ISTANBUL — Turkish government and industry officials were rushed out of the country’s largest defense show here on Wednesday following an attack on a national aerospace company near the capital city of Ankara.

At least four people have been killed and 14 injured in a “terrorist attack” against state-run Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI, or TUSAS) headquarters in Kahramankazan, near Ankara, Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said in a statement.

The assault took place on the second day of the country’s largest defense fair, Saha Expo, organized here from Oct 22-26.

In the late afternoon of Oct. 23, a number of sirens were heard outside of the expo’s venue as responders headed towards the nearby highways. A number of Turkish government and industry officials were then rushed to cars waiting outside, although it was unclear which companies they represented.

TAI’s general manager, Mehmet Demiroglu, was among those who left Saha Expo early to return to Ankara, roughly 280 miles to the east, state news agency Anadolu reported.

Additional police cars were placed in front of the Turkish Airlines Flight Training Center located next to the exhibition hall.

It was unclear on Wednesday if the defense expo would continue the following day. While organizer representatives initially told Defense News that it was likely to run as planned, they canceled portions of the remainder of the show on Wednesday evening.

Assailants set off explosives and opened fire in an attack Wednesday on the premises of the national aerospace company, killing four people and wounding several, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

At least two of the attackers died, Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said.

“We have four martyrs. We have 14 wounded. I condemn this heinous terrorist attack and wish mercy on our martyrs,” Erdogan said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the sidelines of a BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia.

Putin offered him condolences over the attack.

Selim Cirpanoglu, mayor of the district of Kahramankazan, told The Associated Press that the attack on the company in the outskirts of the capital, Ankara, had abated but could not provide more details.

It was not clear who may be behind it. Kurdish militants, the Islamic State group and leftist extremists have carried out attacks in the country in the past.

Security camera images from the attack, aired on television, showed a man in plainclothes carrying a backpack and holding an assault rifle.

Turkish media said three assailants, including a woman, arrived at an entry to the complex inside a taxi. The assailants, who were carrying assault weapons, then detonated an explosive device next to the taxi, causing panic and allowing them to enter the complex.

Multiple gunshots were heard after Turkish security forces entered the site, the DHA news agency and other media reported. Helicopters were seen flying above the premises.

TUSAS designs, manufactures and assembles both civilian and military aircrafts, unmanned aerial vehicles and other defense industry and space systems. The UAVs have been instrumental in Turkey gaining an upper hand in its fight against Kurdish militants in Turkey and across the border in Iraq.

Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz said the target of the attack was Turkey’s “success in the defense industry.”

“It should be known that these attacks will not be able to deter the heroic employees of defense industry,” he wrote on X.

With material from the Associated Press.

On Oct. 17, Australia pledged to gift 49 second-hand M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks to Ukraine. This came just weeks after a first batch of new M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams replacements arrived in Australia from the U.S.

Australia never utilized its 59 M1A1 Abrams in combat, but they will soon be used in anger against Russian invaders in Ukraine. Boasting a 120mm main gun, thick armor and advanced sensors, older Abrams still remain a formidable battlefield weapon, whether in Ukraine or the Asia-Pacific region.

“There are no other current or emerging technologies – or combination of technologies – that can yet deliver the capability currently provided by a main battle tank,” an Australian Department of Defence spokesperson told Defense News.

Brigadier James Davis, the Australian Army’s director general of Future Land Warfare, told Defense News that crew skills – “the basics of warfare, camouflage, concealment” – remain as important as ever amid the advent of loitering munitions and similar threats.

Captured Leopard 2 resurfaces at Russia’s main tank factory

“That’s how Western armored vehicles – and Australian armored vehicles – crewed by Western crews and Australian crews, are going to survive on the battlefield; a combination of training, tactics, technology and systems,” he said.

The tank donation to Kyiv, worth approximately A$245 million (US$164 million), will “bolster the armed forces of Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s illegal and immoral invasion,” Canberra said.

Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy commented, “These tanks will deliver more firepower and mobility to the Ukrainian armed forces, and complement the support provided by our partners for Ukraine.”

In response to the news, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tweeted, “I’m especially grateful for Australia’s brave decision to provide 49 M1A1 Abrams tanks for our defense against Russian aggression.”

American permission was required for this handover, but Ukrainian crews are already familiar with the platform after the U.S. promised to donate 31 M1A1 SA Abrams to Ukraine in January 2023. Perhaps half have been destroyed to date.

Australia will retain ten M1A1 tanks, and these will assist in the transition to its own fleet of M1A2s. Under Project Land 907, approved in January 2022, the Australian Army is receiving 75 M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, 29 M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles, 17 M1074 Joint Assault Bridges and six additional M88A2 armored recovery vehicles.

Under the Australian military’s restructure announced in 2023′s Defence Strategic Review, the Army’s 3rd Brigade in Townsville will be the sole repository of this heavy-armor influx.

To date, Australian military assistance for Ukraine is valued at more than A$1.3 billion, and it includes Bushmaster protected vehicles, M113AS4 armored personnel carriers and M777 howitzers.

Austin told reporters Wednesday “What exactly they are doing? Left to be seen. These are things that we need to sort out,” according to a video posted by the Washington Post.

If the troops join the war in Ukraine on Russia’s side, it will be “a very, very serious issue,” Austin said, adding it would have an impact in Europe and in the Indo-Pacific region.

South Korean intelligence first publicized reports that the Russian navy had taken 1,500 North Korean special warfare troops to Russia last week, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had earlier said his government had intelligence that 10,000 North Korea soldiers were being prepared to join the invading Russian forces.

The U.S. and NATO had not previously formally confirmed North Korea’s reported troop dispatch, but have warned of the danger of such a development if true. Russia and North Korea have so far denied the troop movements.

South Korean National Intelligence Service Director Cho Tae-yong told lawmakers that said another 1,500 North Korean troops have entered Russia in a closed-door meeting, according to lawmaker Park Sunwon, who attended the briefing.

Cho told lawmakers that his agency assessed that North Korea aims to deploy a total of 10,000 troops to Russia by December, Park told reporters.

Park cited Cho as saying the 3,000 North Korean soldiers sent to Russia have been split among multiple military bases and are in training. Cho told lawmakers that NIS believes they have yet to be deployed in battle, according to Park.

Speaking jointly with Park about the NIS briefing, lawmaker Lee Seong Kweun said that the NIS found that the Russian military is now teaching those North Korean soldiers how to use military equipment such as drones.

Lee cited the NIS chief as saying Russian instructors have high opinions of the morale and physical strength of the North Korean soldiers but think they will eventually suffer a heavy causalities because they lack an understanding of modern warfare. Lee, citing Cho, said Russia is recruiting a large number of interpreters.

Lee said NIS has detected signs that North Korea is relocating family members of soldiers chosen to be sent to Russia to special sites to isolate them.

The NIS chief told lawmakers that North Korea hasn’t disclosed its troop dispatch to its own people. But there are rumors that the news is spreading to local residents, including those whose loved ones have been assigned Russian tours, Lee said, citing the NIS.

Ukraine’s Military Intelligence Directorate head, Kyrylo Budanov, told the online military news outlet The War Zone that North Korean troops will arrive to Russia’s Kursk region today to help Russian troops fighting off a Ukrainian incursion.

North Korea and Russia, embroiled in separate confrontations with the West, have been sharply boosting their cooperation in the past two years. In June, they signed a major defense deal requiring both countries to use all available means to provide immediate military assistance if either is attacked.

The NIS said last week that North Korea had sent more than 13,000 containers of artillery, missiles and other conventional arms to Russia since August 2023 to replenish its dwindling weapons stockpiles.

Reports that the North is sending troops to Russia stoked security jitters in South Korea. South Korean officials worry that Russia may reward North Korea by giving it sophisticated weapons technologies that could boost the North’s nuclear and missile programs that target South Korea.

South Korea said Tuesday it would consider supplying weapons to Ukraine in response to the North’s reported troop dispatch. South Korea has shipped humanitarian and financial support to Ukraine, but it has so far avoided directly supplying arms to Ukraine in line with its policy of not supplying weapons to countries actively engaged in conflicts.

North Korea has 1.2 million troops, one of the largest standing armies in the world, but it hasn’t fought in large-scale conflicts since the 1950-53 Korean War. Many experts question how much North Korean troops would help Russia, citing a shortage of battle experience. They say North Korea wants to get Russian economic support and its help to modernize the North’s outdated conventional weapons systems as well as its high-tech weapons technology transfers.

The next-generation sensor will be based on the existing Raytheon GhostEye family of radars, with one of the key upgrades focused on increased range, according to company representatives.

“We can’t provide performance specifics, but the radar’s capabilities will far exceed NASAMS’ current sensor configuration – this is largely driven by the active electronically scanned array and gallium nitride (GaN) technology featured in the GhostEye family of radars,” Mike Mills, executive director of GhostEye programs at Raytheon told Defense News.

The GhostEye is a medium-range air and missile defense radar that was first showcased by the company in 2021, designed to detect and identify a wide-range of threats including cruise missiles, drones and rotary-wing aircraft.

While the radar’s range information is not available on the manufacturer’s website, observers have estimated that it may be able to observe targets as far as 120 kilometers away.

This will be the first project developed under the NASAMS Capabilities Collaborative Agreement, which was signed in 2023 by the Norwegian MoD, Kongsberg and Raytheon.

The production of the radars’ components will be carried out in both Norway and the United States, Mills said, declining to say when deliveries would begin, as discussions about that aspect of the systems’ development are still ongoing.

In June, Norway signed a $440 million contract with Kongsberg to acquire new NASAMS air defense systems with expected deliveries from 2027 to replace equipment previously donated to Ukraine.

