How to Make Air Force Bases Safer and Security Forces Happier

How to Make Air Force Bases Safer and Security Forces Happier

Nov. 16, 2023 | By David Roza

With more than 38,000 Airmen, security forces is the largest career field in the Air Force. It is also one of the most overworked, with a higher suicide rate than most other job specialties. A new paper from a lifelong Defender proposes a solution: give base leaders more authority to shape their own security procedures. The result, he argues, may be more efficient systems that would make Air Force bases safer and give defenders more time with their friends and families.

“Today, many SF members at Air Force installations worldwide have limited operational effectiveness due to redundant security concepts and restrictive security procedures,” wrote Senior Master Sgt. Brandon Dinkins, a 19-year Defender, in a paper published in the fall issue of Air University’s Air & Space Operations Review.

“A new security management approach for SF posting and response can help create a more lethal, educated, effective, and ready force to meet the dangerous threats of today,” wrote Dinkins, the superintendent of operations and training for the 45th Security Forces Squadron at Patrick Space Force Base, Fla.

Back-Breaking

Defenders have a lot on their plates. As the Air Force’s law enforcement body, they write tickets, investigate on-base incidents, and patrol installations. But they also have to maintain infantry combat skills in order to protect the base from attacks. Those duties add up, especially when training, temporary duty travel, and deployments are factored in.

“We try to adhere to eight-hour shifts, but once we can’t maintain that policy, we often move to a 12-hour shift schedule,” Dinkins told Air & Space Forces Magazine, emphasizing that his views do not necessarily represent those of the Air Force or the Department of Defense. “That creates duty instability, mental fatigue, physical injury, and more on-the-job accidents.”

Dinkins pointed to himself as an example. He loves his job, but he also has back issues from working 13-hour shifts in body armor, and many of his colleagues feel similar physical and mental pain.

“A lot of Defenders seek out mental health for reasons that are compounded by working 12-hour shifts; it might create strains on your marriage or your personal life,” he said. 

security forces
U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Ian Willis, 23rd Security Forces Squadron installation entry controller, permits entry access to personnel at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, Nov. 6, 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Rachel Coates

Reactive vs. Proactive

Security forces Airmen pull shifts at posts determined by security requirements. The problem is that many of those requirements come from Headquarters Air Force, and the one-size-fits-all approach does not work for all installations. For example, Joint Base Andrews, Md., has a special focus on providing security for the president and other senior leaders, while Patrick Space Force Base has a waterfront and a boat security mission. 

The top-down requirements also emphasize protecting critical assets such as flightlines and aircraft. These are important to protect, but they also usually have more built-up security infrastructure in the form of cameras, alarms, fences, and other systems to delay and deter intruders. Current requirements do not leave much space for securing the rest of the base.

“I might have five patrols available, four of which might be strictly tied to a resource such as the flightline or a space-based system,” Dinkins said. “I might have only one patrol available to respond to any other incident on that base, whether it be a high-risk traffic stop, a threat at the gate, or a shoplifting case.”

Dinkins would prefer a proactive stance where defenders can deter crime by maintaining a larger presence in high-population areas such as base housing, the gates, the commissary, and the base exchange (BX). 

Gaps in perimeter security can also have an effect on the safety of those critical assets deeper inside the fence line, such as in February when an intruder entered Andrews, and in 2021, when a different intruder made it inside a C-40 transport jet before being arrested.

“Security Forces can utilize patrols as high-visibility deterrence, which helps increase the probability of detecting and deterring criminal acts and security breaches,” Dinkins wrote.

A more proactive security posture would have to be informed by data and intelligence. For example, Dinkins has visited Army bases where a criminal intelligence analyst studies peak traffic, peak crime times, and other factors that military police use to guide their patrols. 

“If we know that there is a higher probability of theft at the BX, or a large number of break-ins at the gym around 5 o’clock, those statistics help you develop a proactive strategy,” he said.

security forces
U.S. Air Force 52nd Security Forces Squadron Defenders assigned to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, conduct a security patrol at the 86th Air Base, Romania, in support of NATO’s enhanced Air Policing (eAP) capabilities, Sept. 24, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Albert Morel)

Delegate Down

Theoretically, defense force commanders (DFCs) can seek waivers to form tailored security strategies, but there is an unspoken taboo against it.

“It comes down to optics, right? Why can’t you meet requirements?” Dinkins said. “That might not totally be the case, but I believe people feel a bit of peer pressure to maintain the status quo.”

Defenders are not the only military community with rigid, top-down requirements, but allowing installation leaders to tailor their security posture could save man-hours at a time when the Air Force is strapped for personnel.

“Tracking criminal trends and threats allows DFCs to utilize their force more effectively, thus reducing inefficient policing and security posting,” Dinkins wrote. “DFCs can reallocate forces to other base patrolling activities and not restrict area security patrols to resources where infrastructure and layered defense can deter and delay adversarial threats.”

Those strategies could be further augmented by automated or autonomous systems—such as the robot dogs brought on for testing last year at Patrick Space Force Base. Besides making installations more secure, Dinkins hopes such changes could also give some time and purpose back to Defenders.

“Nothing’s worse than feeling like you are wasting your time,” he said, adding that many of the ideas in the paper were inspired by years of spit-balling on post with other Defenders. “I’ve been on post plenty of times asking ‘Why am I here?’ Sometimes as Defenders we are not even told what we’re guarding. It is good to know why we do things.”

