(1) are interoperable across brigade combat team elements, including interoperability of capabilities for the detection, tracking, and kinetic interception of small unmanned aircraft systems;

(2) ensure seamless networking between a wide variety of sensors and ground platforms; and

(3) meet such other requirements as the Secretary of the Army determines appropriate.

(1) an explanation of the standards; and

(2) identification of any hardware or software components that—

(1) are networked and autonomous;

(2) are capable of the detection, tracking, and kinetic interception of small unmanned aircraft systems; and

(3) incorporate—

“(2) In this subsection, the term ‘temporarily unavailable’, when used with respect to an amphibious warfare ship, means that the ship has not surpassed its planned availability by a margin of—

“(b) Authority to use incremental funding.—In exercising the authority under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Navy may enter into incrementally funded contracts for the procurement of covered components that are long lead-time items.”.

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the event the total base quantity of destroyers to be procured through all contracts entered into under subsection (a) is less than 15, the Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that one or more of the contracts includes a prepriced option for the procurement of additional destroyers such that the sum of such base quantity and the number of destroyers that may be procured through the exercise of such options is equal to 15 destroyers.

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(1) PROCUREMENT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of the Navy may enter into one or more contracts for the procurement of covered ships.

(2) PROCUREMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING CONTRACTS.—The ships authorized to be procured under paragraph (1) may be procured as additions to existing contracts covering programs for covered ships.

(1) The use of such a contract is consistent with the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ projected force structure requirements for amphibious ships.

(2) The use of such a contract will result in savings compared to the total anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. In certifying cost savings under the preceding sentence, the Secretary shall include a written explanation of—

(3) The Secretary of the Navy has a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period funding will be available for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation.

(4) There is a stable design for the property to be acquired and the technical risks associated with such property are not excessive.

(5) The estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a contract authorized under subsection (a) are realistic.

(6) The use of such a contract will promote the national security of the United States.

(7) During the fiscal year in which such contract is to be awarded, sufficient funds will be available to perform the contract in such fiscal year.

(1) The term “covered ship” means a San Antonio-class or America-class ship.

(2) The term “milestone decision authority” has the meaning given that term in section 4251(e) of title 10, United States Code.

(1) any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose; and

(2) the total liability of the Federal Government for termination of the contract shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated to the contract at the time of termination.

(1) any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose; and

(2) the total liability of the Federal Government for termination of the contract shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated to the contract at the time of termination.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for torpedo modernization, testing, production, and inventory sufficiency.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The strategy required under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) options for second-source suppliers;

(2) expansion of Government-owned, contractor-operated facilities;

(3) use of multiyear procurement authorities pursuant to section 3501 of title 10, United States Code;

(4) opportunities to expand public-private partnerships for undersea weapons manufacturing and sustainment;

(5) measures to improve supply chain resilience for critical components; and

(6) options for surge production during national emergencies or armed conflict.

(1) a report on the strategy developed under subsection (a); and

(2) a report on the plan developed under subsection (b).

(1) the highest-risk shortfalls in torpedo inventory and testing capacity;

(2) operational testing methodology for torpedos and efforts to test for real world scenarios;

(3) projected wartime torpedo inventory depletion timelines; and

(4) investments required during period covered by the future-years defense program to ensure torpedo sufficiency for two simultaneous regional conflicts.

(1) Information on the estimated timeline for each planned variant (commonly known as a “Flight”) of the FF(X) class frigate.

(2) Details on the integration of additional capabilities for future Flights of the frigate, such as vertical launch systems or improved sensors, and implications for the space, weight, power, and cost of the hull form.

(3) Any additional mission sets or combat functions that may be added to the concept of operation for FF(X) class frigates.

(1) how the Secretary will mitigate risk to any degradation, gap, or delay in mission execution, fleet readiness, or pilot and maintainer qualification during the period in which aircraft are being transferred and replaced as described in subsection (a);

(2) the Secretary’s plans for retaining key Navy Reserve personnel to support operational readiness during such period;

(3) how the Secretary plans, if possible, to ensure that assigned operational and adversary training missions are executed during such period;

(4) how the Secretary plans to maintain pilot and maintenance personnel proficiency, currency, and qualifications during such period; and

(5) the timelines associated with the transfer and replacement of aircraft described in subsection (a), including timelines associated with—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (i) of section 9062 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on October 1, 2026.

