Boeing’s BSU-111/B Payload Delivery Unit is a wing-and-turbojet engine kit that converts a 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) into a long-range JDAM (JDAM LR) dubbed the GBU-75. The result is a gravity bomb with the reach of a cruise missile.

Boeing said it has spent nearly $100 million of its own money on the program.

“Scaling production of the GBU-75 will provide the fleet with an affordable, sustainable solution designed to eliminate long-range land and sea-based threats to U.S. and international forces,” said Bob Ciesla, vice president of Boeing Precision Engagement Systems.

The BSU-111/B wing-and-engine kit is the latest modification to the JDAM family, which has previously seen the gravity bomb receive a tail kit that steered it roughly 15 nautical miles and a wing kit that further stretched that distance to 40.

The Kratos-designed TDI-J85 engine pushes that past 300.

The JDAM LR’s capabilities go beyond land strikes. The QuickStrike Long Range mining variant pairs it with a bomb carrying a ship-tracking sensor. Boeing has shown concepts loading large numbers onto Air Force bombers, though no Air Force buy has been announced.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, buys JDAM for both the Air Force and U.S. Navy. The first GBU-75s are bound for the Navy.

The Navy demonstrated the weapon back in April, when Super Hornets released two JDAM LRs over the Point Mugu Sea Range off California.

The April 1 round separated cleanly, fired up its engine and flew 34 minutes before landing within meters of its target. The April 3 round added altitude changes and maneuvering. Each covered roughly 200 nautical miles.

When announcing those tests in April, Capt. Sarah Abbott, the Navy’s Precision Strike Weapons program manager, emphasized the need to give the fleet’s JDAMs greater standoff range.

“As Naval Air Forces in theater continue to rely heavily on JDAM systems, the program recognizes a critical need to provide the fleet with greater standoff range,” she said. “This new capability allows pilots to engage targets from significantly safer distances, maintaining a tactical advantage in contested environments.”

Reusing existing infrastructure is a key aspect of the program’s appeal.

Navy budget documents describe JDAM LR as a modification to the baseline program, built on the existing production line and guidance hardware. Any jet that can drop a conventional JDAM can carry the new variant without modification, according to Boeing’s release.

The award, which had not appeared in the Pentagon’s daily contract announcements as of Aug. 5, is an undefinitized action, meaning Boeing began work before the two sides agreed on a price. The Government Accountability Office has long called these contracts risky because contractors are reimbursed for allowable costs, regardless.

Boeing’s release did not say how many GBU-75s the contract buys, how much they cost or when deliveries begin.

The warning envisaged attacks on the energy facilities, oil fields, refineries, electricity grids, water infrastructure, transport networks and other strategic assets of Washington’s closest Arab allies, according to a senior Iranian official.

The message, part of a broader Iranian effort to deter further U.S. military action by raising the prospect of severe economic disruption across the Gulf, was delivered through a flurry of high-level diplomatic contacts after Trump threatened on July 28 to strike Iran’s energy network and infrastructure, the sources said.

Two senior Iranian officials, two Gulf sources and a senior regional diplomat with knowledge of the discussions said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke with his Saudi, Turkish and Qatari counterparts, as well as Pakistan’s army chief. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Araqchi urged Washington’s Gulf allies to use their influence with Trump to dissuade him from launching renewed strikes, the senior diplomat said, warning that any attack on Iran would prompt retaliation against U.S. assets and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

His message was consistent in every conversation, the diplomat said: “We’re ready to retaliate, but finding a diplomatic solution is the best way to avoid wider escalation and destruction across the region.”

“The Iranian warning was unequivocal: if America targeted Iran’s infrastructure, they would retaliate by striking Gulf energy facilities and other regional targets,” one Gulf source said.

The diplomatic campaign underscores how Iran is seeking to turn Gulf vulnerability into leverage, confronting regional governments with the prospect that any renewed U.S.-Iran confrontation could place the infrastructure underpinning their economies directly in the firing line.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman subsequently spoke with Trump, urging him to delay military action, return to negotiations, secure a ceasefire and pursue a diplomatic settlement, the senior diplomat and Gulf sources said.

The warning was intended for every Gulf state, another Gulf source said, but was conveyed primarily through Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In recent years, Iran has repaired ties with its Gulf neighbours, including its former regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia have all urged Washington to resume talks with Tehran and avert renewed conflict amid Iranian warnings that another round of U.S. strikes could “turn the region into a fireball,” the second Iranian official said.

On Aug. 2, Trump said he agreed to cancel the attack on Iran “subject to being able to rapidly make a deal”.

THREATS OF WIDER REGIONAL ESCALATION

“Saudi Arabia believes further escalation will only bring more destruction,” the first Gulf source said. “That is why it urged Trump to give diplomacy a chance.”

While urging Washington to pursue diplomacy, Riyadh also made clear it would defend itself if threatened. The second Gulf source said Saudi Arabia warned that any attack on its territory would be met with a military response.

Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst close to the Royal Court, said the kingdom’s assessment is that further escalation is unlikely to achieve the desired result.

“The Kingdom believes a combination of proportionate military responses and sustained pressure on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz offers the strongest path toward a practical diplomatic settlement,” Shihabi said.

Iran’s clerical leadership has repeatedly demanded the closure of U.S. military bases in the Gulf and called on Gulf Arab states to stop sharing intelligence with Washington, which Tehran believes has been used to facilitate attacks against it.

“They still remember Saudi Arabia’s Aramco,” he added, referring to the September 2019 drone and missile attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais facilities that temporarily knocked out more than half the kingdom’s crude oil production and exposed the vulnerability of Gulf energy infrastructure.

“The enemy continues to threaten Iranian infrastructure. If Iran suffers damage, it will inflict far greater damage in return,” added the Iranian official who cited the target list including power grids and refineries.

From Tehran’s perspective, Trump now faces two unpalatable choices, the senior Iranian official said: escalate a conflict that could engulf the Gulf and disrupt global energy supplies, or accept a negotiated outcome that falls short of the decisive victory Washington seeks.

One of the principal obstacles to an agreement, the senior regional diplomat said, is Washington’s reluctance to allow Tehran to emerge claiming victory.

“The United States wants something it can present as proof that it won the war,” the diplomat said.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

The agreements come as demand for Patriot and THAAD interceptors has increased following conflicts in Iran and Ukraine that strained U.S. missile inventories. They also come days after a Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis estimated the United States had depleted roughly two-thirds of its pre-war Patriot interceptor inventory during the conflict with Iran.

Defense officials said the agreements are intended to support the department’s long-term procurement objective of nearly 14,000 Patriot and THAAD interceptors by providing sustained demand signals to critical suppliers throughout the defense industrial base. The initiative is designed to triple production capacity for Patriot Advanced Capability-3, or PAC-3, Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors and quadruple production capacity for THAAD interceptors.

DoD said it will work directly with key component suppliers instead of relying solely on prime contractors, encouraging investment in advanced tooling, facility modernization and workforce development needed to sustain higher production rates.

“Building the Arsenal of Freedom requires robust, dynamic supply chains at every level of the industrial base,” Michael P. Duffey, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said in a statement. “Framework agreements with munition components suppliers like Northrop Grumman are vital to accelerating the tripling of PAC-3 and quadrupling of THAAD interceptor production.”

The agreements establish a second source for Patriot solid rocket motors, expand production of ignition safety devices for PAC-3 interceptors and increase manufacturing capacity for key THAAD structural components, including mid-body shells, muzzle covers and rail car assemblies.

The initiative is part of the Defense Department’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy and was developed in coordination with the Missile Defense Agency, the Munitions Acceleration Council and the Economic Defense Unit to strengthen the resilience of the missile production supply chain.

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed the Republican president’s approval rating ticking higher to 37%, up 3 points from last month when his rating tied the lowest of his presidency.

Trump has offered shifting objectives for the conflict such as aiding Iranians to topple their leaders, taking out Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The poll found that 69% of Americans — including four in 10 Republicans — think Trump has not “clearly explained the goals of U.S. military involvement in Iran.”

