A Booming Market for Drone Defense Drone incursions are shutting down European airports and hitting oil fields across

Workers at the artificial intelligence company have been puzzled and increasingly concerned by the administration’s move to limit their latest A.I. models.

The US Department of Defense has a lot of congressionally mandated homework to do every year involving hundreds of required reports on various national security topics. But Pentagon officials have been proudly describing a new shortcut—using generative AI tools to write such reports for Congress.

Pentagon Chief Technology Officer Emil Michael highlighted AI-generated reports to Congress as a key example of how the Department of Defense—stylized as the Department of War under the Trump administration—has adopted generative AI during an event hosted by the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, DC, on June 12. The Pentagon has made AI tools, starting with Google Cloud’s Gemini for Government, widely available to members of all six military branches through the department’s bespoke GenAI.mil platform since December 2025.

“I have to report to Congress every year on this thing,” Michael said. “Let me load all the papers onto it and have it draft me a congressional report that would otherwise take 200 hours of staffing time and do it in five hours.”

Read full article

Comments

© SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images

The company said on Friday night that the federal government had ordered limits on its Mythos and Fable 5 A.I. systems, citing national security concerns.

In a University of Kentucky laboratory, three small spacecraft stand-ins slid across low-friction air tracks, nudging and pulling one another without thrusters, propellant, or physical contact.

Instead, they used carefully timed magnetic fields, a technique that could one day help future satellite swarms hold precise formations in space without constantly burning fuel.

The NASA and Air Force-backed study, set to be published in the September 2026 edition of Aerospace Science and Technology,  marks a step toward what researchers call electromagnetic formation flying, a proposed method for controlling the relative positions of satellites using onboard coils rather than conventional propellant-based thrusters.

In the study, researchers demonstrated a decentralized, three-satellite control system that used alternating magnetic field forces to maintain formation with centimeter-level precision, offering a possible pathway for future space telescopes, interferometers, gravity-wave detectors, and other distributed spacecraft missions.

“Spacecraft formation flying can advance a variety of space technologies such as distributed-aperture telescopes, gravity-wave detectors, and interferometers,” researchers write. “One challenge for spacecraft formation flying is that traditional propellant thrusters eventually deplete, and they can contaminate sensitive spacecraft components.”

The study, authored by scientists from the University of Kentucky’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, focuses on a longstanding problem in spacecraft engineering.

Many future missions may not rely on a single large spacecraft, but instead on groups of smaller satellites flying in carefully arranged formations. If those satellites can maintain their spacing and orientation with extreme precision, they could function together like a much larger scientific instrument.

For example, a distributed-aperture telescope could use multiple spacecraft separated by carefully controlled distances to achieve observing capabilities that might be difficult or impossible with a single monolithic telescope.

Similar formation-flying concepts have been proposed for space-based interferometers and additional missions in which the relative positions of spacecraft are central to mission performance.

However, keeping multiple satellites in formation is not easy. Standard spacecraft rely on thrusters, which consume limited propellant. Over time, that fuel runs out, limiting mission duration and maneuverability. Thruster plumes can also contaminate sensitive instruments, a concern on spacecraft carrying delicate optical, scientific, or electromagnetic sensors.

However, electromagnetic formation flying, or EMFF, offers a different possibility. Each spacecraft carries electromagnetic coils. When electric current flows through those coils, they create magnetic fields. Those fields interact with magnetic fields created by nearby spacecraft, producing attractive or repulsive forces that can alter the satellites’ positions relative to one another.

Put simply, the satellites can push or pull on each other using magnetism.

The idea is not entirely new. Previous work has explored electromagnetic formation flying between two spacecraft, including experiments using direct-current-driven coils.

The problem becomes much harder when the formation includes three or more satellites. In that case, every satellite’s magnetic field can interact with the others, creating a web of coupled forces that becomes increasingly difficult to control as the formation grows.

The new study approaches that problem using alternating magnetic field forces, or AMFF. Rather than driving the coils with steady direct current, the researchers use sinusoidal currents at specific frequencies.