Dinkins said now is the time to optimize security forces. The last time the career field underwent major changes was in the wake of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing at Dhahran Air Base, Saudi Arabia, where 19 Airmen died and hundreds more were wounded.

“We have to be proactive and deliberate in our ability to stay ahead and think ahead,” he said. “I would rather make changes before it was needed than after it was needed.”

New Report: US Must Modernize Nuclear Posture for Tri-Polar World

New Report: US Must Modernize Nuclear Posture for Tri-Polar World

Nov. 16, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

To confront a world with not one but two major nuclear powers—neither of which is willing to enter arms talks—the U.S. must revive its atrophied nuclear weapons enterprise with all speed and build up its stock of conventional weapons in order to deter war, the chairs of a bipartisan strategic posture panel told the House Armed Services Committee on Nov. 15.

The U.S. has no margin left for modernizing its nuclear forces, and it’s doubtful that planned upgrades will arrive on time, Madelyn R. Creedon and former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), chair and vice chair of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, told lawmakers after spending the last year studying the issue.

Threat Environment

China has built up its nuclear weapons stockpile at a pace that is “unprecedented” and “very surprising,” Creedon said, echoing observations from the Pentagon and outside experts.

At the current rate, China is targeting nuclear parity with the U.S. and Russia by the mid-2030s. But Kyl noted that one of the witnesses before the commission pointed out that the Chinese are “always ahead of schedule. Whenever they say they’re going to achieve a certain system by a certain time, they beat that schedule.”

Given that aggressive growth, the commission argued in its final report released in October that China must no longer be treated as a “lesser included threat” on the strategic stage.

At the same time, Kyl told lawmakers that in all nuclear systems, and in some emerging technologies like hypersonics, “we are playing catch-up.” Russia has completed more than 90 percent of its strategic nuclear modernization and has also deployed new kinds of nuclear weapons for which the U.S. has no analogy, Kyl said. These include “tsunami” weapons that would inundate a coastline after being set off underwater.  

The result, a tri-polar nuclear world, “is an existential challenge for which the United States is ill-prepared, unless its leaders make decisions now to adjust the U.S. strategic posture,” the commission wrote in its report. The U.S. and its allies must be prepared to deter or defeat both adversaries “simultaneously,” the commission added, as the risk of conflict with Russia and China “is increasing.”

As things stand now, “the United States lacks a comprehensive strategy to address the looming two nuclear-peer threat environment and lacks the force structure such a strategy will require,” the report states.

In crafting its final report, the commission started with five assumptions, Creedon told lawmakers:

  • Russia and China will continue “their respective adversarial paths, each growing the quality and quantity of their nuclear arsenals.”
  • Both will also grow their conventional, space, and cyber forces, and continue “aggressive foreign policies” with the goal of supplanting the U.S. as a world leader.
  • “Today’s ‘one major war’ strategy construct is no longer viable, particularly given China’s current trajectory.”
  • America’s nuclear modernization “program of record must be fully implemented as rapidly as possible to deter Russia and China.” However, the program isn’t sufficient to meet the projected threat.
  • Both the Pentagon and National Nuclear Security Administration’s industrial base and nuclear infrastructure require investment.

Major Takeaways

The 160-page report, compiled by a 12-person expert panel, did not provide cost estimates for any of their recommendations—a fact that rankled some of the representatives at the hearing, including ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)—but this was not part of the commission’s charter, Kyl said.

“The commission’s report is threat-informed, forward-looking bipartisan consensus,” Creedon said. It “provides high level guidance to shape and ensure future decision makers have real options while generally refraining from choosing specific systems. We provide characteristics of recommended capabilities but do not pick the winners and losers.”

Several members of the committee pressed the witnesses on whether the U.S. should develop the nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile that the Biden Administration decided not to pursue, but while they said it could play an important role in enhanced deterrence, they reiterated that they would not single out specific programs.   

The commission did urge the full implementation of the strategic program of record, “which includes replacement of all U.S. nuclear delivery systems, modernization of their warheads, comprehensive modernization of U.S. nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3), and recapitalizing the nuclear enterprise infrastructure at the DOD and DOE/NNSA.”

Recommendations

All told, the panel included 81 recommendations in its report, mostly oriented toward generic capabilities needed to counter or offset those fielded by China, Russia and other nuclear powers or prospective ones.

Creedon said the report’s subtlety has led to some confusion about its findings.

“We are not recommending substantial increases in the new U.S. nuclear force posture. We want to avoid a new nuclear arms race, and most importantly, we want to avoid a nuclear conflict and thus we need a credible conventional and nuclear deterrent,” she said.

“We do recommend that we plan and be prepared for a more challenging future while fully supporting diplomatic and whole-of-government operations to reduce tensions and ensure strategic stability.”

However, diplomatic efforts have proven increasingly futile, as Russia has exited nearly all its arms treaties with the U.S. and China has declined to engage strategic arms talks.

“Prospects for agreements on nuclear arms control now appear bleak, [and] we must consider that we may be in a situation where there is no strategic arms control treaty,” Creedon acknowledged, while arguing that “if there are opportunities for arms control or other strategic stability talks, military to military talks, Confidence Building Measures or other opportunities, they should all be explored.”

The commission also recommended the U.S. be able to deter or defeat “simultaneous Russian and Chinese aggression in Europe and Asia using conventional forces.”

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) asked the commission leaders if U.S. stockpiles of conventional long-range, precision fires—specifically, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and its naval counterpart, the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile—are adequate.

“The answer is, yes, it’s inadequate today,” Kyl said.

