‘Every Dirt Boy’s Dream’: RED HORSE Airmen Restore Pacific WWII Airfield

‘Every Dirt Boy’s Dream’: RED HORSE Airmen Restore Pacific WWII Airfield

Oct. 25, 2024 | By David Roza

Clearing jungle and laying asphalt in tropical heat may not sound like fun to most people, but it’s a way of life for Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers (RED HORSE) Airmen, who have spent the past year or so restoring World War II-era airfields on the Pacific island of Tinian.

“This is a huge scale,” Senior Master Sgt. Zachary Long of the 513th Expeditionary RED HORSE Squadron said in a video about the restoration effort posted to the Air Force Civil Engineers YouTube channel on Oct. 24.

“I mean, we’re talking like 500 acres, this area is, and [the Airmen] have the opportunity to run all the heavy equipment,” he added. “You can’t beat it. This is every Dirt Boy’s dream.”

Dirt Boyz is the term for civil engineer Airmen who get their hands dirty pouring concrete, operating bulldozers, fixing pipes, and all the other work involved in maintaining an air base or building a new one. Few units get more sweaty or dirty than RED HORSE squadrons, which move out fast to build or repair airfields, hangars, and other facilities when the Air Force needs it in a hurry.

Last year, the 820th RED HORSE Squadron from Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., arrived at Tinian to restore the runways at North Field, a complex of ramps, runways, and taxiways at the island’s north end. North Field was where Little Boy, the first nuclear weapon used in warfare, was assembled and loaded onto the B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay before its flight to drop the bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.

Tinian, Mariana Islands, 1945 after airfield construction, looking north to south. The massive North Field, 313th Bombardment Wing in front, West Field, 58th Bombardment Wing, in background. (U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency photo)

The Enola Gay was just one of hundreds of aircraft that took off and landed there after the U.S. seized it from Japan in August, 1944.

“As soon as the island was seized, the Seabees, the Navy’s construction battalions, began work on the largest airbase of World War II—and in fact the largest airfield in the world at the time,” according to the National Park Service. Eventually 40,000 people worked at the base, which had six 8,500-foot runways: four in North Field and two more farther south at West Field. 

International observers view the pit where the first atomic bomb used in warfare was loaded onto the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress, Tinian, Feb. 13, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Akeem K. Campbell)

From there, B-29s took off to bomb Japan and Southeast Asia, but the airfields were largely abandoned by the U.S. military between 1946 and 2003, when Marines returned to Tinian for a training exercise. Marine aircraft and Guam Air National Guardsmen used a few North Field runways in the 2000s and 2010s, while Seabees and Marine engineers started improving infrastructure on the island at least as early as 2020. 

The former West Field became the Tinian International Airport and is still in use to this day: Air Force F-22 fighters landed there for the first time in March 2023. That year, the Air Force went public with its plans to restore North Field, with then-Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach telling Nikkei Asia that the area would be transformed into an “extensive” facility. The Air Force received $79 million in its 2024 budget for construction projects on the island.

An F-22 Raptor assigned to the 525th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, Kadena Air Base, Japan, launches from Tinian International Airport, Northern Mariana Islands, during Exercise Agile Reaper 23-1, March 2, 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Hailey Staker

The return to Tinian is part of a strategy called Agile Combat Employment, where, in a conflict with China, small groups of Airmen would launch and recover aircraft from small, scattered air bases to avoid being targeted by long-range missiles. Tinian is one of several locations across the Pacific where the Air Force may operate in a future conflict. 

But preparing those airfields takes work, and that’s where units such as RED HORSE come in. The 823rd RED HORSE Squadron from Hurlburt Field, Fla., spent more than six months restoring and rebuilding North Field, putting up new structures and clearing eight decades of overgrown vegetation, according to an April press release. The 823rd went home in April, but other RED HORSE units and Navy Seabees took up the task, with the goal of restoring over 20 million square feet of degraded World War II pavement. Restoring is easier than building brand-new runways, Airmen explained.

“Building new is not the way to go and it’s very expensive,” Lt. Col. Frank Blaz, former commander of the Guam Air National Guard’s 254th RED HORSE Squadron, said in the Civil Engineers video. “Repairing and rehabilitating what exists is a much better economic solution.”