The Nordic nation initially sent two batteries of the air defense systems to Kyiv in March of 2023, followed by additional shipments in December, and plans to order more for the war-torn country.

“Norway has decided to build their future Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) with the NASAMS architecture as the backbone,” Hans Christian Hagen, vice president for business development of air and coastal defense at Kongsberg said in an email statement to Defense News.

“The development of the next-gen radar is a natural step for Norway as the lead nation and will address requirements to meet the mobility aspects for a flexible and agile system,” the company executive added.

NASAMS are in operation in 13 countries, as they are able to use a wide variety of air-to-air missiles, including the AMRAAM, which a considerable number of NATO countries already possess.

Called the Trinity House Agreement, the pact amounts to a comprehensive reboot of defense relations between London and Berlin that had lacked structure since Britain formally exited the European Union in early 2020.

The jam-packed agenda touches all military domains – air, land, sea, and cyber – showcasing Rheinmetall as a linchpin of industrial cooperation for land forces, and MBDA, with its Storm Shadow cruise missile, as the nucleus for a future, joint long-range strike weapon.

Stationing long-range missiles in Europe, including from the United States, has become a key pillar in NATO plans to deter Russian aggression against the continent.

Under the new plan, German defense contractor Rheinmetall and its British subsidiary will open a factory for making artillery gun barrels using locally made steel, re-establishing a capability given up by the British a decade a ago, according to the U.K. Ministry of Defence statement. The first barrels are slated to roll off the production line in 2027.

Rheinmetall unveils UK’s upgraded Challenger 3 battle tank

British and German troops, with their growing presence in eastern Europe aimed at securing NATO’s eastern flank, are slated to intensify their joint training, using their forward position as a “catalyst for developing new ways of fighting,” the British statement reads.

In the maritime domain, the two nations pledge to cooperate on new technology for monitoring vital undersea cables and pipelines in the North Sea, a key concern for defense planners in Europe amid Russian espionage against such targets.

“The UK and Germany are moving closer together,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius was quoted as saying in a statement circulated to reporters on the eve of the Trinity House Agreement’s signing.

“With projects across the air, land, sea, and cyber domains, we will jointly increase our defense capabilities, thereby strengthening the European pillar within NATO,” he added. “We can only strengthen our ability to act together. This is why our cooperation projects are open to other partners.”

The British statement characterized the new defense pact with Germany as an example of the new Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer “resetting” relations with European allies.

An impending, overarching cooperation agreement with Germany beyond military matters is meant to complete a trio of separate bilateral pacts linking Britain and France, France and Germany, and Britain and Germany.

“The Trinity House Agreement is a milestone moment in our relationship with Germany and a major strengthening of Europe’s security,” British Defense Minister John Healey was quoted as saying.

As for support to Ukraine, an immediate step under the new pact will be outfitting donated German Sea King helicopters with “modern missile systems,” the British statement reads. In addition, the U.K. will play a bigger role in a Polish- and German-led armor support coalition for Kyiv, while Germany will do the same in a British-Latvian-led group devoted to drones.

The two governments finished the deal this spring but unveiled it Tuesday, Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy said. He declined to give specific delivery numbers or a schedule, only saying that the funding would last for a decade.

“There was a strong view we needed to both upgrade the capability of air defense, but also increase the numbers of missiles we’re holding,” Conroy said in an interview while visiting Washington.

Missile defense is one of the top priorities listed in Australia’s 2024 defense strategy, published this April, which name drops the SM-6. In the plan, the government pledged to double its number of major warships and build a firmer defense industry of its own — as the country, like America, accepts competition with China as the norm.

Canberra’s defense budget, published a month after in May, committed a record $37 billion, or just over 2% of GDP, toward its military. The government aims to reach 2.3% of GDP, right now around $67 billion, by 2033-2034.

The SM, or Standard Missile, Block IIIC and 6 included in the sale will help Australia defend against advanced missile attacks and, in the case of the latter, can provide an anti-ship weapon. The American missile company Raytheon manufactures both, which have a medium and long range respectively.

“This combination of long range air defense, anti-ship strike capability ... and giving us our first ability to defend against ballistic missiles through terminal ballistic missile defense was a huge step forward for our navy,” Conroy said.

Australia became the first country outside America to fire the SM-6 from a warship this August, when the HMAS Sydney shot one during a military drill near Hawaii. The Pentagon’s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget requests 125 of the missiles for its own stocks.

The Army also adopted the SM-6 as part of its mid-range missile launcher that deployed to the Philippines this year, a mission that irked China.

While in Washington, Conroy met with the deputy secretary of defense and heads of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, where they discussed work between the two defense industries and progress on the AUKUS agreement between Australia, the U.S. and Great Britain — a deal to share nuclear-powered submarines and advanced technology.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia was also likely looking at the postelection scenario in the U.S. to assess the possibility of cease-fire talks with Ukraine. He assessed that if partial cease-fire deals could be reached over attacks on energy infrastructure and Black Sea shipping routes, it would signal the end of the “hot phase” of the war.

Zelenskyy spoke to journalists on Monday and his comments were embargoed until Tuesday.

He said the U.S. is analyzing his plan, but he doesn’t expect a meaningful response until after the Nov. 5 election.

“They said, yes, we’ve started working on the Victory Plan, they want to analyze everything, and so on. But it’s very clear to me that all the major partners, especially during the election period, will be afraid of Russia’s reaction,” he said. “Because they understand that with this package, we can destroy them.”

On NATO, Zelenskyy said France, Britain and Italy have shown signs of support. Germany has reservations, however, and Zelenskyy believes only a U.S. green light will convince Berlin to accept the idea.

“But the fact is that the German side is skeptical about our NATO membership — that’s a fact. I believe their stance is softer than it was before — this is also a fact.

“But when it comes to the invitation I’m talking about now, they are afraid of ... Russia’s reaction,” he said.

“I believe that their position will be influenced by a bigger alliance. A bigger alliance in supporting us — a confident “Yes” from the United States.”

Many significant issues will hinge on decisions taken following the fraught election period, the president said.

“After the elections, we hope for a more positive reaction from the U.S. — not because of a change in the president, but because the focus of the United States is now on the elections, and I believe that any sharp statements from the U.S. today might be inappropriate or carry risks. I think they don’t want unnecessary risks,” he said.

Asked if he faced pressure from allies to end the war, Zelenskyy joked, saying, “Over the years, people’s overall blood pressure rises.”

He dismissed reports of a possible cease-fire scenario in which Ukraine exchanged occupied territories for NATO membership.

“We are not discussing this. But I think that these media leaks are not accidental. Perhaps some partners may have such thoughts. They don’t communicate this directly with me, but through the media, it’s clear they’re testing its reception.”

He said the end of the “hot phase” of the war would commence if a deal could be reached with Russia to halt attacks on energy infrastructure and Black Sea ports and shipping routes. In this case, attacks on military targets would continue as well as front-line fighting, he said.

He said he plans to convince countries of the Global South to embrace Ukraine’s plan as another way to push Moscow to agree to Kyiv’s terms.

Zelenskyy said his country is not pursuing nuclear weapons to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We are not asking to be given or returned nuclear weapons,” he said. “My position is very clear. We gave them up, but we got nothing in return. And we only received a full-scale war and many casualties, so today we have only one way out. That’s why we need NATO, because we don’t have the weapons that can stop Putin.”

Kosiniak-Kamysz said Boeing’s CH-47F Chinook is a considered option because its capabilities “are unique and immense.” He did not disclose the number of copters that would be acquired under the program.

“I believe that [the Polish military] also needs larger helicopters which could provide efficient support by transporting ‘big bags,’ or soldiers, into locations that are difficult to access,” the minister said in an interview with local news site Portal Obronny. “I have not talked about it anywhere else, but, at the ministry, we are thinking about it because … we need such gear.”

In addition to their use for military operations, the new copters could also be used by the armed forces for disaster relief operations, according to Kosiniak-Kamysz. The politician was referring to the widespread floods which hit Poland’s south-western regions last month. On Sept. 18, the Polish Ministry of National Defence announced that around 14,000 soldiers were involved in the response to the floods.

With the potential purchase in mind, Boeing, the manufacturer of the Chinook, has intensified its efforts to promote the helo in the Polish market. The company presented the aircraft at the MSPO defense industry show, the country’s largest annual industry event, which was held between Sept. 2 and 5 in Kielce, central Poland.

Should Poland decide to purchase Chinook copters for its military, this would mark another major deal to be awarded by Warsaw to Boeing. In August 2024, the Polish ministry signed a contract with the United States government to buy 96 AH-64E Apache attack copters with related gear and weapons. The deal is worth around $10 billion.

The assistance includes artillery and other munitions, armored vehicles and anti-tank weapons like the shoulder-launched Javelin system.

Austin announced the aid in a meeting with Zelenskyy, who last week outlined a proposal to end the war.

This “victory plan,” as Zelenskyy calls it, would require enduring Western support, particularly NATO membership and the long-term commitment of security aid. The U.S. has so far resisted issuing an immediate invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance, along with another top priority for Kyiv: the permission to fire Western weapons deep into Russian territory.

In a social media post after the meeting with Austin, Zelenskyy said that the two discussed air defense and “the expansion of long-range weapon use against Russian military targets.” In a $425 million package announced last week, the White House committed to sending “hundreds” of vital air defense interceptors in the coming months.

Despite such support, Zelenskyy’s proposal is a sign of how Ukraine views the state of the war. The Ukrainian president still publicly calls for regaining all territory lost to Russia, going back to the 2014 seizure of Crimea. But as Moscow’s forces steadily advance in eastern Ukraine and reclaim territory lost in Russia’s Kursk province, the future of the war looks increasingly bleak for Kyiv.

