Airmen and Guardians: Now You Can Reenlist Sooner—and for Longer

Airmen and Guardians: Now You Can Reenlist Sooner—and for Longer

June 3, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Department of the Air Force will now let Airmen and Guardians reenlist up to year ahead of their end of service date, one of several moves designed to boost retention and give troops more career flexibility.

The changes are in the latest revisions to DAFI 36-2606, which lays out the rules for reenlisting and extending enlistment contracts. They were released on May 31. 

Until now, second-term and career Airmen and Guardians had to wait until they were just 90 days from the end of their active service obligation to reenlist.

“The update maximizes opportunities for Airmen and Guardians to reenlist by allowing them to do so up to 12 months before their expiration term of service, giving them more time to decide to reenlist,” the department said in a release. 

First-term Airmen and Guardians already could reenlist up to a year before their initial enlistment ended—provided they are approved to do so based on the needs of their Air Force or Space Force Specialty Code. These changes make that standard for everyone.  

Among other moves, the department simplified the terms of reenlistment and increased the maximum service obligation from 72 months to 96 months—eight years—when combined with their remaining obligated service.

The move suggests retention is beginning to lag, and follows other recent steps intended to increase reenlistment rates. Last week, for example, the service announced that more career fields are now eligible for reenlistment bonuses. It also raised the maximum bonus by 80 percent, from $100,000 to up to $180,000 starting Oct. 1. 

In December, the Air Force said it had loosened its “up-or-out” rules, adding two years to the maximum time in service allowed at every enlisted paygrade up to E-8. 

The shift is not unprecedented, however. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, the enlisted retention rate hit a 20-year high of 91.1 percent. Since then, the rate has floated downward, to 89.4 percent in 2022 and 89 percent in 2023, according to reports. 

Lt. Gen. Caroline M. Miller, deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services, acknowledged in written testimony to Congress last month, that “officer and enlisted personnel retention rates continue to decline—[but] less than a percentage point per year.” 

While Miller noted that the declines are in line with pre-pandemic numbers, she said the service is increasing its 2024 recruiting goal in response to those and “potential future retention trend declines.” 

“The change is part of a larger force management strategy that involves additional retention programs designed to deliver the right number of Airmen to match future force structure,” Miller wrote. 

Space Force Looks to MEO for Narrowband SATCOM

Space Force Looks to MEO for Narrowband SATCOM

June 3, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Medium-Earth orbit—the region in space from 2,000 to 35,786 kilometers above the Earth’s surface—is getting more attention from the Space Force, potentially to host its next generation of narrowband communications satellites, part of a broader contemplation on the future of its entire satellite communications enterprise.

Space Systems Command published a request for information May 29 seeking plans and ideas for how to transition at least part of its narrowband SATCOM architecture to MEO, which it considers a “key aspect of the transition to the future.” 

Today’s primary narrowband constellation is the Mobile User Objective System, which will add two more satellites in geostationary orbit in 2031 as part of a service life extension that will keep the six-satellite fleet operational until 2040. The MEO constellation USSF is envisioning would not deploy until near that time. The RFI details “delivery in 2031.” 

GPS satellites operate in MEO today, but not much else. But the Space Force sees medium-Earth orbit as a way to bolster its narrowband capabilities. 

“The Government is developing a vision for a future [narrowband] architecture which will likely entail multiple orbit regimes for delivery of advanced services to current and future user communities,” the request states. “Additional goals are increased resilience, reduced lifecycle cost, and decreased time scales for fielding new capabilities.” 

Compared to wideband communications, narrowband signals are less complex and power-intensive. They can better penetrate bad weather and other obstacles, albeit with lower data rates. 

The Navy developed MUOS and other narrowband satellites, but the Space Force assumed control of them in 2022 as it consolidated all satellite communications across the military. 

Shortly after assuming responsibility, USSF kicked off the MUOS service life extension program, and in January awarded two $66 million contracts to Lockheed Martin and Boeing to design two new MUOS satellites. According to budget documents, the service plans to make a final selection in fiscal 2026. 

That program will drive a surge in spending, with narrowband SATCOM investment rising from $228.4 million in 2025 to $706.2 million in 2028. All told, the service projects to spend $2.7 billion through the end of the decade, with still more investment after that. 

