware and software is a critical step in the development and validation of any autonomous system,” Zach Mears, an Anduril senior vice president, said in a statement.

Anduril attack drone deemed ‘accurate and effective’ in Dugway trials

The Army in September tapped General Dynamics Land Systems, McQ, Oshkosh Defense and Textron Systems to build RCV prototypes, marking the start of a competition. The service later said it would no longer seek separate light, medium and heavy models, instead pivoting to a single sized platform that could tote specialty equipment such as smokescreen dispensers and electronic warfare tools.

“As the Army evaluates potential payloads, software modules, and autonomy stacks for the RCV program, developing a robust and flexible integration framework will prove critical to the program’s success,” Mears said.

The RCV endeavor is one of growing importance, as Army leadership pushes man-and-machine collaboration.

The service’s fiscal 2025 budget request included millions of dollars for human-machine integrated formations, or H-MIF. Robots and other machinery programmed to execute a machine, or with control beamed in from afar, could significantly reduce risk to humans, potentially reducing casualties.

That reinvention should include thinking smaller and embracing small drones. Other services employ airpower in support of land and sea operations, but it is only the Air Force that is charged with gaining air control as its primary focus. If the service is to accomplish this mission, it will need to operate in the air littoral — the airspace from the Earth’s surface to about 15,000 feet, below the level where high-end fighters and bombers typically operate. Airpower has always had innate strengths — unmatched in its maneuverability, speed, and range. But it has also always faced limitations: air forces, unlike armies, cannot live in their primary domain, and the aircraft they fly are expensive, limiting the size of the fleet even for the wealthiest of nations. As a result, the occupation of the airspace could occur for a time, but it was ultimately ephemeral. Once friendly aircraft left the airspace, any surviving adversary aircraft could return to access and exploit it.

Today, continuing technological advancement and falling costs have opened new possibilities for occupying the air domain. Air forces can now operate large numbers of small, relatively cheap drones in the air littoral. A single system cannot persist indefinitely in this airspace, but large numbers of them can achieve persistence indirectly, by continually rotating in and out of the air littoral. To date, however, the Air Force has focused mainly on countering the small drone threat to its air bases, both at home and overseas. But this approach misses the broader point: the air littoral is becoming increasingly central to air warfare, and if the Air Force fails to prepare for this future, other services may fill the gap, but they lack what General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold called “airmindedness” — the specialist expertise and distinct perspective of airmen — to employ it to maximum effect.

Take the contest to control the air littoral in East Asia: China recognizes that air superiority is essential to a successful amphibious invasion. Saturating the air littoral over landing beaches and nearby waters with continuous waves of small sensing, decoy, and weaponized drones would deny China control of the air littoral and create numerous hard-to-solve and time-consuming dilemmas for the People’s Liberation Army. Drones cycled fast enough into the airspace could overwhelm China’s targeting process and in turn inflict significant losses on its invasion forces. Chinese commanders would have to decide how much “clearance” is needed in the air, and for how long, and risk depleting their anti-air missiles in the process. It would also put them on the losing end of the cost curve, as destroying enough of these cheap drones will only grow harder and costlier still as rotational persistence continues to increase in the air littoral.

As Gen. Allvin warns, the U.S. Air Force is not currently structured or equipped to make the air littoral a combat domain, but it should move quickly to close this gap. Both the Ukrainian and Russian military have established specialized drone units, with the Ukrainians even recently unveiling plans to create a separate drone service. Yet the entire Joint Force — including the United States Air Force — is still operating without small-drone units. The US Air Force ought to fill this gap and can bring an air-minded perspective to operating in the air littoral.

To start, the U.S. Air Force should create and incorporate low-end, close-in air occupation elements and capability in its restructuring for great power competition. In designing the Air Force for both deterrence and, if deterrence fails, defense against revisionist powers, the service should simultaneously embrace the concept of air denial, despite the historic cult of the offensive, and the small-drone revolution.

With no significant history of either at-scale, small-drone operations or air-denial tactics, the next critical step will be to cultivate innovation and creative new ideas and tactics. This will likely not come from today’s legacy pilot force — instead, the Air Force needs a fresh dose of airminded thinking from “digitally native” airmen, who are intuitively much more capable than senior pilots of understanding the non-linear, and one-to-many interactions of humans and machines. Development of that airmindedness, then, is the critical foundation, and one which should be laid from the ground up. From basic training onward, airmen should be as familiar with small drones as Marines are with their rifles.

Gen. Allvin is fond of quoting Maj. Gen. Hugh J. Knerr, one of the pioneers of American airpower: “Do not get trapped in paradigms of the past,” Allvin recently reminded his service. “Whatever it is, we need to understand this is a unique capability, unique opportunity for us to understand how to best employ, deploy, and integrate this into the invention of the Air Force,” he added. The US Air Force should take that spirit of invention to the air littoral.

Col. Maximilian K. Bremer, U.S. Air Force, is the director of the Special Programs Division at Air Mobility Command.