Sometimes the work involved hacking through the jungle with a machete to find GPS coordinates marking the airfield boundary, Master Sgt. Jody Branson, operations superintendent with the 513th Expeditionary RED HORSE Squadron, told the Wall Street Journal in a recent video.

“This was part of the battle that we fought every day, going through the jungle to mark these points the entire day through the rain, through the humidity and the heat of the day,” he said. 

Tinian’s North Field photographed from above in 2024. (Screenshot via YouTube/Air Force Civil Engineers)

The work paid off: squadron commander Maj. Blake Rothschild told the Journal that the team cleared North Field’s Charlie runway, which was completely covered in vegetation before they arrived.

“Over the last 60 days, what they have opened up is really monumental,” he said. “It’s crazy how fast they’ve done it.”

Completing the mission could take years, but it’s a top priority for Air Force officials, including Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin.

“Our Airmen at Tinian are successfully expanding our Agile Combat Employment options to enhance deterrence, increase flexibility, and, if needed, rapidly generate combat power,” Allvin said after visiting Tinian in April. “They are the pathfinders for advancing our scheme of maneuver in the Indo-Pacific.”

Northrop: USAF Weighs Buying More B-21 Bombers

Northrop: USAF Weighs Buying More B-21 Bombers

Oct. 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

As the Air Force rethinks requirements for its Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, it appears to be reconsidering the number of B-21 bombers it needs, as well. 

“I think that’s exactly what the Air Force is looking at,” said Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden, which makes the B-21 and is not competing for NGAD. “They are undertaking a force structure design review, and the Secretary has been open about looking at the various options they have for increasing their force size and has talked specifically about NGAD. And we know that B-21 is in the mix as well.”

Warden made her comments during an earnings call Oct. 24.

The Air Force is in the midst of a congressionally mandated force structure review and, at the same time, rushing to complete the NGAD requirements analysis ordered up after Secretary Frank Kendall paused NGAD ahead of a down-select decision on two competing designs this summer. NGAD has always been seen as an extension of the B-21 family of systems, a necessary addition to ensure the Raider gets to its target and makes it back out safely.

Air Force officials have insisted 100 Raiders is sufficient to the current need, though others have argued for building more. But Warden said Oct. 24 that the size of the B-21 fleet is one factor in part of a broader requirements review.  

Cost is a major factor. Kendall paused NGAD because of the cost of each aircraft. Having previously suggested that each sixth-generation jet could cost multiple hundreds of millions of dollars, he said in September he’d prefer to pay no more than the cost of an F-35, or $80 million to $100 million per tail. 

The difference, spread across a fleet size of 200-250 fighters, would yield tens of billions in savings. That’s where the B-21 comes into play. Asked during the Oct. 24 earnings call if NGAD savings could fund more B-21s, Warden made her comments.  

The Air Force uses 2010 as the base year for calculating B-21 costs, when the unit cost per bomber was contractually set at $550 million. That puts its cost in current dollars at about $780 million. However, Kendall told Congress in April that the B-21 was below cost projections for low-rate initial production. The cost ceiling will go up for subsequent aircraft. 

“It would be premature for me to suggest where that force structure review will end up,” Warden said of the Air Force study. “But I do think in the coming months, we may get a better indication from the Air Force as to how they’re thinking about B-21 quantities in the long run.”

In March, then-deputy chief for planning Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr. told lawmakers that a decision on a larger fleet wouldn’t be needed until the 2030s. A month later, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said he wasn’t looking to buy more than 100 because technological developments could produce something better by the time all those aircraft are built. 

Others have argued for more Raiders, however. Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, has said he would “love” to have more B-21s. 

“If you take a look at the real world operating requirements the Air Force has, [planners] fully understand that the Air Force’s combat capacity must grow,” retired Col. Mark Gunzinger of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “And if the challenge is to fight tonight, to respond over global ranges … that drives requirements for longer range capabilities, larger payloads, and capabilities that can operate in degraded, highly contested threat environments. That is a prescription for penetrating bombers. It’s a very common sense narrative for why we need to rebuild our bomber force.”

Gunzinger said the U.S. needs to scale up to deter two peer adversaries in Russia and China, and that more B-21s, procured at a faster rate, is the best way to do so. 