The request for information does not specify how many spacecraft the Space Force is considering or how much it might be willing to spend on such a program. It does say, however, that it wants the satellites to be able to work with MUOS and other SATCOM constellations, and asks industry to provide input on the technical challenges and risks associated with delivering such a capability by 2031. 

The Space Force is also eyeing commercial capabilities to supplement its narrowband satellites. In January, Breaking Defense reported that SSC was working on a long-term acquisition plan for narrowband, with commercial being one of the top options under consideration. The 2025 budget request seeks $134.5 million for Commercial Satellite Communications, or COMSATCOM, specifically to experiment with services using wideband, narrowband, protected, and commercial communications bands.  

Specifically, the program is aimed at showing “the onboarding of MEO commercial SATCOM services into the SATCOM architecture,” according to budget documents. 

The idea of placing more satellites into medium-Earth orbit has gained popularity in recent years, as an attractive middle ground between “big, fat juicy targets” in GEO and the mega-constellations now operating in LEO. With fewer than 200 satellites in medium-Earth orbit, compared to thousands in low-Earth orbit, the region is also less congested than even geostationary orbit, where several hundred satellites now orbit the Earth. 

In addition to GPS and SATCOM, the Space Force is also working on missile warning/missile tracking satellites in MEO, part of an integrated system with the Space Development Agency’s low-Earth orbit constellation and the Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) system and Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) operating in geostationary orbit. 

Airmen Faced Less Competition for Promotion to Lieutenant Colonel in 2024

Airmen Faced Less Competition for Promotion to Lieutenant Colonel in 2024

June 2, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Competition for promotions to lieutenant colonel eased for much of the Air Force in 2024, driven by a smaller pool of majors considered.

Across the six main “Line of the Air Force” categories, 1,258 officers were selected from 2,495 considered, a rate of 50.4 percent. That is the smallest group of majors considered since the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The full list of those selected was released by the Air Force Personnel Center on May 30 and is available here.

According to Air Force data, officer retention rates hit a 20-year high in 2020, at 93.7 percent. That increased even more in 2021 to 94.1 percent, but has since fallen.

In 2020, the same year that the pandemic began, the Air Force made sweeping changes to officer promotions, creating six competitive categories rather than having officers compete for promotion in a single group. The new system was supposed to make it easier for non-rated officers in logistics or intelligence, for example, to compete for advancement against rated officers, such as pilots and navigators. The service also eliminated “below the zone” promotions for officers early in their careers. 

Since then, majors “in the zone,” or on the typical schedule for promotions, have seen their promotion rate jump, reaching a new high of 78.5 percent this year that is a full 3.4 percent jump over last year. “Above the zone” promotion rates, for officers later in their careers, declined some from last year to 10.7 percent this year, but is still higher than before 2020. 

Generally speaking, the six different Line of the Air Force categories have ranked in the same order for combined “in the zone” and “above the zone” promotion rates since 2022: 

  1. Cross functional operations: Includes foreign area officers and multi-domain warfare officers 
  2. Combat support: Includes munitions, maintenance, security forces, contracting, and more 
  3. Information warfare: Includes intelligence, cyber operations, information operations, and public affairs 
  4. Air operations and special warfare: Includes pilots, air battle managers, drone operators, TACPs, and combat rescue 
  5. Force modernization: Includes engineers, scientists, and acquisition management 
  6. Nuclear and missile operations 

    In 2022, nuclear and missile operations was slightly higher than force modernization, but the nuclear rate dropped precipitously this year, making the category the only one where less than 40 percent of majors were selected from “in the zone” and “above the zone” combined. 

    Combining “in the zone” and “above the zone,” promotion rates ticked up for air operators and combat support—the two largest categories across the service. Information warfare, the next biggest category, saw an increase in its “in the zone” rate, but a dramatic fall in “above the zone,” from 19.3 percent last year to 4.4 percent this year, causing its overall promotion rate to dip. 

    Air operations posted its highest “in the zone” promotion rate since 2021, and tied its highest “above the zone” rate since 2020. The category saw its smallest number of those considered ever and accounted for most of the declines in those considered and selected, though information warfare also saw drops as well. 

    The number of combat support majors considered and selected surged, helping it become the second-largest category—though still less than half of the air operations category. 