Among other non-nuclear capabilities, the commission emphasized the importance of deploying “a more resilient space architecture” and ensuring the U.S. and its allies are on the “cutting edge” of new technologies “such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI)—to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture.”

Should that not happen, the report noted, the U.S. strategy would need to change to reflect an increased reliance on nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence.

Running out of Time

Kyl told the committee that, with no time margin left for nuclear modernization and the inevitability of programmatic setbacks, “there will be gaps” in some elements of the nuclear deterrent. The report said that delays should be mitigated to prevent “early age-out” of current systems.

“We don’t have any more time,” Kyl said. “We’ve used up all of our work-around and the schedules, both for the refurbishment of the nuclear warheads, and the development of the new platforms is a tight schedule.

“… The reality is, we found delays here and there and it’s very difficult to imagine that we could meet the schedule. As a result, there are a couple of charts in our report, which show the potential for a deterrence gap.”

U.S. strategic forces “should be modified to address the larger number of targets due to the growing Chinese nuclear threat,” the report said, but Creedon and Kyl said that didn’t necessarily mean more of any particular systems, leaving how to accomplish that task up to “future decision-makers.”

The commission did say, though, that the U.S. needs to keep up with advances in Russian and Chinese missile defenses and deploy systems that can get past them.

Additionally, the report said the President needs more “nuclear response options” to deter the use of theater nuclear weapons. The U.S. also needs to “address the need” for more theater nuclear weapons in the Indo-Pacific theater, and “compensate for any shortfall in U.S. and allied non-nuclear capabilities in a sequential or simultaneous two-theater conflict against Russia and China.”

Congress also needs to act in a timely fashion to pass defense bills and ensure “funding stability” for the nuclear enterprise, Creedon said, urging a shift from single-year defense budgets to a two-year cycle.

Failure to do any of these things risks the U.S. not having a credible deterrent and losing the confidence of its partners and allies, who may turn elsewhere. Wherever possible, the U.S. should shore up and expand such alliances. Conversely, withdrawing from alliances “would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity,” the report states.

Since the last such posture assessment in 2009, “the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged,” the report said.

“This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a high-stakes challenge that requires urgent action,” the report goes on. “Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now.”

Kyl told the committee that every Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during his years of government service have said that the nuclear deterrent is the foundation of all defense and is their “number one priority.”

“We have to act like it,” he said.

Fighting the US Military’s Slow Creeping Enemy: Corrosion

Fighting the US Military’s Slow Creeping Enemy: Corrosion

Nov. 16, 2023

When left unchecked, the corrosion of metals and alloys is inevitable and extraordinarily costly. U.S. companies spend an estimated $276 billion annually on corrosion prevention, mitigation and repair – more than 3% of gross domestic product (GDP).[1] And for the U.S. government, unmanaged corrosion can pose serious problems across its assets and infrastructure, impacting mission readiness, crew safety and systems reliability. That’s why the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) spends around $20 billion annually on corrosion maintenance – almost 20% of every dollar budgeted for maintenance purposes.[2]

Battelle has helped the DoD with many of its corrosion challenges. The independent nonprofit science and technology research organization has multidisciplinary and comprehensive materials science and engineering expertise that uniquely position it to solve the most challenging material problems. And with its well-equipped facilities and multidisciplinary resources, Battelle can perform systematic material characterization assessments like material development, performance, qualification and specific failure analysis. When Battelle’s full material capabilities are brought to the table, myriad challenges – from unique materials selection to specific corrosion issues – can be solved to minimize maintenance costs and ensure critical systems are always mission ready in support of the warfighter. 

Fighting Corrosion Requires Tailored Solutions

The U.S. DoD agencies deploy a wide array of equipment and assets that execute wide variety of missions under various states of duress in a plethora of environments. As such, the exposure profiles and corrosion impacts on these assets in deployment are diverse and unique to their mission. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to military corrosion challenges. For example, the operating environments for a Naval Ship, a Coast Guard Cutter, a Marine Corp Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) or an Air Force fuselage vary significantly, depending on location, specific usage, the materials involved, the age of the equipment and much more.

Battelle has multiple indoor and outdoor facilities for research and development, characterization and the testing and evaluation of advanced materials. At its Center for the Characterization of Advanced Materials (CCAM), Battelle has laboratories explicitly designed for coatings research and development, as well as advanced characterization systems for spectroscopy, microscopy, failure prediction and analysis. The Center also houses equipment for weathering and cyclic exposures, which enables Battelle researchers and scientists to evaluate the impact of various environmental conditions on specific materials.

At its one-of-a-kind Florida Materials Research Facility (FMRF), Battelle can conduct outdoor materials characterization to assess atmospheric and marine exposure of materials. (See Figure 1.) It’s located in one of the most corrosive environments on Earth and the property includes the only commercial oceanfront facility for subtropical exposure studies in the U.S.[3] It’s also equipped with a wide array of exposure racks and fences that conform to American Society for Testing (ASTM) materials and two acres of beachfront exposure area that’s less than 70 meters from the Atlantic Ocean. This means Battelle can expose sample materials to nature’s harshest elements – like sun, wind, seawater spray and more – at any angle. Located on the Intracoastal Waterway via the Halifax River, FMRF also boasts access to tropical and subtropical marine fouling organisms with a level of biodiversity that is not achieved further north or south. This enables Battelle to test marine materials, antifouling coatings and foul release products in fully submerged, floating waterline and splash zone exposures on its marine immersion dock in the harshest of fouling conditions available. With the ability to perform both ASTM and Military Spec testing, Battelle can support failure analysis, material evaluation and qualification against the most rigorous standards.