The key insight is that two satellites generate a nonzero time-averaged interaction force only when their magnetic moments alternate at the same frequency. If they do not share a frequency, the average force between them is negligible.

That frequency-matching approach effectively allows the system to pair satellites electromagnetically. One pair can interact at one frequency, while another pair interacts at a different frequency.

By adjusting the amplitude of each sinusoidal signal, the satellites can control the strength of the force between each pair without requiring a centralized controller to solve the entire formation’s motion at once.

“Only pairs with a common frequency can generate a nonzero time-averaged intersatellite force, and that force is determined solely by the amplitudes at the common frequency,” researchers write. “The method in this paper is decentralized, which means that each satellite has access to measurements of its position and velocity relative to only its local neighbor satellites.”

Centralized control can work in smaller systems, but it can turn computationally clumsy as satellite formations grow. A scalable system would need each spacecraft to make local decisions based on nearby neighbors, rather than requiring a single controller to calculate every force across the entire formation.

To test the idea, the researchers built a ground-based experimental platform using three custom electromagnetic actuation system units placed on linear air tracks.

The air tracks allowed the units to move with low friction, simulating one-dimensional relative motion between satellites. Each unit included an electromagnetic coil, batteries, power electronics, an Arduino Due microcontroller, wireless communication hardware, and laser range-finding sensors for measuring relative position.

In the three-satellite setup, the center unit was driven by a sum of two sinusoidal currents, while each outer unit was driven by one of those frequencies. This allowed the center unit to interact independently with each outer unit, demonstrating the central premise of frequency-multiplexed magnetic control.

In closed-loop experiments, the three-satellite system achieved formation in less than 30 seconds. The maximum steady-state formation error was less than plus or minus 0.01 meters, or about 0.4 inches. The mean steady-state formation error was less than plus or minus 0.001 meters, or about 0.04 inches.

Those numbers demonstrate that the method did more than produce a magnetic tug in a lab. It allowed multiple units to settle into a desired formation using local feedback and alternating magnetic fields, while avoiding the coupling problem that has limited electromagnetic control for larger formations.

The researchers also compared the experimental results with computer simulations. While the simulations generally matched the observed behavior, the team noted some differences caused by real-world hardware factors, including sensor interference, current saturation, possible misalignment, airflow disturbances along the air tracks, and unmodeled magnetic effects.

Those caveats are important. This was not a spaceflight demonstration, and the system was tested only in one dimension. Real spacecraft would operate in a far more complex environment, where microgravity, radiation, extreme temperature swings, atmospheric drag in low Earth orbit, gravitational forces, Earth’s magnetic field, and equipment restrictions would all matter.

Researchers also note that traditional thrusters may still be needed for orbit maintenance, orbit transfers, or controlling the overall center of mass of a satellite formation.

In essence, this is not a replacement for all spacecraft propulsion. It is better understood as a possible propellantless method for controlling the relative positions of satellites once they are already in orbit and operating as part of a formation.

Still, that limitation does not diminish the possible impact. If electromagnetic formation flying can be scaled and adapted for real spacecraft, it could reduce propellant demands for future distributed missions. That could extend mission lifetimes, reduce contamination hazards to sensitive instruments, and enable spacecraft formations more flexible than today’s architectures.

The research was supported in part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

The funding mix reflects the dual scientific and strategic interests in the work. NASA has clear reasons to explore precise formation flying for future space observatories and scientific missions. The Air Force, meanwhile, has an obvious interest in satellite coordination, maneuverability, and resilient distributed space systems.

The study’s most intriguing contribution may be its demonstration that magnetic-field-based satellite control can be both decentralized and scalable.

Rather than treating a multi-satellite formation in a single complicated system that must be controlled from the top down, AMFF allows each satellite to manage interactions with its neighbors using assigned frequencies. That could become increasingly valuable as space missions move toward constellations, swarms, and distributed architectures.