Kelly Grieco is a senior fellow with the Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, an adjunct professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University, and a nonresident fellow at the Brute Krulak Center of the Marine Corps University.

This commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Defense Department, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps, or Marine Corps University.

Service officials have stressed the importance of building a new watercraft fleet to contend with operations in contested areas. Years ago, the Army shifted its priority away from the capability as it focused on operations in the Middle East. Now, with the service concentrating on deterring China as well as forging allies and partnerships in the region, the need for watercraft is high on the Army’s list of requirements.

The Contested Logistics Cross-Functional Team has “taken a fresh look at contested logistics in terms of watercraft,” Gen. James Rainey said March 26 at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium. He declined to provide all details about the service’s potential future fleet, as he is awaiting final approval from the Army chief of staff.

“You will see a bunch of new innovative approaches. Think contracting, think leveraging. There are joint teammates that had some successful programs going on and a lot of autonomous and robotics efforts,” Rainey said.

The Army experimented with watercraft along with its joint partners in the Navy and the Marine Corps at Project Convergence in February and March. Project Convergence is a campaign of experimentation for the Army to figure out how it might fight across domains in complex environments, using what it is developing for a modernized force.

“The Army’s got its own enormous fleet of watercraft,” Col. Zachary Miller, who leads Joint Modernization Command, told Defense News in a recent interview. But he added that Project Convergence left Army leadership “recognizing that we can probably jump on each other’s requirements,” noting the Navy and the Marine Corps know watercraft best.

For example, the Marine Corps brought its autonomous low-profile vessel to Project Convergence. The prototype, for instance, carries two Naval Strike Missiles into about 4 feet of water. Marines would then pull the missiles onto the beach and to the nearest missile battery in need of resupply.

The service is also looking at other countries’ watercraft capabilities, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George told Defense News in an interview this month. The Army has observed and worked with Australia, for instance, on what it is doing with watercraft in contested environments.

The service is pursuing a new watercraft that will cost more than double the original price tag to build, the service’s acquisition chief told Defense News last fall, but is still important to pursue.

The unit cost, after the most recent contract negotiations with the Maneuver Support Vessel (Light)’s builder Vigor Industrial, increased from $27.8 million to $63.1 million, a spokesperson for the acquisition chief confirmed.

The Army has not embarked on a new watercraft program since the mid-1990s, “so it’s a pivotal time,” Brig. Gen. Luke Peterson, program executive officer for combat support and combat service support, told Defense News in an interview last fall.

The service hit an important milestone on Oct. 10, 2022, when it put its first new prototype of the Maneuver Support Vessel (Light) into the water in Portland, Oregon. The vessel was supposed to participate in Project Convergence, but on its way to Camp Pendleton, California, it experienced a malfunction.

The Army’s Contested Logistics CFT was formed a year ago and has since zeroed in on developing watercraft, power-generation capabilities, and a more effective command-and-control network — capabilities meant to ease the movement of equipment, weapons and people. The team has prioritized capabilities that are needed to operate in the Indo-Pacific region.

The team, based in Huntsville, also achieved full operational capability in October 2023.

The service signed off on an abbreviated capabilities document for predictive logistics last month, Rainey noted. And the team has made progress on better batteries and reducing energy demand in the field, he added.

What was once simple collaboration between two governments has in the past year blossomed into a “nascent military partnership,” according to a U.S. Central Command assessment submitted this month to Congress. The command was the keystone of the U.S. war on terror; its remit includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Yemen.

Tehran has provided Moscow’s war machine at least 1,000 attack drones and dozens of multipurpose unmanned aerial systems for use against Ukrainian troops, with future plans to aid domestic production, said CENTCOM boss Gen. Michael Kurilla. Those figures are up dramatically from just months ago.

“The relationship between Iran and Russia? That really started when they asked for them to provide the one-way attack UAS, specifically the Shahed-136,” Kurilla told the House Armed Services Committee on March 21. “They started providing complete systems, and they built an actual factory in Russia, and those same Shahed-136 — a very capable system — are now going at a rate of over 100 a week from Russia into Ukraine.”

Footage of Russian production lines was shared online earlier this year. On display were rows of black and grey Shahed clones: airframes with triangular bodies, rounded spines, stubby nose cones and vertical stabilizers extending above and below the wings.

Militaries and militant groups are increasingly using drones and other unmanned technologies to collect intelligence and strike from greater distances. Their battlefield applicability is highlighted by the Russia-Ukraine war as well as Houthi harassment in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

Iran is implicated in both aggressions, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency, a principal source of foreign intel for combat operations. Russian troops and Houthi rebels alike have adopted the Shahed, known among the respective forces as the Geran or Waid, agency analysis shows. The model offers users an explosive payload with more than 1,000 miles of range, all at relatively low cost.

