Both machine learning algorithms and other, more deterministic forms of automation have a major role to play in streamlining often cumbersome cybersecurity processes, especially getting software a formal Authority to Operate on Pentagon networks, defense officials said this week. “We need tools and capability and AI to make that faster and less expensive,” said Katie Arrington, who’s currently performing the duties of the Pentagon CIO, in a high-energy address to the Billington Cybersecurity Summit. “Why am I so hell-bent that I’m getting an automated ATO and reciprocity? You, as a taxpayer, pay for ATO.” An ATO is the cybersecurity seal of approval required before a new piece of software is allowed to operate on a Pentagon network. The process can often take a year or more, which is long enough that new cyber threats can arise and render once-secure software obsolete. Once an ATO is granted, it may be years before anyone manages to follow up and check that the software is still safe to use.

But one Marine Corps program manager said at Billington that his team is using automation to help get to ATO in less than a month — sometimes much less. “We’ve compressed the timeline for a traditional ATO package down inside 30 days,” said Dave Raley, head of a team called Operation Stormbreaker at Marine Corps Community Services. “We’ve seen where the Marine Corps AO [Authorizing Officer] approves a package in 24 hours.” The agencies of the Intelligence Community are also looking at AI and automation to speed the ATO process, among others, said the IC’s CIO, Doug Cossa. “For the community, we’re doing ‘espresso ATO,’ which is the minimum set of controls that you would have in place to automatically get your authorization,” Cossa told the Billington conference. “Right now, while we define those, it’s a manual process. We’re looking to automate that evaluation … over the next year.” The ultimate goal, Cossa said, is an automated process similar to getting your car’s emissions checked: You hook the software up to the diagnostic system and see whether the light turns red or green.

cybersecurity in massive government organizations is totally the same as measuring gas emissions, you see!

ATOs aren’t the only cybersecurity processes getting sped up with AI. Alexei Bulazel, the National Security Council’s senior director for cyber, noted that last month DARPA announced the final results of its AI Cyber Challenge, in which seven AIs competed to find and fix problems in 54 million lines of code from real-world software. Before the contest, DARPA coders deliberately introduced 70 cybersecurity vulnerabilities into the code: The AIs collectively found 54 of them (77 percent) and auto-patched 43 (61 percent). That’s far from perfect but definitely enough to be helpful to overworked humans trying to find all the problems by hand. Even more impressively, the AIs found another 18 vulnerabilities that DARPA hadn’t put there, genuine “zero day” threats, of which they auto-patched 11.

That said, speeding up the process takes more than new technology, Raley and other speakers at the Billington conference emphasized. Whoever’s building the software, for instance, needs to practice what’s known as “agile methodology” or DevSecOps, named because it relies on constant interaction and feedback between software developers, cyber security professionals, and the customer/end user/operator. They also need to document what they’re doing and present the Pentagon, not just with the software product itself, but with an array of supporting “artifacts” that testify to its cybersecurity soundness, such as a Software Bill Of Materials (S-BOM) — the digital equivalent of the nutritional and ingredients label on a box of cereal.

ah, agile development. wonder what government guys talk about on their daily stand-ups

The Pentagon’s new Software Fast Track (SWFT) initiative, established by Arrington in April, aims to institutionalize many of these best practices, as well as applying automation. “The goal there is to ask vendors who really want to get in quickly to give us all of these things [up front],” Dave McKeown, the Pentagon’s chief information security officer, explained. “Show us that you’re doing SSDF [Secure Software Development Framework]. Show us that you have an S-BOM. … We can leverage AI sort through those very quickly and come to a conclusion.” The next step, McKeown said, is a radical overhaul of the cybersecurity Risk Management Framework, another labor-intensive process of human bureaucrats checking off items on a checklist. “We’re looking to blow up RMF — which, by the way, is not getting rid of it, [but] to change the focus of it from compliance and checklists and humans to cybersecurity and cyber survivability and automation,” he said. “AI will play a big part there to help us continuously monitor [software], help validate the system, secure [it] at inception, and then maintain security over time.” The stakes are high, McKeown told the general session at the conference: “If we don’t adopt AI and stay ahead of the AI race, China’s gonna kick our butts, and we’re gonna lose our position in the world.”