In an October briefing, senior Pentagon officials said Russia’s casualties were accelerating in the east and had reached 600,000 throughout the war.

Austin’s trip to Kyiv marks his fourth visit to Ukraine and likely his last as secretary of defense. Aiding Ukraine’s defense has been a signature achievement during his tenure. The U.S. has sent Ukraine over $61 billion in security aid in the last two and a half years, and Austin has helped coordinate the assistance of other countries through a monthly forum held in Ramstein, Germany.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 Kyiv has prohibited the export of military goods to other countries to guarantee that the Ukrainian armed forces are supplied with the equipment they need to continue defending their territory.

While the ban has allowed smaller local defense companies to grow at a fast rate, thanks to an initial boost of orders by the state, the policy is now hurting their business, Anatolii Khrapchynskyi, deputy director general of Piranha Tech said.

“It has opened up opportunities for private companies to produce weapons and led to the emergence of numerous firms that, in two and a half years, have grown from garage-based startups to stable companies capable of fulfilling a large number of orders,” he told Defense News. “At the same time, as firms have scaled up their capabilities, they’ve accelerated to a level the state cannot fully procure from.”

Piranha Tech has specialized in the development and production of electronic-warfare systems, radio-jamming as well as drones and counter-drone systems since 2014.

Khrapchynskyi noted that most of the investments in research and development came either from the companies’ own funds or small grants provided by platforms like Brave1, a Ukrainian government entity responsible for fast-tracking the delivery of weapon samples to the frontlines.

At the rate defense systems have evolved on the battlefield, research and development has become more expensive, and having the state as the sole customer is no longer sufficient for many firms, the argument for lifting the export ban goes.

According to Ukrainian media, a government working group on arms exports has been working since August on assessing risks that would come with the country re-entering the global arms market, and setting conditions that could make this possible.

Khrapchynskyi told Defense News he supports the initiative, saying reconnaissance drones could serve as a test case because they are useful in military and civilian applications alike.

“Security and the end-user are of the utmost importance – we could also consider selling earlier versions that are not cutting edge, but companies must guarantee that state contracts remain a priority and be fulfilled on time,” Khrapchynskyi said.

A requirement to invest some of the profits into company research and development also should be on the table, he added.

One of the biggest issues associated with lifting the wartime ban on these weapons is the possibility for Russian forces to get their hands on information and technology.

“We see how Russia circumvents sanctions, so we understand that they will certainly start looking for ways to obtain certain means for copying [weapons] or developing countermeasures against them,” Khrapchynskyi said.

He ordered his military to hold drills involving battlefield nuclear weapons with ally Belarus.

He announced Russia will start producing ground-based intermediate range missiles that were outlawed by a now-defunct U.S.-Soviet treaty in 1987.

And last month, he lowered the threshold for unleashing his arsenal by revising the country’s nuclear doctrine.

Putin is relying on those thousands of warheads and hundreds of missiles as an enormous doomsday machine to offset NATO's massive edge in conventional weapons to discourage what he sees as threats to Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

A look at Russia's atomic arsenal and the issues surrounding it:

Russia's strategic weapons

The Federation of American Scientists estimated this year that Russia has an inventory totaling 5,580 deployed and nondeployed nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,044. Together, that’s about 88% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Most of these are strategic, or intercontinental-range weapons. Like the U.S., Russia has a nuclear triad of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, long-range bombers and ICBM-armed submarines.

Since Putin came to power in 2000, the Kremlin has worked to upgrade the Soviet-built components of the triad, deploying hundreds of new land-based missiles, commissioning new nuclear submarines and modernizing nuclear-capable bombers. Russia’s effort to revamp its nuclear forces has helped prompt the U.S. to launch a costly modernization of its arsenal.

Russia has reequipped its land-based strategic missile forces with mobile Yars ICBMs and recently began deploying the heavy, silo-based Sarmat ICBMs — designated “Satan II” missiles in the West — to gradually replace about 40 Soviet-built R-36M missiles. Sarmat has had only one known successful test, and reportedly suffered a massive explosion during an abortive test last month.

The navy commissioned seven new Borei-class atomic-powered submarines, each with 16 Bulava nuclear-tipped missiles, and plans to build five more. They are intended to form the core of the triad’s naval component alongside a few Soviet-era nuclear subs still operating.

Russia still relies on Soviet-built Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Moscow has restarted production of the supersonic Tu-160 that was halted after the 1991 Soviet collapse, aiming to build several dozen modernized aircraft with new engines and avionics.

Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons

The U.S. estimates that Russia has between 1,000 and 2,000 nonstrategic, or tactical, nuclear weapons intended for use on the battlefield that typically are far less powerful than the strategic warheads capable of destroying entire cities.

Russia has high-precision ground-launched Iskander missiles with a range of up to 310 miles, which can be fitted with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead.

The air force has a fleet of MiG-31 fighter jets that carry a hypersonic Kinzhal missile, which can be equipped with a nuclear or conventional warhead. Russia has widely used conventional versions of both Iskander and Kinzhal against Ukraine.

As part of the Kremlin’s nuclear messaging, Russia and ally Belarus held drills to train their troops with the battlefield nuclear weapons in May, shortly after Putin began his fifth term.

MAD and Russia’s nuclear doctrine

Moscow and Washington have relied for decades on nuclear deterrence under the concept of mutually assured destruction — MAD for short — based on the assumption that an overwhelming retaliation would discourage either side from launching an attack.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine adopted in 2020 envisaged using such ultimate weapons in response to a nuclear strike or an attack with conventional weapons that threatens “the very existence of the Russian state.” Moscow hawks criticized that document as too vague, urging Putin to toughen it.

Last month, he warned the U.S. and NATO allies that allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied longer-range weapons for strikes deep inside Russia would put NATO at war with his country.

He reinforced the message by announcing a new version of the nuclear doctrine that considers a conventional attack on Russia by a nonnuclear nation that is supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack on his country — a clear warning to the U.S. and other allies of Kyiv.

Putin also declared the revised document envisages possible nuclear weapons use in case of a massive air attack, holding the door open to a potential nuclear response to any aerial assault — an ambiguity intended to deter the West.

Changes in the doctrine suggest Russia “is doubling down on its strategy of relying on nuclear weapons for coercive purposes” in the war in Ukraine, said Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a commentary.

The future for arms control

The 2010 New START U.S.-Russian arms reduction treaty, the last remaining arms control pact between Moscow and Washington that expires in 2026, limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.

In February 2023, Putin suspended Russia’s participation in New START, but vowed that Russia would abide by its limits.

In July, Putin declared Russia will launch production of ground-based intermediate range missiles that were banned under the now-defunct U.S. Soviet INF Treaty. The 1987 pact banned missiles with a range of 310 to 3,410 miles. He said Moscow will respond in kind to the planned deployment of U.S. intermediate-range missiles to Germany, taking steps to “mirror” Washington’s move.

Even as U.S.-Russian tensions soared to their highest point since the Cold War amid fighting in Ukraine, Washington has urged Moscow to resume dialogue on nuclear arms control. Putin rejected the offer, saying such negotiations are meaningless while the U.S. is openly seeking to inflict a strategic defeat to Russia in Ukraine.

Resuming nuclear testing

Russian hawks are calling for a resumption of nuclear tests to demonstrate Moscow’s readiness to use its atomic arsenal and force the West to limit aid for Kyiv.

Putin said Russia could resume testing if the U.S. does so first, a move that would end a global ban in place after the demise of the USSR.

Last month, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the nuclear test range on the Arctic archipelago of Novaya Zemlya is ready to resume tests if the U.S. does so.

Prospective new weapons

In 2018, Putin revealed an array of new weapons, claiming they would render any prospective U.S. missile defenses useless.

They include the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, capable of flying 27 times faster than the speed of sound and making sharp maneuvers to dodge an enemy’s missile shield. The first such units have already entered service.

Putin also mentioned the nuclear-armed and atomic-powered Poseidon underwater drone, designed to explode near coastlines and cause a radioactive tsunami. Earlier this year, he said Poseidon tests are nearing completion, without giving details.

Also under development is an atomic-powered cruise missile, a concept that dates to the Cold War. But the missile, called the Burevestnik, or Petrel, has raised skepticism among experts, who cite technological obstacles and radiation safety concerns. During tests in 2019, an explosion at a naval range on the White Sea reportedly involving the Burevestnik killed five engineers and two servicemen, and caused a brief spike in radiation.

Putin said this year its development was in the final stages and the military has reportedly built a base for the missiles in the Vologda region of northwestern Russia.

The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

The tests come as Taiwan is seeing Chinese military activity in the waters around the island, including drones flying within the country’s air defense identification zone. China views Taiwan as a rogue province and has threatened to take it back by force.

Tron Future, a Taiwan-based company, has been supporting the government in integrating counter-drone systems with Taiwan’s low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites through its T.SpaceRouter user terminals, expected to boost the island’s wartime communication resilience.

The T.SpaceRouter is a lightweight satellite communication terminal that uses active electronically scanned array (AESA) technology, envisioned to double as a kind of communication antenna relying on regional private 5G coverage.

“As our anti-drone systems will be able to connect with LEO satellites by the end of 2025, each C-UAS installation site can serve as a regional military communication hub with LEO satellite backbone – this will help prevent systemic collapse of the core communication network in potential future conflicts,” Dr. Yu-Jiu Wang, chief executive of Tron Future said.

The Taiwan Space Agency has launched an experimental satellite project dubbed Beyond 5G, which aims to develop two high-performance LEO spacecraft that will be deployed at an altitude of 600 kilometers.

