The goal is for AI to automatically analyze refueling operations from cameras mounted on the tankers and provide “hot wash” feedback to the tanker crews.

According to an Air Force Small Business Innovation Research solicitation, the service wants a system that can “leverage advanced computer vision, machine learning, and aviation (flight dynamics) analytics techniques to automatically extract operationally relevant performance metrics from aerial refueling events, quantify deviations from desired flight profiles, and generate actionable post-flight feedback to improve aircrew proficiency, reduce human-factor-driven mishaps, and enhance mission readiness.”

The application deadline is Nov. 25.

The SBIR is focused on the KC-46 tanker, which will feature a remote vision system that will allow operators to remotely operate the refueling boom via cameras and a 3D display. Though the system has been plagued by teething problems, the Air Force says most will soon be resolved.

The system would automatically track the tanker and refueling boom, as well as the receiving aircraft. It would measure a variety of data, including position, velocity, alignment and closure rate, and assess whether they deviate from nominal parameters.

The Air Force hopes an AI-based assessment system will mitigate the biases inherent in human assessment of aerial refueling, which is among the most demanding tasks for aircrew.

“Current aerial refueling training and post-flight assessment processes rely heavily on instructor observation, pilot self-assessment, manual video review, and subjective evaluation of performance,” the SBIR noted.

The system would create visual displays to improve the performance of pilots of the aircraft receiving fuel, such as “graphic AI overlays, heat maps, event timelines, and immersive or interactive debrief environments.” It would also have the potential to integrate with other training systems, including virtual and augmented reality, simulators, mission rehearsal systems, and other computer-based training tools.

The Air Force sees this as a prototype for future AI-based training systems.

“The desired end state is an operationally demonstrated capability ready to implement for at least one type of receiver aircraft and that can support transition into existing aviation training ecosystems and provide a scalable foundation for future AI-enabled aviation performance assessment across the Department of Defense,” the solicitation reads.

The Army wants contractors that can manufacture up to 10 barrels per month within three years, according to the Sources Sought notice. The deadline is Nov. 23.

Companies were asked to provide details of their ability — or their subcontractor’s capacity — to make barrels, including whether they could add “chrome bore coatings on a steel tube up to 30 [feet] long and up to 7,500 pounds in weight,” the notice said. They should also provide the maximum length and weight of tube that they could coat.

Also desired are details on a company’s boring, milling and rifling capabilities, as well as details on raw materials, such as “steel preform production, forging, guide bore, and heat treatment.”

The notice asks contractors to estimate their capacity to manufacture 155mm barrels within 18 months, and up to 10 barrels per month within 36 months. Companies should also offer a cost estimate for an “initial production quantity of 40 cannon tubes (broken down by caliber or indicating pricing for a combined/flexible mix),” the Army said.

Currently, the Army makes large-caliber barrels for howitzers and tanks only at the aging Watervliet Arsenal in New York.

While America and Europe have been focused on expanding production of howitzer ammunition to meet demand in the Ukraine war and replenish domestic stockpiles, another problem is a lack of manufacturing capacity to replace worn-out cannon barrels.

A 2024 Pentagon budget document stated that Ukraine’s heavy use of M777 howitzers created a demand for more than 30 M776 tubes per month, according to The War Zone. The document admitted that Watervliet could not keep up with demand, and asked for emergency funding to be transferred to enable a second manufacturer of barrels.

The new notice doesn’t mention how many additional barrel manufacturers are needed. However, the Army is exploring whether to replace the M777 with a weapon based on Korea’s popular K9 howitzer.

In August, the Defense Department ordered 30 private and state universities to review their ties with foreign institutions listed under Section 1286 of the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which seeks to restrict nations like China and Russia from gaining access to American research and technology.

Failure to comply could have resulted in a cutoff of federal research funding.

“All 30 universities have fully mitigated identified relationships with foreign entities of concern,” according to a DoD announcement on Monday. “Overall, the audits resulted in more than 80 termination-related actions across the 30 universities.”

