GAO: Tie F-35 Buys to Operating Cost Improvement

July 7, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

In the wake of threats by members of Congress to cut buys of the F-35 over its high sustainment costs, the Government Accountability Office is recommending that just such a course of action be considered until the fighter’s operating costs come under control.

In “F-35 Sustainment: DOD Needs to Cut Billions in Estimated Costs to Achieve Affordability,” the GAO recommends that the Pentagon get realistic about “affordability constraints” in the F-35 program so that the services—particularly the Air Force—don’t buy more of the fighters than they can pay to operate.

To that end, the GAO recommends holding off on declaring Milestone C—full-rate production—until the services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense develop a detailed plan for improving the F-35’s sustainment costs and living within their expected F-35 budgets. The plan should take a “risk management approach” that assesses the likelihood of success of various sustainment fixes, Congress’ watchdog agency said.

Members of both the House and Senate in recent months have suggested backing off F-35 purchases until the sustainment enterprise catches up to the demands of the extant inventory. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), chair of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee, promised a “hell of a fight” if his colleagues moved to add extra F-35s to the Air Force’s budget beyond whatever it formally requested. In each of the past three years, USAF has included a dozen extra F-35s on its “unfunded priorities list,” a wish list of items not included in the formal budget request, and Congress has obliged. But for fiscal 2022, USAF conspicuously did not include F-35s in that document.

The GAO suggests DOD report to Congress annually on its progress in achieving F-35 goals within available funds and that it makes “F-35 procurement decisions contingent on DOD’s progress in achieving these constraints.” The GAO further suggests a new long-term plan be created on how to “afford to sustain the future F-35 fleet.”

While the F-35 has made gains in mission capable rates, the GAO said, these are still short of operator requirements.

Specifically, it noted, the average MC rate for aircraft in the F-35 fleet—indicating the jet can fly and do some of its multiple mission types—improved from 59 percent to 69 percent for all services from fiscal 2019 to fiscal 2020, while the average full mission capable rate—meaning it could do all of its assigned missions—rose from 32 percent to 39 percent over the same period.

The Air Force’s F-35A full mission capable rate was higher than that of all services—54 percent over that period—but the objective was 72 percent.

“Despite efforts to reduce costs” since 2012, the GAO said, the cost of operating the multiservice F-35 fleet increased from $1.11 trillion to $1.27 trillion, calculated over an expected 66-year service life for the program.

There’s “a substantial and growing gap” between what the services thought they’d spend on operating the F-35 and what it’s really costing, with that gap projected to be “almost $6 billion in 2036 alone,” the GAO reported.

If trends are not reversed, “the services will collectively be confronted with tens of billions of dollars in sustainment costs that they project as unaffordable during the program,” the agency said.

In the Air Force’s case, it needs to cut annual estimated sustainment costs per tail by $3.7 million. Otherwise, in 2036 alone, “it will incur $4.4 billion in costs beyond what it currently projects it could afford.”

The Air Force has upset some members of Congress by pushing to divest some of its aircraft in order to pay for development of new ones. In the fiscal 2022 budget request, USAF proposes cutting more than 100 aircraft to save $1.4 billion for research and development.

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. recently said he’s contemplating using the F-35 only for “high-end missions” as one way to reduce its operating costs.

The Air Force’s F-35 operating costs were actually lower than those of any of the other services in fiscal 2020 at $7.8 million versus $9.1 million for the Marine Corps F-35B, $7.9 million for the Marine Corps F-35C, and $9.9 million for the Navy F-35C, the GAO said, based on data it obtained from the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office.

But because the Air Force has so many more F-35s than the other services, the cost gap adds up much higher. The GAO projects that USAF will have 1,192 F-35As in 2036. If it’s still paying $3.7 million more to operate each one per year than it forecast, that adds up to the $4.4 billion deficit in 2036. Including the other services, that F-35 sustainment deficit comes to about $6 billion, the report said.

“Without assessing cost-reduction efforts and program requirements (such as number of planned aircraft), and developing a plan prior to declaring Milestone C, the DOD may continue to invest resources in a program it ultimately cannot afford,” the GAO asserted. If Congress insists on a performance improvement report and “making F-35 procurements contingent on achieving affordability constraints,” that would improve the Pentagon’s accountability and spur “appropriate actions” to sustain the fleet, the agency said.