In addition to testing, Battelle excels at studies on material compatibility and analysis of alternatives (AoAs). With its extensive capabilities and background in failure analysis, Battelle can identify key material properties and conduct AoAs to achieve system requirements. For example, Battelle has assessed coating vulnerability for specific applications and environments and proposed formulation enhancements to ensure the coating’s integrity and its ability to protect the substrate.

Additionally, Battelle has a team of subject matter experts evaluating impacts of biological growth (such as fungi, bacteria etc.) on coatings used on a variety of substrates within the DoD. As part of a recent project for the U.S. Air Force, Battelle worked with a coatings manufacturer to improve the weathering performance and resistance to microbially influenced corrosion of a powder coating used on aircraft ground support equipment in Pacific locations with hot and humid operating conditions. Battelle also recently evaluated an in-field corrosion repair technique used by the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), assessing the application of inorganic coatings to prevent galvanic corrosion of dissimilar substrates. In addition, Battelle is currently evaluating nine coatings of five different U.S. Army manufacturers in support of their acquisition decision on non-developmental items.

Combating the Slow Creep of Corrosion

Figure 2: Battelle’s marine dock features the most aggressive of marine environments. Here, fouling organisms and warm seawater will put robust materials to the test and expose corrosion concerns in short order as seen in this marine exposure test article.

Corrosion occurs at a slow pace – by the time it is visible to the eye, the damage can be especially costly to repair. To help the U.S. government stay ahead of the curve, Battelle can perform accelerated life testing to make informed predictions about root cause material failure and its probability for occurrence. This is especially useful for mitigating risk with military vehicles and equipment during deployment – from tactical vehicles to ground support equipment. As part its Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC) program with the U.S. Marine Corps, Battelle has assessed new coatings and corrosion prevention compounds, reviewed repair processes, created systems to more effectively preserve equipment, and identified where future investments could be made.[4]

When it comes to fighting corrosion, proactive planning and prevention not only mitigates risks, but can also save millions of dollars. Worldwide corrosion authority NACE International estimates that proper corrosion management could save as much as $375 to $875 billion annually.[5] For the U.S. and the various branches of U.S. military, Battelle’s unmatched expertise and ability to conduct total life cycle management is particularly germane and beneficial. With these capabilities, it’s possible to extend the service life of vital government and military assets, which reduces overall ownership costs while improving mission readiness – a true win-win scenario.

Visit Battelle.org to learn more about the company’s advanced materials expertise.

Saltzman: China’s Anti-Satellite Weapons Are ‘Compounding Problem We Have to Figure Out’

Saltzman: China’s Anti-Satellite Weapons Are ‘Compounding Problem We Have to Figure Out’

Nov. 15, 2023 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman highlighted the danger posed by China’s anti-satellite (ASAT) missile capabilities as one of the Space Force’s biggest challenges as the young service nears its fourth birthday.

Saltzman has frequently described China’s 2007 test of its direct ascent ASAT weapon as a turning point in the history of military space operations. Speaking at the Atlantic Council on Nov. 15, he warned that such weapons remain a serious concern.

“That’s a double problem because they can take out satellites, and the debris created by those destructions can cause other problems in orbit,” Saltzman said. “It’s a compounding problem we have to figure out.”

Debris from that 2007 ASAT test still lingers in orbit, as does debris from a more recent test by Russia. As the domain becomes more crowded and complex, the Space Force must track existing threats while also trying to deter future ones.

Key to that deterrence is the Space Force’s pivot toward a more resilient architecture for its satellites in orbit and its networks on the ground.

The Space Development Agency has taken a lead on such efforts, working to build a proliferated constellation of hundreds of satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO) for missile tracking/warning and data transport. The strategy, articulated by SDA director Derek M. Tournear, is that the cost of shooting down one satellite will be greater than the cost of fielding one.

In addition to building more, smaller satellites, Saltzman said the Space Force must work on ways for satellites to defend and protect themselves, from both kinetic (physical attacks such as missiles) and non-kinetic (electronic or cyber attacks) attacks.

For non-kinetic defense capabilities, Saltzman cited the importance of designing validated tactics to counter such cyber attacks and training operators to use these tactics in a timely manner. The goal is to mitigate the effects of potential attacks in a contested space environment and ensure the satellites’ can continue to function.

The urgency is driven by the idea of denying adversaries a first-mover advantage, as Saltzman puts it.

Another concern with China is the transparency in information sharing that can affect safety. Saltzman highlighted the need for a proactive approach to communication, particularly in scenarios where there is a potential for objects to collide in space.

The Space Force provides warnings unilaterally when detecting two objects that could come in close proximity, regardless of the parties involved, including China. However, the response is sometimes omitted on their end, resulting in dangerous situations, Saltzman said.

The possibility of China not being transparent with their TTPs [Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures] and their CONOPS [Concept of Operations] is a concern Space Force Chief Technology and Innovation Officer Dr. Lisa Costa has voiced recently as well.

The Pentagon, in its latest annual China report released in October, warned that China prioritizes controlling space-based information, which involves preventing adversaries from using space for gathering information and communication

China is also actively investing in space-based intelligence and actively developing counterspace capabilities, including kinetic-kill missiles and ground-based lasers.