The Pentagon did not publicly list the 30 institutions but hailed seven of them on Monday for going “above and beyond” by “quickly terminating problematic relationships.” Those seven included: Oklahoma State University, The Pennsylvania State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of South Carolina, University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin and Virginia Tech.

“These academic institutions that went above and beyond deserve immense credit for setting the benchmark in domestic research security,” said Joseph Jewell, assistant secretary of defense for science and technology. ”Rather than settling for minimum compliance, these institutions took bold, self-initiated steps to protect their labs, faculty, and intellectual property from foreign exploitation.”

In addition to auditing their ties with foreign institutions listed in the 2019 NDAA, the Pentagon ordered the universities to review partnerships with “organizations associated with rebranded Confucius Institutes” that teach Chinese language and culture — but which the U.S. government fears actually spread Chinese government propaganda on college campuses.

The August review followed the July release of DoD’s fiscal 2025 update of “foreign institutions engaging in problematic activities.” The list named 130 academic and research institutions located in China, Russia and Iran.

“These institutions have been confirmed to engage in activities that increase the likelihood of U.S. government-funded research and development efforts being misappropriated,” the Pentagon said.

In addition to severing ties with the designated entities, American colleges also conducted “precautionary terminations involving entities not specifically identified on the list,” the Pentagon said Monday.

The U.S. government has been cracking down on both military and civilian research collaboration with China. In August, Ohio State University agreed to a $2.1 million settlement after civil allegations that it failed to disclose employee affiliations with Chinese institutions regarding NASA and National Science Foundation projects.

Other nations are also scrutinizing ties between local universities and Chinese colleges. Last month, the UK ordered British universities to cease working with the China General Technology Research Institute, which British security services believe to be a front for Chinese espionage. Beijing denied the allegations.

The goal is to have benchmarks that will allow assessment of the “physiological and biomechanical effects of blast injuries” caused by explosions of enemy munitions or the blast effects from firing friendly weapons, according to the Request for Information by the Blast Injury Research Coordinating Office, or BIRCO, within U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command.

This will enable “risk assessment of military service members who are exposed to blunt impacts resulting from acceleration of the body, blunt injury from a ballistic strike to the helmet, or effects from blast pressure produced by a weapon system or explosion,” the RFI reads.

BIRCO is seeking a variety of information that can help formulate standards for assessing mild traumatic brain injuries, or mTBI. The information could include existing criteria, standards and models for brain injuries, as well as identifying experts on the topic.

The Pentagon is also seeking input from manufacturers of protective gear that can be “highly relevant to understanding human tolerance limits and predicting blast injuries.”

The RFI uses a broad definition of blast injuries, including the effects on the body of blast-wave overpressure, fragments, the human body being thrown against hard objects, collapsing buildings and burns, as well as the effects of toxic gases and radiation.

“The standards can range from simple dose response curves and injury thresholds that address single components of blast insults, such as blast pressure wave magnitude, or address multiple components of blast insults, such as pressure magnitude over time,” the RFI said.

These standards will be used for “health hazard assessments, survivability assessments, and protection system development aimed at producing safe weapon systems, survivable combat platforms, and effective protection systems.”

The effects of traumatic brain injuries on military personnel have become better known in recent years. There is evidence that exposure to the blast of firing artillery, tank guns and handheld missiles, as well as being thrown around while riding small boats used by special operations forces, leads to brain trauma, or even TBI.

Department of Defense data from the Iran war shows a relatively high proportion of head trauma from Iranian missile and drone strikes.

The RFI was published after the Government Accountability Office released the findings of its investigation into the ability of military services to provide baseline cognitive assessments to troops. Across the services, the Defense Department is hampered by staff shortages and a lack of technology needed to conduct the assessments, the GAO found.

The Pentagon announced in April that it will begin a one-year pilot program to test a new cognitive assessment tool, an app that service members can use to complete assessments. DoD officials said the app will be less resource-intensive than current assessments and will help improve the services’ ability to track exposures.

Veterans who have suffered traumatic brain injuries are more than twice as likely to die by suicide, according to a 2019 study.

That’s the essence of “How The Army Fights,” a new 46-page guide on how the U.S. Army can leverage the tactical to improve the operational.

