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.

The effort is part of the service’s sprawling Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) initiative, one of its top modernization priorities to provide commanders and units a new approach to manage information, data, and command and control with agile and software-based architectures.

Army officials have said NGC2 is composed of a horizontal operational design that involves a technology stack that goes from a transport layer to an integration layer to a data layer to an application layer, which is where soldiers interact with it. That application layer is also where the Army has broken down the silos of individual warfighting functions — such as intelligence or fires — into applications that ride on the same integrated backbone.

A team of vendors led by Anduril was awarded a nearly $100 million contract last week to continue prototyping for NGC2 and scale it to a full division with 4^th Infantry Division.

Despite the award, the Army is pressing on to continue offering industry opportunities to support the program. The Army is planning to continue releasing periodic so-called characteristics of need statements, which initially served as an acknowledgement of a complex problem space, officials said.

In doing so, the service doesn’t seek to prescribe requirements for industry, but rather provide them with a broad set of challenges they could then seek to develop creative solutions against.

The most recent update, which was just recently signed out, targets decision dominance.

“To me, decision dominance is reflective of a concept,” Joseph Welch, deputy to the commanding general at Army Futures Command, told reporters on the sidelines of a daylong conference hosted by AUSA on Tuesday. “The concept of an OODA loop or a killchain has been one that’s been well established for some time and obviously very consequential to the outcome of a military engagement.”

Officials have stated that one of the most important aspects for NGC2 is the data layer. To realize the stated vision for NGC2 — the ability for commanders to do “more, better, faster” — commanders need to make sense of their data quicker than the adversary.

“The biggest thing for us is the data layer and that’s where artificial intelligence and future capabilities like artificial intelligence come in. We have to understand the data and how we integrate data across a different platform. All of our forces need access to that same level of data. For artificial intelligence, for C2, decision dominance is the answer,” Col. (P) Mike Kaloostian, the incoming director of the C2 cross-functional team for Army Futures Command, told the conference. “Whoever is able to sift through the amount of data that’s going to be available on the battlefield of tomorrow, to sort through that and use that information effectively to make decisions that force is going to win war. There’s no doubt about it … AI-enabled decision dominance is where we need to come and what the future is.”

The updated characteristics of need with the new decision dominance focus provides industry with a baseline to work off of.

Officials noted that data has to be in the right place and AI is ineffective if the location of data is unknown or isn’t in a place where it can be analyzed.

As the Army continues to work with industry partners — either working on the prototype or others still vying for future NGC2 efforts — to establish a data integration layer and scale it, there must be a destination for all the data to go.

Industry can help the Army figure out what that data plane looks like and how the service is bringing in data, ingesting it and sorting through it to make it relevant to commanders in real time. Areas the Army is interested in include using capabilities such as edge computing to process data and decisions faster than the adversary in the dirt.

Continuing characteristics of need for industry

When the initial characteristics of need concept was first announced, the plan was to update it every 90 days or so as the Army conducted exercises and experiments to keep industry abreast of the latest observations.

The plan, even after the prototyping contract, is to continue updating it; however, the cadence might shift.

Welch described periodic updates that will be based on lessons learned, which will likely come from home station events with 4^th Infantry Division at Fort Carson.

“We’re focused now on our work with our awarded team. We’re focused on the work that we’ll have upcoming through the” commercial solutions offering, he said, describing an ongoing effort with the program office to evaluate additional vendor teams and capabilities with the vision of adding them on in the future. “We’re focused on 4ID in our first prototyping initiative right now and I think there’s a lot that’ll be coming from that.”

He said the Army needs to continue to convey where opportunities exist for industry, and the characteristics of need aims to lay things out broadly, including for the Army, to understand the scope of what it is looking for.

“We’re going to continue to describe what we know about the capability as we work into prototyping, what we think we have solved and where we still think there are challenges,” Welch said.

The prototyping effort will help the Army discover what the NGC2 architecture looks like.

“We were very resistant to providing an architecture up front for companies to bid on, not because we don’t understand the importance of it, but because we feel it’ll likely be emergent as we work through, continue on with the prototype, with whatever commercial software or sets of commercial software may underpin it. That’s something that will emerge as we continue to work the prototyping effort,” he added. “That may be a level of detail that may not be in the characteristic of need, but will certainly be, I think, very useful to industry in terms of understanding where the opportunities, the base of which to innovate upon, is going to get established.”