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said Trump will not make decisions based on “fluid opinion polls” and reiterated the president’s resolve to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“What matters most to the American people is having a commander in chief who takes bold action to keep them safe,” Wales said.

Approval of the conflict has been below 40% since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on February 28 — a stark contrast to the opening months of other recent conflicts.

While each had different context, the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 had the support of about 70% of Americans in its early months. During the early days of the Afghanistan War, which lasted from 2001 to 2021, about 90% of the country backed the war, according to polling by Gallup.

‘No idea’ why US at war

Public disapproval of the war is weighing on Trump and his Republican Party ahead of the November midterm elections when the president’s allies will defend slim majorities in the U.S. Congress.

“It’s not clear why we started a war with them. I have no idea,” said Alex Womack, a retired turbine repair specialist from Stockbridge, Georgia, who became a Republican in part because he liked how Republican President George H.W. Bush handled the Gulf War in 1991.

Womack, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during that conflict, said his support for Trump has ebbed because of the war. “I don’t think he’s doing very well, personally,” he said.

To date, 18 American soldiers have died in the conflict while thousands have died in Iran and in Lebanon, where Iran-allied fighters have battled Israeli forces.

The war has pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, a blow to the finances of many Americans. Gasoline prices are averaging just over $4 a gallon nationwide, up from about $3 a gallon just before the war started on February 28.

“This puts pressure on the party in a myriad of ways, all of them bad,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist and a White House spokesman during the presidency of George W. Bush. “The White House officials have been saying since January that they need to win economic arguments. It’s hard to win the economic arguments when you’re clearly focused on foreign policy.”

Independent registered voters in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were favoring the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican by 36% to 20%. Independent voters also favored Democrats over Republicans on economic policy, the poll found.

Trump vowed to stay out of wars

In campaigning for the 2024 presidential election, Trump said he would keep the U.S. out of enduring conflicts. He initially estimated the Iran war would last four to five weeks. He has bristled over comparisons to other wars, including the Vietnam War, which lasted two decades and claimed the lives of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers.

Rhyan Anderson, an independent from Fairburn, Georgia, who voted for Trump in 2024, said he thinks Trump should focus on domestic problems rather than on helping Israel or other allies.

“My biggest thing is just focus on the people who are actually in the country,” said Anderson, who works two jobs in security and data collection and said he voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. “I know we have allies and things like that, but there’s a lot of people here that really need help.”

Since mid-March, the Reuters/Ipsos survey has asked respondents whether they support or oppose military strikes on Iran. At that time, 37% said they supported the war.

That compared to 27% approval on the day the war began, when the Reuters/Ipsos survey also gave respondents the option to choose unsure, which 29% did.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, which was conducted online and nationwide, gathered responses from 1,246 U.S. adults and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

The previously unreported findings offer a rare glimpse into how military and security-linked institutions in China are leveraging cutting-edge U.S. AI models as a shortcut to developing specialised systems of their own, despite Washington’s efforts to restrict Beijing’s access to advanced chips and other strategic technologies.

The documents show widespread use of a technique known as “model distillation,” in which outputs from a powerful AI system are used to train smaller, specialised models that can be deployed locally without the enormous computing requirements needed to build frontier AI systems from scratch.

Reuters’ review, which included research compiled by the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation and shared exclusively with the news agency, showed distillation is widely used by researchers linked to the People’s Liberation Army and other military institutions.

The papers suggest Chinese defense institutions see leading U.S. AI models as both a source of technical insight and a way to close the gap with American rivals.

The dispute centres on unauthorised extraction, not distillation itself, a widely used industry practice.

The issue has emerged as a major flashpoint ahead of U.S.-China talks on AI governance and safety. U.S. officials have accused some Chinese entities of using distillation to extract capabilities from American AI models, potentially undermining export controls and infringing intellectual property rights.

China has rejected the accusations, saying Washington is pursuing AI “hegemonism” while arguing that U.S. firms have engaged in similar practices.

Chinese developers have also disputed claims that their AI advances rely on foreign models. AI startup Moonshot last week denied allegations by the Trump administration that its Kimi K3 model was built using distillation, saying it was driven by proprietary innovations.

Sunny Cheung, a Jamestown fellow who analysed over 60 of the papers, said Chinese military scientists are systematically capturing the reasoning steps of Western models to adapt them for surveillance, cyber warfare and tactical decision-making.

“Teaching a model the right answer is one thing but teaching it the reasoning behind the answer is much harder,” said Cheung.

“These papers show Chinese military-linked researchers are trying to transfer that expensive, proprietary reasoning from Western models into smaller systems they can control and deploy locally.”

Reuters verified the academic literature and identified an additional two dozen military-linked case studies.

One paper published last year by researchers in PLA Unit 96941, a military intelligence and cyber-warfare unit in Beijing, described using OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 to process sensitive military source code.

The researchers said third-party models were unsuitable for handling classified information. To overcome that limitation, they used GPT-3.5 to summarize software code and trained a domestic model on those summaries to run entirely within Chinese military networks.

The White House, Pentagon, China’s foreign ministry, the PLA and OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment.

WIDE USE, FROM MONITORING TO MILITARY

Chinese researchers have used distillation for purposes ranging from content monitoring to military deployment, Reuters’ and Jamestown’s review of the papers showed.

At the North University of China, which has close links to the country’s weapons industry, researchers used Anthropic’s Claude 3 Haiku to generate synthetic training data for a text classification model for social media monitoring and content moderation.

Anthropic said it does not provide commercial access to Claude in China or to Beijing-controlled firms and uses monitoring systems to detect policy violations.

The company added that distilled models may lose the original systems’ safety safeguards, potentially allowing sensitive capabilities to be transferred to models beyond its control.

A 2024 paper from the PLA’s National University of Defense Technology described using distillation to shrink an image-processing model for deployment on unmanned aerial vehicles, allowing drones to analyse live video and support navigation and targeting decisions in real time even when communications are cut.

Similarly, researchers at China’s Academy of Military Sciences used distillation to run a target-recognition model on tactical hardware during simulated maritime operations involving drones, ships and unmanned submarines, a study published earlier this year showed.

BENEFITS AND LIMITS

China has embraced distillation as it seeks to compete with the U.S. in frontier AI while facing constraints on advanced computing resources due to Washington’s export controls on high-end chips.

Central and local governments have promoted “model lightweighting” and edge computing, directing subsidies and research funding toward technologies that enable AI models to run on drones, satellites and other devices with limited processing power.

Experts caution, however, that distillation has significant limitations.

As Chinese AI models close the gap with their U.S. counterparts, military researchers are also examining distillation as a potential security risk.

In January, researchers at the Army Engineering University published a paper on the threat of “data-free distillation,” a method of reverse-engineering a model’s capabilities without direct access to its core parameters.

To counter that vulnerability, they proposed defense mechanisms designed to mask the hidden logical information exposed in a model’s public outputs.

Distilled models also inherit only selected capabilities and cannot fully replicate the broad intelligence of frontier systems.

Trevor Koverko, co-founder of AI data company Sapien, said distilled models remain less capable than their teacher models.

“It is best understood as transferring selected capabilities into a cheaper, locally controlled system, not achieving independence from frontier AI.”

After decades of relying on the U.S.-made Patriot interceptor system and its hit-to-kill PAC-3 munition as the most proven air defense against ballistic missiles, three new tracks are now leveraging international cooperation and a dire global need to develop and manufacture cheaper interceptor platforms.

Some officials, meanwhile, are hoping the sense of urgency leads to the fielding of the first new prototypes by the end of 2026 — years faster than today’s Patriots can be made.

It’s an ambitious ask.

The missile defense world has long described the mechanics behind anti-ballistic defense as akin to hitting a bullet out of the sky with another bullet, multiplied in difficulty by the number of simultaneous air threats coming in — a stark reminder of the mass air raids seen today in Iran and Ukraine that stretch air defenses to the breaking point.

