Pentagon

When a near-final draft of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) dropped over two weeks ago, one of the oddest things that grabbed our attention was a pilot program for contractor-operated amphibious aircraft in the Pacific. The NDAA that was subsequently passed into law had some tweaks to the language, but it was no less intriguing.

The provision reads:

EC. 381. PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONTRACTED AMPHIBIOUS AIR RESOURCES FOR THE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND.

(a) AUTHORITY .—The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, may carry out a pilot program for the contracted operation of a fleet of commercial amphibious aviation resources to be made available to the commanders of the combatant commands and the commanders of other components of the Department of Defense for mission tasking within the area of responsibility of the United States Indo-Pacific Command.

(b) FIELDING AND ADJUDICATING MISSION REQUESTS

The Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command shall establish a process to field and adjudicate mission requests pursuant to the pilot program under subsection (a) in a timely manner.

(c) TERMINATION .—The authority to carry out the pilot program under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is three years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

We reached out to INDOPACOM for more details about the scope and scale of this initiative almost immediately after the draft NDAA was released earlier this month, but they told us they would not comment as it was still not law. After it was passed into law, they still would not comment and as of last Friday, they sent us to the Pentagon in search of answers. We have not gotten anything back yet, but we hope to at some point. Still, this lack of information seems a bit odd for what appears outright to be a provision that is not overtly sensitive in nature and relatively straight forward.

Regardless, based on the limited information we have at this time, this looks to be a program to test the use of contractor air services to fill what has become something of a glaring gap for operations in the Pacific. This has both to do with logistics and search and rescue, during peacetime and potentially (and even more pressing) during a time of war.

The lack of being able to use seaplanes to access pretty much anywhere in the vast Pacific is a missing component of the Pentagon’s growing book of capabilities to confront China. For some time, a float-equipped special operations MC-130J was seen as the Pentagon’s solution to this problem, or at least a possible solution. Eventually, after years of development and promise of near-term flight testing, that program was shuttered in 2024. Other initiatives that have looked to use waterborne flying machines to support its needs in the Pacific have also faced the axe in recent years.

Meanwhile, China is investing in advanced amphibious aircraft capabilities, and America’s tightest ally in the region, Japan, has also maintained a small fleet of highly-impressive amphibious aircraft — the ShinMaywa US-2 — for the purposes of search and rescue, with a secondary capability of accessing far flung maritime locales. Keep in mind, both of these major regional players would be fighting in their own backyard during a conflict. The United States would be mired in the most challenging expeditionary warfare it has faced in the better part of a century.

China launches AG600, the world’s biggest amphibious aircraft

The combat search and rescue requirement is the most pressing concern when it comes to lack of amphibious flying boats or other seaplane concept. During a sustained conflict across the Pacific, aircraft will be lost, not just due to enemy action, but also due to technical failure and human error. The distances can be so far from land where this can happen that responding to such a contingency can take a long time, and that’s true even in peacetime, let alone during a time where threats will emanate thousands of miles out into the Pacific. While fixed-wing aircraft can drop additional aid to those stranded at sea, they cannot extract them. In order to do that, you need to get a ship to the survivors or get a helicopter/tiltrotor within range. The latter is already a huge problem for a major fight with China, which you can read about here. And once again, all this can take a lot of time, and that is after the crew has actually been located.

A flying boat can respond quickly and, if the sea conditons allow, it can land and recover the personnel. It can also fly low, staying under the radar horizon, for long distances. It’s in many ways an end-to-end solution, and one that can be put into action and deliver success fast when every minute counts. This was a proven capability that saved many lives during World War II when seaplanes worked to find and rescue downed aircrew and sailors. U.S. military seaplanes continued to serve in this role through the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The HU-16 Albatross amphibian aircraft also remained in U.S. Coast Guard service in the 1980s.

A pilot comes aboard PBM Mariner during air sea rescue work in the Pacific Ocean …HD Stock Footage

The other part of this, as mentioned earlier, is just providing light logistical support to very remote locales — islands in particular — that can only be accessed by certain types of aircraft. In some cases, fixed-wing aircraft can’t reach them at all. Here is where amphibians can come into play to enable small forces to operate on tiny pieces of land in the middle of nowhere, something that is firmly in the center of the Pentagon’s current Pacific strategy.

Even for airfields with runways, you don’t need a C-17 or even a C-130 to do many logical tasks. A 15-pound part, such as a component for a fighter aircraft or other system, can be the primary “need it yesterday” cargo aboard a USAF airlifter. Using smaller amphibians could free up the U.S. military’s traditional airlifter fleet for missions that demand their unique capabilities, and by all indications, they will be tasked to the absolute max during even a limited conflict in the Pacific theater. China is developing uncrewed aircraft for these kind of tasks, with many types in testing, while the U.S. lags behind.

So, with all this in mind, it would seem INDOPACOM wants to experiment with the amphibian concept by using a far more elastic model than procuring aircraft and standing up a unit to fly them itself by going with the contractor model at first. Such a pilot program could reduce risk and provide some level of capability in the shorter term. At the same time, some will argue that the U.S. has no time to toy with the concept and needs its own aircraft now for a potential looming fight with China.

The big question then becomes what aircraft could be used or are even available for such a contractor-operated requirement? The answer to that isn’t really clear at this time. The options are very limited, and while the US-2 seems near perfectly fit for the mission, these expensive aircraft exist in very limited numbers and are not available for rapid transfer, though more could be made.

