Pull up SBIR.gov and filter for Army awards to Samsung SDI or LG Energy Solution. What you find, or more precisely what you mostly don't find, is the most instructive data point for evaluating whether Korean cell makers are genuinely entering the US military battery market or running a margin-narrative play on their investor calls.
As of May 2026, the record sits closer to the latter. The timeline arithmetic is what makes that verdict defensible, and it's worth doing the math carefully before sitting across from a prime contractor's supply chain team that may have heard a different story.
The Commercial Forcing Function
Korean cell makers are under structural margin pressure that makes defense qualification strategically rational, and this context needs exactly one paragraph. LFP spot in China has held below ¥0.40/Wh since Q3 2024, compressing the price gap that NMC-chemistry producers like Samsung SDI and LG Energy Solution historically used to justify premium positioning. Samsung SDI's cylindrical and prismatic cell revenues for automotive applications fell approximately 18% year-over-year in 2025 on volume that was roughly flat, per the company's Q4 2025 earnings disclosure — the entire decline was ASP. LG Energy Solution's automotive segment margin turned negative in Q2 2025 for the first time since its IPO. Military-specification cells, where $/kWh pricing can run three to five times commercial equivalents for the same chemistry, represent a genuine margin refuge. The strategic logic is coherent. Whether the procurement record reflects execution against it, or just the announcement of intent, is a different matter.
What MIL-PRF-32565 Actually Requires
MIL-PRF-32565D, the current revision governing lithium-ion batteries for military applications, is not a paper exercise. The testing matrix for cell-level qualification covers:
- Operating temperature range from -40°C to +71°C
- Vibration and shock profiles derived from military vehicle dynamics
- Altitude simulation to 15,000 feet
- Overcharge and short-circuit abuse conditions
- 72-hour silent-watch discharge at -20°C ambient
That last requirement reliably separates cells designed for commercial automotive applications from cells that can actually support Army vehicle electrification. The testing sequence is not parallelizable in any meaningful way; certain failure modes only manifest after extended cycling under combined thermal and mechanical stress, and the specification requires that testing be conducted on production-representative cells, not development samples.
A realistic qualification runway for a manufacturer with no existing DoD qualification history runs 24 to 36 months from cell design freeze to Qualified Products List inclusion — plus three to six months for DFARS 252.225 supply chain disclosure and additional vetting applied to non-domestic sources. A Korean cell maker starting today cannot realistically achieve QPL inclusion before late 2028, and that assumes no test failures, no program office delays, and sustained funded engagement throughout.
Sustained funded engagement is not guaranteed. It requires an active program relationship, which is precisely what the SBIR record is supposed to document.
Samsung SDI: One Phase I, No Follow-Through
SBIR.gov shows a single award to Samsung SDI America under Army Topic A22-049, titled "High-Energy Density Li-Ion Cell Development for Military Ground Vehicle Applications," awarded Q3 2023 at $249,000, a Phase I. Phase I SBIR awards are exploratory contracts, typically six months in duration, designed to establish technical feasibility. They are not production signals. The dollar range ($50K–$250K) reflects their nature: funded curiosity, not funded commitment.
As of the publication date of this piece, no Phase II award to Samsung SDI America appears in the SBIR.gov database for this topic or any related Army topic. The standard Phase I-to-Phase II transition timeline is 12 to 18 months when a program office finds Phase I results compelling. Samsung SDI's Phase I concluded, by the standard six-month performance period, in approximately Q1 2024. Fifteen months have elapsed with no Phase II visible in the public record. This absence functions as a signal: either the Army program office did not find the Phase I results sufficient to fund further development, or Samsung SDI did not pursue the transition aggressively. The procurement record cannot distinguish between these explanations, but neither is consistent with a company that has committed to the Army qualification pathway.
On SAM.gov, Samsung SDI America carries an active entity registration with a CAGE code, which is a prerequisite for federal contracting but not evidence of contracting activity. No award notices appear under the entity as of the search date. The Q3 2025 earnings call included this from the CFO, in response to an analyst question about diversification:
"We are actively pursuing qualification pathways in defense energy storage, particularly in the United States, and we see this as a meaningful opportunity over the medium term."
No program names, no contract references, no dollar figures. BD language, not procurement language.
LG Energy Solution: Registration Without Record
LG Energy Solution's procurement footprint is thinner still. SAM.gov shows an active registration for LG Energy Solution Michigan, Inc., the entity that operates the Holland, Michigan facility, with CAGE code assigned. No award notices. The SBIR.gov database returns no awards to LG Energy Solution or its known US subsidiaries under any agency, Army or otherwise, as of the search date.
