Acquisition costs would total just over $1 trillion, said the CBO, a nonpartisan federal agency that provides budgetary analyses for Congress. The estimate is significantly more than the $185 billion the Trump administration set aside for the project in its proposed fiscal 2027 defense budget.

That gap is due, at least in part, to the fact that there are no publicly available plans from the White House nor the Pentagon about what the system will look like, “making it impossible to estimate the long-term cost of the GDA system being contemplated by DoD,” per the report.

“DoD’s stated cost appears to cover a shorter time frame than CBO’s analysis and may reflect a different scope of activities and budget categories,” the report continues. “Even so, that stated cost is far lower than CBO’s estimate for a notional NMD [national missile defense] architecture consistent with the ‘Iron Dome’ executive order.

“That difference suggests either that GDA’s objective architecture is more limited than CBO’s notional NMD system or that DoD expects significant funding from other accounts to contribute to GDA (or both).”

The CBO based its estimate on a four-tiered defense system: a space-based layer, upper- and lower-level surface interceptor layers and multiple spread out surface interceptors, which would provide protection for all of the continental U.S. plus Alaska and Hawaii.

This proposed system would be able to defend against multiple missiles fired simultaneously and would protect against threats from hypersonics, ballistics and cruise missiles.

But the system could not successfully engage with a large-scale attack from a peer or near-peer adversary like Russia or China, according to the report.

As the cost estimate is based on the desired capabilities laid out in a January 2025 executive order, it doesn’t include funding for research and development of future technologies, nor does it take into account ground forces or a communication system necessary to make the proposed system work.

The report also notes that the project may face delays due to the need to replenish the nation’s stockpile of THAAD and Patriot interceptor missiles, as well as radar systems, a great number of which have been deployed in the war on Iran.

Other potential roadblocks include Pentagon funding constraints, plus the training necessary to deploy the system, the CBO said.

Some lawmakers have already expressed their concern over the proposed cost.

“The president’s so-called ‘Golden Dome’ is nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who requested the CBO estimate, said in a statement. “It will do little to advance American national security.”

The defense industry donations — comprising both traditional firms like Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon) and Northrop Grumman and newer companies like Anduril — make up only a small percentage of the cash going to Congress, according to OpenSecrets. Even so, the industry has enormous sway in politics through these contributions and through lobbying efforts.

Republicans and Democrats alike benefit from these donations and notably, plenty of this money is directed at congressional decision makers who can influence legislation around defense acquisition, including the National Defense Authorization Act.

California Rep. Ken Calvert raised roughly $200,000 in campaign funds from PACs and individuals affiliated with companies like RTX, BAE Systems, Leidos and others. Calvert, a Republican, is the head of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and will face a battle to keep his seat during the midterms this year.

And it’s not just company PACs contributing, but individual donors — powerful corporate leaders like Anduril co-founder Brian Schimpf, who donated $7,000 to Washington Rep. Adam Smith last quarter.

Smith is the Democratic leader on the House Armed Services Committee, which has a broad jurisdiction over defense matters including “acquisition and industrial base policy [and] technology transfer and export controls,” according to the committee’s website.

All in all, Smith received nearly $130,000 in donations from defense industry PACs and individual executives last quarter, according to NOTUS’ reporting, which is based on publicly available documentation from the Federal Election Commission.

Yet these donations do not exactly translate into government contracts; it’s not that straightforward, according to Greg Williams, the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight.

“A big part of the push over the last year or so is to deregulate the defense acquisition process,” like pushing for faster procurement and an expanded ability to bypass oversight mechanisms in that process, according to Williams.

One example of that is the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery (SPEED) Act, which Smith and HASC Chair Mike Rogers, R-Ala., co-sponsored. Rogers received $68,000 in defense industry donations, including $7,000 from Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey, in the first quarter of 2026.

Defense firms — whether they’re primes like RTX or newer entrants — have long expressed frustration with what they call a tedious and overly bureaucratic acquisition process. But the DoD’s own independent inspector general has repeatedly found these firms overcharging, which is a problem only likely to get worse with fewer regulations, according to Julia Gledhill, a research analyst for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center.

“The United States has production capacity limits,” she told Military Times. “Policymakers should be figuring out how to operate within those limits rather than assuming money and deregulation will solve their production problems.”

And there are real risks, too, particularly given that the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation has essentially been gutted under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Gutting the office of the DOT&E increases risk that the Pentagon will develop weapons that the military doesn’t need and that don’t work as intended, threatening service members’ safety,” Gledhill added.

Last week Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., who raised $32,500 from defense industry PACs by March 31, introduced a bill allowing the Secretary of State to issue loans — and set terms for those loans — to foreign countries in order to purchase U.S. arms. That arrangement could encourage the U.S. to increase arms sales to other countries, since the government would expect to be paid back with interest for the loans as opposed to the non-repayable grants system currently in place.

“This bill would ensure we continue to arm our partners and allies under terms that put America first,” Mast said in a press release. “At its core, this is about increasing integration with our allies, deterring adversaries, and strengthening our defense industrial base.”

Much of this new legislation also references the need to strengthen the defense industrial base, which Williams cautions may not provide the economic boost Americans are looking for.

“It’s widely understood that a dollar [spent on] defense creates far fewer jobs than dollars spent otherwise,” Williams said. “And so the idea that you’re supporting the economy by supporting the defense manufacturing base, I think that just doesn’t hold water.”

The combination of threadbare campaign finance regulation, a poor economic outlook and an increasingly militarized foreign policy could be a boon for defense firms. However, it could be perilous not just to the military, but to the democratic system overall, Gledhill said.

“I look at it as legalized corruption,” she added.

Jules Hurst III, the Defense Department’s acting comptroller, said the increase from $25 billion just two weeks ago reflects “updated repair and replacement of equipment costs,” along with the “general operational costs” of sustaining forces in the theater.

Hurst emphasized that the projection does not include expenditures for repairing damaged military installations in the region.

“We have a lot of unknowns there,” he said. “We don’t know what our future posture is going to be. We don’t know how we construct those bases, and we don’t know what part our allies or partners could pay into our MILCON costs.”

The tenuous month-long ceasefire in the Middle East hangs in the balance after President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed Tehran’s latest proposal to end the war as “garbage.” Hours later, the Speaker of Iran’s parliament warned that the country stands ready to “deliver a lesson-teaching response” to any act of aggression.

Despite a declared truce, the two sides have continued to exchange limited fire near the Strait of Hormuz. The Islamic Republic recently launched missiles, drones and small boats at U.S. warships transiting the sea, prompting American strikes on Iranian military sites in response.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday suggested that the situation remains fluid.

“As you know, for the most part, ceasefire means fire is ceasing,” Hegseth said. “We have a plan to escalate, if necessary. We have a plan to retrograde, if necessary.”

Asked about the status of Project Freedom — a one-day campaign in which U.S. warships and aircraft briefly guided commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz — the defense secretary described it as “paused” and added, “It’s an option we could always recommence, should the commander in chief want us to.”

Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also sought to dispel concerns that Operation Epic Fury had triggered significant munitions shortages within the U.S. military.

“I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum — that’s not true,” Hegseth claimed. “Ultimately, we have all the munitions needed to execute what we need to execute and we are going to ensure that we supercharge that going into the future.”

Caine said, “We have sufficient munitions for what we’re tasked to do right now. That’s what I hear from the [Unified Combatant Commands],” noting, “We’re always going to want more munitions.”

Hegseth, Caine and Hurst appeared on Capitol Hill to advance a two-pronged appeal encompassing the annual budget and additional funding for the ongoing war in Iran. A substantial portion of the request, they indicated, would be directed toward replenishing depleted weapons stockpiles.

