In December 2010, GAO published an assessment of DoD's power-source investments that identified a structural pattern: fragmented procurement authority, unfunded standardization mandates, and proprietary program-level battery decisions that kept demand from consolidating into volumes a domestic supplier could plan against. The report number was GAO-11-113. Fifteen years later the standards are considerably better and the procurement behavior is unchanged.
SAE JA1016, issued in June 2026 as a recommended practice for Group 1 sUAS pouch cells, is the most recent artifact in a sequence that defines what a common battery should look like without obligating anyone to buy one. EnPower has reportedly begun retooling its Indiana production line for more than two million standard-format cells annually, targeting mid-2027 availability. The company does not have firm contracts for those cells. It is capitalizing a line against a recommended practice, with Section 4865 sourcing deadlines arriving in the same window, and the demand signal it is responding to is an inference from published standards rather than a purchase order.
This piece traces the pattern from the GAO baseline, constructs four indicators a reader can monitor to determine whether the cycle is breaking, and tests each against the public record as of September 2026.
The GAO baseline
GAO-11-113 estimated DoD invested at least $2.1 billion in power sources during fiscal years 2006–2010: roughly $868 million in science and technology and at least $1.2 billion in logistics support. The estimate excluded acquisition-program battery spending because DoD could not produce those data. No office aggregated power-source investment across S&T, logistics, and acquisition programs.
Two mechanisms sustained the fragmentation. First, performance-based acquisition delegated component decisions to prime contractors, who selected proprietary power sources or defaulted to established supplier relationships. Program managers did not always retain practical control over the battery decision, which meant the standardization question was often settled below the level at which standardization policy applied.
Second, the Army's own standardization rule was undermined by how the reviewing organization was funded. AR 70-1 §8.8 required acquisition-executive approval before a program could select a nonstandard battery. The Army Power Division conducted the technical evaluations that fed that approval, and it depended on customer reimbursements for roughly half its budget. An unfavorable evaluation could cost the division a paying customer.
The Joint Standardization Board for Power Source Systems, the body responsible for coordinating across services, lacked funding to carry out its responsibilities. Its chairman told GAO the board had "little impact."
The illustrative case was the AN/PRC-148 and AN/PRC-152 radios: comparable function, incompatible proprietary batteries, separate inventories, sole-source supplier dependence on each side. GAO also documented two narrower cost cases. Retrofitting the TALON robot with batteries already in DLA inventory, in place of a proprietary pack, saved approximately $7,000 per system. The V-22 avoided a new battery development entirely by adopting two existing standard batteries already qualified on other aircraft.
GAO recommended that DoD aggregate investment data, identify equipment classes amenable to standard power sources, and establish a department-wide policy requiring senior approval before a program selected a nonstandard battery. DoD concurred with the first and partially concurred with the others. GAO found no evidence of the standardization actions DoD said were already underway.
The intervening years
The years between 2011 and 2026 produced standardization artifacts at increasing levels of specificity without producing the procurement commitment that would make them operative. Four distinct institutional acts separate a configuration from a funded one: a standard defines it, a solicitation requires it, a contract enforces it, a purchase order pays for it. The sequence has consistently stalled at the transition from the first to the second.
DoD's own 2022 supply-chain assessment found the dynamics GAO had documented a decade earlier still operating: custom designs disaggregated battery demand, increased obsolescence exposure, and limited DoD's influence over commercial standards. The same report found that inadequate data management prevented DoD from cataloging battery types, volumes, and future needs, and warned that building domestic production capacity without corresponding demand would not resolve the dependency, because procurement could continue selecting the lowest-cost cells regardless of origin.
The Army issued MIL-STD-3078 in November 2024, an interoperability standard for replaceable batteries. It designates preferred configurations — STUB, XX90, CWB, 6T — and states that Army systems using replaceable batteries shall use military-standard or selected COTS batteries. This is a mandatory service-level technical standard, not a recommended practice. It also notes that when it was published, no common standard battery specifically designed for aviation existed.
DIU's Family of Advanced Standard Batteries program awarded ten prototype projects spanning soldier, ground-vehicle, and aviation applications. Stryten was tasked to prototype a common module serving both Li-6T ground and conformal aircraft starter/generator applications. These remain prototype awards. The public QPL for MIL-PRF-32565, the 6T battery specification, still shows only its 2017 notice stating that no products or sources had been established — a qualified products list with nothing qualified on it, nine years on. I noted this in an earlier piece; nothing in the public record has changed since.