In a lengthy response, the JPO said the GAO’s report contained “no surprises” and that the situation is “well known” to the services, the defense industry, and F-35 international partners. The Pentagon “partially concurred” with all the GAO’s recommendations, and the JPO will implement them, it said. The non-concurrences focused mainly on things the Pentagon said it is already doing that would fulfill GAO’s intent and noting that it still doesn’t know when Milestone C will come because of unrelated issues having to do with integrating the F-35 into the Joint Simulation Environment wargaming tool.

The JPO did not directly address the GAO’s numbers but said the situation is not as dire as it may look. It asserted that in base year 2012 dollars, F-35 operating and sustainment costs have grown only seven percent, or $42.8 billion, and that these numbers are verified by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

Moreover, the JPO said GAO is using long-term projections that may not pan out or are due to recent changes. The “end of operations” of the F-35 has been extended from 2064 to 2077, the JPO said, and this has added 23 percent to program operating and sustainment costs. Meanwhile, an increase in numbers of aircraft to be bought, from 2,443 to 2,456, drove another half-percent increase in operating and sustainment costs, while flying hours have been raised from 14.9 million to 15.6 million, accounting for another five percent increase. Aircraft operating years have risen from 56,445 to 60,767, driving a further eight percent increase in operating and sustainment costs.

The JPO said it recognizes that F-35 users “don’t have unlimited funds” and is doing all it can to cut costs.

“Signs of progress” cited by the program office include a decrease in USAF flying hour costs from $37,000 to $33,600 in fiscal 2020. The JPO has also previously pointed out that it has sharply accelerated the number of depots servicing the F-35 and that the full planned number of depots will be up and running six years ahead of schedule.

Rep. Turner Warns US Missile Defense Slipping Behind Russia’s Capabilities

July 7, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The list of Russia’s “exotics”—its most modern nuclear weapons systems—is worrying members of Congress.

Skyfall is a nuclear cruise missile that can orbit the Earth. Poseidon is a submarine-launched, nuclear-capable torpedo that can emerge from beneath the waves and strike coastal cities. And Russia is the only great power now fielding hypersonic weapons, with China close behind and the U.S. throwing billions of dollars behind an effort to catch up within the next decade.

Fundamental to protecting against these threats is fully funding America’s missile defense capabilities, argued the ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, Rep. Mike Turner, (R-Ohio).

“When you look to what our adversaries are doing, we have to be concerned about leapfrog technology,” Turner said at a Hudson Institute discussion on missile defense July 7.

“Russia has actually fielded the hypersonic technology. China has been developing hypersonic technology,” he said. “We don’t have in place what is necessary to ensure that we both even up on the sensing side and the response side … to defend against such weapons, and at the same time we’re not fielding them ourselves.”

Turner called on the Biden administration to complete and make public its missile defense review. He also pointed a worried finger at the President’s proposed flat defense budget request for fiscal 2022.

In it, nuclear modernization is fully funded, but the Pentagon’s missile defense priorities are less certain, he indicated. Turner called it a “void” that allows for great power competitors Russia and China to possess weapon systems that the U.S. does not yet possess. But catching up comes with a price tag.

The Defense Department’s answer to the threat of missiles that travel five to 16 times the speed of sound is the Next Generation Interceptor, a $3.7 billion program not set to come online until the end of the decade and primarily designed to target toward rogue actors such as Iran and North Korea.

A DOD official told Air Force Magazine the NGI could still be developed earlier.

“NGI’s emplacement date is 2028, but they expect the competition inherent in having two contractors working on the program will ultimately mean an earlier deployment,” the official said.

However, Russia’s development of nuclear-armed cruise missiles means a nuclear threat does not necessarily come only from an intercontinental ballistic missile.

“The proliferation of missiles and missile technology by our adversaries, and really from all powers around the world, shows that there should be an increased focus on missile defense, not just for being able to respond to ICBMs,” Turner said.

