Pentagon Opening the Throttle on New Rules for Software 

Pentagon Opening the Throttle on New Rules for Software 

The Department of Defense is pushing ahead with a plan to automate and streamline the system it uses to ensure that software running on military networks is secure, and will start implementation next month, acting Chief Information Officer Katie Arrington said May 7. 

Arrington signed a memo two weeks ago “directing the development of a Software Fast-Track , or SWFT, Initiative” to speed up the process by which the Department of Defense certifies software to run on its networks. Then last week, her office issued three Requests for Information, seeking industry input. 

“We have got to get software faster into the Department of Defense,” she told an audience of defense contractors at AFCEA International’s TechNet Cyber conference, underlining the pace at which her office was moving. “We put the SWFT memo out, and within, I think, four business days, the RFIs hit the ground.”

The program “will be implemented starting June 1, 2025 so that we in the government can get to software faster,” she added, joking “I will break glass and crawl through it for you, but you cannot whine, all right?”

Arrington pledged to seek industry input into what she promised would be a responsive and flexible process. 

“Over the summer, you people are going to tell us what works and what doesn’t work,” she told industry executives as she strode between tables, interrupting her remarks more than once to call out friends or colleagues by name. 

The two-page RFIs issued last week ask for advice and proposals from companies large and small in three overlapping areas: 

  • Ways in which “automation and artificial intelligence [could] assist DOD-led risk assessment for expedited cybersecurity authorizations,” using a third-party supplied Software Bill of Materials—effectively an ingredients list for the software—and third party certification of secure development practices. 
  • Tools and processes “for consistent, secure, and accelerated risk assessments” of software and software development practices, including supply chain risk management requirements. 
  • Ways that an “external assessment [could] demonstrate technical expertise, cybersecurity, and SCRM experience” and what documents, processes and artifacts it would need. 

Responses, which can each be a maximum of 30 pages, are due May 20.

Automating the process of granting an Authorization to Operate, or ATO, is designed to take a cumbersome, manual, paper documentation process that can drag out for months and compress it down to days or even hours, said Arrington. 

“Lengthy, outdated cybersecurity authorization processes frustrate agile, continuous delivery,” reads the memo she signed April 23. “Additionally, widespread use of open-source software, with contributions from developers worldwide, presents a significant and ongoing challenge. The fact that the Department currently lacks visibility into the origins and security of software code hampers software security assurance.” 

In response, she pledged SWFT will lay out clear and specific rules and procedures for “cybersecurity and [supply chain] requirements” and “rigorous software security verification processes.”  

Once SWFT is complete, “I’m not done yet,” she continued, “We’re going to blow up the [Risk Management Framework], who’s with me on that one?” 

The RMF is a veritable bible for Pentagon information security personnel and has guided decisions about cybersecurity in the department for more than a decade but many criticize it for being slow and cumbersome.  

New B-52 Radar Program Has Nunn-McCurdy Cost Breach, May Be Reduced in Scope

New B-52 Radar Program Has Nunn-McCurdy Cost Breach, May Be Reduced in Scope

Rising costs on the B-52 Radar Modernization Program—one of the key upgrades that will take transform the B-52H into the B-52J configuration—have triggered a law requiring the Air Force to notify Congress, and the service is now considering reducing the scope of the program.

The Nunn-McCurdy Act requires the services to tell Congress when a program’s cost or schedule estimate has increased substantially from its approved baseline. If there is a “critical” breach of cost or schedule—defined as a 25 percent increase—the Defense Department must certify the program as necessary for national security or cancel it.

The Air Force characterized the B-52 radar unit cost increase as “significant,” meaning a deviation of at least 15 percent. Service and industry sources said the increase is about 17 percent, meaning the program does not need certification to continue.

“The Air Force Program Executive Officer for Bombers submitted a program deviation report to the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive” regarding the radar modernization program on April 11, an Air Force spokesperson said. “The Air Force is assessing the cost and schedule growth on the program and initial review of the PDR indicates it will be a significant cost breach.”

Raytheon is developing and installing the new radar under contract to Boeing, the B-52J integrator.

“The next step in the process is for the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the formal notification to Congress prior to May 24,” the Air Force spokesperson said.

“To be clear, we are at the beginning of the process,” another spokesperson said. The B-52 RMP program manager notified service acquisition leadership that “there could be an increase in the cost estimate (not actual costs, just an increase in the estimate). The program office is currently assessing the estimates.”