Today’s anti-ballistic momentum began with U.S. President Donald Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff comment at the NATO summit in Ankara earlier this month, when he pledged to grant Ukraine permission to produce Patriot missiles for the first time.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving ‘em enough,” Trump said, adding that the companies that make the system’s components, primarily Lockheed Martin, had not yet been consulted on the plan.

Five days later, Ukraine and nine European countries launched a coalition in Paris to field Freyja, an entirely new anti-ballistic system centered on a Ukrainian interceptor priced at roughly one-fifth of a Patriot round.

A week after that, Lockheed Martin unveiled a cheaper, faster-to-produce Patriot missile of its own. And on Wednesday, the company announced the Pentagon had awarded it another $53.86 billion for PAC-3 production, bringing its multiyear deal up to $58.62 billion and aiming to triple production capacity by the end of 2030.

The new anti-ballistics arms race has manifested largely as a result of the munitions shortage created by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, during which American forces have fired at least 1,060 to 1,430 Patriots at roughly $3.9 million apiece, draining an estimated two-thirds of America’s pre-war Patriot inventory, according to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The diminished stockpile is compounded by the ongoing war in Ukraine, where ballistic missiles are the only threat Kyiv still needs help taking down and the one munition it has completely run out of.

With three new anti-ballistic tracks opened in July alone, NATO and its allies are aiming to shore up air defenses as quickly as possible.

Here is where the primary Patriot interceptor stands, and how the three new alternative pathways in the arms race stack up.

The standard: The Patriot interceptor

The Patriot, the U.S.-made gold standard of ground-based air defense, pairs a radar, a command post and launchers with two families of interceptor missiles, each fielded in several variants.

Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE, the hit-to-kill round that rams ballistic missiles out of the sky, while Raytheon, which also makes the Patriot’s radars and ground systems, builds the older PAC-2 GEM-T, a round that explodes near its target and works best against aircraft and cruise missiles.

The MSE is the only Western munition that has reliably killed Russian ballistic missiles — from Iskanders to modified S-300s — in Ukrainian service. It has even downed the air-launched Kinzhal, which flies at hypersonic speeds.

That record is why the Pentagon on Wednesday awarded Lockheed a multiyear deal now worth up to $58.62 billion to triple production capacity by the end of 2030. Today, each round costs roughly $3.9 million.

“This is a once-in-a-generation moment, and we are moving with wartime urgency to deliver the Arsenal of Freedom,” Lockheed chairman and CEO Jim Taiclet said in a statement.

The grant: Ukrainian PAC-3s under US license

Trump’s pledge in Turkey would make Ukraine only the second country outside the U.S. licensed to build Patriot missiles, after Japan, which has produced them under license for decades.

Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are only now standing up a joint production line. Berlin is negotiating a license of its own and Germany’s existing GEM-T work runs through a joint venture with Raytheon rather than a national license, according to The Associated Press.

The license under discussion for Kyiv would likely cover the missiles — rather than complete batteries — and could mean final assembly from imported component kits instead of production from scratch, the AP reported.

Poland has offered to host the joint production on its territory for safety and security reasons, according to Polish news agency PAP.

“It is about securing this production, so that this production takes place in a safe location,” Polish Deputy Defense Minister Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka said in Washington on July 23.

Zelenskyy said he met with Lockheed Martin representatives while visiting the U.S. for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral on July 28, posting on Telegram that “Our teams are already working on specific solutions to move to joint production as soon as possible.”

The cost of the licensed PAC-3, meanwhile, would stay the same at close $4 million per round.

Yehor Chernev, deputy chairman of the Rada’s committee on national security, defense and intelligence, estimates Ukraine needs at least 18 to 24 months to launch a first pilot production line, “followed by more time to complete the first weapons,” per The Associated Press.

Zelenskyy is pushing for even faster joint production.

“We expect that by the end of 2026, our Ukrainian team will have the technical capability to produce U.S. missiles,” he said on July 15.

The analogue: Freyja

Freyja is a full Patriot-style anti-ballistic system that includes an interceptor, launcher, radar and command-and-control network.

The system, designed by Kyiv startup Fire Point, is built around its FP-7.X interceptor missile and various capabilities supplied by European partners.

Zelenskyy called Freyja “an analogue of Patriot, but a system for more mass production and a cheaper system.”

His comments came as he formally launched the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition in Paris on July 13 alongside nine other countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The FP-7.X flew for the first time in early June and is built to kill ballistic targets at roughly 15 miles up using a high-explosive fragmentation warhead rather than the PAC-3’s hit-to-kill collision — which may come in later versions — at a target price of approximately $700,000 per interceptor, or roughly one-fifth the price of a PAC-3.

The company says it will build three interceptors a day starting in August. Zelenskyy wants the system up and running within 12 months, and the coalition is targeting its first real ballistic intercept for the end of 2027.

“We have an ambitious goal: to have an MVP ready by the first half of next year,” Davyd Aloian, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told Reuters on July 27. “That is a prototype that can already demonstrate its first practical results.”

The Lockheed cost-cutter: PAC-3 ACE

Lockheed unveiled the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, at the Farnborough International Airshow on July 20.

Built on the PAC-3’s fire-control system and fully linked to the Patriot and the Integrated Battle Command System that allied air defenders already run, it is designed to counter airbreathing threats — meaning weapons that rely on oxygen for propulsion — along with cruise missiles and close- and short-range ballistic missiles, a tier below the high-end targets the MSE was built to counter.

“American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE,” Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in the announcement.

Lockheed says it will develop and produce the round jointly with American and European industry partners.

International manufacturing is also under consideration, with the munition’s first flight expected in early 2028.

The company advertises ACE at less than half the price of an MSE, or roughly $2 million a round, without disclosing an exact figure.

The U.S. has supplied large quantities of ‌weapons to allies while also using munitions in its own military operations in Iran, raising concerns about inventories of key air defense and precision-guided weapons.

The Lockheed award converts a previous one-year deal worth $4.7 billion awarded in April into a seven-year draft agreement, creating a multiyear procurement plan for the interceptors from fiscal 2026 through 2032, the Army said.

Pentagon negotiators ​are pressing contractors to move much faster, with tentative production agreements struck earlier this year at the center of efforts to increase missile output. The administration of President Donald Trump has also steadily increased pressure on defense contractors to prioritize production over shareholder payouts. Trump signed an executive order in January to identify contractors deemed to be underperforming on government contracts while continuing to distribute profits to shareholders.

Industry executives have welcomed the production agreements, but said Congress must first appropriate funding before companies can invest more heavily in components and production capacity.

Exact terms and delivery dates for many Pentagon munitions deals are still under negotiation.

A similar framework deal had been struck with Raytheon’s parent company RTX to boost production of Tomahawk cruise missiles from the current rate of about 60 per year for the U.S. to eventually 1,000 units annually.

Lockheed, a Bethesda, Maryland-based defense contractor, said the funding would allow it to follow through on a promise to triple PAC-3 MSE production capacity by the end of 2030 and increase jobs at its Camden, Arkansas, plant by 50%, to about 1,850 from 1,200. Lockheed previously announced Patriot PAC-3 missile interceptor production would go to 2,000 units annually.

Lockheed Martin said it is investing $8 billion to $9 billion through 2030 to modernize more than 20 U.S. facilities, including new munitions centers in Alabama and Arkansas.

PAC-3 MSE is a hit-to-kill interceptor used within the Patriot air defense system to counter ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, estimated this week that the U.S. military has fewer than 1,000 Patriot interceptors on hand and fewer than 250 THAAD interceptors -- two key air defense systems. Both have seen recent heavy use in the Middle East.

The House’s version of this provision, known as Section 219, proposes further integration between the U.S. defense industrial base and Israel’s. It comes amid a dramatic shift in U.S. public opinion about military aid to Israel.

Both the House and Senate versions of the provision would shift the model of security cooperation the U.S. and Israel now employ.