    2024 Lieutenant Colonel Promotions

    CategoryTotal ConsideredTotal SelectedRate
    Air Operations & Special Warfare114554747.8%
    Nuclear & Missile Operations732939.7%
    Information Warfare45423251.1%
    Combat Support47228059.3%
    Force Modernization27612344.6%
    Cross Functional Operations754762.7%
    TOTAL2495125850.4%
    F-35 Deliveries, on Hold Nearly a Year, Could Resume as Early as July

    F-35 Deliveries, on Hold Nearly a Year, Could Resume as Early as July

    May 31, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

    Scores of brand-new F-35s now in storage could start to be delivered as soon as next month after nearly a year’s delay, if the current build of the Tech Refresh 3 software proves stable and safe, the Joint Program Office said.

    F-35 users, including the U.S. services, have agreed to provisionally accept something less than the full TR-3 software package in order to get deliveries moving—what the JPO calls a “truncated” version—and that package is getting closer to being approved, a JPO spokesperson said.

    “The software has to be stable, capable and maintainable, and is going through a rigorous testing regime to ensure it is ready for pilots to use safely,” the spokesperson said. The JPO won’t provide the metrics that will satisfy Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt that the software meets those conditions, “due to operational security concerns.” However, “that information will be shared with the services, partners, and FMS customers as appropriate.”

    Once the software is deemed safe and stable, and the “TR-3 truncation acceptance plan is approved, the software will be installed on the aircraft, a fairly simple procedure, and the aircraft will be DD250’d,” the spokesperson said, a reference to the document and process by which the government accepts an aircraft from the contractor.

    July, however, is a date that “bears some risk,” because of what may still turn up in testing, the JPO said.

    Industry and government sources have said that stability of the software is the biggest issue in testing right now, because the system can freeze during a mission and require reboots.  Sources said this can happen multiple times in a sortie, creating potential safety issues if it occurs outside of a test environment, where the issue is well understood—if exasperating—and where there are ready backups.   

    Lockheed has built at least 80 airplanes in the TR-3 configuration that have gone directly to storage while the full TR-3 package has been tested.

    The Government Accountability Office recently estimated that it would take about a year to deliver all those airplanes, because new ones are still coming off the production line, and Lockheed has never shown that it can deliver at its projected rate of one per day. The GAO also said Lockheed is running out of room to store the jets and will have to find another place to park them if deliveries don’t resume soon. Neither the JPO nor Lockheed will say where the jets are being stored due to security concerns.

    The TR-3 is a package of powerful new processors, a new cockpit display, and software to run it all. It is the basis of the planned Block 4 upgrade, which Schmidt recently told Congress will have to be “re-imagined,” and some aspects of which will slip to the 2030s, due to cumulative delays.

    The House Armed Services Committee, in its markups of the fiscal 2025 defense bill, would cut about a third of the planned 2025 F-35 buy and use the money to beef up the program’s test infrastructure, software integration labs, and a second flying integration lab, in order to accelerate the addition of new capabilities like the TR-3. That package would include nine new F-35 test jets. If authorized and appropriated, however, none of the new jets would be delivered for several years.

    The stored F-35s would go to numerous users, including all three U.S. services and a number of partners and Foreign Military Sales customers.

    Air Force Lifts Suspension on Unit More Than a Year After Classified Documents Leak

    Air Force Lifts Suspension on Unit More Than a Year After Classified Documents Leak

    May 31, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

    A Massachusetts Air National Guard unit has been cleared to resume its mission, more than a year after it was suspended when the FBI launched an investigation of Airman 1st Class Jack Teixeira for leaking a massive trove of classified documents.

    “The 102nd Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Group (ISRG) will resume its intelligence mission in support of Distributed Ground Station-Massachusetts on June 1, 2024, following approval by the commander of Air Combat Command,” Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said in a statement.

    “The unauthorized disclosure resulted from a failure in integrity of one person and is not reflective of the reliable, patriotic men and women of the 102nd Intelligence Wing,” the Massachusetts National Guard said in a May 31 release shared with Air & Space Forces Magazine.

    In March this year, Teixeira pleaded guilty to six counts of willful retention and transmission of national defense information.

    Air Force leaders first sidelined Teixeira’s former unit in April 2023, days after he was arrested for sharing information on Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East, along with other sensitive subjects, on the online platform Discord. The Pentagon and Air Force each launched a broad review on the handling of confidential files following Teixeira’s arrest.