As long as the estimate validates that the cost increase is “significant” but not “critical,” all the Air Force must do is notify Congress and submit a “Selected Acquisition Report.”

The RMP is replacing the B-52’s long-obsolete and problem-prone analog AN/APQ-166 radar with a new one—the Raytheon AN/APQ-188—that is a hybrid of the active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radars used by the Boeing F-15 and F/A-18, configured mostly for the air-to-ground mission. 

It is part of the overall B-52J update, which will install the new radar, new engines and engine pylons, digital engine controls, communications and other upgrades to the venerable bomber, giving it an extended service life into the 2050s. The planned Initial Operational Capability for the new radar is 2027.

In addition to providing ground-mapping functions and spotting and tracking aerial threats at range, AESAs in recent years have also been used for electronic warfare and communications.   

Darlene Costello, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, told a House Armed Services subcommittee on May 8 that the breach had occurred. Asked by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) if she is confident the RMP won’t hit the “critical” threshhold, Costello said she is “pretty confident.”

That, she said, is “why we have decided to continue with the program. We believe we can find an affordable way forward to deliver the needed capability. We conducted an affordability review when we first got the information about the pricing coming higher than we expected.”

Costello said the Air Force has “refined the requirements down to a viable product of what [Air Force Global Strike Command] really needs to do, as opposed to possibly other items. That doesn’t mean we can’t bring in capability later, but for now, we’re focusing on getting this capability to the warfighter because it’s needed.”

She said the service doesn’t expect the increase will become “critical” or “close to” that condition, “but we are beyond the ‘significant’ threshold and we’re working through the process” to officially notify Congress.”

The 2024 report from the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, released in January, indicated that the RMP is largely meeting its technical requirements, although some questions remain about the shaping of the B-52’s radome and how that will affect performance. A low-rate initial production decision covering 28 of the Air Force’s 76 B-52s is slated for late fiscal 2026, with the remainder to follow after completion of initial operational test and evaluation in fiscal 2028. The RMP completed its critical design review in early 2022.   

In March, the Air Force put out a request for information asking industry about other “modified” radars that could be supplied off the shelf to equip the B-52, but cautioned that it was “not a solicitation” and was published for “informational purposes only.”

A Government Accountability Office report from 2024 noted that the RMP’s cost had increased from $2.3 billion to $2.6 billion.

T-7 Making Progress on New Ejection Seat, on Track for November 2027 IOC

T-7 Making Progress on New Ejection Seat, on Track for November 2027 IOC

The Air Force announced a successful ejection seat test for its T-7A trainer, and an official told lawmakers the service expects the jet to achieve initial operating capability by November 2027—two signs of progress for the program after many setbacks.

“We worked with our training community to make sure we are meeting AETC IOC requirement of November 2027,” Darlene Costello, the service’s principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics told the House Armed Services Committee hearing on May. 7.

Costello’s remarks offer more clarity after the Air Force announced in January it was changing its acquisition plan for the T-7 in a bid to reach IOC sometime in 2027.

The announcement also follows a recent test at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., to evaluate the newly installed canopy and ejection system of the T-7 aircraft. Boeing recently redesigned the canopy to safely break apart, preventing injuries from shattered glass, and added a new seat sequencer that deploys the parachute for a longer duration, reducing the risk of neck and spine injuries during descent. Last month, the 846th Test Squadron tested the T-7’s revamped escape mechanism with both light and heavy mannequins during a 450-knot (518 mph) ejection. The egress system is scheduled for another test in August.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s T-7A Red Hawk program achieved a major milestone as the 846th Test Squadron at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., executed a high-speed test of its new escape system on April 16. (Courtesy photo)

The new trainer aircraft, developed to replace the 60-year-old T-38 Talon, boasts a single engine, twin fins, and stadium seating, providing unobstructed views for both the instructor and student pilots—something the T-38 lacks—while aiming to significantly reduce the time required to train fighter and bomber pilots.

But the production has faced safety-related setbacks during testing, pushed key milestones back time and time again.

In 2021, the Air Force revealed that the T-7 suffered from “aircraft wing rock” at high angles of attack, making it unstable in the roll axis. In late 2022, the Air Force and Boeing announced problems with the flight control software and escape system, stemming in part from the need for the seat to accommodate a wider range of body sizes. Faulty instruments also led to inaccurate testing data. And in early 2024, Boeing identified quality problems with some T-7 parts.