Though there is already co-production between the two countries on weapons systems, those efforts historically have been limited to defensive systems like the Iron Dome. The House version creates an executive agent position within the Pentagon who would seek out and advocate for co-production opportunities.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., tried unsuccessfully to pass an amendment striking the measure when the bill was being debated in committee last month. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has also been a vocal opponent.

Proponents of the measure, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, R-Ala., have argued it “actually improves oversight and accountability of these programs by designating a single official responsible for them.”

House panel quashes attempt to stop integration of US, Israel defense tech sectors

Elias Yousif, fellow and acting director of the Conventional Defense Program at the Stimson Center, said the provision could create a situation in which there would be less oversight than traditional foreign military aid, which must be approved by Congress.

“There are all these ways in which co-production’s more ill-defined nature means that it creates opportunities for the executive branch to navigate the regulatory environment more easily,” Yousif said.

John Ramming Chappell, an advisor on legal and policy issues in the Center for Civilians in Conflict’s U.S. program, said he was unsure how the U.S. could benefit from the change.

“Expanding cooperative projects with Israel gives Israel more leverage over the United States and makes it even more difficult to promote accountability in the relationship as US and Israeli government priorities diverge and clash,” Chappell said. “Beyond that, it’s unclear how much the U.S. will actually benefit from cooperative projects, they haven’t historically been subject to meaningful oversight, and they expose the U.S. to potential national security risks.”

Despite passing in the House, the Senate version of the NDAA — including its version of Section 219, titled Section 1217 — could face a tougher battle. Several Democratic senators have said they will not vote on the NDAA until there is debate about the measure.

“The Senate’s bill has stalled, and next steps remain unclear, but it’s likely that Senate and House stakeholders [will] negotiate a compromise bill with the presumption of including some version of this provision,” Chappell said. “While Congressman Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed his opposition to the provision, it’s unclear if he’s going to push to remove it in negotiations.”

If the NDAA passes with a measure like the House’s Section 219 or the Senate’s 1217, legislators have some leverage over how exactly it could play out, Yousif said.

They “need to be much more forceful about closing regulatory gaps that the administration has used in the past to circumvent accountability and transparency,” Yousif said. “Whether that means definitional gaps on what constitutes assistance and what doesn’t, or demanding more transparency mechanisms, reporting requirements — I think those are all opportunities and potential levers that lawmakers and others have.”

But this time, the Pentagon is in a hurry. The Iran war has exposed the problem of relying on costly long-range missiles such as the Tomahawk. To remedy that, DoD is putting out a call for long-range, autonomously guided Ground-Based Affordable Mass, or GBAM, weapons that cost less than $250,000 apiece.

The Pentagon also wants the GBAM munitions to be ready for demonstration within three months, and full-scale production within 18 months.

The goal of the GBAM initiative is to supplement expensive smart munitions with “affordable, scalable long-range effects, and “enable commanders to service a broader target set, preserve exquisite munitions for their intended purpose, and sustain operational tempo throughout a prolonged conflict.”

To facilitate that, the Defense Innovation Unit has created the GBAM Challenge. Contestants will pitch ideas in the form of a pitch deck or white paper, with a deadline of Aug. 5.

Winning teams will be invited to a Phase II flight demonstration at a government test site in early November, where they will give a 30-minute presentation — and get a $250,000 cash prize.

The top Phase II contenders may receive up to $5 million “to immediately deliver operational test quantities to units.” They may also be eligible for other funds, including Prototype Other Transaction agreements, follow-on production contracts and Small Business Innovation Research awards.

“In total, the government has budgeted up to $250 million to support prize execution and follow-on transition activities associated with this effort,” DIU pointed out.

However, grabbing that pot of gold will require much work. For starters, the timeline is tight. The Pentagon wants “mature, affordable, long-range precision strike systems that can be demonstrated within 60 to 90 days, certified, and scaled into production within 12 to 18 months.”

DIU doesn’t specify whether GBAM will be a missile or a drone, though it does say GBAM will be “aligned with the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS) mandate to field low-cost autonomous capabilities at scale.”

Either way, the U.S. military wants a “favorable cost-per-effect at operationally relevant ranges while minimizing the logistical, training, and sustainment burden on employing units.” This means a ground-launched weapon with a range of at least 600 nautical miles, and a minimum payload of 35 pounds while ideally allowing for 100 pounds.

It should have automatic target recognition and autonomous terminal guidance, and be “ideally mission-proven” to function in jamming and GPS-denied environments. This includes “Alternative Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) or redundant navigation capabilities suitable for GPS/GNSS-denied operations in maritime and other ‘feature-poor’ environments.”

DIU is also looking for a weapon that doesn’t require any proprietary launch equipment, with “remote and low-signature launch methods strongly preferred.”

Companies should have an “existing production capacity or credible path to producing 100+ systems monthly.” And with a price tag of “cost-per-effect below $500,000 based on system reliability and mission success rate, with a sub-$250,000 all-up flyaway cost at scale.”

In addition to GBAM, the U.S. military is pursuing other strike weapons that don’t cost as much as traditional missiles, and can be mass produced as needed. They include the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, or FAMM-BAR, program to launch cruise missiles from cargo planes, as well as the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles hypersonic weapons program.

Admiral, who currently serves as the commander of III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, could take over the top job from Gen. Christopher Donahue, who unexpectedly relinquished command earlier this month after only 18 months in the role. Since Donahue’s exit, Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie has been serving as acting commander.

If confirmed, Admiral would also serve as commander of NATO’s Allied Land Command, coordinating with 104 countries in USAREUR-AF’s area of responsibility. He would remain a three-star, despite the role previously being a four-star position.

Prior to leading III Corps and Fort Hood, Admiral served as the commanding general for the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, and in Poland, and director of force management in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, according to his official Army bio.

Donahue’s early July departure came amid the Pentagon’s broad senior leadership changes under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who in April asked U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and retire ahead of the typical four-year term.

Since taking office, Hegseth has removed more than a dozen senior military leaders, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

Eve Sampson contributed to this report.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed to the kill at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing while being asked about a three-year halt in U.S. air-defense funding.

“I want to highlight the incredible work the Ukraine industrial base is doing as they scale their own capabilities,” Caine said.

“Recently we had the first air-to-air kill where a Ukrainian F-16 shot down a Russian fighter, so I think their ability to scale their layered defense has come a long way over the last couple of years.”

Although Caine did not specify which type of Russian aircraft was taken out, Ukraine’s Air Force announced earlier this month that it had shot down a Russian Su-35 on the eastern front.

CJCS Gen. Caine confirms that a Ukrainian Air Force F-16 shot down a Russian Su-35 in air to air combat. pic.twitter.com/P02lthZsLa

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) July 21, 2026

Until now, Ukraine has primarily used its F‑16s to defensively knock down incoming drones and cruise missiles — not offensively hunting enemy aircraft. The air-to-air kill is the latest example of Kyiv’s rapidly expanded air defense network forged after persevering through years of full-scale war, Caine said.

Russia’s defense ministry has not acknowledged the loss. Pro-Russian military bloggers on Telegram confirmed a Su-35 went down and said the pilot survived and ejected safely, while other Russian channels claimed a Patriot battery delivered the fatal shot.

Ukraine’s F-16s have shot down 2,200 of roughly 3,000 Russian drones and missiles it has intercepted, air force spokesman Yuriy Ihnat told Dutch broadcaster NOS earlier this month.

The kills are in spite of the technical advantages favoring Russia’s Su-35 over Ukraine’s F-16s.

Most of it’s F‑16s were given to Kyiv by the Netherlands and Denmark, who sent rebuilt 1970s‑ and 1980s‑era F‑16A and B airframes — closer to the F‑16s that the U.S. Air Force flew in the early 2000s than to today’s newer models, according to a Sandboxx analysis.

The Su‑35S is one of the most modern fighters Moscow flies and usually comes out as the winner in a long‑range fight, experts say.

Its Irbis‑E radar can detect a fighter‑sized target at up to 250 miles (400 km) in a narrow search mode, according to its Russian manufacturer, far beyond the range of the 1990s‑era AN/APG‑66(V)2 radar on Ukraine’s F‑16s.

