Alternatives

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday narrowly approved President Reagan’s request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas–the first affirmative vote by Congress in three years on an aid package for the rebels that includes military assistance.

The 53-47 vote was a significant victory for the President, who conducted a tireless lobbying drive for his request and saw it narrowly rejected only a week ago by the Democratic-controlled House. The White House hopes that the Senate vote will help stimulate a reversal in the House, where the proposal will be reconsidered in mid-April.

Not since 1983, when Congress approved covert aid as part of the fiscal 1984 defense budget, has either chamber voted for military aid to the contras, as the rebels are called. Sentiment against such assistance rose sharply in early 1984 after it was learned that the CIA had secretly mined Nicaraguan harbors.

A Reassuring Signal

En route to his mountaintop retreat near Santa Barbara at the time of the vote, the President declared that the Senate action would “send a profoundly reassuring signal to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and to Nicaragua’s threatened neighbors.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, hailed Thursday’s vote as a “good victory” for the President. “This is a very important issue for him–having spent two weeks turning heaven and earth to get this result,” he said.

But Democrats insisted that the narrow margin did not constitute an endorsement of Reagan’s Central American policy. “The vote was so close you can’t call it a victory for the Administration’s policy here in a body that his party controls,” Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) said.

Eleven Senate Democrats voted with Reagan, but he lost 11 Republicans. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) voted with the majority; Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted against the measure. Among the Democrats supporting Reagan was Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who earlier had opposed contra aid and is believed to be preparing to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.

Senate Democrats failed in their effort to withhold military aid for a brief period while forcing Reagan to seek bilateral negotiations with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. A Democratic alternative authored by Sasser failed by a 67-33 vote, and another proposal by Cranston calling for bilateral talks was rejected, 66 to 34.

Warnings of Another Vietnam

Advocates of bilateral talks frequently warned that Reagan’s more belligerent approach was leading the nation into another Vietnam.

“It’s time to know where we are going in Central America before we find ourselves with U.S. troops on the battlefield and body bags coming home once again,” Sasser said. “We say negotiate first. This Administration owes that to the American people. This Administration owes that to our brave young men who will be called upon to fight and die in Nicaragua unless peace is achieved.”

Although the President was forced to make a few additional concessions to gain a majority, the package approved by the Senate was not significantly different from the compromise that Reagan offered voluntarily a week ago as an executive order in his unsuccessful effort to win House approval.

The measure would provide $25 million to the contras immediately and release $15 million every 90 days thereafter with the understanding that the President would search for a diplomatic solution during that period. With the first allotment of money, the contras would be permitted to buy surface-to-air missiles to use against Nicaraguan helicopters.

No offensive weapons for the contras would be funded until July 1, and then only after the President determines that the conflict cannot be solved by diplomacy. At least $30 million of the money would be used for humanitarian purposes, $3 million of it for human rights programs.

Direct Talks Not Required

Under the Senate plan, the President is not required to seek direct bilateral talks unless the Sandinistas are willing to negotiate with the contras as well–something the Nicaraguan government has declined to do. Reagan staunchly refused to agree to talks without contras involvement, even though it would have won him broad bipartisan support for the aid package.

Despite Reagan’s opposition, Lugar insisted that the Administration’s special envoy, Philip C. Habib, eventually would go to Managua seeking talks. But Democrats noted that Reagan never kept a pledge for bilateral negotiations that he made to the Senate in a letter last year to win approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras.

The rejected Democratic alternative proposed by Sasser would have withheld all military aid for six months to encourage negotiations. The President would have been required to enter into the talks if the Nicaraguans first agreed to a cease-fire.

Republicans said that Sasser’s proposal might have gained some GOP support if he had limited the waiting period to 90 days and provided some assistance for defensive weaponry during that period. “He went too far out to the left,” a top GOP aide said.

Cranston’s amendment would have withheld the money for only 90 days but, like Sasser’s proposal, it provided nothing but humanitarian aid during that period.

Amendments Defeated

The Senate also defeated amendments from the far left and far right. The vote was 74 to 24 against a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to eliminate all aid. A proposal by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)–what he described as a “put up or shut up” provision–which would have released all aid on May 15 if the Sandinistas refused to adhere to democratic principles by then, was defeated by a 60-39 vote.