“We’ve now resolved the known ground-based training system requirements,” Costello added. “We’ve resolved the stability concerns; we did that in March of this year. Now, we’re working towards delivery to Randolph by October of this year. A recent qualification sled test on the egress system demonstrated optimal performance, so it’s showing good progress.”

In March, Boeing revealed that initial T-7A trainer production units are expected to be delivered in early 2026. Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph will receive the ground-based simulator this year ahead of its first T-7 deliveries scheduled for next year.

“The T-7A Red Hawk beddown is currently projected for [fiscal 2026], and the 99th Flying Training Squadron is set to be the first unit in the Air Force to receive the aircraft,” a spokesperson for the 12th Flying Training Wing at JBSA previously told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Boeing teamed up with Swedish aerospace firm Saab in 2018 to build the T-7, and since Saab opened its Indiana facility in 2021, the companies have been working on the aircraft’s aft fuselage there. Costello added that Boeing’s subcontractor will resume work, with assembly of additional key aircraft components set to begin in August.

What the Supreme Court’s Transgender Ban Really Means

What the Supreme Court’s Transgender Ban Really Means

Editor’s Note: This story was updated May 8 after the Pentagon issued a new memo.

The Supreme Court’s May 6 decision to grant the Trump administration’s request to block a lower court’s injunction means the Defense Department can resume separating transgender service members under a directive issued in February.

In a May 8 memo, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the military services to reinstate policies to place transgender troops on administrative leave, recall or cancel deployments, cancel transition-related medical care, and require transgender troops to adhere to the dress, grooming, and physical fitness standards of their sex at birth. DOD can also reinstate a hold on transgender recruits shipping to basic military training.

Voluntary separations for Active-Duty transgender service members will be allowed until June 6, and for Reserve members until July 7. After that, the memo directs services to “initiate involuntary separation processes.”

Yet two lawsuits could still stand in the way. 

The administration appealed to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied its requests to stay an injunction imposed March 27 by federal district court judge Benjamin Settle. The Ninth Circuit must still rule on the government’s appeal of the injunction itself, legal experts said, a process that could take weeks or months and which can also be appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Transgender advocates said removing the injunction allows the administration to act before the legality of its policy is determined. 

“The whole purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo while the case proceeds,” said Shannon Minter, the legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights and one of the lead attorneys representing transgender troops and recruits in a similar case in Washington D.C. “The court just turned that upside down.”

But what happens next remains unclear.

In granting the preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit case, Shilling v. Trump, Settle—who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush—wrote that “none of the government’s data supports its conclusion that banning transgender persons from serving is substantially related to achieving military readiness.”

A second case, Talbott vs. USA, is playing out in parallel. In that case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay on an injunction ordered by a lower court, but only on condition that DOD not start discharging transgender service members while the court continues to review the government’s request for an emergency stay. The decision is still pending.

It is difficult to predict how the circuit court will rule. Supreme Court can set precedent that lower courts follow, but that usually comes in full opinions. The order, like most from the court, was brief. Multiple lawyers, including Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney representing transgender recruits and service members in the case, said it is difficult to speculate on the outcome.

B-52 Bombers Join B-2s on Diego Garcia

B-52 Bombers Join B-2s on Diego Garcia

B-52 bombers flew to the remote Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, where multiple B-2 bombers have been stationed for weeks, Air & Space Forces Magazine has confirmed. 

During a congressional hearing May 7, Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration Lt. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara told lawmakers that “there’s a Bomber Task Force of B-52s going on as we speak.”  

Flight tracking data and radio transmissions posted on social media showed B-52s headed to Diego Garcia a few days ago, and satellite imagery posted by plane spotters appeared to show the bombers on the ramp near the B-2s, which arrived there in late March

Air Force Global Strike Command would not comment on locations of aircraft. A statement responding to questions said the command “routinely conducts global operations in coordination with other combatant commands, services, and participating U.S. government agencies to deter, detect and, if necessary, defeat strategic attacks against the United States and its allies. To preserve operational security, we do not discuss details about exercises or operations.” 

A B-52s BTF rotated through Diego Garcia last year, marking the first time the BUFF had landed there since 2020. 