Last year, Wang told Defense News that at the height of tensions, the company’s radars deteced as many as 100 Chinese surveillance drones above the island in the span of a week.

According to the vendor, the Taiwanese military also recently began testing a variety of counter-drone active and passive radars, including Tron Future systems, as well as jammers.

These include achieving at least a 6 kilometers effective detection range for drones over the sea, with one of the target references being a Mavic 3 Pro, for active and passive radars, and at least a 4 kilometer effective jamming capability for drones, Wang said.

The government is expected to sign a contract with the winning contractor within two months as part of an order that could total tens of millions of dollars.

“A total of 26 sets of anti-drone systems need to be installed, with 13 sets to be completed within five months after signing the contract, and the entire procurement to be completed within 10 – the systems will be installed on the frontline islands closest to China,” the CEO said.

He noted that the closest distance from Taiwan’s outer islands to China is roughly 2 kilometers.

Taiwan is a major producer of computer chips, which means the country’s semiconductor factories are assumed targets in a potential Chinese attack besides military sites.

NEW YORK — RTX Corporation, the defense contractor formerly known as Raytheon, agreed Wednesday to pay more than $950 million to resolve allegations that it defrauded the government and paid bribes to secure business with Qatar.

The company entered into deferred prosecution agreements in separate cases in federal court in Brooklyn and Massachusetts, agreed to hire independent monitors to oversee compliance with anti-corruption and anti-fraud laws and must show good conduct for three years.

The money the company owes includes penalties in the criminal cases, as well as civil fines, restitution and the return of profits it derived from inflated Defense Department billing and business derived from alleged bribes paid to a high-ranking Qatari military official from 2012 to 2016.

The biggest chunk is a $428 million civil settlement for allegedly lying to the government about its labor and material costs to justify costlier no-bid contracts and drive the company’s profits higher, and for double-billing the government on a weapons maintenance contract.

The total also includes nearly $400 million in criminal penalties in the Brooklyn case, involving the alleged bribes, and in the Massachusetts case, in which the company was accused of inflating its costs by $111 million for missile systems from 2011 to 2013 and the operation of a radar surveillance system in 2017.

RTX also agreed to pay a $52.5 million civil penalty to resolve a parallel Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the bribery allegations and must forfeit at least $66 million to satisfy both probes.

At a hearing in Brooklyn federal court, RTX lawyers waived their right to an indictment and pleaded not guilty to charges that the company violated the anti-bribery provision of the Foreign Corruption Practices Act and the Arms Export Control Act. They did not object to any allegations in court documents filed with the agreement.

RTX said in a statement that it is “taking responsibility for the misconduct that occurred” and is “committed to maintaining a world-class compliance program, following global laws, regulations and internal policies, while upholding integrity and serving our customers in an ethical matter.”

The various legal resolutions came to light over the span of several hours.

First, at the Brooklyn hearing, prosecutors revealed that RTX was to pay a $252 million penalty to resolve criminal charges in the bribery case. Then, court documents hit the docket in Boston showing another criminal penalty of nearly $147 million to resolve the missile and radar case.

Finally, hours later, the Justice Department issued a press release putting the total north of $950 million.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said in a statement that the resolution of the cases “should serve as a stark warning to companies that violate the law when selling sensitive military technology overseas.”

A message seeking comment was left for the Qatari embassy in Washington.

RTX said in a July regulatory filing that it set aside $1.24 billion to resolve pending legal and regulatory matters. Its president and CEO, Christopher Calio, told investors that the investigations largely involved issues that predated the Raytheon-United Technologies merger that formed the current company in 2020.

“These matters primarily arose out of legacy Raytheon Company and Rockwell Collins prior to the merger and acquisition of these companies,” Calio said. “We’ve already taken robust corrective actions to address the legacy gaps that led to these issues.”

Before Wednesday, paperwork in Raytheon’s criminal cases was kept under seal and not publicly available. Because of that, the company’s name was left off the Brooklyn court calendar, leaving the nature of the case a mystery — and reporters scrambling to figure out what it was about — until the hearing began.

According to court documents, Raytheon employees and agents offered and paid bribes to a high-ranking Qatari military official to gain an advantage in obtaining lucrative contracts with the Qatar Emiri Air Force and Qatar Armed Forces.

The company then succeeded in securing four additions to an existing contract with the Gulf Cooperation Council — a regional union of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — and a $510 million contract to build a joint-operations center for the Qatari military, the court documents said.

Raytheon made about $36.7 million in profit from the Gulf Cooperation Council contract additions, which involved air-defense system upgrades, and anticipated making more than $72 million on the joint-operations center, but the Qatari government ultimately did not go forward with the deal, prosecutors said.

The Qatari military official represented his country on the Gulf Cooperation Council deal, served as an adviser on the joint-operations center project and ran procurement for the Qatar Emiri Air Force, prosecutors said. Raytheon bribed him by inking at least $2 million worth of sham contracts with a company he owned, prosecutors said.

In the price inflation case, Raytheon allegedly lied to the government about the costs it would incur in building three Patriot missile firing units — known as missile batteries — leading the U.S. Army to agree to a $619 million contract.

In a 2013 email cited in court papers, a Raytheon employee told a Pentagon official that the company’s expected costs had increased when, according to prosecutors, they actually went down. Prosecutors said the government overpaid by about $100 million.

Raytheon was also accused of misleading the U.S. Air Force in 2017 about the costs associated with operating and maintaining a radar surveillance system, including by arguing that it needed to give employees lucrative compensation packages to maintain adequate staffing.

In reality, prosecutors wrote in court papers, the company “was secretly preparing to reduce the pay” of site employees “in order to improve the company’s profitability.”

The contract was fraudulently inflated by $11 million, prosecutors said.

Wednesday’s penalties are just the latest legal fallout from RTX’s business dealings.

In August, the company agreed to pay the State Department $200 million after disclosing more than two dozen alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Among the allegations were that the company provided classified military aircraft data to China and that employees took company-issued laptops containing sensitive missile and aircraft information into Iran, Lebanon and Russia.

President Joe Biden spoke Wednesday morning with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy before the White House announced the latest round of aid to help Kyiv in its ongoing war against Russia’s invasion.

The two leaders discussed the state of the war and a “victory plan” Zelenskyy has touted to end the conflict, according to a readout of the call.

The Ukrainian president publicly discussed that plan for the first time in a speech before the country’s parliament Wednesday. Arguing that his framework could halt the war by the end of 2025, Zelenskyy described five main points — chief among them membership in NATO and long-term military support from the West.

This week’s package includes many of those weapons Ukraine needs most, though it solely involves equipment America has sent in the past. The White House’s authority to send more assistance was set to expire at the end of September, forcing the president to designate the aid toward the existing list of approved systems.

The White House pledged that within months the U.S. would send “hundreds” of air defense interceptors and “dozens” of smaller air defense systems, both of which have become as valuable as they are scarce two-and-a-half years into the war. Russia has consistently overwhelmed Ukraine’s air defenses with cheap drones and ballistic missiles in attacks on military and civilian targets.

Kyiv is bracing for more such strikes heading into the winter as Ukraine struggles with a damaged power grid.

A Pentagon release specified that the air defense ammunition would include interceptors for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or NASAMS. The package also features artillery and “thousands” of armored vehicles, according to the White House.

Biden had intended to host an October summit of leaders from countries supporting Ukraine’s self-defense but cancelled to help coordinate the response to Hurricane Milton. The White House said that meeting will now occur virtually in November.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin flew to Brussels Wednesday for meetings with his NATO counterparts. Austin will later attend a summit of defense ministers from the G7, a group of developed countries, where support for Ukraine will be on the docket.

Satellite imagery, footage released by Russian media and other open-source information pinpoint the location of the captured 2A6 tank. The factory, Uralvagonzavod – Ural Wagon Factory, in English – is known as the world’s largest tank producer, reportedly having churned out over 100,000 since World War 2. It is also involved in the production of the most modern tank variants Russia has to offer.

The captured tank appeared in good shape once the tarp covering it during its journey was lifted by workers. On the sides of the turret, anti-drone steel screens – colloquially called “cope cages” – were visible. These additions have become standard on the battlefield in Ukraine as a simple defense against explosive-laden kamikaze drones, which can crack armored vehicles when rammed into weak points.

It’s unclear when and where exactly the Leopard tank was captured by Russian forces. Dutch open-source investigative site Onyx, which keeps track of battlefield losses in the Ukraine war, has identified 13 Leopard 2A6 tanks that the Ukrainian armed forces have lost. Seven have been destroyed, while the rest were damaged.

Located in Nizhny Tagil behind Russia’s Ural Mountains, which form the boundary between Europe and Asia, the factory where the Leopard 2 resurfaced is far from the front line in Ukraine. The vehicle was seen arriving at the facility under the cover of darkness on a flatbed truck, video footage reviewed by Defense News showed.

The Ural Wagon Factory, which produces train cars besides armored vehicles, is one of the largest industrial complexes in Russia. It was built in its present location deep inside Russia at Stalin’s behest during World War 2. At the time, the rapid advance of German forces in their surprise “Barbarossa” invasion necessitated the evacuation of vital wartime industries far away from the Western border of Russia, home to most of the country’s population centers.

The location was likely chosen as the destination for the captured 2A6 Leopard because of its institutional knowledge and role as a high-end tank manufacturer in the Russian military-industrial complex, meaning it houses experienced engineers. Media reports from 2023 showed that the state-owned enterprise was responsible for producing Russia’s modern T-90M and the modernization of T-72B3M main battle tanks.