    In December, the Air Force initiated disciplinary and other administrative actions against 15 Airmen following a report from the service’s Inspector General’s office that determined Teixeira had acted alone in obtaining classified information and sharing it in online chat rooms, but that his actions were enabled by a “lack of supervision.”

    In connection with the scandal, the commander of the 102nd Intelligence Support Squadron and an administrative commander at Otis Air National Guard Base were suspended last year. The unit will have two new leaders replacing them, but the 102nd Intelligence Wing did not immediately respond to an Air & Space Forces Magazine request to identify their names.

    “Previously suspended commanders from the 102nd Intelligence Support Squadron and the detachment overseeing administrative support for Airmen at the unit … were permanently removed,” Stefanek told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

    “The 102nd Intelligence Wing accepted the Inspector General’s findings and implemented changes as required to ensure an unauthorized disclosure of classified information does not happen again,” the Massachusetts National Guard’s release states. “With the knowledge gained from this challenging experience, we welcomed the opportunity to help identify problems with Air Force processes that could jeopardize the safe handling of classified information in both the active duty and reserve components.”

    In addition to the Inspector General report, the wing also implemented a new organizational structure “to enhance oversight of ISRG operations,” Stefanek said. Air Combat Command led the recertification process, with inspection teams evaluating sampling security procedures and culture across the wing.

    The 102nd ISR Group assesses enemy activities and gathers and analyzes information for military operations and national security. The Department of Justice investigation unveiled that Teixeira had shared highly classified materials including maps, satellite images, and intelligence on U.S. allies.

    This is not the first time the Air Force has stripped an entire unit of a mission. In October 2007, after personnel from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., mistakenly loaded live nuclear weapons onto a B-52 bomber, the wing was decertified from performing nuclear missions. It did not regain that certification until March 2008.

    Flightline Armament Test: All Platforms, All Weapons, One Solution

    Flightline Armament Test: All Platforms, All Weapons, One Solution

    May 31, 2024

    Today’s armament maintainers are tasked with performing flightline (O-Level) maintenance with an assortment of legacy test sets that greatly limit the ability to quickly and efficiently verify armament system readiness, diagnose failures, and ultimately return the aircraft to full mission capable (FMC) status. Legacy test sets are typically utilized on only a single aircraft, or perform a single function supporting multiple aircraft, resulting in increased training and logistics challenges, and longer than necessary test and repair times. This not only impacts armament maintainer effectiveness, but limits the realization of Agile Combat Employment (ACE) and the development of Multi-Mission Airmen.

    The need for a universal armament test solution, one that is easy to use, portable and rugged, with rapid test and setup times, and common across all platforms and weapons, has become readily apparent and increasingly in demand on the flightline.  Working closely with armament maintainers from across the global, both DOD and ally, Marvin Test Solutions (MTS) identified key functionality and capabilities essential to supporting legacy, current, and future generation platforms and weapons systems.  The outcome of this effort resulted in the widely deployed and combat proven MTS-3060A SmartCan™ Universal Armament Test Set.

    The handheld MTS-3060A SmartCan is capable of testing all Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) and Normally Installed Equipment (NIE) including pylons, launchers, bomb racks, guns, and POD interfaces, as well as supporting 4th, 5th, and 6th generation weapons systems. A standard SmartCan kit, with all associated cables and adaptors contained in a single carry case, can replace the flightline test capabilities of over a dozen test sets across USAF fighters and UASs. It can also support a broader implementation to include bombers and surface-to-air defensive systems as needed. See Table 1 for additional details.

    Table 1. O-Level Test Set Replacement Matrix

    All fielded aircraft, manned and unmanned, rotary and fixed wing, can be loaded onto a single SmartCan, eliminating the traditional deployment model of using multiple aircraft-specific armament test sets on the flightline. Test results and measurement variances for each weapon are displayed real-time for review, analysis, and fault-isolation. Additionally, test log files can easily be moved or copied via the removable SD card for printing and analysis, supporting emerging predictive maintenance initiatives. 

    Unlike legacy handheld test sets that are only capable of performing stray voltage and continuity tests, the SmartCan implements functional MIL-STD-1760 testing to ensure armament systems are ready to support Smart weapons, before they are loaded. Coupled with munitions emulation communication channels supporting all existing weapons protocols, it provides a full system test for all legacy and Smart weapons. It performs both pre-load and functional checkouts through weapons emulation, the simultaneous testing of multiple squib signals, and implements a unique cross-fire algorithm to deliver a comprehensive test process superior to other all O-Level armament test sets in service today.