The mechanism behind the persistence is straightforward once stated. A program manager selecting a battery is solving a local optimization problem: qualify a cell that meets the platform's requirements, on the platform's schedule, within the platform's budget. Choosing a common-standard battery adds dimensional, electrical, and qualification-basis constraints that may not align with the platform's performance envelope, and the program manager absorbs the cost of those constraints in schedule and margin. The benefit of commonality accrues elsewhere — to the logistics system, to other programs, to the industrial base — all outside the program manager's budget authority and performance evaluation. That is the same misaligned incentive GAO described in 2011. Publishing a better standard does not change the arithmetic the program manager is doing. Only a procurement rule that makes the common battery the default, and attaches a cost to deviating from it, changes which option wins locally.
The pattern breaks at the same point every time — between the standard and the solicitation. A standard defines a configuration; a solicitation requires it; a contract enforces it; a purchase order funds it.
Four indicators
These are ordered by causal sequence. Solicitation adoption has to precede cross-platform qualification, which has to precede common inventory, which becomes capitalizable only against a purchase floor. Each is tested against the public record through September 11, 2026.
1. Solicitation adoption
What "met" looks like: JA1016 or equivalent common-cell language appears as a mandatory requirement or evaluation criterion in a solicitation on SAM.gov. Stronger evidence would be an award carrying that requirement into a contract clause.
Current evidence: A SAM.gov search for JA1016 returned no indexed notices. A broader sUAS search covering 721 notices, with the 71 most recent post-JA1016 records screened individually, found no reference to JA1016 or equivalent pouch-cell standard language. That search reaches indexed notice text only. It does not reach restricted procurement documents or every attachment, so the finding is a floor, not a certainty.
One solicitation does incorporate equivalent standard-battery language through a different instrument. The Army's Platoon Level SUAS solicitation (W58RGZ-26-S-C001-0002, posted April 2026) requires that packs be removable and that the air vehicle use standard military batteries listed in MIL-STD-3078. That is mandatory solicitation-level adoption of a common-battery standard, and it is the first I have located for sUAS. It predates JA1016. It does not disclose which battery was proposed, whether an offer was accepted, or whether the requirement survived into an award.
Other recent sUAS notices continue the program-specific pattern. An RQ-20 sustainment notice listed AeroVironment battery assemblies as platform parts with no common-battery language. A PACAF sUAS notice expressed battery requirements through endurance and performance specifications rather than a standard configuration.
Assessment: Partially met, through one MIL-STD-3078 solicitation. Not met for JA1016.
2. Cross-platform qualification
What "met" looks like: A controlled battery configuration, identified by part number, revision, and qualification basis, is accepted for use on two named programs of record, with change control sufficient to preserve that status across both.
Why it matters: The AN/PRC-148 and AN/PRC-152 case is what the absence of this indicator costs downstream. Two radios performing comparable functions carried incompatible proprietary batteries, which forced separate inventories and locked each program into its own sole source, because no cross-program qualification existed that would let one battery serve both.
Current evidence: No public QPL, qualification announcement, SBIR transition record, or defense trade report reviewed identifies a current cell or pack configuration as qualified for two named programs. GAO's V-22 example remains the strongest historical case, but the report did not name the batteries or the originating aircraft, which prevents verification at configuration level.
DIU's prototype awards describe intended commonality across soldier, ground-vehicle, and aviation applications. Army budget material describes planned demonstrations of STUB, CWB, and BB-2590 batteries for Next Generation Squad Weapon and Enhanced Night Vision Goggle–Binocular. Planned demonstration is not completed qualification on both programs.
This is the indicator most likely to have been met inside DoD without public visibility, since qualification records and engineering-change histories carry no publication requirement. My inference from the absence of any announcement is that it has not occurred, and that inference rests on a behavioral assumption rather than a document: cross-platform qualification would be a program milestone worth publicizing, and nobody has publicized one.
Assessment: Not publicly met.
3. Common inventory
What "met" looks like: DLA or another joint logistics authority manages and stocks a standardized battery item serving multiple sUAS platforms under a shared NSN, rather than separate OEM-specific or program-specific variants.
Why it matters: The TALON retrofit is the demonstrated case. Replacing a proprietary pack with batteries already in DLA inventory saved approximately $7,000 per system and improved battery life. That saving was only available because the common item already existed in the supply system, which in turn required some prior program to have qualified and stocked it.
Current evidence: DLA has managed at least one sUAS battery item. USAspending records show a 2023 DLA purchase order for an AeroVironment battery assembly under NSN 6140-01-547-2044, associated with the Raven air vehicle, and a commercial FLIS-derived record shows procurements against it from 2015 through 2023. That establishes DLA can assign an NSN and conduct recurring procurement for a sUAS battery. It does not establish common inventory: the item is OEM-specific to a particular end item. I located no case of one standard battery configuration mapping to two or more sUAS platforms under a shared NSN.
