Bradley, a Navy SEAL officer who most recently commanded Joint Special Operations Command, will also get a fourth star.

He was nominated for the role by President Donald Trump in early June.

Bradley will take the reins at SOCOM — which has been an early adopter of many cutting-edge technologies like AI within the Defense Department — as America’s special operations forces work to modernize and prepare for competition with more advanced adversaries.

“The changing, accelerating pace of technology, the ubiquitous information environment, and the advent of man-machine teamed autonomy on the battlefields of the world today are absolutely changing the character of warfare … in our very eyes,” he said last week during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He added that legislative proposals such as the FORGED Act and SPEED Act, and other initiatives to reform DOD acquisitions and speed up the fielding of new tech, are “critical to allowing us to use the innovative spirit of our operators to be able to capture those problems and opportunities we see on the battlefield and turn them into new man-machine teamed approaches.”

Bradley also called for “fusing all-domain capabilities” to gain advantages over adversaries, endorsing the so-called “irregular triad” concept that includes SOF, space and cyber capabilities.

“The pervasive technical surveillance environment presents both unique challenges and unprecedented opportunities. Recognizing this, I am committed to strengthening the Space-SOF-Cyber triad, leveraging the combined strengths of USSPACECOM and USCYBERCOM to ensure SOF’s operational effectiveness in support of national security objectives,” Bradley wrote in response to advance policy questions from senators ahead of his confirmation hearing.

“My vision encompasses integrating technological advancements across all domains — physical and virtual — including surface and subsurface maritime platforms; autonomous uncrewed systems; counter-unmanned systems; next-generation intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; stand-off precision effects; and modernized mission command systems,” he added.

Bradley is a U.S. Naval Academy grad who later earned a master’s degree in physics from the Naval Postgraduate School.

According to his Navy bio, he was among the first U.S. servicemembers to deploy to Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He later served as commander of Special Operations Command Central, which oversees joint special operations throughout the Middle East region, and Naval Special Warfare Development Group, among other leadership positions in the SOF community. He also served with SEAL Team Four and SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team Two.

Bradley’s staff duty positions have included assistant commander, Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC J-3 technical operations division chief and deputy J-3, vice deputy director for global operations for the Joint Staff J-3, executive officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and deputy director for CT strategy for the Joint Staff J-5, according to his bio.

He will succeed Gen. Bryan Fenton, a career Green Beret officer, as SOCOM commander.

The post SOCOM getting new commander after Frank Bradley earns Senate confirmation appeared first on DefenseScoop.

When Caudle takes the helm, he will be the first Senate-confirmed CNO since Trump fired Adm. Lisa Franchetti from that post in February without explanation. Adm. James Kilby, the Navy’s vice chief, has been serving as acting CNO since Franchetti was removed.

Caudle told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing last week that he approves of Franchetti’s CNO Navigation Plan, or strategic vision, that was released last year. That plan included Project 33, an effort to accelerate the acquisition and fielding of unmanned systems, AI and “information dominance” capabilities to deter or defeat a Chinese attack on Taiwan or other U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific.

Caudle told lawmakers that his top priorities for Navy transformation, if confirmed, would be to invest in platforms, sensors and weapons systems that are “modular, scalable and built for rapid upgrade cycles” to stay ahead of emerging threats; boost sailors and warfighters through advanced training, leadership development and talent management; and “accelerate delivery of integrated, networked capabilities across the joint force, including unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and resilient C3 architectures to enable decision advantage and operational dominance in contested environments.”

Adopting cutting-edge tech such as AI, uncrewed platforms, cyber tools and data-driven decision-making could enable the Navy to “outpace adversaries by leveraging faster learning curves and feedback loops from the assessment of existing combat operations,” he wrote in response to senators’ advance policy questions ahead of this confirmation hearing.

Caudle suggested a more aggressive push to adopt robotic platforms might be needed if Navy shipbuilding programs face further budget constraints or cost growth problems.

“Robotic and Autonomous Systems (RAS), also referred to as Unmanned Systems, are a force multiplier already being employed across a wide range of missions. Prioritizing the integration of RAS at scale, as appropriate, into naval and joint force architecture would be a necessary step [to deal with further fiscal constraints]. Additionally, we could potentially expand and accelerate current RAS systems further across the fleet, in all cases focusing on affordability, training, and interoperability with manned platforms,” he wrote.

The nomination of Caudle — a four-star who has been serving as commander of Fleet Forces Command — for the CNO role wasn’t a controversial pick.

Caudle’s confirmation was approved by voice vote, along with a slew of other military nominations, as the Senate nears its August recess.

The post Senate confirms Adm. Daryl Caudle as chief of naval operations appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Ahead of the announcement, Army officials told reporters that they’re looking to change the software buying model.

