ability

Concerned with Ukraine’s ability to protect itself from the onslaught of Russian missile and drone attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is demanding to know if the Pentagon can increase deliveries of Patriot air defense system interceptors to that war-torn nation. This comes against the backdrop of extreme U.S. and allied demand on dwindling supplies of these weapons. 

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. 

“The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies.

SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.”

“Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states.

We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

• “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”

• “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”

• “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”

• “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”

• “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”

• “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and

• “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.”

The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response.

TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” 

Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000.

“Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies.

The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran.

Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times.

Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran. 

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported.

Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].

“Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.”

Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted.

You can see a video of one of those strikes below.

“Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, contradicting an earlier federal court ruling upholding the fee hike.

The administration announced the much-higher fee as a way of preventing foreign workers from taking American jobs.

But U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston sided with 20 states and struck down the visa policy, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin wrote.

H-1B visas are meant for high-skill jobs that are difficult to find American workers to fill. Deep-pocketed technology companies are the biggest users, with nearly three-quarters of approvals going to workers from India. The states argued that using the H-1B program to fill vacancies for much-needed doctors and teachers was already difficult before the higher fee.

Most H-1B visa applications cost several thousand dollars before the announced increase set off a wave of panic among confused employers, students and workers in the United States and abroad and led to several lawsuits, including in Boston.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also sued, in federal court in Washington, D.C., and has appealed a denial of a summary judgment against the fee hike. That left the higher fee in effect, at least until September, when it is scheduled to expire. Monday’s ruling is also a summary judgment, to the opposite effect. Still another lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco, by religious groups and labor organizations, setting up the possibility of divided rulings in three appellate court circuits.

The states argued that the policy impedes their ability to hire primary and secondary school educators and to staff public colleges and universities, will stymie academic research and will lead to a decline in medical workers.

“The Proclamation makes various overtures to domestic economic policy goals to justify the unprecedented $100,000 fee,” plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. “But the Proclamation gives no indication that the President gave any consideration to how the fee would affect Plaintiff States and their ability to provide their residents access to education, healthcare, and other basic human needs.”

A Department of Homeland Security statement said the agency disagrees with “this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

“Under President Trump and Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin, our immigration system is being reformed to serve American citizens, American workers, and American families and to preserve our national identity — not to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs, commit crimes, burden our welfare system, and erode our cultural and social fabric.”

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden says she is confident in her company’s ability to deliver next-generation carrier-based fighters to the U.S. Navy if it is picked as the winner of the F/A-XX competition. The U.S. Navy’s top officer said yesterday that the goal was to award the F/A-XX contract by August of this year, but also that one unnamed contractor in the running “really can’t deliver in the timeframe we need it.”

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle offered his latest comments on F/A-XX yesterday in response to a direct question from TWZ at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition. The Pentagon had tried to put the Navy’s future fighter ambitions on hold last year, arguing that the U.S. industrial base did not have sufficient capacity to support work on two sixth-generation combat jets simultaneously. Boeing won the contract to build what is now called the F-47 for the U.S. Air Force in March 2025. Boeing is the only other company known to be in the running now for F/A-XX. Last year, it was reported that Lockheed Martin had been eliminated from the competition.

Late yesterday, Northrop Grumman also released a new computer-generated F/A-XX promotional video, seen below. You can read our analysis of what is seen therein here.

“We do expect the Department [of the Navy] to make an award selection in the third quarter,” Northrop Grumman’s Warden said during a routine earning call today in response to a direct question about Adm. Caudle’s remarks. “We are confident in our ability to deliver our solution to the Navy.”

She did not explicitly confirm or deny that the CNO had been referring to Northrop Grumman when he mentioned a contractor’s inability to meet the Navy’s schedule needs on F/A-XX.

“We and our suppliers are prepared to bring the workforce and infrastructure that’s needed to execute the program, and our track record on B-21 demonstrates that ability to deliver a complex aircraft on schedule,” Warden added. “Regarding the financials, we’d expect upside to the sales and earnings from our current guidance, if we are entrusted to build the F/A-XX, and it would be a top priority for our company to do so.”

Air Force officials, as well as members of Congress, regularly describe the B-21 Raider bomber as a model acquisition program that has been able to keep on schedule and budget despite at least some hurdles along the way. Earlier this year, Northrop Grumman reached an agreement with the Air Force to accelerate B-21 production.

It’s also worth remembering that Northrop Grumman withdrew in 2023 from the Air Force competition that would lead to the F-47. The company framed the decision at the time as a voluntary one.

“I’ll just say that, when I noted we have other opportunities we are pursuing, I won’t disclose at this point exactly what those are until a little more information comes out,” Warden, who was also CEO at that time, said when announcing the withdrawal, which was widely seen as a reference to F/A-XX. “You could assume that if we feel we’re well-positioned, and the government is appropriately balancing risk and reward, as I said that that would be a program we would pursue.”

Former top Air Force officials subsequently said that Northrop Grumman’s bid had been on the verge of getting cut.

As mentioned, industrial base capacity questions have swirled around F/A-XX. The Pentagon had tried to effectively shelve the Navy’s next-generation fighter program in its proposed budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year. At the time, a senior U.S. defense official explicitly said that the decision was “due to our belief that the industrial base can only handle going fast on one program at this time, and the presidential priority to go all in on F-47, and get that program right.”

Congress later intervened to appropriate some $1.69 billion in funding to keep F/A-XX moving ahead in the 2026 Fiscal Year.

“I will tell you, we, Northrop Grumman, are ready to execute F/A-XX,” Tom Jones, President of Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Systems sector, had also told TWZ and other outlets in response to a question about industrial base capacity in relation to the program back in December. “We’re looking to try and make sure that the customer community knows that we believe that we’re ready to go and we can execute it.”

Boeing Defense and Space CEO Steve Parker had also pushed back on the assertion that the U.S. industrial base could not support F-47 and F/A-XX at the same time last year. The company’s pitch for the Navy’s program appears to be a navalized adaptation of the F-47.

“The Air Force has got a lot of demand on the system. The Navy’s got a lot of demand,” Adm. Caudle had also said yesterday. “So there was, you know, a check twice, cut once, kind of mentality here on this decision. And now there, I think we’re all on the same page on the reason why the hard look needed to be done. I’m good with it.”

Questions about the overall future of F/A-XX do remain, despite clear support from top Navy leaders like Caudle and Congress. The Navy looks set to request just over $140 million for the program in Fiscal Year 2027. This is a very meager sum, especially for a program of this magnitude. In contrast, the Air Force is seeking $5 billion in additional funding for F-47. Billions of dollars have already been appropriated for the Air Force’s next-generation fighter effort.

The Pentagon and the individual services are rolling out more details about their annual budget proposals today, which could offer more insights into the plans now for F/A-XX in the coming years. Securing the contract to build the Navy’s next-generation fighter is still likely to be an important win for whichever company the service selects in the end.

UPDATE: 4/22/2026 –

The U.S. Navy has issued a statement regarding Adm. Caudle’s comments earlier this week, which is as follows:

“During a question-and-answer session at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle was asked about the Navy’s sixth-generation strike fighter program (F/A-XX). Adm. Caudle emphasized that the Navy’s priority is ensuring through due diligence the selected vendor can deliver the required capability on the timeline needed by the fleet while also considering broader industrial base capacity. Any reference to ‘a specific offeror’ was intended as a general anecdotal comment and was not directed at any vendors currently under consideration.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com