    The rugged design, ergonomic layout, and small footprint (~4 lbs.) enables field operation anywhere in the world, making it the ultimate tool for flightline armament test. It is designed and qualified to operate under extreme environmental conditions, meeting MIL-PRF-28800F Class 1, MIL-STD-810C and MIL-STD-461F requirements. Battery operation further enhances field usability; (6) AA batteries and an innovative power management system enables over (40) hours of test time without the need to replace the batteries.  

    Test setup and execution times are also significantly improved, and the results are striking!  F-16 setup times are reduced from 45 minutes to just 4 minutes, representing an impressive 91% decrease. Similarly, test execution times for a pylon utilizing MIL-STD-1760 and a LAU-129, tested for both AIM-120 and AIM-9X, saw substantial reductions from 20 minutes to 3 minutes (85% reduction), and from 35 minutes to 4 minutes (89% reduction) respectively.  See Table 2 for additional details.

    Table 2. F-16 Setup / Test Time Comparison

    Advanced cybersecurity features and protections further differentiate the SmartCan, making this the most cyber-secure O-Level armament test set. Data encryption, a custom operating system, NIST Certified software for Test Program Set (TPS) development, and a removable secure data (SD) card all contribute to the enhanced cybersecurity of this test set.

    The ability to streamline TPS development and release cycles is another unique advantage of the SmartCan. ATEasy™ and SmartCanEasy, a powerful integrated TPS development environment, allows the user to develop and integrate their own test programs to support new weapons entering service. With this capability the USAF can develop test programs in-house, speeding development and release to the field.  

    All Platforms, All Weapons, One Solution:  MTS-3060A SmartCan. Currently deployed on 14 platforms, in 19 countries, in Systems Integration Labs, with SERD Certification (#75A77) and cybersecurity ATO, it is the premier O-Level armament test solution: lightweight and rugged, delivering the quickest setup and execution, reduced training time and logistics footprint, enhanced cybersecurity, with superior active armament test capabilities. A model for ACE CONOPS and Multi-Mission Airmen enabling technology.

    Air Force Elevates USAFA Vice Superintendent to General Officer Role

    Air Force Elevates USAFA Vice Superintendent to General Officer Role

    May 31, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

    Maj. Gen. Thomas P. Sherman has been named vice superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy and will step in as interim superintendent until Lt. Gen. Tony D. Bauernfeind is confirmed by the Senate, the school announced May 29. 

    Lt. Gen. Richard M. Clark, who has served as USAFA superintendent since September 2020, will retire on June 1 after presiding over the Academy’s graduation ceremony in Colorado Springs, Colo. 

    “It was the greatest honor of my career to serve you at our Academy,” Clark told the graduates, the first class under his tenure, a day before his retirement ceremony on May 31. “Thank you for being my class.” 

    Clark, a former USAFA football player, is slated to become the executive director of the College Football Playoff, and Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall included a nod to his playing days while thanking him at the graduation ceremony. 

    “Rich had an incredibly difficult job from day one,” Kendall said. “And he met every challenge head on, just as I expect from a former U.S. Air Force Academy linebacker.” 

    Under Clark, the Academy had to deal with remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, a cheating scandal that resulted in 22 cadets being separated, the deaths of multiple cadets, and more. The Academy also expanded its Space Force connections, including the launch of a new student-built and -operated satellite.

    Bauernfeind, the head of Air Force Special Operations Command, was nominated to succeed Clark on May 14, and his nomination is currently pending before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Depending on how long his confirmation process takes, Sherman could still be the interim superintendent by the time the Class of 2028 arrives on June 26. 

    Sherman is the first general officer to serve as vice superintendent of the Academy—the position was previously held by colonels. 

    “Elevating this position will help us solidify the cadet culture and experience required to develop officers ready to lead in an era of Great Power Competition,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said in a statement. “This adjustment is not a reflection in any way of the excellent performance of previous vice superintendents. Instead, it showcases our commitment to prioritizing leadership development across our force.” 