Mr. President, we must not alloooow an AI gap!

Following a cost dispute with Switzerland that threatens to cut Bern’s planned buy of 36 F-35As, a defense official explained in a statement to Breaking Defense last month that “costs associated with the F-35 program, particularly for airframes and engines, have been trending higher than the initial estimates outlined in the F-35 Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA)” that Switzerland signed in 2022. The rising costs are “primarily attributed to inflation, significant global price increases for raw materials, and supply chain disruptions,” the official said. “Switzerland’s 2022 F-35 LOA faces a projected $610M price increase due to significant price increases in the Lot 18 production contract being finalized by the Joint Program Office (JPO),” they added.

The official’s claim of rising prices for Lot 18 comes amid ongoing negotiations between the JPO and F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin, which was awarded an $11.8 billion undefinitized contract — meaning dollar amounts and quantities were not settled — in December to kickstart production as details were hammered out. It’s not clear whether rising prices were already baked into that contract, which was issued before a global trade war initiated by the Trump administration in April that threatens to drive up prices of critical materials. Lockheed referred questions about Lot 18 negotiations to the JPO and queries about Switzerland’s order to the Swiss and US governments. A JPO spokesperson said in a statement to Breaking Defense on Wednesday that the “cost per aircraft varies as a function of quantity, variant mix, and economic forces. “The global economy has experienced significant inflationary pressures since the Lot 15-17 contract was signed. Nevertheless, the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin arrived at a cost per air vehicle” — an estimate limited only to the airframe and excludes key components like the engine — “below the relevant inflation indices, underscoring the F-35 Enterprise’s commitment to control costs.” When adjusting for inflation, the spokesperson added that “the cost per air vehicle” in Lot 18 “is consistent with the cost of those in Lot 15-17,” and said that more detailed information “will be available once Lot 18-19 are definitized,” the spokesperson added. F-35 engine-maker Pratt & Whitney referred a request for comment about engine prices to the JPO.

Swiss Cheese (As In Money)

The Pentagon’s estimate of the $610 million price increase is notably lower than that offered by Swiss officials, who last month projected a range of 650 million to 1.3 billion Swiss francs (at the time, roughly $807 million to $1.6 billion). The Swiss armament procurement department, or armasuisse, explained to Breaking Defense that the numbers “align” after taking into account “domestic cost increases,” including taxes, exchange rates and “increased spending” on infrastructure at Swiss airbases. “We would also like to emphasize that the Swiss Government remains committed to the procurement of the F-35A. Armasuisse and its U.S. government counterparts are working closely to continue implementing this procurement,” the spokesperson added.

another article arguing that the Swiss don’t necessarily have much of a choice other than “remaining committed”

Overall, the Swiss government emphasized the deal should be fixed at 6 billion Swiss francs, or over $7.4 billion in current dollars. When Swiss officials announced the impasse over fixed pricing for their F-35 order, a press release from the Swiss government said that it was “not possible at the present time to calculate precisely the total cost of the procurement,” estimating that the final price “will depend on a range of factors such as inflation in the USA, the development of commodity prices on the global markets and other factors such as price increases due to the tariffs imposed by the USA worldwide.” Switzerland in particular has been reeling from the Trump tariffs after being slapped with a shocking 39 percent duty, leading some Swiss lawmakers to call for rejecting the F-35 buy. In August the US defense official said that “Switzerland requested a special note in its F-35 LOA to clarify that the aircraft will be procured using fixed-price contracts once the Foreign Military Sales case enters the procurement process.” However, the official said, “[f]ixed-price contracts account for inflation and provide cost predictability but do not guarantee that the estimated LOA price will match the final contract price, a distinction outlined in the LOA and accompanying messaging for transparency. Under U.S. law, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) purchasers must pay the actual costs incurred by the U.S. Government (USG) to acquire defense articles and services. “The U.S. Government recognizes the importance of maintaining trust and transparency in the Swiss F-35 procurement process, particularly given our longstanding productive bilateral relations with Switzerland,” the official continued. “The U.S. remains committed to working closely with Switzerland to address any concerns and to strengthening the bilateral defense relationship between our nations.”