The B-2s already at Diego Garcia participated in airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, Air & Space Forces Magazine previously reported. That operation appeared to end May 6, however, as President Donald Trump announced the U.S. would stop its stepped-up bombing campaign against the Houthis after they agreed to stop attacking commercial shipping off the coast of Yemen. 

Observers are skeptical that the Houthis will stop their attacks, and the U.S. may retain forces capable of striking the region to ensure compliance.

Bomber task force deployments do not necessarily herald offensive operations. More often, participating Airmen and aircraft take part in exercises, cooperative training with allies, and demonstrate the capability of American airpower. The last BTF was last month, when B-1 bombers flew to Misawa Air Base in Japan.

Industry Head: $150B Reconciliation Bill is ‘Sugar High,’ We Need Budget Stability

Industry Head: $150B Reconciliation Bill is ‘Sugar High,’ We Need Budget Stability

Despite a proposed $150 billion reconciliation package that could lead to $1 trillion in defense spending in 2026, what industry needs more is stability in the budget to build a surge capacity, the head of the top aerospace trade group said May 7.

The $150 billion through reconciliation is “a sugar high,” Aerospace Industries Association CEO Eric Fanning told a Mitre Corporation conference on defense acquisition.

“It’s not in the topline,” Fanning said, noting that the reconciliation bill isn’t part of regular budgeting process. It’s a point lawmakers in Congress have made in arguing that President Donald Trump’s 2026 defense budget proposal is not as big as it appears.

From an industry perspective, Fanning also said the proposed package doesn’t set a trend in defense spending which would justify company investments in greater production capacity. It’s also not a sure thing, he said—a nod to the contentious debate over the broader reconciliation bill in Congress.

“Reconciliation hasn’t happened yet. I’m a perpetually disappointed optimist, but I’m not optimistic about this reconciliation process,” Fanning said.

The chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees—Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), respectively—have called for a substantial increase to the regular budget. Fanning said such a move would mean “it becomes baseline for next year,” which would “send that clear signal to industry.”

Production capacity has become especially important given Russia’s war on Ukraine and the massive amount of weapons the U.S. has surged to the Ukrainians—and industry and Pentagon officials say that have learned lessons when it comes to signaling demand for that capacity.

“Everyone said, ‘Why can’t you surge overnight?’” Fanning said. “You can surge by, if you’ve got two shifts, [adding] a third shift, if you can line up your supply chain, but you’re not going to start building a new line, knowing historically what we do, which is, ‘OK, the war is over. Never mind. We don’t need that anymore.’ And industry is left with all this excess capacity.”

Rather, “the single most important thing you can do for the private sector, not just the defense side … is some stability and consistency they can plan around. There are always variables that come at you, of course, but the way that we invest as a government in our defense and our national security is erratic in a good year.”

While the Pentagon has labored to break down barriers to new industry entrants and has had some success in recent years, “It’s still very difficult for new entrants, particularly that are coming from outside the defense industrial base, to get access,” Fanning said, noting that the private sector “needs to see some reward on the other end.”

Even with prime contractors, he said, “all these companies are investing a lot up front; they’re making bets, and if none of these bets pay off that, they’ll stop making those investments. There are other places that that that money can go.”

Fanning served on the Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution reform commission that wrapped up last year, and he said true reform needs to break down the “artificial” boundaries between procurement and requirements. Unless the requirements process is greatly accelerated, “you’re already behind the curve by the time you get to the acquisition process,” he warned.

To improve acquisition and increase capacity, Fanning said the Pentagon should “really make sure that you have as much competition and as … many parts of the ecosystem involved in what you’re trying to do.”

Next, he said it is important to “clear the brush” of acquisition rules that have popped up in response to rare but glaring problems.

“Something bad happens, and you add a process to prevent it happening again, and it layers and it layers and it layers and layers,” Fanning said. There’s no “normal process” to clear away those layers, even when they’re no longer relevant, he noted.

“All those [rules and oversight] were put in for good reasons, but the cumulative risk mitigation over years” becomes a greater impediment to speed and action “than all of the little risks that you were trying to mitigate,” Fanning said.

Though, when “you start taking away everything that’s not spelled out in law … you realize there’s a lot in there that we kind of like because it was put in there for a reason.”

The third major element of what the Pentagon needs to do is “really changing the incentive of the government workforce: empowering them, rewarding them for risk,” Fanning said.