Defense News was able to geolocate video footage of this upgrade process to the same building where the captured Ukrainian Leopard tank was dropped off.

The plant’s importance was underscored by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit in February of this year. Russian government press releases have hinted that new production capabilities are being added to Uralvagonzavod, and the factory has switched to an around-the-clock work schedule to increase its output for the war effort in Ukraine.

Sensitive technologies?

Russian media gloated at the capture of the Western tank, citing Western industry publications as panicking about classified technologies falling into Moscow’s hands. Articles further goaded that “the unsuccessful use of German tanks in Ukraine could negatively affect the export potential of armored vehicles,” as RIA Novosti, a Russian state-owned news agency, put it.

Although over 20 years old, the German-made Leopard 2A6 is still regarded as a competent and modern main battle tank. Its advantages over Russian tanks range from higher crew survivability to the advanced gun, fire control system, different armor, type of shells used, and even the powerful and efficient engine.

Despite some media claims, gladly echoed by Russian state-run outlets, it is unclear whether the tanks delivered to Ukraine from Germany contain more sensitive technologies than those that were built for export to other countries. Some analysts expressed concern that because the tanks came from German Bundeswehr stocks, they may have especially advanced systems on board.

KNDS, the tank’s manufacturer, told Defense News that the company was not concerned about the capture of its technology by Russia.

“It won’t be easy to copy, and Russia is likely to have much of the information already anyway,” a company spokesperson said in an interview. The arms manufacturer further clarified that there is no such thing as an “export version” of the tank, but that orders are tailored to their specific customers’ requirements. The spokesperson, who asked to remain unnamed, could not say whether there were particularly sensitive technologies in the tanks coming from the German armed forces or whether they had been modified before being sent to Ukraine.

“The Russians will likely be able to figure out some things — but what exactly, is hard to say,” the company spokesperson concluded.

The German armed forces did not return a reply for clarification and comment on the specifics of the Leopard 2A6 tank in time for publication.

Germany has provided Ukraine with 18 Leopard tanks of the 2A6 variant, while Portugal has contributed three.

This isn’t the first Leopard 2 that Russia has captured. In April, footage was released of Russian military men analyzing a tank in a field tent that was missing its treads. However, the more recently resurfaced tank appears to be in much better condition, possibly providing insights that Russia was unable to gain previously.

Dozens of Western countries, including many in NATO, use the Leopard 2 tank in various configurations. Finland operates 200 Leopard 2 tanks, of which 100 are of the 2A6 variant. Analyzing its capabilities and limitations could assist Russia in furthering its own domestic technologies but could also provide Moscow’s armed forces with a better understanding of how to defend against and destroy the vehicle.

Russian government outlets have repeatedly said that the Western supply to Ukraine amounted to “playing with fire” and directly involved NATO countries in the conflict, a stance that the Euro-American alliance rejects.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be considered legitimate targets by the Russian military.

The defense ministry plans to boost spending on ammunition, particularly “complex munitions,” lift the space budget and raise funding for intelligence gathering and cyber, Lecornu told the defense committee of the lower house. Other areas of investment will include research on directed-energy weapons, artificial intelligence and deep-sea capabilities.

The French government has proposed to lift the 2025 defense budget to €50.54 billion (US$55 billion) from €47.23 billion this year, one of the few departments to see funding increase as Prime Minister Michel Barnier attempts to bring the country’s budget deficit under control.

The aircraft carrier order will mean the start of “a program with major impact,” Lecornu told lawmakers. The minister last year estimated the cost of the vessel that will replace the Charles de Gaulle nuclear-powered carrier in the €10 billion range. The country also plans to order another defense and intervention frigate, after Naval Group started sea trials of the first unit in the program earlier this month.

France plans to increase ammo buying by 27% to €1.9 billion, with purchases including MBDA’s Meteor air-to-air missile, Mistral and Aster air-defense interceptors, Scalp cruise missiles and Exocet anti-ship missiles, as well as heavy torpedoes, according to Lecornu. The budget for the SAMP/T NG air-defense system developed together with Italy will double to €500 million.

The minister took a swipe at European countries buying the Patriot air-defense system, saying the new generation SAMP/T with its 360-degree radar coverage outperforms its U.S. competitor. First tests with the Aster B1 NT missile to distinguish its target in a saturated airspace with multiple objects have been “very conclusive,” Lecornu said.

Lecornu said he is counting on Thales and MBDA to make the SAMP/T NG system an export success, where the previous generation failed to find many buyers outside France and Italy. “We can see that it’s going to sell,” and one key element will be MBDA moving towards “a war economy with production lines that hold up” to deal with attrition, the minister said.

France plans to allocate a third of its defense budget to acquisition and maintenance of equipment, with the budget for large armament programs other than nuclear rising 16% to €10.6 billion. Salaries will account for 27% of the 2025 defense budget, with nuclear deterrence amounting to 14% of spending.

The budget for nuclear deterrence will climb 8% next year, which will pay for continued development of the M51 submarine-launched ballistic nuclear missile and work on the ASN4G hypersonic missile, expected to enter service in the 2030s, Lecornu said. He also mentioned this year’s start of construction of France’s third-generation ballistic-missile submarine.

The space budget will increase 15% to €870 million. Lecornu said militarization of space is “unfortunately” continuing, with projects by the great powers that could endanger security. Spending on robots and drones will increase around 12% to €450 million, while the Armed Forces Ministry plans to triple the budget for artificial intelligence to €300 million, including investment in a supercomputer for defense AI.

Deliveries next year will include 14 Rafale fighter jets, an Airbus A400 transport aircraft, a defense and intervention frigate, 308 armored vehicles in the Scorpion program and 21 renovated Leclerc main battle tanks, according to Lecornu.

France aims to be able to deploy two brigades in an expeditionary capacity in 2027, and have the ability to deploy an Army corps in 2030, either within a NATO framework or outside of it, Lecornu said.

Known as Leonardo Rheinmetall Military Vehicles (LRMV), the 50-50 joint venture will be headquartered in Rome with its operational headquarters in La Spezia, the Italian hub for ground vehicle construction, the firms said in a statement.

Formed in response to an Italian army requirement for new fighting vehicles and tanks, the JV will involve Leonardo taking 50 percent of workshare and Rheinmetall in Germany taking 40 percent with the remaining ten percent taken by Rheinmetall’s Italian facilities.

Dubbed by the firms as a “new European nucleus for the development and production of military combat vehicles in Europe,” the JV follows a memorandum of understanding signed in July.

It also comes in the wake of the collapse of plans by Leonardo and KNDS to build vehicles after the Franco-German consortium balked at Leonardo’s workshare requests.

Speaking at a press conference in Rome, Leonardo CEO Roberto Cingolani said firms in Europe needed to join forces and be “sherpas” on the continent, leading governments towards industrial integration, even if they risked losing “a fraction” of domestic market.

“We hope this will be a seed for the growth of a safer Europe,” he added.

Speaking alongside him, Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger said, “We negotiated everything in 3-4 months and made it happen.”

The deal involves the manufacture of 1,050 new infantry fighting vehicles for the Italian army based on the Rheinmetall Lynx to replace Italy’s aging Dardo vehicles.

With 16 different versions to be supplied and the first vehicle delivered in two years, the program will run to 2040 and cost €15 billion ($16.4 billion), the managers said.

Rheinmetall’s under-development Panther KF51 will be the basis of a new main battle tank to replace Italy’s Ariete tanks, with 132 to be supplied in an €8 billion program due to run until 2035, with the first tank to be delivered in two and a half to three years.

Papperger said a 130mm gun would be ready for the tank in three years if the Italian government wanted it.

Asked why Leonardo had broken off its talks with KNDS to furnish the Italian army with the Leopard, Cingolani said KNDS had only been able to promise the first tank in five years.

In their statement, the firms said that Leonardo will be responsible for mission systems, electronics suites and weapons on the vehicles destined for the Italian army.

Papperger said a half-hour discussion with Cingolani about combining Rheinmetall’s platforms with  Leonardo’s digitalization capabilities was enough to convince them to do the deal.

“It was clear that complementarity with Rheinmetall was very high,” said Cingolani.

The new vehicles would “Very likely (be) the most advanced on the continent, on the planet,” he added.

Papperger said that the vehicles had export potential. “We are primarily addressing the Italian market, but we will also be targeting other partner nations which are in need of modernizing their combat systems in the future,” he said, adding that most of the 5,000 main battle tanks in the world were at least 35 years old.

He predicted that the new JV’s revenue could run to €2 billion to €4 billion a year, with profitability at 15 percent.

Cingolani said that by networking the new vehicles, further business opportunities were in store.

“Those machines will talk to satellites and super computers and other platforms and we have room to develop more and newer technologies to integrate into these platforms,” he said.

Papperger said the deal with Leonardo would not affect its commitment to building a new European tank with KNDS, which he said was due to be ready in 2040.

“At the moment we have war, and there is need over the next ten years for infantry fighting vehicles and tanks,” he said.

The European tank program, he added, “Is a different approach and it is not dead.”

The Dutch are also investing in missile defense, acquiring four short-range and six medium-range air-defense batteries from Norway’s Kongsberg, State Secretary for Defence Gijs Tuinman told parliament on Monday. The company expects the deal to be valued around 11 billion Norwegian kroner ($1 billion), it said in a separate statement.

Dutch defense officials and military brass have been showing up on TV shows and at public events in recent months to raise awareness of what they see as a threat of war posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the need to bolster the country’s armed forces. The Netherlands last month announced plans to rebuild a tank battalion and buy additional F-35 fighter jets and anti-submarine frigates, backed by a rising defense budget.

