1. Executive Summary

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is entering a transformative era of warfare characterized by the rapid deployment of uncrewed, autonomous, and attritable mass. As the DoD executes massive investments in drone technology—exemplified by high-profile efforts such as the Replicator initiative and the Army’s Project SkyFoundry—there is a critical need to evaluate the systemic and architectural requirements necessary to design, build, operate, sustain, and evolve these platforms.¹ While technological capabilities such as artificial intelligence (AI) targeting, swarm logic, and advanced sensor payloads dominate public and institutional discourse, the underlying acquisition frameworks governing intellectual property (IP), technical data rights, and system architectures frequently dictate the operational success or failure of these platforms.³

This report provides DoD leadership with a strategic analysis of vendor lock-in, proprietary data rights, closed-source software, and black-box hardware in the specific context of military drone acquisitions. The analysis indicates that without a strictly enforced Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), the military risks severe operational, tactical, and fiscal constraints.⁴ Proprietary hardware and closed software ecosystems prevent military personnel from organically repairing platforms at the forward edge, seamlessly integrating third-party payloads, or rapidly updating AI algorithms in response to emerging electronic warfare threats.⁶

The findings suggest that the traditional hardware-centric procurement models of the 20th century are fundamentally misaligned with the requirements of software-defined warfare.⁹ When vendors retain restrictive technical data rights—often leveraging the “segregability doctrine” to protect privately funded components—the DoD can become trapped in a state of vendor lock-in.¹⁰ This dynamic drives up long-term sustainment costs, extends repair timelines beyond tactical utility, and stifles the continuous innovation required to pace near-peer adversaries.¹²

To successfully enable warfighters and maintain operational flexibility, leadership must navigate the complex intersection of(https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/501044p.pdf) (Intellectual Property Acquisition and Licensing), statutory mandates for MOSA, and the practical realities of frontline combat.¹¹ This report outlines the current IP landscape, analyzes the operational impact of closed systems, extracts actionable lessons from contemporary high-intensity conflicts, and provides recommendations for reforming unmanned aerial systems (UAS) acquisition strategies.

2. The Operational Imperative for Systemic Reform

The transition from exquisite, low-density, human-piloted aviation assets to distributed, high-density uncrewed systems requires a fundamental shift in how the DoD conceptualizes and architectures its platforms. Drones can no longer be procured as static, monolithic end-items; they must be treated as dynamic, evolving nodes within a broader software-defined network.

2.1 The Shift to Software-Defined, Attritable Mass

The character of modern conflict is increasingly defined by the ability to generate, lose, and regenerate combat power at an industrial scale.¹⁴ This requires a departure from systems that prioritize absolute survivability at immense cost, toward “attritable” platforms—systems designed to be affordable enough to be lost in combat and rapidly replaced.¹⁴ However, producing physical airframes at scale is only the first step. The true capability of these systems resides in their software, payloads, and communication links.¹⁶

Advanced military drones rely on complex algorithms for autonomous navigation, target recognition, and electronic warfare (EW) resilience.¹⁶ In an environment where adversaries rapidly adapt their tactics, algorithmic stagnation equates to platform obsolescence. If a drone cannot be updated rapidly to counter a new GPS spoofing technique or radar frequency, its physical availability is rendered tactically irrelevant.¹⁷ Therefore, the architecture of the drone must allow for continuous, seamless capability injection.

2.2 Evaluating Supply Chain and Raw Material Dependencies

The push for domestic drone dominance is occurring against a backdrop of severe supply chain vulnerabilities. The ability to sustain mass production of drones requires access to specialized composites, alloys, and semiconductors.¹⁸ Currently, the defense industrial base is deeply entangled with adversary-controlled supply chains. Critical nodes—including carbon fiber, rare-earth magnets, lithium-ion cells, and gallium-nitride chips—often originate in Chinese factories and refineries.¹⁸

China’s increased imposition of global export controls on defense-related minerals underscores how easily these dependencies can be weaponized.¹⁸ Unless the United States adapts quickly by securing domestic sources and standardizing components across platforms, warfighting capacity could be hamstrung by a shortage of the specialized materials needed to build affordable mass.¹⁸

Recent federal policy reflects an urgent recognition of this threat. The(https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/12/drones-and-the-federal-government-what-contractors-need-to-know) and subsequent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandums have established comprehensive requirements to counteract the effects of purchasing foreign-made drones and to reinforce the integrity and security of federal operations.¹⁹ However, enforcing these supply chain security measures is exceedingly difficult when procuring proprietary “black-box” systems, as the government cannot easily audit or verify the origins of internalized components.²⁰ An open architecture, conversely, provides transparency into the supply chain down to the sub-component level.

3. Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Mandates and Mechanics

The Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) is the principal mechanism through which the DoD seeks to avoid the pitfalls of proprietary, monolithic system design.⁵ It is a strategy designed to decouple the lifecycle of a drone’s airframe from the lifecycle of its rapidly evolving digital and sensor payloads.

3.1 Statutory Foundations and Department Directives

MOSA is not merely an acquisition best practice or a theoretical engineering preference; it is a strict statutory requirement. Under Title 10 U.S.C. 4401 (formerly 10 U.S.C. 2446a), all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) are mandated to be designed and developed using a MOSA.¹³ Furthermore, Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 expanded this requirement, directing its application to the maximum extent practicable across programs beyond just MDAPs.⁴

Under these statutes, programs must employ a modular design utilizing modular system interfaces between major systems and components.¹³ These interfaces must be subjected to verification to ensure they comply with widely supported, consensus-based standards.¹³ Crucially, the legislation integrates technical requirements directly with legal contracting mechanisms, specifically linking MOSA to the acquisition of technical data rights set forth in 10 U.S.C. 3771-3775.¹³ Contracts must now include requirements for the delivery of software-defined interface syntax and properties in machine-readable formats, ensuring that the government possesses the data necessary to integrate third-party solutions.¹³

3.2 The Five Core Pillars of Defense Modularity

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) has developed specific guidance to implement MOSA, structured around five foundational pillars ²¹:

1. Establish an Enabling Environment: Program Managers (PMs) must establish supportive requirements, business practices, technology development strategies, and product support strategies that prioritize modularity from the earliest stages of the acquisition lifecycle.²¹
2. Employ Modular Design: System architectures must separate major functions into severable components. These modules must be highly cohesive (delivering well-defined, singular functionality), encapsulated (hiding internal workings from the rest of the system), and self-contained.²¹
3. Designate Key Interfaces: PMs must identify and define the critical boundaries between modules. A system is only as open as the interfaces that connect its parts.²¹
4. Use Consensus-Based Open Standards: To the maximum extent possible, designated interfaces must utilize publicly available or non-proprietary standards rather than vendor-specific protocols.²¹
5. Certify Conformance: Programs must implement rigorous testing and verification processes to ensure that delivered systems actually comply with the designated open standards, preventing vendors from introducing undocumented proprietary modifications.²¹

The DoD anticipates that adherence to these pillars will yield significant cost savings, enable technology refresh without platform redesign, and foster interoperability across joint domains.²³

Benefit Category	Impact of Proprietary Architecture	Impact of MOSA Implementation
Cost Management	Vendor monopolies dictate pricing for upgrades and sustainment.	Severable modules allow components to be openly competed among diverse suppliers.
Technology Refresh	Requires extensive, system-wide recertification and OEM involvement.	Targeted replacement of specific modules (e.g., upgrading an AI compute card) without altering the airframe.
Interoperability	Siloed platforms that cannot natively share data or coordinate effects.	System-of-systems integration enabling cross-platform swarm coordination.
Operational Flexibility	Fixed configurations tailored to specific environments.	Rapid reconfiguration of payloads to meet changing mission profiles at the tactical edge.

3.3 Technical Standards Defining the Drone Ecosystem

A modular approach is ineffective if the modules speak different digital languages. To actualize MOSA, the DoD and industry consortia have developed a suite of consensus-based technical standards.

The Open Mission Systems (OMS) standard and the Universal Command and Control Interface (UCI) are critical components of this strategy for airborne systems.²⁴ OMS establishes an industry consensus for a non-proprietary mission system architectural standard, focusing heavily on the software interfaces between services and hardware subsystems.²⁵ It is a government-owned architecture specification designed to enable logical “Plug and Talk” functionality, allowing different sensors and algorithms to exchange data seamlessly.²⁶ UCI complements OMS by establishing a set of XML-defined messages for machine-to-machine, mission-level command and control.²⁵

Similarly, the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) Technical Standard provides a foundation for modern, open software architectures.²⁷ By moving away from monolithic systems toward reusable software components, FACE allows avionics software developed for one aircraft to be ported to another, provided both adhere to the standard.²⁷ On the hardware side, the Sensor Open Systems Architecture (SOSA) Consortium develops standards and best practices for sensor system physical integration, ensuring that a radar or optical payload from one vendor can physically mount and connect to a platform built by another.²⁸

Other critical standards include the C5ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS) for command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C5ISR), and the Hardware Open Systems Technologies (HOST) framework.²⁹

3.4 Overcoming Third-Party Payload Integration Hurdles

Unmanned aerial systems are fundamentally sensor and effector trucks; their operational value is derived entirely from the payloads they carry.³⁰ As technology evolves, a drone airframe may remain structurally viable for a decade, but its optical sensors, electronic warfare packages, and communications relays may become technologically obsolete in months.³¹

Integrating a custom or third-party payload into a commercial or proprietary military drone is notoriously difficult. If a drone’s computational system is closed-source, the software Application Programming Interface (API) acts as an impenetrable black box.⁷ Manufacturers expose only limited functionality and documentation to the public, primarily because supporting third-party integration reduces their control over the platform’s ecosystem and is rarely profitable for the prime contractor.⁷

For researchers, warfighters, and non-traditional defense vendors, this creates a prohibitively high barrier to entry. To integrate a new LiDAR sensor or an automated precision-landing module, engineers are often forced to bypass the drone’s internal computational system entirely, strapping redundant power supplies and separate processors onto the exterior of the airframe.⁷ This drastically degrades the drone’s flight time, aerodynamics, and overall payload capacity.⁷

To resolve this, the DoD requires enforced, standardized hardware and software boundaries. Initiatives like the DoD’s Modular Payload Design Standard (Mod Payload), developed by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, outline a uniform architecture for both payloads and host platforms.³² By defining specific physical connections, power draws, and radio frequency (RF) cabling standards, Mod Payload allows a single drone to rapidly swap between an EW jammer, a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collector, or a kinetic effector without requiring complex factory recertification.³²

When hardware and software interfaces are fixed and clearly defined, the DoD can foster a “software-defined architecture” akin to a commercial app store.³⁰ The prime contractor builds the airframe and flight controller, while a diverse ecosystem of specialized vendors competes to build the best AI algorithms and advanced sensors to plug into that airframe.³⁵

4. The Intellectual Property Landscape and Vendor Lock-In

The acquisition of physical drone hardware represents only a fraction of total procurement complexity; the acquisition of the intellectual property (IP) and technical data rights required to operate, sustain, and upgrade that hardware is equally critical. For decades, the DoD’s approach to IP has oscillated unproductively between demanding total data rights—which stifles commercial participation—and accepting commercial terms that leave the government with insufficient access to maintain its own systems.¹¹

4.1 The Role of the DoD IP Cadre and DoDI 5010.44

In an effort to unify and standardize IP acquisition, the DoD published(https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/501044p.pdf), “Intellectual Property Acquisition and Licensing,” in October 2019.¹¹ This instruction established the DoD IP Cadre, a cross-functional team of legal and technical experts designed to advise program managers on customizing IP strategies.³⁶ The instruction emphasizes early lifecycle planning, competitive acquisition of technical data, and the use of specially negotiated license rights.¹¹

DoDI 5010.44 mandates that every program develop an IP strategy that aligns with the system’s product support and modernization goals.³⁸ The objective is to strike a delicate balance: the DoD must acquire enough technical data to enable organic sustainment and avoid vendor lock-in, while contractors must retain enough IP protection to incentivize private investment in defense technologies.¹¹ A 2018 report by the Government-Industry Advisory Panel on Technical Data Rights (the “813 Panel”) highlighted that ambiguous contract terms and a government tendency to overreach for “general government purpose rights” regardless of actual need were primary drivers of industry reluctance to partner with the DoD.⁴⁰

4.2 Evaluating Technical Data Rights: OMIT Versus DMPD

A central tension in drone acquisition revolves around the legal classification of technical data. Under standard Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clauses, the government is statutorily entitled to unlimited rights for Operation, Maintenance, Installation, and Training (OMIT) data, regardless of whether the system was developed at private or government expense.¹⁰ OMIT data serves as the essential “user manual” required to keep the system functional in the field.¹²

However, statutory frameworks explicitly exclude Detailed Manufacturing or Process Data (DMPD) from this unlimited OMIT allowance.¹² DMPD includes proprietary manufacturing techniques, source codes, material compositions, and the precise engineering tolerances that constitute a contractor’s core trade secrets.

