Space Force Secretly Tested Sensors that Alert When China Is Watching

March 7, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

AURORA, Colo.—The Space Rapid Capabilities Office quietly launched prototype payloads on a satellite two years ago to signal operators when the spacecraft is being tracked by China’s space surveillance network—a capability the office could deploy aboard other satellites.

Director Kelly Hammett revealed the tests during a media roundtable at the AFA Warfare Symposium as an example of the Space RCO’s operational successes.

“We launched some situational awareness indications and warning payloads on the [LDPE-3A], a satellite in January of 2023 that those payloads have been flying for a couple of years now, collecting all kinds of very interesting data on, I’ll say, the Chinese SISO network,” Hammett said.

A SISO network refers to the sensors and radars used for Space Object Surveillance and Identification. China in recent years has launched hundreds of intelligence satellites to watch Earth, but less is known about how China monitors space.

Space Force officials say China is developing the ability to track and target U.S. satellites. USSF has its own satellites, radars, and telescopes that track objects in space, including the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program and the Space-Based Space Surveillance program.

But the payloads being tested by the Space RCO would boost any satellite’s situational awareness, and could theoretically be added to any satellite bus.

“These are sensors that can tell whether you’re being observed, tracked, targeted—those types of things,” Hammett said. “That’s a capability that we’re trying to drive into the larger Space Force.”

In January, the Space RCO disclosed it is tasking a number of space startups with exploring technologies for “own-ship awareness,” the mission that the LDPE-3A payloads started testing two years ago.

While space domain awareness and space situational awareness focus on tracking other objects in orbit, own-ship awareness is the ability to “detect and report anomalies, hazards, and threats to individual satellites,” according to a Space RCO release from January.

“We really want to focus on the operator’s needs for awareness,” a Space RCO official told Air & Space Forces Magazine in January. There’s someone on console who is responsible for the health of that satellite, responsible for deciding where to move it or not, and that person needs awareness of their own ship.”

At the symposium, Hammett confirmed the two efforts are connected.

“We’re doing [an] on-orbit, self-awareness indications and warning type of thing,” Hammet said. “We’re flying payloads that do this right now. We would like to proliferate this capability across the entire Space Force. So how do we get more providers? How do we get cheaper and more affordable options?”

The own-ship awareness program, still in its infancy, will pair small companies together to develop pitches without a formal procurement office, with the idea that the results can be incorporated into future satellite programs.

SCAR

Much of the Space RCO’s programs are highly classified, but a few are known. Perhaps the biggest: the Satellite Communications Augmentation Resource (SCAR), which will provide desperately needed upgrades to the Satellite Control Network (SCN).

SCN includes 19 antennas stationed around the world, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to the village of Oakhanger in southern England to Schriever Space Force Base, Colo. The system is used to track satellites’ locations, collect health and status reports, and control subsystems, such as power supplies, antennas and mechanical and thermal systems. But SCN’s antennas are old and limited; they can only connect with one satellite at a time, a design limitation that was manageable in the past but is increasingly untenable in an era of proliferating spacecraft satellites.

SCAR will add electronically steerable phased-array antennas to the network, enabling operators to connect with multiple satellites at once. Hammett said he expects the first of these new antennas to be delivered later this year from USSF’s supplier, Blue Halo. He also said the RCO has found it can “modularize” the antennas, known as “Badgers,” to better suit a given mission requirement.

“You can configure various site installation configurations depending on the mission,” Hammett said. “So you might have, for example, two badgers for a LEO set of contacts, you might have four or six if you want wide field of regard over GEO, [or] if you want narrow, you might have four. So we’re in the process of [defining] what configuration you need for which mission sets.”

WATCH: Going Deeper on the Significance of Space Warfighting

March 7, 2025 | By Tobias Naegele

AURORA, Colo.—Space superiority emerged as a major theme of the 2025 AFA Warfare Symposium, so Air & Space Forces Magazine Editor-in-Chief Tobias Naegele spoke with retired Space Force Col. Jennifer Reeves, now a senior fellow with the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, to go deeper on the significance of that theme and what it means for the Space Force.

WATCH: Taking Stock of Arctic Defense with Houston Cantwell

March 7, 2025 | By Tobias Naegele

AURORA, Colo.—Air & Space Forces Magazine sat down with retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Houston “Slider” Cantwell, now a senior fellow with the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, at the AFA Warfare Symposium to talk about his research and panel discussion on Arctic defense and how the U.S. is combatting Russia and China in the region.