“While [How The Army Fights] is focused on the operational and strategic levels of war, it will affect how tactical units execute warfighting at echelon,” according to the guide, issued by Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve.

How The Army Fights, or HTAF, is a farewell to the small-unit counterinsurgency warfare that shaped Army organization, equipment and structure for nearly two decades.

“These experiences created a generation of units that rarely had to maneuver under a contested sky, mask their electromagnetic signatures, or sustain high-tempo operations without contractor support,” the guide states.

Now, the Army’s operational concept is Multidomain Operations, or MDO, which features big-unit maneuver warfare waged by divisions and brigades rather than platoons and squads.

The guide represents an acknowledgement that the last thing the Army — or the American public — wants is the sort of stalemate seen in the Ukraine war. In that conflict, drones and long-range guided munitions dominate the battlefield to such an extent that maneuver has become the exception rather than the norm.

“Only ground maneuver can seize what the enemy holds and secure it against the enemy’s will,” the HTAF manual emphasizes.

To enable maneuver and the possibility for strategic victory that maneuver offers, HTAF highlights the importance of “the four elements of Army land power”: Convergence, Strike, Close Battle and Endurance.

During Convergence, U.S. forces disrupt enemy command, communications and sensor systems, according to the document.

For example, “a commander executes a kinetic strike against an adversary command post while electronic warfare assets jam backup communication systems,” HTAF states. “Concurrently, long-range artillery targets an enemy radar exposed while illuminating friendly aircraft, while friendly space and cyber capabilities degrade the broader integrated air defense network.”

The Strike element calls for the Army to unleash a variety of munitions, including artillery, rockets, missiles, one-way attack drones and loitering munitions.

“Strike acts as the deep operational shaper, employing medium- and long-range precision fires and uncrewed systems to disrupt, degrade, and dislocate enemy forces and logistical assets before they can influence the close fight,” the document states.

If Convergence and Strike phases achieve the objectives of leaving the enemy dazed and blinded, Close Battle can begin.

Throughout history, battles have culminated with troops advancing to destroy the enemy. But HTAF acknowledges the unprecedented difficulty of a modern battlefield where drones appear to see all and enemy fires can rain down at any moment.

Army units will therefore need to be adept at camouflage and deception, and possess their own defensive weapons against drones and other fires, HTAF states.

“Close Battle is built on highly lethal ground maneuver formations that cannot be formed over short periods of time,” the guide reads. “They are built on years of rigorous training, institutional expertise, and leadership.”

The Army’s ability to function despite enemy fire, particularly when it comes to logistics, is especially vital. This has become a significant issue throughout the Iran war, with strikes by the Islamic Republic on numerous U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf forcing American aircraft to rebase, and ships to sail thousands of miles to seek replenishment.

The Endurance aspect of HTAF involves protecting supply depots, medical facilities and vital infrastructure against enemies that have built anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD, capabilities to keep American forces at bay.

“This requirement is even more pronounced today: the absence of sanctuary across any theater of operations underscores the critical necessity of interior lines,” the guide states.

This also means ensuring that supplies can reach troops on the front lines.

“To achieve Endurance and sustain dispersed forces in contested environments, the Army must operationalize autonomous ground, aerial, and littoral distribution platforms to scale throughput while minimizing human exposure in high-threat corridors.”

Significantly, HTAF stresses the need for the Army to forward-deploy capabilities close to potential combat zones to enable troops to act immediately rather than await reinforcements from the U.S.

“Near-term priorities include constructing bulk fuel and munitions storage, stockpiling supplies, improving contingency sites, and establishing an enduring command-and-control architecture to neutralize the pacing threat’s A2/AD networks,” according to the guide.

HTAF also envisions troops making and fixing their own equipment at the forward edge, including “additive manufacturing and secured ‘right-to-repair’ authorities” that will spare the need to transport items from factories and depots thousands of miles away.

The document points to the importance of the Army’s plan to expand and modernize its organic industrial base: the 23 government depots, arsenals and ammunition plants that produce many crucial items.

“This ‘agile facilitation construct’ will allow production of numerous different finished products and repairs, evolving beyond historical ‘one plant, one output’ industrial models,” the guide states.