The Su‑35 also has the advantage of carrying the longer‑reaching R‑77M missile, which Moscow credits with a range of roughly 120 miles (190 km), against the 75 to 100 miles of the AIM‑120C‑8 AMRAAMs Ukraine is known to field, according to The War Zone.

Allies have taken notice of Kyiv’s recent battlefield successes, signing billions in arms contracts with Kyiv since the war with Iran drove up demand for the latest defense tech from Europe and the Middle East.

Ukraine’s homegrown interceptor‑drone industry has scaled rapidly in the past year, with some producers now capable of turning out over 100,000 drones per month, officials say.

Washington is also inching toward a multibillion dollar weapons‑production deal with Kyiv.

The Ukrainian armed forces are “the strongest, most powerful armed forces in all of Europe,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in May, months before the CIA director confirmed last week that Russian recruits last just 20 to 30 minutes after arriving on the battlefield thanks to Ukraine’s fierce drone fighting tactics.

The Navy recently published a Sources Sought notice for a massive, multi-award contract — worth up to $30 billion — for the multi-mission dry dock.

The dock is part of the Navy’s Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, which aims to modernize the service’s four long-neglected shipyards at Portsmouth, Virginia, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and Kittery, Maine, as well as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility. The contract is for five years plus three one-year options.

“The Multi-Mission Dry Dock is a fully pressure-relieved dry dock capable of accommodating shipyard repair services for the newest Ford-class aircraft carrier, Nimitz-class carriers, and other surface and subsurface ships served by PSNS & IMF,” according to the Sources Sought notice.

The project was spurred by the need to service Ford-class carriers on the West Coast.

“The Navy does not currently have the capacity and capability to perform depot-level maintenance on a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier in the Pacific Northwest,” according to the Navy’s Multi-Mission Dry Dock website.

The capability to even service older carriers is limited at Puget Sound: “The only dry dock on the West Coast able to accommodate a current Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is Dry Dock 6 (DD6), which does not meet seismic resiliency standards and cannot fully accommodate Ford-class carriers,” the site reads.

The multiple-award construction contract, or MACC, includes several task orders that typically range between $2 billion and $6 billion each. However, there may be smaller task orders for early contractor involvement and alternative technical concepts.

“The focus of this MACC will be the construction of a new proposed Multi-Mission Dry Dock at PSNS & IMF, located at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton, Washington,” the Sources Sought notice said. Located within the existing Dry Dock 3 and Piers 6 and 7, the project includes “dry dock drainage, dewatering, and flooding systems; a caisson; roadways and rail networks; portal crane track; access and egress elements; mechanical, electrical, and communications systems; support buildings; and utility routing tunnels. The proposed project also includes demolition of facilities and utilities.”

The Navy expects the first task order to include dredging, as well as work on piers, buildings and utilities. The second task order will see demolition of Dry Dock 3 and construction of the multi-mission dry dock. Task order three will provide infrastructure, such as electrical substations, utility tunnels and building crane rails. Task order four will be for the dock caisson.

Puget Sound has been a fixture for the Navy for more than a century.

It began in 1891, when the Navy bought 190 acres for $10,000 (about $367,000 today) to create Naval Station Puget Sound. The station became a shipyard in 1900 and was the Navy’s only West Coast repair facility until 1941.

“Between 1917 and 1969, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard constructed a total of 85 ships, including the largest vessels on the West Coast,” the Navy said.

Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Caine testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to seek $67.1 billion in supplemental money for the war and other DoD expenses, such as munitions, drones and the Army and National Guard deployments to the southern U.S. border and Washington, D.C.

Given that the department has $75 billion in its coffers from the $156 billion it received last year in reconciliation funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill, senators voiced skepticism over the emergency request.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the committee’s top Democrat, said the committee would not “rubber stamp a request to bankroll this war,” given that the DoD received more than $1 trillion in funding last year and has requested $1.3 trillion this year.

“The president’s request is not even a primarily a request to cover the costs of the Iran war. This request is chock full of asks to fund unrelated DoD priorities, which should be considered through our annual appropriations process, not in an emergency supplemental,” the senator said.

Similarly, Sen. Kristin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., asked how to convey the DoD’s needs when constituents have seen gas prices, food and other household expenses rise.

“You’re asking for $1.5 trillion, unlimited money for bombs, but insufficient money for the American people for their healthcare, their food, their housing,” Gillibrand said.

Hegseth said the new funding is needed to support operations because the $75 billion in reconciliation funds are slated to be used to restore a military that was “ignored” under the Biden administration. The new request is an “urgent, necessary injection of resources to address” immediate needs, he said.

“The military requires a generational investment to deliver on peace through strength,” Hegseth said, later adding that he didn’t know what his predecessor, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, “did for four years.”

“The amount of neglect, the amount of stale thinking and bureaucracy was staggering when we took over,” Hegseth said.

He added that the supplemental was “a new request based on new realities of a world we face.”

“[We’re] stepping up to meet the moment,” Hegseth said.

In May, Hegseth estimated that the cost of war at the time was $29 billion.

Roughly half of the supplemental request, $32.7 billion, is slated to fund the ongoing operation directly. The remainder is for national security priorities not related to the war.

The request includes $21 billion for munitions, $17.3 billion for operations, $12.1 billion for classified programs, $5.1 billion for cybersecurity, $2.4 billion for drones, $1.7 billion for readiness, $1.5 billion for fuel and $2 billion for “administration priorities” and National Guard support.

The request comes as the war, which began Feb. 28, has escalated in the past two weeks. The U.S. has conducted air strikes consecutively for the last 10 days, and four U.S. service members have been killed in the last four days, bringing the total number of U.S. casualties to 18.

At least 14 merchant mariners also have died as a result of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, according to the International Maritime Organization, and transits have decreased dramatically as Iran has reasserted its control over the strategic waterway.

Caine told senators he sat before them asking for the funding “while the window of opportunity — while time — is still on our side.”

“Our adversaries are aligning in their interests, creating simultaneous challenges across multiple domains. They are sharing intelligence, combat capabilities and technology. Technology. That is accelerating the speed of war, isn’t it?” Caine said in opening remarks.

Of concern to Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., and several other senators, was the administration’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine war and funding promised to support Ukraine that has not been allocated. Kennedy wanted assurances that the DoD had chosen a clear side in the conflict, asking Caine who “we” wanted to win.

“Sir, I want Ukraine to win,” Caine said.

“Is Russia America’s friend?” Kennedy asked.

“I think that depends on your definition of friend. I think it’s a complicated relationship,” Caine replied. After a brief pause, he added, “But no, I don’t think they’re our friends.”

Kennedy also asked what the administration thinks will happen regarding the Strait of Hormuz and what Iran’s intentions are in developing a nuclear weapon — the initial reason President Donald Trump gave for attacking Iran.

“We need straight answers!” Kennedy told Hegseth.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sought assurances that should the supplemental request be approved, the Trump administration would not perceive passage as a measure for restarting the 60-day clock on a War Powers Resolution, which the Senate passed 50-48 in June.

Citing precedent by President Bill Clinton in sending U.S. troops to Kosovo, Murkowski asked if the administration felt it had adequate authorization to continue the conflict in Iran.

“We certainly, as department, take the position of the White House that we have all the authorities necessary at this moment,” Hegseth said.

Two lawmakers, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., asked Hegseth to answer for the record, to concerns that service members injured in the current conflict did not receive proper medical care from the U.S. military or screenings for traumatic brain injury.

As of Tuesday, more than 440 troops have been injured in the conflict.

“Every effort was made to provide every level of medical care possible,” Hegseth said.

The Bulgarian government has said it will seek parliamentary approval to station up to eight U.S. tanker aircraft at an air base in the Balkan country, which is a member of NATO and the European Union.

Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said any activity that facilitates U.S. attacks on Iran would amount to complicity in what he described as “aggression and war crimes”, according to Iranian state media.

Baghaei urged Bulgaria not to become “an accomplice of aggressors and lawbreakers”, they said.