“We talk about ‘rewarding failure’ or ‘failing early.’ I think we should change that to ‘learning early,’ because we’re not really good at rewarding, but if you look at really innovative companies, they learn something quickly” from mistakes  “but that’s not how we incentivize the government.”

Air Force Eyes More Uses for AI—with Guardrails

Air Force Eyes More Uses for AI—with Guardrails

The Air Force and other military services are deploying artificial intelligence tools in their IT networks and Security Operations Centers where personnel monitor cyber threats, officials said May 6—but they are leveraging the emerging technology cautiously even as some say it is ready to transform the very nature of warfare.

Col John W. Picklesimer, commander of the 67th Cyberspace Wing, said AI is more than just a buzzword. Airmen are using it to counter data overload in the SOC, a pervasive problem in defensive cyber operations across both the government and the private sector. Small SOC teams can easily be overwhelmed by the volume of alerts, most of which are false positives or routine attacks defeated by automated defenses.   

“We’ve engaged with a couple of our industry partners to bring AI … into a SOC location, pull the data feeds, and then let the AI actually analyze and provide some of those quick insights,” Picklesimer said during a panel discussion at AFCEA International’s TechNet Cyber conference. Personnel could then more easily triage reports and “go and dig deep” on the significant ones, he explained.  

Picklesimer said the wing had also been using NIPRGPT, an experimental generative AI chatbot developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory and cleared to run on the military’s unclassified global network—Non-secure Internet Protocol Router Network, or NIPRNet.

But he said Airmen shouldn’t use commercial tools that NIPRGPT was designed to mimic, like ChatGPT and other Large Language Models: “For day-to-day use, NIPRGPT is what we’re allowed to use,” he said. 

The chatbot has proved useful for summarizing large volumes of information, he said, and pulling together multitudinous data sources. For example, it can monitor who has signed up for various commander’s programs, and what level of training they have.

“Are they signed up for the right programs? The right activities? How do you automate the tracking of all those different things across disparate systems?” Picklesimer said.

He told Air & Space Forces Magazine after the panel that he had not personally noticed NIPRGPT hallucinating—making up untrue but convincing-sounding answers—which is something commercial generative AI chatbots are known to do.  

Nonetheless, he said he was more comfortable with use cases that involved summarizing or pulling together a defined data set, rather than asking more open-ended questions.   

Last week, Lt. Col. Jose Almanzar, commander of the Space Force’s 19th Space Defense Squadron, said NIPRGPT had “helped tremendously in mission planning and reducing administrative actions and helping to standardize a lot of the appraisal writing and award writing and whatnot.”  

Col. Heath Giesecke, director of the Army’s Enterprise Cloud Management Agency, also emphasized AI’s utility for back-office tasks.

“On the business side, the Army has adopted a large language model, [and] across the force we’re looking at specific use cases,” he said. 

The Army’s AI is called CamoGPT, although the service says it is not strictly a generative AI chatbot. ”CamoGPT is a machine learning platform that optimizes equipment maintenance, logistics, and supply chain management using data analytics and algorithms,” the service said in March. 

Giesecke gave one example of a successful use case: “In the HR domain, we took a bunch of [position descriptions] and enabled our contractor, the hiring agency, to use an LLM to reassess and reclassify hundreds or thousands … in a single day,” he said. 

He added that an Army priority right now is that “we’re really trying to centralize the use of generative AI and make sure things aren’t being done on personal devices or personal accounts.” 

Col. Dennis Katolin, the assistant chief of staff for operations for Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace Command, said he wants to use AI for three primary tasks:

  • First, as “something that’s able to discover new information.”
  • Second for the ability “infer from that data. What is going to happen, something that’s anticipatory.”
  • Third is “Synthesis: Generating a proposed solution to that problem set.”

Yet he also noted the danger of hallucinations.

“When it comes to AI, I have a bias that I think most of us up here do when it comes to artificial intelligence,” he said. “This group thinks it’s going to be great, that it’s going to accelerate everything. But I think it does introduce certain liabilities as well. There are times when ChatGPT has been incorrect. There’s times when AIs have been wrong.” 

He compared the process of getting to know the limitations of an AI to that of getting to know a colleague: “Do you trust that individual making a recommendation? ‘Sir, we’ve got to do this!’ Does Col. Katolin have a really good track record? Then you’d be like, ‘Hey, I didn’t check his homework. But he’s been on the money before.’”