Space Force Leaders Start Work on Golden Dome, See Massive Effort Ahead

March 6, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The Space Force is playing a key role in planning for “Golden Dome,” President Donald Trump’s initiative for comprehensive air and missile defense of the homeland, leaders said this week. But actually building and fielding the ambitious idea will require a major concerted effort across the Pentagon and intelligence community.

In an executive order signed a week after his inauguration, Trump directed the Secretary of Defense to submit an outline for how to make Golden Dome a reality within 60 days. To make that happen, the Pentagon will have to clear numerous legal, technical, and cultural hurdles, said Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein.

“Without a doubt, our biggest challenge is going to be organization, behavior, and culture,” Guetlein said at the National Security Innovation Base Summit on March 5. Golden Dome has a “magnitude of the Manhattan Project,” Guetlein added, and it’s going to take “heavy lift” across all the organizations involved.

Originally called “Iron Dome for America” after Israel’s short-range air defense system, Golden Dome would have a much larger and more complex scale, officials say. It is meant to incorporate satellite constellations for missile warning, space-based sensors, missile interceptors, and advanced communication systems.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman has said the Space Force will play a “central role” in Golden Dome, a point repeated by leaders at the AFA Warfare Symposium this week. But Guetlein noted that what agency is going to lead the project “hasn’t been decided yet.”

Organizations from across the Pentagon are likely to be involved, including the Missile Defense Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, U.S. Space Command, and services like the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Integrating all of those military and intelligence operations—governed by separate legal and bureaucratic frameworks—will be one of the key challenges of the project.

“We’ve also got to break down the barriers of Title 10 and Title 50,” said Guetlein, referring to the sections of U.S. law governing intelligence and military matters. Integrating data from the intelligence community, such as real-time sensor information from satellites, and sharing it with military units “in a time-relevant manner, and get that data to the shooter, in a manner of time that can actually deter the attack” will be crucial for Golden Dome, Guetlein said.

The project will also have to rely heavily on advanced and new technologies. Col. Robert Davis, program executive officer of Space Systems Command’s space sensing directorate, stressed the need for effective “kill chains”—the process of tracking targets, processing sensor data, and passing it to interceptors. This technology, which has proven successful in Israel, will need to be adapted to a much larger scale.

“I imagine there’s maybe a strong need to continue to expand on the work that Space Force is already doing to pivot our architecture to be able to track hypersonics with the LEO and MEO layers,” Davis said at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant, Commander, Space Systems Command, at the AFA Warfare Symposium on March 3, 2025. Photo by Jud McCrehin/staff

Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant, head of SSC, also said at the symposium that the groundwork for Golden Dome is underway, but much of his team’s effort is focused on understanding “what the requirements and the allocation of resources will be.” While SSC is conducting literature review to determine which technologies can be accelerated and which new innovations may be required, much of the research, for now, is aimed at determining “what might be feasible from a physics perspective.”

Earlier this year, both the Space Development Agency and the Missile Defense Agency tasked contractors with proposing solutions to meet Golden Dome’s requirements, including a hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor layer and proliferated space-based interceptors for boost-phase intercept. But some of these novel technologies can be a “real challenge,” said Lt. Gen. Shawn W. Bratton, the Space Force’s top officer for strategy, plans, programs, and requirements, describing the complexity of interceptors from space as “no joke of a physics problem.”

Guetlein also highlighted the need to conduct more testing and training in space, which would be crucial for improving the operational capabilities of Golden Dome.

“The authority that we would ask right out of the gate is the authority to do on-orbit training and testing that we’re not capable of doing today,” said Guetlein, adding that the service is currently very constrained in that way. “We would ask that open up so that we can increase our readiness of our of our forces on the front line, to be able to do that ‘protect and defend’ mission.”

Trump, for his part, isn’t backing away from the the Golden Dome project, mentioning it during his address to Congress this week.

“My focus is on building the most powerful military of the future,” Trump said on March 4, calling the project the first step toward realizing that vision.

By the end of this month, the White House is expecting a comprehensive plan for Golden Dome that includes a reference architecture, capabilities-based requirements, accelerated deployment of space-based sensors, plans for new interceptors, and strategies for secure supply chains and funding.