The tanker aircraft are mainly used for airborne refueling of other aircraft.

Bulgaria’s government aims to station the U.S. aircraft at the Bezmer military facility, about 160 miles southeast of the capital Sofia.

The U.S. and Iran have intensified strikes since an interim ceasefire deal signed a month ago unraveled, raising the possibility of a return to all-out war.

Boeing was awarded a $3.9 billion contract in 2018 to build the aircraft, though costs have since ballooned to more than $5 billion. The aircraft are intended to replace the current Air Force One planes, which entered service in 1990.

“We’re on track for 2028,” Steve Parker, CEO of Defense, Space & Security, told reporters ahead of the Farnborough Airshow in the UK, adding that he expected the first aircraft to begin testing next year.

“I do expect to see some cost growth there as we come through and we finish off the wiring and the structures, as well as finishing up our own certifications.”

In May 2025, the United States accepted a luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar for use as a temporary presidential aircraft. The jet has since entered service as a bridge aircraft. Security concerns led President Donald Trump to forgo flying the Qatari jet home from Turkey, opting instead to return aboard an older Air Force One.

The Air Force One program involves converting two Boeing 747-8 aircraft into highly specialized jets equipped with advanced communications and defensive systems. Even with a 2028 delivery, the program would be running four years behind schedule.

The declaration came during the christening of the Department of Transportation’s fourth national security multi-mission vessel — Lone Star State — which will be used to train the next generation of merchant mariners at Texas A&M Maritime Academy, according to a U.S. Department of Transportation release.

The shipyard, in collaboration with TOTE Services, has delivered four NSMVs to the department’s Maritime Administration. A fifth is scheduled to be delivered in 2027.

TOTE Services will be on hand to serve as the vessel construction manager for the building of the two MRIV vessels, according to Hanwha’s release.

The shipyard, a subsidiary of the South Korean Hanwha Group, was selected to build the new missile-tracking vessels set to replace the aging Pacific Tracker and Pacific Collector, which were constructed in 1965 and 1970, respectively, according to the shipyard’s release.

The two ships, working on behalf of the Missile Defense Agency, monitor and collect data on ballistic missile tests in the Pacific Ocean. The first MRIV, dubbed the “Golden Defender,” is slated to be delivered in June 2030 and will also support President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense system, Vought said during the ceremony.

“It is thus my honor to announce the awarding of a contract to build the newest Missile Range Instrumentation Vessel ‘Golden Defender’ right here in Philadelphia under the combined management of Hanwha Philly and TOTE Services as the vessel construction manager,” Vought said. “This new ship will not only support the President’s policy of restoring America’s Maritime Dominance, but also support the President’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system over the entirety of our nation. Golden Defender will serve the Missile Defense Agency in this mission.”

During the 12-day event at Camp Grayling, Michigan, 49 companies competed across multiple mission sets. Officials evaluated their small unmanned aircraft systems on performance, ease of use and each company’s ability to produce at scale. By the end, 19 companies advanced to the next round of testing, scheduled to begin in August.

The list of finalists offers a snapshot of the rapidly evolving defense drone industry. Nearly all are privately held companies focused on small UASs rather than traditional weapons. About half already have systems on the Defense Department’s Blue UAS Cleared or Blue UAS Select lists, making them easier for military units to purchase. Most are also relatively young: seven were founded within the past 13 years and eight within the past four.

To better understand why the field looks the way it does, Military Times spoke with J.R. Mullis, a retired Air Force contracting officer who founded the defense technology consultancy ellimaC Partners and Watchtower, a nonprofit that connects emerging defense technology companies with military organizations and hosts its own Best Drone Team Competition.

While many of the companies are young, Mullis said they are considerably “more mature” than the average drone startup. More importantly, they are developing technologies the military can field today.

“I mean, they’re able to be deployed right now,” he said.

Mullis said the finalists share less in common than many observers might assume. Rather than competing to build the same aircraft, many are developing different pieces of the same capability, from airframes and sensors to autonomy software.

“If you were to circle all of them and mash them together,” he said, “I think it would make a really good capability.”

Still, the dominance of younger companies reflects a broader shift in how the Pentagon acquires technology.

Mullis said the government has become more willing to identify operational gaps, giving entrepreneurs with specialized expertise an opportunity to build products that directly address military needs.

He pointed to one company competing in Drone Dominance, which he declined to identify by name, describing it as “one of the best ones” in the competition. Founded by what he called a “young founder” with deep technical expertise, the company grew from zero to millions of dollars in revenue in roughly two years by solving a specific problem.

One example from the list of qualifiers is Massachusetts-based Ascent AeroSystems, founded in 2014 by two brothers and a friend who originally set out to build a rugged drone small enough to fit inside a backpack during hiking and rock climbing trips.

The company later adapted its technology for military use and, in 2024, was acquired by California-based Robinson Helicopter, which later formed Robinson Unmanned. Today, Ascent’s Aero Spirit drone appears on the Defense Department’s Blue UAS Cleared list and the company has received more than $2 million in Defense Department contracts.

“Going back years and years, a lot of the defense-tech founders were developing technology based on headlines,” Mullis said. “As the government is more open about what its capability gaps are, the real experts are able to put their hands up and build solutions for it.”

Manufacturing, not innovation, is the biggest hurdle

Coming up with a good idea is only part of the challenge. According to Mullis, the biggest obstacle facing small defense companies isn’t developing technology, but rather, producing enough of it.

A startup may successfully build a prototype, sell a handful of systems and convince the military it has a winning product. But when the government suddenly wants thousands, a small company or startup may lack the manufacturing capacity and capital needed to meet demand.

One example of how companies overcome that hurdle is the partnership between Georgia-based Kinetic Frames and Alabama-based Griffon Aerospace. Kinetic Frames is a relatively young company with a modest public presence — a simple website and Instagram page — while Griffon has received more than $400 million in federal contracts since 2009.

Together, the companies have produced and delivered more than 2,000 drones to the Defense Department, illustrating how smaller innovators can pair with established manufacturers to meet the military’s production demands.

“Scaling in order to meet the needs of the government is, I would say, one of the valleys of death [for a small company],” Mullis added.

Where defense giants fit in

At first glance, Drone Dominance appears to be dominated by startups, but Mullis said that doesn’t mean major defense contractors are ignoring the market.

Many of the industry’s largest “prime” contractors — companies that hold the government’s primary contracts — are already working on similar technologies through existing programs. Because those efforts are often backed by long-term government funding, he said, they don’t need the visibility that comes with participating in a public competition.

“The publicity matters for those small companies,” Mullis said. “It does not matter at all for those primes.”

That doesn’t mean established companies are absent from the competition, though.

Among the current finalists are publicly traded companies such as Kratos Defense & Security Solutions and Red Cat Holdings, both of which have built businesses around unmanned aircraft. Others represent partnerships between established defense manufacturers and newer drone developers, reflecting the increasingly collaborative nature of the market.

Mullis said acquisitions are often a natural outcome for successful startups, rewarding founders while helping proven technologies reach larger production scales.

“It’s good for the whole ecosystem because the founders are being rewarded for solving a problem,” he said, adding, “An acquisition is just an absolute success.”

Building the next generation of defense companies

Mullis said he thinks Drone Dominance is doing more than selecting companies for future contracts. He said the competition reflects a broader shift in defense acquisition by “encouraging and almost forcing collaboration.”

Earlier this year, the Defense Department announced the Drone Dominance Lethality Prize, which paired drone competitors with approved manufacturers capable of supplying standardized explosive payloads for one-way attack drones.

Even companies that fail to win contracts stand to benefit. “The best founders in the world wear failure like a badge of honor,” he said. “If you go to Drone Dominance, you get, if nothing else, real feedback on your technology.”

In an increasingly crowded drone market, that feedback should be considered valuable. “Even if they’re not selected, they’ll have their marching orders and they’ll know what to do to make it better,” Mullis said.

The new rules mean defense contractors will have to do much more than simply show that a Chinese supplier is the easiest or cheapest option.