Similarly, the contractors in the U.S. defense industrial base must be prepared to surge production if needed.

“The industrial base must develop rapid replenishment solutions rather than relying on peacetime schedules,” the guide says.

Still, HTAF takes care to laud the human component.

“At the center of our operational elements remains the individual soldier. Advanced technology, uncrewed systems, and autonomous networks optimize kill webs, yet they can never replace the human judgment, tactical discipline, and physical courage of the soldiers executing the fight in the mud.”

A new U.S. Army poster depicts a soldier of the Iranian army. The graphics show a bearded soldier wearing sunglasses and a beret, with captions describing the various weapons he might carry and the uniforms he might wear.

That the U.S. Army has a quick-recognition guide for Iranian soldiers doesn’t mean America will invade Iran. The Army’s Training and Transformation Command has a library of graphical recognition posters for the armies of various nations, including China’s People’s Liberation Army.

The U.S.’s ongoing conflict with Iran has lasted nearly eight months. For now, both sides have waged war with aircraft, missiles and drones. But the possibility of American boots on the ground has always been present, such as seizing vital Iranian oil facilities on Kharg Island.

The new guide, published Sept. 24, isn’t focused on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the praetorian guard of the Iranian regime that grabs most of the headlines. The IRGC controls many of the weapons that have been fired at American forces and Iran’s neighbors, including ballistic missiles, drones and fast-attack boats.

Instead, the U.S. Army guide displays a soldier of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, also known as Artesh. It is a mainly conscript force of 350,000 personnel that is essentially the regular armed forces of the nation of Iran, including armored, infantry, special forces, air defense, aircraft and naval units, according to the research organization the Institute for the Study of War.

In contrast, the IRGC protects an Iranian regime that doesn’t fully trust the regular armed forces, which date back to the days of the Shah. As in many authoritarian nations, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, there is a deliberate rivalry between the regular and politicized armed forces, with the regime’s pet army getting the best equipment.

There have been numerous reports of low morale and harsh conditions for Artesh soldiers, including lack of food and medical care. One draftee said in a 2022 essay for the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, that most soldiers do menial work, rather than combat training.

The Artesh soldier in the U.S. Army poster — wearing the green beret of the Iranian special forces — doesn’t appear much different than the infantry in many other armies, with a mix of Soviet, Western and Iranian gear. He is shown carrying an AKM, Masaf-2 or Heckler & Koch G3A6 rifle. He can also be armed with an MG3 machine gun or an RPG-7, plus grenades, body armor, rucksack, canteen and gas mask, among other gear.

The image shows five different camouflage uniforms, including khaki and woodland, as well as three camouflage patterns for the special forces. Also shown are the insignia of officer and enlisted ranks.

In particular, a Congressional Research Service report, released Tuesday, pointed to the war in Ukraine, where armored vehicles have largely been driven from the battlefield by unmanned aerial vehicles and guided munitions.

“As ACVs are intended to provide organic, direct fire support to dismounted Marines in the attack, how vulnerable to these threat systems are ACVs during amphibious operations and when operating ashore to support combat operations?” the research service asked in its report. “Are the Marines considering additional ACV survivability modifications based on lessons learned in Ukraine?”

In fact, the Marine Corps did award a contract last month to Anduril for a counter-UAS system to protect the ACV from small drones. Anduril’s Pulsar-L is a sensor and jammer package designed to stop small Group 1 and 2 radio-frequency drones.

“The system is currently in use by the Special Operations Command due to the system’s low weight, proven performance in engaging multiple UASs, and simultaneous execution of the full kill-chain while static or on the move,” noted the Marine contract award.

The Congressional Research Service also questioned whether a possible plan to expand the Marine Corps would, in turn, require more ACVs, which cost about $6 million each, depending on the variant.

Last month, a Force Structure Review suggested adding more than 6,500 personnel by 2032, including additional slots in 19 infantry battalions and two Littoral Combat Teams.

If the plan is implemented, “would additional ACVs be required to accommodate growth in Marine infantry units?” CRS asked.