“The most cost-effective way of doing that is to increase the acquisition of B-21 because it’s a two-for-one deal,” Gunzinger said. “It enhances conventional defense and it enhances nuclear deterrence.”

But Gunzinger questioned the idea of shifting spending from NGAD to B-21.

“I don’t think the capabilities they’re looking for in NGAD would mean that they could trade off NGAD for B-21 or vice versa,” Gunzinger said. “The fact is, the Air Force is so small and so old, it needs both, and it needs them in quantity.”

Another analyst, Christopher Bowie, has said: “We should plan to build more than the 100 currently on the books [because] no matter how capable an aircraft, it can only be in one place at one time.” 

Citing studies from the Mitchell Institute, the MITRE Corporation, and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Gunzinger assessed that that the Air Force needs a bomber fleet of 300 or more aircraft, with 200 or so of them being stealthy, penetrating bombers like the B-2 or B-21.

All that discussion preceded Kendall’s decision to “pause” NGAD rather than commit to one design. He now has a senior-level panel, including three former Air Force chiefs and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, looking at options, and he has promised a decision by year’s end. If that triggers a reassessment and new competition, it could set back the NGAD program by years.

Not surprisingly, Warden said Northrop stands ready to increase B-21 production if asked. 

“In the short run, we remain very focused on delivering them optionality. The performance that we are delivering gives them a capability that is in production now that is well below the cost target for the platform,” she said. “And we believe that that’s the role of industry, to give the government options as they think about their force structure.” 

Warden said she expects the Air Force to award a second low-rate production contract before the end of the year. The service awarded the first LRIP contract after first flight of the bomber last year, though officials declined to disclose exact figures on the size of the deal and the number of aircraft covered. 

Why the Pentagon is Betting Big on Long-Range Ukrainian Drones: ‘It Works’

Why the Pentagon is Betting Big on Long-Range Ukrainian Drones: ‘It Works’

Oct. 24, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The United States is giving Ukraine $800 million in support to manufacture long-range drones, so Kyiv can do more to counter Russian aggression with its own weapons. 

“They’ve developed the capability to mass produce drones that are very, very effective and that can go impressive distances,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III told reporters Oct. 23 following a trip to Ukraine earlier this week. “So it makes sense to invest in that capability and their ability to continue to scale.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to the proliferation of drones across the battlefield, with both sides using quadcopter-style and first-person view (FPV) drones with increasing sophistication. Moscow has also employed Iranian-designed Shahed drones to pummel Ukrainian infrastructure. Ukraine, in turn, has developed drones that U.S. officials say can hold Russian targets at risk hundreds of kilometers beyond the front line.

“That’s a qualitative improvement that we’ve seen by the Ukrainians in the past year,” a senior defense official said.

The U.S. assistance serves two purposes. It strengthens Ukraine’s ability to carry out deep strikes against Russian targets, and it will also build up the country’s ability to make its own arms at a time when the West’s industrial base is strained by demand from Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel.

“[The Ukrainians] have such a vibrant and diverse drone industry that’s doing really, really exciting things, and they’re doing them for really cheap,” Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The U.S. and its allies first came to Ukraine’s aid with donations of weapons—everything from replacements for Ukraine’s Soviet-era weapons to F-16 fighters. But the U.S. has readiness concerns about giving Ukraine certain types of weapons in short supply such as American-made missiles and drones.

“You have got to be very clear-minded about what kind of operational outcomes we think Ukraine is going to get out of these long-range drones because we’re dealing with our own very serious problems in the Indo-Pacific and we are running out of materiel to give Ukraine,” from U.S. stockpiles, Caitlin Lee of the RAND Corporation told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

While the U.S. has provided Ukraine with ATACMS surface-to-surface missiles, it has not allowed Kyiv to use them to strike targets inside Russia.  But there are no similar restrictions on Ukraine’s use of drones, which are slow and carry a much smaller payload than an ATACMS but still represent an important military capability.  

“This is where a classic counterair strategy of attacking the another’s air base would be useful, even if they don’t destroy that much,” Pettyjohn added. “If they can hold it at risk and disrupt operations for several days, that’s a real operational effect.”

Another advantage, Austin noted, is that the drones are far cheaper to make than a ballistic missile, meaning that Kyiv can field a larger number of them. 