It is a very different calculus if the colleague—or the AI—has been wrong 75 percent of the time, he said. 

“I think it does offer some risk, but I think that risk is mitigated by training with it, learning it … so we can build that trust and build that comfort level.” 

Katolin went on to say that the rise of cyber and information operations had had an impact on warfare unmatched since the introduction of military aviation. “From our perspective, there are five sort of truths [about information operations,] that information is inherently global, persistent, instantaneous. It compresses the levels of war and requires maneuver in all domains,” he said.

USAF Gets New Autonomous Gliders to Resupply Troops in High-Risk Environments

USAF Gets New Autonomous Gliders to Resupply Troops in High-Risk Environments

The Air Force has added new self-guided gliders to deliver cargo to “high-risk environments” without putting a manned aircraft in danger.

Contractor DZYNE and the Air Force Research Laboratory unveiled the new “Grasshopper” gliders May 2, and an AFRL spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that “several dozen” units have been delivered.

Grasshopper can carry up to 500 pounds of supplies and be launched from cargo aircraft like the C-17 and C-130 using rear ramp airdrops. It can reach speeds of 109 miles per hour and glide “tens of miles” based on drop altitude, the spokesperson said.

The glider is also autonomous and capable of navigating in GPS-denied environments, allowing it to pilot itself and land with a built-in parachute.

In a release, DZYNE said it has delivered “multiple” units to the Air Force and is “currently planning for future deliveries.”

Grasshopper by DZYNE initiates landing to target with opened parachute

Grasshopper’s unveiling coincided with the start of SOF Week, an annual conference for special operations forces; AFRL first sought to develop the capability based on real-time feedback and rapid flight testing from Air Force Special Operations Command.

The small payload and disposable nature of the glider make it ideal for AFSOC’s mission of rapidly deploying units for precision strikes, infiltration, rescuing personnel, and intelligence gathering, often in restrictive or contested environments where nonstealthy cargo aircraft would be at high risk of being shot down.

The glider could also prove useful for the Air Force’s concept of Agile Combat Employment, enabling quick resupply of forces spread across remote islands or austere airfields under attack, without needing to send a full cargo aircraft.

“Its ability to deliver critical payloads from standoff distances while keeping our aircraft and crews out of harm’s way is a major advantage in modern operational environments,” Dr. Thomas Howell, portfolio lead at AFRL, said in a release.

DZYNE said it uses “low-cost manufacturing techniques” for the Grasshopper, keeping production costs around $40,000 per vehicle.

The Air Force has been interested in smaller-scale gliders for years now—AFRL initially tasked Silent Arrow in 2021 with scaling down its one-ton cargo glider GD-2000. The following year, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and U.S. Special Operations Command joined up with the Joint Staff to award the company a yearlong contract to conduct operational demonstrations and refine the concepts of operation for these autonomous gliders.

DZYNE, meanwhile, has worked with the Air Force Research Laboratory before on its Unmanned Long-endurance Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft, or ULTRA. It first test flew the Grasshopper in October 2022.

“The delivery of Grasshopper is a testament to the success of our collaboration with the Air Force in developing an autonomous resupply solution that meets the demands of contested environments,” said Matthew McCue, CEO of DZYNE Technologies. “By working closely, we were able to design and refine the Grasshopper product line into a cost-effective, high-performance aerial logistics platform.

McCue added that these self-navigating vehicles could also play a role in humanitarian aid and disaster relief efforts.

The company is currently developing a longer-range variant of Grasshopper, capable of traveling “hundreds of miles,” with plans for its debut in early 2026.

The Air Force and the Pentagon have long had the ability to airdrop supplies. For heavy-lift items weighing more than a ton, DOD introduced the Joint Precision Airdrop System in 2006. Utilizing GPS navigation, it autonomously guides steerable parachutes to one or more landing zones with precision, delivering cargo, fuel, and other supplies from altitudes as high as 25,000 feet.

The Air Force also employs Low-Cost Low Altitude (LCLA) drops for humanitarian missions, where aircraft get as low as 300 feet above ground to safely release parachuted medical kits.

These options, however, are less suitable for low-profile operations that demand swift, high-accuracy drops in remote, denied areas.

