Britain’s Cameron Urges More Aid for Ukraine: ‘Good Investment’ for Degrading Russia

Dec. 7, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Urging support for Ukraine, British foreign secretary and former prime minister David Cameron argued aid rendered so far has provided a huge return on investment for the U.S. and the West, not only preventing Russian President Vladimir Putin from chalking up a “win”—which would encourage him toward more aggression—but sending a message of unity to China and reassuring U.S. allies.

Speaking at the Aspen Institute on Dec. 7, Cameron said America has spent about 10 percent of one year’s defense budget aiding and arming Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in early 2022. With that, Ukraine “has destroyed half of Russia’s pre-war military assets.”

“Now, if that isn’t a good investment, I don’t know what is,” Cameron said.

“Ukraine doesn’t even really have a navy, but they have managed to sink about a fifth of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. … I’m sure the Pentagon is excited by the value for money on offer, there. I mean, it’s a remarkable thing,” he added.

Amid uncertainty over whether Congress will approve more aid for Ukraine, Cameron argued for more support and patience, saying the ultimate outcome in Ukraine “takes time … and is worth investing in.”

It’s an investment being shared across the world, Cameron said—European military, civilian, economic, and humanitarian aid is roughly $160 billion, and the U.K. is the second largest donor after the U.S. at $44 billion

Ukraine aid has also helped reinvigorate the U.S. industrial base, Cameron noted, pointing to recent analyses that found almost 90 percent of the money spent on Ukraine stays in America to manufacture weaponry and materiel.

That production is key, he added, because the Russian invasion has been “a tremendous wake-up call to the West” to resume building up war stocks.

“All of that work that’s taking place is very important. And I think we’re at a point where we’ve got to stop thinking about how we’re running down our existing stocks to supply Ukraine,” Cameron said. “We need to think much more about how we build up our stocks. And I think in [a] more dangerous and insecure world … supply chains, stocks, defense commitments, these things have become more important.”

Given the positives, it is critical Congress approve more aid to encourage other allies around the globe to keep supporting Ukraine, he said.

“You’ll be able to go to all the other European countries and say, ‘right, you’ve seen what the US have done. Now [you] will need to join in,’” Cameron said.

Failure to support Ukraine, on the other hand, would be “a victory for Putin … and if it is, it won’t be the end of this,” Cameron predicted.

“If we let him win in Ukraine, it will be somewhere else next. And it won’t just be American money that’s at risk. It might be a NATO country [that is attacked], so it could be American lives,” he said. Avoiding all this is worth “10 percent of your defense budget.”

Addressing criticism of corruption in Ukraine, Cameron said “Ukraine isn’t perfect” but is focused on fighting potential corruption to head off just such charges.

He also countered critics who say sanctions against Russian assets outside Russia haven’t worked. “That’s $400 billion” that Russia doesn’t have “for its war machine,” he said.

“I think there’s a very strong argument for saying, let’s, instead of just freezing that money, let’s take that money. Spend it on rebuilding Ukraine … if you like, a down payment on the reparations that Russia will one day have to pay for the illegal invasion that they’ve undertaken,” Cameron said, suggesting it is one of the topics he will take up in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week.

Cameron confessed to sometimes hoping for a return to better days like the late 1980s and early 1990s, —when “the Berlin Wall was falling, the Soviet Union was breaking up. Russia was becoming a friend, China was joining the World Trade Organization. Democracy was spreading across Europe and in many ways across the world, more and more countries, were adopting market-based economics,” he said.

But the West has to accept that those days are not coming back anytime soon, Cameron warned, calling Ukraine “the great test for our generation, the great challenge for our generation: are we going to defend this democracy? And are we going to recognize that European security is also American security, and we should stay united on this?”

Making a final pitch for more U.S. aid to Ukraine, Cameron warned that “if that money doesn’t get voted through, there are only two people that will be smiling. One of them is Vladimir Putin in Russia. The other one is Xi Jinping in Beijing. And I don’t know about you, but I want to I don’t want to give either of those people a Christmas present.”

44 Guardians Selected for Promotion to E-8, E-9

Dec. 7, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force’s top enlisted ranks are gaining 14 new chief master sergeants and 30 senior master sergeants, the Air Force Personnel Center announced Dec. 7.

Competition to reach the E-8 paygrade grows fiercer with each passing year. The latest cycle, 24S8, included the largest-ever pool of eligibles, but just 30 of 423 eligible master sergeants were selected, a rate of just 7.09 percent. Still, that’s better than 21S8, when just 6.25 percent of 64 eligible master sergeants earned another stripe.

USSF Senior Master Sergeant Promotions: 2021-2024

YEAR	SELECTED	ELIGIBLE	RATE
2024	30	423	7.09
2023	35	328	10.67
2022	29	259	11.20
2021	4	64	6.25

It’s also taking longer to get promoted. Average time in grade reached 5.04 years and time in service reached 17.8 years, both highs.