Using data on global defense budgets collected annually by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, the London-based weekly calculated that American allies in the North Atlantic and Indo-Pacific spent 111% of what the U.S. did on its own defense in 2025.

The countries included in the tally are the 31 non-U.S. NATO members plus Washington’s treaty allies in Asia: Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Australia and the Philippines.

For the first time, spending by the U.S. treaty allies surpassed $1 trillion in 2025, adjusted for purchasing power, according to the Economist’s data. In absolute terms, it still lags around $200 billion behind Washington’s own defense spending, despite the year-over-year 7.5% decrease in the Pentagon’s 2025 budget.

America’s NATO allies in Europe and Canada alone don’t quite surpass American defense spending yet, coming in at 81% of the U.S. military budget, the Economist analysis said.

However, while the U.S. military spending has been more or less stagnant for several years, the allies’ defense budgets have seen record growth over the same time period, driven in large part by European rearmament as a consequence of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The number doesn’t include Ukraine, which is not a NATO member and not a formal U.S. ally, but stood out in the data as the most significant defense spender by percent of GDP: A staggering 40% of Ukraine’s economy went to the military.

War spending in Europe surged 14% from 2024 to 2025, SIPRI’s data showed, making the region the main driver in a global surge in military spending to record levels at $2.9 trillion. Although the U.S. remains by far the largest single military spender - in absolute terms and adjusted for purchasing power - the uptick in budgets across the globe offset the significant reduction in the Pentagon’s own 2025 checkbook.

The United States still accounts for more than 20% of total global military spending, with the second-ranked China making up just 12.7%.

The alliance has invited companies to pitch counter-unmanned aerial systems, or C-UAS, by mid-May, and will pick 18 systems in the next one to two months, said Claudio Palestini, NATO head of innovation and technology adoption, in a video briefing with reporters on Monday. The goal is to have contracts in place “by the summer” so nations can start to procure via the marketplace.

With the pace of drone innovation in Ukraine measured in weeks, NATO wants to help member countries move on from requirement-based procurement to a mechanism based on challenges and use cases, a methodology Palestini called “very fitting” for some autonomous systems such as aerial drones, unmanned ground vehicles and C-UAS.

“When we buy phones or laptops, we don’t go to the suppliers with the requirements of them, but we go to the market,” Palestini said. “We buy what fits best with our needs. And this is the spirit that we want to do.”

The marketplace pilot comes after NATO members in June 2025 agreed on the Rapid Adoption Action Plan, seeking to shorten the delay getting cutting-edge technology in the hands of troops. In addition to challenge-based procurement, NATO is looking at new ways of buying such as purchasing capability as a service, as well as leasing models, the head of innovation said.

For the C-UAS marketplace, NATO wants solutions for point, area and border defense, with each operational need covered by a static counter system, another that is deployable in for example containers, as well as a fully mobile system, according to Palestini.

For the resulting nine use cases, NATO then plans to sign contracts for the solution that is the best value for money, and for the cheapest technically-compliant solution, to offer a total of 18 C-UAS options, Palestini said. In addition, all contracts will have a purchasing and a lease option, he said.

“Whenever there will be a requirement from one nation, we can take these requirements and try to map it with the one of the nine use cases and going back to the nation, saying, ‘Okay, this is the solution that we have for this use case,’” Palestini said. “You can basically procure immediately, because this already went through a pre-completed process.”

NATO has also established common funding that will allow nations to test C-UAS systems before making a final decision on procuring them, for example by leasing for one or two months, according to the NATO official.

In a next step, NATO is looking at testing the 18 solutions against standardized procedures, “so that not only we have the possibility to do contracts quickly for nations, but also to give them reasonable assurance of the performance of the system in the use case they envisage,” Palestini said. The alliance is aiming for that testing to happen in September, according to the official.

NATO is setting up a number of so-called innovation ranges, including in Latvia, where industry can test products in real-life conditions and where national procurement agencies can confirm that technology works on the firing range, Palestini said. The goal is to organize a testing campaign about every six weeks, testing different aspects such as performance but also interoperability

As part of the Rapid Adoption Action Plan, NATO intends to hand out “innovation badges” for systems tested in standardized procedures, as a way to assure member countries about how a system performs in a given scenario. The idea is that companies will be able to retest whenever they change their systems to receive a new badge, Palestini said.

Drone warfare in Ukraine has shown “increasingly rapid innovation cycles,” with UAS tactics on average evolving every two to three weeks in the 2023-2025 period, according to Palestini. That imposes a need for rapidly adapting both technology and doctrine, and “ensuring that NATO allies are able to meet this speed is of vital consideration for us.”

The NATO official said the urgency of developing C-UAS solutions means that while the alliance will push for challenge-based procurement that favors interoperability, it will leave “space for innovative solutions to be brought to market at speed.”

The alliance announced the UNITE-Brave NATO initiative in November to develop joint products between companies in member states and Ukrainian firms, and Palestini said the goal is to marry Ukraine’s rapid innovation with “long-term predictability, interoperability and NATO planning.”

The NATO Innovation Range in Latvia for now is set to hold five testing sessions for companies in 2026, including the first one held in March that saw 17 companies trial their products, including four from Ukraine. Another 18 companies will test solutions in May, including one Ukrainian firm, according to the alliance’s head of innovation.

In an interview with Defence News during the show, Aselsan CEO Ahmet Akyol described the company’s latest launches as part of a broader shift toward networked, high-volume and cost-effective systems designed for modern attritional warfare.

In the maritime domain, this strategy manifested itself in the form of two autonomous naval strike systems designed around swarming operations, low observability and high-volume production.

One of them was the Tufan Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV), a fast-moving, autonomous platform for both offensive operations and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) tasks. Akyol described Tufan as Aselsan’s new-generation surface kamikaze vehicle. “It builds on our experience with platforms like Marlin and Albatros [USVs],” he said.

The second systems was the Kılıç family of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). Akyol described them as “kamikaze UUVs,” stating that when creating an entirely new operational concept, the terminology also evolves with it.

Akyol said the Kılıç UUVs currently come in two variants, Kılıç 10 and Kılıç 200, designed for long-range and low-signature operations. The swarm-capable systems carry warheads with lightweight torpedo-class punch, and they can operate autonomously or via satellite link. “Kılıç is quite difficult to defend against,” Akyol said.

The company also used Saha Expo to highlight the defensive side of modern networked warfare through a layered mix of air defense, electronic warfare and counter-drone systems. The company presented the systems as part of Turkey’s evolving “Steel Dome” air defense architecture.

“For the electronic warfare layer of Steel Dome, we are launching Koral AD — a completely new product,” Akyol said.

Koral is Aselsan’s main EW systems designed to render enemy radars ineffective. The Koral AD is a long-range radar electronic attack system intended to detect, deceive and jam enemy aircraft radars. The company also launched a new version of the Ilgar electronic warfare system, designed to disrupt communications between combat aircraft and ground control stations.

“It makes it very difficult for enemy aircraft to execute an attack on you — blinding enemy radars or saturating them with false targets, and also capable of jamming the guidance heads of incoming anti-radiation missiles” said Akyol.

Aselsan also revealed new products designed to expand the offensive reach of Turkish unmanned combat aircraft through a new set of integrated sensors, radars and precision-guided munitions.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Red Sea and the Middle East have highlighted the importance of producing precision-strike systems rapidly and in large quantities.

Akyol said said many of the systems unveiled at Saha Expo 2026 were designed around a commercial-component philosophy rather than a traditional boutique defence industry approach.