Lockheed Offers a New Low-Cost Cruise Missile as Part of ‘High-Low Mix’

March 6, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

AURORA, Colo.—Lockheed Martin is testing a new low-cost, modular cruise missile meant to be built at scale, while it also builds even longer-range versions of its stealthy, high-end weapons—part of a strategy to provide the Air Force with a mix of exquisite and affordable munitions.

The Common Multi-Mission Truck (CMMT, which Lockheed calls “Comet”) is meant to cost around $150,000 in its basic configuration, with modularity and open mission systems architecture that will allow it to carry a wide range of payloads from sensors to warheads, as well as a fuel load tailored to the mission.

The “standard” CMMT would be 96 inches long and could fit in an F-35 weapon bay, but could be longer with extra fuel plugs. It would have a subsonic top speed and a range Lockheed said is “in the multiple hundreds of miles.” In all versions, the front and back end would be the same.

The CMMT has already been drop-tested, and more tests are planned for this summer, Michael Rothstein, an executive at Lockheed Missiles and Fire Control, said in an interview at the AFA Warfare Symposium. The CMMT tests so far have been vertical, nose-first drops, but for a bomber or fighter, the CMMT would be mounted on standard pylons or rotary launchers.

The Air Force has made it clear it wants a low-cost, producible-at-scale weapon with several initiatives in recent years. Most recently, the service launched its Enterprise Test Vehicle program to produce inexpensive, modular, rapidly-producible air vehicles. After initially awarding four contracts for the program, the Air Force has selected Anduril Industries and Zone 5 Technologies to continue with the program, the companies announced this week.

Anduril in particular has detailed plans for its “Barracuda” series of modular, low-cost cruise missiles, a concept similar to the CMMT. Rothstein, however, said Lockheed was not motivated by Anduril’s idea and has been working on CMMT for “a while now.”

The demand signal from the Air Force is clear, he added, and Lockheed is looking to match those requirements. Being ready to go within a year might not be impossible.

High End

Rothstein said he sees Lockheed’s high-end standoff weapons—the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and the similar Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)—to be “very complementary” with CMMT, “both from a budget standpoint as well as an operational standpoint.”

CMMT will not be especially stealthy in order to keep costs down, leaving JASSM and LRASM to handle the tougher targets requiring stealth from longer range. The JASSM and LRASM cost around $1.5 million apiece, 10 times what Lockheed forecasts for CMMT.

The “JASSM and LRASM are great weapons, but they’re not cheap, right?” Rothstein said. The CMMT answers the need “to have more weapons in your arsenal to … get after targets that that don’t need the exquisite capabilities of JASSM/LRASM.”

Indeed, Rothstein claimed the two kinds of weapons could be used in conjunction with each other.

“You could probably imagine how you might force-package these things together to be mutually reinforcing and make both better,” Rothstein said. He noted that in previous conflicts, stealthy F-117s would sometimes fly near formations of F-16s, because enemy detection systems would see and concentrate on the F-16s.

“The same concept could be used in weapon salvos,” Rothstein said. The concept of a high-low mix—as the Air Force practiced with the F-15 and F-16 and intended with the F-22 and F-35—is one that is well understood in the Pentagon, he said.

Lockheed announced and showed a “JASSM-XR” at AFA’s Air, Space and Cyber conference last fall. It is longer than the JASSM-ER (Extended Range), but the company did not disclose the extra length. A Lockheed spokesperson said to do so would allow an adversary to distinguish between the two in combat. The XR could be used externally on most Air Force fighters, but not the F-16, due to weight and length.

Rothstein said that besides the extra range it offers, the XR would reduce the need for tanker support, because fighters would not have to fly as far before releasing it, and it would still be able to hit very distant targets.

Lockheed Martin’s Common Multi-Mission Truck. Image courtesy of Lockheed Martin

Low End

For the moment, Rothstein said, Lockheed is contemplating its Camden, Ark., plant as the location for building CMMT. But the ”beauty” of the CMMT idea is that its modularity means its elements could be built in many locations—including internationally—and simply assembled in one facility.

“Part of our model is … that you build it in a way that you’re putting the [liquid] fuel and the warhead in at the last minute,” he said. “You can bring all these things together…because it’s modular.

Moreover, “our concept is to have a factory that fits inside of a room,” he said, and to be able “pick up the pieces, and go, ‘Hey, I need one of these in Poland or Australia, or wherever.’”

Lockheed doesn’t have an Air Force contract for CMMT, but it could feed into another iteration of the Enterprise Test Vehicle program, or an offshoot of another Lockheed effort, Rapid Dragon.

