“We think clearly it’s time for the Air Force and other governmental entities to engage and direct the right solution. Northrop has chosen not to do that,” Frank McCall, Boeing’s director of strategic deterrence systems, said.

The absence of competition would remove cost pressure for both major contractors, which may be attractive for them but is unlikely to bode well for taxpayers.

If the current GBSD requirements can be met through amending the RFP without delaying the program, then we can go in that direction. Otherwise, Northrop Grumman should proceed with the GBSD research and development contract.

“For now, we remain in source selection” for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent contract despite Boeing’s withdrawal, says a spokesperson for Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper.

You don’t see lots of op-eds from members of the House or Senate appropriations committees. Why? The so-called cardinals — whose influence has slipped with the demise of regular budget order in the two chambers — remain among the most powerful figures on Capitol Hill because they have a greater say than most of their… Keep reading →

In any post-New START nuclear buildup, Russia will “at least initially” have an edge over the US, says retired Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, former head of Air Force Global Strike Command.

Critics of modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad have called to delay or even terminate the GBSD. Their arguments do not make strategic, technical or economic sense.

The top HASC Republican outlines some of the amendments he plans to add to the HASC 2020 defense policy bill, previewing coming debates with the Senate.

The Pentagon has long worried about the multi-billion dollar price tag that comes along with building a new interceptor field and its infrastructure. Influential lawmakers want a permanent site built that will support close to 1,000 jobs in their districts.

A White House 180-degree turn on nuclear arms control inflicts whiplash on experts. What is real here?