He highlighted American missile defense systems—the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD), Aegis Ashore, and Patriot—saying recent rocket attacks on Americans stationed in Iraq and Syria demonstrate that if the U.S. is to be globally deployed, so, too, must sufficient missile defense systems to protect troops.

“Not implementing an active missile defense system or policy is almost immoral because you’re saying that you’re going to leave both your populations, your infrastructure, and your critical capabilities at risk,” the Ohio Republican said.

Turner also warned the Biden administration not to negotiate away America’s missile defense in arms-control negotiations with Russia.

“Let’s just loosely translate what that means: Russia says, ‘I don’t want you to have missile defense because I want it to be easier to bomb you.’ I don’t know how that can be influential to anybody,” he said.

Russia in recent years has increased its missile defenses on the eastern flank of NATO, with S-400 systems in the Baltic ex-clave of Kaliningrad and more recently on the occupied Crimean peninsula. Russia nonetheless has heaped heavy criticism on Romania’s deployment of Aegis Ashore.

Romanian officials insist that the NATO system operated by the United States is directed toward threats emanating from North Africa and the Middle East, not Russia.

Poland, too, is building an Aegis Ashore system, but it is not designed to counter Russia, either, a DOD official told Air Force Magazine:

“It is designed to protect NATO allies and U.S. deployed forces against ballistic missile threats emanating from outside the euro-Atlantic region,” the official said. “It is not designed to counter Russia’s strategic forces.”

Turner said adversaries are spending heavy on new weapons systems that challenge current American missile defense systems. The American missile defense budget, in turn, must keep up.

“What we need to look at are the threatening systems that Russia is now deploying—the ‘exotics,’ as people call them. [Russians] have not merely modernized their system—they have deployed weapons unlike anything that anybody has ever seen before,” Turner said. “They show an intent that is not just deterrence.”

Two Injured in Rocket Attack at Al-Asad

July 7, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Two U.S. troops were injured when rockets hit al-Asad Air Base, Iraq, on July 7, the latest in a series of rocket and small drone attacks on American positions inside the country.

Fourteen rockets impacted the base and its perimeter, and “force protection defensive measures were activated,” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Wayne Marotto said in a statement. After a full accounting, two personnel sustained minor injuries. Overall damage is still being assessed, he said.

“Each attack against the [Government of Iraq], the [Kurdish Region of Iraq], and the Coalition undermines the authority of Iraqi institutions, the rule of law, and Iraqi national sovereignty,” Marotto said. “Coalition forces are co-located with our ISF and Peshmerga partners on ISF bases. Each attack against the Coalition endangers the lives of ISF and Peshmerga forces.”

On July 6, explosives from drones impacted the Erbil International Airport in Kurdistan, which houses U.S. troops, Marotto announced on Twitter. No casualties or damage was reported. The day before, an armed drone was shot down over the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Al-Asad was targeted again on July 5, with three rockets impacting the base perimeter. However, no injuries or damage was reported in that attack.

The series of attacks represent an increase in hostilities likely from Iranian-backed militias following the June 27 U.S. airstrikes on three militia facilities on the Syria-Iraq border. USAF F-15E and F-16 aircraft hit buildings where militias were building and storing the small drone weapons used to attack U.S. and partner bases.

A militia leader vowed a response to the strikes, which killed four members of Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, The Associated Press reported.

Al-Asad is the site of the January 2020 Iranian ballistic missile attack, in which more than 100 U.S. troops sustained brain injuries.

MacDill Opens Its Gates as Elsa Heads North

July 7, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., cleaned up limited flooding and debris after then-Hurricane Elsa passed through early July 6 and headed north into Georgia and South Carolina.

After the storm passed the Gulf Coast base, MacDill moved to “recovery operations” for several hours to clean up before lifting its hurricane condition and fully reopening. The base had sent its KC-135s to McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., in anticipation of the storm.

The storm made landfall at MacDill as a Category 1 hurricane but has since been downgraded back to a tropical storm as it moved north through Florida’s panhandle and inland, where it was expected to continue to lose its intensity.

The storm passed through Moody Air Force Base, Ga., during the afternoon of July 7. The base was expecting strong winds and heavy rain, with a flood watch for the area, but it did not disclose if it moved any aircraft in advance of the storm.