On the other hand, promotions to chief master sergeant held were nearly identical to last year, with just one fewer eligible and one fewer selectee. Average time in grade inched up to 3.18 years and time in service also inched up slightly, to 20.91 years, but figures are below the highs set two years ago.

Space Force Chief Master Sergeant Promotions: 2020-2023

YEAR	SELECTED	ELIGIBLE	RATE
2023	14	54	25.93
2022	15	55	27.27
2021	10	45	22.22
2020	2	8	25.00

The Space Force continues to chart its own path on promotions, expanding the use of promotion boards for lower enlisted ranks. Given all USSF’s transfers from other services, then-Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Roger A. Towberman said the Space Force had to adjust to fairly compare promotion candidates with wildly different backgrounds. Evaluators cannot rely on “shortcuts or proxies that we might have used when we all knew each other,” Towberman warned.

In September, Towberman told attendees at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference that USSF was exploring a concept he called a “fully qualified promotion system,” which he argued would put “promotions in the hands of the Guardian,” eliminate “competition against each other, and encourage cooperation with each other.”

Speaking later with reporters, Towberman and his successor, CMSSF John Bentivegna, Towberman said the concept would build on the system used for lower ranks, where Guardians attain the necessary skills and certifications to earn their promotions at a pace largely of their own choosing.

“Are we able to evolve that into other grades?” Bentivegna said. “I think taking away some of the individual competition and making really more of a team-focused promotion and evaluation system, if you will, I think is very beneficial for us, especially.”

That idea remains in development. Meanwhile, the Space Force continues to grow: The Space force grew from 8,400 at the end of fiscal 2022 to 8,600 as fiscal 2023 ended. It is poised to increase to 9,400 in 2024, under the new compromise NDAA released by Congress this week.

Congress to Air Force in NDAA: Slow Down Fighter Retirements

Dec. 7, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The compromise 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, unveiled Dec. 7, pumps the brakes on the Air Force’s plans to retire dozens of F-15E, F-16, and F-22 fighters. The measure is expected to win approval from both chambers and signed into law by President Joe Biden within weeks.

Congress will limit to 68 the number of F-15E Strike Eagles USAF may retire from now through fiscal 2029—well short of the 119 aircraft the Air Force had hoped to send to the boneyard. The limit is a compromise. The Senate version of the bill would have blocked all Strike Eagle retirements through fiscal 2029.

The conference report, which includes more than 7,000 sections, requires the Air Force to report on the total cost of all modifications for invested in each F-15E and F-16C/D it plans to retire, along with the estimated remaining service life for each.

“The conferees applaud the Air Force’s effort to field F-15EX across the Active duty, Reserve, and Air National Guard components equitably, but remain concerned that tactical fighter capacity is not sufficient to meet combatant commander warfighting requirements at an acceptable level of risk,” the report states.

The conferees want similar concessions on other fighters, and want the Air Force to first set out a 12-year plan by April 1, 2024, defining “the rationale for any plans to activate, divest, deactivate, or change the mission of any unit” and “any plans of the Secretary to augment or supplant existing piloted tactical fighter aircraft capability or capacity with Collaborative Combat Aircraft.”

Congress’ intent appears to be to bar any planned F-16 retirements until fiscal 2025, giving lawmakers a second chance to block such moves if they don’t like the answers the Air Force provides in the spring.

Similarly, the compromise keeps in place existing law that bars the Air Force from retiring any F-22 Raptors. Service officials say their 32 Block 20 F-22s are among the most expensive planes to keep in the inventory, are too expensive to upgrade, and will never be used in combat. They have twice tried to retire the older F-22s. But lawmakers, backed by analysts, say giving up those airplanes will move combat-coded F-22s into training roles, effectively shortening the lifespans of those remaining F-22s and making fewer fifth-generation aircraft available for combat.

The larger portion of the fifth-gen fleet are F-35s, and Congress followed recommendations from the General Accountability Office and the F-35 Joint Program Offic to address concerns.

Under the pending NDAA, Congress followed GAO guidance, seeking to require the Pentagon to re-designate as “major acquisition subprograms” the Tech Refresh 3 and Block 4 upgrades—called continuous capability development and delivery—and the propulsion and thermal management modernization program. That would force the Pentagon to more clearly spell out the costs and status of each, both of which are valued in the billions of dollars.

The bill also requires the Air Force and Navy to develop “validated propulsion, power and cooling, thermal management, and electrical power requirements for the planned service life of the F-35,” and for the Joint Program Office to designate two new aircraft each of the F-35A, B, and C variants to serve as developmental testing and evaluation aircraft. JPO director Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt has indicated the program needs more test aircraft.

While lawmakers opposed the Air Force on most fighters, they cleared the way for more A-10 Warthogs to be retired, appearing to end years of resistance to their demise.