Companies seeking a waiver will need to prove they searched for alternatives, explain where their materials come from and lay out a plan to move away from prohibited suppliers. Contractors will face the loss of contracts if they don’t prove they are doing enough to source domestically.

“No more: ‘we tried nothing and we’re out of options’,” White House adviser Peter Navarro told reporters during a briefing before the executive order was released.

The order comes as the Pentagon pushes defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing to rapidly expand weapons production while facing persistent vulnerabilities in the supply chains that feed the U.S. military.

Many critical minerals and processed materials used in missiles, aircraft and other advanced systems still rely on Chinese suppliers, leaving companies caught between demands to move away from Beijing and the need to keep weapons flowing to U.S. forces and allies.

Beyond tightening waiver requirements, the executive order directs the Pentagon to come up with rules that require contractors to map critical defense supply chains from raw materials through finished military products.

Companies will be required to identify the origins of minerals, components, software and other inputs used in designated weapons systems, extending government visibility beyond prime contractors to lower-tier suppliers.

“This is not paperwork. It is battlefield preparation,” Navarro said, arguing the Pentagon needs to know whether missile systems or other military platforms depend on foreign-controlled suppliers before a conflict begins.

The order also requires contractors to assess suppliers for foreign ownership, financial vulnerability and manufacturing risks, and to replace suppliers deemed unreliable.

U.S. Army Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, and 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, from Ewa Beach, Hawaii, died July 17 and July 18, respectively, according to a Department of Defense release.

The active-duty soldiers were killed during an enemy attack at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan.

Gonzales was stationed at Ansbach, Germany, assigned to 1st Battalion, 57th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 52nd Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 10th Army Air Missile Defense Command.

Feehan was stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 55th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 32nd Army Air Missile Defense Command.

The incident is currently under investigation, the release states.

On Saturday, U.S. Central Command announced that another U.S. service member is missing following the attack, while four troops, who have since been discharged, were medically evacuated to hospitals in Jordan.

For the ninth consecutive night, the U.S. “hit [Iran] very hard again tonight,” President Donald Trump said on Sunday. The strikes, he said, were in honor of the soldiers who were killed.

“The strikes will continue degrading Iranian military capabilities used to attack commercial vessels and civilian mariners transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” a CENTCOM post from Sunday reads.

Trump said that “probably” three service members were killed in action, as opposed to two.

As of Monday morning, the Pentagon had not clarified whether a third service member was killed in action.

The command said in a social media post Sunday that U.S. military personnel found unidentified remains at the location of the attack. CENTCOM said that an examination process to verify the remains is ongoing.

The deaths of Gonzales and Feehan bring the toll of American troops killed in the war with Iran to 16. More than 400 U.S. troops have been wounded in the campaign, which began Feb. 28.

Separately, on July 18, a U.S. service member was killed in action in northern Iraq during a controlled detonation of unexploded ordnance from a downed Iranian one-way attack drone.

“A second service member was wounded and continues to receive medical treatment for a minor injury,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

CENTCOM had not yet provided additional information Monday, such as the identities of those service members killed or missing.

Trump started flying aboard the jumbo jet on July 1 after accepting the plane as a gift last year, when an accelerated effort to renovate the Boeing 747 for presidential use began.

But Trump unexpectedly ditched the plane on a flight from Turkey to the United Kingdom amid rising hostility with Iran on July 8. He flew aboard an older Air Force One to London in what he described as a move “for old time’s sake”, but later boarded the new plane to return to the U.S.

Trump was asked about whether the newly renovated airplane lacked missile-defense capabilities as he returned home from a trip to the FIFA World Cup final in New Jersey on Sunday.

“It has a lot of capability,” Trump said of the plane. “But as I understand it, in about a month or so, they’re gonna send it to have it be maxed out ... It’ll take about a month.”

The U.S. Air Force did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The new plane, with red, white, dark blue and gold livery chosen by Trump, was refitted by defense contractor L3Harris Technologies.

It’s meant to serve as a temporary replacement as Boeing has struggled to deliver long-delayed next-generation Air Force One planes. Boeing is working to deliver two purpose-built 747-8s under a $3.9 billion fixed-price contract signed in 2018 that’s now four years behind schedule and over budget. Delivery of the new planes is expected in mid-2028.

The upgrades to the jet from Qatar were completed so quickly that some experts expressed concern that the plane may not be as secure as the baby blue Air Force One that preceded it. Critics also questioned the cost and propriety of accepting the gift.

The New York Times journalists who had reported on the security features of the new aircraft were subpoenaed earlier this month. The Times has asked a court to block those orders to appear before a grand jury panel in Manhattan federal court.

Blue Water Autonomy and Saildrone allege they were kicked out of contention for the Navy’s Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel Family of Systems program after the Navy failed to comply with its own requirements, among other errors.

Blue Water Autonomy said the decision was based on “overly restrictive evaluation criteria, a misreading of Blue Water’s proposal, and irrational conclusions that are inconsistent with the [Request for Prototype Proposals] and statutory requirements,” according to a complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

A significant portion of both companies’ legal documents were redacted, and the specifics of what the Navy found lacking in each of their MUSV proposals was not immediately clear.

The Navy said it could not comment on pending litigation.

The service launched the MUSV program and opened solicitations for the new class of boat on March 26, after canceling the Modular Attack Surface Craft program.

The latter, announced on July 28, 2025, solicited the development of USVs that were capable of carrying large containerized payloads that could accommodate a similar weight to the Navy’s anti-ballistic missile system, the Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System.

The MASC program was dedicated to a specific mission and specific ask from the fleet, whereas the MUSV program addresses a larger batch of requirements and mission types.

This was the reasoning behind the shuttering of the MASC program, according to Rebecca Gassler, portfolio acquisition executive for the U.S. Navy’s robotic and autonomous systems.

The MUSV solicitation, which ended on April 17, analyzed a company’s business plan, manufacturing plan, test plan and technical design.

Chosen companies and their MUSVs were then instructed to prepare for an on-water test with a surrogate vessel that would be conducted at the end of the fiscal year.

Blue Water Autonomy was initially chosen by the Navy to participate in the Modular Attack Surface Craft program before the MUSV program was rolled out.

The company was already underway in developing its Liberty vessel for the MASC program when it ended, having sunk money into production.

But before Blue Water Autonomy could participate in the on-water test with a surrogate vessel to demonstrate its viability as a partner for future MUSVs, they say they were barred from continuing in the MUSV program competition.

The Navy announced on June 1 that it had selected seven companies to participate in at-sea testing.

Those companies included Sea Machines, Leidos, Saronic Technologies, Galliano Marine Services, PacMar Technologies, Birdon and Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Blue Water Autonomy was not on the list.

US Navy selects companies for at-sea MUSV prototype testing

The company said the Navy’s decision to remove it from consideration for the MUSV request for prototype proposal was “capricious” and not “in accordance with statute or regulation.”

The complaint asked that the Navy halt the testing and funding for the MUSV program until “prejudicial errors” were remedied and Blue Water Autonomy was allowed reentry into the program in an effort to win the bid for the MUSV contract.

Saildrone was also excluded from participating in the program after initially taking part.

The company argues that it was more than deserving of being in the mix for the MUSV program, as it operates the world’s largest fleet of contractor-owned, contractor-operator USVs which have completed upwards of 2.5 million nautical miles since 2012, according to a complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

“Our fully compliant MUSV submission to the US Navy should have qualified for advancing to the next round, in which we would participate in sea trials and develop a prototype at our own cost,” a Saildrone spokesperson said. “We support the Navy’s mission and believe there has been a misunderstanding in the evaluation of our bid.”

Saildrone has deployed more than 70 vessels across the globe, including for the Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, the complaint said.

The company said it learned it was disqualified from continuing to compete in the MUSV program from a news article and was offered no explanation in an email follow-up with the U.S. government as to why it wasn’t given an opportunity to continue.

Eventually, Saildrone says they were provided a “fundamentally flawed evaluation.”