“The direction we’re moving in right now in the Army is this is going to be one of many enterprise licensing agreements that we’re looking at entering into,” Army Chief Information Officer Leonel Garciga told a small group of reporters ahead of the announcement. “I think the big thing to think about is, as kind of we move forward, we’re finding some things, we have a lot of big software packages that are out there. They’ve been bought over several years, several program offices, several commands, [but we’re] not getting a lot of parity across the board on how they’re being delivered, right? Adding a lot of complexity to the environment. And we’ve been thinking through a couple things, right? One is, how do we reduce the complexity, right? So lower overhead to acquire capability, especially software. That’s kind of the first kind of tenet.”

The next piece, he said, is to figure out how to “make it a lot easier to acquire said software, right?” 

“I think the traditional model of, hey, we’re just buying software licenses and services … in combos kind of doesn’t work in this new environment and the way that things are being delivered,” Garciga said. “So how do we add enough fidelity, right, and an approach where folks can really get the software the way they need it?” 

The final piece, one that Garciga said he as the Army CIO cares “very much about,” is reducing cost. “How do we get better buying power across the board?” he said.

The 10-year deal with Palantir is worth up to $10 billion, although Army officials noted that they’re not committed to spending that much money. The move will consolidate 75 contract vehicles as the Army looks to streamline things, they said.

“This really has been our first kind of separate sense to go in and really get a large ELA. This is one of many. But our intent is to continue to move down this path, right, to really focus on reducing that complexity, adding agility to how we buy, right, and then the last piece … which is save taxpayer dollars as much as we can,” Garciga said.

The service is in talks with other vendors for similar types of arrangements.

“We have a couple of others that are teed up that we’re either already in negotiation with or starting the conversation to start negotiations with to do this across the board,” Garciga said.

A key aim of the initiative is to get better deals from a unit cost perspective. In the civilian side of the federal government, the General Services Administration is leading a similar effort to maximize government buying power for software licenses called OneGov.

“What I see across contracts is, hey, if I have more than one contract with the same vendor, have I bought the same thing more than once in a different way or at a different price? And just from a common-sense perspective, does that really make sense?” Danielle Moyer, executive director of Army Contracting Command, told reporters.

“Starting with Palantir and as we look at other ones, we’re looking at, hey, it makes sense to make sure … we’re getting the best discounts. So just like economies of scale buy, right? If I buy one widget, it costs X amount. If I buy 100, I should get a discount. And the more I buy at scale, the more of a discount I should [get]. And also …  just in general, across this whole initiative, we’ll look at, well, how are you selling this elsewhere? Should there be clauses in the contract that say, hey, you know, if you try and sell it somewhere else, we need to come back here and look at what the rate is on this and get a discount,” Moyer said.

She noted that the Army isn’t actually obligating $10 billion to Palantir, but the deal recognizes potential growth for the services and goods that are on that contract with the multibillion-dollar ceiling. While there is a minimum spend requirement on the contracts, the Army has no obligation to buy more than it sees fit across its enterprise. 

The Army is also trying to avoid vendor lock as it shakes up its buying practices.

“The other really important thing to note there is competition for future programs and things like that will still continue to happen. So, for example, if on all these ELAs — name the vendor — if we’re specifically talking about Palantir, if Palantir chooses to compete on, you know, whatever program or weapon system in there, the chosen awardee they happen to be at, then we would obviously leverage this agreement [to get] economies of scale discounts, buys, right, that makes the volume,” Moyer said. “We would leverage our buying power in the Army to get maximum discounts. So those are probably, from a contracting perspective, the things that … we really want to make sure that we hit home, which is robust competition is still a thing.”

The Army also wants to make sure it doesn’t overbuy and acquire licenses it doesn’t need.

Officials used a food analogy, comparing previous software buying practices to all-you-can-eat buffets or combo deals where customers essentially pay for things they might not consume.

“As we look at the way we’ve done kind of historical contracting … we typically will, kind of sometimes overbuy, because we’re trying to kind of calculate what expected growth is and whatnot. So this [enterprise agreement] is meant to help shape that, to say we’re buying just in time into that growth pattern, right? So, instead of saying, OK, I need 100 licenses, I only have to buy 50 now based on the real usage versus buy 100 because that’s where we have to fix a contract that’s meant to be for a longer period of time. So shifting that mentality is to say, OK, now we could just do just in time, kind of delivery of services,” Gabe Chiulli, chief technology officer for Army’s Enterprise Cloud Management Agency, told reporters.

Officials want a more flexible range of options, sort of like an a la carte menu where they can just pick exactly what they want.

Garciga said early efforts to set the stage for the new model began during the previous administration, but he suggested that the focus on improving software acquisition at the Defense Department under the Trump administration has provided additional momentum.