    Sherman comes to the vice job after a stint as director of security forces at Headquarters Air Force. A career security forces officer, Sherman graduated from USAFA in 1995 with a degree in political science and went on to earn three master’s degrees in criminal justice, National Security Affairs, and National Security Strategy, from California State University San Bernardino, the Naval Post Graduate School, and the National War College, respectively. 

    He has also commanded at the flight, squadron, group, detachment, and wing levels, most notably leading the 88th Air Base Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. After that, he served as principal military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, and as deputy director of capability development at Air Force Futures. 

    “It is a true honor and a dream to be assigned and serve our Academy as its vice superintendent,” Sherman said in a statement. “I am tremendously excited and humbled to join a team so deeply devoted to the important mission of this premier military and academic institution. I look forward to working side-by-side with our dedicated professionals to further the environment and climate that develops, fosters and inspires today’s cadets to become tomorrow’s leaders of our Airmen and Guardians.” 

    Sherman is the first interim superintendent of the Academy since 2003. 

    Even After F-35’s TR-3 Software is Approved, Frequent Patches May Be Needed

    Even After F-35’s TR-3 Software is Approved, Frequent Patches May Be Needed

    May 30, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

    When the F-35’s Tech Refresh 3 software is finally fully tested, debugged, and approved, frequent patches may still be needed to correct deficiencies, the Joint Program Office told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

    When the TR-3 package is finally greenlit for operational use—allowing some 80 stored jets to be delivered—“future risks hinge upon whether TR-3 will require additional incremental software releases to test and implement critical fixes. If risk manifests in labs or flight test, TR-3 may require additional software releases (taking between two and six weeks per release),” a JPO spokesperson said.

    The JPO had previously said initial software releases could come annually or every six months. In flight test, pilots are reporting frequently having to reboot the TR-3 software, in the air and on the ground.

    The program office reiterated that “the first realistic opportunity for TR-3 aircraft acceptance is July 2024, and even that date bears risk.”

    The TR-3 configuration includes a more powerful processor, associated software, and a new cockpit display, among other improvements, and it is the basis for the coming Block 4 upgrade to the fighter. Lockheed Martin has been producing new F-35s in that configuration since last year, but some 80 aircraft that have been completed can’t be delivered because testing of the TR-3 isn’t finished.

    Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt, the program executive officer, told Congress in April that the F-35 steering group—the international users of the fighter—have agreed to releasing a “truncated” version of the TR-3 in order to get deliveries moving again. However, Schmidt is waiting to see more stability in the software before he will sign off on accepting the new jets.

    The JPO was not immediately able to explain what software stability metrics will satisfy Schmidt.

    Users of the F-35 have been waiting 10 months for deliveries,and this has disrupted the transition from their older fighters to the F-35. The delays have far-ranging implications; provision of used F-16s to Ukraine, for example, depends on donor countries like the Netherlands and Belgium receiving their F-35s in a timely manner. U.S. Air Force units must continue to operate older types, spending more to maintain them and delaying maintainers and pilots from transition training.   

    The JPO and its industry partners are working intensively to fix “specific issues in TR-3 software,” the spokesperson explained, “to improve software stability on the ground and in the air.”

    TR-3 acceptance “depends upon completing a stable, capable, and maintainable software build for release to flight test,” the spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

    Exasperated with chronic F-35 delays and especially the hold on deliveries, the House Armed Services Committee, in its mark of the 2025 defense bill, slashed the number of F-35s the services requested, diverting the money to more software integration capability, a new flying avionics testbed, additional test F-35s and other test capacity measures, in order to speed up testing.

    Is a Cyber Force Next? Lawmakers Want Independent Study

    Is a Cyber Force Next? Lawmakers Want Independent Study

    May 30, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

    Members of the House Armed Services Committee are pressing for an independent study on whether the U.S. should stand up a separate military service focused on cyber.

    The measure, included in the House draft of the 2025 National Defense Authorization bill last week mirrors a similar provision adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee in its draft of the 2024 NDAA. That proposal did not make it into law, but with supporters in both Houses of Congress, the idea now has a strong chance of passage.

    The amendment to the House bill was introduced by Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-Texas). It seeks a study of two courses of action, either establishing a Cyber Force or refining the organization and support for U.S. Cyber Command. The study would compare how each approach might impact readiness, recruiting, retention, performance, and cost, and would be required to reflect the views of both cyber operators and officials across the Pentagon. It would also include recommendations for how to delineate responsibilities and minimize disruptions if a Cyber Force was created. 