US sees ‘footprints’ of Iran-backed group in Tower 22 drone attack

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat, said one of the “most obvious manifestations” of Iran’s belligerence is “the fact that they’ve now become a major weapons supplier” to foreign governments.

“One of the reasons why Ukraine is in such desperate straits right now is because of the torrent of drones that, again, is being used by Russian forces to weaken the front line,” Courtney said.

Tehran has long supported a constellation of extremist groups in its neighborhood, and the U.S. has repeatedly sanctioned individuals and organizations for their alleged weapons work.

The Treasury Department in December said it targeted 10 entities and four individuals for facilitating Iran’s procurement of U.S.-origin electronics for use in unmanned systems. Two months later, the department said it hit four front companies that supplied “materials and sensitive technology for Iran’s ballistic missile and UAV programs,” including the Shahed series.

“We all know Iran has been a patron of terrorist militia and a main source of instability in the region for over 40 years,” U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, an Alabama Republican, said. “But over the last few years, it seems the ayatollah has become even more emboldened.”

With cancellation of the Army’s manned Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, the service has more funding to pursue launched effects, a major unmanned element of a modernized aerial tier that will be able to deliver capabilities such as targeting, reconnaissance, surveillance, network extension and lethality in a complex environment.

The Army has added resources that are enabling the Future Vertical Lift cross-functional team and Program Executive Office Aviation to integrate additional payloads on its unmanned aircraft and launched effects and shift some scheduling for acquiring capability — like a long-range launched effect platform — more quickly, program executive officer Army aviation, Brig. Gen David Phillips, said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium.

A year ago, the strategy was still murky. The Army was considering several size classes for launched effects and was prototyping the first version of a small capability. This version was meant to help the service decide how to procure and employ these systems on the battlefield.

The medium-range launched effects prototype is the result of a contributions from five companies that teamed up.

In 2020, the service selected 10 companies to provide mature launched effects technologies. From those, the Army then chose five companies in early 2023 to come together to build a prototype with each bringing a different element to the system.

Anduril Industries is providing the air vehicle. The company purchased Area-I, the original developer of the Altius 700 vehicle, in 2021. The Altius 700 has been in use by the Army to evaluate launched effects for over five years. Collins Aerospace, a Raytheon Technologies company, is the mission system provider, and Aurora Flight Sciences is the system integrator. Technology Service Corp. and Northrop Grumman Information Systems are providing modular payloads.

The Army still plans to wrap up evaluation of the prototypes in September and will then weigh a number of options, from rapid fielding to low-rate initial production to more prototyping, according to the Army’ project manager for uncrewed aircraft systems, COL Danielle Medaglia.

But the Army is also working on a short-range LE and a long-range version.

During recent experimentation and demonstration, the Army validated that even flying about 30 to 45 knots, it was still able to “successfully see launched effects as being a major contributor as a sensor on the battlefield,” said Brig. Gen. Cain Baker, who leads the Army’s aviation modernization efforts.

The service held an industry day in February for launched effects with a large turnout.

The Army will hold an operational demonstration at the end of fiscal 2024 of its medium-range LE prototype followed by more integration efforts on the platform to get after a fielding decision, Medaglia said.

The service released a request for proposals last week for short-range LE. It plans to begin the prototyping process for that effort in earnest in early FY25 and will continue through FY29. The Army will begin short-range LE production beginning in late FY26.

The plan is to select at least two vendors to provide short-range effects, Medaglia said, because the industry is saturated in capabilities in the category.

And while just a few short weeks ago the Army had yet to secure funding for long-range LE, money now exists to move on the effort, Medaglia said. The long-range version is considered more of a Corps level asset and prototyping will begin to develop the capability at the tail end of FY25 with production beginning at the start of FY27.

“That is fast,” she said, but the effort is underpinned by an open architecture approach. “We’re not compromising on that open system approach because of the capabilities that we need; we don’t know what we might need in FY28. We might get a non-traditional threat.”

The launched effects will also all be controlled by the same controller and that will be the same as is used for other UAS and for ground robots too, she added.

UAS is “a wide open space, we will not be vendor locked, whether it’s the air vehicle, whether its payload, whether it’s mission system,” Medaglia said.

The Army plans to focus heavily at its aviation demonstration event EDGE in the fall on its launched effects capabilities. Some LEs will focus on countering aviation threats, others on maneuver threats and others on intel threats.

“We want you to show up with your payloads, your devices, your software and then we’ll give you the mission task and say, ‘Hey, let’s see what you can do against these high-end threats to really get a sense of where we are inside the industry on capability,” Baker said.

The drone, an Anduril Industries’ Ghost-X, paused and then rose higher, disappearing into the clouds. Another followed.

Seemingly small and unthreatening, the drones were serving as the eyes of an infantry company concealed by the surrounding mountains and readying to reclaim a village held by the enemy.

And those drones were not alone.

All at once, an overwhelming group of air- and ground-based machine fighters burst onto the scene. An “octocopter” lumbered through the sky with precision munitions and other robots attached to its belly, dropping three 60mm mortar rounds on a roof and other small, hand-held, cylindrical “throwbots” on the ground.