Researchers caution that additional work will be needed to move beyond one-dimensional air-track experiments and toward three-dimensional testing, more realistic sensing and control hardware, and, eventually, on-orbit validation.

Additional coils would be needed for three-dimensional position control, and relative attitude control could require additional actuation frequencies for each interacting satellite pair.

Nevertheless, the laboratory results show that the underlying concept works in a three-body system, which is exactly where the hard part begins.

Two satellites can pull or push on each other relatively easily. Three satellites introduce the coupling problem that makes electromagnetic formation flying difficult. By demonstrating three-satellite control with alternating magnetic fields, the study delivers experimental evidence that the frequency-based solution can work.

For forthcoming space missions, that could be a meaningful step. The next generation of telescopes and orbital instruments may not always be built as single enormous spacecraft. They may be assembled virtually, with multiple satellites flying together as one coordinated machine.

If so, keeping those satellites precisely arranged without wasting propellant could become one of the enabling technologies of future astronomy, Earth observation, and national security space systems.

“This article presented a 3-satellite experimental demonstration of decentralized EMFF using AMFF,” researchers conclude. “The settling time and steady-state formation error achieved in these experiments demonstrate that this approach is most likely capable of meeting requirements for satellite constellation reconfiguration and maintenance, thereby addressing the need for propellant-free formation flying.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

With the evolution of new military technologies, the trajectory of war has undergone a massive change. Historically, wars were fought through direct confrontation on the battlefield, while contemporary warfare is […]

The post Missile defense in the age of saturation warfare appeared first on SpaceNews.

Depuis des décennies, des centaines de fosses alignées découvertes au Danemark défient les interprétations des chercheurs. Grâce à un projet d'archéologie expérimentale, de nouvelles pistes émergent sur la fonction de ces mystérieux aménagements datant de l'âge du fer.

Diehl Defence will explore using Spire’s constellation for detection of ballistic and hypersonic missile threats

The post Spire to pursue space-based missile warning in partnership with German defense firm appeared first on SpaceNews.

A new proposed Senate bill aims to establish clear guardrails for the U.S. military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI), drawing a definitive line on one of the most consequential questions in modern warfare: who has the final say when lethal force is used?

On June 8, Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the proposed Human Authority in Lethal Operations Act of 2026, or “HALO Act,” which would impose sweeping requirements on the Department of War (DoW) to ensure that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems remain under meaningful human control.

The legislation would establish new design standards, testing requirements, oversight procedures, and legal safeguards for military systems that use artificial intelligence to identify, recommend, prioritize, or engage targets.

The bill aims to ensure that responsibility for battlefield decisions remains with human commanders, rather than shifting to algorithms. The legislation would require the Pentagon to designate accountable commanders for any engagement involving AI-enabled autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons and mandates that those commanders retain “ultimate discretion, judgment, and control over the use of force.”

“The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department’s use of AI is in line with Americans’ national security and privacy priorities,” Sen. Schiff said in a press release. “There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security,” although he emphasized that, like with any tool, AI should not be allowed solely to guide human enterprises, “particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal.”

The proposal arrives amid growing concern among policymakers, military planners, and technology experts about the increasing role of artificial intelligence in combat operations.

Significantly, these concerns are no longer theoretical. As The Debrief previously reported, Israel’s reported use of the AI targeting system “Lavender” in Gaza triggered renewed debate over how much trust militaries should place in algorithmic target selection, particularly when civilian lives may be at risk.

Other recent examples have added to the concern, including studies showing that AI models can escalate dangerously in simulated war games, as well as the Pentagon’s continued push toward autonomous drones, AI-controlled aircraft, and robotic battlefield systems.

Even Pope Leo XIV recently weighed in on the issue in Magnifica Humanitas, his first encyclical, or formal papal teaching letter, warning that autonomous weapons could make war more feasible and less subject to human control, and arguing that lethal decisions must not be delegated to opaque or automated processes.

While the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed its commitment to responsible AI development, the HALO Act would codify many of those principles into law and create new statutory requirements governing how military AI systems are designed, tested, approved, and monitored.

