Why small guns have been critical to layered CUAS architectures
Multiple countries have been deploying small arms as the last line of drone defence due to their multiple operational and tactical advantages.
Missile defence acquisition process needs more tweaking, says GAO
A ground-based interceptor missile test launch was conducted by the Missile Defense Agency, US Space Force and US Northern Command on 12 September 2021. (Photo: US Space Force/Airman Kadielle Shaw)
US congressional watchdog recommends more work to align missile defence capabilities with end-user requirements.
Recent acquisition policy changes by the DoD for US missile defence balance risk and flexibility but more must be done to refine the requirements process, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in a report published on 10 November.
The GAO stated that since the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was established in 2002, the DoD has invested more than $174 billion in developing and fielding missile defence capabilities.
A flexible approach allowed the agency to develop and field capabilities quickly but it has also had ‘setbacks’, prompting the DoD to reform the MDA acquisition process in 2020.
Changes included more oversight from senior DoD officials and end-users were also given a greater role in setting requirements.
The GAO found that most of the reforms ‘align with best practices’ but the DoD is still not fully matching capabilities with user requirements.
‘Instead, DoD continues to rely on MDA to identify its own operational-level requirements, which could result in MDA later having to make costly, time-consuming design changes to meet warfighter needs,’ the GAO concluded.
The congressional watchdog issued three recommendations in its report. Operational-level ‘warfighter requirements’ should be woven into initial requirements documents, and the MDA should be required to ‘perform analyses of alternatives’ for all its major programmes ‘using warfighter-validated initial requirements documents’.
Thirdly, initial top-level requirements documents should be produced before technology development begins.
You may also like
More from Defence Notes
-
![Why small guns have been critical to layered CUAS architectures]()
-
![Singapore Airshow 2026: ST Engineering hints at export success for AME assault rifle family]()
Singapore Airshow 2026: ST Engineering hints at export success for AME assault rifle family
The Singapore-based technology company unveiled its new rifle family at this week’s airshow. Chen Chuanren spoke with the ST Engineering’s head of small arms to find out more about how the weapons have been refined.
-
![High tension in the High North – a wake-up call for NATO’s future Arctic defence efforts?]()
High tension in the High North – a wake-up call for NATO’s future Arctic defence efforts?
Any potential ‘Arctic Sentry’ mission would be months in the planning, but with tensions high in the region given the US’s push for Greenland, NATO countries will need to continue to emphasise their commitment to the region, analysts have said.
-
![Venezuela prepares personnel and equipment for a potential second US attack]()
Venezuela prepares personnel and equipment for a potential second US attack
Defence Minister Gen Vladimir Padrino López has declared that the Venezuelan armed forces “will continue to employ all its available capabilities for military defence”.
-
![As the new year starts, the UK defence spending delay continues]()
As the new year starts, the UK defence spending delay continues
The UK’s defence spending commitments remain uncertain as the government’s Defence Investment Plan, which had been due by the end of 2025, is yet to be published.
-
![How might European countries look to tackle drone incursions?]()
How might European countries look to tackle drone incursions?
Disruption of infrastructure in Europe, whether by cyberattack, physical damage to pipelines or uncrewed aerial vehicles flying over major airports, as has happened more recently, is on the rise. What is the most effective way of countering the aerial aspect of this not-so-open warfare?