Robotic combat vehicles rolled into view, armed with .50-caliber and M240 machine guns, firing on enemy positions and providing cover for troops maneuvering into the village.

Meanwhile, a four-legged dog robot stepped out from a thick cloud of smoke, giving the soldiers monitoring from afar another view.

The scene was the culmination of a U.S. Army effort to understand how it can use humans and machines together on the battlefield. Service leaders descended on Fort Irwin, California — home to the National Training Center — in March for a large exercise known as Project Convergence.

The demonstration was a glimpse of the Army’s future, according to top officials. Gen. James Rainey, who leads Army Futures Command, expects the service’s future force to be so integrated with machines that humans will face a much lower risk.

“We will never again trade blood for first contact,” he frequently says, promising to deploy robots instead.

But getting these formations right won’t be easy, leaders acknowledge. For human-machine integration to work, a functional and user-friendly network must underpin it, it requires protection from cyberattacks, and the systems must have the right amount of autonomy.

Leaders also say it’s not technology that will prove the most difficult factor, but rather breaking from antiquated acquisition processes that prevent rapid purchases and slow down deliveries to soldiers.

“The pace of the threat and the pace of technology — the evolution is much faster, and there’s no way that we’re going to succeed if we continue to acquire technology or even choose to develop” it at the usual pace, Joseph Welch, the Army’s C5ISR Center director, said at the March event.

Forward progress

The Project Convergence exercise followed months of effort focused on integrating humans and machines into service formations. It was a chance to see what works and what doesn’t as the Army prepares for a fight against adversaries with advanced capabilities.

The service insists it’s now ready to move forward with human-machine integrated formations.

The fiscal 2025 budget request marks the first time the Army has included funding for these formations, also called H-MIF. It’s seeking $33 million for the first step, which provides an initial human-machine integration capability to infantry and armor formations. The Army was experimenting with both at Project Convergence.

The service wants machines in these new formations to “offload risk” and provide soldiers with “additional information for decision making,” according to the service’s budget documents.

The Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office is spearheading the effort for Futures Command. The office is creating prototypes using existing air and ground robotic programs and payloads while incorporating common architecture, communications and network capabilities.

The FY25 funding, the Army has said, will fund the movement of concepts through prototyping as well as enable soldiers to evaluate them in exercises and experiments.

At the Project Convergence event, the Army flooded the battlefield with robots, sensors and other machines meant to help soldiers in complex flights. The experiment included air and ground robots with reconfigurable payloads, tethered drones, counter-drone systems, and a ventriloquist decoy emitter that emulates radio frequency traffic to confuse the enemy.

The service used more than 240 pieces of technology, including capabilities from allied militaries in the U.K., Canada, Australia, France and Japan.

The pressure to transform

The decision to rely more on robots isn’t a choice, according to Alexander Miller, who is now serving as chief technology officer to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George.

George and Miller both watched the experiment in March; Miller carried a cellphone with an app demonstrating the Army’s new Tactical Assault Kit. The app superimposes the location of soldiers and robots as well as enemy positions in real time.

The service knows it has to do this, or “we will fall radically behind,” Miller said of human-machine integration. “There are bad people who are willing to use robotics, and if we don’t figure it out we will be behind the curve, we will put men and women in harm’s way.”

Integrating robots into formations is also accelerating because “there has been a cultural shift,” Miller said. “It’s been 12-18 months where we have stopped treating robots as a one-for-one augmentation for soldiers and started saying: ‘What are the dull, dirty, dangerous, disruptive things that robots can really do that are not just combat power? How do we augment them without taking a single rifleman off or multiple riflemen off the line to control a robot?’ ”

At the March experiment, for instance, the Army sent a ground robot with a mine-clearing line charge to deploy along enemy lines. As it fights the Russian invasion, the Ukrainian military is using these to disarm enemy minefields and trenches, but transporting them in crewed vehicles.

At the experiment, the robot shot the line charge out of a small launcher. The line didn’t explode as intended.

Army leaders said glitches are common and making this work would provide a much safer way for soldiers to clear mine fields.

Also enabling new models for human-machine integration is the progress of commercial technology, according to Welch. “That has accelerated tremendously across many different technical domains,” he said.

Artificial intelligence is getting smarter; sensors are getting smaller, lighter and more versatile; connectivity solutions are more abundant; and air-, ground- and space-based capabilities are easier to use.

Obstacles ahead

Army leaders acknowledge there is plenty of work ahead to integrate robots and soldiers on the battlefield. The experiment itself illustrated “just how complicated it’s going to be ... where we really proliferate lower-cost, cheaper options and we clutter the environment intentionally,” Miller said.

At one point during Project Convergence, the Army jammed itself, causing a friendly drone swarm to fall out of the sky. The service fixed the problem by turning on a capability allowing smart routing management for its Wi-Fi, Miller said.