(1) by striking “below 16” each place it appears and inserting “below 15”; and

(2) in subsection (a), by striking “fiscal year 2026” and inserting “fiscal year 2026 or 2027”.

(1) a detailed schedule for procurement, fielding, and achievement of initial and full operating capability for E–7 Wedgetail aircraft; and

(2) a funding profile across the period covered by the Future Years Defense Program sufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph (1).

(1) the plan under subsection (b) will ensure there is no degradation in the airborne early warning, battle management, and command and control capabilities available to support combatant commands; and

(2) any proposed retirement of E–3 aircraft will not result in a gap in operational coverage, mission availability, or responsiveness to the demands of the combatant commands.

(1) The total number and variant types of C–130 aircraft in the inventory of the Air Force.

(2) Any planned retirements, divestments, or reductions to the fleet of such aircraft.

(3) Modernization and recapitalization efforts, including block upgrades and procurement schedules.

(4) Planned basing actions for fielding C–130J aircraft to recapitalize C–130H aircraft.

(1) a replacement capability has achieved initial operational capability;

(2) such replacement capability provides comparable or superior—

(3) the replacement capability is available in sufficient operational quantities to meet requirements of the combatant commands;

(4) the retirement or divestment will not increase operational risk to ongoing contingency operations, homeland defense missions, maritime domain awareness missions, or crisis response operations;

(5) the Secretary has conducted a force structure assessment evaluating the impact of such retirement on—

(6) the Secretary has submitted the assessments required under subsection (c).

(1) each of the commanders of the combatant commands regarding the operational sufficiency of the remaining remotely piloted aircraft force to execute approved operational plans and ongoing missions;

(2) the Commander of United States Special Operations Command regarding the impact of such retirement on support to special operations missions;

(3) the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command regarding the impact on distributed maritime surveillance and targeting operations in the Indo-Pacific theater; and

(4) the Commander of United States Central Command regarding the impact on ongoing counterterrorism, force protection, and crisis response operations.

(1) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;

(2) precision strike;

(3) maritime domain awareness;

(4) electronic warfare; and

(5) communications relay.

(1) evaluate a range of options for next generation airlift capabilities, including recapitalization of existing platforms, service life extension and modernization efforts, and development of new airlift platforms;

(2) in evaluating such options, consider operational effectiveness, survivability in contested environments, fuel efficiency, lifecycle costs, connectivity, basing, and interoperability with joint and coalition forces and battle networks; and

(3) assess the feasibility of incorporating unmanned or optionally crewed systems and innovative concepts of operations.

(1) the findings and conclusions of the analysis;

(2) recommendations, if any, for future investment in next generation airlift capabilities; and

(3) such other information as the Secretary determines appropriate.

(1) entering into partnerships with commercial entities—

(2) carrying out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using commercial providers to test, certify, and operate select C–5 aircraft in support of the Air Force; and

(3) such other activities as the Secretary of the Air Force determines appropriate.

(1) F–14 aircraft (Bureau number 159437).

(2) F–14 aircraft (Bureau number 164341).

(3) F–14 aircraft (Bureau number 164602).

(1) a condition that the Secretary is not required to repair or alter the condition of the aircraft before conveying ownership of the aircraft;

(2) a condition that the Secretary shall provide any maintenance and operations manuals that—

(3) a condition that the Secretary may provide excess spare parts to make one of the F–14 aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred from existing Navy stock is reimbursed at fair market value by the Commission, with no items being procured by the Secretary on behalf of the Commission; and

(4) a condition that the Secretary will not be responsible for transferring any additional parts or providing any additional support beyond what is stated in this section, during or after the conveyance of the aircraft.

