Tervell

In an August report signed by Air Force Sec. Troy Meink, which was obtained by Defense News, the service said it needs to “grow to minimize risk” over the next decade, as it focuses on modernizing its current fifth-generation and legacy fighter fleets. Congress ordered the Air Force to produce this report, titled “Long-Term USAF Fighter Force Structure,” as part of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. An Air Force official, during a conversation with reporters Thursday, acknowledged this is an aspirational plan that it couldn’t achieve without a significant budget boost. Its primary purpose, the official said, is to send a message to decision makers on what the Air Force needs to carry out all its missions — and if that’s not in the cards, to prepare for scenarios where not all of the service’s desired missions are achievable. “There is insufficient top line, currently, to cover everything that we want to do,” the official told reporters. “We need more Air Force, and this [report] backs it up on the [tactical air] side,” the official said later. “More Air Force is possible. It’s just a matter of whether it prioritizes highly enough, among all the other various things that are required within the department.”

The service said it now has 1,271 combat-coded fighters, including roughly 103 A-10 Warthogs that will be largely retired by the end of fiscal 2026. That would mean growing the combat-coded fighter fleet by nearly 300 tails to bring the service’s risk down to its lowest level — and that’s even before older jets like the A-10s and F-15C head to the boneyard. For the Air Force, low risk would mean it is “very likely” to achieve its objectives, has the full capacity to source combatant commander’s requirements and has the strategic depth to fight a wide range of conflicts with limited stress. To meet objectives with medium risk — which would mean achieving objectives is “likely” — the official said the Air Force would need about 1,367 combat-coded fighters. Significant and high risk would mean the service may not or could not achieve its objectives, with forces only ready to deploy “just in time” or not ready at all, the report said. The force would face prolonged or extreme stress, it added.

Achieving that growth could be easier said than done. There are multiple factors that could throw a wrench into those plans, including lawmakers not providing as much funding as the Air Force wants, industrial limitations on production and the hiccups and delays that often come with developing new military technologies. What’s more, the report said, improving the readiness and effectiveness of the Air Force’s fighter fleet, while sustaining current aircraft, carrying out its current missions worldwide, and dealing with tight budgets and modernization delays presents a challenge to the service.

High stakes modernizing

The Air Force is in the midst of its largest modernization effort in history, as it brings on new fighters such as the Lockheed Martin-made F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing’s F-15EX Eagle II. At the same time, it is developing an entirely new class of semi-autonomous fighter drones called collaborative combat aircraft, which will fly alongside crewed fighters, and the sixth-generation Boeing F-47, as well as updating its bomber fleet with the B-21 Raider, among other new aircraft. But getting new fighters such as the F-35 developed and fielded is “inherently risky,” the report said, with budget turmoil, technology challenges and industry delays snarling the process. This ends up forcing the Air Force to hold on to older aircraft longer than planned, which creates a vicious cycle that makes sustainment challenges worse, sucks up money that could go to new planes and delays the introduction of new capabilities.

The report also said these goals are what could be met under what amounts to a best-case scenario for the Air Force. A chart in the report’s classified annex “illustrates the potential maximum fighter procurement and maximum industry production with no fiscal constraints.” In the Thursday conversation with reporters, the Air Force official said the service laid out these goals to set “the bar for what is the possibility out there.” “Achieving those numbers assumes that we would have the fiscal resources to do that,” the official said. “The message is, we’re doing our homework, and what our homework tells us is that to achieve certain risk levels, we can do that. It just takes the will to invest that way.” The report calls the F-35 “the foundation of the USAF fighter force structure,” and said the service plans to buy as many of the fighters as Lockheed Martin and other contractors can produce, and continue the jet’s modernization. The service now has roughly 500 F-35s, and eventually wants to buy a total of 1,763.