Welch noted that within the technology stack, he’s always envisioned sub-problem statements that components of teams can try to help solve.

The post Army turning attention to AI for decision dominance with Next-Gen Command and Control appeared first on DefenseScoop.

NGC2, one of the Army’s top priorities, is a clean-slate design for how the service communicates on the battlefield and passes data for operations, providing commanders and units a new approach to information sharing and C2 through agile and software-based architectures. The Army plans to spend almost $3 billion on the effort over the next fiscal year across procurement and research and development funds.

The $99.6 million other transaction authority agreement will span 11 months and cover Anduril’s work to prototype a system for 4^th Infantry Division, which will scale the capability all the way up to the division level. Prior, it was outfitted to an armored battalion, as well as higher headquarters elements, and tested at Project Convergence Capstone 5 at Fort Irwin, California, in March.

Anduril’s partners on the contract include Palantir, Striveworks, Govini, Instant Connect Enterprise, Research Innovations, Inc., and Microsoft, the company said in a statement Friday.

The OTA requires the team to provide an integrated and scalable suite of command and control warfighting capabilities across hardware, software and applications, all through a common and integrated data layer, the Army said.

The Army has pushed teams of industry partners to work on the NGC2 effort, calling for “self-organized” teams.

Anduril had been working previously on the NGC2 effort to produce a prototype that was tested at Project Convergence, along with other vendors.

The prototype award is not the end of the road for other vendors seeking entry into the NGC2 program. The Army said additional vendors can seek to participate through an open commercial solutions offering with additional OTAs expected to be awarded later in fiscal 2026 for prototyping with other units such as 25^th Infantry Division and III Corps headquarters.

“NGC2 is not a one-and-done contract, but a long-term effort of continuous contracting and investment in the technologies that will deliver needed overmatch for our force,” said Brig. Gen. Shane Taylor, program executive officer for command, control, communications and networks.

Army Futures Command has been in charge of the prototyping effort to date, testing a proof of principle and then a proof of concept to demonstrate what is possible, while the program office has been working on the eventual program of record, devising a contracting strategy and seeking vendors.

Army officials have maintained they want to inject and maintain a high level of competition within the program. If contractors aren’t performing, they will seek to build in mechanisms to offboard them and onboard new vendors.

Similarly, the constant competition is also aimed at avoiding vendor lock-in where one partner holds the bulk of the program for an extended period.

The commercial solutions offering allows the Army to maintain a continuous open solicitation with specific “windows” for decision points, the service said, providing opportunities for industry teams aligning incentives and continuously onboarding new vendors as the capability evolves.

“NGC2 uses a combination of flexible and innovative contracting techniques. This is a completely non-traditional, unbureaucratic way to equip Soldiers with the capabilities they need, using expedited contracting authorities,” said Danielle Moyer, executive director of Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground.  

The prototype OTA will allow the Army to continue its momentum toward delivering a solution for units while the commercial solutions offering enables the service to keep looking for capabilities to add to the NGC2 architecture in the future, the service said.

4^th Infantry Division will take the NGC2 system to Project Convergence Capstone 6 next year to test it out in a division holistically, to include the headquarters and enabling units, which have typically been neglected with communication network upgrades.

The post Army awards $100M contract for Next-Gen command and control prototype appeared first on DefenseScoop.

While the organization’s counter-unmanned aerial system (C-UAS) efforts date back several years, the work by the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command’s Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) Center is part of Project Flytrap taking place in Europe.

Flytrap is a joint U.S. and U.K. effort to test new counter-UAS technologies in order to eventually incorporate them into formations. It began in the European theater last month, and may become a standard, yearly exercise, expanding on innovation and experimentation while building on lessons learned, Army officials said.

The event initially sought to bring these technologies down to the squad level and seek to lower the cost per drone defeated through new methods and technologies.

The U.S. military has been behind the cost curve when trying to thwart small drones, using million-dollar missiles to defeat large numbers of inexpensive UAS.

C-UAS has proved to be a difficult problem for the Army and joint force, dating back several years when terrorist and insurgent groups in the Middle East began strapping homemade explosives onto commercial drones and dropping them on troops’ positions.