“We have been working on this since November of last year. And I think that there was just an inherent understanding, you know, almost two years ago now that we needed to start moving in this direction with a handful of our vendors,” he said. “There’s been a lot of prep work and foundation being laid to have this conversation. If anything, what I’d say is the change in the environment has allowed us to move a little bit faster than we would have normally, and I think, a willing acceptance by a lot of our commercial partners to rethink the way that they integrate and work with us in the government and what our contractual agreements are going to look like moving forward. So I think … we’ve had a little bit of a catalyst over the last like quarter and a half that’s just be able to get this like really over the hump, to get a really good deal for the Army.”

Moyer said the new way of doing things will also improve transparency into what the Army is buying.

“It’s easy [to keep track] when you buy things that you can see, right? When you buy a tank, right, you can probably see the brand of the wheels on it. It’s pretty, pretty easy. Well, when you build, you know, a weapon system that might have some software in it, and that software vendor — name the vendor — is a subcontractor, we don’t always have visibility on who those are. So I think this initiative in general will provide us visibility into how often are we buying the same software that is essentially a component or a subcontractor through somebody else,” Moyer told reporters.

The Army, as a huge organization that buys a ton of software, should be able to get better deals, Garciga suggested.

“When I look across the landscape, there’s … both software and hardware procurements that we’re doing out there with major IT companies where it would be advantageous to get an enterprise agreement just to get value at scale, right? I mean, think [about] the Army [having] 1.3 million people, right? I mean, we’ve got more endpoints than some countries do,” he said.

The Army is also looking to prevent middlemen from jacking up costs for software.

“What the enterprise agreement allows us to do is to get a much better kind of understanding when we do actually compete new work on what some of those baseline costs are going to be, because we’re kind of making it so folks have to use the enterprise agreement to buy the software, as opposed to what we’ve seen traditionally, which is like, hey, somebody’s going to go out buy this, and then a company is going to go buy it … and bump our cost up considerably for the same piece of software at scale. So I think our intent, like from especially from the CIO’s office, is to focus on where we have a considerable amount of use across Army commands and Army programs, can we engage with those companies to get value at scale, right, and in no way to get in the way of competition,” Garciga said.

ELAs are also seen as a way to help the Army keep pace with fast-moving software developments.

“We don’t want to be in the business of just buying this big block of software and then, you know, three years from now, we’re trying to figure out how to modernize that. No, on the contrary, I think this puts us in a much better position to be able to get that refresh happening organically from the commercial space. And again, it’s about flexibility too, right? It’s having that CLIN [contract line item number] structure that really allows us to as things grow and shrink, have the opportunity to adjust those levers and those rheostats to get us to kind of a baseline,” Garciga said.

He continued: “The next big step, right, and I think we’re going to see this with a lot of our vendors, is this idea of, like, hardware as a service and hardware subscriptions. I think we’re going to see that come in, too. That’s one that we’re working especially for fixed and garrison locations, is where do we have opportunities to rethink where traditionally we’ve done bulk buys and then, you know, five years later, we’re trying to figure out why we can’t lifecycle maintenance it. Now we’re going to kind of as a service, right? And we’ll work with the vendor to make sure that happens. But on the software side, yeah, definitely this is a lot easier.”

Moyer said under the enterprise agreement framework, the Army would be in a position to negotiate better deals over time.

“The other thing that you know we’re working across all the enterprise agreements we’re looking at is, once we get to X number every year … then we’re going to potentially negotiate on all these either A, a true up, or B, a discount for the next year,” she said.

Garciga noted that in the past, the Army has sometimes lost the space to negotiate.

“What we’re seeing right now is, how do you build a vehicle that allows you to … true up, true down, right as the environment changes?” he told reporters. “The larger we get, the bigger the discount. And we may be here for, like, you know, X amount, and then, you know, if we go to the next level up, we’ll get an even bigger discount, right? So I think that that’s going to be the big thing, is continuing that negotiation.”

Another important aspect of the enterprise agreement framework is that it will give the Army flexibility to jump around from a capability-acquisition perspective, he noted.

“If we want to move to the next major … platform that we want to do an enterprise agreement with, and we want to get off the one we’re on, we can gracefully exit that without having kind of put a lot of capital in front that we can’t recover,” Garciga said.

Moyer said the enterprise agreements will have minimum guarantees.

“Once you meet that, you don’t ever have to use that contract again. So if any point it doesn’t make sense … to use that vehicle, there’s somebody different or better, we could always do something different,” she told DefenseScoop. “But … just using my own common sense, why wouldn’t I try and get the best deal for as long as possible and write things in there like maximum discount buys, matching commercial prices, right? So, like, not necessarily for this specific EA, but just a general EA.”

There are many vendors out there that the Army could have enterprise agreements with, officials told DefenseScoop. And, there could be opportunities for the other services or DOD writ large to pursue these types of agreements.

“The service CIOs are all talking and we’re talking with DOD CIO,” Garciga told DefenseScoop. “If you’re already a year into your negotiation, like, we’re gonna put our requirements in and you finish up. If we’re a year into our negotiation and we’re like about to award, like, hey, we’ll get your requirements agreement. So I think we’re really at this point, I think the whole department is really pushing harder to move in this direction. So this [deal with Palantir] is just one of our first off the chute kind of big ones.”