This distinction creates significant friction during the sustainment phase of a drone’s lifecycle. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-25-107468) highlighted that government acquisition professionals and industry representatives frequently dispute what constitutes OMIT data versus DMPD.¹² When a drone experiences a complex failure, military logisticians may claim the necessary repair schematics fall under OMIT, while the contractor asserts the data is proprietary DMPD. These interpretive disputes result in critical data gaps that prevent military maintainers from executing repairs, forcing the system back into the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) repair pipeline.¹²

4.3 The Segregability Doctrine and the Black-Box Hardware Problem

The allocation of data rights in DoD contracts is traditionally tied to the source of funding used to develop the technology.⁴² If the government fully funds development, it typically receives Unlimited Rights. If the technology is developed exclusively at private expense, the government receives Limited Rights (for technical data) or Restricted Rights (for software).⁴³ If funding is mixed, the government generally receives Government Purpose Rights, allowing it to use the IP for defense purposes and share it with third-party contractors for government work.⁴²

This funding-based test is applied at the lowest practicable segregable level—a concept known as the “segregability doctrine”.¹⁰ In the context of a drone, the government might hold Unlimited Rights to the airframe (which it funded) but only Limited Rights to a privately funded electro-optical sensor or an AI targeting algorithm.¹⁰

While segregability protects commercial innovation, it is frequently manipulated to generate vendor lock-in. A vendor may self-fund a small but highly critical component—such as an encryption module or an algorithmic interface—and assert proprietary rights over it. If that component is structurally integrated into the broader platform without open interfaces, the vendor effectively locks the government into its proprietary ecosystem. This results in “Swiss cheese data rights,” where the government owns the majority of the system but lacks the specific data rights necessary to independently upgrade, integrate, or sustain the platform as a cohesive whole.⁴²

To protect their “crown jewel” technologies, defense contractors and commercial tech startups frequently deliver hardware as proprietary “black boxes”—sealed systems where the internal mechanics, firmware, and processing architectures are legally and physically inaccessible to the end-user.⁸ Furthermore, under the Bayh-Dole Act, contractors are permitted to retain patent rights for inventions developed even with federal funding, provided they grant the government a non-exclusive license.³⁹ While this encourages dual-use commercial technology development, it solidifies the contractor’s leverage over the specific application of that technology.³⁹

4.4 Deferred Delivery Versus Deferred Ordering of Technical Data

To mitigate the risk of acquiring vast amounts of technical data prematurely, the DoD utilizes mechanisms like Deferred Delivery and Deferred Ordering.

Under Deferred Delivery (DFARS 227.7103-8 and 252.227-7026), the government identifies specific technical data during contract formation that it knows it will need, but defers the actual physical delivery until up to two years after the acceptance of all other items.⁴⁴ This allows the contractor to finalize the data without delaying hardware delivery.

Deferred Ordering (DFARS 252.227-7027) provides a broader safety net, allowing the government to order any technical data or computer software that was generated in the performance of the contract at any time up to three years after the acceptance of all items.⁴⁶ While these tools provide flexibility, the 813 Panel noted that the government’s deferred ordering imposes significant administrative burdens on industry, while the rigid time limits restrict the government’s ability to carry out long-term sustainment plans that extend decades beyond the three-year window.⁴⁷

4.5 Software Rights, Closed-Source Architectures, and AI Model Retraining

The risks of vendor lock-in are magnified exponentially in software-defined systems. If a drone’s software architecture is closed-source, the DoD is entirely dependent on the prime contractor for software updates, cybersecurity patches, and algorithmic retraining.⁷

For example, if an AI computer vision model deployed on an autonomous drone begins experiencing “model drift” or encounters a novel adversary camouflage technique, the model must be retrained with new datasets.⁸ If the acquisition contract does not clearly delineate who has the right to retrain the model—the original developer, the DoD, or a third-party contractor—the military may be legally barred from updating the system.⁸ The AI developer may refuse to grant a license for retraining or charge a significant premium to do so, creating a project-impeding dispute.⁸

This scenario poses a severe operational risk. The definitional layer of warfare—the ontological programming that determines how a drone identifies a “threat” versus a “civilian,” or assesses “readiness”—is ceded to vendors as proprietary IP.³ Once a closed-source platform flags a threat based on its hidden algorithms, these categorizations influence command decisions, effectively turning commercial vendor choices into de facto military doctrine.³ Even if a platform is fully MOSA compliant at the hardware and API boundary, running vendor-proprietary, black-box ontologies that no program office owns remains a significant liability.³

5. Analyzing the True Costs of Proprietary Sustainment

Vendor lock-in occurs when the DoD becomes so dependent on a single supplier that it cannot transition to an alternative vendor without incurring prohibitive costs or unacceptable operational delays.⁴⁸ The theoretical risks of this dependency are starkly illustrated by historical sustainment data.

5.1 Historical Precedents of Vendor Lock-In (GAO Findings)

A comprehensive review of major weapon systems in sustainment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-25-107468) found that the DoD consistently struggles to secure the data rights necessary for independent maintenance.¹² The report highlighted that programs receive thousands of individual data deliverables, which under-resourced personnel struggle to review for accuracy and completeness.¹²

The consequences of failing to secure these rights are severe. Maintainers of the F/A-18 have been unable to procure data rights for specific radio frequency cables for over a decade, forcing them to rely entirely on the vendor’s schedule or resort to cannibalizing grounded aircraft for parts.¹² F-35 maintainers cannot repair significant corrosion issues without direct contractor support due to a lack of technical data, extending repair timeframes dramatically.¹² In the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, a prime contractor refused to repair a broken hydraulic motor without the OEM physically present, resulting in a multi-week wait for a routine fix.¹²

While these examples pertain to legacy crewed platforms, the implications for drone fleets are profound. According to MITRE analysis, the average major defense acquisition program experiencing vendor lock-in suffers a 38% cost growth from original estimates and a 27-month schedule overrun.⁴⁹ If the DoD attempts to scale a fleet of thousands of attritable drones but applies the same flawed, proprietary IP strategies, the resulting sustainment backlog will paralyze operational readiness and negate the primary advantage of low-cost mass.

5.2 Comparing OEM Depot Repair with Organic Field Capabilities

The financial model of defense sustainment is heavily skewed toward Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) and OEM depot repair. OEMs affiliated with in-house depots control the majority of revenue by leveraging their exclusive access to proprietary data and parts.⁵¹ For contractors, the profit incentive is strong; they maintain a monopoly on spare parts, specialized tooling, and the cleared personnel required to service highly classified drone capabilities.⁵²

However, this reliance on CLS introduces dangerous inflexibility. Government funding is rigidly siloed into specific Element of Expense Investment Codes (EEIC). If a program manager lacks funding in one area but has a surplus in another, bureaucratic processes delay the conversion of funds, whereas a contractor has total fiscal flexibility to reallocate resources to maximize profit.⁵² By failing to secure the data rights necessary to perform organic repair—or to open maintenance contracts to third-party independent MROs (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul facilities)—the DoD sacrifices readiness for perceived short-term acquisition ease.⁵¹

5.3 Cyber Security, Forensics, and Software Vulnerabilities

Closed-source, black-box systems also present profound cybersecurity vulnerabilities. While proprietary systems are often touted as more secure through obscurity, the inability of independent military cyber-teams to audit the code leaves platforms exposed.

Aviation cybersecurity firm CYVIATION recently uncovered a critical vulnerability within the PX4 drone operating system—a widely adopted open-source foundation used in many commercial and military systems—that could allow malicious actors to remotely seize control of drones mid-flight.⁵³ While this flaw was discovered and patched due to the open nature of the codebase, similar flaws buried deep within proprietary, closed-source military flight controllers may go undetected until exploited by an adversary.⁵³

Furthermore, many drones utilize unencrypted or proprietary datalinks for communication. Protocols like MAVLink, commonly used to connect ground control stations to uncrewed vehicles, can be intercepted or manipulated if not properly secured.⁵⁴ Mainstream drones often rely on unencrypted radio frequencies, allowing adversaries to launch man-in-the-middle attacks, hijack flight controllers, or siphon biometric and visual data stored on the drone.⁵⁵ If a drone’s communication architecture is proprietary and closed, the military cannot organically upgrade the encryption standards or integrate modern, zero-trust network protocols without relying entirely on the OEM’s development timeline.⁵⁶

6. Forward-Edge Operations and Lessons from High-Intensity Conflict

The ultimate test of any acquisition strategy is its efficacy in a contested operational environment. As the character of war shifts toward distributed lethality, the ability to maintain, repair, and adapt equipment at the “forward edge”—the front lines of combat—has become a critical determinant of tactical success.

6.1 Decentralized Maintenance in the Ukraine Paradigm

In traditional operations over the past two decades, the U.S. military relied heavily on centralized, contractor-supported depots. Damaged equipment was packed up, shipped out of the theater to a secure facility, repaired by civilians, and eventually returned.⁵⁷

In a high-intensity, large-scale combat operation against a peer adversary, this centralized sustainment model is unviable. Logistics nodes will be targeted, supply lines will be contested, and the sheer volume of drone attrition will overwhelm traditional repair pipelines.⁶ The ongoing conflict in Ukraine offers a stark preview of this reality.

Ukrainian forces have successfully decentralized their drone support systems, integrating specialized engineering workshops directly into the organizational structure of frontline battalions.⁶ These highly mobile, 10- to 12-person teams consist of skilled technicians who diagnose, repair, and upgrade UAV platforms on demand.⁶ Because they operate at the forward edge, they benefit from an immediate, continuous feedback loop with drone pilots.

When a drone experiences a technical failure or combat damage, these workshops provide emergency repairs in hours rather than the weeks required by traditional logistics.⁶ This extreme agility is only possible because Ukrainian forces utilize commercial, open-source, or highly modifiable systems.¹⁴ If they were forced to operate under the restrictive proprietary frameworks standard in U.S. defense procurement—where repairing a circuit board violates an end-user license agreement or requires OEM cryptographic authentication—their operational tempo would collapse.⁶

6.2 Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Iteration at the Tactical Edge

A key enabler of organic repair at the forward edge is additive manufacturing (3D printing). Ukrainian workshops heavily utilize 3D printing to fabricate critical drone components, spare parts, and bespoke munitions adapters on demand.⁶ By modeling and fabricating parts locally, these teams significantly reduce reliance on vulnerable external supply chains and ensure rapid restoration of combat power.⁶

For the U.S. military to replicate this capability, it must possess the legal right and technical data to print replacement parts. If the dimensions, material specifications, and digital models of a drone’s structural components are classified as proprietary DMPD, soldiers are legally and technically prohibited from printing replacements.¹²

The debate surrounding the “Right to Repair” highlights this tension. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll recently highlighted an instance where an Army team reverse-engineered and 3D-printed a replacement part for a UH-60 Black Hawk fuel tank for $3,000 in 43 days, whereas the vendor charged $14,000 with significantly longer lead times.⁶² While industry representatives warn that compelling the transfer of sensitive manufacturing techniques risks exposing trade secrets and deterring commercial investment, the inability to organically manufacture critical components at the edge remains a glaring operational vulnerability.⁶¹

6.3 Overcoming Electronic Warfare via Algorithmic Agility

The electromagnetic spectrum is the most fiercely contested domain in modern drone warfare. Adversaries continuously deploy sophisticated Electronic Warfare (EW) systems to jam command links, spoof GPS signals, and disrupt video feeds.¹⁷

When Russian EW actively jams a particular frequency along the front line, Ukrainian engineering workshops do not submit a request to a prime contractor and wait weeks for a software patch. Instead, they mitigate the problem in-house, altering tactics, swapping antennas, or modifying frequency-hopping algorithms within hours.⁶ They execute localized software updates to alter flight profiles or remove features that transmit identification data, minimizing the risk of enemy interception.⁶

If a U.S. drone operates on closed-source software, forward-edge operators are locked out of the flight controller.⁷ They cannot rewrite the navigation logic to rely on optical flow when GPS is denied, nor can they rapidly integrate a new third-party anti-jamming module.⁶³ Bypassing bureaucratic OEM repair cycles is not a matter of convenience; it is a prerequisite for survival on the modern battlefield.

7. Current DoD Initiatives Driving Open Architecture Adoption

Recognizing the urgent need to field attritable mass and break free from slow, proprietary acquisition cycles, the DoD has launched several high-profile initiatives centered heavily on open systems and rapid scaling.

7.1 The Replicator Initiative and Attritable Autonomy

Announced in August 2023 by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, the Replicator initiative aims to accelerate the delivery of thousands of All-Domain Attritable Autonomous (ADA2) systems to warfighters within an 18-to-24-month window, specifically to counter the pacing threat of China’s military mass.¹

Replicator explicitly targets the “valley of death” in defense acquisition by leveraging existing authorities to scale commercial technology rapidly.⁶⁵ The initiative spans multiple domains and has successfully awarded contracts to over 30 hardware and software companies, of which 75% are non-traditional defense contractors.¹

The second tranche of the first phase, Replicator 1.2, includes the Army’s Company-Level Small UAS effort—selecting Anduril Industries’ Ghost-X and Performance Drone Works’ C-100—and the Air Force’s Enterprise Test Vehicle (ETV).¹ The success of Replicator relies entirely on avoiding vendor lock-in. As General James Slife, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, noted regarding the ETV, its “modular design and open system architecture make it an ideal platform for program offices to test out new capabilities at the sub-system level, reducing risk, and demonstrating various options for weapon employment”.¹

Recognizing that autonomy relies on software, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) awarded specific software contracts under Replicator to support resilient command and control (C2) and collaborative autonomy. The ORIENT program focuses on improving C2 resilience, while the ACT program focuses on the automated coordination of drone swarms.⁶⁶ These efforts establish a baseline reference architecture informed by both government and industry, ensuring future opportunities for competing and scaling best-of-breed solutions.⁶⁷

7.2 Counter-sUAS Expansion Under Replicator 2

In late 2024, the DoD announced that the next phase, Replicator 2, will pivot to tackle the warfighter priority of countering the threat posed by small uncrewed aerial systems (C-sUAS) to critical installations and force concentrations.⁶⁸ Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III explicitly noted that Replicator 2 will assist with overcoming challenges in “production capacity, technology innovation, authorities, policies, open system architecture and system integration”.⁶⁸

Counter-drone operations require the seamless fusion of disparate sensors (radar, acoustics, optical) and effectors (kinetic interceptors, EW jammers).⁶⁹ If each sensor operates on a bespoke, proprietary network, they provide little beyond siloed point-defense.⁶⁹ Replicator 2’s emphasis on open architecture ensures that third-party solutions can plug into a unified defensive net, allowing a single command interface to coordinate multi-domain responses.⁷¹

7.3 Project SkyFoundry and Organic Industrial Base Modernization

Parallel to Replicator, the U.S. Army is pursuing a massive ramp-up in organic drone production. The Army Materiel Command’s “SkyFoundry” pilot program aims to rapidly develop, test, and manufacture small drones using innovative manufacturing methods at government-owned facilities.⁷² Supported by legislative efforts like the SkyFoundry Act of 2025, the program’s ambitious goal is to reach a production capacity of tens of thousands to one million small drones annually.²

By pulling manufacturing into the Organic Industrial Base (OIB)—specifically utilizing facilities like the Red River Army Depot and the Rock Island Arsenal-Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center—the Army aims to cut adversaries out of the supply chain, bypass traditional contracting red tape, and maintain direct control over intellectual property.²

SkyFoundry represents a radical departure from traditional procurement. By producing drones in-house, the government inherently sidesteps many proprietary IP constraints associated with prime contractors. However, to maintain technological superiority, SkyFoundry drones must still be built upon a strict MOSA framework. This open approach ensures the Army can seamlessly integrate the latest commercial AI software, advanced optical payloads, and secure data links developed by private industry into its organically manufactured airframes without triggering vendor lock-in.⁷⁵

Initiative	Primary Objective	Key Technologies / Systems	Role of MOSA & Data Rights
Replicator 1 (Tranches 1.1 & 1.2)	Field thousands of ADA2 systems to counter adversary mass within 18-24 months.	ETV, Ghost-X, C-100, ACT (Swarm logic), ORIENT (Resilient C2).	Relies on modularity to rapidly integrate non-traditional vendor software into standard airframes.
Replicator 2	Rapidly deploy comprehensive Counter-sUAS defenses to protect critical installations.	DroneHunter F700, integrated multi-modal sensor networks, EW effectors.	Demands open architecture to fuse disparate, multi-vendor sensors into a unified C2 network.
Project SkyFoundry	Leverage the Organic Industrial Base to domestically mass-produce 1M drones annually.	In-house manufactured small UAS, 3D printed components, integrated commercial AI.	Government retains IP of the core platform; uses open interfaces to plug in specialized commercial payloads.