“The war in Ukraine shows that battle tanks are of undiminished importance in modern conflict,” Tuinman told parliament in a letter detailing the planned purchase of Leopard tanks from French-German defense firm KNDS.

“With the reintroduction of a full-fledged tank battalion, the Netherlands is fulfilling the priority objectives assigned by NATO.”

The Netherlands will seek an option to buy six more tanks, on top of the 46 now penciled in. The Dutch are counting on unmanned systems to provide combat capacity equivalent to the six battle tanks, and will decide by 2027 whether that looks technologically feasible or whether they need to exercise the option to meet a goal of standing up a full tank battalion by 2030 at the latest.

Unmanned systems can make other systems less vulnerable by targeting enemy drones or armored vehicles, the state secretary said. The Ministry of Defence also expects systems for breaching obstacles and for sensing and reconnaissance to come to market.

Technology for unmanned capabilities equivalent to a modern battle tank is expected to emerge after 2035, in parallel with development of the French-German Main Ground Combat System, Tuinman said.

The Dutch aim to create their own unmanned capacity with the Leopard project to gain an edge over potential adversaries and build up a “significant” knowledge position in Europe, he said.

The Dutch MoD is working on the design of unmanned systems and expects to set out requirements by the end of next year, followed by validation with one or more manufacturers in the second half of 2026. Progress there will factor in the decision whether to order the six additional tanks, Tuinman told parliament.

The 46 planned Leopards are the minimum for a battalion with sufficient manned and unmanned operational capacity, Tuinman said. Staffing the tank battalion and its support capacities will require around 500 military personnel.

The Netherlands will tag along with a German-led joint procurement initiative that includes Lithuania and Czechia, which Tuinman said is the only way for the Dutch to have their own tank capacity in the short term. Allies are expected take delivery of the first new Leopard 2A8 battle tanks rolling off reactivated KNDS production lines end-2025, the state secretary said.

“The availability of slots on the recently reopened production lines is limited due to the greatly increased demand for heavy weapon systems,” Tuinman said. “This project therefore focuses on rapid materiel acquisition of the battle tanks by securing a favorable production slot.”

The Dutch government expects to conclude a deal with Germany by the end of the year, with first delivery three years later and the final tanks handed over in 2030. Any delay finalizing the contract could result in later delivery, as several countries are vying for a slot in the KNDS delivery schedule, according to Tuinman

The budget for the tank battalion is estimated at €1 billion to €2.5 billion, including spare parts, maintenance and operating costs. The MoD will further clarify support requirements, including trucks for transport, maintenance and supply, as well as recovery vehicles.

The Netherlands disbanded its tank battalions in 2011 amid budget cuts, selling its remaining 100 operational Leopard 2A6 tanks to Finland in 2014. The Dutch have been leasing 18 tanks from Germany since 2015, helping them retain knowledge around tank operations.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands also plans to order six medium-range and four short-range air-defense batteries from Kongsberg and additional multi-mission radar systems from Thales. Delivery of the systems is expected to start in 2028, with full operational capacity in 2030.

The budget for the air-defense project is €2.58 billion, including the cost of buying missiles, risk provision and operating costs, Tuinman said. That compares to Kongsberg’s estimate for a contract value of around 11 billion kroner.

The Dutch are ordering six fire units of the National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS), which can defend against attacks by aircraft and cruise missiles up to a range of 50 kilometers, according to Tuinman. One fire unit consists of multiple launchers, fire control and command units, as well as radar capacity, the state secretary said.

The Netherlands will also buy four short-range systems from Kongsberg based on the National Maneuver Air Defence System (NOMADS) mounted on the tracked Armoured Combat Support Vehicle G5, for defense against aerial threats including drones up to a range of 15 kilometers. The Dutch government is signing a separate contact with Norway for the ACSV tracked vehicles.

The ministry plans to order an additional eight Thales multi-mission radars, bringing the total ordered to 26, of which 14 for air and missile defense.

The Dutch military will create two batteries dedicated to air defense for land forces, each including a medium-range fire unit and two short-range fire units, radar capacity and logistical support, Two additional medium-range fire units will support Patriot long-range air-defense batteries, while another two will join a unit focused on protecting national infrastructure.

The government intends to buy missiles from the U.S. through a Foreign Military Sales agreement, Tuinman said. The plan is to buy AIM-120 AMRAAM-ER and AIM-120C8 AMRAAM missiles for the medium-range systems and AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles for the short-range systems, all interoperable with the country’s F-35 fighter jets.

“Our large experiments need to be concept-informed, and the concepts we’re talking about are the sets of capabilities and relationships that we think we’re going to need to win in the operating environments we are going to face in the future,” said Army Brig. Gen. Zachary Miller, who heads the Joint Modernization Command at Fort Bliss, Texas. “And the priority theater for the Department of Defense is the Pacific.”

The joint force has simulated Pacific scenarios in the United States during previous iterations of the exercise, which began as an Army-only event in 2020 at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. But the experimentation campaign has never been held forward in relevant theaters aside from some peripheral activities at the Army Pacific headquarters level earlier this year, Miller said.

Project Pacific

The vast majority of the experimentation at Project Convergence is now slated to take place in Hawaii and Guam, then all the way out along the first island chain from Japan to the Philippines, and down under in Australia over the month of April.

“We are 100% taking what you saw in a bunch of tents next to each other at Camp Pendleton last year and putting it in the Pacific across both sides of the international date line in the headquarters of all the actual operational units,” Miller said.

Japan’s Ground Self Defense Force will be a full participant as well as Australia and the rest of the Five Eyes partners — Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Philippines will be considered an observer for this round.

The Army’s 3rd Multidomain Task Force will be in Australia for the event, and the 1st MDTF will be in the Philippines. This summer, Australian officers embedded with the 3rd MDTF, and the 1st MDTF has already participated in exercises in the Philippines, including Balikatan in May.

The campaign is expected to more closely align the Army and the other services with the Air Force’s Agile Combat Employment concept and to work closely with the air service’s Battle Network, Miller said. “We want to bridge air and space with the land and the sea.”

The Air Force’s Agile Combat Employment doctrine prescribes that formations of planes and drones must be prepared to take off and land from dispersed, less-than-ideal runways during a future conflict, especially one involving China. The efforts grew from the expectation that enemies will first target large U.S. air bases hosting concentrated air power if war breaks out, thereby decimating the strategic advantage of aerial overmatch.

At the spring event, the U.S. military services and international partners will try to bring their massive array of sensors across all the different domains into one picture. “We’ve made a lot of strides in that, we want to push forward on how we quickly turn that information into action,” Miller noted.

Going back to Cali

While Project Convergence will feature a complex scenario in the Pacific, officials will still conduct another scenario at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. That vignette is focused on the land domain, but with joint and international participation as well. Other U.S. locations include the Nevada Test and Training Range and San Clemente Island off the shores of Camp Pendleton, California.

“We will have live aircraft doing sensing, shooting live fires,” Miller said, and the Army will have every echelon of the 18th Airborne Corps participating.

A fair amount of experimentation will bleed over into what the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George is calling “transforming in contact.” The initiative gives up-and-coming capabilities to brigade-size units at scale to gauge their expected impact in the field.

Portions of the Army’s initiative to fix the current network and command-and-control capabilities to better fit into a next-generation C2 framework will also be under evaluation.

And the Army will build off its first major attempt in early 2024 to examine how humans and robots will fight together on the battlefield — an effort known as human-machine integration, according to Miller. The experimentation event will use the Army’s Next-Generation C2 capabilities — a pilot program based on a new battlefield network and C2 architecture — to coordinate it all.

Guided by Next-Gen C2 features, the human-machine integration event “is going to lead off with a breaching of a complex obstacle, meaning that’s going to have mines, it’s going to have wire, it’s going to have fires on it from the enemy and it will be done completely autonomously,” Miller said. “Normally you think about people having to drive vehicles up to explosively destroy things or cut wire or whatever and that will be done completely with some pretty novel approaches to it.”

The Army will also focus on bringing in launched effects that can be fired from a wide variety of platforms like helicopters, drones, high-altitude balloons or from the ground, according to Miller. “The air will be contested and congested,” he said. “It will be very hard to distinguish whose thing is there in the air, and it’s going to be hard to control that airspace.”

The Army will also increase its experimentation on maneuvering in the electromagnetic spectrum. As the service crafts its next warfighting concepts, Miller said, one of the emerging ideas calls for effective maneuvering in the electromagnetic spectrum just like the Army conducts ground maneuver. “It is a sea change in how we would operate because we can’t see the electromagnetic spectrum, but we have to protect ourselves. We have to attack the enemy in it. We have to identify, we have to deceive the enemy.”

In sharp contrast to stand-off jammers, which are placed on large aircraft out of harm’s way and take out enemy radars from long distance, Leonardo is launching a new “stand-in” jammer it claims will be small enough to fit on a drone and cheap enough to be expendable.

The BriteStorm, which the firm is showing off at the AUSA convention in Washington, will weigh about 2.5kg and occupy the space of six Coke cans, including transmit and receive modules and antenna, Leonardo managers have said.

“It can be at the leading edge of any forces going into an enemy area,” said Michael Lea, VP Sales Electronic Warfare, Leonardo UK.

Designed to be sufficiently affordable to be expendable, the package will fit on large quad-copters or winged UAVs heading into the battlespace, Lea said.

“It is priced in a way it can be treated as an attritable asset so it wont break the bank or cause a major strategic issue if shot down,” he said.

After receiving an enemy radar signal, the system uses Leonardo’s Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology to digitally capture the signal, process it and respond by jamming the radar with electronic noise or spoofing it, which could involve creating dozens of “ghost” fighter jet signatures.