“We’ve seen them strike targets that are 400 kilometers beyond the border and even deeper with precision, and they can do that at a fraction of the cost of a ballistic missile,” Austin said.

U.S. allies also are trying to support Ukraine’s defense industry. Denmark, Canada, and the Netherlands are participating in a global fundraising campaign that seeks to raise $10 billion in 2024 for the production of Ukrainian weapons. The campaign is called “Manufacturing Freedom.”

“If they’re going to be able to sustain their efforts, gotta be able to afford it,” Austin said. “It makes sense for us to invest in what they’re doing. It works. It’s effective and it’s precise.”

Data Integrity, Not Cyber Attacks, Are What Most Worry Space Command’s Cyber Boss

Data Integrity, Not Cyber Attacks, Are What Most Worry Space Command’s Cyber Boss

Oct. 24, 2024 | By Shaun Waterman

What keeps the digital warriors charged with fighting America’s wars in space awake at night isn’t cyber attacks per se, but more nebulous threats to the integrity of their data, the chief information officer of U.S. Space Command told an industry conference. 

“The cyber threat is known to everyone,” Tse-Horng “Richard” Yu explained in a keynote address to AFCEA’s TechNet Indo-Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii, calling the threat “serious, very important, and dangerous, real. I’m concerned about that.” 

But he added, “that’s a known-known. It’s when we start exploring the unknown unknowns that I have a hard time sleeping at night.” Chief among these are threats to the integrity of data, he said. 

For instance, if an enemy could invisibly alter the timing element of the position, navigation, and timing (PNT) service provided by GPS, even to a minuscule degree, the effects could be devestating to the Space Command mission—SPACECOM’s strategic missile defense capability depends on absolute precision, Yu said. 

“When there’s an ICBM coming this way, and we have to shoot it down with an interceptor, [that’s like trying to shoot] a bullet with a bullet. Not only do we need to know the x, y, z of that location, but timing is very important, because it’s flying in excess of 10 kilometers per second. So if our timing is off by even a fraction of a second, you can see that we’ll miss the target,” he said. 

There are many different ways U.S. adversaries might try to get the access they’d need for that kind of mischief. 

“I’m concerned about our supply chain, for example, where things can get through into our network and disrupt—without me knowing—my data set,” Yu said. 

Being able to rely on the integrity of data is critical but complicated, he said. “How do we, for example, know our timing is being spoofed? How do we know if our data is being spoofed?” he asked. 

Conventional cybersecurity is all well and good, he said, but it has its limits.

“In your house, you have perimeter defense on your doors and windows, so if somebody opens or breaks the door or the window, you’ll know about it. In the cybersecurity world, what if they got into my house? I have no way of finding out what they’re doing. That is scary,” Yu said. 

Yu acknowledged that there are technologies already available, and employed by Space Command, to check data set integrity. “I would love to have more capability to check the authenticity of data so that we don’t have the PNT, for instance, drifting off by fractions of a second all the time and causing havoc for our precision capability that our joint forces use,” he said. 

He called this approach to ensuring data integrity “zero trust at the data level,” riffing off the Zero Trust approach to cybersecurity, now being imposed across the military. In Zero Trust networks, all users and connections are considered suspect, their access and authorities reduced to the bare minimum needed to do their job. 

Reestablished five years ago (an earlier iteration was stood down in 2002), Space Command is a combatant command, one of the 11 organizations that actually plan and fight America’s wars. Like Strategic Command or Transportation Command, it’s a functional command, managing the satellite communications (SATCOM) and other spaced-based capabilities like GPS that are so vital to the modern military. But, uniquely, it’s also a geographical command, like Africa Command or Central Command, with an area of responsibility (AOR) that starts 100 kilometers above the Earth’s surface.  

That unique AOR is part of the reason why data integrity and cybersecurity are so important for Space Command, said Yu. 

“Our mission happens in the digital terrain. We fly the satellites through the digital terrain. We send the information from our functional services, like PNT, SATCOM, those kind of functional services through the digital cyber terrain. So everything we do is in that digital terrain,” he said.

Even the name of the chief information officer’s organization reflects the key role of the cyber domain for Space Command. In most military organizations, the J6 is named for some variation of Command and Control, Communications, Computers and Cyber. But at Space Command, the J6 organization is called the digital superiority directorate. 