“Everything we have talked about today could realistically be in inventory by 2027,” he said.

The company has set a target of raising exports to 40% of total revenues by 2030, up from 25% today and 11% when the ASELSAN Next program launched in 2024.

The confirmation of potential outsourcing comes after President Donald Trump reportedly rejected previous Navy Secretary John Phelan’s suggestion to build Trump-class battleships abroad to meet the president’s desired delivery of 2028.

“Building and maintaining ships in America is central to the president’s vision and strengthens the nation’s industrial base,” the budget document said. “While American shipbuilding remains the priority, the Navy will evaluate overseas options and whether allied and partner shipbuilding can supplement domestic production if U.S. industry cannot meet required timelines.”

Phelan told reporters at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium in April that the Navy was going to study the possibility of building warships outside the U.S.

He cited labor shortages in the U.S. as a catalyst for the potential move.

He was fired one day later, with the Trump administration citing a needed change in leadership.

But over the coming days, reports surfaced that a brewing fissure between Trump and Phelan came to a head after Trump bristled at Phelan’s idea to build Navy battleships abroad, a sentiment that flew in the face of Trump’s previous promise to build his namesake ship class in the U.S.

Phelan’s comments at SAS undercut the Trump administration’s messaging about revitalizing the American maritime industrial base by investing in U.S. shipyards, according to Hunter Stires, maritime strategist for previous Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro.

The fiscal 2027 shipbuilding plan, meanwhile, raises the possibility of turning overseas to build auxiliary ships, or ships that can provide fuel and ammunition to U.S. Navy combatant ships.

Specifically, the Navy would like to invest $450 million in obtaining one consolidated cargo replenishment at sea, or CONSOL, tanker in fiscal 2027. CONSOL references a commercial tanker chartered by Military Sealift Command that refuels a U.S. Navy ship while underway.

The Navy also aims to spend $2.3 billion over the next five years to purchase five tankers for fuel support, built “potentially” and “initially” at overseas shipyards.

The sea service is asking Congress for approval to build two auxiliary ships and the “flexibility for fabrication of some combatant modules overseas,” the shipbuilding plan says.

The budget also negates another of Phelan’s previous comments regarding the fiscal 2027 Defense Department budget request. The Navy announced that Golden Fleet-era battleships will be nuclear powered, despite Phelan saying at the Sea-Air-Space exposition that the presence of nuclear power aboard the future vessels was “unlikely.”

Overall, the service aims to increase its number of ships dramatically, according to the plan.

There are currently over 290 battle force ships, though the number, according to Navy requirements by law, is 355, the document stated. The service intends to have 395 vessels in fiscal 2027 and 450 vessels by the end of fiscal 2031.

The shipbuilding plan emphasizes three primary points the service views as key to asserting maritime supremacy: ending backlogs by rewarding industry partners that prioritize speed; making good on the Golden Fleet promise by building a high-low mix of advanced combatants, cost-effective ships and unmanned systems; and reinvigorating the maritime industrial base by creating jobs and attracting private investment.

The Navy plans to address the latter issue by increasing reliance on distributed shipbuilding sites, or sites away from a main shipbuilding yard.

Currently, only 10% of shipbuilding is taking place at distributed sites. The service wants to increase that number to 50% to increase flexibility, reduce reliance on legacy shipyards and accelerate delivery.

President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense budget calls for a $65.8 billion investment in shipbuilding, including funding for 34 manned ships and five unmanned platforms.

Exercise Balikatan, which wrapped up Friday, is the largest annual military exercise between the United States and the Philippines and is designed to improve combined readiness and maritime defense capabilities, while showcasing the countries’ commitment to a “free and open” Indo-Pacific.

The Joint Task Force Maritime Strike, or MARSTRIKE, is a two-day critical live-fire event of the Philippines exercise that took place on Wednesday and Thursday.

The drill brought together sensors, missile systems, aircraft and naval assets from the four countries to coordinate long-range fires against maritime targets.

“The MARSTRIKE demonstrated the strength of our combined and joint force by integrating sensors and shooters across multiple domains to achieve a shared tactical objective,” U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Thomas Savage, commanding general of the U.S. joint task force-forward, said in the release.

On the first day of the exercise, forces sank the decommissioned Philippine Navy vessel BRP Quezon with a Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Type-88 surface-to-ship missile, while the U.S. Army used High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to conduct strikes, the statement read.

“Deploying the Type-88 Surface-to-Ship Missile in this complex MARSTRIKE allowed us to validate our tactical integration with U.S. and Philippine forces,” JGSDF Lt. Col. Ishikawa Daisuke said in the announcement.

Philippine Air Force FA-50PH Fighting Eagles and A-29 Super Tucanos also sank the BRP Rajah Sulayman, another decommissioned Philippine Navy ship used as a target on the second day.

Supporting elements throughout the exercise included assets such as the U.S. Marine Corps’ Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System and Marine Air Defense Integrated System, along with fixed-wing aircraft from participating forces, unmanned aerial systems and the Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Charlottetown.

“The successful execution of the Maritime Strike activity demonstrates the growing level of interoperability between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and our allies,” Philippine Marine Corps Col. Dennis Hernandez, spokesperson for Balikatan 2026, said in the release.

The U.S. Army-led Joint Interagency Task Force 401, which was stood up in August 2025 and included in the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, selected two southern border installations to join and assist the program in advanced directed energy capabilities, according to a May 6 Department of Defense release.

“Countering unlawful and adversarial drone activity is a homeland defense imperative,” Brig. Gen. Matt Ross, JITF 401 director, said in the release.

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ to address this challenge, and this pilot program integrates cutting-edge technology into the department’s broader counter-drone toolkit,” he continued.

The chosen five installations include Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and Fort Bliss, Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as: Naval Base Kitsap, Washington; Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; and Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.

The locations were picked to support testing and operational assessments across a variety of mission goals and environments, per the release. The statement did not specify which systems the bases will focus on.

But the announcement does highlight certain counter-unmanned aircraft systems’ tools, such as high-energy lasers and high-powered microwave systems, that can counteract adversarial or unlawful drone activity while diminishing risk to nearby personnel and infrastructure.

The release comes after the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration conducted anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico in March.

Those tests were the result of safety concerns after the Pentagon allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to utilize anti-drone lasers in February, causing the Federal Aviation Administration to suddenly close El Paso, Texas, airspace twice in one month.

In April, the DoD and FAA released a joint statement saying that a safety assessment proved the technology does not pose a risk toward passenger aircraft and that the two will work together to implement a safety agreement, according to the April release.

“Our collaboration with the FAA and the successful demonstration at White Sands were pivotal steps forward in our counter-UAS efforts,” Col. Scott McLellan, task force deputy director, said in the release.

“We showed that directed-energy systems can counter drone threats while preserving the safety of air travelers,” McLellan continued. “This pilot program now allows us to translate that progress into evolving operational capability for the homeland.”

Within 180 days, the Defense Department will complete deployment plans with installation commanders, the release states, and operations will commence this year.

The announcement did not specify exactly when operations are slated to begin.

Ukraine and Russia agreed on Friday to a ceasefire from May 9 to May 11 as part of a U.S.-led push for peace under President Donald Trump after more than four years of war following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Trump said on Friday he hoped the ceasefire would be extended, but it was already showing signs of strain on Sunday, when each side accused the other of violating it.

Russia, Ukraine to enter temporary ceasefire with prisoner exchange, Trump says

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Sunday Moscow had refrained from large-scale aerial and missile attacks but had continued assaults along parts of the 745-mile front line where Russian forces are advancing.

He said Ukrainian troops were responding and defending their positions.