The problem has grown since then, as evidenced in Ukraine’s war with Russia where first-person-view drones have been a prominent fixture of the fight. Based on its observations, the Army has realized it must up its game to protect its own forces from these types of attacks that will be inevitable in future conflicts.

Part of the problem is there aren’t many commercial C-UAS solutions on the market, akin to the ballooning availability of drones. And even if there were easy counter-drone solutions on the market, the military must knit them together to create a system of systems for thwarting overhead threats through a command and control architecture.

That’s where the C5ISR Center comes in.

“The genesis of it was create a C2 architecture that worked for counter-UAS that included individual soldiers all the way up to our joint partners,” Brandon Dodd, mechanical engineer with C5ISR Center, said in an interview. “How are we going to get data from individual sensors to individual soldiers and then all the way up and over to our partners? How does that look at each level? Where are the hiccups throughout that architecture? That’s where we came in, was we had some projects that were existing in counter-UAS.”

Flytrap aims to not only develop and test counter-UAS technologies and strategies, but inform new tactics for the Army in how to thwart these threats in the future.

The C5ISR Center serves as the Army’s science and technology hub, looking at problems and gaps that exist and beginning research and development through government solutions, at first, to solve them. They then work with industry to proliferate those solutions and get them into the field to soldiers and units.

The work for Flytrap is no different.

The C5ISR Center began by looking at best-of-breed sensors and working to link them up through a command and control architecture through the Army’s Android Tactical Assault Kit, or ATAK, where data from the sensors were shared across the force.

That work started with a set of commercial-off-the-shelf sensors that initially were stationary and tripod mounted.

The team then transitioned those stationary capabilities to vehicle-mounted tools to allow units to sense on the move — a more realistic scenario given these are maneuver units that have to go fast on the battlefield.

“Through rapid innovation, we’ve been able to adapt our sensors and effectors that are traditionally static and turn them into something mobile that fits the needs of the Army. To me, as a former operator, that’s a really big deal to have something that you can actually use when you go outside the wire,” Mike Moore, an engineering technician with the C5ISR Center who has been on the ground supporting Flytrap, said. “We’ve been able to mold the sensors and effectors and infuse them into a way that meets the soldiers’ needs on the ground, using a layered approach to command and control. The layered approaches we found is a necessity. We created one common operating picture using ATAK, something that that soldiers already have, we didn’t invent something new.”

The C5ISR team worked tightly with various industry partners on not only the vehicle integration, but constant software fixes and iteration in real-time with the unit to improve how the system worked based on feedback from troops during the exercise.

“We’ve shown that through some of our sensors that we’ve been able to solve these … lengthy software development problems very rapidly through how soldiers actually use the equipment and the tactics in which they employ them,” Moore said.

The team worked with V Corps and specifically 2nd Cavalry Regiment, initially planning to outfit a platoon but grew to a company element. The exercise has used Strkyers thus far, but the technologies are meant to be platform agnostic and capable across domains, officials said.

There were challenges to adapting a static, stationary sensor system to something that was mobile. Physics constraints posed challenges such as certain acoustic sensors that become more limited when they’re moving. The team at first developed quick fixes with industry to determine how best to employ the sensors in a way that they remain effective and still support maneuver operations.

One of those fixes was a way to pull the sensors off and set them up in a timely manner to provide the coverage needed.

The team developed a couple of different command and control layers — mostly through ATAK — and a variety of sensing modalities for drone detection and one modality for defeating them.

Sensor fusion was developed as to not cognitively overburden soldiers and reduce the amount of information they received. The C2 architecture allowed forces to not be co-located with the sensor and effector in order to use it. Because it was tied to ATAK, forces up and down echelon could track systems and cue the effectors, allowing for distributed command and control.

The government and industry teams were working hand-in-hand on the integration software in near real-time during the exercise.

“In terms of the other sensors where we created a whole new way for this for soldiers to employ them, we worked directly at the exercise with the vendor where we were modifying how our integration software works, how we were displaying things on a C2 system,” Dodd said. “Those things were stuff that we modified on the government side while the vendor actually was modifying their proprietary software on their side.”

Soldiers tested these sensors and systems in realistic environments overseas in almost live-fire scenarios.

“We’ve been able to incorporate realistic scenarios and knowledge of current [tactics, techniques and procedures] to help push these systems in a direction that apply real-world lessons learned. We’re not we’re not just creating something that works. We’re creating something that works in our current environment,” Moore said, adding there was an opposing force going against the unit while it maneuvered.