    Momentum and interest in a Cyber Force has proponents seeing progress. 

    “Things that are both the House and Senate markups, they tend to do better,” said retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, who co-wrote a report earlier this year for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that called for a 10,000-strong Cyber Force. In an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine, he offered “no guarantees,” but said: “I think when something’s [in an en bloc package] like that, it kind of means a large group of congressmen have said, ‘This is the way we’re going, there’s no need to debate this.’” 

    Retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis, former head of U.S. Southern Command and U.S. European Command, has also advocated for a cyber force. So has retired Army Lt. Gen. David W. Barno. The Military Cyber Professionals Association, an advocacy group with dozens of general and flag officers on its board of advisors, has also called for such a change. 

    Still, Montgomery acknowledges opposition to the idea within Congress and U.S. Cyber Command, even as all stakeholders agree that something needs to be done to boost the Pentagon’s cyber capabilities.  

    In 2012, CYBERCOM and the Joint Staff created the Cyber Mission Force as its “action” arm and tasked the services with filling that force out with 133 Cyber Mission Teams. More than a decade later, the number of teams has not grown, and plans for expansion have been hampered by the services having trouble training and retaining cyber talent. 

    “I think all options are on the table except status quo,” then-CYBERCOM boss Gen. Paul Nakasone said in December 2023, describing a restructuring that would lead to “CYBERCOM 2.0.”

    In recent years, CYBERCOM has begun to operate more like U.S. Special Operations Command, which also draws forces from across the services and has some of its own acquisition authorities. 

    But Montgomery argues that approach cannot level-set and prioritize cyber readiness the way a dedicated Cyber Force could. 

    “The biggest problem we have is in the recruitment,” Montgomery said. “The people that you are recruiting to get 25,000 Airmen or 30,000 Sailors or 55,000 Soldiers, whatever the numbers are, is an inherently different person than we need for about 1,000 cyber professionals a year.” 

    Add to that the recruiting struggles facing most services right now, Montgomery said, and the end result is that individuals without cyber skills can get funneled into those units, lowering their effectiveness. 

    “We had a quote in our report from an Air Force lieutenant colonel,” Montgomery said. “She said, ‘Look, 10 percent of my people are doing 90 percent of the work.’ It’s not that the other 90 percent are not good Americans. Can you imagine if an Air Force F-22 squadron commanding officer said, ‘I’ve got four fantastic pilots. These other 20, I don’t have to fly.’ That squadron CO wouldn’t last an hour in command.” 

    Talent is especially important, Montgomery added, given the nature of cyber warefare. “More than any other mission area, the weapon is the human,” he said. “You don’t call a Lockheed Martin and say, can you develop 10 penetration tools for us. I mean, human cyber operators develop the tools.” 

    Some have suggested giving CYBERCOM greater authority for force generation, but Montgomery says that would be a mistake. 

    “I can’t think of anything less desirable,” Montgomery said. “The Cyber Command commander is already the head of NSA and Cyber Command. The idea that you would make him or her the force generator in addition to the force employer and the intelligence agency, that’s nonsensical. No one officer can do all that, no matter how good they are.” 

    The House amendment would provide the first public, independent analysis of the concept and require a report less than a year after the law is enacted. It would also draw upon the recent lessons learned from standing up the Space Force, which became the first new military service in more than 70 years when it was established in 2019. 

    Like the Cyber Force, the concept of an independent Space Force was bandied about for years before it was realized and Congress directed a study on the matter in the 2018 NDAA. The Space Force had congressional champions in Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), and the deal came together as part of a larger legislative compromise as 2019 wound down.

    Today, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) join Lutrell as leading advocates for an independent Cyber Force.

    One big difference with cyber, compared to space, is that cyber skills are widely dispersed among all the armed services, while the vast majority of space operators were organized together within the Air Force until the Space Force was formed. Building a Cyber Force would mean drawing roughly in equal measure from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force. Also different: While the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps have transferred most of their space missions to the Space Force, each armed service is likely to need to retain some cyber capabilities should a Cyber Force be created, Montgomery said. How those roles and responsibilities might be divided could prove to be contentious issues as the idea develops.