Russian state news agencies reported on Monday that Russia’s Defence Ministry had said it had recorded 23,802 ceasefire violations by Ukraine since the start of the ceasefire.

Russian troops had responded in kind to Ukrainian attacks on rocket launchers, artillery and drone launch sites, the ministry was quoted as saying.

One person was killed and three wounded in a Ukrainian attack on Russia’s southern Belgorod region, Russian state news agency TASS cited the regional governor as saying on Monday.

Frontline clashes

The General Staff of Ukraine’s military said 180 battlefield clashes had been recorded along the front line over the previous 24 hours. Russian forces had on Sunday deployed “kamikaze” drones and artillery in attacks on settlements and military positions, it said in a Monday morning update.

In its Monday afternoon report, the General Staff said Russian troops had carried out 38 new assaults on Ukrainian positions, adding: “Artillery shelling of border areas continues.”

Regional governors in Ukraine reported early on Monday that at least three people had been killed in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia and southern Kherson regions over the past 24 hours.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday he thought the war was coming to an end and that he would be willing to negotiate new security arrangements for Europe, with Germany’s former chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, as his preferred partner.

But European Union foreign ministers, arriving for a meeting in Brussels on Monday, rejected Putin’s suggestion, voicing skepticism that Russia was ready to end the war and negotiate sincerely on peace and security for Europe.

Speaking to Defense News during his first visit to Turkey, Fuhr described Ankara as a “trusted partner” and “valuable ally,” highlighting Turkish advances in drones, counter-drone systems, ammunition production and autonomous technologies as potential areas for future cooperation.

“The middle powers have to come together in a way they didn’t before,” said Fuhr, reflecting the Canadian political drive to establish new cooperation between the middle powers, as the United States steps back from its traditional role in the world.

“Individually we’re just not big enough, but collectively we are,” Fuhr said.

Alliances between middle powers are not always smooth. Between 2019 and January 2024, Canada imposed restrictions on arms sales to Turkey and cancelled a number of export permits, creating a de-facto weapons embargo. When asked about whether the embargo was politically worth it, Fuhr stressed that he was elected in 2025 and stated that Canada is focused on the future.

Fuhr noted that during his meetings in Turkey, officials on both sides had prioritized practical collaboration and strategic alignment instead of revisiting earlier disputes.

“Nobody’s raised any past information or anything that’s happened in the past,” he said. “Everyone is focused on responding to the moment and how we can work together moving forward.”

The Canadian official also pointed to upcoming high-level political engagement between the two countries, including planned visits by Prime Minister Mark Carney and current discussions surrounding a possible free trade agreement.

Ottawa does not have the luxury of wasting time to accelerate defense production and procurement. Central to Canada’s ambition to expand its defense industrial capacity is the newly accepted Defence Industrial Strategy and the creation of a new Defence Investment Agency.

“Our strategy is build, partner, buy,” Fuhr said. “If it’s urgent, we’ll probably have to go and buy it. If it’s something they can wait for, we’ll have to co-develop it.”

The minister stressed that Ottawa wants partnerships that help stimulate Canadian industry rather than relying solely on direct foreign procurement.

Fuhr said Turkey’s experience in developing an indigenous defense industrial base offered lessons for Ottawa, particularly in areas where Ankara has achieved rapid technological growth and supply-chain independence. He described Turkey as one of a small number of countries that have successfully developed a mature and largely independent defense industrial ecosystem, comparing Ankara’s progress to that of South Korea and France.

There are several sectors where Canada and Turkey could develop capabilities more rapidly. “Ammo production is one, drones, counter drones, those are pretty obvious places,” Fuhr said. He also suggested future cooperation could include co-development programs rather than simple off-the-shelf purchases, particularly in areas where Canada seeks faster capability growth without starting entirely from scratch.

Ottawa’s interest is not limited to procurement opportunities. Fuhr described Canada as a stable and reliable investment destination, highlighting the country’s financial system, investment climate and policies aimed at encouraging foreign direct investment.

The Canadian efforts in building a broader relationship with Turkey have already started to bear fruit. The Strategic and Unmanned Systems Research Center (SİSAM) of local Sefine Shipyard has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Canada-based Kraken Robotics during the Saha Expo 2026 here this month. As part of the agreement, Kraken will work with SİSAM to integrate the KATFISH towed synthetic aperture sonar system into its mission planning software and develop automatic target recognition capabilities.

That’s according to Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy John Perryman, who addressed service needs and quality of life concerns at a forum hosted by Military Officers Association of America this month.

With the back-to-back operational demands of the military intervention to capture and extract Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in January, followed by the airstrikes on and subsequent naval blockade of Iran, and amid ongoing drug interdiction operations around South and Central America, older force generation models are proving less effective, he said.

“So, one of the things we’ve learned is we’re going to have to come up with a different force generation model,” Perryman said. “... And so we think we can do better in our force generation model to generate the readiness that we know the department is going to consume. And so … let’s take a step back and really evaluate what that should look like.”

Throughout his career, he said, the force generation model had largely been based on a peacetime mindset.

“It’s like this conveyor belt that’s very prescriptive, and it executes on time,” he said.

For example, Perryman said, carrier strike groups deploy on three-year centers, meaning they cycle through training, deployment and maintenance every three years.

As recently as 2020, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday defended this structure amid proposals for change from then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, saying the Navy had “made and are projecting into the future to continue to meet every commitment, every deployment that we’ve been directed to do.”

But the deployment of the Ford, which will have been deployed for more than 330 days when it’s slated to pull into port in Norfolk, Va., at the end of this month, has reopened the debate about how the Navy, which has historically had five- to seven-month pumps, should structure deployments and time at home, Perryman said.

The Navy, he said, was considering challenges ranging from acquiring enough spare parts, to building in appropriate time for reset and training.

“So really that’s what we’re taking away from this. And we’ve started to do, I think, some pretty transformative work in that area,” he said.

The Navy in late April marked a first in more than two decades with three aircraft carriers operating simultaneously in the waters surrounding the Middle East.

Three’s company: Trio of US carriers operating in Middle East for first time in decades

Perryman’s comments advance a proposition by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle in late April at the Modern Day Marine Symposium. Caudle suggested transitioning amphibious ships, also on a 36-month deployment cycle, to a 50- or 52-month cycle that would incorporate two deployments.

By getting two deployments out of the same training and maintenance phase, Caudle suggested the Navy could “reduce the overhead … [and] gain some efficiency,” Breaking Defense reported.

Army, Air Force reevaluate demands

Other senior enlisted leaders who spoke alongside Perryman also described the difficulty of adapting to operational demands and an uncertain timeline.

Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Weimer said his service was working to develop “true readiness measurements” while also “trying to manage the current op tempo.”

At home, he said, the Army was working to modernize training ranges and align training more closely with current threats.

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force David Wolfe said months of air sorties had left the service with “tired folks out there and some tired equipment that needs our attention.”

“Another thing we’ve learned is that when you put the resources and the parts forward with the aircraft, the aircraft fly at an amazingly high rate, right,” he said.

“So we’ve got some work to do in that department with, you know, stable and predictable budgets and making sure that we’ve got the parts and the resources that we need in the places that we need them,” Wolfe added. “We need to do a better job of that in garrison, when we’re getting ready for whatever is to come, whatever we’re asked to do.”

But all the enlisted leaders emphasized their troops were performing well. The senior enlisted adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, David Isom, said the number of troops who had returned to duty after combat injuries was “off the charts.”

Isom added that he’d visited the sailors onboard the deployed carrier Ford and found them “motivated, excited, mission-focused.”