“The safety of our Airmen and their families is our top priority,” said Col. Russell P. Cook, 23rd Wing commander, in a release. “I encourage everyone to take precautions, have supplies ready, and take care of each other.”

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., posted warnings urging personnel to prepare for potential flooding on roads in and around the base.

The National Hurricane Center reported Elsa would carry heavy rainfall and potential flash, urban, and river flooding through Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. The storm will carry heavy rainfall across the Northeast and New England through the end of the week.

Three C-130s Now Fighting California Fires

July 7, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

A third specially equipped Air Force C-130 joined firefighting efforts in California this week as flames burned in five large fires in northern California.

The latest Modular Airborne Firefighting System-equipped C-130H from the Nevada Air National Guard’s 152nd Airlift Wing began operating out of the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, Calif., on July 5. The C-130 flew three of the 13 total MAFFS retardant drops that day.

“It’s an honor to do this mission—we take it to heart,” MAFFS Mission Commander Capt. Jennifer Kanakis said in a 1st Air Force/Air Forces Northern release. “We’re responding with urgency to help suppress the fires.”

MAFFS 8 joined MAFFS 9, another C-130H from the same unit, and MAFFS 6, a C-130J from the California Air National Guard’s 146th Airlift Wing.

As of July 6, the aircraft have made 52 drops on five fires, dropping more than 152,000 gallons of fire retardant.

The five fires are part of the Salt Fire north of Redding, the Lava Fire near Mount Shasta, and the Dotta Fire north of Portola. Two had been suppressed with the help of the aircraft: the Tangle fire north of Tangle Blue Lake and the Juniper Fire in far northeast California, according to 1st Air Force.

The first C-130 was activated June 29 to start fighting the fires. The aircraft are equipped with the MAFFS, which is a roll-on system with a 3,000-gallon tank that shoots water or retardant from the rear parachute door.

Russia Simulates Bombing Exercise in Black Sea as NATO, US Forces Exercise

July 6, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Vladimir Putin is not happy about recent American and NATO exercises in the Black Sea, ordering the bombing of simulated enemy ships and conducting aerial denial tests in a region he believes to be within Russia’s sphere of influence. And Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby says that’s just fine.

“I know of no infringement on our ability to exercise in Sea Breeze by Russian activity,” Kirby said of the two-week exercise hosted by Ukraine that concludes July 10.

The U.S. and Ukrainian navies, including Airmen from the 7th Special Operations Squadron, 5,000 military personnel, 30 ships, and 40 aircraft from the U.S., Ukraine, and NATO ally and partner nations, are helping to strengthen Ukraine’s capacity to protect its territorial waters after losing 70 percent of its naval fleet to Russia in 2014.

The 7th SOS conducted coordinated operations with Ukrainian and British counterparts to support maritime and ground forces. U.S. aircraft also conducted intercept and formation training together with Ukrainian and British fighters.

As to whether Russia announced their aggressive exercises in advance or created a deconfliction channel, Kirby referred Air Force Magazine to Moscow.

Meanwhile, on July 2, NATO partners Greece, Romania, and Turkey participated in air defense exercises in the Black Sea. The U.S. maintains a steady rotational presence in the countries of the Black Sea in order to deter Russian aggression. Crimea is just 200 miles from NATO shores.

Two NATO air policing fighter jets are on constant standby at Romania’s Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, an air base subsidized by American European Deterrence Initiative funding and used by some 200 American troops on rotation in the country.

“Joint air policing missions contribute to the development of response and deterrence capacity,” the Romanian Ministry of Defense told Air Force Magazine in a statement about the role of its F-16’s.

The July 3 Russian exercise with Sukhoi fighters and bombers practiced missile and bombing strikes against mock enemy vessels, according to Reuters. Only days earlier, al Jazeera reported that Russia tested its S-400 air defense systems, part of the anti-access and area denial system placed on the heavily militarized Crimean peninsula.

Russia’s aggressive response is in addition to a massive disinformation campaign that portrayed the American ships as entering Crimea’s territorial waters in a provocative way.

Kirby said the naval exercises have been operating in international waters.