A chart included in the report said industry can reach maximum F-35A production capacity, producing 100 jets per year for the Air Force, by 2030, as well as hitting a maximum production capacity of 24 F-15EXs by 2027. That could prove challenging for the Air Force. The service typically tries to buy about 48 F-35As each year. But the Pentagon’s 2026 budget proposal released over the summer called for slashing that goal in half. And after multiple delays to the F-35’s Technology Refresh 3 modernization program, an even bigger slate of upgrades called Block 4 is behind schedule and, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report, being scaled back as a result. When asked about the Pentagon’s request to buy fewer F-35s in 2026, and how that squares with the Air Force’s stated desire to dramatically increase its fighter fleet, the Air Force official pointed to the lagging development of Block 4. When the Block 4 upgrades — which will allow the F-35 to carry more weapons and boost its sensors — are ready, the service plans to ramp up its purchases of the jets, the official said. “We’re certainly encouraged by the progress that’s being made on Block 4,” the official said. “But the reality is, it’s not rolling out right now. I think that we will see that change here in the future, and when that occurs, we will have a corresponding change in what’s programmed for F-35.”

The Air Force official said Lockheed Martin can now produce between 130 and 140 F-35s, of all three varieties, each year. But in the future, he said, Lockheed could curtail its production of the short-takeoff and vertical landing F-35B variant, allowing it to produce more F-35As. And if the government’s foreign military sales of F-35s changed — resulting in fewer F-35As being sold to other nations — that could create an inventory big enough for the Air Force to buy up to 100 F-35As per year, the official said.

Challenges abound as fleet shifts

The Air Force is also dealing with a longstanding shortage of pilots, which has been worsened by bottlenecks in the training process, limited manpower and challenges sustaining its current fleet of aircraft. The report underscores the Air Force’s plans to finish retiring all 103 remaining A-10 Warthogs by the end of September 2026, and said divestments of its aging F-15C and D fighters are almost done. The Air Force wants to keep most of its F-15E Strike Eagles, which it calls the “proven combat workhorse of the USAF fleet in every theater of operation.” But the service does plan to prune its F-15E fleet by divesting some fighters with less-capable F100-PW-220 engines, allowing it to focus resources on jets with the F-100-PW-229 engines and improve overall sustainment and mission readiness. The Air Force’s web page on the F-15E said a single 220 engine can produce 25,000 pounds of thrust, and a 229 engine can produce 29,000 pounds of thrust. Both types of engines are made by Pratt & Whitney, and each F-15 has two engines. As jets like the A-10s, older F-15s and block 30 F-16s have aged beyond their original service lives, the Air Force has had to pour more time and resources into keeping them flying. This diverts resources that could otherwise go to modernizing newer planes, the report said, and stretches depot maintenance facilities. Many of them have obsolete technology that is growing increasingly difficult and costly to maintain, while the shrinking industrial base is drying up sources of critical parts for those planes.

There is one major wild card in this report, however, that the service wasn’t sure how to account for: the rise of CCAs, like the General Atomics-made YFQ-42A and Anduril’s YFA-44A that are now in testing. CCAs are intended to carry out multiple missions, including strikes against enemy targets, surveillance, jamming and other electronic warfare operations, and even serving as decoys. When they are fully operational — the Air Force wants a fleet of at least 1,000 CCAs — they will allow the service to get its missions done with fewer manned fighters, helping to burn down some of the risk it faces. But for now, the official said, it’s hard to tell how many manned fighters CCAs will be able to fill in for. CCAs “will affect the bottom line,” the official said. “We don’t know by how much at this point, but certainly that will buy down some of that requirement.”

The U.S. Army later confirmed the move, but denied it was a sign of lessened commitment to NATO. Depending on operations and exercises, around 80,000-100,000 U.S. troops are usually present on European soil. NATO allies have expressed concern that the Trump administration might drastically cut their numbers and leave a security vacuum as European countries confront an increasingly aggressive Russia. The administration has been reviewing its military “posture” in Europe and elsewhere, but U.S. officials have said that the findings of the review were not expected to be known before early next year. NATO has recently been bulking up its defensive posture on its eastern flank bordering Belarus, Russia and Ukraine after a series of airspace violations by drones, balloons and Russian aircraft.

European build-up

The Romanian defense ministry said that the U.S. decision will “stop the rotation in Europe of a brigade that had elements in several NATO countries,” including at a base in Romania. It said in a statement that about 1,000 U.S. troops will remain stationed in Romania. As of April, more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel were estimated to be deployed there. A brigade usually numbers anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000 troops. Romania’s Defense Minister Ionut Mosteanu said the decision reflects Washington’s shift “toward the Indo-Pacific” region, and that allied troop numbers would remain above the number before Russia’s full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine. “Our strategic partnership is solid, predictable, and reliable,” he said in a news conference.