It is the same DRFM technology Leonardo has used on its BriteCloud - an expendable countermeasure designed to be released from aircraft to disrupt incoming missiles’ radar guidance systems.

The BriteStorm uses up to three transmit-receive modules, which cover low, mid, and high wavebands.

After development at Leonardo’s Luton facility in the UK, the system has been test flown by the Royal Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office.

Leonardo believes the BriteStorm is a step beyond the Raytheon MALD, or Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, an air launched, expendable jamming missile which has reportedly been used in Ukraine.

It also beats a stand-off jammer, said Lea. “A stand off jammer’s position in the sky is predictable whereas a stand-in jammer operates closer to threats, has more maneuverability and more axes on which it can confuse and suppress the threat,” he said.

Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin authorized the deployment of the THAAD battery at the direction of President Joe Biden. He said the system will help bolster Israel’s air defenses following Iran’s ballistic missile attacks on Israel in April and October.

The delivery of the sophisticated missile defense system risks further inflaming the conflict in the Middle East despite widespread diplomatic efforts to avoid an all-out war. The Iranian warning came in a post on the social platform X long associated with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who noted the earlier reports that the U.S. was considering the deployment.

Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon have been clashing since Oct. 8, 2023, when the Lebanese militant group began firing rockets over the border in support of its ally Hamas in Gaza. Late last month, Israel launched a ground invasion into Lebanon.

Israel is widely believed to be preparing a military response to Iran’s Oct. 1 attack when it fired roughly 180 missiles into Israel.

In a brief exchange with reporters before leaving Florida on Sunday, Biden said he agreed to deploy the THAAD battery “to defend Israel.” Biden spoke at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa after making a quick visit to see the damage caused by Hurricane Milton and meet with first responders, residents and local leaders.

Ryder, in his statement, said the deployment "underscores the United States’ ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel, and to defend Americans in Israel, from any further ballistic missile attacks by Iran.”

It was not immediately clear where the THAAD battery was coming from or when it will arrive. Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli army spokesman, declined to provide any timeline for its arrival, but thanked the U.S. for its support.

The U.S. deployed one of the batteries to the Middle East along with additional Patriot battalions to bolster protections for U.S. forces in the region late last year after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas militants. Ryder also said that the U.S. sent a THAAD battery to Israel in 2019 for training.

It is also not unusual for the U.S. to have a limited number of troops in Israel, which the U.S. considers a key regional ally. There have generally been a small number of forces there consistently as well as routine rotational deployments for training and exercises.

The THAAD will add another layer to Israel's already significant air defenses, which include separate systems designed to intercept long-range, medium-range and short-range threats. Israel recently retired its U.S.-made Patriot systems after decades of use.

According to an April report by the Congressional Research Service, the Army has seven THAAD batteries. Generally, each consists of six truck-mounted launchers, 48 interceptors, radio and radar equipment and requires 95 soldiers to operate.

The THAAD is considered a complementary system to the Patriot, but it can defend a wider area. It can hit targets at ranges of 150 to 200 kilometers (93 to 124 miles), and is used to destroy short-range, medium-range and limited intermediate-range ballistic missile threats that are either inside or outside the atmosphere.

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is responsible for developing the system, but it is operated by the Army. An eighth system has been funded and ordered and is expected to be in the field sometime next year.

Associated Press writers Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Aamer Madhani in Tampa, Florida, and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Defense News sat down with Flynn prior to the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference. Here are edited excerpts of the conversation.

The Army has been busy in the Pacific this year participating in larger exercises. What are some of your major takeaways and what progress has been made through these efforts with allies and partners?

We recently finished Orient Shield and had the highest level of interoperability with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Of course, that’s an army-to-army exercise, but for the first year, we had units from the Australian Army participating in that in Japan, so that’s a step change, adding a third country, if you will, to it.

The Mid-Range Capability missile system was sent to the Philippines, and it showed the value of training with our Philippine Army counterparts. We saw the assurance and deterrence that comes from that capability.

And then in the Arctic, you saw the operation that the 11th Airborne Division just conducted out in the Aleutians. But maybe more importantly was their last [Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center] rotation. They had 11 countries. They did a number of air assaults up there. One of them was a combined air assault with a Canadian aircraft. There was a 15-ship air assault, about 20 degrees below zero.

Those are just some highlights between Alaska, the Philippines, Japan and Australia, using the first island chain and extending all the way down past Papua New Guinea onto the Australian continent.

You mentioned the Mid-Range Capability missile deployed to the Philippines and it appears the decision is to keep it there for now. What is the significance of this?

I know there’s a lot of discussion out there about the timing and location, but I guess the point I’m going to make is that, for the time being, the MRC is going to remain in the Philippines, and that is at the request of the Philippine government and military. I think it’s an important assurance measure for our treaty ally there and the training that we’re doing on a system like that, because they obviously are interested in systems like that, but they’re also interested in other systems that they purchased, like the BrahMos [cruise missile] from India.

Maybe the most important part of all of this is what we’re really doing with the Philippine army and the Philippine military, which is to try to help develop and train forces in support of their territorial defense concept.

We can get wrapped on the MRC, but as you are aware, this is one of many new and coming Army land-based, long-range precision fires platforms. … I think you know that we are moving rather quickly with [the Precision Strike Missile] on the HIMARS platform. We fired the PrSM off of Palau earlier this year. … These are demonstrations of the capabilities that land forces can provide from the land on being able to do sea-control, sea-denial, territorial defense and influence operations in the air littorals and the maritime littorals.

The Pacific theater has really ramped up as a test bed of new and future capabilities. What are you learning and how is this continuing to refine or drive requirements?

The operating environment out here is extraordinary and challenging — the distances, the ranges involved, the conditions of weather, jungle, archipelagos, urban, extreme-cold weather, mountainous. I mean, you name it, you have it. And it’s extreme, like, where the 11th Airborne Division was just training in India. And then where we’re operating in the Philippines, it’s a totally different set of conditions. I think one of the challenges for commanders is the range of the operational environment and conditions that you have to conduct operations in.

The second point I’d make on this is that, in many ways, Army capabilities underpin joint operations, and this is where the interdependencies of the joint force come together. And I just believe that the Pacific is the best laboratory for learning. You have to test these new capabilities forward, and they have to be part of our campaigning effort out here. And the demands on the Army forces in this theater, they’re unique. We bring enabling capabilities from deep sensing to terrestrial collection, integrated air and missile defense, Army watercraft systems, sustainment. And then we already talked about long-range precision fires in the maritime environment.

The last point I’ll end on is when you are conducting experiments and tests as part of your operations and as part of your campaigning effort, there is a deterrent value that you gain from that because you keep your opponents guessing. And you’re also working with your partners and allies on new capabilities, new technologies, new organizations, and they learn from doing that with at least U.S. Army Pacific. That’s an enormously valuable contribution to deterrence and assurance across this region.

How would you characterize how the Army has grown its relationships in the Pacific region over this past year?

They’re far improved and they’re increasing, and why is that important? Because it really does three things: It improves our interoperability and our confidence as a multinational team. It improves our combined and joint capabilities because we’re training as a joint and combined and multinational force. And then the third is it denies key terrain, and it denies human terrain and physical terrain by the land power network.

That land power network is the strategic architecture that binds this region together. Let me give you a couple of concrete examples. In 2021, Garuda Shield [in Indonesia] was an army-to-army exercise. Now, Super Garuda Shield is a multinational and joint exercise, and it averages somewhere between 10 and 12 countries participating in it every year. I already mentioned Orient Shield. That’s one that was army-to-army, now it’s three countries. I haven’t mentioned Yama Sakura in Japan. That’s four countries: Japan, Philippines, Australia and United States.

Talisman Saber [in Australia], just about 10 years ago, was army-to-army. Now it’s 15 countries and 30,000 forces contributing to it. Those are real examples of our relationships that manifest themselves into real assurance and deterrence. Denying human terrain and physical terrain by our presence is the great counterweight that we have to the threats that are facing us each day out here.

You’ve been working on the establishment of what you call joint interior lines. What have you accomplished to really build those?

The idea really has four foundational warfighting functions or systems: command and control, protection, collection, and sustainment.

In the area of sustainment we’re working on some Joint Theater Distribution Centers, and those range in places from Guam to new locations or existing locations, potentially putting levels of material in Japan. There’s locations in the Philippines and Australia, we’re putting some additional stock levels in Guam. Then, of course, we’re working on our Army Prepositioned Stock-Afloat and distributing some of that equipment in new locations.

We have a new composite watercraft company that is being built and stationed in Japan. We’ve already had our forward-positioned watercraft stocks in Yokohama North Dock in Tokyo Harbor. We are also taking commodities with us and dropping them in locations where we don’t have to drag that back and forth: consumables like water, food, medical supplies, engineering equipment, things that we use during exercises and whatnot.

We have improved our terrestrial collection capabilities. We are improving our ability to conduct processing, exploitation and distribution of intelligence signals using all-source intelligence with our PED center here in Hawaii. We’re doing a lot of things with our integrated air and missile defense capabilities, starting in Guam, but also deploying those kinds of capabilities throughout the region when we’re on exercise.

Then, in the area of command and control, the Army has a really deep magazine well of command-and-control nodes that can go out into various locations and integrate small-scale and large, complex operations for the joint and multinational force.

I think we’ve done some really good work on what’s called exercise-related construction. So if we’re out on an exercise, we’re using our engineers but also host-nation engineers to do things like building roads, extending runways, improving facilities from ranges that we use and warehouse locations that we co-use with our host nation.

I would categorize that as work in the protection lane, because it’s a form of mobility and counter mobility and protection for us.