The only amendment that succeeded was one offered by Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.) that would prohibit American trainers and advisers inside Nicaragua. It passed by voice vote.

Although the Administration seized upon the recent incursion of Nicaraguan troops into Honduras as evidence of the need for contras aid, Lugar insisted that the fighting along Nicaragua’s northern border had no impact on the outcome in the Senate. However, the Administration hopes that House Democrats will be swayed by the incursion.

Despite the narrow vote, it was apparent that the mood of Congress had changed significantly since last year when the President had to fight almost as hard to get congressional approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras. Many Democrats who opposed all aid last year voted for the Sasser proposal this time.

As a result, it was frequently compared during floor debate to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that opened the way for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) predicted that the amount would continue to increase in the years ahead as it has since 1981 when the Administration first provided covert aid to the contras.

‘Tinkering With $100 Million’

“I don’t believe $100 million is going to do the trick, and I don’t think anybody does,” Bumpers said. “If Nicaragua represents a serious security threat to this hemisphere, why are we tinkering with $100 million?”

Wilson insisted that it was not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution for Central America. “We are asked not to send our sons, but to send a pittance,” the California Republican said.

But Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which has access to Administration intelligence reports from Central America, charged that Reagan had overstated the threat posed by the Sandinistas.

As it did in the House last week, Reagan’s highly partisan campaign on behalf of his contras aid request succeeded only in angering many senators, who resented White House efforts to portray their opponents as supporters of the Marxist regime in Managua.

“No one is more anti-Communist than I am,” Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said. “I deeply resent the President’s sickening display of neo-McCarthyism in this debate.”

The U.S. Navy has now made it clear it is at least exploring an alternative to the still-in-development AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER). When the Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM) effort first emerged earlier this year, the stated requirements did sound curiously similar to what the service wants from the AGM-88G. There was also mention of an all-new need to be able to engage radio frequency-emitting targets in the air, as well as on the surface, but this is no longer being emphasized, at least publicly.

The new contracting notice raises questions about the future of the AARGM-ER program, which the Navy told TWZ in April was still on track to be fielded later this year. The service had also previously announced a “strategic pause” in purchases of AGM-88Gs, but only for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The AARGM-ER is a direct evolution of the existing AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM).

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) issued a new AESM request for information (RFI) yesterday. NAVAIR had previously put out a contract notice regarding this new missile back in February, but subsequently took it down.

NAVAIR is now looking “to conduct market research to identify potential sources capable of providing an AARGM-ER equivalent missile system,” according to the new RFI. This “consists of the All-Up-Round (AUR) missile to include hardware and software, as well as any unique logistics elements, trainers, AARGM-ER equivalent flyout model, and all system verification elements.”

“The purpose of this RFI is to conduct market research to identify potential sources capable of providing a mature design (TRL >6) missile system which consists of the All-Up-Round (AUR) missile to include hardware and software, as well as any unique logistics elements, trainers, flyout model, and all system verification elements,” the notice adds. “This AUR must be compatible with existing launch platforms.”

TRL here refers to the U.S. government’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale, which is used to categorize the maturity of munitions and other systems. TRL 6 is defined as an effort that has produced a “representative model or prototype system” that has been “tested in a relevant environment.” The “relevant environment” here can include high-fidelity laboratory conditions or be otherwise simulated.

The latest desired requirements for AESM are very broad and fully in line with what the Navy has said for years that it expects to gain from the fielding of the AGM-88G.

AESM needs to have “extended range,” allowing it to be “capable of engaging targets at significant standoff distances.” It has to include an “advanced anti-radiation seeker with broad frequency coverage” and the “ability to target modern and advanced radar systems.” In terms of “lethality,” the goal is to achieve a “high probability of kill against a wide range of targets.”

Like the AARGM-ER, AESM needs to be suitable for internal and external carriage on at least certain variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets are also listed as threshold launch platforms.

The original AESM RFI in February had laid out more specific requirements, which are absent in the new contracting notice. This includes an explicit call for prospective vendors to describe their proposed missile’s “ability to engage air-to-air and air-to-ground targets.”