In a post on X, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said the U.S. “remains committed to Romania.” “Our strong presence in and enduring commitment to Europe remains steadfast, including support for Eastern Sentry,” a NATO operation along the eastern flank, he wrote. He did not mention the troop drawdown. After the war started in 2022, NATO bolstered its presence on Europe’s eastern flank by sending additional multinational battle groups to Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia. Many more European troops are now stationed there. The ministry statement said that the U.S. “decision also took into account the fact that NATO has strengthened its presence and activity on the Eastern Flank, which allows the United States to adjust its military posture in the region.”

101st Airborne troops to fly out

In a statement later on Wednesday, U.S. Army Europe and Africa said that the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division will return to its base in Kentucky as previously planned but that no other U.S. troops would rotate into Europe to replace it. “This is not an American withdrawal from Europe or a signal of lessened commitment to NATO and Article 5,” it said, in a reference to the collective security guarantee in the organization’s treaty that an attack on one ally should be considered an attack on all 32. “Rather this is a positive sign of increased European capability and responsibility. Our NATO allies are meeting President Trump’s call to take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe,” it said. It insisted that the move “will not change the security environment in Europe.”

Government officials in Poland and Lithuania, which lie further north along Europe’s eastern flank, said they had not been informed of any U.S. troop drawdown in their countries. Asked about the move, a NATO official said that “adjustments to U.S. force posture are not unusual.” Under the terms of their employment contract, the official is permitted to speak to reporters but only on condition that they not be named. The official said that even with this new adjustment, about which NATO was informed in advance, the American “force posture in Europe remains larger than it has been for many years, with many more U.S. forces on the continent than before 2022.” The official played down any security concerns, saying that “NATO and U.S. authorities are in close contact about our overall posture – to ensure NATO retains our robust capacity to deter and defend.”

The money for Lynx vehicles and Panther tanks would come from cheap so-called SAFE loans organized by the EU to help member states beef up their military strength as Russia threatens the bloc’s Eastern border. Earlier this year EU officials said they would organize the low-cost loans worth €150 billion euros for members, then announced in September that Poland had been allocated €43.7bn in loans followed by Romania with €16.7bn, France and Hungary on €16.2bn and Italy with €14.9bn, among other recipients. States have until Nov. 30 to supply the EU with details on how they will spend the cash, before funds are released in 2026. Beneficiaries cannot carry out go-it-alone procurements with the loan cash. To encourage money saving and European military synergy, the EU has told member states to team up with at least one other EU recipient to make joint arms buys.

The subject came up in Rome on Monday when Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban paid a visit to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. “The two leaders discussed the opportunities offered by the European SAFE scheme, evaluating possible synergies between Italy and Hungary to support their respective industrial and technological capabilities,” Meloni’s office said after the meeting. The two countries already have one procurement program, and one potential program in common. The first is the Lynx tracked armored vehicle developed by Rheinmetall, which Italy and Hungary are buying, assembling and adapting. The second is Rheinmetall’s new Panther main battle tank. Italy is set to purchase 272, while Hungary signed a deal with Rheinmetall in 2023 to team on development and production of the tank. An Italian defense source who spoke on condition of anonymity told Defense News that Italy’s purchases of the two platforms were candidates to be supported by SAFE loan cash.

Italy plans to buy 1,050 variants of the Lynx vehicle

the Italians have barely 200 of a their current, much less advanced IFV, and now they're just going to pull 1000 Lynxes out of their ass?! I guess not all of these would actually be in the IFV configuration, but still. For comparison, the French have about 600 of their current IFV (which is a wheeled vehicle much simpler and less armored than typical Western fare), the Germans are going to eventually get about 400 of their new IFV (which is perhaps somewhat fancier than the Lynx), the US back in the day produced about 6.7k Bradleys (technically 2k of those were M3s, which are reconnaissance vehicles, but it's essentially the same thing with a differently-configured troop compartment), which, in its original configuration, is again, a less advanced vehicle than the Lynx - I kind of doubt Italy's military is anywhere near close to being comparable to a seventh of the US during the Cold War.