8. Strategic Guidance for Acquisition Leadership

To fully leverage massive investments in drone technology and prevent the paralyzing effects of vendor lock-in, DoD leadership and acquisition professionals must align their contracting strategies with the realities of software-defined warfare. The following actions provide a strategic framework for navigating intellectual property constraints and enforcing open architectures.

8.1 Assert MOSA Compliance as a Mandatory Evaluation Factor

Program managers must move beyond treating MOSA as a theoretical design preference or a buzzword. Open architectures must be integrated into the Request for Proposal (RFP) and scored aggressively during source selection.²¹

Solicitations must require vendors to deliver machine-readable documentation and functional descriptions of all software-defined interfaces, conveying the semantic meaning of interface elements to guarantee third-party interoperability.¹³ Leadership must empower the DoD IP Cadre to review these proposals and disqualify vendors whose architectures rely on closed, proprietary standards that deliberately limit interoperability.⁷⁷

8.2 Leverage Specially Negotiated License Rights and OTAs

Rather than defaulting to standard DFARS clauses that incentivize vendors to hide behind the “segregability doctrine,” contracting officers should utilize Specially Negotiated License Rights (SNLRs) and Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs).¹¹ Because OTAs are not subject to the strictures of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), they provide the flexibility to negotiate tailored data rights that reflect the actual funding contributions and operational needs of both parties.⁷⁸

Additionally, the DoD should explore innovative models such as “Data-as-a-Service” (DaaS) for sustainment. Under this model, the government pays for continuous, subscription-based access to a contractor’s technical data library to support maintenance and repair, rather than attempting to forcibly extract proprietary source code up front.⁶¹ Exploring mechanisms like the Finstad Amendment—which proposes a comprehensive inventory of existing technical data to identify specific gaps—allows for targeted, cost-effective negotiations rather than damaging, one-size-fits-all mandates.⁶¹

8.3 Structure Solicitations to Isolate Proprietary Subsystems

When a vendor utilizes private internal research and development (IRAD) funding to create a highly advanced, proprietary component, the DoD should not engage in protracted legal battles to own the internal IP. Instead, the DoD must demand that the component acts as a discrete “black box” that interacts with the rest of the system only through government-owned or consensus-based open interfaces (e.g., OMS, UCI, FACE).¹⁰

This modular licensing approach allows the government to treat the proprietary technology as a cleanly swappable module.¹⁰ It preserves the vendor’s IP and trade secrets—maintaining their incentive to innovate—while ensuring the government is never locked into that specific vendor when a superior or cheaper alternative becomes available.¹⁰

8.4 Secure Rights for AI Model Retraining

In the procurement of autonomous systems, conventional definitions of maintenance and repair are insufficient. Contracts must explicitly define who holds the intellectual property rights to retrain AI models.⁸

If a drone’s computer vision algorithm fails to detect a new class of adversary armor, or its autonomous navigation system is continually thwarted by novel GPS spoofing, the model is functionally broken. The DoD must have the legal right and technical capability to feed new training datasets into the model without returning to the OEM for renegotiation.⁸ Clarifying the boundaries between operational retraining data and the core proprietary algorithm is essential to maintaining the tactical relevance of AI-enabled drone fleets.

9. Conclusion

The future of unmanned aerial warfare will not be dominated by the military that fields the most exquisite, proprietary hardware, but by the military that can iterate, repair, and adapt its systems fastest at the forward edge. The Department of Defense’s massive investments in drone technology risk generating a fragile, unmaintainable fleet if acquisition strategies fail to address the systemic constraints of intellectual property and system architecture.

By strictly enforcing a Modular Open Systems Approach, utilizing the specialized expertise of the IP Cadre to craft nuanced data rights strategies, and fostering an ecosystem where hardware and software are cleanly decoupled, the DoD can break the historical cycle of vendor lock-in. Embracing open interfaces, transparent technical data standards, and decentralized organic repair will ensure that U.S. warfighters retain the operational agility required to deter and defeat pacing threats in an era defined by rapid technological disruption.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks Announces Additional Replicator All-Domain Attritable Autonomous Capabilities – Department of War, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3963289/deputy-secretary-of-defense-kathleen-hicks-announces-additional-replicator-all/
2. Congressman Pat Harrigan Introduces SkyFoundry Act to Restore America’s Drone Dominance, accessed April 24, 2026, https://harrigan.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-pat-harrigan-introduces-skyfoundry-act-restore-americas-drone
3. The U.S. Military Risks Letting Contractors Define How It Sees the Battlefield – War on the Rocks, accessed April 24, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/cogs-of-war/the-u-s-military-risks-letting-contractors-define-how-it-sees-the-battlefield/
4. MOSA | NAVAIR, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.navair.navy.mil/MOSA
5. What is MOSA? – BAE Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/definition/what-is-mosa
6. Innovating Under Fire: Lessons from Ukraine’s Frontline Drone Workshops, accessed April 24, 2026, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/innovating-under-fire-lessons-from-ukraines-frontline-drone-workshops/
7. Lowering Barriers to Entry for Fully-Integrated Custom Payloads on a DJI Matrice – arXiv, accessed April 24, 2026, https://arxiv.org/html/2405.06176v1
8. When Deft Hands Are Needed: DoD’s Conflicted Strategies for Acquiring IP Rights in AI Systems – Business Law Today from ABA, accessed April 24, 2026, https://businesslawtoday.org/2026/04/dod-conflicted-strategies-acquiring-ip-rights-ai-systems/
9. How Data Rights Stifle Innovation in the DoD (and How to Fix Them) – Future, accessed April 24, 2026, https://future.com/data-rights-stifle-innovation-in-the-dod/
10. DOD Releases Intellectual Property Guidebook: Key Insights for Defense Contractors, Part 3 | PilieroMazza, Law Firm, Government Contracts Attorney, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.pilieromazza.com/dod-releases-intellectual-property-guidebook-key-insights-for-defense-contractors-part-3/
11. Intellectual Property Guidebook for DoD Acquisition – acq.osd.mil, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/api/docs/intellectual%20property%20guidebook%20for%20dod%20acquisition%20signed.pdf
12. GAO-25-107468, WEAPON SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT: DOD Can …, accessed April 24, 2026, https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107468/index.html
13. Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) – Defense Standardization Program, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.dsp.dla.mil/Programs/MOSA/
14. The Pentagon’s Replicator Initiatives’ Real Challenge Is Cultural, Not Technical, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.gotechinsights.com/blog/replicator
15. Airborne attritable systems and open systems – Military Embedded Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/unmanned/payloads/airborne-attritable-systems-and-open-systems
16. Military Drone Software Development: How to Build a Drone Control App? – Patternica, accessed April 24, 2026, https://patternica.com/blog/military-drone-software-development
17. The Autonomous Arsenal in Defense of Taiwan: Technology, Law, and Policy of the Replicator Initiative | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.belfercenter.org/replicator-autonomous-weapons-taiwan
18. The Drone Supply Chain War: Identifying the Chokepoints to Making a Drone – CSIS, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/drone-supply-chain-war-identifying-chokepoints-making-drone
19. Drones and the Federal Government: What Contractors Need to Know About the Latest OMB Guidance | Insights | Holland & Knight, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/12/drones-and-the-federal-government-what-contractors-need-to-know
20. Manufacturing at the Tactical Edge: The Future of Military Drone Operations, accessed April 24, 2026, https://automationalley.com/2026/02/18/manufacturing-at-the-tactical-edge-the-future-of-military-drone-operations/
21. Implementing a Modular Open Systems Approach in Department of …, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/MOSA-Implementation-Guidebook-27Feb2025-Cleared.pdf
22. Taking a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) to Next-Gen Military Systems – RTI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.rti.com/blog/taking-a-modular-open-systems-approach
23. Modular Open Systems Approach – DoW Research & Engineering, OUSW(R&E), accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.cto.mil/sea/mosa/
24. Use of Open Mission Systems/Universal Command and Control Interface, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.afacpo.com/AQDocs/AQMemos/20181009%20-%20OMS%20UCI%20Memo.pdf
25. Open Mission Systems – VDL, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.vdl.afrl.af.mil/programs/oam/files/oam-brochure.pdf
26. Open Mission Systems (OMS) in a Nutshell – VDL, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.vdl.afrl.af.mil/programs/oam/OMS_Marketing.pdf
27. The FACE Technical Standard: Enabling modular, open, and future-proof avionics systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/avionics/software/the-face-technical-standard-enabling-modular-open-and-future-proof-avionics-systems
28. Pentagon ‘On the Cusp’ of Open Systems Breakthrough – National Defense Magazine, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/12/4/pentagon-on-the-cusp-of–open-systems-breakthrough
29. What Is Mosa Sosa Cmoss – Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions, accessed April 24, 2026, https://defense-solutions.curtisswright.com/resources/white-papers/what-is-mosa-sosa-cmoss
30. Guide to Drone Payloads: Types and Use Cases – Voliro, accessed April 24, 2026, https://voliro.com/blog/drone-payloads/
31. Why autonomy upgrades stall at integration – and how MOSA fixes it, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/unmanned/payloads/why-autonomy-upgrades-stall-at-integration-and-how-mosa-fixes-it
32. Design Standard Update Improves Modular Architecture for Unmanned Platforms, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.jhuapl.edu/news/news-releases/250805-mod-payload
33. MOD PAYLOAD – DTIC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1167779.pdf
34. App for DJI Drone: Custom Flight Control and Mapping Solutions – A-bots, accessed April 24, 2026, https://a-bots.com/blog/App-for-DJI-Drone
35. Air Force validates open architecture, expands Collaborative Combat Aircraft ecosystem, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4405471/air-force-validates-open-architecture-expands-collaborative-combat-aircraft-eco/
36. IP, Technical Data Rights Continue to Spark Debate – National Defense Magazine, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/10/1/ip-technical-data-rights-continue-to-spark-debate
37. Intellectual Property Guidebook for DoD Acquisition 30 April 2025 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and S – ARPA-H, accessed April 24, 2026, https://arpa-h.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/DoD%20_IP_Guidebook_Apr2025.pdf
38. IP Strategy – Adaptive Acquisition Framework, accessed April 24, 2026, https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/software/ip-strategy/
39. Protecting Defense Technology Innovations | Sterne Kessler, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/insights/protecting-defense-technology-innovations/
40. Intellectual Property and Data Rights Considerations: Contracting with Small Business Owners — Strategic Planning, accessed April 24, 2026, https://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/MARC%20Presentation.pdf?ver=2019-11-06-084251-993
41. GAO: Vendor Lock-In and Lack of Data Rights are Delaying Navy Maintenance, accessed April 24, 2026, https://maritime-executive.com/article/gao-vendor-lock-in-and-lack-of-data-rights-are-delaying-navy-maintenance
42. The DoD Should Pilot a New Category of Software Data Rights | Anduril, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.anduril.com/news/the-dod-should-pilot-a-new-category-of-software-data-rights
43. DOD Releases Intellectual Property Guidebook: Key Insights for Defense Contractors, Part 2 | PilieroMazza, Law Firm, Government Contracts Attorney, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.pilieromazza.com/dod-releases-intellectual-property-guidebook-key-insights-for-defense-contractors-part-2/
44. 227.7103-8 Deferred delivery and deferred ordering of technical data. – Acquisition.GOV, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/227.7103-8-deferred-delivery-and-deferred-ordering-technical-data.
45. SUBPART 227.71 TECHNICAL DATA AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS – acq.osd.mil, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/227_71.htm
46. 252.227-7027 Deferred Ordering of Technical Data or Computer Software. | Acquisition.GOV, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.227-7027-deferred-ordering-technical-data-or-computer-software.
47. SUMMARY OF THE SECTION 813 PANEL’S 2018 REPORT – National Defense Industrial Association, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/policy/documents/813-panel-report-summary_3.ashx
48. What is Vendor Lock-in? Costs, Risks, and Prevention Strategies – DataCore Software, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.datacore.com/glossary/vendor-lock-in/
49. Gaining Leverage over Vendor Lock to Improve Acquisition Performance and Cost Efficiencies – Mitre, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/gaining-leverage-over-vendor-lock-14-1262.pdf
50. GAO: DOD Struggles to Manage Weapon System IP – MeriTalk, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gao-dod-struggles-to-manage-weapon-system-ip/
51. Military MRO Market – Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul – Forecast & Size, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/military-aviation-maintenance-repair-and-overhaul-market
52. ORGANIC VERSUS CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT FOR DEPOT-LEVEL REPAIR: FACTORS THAT DRIVE SUB-OPTIMAL DECISIONS – DTIC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1037198.pdf
53. Aviation Cybersecurity Firm Identifies Critical Drone Software Vulnerability – ePlaneAI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.eplaneai.com/news/aviation-cybersecurity-firm-identifies-critical-drone-software-vulnerability
54. The best SDKs for developers of applications for drones: 3D Robotics and DJI – BBVA, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.bbva.com/en/the-best-sdks-for-developers-of-applications-for-drones-3d-robotics-and-dji/
55. How Drone and UAV Technology Will Exacerbate Data Privacy Issues – Logikcull, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.logikcull.com/blog/drone-uav-technology-will-exacerbate-data-privacy-issues
56. The Pentagon’s New Mandate: Speed, Innovation, and Commercial Tech – Greymatter.io, accessed April 24, 2026, https://greymatter.io/blog/the-pentagons-mandate-speed-innovation-commercial-tech/
57. The fresh maintenance and sustainment challenges as UAVs take off in defense, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/unmanned/counter-uas/the-fresh-maintenance-and-sustainment-challenges-as-uavs-take-off-in-defense
58. Theater Sustainment Transformation: Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine War – Army.mil, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/274914/theater_sustainment_transformation_lessons_from_the_russia_ukraine_war
59. The Evolution of – Purdue Agriculture, accessed April 24, 2026, https://ag.purdue.edu/department/extension/ppp/resources/ppp-publications/_docs/ppp-154.pdf
60. Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict: Modern Warfare in the Age of Autonomy, Information, and Resilience – CSIS, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/lessons-ukraine-conflict-modern-warfare-age-autonomy-information-and-resilience
61. IP and Data Rights: Protecting DoD’s Access to Innovation – National Defense Industrial Association, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/policy/ip-and-data-rights/ip-and-data-rights-white-paper.pdf?download=1?download=1
62. Who Controls the Wrench: The Debate Over the “Right to Repair” – CSIS, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-controls-wrench-debate-over-right-repair
63. From Ukraine to the Middle East, GPS Disruption Drives Demand for Next-Generation Defense Technology – GlobeNewswire, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/04/20/3276999/0/en/from-ukraine-to-the-middle-east-gps-disruption-drives-demand-for-next-generation-defense-technology.html
64. Cybersecurity Challenges in Drone-Based Systems – Anvil Labs, accessed April 24, 2026, https://anvil.so/post/cybersecurity-challenges-in-drone-based-systems
65. Implementing DoD Replicator Initiative at Speed and Scale – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/implementing-the-department-of-defense-replicator-initiative-to-accelerate
66. Defense Innovation Unit Announces Software Vendors to Support Replicator, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/defense-innovation-unit-announces-software-vendors-to-support-replicator
67. Replicator: Changing the Way DoD Accelerates Software for Autonomous Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3BM0DJqads
68. Memorandum: Replicator 2 Direction and Execution – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/memorandum-replicator-2-direction-and-execution
69. Frontline Fusion: The Network Architecture Needed to Counter Drones, accessed April 24, 2026, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/frontline-fusion-the-network-architecture-needed-to-counter-drones/
70. Advances and Challenges in Drone Detection and Classification Techniques: A State-of-the-Art Review – PMC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10780901/
71. AUSA 2025: Assured PNT, Launch Effects, Autonomy – Inside Unmanned Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://insideunmannedsystems.com/ausa-2025-assured-pnt-launch-effects-autonomy/
72. Army Under Secretary visits Red River, eyes SkyFoundry future | Article, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/289507/army_under_secretary_visits_red_river_eyes_skyfoundry_future
73. Army aims to manufacture 10,000 drones per month by 2026 – DefenseScoop, accessed April 24, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2025/10/14/army-small-drones-skyfoundry/
74. Unmanned, unmatched: How APG is transforming military operations | Article – U.S. Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/289346/unmanned_unmatched_how_apg_is_transforming_military_operations
75. U.S. Government Aerospace Procurement Updates and Implications for Intellectual Property, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.knobbe.com/blog/u-s-government-aerospace-procurement-updates-and-implications-for-intellectual-property/
76. U.S. Government Aerospace Procurement Updates and Implications for Intellectual Property, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-government-aerospace-procurement-2812490/
77. IP Cadre – acq.osd.mil, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/api/ip-cadre.html
78. Protecting IP, Data Rights In Other Transaction Agreements – National Defense Magazine, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/7/15/viewpoint-protecting-ip-data-rights-in-other-transaction-agreements