The ACV comes in multiple variants, including the ACV-P troop carrier, ACV-C command vehicle, ACV-30 fire support model armed with a 30mm cannon, and the ACV-R armored recovery vehicle.

Initially, the Marines envisioned buying 1,122 ACVs. But the current plan is for 608 vehicles, comprising 389 ACV-P, 33 ACV-C, 152 ACV-30 and 34 ACV-R, Marine Corps officials told CRS.

BAE was just awarded a $230 million contract modification for 32 ACV-Rs, which will be the final ACV variant. The order is scheduled to be fulfilled by November 2028.

For fiscal 2027, the Navy is requesting $237 million for ACV upgrades.

The ACV has already experienced teething pains. After two ACVs tipped over in 2022 while operating in surf up to 10 feet high, the Marines briefly suspended ACV operations in the open ocean, as long as significant breaker height doesn’t exceed four feet.

One issue is the weight of the ACV, which now stands at around 35 tons. In 2025, a Navy Small Business Innovation Research solicitation called for reducing the weight of all ACV variants, and particularly the heavier ACV-30 and ACV-R. The goal is to slim down at least 2,000 pounds per vehicle.

“Components identified as having potential for weight reduction include engine access covers, drive shafts, ramp door, ramp, hatches, external fuel tanks, external metallic and metallic/composite add-on-armor components, suspension, turret exterior panels, and bow plane,” the 2025 solicitation stated.

Saltwater corrosion of ACV struts has also created problems.

“The high deployment schedule combined with the high training tempo of the United States Marine Corps creates an extremely corrosive environment for the ACV not typically experienced by other vehicles,” claimed a January 2026 Sources Sought notice for more than 5,000 corrosion-resistant struts.

In addition, the weight reduction SBIR specified that any solution “must address corrosion issues expected from use in and around salt water. Weight reduction will improve fuel efficiency and can lower the Center of Gravity and Center of Buoyancy.”

The Navy recently awarded contracts for the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, which uses electrically generated magnetic fields to launch aircraft from Ford-class carriers.

Kato Engineering was awarded a $49.3 million contract this week to support the energy storage subsystem of EMALS. The Navy also published a sources sought notice on Wednesday, seeking vendors to supply components such as EMALS recirculation pumps.

The Navy maintains that electromagnetic catapults provide smoother acceleration, can be adjusted to launch various types of aircraft such as drones, can be reset for faster launches and require less maintenance and personnel. China, meanwhile, is equipping its new Fujian-class carriers with electromagnetic catapults.

Trump resurrected the steam catapult versus EMALS conversation in August, when he ordered the Navy to replace EMALS with the older system on the USS Doris Miller, the next Ford-class carrier under construction.

In an August memo, Trump pointed at a Navy that has suffered from “a series of shipbuilding setbacks stemming from overly complex designs and iterative design change procedures, which have resulted in cost growth, delays, and cancellations.”

The president suggested mandating that the Navy submit “a plan on the required measures to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Weapons Elevators with steam and hydraulic systems for the construction of CVN-81 [USS Doris Miller], including timelines and resourcing requirements.”

The White House’s order baffled naval experts. The Navy has not ordered a steam catapult in 20 years, with the last order placed for the USS George H. W. Bush, commissioned in 2009 as the final Nimitz-class carrier.

Finding a manufacturer for steam catapults, and then redesigning Ford-class carriers to accept them, would likely require sweeping manufacturing overhauls at considerable expense, critics of the order said.

Despite their planned phasing out, steam catapults are a proven technology. They were developed by Britain in the 1950s to replace the hydraulic catapults of World War II-era carriers and were later copied by the U.S.

“The decision was made in April 1952 that the steam catapult would probably be the most satisfactory type for a service catapult,” noted a 1954 article in the U.S. Naval Institute magazine Proceedings. “Arrangements were made for the manufac­turing rights to the British catapult. British drawings were obtained and redrawn to U. S. standards and modified to fit U.S. naval requirements.”

Manufactured for 21st century carriers, EMALS “is designed to expand the operational capability of Ford-class carriers, providing the Navy with capability for launching all current and future carrier air wing platforms – lightweight unmanned to heavy strike fighters.

