Reps. Pat Ryan (D-NY), and Rob Wittman (R-VA) set up the caucus in early 2024 to strategically inform legislation to improve the Defense Department’s adoption of modern software and warfighting capabilities.

“This is what happens when you get industry, academia, and members of Congress who refuse to maintain the status quo together in a room. We’re going to keep pushing as hard as we can,” a senior member on Ryan’s team told DefenseScoop on Friday.

Early this year, Ryan and Wittman formally solicited policy proposals and focus areas from stakeholders across industry and academia to puzzle out the reforms. The caucus also set up a unique portal for modernization-related recommendations.

“We need to put disruptive technologies in the hands of warfighters, we need more competition in the defense industrial base, and we need to cut down pointless red tape and bureaucracy. Congress must be relentlessly focused on providing the U.S. military with the capabilities and capacity necessary to deter our adversaries — we cannot afford complacency,” Wittman said in a statement.

The senior House staffer previewed some of the caucus-inspired inclusions and amendments that made it into the massive defense package.

The NDAA includes language that would:

• Accelerate the DOD’s counter-unmanned aerial system operations and authorities to protect military operations and other specific locations around the U.S.
• Add additional reporting requirements to the Authority to Operate (ATO) process and streamline timelines for such approvals
• Require the Pentagon to develop and maintain a virtual sandbox environment for operational testing and development
• Require the secretary of defense to brief Congress on the integration of AI and machine learning across the department
• Empower the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to expand outreach and create additional onramp hubs domestically and internationally
• Direct DOD leadership to submit a plan to accelerate the accreditation, construction, and operational use of commercial Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) accessible to industry
• Seek to streamline and simplify the requirements for a modular open system approach to the design and development of a major weapon system.

“This didn’t happen overnight,” the senior official said. “This was a collaborative process over the course of many months, and it’s truly only just the beginning of what we can accomplish in the future.”

Beyond Ryan and Wittman, they said other members of the caucus who serve on HASC and helped champion these and additional efforts include: Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Don Bacon (R-NE), John McGuire (R-VA), Pat Fallon (R-TX), George Whitesides (D-CA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Wesley Bell (D-MO) and Mark Messmer (R-IN). 

“Stay tuned, because we’re only just getting started,” Ryan said in a statement.

The post House Defense Modernization Caucus pushes authority and acquisition reforms for fiscal 2026 appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Those initial areas include drones, counter-unmanned aerial systems and electronic warfare. The commercial drone sector is pretty well established, however, what is less clear is how such flexible funding would look for electronic warfare, where to date, most systems have been exquisitely designed and purpose-built for the military.

The thinking is that this agile pot of money, which is really budget line item consolidation, will help the Army be more adaptive on the battlefield in an era where changes are happening in days to weeks as opposed to months and years. In the Ukraine-Russia war, which has spurred the need for a new approach, combatants are discovering that technology, capabilities and tactics are being countered almost as soon as they’re deployed, requiring quick changes and creating an exponentially shorter innovation cycle.

For the U.S. military, programs are set up as specific line items with specific pots of money as opposed to a broad capability portfolio. Currently, the Army can’t take money from one electronic warfare program line item and use those funds for another EW program to adjust to real-world needs if, for example, a certain technology has matured that could be surged to forces on the battlefield to support an urgent requirement.

However, flexible funding, or line item consolidation where all EW programs are housed under the same budget line, could allow the service to move money that traditionally would’ve been allocated to one system to another for forces that may need it sooner — or if a new technology comes along that is ready for primetime and addresses a need.

“Working with the committees on record over on the Hill, how do we consolidate so that we have some flexibility to respond to that operational environment through our budget construct and we are not limited to the bureaucracy inside the building of reprogramming action in order to respond to something?” Lt. Gen. Karl Gingrich, deputy chief of staff, G-8, said in March at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference. “We learned some tough lessons over the last two years as we were watching our soldiers in contact and our inability within our budget to actually move some money to address their needs. We lost a couple of months in there. We can no longer afford to do that. And that’s why we’re doing [a push for] agile funding.”

Moreover, that consolidation not only provides greater flexibility, but innovation as well, according to officials.

“The Army’s agile funding proposal will provide increased flexibility. The streamlined budget structure enables rapid innovation, response and fielding of EW capabilities, and enhances the Army’s flexibility and ability to swiftly address relevant threats in real-time by taking advantage of the latest technological advancements,” said a spokesperson from program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors.

The Army’s Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team capability provides an apt example for what the Army would like such flexible funding to achieve. That program, as initially outlined, would be the service’s first ground-based jammer in decades providing integrated cyber, signals intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities mounted on Strykers and heavy platforms as well as a manpackable dismounted version.

The Army eventually hit pause on the platform-based component of the program as it sought to disaggreigate the signals intelligence and EW aspects. The service ended up awarding the TLS Manpack using a system that had been proven and used by special operations forces.