Switzerland’s first F-35 was originally expected to be handed over in 2027, with deliveries continuing until 2030. The December Lot 18 contract between Lockheed and the Pentagon specifically covered 145 airframes and was previously expected to be finalized in the spring, but Lockheed officials now predict the deal will be clinched in the second half of this year, Chief Financial Officer Evan Scott said during an earnings call in July. The JPO has since issued an over $2.8 billion undefinitized contract for 141 Lot 18 engines — four fewer than the number of airframes and a figure that Pratt said in a press release includes spares.

The JPO is also expected to exercise an award for Lot 19 as part of a “combined” production deal around the time of finalizing the Lot 18 contract, though values and quantities for the subsequent lot have not been disclosed. (The JPO previously told Breaking Defense that Lot 18 is structured as a base year and 19 as an option, and that lawmakers’ passage of a full-year continuing resolution for FY25 furnished the funds necessary to award Lot 19.) The Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget notably slashed the Pentagon’s own F-35 buy, cutting the Air Force’s purchases essentially in half. Lawmakers have indicated support for restoring some of those aircraft, though an FY26 budget has not yet been finalized by Congress.

Army officials “did not effectively manage FP module COSIS [Care of Supplies in Storage] maintenance and storage requirements,” concluded the heavily redacted report. In particular, auditors faulted the Integrated Logistics Support Center at the Army’s Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command, or TACOM ILSC, for not adequately managing or training contractors who were supposed to maintain the modules.

The issue appears to have begun in 2016,

when the Army awarded a $23.8 million contract to an unidentified company to maintain the Force Provider modules. In 2020, the Army transferred responsibility for maintaining the modules to another entity, but “did not specifically add maintenance requirements for FP modules until April 2024,” the DOD IG said. Troops in the field began complaining about broken equipment. For example, in 2022, units reported that they received Force Provider containers with ripped tents and inoperable generators, laundry equipment and showers, according to the report. “Had [name redacted] separately accounted for those items that require maintenance and required the contractor to perform maintenance at the appropriate intervals, the defective equipment would have been identified before issuance,” auditors said. One issue may have been confusion over requirements for inspecting equipment stored outdoors versus indoors. For example, during a training event in June 2024, TACOM’s Integrated Logistics Support Center “instructed [redacted] officials to protect FP modules and add-on kits from the open storage environmental elements by keeping the FP containers at least 6 to 8 inches above the desert ground,” the report said. However, the actual maintenance plan did not include “any requirements to protect FP modules from outdoor elements.”

TACOM also failed to ensure that contractors were adequately trained to maintain stockpiles. Containers need to be opened carefully to avoid degrading the equipment inside, yet the “FP maintenance training requirement is not documented to ensure storage site personnel are aware of the need for the required TACOM ILSC training” to properly preserve FP modules before opening the containers, the DOD IG found. Meanwhile, with a new contractor now becoming responsible for maintaining the modules, auditors worry that qualified personnel could be rotated out before new personnel are trained. Compounding the problem is that different types of equipment require different levels of maintenance. Yet the audit revealed that contractors did not separately account for items such as skid steers — which require regular maintenance — under requirements set by the Global Combat Support System-Army, or GCSS-A, logistics management system. Thus, “for more than four years, officials did not properly account for FP module components that require maintenance,” including generators and skid steers. The reason was that “TACOM ILSC officials instructed [redacted] to account for all components that comprise a FP module or add-on kit as one line item.” Failing to account for individual items in GCSS-A can have grave consequences when equipment is needed. For instance, the report notes, Army personnel needed fully mission-capable ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Army G-4 officials. Yet, the Army lacked visibility of its ventilator inventory because some were included in medical kits and “not accounted for separately in GCSS-Army,” according to the report.

The DOD IG audit recommended that TACOM’s Integrated Logistics Support Center update the 2011 Force Provider Care of Supplies in Storage plan, including “environmental storage and maintenance requirements specific to outdoor storage yards, providing definitive maintenance intervals and ensuring inclusion of all Force Provider module components and add-on kits.” In addition, the plan should also specify ILSC’s responsibilities to conduct training in Force Provider module maintenance.