The other services could potentially piggyback off the Army.

“There are discussions that are currently ongoing and … they’ll figure out what makes sense for them,” Moyer told DefenseScoop. “But we will position ourselves to make sure that, you know, if we can use taxpayer dollars in the most efficient way possible to get the biggest discount for any of these enterprise agreements we’re working, that is what we’re going to do.”

The post Army plans big shakeup in software buying practices, starting with new $10B enterprise deal with Palantir appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The service issued a request for information Wednesday to help the program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors and the program manager for Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) get feedback from industry and identify potential solutions.

The Army wants to mitigate the cognitive burden for commanders and boost their situational awareness.

“As the Army continues to integrate advanced technologies and expand its use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), rotary-wing, fixed-wing, and emerging platforms, traditional airspace management methods are being challenged by the growing scale, speed, and complexity of operations,” officials wrote in the RFI.

“Traditional airspace management systems often struggle to process and respond to the vast amounts of data generated during operations, limiting their ability to provide actionable insights in real time,” they added.

The proliferation of drones will make airspace management even more complicated. The Army and the other services are under pressure from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to quickly integrate more small unmanned aerial systems across the force. Hegseth issued a directive earlier this month with the aim of accelerating that process.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is also pursuing new counter-drone tools, air-and-missile defense systems, and command-and-control tech to address growing threats.

The expanding use of UAS, loitering munitions and autonomous platforms will have to be taken into account by the U.S. military’s airspace management frameworks, which must also be able to deal with the presence of large numbers of friendly, neutral and enemy players — as well as other weapon systems and adversaries’ electronic warfare capabilities, the RFI noted.

“Army airspace management must adapt to rapidly changing mission requirements, including the need for real-time deconfliction, airspace prioritization, and coordination with joint and coalition forces,” officials wrote. “Effective airspace management must account for the coordination of indirect fires, air defense systems, and other effects to ensure mission success while minimizing risk to friendly forces.”

The Army is hoping artificial intelligence tools can lend a helping hand.

“AI-enabled airspace management solutions have the potential to address these challenges by leveraging machine learning, predictive analytics, and automation to enhance situational awareness, optimize airspace allocation, and enable rapid decision-making. Such systems can analyze real-time data from multiple sources, predict airspace usage patterns, and recommend proactive measures to improve safety, efficiency, and mission effectiveness,” per the RFI.

Responses to the RFI are due Aug. 29.

The service is looking to put vendors’ technologies through their paces later this year at a Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center event.

“The Army is seeking interested industry partners to deliver a minimum viable product (MVP) for an AI-enabled airspace management solution that enhances UAS operations during JPMRC Exercise 26-01,” officials wrote. “The MVP must be operationally ready for deployment to the 25th Infantry Division by November 2025 and capable of addressing some of the unique challenges of UAS management in contested and congested environments.”

The post Army wants AI tech to help manage airspace operations appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Traditionally, that meant collecting and sending data back to command facilities in Hawaii or the continental U.S. for analysis and response. But in fast-changing operational environments, that approach is quickly becoming outmoded and unreliable.

This scenario highlights both the challenge commanders face and the strategic shift underway across the military. The decisive advantage no longer rests solely on the movement of troops and materiel—but on the ability to move and process information faster, more securely, and with greater operational relevance than adversaries.

Achieving that kind of information advantage means being able to deliver real-time insights to warfighters in the field—especially in environments where communications are disconnected, disrupted, intermittent, or limited (DDIL). This isn’t just a technical upgrade; it’s a strategic imperative.

Underlying this shift is the growing expectation that actionable intelligence will reach those on the front lines faster than it reaches our adversaries. That expectation is driven in no small part by the commercial experience most consumers have become accustomed to – e.g., the ability to track deliveries en route and notifications when they arrive.  

Conflict planning and logistics in contested DDIL environments are obviously more complicated, which is all the more reason why the advantage lies with those who have an information advantage. That requires assessing, processing, and disseminating vast amounts of data quickly at the edge.

Gaining the data edge

“In many regards, data is the five-five-six round of the next war,” said John Sahlin, vice president for defense cyber solutions at General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), referring to the standardized rifle cartridge used by NATO forces. “It has become the lynchpin to enhance the decision-making process for advantage.”

That advantage depends on more than just collecting data. It requires turning it into usable intelligence faster than adversaries can react.

“The core problem is latency,” explained Matt Ashton, partner customer engineer at Google Public Sector. “Until recently, the immense volume of data from sensors, drones, and logistical trackers required the processing power and AI available primarily in distant cloud computing centers.”