More Airmen Are Graduating Pilot School Thanks to Mental Toughness Training

More Airmen Are Graduating Pilot School Thanks to Mental Toughness Training

Nov. 15, 2023 | By David Roza

Stress can get to anybody, even Air Force fighter pilots. One F-35 instructor pilot, Hasard Lee, sees it happen to even the best students. Returning from a training flight one day, Lee and his student had to change radio frequencies, a simple task if the pilot taps the right buttons on the F-35’s touch screen display. But on that day, the student tapped the wrong button.

“After several moments of silence, the student realized that something was wrong and began troubleshooting the problem, thinking that his radio had failed,” Lee wrote in his recent book, “The Art of Clear Thinking: A Stealth Fighter Pilot’s Timeless Rules for Making Tough Decisions.”

“As I flew formation off him, I noticed his altitude start to drift by several hundred feet, a tell-tale sign that he was beginning to become overwhelmed as he struggled to manage his cross-check,” Lee went on. 

The student eventually switched to the right frequency, but “for the remainder of the flight, it was like I was flying with a completely different student,” Lee wrote. “The collected, above-average student was now flying erratically.”

The student missed radio calls, failed to descend at the proper times, and even tried to cut off another formation of fighters. Once they landed at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., and debriefed, the student said he was angry with himself for the radio frequency mistake, and that anger, combined with the fear of failing the flight, “pushed him into a fight-or-flight response, which began to shut down his prefrontal cortex, and therefore his ability to make logical decisions.” 

It may seem like a severe reaction, but Lee has seen many students mentally unravel after a simple mistake. The pilots are often young, working under intense pressure to succeed, and in a dangerous environment. As far back as World War II, the then-U.S. Army Air Forces found that skilled pilots in peacetime often crashed in combat due to simple mental mistakes. Studies showed that stress severely reduced performance in tasks requiring complex or flexible thinking.

“We have a saying in the fighter pilot community that you lose 20 IQ points as soon as you put on your helmet,” Lee wrote. “What looks easy in the classroom is much more difficult when you’re sweating in the hot cockpit with dozens of people talking simultaneously through the radios and lives at stake.”

pilot training
A 56th Fighter Wing F-35A Lightning II pilot takes off from Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., July 17, 2017. U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Caleb Worpel

In previous generations of Air Force pilot training, there was no formal education on how to manage stress and emotions. But a new program, Comprehensive Readiness for Aircrew Flying Training (CRAFT) is helping students fly better, score higher grades, and stay in the training pipeline, an important outcome at a time when the service is struggling to retain pilots.

“You’re going to screw something up, that’s just going to happen, so how do you recover?” Lt. Col. Carolyn Price Moore, CRAFT program director for 19th Air Force, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “Do you dwell on the mistake, or do you use your mindfulness, your [emotional] intensity regulation, and your diaphragmatic breathing to refocus on the present, to move forward so that you don’t get into a nervous spiral.” 

Punching Above Weight

It all started in the boxing ring. As a member of the U.S. Air Force Academy boxing team, Lee found the stress before a fight often made it difficult for him to focus during the fight itself. But a chance encounter with a sports psychologist from the nearby U.S. Olympic Training Center opened the door to mental workouts that many athletes perform alongside their physical ones.

“As I learned more about the field, I began to understand that what I was experiencing during the fights was my body’s natural response to stress and pressure,” Lee wrote. “More importantly, there were best practices that I could apply to overcome them, such as visualization, self-talk, and specialized breathing techniques.”

The mental training was not a substitute for hard work and preparation, but it helped him perform to the level of his preparation. His boxing improved, and he applied the same techniques to speaking in front of large groups, skydiving, and pilot training. Lee found the Air Force flight instruction exemplary, but there was not much guidance on how to handle emotions, a common issue among training institutions.

“It’s kind of a default that you either sink or swim, and it was certainly when I went to pilot training in 2010,” Lee, a reservist, told Air & Space Forces Magazine in his civilian capacity. “That’s an effective technique, you know the people who come out the other side are going to be solid. But the problem is the training is very expensive … so if people get halfway through that training and wash out because they have some issues with being resilient, that could waste a lot of taxpayer money.”

Lee used himself as an example. Though not the most talented pilot, he used resilience techniques to perform consistently well in training and maintain confidence after mistakes, an area where even students with significant civilian flight time faltered.

“Without the confidence to make sound decisions, you’re putting yourself and others at risk,” he wrote. “In the past, it was thought that you either had confidence or you didn’t, and those who didn’t were quickly weeded out. However, confidence is a skill that can be improved, primarily through our internal dialogue.”

pilot training
A student pilot and instructor pilot walk toward their T-6 Texan II training aircraft on the flightline, May 2, 2019, at Vance Air Force Base, Okla. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman Zoe T. Perkins

Old Meets New

Lee is not the only one thinking about mental performance. By 2011, U.S. Special Operations Command was feeling the strain of the Global War on Terror, prompting then-SOCOM boss Adm. William McRaven to stand up The Preservation of Force and Families Task Force, a program that went after injury prevention, psychological care, and work tempo. Price Moore worked for Air Force Special Operations Command and helped expand the program for special operations aircrew.

AFSOC became a role model for the rest of the service. Around 2017, Lee met with a three-star general who wanted to revamp pilot training. Lee shared his experiences with mental performance training, and he eventually linked up with a flight doctor who received a grant to launch a test program for F-35 student pilots at Luke. 

The Luke program was holistic, with dietitians to encourage healthy eating habits, and strength coaches and massage therapists to address neck and back pain, a frequent problem among fighter pilots who have to keep their heads on a swivel at high G-forces. On the cognitive side, students learned breathing techniques to calm the body and mind, to develop confidence through positive mental self-talk, and to save the close analysis of mistakes for the debrief afterwards.