(1) authorize the Commission to enter into agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations for the purpose of restoring and operating the aircraft transferred under subsection (a) for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage; and

(2) if the Secretary authorizes any such agreement, require such additional terms and conditions in the instrument of conveyance as appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(1) a condition that the Commission shall operate and maintain the aircraft in compliance with all applicable limitations and maintenance requirements imposed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration;

(2) a condition that the Commission shall not convey any ownership interest in, or transfer possession of, the aircraft to another party without the prior approval of the Secretary; and

(3) a condition that if the Secretary determines at any time that the Commission has failed to comply with the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), all right, title, and interest in and to the aircraft, including any repair or alteration of the aircraft, shall revert to the United States, and the United States shall have the right of immediate possession of the aircraft.

(1) A description of any structural, electronic, software, and weapons-integration modifications required to enable the B–1B aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons.

(2) An assessment of the compatibility of such aircraft with currently fielded and planned nuclear gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles.

(3) Identification of any military construction, storage, security, and certification infrastructure that would be required at forward operating locations within the continental United States should nuclear capability be restored to such aircraft.

(4) Requirements related to aircrew certification, maintenance training, security forces training, nuclear surety inspections, and personnel reliability programs should nuclear capability be restored to such aircraft.

(5) Estimated research, development, test, evaluation, procurement, operations, and sustainment costs over a the five-year period following the initiation of any efforts to restore nuclear capability to such aircraft.

(6) An assessment of the expected remaining service life of the B–1B aircraft fleet.

(7) The estimated time required to achieve initial operational capability and full operational capability should the Air Force pursue restoring nuclear capability to such aircraft.

(8) An assessment of the military utility and strategic deterrence value of restoring nuclear capability to the B–1B aircraft.

(9) An assessment of any costs and additional requirements to restore nuclear capability across bomber bases.

(1) F–15EX aircraft; and

(2) initial spare parts, alternate mission equipment, and conformal fuel tanks for such aircraft.

(1) F–35 aircraft; and

(2) initial spare parts and alternate mission equipment for such aircraft.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may not enter into a contract for the procurement of an aircraft under subsection (a) until the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:

(2) LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2027 for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment for official travel, not more than 50 percent may be obligated or expended until the date on which the Under Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a certification—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may not procure, lease, or otherwise obtain a covered humanoid robotic system that—

(2) APPLICABILITY.—The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to contracts and other agreements entered into after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(1) the system is to be used solely for counterintelligence, cybersecurity testing, vulnerability assessment, or research purposes;

(2) the system operates in a physically isolated or air-gapped environment;

(3) the system is not connected to operational Department of Defense networks; and

(4) the Secretary notifies the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days after issuing such waiver.

(1) (A) The term “covered humanoid robotic system” means a commercially available robotic system that—

(2) The term “foreign adversary” means a covered nation as defined in section 4872(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code.

(3) The term “foreign adversary entity” means an entity that—

(1) The AN/SPN–43 shipboard air traffic control and air marshaling radar system.

(2) The AN/SPY–1 phased-array radar system for the Aegis Combat System.

(3) The AN/TPQ–36 Firefinder counter-battery radar system.

(4) The AN/TPQ–37 Firefinder counter-battery radar system.

(5) Airborne Station Keeping Equipment radar systems, including the AN/APN–243.

(1) enables interoperability between small unmanned aircraft system platforms from different vendors and classes across the joint force;

(2) enables modular integration of mission applications, including by enabling the use of applications and features from multiple different vendors on the same platform;

(3) facilitates rapid deployment of autonomy and command and control functions;

(4) facilitates rapid deployment of autonomy and operating capabilities in contested, degraded, and denied environments, including capabilities enabling operation in contested electromagnetic and degraded positioning, navigation, and timing environments;

(5) integrates operating software that can function on multiple hardware platforms from different vendors;

(6) supports secure software updates and cybersecurity improvements;

(7) avoids vendor lock by enabling multiple vendors of hardware and software to develop and field applications and capabilities; and

(8) establishes baseline standards for aided target recognition capabilities.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense finalizes the standards under subsection (a), the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, shall develop and commence implementation of a plan for equipping small unmanned aircraft systems of the Department of Defense with a common operating system that meets such standards.

(2) USE OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS.—In implementing the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall make use of commercially available solutions to the maximum extent practicable.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees and to the Comptroller General of the United States a plan to address the following recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office:

(2) ELEMENTS.—The plan under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(1) All critical technical data rights requirements for F–35 Joint Strike Fighter sustainment, including for both organizational-level and depot-level sustainment and repair.