“I think that kind of inspiration keeps people coming back and inspires the next generation,” he said. “And we do see a lot of propensity to serve.”

First Lt. Kendrick Lamont Key Jr., of Richmond, Virginia, was found Saturday, one week after he and another soldier were reported missing. The two soldiers entered the ocean on May 2 near the Cap Draa Training Area during a joint military exercise.

The Moroccan Army said the soldiers went missing near a cliff.

The second service member, whose name has not been released, remained missing Monday.

Key, 27, was involved in African Lion 26, U.S. Africa Command’s largest annual joint exercise, which involved over 40 countries and this year spanned across Ghana, Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia.

He served as an air defense artillery officer assigned to the Charlie Battery, 5th Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command. While serving as a platoon leader, Key was known for caring deeply for soldiers across the unit.

“Kendrick embodied the highest standards of service as a selfless, inspirational leader whose unwavering dedication to his Soldiers and their development leaves an enduring legacy within our ranks,” Key’s battalion commander, Lt. Col. Chris Couch, said in a statement. “The 5-4 ADAR Family mourns the loss of an exceptional teammate, and our heartfelt thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the Key Family.”

Key graduated from Methodist University in Fayetteville, North Carolina, before entering the military via officer candidate school in 2023. He was commissioned in 2024 and joined Charlie Battery in 2025.

A Moroccan military search team found Key in the water approximately one mile from where both soldiers reportedly entered the ocean. The Royal Moroccan Armed Forces moved his remains by helicopter to Moulay El Hassan Military Hospital in Guelmim, Morocco, and the Army said plans are in motion to repatriate his body.

More than 1,000 U.S. and Moroccan personnel have been involved in the search for the two soldiers, and officials praised the Moroccan response.

“Our Moroccan hosts have provided every asset we’ve requested and incredible subject-matter expertise, from mountaineering and dive teams to UAS operators, aircraft and maritime assets,” said Gen. Christopher Donahue, the commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa.

“We’re incredibly grateful for the efforts they, along with our teammates from across the services, continue to pour in as we search for our remaining Soldier,” he said.

On May 7, two drones entered Latvia from Russian airspace, hitting a fuel depot. Nobody was injured. As early as March of this year, there had been incidents of Ukrainian drones crashing into Baltic allies’ territory, with one hitting a power plant chimney.

Following the latest incident, Latvia’s prime minister, Evika Siliņa, said that defense minister Andris Sprūds had lost her trust and “that of the public,” calling on him to resign. He did so on Sunday, being replaced by Col. Raivis Melnis of the Latvian Army.

Also on Sunday, Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, confirmed that the drones that struck Latvia were sent by his country, though not aimed at the Baltic republic. The fact that the drones missed their targets and crashed in friendly territory instead, he said, “was the result of Russian electronic warfare deliberately diverting Ukrainian drones from their targets in Russia.”

When a series of drones hit all three Baltic states earlier this year, there had been speculation that Russian electronic warfare may be to blame, and that Russia was deliberately re-routing the aircraft “back to sender” − but toward Europe.

The new statement by a top Ukrainian official provides the strongest public confirmation yet that this is a tactic employed by Moscow.

So far, there have been no deaths or injuries reported from wayward Ukrainian drones, but the accidental air strikes have laid bare the inadequate state of air defense even at NATO’s most exposed frontier, with the lack of fatalities seemingly mostly a matter of luck.

In Thursday’s strike, which took place 40 kilometers into Latvian territory from the Russian border, four empty oil storage tanks were damaged, and firefighters had to extinguish a smoldering area of around 30 square meters. Schools in Rēzekne were closed, air raid alerts were declared across three municipalities, and residents reported hearing explosions. French NATO Baltic Air Policing jets were scrambled during the alert.

Latvian officials initially said the drones were not shot down because the safety of civilians and infrastructure could not be guaranteed. Sprūds then reversed that stance entirely, saying: “Drones must be shot down — that’s the responsibility of the head of the Armed Forces and myself, as the political leader.”

As in March, the Baltic states have used the incident to call for stronger air defense measures. Latvia and Lithuania jointly called on NATO to boost regional air defenses in the wake of the May 7 strike, with Lithuania’s defense minister Robertas Kaunas appealing to NATO that “Strengthening anti-drone defense in our region should be a particular emphasis, and additional capabilities are welcome here.”

Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps and its Cerberus unmanned ground systems unit ran the April 25 rescue with a reconnaissance drone overhead.

The woman lived in the same house for 53 years before Russian forces destroyed it. Three other civilians from the same area were drone-escorted to a pickup point and handed to a 1st Mechanized Battalion armored vehicle, according to a Telegram post by the 3rd Army Corps.

Recon units said Russian drones saturated the airspace, making a conventional ground evacuation impossible. So Ukraine sent a robot.

The same UGV class that hauls ammunition and evacuates wounded soldiers is now pulling civilians out of contested ground — sometimes inside the same week, sometimes off the same platform.

Ukraine’s ground robots are dual-use by default.

Four years ago, that meant a Kyiv grandmother knocking a Russian drone out of the sky with a jar of pickled tomatoes — a wartime legend recounted by Business Insider.

Today, it means the Cerberus unit running ammunition and casualty evacuations on the same Lyman axis where it pulled the 77-year-old out last month, the 3rd Army Corps said.

Commanders inside Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces (SBS) describe the dual-use stack as a strategic doctrine, not improvisation.

“According to the SBS doctrine, a very large number of tasks fall to SBS. This is fire impact, mine-laying, logistical missions, engineering works, evacuation of the wounded and other measures,” Heorhii Khvystani, chief of staff of the Unmanned Systems Battalion of Ukraine’s 58th Separate Motorized Brigade, said on a panel at the Lviv Drone Autonomy Conference last month.

“UGVs perform important logistics and evacuation tasks on the front line. In March alone, the military carried out more than 9,000 missions using them,” Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov said April 18.

“Our goal is for 100 percent of frontline logistics to be performed by robotic systems.”

The Defense Ministry has contracted 25,000 UGVs in the first half of 2026 alone, more than double last year’s total, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the production of 50,000 ground robots for the year last week — creating a robotic ground force bigger than some allied armies.

“The main purpose of ground robots is to minimize human risk on the battlefield,” he said.

Ukrainian units have been logging dual-use UGV missions for months.

On the same April 25 operation that brought the grandma out of Lyman, the “Lut” Brigade and 100th Brigade used a UGV to extract a wounded “Luhansk” assault brigade soldier after a Russian ambush, according to UNITED24 Media.

Earlier the same month, Ukraine’s 1st Separate Medical Battalion ran six robotic casualty evacuation missions in a single day, with two UGVs covering roughly 185 miles (300 km) combined, according to Defence Blog.

Ukraine’s General Staff has credited robotic platforms with cutting personnel casualties by up to 30%.

Ukrainian commanders frame the doctrine in survivability terms.

“An autonomous solution is a tool designed to lift a human’s burden,” Yevhenii Lesin, deputy commander in Ukraine’s famed 412th Brigade “Nemesis,” said at the same Lviv panel attended by Khvystani last month. “A person can be preserved, their life can be saved, their time resources can be saved so that they can make decisions on how to apply the tool.”

In separate statements, Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the proposal would include a ceasefire running through May 11 and the exchange of 1,000 prisoners from each country.

Trump described the ceasefire as the result of U.S. diplomacy, writing in a Truth Social post that the request “was made directly by me.” He then thanked both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy for agreeing to the pause in fighting.

Zelenskyy, however, framed the agreement around the return of Ukrainian prisoners of war, and he seemed guarded about Russia’s willingness to uphold the ceasefire.