Western militaries will just say shit, "oh yeah actually I'm going to buy a billion tanks btw", deeply unserious

, adding a turret built by home supplier Leonardo, while Hungary signed in 2020 to purchase around 218, with all but the first 46 to be built in Hungary. Those 46 have now been delivered. Hungary’s decision to put in for €16.2bn in SAFE loans makes it one of the largest potential beneficiaries, but that combines with Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s repeated criticism of the EU. On Monday, the same day he discussed the SAFE set-up with Italian prime minister Meloni, he also told reporters “The European Union counts for nothing.”

American company Boeing will be able to produce around 20 F-15EX fighters per year starting in fiscal year 2027, figures that matter not only for the U.S. but also for potential export customers, including Ukraine, which might one day need a wingman for the Gripen. According to a U.S. Air Force report to Congress, there's a clear intent to maximize F-15EX procurement, with production capable of increasing to 36 aircraft annually if additional funding is provided. Boeing itself says it aims to double its current output to 24 jets per year in the coming years up from the current 12. While not insignificant, this rate is still far from sufficient. The U.S. Air Force currently plans to acquire 129 F-15EXs, with 126 expected to be delivered by the end of 2030 already nine months behind schedule. The delays stem from software issues, supply chain disruptions, and material shortages. Future production capacity could also be limited by the arrival of the sixth-generation F-47 fighter, which will likely take industrial priority.

Even at the projected rate of 24 aircraft per year, Boeing will need about five years to fulfill just the U.S. order. That means any potential foreign customers will either have to wait longer or fund an expansion in production, as U.S. military demand will always come first. Boeing expects F-15EX production to continue into the 2030s, with the aircraft expected to serve well into the 2050s. The company says that several international operators of older F-15 variants have already shown interest. Still, given the production constraints and high costs, it remains uncertain whether new buyers will commit to the F-15EX. As for Ukraine, while such a fighter could be a powerful complement to the Gripen, more accessible alternatives may be the more realistic option.

All news about Ukraine's potential acquisition of JAS 39 Gripen E aircraft examines the situation from every angle, including delivery timelines, localization, and armament. An important factor in this story is the engine, made in the U.S. by a supplier whose reputation has recently been tarnished. This is the F414 engine from General Electric Aerospace, which was developed based on the F404 engine.

The latter is installed on many aircraft, including the Indian Tejas, which is a notable case because fighter jet production has fallen seriously behind schedule due to years of engine supply delays. This suggests that a similar situation could occur with a potential Gripen E contract for Ukraine. Given the size of the order, it will be necessary to increase production, and therefore the demand for components, which could cause additional delays. Currently, the F414 is used in the production of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter jets, which is currently scheduled to end in 2027. This will reduce the strain, allowing more opportunities for other customers. The Americans did not complain about previous deliveries for the project from General Electric. However, domestic orders are always prioritized, and this led to delays for Kuwait. On the other hand, this engine is used in the South Korean KAI KF21 Boramae in its current 4+ generation variant, which is soon to go into serial production. A variant with its own domestic equivalent is expected to be developed, but this remains a plan for the future.

In India, the F414 engine is slated for the Tejas Mk2, which is still in development and yet to take flight, along with other next-generation fighters such as the fifth-generation AMCA. In addition, extensive localization is planned. It won't cover some critical technologies, but it should help relieve overall supply chains. As for local production, Sweden's Volvo is involved in the manufacture of these engines and is a long-standing partner of General Electric. This offers additional assistance in fulfilling the order, even though the dependence remains. It should be mentioned that the 2020 quarantine caused numerous delays, creating a backlog of untimely contracts across many companies. At the same time, this is being significantly addressed, so such large-scale force majeure events should not occur again. Another important aspect regarding engines is their origin, which is why Gripen is subject to ITAR. These international arms trade rules are designed to stop American technology from reaching unfriendly countries. At present, it appears that the U.S. will likely approve exports to Ukraine, though some restrictions will apply to future deliveries and usage. This could provide a strategic advantage in future political discussions.