(2) Estimated costs for acquiring identified critical technical data rights for sustainment.

(3) The status of efforts for acquiring identified critical technical data rights for sustainment.

(4) Any known challenges for acquiring identified critical technical data rights for sustainment.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a plan to address recommendation 3 from the report of the Government Accountability Office titled “F–35 Joint Strike Fighter: Actions Needed to Address Late Deliveries and Improve Future Development” (GAO-25-107632).

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees and to the Comptroller General of the United States a report on the plan developed under paragraph (1). Such report shall include—

(1) the results of a reevaluation of contract incentive fees for inclusion in future F135 and F–35 production contracts;

(2) a timeframe for implementing a new incentive fee structure in future F135 and F–35 production contracts;

(3) a plan for determining the effectiveness of a new incentive fee structure in achieving desired production outcomes; and

(4) an explanation of any efforts to apply a new incentive fee structure more broadly across the F–35 contracting enterprise.

(1) The projected amount budgeted by the Department of Defense for fuel procurement and consumption for fiscal year 2026, set forth separately by military department and Defense Agency.

(2) The actual amount spent by the Department of Defense for fuel procurement and consumption for fiscal year 2026, set forth separately by military department and Defense Agency.

(3) Any changes to fuel cost and fuel cost projections for fiscal year 2026 that have occurred since February 28, 2026, including an examination of—

(4) Any transfers, reprogramming actions, or other budgetary adjustments made or anticipated to be made during the period of fiscal years 2026 through 2031 as a result of fuel cost variances.

(A) in paragraph (4), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(1) by redesignating paragraph (11) as paragraph (12); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following new paragraph:

(1) in subsection (c)(1) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

(2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subection (l);

(3) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new subsections:

(4) in subsection (l), as so redesignated—

“(3) The Secretary shall, not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, select not fewer than three additional weapon system platforms for participation in the demonstration.”;

(A) in paragraph (1)—

(B) in each of paragraphs (2) and (3), by striking “The report” and inserting “Each report”; and

(C) in paragraph (2)—

“(c) Operational integration.—The Secretary of Defense shall—

“(e) Duration of authority.—The authority provided under this section shall remain in effect until September 30, 2028.”.

(1) by striking subsection (c); and

(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.

“(f) Delivery date defined.—In this section, term ‘delivery date’ has the meaning given that term in section 8671 of title 10, United States Code.”.

(1) identifying jointly developed or Israeli-origin technologies with operational utility for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record;

(2) ensuring collaborative research initiatives involving government, private sector, and academic institutions in the United States and Israel, is done in a manner that protects sensitive technology and information and the national security interests of the United States and Israel;

(3) facilitating the transition of technologies from research and development into procurement and acquisition pathways;

(4) establishing frameworks for joint ventures, licensing agreements, and United States-based co-production or manufacturing partnerships with Israeli industry;

(5) coordinating with relevant Department of Defense components, including the Irregular Warfare Technical Support Directorate, capability development and innovation divisions, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the Defense Innovation Unit, the United States-Israel Operations Technology Working Group, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Missile Defense Agency, the United States Space Command, the military departments, and other Department of Defense entities, as appropriate, to align efforts and avoid duplication; and

(6) promoting joint training exercises and information-sharing mechanisms to enhance operational readiness to deploy jointly developed technologies.

(1) Counter-Unmanned Systems including aerial, maritime, and ground platforms.

(2) Anti-tunneling and subterranean threats.

(3) Missile and air defense technologies.

(4) Artificial intelligence, quantum, machine learning, and autonomous systems.

(5) Directed energy and advanced sensing.

(6) Cyber defense, electronic warfare, and digital resilience.

(7) Biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defense.

(8) Network integration, data fusion, and contested logistics.

(9) Defense industrial base cooperation, manufacturing, and co-production.

(10) Other emerging technologies as jointly agreed by the United States and Israel.