Air Force Set to ‘Significantly’ Change Launch Facilities for Sentinel ICBM

Air Force Set to ‘Significantly’ Change Launch Facilities for Sentinel ICBM

The design of the launch facilities for the Air Force’s new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile are likely to undergo major revision, posing yet another challenge for the much-delayed and over-budget program to modernize the land-based component of America’s nuclear triad, officials said May 6. 

“I imagine we’re significantly going to change it,” Acting Secretary of the Air Force Gary Ashworth told the House Appropriations Committee, referring to the strategy for the construction of the silos that will house the missile and the launch control facilities to operate it. 

Ashworth’s comments come on the heels of the Air Force’s determination that it will need to build new silos for Sentinel instead of relying on a previous plan to refurbish the roughly 450 existing Minuteman III silos.

The Sentinel program is being restructured—officials reviewed the effort after critical cost and schedule overruns triggered an inquiry under the Nunn-McCurdy Act. Then-Pentagon acquisition czar William LaPlante certified the program to continue, but rescinded its Milestone B approval and ordered a restructure.

Officials say Sentinel’s ballooning costs are not driven not by the missile itself, but by the massive work needed for the ground infrastructure. The latest revelations continue that trend.

“The missile itself will continue going through its design and development phase as we move forward,” Ashworth said. “The main contributors to the cost breach itself were the command and launch segment … it’s the construction costs associated with those elements that really drove up the cost.”

When Northrop Grumman won the Sentinel contract in 2020, the ground infrastructure was expected to be a significant civil engineering effort. But it is now proving more complex than anticipated, an Air Force spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“As the program continues to undergo restructuring activities, the Air Force analysis continues to confirm unacceptable risks to cost, schedule, and weapon system performance stemming from the original baseline strategy of converting Minuteman III (MMIII) silos,” the spokesperson said. “To mitigate this and other risks, the Air Force plans to build new missile silos on predominantly Air Force-owned real estate, which means reusing the existing missile sites but not the 55-year-old silos.”

An ICBM launch control facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., June 22, 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by John Turner

Air Force officials are now looking at altering the acquisition strategy for the program. In February, the service suspended work Northrop’s work on the command and launch segment including the design of the launch facilities.

“The program right now is reaching out to industry to understand how we might better construct a program on how to get after that particular [command and launch] segment,” Ashworth said. “By the end of the summer, they should have collected enough information, analyzed it, and put it back together to see if we’re going to stay with the current acquisition strategy or significantly change it. I imagine we’re significantly going to change it based upon that strategy.”

The Air Force plans to field Sentinel as a one-for-one replacement for the 400 currently deployed Minuteman III missiles, which represent one of three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad.

The Air Force has ICBM wings at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.; Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.; and Minot Air Force Base, N.D. Missile fields are spread out over five states—Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

“Part of the requirements, initially—10 years ago when this program was started—was to reuse the holes, the missile holes at the launch facilities. That was believed to be more efficient, more cost effective, and quicker,” Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere said during remarks at ANWA Deterrence Center Forum on April 30. “Shockingly enough … that may not be the answer.”

An Air Force spokesperson confirmed reusing Minuteman III silos was no longer considered to be a viable option. 

“While no decision has been made, we expect Sentinel to use predominantly AF-owned real estate to build new missile silos instead of re-using MMIII silos,” the spokesperson said.

The Air Force has “data based on a test launch facility conversion project at Vandenberg Space Force Base that validated the implications of unknown site conditions with significant cost and schedule growth,” they added.

Breaking Defense first reported the Air Force’s change on building missile silos.

Air Force officials have recently said Minuteman III could be in service until 2050. The missile was originally expected to be decommissioned in the 2030s. 

Pentagon officials have argued the U.S. needs to embark on a costly but overdue modernization of all three legs of its nuclear triad, which also includes fielding the B-21 Raider bomber, upgrades to B-52 bomber, the Columbia-class submarine, and the Sentinel. The Air Force is also developing the Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) and the E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC) nuclear command and control aircraft.

Lawmakers are seeking to add $1.5 billion to Sentinel in a 2025 budget resolution and roughly half a billion dollars to keep Minuteman viable.

“These would be our priorities: this is going to be Sentinel, once it’s restructured, making sure that comes through,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told lawmakers. “… B-21, B-52, LRSO—those keep the nuclear deterrence.”