1. Executive Summary

Jose Victor Hugo “Pepe” Banzon (1913–1990) stands as a uniquely multidimensional figure in the military history of the Philippines and Southeast Asia. A native of Balanga, Bataan, Banzon’s career spanned the most volatile decades of the twentieth century, requiring him to transition across the entire spectrum of human conflict. His operational history includes service as a conventional infantry commander during the initial Japanese invasion of World War II, a guerrilla fighter in the occupied Philippines, an expeditionary force officer in the Korean War, a diplomatic military attaché across Southeast Asia, and ultimately an architect of humanitarian and intelligence operations in Vietnam and Laos.¹

This report reconstructs Banzon’s trajectory through the dual lenses of military history and psychological analysis. It examines his early tactical command of the Second Battalion, 71st Infantry Regiment during the grueling defense of the Bataan Peninsula, where his leadership under extreme duress earned him the Silver Star.¹ The analysis investigates the severe psychological crucible of his surrender, his endurance of the Bataan Death March, and his subsequent incarceration at the notorious Camp O’Donnell.¹ Furthermore, the report addresses specific historical ambiguities surrounding his purported “escape” from Japanese captivity. It clarifies that archival records and historical context point to a conditional release, which Banzon immediately subverted by reintegrating into the armed resistance in Central Luzon, demonstrating a profound instance of post-traumatic growth.¹

Beyond the Second World War, Banzon’s operational footprint extended deeply into the geopolitical machinations of the Cold War. As an organizer of “Operation Brotherhood,” he deployed to South Vietnam and the Kingdom of Laos, utilizing humanitarian aid and medical relief as sophisticated instruments of soft-power diplomacy and counterinsurgency.¹ His later roles as a military adviser to Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay, a regional military attaché, and a director at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in Morong, Bataan, reveal a consistent psychological and ideological drive.¹ Banzon’s life illustrates a profound evolution from kinetic warfare to geopolitical diplomacy and humanitarian administration, driven by an enduring commitment to regional stability and an internalized ethos of resilience.

2. Ancestral Lineage and the Genesis of Identity

To understand the psychological framework that guided Jose Victor Hugo “Pepe” Banzon through multiple theaters of war, one must first examine the socio-political environment of his formative years. Banzon was born on April 11, 1913, in Balanga, the capital municipality of Bataan province.¹ He was born into an era of deep transition, during the American colonial period of the Philippines, a time characterized by the tension between assimilation into American democratic ideals and the lingering, fierce nationalism of the recent Philippine Revolution against Spain.

The Banzon Family Context

Banzon belonged to a highly prominent and influential family in Bataan, a lineage that carried an implicit expectation of public service and leadership. This familial environment provided both a platform for advancement and a heavy psychological burden of legacy.

Family Member	Relationship to Pepe Banzon	Notable Achievements / Historical Significance
Manuel de Leon Banzon Sr.	Father	Served as the sixth Congressman of Bataan; established the family’s modern political prominence.1
Hugo Banzon	Uncle	A revolutionary leader and patriot. He was the lone fatality during the successful uprising of Balanga rebels against Spanish colonial forces in May 1898.4
Conrado Arca Banzon	Relative (Likely brother/cousin)	Renowned ophthalmologist; named “Most Outstanding Professional in Medicine” by the Professional Regulatory Commission in 2000.1
Julian Arca Banzon	Relative (Likely brother/cousin)	Noted biochemist; conferred the title of “National Scientist of the Philippines” in 1986 for research in alternative fuels.5
Rolando Banzon	Relative	Regional Director of the Department of Health (Bicol) and Vice Mayor of Orion.4

The legacy of his uncle, Hugo Banzon, who died leading bolo-wielding militiamen against Spanish soldiers in Balanga, established a powerful template of martyrdom and martial duty within the family narrative.⁴ Growing up in the shadow of a recognized local hero inevitably shapes a young man’s locus of control, embedding the idea that personal sacrifice for the collective good is not merely an abstract concept, but a familial obligation.

The Psychology of the Nom de Guerre

A highly revealing aspect of Banzon’s early psychological profile is his deliberate, conscious alteration of his legal identity. Born to Manuel Banzon Sr. and Teofila Garcia, conventional Philippine naming customs dictated that his middle initial be “G” for Garcia. However, he actively chose to discard this convention, instead utilizing the initials “VH,” representing “Victor Hugo”.¹

From a psychological standpoint, self-naming is one of the most powerful mechanisms of identity construction available to an individual. The name Victor Hugo carries immense global resonance. The renowned nineteenth-century French author is universally associated with monumental narratives of social justice, relentless rebellion against systemic tyranny, and the inherent dignity of the oppressed—most notably articulated in his magnum opus, Les Misérables, a text that historically inspired previous generations of Filipino revolutionaries, including Andres Bonifacio.⁶

By adopting this specific name, Banzon was not merely expressing literary appreciation; he was signaling a romanticized, deeply idealistic self-concept. He was explicitly aligning his personal identity with themes of structural resistance, moral fortitude, and humanitarian empathy. This cognitive framework—viewing oneself as a protagonist in a larger, historic struggle against injustice—would later serve as a vital psychological anchor, providing a wellspring of resilience during the extreme traumas of combat, captivity, and the complexities of Cold War geopolitics. The nickname “Pepe,” a common diminutive for Jose in the Philippines (famously shared with the national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal), further solidified his grounding in the Philippine nationalist tradition.⁶

3. The Philippine Army and the Gathering Storm

Long before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Banzon pursued a career in the Philippine Army, achieving the rank of Captain.¹ His pre-war commission suggests a high degree of trait conscientiousness and a gravitation toward structured, hierarchical environments that offered a clear avenue for national service.

During the 1930s, the Philippine Commonwealth, under the leadership of President Manuel L. Quezon, was preparing for eventual full independence from the United States, scheduled for 1946. A critical component of this preparation was the establishment of a credible national defense force. General Douglas MacArthur was brought in as a defense advisor to build the Philippine Army from the ground up.⁹ Banzon entered this nascent military apparatus during a period of intense organizational development, chronic resource shortages, and looming geopolitical anxiety regarding the expansionist policies of the Empire of Japan.

In July 1941, as relations between the United States and Japan deteriorated, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recalled MacArthur to active duty to command the United States Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE), amalgamating the Philippine and United States armies under a single command structure.⁹ Captain Banzon was assigned to command the Second Battalion of the 71st Infantry Regiment, 71st Division, which was initially mobilized and based in Capas, Tarlac.¹ The 71st Division was a reserve unit, primarily composed of young, lightly trained Filipino conscripts led by a mix of American and experienced Filipino officers. Banzon’s responsibility was to transform these raw recruits into a cohesive fighting force in the rapidly closing window before hostilities commenced.

4. The Outbreak of War and Strategic Withdrawal

The geopolitical tension shattered on December 8, 1941 (Philippine time), when Imperial Japanese forces launched synchronized attacks across the Pacific, striking the Philippines mere hours after the bombardment of Pearl Harbor.¹⁰ The ensuing days were characterized by the destruction of the Far East Air Force on the ground and massive amphibious landings by the battle-hardened Japanese 14th Army.

The invasion forced USAFFE forces into immediate, high-intensity defensive operations. Banzon’s command abilities were tested instantly in an environment of total operational chaos. On December 20, 1941, as the Japanese pushed inland, General Jonathan Wainwright ordered Banzon’s Second Battalion to deploy to Pangasinan to reinforce the critically stretched 11th Division.¹ This deployment placed Banzon’s unit directly in the path of the main Japanese thrust originating from the Lingayen Gulf.

However, the strategic reality quickly dictated a change in doctrine. Unable to halt the overwhelming Japanese advance on the beaches or the central plains, General MacArthur abandoned the initial strategy of contesting the landings and activated War Plan Orange-3.¹⁰ This pre-war contingency strategy required all Luzon-based units to execute a complex, synchronized retrograde movement, withdrawing into the rugged, jungle-clad terrain of the Bataan Peninsula. The objective was to deny the Japanese the use of Manila Bay and to fight a protracted delaying action, theoretically buying time for the United States Navy to cross the Pacific with reinforcements—a hope that would ultimately prove to be an illusion.⁹

The withdrawal to Bataan was a monumental logistical and tactical maneuver. It required units to hold “delay phase lines”—temporary, highly volatile defensive perimeters designed to bleed the advancing enemy, force them to deploy from marching columns into combat formations, and buy precious hours for the main body of USAFFE troops to entrench further south. Captain Banzon’s 2nd Battalion, 71st Infantry, was assigned one of the most critical sectors of this retreat.

5. Tactical Command at the Dinalupihan-Hermosa Line

As the USAFFE forces funneled into the neck of the Bataan Peninsula, the 71st Division was tasked with defending the Dinalupihan-Hermosa Delay Phase Line.¹ This line represented the final gateway into Bataan.

The 71st Division occupied the eastern portion of the Bataan Highway, specifically anchoring their defense in the marshy, difficult terrain around the barrios of Pulo and Almacen in the municipality of Hermosa.¹ The strategic imperative here was absolute: if the Japanese broke through the Hermosa line too quickly, their mechanized units could race down the eastern coastal road, outflank the retreating USAFFE forces, and sever the peninsula, effectively destroying MacArthur’s army before it could establish its main defensive positions.

Military and historical records indicate that the 71st Division was subjected to continuous, “bloody attacks” by the Imperial Japanese Army in this sector.¹ The Japanese utilized coordinated artillery barrages, aerial strafing, and aggressive infantry assaults to break the line. Captain Banzon demonstrated exceptional combat leadership and tactical composure under heavy fire during this phase. He was awarded the Silver Star medal for his conspicuous gallantry and bravery during the intense engagements at the Dinalupihan-Hermosa line.¹

Psychological analysis of effective combat leadership indicates that performance in such desperate delaying actions requires high cognitive flexibility, profound emotional regulation, and the ability to project a stabilizing calm to subordinates despite the presence of imminent, lethal threat. Banzon had to manage the morale of young, under-equipped soldiers facing a technologically superior and seemingly invincible enemy, all while executing a fighting retreat—widely considered one of the most difficult maneuvers in military doctrine.