Beyond technical challenges, George said, the Army must convince Congress to alter the procurement process so the service can acquire or adapt capabilities within broader funding lines. The goal, he explained, is to be more responsive to what is working for soldiers and to be able to rapidly buy small amounts of that equipment.

He said he’s working with Congress “so that we can move money a little bit.”

“We want and need the oversight, [but] it’s a matter of how we go back to them and tell them, ‘Here’s what we’re going to buy inside that funding line, and here’s how we’re doing it,’ and get feedback,” George added.

Indeed, one focus is on marking sure the Army can change systems without needing reprogramming authorization or new funding.

The technical and operational ways the Army is going to employ human-machine integrated formations today “doesn’t mean that’s how we’re going to employ it two years from now,” said Mark Kitz, the service’s program executive officer for command, control, communications-tactical.

“We don’t historically treat robotics as a software program. It’s really a software program,” Kitz explained. “So how do we use some of our unique acquisition authorities then to build that flexibility upfront?”

Miller said another potential obstacle is ensuring sufficient U.S. production of components.

“We have to have components that are approved and valid and we aren’t scared to employ because they were made by an adversary,” he said. Welch noted the Army is working with U.S. government labs to address some of the component concerns.

The service is also working internally to revamp its approach to finding capabilities.

“There’s a much tighter coupling ... not only externally with our industry partners and other key stakeholders, whether it be over on [Capitol] Hill or up in [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], but also internally,” said Lt. Gen. John Morrison, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of command, control, communications, cyber operations and networks. “We’ve got requirements with acquisition, with testers, and they’re all centered around soldiers, getting that direct feedback.”

Benjamin Jensen, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank where he focuses on wargaming, said he’s “optimistic” about human-machine integration but that it may take longer than the service expects.

“Most people overestimate the speed at which you can develop new concepts of employment around even proven engineering,” he said. “It often takes years outside of a major war to build entirely new formations and structures.”

On March 15, the European Commission, responsible for promoting cooperation and facilitating the integration of defense capabilities between EU member-states, published its 2024 call for proposals.

Among the 30 different project requests outlined in the document, one stands out as having the largest budget up for grabs: the development of a fully European medium-altitude, long-endurance, remotely piloted aircraft system.

The request, for which 100 million euros ($108 million) is allocated, pertains specifically to the ongoing Eurodrone program, according to a Commission representative.

“The Commission is not planning to support the development of another European MALE drone – the call for proposals in the EDF annual Work Programme 2024 aims at developing additional capabilities for the actual Eurodrone, expected to fly before the end of this decade,” a Commission spokesperson told Defense News.

Europeans are building a war economy. Can they master it?

According to the document, the primary objective behind having a European-made MALE RPAS is to move away from foreign suppliers when it comes to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.

“Today, most of the ISR capabilities of member states rely on non-EU manufacturers in order to carry out their missions … the development of a fully European MALE RPAS is key to reduce dependency on non-EU solutions,” the document said.

The Eurodrone program, which began in 2015, received $107 million in funding from the EU-run European Defense Industrial Development Program in 2021.

The effort involves four governments – Italy, Spain, Germany and France – as well as three contractors, Leonardo, Dassault Aviation, and Airbus Defence and Space.

According to a recent report released by the German Ministry of Defense, the Eurodrone program experienced some setbacks in 2023 that may delay key deliverables

A preliminary design review, one such milestone, was initially slated to be carried out last September, but is still being reviewed due to coordination issues between Airbus and Dassault, the document said. The delay may affect the subsequent critical design review of the platform that was planned for September 2024, a necessary step before companies can start building the first drone.

It remains to be seen if the first flight of the European MALE drone will take place as scheduled in January 2027.

The Army earlier this year sent several laser weapons mounted to Stryker combat vehicles to the Middle East. It was unclear at the time exactly where the prototypes were stationed, but the move was in advancement of the service’s short-range air defense goals.

Gen. Michael Kurilla, the CENTCOM boss, on March 21 told Congress he has “three 50-kilowatt lasers that are Stryker-based” inside Iraq “right now.” Experiments are underway, he added, to identify their best application. He did not disclose preliminary results. A request made to the command for additional information was not immediately answered.

High-energy lasers and related high-power microwave weapons are capable of downing incoming threats in unorthodox ways and at a fraction of the cost of traditional munitions. Lasers can fire at the speed of light and burn holes through material, but are susceptible to weather conditions and particles in the air, such as sand. Microwaves can fry electronics en masse, but their efficacy is stunted at greater distances.

US sees ‘footprints’ of Iran-backed group in Tower 22 drone attack

Both are considered critical elements of layered defense, or having multiple countermeasures ready to thwart different threats in different situations.

“Directed energy is not the panacea,” Kurilla said at the House Armed Services Committee hearing. “What I tell all the services: Give me systems, we will experiment with them, and we will tell you if it works in a real, live environment.”