“Our DOD customers struggle with the current status quo at the edge because they can’t run true AI,” said Ashton. “So data has to get sent back to the mother ship to crunch the data and get a resolution. The massive differentiator now is our ability to provide AI at the edge.”

According to both industry experts, the solution lies in a combination of powerful, ruggedized edge computing platforms and AI models specifically engineered for defense use that can operate independently, even when completely disconnected from high-capacity networks.

Google, for example, provides this capability through its Google Distributed Cloud (GDC), a platform designed to bring data center capabilities to the field.

“GDC was built to run so it never has to ‘call home.’ It can sit on the Moon or a ship. It doesn’t have to get updates,” Ashton said. “It’s a family of solutions that includes a global network, but also features an air-gapped GDC box that connects to the Wide Area Network and other on-prem servers not on the internet.”

This allows commanders on submarines, at remote bases, or in forward-deployed positions to run AI and analytics locally and process vast sensor data streams in-theater without waiting on external links.

Why mission-specific AI models matter

However, raw computing power is only part of the equation. Commercial AI models often lack a nuanced understanding of military operations. This is where operationally relevant AI models developed by GDIT that translate raw data into relevant, actionable intelligence are crucial.

Sahlin compared the role of mission-specific AI models to a speedometer in a car. “What it measures is the revolutions per minute of the axle. What it reports is how fast you’re going in miles per hour,” he explained. “That’s the kind of insight that only comes from real-world familiarity with military operations.”

“A clear grasp of operational objectives is key to developing models that are tuned to real-world demands of each mission,” said Sahlin. “So that may mean multiple mini-models to translate data into relevant insights.”

Sahlin also explained why applications built on an open data architecture model are crucial to adaptability at the edge.

“The real value of an open data architecture, particularly in the defense industry, is that it’s a very decentralized platform. Logistics is a classic example of commercial, local, last-mile delivery providers working with many sources. In the military, you won’t have a single source or model. This is where open architecture is critical.”

Security remains foundational to all of this. Sahlin noted that while the military can benefit from commercial innovation, it still needs to ensure higher levels of security than commercial operators. So it’s also essential that the military’s AI development partners have a deep understanding of the Defense Department’s zero trust security practices and requirements, which apply to the broader base of defense suppliers in the DOD’s supply chain.

“GDIT’s value lies in its longstanding experience supporting defense missions,” Sahlin said. “We work with clients to gather the right data, build tailored models, and deliver intelligence to the edge, even in DDIL conditions where units may be disconnected or intentionally silent.”

Looking ahead

By combining a platform like GDC with mission-specific AI models from GDIT, military logistics teams can move from reactive support to proactive planning, anticipating needs, reallocating resources, and outmaneuvering adversaries.

As operational demands grow more complex and communications become more contested, defense leaders say gaining an information advantage at the edge isn’t just important, it’s essential for mission success.

Learn more about how GDIT and Google Distributed Cloud can help your organization deliver at the edge more proactively.

This article was sponsored by GDIT and Google Cloud.

The post The new frontline: Winning the information war at the tactical edge appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Ban Military Drones Spying on Civilians Act, introduced by Democrat Rep. Jimmy Gomez on Friday, was referred to the House Armed Services and Judiciary committees for review. Text of the legislation was viewed by DefenseScoop this week, but hasn’t been published widely online.

“None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2026 or any fiscal year thereafter for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, or any other executive agency may be used to operate a covered unmanned aircraft vehicle in the United States to conduct surveillance of United States persons engaged in protests or civil disobedience,” the bill states.

In this context, the legislation defines “covered UAVs” as the MQ–9 Reaper and all variants, as well as any unmanned aircraft that uses an airframe initially developed for use by U.S. armed forces; is a medium-altitude, long-endurance aircraft or a high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft; or can fly at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher.

If passed, the bill would also require the president to produce annual reports to Congress detailing every instance in which a covered drone is deployed by the government for novel purposes or for operations not authorized by Congress — “including with respect to a use by one executive agency for an authorized purpose to assist another executive agency that is not authorized to carry out such purpose.”

The reports would need to include information about any weapons the drones were equipped with and the information they collect about people on the ground.

A senior staffer on Gomez’s team told DefenseScoop that the congressman introduced this legislation “in direct response to recent actions” of DHS, which deployed surveillance drones over Los Angeles in June to monitor protests related to immigration enforcement. Notably, it was also put forth at a time when DHS and DOD are working closely on border security operations that involve expanded drone deployments.

Privacy hawks have raised concerns about DHS’s drone surveillance operations to capture information about civilians in recent years, including in 2020 when UAVs were flown over more than a dozen U.S. cities where demonstrators protested police violence after the killing of George Floyd. But Gomez has warned that the increasing sophistication and advancements of military drone technology warrant more explicit limitations on their use to track public protests.

“[Rep. Gomez] believes the U.S. government should never use military-grade drones to spy on its own people, especially those exercising their constitutional right to protest,” the senior staffer on his team told DefenseScoop.

