You are assuming DoD is just bombers and weapons. It is not. my notes on Intel foundry plans hint at that. But as I said, DoD/govt+Tower+UMC is one fab of volume in 2-5 years. This is true
The chips inside the weapons you show are several generation behind leading edge (N3). DoD does want ability to use leading edge, they do not have that ability today.
No, I don't assume DoD only needs chips for weapon system. If we dig into those high volume or higher volume semiconductors DoD needs, I don't see much chance that Intel can persuade DoD that Intel deserve an exclusive deal or an extraordinary amount of additional subsidy.
Such as: (not a complete list)
1. Chips for desktop and laptop: Apple, AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm (soon) are covering DoD's needs. DoD has no intention to limit itself to Intel only and has no ability to force Apple, AMD, or Qualcomm to use Intel as their foundry.
2. Chips for mobile (not the notebooks), IoT, and tablets: This is Qualcomm, Apple, Samsung, Broadcom, and MediaTek's strength. In many areas Intel doesn't have a comparable product at all.
3. Chips for servers, Cloud services, and high performance computing (including AI):
AMD, Nvidia, Intel, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Cerebras Systems, Ampere Computing and Broadcom are DoD's suppliers. Intel is an important one in this group of DoD suppliers but Intel is not the only one. Again, in several areas Intel doesn't have a comparable product at all.
4. Networking, communication, sensors, analog, automotive, powers, industrial:
AMD, Cisco, Intel, Nvidia, Broadcom, Marvel, ADI, Texas Instruments, NXP, Infineon, Wolfspeed, and Microchips are strong players along with foundry service provider GlobalFoundries and TSMC. Once again, in several areas Intel doesn't have a comparable product at all.
5.Memory:
Micron. Intel has no memory product.
DoD wants to have a more robust and diversified semiconductor supply chain. To bring more fab capability onto US soil, no matter it's from Micron, TI, GF, Intel, TSMC, Samsung, or SK Hynix. Unless there is no other option, DoD doesn't want to limit itself to Intel just because Intel like to be the only one.
BTW, Tower Semi and UMC are both mature nodes companies. What do they do with Intel's upcoming leading edge fabs? Tower and UMC can bring volume to old and fully depreciated Intel fabs, not the leading edge Intel fabs that are getting Chips Act subsidies.
Although people might speculate that UMC and Tower Semi can act as resellers to promote Intel's leading edge fabs and consequently bring more volume to Intel. This is a wishful thinking to me.
A fabless company who dares to use leading edge nodes today is either big in size or rich in capital or both. Why can't such company talk to Intel Foundry directly? Do they really need a middleman?