Naturally, this applies to all U.S. weapons, F-16 included, and it is important to remember. Anyway, the Gripen relies heavily on imported components from multiple countries. Currently, the Swedes have no alternative to the F414, although rumors about potential alternatives continue to circulate. It is likely that the development of a new engine will begin for the sixth-generation fighter project. Therefore, the engine has been and remains one of the most important parts of an aircraft, which can seriously slow down any program, such as the Turkish KAAN. It is important to keep in mind the influence of this component on any potential contract with Ukraine. At the same time, neither Sweden nor Brazil has complained about the pace of F414 deliveries so far. This gives some hope that there will be no problems with the Ukrainian Gripen jets.

The Pentagon agency responsible for the more than $50 billion system of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California designed to avoid just such a scenario isn’t happy about it. The movie, starring Idris Elba and Rebecca Ferguson, had a limited theater release and is now streaming on Netflix. A Missile Defense Agency internal memorandum argues that the doomsday scenario depicted in the movie is inaccurate. The Oct. 16 memo, a copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News, is meant to make sure agency leadership “has situational awareness and is not ‘surprised’ by the topic, which may come up in conversations or meetings.” The object of the Missile Defense Agency’s angst is depiction of US missile defense as ineffective, especially in light of the fact that President Donald Trump wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on missile defense, including with his bid for a “Golden Dome” defensive umbrella.

The document, labeled “Only For Internal MDA and Department of War use and is not public releasable,” is dated a day after almost every member of the Pentagon press corps, including Bloomberg News, vacated the building rather than agree to rules that could restrict news gathering of documents such as the MDA assessment. It was prepared to “address false assumptions, provide correct facts and a better understanding” of the US’s currently deployed system, it said. While the film “highlights that deterrence can fail, which reinforces the need for an active homeland missile defense system,” its fictional portrayal also underestimates US capabilities, according to the memo. “The fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target and we understand this is intended to be a compelling part of the drama intended for the entertainment of the audience,” but results from real-world testing “tell a vastly different story,” the Pentagon says in the memo.

lol. lmao. um, if you would consult the real-world testing charts, you'd know we actually have a 10000% interception rate

As guidance for questions about the system’s cost, the memo avoids a dollar amount, saying “the cost is high but not nearly as high as the cost of allowing a nuclear missile to strike our nation.” A Government Accountability Office report in 2020 said the Pentagon had spent about $53 billion on the ground-based system and planned to spend about $10 billion through this year to continue developing, producing and sustaining it.

The system is managed by Boeing Co. and operated by personnel under the US Northern Command.

Accuracy Rate

One focus of the memo is a line in the movie in which the defense secretary, played by Jared Harris, laments that current missile defenses have a 50% chance of knocking down a missile despite their $50 billion price tag. The MDA says that’s based on earlier prototypes and today’s interceptors “have displayed a 100% accuracy rate in testing for more than a decade.”

holy shit, the above thing was a joke, but no, they actually genuinely claimed that they totally have a 100% rate. isn't this the kind of blatant propaganda that only those pesky third-world dictatorships are supposed to engage in?

Experts dispute that. Laura Grego, a long-time missile defense critic with the Union of Concerned Scientists who has seen the film, said the scenario it depicts is the least threatening possible — a single missile on a known trajectory. Military tests have been similarly limited, she said. “A robust defense should anticipate facing multiple incoming ICBMs and credible decoys, and direct attacks on missile defense elements, but none of those were part of the story in this film,” Grego said. “The fictional threat is arguably about as easy as they come.” The Pentagon said in a statement to Bloomberg News that it wasn’t consulted for the film, which “does not reflect the views or priorities of this administration.” The system “remains a critical component of our national defense strategy, ensuring the safety and security of the American people and our allies.”

A Netflix spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment. A representative for Bigelow pointed to her remarks on CBS’s Sunday Morning arguing that she didn’t seek cooperation from the Pentagon. “I felt that we needed to be more independent,” she told CBS. “But that being said, we had multiple tech advisers who have worked in the Pentagon. They were with me every day we shot.”’ The Trump administration hasn’t disclosed substantive details of its still ill-defined Golden Dome land, sea and space-based defensive shield. Space Force General Michael Guetlein, the four-star general leading the effort, last month completed a blueprint for the program. The Pentagon declined to provide details about its scope or cost.