The Army is increasingly concerned with overhead threats, including unmanned aerial vehicles that can spy on troops, augment targeting and deliver explosives. A drone attack in late January killed three Americans at Tower 22 in Jordan, near the Syrian border.

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, urged Kurilla during the committee hearing to take advantage of directed energy wherever he can. At least 31 directed-energy initiatives are underway across the military, according to a National Defense Industrial Association study.

“I know it’s not perfected yet, but it has great capabilities against drones and things like that currently,” Lamborn said. “I’d hate to see a repeat of Tower 22, for instance.”

Three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) were inaugurated in a ceremony at Maafaru International Airport in Noonu Atoll on March 15, according to the office of President Mohamed Muizzu. That same evening, one of the drones conducted a maiden patrol from the base.

The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) did not respond to a Defense News inquiry as to how many TB2s have been purchased, but the figure could be six, according to Turkish media.

Turkey delivered the Bayraktar TB2s to the Maldives on Mar. 3 in a transaction valued at $37 million.

The first Maldivian drone operators commenced training in Turkey in January, and a second batch is due home soon.

Are the once-vaunted Bayraktar drones losing their shine in Ukraine?

Defence Minister Ghassan Maumoon referred to the TB2′s potential for strike missions, saying: “It’s a sophisticated technology platform used by developed countries worldwide. At the same time, it’s a weapon with firepower that can take defensive maneuvers to defend the country’s sovereignty, while focusing on surveillance and search and rescue.”

Lt. Gen. Abdul Raheem Abdul Latheef, Chief of Defence Force, said the creation of an Air Corps amounted to a “historic day,” outlining the force’s envisioned role in defending the country as well as helping fishermen and marine vessels in distress.

Muizzu acknowledged the Turkish government’s pivotal role in the deal. After his election in September 2023, Muizzu’s first official visit was to Turkey last November, where he toured several defense companies. Muizzu also noted that Turkey is providing the MNDF with other unspecified military equipment free of charge.

The Bayraktar TB2 is now used by 33 nations, and the global fleet achieved a cumulative 750,000 flight hours last December. Manufacturer Baykar declared exports worth a record $1.76 billion in 2023.

Muizzu also announced efforts to strengthen Maldivian military capabilities, including doubling the Coast Guard’s capacity. He revealed an initiative to recondition older equipment, expand the Air Corps fleet, and enhance land platforms.

The Maldives lie 230 nautical miles southwest of the Indian peninsula, and it possesses a 974,000km² exclusive economic zone. Five major international shipping lanes traverse its territory.

Muizzu’s “India out” election platform promised to remove Indian military personnel stationed in the Maldives. Around 80 uniformed Indians support a Dornier 228 maritime patrol aircraft and two Dhruv helicopters donated by India, and all will depart by May.

Delhi fears losing influence in the Maldives, even as Muizzu’s pro-China government signed an agreement on Mar. 4 where Beijing promised unspecified “gratis military assistance.”

Notably, in an attempt to strengthen its Indian Ocean presence, India opened a new naval base in Minicoy, within the Lakshadweep archipelago north of the Maldives, on earlier this month. India’s Lakshadweep islands lie about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of the Maldives.

“The base will enhance operational reach and facilitate the Indian Navy’s operational effort towards anti-piracy and anti-narcotics operations in Western Arabian Sea. It will also augment Indian Navy’s capability as the first responder in the region and augment connectivity with the mainland,” an Indian Navy statement said.

The service said the base was part of a policy to “incrementally augment security infrastructure at the strategically important” islands.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Congress just released the final text of its long-delayed fiscal year 2024 Pentagon spending bill. In it, the Replicator program would get $200 million.

The number is less than half of the $500 million Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks predicted earlier this month for her trademark program, which is focused on countering China. But it would square with the amount requested in a reprogramming package sent to Congress in early February. That request, in which the Pentagon asks lawmakers to allow it to move money around for new priorities, was reportedly $300 million.

This would be a two-track funding approach, somewhat in line with Hicks’ comments at an event hosted by the Ronald Reagan Institute this Wednesday. Hicks framed appropriations and reprogramming as two paths, but only “alternative” ones and not intended to work together.

“We need one of those two pathways to move forward,” she said, noting further funding for Replicator — $500 million — is already written into the Pentagon’s FY25 budget request.

At the same event, Army acquisition chief Doug Bush said that the first systems bought in Replicator mainly come from his service. Multiple outlets reported earlier this year that the AeroVironment Switchblade 600 is among those.

Some in Congress are still frustrated at the lack of transparency from the Pentagon on the initiative. One Senate aide, speaking to Defense News on the condition of anonymity, said that Pentagon officials briefed on Replicator earlier this month, mentioning specific systems for the first time.

“That’ll have to get better over the next six to eight months,” the aide said. “We need to get more into the details.”

The new bill addresses this shortage. It would require Hicks to brief lawmakers within 60 days of its passage. That briefing would need information on how much funding Replicator will require through the rest of the decade, how its systems will be sustained and how the Pentagon plans to use them.