6. Coastal Defense and the Battle of the Points

Following the inevitable abandonment of the delay line once its purpose was served, the USAFFE forces established their main line of resistance deep within the peninsula. However, the Japanese sought to bypass these entrenched positions by exploiting the porous, rugged western coastline.

Banzon’s 2nd Battalion, 71st Infantry, having survived the withdrawal, was repositioned to the western coast of Bataan at Aglaloma, Bagac.¹ Here, they participated in what became known as the “Battle of the Points.” In late January and early February 1942, the Japanese launched a series of amphibious landings behind USAFFE lines at various points along the western coast (including Quinauan, Longoskawayan, and Aglaloma) to sever the coastal road and outflank the defenders.¹

The fighting at these points was fundamentally different from the conventional delay action at Hermosa. It was characterized by brutal, close-quarters jungle combat. The Japanese landing forces dug into the dense vegetation and cliff faces, requiring USAFFE units to painstakingly root them out. The psychological toll of this warfare was immense. The dense canopy restricted visibility to mere meters, creating an environment of constant paranoia and sensory overload. Banzon’s participation in both the northern delay lines and the western coastal defense underscores his unit’s critical role as a highly utilized, mobile reaction force within the geographically constrained theater of Bataan.

As the siege dragged on into March and April, the operational capacity of the USAFFE forces degraded exponentially. Cut off from all reinforcement and resupply, the men subsisted on quarter-rations, eventually resorting to eating cavalry horses, monkeys, and whatever the jungle could provide. The primary enemy became disease; malaria, dysentery, and beriberi incapacitated more men than Japanese bullets.¹⁰ Through this systemic collapse, field commanders like Banzon had to maintain operational cohesion, relying heavily on the bonds of unit solidarity and the internalized ethos of duty.

7. Capitulation, the Death March, and Camp O’Donnell

Despite the fierce and globally celebrated resistance that turned Bataan into a symbol of Allied defiance, the logistical strangulation of the peninsula ultimately forced a collapse.⁹ On April 9, 1942, Major General Edward P. King, recognizing that his men were starving, riddled with disease, and devoid of ammunition, surrendered the USAFFE forces on Bataan to the Imperial Japanese Army.¹⁰ General MacArthur and his staff had previously been evacuated to Australia by PT boat under orders from President Roosevelt.⁹

The Psychological Toll of Capitulation

For a career officer like Captain Banzon, who had internalized the warrior ethos and deliberately constructed an identity around the ideals of “Victor Hugo,” the order to surrender represents a profound psychological trauma. The abrupt transition from an autonomous combat commander dictating tactical maneuvers to a disarmed, subjugated prisoner of war induces severe cognitive dissonance. It forces a fundamental re-evaluation of the self and often leads to a state of learned helplessness. The psychological contract of military service—that one fights until victory or death—is suddenly voided by a higher command decision, leaving field officers to manage the collective despair of their men.

The Bataan Death March

The immediate aftermath of the surrender was the infamous Bataan Death March. Banzon was among the approximately 75,000 Filipino and American troops who were forced to march upwards of 65 miles from the tip of Bataan to the railhead at San Fernando, Pampanga, under the brutal heat of the Philippine summer.¹

The Death March was an exercise in systematic degradation. The Japanese logistics system was completely unprepared for the sheer volume of prisoners, resulting in catastrophic failures in providing food or water. Prisoners were subjected to extreme physical deprivation, arbitrary beatings, bayoneting of those who fell out of line, and the profound psychological torture of marching past artesian wells they were forbidden to drink from. Banzon’s survival of this atrocity is a testament to extraordinary physical endurance and mental fortitude.

Incarceration at Camp O’Donnell

The survivors of the march were loaded into stifling boxcars and transported to Camp O’Donnell in Capas, Tarlac. Ironically, this was the very municipality where Banzon’s 71st Division had been headquartered before the outbreak of the war.¹ The familiar geography must have added a surreal, deeply demoralizing layer to the experience of captivity.

At Camp O’Donnell, Banzon endured the severe hardships of mass incarceration.¹ The camp was a nightmare of overcrowding, abysmal sanitation, and unchecked disease. Mortality rates from malaria, dysentery, and profound malnutrition were catastrophic, with thousands of Filipino soldiers dying in the first few months of captivity. Survival in such environments is rarely arbitrary; psychologists note that it frequently correlates with strong internal loci of control, the maintenance of social cohesion among small unit groups, and an overriding ideological or familial purpose that prevents psychological capitulation. Banzon’s prior self-identification with resilience likely served as a critical mental shield during this period.

8. The “Escape” Paradigm and the Return to Resistance

A persistent point of historical inquiry regarding Banzon is the exact nature of his departure from Japanese captivity. The specific query posed by historical researchers often frames this event as an evasion: “How did he escape?”

Analyzing the Historical Record versus Mythos

A rigorous examination of the historical and military records reveals that the premise of a cinematic, covert “escape” from the confines of Camp O’Donnell is likely a mythologized interpretation of his survival. The archival consensus, supported by contemporary analyses of his service, indicates that Banzon was released from incarceration rather than having executed a breakout.¹

To understand this, one must examine the Japanese occupation policies in mid-to-late 1942. The Japanese military administration was rapidly overwhelmed by the sheer logistical burden of maintaining the dying prisoners at Camp O’Donnell. Furthermore, as part of a broader political strategy to pacify the local Filipino populace and encourage cooperation with the newly established puppet government, the Japanese command initiated a program to conditionally release severely ill Filipino prisoners of war. Prisoners who were deemed too incapacitated by malaria or dysentery to pose a viable military threat, and who possessed local civil guarantors (often mayors or prominent local figures who pledged responsibility for their conduct), were permitted to leave the camp.

It is highly probable, given the near-universal affliction rates in the camp, that Banzon was paroled under this policy, ostensibly returning to civilian life to recover from the physical devastation of the march and the camp.

Post-Traumatic Growth and the Guerrilla War

What is psychologically and historically remarkable about Banzon is not the administrative mechanism of his departure from the camp, but his immediate actions upon regaining his freedom. Upon his release, rather than withdrawing into civilian life to recover—a highly justifiable and common response to such severe trauma—Banzon sought out and integrated into a guerrilla unit operating in the rugged terrain of Central Luzon.¹

This action is indicative of a psychological phenomenon known as “Post-Traumatic Growth.” Instead of being paralyzed by the trauma of defeat, the Death March, and captivity, Banzon utilized those experiences as a catalyst for continued, localized resistance. The cognitive framework he established with the “Victor Hugo” identity refused to accept subjugation.

Operating in the clandestine, decentralized network of Central Luzon, he engaged in asymmetrical warfare against the occupying Japanese forces. The guerrilla movement in Central Luzon was a complex tapestry of former USAFFE soldiers, local militias, and the communist-aligned Hukbalahap (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon).¹¹ These units specialized in intelligence gathering, ambushes, sabotage of Japanese supply lines, and the liquidation of collaborators. Transitioning from a conventional battalion commander to an irregular guerrilla officer required a massive paradigm shift. Banzon had to discard the rigid doctrines of conventional warfare and adopt the fluid, politically sensitive, and highly perilous tactics of insurgency. He continued to fight in this clandestine capacity until the liberation of the Philippines by Allied forces in 1945.

9. Cold War Engagements: PEFTOK and the Korean War

The conclusion of World War II and the subsequent granting of full independence to the Republic of the Philippines in 1946 did not result in Banzon’s demobilization. He remained in the military, transitioning his commission from the colonial Commonwealth force to the regular Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

When the Korean War broke out in June 1950, the geopolitical landscape had fundamentally shifted from the struggle against fascism to the global containment of communism. The Philippines was the first Asian nation to respond to the United Nations Security Council’s call for military assistance to defend South Korea, organizing the Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea (PEFTOK).¹ Colonel Banzon was placed in command of a PEFTOK battalion deployed to the Korean peninsula.¹

The Shift to Foreign Expeditionary Power

This deployment marked a significant evolution in his military career and a profound shift in the strategic posture of the Philippine military. For the first time, Banzon was not defending his own homeland from direct invasion, nor was he operating as a localized guerrilla. He was projecting national power internationally, serving as an instrument of United Nations policy within the context of the Cold War.

Commanding a battalion in the harsh, freezing, mountainous terrain of the Korean peninsula required a drastically different tactical paradigm than the tropical jungles of Bataan or the plains of Central Luzon. The Korean War was characterized by massive artillery barrages, mechanized thrusts, and brutal static trench warfare in extreme weather conditions. His selection for this specific command indicates that the high command of the Philippine armed forces viewed him as a highly competent, battle-tested officer, capable of handling complex multinational operations alongside American, British, and other UN forces.

The historical data regarding his operational deployments clearly illustrates a career defined by continuous adaptation to radically different forms of warfare. The table below delineates the diverse phases of his military service, highlighting his transition from domestic defense to international expeditionary operations.

Military Deployment Phase	Conflict Era	Specific Role / Unit	Key Operational Location	Tactical Paradigm
Homeland Defense	World War II (1941-1942)	Commander, 2nd Battalion, 71st Infantry	Bataan (Hermosa, Bagac)	Conventional Delaying Action, Jungle Defense
Irregular Warfare	World War II (1942-1945)	Guerrilla Officer	Central Luzon	Asymmetrical Warfare, Sabotage, Intelligence
Expeditionary Combat	Korean War (1950s)	Battalion Commander, PEFTOK	South Korea	Multinational Coalition, Conventional/Trench Warfare
Covert / Humanitarian	Cold War (1957-1975)	Organizer, Operation Brotherhood	Vietnam, Laos	Soft-Power Diplomacy, Medical Relief, Civic Action

10. The Magsaysay Doctrine and Soft Power Counterinsurgency

Following his service in the Korean War, Banzon’s career trajectory moved away from frontline kinetic operations and deeper into the realms of strategic advisory, intelligence, and diplomacy. His deep experience in both conventional warfare and rural guerrilla tactics made him an invaluable asset to the highest levels of the Philippine government. During the 1950s, he served as a military adviser to Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay.¹

The Psychological Shift in Warfare

President Magsaysay’s administration (1953–1957) was defined by its highly successful campaign to suppress the Hukbalahap rebellion—a communist insurgency that had grown out of the anti-Japanese guerrilla networks in Central Luzon. Magsaysay’s approach was revolutionary for the era; he realized that traditional military force alone could not defeat an insurgency fueled by agrarian poverty and social injustice.

Magsaysay developed a doctrine that combined targeted military pressure with massive socio-economic reforms, infrastructure development, and psychological warfare—summarized by the ethos of offering “all-out force or all-out friendship.” This approach relied heavily on military officers who possessed the cognitive flexibility to understand that the center of gravity in irregular warfare is the civilian population, not the enemy combatant.

Banzon, having been a guerrilla in the very same region (Central Luzon) where the Huks operated, perfectly fit this analytical profile. He intimately understood the psychological dynamics of rural insurgencies and the conditions that drive peasants to take up arms. His advisory role to Magsaysay would have centered on integrating military intelligence operations with rural development initiatives. This period fundamentally shaped Banzon’s understanding of “civic action”—the use of military or paramilitary logistics to provide social services—as a primary weapon of the Cold War.

11. Operation Brotherhood: Vietnam and the Laotian Theater

The culmination of Banzon’s evolution from a kinetic combatant to a practitioner of geopolitical soft power was his involvement in “Operation Brotherhood” (OB). Banzon served as one of the key organizers of this initiative.¹

The Mechanics and Geopolitics of Operation Brotherhood

Operation Brotherhood was ostensibly founded as a private, humanitarian medical mission in 1954 to provide critical relief to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing communist North Vietnam to the South following the partition of the country at the Geneva Conference. However, the historical consensus acknowledges that OB was deeply intertwined with Cold War geopolitics. Covertly backed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (specifically operative Edward Lansdale, a close associate of Magsaysay) and heavily supported by the Philippine government, OB was a highly sophisticated instrument of counterinsurgency.

By establishing clinics and providing desperately needed medical care to rural populations, the initiative aimed to win the “hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese peasantry, effectively immunizing them against the appeal of communist ideology. Banzon’s role in organizing the logistical and operational framework of OB reflects a masterful application of the civic action principles he had refined during the Magsaysay era.¹ He recognized that a doctor or a nurse could secure a village more effectively than an infantry squad.

The Mission in Laos

Historical records specifically query: Where did he go in Laos and why?

Following its initial deployment in Vietnam, Operation Brotherhood expanded its mission into the neighboring Kingdom of Laos. OB personnel arrived in Laos on January 7, 1957, and maintained operations there for eighteen years, finally withdrawing on May 29, 1975, as the region fell to communist forces.³

In Laos, Banzon and the organizational leadership deployed medical teams to several strategic locations across the country. Key operational nodes included the administrative capital, Vientiane, and critical provincial centers in the south, such as Paksong on the strategic Bolaven Plateau.³ The Philippine medical personnel, including doctors, nurses, and technicians ¹², established primary care clinics, trained local Laotian health workers, and provided essential medical services in highly austere and frequently dangerous environments.

The Geopolitical Rationale: Why was Banzon directing resources to Laos? The underlying imperative was the American “Domino Theory.” The United States and its regional allies in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), including the Philippines, viewed Laos as a critical geographic buffer state. If Laos fell to the communist Pathet Lao, it was believed that Thailand, and subsequently the rest of Southeast Asia, would inevitably follow.

However, the 1954 Geneva Accords officially mandated that Laos remain a neutral country, strictly prohibiting the presence of foreign military forces. Because overt conventional military intervention was illegal under international law, the United States and its allies had to rely on covert operations (the “Secret War”) and humanitarian non-governmental organizations to influence the outcome. Operation Brotherhood served as a crucial, deniable mechanism to provide support to the Royal Lao Government and allied ethnic militias (such as the Hmong forces) by stabilizing the rural populace and providing medical infrastructure. Banzon’s involvement in organizing this apparatus was a direct extension of his military service, seamlessly translated into the language of international humanitarian aid.