Japan’s US-2 – The World’s Most Advanced Amphibious Aircraft That Knows No Limits

The CL-415 Super Scooper is a less capable, but proven solution, though it is primarily used for firefighting today. On one hand, this is a positive as contractor operators of the type already exist. On the other hand, these aircraft are in high demand for their primary role.

How The $30 Million ‘Super Scooper’ Plane Was Built To Fight Wildfires

There is also the possibility that a floatplane could be used, such as a Cessna Caravan, but that would be far less capable and more limited in its use cases than the other two aircraft listed above.

Regardless, we will have to watch to see how this plays out, and hopefully the Pentagon will give us some clarity on the intent behind this provision. As it sits now, it looks like INDOPACOM has the chance to get some amphibious planes into action, at some point, at least to find out if they like what they see.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

WASHINGTON — The Senate gave final passage Wednesday to an annual military policy bill that will authorize $901 billion in defense programs while pressuring Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide lawmakers with video of strikes on alleged drug boats in international waters near Venezuela.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act, which raises troop pay by 3.8%, gained bipartisan backing as it moved through Congress. It passed the Senate on a 77-20 vote before lawmakers planned to leave Washington for a holiday break. Two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee — and 18 Democrats voted against the bill.

The White House has indicated that it is in line with President Trump’s national security priorities. However, the legislation, which ran more than 3,000 pages, revealed some points of friction between Congress and the Pentagon as the Trump administration reorients its focus away from security in Europe and toward Central and South America.

The bill pushes back on recent moves by the Pentagon. It demands more information on boat strikes in the Caribbean, requires that the U.S. maintain its troop levels in Europe and sends some military aid to Ukraine.

But overall, the bill represents a compromise between the parties. It implements many of Trump’s executive orders and proposals on eliminating diversity and inclusion efforts in the military and grants emergency military powers at the U.S. border with Mexico. It also enhances congressional oversight of the Department of Defense, repeals several years-old war authorizations and seeks to overhaul how the Pentagon purchases weapons as the U.S. tries to outpace China in developing the next generation of military technology.

“We’re about to pass, and the president will enthusiastically sign, the most sweeping upgrades to DOD’s business practices in 60 years,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Still, the sprawling bill faced objections from both Democratic and Republican leadership on the Senate Commerce Committee. That’s because the legislation allows military aircraft to obtain a waiver to operate without broadcasting their precise location, as an Army helicopter had done before a midair collision with an airliner in Washington, D.C., in January that killed 67 people.

“The special carve-out was exactly what caused the January 29 crash that claimed 67 lives,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, said at a news conference this week.

Cruz said he was seeking a vote on bipartisan legislation in the next month that would require military aircraft to use a precise location sharing tool and improve coordination between commercial and military aircraft in busy areas.

Boat strike videos

Republicans and Democrats agreed to language in the defense bill that threatened to withhold a quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget until he provided unedited video of the strikes, as well as the orders authorizing them, to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services.

Hegseth was on Capitol Hill on Tuesday ahead of the bill’s passage to brief lawmakers on the U.S. military campaign in international waters near Venezuela. The briefing elicited contrasting responses from many lawmakers, with Republicans largely backing the campaign and Democrats expressing concern about it and saying they had not received enough information.

The committees are investigating a Sept. 2 strike — the first of the campaign — that killed two people who had survived an initial attack on their boat. The Navy admiral who ordered the “double-tap” strike, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, also appeared before the committees shortly before the vote Wednesday in a classified briefing that also included video of the strike in question.

Several Republican senators emerged from the meeting backing Hegseth and his decision not to release the video publicly, but other GOP lawmakers stayed silent on their opinion of the strike.

Democrats are calling for part of the video to be released publicly and for every member of Congress to have access to the full footage.

“The American people absolutely need to see this video,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “I think they would be shocked.”

Congressional oversight

Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by the Trump administration several times in the last year, including by a move to pause intelligence sharing with Ukraine and a decision to reduce U.S. troop presence in NATO countries in eastern Europe. The defense legislation requires that Congress be kept in the loop on decisions like those going forward, as well as when top military brass are removed.

The Pentagon is also required, under the legislation, to keep at least 76,000 troops and major equipment stationed in Europe unless NATO allies are consulted and there is a determination that such a withdrawal is in U.S. interests. Roughly 80,000 to 100,000 U.S. troops are usually present on European soil. A similar requirement keeps the number of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea at 28,500.

Lawmakers are also pushing back on some Pentagon decisions by authorizing $400 million for each of the next two years to manufacture weapons to be sent to Ukraine.

Cuts to diversity and climate initiatives

Trump and Hegseth have made it a priority to purge the military of material and programs that address diversity, anti-racism or gender issues, and the defense bill codifies many of those changes. It would repeal diversity, equity and inclusion offices and trainings, including the position of chief diversity officer. Those cuts would save the Pentagon about $40 million, according to the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee.

The U.S. military has long found that climate change is a threat to how it provides national security because weather-related disasters can destroy military bases and equipment. But the bill makes $1.6 billion in cuts by eliminating climate change-related programs at the Pentagon.

Repeal of war authorizations and Syria sanctions

Congress is writing a closing chapter to the war in Iraq by repealing the authorization for the 2003 invasion. Now that Iraq is a strategic partner of the U.S., lawmakers in support of the provision say the repeal is crucial to prevent future abuses. The bill also repeals the 1991 authorization that sanctioned the U.S.-led Gulf War.

The rare, bipartisan moves to repeal the legal justifications for the conflicts signal a potential appetite among lawmakers to reclaim some of Congress’ war powers.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.