Among other aircraft, the bill would:

Block retirement of any RQ-4 Global Hawk drones

Block further reductions in the KC-135 tanker fleet

And hold at 16 the minimum number of available E-3 AWACS.

After Link 16 Success, SDA Boss Expects More Advanced Datalink Tests to Come

Dec. 7, 2023 | By David Roza

After proving last month that the Link 16 data network can broadcast from space to the ground, the director of the Space Development Agency expects to test similar connections for datalinks that are more advanced than the 1980s-era network.

“Link 16 is the one that’s most prolific, but there’s a lot of different tactical datalinks and we want to be able to talk to as many of those as possible,” SDA director Derek Tournear said Dec. 7 in a discussion with the National Security Space Association.

Link 16 is a tactical radio technology that U.S., NATO, and allied nations use to transmit voice, text, and data to friendly forces up to 200 or 300 nautical miles away, Tournear explained. The problem is that in a near-peer conflict, a battle may take place over a larger area. The military is preparing for that possibility with Joint All-Domain Command-and-Control, which aims to “take any and all available sensor data and get it to any and all available shooters as quickly as possible,” Tournear said.

“In order to do that, you have to have a tactical datalink that works essentially globally, it works beyond line-of-sight,” he added.

The test last month involved sending signals to and from low-Earth orbit satellites to ground-based receivers using terrestrial radios, paving the way for beyond-line-of-sight secure communication ability. Despite the results, new datalink systems may be required in a future fight.

“Cool, but Link 16 is a 1980s datalink with limited bandwidth and a very narrow, easily jammable frequency range,” wrote defense newsletter The Merge, founded by former Air Force weapons systems officer Mike Benitez, in reaction to the test. “We hope it’s a placeholder for a better datalink and those satellites are built with that in mind.”

York Space Systems announced the first-ever successful demonstration of Link 16 technology from space on its Tranche 0 (T0) satellites.

New and improved datalink tests are expected as part of SDA’s tactical satellite communication (TACSATCOM) program, which itself is connected to multiple on-orbit test initiatives, Tournear explained. The initial Link 16 test used three satellites that form part of SDA’s Tranche 0, an initial batch of 28 satellites meant to demonstrate capabilities of the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture, a network of hundreds of satellites to be built over the next decade or so that will provide advanced targeting, missile warning and tracking.

The next batch, Tranche 1, begins launching in September and will consist of up to 161 satellites that can be used in real-world operations. One element of the batch is the Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System (T1DES), a group of satellites that uses beyond-line-of-sight and low latency data transfer to help connect other spacecraft. Tournear said T1DES can serve as a platform for testing new datalinks, and so can Tranche 2 Developmental Experimentation Satellites, where the goal is to demonstrate that the spacecraft constellation can talk to a wide swath of systems.

“We want to test out a wide range of new tactical datalinks, because there are a lot of tactical datalinks that are used,” Tournear said.

Airspace

Last month’s Link 16 was not without friction. An ongoing dispute between the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration meant the test had to take place in the territory of an undisclosed Five Eyes (an intelligence network including the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) country.

“Our friends at the FAA, their primary concern is to make sure that there is absolutely zero possibility of any kind of risk for commercial air traffic,” Tournear said.

Link 16 shares radio frequency bands with some of the navigation aids used by commercial aircraft, he explained. That means whenever the Department of Defense makes a change to a radio, even if it is just new software, it has to go through a Navy certification process and be approved by the FAA before it can be used over national airspace.

“We have not completed that testing for our radios on orbit yet,” Tournear said. “We’re in the process of doing that. We expect to get those tests completed very quickly and then FAA will allow us to have a temporary frequency authorization over the national airspace.”

The agency had to get a waiver from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to transmit a Link 16 message to a Five Eyes nation and over international waters, but Tournear hopes to “check the boxes” so that SDA can test datalinks over national airspace in the near future.

Air Force, Navy, Marines Order V-22 Osprey Standdowns after Deadly Crash

Dec. 6, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

The U.S. military announced Dec. 6 that it is standing down its entire fleet of Ospreys after eight Airmen were killed in a crash.

The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are all standing down Osprey operations after an Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22 crashed off the coast of Japan on Nov. 29—a fleet of hundreds of aircraft.

The Air Force said initial findings suggested there was a “material failure” with the Osprey, indicating pilot error was likely not the primary cause and there was an issue with the aircraft itself.

“The underlying cause of the failure is unknown at this time,” AFSOC added in a statement.

AFSOC’s commander Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind directed the standdown to “mitigate risk while the investigation continues,” the statement added. “The standdown will provide time and space for a thorough investigation to determine causal factors and recommendations to ensure the Air Force CV-22 fleet returns to flight operations.”

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which is in charge of both the Navy and Marine Osprey fleet, released a nearly identical statement.