In addition, the bill mandates a report within 90 days that would show how the Pentagon is leaning on commercial-style technology, examples of Replicator-type systems from each service and instances when such systems have become programs of record. This report will be unclassified but contain a classified portion.

The budget introduced this week arrives halfway through the fiscal year. If passed, the Pentagon will have just six months to spend it, potentially risking some money not being obligated after the crash effort.

“It’s a show me culture,” Hicks said of Pentagon innovation. “Show me you’ll put your reputation on the line to make change happen, and then maybe it’ll make change happen.”

This story has been updated with further details from the legislation and comments from a Congressional aide.

Doug Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, told an audience at the Ronald Reagan Institute’s National Security Innovation Base Summit in Washington that the Pentagon selected a system the service proposed for the initial tranche of Replicator — an effort to field thousands of drones and other autonomous systems over a two-year period.

“We’re the biggest participant in terms of what’s actually going to come out of round one in terms of quantity,” he said March 20.

The Pentagon hasn’t revealed which systems it has selected for Replicator and Bush refused to discuss details about the Army effort he referenced. DefenseScoop reported in February that the service proposed AeroVironment’s Switchblade 600 for the effort.

Air Force Vice Chief Gen. James Slife, who spoke on a panel with Bush, said the service has ideas for future Replicator proposal rounds, but those efforts weren’t ready for the first tranche.

“The Air Force has got several compelling programs in the pipeline that could be considered,” he said. “They’re not quite as technologically mature as some of the army programs that are going to be in round one.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks unveiled Replicator last August, and the department has since requested $1 billion from Congress to execute the program fiscal 2024 and 2025. While the initial focus is on autonomy, the effort’s broader goal is for Replicator to become a repeatable process the Pentagon can use to push a range of capabilities to military users.

To do this, the department is funneling money toward existing programs to either help them move faster or ramp up production quantities and is selecting new efforts proposed by the military services.

A March 19 report from the Reagan Institute praised the department’s pursuit of Replicator and recommended full funding for the effort, but highlighted broader concerns with the Pentagon’s ability to translate U.S. innovation into national security capabilities.

“There has been a lot of activity in the last year as it relates to national security innovation, as it relates to harnessing and capturing that innovation for our national security goals,” Rachel Hoff, policy director at the Reagan Institute, told reporters ahead of the report’s release. “That activity has not necessarily translated into progress.”

Mac Thornberry, former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and now a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board, said the high-level leadership Hicks has put behind Replicator is a sign of progress within the Pentagon.

“To me, the most amazing thing about Replicator is the deputy secretary put it on her shoulders to say, ‘I’m responsible for this,’” he said during the conference. “It’s like a pass-fail on herself. And that sort of accountability is exactly the sort of thing we need to change the culture, to take more risks.”

Pyongyang last year unveiled combat and intelligence-gathering UAVs that appear strikingly similar to a General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper and a larger Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. Images of them surfaced following an arms exhibit in the capital city attended by the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, and visiting Russian defense chief Sergei Shoigu.

Navy Adm. John Aquilino, leader of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, on March 20 told Congress that North Korea is focused on developing “technology and weapons” that advance its nuclear and nonnuclear capabilities. The admiral’s remit at Indo-Pacific Command includes North Korea and nearby China — two premier national-security hazards.

“Over the past three years, the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] has primarily focused its military modernization efforts on strategic capabilities,” Aquilino said in written testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee. “Modernization of the DPRK’s vast conventional force has been slower in comparison but progressing nonetheless. Ballistic missile submarines, associated SLBMs, and unmanned aerial vehicles closely resembling U.S. systems highlight recent developments.”

Militaries and militant groups the world over are increasingly deploying drones and other uncrewed technologies to collect intelligence, assist targeting and attack from greater distances. Their battlefield flexibility has been underscored by the Russia-Ukraine war and Houthi harassment in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

The quality and efficacy of North Korea’s lookalike drones is unclear.

At the time of their unveiling, Joseph Dempsey, a research associate for defense and military analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the platforms “are very unlikely to deliver similar levels of flight performance to the U.S. systems, particularly in terms of endurance.”

North Korean drones have in the past crossed into South Korea, prompting a military response.

Officials at Brave1, a government defense-technology hub tasked with getting new capabilities field-ready, announced that more than 50 ground robotic systems and more 140 unmanned ground vehicles have been submitted for evaluation.

“Hundreds of them will be procured through United24 to strengthen the Ukrainian army on the battlefield in a few months – UGVs will become the next game changer in this war, [like] drones already have,” a March 12 Brave1 statement circulated on the organization’s social media channels said. United24 is Ukrainian government-run platform for collecting donations for the embattled country.

In the last year, an increasing number of these types of platforms have emerged on the battlefield, being used and tested for a widening array of missions. Ukrainian social media channels recently published footage reportedly showing a UGV capable of laying six anti-tank mines at a time.