There has been no mention in the past about an air-to-air engagement capability for the AGM-88G. It’s unclear whether this is still an area of interest for AESM. TWZ has reached out to the Navy for more information about the current state of AESM and how that factors into plans for AARGM-ER.

With added air-to-air engagement capability, AESM would open the door to new operational possibilities and could be more complementary to AARGM-ER. As we previously wrote after the first RFI was released:

“U.S. military interest in very-long-range air-to-air capable anti-radiation missiles traces all the way back to the Cold War, primarily as a means for engaging enemy airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) planes. Anti-air weapons designed around this role are often colloquially referred to as ‘AWACS killers,’ a reference to the U.S. E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. A very-long-range air-to-air missile could be used against other aerial targets, as well.”

…

“All that being said, the value of an ‘AWACS killer’ missile is clear-cut. AEW&C are critical surveillance and battle management assets. Shooting them down deprives an opponent of those capabilities, inherently reducing their ability to effectively maneuver air assets and share important information, including with other nodes on the ground or at sea, as well as in the air. Knocking out these flying radar stations, which can be especially well-suited to spotting lower flying threats from their high perches, just hampers an enemy’s overall situational awareness.“

“The issue, of course, is that AEW&C planes typically orbit well behind the front edges of a conflict, creating additional challenges for targeting them. This is where something like AESM could come into play. A weapon of this type could engage other aerial targets by zeroing in on the radiofrequency emissions they pump out. This could include electronic warfare aircraft, and potentially other aerial targets. AESM might be able to take on a more general anti-air role with the addition of an active radar and/or imaging infrared seeker, as well as datalinks allowing for the use of networked targeting data. AARGM and AARGM-ER both feature an active millimeter-wave radar seeker to enable them to hit fleeing ground targets, but a similar concept could be adapted for air-to-air use.”

“For the Navy, as well as other branches of the U.S. military, this is all particularly relevant in the context of a potential future high-end fight with China, which has made major investments in its fleets of AEW&C and electronic warfare planes. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also been pursuing ever-longer-ranged anti-air missiles, including types that could be used to target American AEW&C platforms, as well as other key support aircraft.”

AESM would also still have the ability to be employed in an air-to-surface mode like the AGM-88G and its predecessors. Having a single missile with hybrid anti-air/anti-radiation capabilities would offer very useful added flexibility, especially for addressing threats that might suddenly appear during a sortie. This would also offer magazine depth benefits, since a launch aircraft loaded with AESMs would inherently have more engagement opportunities against a wider target set than one carrying a mixture of AARGM-ERs and traditional air-to-air missiles.

AARGM F-18

This could slot in well with the rest of the Navy’s planned future air-launched missile ecosystem, which at least currently includes the AGM-88G, as well as the AIM-174B air-launched version of the multi-purpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) and the AIM-260 advanced air-to-air missile. These missiles fit into ever-expanding ‘kill web’ architectures made up of deeply integrated networks of sensors and other assets from across the services, spread across the air, land, sea, space, and even cyberspace domains. TWZ previously explored all of this in a detailed feature you can find here.

How The Navy’s New Very Long-Range AIM-174 Will Pierce China’s Anti-Access Bubble

It’s also worth remembering that the U.S. Air Force has worked with the Navy on similar hybrid anti-air/anti-radiation missile efforts in the past. The Air Force also just recently put out its own call for information about a prospective common missile with a range of at least 1,000 miles, that could come in air-to-air and air-to-surface versions. AESM might further emerge as a joint-service effort and/or one that involves foreign participation.

At the same time, the downplaying of more specific capabilities in the rebooted AESM RFI can only prompt questions about the future of the AGM-88G. The Navy has been actively pursuing AARGM-ER since 2018. The missile’s increased speed and range are viewed as vital for future conflicts, especially when it comes to ensuring survivability and effectiveness of non-stealthy launch platforms as adversary anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) bubbles continue to expand in scale and scope.