“While the mishap remains under investigation, we are implementing additional risk mitigation controls to ensure the safety of our service members,” NAVAIR added.

The aircraft that crashed Nov. 29 caught fire and fell into the ocean near Yakushima, Japan. The U.S. military and the Japanese military, coast guard, law enforcement, and civilian volunteers, including local fishermen, conducted a massive search and rescue effort. The bulk of the wreckage was discovered by surface ships and dive teams on Dec. 4. Six Airmen’s remains have been recovered. The bodies of two Airmen have yet to be recovered.

Japan grounded its fleet of 14 Ospreys soon after the crash. The Air Force has around 50 Ospreys. The Department of Navy, which includes the Marine Corps and the Navy, operates more than 300 Ospreys, the bulk of which belong to the Marines.

The Osprey is a tilt-rotor aircraft, which allows it to take off and land like a helicopter, then move its rotors and fly like an airplane.

The U.S. military services coordinate together on the Osprey through a joint program.

“The Joint Program Office continues to communicate and collaborate with all V-22 stakeholders and customers, including allied partners,” NAVAIR said.

Shortly before the standdowns were announced, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for the aircraft to be grounded during a congressional hearing.

“While we all accept that there are risks that come with fighting the enemy on the battlefield, I am concerned that too many service members are receiving lasting injuries or losing their lives due to accidents,” said Warren. “In fact, accidents have been one of the leading causes of death for active duty service members.”

Warren said she still wanted to see the Osprey fly again, but only after “we can be confident that we won’t lose any more lives in what appears to be a preventable tragedy.”

The crash was the deadliest Air Force aviation mishap since 2018, when nine Air Guardsmen were killed in a WC-130 crash in Georgia. It is also the deadliest ever Air Force CV-22 accident and the first since 2010. In August, three Marines were killed when their Osprey crashed in Australia. In 2022, nine Marines were killed in two separate crashes. The latest incident raised fresh questions about the fleet.

This is the second time in a little over a year the Air Force has grounded its Osprey fleet. A series of hard clutch engagements—in which the clutch slips and reengages, which caused USAF Ospreys to make emergency landings—led then-AFSOC commander Lt. Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife to order a temporary standdown in 2022.

“We continue to gather information on this tragic incident, and we will conduct a rigorous and thorough investigation,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a Dec. 5 statement.

Experts: New Disruptive, Asymmetric Approaches Needed to Rebuild US Advantages

Dec. 6, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

While history can teach some lessons illuminating how America should shape its military for current and future threats, the new security landscape requires fresh thinking and a willingness to be disruptive, asymmetric and deploy constant innovation, defense experts told the House Armed Services Committee. And, urgent work is needed to reconstitute the “Arsenal of Democracy,” given the likelihood that there will be little warning of the next great war.

In a hearing titled “Back to the Future,” meant to plumb historical lessons learned to inform today’s defense priorities, witnesses said the U.S. military needs to be willing to discard old doctrines—even if they worked before—and embrace new ones, as history shows that militaries that don’t do this lose.

The witnesses were Andrew Krepinevich, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and Center for a New American Security; Arthur Herman, also a senior fellow at Hudson, and Mark Gunzinger, director of future concept and capability assessments at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Krepinevich noted that the British Royal Navy in the early 20th century succeeded by introducing dreadnought ships and submarines; the German army developed Blitzkrieg; the American Navy shifted from battleships to aircraft carriers to win World War II, and the U.S. Air Force transformed “between the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, where they introduced what the Russians call the ‘reconnaissance-strike complex.’”

It’s not clear what will characterize the next great revolution in military affairs, although uncrewed aircraft, artificial intelligence, and technologies like additive manufacturing could be key, witnesses said.

New operational concepts have to recognize and confront new challenges, Krepinevich said. What worked before “we may not value as much” in the next conflict, he warned.

“If we ever go to war with China, how quickly can we adapt in order to be able to sustain not only the operations but also adapt” flawed concepts and less-useful hardware, Krepinevich said.

He also urged keeping in place some leaders who are involved in developing new concepts and technologies for up to 10 years, since “typically, disruptive innovation takes a decade or more.”

Transformation usually does not happen quickly and needs a knowledgeable hand guiding it. The military can’t assign an officer “for two years to do a 10-year job,” he said.

Industrial Base

Herman argued flatly that “our defense industrial base is in crisis.” Quoting from the recent National Defense Industrial Strategy Report, he contended the DIB “‘does not possess the capacity, capability, responsiveness, or resilience required to satisfy the full range of military production needs at speed and scale.” The war in the Ukraine has made the DIB’s deficiencies “obvious and urgent,” he added.

The Pentagon must figure out how to “incorporate innovation” in fields like hypersonics, drones, and cybersecurity,” Herman said, as part of an overall national security strategy.