The next iteration of Flytrap will take place at the end of this month and will focus on conducting counter-UAS operations at the company and battalion-minus level for multi-day missions, according to Army officials. The soldiers will see a faster tempo, more realistic scenario to stress their skills and the systems.

“As we get into the exercise occurring in July, that’s certainly going to ramp up more where there’s even more live threats and it’s even more realistic for what they might see in a place like Ukraine,” Kevin White, global operation support and threat chief at C5ISR Center, said.

Officials noted that the team and unit have gone through the early phases and are hitting their stride through the first couple of iterations.

“Now it’s really, we do have some minor tweaks that we’re going to make from the engineering or technical aspects, but most of it is allowing the soldiers to now utilize what they’ve learned over the last few exercises and employ them while doing their other job,” Dodd said. “Allow a maneuver unit to do their normal mission and then add counter-UAS as the aside, that we see it going to be. Do that and then slowly ramp that up throughout the next exercise so that we stress it to its max while seeing what lessons [were] learned or how they incorporated it to their current mission.”

The post Army maturing counter-drone command and control architecture at Project Flytrap exercise appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Next Generation Command and Control is a clean-slate design for how the Army communicates on the battlefield and passes data for operations, providing commanders and units a new approach to information sharing and C2 through agile and software-based architectures.

In the past, warfighting functions, such as fires and intelligence, were all separate and distinct silos on the network for those communities, creating stovepipes and challenges for sharing timely battlefield information. Now, the Army is trying to fix that with an integrated architecture that allows data to flow more freely, on-the-move, and enable better and faster decision-making.

The nearly $3 billion funding number is an approximation based on figures provided by the Army for its total portfolio request surrounding NGC2, which added up to about $2.95 billion. The Army’s budget request for its network has always been spread across several funding lines, making it difficult to parse out an exact tally.

This year’s request attempts to move toward a clearer portfolio, as officials aim to improve that in the out years.

“The Army is consolidating C2 resources, requirements and funding lines into a combined capability portfolio of hardware and software supporting NGC2 to provide commanders with increased speed, precision, and adaptability for decision advantage,” a spokesperson from program executive office for command, control, and communications network, said. “This shift is a ‘zero sum’ realignment for the Army that uses existing resources and directs funding toward priority capabilities in order to support NGC2 equipping and experimentation at the Division level, while introducing competition for best of breed commercial capabilities.”

Officials have maintained that the Army would not be asking for extra funds at the moment for the NGC2 effort, but rather, using what was already appropriated and realigning it.

The spokesperson noted that the Army realigned funding corresponding to the NGC2 technology stack layers, which include:

—Transport for moving data across the battlefield.

—Infrastructure or integration, which uses artificial intelligence to triage the data that comes in to lessen the cognitive load for commanders.

—Data that proliferates shared information across warfighting systems.

—Applications that provide software apps for all echelons that will replace the stovepiped systems specific to warfighting functions. For example, the fires community will be able to execute their mission via an app on the system, which takes in all shared battlefield data, as envisioned.

The request includes funding for prototyping and experimentation efforts that will be undertaken by the Command and Control Cross Functional Team under Army Futures Command.

Regarding the transport and infrastructure layer, the fiscal 2026 budget request includes roughly $2.58 billion in procurement funds that would go toward satellite communications, radios and other transport, as well as computing infrastructure, for delivery to operational units, the spokesperson said. On the R&D side, the service is requesting $101.4 million for these layers to continue development based on prototyping and experimentation.

For the applications and data layers, the Army is only requesting R&D money, approximately $344.9 million. This includes funding from several programs that previously provided isolated warfighting function systems but now will transition to integrated software applications and data in the NGC2 program, the spokesperson said.

The Army has sought a faster, agile and software-based approach to NGC2, in the hopes it will be able to not only deliver quicker, but make more timely changes based on battlefield conditions.

The aim is to turn what only a few years ago would have been a decades-long process into a two-and-a-half-year process, based on reinvestment efforts as part of the Army’s Transformation Initiative, Gen. James Mingus, vice chief of staff, said Wednesday at an event co-hosted by AUSA and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Army has said it expects to award initial contracts as part of the official NGC2 program of record — for which PEO C3N stood up the office in April — later this year.