12. Diplomatic Service as a Military Attaché

As he transitioned out of direct organizational roles, Colonel Banzon entered the realm of formal military diplomacy. He served sequential assignments as a military attaché to multiple critical Southeast Asian nations: Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, and South Vietnam.¹

The role of a military attaché during the height of the Cold War was a highly sensitive and multifaceted position. Overtly, the attaché acts as the official diplomatic representative of their nation’s armed forces to the host government, facilitating military-to-military relations, arms sales, and joint training exercises. Covertly, however, the position is fundamentally concerned with intelligence gathering, strategic assessment, and alliance management.

Stationed in the frontline states of the ideological conflict, Banzon was responsible for analyzing regional military capabilities, monitoring the political stability of host governments, and tracking the proliferation of communist insurgencies across porous borders. His postings were strategically vital. Thailand was the primary staging ground for American air operations in Vietnam and covert actions in Laos; Cambodia was a delicate neutral state struggling to keep the conflict from spilling over its borders; Indonesia had just emerged from a massive internal purge of its communist party; and Vietnam was the epicenter of the global conflict. Banzon’s vast experiential knowledge—spanning guerrilla warfare, conventional mechanized combat, and counterinsurgency civic action—made his intelligence assessments invaluable to both the Philippine government and its SEATO allies.

13. Twilight Years: The Philippine Refugee Processing Center

The final major chapter of Banzon’s public service serves as a profound psychological and historical coda to his life. Following his retirement from active military and diplomatic duty, he was appointed as a director at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center (PRPC) located in Morong, Bataan.¹

A Return to Bataan and the Cycle of Resilience

The PRPC, which operated from 1980 until 1994, was a massive, internationally funded facility that served as the final transit and preparation point for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (frequently referred to collectively as the “Boat People”). These individuals had fled the communist takeovers of their respective nations and were residing at the PRPC to receive cultural orientation and language training prior to their permanent resettlement in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.

From a psychological perspective, Banzon’s tenure at the PRPC represents an extraordinary instance of narrative closure. As a young man in his twenties, he had fought a desperate, losing war in the jungles of Bataan, witnessing mass death and suffering before becoming a prisoner of war and essentially a refugee in his own occupied nation. Decades later, he returned to the province of Bataan not as a besieged soldier, but as a senior humanitarian administrator.

Furthermore, the populations he was tasked with assisting at the PRPC—the displaced citizens of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—were the very people he had spent the prime years of his career attempting to stabilize and protect through Operation Brotherhood and his diplomatic postings. The tragic fall of Indochina in 1975 meant that his earlier efforts had ultimately been eclipsed by geopolitical forces. Yet, at the PRPC, he was able to provide tangible, life-saving assistance to the survivors of those fallen nations. The trauma of his youth was ultimately transmuted into the administrative capacity to offer safe harbor to the world’s most vulnerable. This final transition solidifies his legacy not merely as a tactician of war, but as an architect of human resilience.

14. Conclusion and Final Assessment

Jose Victor Hugo “Pepe” Banzon passed away on January 23, 1990, leaving behind his wife, Maria Nicolas, and their four children: Marietta, Rolando, Angelo, and Victor.¹

An analysis of the archival records, military history, and geopolitical context reveals that Banzon was far more complex than the traditional archetype of a World War II hero. While his receipt of the Silver Star for the defense of the Dinalupihan-Hermosa Delay Phase Line permanently cements his status in the annals of combat history ¹, it is his post-trauma trajectory that commands the greatest analytical interest from a psychological and historical perspective.

The popular mythos surrounding his “escape” from Japanese captivity masks a much more profound psychological reality: that he survived the systematic, intentional degradation of Camp O’Donnell ¹ and immediately utilized that survival to wage a shadow war as a guerrilla.¹ His subsequent career—leading a battalion in the frozen trenches of Korea ¹, organizing covert humanitarian relief via Operation Brotherhood in the contested villages of Laos and Vietnam ³, advising a president on the mechanics of rural insurgency ¹, and finally directing a massive refugee center in the province of his birth ¹—demonstrates an extraordinary, lifelong adaptive capacity.

Banzon’s life maps the complete trajectory of the modern Philippine military experience. He was forged in the anti-colonial and anti-imperial defense of the homeland during World War II, refined his command in the international coalitions of the Korean War, and ultimately actualized his potential in the complex realms of regional diplomacy and humanitarian crisis management during the Cold War. He adopted the name “Victor Hugo” as a young man, a projection of a highly idealistic, justice-oriented identity. Over the course of seventy-seven years, through three major wars and multiple regional crises, Banzon successfully materialized the humanitarian and resilient ethos embedded within that chosen name.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. Who’s Who in Bataan – The Banzons of Bataan – 1Bataan, accessed April 24, 2026, https://1bataan.com/whos-who-in-bataan-the-banzons-of-bataan/
2. accessed April 24, 2026, https://1bataan.com/whos-who-in-bataan-the-banzons-of-bataan/#:~:text=Banzon%20was%20among%20the%20USAFFE,incarcerated%20at%20Camp%20O’Donnel.
3. CELEBRATING OUR 10TH – Mekong Circle International, accessed April 24, 2026, http://www.mekongcircle.org/Data/Publications/2014_journal/2014_journal.pdf
4. Who’s Who in Bataan – The Banzons of Bataan Part II – 1Bataan, accessed April 24, 2026, https://1bataan.com/whos-who-in-bataan-the-banzons-of-bataan-part-ii/
5. Julian Banzon – Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Banzon
6. 15 Filipino icons who shaped the nation – Gulf News, accessed April 24, 2026, https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/philippines/15-influential-filipino-heroes-who-shaped-the-nation-how-they-lived-and-died-1.500243370
7. Living legacy – DOST-STII, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.stii.dost.gov.ph/images/jdownloads/pdf_files/sntposts/2022_2Q_STPost_ONLINEv.pdf
8. The Routledge concise history of Southeast Asian writing in English 9780203874035, 020387403X, 9781780342672, 1780342675 – DOKUMEN.PUB, accessed April 24, 2026, https://dokumen.pub/the-routledge-concise-history-of-southeast-asian-writing-in-english-9780203874035-020387403x-9781780342672-1780342675.html
9. Douglas MacArthur’s escape from the Philippines – Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur%27s_escape_from_the_Philippines
10. Surrender of the Philippines | Battle of Bataan – YouTube, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YetDRYOj9uk
11. The Kingly Treasures Auction 2023 – Leon Gallery, accessed April 24, 2026, https://leon-gallery.com/pdf/TKTA_2023.pdf
12. 102nd LD SouvenirProgram | PDF | Agriculture | Foods – Scribd, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/541445115/102nd-LD-SouvenirProgram

1. Executive Summary

The capability of the United States military to deter and defeat peer adversaries is fundamentally linked to the lethality, range, and reliability of its kinetic systems. Underpinning this operational capability is the defense energetics industrial base, a highly specialized sector responsible for the chemical formulations—explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics—that provide munitions with their thrust and destructive power. For decades, the prominent role of energetic materials has been undervalued within the broader defense acquisition ecosystem. Treated largely as commoditized components rather than critical technological discriminators, the domestic production capability for these materials has severely atrophied. Consequently, the United States faces acute structural vulnerabilities across its commercial Defense Munitions Industrial Base (DMIB) and its government-owned Organic Industrial Base (OIB).

The National Energetics Plan, officially released in May 2023 by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), represents a comprehensive, systemic effort to correct this downward trajectory.¹ The plan details the specific strategic and material actions required to maintain technical superiority, efficiently transition advanced energetics into operational use, and sustain a robust industrial base capable of meeting wartime surge requirements.¹ The present strategic environment, characterized by protracted, high-intensity conventional operations in Eastern Europe and the pacing threat of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the Indo-Pacific, has exposed the brittle nature of the United States’ supply chains. This reality has highlighted a dangerous dependency on foreign-sourced critical chemicals and a domestic manufacturing infrastructure that has been heavily degraded by decades of under-investment and market consolidation.²

This report evaluates the operational framework of the National Energetics Plan, assessing its core components, the structural risks inherent in the current acquisition environment, and the probability that the plan’s strategic objectives will be met. Furthermore, it outlines the necessary statutory, cultural, and financial actions required to secure the domestic supply chain. Recent defense initiatives, such as the public-private Munitions Campus infrastructure model and the establishment of the Wartime Production Unit (WPU), indicate a significant paradigm shift toward rapid capability expansion.⁴ However, deeply entrenched bureaucratic inertia, programmatic risk aversion within acquisition offices, and inconsistent funding profiles threaten to impede the transition of next-generation high-performance materials, such as CL-20, into the active military stockpile.⁶ Ultimately, achieving the objectives of the National Energetics Plan will depend not merely on discrete capital injections, but on a holistic, sustained realignment of the entire defense capability development and acquisition ecosystem.

2. Origin and Strategic Mandate of the National Energetics Plan

The National Energetics Plan emerged from a growing consensus within the defense, intelligence, and legislative communities that the United States was falling precipitously behind peer competitors in the basic research, development, and fielding of high-performance energetic materials.¹ Mandated by prior defense authorization cycles, the plan was systematically formulated through the collaborative analytical efforts of seven senior executive-led working groups.¹

The Lifecycle Analytical Framework

These interagency working groups integrated representatives from across the military services, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE-NNSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).¹ To ensure a comprehensive assessment, the analytical methodology of the plan was organized strictly around the chronological lifecycle of weapon systems. By dividing the problem set into distinct phases—from early-stage basic research occurring in Science and Technology (S&T) Budget Activities 1, 2, and 3, through to full-scale production, operational deployment, and eventual demilitarization—the working groups were able to identify distinct friction points that have historically stranded promising chemical formulations.¹

Historically, defense planning has compartmentalized energetics development across the individual military services and various defense agencies. This siloed approach has resulted in duplicative research efforts, inefficient capital allocation, and an inability to present a unified, sustained demand signal to the commercial chemical industry.⁷ The plan specifically notes that over the last several decades, energetic materials have been taken for granted, minimized in their innovation, and treated as legacy commodities.²

The Call for a Strategic Responsible Authority

To resolve these systemic operational inefficiencies and coordinate a whole-of-government response, a central recommendation of the National Energetics Plan is the establishment of a strategic energetics responsible authority.¹ This proposed governing body is intended to conduct continuous oversight, provide top-down strategic direction, and support the overarching development of the Department of Defense’s energetics competency.¹ Without a singular, accountable entity driving the transition of advanced chemistry from the laboratory to the production line, the plan argues that the United States will remain trapped in a cycle of iterative, marginal improvements to legacy World War II-era formulations, rather than achieving the disruptive leaps in capability necessary for future combat operations.

3. Structural Vulnerabilities: The Valley of Death and Acquisition Friction

A core finding of the National Energetics Plan is that the failure to field new capabilities is rarely a failure of American scientific ingenuity; rather, it is a failure of the defense acquisition architecture. The transition of novel energetics from the laboratory into active Programs of Record (PoR) is fraught with structural hurdles, commonly referred to in defense acquisition as the “valley of death.”

Misaligned Timelines and Coordination

A persistent, structural disconnect exists between the Science and Technology communities developing novel energetics and the acquisition Program Offices responsible for fielding operational systems. The National Energetics Plan identifies that there is insufficient coordination and misaligned timelines between these two communities, which severely stifles the transition of advanced energetics into operational use.¹ The S&T community often operates on long-term discovery timelines, while Program Offices are constrained by rigid fielding schedules and immediate operational requirements. Consequently, when a new energetic material reaches a baseline level of technological maturity, there is rarely a corresponding acquisition program ready or willing to absorb it into its design baseline.

Unfunded Qualification Burdens

The regulatory, safety, and environmental qualification processes for energetic systems are uniquely rigorous compared to other defense components. Unlike software or solid-state electronics, energetic materials are inherently volatile chemical compounds designed to detonate or combust. The costs associated with certifying a new energetic material for operational use—ensuring it meets Insensitive Munitions (IM) standards, environmental regulations, and long-term storage stability requirements—are immense.¹ The National Energetics Plan highlights that these qualification costs are frequently not accounted for in initial Research and Development budgets, nor are they absorbed by the procurement budgets of acquisition programs.¹ This creates a funding vacuum, effectively disincentivizing both government researchers and commercial industry from attempting to operationalize novel materials.

Antiquated Test and Evaluation (T&E) Infrastructure

Compounding the qualification burden is the state of the physical testing infrastructure. Existing Test and Evaluation standards, methodologies, and physical infrastructure are deeply antiquated.¹ Current ranges and instrumentation are optimized for legacy materials and are often inadequate for accurately characterizing the advanced blast effects, extended range potentials, and specific target lethality mechanisms of next-generation energetics.¹ As experts from the Energetics Technology Center (ETC) point out, testing these compounds is expensive, time-consuming, and outdated; the inability to adequately test new materials acts as a hard physical barrier to moving technology from one readiness level to the next.⁸

The Cultural Impediment: Programmatic Risk Aversion

Beyond physical infrastructure and funding lines, the National Energetics Plan and corollary assessments identify a profound cultural barrier to modernization. Program Managers (PMs) and Program Executive Officers (PEOs) operate under strict cost, schedule, and performance parameters mandated by Congress and the Department of Defense. The integration of a novel energetic material into a major weapon system introduces significant technical and programmatic risk. Consequently, acquisition professionals are often unwilling to jeopardize their program’s success on transformative but unproven chemical capabilities, preferring instead to iterate on highly predictable legacy formulations.² This institutional risk aversion creates a self-reinforcing cycle of technological stagnation that is highly resistant to top-down policy directives.