Key to that development will be incorporating innovation as “an integral part of the production and productivity process,” rather than “a standalone category,” Herman argued, noting that the most productive companies tend to be the most innovative.

That was why Washington turned to commercial automobile and electronics companies to build the “Arsenal of Democracy” in WWII, he said: “They had the most engineers and therefore could be counted on to do things and make things better, even if they had never made them before.”

That “Arsenal” was also driven by the knowledge that Germany and Japan had technological advantage in some areas, whereas today there is complacency that the U.S. is mostly ahead, with the exception of a few areas, like hypersonics.

“By focusing on the threat first and foremost, we make for a better and more innovative industrial base,” Herman said.

Reconstituting the “Arsenal” and bolstering the DIB will require building be reconstituted “a global industrial network with trusted allies: the U.K. and the Five Eyes, NATO members, Japan and South Korea, especially in the advanced technologies like AI, quantum and space, but also in the traditional conventional technologies like shipbuilding and … energetics. In other words, the next generation munitions, in which the Chinese are already surging ahead,” Herman said.

Of the top 20 most technologically advanced countries, 18 are democracies, he noted.

“China, by contrast, ranks 32nd on the list, while Russia and Iran don’t even score. All this indicates that if the U.S. and democracies band together, they can overpower China and the new Axis with a kind of high tech focus. That’s the core of a winning and innovative Arsenal of Democracies,” he said.

Lessons from the Past

Gunzinger warned that “action is needed to ensure our armed forces will have the technological advantage over the pacing threat,” and he agreed that “history should inform this effort.” He offered six lessons to maintaining a technology edge over China and other potential adversaries.

First, holding a technology advantage “is a marathon, not a destination.” History, Gunzinger said, shows that it is a mistake to think that “technological breakthroughs will give our military an enduring advantage. … Technological inferiority is a very real possibility, if our military does not continuously modernize, and we cannot treat innovation as episodic and driven by crisis,” he argued.

Second, the U.S. needs asymmetric advantages “rather than parity.” In a war over Taiwan, China will have advantages in “time, distance, and combat mass,” so the U.S. needs to find “breakthrough technologies that will finally change the rules of the game.” The U.S. shouldn’t try to match China ship for ship and plane for plane, he said.

Third, no matter how good new technologies are, they need operational concepts that will make the most of them. The U.S. military needs to exploit Collaborative Combat Aircraft “in ways that will disrupt and degrade the operations of opposing forces, instead of simply improving how we plan to operate today.”

For his fourth and fifth point, Gunzinger asserted that “capacity matters,” and innovative technologies will only make a difference if they are built at scale. As U.S. aircraft became capable of hitting multiple targets per sortie in the 1990s—instead of requiring multiple aircraft per target—defense leaders saw that as an excuse to “slash force structure,” Gunzinger said. That’s why “our forces are now too small to meet the global requirement.” The solution is to buy new technologies at scale, which will require “sustained, predictable budget growth.”

Sixth, having enough “highly experienced and well-trained” troops will make the difference. “History has taught us that when two opposing forces have relatively equal technologies, the side with the best trained personnel often has the advantage,” Gunzinger said.

With Hold Lifted, What Happens Next for New Air Force, Space Force Generals?

Dec. 6, 2023 | By Greg Hadley and David Roza

The Senate confirmed senior military nominations for 105 Air Force and Space Force officers late Dec. 5, a massive bloc that built up over months during the standoff between Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and the Pentagon over its reproductive health policies, which provide funds to service members to travel out of state to seek services, including abortions.

Some of the officers had been awaiting confirmation since January, others only joined the queue in November. And a select few are still waiting—Tuberville is keeping his hold on four-star nominees, preventing their quick confirmation and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced he has placed holds of his own on six nominees, including three Air Force one- and two-star nominees, over concerns “regarding those nominees’ stances or actions relating to divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the military,” according to his office.

Schmitt placed holds on:

Brig. Gen. Scott A. Cain to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Paul D. Moga to be Major General

Col. Benjamin R. Jonsson to be Brigadier General

Col. David J. Berkland, nominated to be Brigadier General, was also not confirmed in the Dec. 5 bloc for unknown reasons. The four-star nominees still awaiting confirmation include:

Lt. Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife to be Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Lt. Gen. Michael A. Guetlein to be Vice Chief of Space Operations

Lt. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot to lead U.S. Northern Command and NORAD

Lt. Gen. Timothy D. Haugh to lead U.S. Cyber Command

Lt. Gen. Stephen N. Whiting to lead U.S. Space Command

Lt. Gen. Kevin B. Schneider to be commander of Pacific Air Forces

Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, the current leader of PACAF and a four-star general, to be head of Air Combat Command

An Air Force spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the individuals awaiting confirmation “will remain in their current position and their successors will do the same until the position they were nominated for becomes vacant.”