Rapid Dragon tested pallets of JASSMs that were dropped from the back of a C-17 and C-130, thus expanding the number of platforms from which the Air Force could launch volleys of cruise missiles.

“Our background on the Rapid Dragon, we were the thought leaders on all this, right?” said Rothstein. “And … all of that work which we’ve been doing, I think the Air Force has been very happy with.”

Whereas the Rapid Dragon tests with JASSM involved dropping nine missiles at a time, 25 CMMTs could fit in the same size pallet, Rothstein said, and the Air Force vision is for a four-pack on a cargo aircraft, meaning 100 CMMTs could be accommodated on a single cargo aircraft.

The Air Force has sought to continue its Rapid Dragon efforts through a program called “Franklin”, which seeks a low-cost cruise missile that could be dropped Rapid Dragon-style from a cargo aircraft.

The Enterprise Test Vehicle program could feed into Franklin, but Rothstein touted Lockheed’s track record in pitching CMMT as an option.

“We have a long track record of being able to produce munitions reliably,” Rothstein said, and Lockheed has “deep experience with the global supply chain … doing collaboration and automation.” All those elements combine to make CMMT a competitive idea, he said, adding “we’ve been listening to the customer for a number of years.”

Air Force Beefs Up Basic Training ACE Exercise to 57 Hours

March 6, 2025 | By David Roza

AURORA, Colo.—The Air Force is extending an exercise at Basic Military Training meant to prepare trainees for Agile Combat Employment, where Airmen disperse in small teams to small air bases to complicate targeting for adversaries.

Known as PACER FORGE (Primary Agile Combat Employment Range, Forward Operations Readiness Generation Exercise), the 36-hour exercise was stretched to 57 hours—three days and two nights—as of March 3, said Angelina Casarez, spokesperson for the 37th Training Wing, which oversees BMT at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas.

“Additional time at PACER FORGE allows for more extensive operational training to create air-minded warfighters with more hands-on experience,” Casarez told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The head of Air Education and Training Command, Lt. Gen. Brian S. Robinson, first revealed the change March 5 at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

“Instead of being overly prescriptive by [Military Training Instructors], what happens now is ‘here’s the objectives you’re set to achieve, here’s the resources available to you … you have 57 hours to solve this problem and try to achieve the objective,” he said.

“You spent five weeks with what I call ‘conform, conform, conform,’ and now you’re in a place where we want you to understand [that] you need to be able to be agile, flexible, accountable, show initiative and solve problems,” he added.

Trainees will be expected to build and defend operating locations, recover high-value assets, resupply drops, and provide tactical combat casualty care, Casarez said. Working in small teams will also help them practice leadership skills.

The Air Force first introduced PACER FORGE in 2022, replacing the BEAST week that had been in place the previous 16 years. Basic Expeditionary Airman Skills Training was a four-day drill where Airmen practiced responding to mortar attacks, car bombs, unexploded ordnance, sniper fire, and other challenges common on a Middle East deployment.

BEAST took place at a fixed location with large groups of Airmen, but Air Force officials expect Airmen will work in dispersed, isolated locations in a conflict with China or Russia.

“PACER FORGE was designed to be flexible and adaptable to operational requirements, and the changes will continue to develop air-minded warfighters in an airfield-centric environment,” Casarez said.

PACER FORGE is one of several efforts at AETC to bake ACE into junior Airmen from the get-go. That training continues at tech school, where Airmen learn their specific job skills, in an exercise called BRACER FORGE, a more advanced version of PACER FORGE.

“Yesteryear, we would have seen a three-level coming to us at, you pick the wing, who wouldn’t understand what an exercise is,” Robinson said. “And now … they’ve got more experience in those kinds of areas.”

Aircrew students are doing the same thing, recovering and operating out of auxiliary airfields where the logistics support is not as robust as their main training base.

“It’s an exciting time,” Robinson said.

This likely won’t be the last time PACER FORGE changes as AETC keeps pace with real-world demands. A core element of AETC’s shift to Airman Development Command are centers of excellence which can quickly use lessons from the field to tweak institutional training.

“PACER FORGE is an iterative training program, which means as operational needs change, we can adapt as needed to develop Mission-Ready Airmen and Guardians,” Casarez said.