(1) the executive agent designated pursuant to subsection (a) and the efforts undertaken by such executive agent to lead Department of Defense implementation of the synchronized cooperative efforts described in such subsection;

(2) the status of coordination, Department-wide, with Israeli counterparts;

(3) initial technology areas identified for accelerated cooperation and technologies with operational utility for integration into United States systems and programs of record; and

(4) any early transition, prototyping, or integration activities initiated during the period covered by the update.

(1) a description of activities conducted;

(2) an assessment of progress made in advancing shared national security interests;

(3) an assessment of collaboration with other relevant Federal programs;

(4) a description of technologies transitioned into United States acquisition programs or fielded systems;

(5) a description of partnerships established with United States and Israeli industry; and

(6) recommendations for future opportunities to promote the long-term integration of joint capabilities between the United States and Israel.

(1) incorporate live, virtual, and constructive elements;

(2) integrate training, testing, and simulation capabilities across the area of responsibility of the United States Indo-Pacific Command;

(3) provide integrated synthetic training and mission rehearsal capabilities across all warfighting domains, including land, maritime, air, space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum;

(4) integrate and synchronize, to the maximum extent practicable, existing training, experimentation, and simulation capabilities of the Department of Defense;

(5) enable distributed training of joint and combined forces;

(6) support rehearsal of operational plans and crisis response;

(7) enable experimentation for emerging capabilities;

(8) be scalable to support additional combatant command requirements as directed by the Secretary of Defense; and

(9) be accessible to allies and partners of the United States, consistent with applicable law and security requirements.

(1) an explanation of how the Secretary intends to implement the synthetic training environment required under subsection (a);

(2) a cost estimate for the training environment;

(3) a plan for making the training environment accessible to allies and partners of the United States; and

(4) an assessment of the potential effects of the training environment on readiness.

(1) small unmanned aircraft systems and associated autonomy software, kinetic and nonkinetic payloads, sensors, communications, and navigation technology;

(2) kinetic and nonkinetic counter small-unmanned aircraft system capabilities, including high power microwave, high energy laser, and electronic warfare capabilities, and any requisite autonomy software, sensors, and command and control capabilities;

(3) small to medium caliber counter unmanned aircraft systems ammunition and weapon systems, low collateral damage weapons and munitions, and drone-versus-drone capabilities;

(4) the acceleration of the integration of modular payloads onto multiple unmanned aircraft systems and counter unmanned aircraft systems and platforms;

(5) the reduction in time-to-field for lethal and non-lethal drone-enabled munitions and munition payload capabilities; and

(6) standardization of payload-to-platform interfaces.

(1) identify potential locations within the national airspace system that would be conducive to conducting testing, evaluation, and training activities with respect to small unmanned aircraft systems and counter-small unmanned aircraft capabilities, with prioritization of sites that best support the test and training corridor functions described in subsection (c);

(2) assess whether existing test and evaluation facilities, including Government-owned and non-Government owned facilities, could be used to meet current and future requirements with respect to such testing, evaluation and training;

(3) identify any additional resources required to establish or designate, and operate the corridor, including military construction costs and personnel and manning costs;

(4) identify any sensors and capabilities needed to adequately simulate operationally realistic environments in the corridor, including environments with denied or degraded—

(5) identify any interagency, legal, regulatory, or policy impediments to carrying out testing, evaluation, and training activities with respect to small unmanned aircraft systems and counter-small unmanned aircraft capabilities within the national airspace system, including any impediments to the use of—

(6) consult with interagency partners to develop recommendations for—

(7) consider diverse geographic regions across the United States.

(1) the location of the corridor;

(2) any funding, personnel, or other resources required to support the corridor; and

(3) any agreements with other Federal agencies that may be required to safely operate the corridor in the national airspace system.

(1) during periods in which communications capabilities are denied, degraded, intermittent, or limited; and

(2) during periods in which positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities are degraded or unavailable.

(1) The ability of unmanned surface vessels to execute preauthorized mission tasks without continuous human control.

(2) The ability of such vessels to adhere to defined autonomy behaviors, decision logic, and safety constraints governing mission execution.

(3) The ability of such vessels to adapt, recover, retask, or terminate missions in accordance with preestablished operational parameters when communications or positioning, navigation, and timing are degraded or unavailable.