4. Market Consolidation and DMIB Fragility

The commercial Defense Munitions Industrial Base (DMIB) and the government-owned Organic Industrial Base (OIB) are currently characterized by systemic fragility, lacking the necessary elasticity to respond to the wartime surge requirements expected in a near-peer conflict.² A comprehensive assessment by the Army Science Board revealed that the true state of the munitions industrial base has been obscured for decades by faulty planning assumptions and a prioritization of peacetime economic efficiency over strategic resilience.²

The Erosion of the Industrial Base

Reviving the defense industrial base requires confronting the reality that the United States’ overall industrial capacity has grown at a slower rate than the broader economy, with manufacturing accounting for just 10 percent of GDP in 2024, down from 16 percent in 1997.⁹ A considerable share of this industrial decline has been concentrated in the defense sector, which saw defense-related employment fall by 2.1 million between 1985 and 2021.⁹ Decades of under-investment have left the industrial base strained, overly consolidated, and at high risk of failing to keep pace with modern threats in a protracted conflict.⁹

Market Consolidation and Single Points of Failure

The defense energetics sector, in particular, is a highly consolidated and brittle market. Over the past three decades, more than 50 major mergers and acquisitions have reduced the number of prime contractors operating within the DMIB to just five primary entities.² This hyper-consolidation at the prime contractor level has cascaded down the lower tiers of the supply chain, squeezing out mid-sized chemical manufacturers and specialized component vendors.

The result is a supply chain riddled with critical bottlenecks. The Army Science Board estimates that there are over one hundred single points of failure throughout the munitions supply chain.² When a single commercial vendor represents the entirety of the domestic production capacity for a specific precursor chemical, any disruption—whether due to natural disaster, financial insolvency, regulatory shutdowns, or targeted adversarial cyber-attacks—can immediately halt the production of multiple critical weapon systems across all branches of the military.

To systematically understand and map these vulnerabilities, the Department of Defense relies heavily on the Critical Energetic Materials Working Group (CEMWG).¹⁰ The CEMWG continuously monitors the supply chain to identify the most critical chemicals required for kinetic production, using this prioritized intelligence to inform fiscal year funding, direct Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III investments, and guide strategic stockpiling decisions.¹⁰

5. Supply Chain Fragility and Foreign Dependency

A paramount vulnerability explicitly identified by the National Energetics Plan, the Army Science Board, and subsequent defense audits is the heavy reliance on foreign sources—primarily the People’s Republic of China—for critical energetic precursors and strategic minerals.²

The geopolitical implications of this reliance are severe and immediate. Upstream chemical chokepoints allow hostile or competitive actors the theoretical capacity to control, restrict, or entirely embargo chemical precursors, thereby severely restricting the United States’ ability to manufacture finished munitions during a crisis scenario.¹² This vulnerability is compounded by the Defense Department’s historical reluctance to stockpile precursor materials, relying instead on “just-in-time” commercial logistics models that are highly efficient in peacetime but fail catastrophically under the stress of wartime consumption rates.²

Recent exogenous variables—most notably the heavy expenditure of munitions in Ukraine and the accelerating military modernization of the PRC—have forced legislators and defense planners to recognize that supply chain resilience is a core component of deterrence.³

To counter these vulnerabilities, the Department of Defense is deploying substantial capital to stand up domestic manufacturing for a wide array of specialized precursor chemicals identified by the CEMWG and the broader Energetic Materials Technology Working Group (EMTWG).¹³

The table below outlines a selection of critical chemicals and recent Department of Defense funding awards intended to reshore their production capabilities, reflecting a $192.5 million initiative to establish domestic manufacturing ¹³:

Manufacturer / Entity	Critical Chemicals / Materials Funded	Award Value	Award Date
Lacamas Laboratories	4-Nitroanisole, Diphenylamine (DPA), Ethyl Centralite, Methyl Centralite, Salicylic Acid, Sebacic Acid, Trichlorobenzene	$86.0 Million	December 2023
CoorsTek Inc.	Boron Carbide	$49.6 Million	December 2023
GOEX / Estes Energetics	Barium Nitrate, Potassium Chlorate, Potassium Nitrate, Potassium Perchlorate, Potassium Sulfate, Strontium Nitrate, Strontium Oxalate, Strontium Peroxide	$13.0 Million	September 2023

These targeted investments signify a departure from passive market reliance. By directly subsidizing the capital expenditures required to build chemical manufacturing plants, the government is attempting to rapidly reconstruct the foundational layers of the energetics supply chain that were outsourced over the previous three decades.

6. The Competitive Disadvantage: CL-20 and the Shifting Balance of Power

The consequences of structural vulnerabilities, unfunded testing mandates, and cultural risk aversion are most starkly evident in the United States’ failure to transition advanced high-explosives into the operational stockpile. While the United States has prioritized safety, stability, and cost reduction over pure lethality since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, peer adversaries have aggressively pursued basic research in high-performance energetics.⁶

The Trajectory of CL-20

The energetic material hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane, universally referred to within the industry as CL-20, serves as the primary case study for this technological lag. Developed in 1987 at the United States Navy’s China Lake research and engineering facility, CL-20 offers profound improvements in explosive performance over legacy materials like RDX and HMX.⁶ It provides greater metal-pushing capabilities, enhanced blast pressures, and increased propellant specific impulse.¹⁵ The widespread incorporation of CL-20 could substantially enhance the kinetic range, terminal lethality, stealth profile, and overall survivability of modern precision-strike and missile systems.¹⁶

Despite being an American invention with clear, validated operational benefits, CL-20 has only seen highly specialized, limited application and has not been transitioned into United States weapon systems at a large scale.⁶ The shift in national munitions priorities after the Cold War redirected focus away from maximizing lethality and toward enhancing Insensitive Munitions (IM) compliance to reduce accidental detonations. This policy shift, combined with a lack of specific, centralized funding to mature the synthesis process of CL-20 for cost-effective industrial production, means that US forces continue to rely on baseline energetic materials that largely trace their developmental origins to the Second World War.⁶

Adversarial Advancements

Conversely, the defense industrial bases of the PRC and the Russian Federation have recognized the strategic asymmetric advantage provided by novel energetics. Unburdened by the same degree of peacetime commercial market dynamics, state-directed scientists in these nations have aggressively pursued the industrialization of CL-20 and similar compounds.⁶ By experimenting with and producing more powerful energetic materials at scale, the PRC has theoretically enabled its baseline munitions to travel longer distances and achieve greater target destruction upon impact.³ This advancement directly challenges US operational stand-off distances, particularly in the vast maritime expanses of the Indo-Pacific theater, where missile range is the paramount tactical variable.³

Legislative and RDT&E Responses

Recognizing this critical shortfall as a matter of national security, recent defense authorization legislation has mandated direct intervention. Congress directed a pilot program to aggressively integrate CL-20 as the primary energetic material in selected weapon systems to empirically evaluate the improvements in performance against the integration costs.¹⁶

To support these mandates, the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget for Fiscal Year 2026 includes specific, expanded allocations. The Joint Munitions Technology program (PE 0602000D8Z) is funded to conduct performance evaluations of CL-20 based explosives and develop scaled-up process methodologies to validate applications in targeted warhead and propulsion systems.¹⁵ Furthermore, Lethality Technology programs are advancing computational chemistry tools to predict the influence of CL-20 on structures and critical logistical targets.¹⁸ However, the physical execution of these mandates has faced friction rooted in institutional bureaucracy, underscoring the extreme difficulty of altering long-standing acquisition baselines.¹⁷

7. Strategic Mitigation: Infrastructure Modernization and the Munitions Campus

To address the physical constraints of the industrial base and bypass the capital limitations of commercial industry, the Department of Defense is executing a major strategic shift. Rather than relying solely on isolated, bespoke facility construction, the government is pioneering collaborative, public-private infrastructure models. The flagship initiative in this strategic evolution is the “Munitions Campus.”

The Hub-and-Spoke Ecosystem

Led by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy through its Manufacturing Capability Expansion and Investment Prioritization (MCEIP) office, the Munitions Campus is designed around a novel “hub-and-spoke” architectural model.⁸

At the center of this industrial hub are capital-intensive, government-supported testing and evaluation facilities. Because testing volatile chemical compounds is a dangerous, highly regulated, and prohibitively expensive necessity for transitioning technology, these centralized facilities absorb the heaviest capital burdens.⁸ The “spokes” of this ecosystem consist of various private defense companies—ranging from agile, venture-backed start-ups to established prime contractors—that co-locate on the campus to utilize these shared, specialized tools.¹⁹ By centralizing the testing and regulatory infrastructure, the Munitions Campus model drastically lowers the barrier to entry for commercial firms, reduces their internal capital expenditure requirements, and dramatically accelerates the timeline from early-stage prototype to full-scale operational production.⁵

Operationalizing the Model: The Indiana National Security Industrial Hub

The Munitions Campus concept successfully transitioned from a theoretical policy framework to physical reality in early 2026. On February 19, 2026, the American Center for Manufacturing & Innovation (ACMI) officially broke ground on the first National Security Industrial Hub (NSIH) in Bloomfield, Indiana.⁵ Strategically located adjacent to the Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane Division (NSWC Crane) and the Crane Army Ammunition Activity, the campus is supported by a foundational $75 million Defense Production Act Title III award from the Department of Defense, aimed at stimulating private capital for specialty facilities.⁵

The anchor tenant for this expansive 1,100-acre development is Prometheus Energetics, a specialized merchant supplier of solid rocket motors (SRMs) and energetic compounds.²¹ Prometheus was established as a strategic joint venture between United States-based Kratos Defense & Security Solutions and Israel’s RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems.²¹ Backed by an initial $175 million private capital commitment, Prometheus is constructing its corporate headquarters and main SRM manufacturing facility on 600 acres of the campus site.²¹

Projected to reach initial operational capacity in 2027, the Prometheus facility aims to close critical gaps in America’s propulsion manufacturing base.²³ By leveraging Kratos’ expertise in advanced propulsion and RAFAEL’s combat-proven energetics technologies (utilized in systems like Iron Dome and David’s Sling), the joint venture adapts advanced energetics for US platforms under secure, domestic control.²¹ This project perfectly exemplifies the strategic intent of the National Energetics Plan: utilizing targeted government funding to attract and stimulate significant private capital investment, thereby clustering industrial capacity in one location to enable faster, highly resilient, and cost-effective supply chains.⁴

Recapitalizing the Organic Industrial Base (OIB)

In parallel with expanding the commercial sector via the Munitions Campus, the Department of Defense is executing a massive, long-term recapitalization of its government-owned Organic Industrial Base. The Army has initiated a comprehensive 15-year modernization plan for its ammunition plants and depots, designed to bring aging, Cold War-era infrastructure up to modern safety and efficiency standards while significantly expanding surge capacity.²

A critical focal point of this effort is the $400 million investment directed at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant.²⁷ This specific modernization project targets the expansion of nitrocellulose production capacity. Nitrocellulose is a fundamental precursor required for almost all conventional propellants and explosives. By restoring organic capacity for this vital priority chemical, the Department aims to directly mitigate the severe strategic risks associated with procuring explosive precursors from external, potentially vulnerable sources.²⁷ The estimated resource requirements for broader Army ammunition plant modernization underscore the immense scale of the necessary recapitalization, with projected funding needs of $644 million in FY 2025, scaling up to $863 million in FY 2026, and reaching $1.29 billion by FY 2027.²⁷

8. Bureaucratic Reorganization and Implementation Vectors

Executing a plan as complex as the National Energetics Plan requires navigating a deeply entrenched bureaucratic environment. Recognizing that existing structures were insufficient to drive rapid change, the Department of Defense has established multiple cross-functional entities designed to break down institutional silos, streamline acquisition processes, and expedite capability fielding.

Key Organizational Entities in the Energetics Ecosystem

The current interagency and departmental ecosystem responsible for tracking, funding, and transitioning energetics capabilities involves several highly specialized groups and offices.⁴

Organization / Entity	Primary Strategic Mandate	Operational Role regarding Energetics	Source Identifiers
Critical Energetic Materials Working Group (CEMWG)	Supply chain intelligence and prioritization.	Identifies and monitors the most critical chemicals required for kinetic production; directly informs DPA and IBAS funding.	10
Joint Production Accelerator Cell (JPAC)	Mitigation of industrial bottlenecks.	Provides deep analytical focus to identify constraints in the defense industrial base and recommends rapid interventions for critical munitions.	4
Wartime Production Unit (WPU)	Acquisition acceleration and industrial surge.	Merges JPAC’s analytics with specialized “deal teams” to manage urgent acquisition priorities, optimizing corporate-wide agreements to scale capacity.	4
Joint Energetic Transition Office (JETO)	Coordination of novel energetics integration.	Authorized by Congress to oversee and force the transition of novel energetic materials into weapon systems; currently navigating bureaucratic delays.	17
Energetic Materials Technology Working Group (EMTWG)	International and joint-service technical collaboration.	Successor to the IMTS; prepares advanced energetics and insensitive munitions for high-intensity warfare, coordinating technical standards with allies.	13

The Role of JPAC and the Wartime Production Unit (WPU)

A critical development in accelerating production is the evolution of the Joint Production Accelerator Cell (JPAC). Originally designed to provide high-level analysis to leadership regarding operational requirements and material shortfalls, JPAC’s mission is being integrated into a more aggressive framework.²⁷ The Department is combining JPAC’s analytical focus on mitigating production bottlenecks with specialized contracting teams to create the Wartime Production Unit (WPU).⁴ The WPU is explicitly tasked with managing the direct support of urgent acquisition production priorities, shifting the procurement culture away from peacetime efficiency and toward a “war footing” capable of surging American manufacturing capacity at the speed of relevance.⁴

9. Funding Alignments and Legislative Support

Congressional intent has largely aligned with the strategic priorities established in the National Energetics Plan, as evidenced by specific programmatic increases and reprogramming actions across recent appropriation cycles. For fiscal years 2024 through 2026, consistent budget enhancements have been directed toward energetics resilience and basic research.