“We expect the United States to ensure that the Russian side fulfills these agreements,” he said in a social media post after thanking Trump for his involvement.

Ukraine’s skepticism toward the Russian commitment comes amid concerns about Moscow’s alignment with Iran.

Last month, a Ukrainian intelligence assessment alleged Russia had shared satellite imagery and cyber support with Tehran to support attacks against the U.S. and other countries.

Trump in late April publicly raised the idea of a temporary ceasefire for marking the anniversary of the end of World War II after a phone call with Putin. At the Time, Trump told reporters that he had suggested “a little bit of a ceasefire,” saying that Putin “might do that.”

The proposed ceasefire coincides with Russia’s Victory Day, which commemorates the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany during World War II.

Dubbed “Deal Team Six,” the crew is tasked with creating better deals with defense companies to ensure their production of U.S. military equipment is not at the expense of the taxpayer, but that of the contractor, according to a Thursday social media video posted by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth claims in the video that for decades, the department allowed contractors to “double-dip” when service members needed weapons, aircraft or ships, charging the taxpayer for factory builds and again for the final product.

“Despite paying companies to make weapons faster, scheduled delays were constant and cost overruns were the norm, all while their CEOs got rich,” Hegseth says in the video.

Deal Team Six, which is folded inside the Pentagon’s Economic Defense Unit, stood up in early April after it was introduced by Hegseth in a November 2025 memorandum that referred to the unit as a way to modernize contracting and provide incentives and possible penalties to industry partners.

Hegseth has sought to revamp the defense industrial base by scrapping the Defense Acquisition System and turning it into a Warfighting Acquisition System, designated the “arsenal of freedom.” The new system is meant to speed up project timelines and increase production.

In a November 2025 speech at the National War College at Fort McNair in D.C., Hegseth announced that the department would grant larger and longer contracts to companies for systems that have shown their merit.

In exchange for the companies to foot the bill for certain items — such as expansion efforts, new factories, assembly lines and factory plants — the department will provide “steady, long-term orders” for what the service members need, Hegseth’s recent video explains.

This is meant to guarantee that these defense companies can create equipment in higher volumes faster, while keeping to a flat price. Hegseth warned in the video that if companies don’t comply, the department will simply find others who will.

“We’re not tolerating delays in production or cost overruns anymore,” Hegseth says in the video.

“We’ve pushed out the bureaucrats who have made these deals in the past and replaced them with the most talented negotiators in the private sector,” he continued.

This unit was included in fiscal year 2026’s National Defense Authorization Act and appropriated more than $266 million for research, development, test and evaluation.

Included in President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2027 $1.5 trillion defense budget, the unit is allotted over $593 million in the same type of funding section as the 2026 fiscal year.

Although the team’s entire roster has not yet been revealed, George Kollitides, the former head of defense at Cerberus Capital Management, was named its director, according to Wall Street Journal reporting.

A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet from USS George H.W. Bush launched “precision munitions” at the smokestacks of M/T Sea Star III and M/T Sevda, disabling the vessels before they could reach an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman, according to U.S. Central Command.

“U.S. forces in the Middle East remain committed to full enforcement of the blockade of vessels entering or leaving Iran,” said Adm. Brad Cooper, the commander of CENTCOM.

The U.S. military has turned away 50 commercial vessels operating in the strait since the U.S. Navy blockade began on April 12.

Friday’s confrontation capped a tumultuous week in the waterway.

On Monday, the U.S. destroyed six Iranian small boats, as well as cruise missiles and drones, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched against ships under U.S. escort through the strait. The escort was part of the U.S.’s short-lived Project Freedom, a military operation to escort commercial ships that has since been paused.

U.S. forces also intercepted the Iranian-flagged unladen oil tanker, M/T Hasna, in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday as it made its way toward an Iranian port.

A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet from the USS Abraham Lincoln fired on the vessel after issuing several warnings, disabling the tanker.

And on Thursday, the U.S. conducted strikes against Iranian military facilities after Iran launched missiles, drones and small boats at three U.S. Navy vessels transiting the strait.

Despite continued military conflict around the Strait, President Donald Trump downplayed concerns about potential escalation, telling ABC News on Thursday that U.S. strikes against Iranian targets were just a “love tap” and that the four-week-old ceasefire was still in effect.

The U.S. and Iran remain in discussions over an agreement that would reportedly end the Iran war and shut down the country’s nuclear program.

According to Tuesday’s Marine Administrative Message, or MARADMIN, the Corps will deactivate all remaining Hornet squadrons by 2030 and eliminate the maintenance specialties associated with the aging fighter jet.

Marines currently serving in one of the six affected specialties — including mechanic, avionics and technician roles — will have the opportunity to retrain for F-35 jobs, move into another specialty or leave the service once their enlistment contracts end.

While the Corps said Marines are “highly encouraged” to laterally move from F/A-18 to F-35 specialties, those who do not transition voluntarily may be reassigned based “solely on the needs of the Marine Corps,” regardless of how much time remains on their contracts.

The transition will occur regionally, with Hornet operations ending at different installations over the next several years. Once those transitions are complete, the F/A-18 maintenance occupations will effectively cease to exist.

The Corps plans to end Hornet operations at the following locations:

• Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina, by Aug. 1, 2028
• Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, by Aug. 1, 2029
• Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas, by Aug. 1, 2030

The Marines have already replaced Hornet squadrons with F-35 units at several bases in the United States and overseas. In 2018, the service deactivated its squadron for training F/A-18 pilots.

The Marine Corps adopted the F/A-18 Hornet in 1983 and has since flown it extensively in conflicts including Libya, Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan, according to a Naval Air Systems Command fact sheet.

NAVAIR described the aircraft as “the workhorse of Marine Corps tactical aviation,” noting that the Hornet proved capable of shooting down enemy fighters and striking ground targets during the same mission.

The command also highlighted the aircraft’s survivability, citing incidents in which Hornets damaged by surface-to-air missiles were repaired and returned to flight operations within days.

Although experts still consider the Hornet a capable platform, the F-35 was designed for modern warfare with advanced stealth and electronic warfare capabilities. According to the 2026 Marine Aviation Plan, the Marines plan to expand its F-35 fleet to 420 aircraft.

The Marine Corps wants to develop robots that can do the grunt work of laying down the matting used to quickly construct Expeditionary Airfields, or EAF, in amphibious beachheads and other remote locations.

“Currently, assembling EAF matting is a manual process carried out by Marines — a task that is physically demanding, labor-intensive and exposes personnel to potential hazards,” explained the Small Business Innovation Research proposal, which has a deadline of June 3.

The project, titled “Automated Expeditionary Airfield Assembly,” calls for robots capable of operating on “uneven or unstable surfaces.” They must also “manipulate and position heavy EAF mat sections with precision” while enduring “harsh environmental and operational conditions,” according to the proposal.

The Marine Corps envisions robots with sufficient autonomy to “navigate and control without human assistance, which includes obstacle avoidance, path planning and grasping,” according to the SBIR.

Contractor solutions will be expected to explore “various robotic configurations — such as mobile manipulators and assistive technologies — for their effectiveness in EAF mat handling, alignment and interconnection across diverse and austere terrains,” the proposal states.

Phase I of the project involves demonstrating “the technical feasibility of a robotic system capable of automating or augmenting the assembly of EAF prefabricated surfaced aluminum (PSA) Flat Top-Nested (Top-N) Trackway mats.”

Robots will be evaluated on metrics such as “payload capacity, reach, manipulation precision, power consumption and operational endurance,” according to the proposal.

Phase II calls for a functional prototype capable of automated or semi-automated operations.