Among the bill’s most significant provisions are requirements that autonomous weapon systems operate within predefined geographic areas, target sets, and timeframes. If a system cannot complete an engagement within those authorized parameters, it would be required to terminate the engagement until additional human operator and commander review is completed.

The legislation also calls for extensive record-keeping, cybersecurity protections, and continuous oversight to guard against unintended engagements and hostile manipulation.

The bill would also require senior Pentagon officials to conduct formal reviews before AI-enabled weapons enter development and again before they are fielded. Those reviews would assess legal compliance, operational safety, reliability, cybersecurity, and risks to civilians and protected infrastructure under the Law of Armed Conflict.

Beyond battlefield autonomy, the legislation targets several controversial uses of artificial intelligence in national security. It would prohibit covered Defense Department AI capabilities from inferring a person’s religion, race, political identity, sexual orientation, or emotional state. It would also restrict the purchase or receipt of Americans’ personal data from data brokers or other third-party sources when that data was obtained in a manner that would violate the bill’s rules.

Perhaps most notably, the proposed HALO Act explicitly forbids removing humans from decision-making processes involving presidential actions related to nuclear weapons.

“No covered artificial intelligence capability may be used with the intent, purpose, or outcome of… removing a human from the chain of decisionmaking for actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President, including initiating or terminating nuclear weapons employment,” the proposed bill reads.

The measure also includes whistleblower protections for personnel working on military AI systems, mandates regular reporting to Congress, and requires the Pentagon to identify and remediate any fielded systems that fail to meet the law’s requirements.

Existing autonomous systems would undergo a comprehensive review, and any system found to be noncompliant could face retirement, modification, or suspension pending corrective action.

While the bill includes exemptions for certain defensive systems, cyber capabilities, mines, and other categories of military technology, its wider message is that as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply integrated into national defense, Congress wants humans, not machines, to remain responsible for high-stakes decisions.

The HALO Act is not the only effort underway on Capitol Hill to establish guardrails around military AI.

In March, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introduced the AI Guardrails Act. Last week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced separate legislation that would similarly prohibit the Pentagon from using artificial intelligence to launch nuclear weapons, conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, or deploy fully autonomous weapons.

“Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe,” Sen. Gillibrand said in a statement. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”

The competing proposals could set the stage for a broader congressional debate over the role of artificial intelligence in future military operations, particularly if lawmakers seek to incorporate them into the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Before that can happen, however, the HALO Act and similar proposals must navigate the legislative process. The bills will first be considered by the relevant Senate committee, where lawmakers may hold hearings, debate their provisions, amend the text, or decline to advance them. If approved, it would then need to pass both the Senate and the House before being sent to the president for signature, either as a standalone measure or as part of a larger NDAA.

“My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons,” Sen. Schiff said in a statement.

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

From high-speed battering rams to gravity tractors, the technology exists to protect the planet. The question is whether humanity will act in time — and in concert.

The foundation of global space law that has governed human activity outside Earth for nearly six decades may be approaching a breaking point, according to a new analysis by two astronomers who argue that the legal framework created during the Cold War is inadequate for an era of commercial spaceflight, global political instability, and growing militarization of orbit.

The study, published in Frontiers in Space Technologies, argues that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), long regarded as the foundation of peaceful space exploration, confronts mounting challenges from transforming global power shifts, increasing orbital competition, and the emergence of private companies as dominant players in space activities.

Dr. John Barentine of the Center for Space Environmentalism and Dark Sky Consulting, along with Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a physicist and astronomer at the University of San Francisco, contend that while the treaty remains valuable, it may not be able to address the realities of the modern space age.

Rather than emphasizing legal reforms alone, the paper raises a wider question about humanity’s relationship with space itself. Researchers suggest that future governance of outer space may require a fundamental shift away from viewing space as a resource to be exploited and toward treating it as an environment that deserves stewardship and protection in its own right.

Although neither author specializes in international relations or military affairs, they argue that astronomers are uniquely positioned to witness how changes in space policy increasingly affect scientific research and humanity’s future in orbit.