Where is the Army in determining the way ahead for APS Afloat? How are you looking at APS in the theater as you develop stronger relationships with countries throughout?

I’m not going to get ahead of the Army secretary, but I do think that what we’re doing between Project Convergence and the way we’re operating out here, working on creative, innovative and new ways to distribute equipment, sets and commodities, we need to do that as part of the joint force. When you think about agile combat employment, distributed maritime operations, expeditionary, advanced basing -- you know, the three other service concepts -- I think it’s our responsibility out here to reduce the vulnerabilities and look for creative ways to distribute our material support.

And we work with industry. I think there’s some really interesting capabilities and technologies, from unmanned vessels to underwater storage. The Pacific is a laboratory for learning and having those capabilities out here and for us to find creative ways to do that with our multinational partners is really important.

Several units in the Pacific, from Hawaii to Alaska, were chosen as part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George’s initiative, dubbed “Transforming in Contact,” Flynn said in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

“But there’s a whole other transformation in contact that’s going on out here at the operational and theater level.”

That transformation has to do with absorbing new organizations and capabilities designed to facilitate the quick incorporation of new tactics and technologies in the field.

“In my view, that is where the connective tissue occurs between tactical forces and operational and strategic forces that exist in the joint world,” Flynn said.

For example, the Army in the Pacific is the first to get a Theater Information Advantage Detachment, Flynn said. The TIAD is meant to keep its finger on the pulse of how adversarial nations like China and Russia are conducting information warfare.

The service has deployed a Security Force Assistance Brigade, a Theater Fires Element and the TIAD into areas near China, Flynn added.

The Army has already created two of three Multidomain Task Forces in the Pacific theater, which have been heavily involved in exercises throughout 2024.

The service is planning to build five MDTFs total. Another is based in Europe, while one more will be based at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, and designed to align with global rapid responses.

The units will operate across all domains — land, air, sea, space and cyberspace — and are equipped with the Army’s growing capabilities, including long-range precision fires.

The MDTFs will take on game-changing capabilities like the Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, the Mid-Range Capability missile system and the delayed Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon as part of a Long-Range Fires Battalion.

The Army in June fired two PrSM missiles in Palau as part of a ship sinking exercise during Valiant Shield. The service also deployed the MRC missile to the Philippines during the Balikatan exercise in May. The MRC missile system, for the time being, will remain in the Philippines, Flynn said.

The Pacific Army has also established a Theater Strike Effects Group, Flynn added.

“This theater-level Army space formation is integral for today’s battlefield,” Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler, then the head of Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in January. “It will allow us to leverage the experience of its command team and staff to ensure success at every echelon, ensuring that all our capabilities are being employed when and where they’re needed best.”

The group will coordinate with the MDTFs that will use Army space interdiction forces with cyber and electronic warfare capabilities to block adversary defenses, according to the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command.

As it works through the deployment of these major new capabilities like long-range precision fires, it’s imperative, Flynn said, that the Army is organized properly at the theater level in order to effectively coordinate the right engagement authorities.

“This extra capacity at the Theater Army level is transformational and its organizational changes are in front of the arrival of new technologies, new capabilities and new platforms,” he said. “It’s tailored to the region.”

In July, Avio signed with Raytheon to develop “critical solid rocket motors for defense applications,” as well as partnering with the U.S. Army “for the development and fast-prototyping of a solid rocket motor for surface-to-air applications.”

The demand in the U.S. for Avio’s wares and know-how reflects the demand for rocket motors driven by conflicts around the world as well as a narrowing in supply options following the 2018 purchase of Orbital ATK by Northrop Grumman.

Avio is working on opening a U.S. production site, but will start out by working on its new American workload at its Colleferro site in Italy.

“Today we manufacture 200-300 rocket motors a year at Colleferro and can triple that in 4-5 years on present commitments,” Avio CEO Giulio Ranzo told Defense News.

Avio already works on the propulsion and other components for the Aster 30 missile, as well as solid-propellant rocket motor of the new CAMM-ER air defense missile, while its core business is space, putting 120 satellites into orbit in the last 12 years thanks to 24 launches of its Vega launcher.

Ranzo said approximately two more years would be needed for Avio to qualify Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) products at its Colleferro site as per recent U.S. contracts. The approach would however be faster and safer than waiting for the new facility in the U.S. to start its qualification phase ahead of volume manufacturing, he added.

“U.S. officials have said production in the U.S. would be the ideal, but they understand that takes time. Establishing new capacity cannot be done in months,” he said.

“There are plenty of startups trying to enter this market, but this requires decades of experience in production at scale and a large and authorized site to handle explosives” he added.

Few details have emerged about the two U.S. deals, but Ranzo said, “We have just worked on the new CAMM-ER missile which means we have fresh technical knowledge. Most equivalent systems in the U.S. date to the 1980s.”

Avio set up a U.S. subsidiary, Avio USA, in 2022, appointing as CEO James Syring, a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral and former director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

Syring told Defense News, “There has been a consolidation of the industrial base, essentially leaving Northrop Grumman and Aerojet as the sole SRM manufacturers, but even before that there has been a longstanding capacity shortfall for the production of rocket motors and missiles vs current demand.”

He added, “This is not a new thing. You talk to customers and prime contractors and they say they would order double if they could. The ongoing conflicts have exacerbated the situation.”

Syring said the company’s expansion aims to top up lagging U.S. production capacity as opposed to capturing market share there.

“We hear ‘Buy American’ a lot, and that is why we are working to establish by a sizeable U.S. factory presence to serve all customers,” Syring said.

He added, “The Department of Defense has been vocal about the need to leverage international production capabilities, given the maxed out supply base. The DoD has been supportive of us getting established.”

As well as capacity, Avio also offered innovations, according to Syring. “Avio has innovative technology and capabilities for booster cases, thermal protections and nozzle manufacturing that no U.S. rocket motor supplier has.”

In a full-blown war with Iran, these existing bases will be rendered unusable by sustained Iranian attack. The Iranians can see this and have created a large and very capable missile and drone force in part to exploit this situation.

Therefore, we need to reexamine where we are based in the region, both on a day-to-day and contingency basis.

Navy warships helped take down Iran’s attack on Israel, Pentagon says

Our presence at existing bases provides an important assurance mission to host countries. Thus, we are unlikely to permanently leave bases like Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates and Al Udeid in Qatar.

We should, however, work with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Egypt to identify bases as far to the west as possible where we can deploy aircraft, maintenance capabilities, refueling capabilities and weapons.

We have already done some of this work. The “Western Basing Network” was a joint U.S.-Saudi decision to evaluate bases near the Red Sea for use in times of war. Not as far advanced but still under consideration were basing concepts that included Oman, Egypt and Jordan. The U.S. Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid has also shifted some of its responsibilities to locations in the United States, significantly reducing air command and control vulnerabilities.

How does this approach, known as “agile combat employment,” work? Based on warnings and indications of war, land-based air assets would relocate to the western bases from their locations along the Arabian Gulf. The number of Iranian weapons that could reach them would be significantly reduced, warning times would be increased and the Iranians would have a targeting problem in ascertaining from which bases U.S. aircraft operated.

In the event of hostilities, these aircraft would launch from the distant bases, be refueled en route and conduct combat operations over Iran. Depending on how the fight was going, they could land and refuel/rearm at the existing forward bases on the Arabian Gulf, minimizing their time on the ground, and increasing their “cycle rate.” Regardless, they would return to the western bases to “bed down.”

However, access to these installations is not guaranteed. The necessary political decisions are not necessarily made quickly in this region. The facilities themselves range from “bare bones” bases to fully equipped ones. Nonetheless, this is something that is squarely in the best interest of all concerned.

There is a second component to this new basing construct, and it is the opportunity made possible by Israel’s 2021 entry into the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR). It is now possible to consider basing in Israel in the event of a war with Iran. It has the same geographic advantages as basing in western Saudi Arabia or other Arab states. Additionally, Israel has a powerful, proven air and missile defense capability. The fact that Israel is now in CENTCOM also facilitates training, interoperability, and even maintenance. Israel should certainly be at the forefront of possible basing alternatives.

The third component to the basing solution also involves Israel, and it is the growing normalization of ties with Arab states. This was made diplomatically possible by the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020. It was made operationally feasible by Israel’s move into the CENTCOM AOR. It was further underwritten by Iranian malign behavior which has finally convinced the Gulf States that a collective approach to air and missile defense is necessary, practicable and achievable without sacrificing sovereignty. It is largely a matter of sharing tactics, techniques, and procedures and agreeing what sensor information to share, and how to share it, with the U.S. acting as the honest broker.

We have a clear-cut example of this concept at work. The Iranians’ large, complex attack against Nevatim Airfield in Israel on April 13, 2024, failed because of Israeli competence, U.S. and allied assistance and the cooperation and assistance of Arab neighbors. Information was shared; airspace was shared. In every measurable way, this was a remarkable success story.

Deterrence must be continuous; in the Middle East, it can have a very short half-life unless it is refreshed systematically. The events of the past two months clearly show that Iran can be deterred from undertaking irresponsible and deadly attacks in the region, but this requires resources, careful messaging and the demonstrated ability to fight and win if necessary.

We now need to move aggressively to develop basing alternatives that demonstrate that we are prepared to fight and prevail in a sustained, high-intensity war with Iran. Geography is destiny for some, but not for all. Being obviously ready to rebase rapidly, and frequently exercising the capability, will increase the chances of peace in the region, because Iran will be watching.

Gen. McKenzie, a retired U.S. Marine general, served as commander of U.S. Central Command from 2019 to 2022. He is the Hertog Distinguished Fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and author of “The Melting Point: High Command and War in the 21st Century.”