However, the AARGM-ER program has encountered technical issues in development and suffered significant delays. The original goal was for the missile to reach initial operational capability (IOC) on the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G in 2023. The Navy is now aiming to hit that milestone by September of this year. There are foreign customers also still in line to receive AARGM-ERs, and Italy is notably a full partner in the missile’s development. The Air Force is pursuing a derivative, called the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) and reportedly designated the AGM-88J, intended to provide a more general strike capability.

“U.S. procurements for the AARGM-ER program are planned to resume once the system has successfully completed all necessary testing and software updates. Our immediate priority is ensuring the weapon passes these rigorous testing milestones to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2026,” a Navy spokesperson told TWZ back in February about the status of the program and the aforementioned strategic pause. “After validating the software and testing, the plan would be to ramp up production to clear a backlog of over 150 missiles, with U.S. procurements officially restarting in FY28 [Fiscal year 2028]. In the interim, FY27 production will be allocated to Foreign Military Sales to fulfill our commitments to five signed international cases.”

It is worth noting here that the Navy seeking a functional equivalent to the AGM-88G does not automatically mean it is considering supplanting that missile entirely. Diversification of the supply chains, especially by leveraging new and non-traditional vendors, has become a top priority across the U.S. military in recent years. Efforts to broaden the defense industrial base, with an explicit emphasis on less reliance on traditional prime contractors, have surged further since President Donald Trump started his second term. More industrial base diversity offers benefits for scaling up production of subcomponents and complete systems. Another key aspect of these initiatives has been avoiding getting locked into a single vendor for key programs, helping to foster competition that can drive down costs.

Having an alternative source of missiles that are even just roughly similar to the AARGM-ER capability-wise could be very valuable for bolstering stockpiles now and ensuring they can be replenished in the future, especially in the midst of a sustained high-end fight. The lead time for the acquisition of exquisite munitions is often measured in months, if not years. Concerns about the sufficiency of U.S. stockpiles of key missiles have already been growing in recent years due to a succession of global crises, something TWZ has regularly called attention to. This has become an even more pressing topic given the expenditures of critical munitions during the latest conflict with Iran. The Pentagon has signed several new deals with various companies in the past year or so to expand and accelerate production of existing and new missiles, underscoring just how significant the demand signal has become. Still, it will take time for those contracts to bear fruit, reinforcing the value of having additional streams of relevant munitions.

Much remains to be learned about the Navy’s exact intentions with AESM and how it fits in with the current plans for AARGM-ER. What we do know now is that the service is actively looking at options for a new missile that offers at least equivalent capability to the AGM-88G.

Update: 4:30 PM ET –

An annual assessment of multiple high-profile U.S. military procurement programs that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released today provides some additional context about the AARGM-ER program.

“The AARGM-ER program continued to experience significant delays due to software problems discovered during testing. Software development challenges were also a main driver of prior delays. According to the program, a February 2025 flight test failed due to a software issue, which it attributed to a lack of rigor in the contractor’s software development and testing process,” per GAO’s report. “The program did not use a modern approach to software, and the program office did not have visibility into software metrics, which could have provided insights into issues sooner. Program officials stated that the contractor updated its software development processes, and the program instituted additional software reviews for future flight tests.”

“The program is conducting four flight tests in fiscal year 2026 before fielding an initial operational capability,” the report adds. “According to program officials, the December flight test was successful. The program expected to reach initial operational capability in July 2024, but officials now expect to do so over 2 years later in September 2026.”

The Congressional watchdog’s assessment also speaks to continued challenges with production.

“The AARGM-ER program continues to experience production delays. The program reported that the delays were related to missile qualification, hardware capability, and software problems discovered during testing. Program officials expect initial missile deliveries to start in mid-2026,” the report explains. “Initial missile deliveries were originally planned for late 2023. According to program officials, they withheld certain payments to the contractor due to the delays. The program also told the contractor it will not accept missile deliveries until qualification and flight tests verify the missile is safe to employ and performs as expected. The program expects to complete missile qualification in June 2026. We found that starting production before demonstrating a system will work as intended—which the Navy did—increases the risk of discovering deficiencies that require costly, time-intensive rework.”

It is worth noting here that the AESM RFI released yesterday also calls for lower-cost designs that could be produced at a rate of 600 missiles per year. This is twice the production scale outlined back in February.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com