For scale reference, DLA's August 2026 Bren-Tronics IDIQ, a four-year $9.79 million vehicle for CSEL rechargeable battery units, shows what recurring DLA-managed battery procurement looks like when it exists. It covers CSEL units, not sUAS cells.
Assessment: Not met for sUAS.
4. Purchase floor
What "met" looks like: A binding instrument names a battery configuration or defined compliant class, states a minimum annual purchase quantity, and runs long enough that a domestic manufacturer can capitalize a production line against it.
Why it matters: The Joint Standardization Board lacked funding and, by its own chairman's account, had little impact. A purchase floor is the funded commitment that coordination bodies and recommended practices cannot substitute for. Without one, standardization produces documents but not demand.
Current evidence: I covered this in Issue 8 and Issue 13, documenting the gap between statutory purchasing authority and bankable minimum demand. The evidence has not materially changed.
10 U.S.C. §4817 authorizes Industrial Base Fund purchase commitments of up to ten years. Its first annual report to Congress is due October 15, 2026. No preliminary disclosure has surfaced.
The DIBC's BES-26-01 solicitation seeks capacity of at least 50 MWh annually against a 3 GWh objective. Its Q&A states that award count and value depend on FY2027 appropriations and government need. Asked directly about committed offtake, DIBC did not provide one.
DoD's Investment Intelligence Center lists battery-related DPA and IBAS investments — Inventus Power production expansion, an energy-storage-systems campus, PolyPlus lithium-seawater battery production — that fund capacity without naming government purchase quantities. The Common Wearable Battery solicitation projected a ceiling of 944,787 batteries and set each offeror's initial minimum at 200 first-article-test units.
Assessment: Not met. The authorities exist. The capacity investments exist. The annual configuration-level purchase commitment does not.
What changes next
The §4817 annual report due October 15 is the nearest event that could move the purchase-floor indicator. If it discloses a battery purchase commitment naming a configuration, an annual quantity, and a duration, that is the first public artifact of its kind and the diagnosis in this piece needs revising. If it reports authority exercised for capacity investment rather than recurring procurement, the pattern holds.
Timing is not favorable. FY2026 ends September 30, Congress came back from the Labor Day recess with FY2027 appropriations unresolved, and DIBC has already tied BES-26-01's award count and value to those appropriations. A continuing resolution would push the funded-commitment question past the point where EnPower's mid-2027 line schedule can absorb it.
On solicitation adoption, the Platoon Level SUAS requirement is real and measurable: mandatory, procurement-level adoption of a common-battery standard on one program. Whether contracting officers reuse that language on subsequent sUAS solicitations, or whether it stays a single instance tied to one program office's preference, is the thing to watch. A post-JA1016 solicitation citing JA1016 by identifier would be a separate signal and a stronger one, since JA1016 reaches cell format rather than pack interface.
Cross-platform qualification and common inventory have no identified near-term trigger. The 6T QPL is still empty, DIU's prototype awards have not produced a qualification announcement, and no public NSN maps a standard battery to more than one sUAS platform.
The constraint is not technical. Nothing in the electrochemistry, the format standards, or the domestic manufacturing base prevents a common sUAS cell from existing. What prevents it is that the entity choosing the battery does not receive the benefit of choosing the common one, and fifteen years of increasingly specific standards have not altered that.
-
Taiwan's Altius battery substitution: Taiwan and the U.S. reportedly completed a non-China battery and charger alternative for the Altius drone fleet, with a Taiwanese manufacturer beginning production, though the public record does not identify the cell maker, chemistry, or Section 4865 provenance.
-
DIBC cylindrical-cell award status: The BES-26-01 solicitation closed July 17 seeking a path to 50 MWh of annual 18650/21700 production, but the DIBC solicitations page still shows "Closed" rather than "Awarded," with no awardee, obligated value, or offtake commitment disclosed.
-
Enovix Korean defense revenue: Enovix's Q2 2026 10-Q disclosed that a single South Korean defense subcontractor accounted for the majority of total revenue, establishing an operating Korea-defense bridge while U.S. program qualification and Section 4865 evidence remain absent.
-
DFARS Case 2024-D011 deadline: The implementing rule for Section 4865 missed its June 16 statutory deadline and has been internally extended twice, with the next report target set for October 7 — still without a published proposed, interim, or final rule.