“You know there is a dedicated time after the flight that you can pull everything apart,” Lee said. “You can chuck any mistakes into that and just focus on the flight at hand.” 

Not all of the program was brand-new. One key activity was chair flying, where pilots sit in a chair, imagine it’s an ejection seat, and rehearse the steps of a real-world sortie. The technique goes back to at least World War II, but the Luke program brought a slight twist by introducing steps for handling self-doubt.  

“If doubt crept in, or they felt they had made a mistake, they would simply repeat the maneuver or procedure until they had successfully completed it in their minds,” Lee wrote. 

Lee said the training decreased the wash-out rate and improved the performance of average and below-average students. There was also less of a snowball effect when students made mistakes. The program was successful enough that it spread to the rest of Air Education and Training Command (AETC) in the form of CRAFT.

“On the AETC side, Luke was where it all started,” Price Moore said. “That program was pivotal in how it expanded across the rest of the 19th Air Force.”

pilot training
Jeff Tietz (right), CRAFT strength and conditioning coach overlooks and motivates a group of undergraduate flying training students during circuit drills at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Tex. Aug. 26, 2021. (Courtesy photo)

Power to the Pipeline

The first CRAFT programs for undergraduate pilot training stood up in 2020 at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas; and Vance Air Force Base, Okla.; where students fly their first aircraft, the T-6 Texan II. Specialist contractors teach classes in nutrition, cognitive performance, and strength and conditioning. After the initial classes, students have to attend a minimum of two CRAFT events a week, and they can also schedule follow-up sessions. Many do—Price Moore said students contact specialists 2,000 more times annually than the baseline required visits, with cognitive specialists in highest demand.

The cognitive performance training is rooted in the University of Pennsylvania’s positive psychology program, where failure is seen as a chance to learn. The students learn to change their mindset on failure and to moderate their physical response to it. The techniques include diaphragmatic breathing—breathing from the abdomen which can slow heart rate—visualization, progressive muscle relaxation, and controlling strong emotions such as anxiety. Students in CRAFT practice cognitive techniques in between physical workout sets in an effort to simulate the hot, sweaty, fatigued conditions of an actual cockpit.

“It’s really easy to sit here and practice mindfulness at one G, but we want them to utilize it in a more stressful situation,” Price Moore said. “You come to Randolph in the summer, it’s 100 degrees outside and you’ve got your survival vest and your G suit on, so you’re hot and sweaty and your heartbeat is higher just walking to the jet.”

CRAFT has already changed the lives of many student pilots. About a quarter of the students across four T-6 classes this year said in feedback forms that CRAFT saved them from washing out. Students in T-6 and T-1 Jayhawk classes who completed three or more CRAFT sessions saw a 16-to-63 percent improvement in aircraft-related cognitive performance over students with fewer than three sessions, and an 8-to-33 percent improvement in aircraft performance-related physical fitness scores.

A vast majority of students reported on feedback forms that CRAFT helped them become better students and pilots, and it helped many get selected for the airframe of their choice. Price Moore noted that students who interact with CRAFT more frequently tend to finish at the top of their T-6 class and are able to track into the T-38 fighter/bomber pathway.

“The Cognitive Specialist’s cognitive consults were the biggest attributing factor in my success at [Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals],” wrote one student in a feedback form.

Another student reported that a CRAFT dietician helped him get under the ejection seat weight limit, while others said the strength and conditioning coaches helped them pass the centrifuge test, feel stronger in the cockpit, and suffer “significantly less” neck and back pain. Even better, CRAFT has reduced the number of hours students need to master pilot skills, so planners do not need to sacrifice pilot training time for CRAFT.

An F-35 Lightning II pilot assigned to the 61st Fighter Squadron prepares to taxi onto the runway May 17, 2017, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Caleb Worpel)

Bigger and Better

CRAFT has mushroomed since 2020, with about 100 contractors working in 13 locations across the 19th Air Force, including most undergraduate pilot training locations and several formal training units for specific aircraft. The program will likely change as more data informs new techniques, but the Air Force is already looking to stand up a similar program for aircrews across the service.

Learning to think more flexibly could also help ground-based Airmen, especially as the Air Force pushes troops to pick up more skills in order to operate from smaller airfields in a future conflict.

“You can’t ask somebody to be multi-capable or prepared for agile combat employment if they are not mentally agile, if they are not good at rapid decision-making under stressful conditions,” Price Moore said.

BONEs Over the Middle East: B-1 Bombers Fly 3 Missions in 8 Days for CENTCOM

BONEs Over the Middle East: B-1 Bombers Fly 3 Missions in 8 Days for CENTCOM

Nov. 15, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

U.S. Air Force B-1 bombers have flown missions over the Middle East three times in the last week and a half amid U.S. military activity and widespread unrest in the region.

When the first B-1 flight took place Nov. 5, Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder emphasized that it was a “long-planned Bomber Task Force mission” as part of the BTF rotation out of RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, which began Oct. 13. 

“It’s important to differentiate the Bomber Task Force mission from the current situation in the Middle East,” Ryder said. at the time. U.S. troops have been attacked more than 50 times in the last month by Iranian-backed militias, as the entire region is on edge in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. 

U.S. Central Command subsequently announced a second B-1 flight took place Nov. 8, with the bomber from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, escorted by F-16 fighters. Released images showed the fighters as belonging to the 138th Fighter Wing of the Oklahoma Air National Guard. The Tulsa-based Vipers are one of three F-16 squadrons in the region.