(1) unmanned surface vessels in use by the Navy or Marine Corps; and

(2) unmanned surface vessels planned for development or procurement for the Navy or Marine Corps.

(1) designate the Air Force as the primary sponsor of the National Strategic Research Institute University Affiliated Research Center (referred to in this section as the “Center”); and

(2) coordinate with the Secretary of the Air Force and the Commander of the United States Strategic Command to ensure that the Center receives the funding and other resources necessary to meet the applicable requirements of the UARC Management Plan following such designation.

(1) The term “prime sponsor” has the meaning given that term in the UARC Management Plan.

(2) The term “UARC Management Plan” means the publication of the Department of Defense titled “Department of Defense University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) Management Plan”, dated July 2010 (or any successor to such plan).

(1) to authorize a deviation from established personnel and training procedures of the reserve components of the Armed Forces, including the National Guard; or

(2) to authorize the direct engagement of members or units of such components to conduct independent research, development, test, and evaluation projects.

(1) cannot be achieved with the size and weight of currently fielded rations; and

(2) could be mitigated by incorporating within rations, components produced with emerging and innovative technologies developed in partnership with the Department of Defense Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program.

(1) The Secretary shall seek to enter into one or more contracts for the procurement of rations produced using emerging food technologies such as sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying to reduce size and weight.

(2) The Secretary shall maximize the use of the technologies described in paragraph (1) for individual combat ration components to ensure successful technology transition from small business innovation research and research, development, test, and evaluation.

(3) As operational needs allow, the Secretary shall prioritize clean-label, nutrient-dense components that do not contain unhealthy fats or artificial preservatives.

(1) A description of any emerging and innovative food processing technologies that have been developed or are being developed using research, development, test, and evaluation investments of the Department of Defense.

(2) The total amount of Department of Defense investments in the development of sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying technology for military rations, disaggregated by research, development, test, and evaluation budget activity, including small business innovation research.

(3) The results of warfighter field testing of potential ration components produced with the technologies described in paragraph (2).

(4) An explanation of quantitative and qualitative logistical and nutritional benefits of ration components produced using such technologies.

(5) A description of any procurement processes for military rations that may be barriers to the acquisition of components produced with new and emerging food processing technologies.

(6) A description of any activities carried out to advance the transition and adoption of such technologies to better meet the challenges of military operations in a contested logistics environment.

(1) agricultural biosecurity, including detection, prevention, mitigation, and recovery relating to plant disease, livestock disease, invasive species, and other biological threats;

(2) advanced plant, animal, microbial, and bioindustrial technologies supporting defense readiness, domestic manufacturing capacity, and supply chain security;

(3) engineering, automation, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and data systems supporting agricultural production, logistics, and operational resilience;

(4) natural resource management technologies relating to water, energy, soil, forests, and food systems that reduce scarcity risks and enhance civilian and military resilience; and

(5) wildfire prediction, prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery technologies relevant to agricultural productivity, infrastructure resilience, and military readiness.

(1) interagency collaboration to accelerate research, development, testing, evaluation, field validation, demonstration, deployment, and transition of technologies described in subsection (a);

(2) collaboration with Federal agencies, federally funded research and development centers, national laboratories, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and private sector entities; and

(3) prioritization, to the extent practicable, of projects demonstrating clear potential to enhance food security, operational readiness, domestic production resilience, or defense supply chain security.

(1) were in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) authorize or require conduct or support of research, development, testing, evaluation, or operational activities.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to the authority provided under section 4025 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program (referred to in this section as the “Program”) to award prizes to support the research, development, and commercialization of biotechnology-based capabilities that address priority areas identified by the Secretary under subsection (b).

(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall—

(3) ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS.—To be eligible for a prize award under the Program, an individual or entity shall meet the requirements described in section 24(g)(3) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3719(g)(3)).

(4) JUDGES.—In accordance with section 24(k) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3719(k)), an individual from the private sector may be appointed as a judge for a prize competition under the Program.

(5) COORDINATION.—The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the Program acting through the head of the Biotechnology Management Office of the Department of Defense and in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments and relevant officials from laboratories of the Armed Forces and other appropriate elements of the Department of Defense.