Service officials said they had a successful demonstration of a NGC2 prototype “proof of principle” at the Project Convergence Capstone 5 event at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, in March, that will help inform the program of record.

4th Infantry Division as well as elements from 25th Infantry Division will continue that prototyping effort into this year, working to scale it all the way to division to include all enabler units.

Mingus noted that the prototype is quite mature and will likely help speed the delivery to units going forward.

“We are going to give it to 4ID, starting this summer, they are going to experiment with this — prototype is still what we’re calling it, but I would say it’s an advanced, proven prototype. Once we have shown that this is demonstrated … we think we’ll be able to very quickly scale this across the entire Army,” he said.

The post Army plans to spend roughly $3B on next-gen command and control in fiscal 2026 appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“We recently did a session with the secretary of defense and we are going to stand up a joint interagency task force” focused on thwarting drones, Gen. James Mingus, vice chief of staff of the Army, said during an event Wednesday co-hosted by AUSA and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS), as it is known in DOD parlance, is a key challenge for the military. Commercial technology has evolved in recent years such that drones on the civilian market are extremely cheap to buy and simple to operate. It has also become less challenging to 3D print parts and devices that can fly.

This has made it significantly easier for nation-states and terrorist groups to procure these types of systems and strap bombs to them, allowing adversaries to level the playing field against higher-tech combatants such as the U.S. military.

The C-UAS challenge has existed for about a decade as insurgent groups in the Middle East began acquiring these systems and targeting American troops, marking the first time since the Vietnam War that U.S. service members didn’t have full control of the skies and faced an aerial threat on the ground.

The Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict a few years ago was also a global watershed, serving as one of the first instances where drones helped win a war.

As has been seen in Ukraine, both Kiev and its Russian foes have taken to using first-person-view drones as missiles, turning the battlefield into something more akin to World War I-style warfare where troops are limited in movement due to the risk of being seen and shot on the battlefield.

The Ukrainians have perfecting the use of these capabilities, leveling the playing field against the Russians — whose military was much larger and possessed significantly more firepower — by taking out tanks with FPV drones.

“One junior sergeant in the 47th Ukraine mechanized brigade, he got the Order of the Gold Star and Hero of Ukraine [awards] because he is credited [with] 434 enemy killed, 336 enemy wounded, 42 tanks destroyed, 44 infantry fighting vehicles, 10 tracked amphibs and 20 armored personnel carriers all destroyed in a five-month period. He is a first-person-view drone pilot,” Lt. Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, director for joint force development on the American military’s Joint Staff, said at a special operations symposium hosted by NDIA in February. “That is what he brings — the lethality of about a division. I mean, that is an incredible record.”

Similarly, the Houthis, a group backed by Iran that has controlled portions of Yemen, including the capital, since 2014, have been executing a multi-year on and off again onslaught against commercial and military ships transiting the Red Sea as a protest against Western support for Israel’s war in Gaza against Hamas.

While most of those drones were neutralized, the U.S. military is losing the cost-curve battle by using million-dollar missiles to defeat large numbers of inexpensive UAS.

Mingus equated the C-UAS challenge today to the effort to counter improvised explosive devices during the Global War on Terror. Insurgents began fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with remotely controlled roadside bombs, to great effect, catalyzing a joint and interagency effort by the United States called the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization. The nation also mobilized with great speed to produce Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, which saved countless lives.

Mingus offered few details regarding the new counter-drone task force, but noted it’s something officials have been advocating for a while.

“We need an organization that is joint, interagency, has authorities, a colorless pot of money and the authorities to go after from requirements all the way through acquisition in a rapid way to be able to keep pace with that. We are in the process of standing that organization up and get it going,” he said. “The Army is going to lead it, but this will be a joint organization to be able to deal with joint solutions in the future. We’ve been trying to advocate this for some time now, and the secretary recently made the decision to allow us to move out on it, because we cannot move fast enough in this space.”

As part of the Army’s budget request this year, it has sought to add a new agile line for C-UAS, along with UAS and electronic warfare, to be able to keep pace with emerging technologies and changing battlefields.