“It’s a defensive exercise, and it’s one of the most robust Sea Breeze exercises we’ve conducted to date,” he said. “We are proud of the interoperability and the capability that it’s showing that we can have with international partners in that international seaway,” he said.

Afghanistan Withdrawal Nearly Complete After US Leaves Bagram

July 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is almost complete after American forces abruptly left the largest operating base in the country July 1, a move the Pentagon said was needed because of operational security.

As of July 5, 90 percent of the withdrawal had been completed, with about 984 C-17 loads of equipment flown out of the country, according to U.S. Central Command. More than 17,074 pieces of equipment are being destroyed.

U.S. forces reportedly did not tell the Afghan commander of Bagram that they were leaving, with the last troops turning off electricity and taking off during the night. This allowed looters to briefly come on to the base before being pushed out by Afghan troops. The U.S. left behind about 3.5 million “small items,” such as thousands of bottles of water and meals-ready-to-eat, but also large items, including thousands of personal vehicles and hundreds of armored vehicles, according to The Associated Press.

Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby, during a July 6 briefing, said there was coordination with senior Afghan officials in advance of the turnover, but he “can’t speak to the level of information that went down the Afghan chain of command.”

U.S. officials did not tell Afghan leaders the “exact hour” of when they would leave as a matter of operational security.

“We have to consider that this drawdown could be contested by the Taliban,” he said. “We have to take that into consideration. It would be irresponsible … to give the exact hour. That would not have been a prudent thing to do.”

Also July 6, Gen. Austin Scott Miller, commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan and the Resolute Support mission, visited NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at NATO’s headquarters to assess the withdrawal and the current security situation, Stoltenberg said on Twitter.

Kirby said U.S. officials are still pursuing new basing agreements in nearby nations to help provide counterterrorism support while maintaining that American aircraft from bases in the Persian Gulf region are able to provide adequate support from “over the horizon.”

The U.S. is still determining how to provide maintenance support to the Afghan Air Force from outside of the country after the withdrawal. Contractors remain on the ground in the country while this planning is underway, Kirby said.

New B-21 Stealth Bomber Image Shows Stealth Windows

July 6, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force’s newest rendering of the secret B-21 bomber shows an exotic layout of cockpit windows. The image, the third released so far, offers a new oblique view of the aircraft from below its port side, showing a deeper keel and wider weapons bay than that of the B-2 bomber it will succeed. But the air intakes, which have been redesigned, are obscured.

The new B-21 Raider image was published July 6 along with a new fact sheet. The Air Force identified it as an “artist’s interpretation.” It shows the aircraft taking off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., where it will be flight tested beginning early next year. The prior official illustrations were released in January 2021 and in February 2016.

The new picture shows a triangular, curved main forward cockpit window and a wide, arcing side window with no apparent interior framing. That departs from earlier views which showed B-2-style windows. Just aft of the side window is the Global Strike Command badge and stenciling for ground rescue instructions.

The nose of the aircraft confirms a more pronounced “Beak” or “Hawk’s bill” than on the B-2 Spirit, which the B-21 generally resembles. The underside of the aircraft seems to be deeper than the B-2, although details are obscured. When compared with the artist’s rendering released in January, the B-21 seems to have a greatly pronounced chine, or flattened leading edge, which then tapers into the blended-wing fuselage. This chine also marks a departure from the B-2, which has a more classic wing-like chord shape in cross section.

Northrop’s stealthy YF-23, which lost out to the F-22 in USAF’s Advanced Tactical Fighter competition some 30 years ago, also featured extended chines on the leading edges. The company’s X-47 autonomous carrier aircraft demonstrator featured an extended Hawk’s bill like that on the B-21.

The image obscures details of the B-21’s air intake, which underwent a “major redesign,” according to Program Executive Officer Randall Walden. He told Air Force Magazine early this year such a change is typical for a complex new aircraft program. New aircraft often have “installed engine inlet/exhaust integration issues that have to be resolved,” he said. Previous images have shown the intakes as shallow and straight-edged, unlike the B-2’s scalloped, rounded, and deep intakes.

Also absent from the new image is any detail of the exhaust, although it continues to show a tapered, pointed single tail in silhouette.