The post California lawmaker looks to curb agencies from using military drones to surveil protesters appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The memo, signed by Chief Information Officer Jane Rathbun and acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Brett Seidle, established a new DON-wide policy for “containerization technology usage.”

Containerization is a software deployment process that “bundles an application’s code with all the files and libraries it needs to run on any infrastructure,” according to an AWS description of the concept.

Navy officials see major benefits in adopting that capability for the department.

“Software containerization offers transformative advantages for the DON’s IT infrastructure and software deployment capabilities. This technology enables the Department to deploy applications consistently across highly varied environments while enhancing security, reducing computing resource overhead, and accelerating development cycles. Prioritizing containerization technology aligns with the Department’s software modernization goals and supports mission-critical operations with greater reliability and efficiency,” the memo states.

The new directive, publicly released Wednesday, applies to all new software development efforts across the department’s commands and programs enabled by cloud services and deployment models where enterprise container platforms and DevSecOps pipelines exist or are in development. It comes as the Navy and Marine Corps are pursuing wide-ranging software and IT modernization initiatives, including cloud adoption and migration.

“In the drive to increase operational agility, resiliency, optimization of our investments, and to achieve an organically digital state; we must advance to modem, proven software development and delivery practices. Securely accessing and transporting data across boundaries at the speed of relevance requires operating in a cloud-enabled ecosystem and software must be designed to effectively maneuver within it,” Rathbun and Seidle stated. “Effective immediately, all software development activities transitioning to the cloud and/or upgrades that are hosted in a cloud as outlined above must utilize containerization technology to the greatest extent practical.”

Seidle signed the directive July 17. Rathbun had previously signed it.

Officials can request exemptions to the policy, but they must provide the designated cybersecurity technical authority with a detailed justification.

“Exceptions will be granted where the risk of not leveraging containerization technology is deemed acceptable or the implementation would be prohibitively expensive. Potential exceptions may include production representative digital twins (where production cannot be or is not containerized), alternative cloud scaling capabilities like serverless technologies, or virtualization technologies for hardware in the loop. An itemized bulk exception can be granted,” per the memo.

The policy will be reviewed and updated annually, according to the directive.

The post Navy rolls out new software policy on containerization technology usage appeared first on DefenseScoop.

According to two former senior defense officials, the disclosure advocacy community welcomes those directives. However, they’re also calling for further policy changes to impel improved reporting and transparency from the government on unidentified anomalous phenomena — or UAP, the modernized term for UFOs and associated transmedium objects — that could threaten U.S. national security.

“More can — and should — always be done,” Christopher Mellon, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence, told DefenseScoop. 

The legislative text targeting Defense Department and military-led efforts on UAP in the massive bill include:

• Sec. 1555 — to require briefings on UAP intercepts by North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command 
• Sec. 1556 — to require a consolidated security classification guidance matrix for programs relating to UAP 
• Sec. 1561 — to require the consolidation of reporting requirements applicable to the Pentagon’s All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

In separate discussions last week, Mellon and a former senior military officer provided analyses of the NDAA and their latest recommendations to Congress in response to those proposals. 

‘Low-hanging fruit’

The Pentagon has a storied but complicated history confronting technologies and craft that insiders have reported performing in ways that seem to transcend the capabilities of contemporary assets. At a high level, the DOD’s mechanisms to study what it now refers to as UAP have taken different forms over the decades. 

The most recent iteration — known as the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO — was officially launched under the Biden administration in 2022 to fulfill a mandate in that year’s NDAA. 

The office achieved full operational capacity in 2024. Although its establishment largely stemmed from mounting calls for Pentagon transparency on UAP, government officials have been mostly secretive about AARO’s projects and caseload of dozens of open investigations. 

Still, AARO’s responsibilities have expanded as the organization matures, and particularly as it has been charged with helping the department resolve the recent uptick of mysterious drone incursions at military bases and other sensitive national security sites. 

Building on those tasks, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s NDAA draft includes requirements that would require Northcom and NORAD to alert AARO and Congress about any time they intercept a potential UAP.

Mellon — a longtime UAP transparency proponent who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton and Bush administrations, and later, an influential Senate staff member — said he’s been advocating for such a directive for years.

“NORAD’s historical failure to inform AARO of UAP incidents is inconsistent with the intent of Congress when AARO was created as the central repository and conduit to Congress for all UAP data in the U.S. government. Currently, by the time AARO learns of these intercepts — if it does at all — NORAD’s critical sensor data is often no longer available. But Congress clearly needs this information to determine, among other things, how effective the U.S. air surveillance network is,” he said.

He said this section would mark a “welcome step” towards oversight, if passed. But in his view, more needs to be done. 