“Once we think we’ve got it figured it out, then the adversary is going to come up with something and we need … to be able to evolve. This is not going to be a static environment. It’s got to be something that’s moving at the rate in which the technology is moving on the other end,” he said. “Instead of like we have done in the past, where we’ll buy a system and buy that same system for 20 years, we’re going to have to have both the flexible funding to go with it and the agility to [acquire] whatever is out there that will deal with the threats today, in the next year. It may be something different. We’ve got to have both the authority and then the funding flexibility to be able to switch to whatever that solution is going to be for the next year.”

Part of the challenge for C-UAS is there isn’t a mature commercial market akin to the UAS market, meaning solutions need to be bespoke and purpose-built.

Mingus said countering drones requires a layered approach.

“No single solution. It’s got to be at every level. It’s got to be layered. Every squad’s got to be able to protect itself, all the way up to formations that provide higher-end capability,” he said. “There’s going to be a multitude of solutions — long, short and close in — that are out there.”

He added that officials want a combination of lasers, high-powered microwaves and interceptors, which will be key to driving down costs.

“Interceptors that continue to come down in cost, so that the price point between shot and what the adversary is doing … has to be in line. We can’t shoot a $130,000 missile at a $1,000 drone. We’ve got to get the price points down. But there’s an interceptor role that’s out there,” Mingus said.

The Army currently leads the military’s Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, or JCO. Mingus on Wednesday did not flesh out what the relationship will be between the JCO and the new counter-drone task force.

The post DOD creating joint interagency counter-drone task force appeared first on DefenseScoop.

After divesting of much of its EW tool set following the Cold War, the Army has sought to rebuild its arsenal and tactics within the spectrum. That includes the gamut of electromagnetic spectrum operations such as electronic attack, or jamming, electronic support, or sensing the environment for enemy signals, and electronic protect, or guarding friendly systems and units from enemy jamming.

Observations from Ukraine have solidified the importance of robust and redundant capabilities, particularly within the spectrum.

In addition to having jammers for offensive actions, U.S. forces must possess a raft of other tools to be able to protect themselves from enemy jammers, hide within the spectrum and deceive the enemy.

As evidenced in Ukraine, units can be located and targeted with munitions solely based on their emissions within the electromagnetic spectrum.

“Commanders must be able to see themselves to control their emissions and defeat the enemy’s ability to sense, identify, locate, and target them. This is critically important when observations from current conflicts around the world show there are eight minutes from identification in the EMS to artillery impacting on the detected location of said emission,” the Army’s Multidomain Operations Range Guide states.

As such, the Army’s budget request would place more investments in these key areas of understanding its signatures and protecting forces with a combination of new-start programs, repurposed portfolios and existing efforts.

The Modular Electro-Magnetic Spectrum System (MEMSS) is a new start this budget cycle, stemming out of a prior science-and-technology effort called Modular Electromagnetic Spectrum Deception Suite (MEDS). Officials have previewed the effort in years past, noting some prototyping had gone toward developing it.

The Army is requesting $9.1 million in 2026 for the effort in its research-and-development budget. Specifically, it would provide force protection and freedom of maneuver through “radio frequency technical effects,” a term the Army uses to describe classified capabilities.

MEMSS will look to prioritize iterative development with commercial-off-the-shelf capabilities, a top priority for the Army and its electronic warfare portfolio overall.

The budget documents note that the system will be given to units as part of the Army’s transforming-in-contact (TiC) initiative, which aims to speed up how the service buys technologies and designs its forces and concepts by injecting emerging capabilities into units and letting them experiment with them during exercises and deployments.

The documents note that these units will receive prototyped capability and, as part of the program, fiscal ’26 funding will support testing to ensure it performs as expected against realistic threats to include both lab testing and evaluation from soldiers from TiC 2.0 units, which now involves armored formations as well as Multi-Domain Task Force and Army special operations units.

Another new start within the Army’s budget request is a program called Counter Surveillance Reconnaissance (CSR). It’s envisioned as a family of systems to provide force protection at echelon — specifically ground-based capabilities for division, corps and theater commanders — through enhanced situational awareness, operational planning tools for effects coordination and electronic support capabilities.

This program, along with many others, is included in the Army’s new Electronic Warfare Agile Systems Development program.

For this budget request, the Army sought to secure agile funding for a limited pot of systems: electronic warfare, unmanned aerial systems and counter-UAS. This agile funding allows the Army to consolidate capabilities into a single portfolio to better move money around and be more responsive to real-world events, as opposed to having to ask Congress for reprogramming requests. The budget documents note this pilot effort provides enhanced capabilities through fostering innovation and the accelerated development of promising technology.