As a result, there is a domino effect at several important commands. Guillot cannot leave his post as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command until he is confirmed to lead U.S. Northern Command, so his replacement, Navy Vice Adm. Charles B. Cooper II, cannot take over at CENTCOM. Similarly, Lt. Gen. Haugh’s replacement for deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command, new Army Lt. Gen. William J. Hartman, can’t move up until Haugh takes over CYBERCOM.

The effect is even more pronounced inside the service. As long as Wilsbach can’t move over to Air Combat Command, he remains at PACAF, blocking Lt. Gen. Kevin B. Schneider. Schneider, Director of Staff at Headquarters Air Force, is blocking Lt. Gen. Scott L. Pleus. Pleus remains as deputy commander of U.S. Forces Korea and commanders of the 7th Air Force, blocking newly promoted Lt. Gen. David R. Iverson.

Iverson is blocking newly promoted Maj. Gen. Brandon D. Parker from taking on his job as director of air and cyberspace operations at PACAF, and Parker is blocking Col. David J. Berkland as PACAF chief of staff. Ironically, Berkland is one of the officers whose promotion was held.

Elsewhere, Slife is due to be replaced as deputy chief for operations by Maj. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, who is director of training and readiness under the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations. His replacement was not immediately clear.

In the Space Force, Guetlein is blocking Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant from becoming head of Space Systems Command, and Garrant is blocking Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton as deputy chief of space operations, strategy, plans, programs, and requirements.

In the cases of Moga, Jonsson, and Cain, there are no second-order effects in terms of jobs blocked.

For those general officers who can move up, an Air Force spokesperson said that transition timelines are being coordinated to determine effective dates of promotion and report dates to their new position. These actions will take some time to deconflict, the spokesperson said.

Even so, many of the nominees who were on the CY22 Maj. Gen Line of the Air Force list, the CY22 Maj. Gen Health Professions list, and the CY21 Brig. Gen Line of the Air Force list will pin on their new rank immediately with an effective promotion date of Dec. 5.

Here’s who has been confirmed by the Senate:

Air Force

Lt. Gen. Scott L. Pleus to be lieutenant general and Director of Staff

Lt. Gen. Donna D. Shipton to be lieutenant general and commander of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

Lt. Gen. Jeffrey A. Kruse to be lieutenant general and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

Maj. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration

Maj. Gen. David A. Harris Jr. to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements

Maj. Gen. Adrian L. Spain to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for operations

Maj. Gen. Sean M. Farrell to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of SOCOM

Maj. Gen. Laura L. Lenderman to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of PACAF

Maj. Gen. David R. Iverson to be lieutenant general and commander of the 7th Air Force

Maj. Gen. Michael J. Lutton to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of AFGSC

Maj. Gen. Linda S. Hurry to lieutenant general and deputy commander of AFMC

Maj. Gen. Heath A. Collins to be lieutenant general and director of the Missile Defense Agency

Maj. Gen. Michael G. Koscheski to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of ACC

Brig. Gen. Dale R. White to be lieutenant general and military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition technology, and logistics

Brig. Gen. Thomas P. Sherman to be major general

Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Harrell to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Jeannine M. Ryder to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Curtis R. Bass to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Kenyon K. Bell to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Charles D. Bolton to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Larry R. Broadwell Jr. to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Sean M. Choquette to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Roy W. Collins to be Major General

Brig. Gen. John R. Edwards to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Jason T. Hinds to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Justin R. Hoffman to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Stacy J. Huser to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Matteo G. Martemucci to be Major General

Brig. Gen. David A. Mineau to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Ty W. Neuman to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Christopher J. Niemi to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Brandon D. Parker to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Michael T. Rawls to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder to be Major General

Brig. Gen. David G. Shoemaker to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Rebecca J. Sonkiss to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Claude K. Tudor Jr. to be Major General