“In many cases, for instance, Navy ships report UAP sightings from areas where Air Force radars and aircraft operate but, strangely, these systems appear to report no UAP. At the same time, many official UAP reports refer to U.S. fighters chasing UAP over or near the continental United States … Where is that data? If the Air Force fully and properly reported to AARO, then Congress — and the American people — may even learn of UAP in space or in orbit,” Mellon said. “At a time of rapid advancements in drone and aerospace technology for America’s adversaries, better domain awareness, including in the space domain, is critical for ensuring the nation’s security.”

Elsewhere in the legislation is a provision that would result in a consolidation of all the disparate reporting requirements applicable to AARO. 

“While we appreciate that the [Intelligence Community] and Pentagon often face redundant reporting requirements to Congress, the matter of UAP — where Congress has only lately begun to extend its oversight — is not one of those areas,” Mellon said. 

He also raised concerns about one change to an existing law that currently requires all UAP data to be delivered “immediately” to AARO. 

“The proposed provision appears to restrict AARO’s now-immediate access right by requiring UAP data to be delivered to it ‘in a manner that protects intelligence sources and methods.’ But who makes that determination? AARO is independently empowered elsewhere by statute to receive all UAP data and should retain unfettered access to it. It knows how to protect intelligence sources and methods. There should not be provisions of this sort that could be interpreted to create impediments to AARO’s access rights under law,” Mellon said.

Beyond those inclusions, the bill would require AARO to issue a consolidated security classification guide relating to UAP investigations and events.

“Since I provided historic gun camera footage of Navy warplane encounters with UAP incidents to The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2017, the release of additional footage by the government has all but stopped. In fact, shortly after that footage was aired, the Pentagon cloaked under order of secrecy virtually everything about its UAP investigation,” Mellon noted. “That was wrong, and it’s past time for the current draconian classification guide to change.”

At the same time, even if the requirement passes and a new declassification guide were enacted, he said AARO would still retain ample discretion to keep many UAP records from the public. So instead, Mellon suggested, the office should be mandated by law to routinely submit unclassified videos through the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review for secure dissemination.

“Despite the earlier pledge to Congress by the Department of the Navy to release more records, it appears that the Pentagon, AARO, and the IC don’t view Congress and the public as having a legitimate ‘need to know’ about the wealth of UAP footage the government has within its clasp. That is low-hanging fruit for Congress to fix,” Mellon said.

‘The big picture’

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet previously led Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command and served as Oceanographer of the Navy. He deployed on multiple tours afloat during his career in uniform, and later served as the Senate-confirmed assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere after retiring from the military in 2017, during the first Trump administration.

During his retirement, Gallaudet has opened up about his experiences on active duty observing now-verified video footage of UAP and unidentified submerged objects (USO) captured by colleagues — and his efforts to help destigmatize this previously taboo topic across the U.S. military.

When asked about his views on the UAP inclusions in the NDAA legislation, Gallaudet pointed to the UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA), which was first introduced in 2023. That bill has seen continued support in the Senate, but has not been passed to date. It seeks to enable much deeper congressional oversight on UAP-related activities and operations.

“In my opinion, these UAP provisions are all good individually, but the bigger picture is that they dilute, distract, and compete with the authorities and priority of the UAP review board in the UAPDA. I do not think the fragmented approach which they represent is the best path forward, and what is needed is a whole of government approach that the UAPDA will bring us closer to,” Gallaudet told DefenseScoop.

Mellon also mentioned the UAPDA in a separate discussion, noting that the UAP Disclosure Fund — a civil society organization dedicated to protecting whistleblowers and promoting government accountability, on which he serves as chairman of the board — fully supports its passage.

“We hope to see that transparency measure included in the next version of the NDAA by way of a manager’s amendment on the Senate floor. We also hope that the House takes commensurate action to ensure that this vital legislation is enacted into binding law,” Mellon said.

He partnered with two other members of the UAPDF’s leadership team, Hunt Willis and Kirk McConnell, to co-author an upcoming policy brief for Congress, policymakers and potential whistleblowers that addresses a misperception they’ve encountered among possible sources of confidential information that they can’t disclose classified details to Congress behind closed doors. 

Notably, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) recently expressed frustration at the hesitancy of potential witnesses to step forward as the House Oversight Committee’s task force plans for hearings in the coming months.

The new policy brief, viewed by DefenseScoop ahead of its publication, spotlights legal reasons to demonstrate that lawmakers are “fully authorized to receive classified information and endowed with a clear ‘need to know’ given their oversight responsibilities.”

More broadly, regarding the proposals that have made it into the fiscal 2026 NDAA draft so far, Mellon noted that the UAPDF’s hope is that they’ll help to pave the way for a virtuous cycle, where “more information leads to greater understanding of, and interest in, UAP, impelling further legislation to obtain the release of still more UAP information.” 

“This cycle will help to build consensus across Congress — not within a few pockets of a few committees — for broader reforms in this centrally important issue, leading to greater transparency for the American people,” Mellon said.