“The forefathers of the U.S. Space Command understood that in order for us to deliver our space capability to the joint forces, we must first attain digital superiority,” Yu explained. 

But digital superiority isn’t an end in itself, he added: “In my mind, digital superiority is a way to get to decision dominance for our joint forces.” Decision dominance means being able to collect and process data faster than the enemy so that commanders can make better and faster decisions than their enemy counterparts. It means “we can see, we can think, we can analyze, we can act, all faster than the enemy, so that we can kill them or avoid them faster than they can even see us,” Yu said. 

Lockheed Working on Tech to Integrate F-35 with CCAs

Lockheed Working on Tech to Integrate F-35 with CCAs

Oct. 24, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Lockheed Martin is investing in new technologies to enable its F-35 fighters to easily control and interact with up to eight autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft—and planning to bid in the next-round of the Air Force’s autonomous drone program, company officials told investors during an Oct. 22 earnings call. 

The Air Force bypassed Lockheed in the first increment of CCA development, contracting with drone leader General Atomics and startup Anduril instead. The defense giant sees Increment 2 as a viable opportunity and the ability of future drones to collaborate with the Lockheed-built F-35 and F-22 as crucial to their success. The two fifth-generation jets are the Air Force’s most advanced fighter aircraft.

The Air Force wants to start fielding CCAs by the end of this decade. Lockheed officials say they’re already working on integration. 

“We’ve developed a pod that will enable the F-35 to control even today the CCAs,” CEO Jim Taiclet told analysts during a third quarter earnings call. “And we have a flight control system and a communication system in development that will enable that as well. And that could be converted, I think, to F-22 as well.” 

A Lockheed spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that Taiclet was referring to “internal investments we’ve been making that enable a single fifth-gen pilot to operate multiple uncrewed systems (or CCAs) from the cockpit of a fifth-gen aircraft. This work is focused on ensuring that our fifth-gen aircraft stay ahead of future capability integrations, like CCA control.” 

Exactly why an external pod is needed is unclear. It’s possible the pod has other purposes, or that it is a testbed for proving technology that, eventually, would be integrated into the existing F-35 through software or hardware updates. Lockheed announced two years ago it would invest $100 million in its own “Project Carrera” to develop manned-unmanned teaming technology. That plan included $20 million in F-35 development work.  

Lockheed’s Skunk Works division showed reporters a control station at at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September. General Manager John Clark said the station was for linking fifth-gen aircraft to CCAs, “and how all of this autonomy infrastructure and all this collaboration software helps facilitate the ability for a fifth-gen operator that’s got to fly his or her own airplane, and still interact with four to eight CCAs, and do so in an effective fashion,” said Clark. 

The Lockheed spokesperson added that the system “makes the control of multiple CCAs possible from a simple pad/tablet configuration.” 

The Air Force has said little in public about how manned fighters and CCAs will communicate and the interface pilots will use to manage their robotic wingmen. The F-35 can use both Link 16, the widespread tactical datalink, and its own stealthy Multifunction Advanced Data Link. 

Last month, the Marine Corps announced it had conducted a test flight in which an XQ-58A drone “demonstrated newly added Link 16 capabilities … marking the first time the Department of Defense controlled an air vehicle using offboard expeditionary methods.” The release did not specify those methods. 

Establishing a datalink between a manned and unmanned aircraft is just one part of the challenge. Officials must also figure out how to synthesize sensor data gathered by CCAs and integrate that into what a human pilot sees, optimized for relatively simple decision-making. 

Lockheed has already unveiled a Sniper Networked Targeting Pod for the F-35, with an advanced datalink allowing fourth-generation fighters to communicate securely with the F-35 and a new radio allowing the fighter to form a mesh network with other aircraft and ground and sea assets. 

A company official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that Taiclet was not referring to that pod in his comments. 

An F-35 can also be fitted with an external gun pod, but that compromises the aircraft’s low-observable characteristics. Lockheed did not offer further insight about the CCA pod.  

CCA Increment 2 

While Lockheed whiffed on CCA Increment 1, the company remains in the hunt for “Increment 2.” 