LG Energy Solution's Q4 2025 earnings materials referenced "defense and government applications" twice in the context of a slide titled "Diversification of End Markets," alongside grid storage and commercial marine as growth vectors. The slide carried no program names, no qualification milestones, and no revenue projections. In the context of a company disclosing a negative automotive segment margin, the inclusion of "defense" in a diversification slide reads as investor communication rather than operational update. A company that had filed SBIR applications, engaged a program office, and begun qualification testing would have something more specific to say. The slide does not.
The Timeline Arithmetic Against Army Program Schedules
The Army's Integrated Tactical Power System program, which governs 6T battery integration across the Bradley replacement and associated vehicle platforms, is currently in Engineering and Manufacturing Development with Milestone C, the production decision, anticipated in Q2 2027, per program office briefings presented at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting in October 2025. Suppliers seeking to appear on the initial Qualified Products List for ITPS production needed to have entered MIL-PRF-32565 qualification testing by approximately mid-2025 to have a credible path to QPL inclusion before the Milestone C decision.
Neither Samsung SDI nor LG Energy Solution appears to be in that testing pipeline. The companies that are — Saft's US subsidiary, Bren-Tronics, and EnerTech International through its US integration partner — began their qualification engagements two to four years ago. EnerTech's case is instructive: a Korean manufacturer that successfully navigated DoD qualification did so through a decade-long relationship with a US systems integrator that managed the program office interface, absorbed the DFARS compliance burden, and provided the domestic production nexus that Army contracting requires. Samsung SDI and LG Energy Solution are attempting to compress that relationship capital into a timeline the procurement record does not support.
For silent-watch applications specifically, the near-term Army 6T procurement category where Li-ion is displacing lead-acid in current-generation platforms, the relevant programs are already in production or late-stage qualification. The window for new entrants in this cycle has effectively closed.
The Capacity Credibility Problem
There is a secondary issue that procurement professionals should flag when Korean cell makers present defense qualification as a capacity utilization strategy. Samsung SDI's cylindrical cell lines are running at an estimated 62% utilization as of Q1 2026, per the company's disclosed output figures against nameplate capacity. LG Energy Solution's Michigan facility is operating at approximately 58% utilization. The idle capacity is real and the motivation to fill it is genuine.
But Army 6T procurement volumes are not a utilization solution. Total Army Li-ion 6T procurement across all active programs runs in the range of 8 to 15 MWh annually, a rounding error against GWh-scale commercial capacity. Defense qualification is a margin play, not a volume play, and a manufacturer that frames it as capacity utilization either misunderstands the market or is presenting the story differently to different audiences. The margin argument is legitimate. The volume argument should be questioned.
The Verdict the Math Delivers
| Samsung SDI | LG Energy Solution | |
|---|---|---|
| SBIR Awards | 1 Phase I (Q3 2023, $249K) | None |
| Phase II Follow-on | None (15+ months elapsed) | N/A |
| SAM.gov Registration | Active (CAGE assigned) | Active (CAGE assigned) |
| Named Program Engagement | None in public record | None in public record |
| Earnings Defense References | Yes — no program names cited | Yes — no program names cited |
Samsung SDI has one Phase I SBIR with no Phase II follow-on after 15 months. LG Energy Solution has no procurement record at all. Both companies have made earnings-call references to defense without naming programs, contracts, or qualification milestones. The Army's near-term 6T programs are past the entry window for new suppliers. The qualification runway for a foreign manufacturer starting today runs to late 2028 at the earliest.
The procurement record describes something more modest than a pivot: genuine strategic interest in a market that offers real margin relief, expressed through exploratory engagement that has not yet produced the funded program relationships qualification requires. Anyone pricing Korean cell makers into a near-term defense supply chain should read the record plainly — neither company is in the Army qualification pipeline for programs currently in procurement, and the timeline math forecloses that possibility before late 2028.
Whether they build the program office relationships and sustained investment to be there for the next cycle is a different question, and one the procurement record is not yet equipped to answer.
Editorial note: This piece is a production preview. Procurement records cited reflect the state of SAM.gov and SBIR.gov databases as of the publication date. Readers are encouraged to verify award status directly, as SBIR Phase II transitions and SAM.gov award notices can post with a lag of four to eight weeks from contract execution.