The post UAP disclosure advocates call for expanded reforms in fiscal 2026 NDAA appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The move comes amid a broader modernization push by special ops forces and the Defense Department to add new digital tools and robotic platforms to their arsenal.

In a new subsection for “Advanced Autonomy and Artificial Intelligence,” the amended BAA for technology development noted that SOF is keen on “modular, open integration” of cutting‐edge solutions incorporating AI and machine learning to enable enhanced autonomy in unmanned systems.

“Specific areas of interest include but are not limited to agentic AI and vision language action (VLA) models to achieve more sophisticated autonomous behaviors like adaptive learning; neural radiance fields (NeRFs) for 3D scene representation and navigation; generative AI for simulation and data augmentation; advanced automatic target recognition (ATR) algorithms with edge node refinement and autonomous model retraining; advanced machine learning operations (MLOPs) to support data management, model training, validation, and monitoring,” officials wrote.

They noted that proposed solutions need to be designed with well‐defined interfaces and adherence to open standards to promote interoperability and integration into existing architectures.

Earlier this year, the command re-released its “SOF Renaissance” strategic vision, which observed that innovations in AI, autonomous systems and cyber tools are reshaping warfare and enhancing targeting and strike capabilities.

The document calls for commando forces to be early adopters of these types of technologies. SOCOM has been on the cutting-edge before as an early DOD user of the Maven Smart System, for example.

“The distinction between optimizing and generative AI is crucial and will be a game changer. Swarms of low-cost drones and remote explosive devices, using AI and autonomy, blur traditional human-machine boundaries on the battlefield. SOF must also use these systems to improve decisionmaking and situational awareness,” officials wrote in the strategy.

Vice Adm. Frank Bradley, the current commander of Joint Special Operations Command who’s been nominated by President Donald Trump to be head of SOCOM, said the use of innovative drone capabilities and tactics in places like Ukraine and the Middle East have ushered in a “revolution in military affairs.”

“The changing, accelerating pace of technology, the ubiquitous information environment, and the advent of man-machine teamed autonomy on the battlefields of the world today are absolutely changing the character of warfare … in our very eyes,” Bradley said last week during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He added that legislative proposals such as the FORGED Act and SPEED Act, and other initiatives to reform DOD acquisitions and speed up the fielding of new tech, are “critical to allowing us to use the innovative spirit of our operators to be able to capture those problems and opportunities we see on the battlefield and turn them into new man-machine teamed approaches.”

The amendment to the BAA comes just two weeks after the Pentagon’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office announced the award of $200 million contracts to multiple vendors for “frontier AI” projects.

“The adoption of AI is transforming the Department’s ability to support our warfighters and maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries,” CDAO Doug Matty said in a statement accompanying that announcement. “Leveraging commercially available solutions into an integrated capabilities approach will accelerate the use of advanced AI as part of our Joint mission essential tasks in our warfighting domain as well as intelligence, business, and enterprise information systems.”

The post SOCOM adds new advanced AI capabilities to tech wish list appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Thinking Agent for Logical Operations and Strategy (TALOS) tool is an AI-powered agent able to study and clone various spacecraft operations into a simulated environment of the space domain, according to a Slingshot news release. Members of the Space Force have already tested and used TALOS during training exercises, and the company is now looking at how the technology can assist the service even more.

“TALOS builds upon years of collaboration with the U.S. Space Force’s Operational Test and Training Infrastructure (OTTI) and Slingshot’s proven virtual environments,” Slingshot Aerospace CEO Tim Solms said in a statement. “It embeds AI agents that simulate realistic threats, optimize real-world operations, and support mission command decision-making with unprecedented speed and precision.”

The tool was built leveraging Slingshot’s behavior cloning pipeline, which allows AI agents to learn how to perform a task by directly imitating an example from the real world. According to the company, TALOS is geared towards replicating and simulating satellite tactics, including “representative behaviors, space warfare maneuvers and dogfighting strategies.”

“Once assigned a mission, TALOS evaluates its surroundings, reasons through potential strategies and tactics, and executes its objective within a simulated, physics-accurate orbital environment,” a company news release stated.

Although TALOS is relatively new, the Space Force’s 57th Space Aggressor Squadron — the service’s unit that provides simulations of adversary space systems that can be used during training — recently tested the tool during exercises. Guardians used TALOS to create realistic and adaptive simulations of enemy satellites and their behaviors, as well as during the planning phase of the service’s first Space Flag exercise.

As the Space Force undertakes a large effort to build out its training infrastructure under the Operational Test and Training Infrastructure (OTTI) program, service officials have highlighted capabilities like TALOS as important tools for modernization. OTTI is envisioned as a high-fidelity virtual environment that will rely heavily on AI-enabled capabilities that can automatically simulate threats to critical space systems.

The post Slingshot’s new AI-enabled tool helps Space Force train for satellite ops appeared first on DefenseScoop.