Germany's decision to purchase an additional 15 American F-35 fighter jets worth €2.5 billion could mark the final rupture in its already fragile defense aviation partnership with France. The move, revealed by Der Spiegel citing classified Defense Ministry documents submitted to the Bundestag's budget committee, underscores Berlin's growing dependence on U.S. technology, and highlights the widening cracks within Europe's ambition to develop its own sixth-generation fighter under the FCAS program. The new aircraft will serve to replace Germany's aging Panavia Tornado fleet, which currently fulfills the NATO nuclear-sharing role. Back in December 2022, Berlin ordered 35 F-35 jets to assume this critical mission starting in 2027. However, the German Air Force has reportedly concluded that the initial number was insufficient to maintain full readiness within the nuclear deterrence component, prompting the move to expand the fleet. The model in question is the F-35A aircraft, the conventional takeoff and landing variant that is both the most affordable and most widely used of the three versions. It is also the only one certified to carry the B61-12 free-fall nuclear bomb, making it indispensable for NATO members involved in nuclear-sharing arrangements. Beyond its nuclear capabilities, the aircraft offers versatility through integration with precision-guided conventional weapons such as the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), bolstering the Alliance's overall deterrence posture.

Yet, this pragmatic defense decision is unlikely to be well received in Paris. French aerospace giant Dassault Aviation, the manufacturer of the Rafale aircraft, has long criticized European states for choosing American platforms over homegrown alternatives. Its CEO, Éric Trappier, has repeatedly framed such moves as a "betrayal of European defense sovereignty", and similar rhetoric is almost certain to resurface following Germany's latest procurement. The timing couldn't be worse for the Franco-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program, envisioned as Europe's answer to the F-35 aircraft. Plagued by disputes over technology sharing and industrial leadership, the FCAS program has struggled to progress beyond early development phases. Dassault has insisted on retaining control over around 80% of the work share, a stance that has alienated its German partners and severely strained trust within the consortium.

If Berlin's new deal with Washington goes through, it may effectively seal the FCAS program's fate. The perception that Germany no longer believes in the project's viability could accelerate its collapse, leaving France increasingly isolated in its push for European defense autonomy. For many in Berlin, however, reliability and interoperability within NATO outweigh the political symbolism of "European independence". Germany, meanwhile, appears to be quietly preparing a Plan B. Industry insiders suggest that Stockholm may emerge as an alternative partner, given Sweden's proven record in developing advanced yet cost-efficient fighter platforms such as the Gripen jets.

Estonia has reached an agreement with South Korea on a potential purchase of K239 Chunmoo MLRS. This is notable because Estonia already ordered U.S. M142 HIMARS broadly comparable systems but the interest may stem from insufficient delivery rates. According to The Korea Times, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the defence ministers of both countries during a meeting in Seoul. No further details on contract volume, price or delivery timelines have been released.

The report also notes Estonian interest in AS21 (K21) Redback infantry fighting vehicles. That aligns with Tallinn's previously stated plans to replace CV90 IFVs, which it bought used in 2014 and which are approaching the end of their service life. From Defense Express's perspective, Estonia's interest in South Korean kit is not surprising: the country already operates 155 mm K9 SPHs. South Korea's defence industry has also shown the ability to deliver equipment at scale and on relatively short schedules.

On the other hand, Estonia has already bought U.S. M142 HIMARS, which have broadly similar capabilities. Details of a previously reported $200 million contract are not public, but the export approval covered up to six launchers, 18 ATACMS rockets, 36 GMLRS packs (6 rockets each) and 72 ER GMLRS packs at a not-to-exceed price of $500 million. It's worth noting that although the order was placed in 2022, the first systems only arrived this year, in 2025. Back in February, Estonia's defence minister Hanno Pevkur publicly expressed frustration with those delivery timelines and raised the possibility of choosing an alternative. Recently, there were reports that Tallinn wants to buy additional HIMARS and associated munitions worth $4.73 billion. That deal has not been signed yet, so Chunmoo could still be selected instead. South Koreas defence industry can manufacture the requested systems quickly, and Poland is currently working to localize production of K239 ammunition which would provide local rounds supply though that effort is not yet finalised due to lack of funding from Warsaw.