In September, Clark told reporters that the company overshot its target with a “gold-plated” CCA for starters, exceeding Air Force requirements. This time, the company is focusing on a lower-cost design. Taiclet said Oct. 23 Lockheed anticipates the Air Force will be looking for scale in Increment 2, which would seem to favor cheaper drones. 

“The way it’s been described to us is Increment 1 was proof of concept, more of an experimental kind of approach,” Taiclet said. “Increment 2 is going to be targeted to be fieldable, combat-ready, scalable design and production of the uncrewed teaming half of the system. So we are fully dedicated to that.” 

Quantity is an important factor, Taiclet argued.   

“We have to be able to meet the J-20, which is the Chinese [fifth-generation] combat tactical aircraft, with enough numbers in the Pacific,” he said. “The F-35 and F-22 now are the only really competitive jets against the J-20 one-to one. We have to field enough of those aircraft in a short enough timeframe to maintain an effective deterrent in the Pacific.”  

Taken together, Lockheed believes it can demonstrate the scale needed for Increment 2. 

“We have Skunk Works working on both the parent and the child, if you will, when it comes to all CCA concepts, Increment 2 is going to be really where we’re, I think, most competitive, because we can show that we can control these vehicles with today’s technology already at scale,” Taiclet said. 

NGAD 

The question of scale and speed may take on greater immediacy given that the Air Force has chosen to pause the Next-Generation Air Dominance program. Requirements for the planned sixth-gen fighter are again under review as the Air Force worries that initial designs were too costly to make them affordable in any kind of mass. The introduction of CCAs and the potential to introduce a stealthy tanker aircraft, dubbed Next-Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS) could alter the development picture, Secretary Frank Kendall has said. 

Taiclet said Lockheed continues to pursue sixth-generation combat aircraft concepts and will keep its options open. But advances in autonomy suggest a manned NGAD fighter may not be necessary.  

“We need to be able to bring autonomy and the CCA concept into fifth-gen and sixth-gen, if there is one,” he said at one point. 

“We’re preserving our optionality based on what the U.S. government and services determine to be their strategy for tactical fighter deployment over the next 20-30 years,” he said at another. “Part of that strategy is having Skunk Works continue to develop technologies that could be implemented for a sixth-generation tactical aircraft that’s a step function above what the F-22 and F-35 can do today.” 

PACAF Deputy: Large-Scale Exercise Next Summer Will Feature Nearly 300 Aircraft

PACAF Deputy: Large-Scale Exercise Next Summer Will Feature Nearly 300 Aircraft

Oct. 24, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Editor’s Note: This story was updated Oct. 25 to include the official name of REFORPAC.

REFORPAC, the large-scale exercise in the Pacific planned for summer 2025, will be on a scale unseen by the Air Force in recent memory: nearly 300 aircraft spread across 25 locations. 

Lt. Gen. Laura L. Lenderman, deputy commander of Pacific Air Forces, detailed the size of the exercise during a keynote address at the AFCEA TechNet Indo-Pacific conference on Oct. 23. 

“The goal is to integrate and experiment with logistics, sustainment, and enabling capability to bring fifth-gen fighters, command and control aircraft, and airlift and air refueling into the Western Pacific at speed and scale, with approximately 25 operating locations, almost 300 aircraft, and sister services and partner nations involved,” Lenderman said. 

If the Air Force meets those numbers, REFORPAC—short for “Resolute Force Pacific” and sometimes referred to as “Return of Forces to the Pacific”—will significantly outstrip other major exercises the service has held in recent years in terms of number of aircraft and operating locations: 

Even Air Defender, the largest air exercise in NATO history held last June, had 250 aircraft, including 100 U.S. planes. 

Lenderman also said the Air Force will use the exercise to focus on Agile Combat Employment, the operational concept in which small teams of Airmen deploy to remote or austere locations, generate airpower, and move again quickly as needed. 

“We’re conducting multiple simultaneous ACE operations, and it’s an opportunity to refine our capabilities, strengthen our partnerships, test and stress ACE, and shift interoperability into interchangeability,” the general said. 