Col. Matthew S. Allen to be brigadier general

Col. Trent C. Davis to be brigadier general

Col. Lawrence T. Sullivan to be brigadier general

Col. Amy S. Bumgarner to be Brigadier General

Col. Ivory D. Carter to be Brigadier General

Col. Raja J. Chari to be Brigadier General

Col. Jason E. Corrothers to be Brigadier General

Col. John B. Creel to be Brigadier General

Col. Nicholas B. Evans to be Brigadier General

Col. Bridget V. Gigliotti to be Brigadier General

Col. Christopher B. Hammond, to be Brigadier General

Col. Leslie F. Hauck III to be Brigadier General

Col. Kurt C. Helphinstine to be Brigadier General

Col. Abraham L. Jackson to be Brigadier General

Col. Joy M. Kaczor to be Brigadier General

Col. Christopher J. Leonard, to be Brigadier General

Col. Christopher E. Menuey to be Brigadier General

Col. David S. Miller to be Brigadier General

Col. Jeffrey A. Philips to be Brigadier General

Col. Erik N. Quigley to be Brigadier General

Col. Michael S. Rowe to be Brigadier General

Col. Derek M. Salmi to be Brigadier General

Col. Kayle M. Stevens to be Brigadier General

Col. Jose E. Sumangil to be Brigadier General

Col. Terence G. Taylor to be Brigadier General

Col. Jason D. Voorheis to be Brigadier General

Col. Michael O. Walters to be Brigadier General

Col. Adrienne L. Williams to be Brigadier General

Col. Leigh A. Swanson to be Brigadier General

Col. Corey A. Simmons to be Brigadier General

Col. Brian R. Moore to be Brigadier General

Space Force

Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant to be lieutenant general and commander of SSC

Maj. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess to be lieutenant general and commander of the Combined Force Space Component Command

Maj. Gen. David N. Miller Jr. to be lieutenant general and commander of SpOC

Maj. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of space operations for plans, programs, and requirements

Brig. Gen. Troy L. Endicott to be major general

Brig. Gen. Timothy A. Sejba to be major general

Brig. Gen. David J. Cothern to be major general

Air National Guard

Brig. Gen. Steven J. Butow to be major general

Col. Patti L. Fries to be brigadier general

Col. Tommy F. Tillman Jr. to be brigadier general

Air Force Reserve

Brig. Gen. Elizabeth E. Arledge to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Vanessa J. Dornhoefer to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Christopher A. Freeman to be Major General

Brig. Gen. David P. Garfield, to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Mitchell A. Hanson to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Jody A. Merritt to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Adrian K. White to be Major General

Brig. Gen. William W. Whittenberger Jr. to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Christopher F. Yancy to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Derin S. Durham to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Regan Jr. to be Major General

Col. Harold W. Linnean III to be brigadier general

Col. Sean M. Carpenter to be Brigadier General

Col. Mary K. Haddad, to be Brigadier General

Col. James L. Hartle to be Brigadier General

Col. Aaron J. Heick to be Brigadier General

Col. Joseph D. Janik to be Brigadier General

Col. Michael T. McGinley to be Brigadier General

Col. Kevin J. Merrill to be Brigadier General

Col. Tara E. Nolan to be Brigadier General

Col. Roderick C. Owens to be Brigadier General

Col. Mark D. Richey to be Brigadier General

Col. Norman B. Shaw Jr. to be Brigadier General

Col. Kristin A. Hillery to be Brigadier General

Col. Michelle L. Wagner to be Brigadier General

Col. David M. Castaneda to be Brigadier General

X-37’s Next—and 7th—Launch Could Be Its Last

Dec. 6, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force will send its X-37B space place back into orbit this weekend. But no one is saying when it’s due back.

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket is slated to lift off Dec. 10 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, powering the X-37B into space for the seventh time, but its first aboard SpaceX’s more powerful Falcon Heavy. The launch, part of the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, will involve tests for “operating in new orbital regimes,” Space Systems Command disclosed in a release.

The X-37 has operated in low-Earth orbit in the past, some 110-500 miles above the ground, but Falcon Heavy can deliver payloads of 58,860 pounds—far more than the X-37B—to geosynchronous orbit, more than 22,000 miles up.

The secretive, uncrewed orbital test vehicle, built by Boeing, can carry multiple payloads to demonstrate new technologies. This mission will focus on “space domain awareness technologies,” according to the Space Force. It will also help NASA investigate the effects of long-term radiation on plant seeds, “paving the way for future crewed space missions.”

“The X-37B continues to equip the United States with the knowledge to enhance current and future space operations,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said in a statement. “X-37B Mission 7 demonstrates the USSF’s commitment to innovation and defining the art-of-the-possible in the space domain.”

With each successive mission, X-37B has spent longer and longer in orbit. Its last flight lasted 908 days, from May 17, 2020, to Nov. 12, 2022. Previous missions lasted:

780 days—Sept. 7, 2017, to Oct. 27, 2019

718 days—May 20, 2015, to May 7, 2017

674 days—Dec. 11, 2012, to Oct. 17 2014

468 days—March 5, 2011, to June 16, 2012

224 days—April 22, 2010, to Dec. 3, 2010

Should the trend of extended missions continue, X-37B wouldn’t land until June 2026 or later. It is unclear how many more flights the space plane can endure. In 2020, when Saltzman was still a three-star lieutenant general, he hinted that the spacecraft might be nearing its end. The X-37B, he said then, might exemplify “technology that has served its purpose and [maybe] it’s time to start looking at the next available capability.”

With NATO Membership Looming, Sweden and US Sign New Defense Cooperation Deal

Dec. 5, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Swedish defense minister Pal Jonson signed a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement on Dec. 5 strengthening military ties between the two nations, which will allow bilateral exercises and new joint procurements and further paves a path for Sweden’s integration into NATO.