“The robot shall be able to handle the PSA mats in some manner to aid in the assemble of the airfield, be a closed system and able be able to operate in a realistic environment,” the SBIR specified. “The system will be judged on feasibility, time to assemble, ease of use and overall size and mass.”

Phase III requires a deployable system for field testing. The SBIR emphasizes that the robot “will undergo hardening against electrical, environmental and cyber threats.”

“The resulting system must demonstrate sustained operation in deployed environments, achieving significant reductions in manning requirements, operational costs and/or deployment time,” the proposal states.

The Marine Corps has been working to ease the difficulty of expeditionary airfield construction, including adopting commercial lightweight matting.

Meanwhile, robotics companies are developing robots optimized for construction work, including four-legged and even two-legged humanoid robots.

For airport operations, Japan Airlines is testing humanoid robots for baggage handling.

The project is attracting attention as disruptions to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, following the U.S.-Iran-Israel conflict brings focus to other vulnerable maritime chokepoints.

The Malacca Strait, a narrow stretch of water passing between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, is the shortest route between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Jointly managed by these three countries, it carries more than a quarter of global sea trade. It is particularly crucial for China because a bulk of its maritime trade including nearly three quarters of its imported crude oil supplies transits these waters.

Part of India’s far-flung Andaman and Nicobar archipelago, the Great Nicobar island lies closer to Indonesia than the Indian mainland and has long been eyed as a potential defense outpost in the Indo Pacific and a gateway to the Malacca Strait. It is located about 150 kilometers from the strait’s western entrance.

The project, which involves developing the island as a trading and maritime hub, got the go-ahead after environmental concerns raised about its impact on the ecosystem were set aside in February by the National Green Tribunal, a court mandated to protect the environment. It will come up over 160 square kilometers of tropical forest land and will be implemented in three phases.

“It leverages Great Nicobar’s strategic location to strengthen India’s national security, maritime and defense presence in the Indo-Pacific while simultaneously embedding strong environmental safeguards and tribal welfare mechanisms,” the Indian government said in a press statement on May 1.

Expanding focus to the Indo-Pacific

The project will include building an international container trans-shipment terminal, a dual-use civil and military airport, a power plant, and a township at Galathea Bay in the Great Nicobar Island.

Analysts say expanding existing airstrips on the island will facilitate operations of fighter jets and surveillance aircraft while building new jetties and logistics hubs will boost naval operations.

The aim is to extend India’s defense focus from its mainland along some of the world’s busiest shipping routes.

“It enhances India’s ability in the maritime space whether it is for surveillance, monitoring of shipping traffic, or potential naval operations. Great Nicobar Island has been talked of as a permanent forward base for military power projection. So essentially it strengthens India’s presence in the Indo-Pacific,” according to Harsh Pant, vice president at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

The current crisis in the Hormuz Strait, where sea traffic remains virtually paralyzed since the Iran conflict erupted has underlined the need to strengthen India’s deterrence posture and secure trade routes, according to retired Brigadier Arun Sahgal, who directs the Forum for Strategic Initiatives in New Delhi.

“This is what I call the Hormuz Strait effect. We are now looking at the possibility that waterways can be militarily dominated. So the idea is to develop Nicobar into a credible military outpost to oversee the security of Malacca waters and ensure that any inimical player, be it Chinese or the United States, they do not interfere in the maritime traffic in a manner that is being done by both Iran and the U.S. in Hormuz,” said Sahgal.

The China factor

Even as India leverages its geography to its advantage at Great Nicobar, analysts point out that countering its regional rival, China, is a key factor behind the project.

While both countries have long confronted each other along their rugged Himalayan borders, India also faces a maritime challenge from Beijing as China edges closer to its coast. Beijing has built ports in Indian Ocean countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and road and rail links in Myanmar to gain overland access to the Indian Ocean. Chinese submarines and surveillance ships traverse these waters regularly.

“In some ways developing this project allows India to push back against China in its own way because Beijing is intruding into India’s strategic space,” says strategic affairs expert Pant. “This ability to transform Indian territory for maritime power projection is going to be critical at a time when Indo-Pacific competition is getting enhanced. At the same time, India also benefits economically.”

Other analysts stress that the project is important for India, which calls itself a “net security provider” in the Indian Ocean.

“The influence of the Chinese navy is only likely to increase from now on to ensure that sea lanes are not interfered with. It is imperative for India also to ensure freedom of navigation if it has to keep its leverage in this region,” according to Sahgal.

“We have elevated our work to a more advanced level through the technology base we established two years ago within our Ministry of National Defense R&D Center,” Turkish Defense Minister Yaşar Güler said during a press conference on Thursday.

“Our Yıldırımhan Long-Range Missile represents a significant technological milestone as Turkey’s first liquid-fueled rocket missile system, capable of hypersonic-speed flight and possessing the country’s longest range,” he added.

According to information provided by the MND, the Yıldırımhan missile uses unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. The ministry stated that the missile is capable of carrying a 3-ton warhead to a range of 6,000 kilometers.

The country has been working on hypersonic technologies and liquid-propellant propulsion systems for nearly a decade, the director-general of the Turkish Ministry of National Defence’s R&D Center, Nilüfer Kuzulu, told Turkish broadcaster NTV Türkiye.

Kuzulu stated that after initially producing small quantities of the propellants in laboratory conditions, the ministry eventually transitioned to serial production and integrated the technology into the Yıldırımhan missile program.

The development of the propellant technology represented a major technical challenge because the chemicals had not previously been produced domestically in Turkey.

“Developing this fuel is extremely difficult, and it was not something previously manufactured in Turkey,” she said. “What began as small-scale laboratory work years ago has now been transformed into serial production. We now have both the production capability and the associated production facility.”

MND sources said the Yıldırımhan Missile System has successfully completed laboratory testing and will enter field or ground testing in the coming period. Work on the field-testing campaign is continuing according to the planned schedule.

“As part of the National Technology Initiative, our Ministry will continue with determination to support the development of our defense industry, develop indigenous and national systems, and enhance Türkiye’s strategic deterrence capability,” the ministry stated.

In stationary concentration, a soldier moved only his fingers as he steered a small device through plastic pipes arranged into a makeshift obstacle course built to qualify soldiers on a tool that has quickly changed the course of modern warfare: drones.

Unmanned aircraft shape nearly every part of the battlefields today, from reconnaissance and artillery spotting to precision strikes and surveillance.

As the U.S. Army moves to integrate drones into each formation, units across the force are figuring out how to teach, train and test soldiers on rapidly evolving technology.

At Fort Stewart, that effort has morphed into a homegrown schoolhouse that is designed to push drone operators beyond their comfort zone and into a stressful state of sweaty palms and elevated heart rates.

The Marne Unmanned Center of Excellence, which became operational in March, moves soldiers through academic instruction, virtual simulators and increasingly challenging flight tests.

The classroom

The center starts with classroom instruction on airspace rules and flight controls. Before soldiers can send a drone into the air, they spend time at a desk, fiddling with controllers hooked up to laptops. For weeks, instead of shooting rifles, soldiers become engrossed in virtual reality scenes reminiscent of video games.

They learn to toggle the controllers to send their virtual drones through windows and under sallyports. They learn to navigate when the line of sight is lost or video quality diminished. They learn to attack.

Soldiers spend 40 to 50 hours operating virtual drones before touching a real unmanned aircraft.

Fort Stewart also hosts a 60-seat collective trainer, where each individual operates their own laptop while a battlefield view is plastered across a massive screen at the front of the room.

Drones then become a part of the fight and operators must interact with other capabilities, such as artillery and armored vehicles.