Key discretionary funding increases explicitly labeled in execution and reprogramming documents demonstrate a multi-pronged approach to the problem:

• An $8 million direct programmatic increase specifically designated to support the execution of the “national energetics plan”.³⁰
• A $4 million targeted increase for “sustainable energetic materials manufacturing,” emphasizing the need for modern, environmentally compliant, domestic production methodologies that do not rely on toxic legacy processes.³⁰
• A $19 million program increase specifically targeting “energetics capacity for solid rocket motors,” reflecting the urgent, high-volume demand generated by advanced kinetic systems like precision guided multiple launch rocket systems.³²
• Targeted RDT&E increases, including a $4 million program increase for “advanced energetics for deeply buried targets” in FY26.²⁹

Furthermore, broad legislative efforts to maintain force readiness, such as the use of authorities under Section 614 and Section 621 of Public Law 118-131, provide millions in incentive bonuses to retain the necessary personnel and warfighter readiness required to operate these advanced systems.³² Legislative frameworks, such as the support voiced during the debate of the “One Big Beautiful Bill for America,” indicate a continued willingness to deploy significant federal funding—potentially including an additional $150 million—to bolster efforts like the Munitions Campus.²⁵

Under the purview of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy, the MCEIP office obligated massive capital in FY 2024, deploying $533.98 million through the Defense Production Act and $892.07 million through the IBAS program for kinetic capabilities and critical materials.²⁷ These investments represent the tangible financial backing necessary to transition the objectives of the National Energetics Plan from theoretical policy frameworks into active, pouring-concrete industrial capacity.²⁷

10. Probability of Success and Systemic Risks

Evaluating the true probability that the United States will successfully meet the objectives outlined in the National Energetics Plan requires weighing substantial positive momentum against deeply entrenched institutional and structural headwinds.

Tailwinds: Indicators of Probable Success

The likelihood of success is strongly bolstered by an unprecedented convergence of strategic necessity, intelligence validation, and political will. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have provided undeniable, empirical evidence regarding the extreme burn-rates of modern munitions in high-intensity combat, shattering previous peacetime assumptions regarding stockpile sufficiency.² This undeniable reality has forced a bipartisan acknowledgment of the crisis, resulting in the robust funding allocations detailed previously.

The rapid materialization of the Munitions Campus in Indiana serves as a powerful leading indicator that the Department of Defense is capable of executing novel, agile acquisition strategies that successfully attract substantial private capital.⁵ By securing entities like Prometheus Energetics, the government is successfully sharing the immense capital risk of establishing heavy manufacturing infrastructure. Furthermore, the systematic, data-driven identification of supply chain vulnerabilities by the CEMWG demonstrates a mature analytical capability that is now actively directing DPA Title III funds to close specific, identified chemical gaps, rather than relying on generalized, untargeted industrial subsidies.¹⁰

Headwinds: Systemic Risks to Implementation

Conversely, the risks to the National Energetics Plan are predominantly cultural, bureaucratic, and fiscal. The notable delay in fully operationalizing the Joint Energetic Transition Office (JETO) suggests that inter-service rivalries, jurisdictional disputes, and general organizational inertia continue to hamper centralized oversight.¹⁷ If the Department cannot successfully enforce a unified demand signal across all military branches, the commercial chemical industry will remain highly hesitant to invest their own capital in unproven formulations.

Additionally, the acquisition culture within the Pentagon remains fundamentally risk-averse. Unless the institutional incentive structures for Program Managers and PEOs are radically altered to reward the successful transition of high-performance materials like CL-20—rather than exclusively prioritizing cost containment, risk avoidance, and schedule adherence on legacy systems—the technological gap with peer adversaries will persist.²

Finally, the defense industrial base remains highly sensitive to fluctuations in the federal budget cycle. Continuing Resolutions (CRs) and unpredictable appropriation timelines severely disrupt the long-term capital planning necessary for chemical manufacturing, which inherently requires sustained, multi-year investment horizons.

11. Strategic Imperatives: What Must Be Done

To ensure the National Energetics Plan successfully achieves its mandate of restoring United States technical superiority and deep industrial resilience, the Department of Defense and Congress must execute a series of targeted, sustained interventions.

1. Mandate and Fund Flexible Pilot Plants

As heavily recommended by the Army Science Board, the establishment of “flexible pilot plant lines” is a vital operational imperative.² The transition from laboratory-scale chemical synthesis (producing grams of a new material) to full-scale industrial production (producing tons safely and reliably) is a highly volatile and complex engineering challenge.⁸ Flexible, government-funded pilot facilities would allow the defense enterprise to aggressively de-risk new explosive syntheses and mature advanced manufacturing technologies before requiring commercial prime contractors to scale them, bridging a critical gap in the “valley of death”.²

2. Institute Multi-Year Procurement Authority for Energetics

The commercial chemical industry cannot logically justify the massive capital expenditures required to build specialized, hazardous energetics facilities based on unpredictable, single-year Department of Defense contracts. Congress must aggressively authorize and utilize multi-year procurement (MYP) deals for munitions, particularly those with funding caps exceeding $500 million, to establish minimum sustaining rates for critical production lines.² This approach provides the long-term demand predictability necessary for the private sector to confidently invest in workforce development, facility modernization, and supply chain redundancy.⁴ The Department’s strategy to stabilize demand signals via the Wartime Production Unit is a necessary step in this direction.⁴

3. Overhaul Test and Evaluation (T&E) Infrastructure

The modernization of energetic materials must be tightly coupled with the modernization of the environments in which they are tested. Current T&E standards are antiquated and often fail to capture the multi-domain effects of next-generation kinetic systems.¹ The Department must continue to aggressively fund scalable, operationally realistic test environments—such as the Enhanced Environment for Multi Domain Operations Cybersecurity Testing (EEMDO)—that can accurately validate the performance, terminal lethality, and cyber-resilience of new formulations under highly contested conditions.³⁶ Furthermore, the Munitions Campus model should be replicated to establish additional regional testing hubs, further eliminating the testing bottleneck for emerging commercial industry players.¹⁹

4. Empower Centralized Energetics Governance

The core recommendation of the National Energetics Plan—to establish a strategic energetics responsible authority—must be fully and aggressively realized.¹ The Joint Energetic Transition Office (JETO) must be untangled from bureaucratic delays, elevated in its reporting structure, and granted the statutory authority and dedicated funding lines required to force the integration of novel energetics across the joint force.¹⁷ This authority must act as a single point of accountability for tracking the lifecycle of energetics from basic S&T research through to the final integration into major weapon systems, ensuring that capabilities like CL-20 are no longer stranded by programmatic risk aversion.⁶

5. Secure Upstream Chemical Supply Chains

While the high-profile efforts to establish domestic production of finished energetics and solid rocket motors are critical, the vulnerability of upstream raw materials remains acutely dangerous. The Department of Defense, guided by the continuous data streams of the Critical Energetic Materials Working Group (CEMWG), must expand its strategy to secure alternative global sources or develop deep domestic synthesis capabilities for foundational elements. This includes securing the supply lines for titanium, specialized binders like HTPB, rare earth elements, and high-grade nitrocellulose precursors.² The utilization of DPA Title III and IBAS authorities must be continuously aggressive, proactive, and targeted to successfully isolate the United States’ supply network from reliance on the PRC and other strategic competitors.³

The successful implementation of the National Energetics Plan represents a vital inflection point for the defense industrial base. The current alignment of deep analytical rigor, sustained congressional funding, and highly innovative public-private infrastructure models provides a viable, strategic pathway to mitigating the severe vulnerabilities currently inherent in the munitions supply chain. Executing this complex industrial transition is a non-negotiable prerequisite for the long-term sustainment of the nation’s kinetic deterrence capabilities.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. NATIONAL ENERGETICS PLAN – National Armaments Consortium, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.nacconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/National_Energetics-Plan_DRAFT_DISTRO_A.pdf
2. Surge Capacity in the Defense Munitions Industrial Base, accessed April 25, 2026, https://asb.army.mil/Portals/105/Reports/2020s/ASB%20FY%2023%20DMIB%20Report%20(E).pdf?ver=jZRw9v2VxCIqIvsBFsDG4g%3D%3D
3. Congress Adds Energetics, Critical Chemical Provisions to Defense Bill, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/8/17/congress-adds-energetics-critical-chemical-provisions-to-defense-bill
4. Acquisition Transformation Strategy – Department of War, accessed April 25, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Nov/10/2003819441/-1/-1/1/ACQUISITION-TRANSFORMATION-STRATEGY.PDF
5. ACMI Breaks Ground on First National Manufacturing Campus in …, accessed April 25, 2026, https://acmigroup.com/2026/02/20/acmi-breaks-ground-on-first-national-manufacturing-campus-in-indiana-pioneering-a-new-model-for-american-defense-production/
6. The US is losing the race for better munitions. Here’s how to help. – Breaking Defense, accessed April 25, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/06/the-us-is-losing-the-race-for-better-munitions-heres-how-to-help/
7. Indian Wells Valley 2000 Committee China Lake Presentation – UNT Digital Library, accessed April 25, 2026, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc26870/m2/1/high_res_d/BRAC-1995_00375.pdf
8. Hoover Digest Winter 2024 Overview | PDF | Inflation | Sovereign Default – Scribd, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/698240053/Hoover-Digest-2024-No-1-Fall
9. Strengthening the United States’ Defense Industrial Base | The White House, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ERP-2026-8.-Strengthening-the-United-States-Defense-Industrial-Base.pdf
10. Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.businessdefense.gov/docs/resources/FY2021-Industrial-Capabilities-Report-to-Congress.pdf
11. Securing Defense-Critical Supply Chains – Department of War, accessed April 25, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/24/2002944158/-1/-1/1/DOD-EO-14017-REPORT-SECURING-DEFENSE-CRITICAL-SUPPLY-CHAINS.PDF
12. Chapter 6: Assessing the U.S. Indo-Pacific Munitions System | The Heritage Foundation, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.heritage.org/tidalwave/chapters/chapter-6-assessing-the-us-indo-pacific-munitions-system
13. Energetic Materials Technology Working Group – IMEMG, accessed April 25, 2026, https://imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/PS2-C_Zember_EMTWG_2024.pdf
14. Energetic Chemicals – NAC – National Armaments Consortium, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.nacconsortium.org/working-groups/energetic-materials/
15. Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates – Justification Book, accessed April 25, 2026, https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2026/budget_justification/pdfs/03_RDT_and_E/RDTE_OSD_PB_2026.pdf
16. STREAMLINING PROCUREMENT FOR EFFECTIVE EXECUTION …, accessed April 25, 2026, https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._3838_fy26_ndaa_as_reported_to_the_house.pdf
17. Wittman: Modern Conflicts Demand Modern Munitions—Not …, accessed April 25, 2026, https://armedservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5198
18. Budget Activity 2 – Justification Book – U.S. Army, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2027/Discretionary%20Budget/rdte/RDTE%20-%20Vol%201%20-%20Budget%20Activity%202.pdf
19. Pioneering Progress: How a Munitions Campus Propels the US Defense Industrial Base Forward | Hudson Institute, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.hudson.org/defense-strategy/pioneering-progress-how-munitions-campus-propels-us-defense-industrial-base-nadia-schadlow
20. Department of War Announces Groundbreaking of New Munitions Campus in Indiana, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4411124/department-of-war-announces-groundbreaking-of-new-munitions-campus-in-indiana/
21. Indiana Breaks Ground on New Munitions Campus to Support U.S. Defense Capabilities, accessed April 25, 2026, https://iedc.in.gov/events/news/details/2026/02/19/indiana-breaks-ground-on-new-munitions-campus-to-support-u.s.-defense-capabilities
22. Prometheus Energetics, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.prometheusenergetics.com/
23. Kratos & RAFAEL Establish Prometheus Energetics Joint Venture, a U.S.-Based Merchant Supplier of Solid Rocket Motors, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.kratosdefense.com/newsroom/kratos-rafael-establish-prometheus-energetics-joint-venture-a-u-s-based-merchant-supplier-of-solid-rocket-motors
24. Prometheus Energetics to Establish an Approximate 550 Acre Solid Rocket Motor and Munitions Production Facility in Indiana as Part of DOD’s Munitions Campus Pilot Program Led by the American Center for Manufacturing & Innovation – ACMI Group, accessed April 25, 2026, https://acmigroup.com/2025/03/07/acmi-prometheus-in/
25. Chairman Wicker and Sen. Banks Commend Groundbreaking of New Munitions Campus in Indiana, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2026/3/chairman-wicker-and-sen-banks-commend-groundbreaking-of-new-munitions-campus-in-indiana
26. Prometheus Energetics Breaks Ground on New Solid Rocket Motor Manufacturing Campus in Indiana – PR Newswire, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/prometheus-energetics-breaks-ground-on-new-solid-rocket-motor-manufacturing-campus-in-indiana-302693326.html
27. NDIS Implementation Plan ii – GovInfo, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo234260/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo234260.pdf
28. GAO-25-107016, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: Explosives Program Is Mitigating Some Supply Chain Risks but Should Take Additional Actions to Enhance Resiliency, accessed April 25, 2026, https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107016/index.html
29. FY26 DEF JES – Senate Appropriations Committee, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_def_jes.pdf
30. department of defense dd 1414 base for reprogramming actions division a of public law 118-47, department, accessed April 25, 2026, https://comptroller.war.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/FY_2024_DD_1414_Base_for_Reprogramming_Actions.pdf
31. Congressional Record – GovInfo, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2024-03-22/pdf/CREC-2024-03-22-bk2.pdf
32. DIVISION -DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024 The following is an explanation of the effects of this Act, which makes, accessed April 25, 2026, https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/Division%20A%20Defense.pdf
33. Calendar No. 470 – Senate Appropriations Committee, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/download/fy25-fsgg-senate-report
34. Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 51 (Friday, March 22, 2024) – GovInfo, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2024-03-22/html/CREC-2024-03-22-pt2-PgH1501.htm
35. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2025) – GovInfo, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2025-02-25/html/CREC-2025-02-25-pt1-PgH791-3.htm
36. SERVICEMEMBER QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 R E P O R T COMMITTEE ON A, accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.nationalguard.mil/Portals/31/Documents/PersonalStaff/LegislativeLiaison/FY25/FY25%20NDAA%20Report%20(H.R.%208070).pdf