The agreement “will enable enhanced defense cooperation, such as legal status for U.S. military personnel, access to deployment areas, and pre-positioning of military materiel,” Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder told reporters. “The DCA also creates the conditions necessary for U.S. military support when requested, and is, therefore, an agreement of great importance to both countries.” Further specifics were not immediately provided.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, long-neutral Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO, and while Finland has been admitted to the alliance, Sweden’s membership is waiting on approval from Turkey and Hungary.

Jonson, speaking Dec. 5 with the Atlantic Council, declined to offer a timeline on when he expects the final hurdles to Sweden’s membership to be cleared, only saying that it will be “soon.”

“Turkey has given Swedish invitee status, saying it’s not whether we’re going to become members but when … and we’re hopeful that this is going to be resolved as soon as possible,” Jonson said.

Of the DCA between the U.S. and Sweden, Jonson said, “This is going to put our close partnership even closer. It’s going to create better conditions for U.S. forces both to use Swedish territory as a staging and basing area, and also for exercising, and it’s all about also deterrence. So the DCA is going to be a new cornerstone in our bilateral cooperation.”

He later said a U.S. military presence in Sweden “is important” for NATO integration and the DCA will guide American investment in the region.

Jonson’s remarks focused on how Sweden will integrate its military with NATO and made the case that Stockholm is already highly aligned both operationally and technically with NATO standards.

As an example, he cited last year’s “Silver Arrow” exercise with the U.S., saying it was Sweden’s largest exercise in 25 years and highlighted the need to pay attention to logistics and maintenance, and the ability to “fight for a long time.”

He noted that the Nordic countries of Norway, Finland, and Denmark already work together militarily, and all now have DCAs with the U.S., and this should speed and enhance NATO interoperability in the Scandinavian region.

Sweden was one of the first members of the Partnership For Peace—sometimes called “NATO Light”—set up by during the Clinton Administration to establish a path to NATO membership for other European countries and the former Warsaw Pact nations. The PFP defined a series of steps, from joint exercises to common equipment and training standards, necessary for membership, and Sweden has fully embraced all of those, Jonson said, and has sent its troops to serve alongside NATO forces in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Libya.

“We are plugged into NATO’s regional plans,” he said, and Sweden offers not only state-of-the-art ground, air, and naval forces and basing opportunities but expertise in Russian intelligence matters.

“Intelligence is also an asset I think we can bring to the table, to the alliance,” Jonson said. “Sweden has a lot of Russian expertise. We have strong capabilities in our intelligence communities. We have sensors that can work from our submarines and they can work also from our surface combatants and also from airborne sensors.”

Sweden, despite a population of only 10 million, also has a defense industry capable of building armored vehicles, submarines, corvettes, and fighter and command-and-control aircraft, and is making 155mm ammunition for Ukraine alongside Denmark and Norway. The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen is a frequent competitor to the U.S. F-16 and F-35 in international competitions, and its Global Eye airborne warning and control system often goes up against Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail. SAAB is Boeing’s partner on the T-7A Red Hawk advanced USAF trainer, and Sweden’s Gripen fighters carry U.S.-made AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and are powered by GE Aerospace F414 engines.

Sweden is “fully behind” NATO’s goals that every member devote two percent of its gross domestic product on defense and 20 percent of that amount on new equipment and research and development, Jonson said.

“Sweden has doubled its defense budgets by 2024 compared to how we were in in 2020,” he said. “In five years, we have doubled [spending] … and next year we will reach 2.1 percent of GDP and we have a trajectory upwards as well. We get it.”

On top of that, Jonson said Sweden spends “actually, 56 percent, when it comes to acquisition. So we score quite well in reqard to investments and also on innovation.”

Joining NATO will given Sweden added security in deterring possible aggression by Russia, which continues to wage war on Ukraine, and Jonson said Sweden also wants to do its part to prevent Russia from a series of further attacks.

“If Russia would be successful in this war, I fear that other countries neighboring Russia, such as Moldova and Georgia, would feel an increased pressure and there will also be an increased pressure on the Alliance. So rest assured that the United States has a partner in Sweden that shares a unity of purpose of supporting Ukraine as long as it takes,” he said.

Russia has outlined plans to regroup from its losses in Ukraine and “be back with a bigger force” in 2026, Jonson added, which will require vigilance and no let-up in support for Kyiv from NATO and the European Union. There is a “window of opportunity” for NATO to keep up the pressure to secure a desirable outcome in the war, he added.

Most of the Swedish electorate—65-70 percent—supports joining NATO, Jonson said, and 88 percent of seats in parliament were won “by those who want to join,” Jonson said. They recognize that Russia’s aggression is an immediate danger and requires an “evolution” in thinking.

“Sweden Is no longer being defended inside Sweden,” he said.