Lt. Gen. Laura Lenderman, Pacific Air Forces deputy commander, thanked Col. James McFarland for his service and welcomed incoming commander, Col. Julie Sposito Salceies, during the 613th Air Operations Center Change of Command Ceremony on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, June 26, 2024. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Mark Sulaica

ACE originated with PACAF, and leaders have stressed its importance in a region where the Air Force may need to “island-hop” or operate from locations with World War II-era airfields. 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said in August that REFORPAC will include elements from U.S. Strategic Command; U.S. Northern Command; U.S. Indo-Pacific Command; and Air Mobility Command, and that it will dovetail with other major exercises like Bamboo Eagle and Talisman Sabre, a large biennial Australian-U.S.-led event.

Officials say REFORPAC is just one in a series of large-scale exercises the Air Force will implement in the coming years as the service attempts to reorient itself for great power competition against China and Russia.  

Service leaders say that shift has to be done with urgency and speed given the pressing nature of the threat. 

“Time is not on our side when it comes to offensive and defensive operations, logistics, sustainment, command and control, or battle management,” Lenderman said. “We no longer have the luxury of long-term development for perfect solutions.” 

Instead, exercises like REFORPAC will help the Air Force identify stress points and innovative solutions to challenges—and Lenderman wants industry to help. 

“What we ask of you is to bring your best ideas, bring your concepts, bring your newest technologies, bring your ready kits to the Indo-Pacific theater at a level ready for experimentation,” she said. “Help us challenge our status quo. Help us stress Agile Combat Employment and our ability to command and control and execute contested logistics and our ability to perform dynamic force movements throughout the theater.” 

WATCH: How BAE Systems Is Delivering the Air Force an Electronic Warfare Advantage

WATCH: How BAE Systems Is Delivering the Air Force an Electronic Warfare Advantage

Oct. 24, 2024

Joshua Niedzwiecki, Vice President and General Manager of Electronic Combat Solutions at BAE Systems, shares how BAE Systems uses mission-based systems (and how those systems will work within the U.S. Air Force’s new Integrated Capabilities Command) to provide an EW advantage to the warfighter’ future fight.

Air Force Missile Cancer Study Samples for New Chemicals, Finds No Health Hazard

Air Force Missile Cancer Study Samples for New Chemicals, Finds No Health Hazard

Oct. 23, 2024 | By David Roza

The latest round of environmental sampling for the Air Force’s Missile Community Cancer Study found trace amounts of potentially harmful chemicals called volatile organic compounds in the service’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) facilities, but not at levels that would pose a health hazard, Air Force Global Strike Command announced Oct. 22.

For the third round of environmental sampling, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine once again tested the air, soil, and drinking water at missile alert facilities (MAFs) and Launch Control Centers (LCCs) across the Air Force’s three main missile bases and Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif, which hosts missile launch facilities. LCCs are the underground capsules where Airmen operate ICBMs, while MAFs include the above-ground buildings where missile operators and the security forces Airmen guarding the facility live, eat, and sleep during an alert shift.

This round found trace levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, VOCs are human-made chemicals used and produced in the manufacture of paints, pharmaceuticals, and refrigerants. They are emitted as a vapor by a vast array of products including paints, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials, office equipment such as copiers and printers, and permanent markers. Even the “new car smell” comes from VOCs emitted from the materials inside a new car.

VOC exposure can result in headaches, nausea, dizziness, irritation in the eyes and throat, and a few VOCs have been directly linked to cancer in humans, but the extent and nature of the health effects depend on a range of factors such as amount of time exposed and exposure level, according to Northern Arizona University.

The Air Force study found trace levels of VOCs in about one percent of samples, Global Strike Command said in a statement. In every case, those levels were below five percent of the recommended Threshold Limit Value, a method endorsed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for how much of a substance adults can be exposed to without experiencing adverse health conditions, the command said.

“The levels detected in the survey are not assessed to present a health hazard,” Global Strike Command wrote.

The tests took place over the summer as part of an effort to capture seasonal variations in the LCCs and MAFs, the head of Global Strike Command, Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere, said in the release.

“Across all three rounds of sampling, we’ve learned a great deal about our facilities and what compounds are present in them, and most importantly how we can clean-up or mitigate those compounds to ensure our Strikers have a safe work environment,” he said.

Capt. Isabella Muffoletto, U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine bioenvironmental
engineer, labels different samples at L-01 missile alert facility, or MAF, near Stoneham,
Colorado, July 13, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by Joseph Coslett Jr.)