“We are living through a time in which Earth and near-Earth space are facing unprecedented levels of potentially irreversible change,” researchers write. “The modern history of our discipline is inseparable from the technological developments brought on by those who sought to make a warfighting domain of outer space.”

A Space Treaty Born From the Cold War

The Outer Space Treaty emerged during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. Negotiated primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union, the agreement established several basic principles that still govern space activities today.

Among them are prohibitions on national sovereignty claims over celestial bodies, restrictions on the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, and commitments to use outer space for peaceful purposes.

For decades, the treaty has been credited with helping prevent an outright orbital arms race. Yet, Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan argue that the document was written for a vastly different world. One in which only a handful of nations possessed launch capabilities and private space companies were virtually nonexistent.

Today, dozens of countries operate satellites, commercial firms launch rockets at unprecedented rates, and ambitious plans for lunar bases, asteroid mining, and cislunar infrastructure are rapidly moving from science fiction to reality.

Researchers argue that the treaty’s framers could not have anticipated many of these developments, leaving major legal and moral questions unresolved. They note that the treaty lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and provides no definitive mechanism for resolving disputes between member states.

Space Has Always Been a Military Domain

A central theme of the paper is that warfare and space exploration have been intertwined from the beginning.

The authors trace the history of military activity in space back to the V-2 rockets of World War II and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which demonstrated Soviet intercontinental missile capabilities as much as scientific achievement.

They also recount historical examples such as Soviet space weapons experiments, anti-satellite weapon testing by multiple nations, and the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, often remembered by its popular nickname, “Star Wars.”

In recent years, nations including the United States, China, India, and Russia have invested heavily in military space capabilities. Meanwhile, proposals such as advanced missile-defense architectures and growing concerns about anti-satellite weapons have renewed fears that space could become an increasingly contested military environment.

The researchers warn that global disputes on Earth are increasingly likely to spill into orbit, where the consequences could be especially severe. In contrast to terrestrial battlefields, debris generated by destructive actions in space can persist for years or even decades, threatening spacecraft belonging to many nations.

The Commercial Space Revolution Creates New Questions

The study additionally highlights the rapid rise of private space companies as a challenge that the Space Treaty never fully anticipated.

Under Article VI of the Space Treaty, governments are responsible for overseeing activities conducted by non-governmental entities within their jurisdictions. However, the researchers argue that the explosive growth of commercial spaceflight is creating uncertainty concerning regulatory oversight and responsibility.

This issue is especially important for the United States, which currently accounts for more than half of all low-Earth-orbit launches and operates the majority of active satellites.

As commercial firms assume larger roles in launch services, communications infrastructure, and moon missions, questions about who bears responsibility for environmental impacts and operational decisions become increasingly important.

The researchers suggest that future governance systems must address not only nation-state behavior but also the increasing influence of private actors whose interests may not always coincide with long-term environmental management.

A Forthcoming Lunar Land Rush?

One of the study’s most important observations concerns the Moon.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan describe moon missions as an early glimpse of future space geopolitics. Five nations have already successfully landed spacecraft on the Moon, and plans for permanent infrastructure continue to accelerate.

Because the Space Treaty prevents claims of sovereignty but does not completely resolve questions about resource use and operational exclusion zones, the researchers warn that countries arriving first could effectively secure the most valuable locations for science, resource extraction, or future settlements.

That dynamic, they argue, risks creating new forms of competition despite the treaty’s intent to promote cooperation.

The same concerns extend to orbital congestion and space debris. Researchers note that nations with little or no involvement in space activities may nevertheless bear the consequences of falling rocket stages and orbital debris generated by major space powers.

Rethinking Humanity’s Relationship With Space

Rather than advocating abandoning the Outer Space Treaty, the researchers ultimately argue that it remains the best framework currently available. However, they contend that future agreements must move past traditional geopolitical thinking.