The image also suggests a two-tone paint scheme on the aircraft, with lighter gray above and darker gray below. There’s a sharp color break below the window, and the GSC badge is in dark gray, whereas such markings are in light gray on the B-2, to better contrast with that aircraft’s FS 36118 overall “Gunship Gray” paint scheme.

The January 2016 image also revealed that the B-21 rests on two two-wheel main landing gear, while the larger B-2 has four-wheel bogeys on each side. The new image suggests a thickening of the outer wing as well.

The new fact sheet released with the image mentions major program milestones and emphasizes the jet’s open-mission systems concept, which will make upgrades easier and quicker to incorporate. It does not provide any details on performance or dimensions but notes that the first B-21 operating base will be at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.

The fact sheet also mentions that the B-21 is part of the “larger family of systems” for conducting conventional long-range strike. This family includes “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic attack, communication and other capabilities,” the Air Force said. The fact sheet confirmed that the B-21 will be nuclear capable and is “designed to accommodate manned or unmanned operations … It will be able to employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.”

The B-21’s name “Raider” honors the Doolittle Raiders who conducted the first bombing of Japan of World War II in retaliation for that country’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The April 1942 strike was carried out by B-25 Mitchell bombers flown off the aircraft carrier USS Hornet. The designation “B-21” refers to the first Air Force bomber of the 21st century.

The average procurement unit cost of the new bomber is $550 million in base year 2010 dollars; inflated to 2019, the cost is $639 million each, the fact sheet said.

Pentagon Cancels JEDI, Looks to New Cloud Contract

July 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Pentagon on July 6 canceled the massive and controversial $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure cloud after years of challenges to its award to Microsoft.

The Defense Department said the move comes because the contract, which has been long delayed due to those challenges, no longer meets its requirements. The department is now looking to a new multi-vendor replacement, called the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability. While the Pentagon will reach out to industry for additional providers, “research indicates” that Microsoft and Amazon Web Services are the only providers able to meet DOD requirements, according to the DOD.

“JEDI was developed at a time when the department’s needs were different and both the [Cloud Service Providers’] technology and our cloud conversancy was less mature,” acting DOD Chief Information Officer John Sherman said in a statement. “In light of new initiatives like [Joint All-Domain Command and Control] and AI [artificial intelligence] and Data Acceleration, the evolution of the cloud ecosystem within DOD, and changes in user requirements to leverage multiple cloud environments to execute mission, our landscape has advanced and a new way-ahead is warranted to achieve dominance in both traditional and non-traditional warfighting domains.”

The Pentagon in October 2019 awarded the JEDI contract to Microsoft, with Amazon Web Services and Oracle quickly challenging the process of the contract award. AWS, an expected favorite for the award, challenged it in court, saying it was denied because of the Trump administration’s views on then-Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos.

Oracle on June 30 filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court aiming to overturn an initial ruling that said potential conflicts of interests in the award did not affect the company’s position.

Microsoft, in a blog post, said it understands the department’s rationale, based on a likely years-long litigation battle. The company said it is confident that it will “continue to be successful” as the Pentagon moves forward for the next contract.

“What matters now is the way forward, as the DOD has a critical unmet need to bring the power of cloud and AI to our men and women in uniform, modernizing technology infrastructure and platform services technology,” the company wrote. “We stand ready to support the DOD as they work through their next steps and its new cloud computing solicitation plans.”

Amazon, in a statement, also said it agreed with the Pentagon’s decision to move on from JEDI.

“Unfortunately, the contract award was not based on the merits of the proposals and instead was the result of outside influence that has no place in government procurement,” an AWS spokesperson said in a statement. “Our commitment to supporting our nation’s military and ensuring that our warfighters and defense partners have access to the best technology at the best price is stronger than ever. We look forward to continuing to support the DOD’s modernization efforts and building solutions that help accomplish their critical missions.”

The delayed progress on JEDI came as the military pushed ahead on cloud-based capability on high-tech initiatives such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control and the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System, which will depend on secure and fast cloud-based data for its mission to speed up data sharing and decision making. JEDI aimed to bring the efforts under one DOD-wide umbrella, while individual services moved ahead on their efforts.