Despite the engineering challenges the platform side faced, there was an urgent operational need by the Army that General Dynamics responded to with its Tactical Electronic Warfare System-Infantry Brigade Combat Team, or TEWS-I technology, that provides a smaller system designed for infantry vehicles.

However, under the current way Army budgeting works, there was no ability to pivot funding from the TLS-BCT effort to acquire TEWS-I and get that to the field to a wide swath of units.

Moreover, if new software is all of a sudden developed that can improve a system, like the TLS Manpack, against a threat, but there aren’t any funds left in that line, the Army can’t move funds from a less mature program to upgrade the Manpack. A single consolidated electronic warfare budget line would allow the service to do that.

“I do think that the idea here is to give them more flexibility to move money around between different EW programs, because they’ve got … a variety of EW programs in various states of development,” Bryan Clark, senior fellow and director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute, said. “I think the Army wants to be able to accelerate the ones that have the most promise, like you saw with the TLS Manpack … that’s an example of the Army realizing that their initial [concept of operations] for the BCT version maybe didn’t make sense, and they needed to pivot to a different design. Whereas the Manpack seems like they’ve got a more straightforward way forward and they’ve got a CONOP that they believe works.”

Traditionally, the military electronic warfare market has required purpose-built, exquisite systems. However, today, technology has advanced to the degree that several commercial companies now have capabilities that are ready to go, a reality the Army is trying to capitalize on.

The way military budgeting works presently, is it hamstrings programs and makes it harder to look at commercial-off-the-shelf solutions. That is still driven by the way the Army and the program office aim to outfit the entire Army with a system, according to a former official.

“If we bought one TLS Manpack, then the entire Army had to get that exact same TLS Manpack and we didn’t revisit upgrades until that was done,” the former official said. “What the flexibility would give us is the ability to pivot in stride.”

When a new program is coming into play, the program office will conduct a bake-off of sorts where different vendors will bring in their technologies for evaluation. Rather than doing the bake-off with a bunch of vendors and going through a longer, drawn out process, flexibility would allow officials to say a COTS solution is ready now, purchase a set of it, get it to the 101st Airborne Division, let them play with it, then buy the second set and give it to 82nd Airborne Division, and then buy the third set and deliver it to the 25th Infantry Division, as an example, according to the former official.

For its part, the Army has noted it wants to get out of the business of so-called pure fleeting where every unit is outfitted with the same equipment. Service officials have talked about tranching capabilities to select units that are deploying or that require it in the background, using those deployments and other exercises to make tweaks and advancements that can be incorporated and outfitted to other units later.

“You can continue to modernize the force and get capability in the hands of soldiers, instead of waiting three to five years from when the real time of need is,” the former official added.

This could lead to the fielding of different capabilities made by different vendors in different theaters, but the key is ensuring they’re all riding on common open, interoperable software architectures.

Such an approach could raise questions of fair and open competition. According to the former official, the iterative process of continuing to build on capability and force vendors into bake-offs means they will constantly be competing to stay ahead.

Clark noted those concerns with a constant rapid prototyping approach.

“By accelerating movement from prototyping into procurement at some kind of scale you naturally forego opportunities for competition,” he said. “I think that’s the tradeoff that DOD is making right now that they’re saying, because of this need for speed, I’m going to give up probably some deliberation that it would otherwise have.”

However, he acknowledged a COTS approach incentivizes companies to constantly be innovating.

For the larger, platform-based, exquisite programs, agile funding affords flexibility to not necessarily be wedded towards dollars that have been allocated across the five-year budget cycle if the prototype matures or doesn’t work well.

Critics in the past have said this type of arrangement means less congressional oversight and a risk of money falling into a type of slush fund. The reason for line item funding based on programs instead of portfolios is so lawmakers have a better understanding for accounting and overseeing exactly how and where the Army and the other services are spending money to avoid potential or perceived malfeasance.

However, Army officials have noted they’ve received positive responses from lawmakers in their engagements about the idea of having more flexibility. Some top congressional members have also voiced support.

Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the panel’s Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, has previously expressed his backing for the Army’s flexible funding efforts for drones, counter-drone systems and electronic warfare.

“This effort will allow the Army rapidly adopt critical technologies that are shaping the modern battlefield without needlessly wasting time with misaligned dollars. I look forward to working with the administration and our new Secretary of Defense to ensure our warfighters have all the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” he said.

According to Clark, others across the DOD have consolidated lines, such as the Defense Innovation Unit and DARPA. The key is constant feedback and transparency with Congress on how funds are being used to ensure success.

He noted, however, that such a flexible approach could risk having too much focus on prototyping new technologies without fielding systems at scale to soldiers.

“Unlike the Air Force or the Navy, where if you field 10 or 20 of something, that could make a difference, because it could be on 10 or 20 ships or aircraft that are the ones that are forward deployed. Whereas the Army, it operates at such a larger scale that you have to have systems be distributed to many, you have to have hundreds of systems for them to be relevant numbers,” he said. “They need to think about making sure that they don’t make these innovation cycles so short that they’re never fielding a system in a relevant quantity. I think that’s the one challenge they’re riding up against right now.”