The paper proposes drawing inspiration from the growing global “Rights of Nature” movement, which argues that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and deserve legal protections independent of human economic interests. Applied to space, such an approach would emphasize environmental health, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship over competition and exploitation.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan point to examples such as the peaceful management of Antarctica, international cooperation aboard the International Space Station, and partnerships among scientific institutions and Indigenous communities as models that could help shape future space governance.

Ultimately, they argue that the greatest threat to the space environment may not be legal loopholes nor technological restrictions, but humanity’s own willingness to abandon cooperation when competition becomes tempting.

“As our title reveals, the fundamental challenge lies in defending the space environment from failure of human goodwill and trust, rather than defending the space environment from the blind spots of current treaties,” researchers write. “The story of humanity in space is still being written, requiring innovation and determination from institutions and communities alike.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

Days after successfully flying its Quarterhorse unmanned aircraft at supersonic speeds, an industry-first defense aviation company, Hermeus, has received the largest-ever contract awarded by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to demonstrate high-Mach flight combined with high-Mach payload release.

The new $ 159 million award, which increases the original contract to a total of $219 million, will allow Hermeus’ engineers to expand on previous high-Mach test flight milestones in direct partnership with the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy, with the goal of providing the American warfighter with the most advanced arsenal capable of delivering munitions and payloads around the world at record-setting speeds.

“By delivering flight-ready aircraft and demonstrating payload release at speed, we will prove this technology can create a decisive military advantage on a timeline that matters,” explained Hermeus CEO and co-founder, AJ Piplica. “Our focus is on providing the Air Force and Navy with the validated data they need to transition these platforms into the future force.”

High Mach Payload Release: “A Game Changing Warfighting Capability”

When announcing the new DIU award, Hermeus executives noted that the program will include a series of “intensive flight tests.” The first is expected later this year, while the final flights are expected sometime in 2027.

Although few specifics were provided, the company said the flights will “prove the aircraft can maintain high speeds and expand its performance limits” while also demonstrating the successful carry and release of payloads at high velocity. The company also noted that all flight data gathered during the development and testing phases “will directly inform service experimentation and future acquisition decisions.”

Although the U.S. Military has several aircraft capable of exceeding the speed of sound, and several more hypersonic (exceeding five times the speed of sound) aircraft and missile prototypes, delivering payloads from high-Mach aircraft has remained a challenge. However, some military experts argue that the U.S. would benefit greatly from the capability.

When discussing the need for high-speed payload release, DIU Military Deputy Major General Joe “Solo” Kunkel said that the largest problems the military is facing in the future are “generally around time and distance,” and the associated challenges with getting to distant locations “in a timeframe that matters.”

“I care about the warfighting capability, providing advantage to our partners and us in the fight, and making sure that we can walk into every fight with swagger,” General Kunkel said, adding that mass producing the technology developed by Hermeus could move it from a test platform to a “game-changing warfighting capability.”

“I think we found a significant number of use cases where it can be used as a weapon,” the General added. 

Moving High-Mach Capability Out of the Lab

When discussing the company’s approach that convinced the DIU to offer its largest award in the organization’s history, including what they describe as “reclaiming the lost art of rapid iterative prototyping to build the fastest aircraft in the world today,” Hermeus noted that directly partnering with the USAF and USN allows their engineers to align tests with future mission needs and shorten the path from testing to deployment.

“By prioritizing relentless hardware iteration, we deliver high-speed systems at the pace of the modern battlefield,” the company’s statement explained. “We work with the Department of War to provide the high-speed capabilities our nation and its allies need to maintain a durable, asymmetric advantage.”

When discussing the significance of the upcoming tests and the overall need for high-Mach flight payload deployment, including the benefit of the performance data, the company CEO heralded the DIU’s award, noting that the financing will help them move their successful demonstrations into real-world high-Mach platforms.

“This program is about moving high-Mach capability out of the lab and into an operationally relevant environment,” Piplica said. 

Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at christopher@thedebrief.org.

An analysis of six years of procurement records suggests that the People’s Liberation Army has openly tried to acquire restricted U.S. technology.