The rapid evolution of unmanned aircraft, which may soon become the backbone of carrier air wings, will likely require a more sophisticated launch system. Recent contracts suggest the U.S. Navy is planning accordingly.

The indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract covers initial production and future orders of Increment 2 of the Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, according to a Lockheed Martin announcement.

“This award marks an important step in delivering PrSM Increment 2 to the warfighter,” Dave Griser, Lockheed Martin vice president for precision fires, said in the announcement. “We’re ready to move from flight testing into production and provide the Army with an expanded long-range precision fires capability.”

PrSM is intended to replace the Army Tactical Missile System, first fielded in the early 1990s. It has a range of about 500 kilometers, versus about 300 kilometers for the ATACMS. PrSM can be launched from the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System.

PrSM Increment 2 features a multimode seeker that can lock on to moving targets on land. It can also hit ships moving at sea, giving land-based launchers a maritime strike capability.

Lockheed Martin is currently conducting flight testing of the new PrSM version.

“PrSM Increment 2 completed its first flight test in March and its second flight test in August — obtaining critical data during flight, launching from a HIMARS, deploying protective covers and engaging the target,” the manufacturer said.

More PrSM Increment 2 flight tests are scheduled for 2027.

PrSM recently made its controversial combat debut in the Iran war. Analysts believe a PrSM missile, which sprays a cloud of pellets, killed dozens of civilians in the Iranian city of Lamerd on Feb. 28, the first day of U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran. U.S. Central Command has denied the accusation.

The U.S. military faces a desperate shortage of strike and air defense missiles after expending vast numbers in Iran. This reportedly includes a lack of PrSM weapons.

The new contract builds on the Department of Defense’s broader investment in ballistic missiles, according to Lockheed Martin.

“Lockheed Martin is expanding capacity to quadruple PrSM production while continuing to develop additional PrSM increments,” the company said.

The Army aims to select a contractor that can deliver two prototype UAVs for what it is calling the Army Blood Link project, the notice states. Each drone must be capable of transporting 20 units of blood products.

The deadline to respond to the notice is Sept. 21, and the drones will need to be delivered within three months of the contract award.

“Due to the compressed timeline, we recommend focusing on further development and adaptation of existing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) UAS solutions,” the notice emphasized.

The request for proposals, issued on behalf of the XVIII Airborne Corps Joint Operations Innovation Outpost, calls for a UAV that can haul a minimum of 35 pounds and up to 50 pounds. The drone should have a one-way transport radius of 30 kilometers and a maximum range of 100 kilometers, the notice states.

Maximum speed was not specified in the request, but the Army wants a UAV capable of flying at an altitude of up to 18,000 feet. The request notes that the UAV should also be capable of a “maximum 30-minute response time from mission request to launch under standard operating conditions.”

Given the perishability of blood supplies, the drone must carefully regulate its operating temperature, the Army requested. The cargo container should “maintain required temperature for up to [three] hours of transport time, within an ambient environment of 15°F to 120°F with high humidity,” the notice states.

The Army estimates a total mission duration of three to six hours, with blood carried within temperature limits for no more than three hours.

The request also details that the container must accommodate blood bags roughly 8 inches long and 5 inches wide. The cargo bay should also be resistant to vibration, rain, sand, chemical contamination and other environmental hazards.

Upon delivery, the drone will need to precisely land a cargo within 10 meters of the desired location, according to the request.

Potentially dropping of the blood supplies from the air is also possible, the notice states. This would mean a “drop capability from 10 to 15 meters above ground level with landing accuracy sufficient to remain within the 10-meter delivery-location requirement and not damage the blood products or compromise container integrity,” the request notes.

The Army envisions a semi-autonomous drone with “autonomous waypoint navigation and return-to-base functions, under operator supervision.” The service wants the UAV and its ground equipment to also have an operational lifespan of 500 to 1,500 flight hours.

The Army has been devoting more attention to the challenge of delivering blood supplies to the front lines. In May 2025, the 173rd Airborne Brigade used drones to transport blood during the Swift Response exercise in Lithuania.