In pictures posted online by Brave1, a variety of small-scale tracked and wheeled ground robots are seen on the move, armed with guns, evacuating injured dummies and equipped with what appears to be mine-detection equipment.

A trend emerging in Ukrainian unmanned robots is that the majority are rather small and lighter than many others offered on the international market.

“Using high-tech solutions ahead of the enemy in terms of efficiency, innovation and price gives Ukraine an advantage on the battlefield – such hardware and software products are asymmetric responses capable of changing the configuration in a confrontation with the overwhelming resources of the enemy,” Nataliia Kushnerska, project lead at Brave1 told Defense News in an email statement.

“Ukraine has become a global defense tech hub, and the growth of this sector will play a critical role in Ukrainian defense policy for decades to come,” she added.

A substantial number of munitions and explosives used by Russian and Ukrainian troops remain unexploded, posing a threat to soldiers and civilians. According to some estimates, approximately 174,000 square kilometers of Ukraine was estimated to be contaminated with landmines as of April 2023.

Part of the push to accelerate the development of UGVs has been the desire to send robots for the dangerous job of removing live munitions left on the battlefield.

Put simply: Helping free societies build swarms of low-cost drones can play a central role in retooling foreign military assistance for a new era of strategic competition.

In September 2023, Ukraine revealed the Magura V5 unmanned surface vehicle at an international arms expo. Within three months, the swarming attack drone disabled a large Russian landing ship used to transport soldiers and equipment. Two months later, six of the low-cost networked drone boats sank a Russian missile boat in the Black Sea. Each drone can deliver a 320-kilogram explosive within a 450-nautical-mile range. New systems like this are a critical component of what Ukraine needs to win the maritime fight in the Black Sea.

The same story is playing out in the skies above Ukraine and increasingly deep inside Russia. In late 2023, Ukrainian engineers unveiled the mass-produced long-range Cobra drone, which uses riveted steel and salvaged electronics and motors to deliver a 16-kilogram payload to targets as far as 300 kilometers away at a price of only $3,500 per drone.

Just as impressive, the U-26 Bober loitering munition has a range exceeding 700 kilometers and uses a unique duck shape to avoid radar detection. It was produced using crowdsourced funds and has been used to strike targets deep inside Russia. The estimated cost per Bober is $108,000.

There is a critical component linking both the Magura drone boats and long-range attack UAVs like Cobra: the electronic components and software required to build and operate mesh networked attack drones. Unmanned aerial vehicles all require servo motors, flight controllers and increasingly software-defined radios. Payloads can change based on the mission, but these components are a constant. Even the body of the drone itself can change based on what materials are readily available and produce the required performance.

The war in Ukraine has seen variants using everything from wood, carbon fiber and foam to cardboard. Cheap materials and readily available component parts and technical blue prints unleash the power of additive manufacturing and DIY crowdsourcing.

This revolution requires the United States to rethink elements of its legacy approach to security cooperation and foreign military sales. Too often, major weapon systems are either too costly, too few or too escalatory to send to partners. This debate is on display across Europe as countries grabble with what they can and cannot send to Ukraine due to fears about empty bins and inventories required to support future major contingencies. It is even on display with weapons as simple and plentiful as artillery shells. And there are often unnecessary escalation concerns placed on certain systems from MQ-9 drones to Taurus cruise missiles that further complicate political support for military exports.

Instead of just sending weapons, the United States should start stockpiling and sending core component parts its allies can use to assemble their own drone swarms. First, the export restrictions would be easier to overcome, reducing the time it takes to help a friend in need. Second, the costs would be lower and ensure partners are part of the solution. Third, and most important, the approach would build an indigenous cadre of drone experts, thus accelerating military innovation and adaption. This approach could be a test case for recent calls to adapt security cooperation for the 21st century, including updating export policies governing unmanned systems.

This logic extends beyond Ukraine. If the United States is worried about Chinese military action in the near future against Taiwan and the Philippines, then it should unleash this new vision for the arsenal of democracy in support of these front-line democratic countries.

New defense programs could combine what worked in Ukraine with local knowledge networks and readily available materials. It could even include adapting existing initiatives like the Pacific Deterrence Initiative to launch programs for training partners — including the ranks of women increasingly joining the Filipino and Taiwanese militaries — on building and operating drone swarms. China can produce more naval ships than the United States and its partners, but it cannot match a democratic society open to all citizens creating new attack drones. In the 21st century, Rosie the Riveter also knows python coding and 3D-printed attack drones.

The original arsenal of democracy kept allies and partners in the war against authoritarian regimes by supplying military equipment. This model should evolve and unlock more creative, asymmetric approaches to unleash indigenous swarms in defense of front-line democracies. The future is already here. The question is how best to align resources and policies to the new character of war.

Benjamin Jensen is a senior fellow focused on wargaming and strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. His professional experience includes stints with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, the U.S. Army and NATO.