In previous rounds of environmental testing, Global Strike Command found polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hazardous chemicals the EPA has deemed “probable human carcinogens” that were used in electronics and other equipment before being banned in 1979. Many ICBM facilities’ equipment predates then, and Global Strike Command found PCBs above EPA standards at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.; and Minot Air Force Base, N.D.

In June, the command said it would expand its environmental studies to the missile launch facilities, where maintenance Airmen work on the weapons.

The environmental studies coincide with an epidemiological study of cancer rates among missileers and other ICBM-related jobs compared to the rest of the military and the general population. Preliminary data released in March showed elevated rates of prostate and breast cancer. 

The data supporting those observations came from Department of Defense electronic medical records from 2001 to 2021, capturing service members diagnosed with cancer through the Military Health System and Tricare. The Air Force expects that accounts for fewer than 25 percent of the total cancer cases. 

The rest may be accounted for as the study expands. On Oct. 31, Global Strike Command will host a virtual town hall to discuss the results of the next phase of the epidemiological study, which covers Veterans Affairs medical records from 1991-2020, the DOD Cancer Registry from 1986-2020, and the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry from 1976 to 2020.

“We won’t be able to make definitive statements about cancer incidence among the missile community until after we complete the epidemiological study,” Col. Richard Speakman, commander of the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, said in the release. “But we know from previous studies that military members do have higher rates of certain cancers. Hopefully this study will increase our awareness of any higher risk and enable Airmen, Guardians, and their families to make informed decisions.”

Hundreds of people logged onto an earlier town hall held in June. For years, the Air Force dismissed concerns among the missile community about connections between their work and cancer. In early 2023, those concerns were raised again as a result of a possible increased rate of cases of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a blood cancer, at Malmstrom Air Force Base. 

Bussiere, who dealt with cancer while still a captain flying fighter jets, has pledged to take an expansive approach with the study and reiterated to town hall participants that he does not intend to sweep the issue under the rug. 

“I believe it’s our obligation to completely understand the environment we asked our Airmen to operate in and do what we can to mitigate any risk or exposure,” the general said in the town hall.

SDA Sets Approved Vendor Pool to Compete for Experimental Satellites

SDA Sets Approved Vendor Pool to Compete for Experimental Satellites

Oct. 23, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Development Agency has created a pool of non-traditional defense space vendors to compete for experimental and demonstration satellite contracts in low-Earth orbit, director Derek M. Tournear announced Oct. 23. 

The Hybrid Acquisition for Proliferated Low Earth Orbit, or HALO, pool includes 19 companies under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that pre-clears all participants to compete for individual awards.  

HALO prototype solicitations will seek two identical satellites able to launch 12-18 months after contract award in each round, SDA said in a release. 

SDA, now part of the Space Force, has primarily focused on developing the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture, a large constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites for data communications and missile warning and tracking. But the agency also has dabbled in experimental efforts, including: 

HALO provides a pool of vendors to compete for such programs.

First up is the Tranche 2 Demonstration and Experimentation Systems (T2DES) program, the successor to T1DES. 

“Through HALO, SDA has an even faster and more flexible contracting mechanism in place to compete and award T2DES and other SDA demonstration projects,” Tournear said in a statement. “We believe HALO will also increase the pool of performers capable of bidding on future SDA programs, including participation in layers of future tranches.” 

Back in October 2022, Tournear suggested that T2DES could be focused on “translator” satellites that can pull data from non-SDA satellites and feed it into the network. In mid-2023, the agency solicited industry feedback on the program. Since then, however, officials have offered few updates.

Of the 19 vendors in HALO, a few have been selected for SDA contracts in the past, such as SpaceX, Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, and York Space Systems. Others, like Firefly Aerospace and Impulse Space, have worked with the Space Force in some capacity before. The full list: 

  • Airbus U.S. Space & Defense 
  • Apex Technology 
  • AST Space Mobile USA 
  • Astro Digital 
  • Capella Space 
  • CesiumAstro 
  • Firefly Aerospace 
  • Geneva Technologies 
  • Impulse Space 
  • Kepler Communications 
  • Kuiper Government Solutions 
  • LeoStella 
  • Momentus Space 
  • Muon Space 
  • NovaWurks 
  • SpaceX 
  • Turion Space 
  • Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems 
  • York Space Systems