Sept. 12 (UPI) – A man in Chicago was shot and killed by an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent after the man allegedly hit an agent with his car.

Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez was stopped by ICE, according to a press release from the Department of Homeland Security. He was an undocumented immigrant and had a history of reckless driving, the release said.

Villegas-Gonzalez allegedly resisted arrest and hit an agent with his car, dragging him down the street.

The agent, “fearing for his own life,” shot Villegas-Gonzalez, DHS said.

Villegas-Gonzalez and the unnamed agent were taken to the hospital, and Villegas-Gonzalez was pronounced dead. The officer is stable but has suffered severe injuries, DHS said.

The incident happened in Franklin Park, about 15 miles west of downtown.

“We are praying for the speedy recovery of our law enforcement officer. He followed his training, used appropriate force, and properly enforced the law to protect the public and law enforcement,” Tricia McLaughlin, Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in a press release. “Viral social media videos and activists encouraging illegal aliens to resist law enforcement not only spread misinformation, but also undermine public safety, as well as the safety of our officers and those being apprehended.”

Lockheed Martin is in “very active” conversations with the Pentagon about the concept of a fifth-generation-plus F-35 that would include some of the technologies the company has developed for its sixth-generation fighter concepts, Lockheed’s chief executive said today. “There’s a very active engagement at an extremely high level with the Department of Defense, and I expect it’ll be taken to the White House sometime soon, hopefully, to consider this kind of concept,” Jim Taiclet told investors at the Morgan Stanley conference. “We’ve gotten encouraging feedback. … There’s significant interest in the government about discussing aircraft modernization writ large, all the way up to the administration level, the White House level, and we’re in the middle of that with them, and we’re getting heard. We’re hearing back, and it’s pretty active.”

Taiclet first announced what he then called a “Ferrari” version of the F-35 in April, just weeks after Lockheed lost out on the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) contract that went to Boeing’s F-47. At the time, he said that the company could take tech developed for NGAD and incorporate it on the F-35, giving the stealth jet “80 percent of six-gen capability at half the price.” The Lockheed CEO repeated that talking point today, though he noted that there is no contract inked for this souped-up version of the F-35. And, even if one is eventually signed, it may not be apparent to investors, he warned. “The way to contract this will probably not be visible to folks, because it will have so much classified content that it may not be disclosable, but I’m really quite confident that this concept has great merit,” he said. “We can provide value at that level, at that scale, by integrating sixth-generation technology, digital and physical, into our aircraft we’re already building.”

Of the about 2,300 F-35s yet to be delivered to the jet’s customer base, Taiclet estimated that anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 aircraft could be delivered as the “fifth-gen plus” version, even if export restrictions prohibit international buyers from being able to purchase that configuration. Upgrades for those jets could include new weapons, an improved stealth coating and potentially a more advanced engine, he said. The White House, Defense Department and F-35 Joint Program Office did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

While no senior defense or F-35 JPO officials have commented publicly on Lockheed’s fifth-gen plus F-35 pitch, President Donald Trump in May shocked aviation geeks everywhere when he expressed interest in an upgraded, twin engine version of the F-35. “We’re going to do an F-55, and I think — if we get the right price, we have to get the right price — that’ll be two engines and a super upgrade on the F-35,” he said during a business roundtable in Doha. At the time, Lockheed thanked Trump for his support of the F-35 program and said it would “continue to work closely with the Administration to realize its vision for air dominance.” Neither Taiclet nor any Lockheed F-35 program official has ever referenced the F-55 in subsequent comments, and several aerospace experts told Breaking Defense that turning the F-35 into a twin engine strained credulity.

folks, you’ve heard of the F-35, great plane, amazing plane, but we’re doing, we’re doing now, the F-55, even better, even more plane - it used to be 35, now it’s 55 - many people are saying it will the best plane in the history of planes

Meanwhile, the schedule for the F-35’s ongoing modernization effort, known as Block 4, continues to be beset with delays. The Defense Department now expects Block 4 modernization to be complete in 2031 — five years later than the original schedule — even as the scope of the upgrade effort is reduced to include fewer capabilities, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office released last week.