“Because advancement to the on-water test event imposes no material financial obligation on the government, reevaluating Saildrone’s proposal consistent with the solicitation and advancing Saildrone furthers the public interest at no meaningful cost,” the complaint said.

Saildrone asked to be reinstated in the competition and allowed to compete in the on-water test.

The fiscal 2027 Navy budget calls for the procurement 63 unmanned vessels.

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains $2.1 billion for medium unmanned surface vessels, a Navy official told Military Times in March.

The strikes mark the latest escalation of attacks and counterattacks launched by the two sides as they vie for control of the Strait of Hormuz, which carried about a fifth of global oil and gas shipments before the war.

“At 6 a.m. ET today, U.S. Central Command forces began launching a wave of strikes against Iran,” the U.S. military said.

“The strikes are designed to further degrade military capabilities Iranian forces have used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

There were no immediate reports of attacks in Iranian media. U.S. Central Command said in a statement the military had targeted coastal defense systems and cruise missile storage and launch sites on Iran’s Greater Tunb Island, and had completed the wave of strikes within around 90 minutes.

Late on Tuesday the U.S. military said it had hit dozens of military targets near the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian coastal areas in strikes lasting seven hours.

In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Wednesday it had struck U.S. military targets in the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan.

It also threatened on Wednesday to shut off more regional energy exports, saying the U.S. “must brace for the closure of all other export corridors that benefit the U.S. and its allies.”

Hostilities have intensified since Iran said late on Saturday it had closed the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. says Iran had attacked seven commercial ships over the last week, leaving nearly a dozen crew members killed, missing or injured.

‘END OF AMERICA’S EVILS’

The war, which began with U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran on Feb. 28, triggered Iranian attacks on Gulf states that host U.S. bases and caused major disruption to global energy supplies, raising fears of a surge in inflation.

Oil prices extended gains by about 1% on Wednesday, after settling on Tuesday on a new one-month high.

An interim ceasefire deal in the conflict signed last month was meant to lead to further negotiations including on Iran’s nuclear program, and to a permanent truce, but a return to talks has faltered.

Analysts say that while the U.S. and Iran have gone back to sparring as they did before the interim ceasefire deal was signed, they are unlikely to return to full-scale war, though a risk of further escalation remains.

They say Iran is signaling it may use its Houthi allies in Yemen to shut Bab el-Mandeb, opening a new front against Washington and putting two of the world’s most vital energy arteries at risk.

As a result of the war, Iran has been trying to assert permanent control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and to impose fees on vessels passing through it, in what would be a major shift of the balance of power in a region where the U.S. has long acted as guarantor of security.

The IRGC said on Wednesday that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until what it described as “the end of America’s evils.”

TRUMP THREATENS TO HIT ENERGY TARGETS

U.S. President Donald Trump, who faces domestic pressure to avoid a full return to war, on Tuesday threatened to hit Iranian power plants and bridges next week unless Tehran resumes negotiations.

“I’ll save the energy targets for last, but ultimately we’ll hit energy targets,” Trump said.

U.S. negotiators had been in touch with their Iranian counterparts to tell them “you better make a deal,” Trump added.

As tensions escalated, Trump on Monday floated the idea of a 20% fee on shipping through the strait. On Tuesday, he scrapped the idea and said, without providing details, that he would instead seek investment deals with Gulf states.

The war has killed thousands of people and displaced millions, mainly in Iran and in Lebanon, where conflict was reignited between Israel and Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah.

Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said at least 30 civilians had been killed in recent days due to the U.S. strikes on southern Iran, state media reported on Wednesday.

Iran’s army said at least seven active-duty and conscript personnel were killed in overnight U.S. strikes on the Bampur military base in the country’s southeast.

The Marine Corps commissioned the new Medium Landing Ships, or LSMs, with an eye toward potential conflicts with China in the Indo-Pacific.

Measuring around 100 meters, the smaller, more agile ships were designed for island hopping with troops, equipment and supplies in tow.

Under the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the Navy to select a VCM outside of the military to manage the contract to procure no more than eight additional LSMs.

The VCM approach is supposed to speed up construction of simplified ship designs by borrowing commercial shipbuilding practices.

TOTE Services will manage subcontracts with Bollinger Shipyards for the construction of one LSM, while Fincantieri Marinette Marine will construct four of the vessels.

The VCM will determine the award strategy for the remaining three vessels, the Navy stated in a press release Monday. Construction is set to begin later this year, with the first LSM scheduled for delivery in the fall of 2029.

The LSMs are part of President Donald Trump’s “Golden Fleet” initiative, an undertaking that envisions keeping the Navy’s legacy ships and adding new manned and unmanned vessels.

Last December, the Navy tapped Dutch shipbuilder Damen Naval to design the Landing Ship Transport 100 (LST-100) for the initial tranche of LSMs.

The ship boasts a range of 3,400 nautical miles and can beach itself to deliver over 800 tons of cargo, according to a Marine Corps video released in April.

The Nigerian Navy already uses the LST-100 and the Australian Navy selected Damen’s design in 2024.

“We’re taking a proven design and leveraging congressional authorities to move with urgency and approach shipbuilding differently,” Christopher Miller, the Navy’s portfolio acquisition executive for maritime, said in a press release Monday.

Despite a goal of 100,000 rounds per month by October 2025, the Army had only managed to produce 36,000 rounds per month as of March 2026, according to a report published this month by the Department of Defense Inspector General.

Shell production requires first building the projectile at a metal parts factory, followed by packing the shell with explosives at another facility. But this means “projectile metal part production is the limiting factor for reaching the 100,000 round-per-month goal for 155-mm artillery rounds,” the report noted.

The Army has not been able to forge enough metal parts to ramp up production of projectiles. In particular, “at a contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility in Mesquite, Texas, the contractor has been unable to produce any projectile metal parts that meet contract specifications,” the report reads.

After investing $469 million, the Army opened a modular metal parts factory in Mesquite, Texas in 2024. The Universal Artillery Projectile Lines facility — operated by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems — was supposed to use “modern manufacturing practices, high levels of automation and digital data capture ability” to forge large numbers of large-caliber metal parts for shells, the Army announced at the time.

That optimism proved premature.

Officials at the Army’s Capability Program Executive Ammunition & Energetics, or CPE A&E, “issued the contract and accepted the risk associated with purchasing and adapting unique production equipment which had not been proven to meet U.S. specifications,” the IG report said.

To save time, the Mesquite factory tried to adapt manufacturing lines originally designed to make parts for the M107 155-mm shell — which dates back to 1958 — rather than the newer M795.

CPE A&E “accepted the risk associated with the contractor’s plan to purchase and adapt M107 metal part production equipment to produce a newer variant of the 155-mm projectile metal parts at different specifications,” said the report.

The report noted that some Army officials had concerns regarding an older ammunition plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania, that included “separate ongoing problems with the contractor in terms of responsiveness, equipment maintenance, and timeliness. Those officials expressed concern to the evaluation team that ACC [Army Contracting Command] did not open the contract for the Mesquite facility to competition from other contractors.”

The bottleneck at the Mesquite plant left the Army’s three existing plants in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and Ingersoll, Canada, to try to pick up the slack.

Amid voracious expenditure of 155-mm rounds by Ukraine that depleted U.S. stockpiles, DoD issued a congressionally-mandated plan in 2022 to modernize howitzer ammunition production. DoD’s 2025 National Defense Industrialization Strategy Implementation Plan aimed at churning out 100,000 155-mm shells per month by October 2025.

The Army’s efforts have borne some fruit, with production nearly tripling to 14,000 shells per month to 36,000. By modernizing the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and creating two new facilities in Kansas and Arkansas, the Army hopes to load, assemble and pack 140,000 155-mm rounds by December 2027.

In the meantime, the IG suggested the Army could get a refund.

The report recommended that the Army review the contract for the Mesquite facility to determine how the money was spent and whether the DoD can recoup any funds and also “determine whether the Mesquite contract was appropriately issued.”