The post What does flexible funding for electronic warfare mean for the Army? appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“I think that the building is not quite prepared for what’s about to happen to it. That’s my observation in the first 30 days,” noted Colin Carroll, chief of staff to the deputy secretary of defense, referring to the Pentagon.

Carroll, a former Marine Corps intelligence officer with deep AI expertise, participated on a panel with defense and industry officials at the House Defense Modernization Caucus’ official re-launch for this session of Congress.

At the event, HDMC’s co-founders Reps. Rob Wittman, R-Va., and Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., also spotlighted some of the caucus’ near-term initiatives — including growing its bipartisan membership and driving legislative changes to transform how DOD adopts modern software and tech-enabled warfighting assets.

“I think we have a huge opportunity in the new administration. I’m very optimistic that there’s broad, bipartisan and sort of non-partisan recognition of the urgencies here. And disruption can be good as long as we’re thoughtful about it, which I think we will be. And we want to be part of driving that and making sure that that’s aligned with you all,” Ryan, an Army combat veteran, told attendees.

Broadly, the lawmakers suggested that in parallel with their Senate colleagues, the one-year-old caucus is keen to pinpoint and ultimately eliminate what they view to be unnecessary bureaucratic layers and processes that are hindering the DOD acquisition system. 

They each emphasized the need for more innovative “flexible funding” mechanisms to accelerate the delivery of new and quickly-evolving capabilities to the military — especially at the operational level.

“I think the caucus is a critical component of what’s necessary to inform both the authorization and appropriations process. The good news is that the authorizers and appropriators are starting to see what is necessary for us to do,” Wittman said.

“We’ve seen in the past when we’ve had significant changes, it is because Congress has acted. And we have to be unafraid of making big changes. Being constructively disruptive, that’s our key,” he added.

Government and industry officials on a separate panel also highlighted existing policy and contracting complexities that could be hindering the military’s progress, suggesting a need for both immediate and more lengthy institutional reforms to modernize how the Pentagon does business.

Carroll hinted at some of the potential changes in the pipeline from DOD’s new and incoming leadership team.

“I think you’ll see the administration do some interesting things with a concept called the DRPM, the Direct Reporting Program Manager, which is a formal acquisition concept that the services typically run,” he said, pointing to the Navy’s Overmatch program as one example.

“I think you’ll see that applied to some weapons systems and business systems directly to either the deputy or [acquisition and sustainment directorate] going forward [to move more quickly]. But you can’t do that with every weapon system and program in the department. So, we have to fix the longer-term foundation as well,” he explained.

The post House defense modernization caucus eyes ‘constructively disruptive’ reforms at DOD appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Reps. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y. and Rob Wittman, R-Va., who will co-chair the group, are hosting a kickoff to celebrate its launch on Thursday afternoon.

The bipartisan caucus is envisioned to “amplify and champion key policy and funding priorities necessary for the technological evolution of the U.S. Department of Defense and associated national security functions,” an aide told DefenseScoop ahead of the event and official announcement. 

While many modernization efforts have been rife with bureaucratic and other challenges, Pentagon leadership has long been working to update defense infrastructure and ultimately accelerate their department’s development, procurement and use of existing and emerging technologies for operational and business purposes.

The formation of this new caucus comes as the DOD is pursuing a number of nascent high-stakes technology initiatives — including Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) and Replicator. 

Its launch is also inspired by lawmakers’ firsthand experiences and frustrations they’ve dealt with associated with attempting to drive defense modernization.

“When I returned home from Iraq, I co-founded a company that deployed cutting-edge analytics software to support our troops in harm’s way. We navigated the often-winding halls of DOD, working to find ways to break down barriers for innovative and disruptive technologies,” Rep. Ryan told DefenseScoop in an email Thursday.

Ryan, who earned two Bronze Stars from his time serving two combat tours in Iraq, is the first-ever West Point graduate to represent that academy’s congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“We, as Members of Congress, need to continue to push DOD to do more and do better at working with innovative companies to partner, develop, and deploy technologies that will change the game  — and I’m thrilled to co-chair the bipartisan Defense Modernization Caucus, which will continue this critical work,” he said.

During a National Security Innovation Base Summit hosted by the Ronald Reagan Institute on Wednesday, Wittman acknowledged that “through the years, the whole [military tech modernization] process — both in Congress and in the Pentagon — has been slow.”

“Our focus needs to be not just exquisite systems, but how do we get capability and capacity quickly? How do we get expendable platforms? We see that happening in Ukraine, those are incredibly effective. How do we get to attritable platforms that are also great conduits to use technology that leverage what we can do quickly? We can generate mass, we can increase the risk calculus for China. All those things are incredibly important,” Wittman, the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said.

Jon Harper contributed reporting.

The post Lawmakers launching new Defense Modernization Caucus appeared first on DefenseScoop.