A third flight occurred Nov. 13, with the B-1 getting refueled by a KC-135 Stratotanker from the 121st Air Refueling Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard. 

CENTCOM offered few details on the flights, merely stating that the missions showed “the ability to rapidly project combat power” while noting their frequency. No locations were disclosed. 

In a social media post, Air Forces Central called the Nov. 13 flight “a regularly scheduled Bomber Task Force mission.” 

It is not unusual for bombers deployed to Europe as part of a Bomber Task Force rotation to conduct missions over the Middle East. In June, B-1s from a BTF deploying to Europe conducted live-fire exercises at ranges in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In March, a B-52 flew alongside fighter escort aircraft from seven different nations during a flight over the region. 

However, three announced flights in eight days marks the most by a bomber task force in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility in recent years.

The U.S. has also surged other assets to the region in recent weeks, including additional attack and fighter squadrons, two aircraft carriers—the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Red Sea and the USS Gerald R. Ford in the eastern Mediterranean Sea—and an Ohio-class cruise missile submarine in the Suez Canel. 

Air Force Futures Boss Reveals New CCA Details, Including Potential Aerial Refueling

Air Force Futures Boss Reveals New CCA Details, Including Potential Aerial Refueling

Nov. 15, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

The acting official in charge of shaping the future Air Force revealed new details about the service’s plans for its fleet of unmanned wingmen Nov. 15, including the prospect that some of the drones may be aerially refueled to increase their range.

The Air Force is still working through what roles Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) will play in its future force, starting with the standup of an experimental operations unit that will explore how to use the new drones, Thomas J. Lawhead, the acting head of Air Force Futures, said during an event at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Lawhead also referred to CCAs as coming in various “increments” or “tranches” as the Air Force advances the concept.

However, some basic details about CCAs are becoming clear after recent comments by Lawhead and Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall.

The range of the first set of CCAs “will be relatively the same as our current fighter fleet, potentially a little bit longer, which helps with the flexibility of how we would actually employ them, and we’re working through those concepts of employment right now,” said Lawhead, who serves as the assistant deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, in a conversation with retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute.

Current Air Force fighters have a ferry range of around 1,000-2,000 miles without aerial refueling, though that decreases when pushed hard in combat and carrying weapons.

The Air Force is heavily dependent on aerial refueling to keep its fighters, bombers, and other aircraft in the air for extended periods of time. A future, more fuel-efficient, survivable tanker is in the works as part of the Next-Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS), showing the Air Force thinks aerial refueling will be a critical part of its shift towards more dispersed and potentially contested operations in the Pacific.

“Future tranches and increments of CCAs will probably be refueled,” Lawhead said. “That adds to their fueling complexity and the fuel needed in theater. But we think those are problems that are solvable going forward.”

The possibility of extended-range, aerially-refueled CCAs in the near term is also an option, Lawhead said.

“There is potential, depending on the offer, for refueling capability in our first CCAs,” he said.

CCAs are designed to increase the capability of manned fighters, such as the F-35 and the future Next Generation Air Dominance fighter (NGAD). Kendall has floated a ballpark figure of 1,000 CCAs that will each cost roughly one-quarter to one-third of the price of an F-35, he said Nov. 13.

The USAF variant of the F-35 costs around $75 million per aircraft. Current Air Force drones, such as the MQ-9 Reaper, cost around $30 million.

Lawhead said the service is still determining whether CCA aircraft will be a part of or separate from manned aircraft squadrons.

The Air Force has to balance the long-standing issue of capability versus cost: the more advanced the platform, the fewer the service will likely be able to buy. Lawhead also hinted that the service may add additional capabilities that complement or are employed by CCAs.

“The other side of that coin, then, is what are the other things we want uncrewed aircraft to do?” he said. “Whether that’s coming out of palletized effects, whether it’s being launched off of fighters, bombers, whether it’s SOF—Special Ops Forces—inserted into the battlespace. We will want sensors, we will want [communication] nodes, we will want non-kinetic effectors out in the battlespace. All of those could be potentially supplied by autonomous platforms.”

But first, the Air Force needs to get started. CCAs are one of 12 so-called “new starts” in the Air Force’s 2024 budget that cannot begin until a budget is passed. Congress is currently operating under a stopgap continuing resolution and looks likely to continue doing so for at least the next couple of months. The Air Force plans to invest around $6 billion in CCAs over the next five years. The Air Force budgeted $72 million in fiscal 2024 for the experimental operations unit Lawhead referenced.

Once the Air Force can finally get started in earnest on CCAs, it will determine whether it wants short-runway or runway-independent CCAs, as well as what payloads they can carry, what missions they can conduct, and “how to elaborate it needs to be,” Lawhead said.

“We will continue to fight to keep the cost of CCA and its mission equipment as low as possible,” he said. “Obviously, once a CCA gets up towards the cost of an F-35, you might as well buy an F-35.”

Kendall Reveals Secret X-Plane Program Paved the Way for NGAD

Kendall Reveals Secret X-Plane Program Paved the Way for NGAD

Nov. 14, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

There was a secret, multi-agency X-plane program to explore future fighters that paved the way for the Next-Generation Air Dominance program, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall revealed at the POLITICO Defense Summit on Nov. 14.

Although Kendall and other Air Force officials have previously said there were flying prototypes before the current stage of the NGAD program, his new remarks provided more details about the highly classified project, including the agencies involved, some of the money spent, and the fact that the NGAD will control the uncrewed fighters escorting it. He also noted that the uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft program won’t get started until the fiscal 2024 defense bill is passed.