The flight line

Once soldiers can send a virtual drone through a gauntlet of obstacles, they go outside to try the real thing under the watchful eyes of an expert.

In a parking lot near the building, one student stood next to his instructor as she looked on.

Spc. Tyler Lee stared at his controller in deep concentration, periodically looking up to check his drone’s location as he maneuvered it down from the sky. A satisfied smile danced on his face after a successful landing.

Lee grew up playing video games, listing first-person games, like Call of Duty, among his favorites. Those games, he said, helping him pick up operating first-person view, or FPV, drones like the one he was flying. He even bought a commercial drone to improve his skills.

Despite completing the academic training and simulators, Lee was modest about his abilities.

“I’m nowhere near proficient,” he said. “I would still consider myself a beginner even though I’ve flown a lot and I’ve got my own [drone].”

Staff Sgt. Nway Nway Lwin, Lee’s instructor, said maneuvering a drone around was just the beginning of becoming an expert.

For individual qualification training, Lwin said she would have a student focus on basic maneuvers: moving right, left, up, down and through, gathering basic information about the surroundings as they go.

Once they master that, Lwin makes things complicated with real-word scenarios.

“You are doing the recon mission,” she’ll tell students. “This is your [Named Area of Interest] and this is where you are setting up — show me the flight plan.”

The sky

Drone operators who have learned basic maneuvering can advance to complicated obstacle courses that are graded on time standards.

They also go into the woods, pushing their skills by flying without being able to see the drone in the sky.

Because of that, Fort Stewart’s drone center has a unique relationship with its air traffic controllers and range control officials. Many drones can reach heights that intersect with crewed aircraft, requiring constant monitoring.

Other drones are built to explode. Some units use Fort Stewart ranges to practice with one-way attack drones designed to carry explosive payloads that detonate when they crash into a target.

One-way drones are already in use in theaters across the world, according to the base’s range control, and are just another unmanned aircraft skill to master.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jonathan Morrison, who helped spearhead the base’s drone training program, said his goal is not just to qualify operators.

“You can be qualified, but can you be well qualified?” he asked.

“Can you be super confident with your system? And can you be confident enough to go out there and perform any mission at any time, anywhere at a moment’s notice?” Morrison speculated.

The U.S. fired at Iranian missile- and drone-launch sites, command-and-control locations, and intelligence and surveillance hubs after “unprovoked” Iranian attacks against Arleigh Burke-class destroyers USS Truxtun, USS Rafael Peralta and USS Mason.

“CENTCOM does not seek escalation but remains positioned and ready to protect American forces,” CENTCOM said.

No U.S. vessels were struck as a result of the attacks.

Pentagon says Iran ceasefire holds despite exchanges in Strait of Hormuz

Despite the uptick in military activity, President Donald Trump told ABC News on Thursday that U.S. strikes against Iranian targets were just a “love tap” and that the ceasefire was still in effect.

On Monday, the U.S. destroyed six Iranian small boats, as well as cruise missiles and drones, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched against ships the U.S. was escorting through the strait as part of Project Freedom, which has since been paused.

On Wednesday, Trump said the war would “be over quickly” at an event for Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate Burt Jones.

The U.S. and Iran are reportedly deliberating over a peace memorandum that would end the war and halt Iran’s nuclear program.

The paper identified ten key areas where Europe faces strategic capability gaps, including command and control, autonomous systems and deep strike. Reaching defense autonomy would cost an estimated €150 billion to €200 billion by 2030, and €500 billion over the next decade, according to the paper published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Germany and Europe depend on the United States across the entire military-effect chain, from satellite-based reconnaissance to battlefield fire control, according to the paper dubbed Sparta 2.0. Current plans by European countries for significantly higher defense spending only provide “modest” gains in European independence, the authors said.

“A high degree of European independence can be achieved within a few years, at a cost that can be financed through the planned budget increases,” President of the German Council on Foreign Relations and former Airbus CEO Thomas Enders, one of the authors, said in a statement on Thursday. “Ukraine shows us that this does not take decades.”

In addition to Enders, the paper was signed by Jeannette zu Fürstenberg, president of venture-capital firm General Catalyst; economist Moritz Schularick, the president of the Kiel Institute; Airbus Chairman and former Deutsche Telekom CEO René Obermann; and security analyst and former defense staffer Nico Lange.

“A substantial part of the identified capability gaps can be addressed within a few years, provided that the appropriate political prioritization is in place,” the authors wrote. “The prerequisite is that Europe understands the strategic dimension of its defense challenge as its ‘Manhattan Project.’”

Substantial progress toward autonomous European capacity to act is realistic within three to five years, while “far-reaching autonomy” is achievable within five to 10 years, on condition that goal is pursued as a political priority within a joint European effort, the paper said.

Financing Europe’s sovereignty is achievable with around 10% of total European defense spending, with the expenditure required over the next decade corresponding to about 0.25% of GDP, according to the five authors.

The paper identified “ten central capability gaps” Europe needs to plug to be able to act autonomously. Cost estimates for programs proposed in the paper are “necessarily subject to considerable uncertainty,” with deviations in the range of 20% to 30% to be expected, the authors said.

Establishing a European command-and-control capability could take three to four years and would cost anywhere from €10 billion to €20-plus billion, according to the paper. Europe lacks a counterpart to U.S. defense-technology company Palantir, and building a sovereign European C2 and battle-management system is a priority, using Ukraine’s Delta system as a reference.

Europe has largely missed Ukraine’s paradigm shift to drone-dominated warfare, and building sufficient capacity in scaled autonomous systems could take three to five years, with a price tag of €30 billion or more.

Action points include setting up mass-production capacity for several million drones and loitering munitions per year, according to the report. Another line of action would be to set up a major development program for unmanned ground vehicles involving the German automotive industry, land-systems makers and AI startups, and designed for serial production.

Ground-based deep precision strike is another capability gap that could be filled in three to five years, within a cost envelope of €20 billion to €30 billion. Sixth-generation air combat systems would take 10 years or more and cost at least €200 billion, with that estimate including funding for two parallel sixth-generation development programs.

Europe has a gap in air defense, particularly in affordable, large-scale counter-drone and short-range capability at the level of brigades, assets and infrastructure, according to the paper. Ballistic missile defense “remains an equally critical gap.” Initial operating effectiveness in air defense could take three to five years, while “full build-out” that includes next-generation autonomous interceptors might require five to 10 years, for a total cost envelope of €50 billion.

The paper also mentioned satellite reconnaissance, communications as well as positioning, navigation and timing as a capability gap, with the number one priority to build a European equivalent to Starlink.

Other identified priority capability gaps are space launch; persistent airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; military cloud, software and AI; strategic airlift and military-operational support; as well as electronic warfare and suppression of enemy air defenses.

Implementation should run through lead coalitions of countries, rather than a “new European super-structure,” according to the authors.

Europe further needs a paradigm shift in areas such as procurement, with prototype competitions rather than starting with hundreds of pages of specifications, the paper said. Contracts should reward outcomes rather than provide input specifications, focus on production capacity rather than number of units procured, while barriers to new entrants should be low, according to the authors.

“Ukraine shows that a broad supplier landscape combining established and new actors is more resilient, faster and more cost-effective than relying on a few large prime contractors,” the five authors wrote.

Europe has the financial means, industrial base and technology to overcome its strategic dependencies, and the bottleneck is political will to coordinate, prioritize and break with “decades of fragmentation.”

“We are convinced that Europe’s security will be decided by technological superiority and by the willingness to invest massively where it counts,” the authors said. “If we build the central capabilities at the right place, Europe can protect itself against aggressors and produce credible deterrence.”