The Army is requesting $34.4 million in R&D funding for CSR in fiscal 2026. The program aims to use technologies that will hide units’ locations within the electromagnetic spectrum. So-called low-probability-of-detection/low-probability-of-attribution non-kinetic effects will establish “unobserved” positions and preserve combat power, the documents note.

The CSR program will provide three distinct lines of effort for counter-space surveillance that will be controlled by an overarching mission planner and common execution software to plan and employ non-kinetic effects to protect friendly forces.

The prototype development for all three lines of effort are scheduled to begin in second quarter of 2026. The first unit issued for the first line of effort is scheduled for third quarter 2029, with the second and third slated for fourth quarter 2030.

The Army’s budget request is also asking for $1.5 million in R&D funding for a program to develop an integrated multi-mission electronic warfare force protection system.

That program, Integrated Electronic Warfare Systems, shifted in funding and terminology compared with last year’s budget release. It has now been moved to the agile funding pilot.

Additionally, in the previous budget proposal, the Army sought mainly to fund Counter-Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW), a term that is a relic of the Global War on Terror when insurgents used radio devices to trigger roadside bombs.

The CREW technology, however, is still relevant today as it can be used for counter-UAS and counter-communications.  

Now, the program is aiming to prototype an integrated multi-mission electronic warfare force protection system that can respond to changing signals of interest employed by adversaries.

When a signal is discovered that isn’t in a unit’s library of known signals, a countermeasure must be devised, which historically could have taken months. That pace is unacceptable for the fast-paced warfare of the future. The Army and other services are looking at rapid reprogramming on the battlefield, in part, by leveraging artificial intelligence.

“Electromagnetic warfare (EW) capability gaps exist across several areas, including the need for development of more sophisticated countermeasures, and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced analytics into EW operations. Specifically, the development of advanced countermeasures that can effectively disrupt or neutralize enemy EW capabilities is crucial, especially in the face of evolving technologies and tactics. Integrating AI and advanced analytics into EW operations will significantly enhance the ability to quickly identify and respond to threats,” the budget documents state. “VMEWS is intended to provide a suite of electromagnetic warfare capabilities to protect wheeled and tracked vehicles against a wide range of radio frequency-controlled threats.”

The Army expects a competitive commercial solutions offering that leads to an other transaction agreement for a tech demonstration of a vehicle mounted multi-mission electronic warfare force protection system to accelerate technology maturation and prototyping.

A new procurement effort for the Army in the budget request is the Spectrum Situational Awareness System (S2AS), which will provide sensing and visualization of what units look like in the spectrum and allow commanders to be able to sense and report in real-time their command post signatures, sources of electromagnetic interference — either from coalition partners or the enemy — and threat emissions.

The Army awarded 3dB Labs earlier this year an other transaction agreement to develop and demonstrate a prototype. S2AS had already undergone a prototyping effort prior to the award.

The fiscal 2026 budget request includes $17.6 million in procurement funding for S2AS as a new start in procurement and under the “Electronic Warfare” program, which is also new this year as part of the agile pilot. Those funds would enable procurement, delivery, training and initial sparing of S2AS, according to budget documents, which state the Army plans to buy 20 systems.

The budget also asks for $8.9 million in research-and-development funding for S2AS.

The Army will be using transforming-in-contact units to help inform how the program matures.

The post Army’s new budget proposal invests in electromagnetic force protection capabilities appeared first on DefenseScoop.

LASSO — which was a new-start program in the previous budget — is now part of the service’s Launched Effects family of systems and has been realigned under that line item in the 2026 budget.

Drone maker AeroVironment has been manufacturing Switchblade systems for the initiative. The Switchblade 600 carries high-precision optics and an anti-armor warhead. It has upwards of 40 minutes of loitering endurance, a range of 40-plus kilometers, and a “sprint speed” of 185 kilometers per hour, according to a product description from the vendor. The all-up round weighs 65 pounds.

The request for additional loitering munitions — also known as kamikaze drones or one-way attack drones because they’re designed to destroy their targets by crashing into them — in 2026 comes as officials are undertaking a new Army Transformation Initiative to modernize the force for future high-tech combat. The service is moving to divest of capabilities that are outdated and put more money into other equipment.