The Air Force said in May that it expects to award an NGAD contract in 2024. Kendall has previously said the NGAD will cost “multiple hundreds of millions” of dollars per tail.

Asked what most excites him about the NGAD, Kendall said it is the inclusion of a “family of systems” in the program, which includes autonomous escort platforms, new weapons—including the secret AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile—and “offboard sensors.”

In 2014, when Kendall was undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, “we commissioned a study” led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency called “The Dominance Initiative,” he explained.

“That study lasted a year or so,” Kendall said, and recommended a “family of systems” to accompany the crewed fighter that will succeed the F-22.

In 2015, “we started the Next Generation Air Dominance X-plane program,” he said, which was funded for about $1 billion. The costs were split—“a third by DARPA, a third by the Air Force and a third by the Navy.”

That program “produced some prototypes that were successful demonstrating the technologies we need,” he said. His use of the plural suggests there were competitive designs in that stage of the project, but he did not disclose whether there were two, three, or more.

Industry sources have said that Boeing and Lockheed Martin have been involved in NGAD, but Northrop Grumman chief executive officer Kathy Warden recently said her company won’t bid on the Air Force version of the program. However, she did indicate Northrop will pursue the Navy’s counterpart advanced fighter, which is also known as NGAD, or F/A-XX. The services have said they are not attempting a joint program like the F-35.

Former Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper revealed in 2020 that an NGAD prototype had flown, but didn’t explain how many, or that the flying demonstrators were “X-planes.” The term “X-planes” generally indicates platforms that are exploring new, previously unfielded technologies on an air platform, while a “Y-plane” is generally a prototype of a specific platform which, with some refinement, will be put in production.

The Pentagon selected the F-35 at the conclusion of an X-plane competition between Lockheed Martin, with the X-35, and Boeing, which offered the X-32. Those X-planes explored combining supersonic flight with short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities and stealth, as well as new manufacturing techniques.

The NGAD as now structured “is the combination of aircraft—a crewed aircraft [and] unmanned aircraft—that will have some of those technical characteristics we demonstrated could be done,” Kendall said. He did not elaborate on what new technologies were explored, but Pentagon sources have previously said the level of stealth on the NGAD is orders of magnitude improved over that of the F-22 and F-35.

The addition of uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft controlled by NGAD will allow that one manned platform to ‘fight as a formation, basically,” Kendall said. CCAs are building on the progress of other Pentagon and partner efforts like the Air Force’s Skyborg program, the Air Combat Evolution program under DARPA, and Boeing’s work with Australia on the MQ-28 Ghost Bat.

“All of those coming together convinced me that we were ready to make a commitment to this kind of capability,” Kendall said.

CCA is slated to receive $5.8 billion in funding over the next five years, with Kendall calling it “one of the most important [programs] I’m waiting on funding for.” Production will come toward the end of the five-year cycle, around fiscal 2028—that is, “if we can get started,” Kendall said, referring to the delay in starting the new program under the continuing resolution funding the government.

“This family of systems approach we’re taking—also in the mix [is] our new weapons like the JATM, Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, which we’ll get into production in the next few years—[will create] a very formidable next generation, air dominance set of capabilities,” Kendall said. “I think when we get that package filled, I’m really looking forward and excited about seeing that come to life.”

US Releases New Videos of Syria Airstrikes as Attacks Continue

US Releases New Videos of Syria Airstrikes as Attacks Continue

Nov. 14, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

The Pentagon released declassified videos of its most recent airstrikes in eastern Syria, a move that provides fresh detail on the targets that were struck Nov. 12 and the damage to the sites.

The videos, which were taken by U.S. drones, show that two targets were hit: a headquarters for Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force near Mayadin, Syria, and a training facility used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) near Abu Kamal, Syria.

The videos showcased the U.S.’s ability to conduct “precision” raids against Iranian-backed militias in response to attacks on American forces in Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon said in a release.

The Quds Force headquarters is engulfed in a plume of smoke after being struck while the attack on the training facility produced multiple secondary explosions. 

Military experts do not expect the strikes to bring a quick end to the militia rocket and drone attacks against U.S. forces. At a minimum, the Pentagon hopes that they will reduce the militia’s capability. 

“These strikes are intended to disrupt and degrade the freedom of action and capabilities of these groups, which are directly responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said during a press conference in Seoul, South Korea, on Nov. 13.

Local reports suggest there were casualties at one of the sites, but the Pentagon has not yet publicly confirmed those accounts. 

“We are continuing to do battle damage assessment,” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said Nov. 14. “We are aware that there were IRGC-affiliated members in the proximity of the facilities that were struck by our aircraft. But I don’t have more on casualty numbers.”

The Nov. 12 strikes were the third round of air attacks by the U.S. since the militias began attacking U.S. forces on Oct. 17. The Defense Department has said there were no casualties in its two previous rounds of airstrikes.

As of Nov. 14, there have been 55 attacks on U.S. forces in just under a month, including several that were carried out after the Nov. 12 airstrike. All told, 59 U.S. personnel have been injured, all of whom have returned to duty.

The U.S. has around 2,500 troops in Iraq and 900 troops in Syria working with local partners to battle Islamic State militants. 

“We are in Syria and Iraq for our mission to defeat ISIS,” Singh said. “We have seen Iran and Iran proxy groups continue to attack U.S. forces because we know Iran doesn’t want us there.” 

“We do want to see a stop to these attacks on U.S. forces,” Singh added.