“The Army Transformation Initiative, or ATI, as we’ve coined it, is a strategic shift. We’re reinvesting resources to ensure our future dominance as part of the joint force,” a senior Army officials told reporters Thursday at the Pentagon during a background briefing about the budget. “We made some tough choices to shed outdated systems and programs that no longer meet our demands of the modern battlefield,” including divesting from legacy anti-tank missiles, they noted.

Kamikaze drones have played a major role in the Ukraine-Russia war, and U.S. military leaders are taking lessons from that conflict as the seek to modernize their forces.

The Army is aiming to deliver five brigade combat teams-worth of loitering munitions in fiscal 2026. The budget request includes about $68 million for 98 fire control units, 294 all-up rounds and other program elements under LASSO. Nearly $13 million in reconciliation funding would procure an additional 19 LASSO production systems.

“Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) lack adequate proportional organic capabilities at echelon to apply immediate, point, long range, and direct fire effects to destroy tanks, light armored vehicles, hardened targets, defilade, and personnel targets, while producing minimal collateral damage in complex terrain in all environmental conditions,” officials wrote in budget justification documents.

Army leadership wants to give troops new kamikaze drones to fill that capability gap.

The man-portable LASSO is a day/night capable, lightweight, unmanned aerial anti-tank weapon that includes an all-up round and fire control system, according to an Army description of the technology.

“The LASSO range requirement is to fly less than or equal to 20km (straight line with auxiliary antenna) with a flight endurance that enables the Soldier to make multiple orbits within the IBCT typically assigned battlespace, to acquire and attack targets within and beyond current crew served and small arms fire. The range/endurance enables the unit to utilize reach back capability and maximize standoff. Unlike existing direct and indirect fire weapon systems, LASSO’s discreet payload and unique capability delivers Soldiers the ability to abort against targets in a dynamic situation (e.g., use of human shields) or prosecute targets that would have been deemed non-viable in past due to the higher collateral damage associated with alternative munitions,” according to budget documents. Follow-on increments are expected to support capabilities for company and below echelons, focusing on increased range, enhanced lethality and advanced payload options.

Officials noted that the program is aligned with ATI and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s directive for Army transformation and acquisition reform.

It’s also intended to support the Army’s transforming-in-contact initiative — an effort spearheaded by Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George with a particular focus on unmanned aerial systems, counter-UAS and electronic warfare capabilities — and expand prepositioned stocks in the Indo-Pacific region, where the U.S. military is concerned about a potential future conflict with China.

The LASSO program will use other transaction authority for contracting, which is intended to cut through bureaucratic red tape and help the military field new technologies faster than traditional acquisition processes. Officials also intend to award up to four hardware contracts to modernize the industrial base and generate domestic ammunition stockpiles, according to budget documents.

The post Army’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal aims to equip infantry brigades with more kamikaze drones appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Brig. Gen. Wayne “Ed” Barker, who heads program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, is retiring July 24, according to a post on LinkedIn. In his place, Brig. Gen. Kevin Chaney will be taking over. Chaney is currently the acting program executive officer for command, control, communications and networks.

Barker has held the role since April of 2023, having been the deputy for two years prior, capping off a 34-year military career that started as an enlisted soldier.

PEO IEW&S is perhaps the most expansive and diverse organization of its kind, responsible for delivering, among other things, electronic warfare; biometric systems; intelligence capabilities that span ground and air domains; position, navigation and timing gear; space systems; and offensive and defensive cyber tools for both the Army and the joint cyber mission force at U.S. Cyber Command.

Chaney comes to IEW&S with a long history in the acquisition community, most recently as the program manager for Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft.

Brig. Gen. Shane Taylor will take his place at C3N, a familiar face there. Taylor will take over effective June 30, according to a spokesperson.

C3N is currently delivering on the chief of staff of the Army’s number one priority, Next Generation Command and Control, which aims to provide commanders and units with a new approach to manage information, data, and command and control with agile and software-based architectures.

Taylor comes to the job having just been chief of staff for the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology. He’s had multiple stints at the PEO, previously serving as program manager for Tactical Network and product manager for Tactical Mission Command.

The post Army swapping leadership at Aberdeen program executive offices appeared first on DefenseScoop.