How USAF and USSF’s Force Generation Models Overlap: ‘You Can’t Part Time Warfare’

March 6, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

AURORA, Colo.—How Airmen and Guardians prepare for and perform operations may be very different, but the Air Force and Space Force’s models for generating those forces aren’t all that dissimilar in their focus on readiness and teamwork, leaders said March 5 at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

It also doesn’t hurt that their names are nearly identical—Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) and Space Force Generation (SPAFORGEN).

“What we’re really talking about here is readiness, and readiness is one of those things that we have to take a look at,” said Maj. Gen. Akshai M. Gandhi, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations in the Air Force, during a panel discussion.

The AFFORGEN cycle covers 24 months, broken down into six-month phases of “reset,” “prepare,” “ready,” and “available to commit.” SPAFORGEN started with a six-month cycle, split into three phases of unequal length called “prepare,” “ready,” and “commit.”

On top of that, the Air Force is feeding Air Task Forces into AFFORGEN, with the goal of eventually moving to full Combat Wings consisting of hundreds of Airmen. The Space Force, on the other hand, has organized into Combat Squadrons consisting of a just a few dozen Guardians that cycle through SPAFORGEN.

And of course, while most Airmen are deploying downrange somewhere around the world, most Guardians perform their missions “deployed in place” at home bases inside the U.S.

The two models have “very different cycles, very different histories,” said Tobias Naegele, Editor-in-Chief of Air & Space Forces Magazine, who moderated the panel. While the Air Force is transitioning away from years of crowdsourcing deployments to large central bases in the Middle East, the Space Force is trying to prepare Guardians for a potential high-end fight after years of operating satellites in an uncontested environment.

Yet Lt. Gen. David N. Miller Jr., head of Space Operations Command, said there are also correlations.

“As different as the models may be, there’s different terms, there’s a lot of commonality in the models,” he said. “You’ve got to be threat-informed. You got to be tied into the operational planning requirements, and have your mission-essential tasks, and you’ve got to be synchronized as a team and presented as an entire unit as opposed to piecemeal. You can’t part time warfare. It’s a full-time thing.”

Both generals stressed the importance of training in their cycles. For the Air Force, that includes advanced training across units in the “prepare” phase, followed by large-scale exercises and certification tests in the “ready” phase. For the Space Force, it means taking time away from day-to-day ops for advanced training during the “prepare” phase, culminating in a “FLASHPOINT” exercise to test mission planning and tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Then, when it comes time, the leaders say both models allow Airmen and Guardians to jump into the fight and work as a team right away, without a “getting to know you” period.

Members of the 18th Space Defense Combat Squadron, a unit assigned to U.S. Space Forces – Space under the USSF Force Generation model, observe orbital data at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., Oct. 4, 2024.  U.S. Space Force Photo by David Dozoretz

Both models are still in their infancy—the Space Force realigned its units across mission areas under SPAFORGEN in July 2024, and the Air Force has been slowly implementing AFFORGEN with bigger and bigger teams, with the goal of entire Combat Wings starting the cycle in 2027.

Both leaders said they are not locked in to the models.

“We’re not waiting for perfect. For too long, paralysis has prevented us from moving forward on things that we know are requirements that we have to do in order to meet the joint warfighting requirements,” Miller said. “So we have always said we’re going to iterate to excellence.”

Already, he noted, the Space Force has adjusted SPAFORGEN based on feedback received so that starting in June, the cycle will be eight months—one month for “prepare,” two months for “ready,” and five months for “commit.”

For the Air Force, it has been an ongoing progression from Expeditionary Air Base teams to Air Task Forces to Combat Wings, a process that has been confusing at times but is necessary given the realities of the world, said Gandhi.

“We can’t get from point A to point B overnight,” he said. “There’s no pause button that we can hit while we retool and re-engineer everything that we’ve got. You know, the enemy gets a vote. They’re going to be doing what they do. So we’re taking this in phases, and just like the Space Force, we’re not waiting for perfect. We’re taking incremental steps to move toward the eventual goal of a Combat Wing.”

While the models aren’t perfected and there are tweaks still to come, Gandhi claimed there is already “proof in the pudding” showing they work: considering how the Air Force and Space Force helped to defeat Iran’s attacks on Israel last year.

Iran’s attack in April “was right at one of those key points where theoretically we would be the weakest, because we’re rotating forces in and out of theater,” Gandhi said. “So the folks who accomplished that truly remarkable feat had barely been on the ground for maybe a week.”

But because some of the Airmen involved had organized into an expeditionary air base, they had the understanding, training, and confidence “so when they hit the ground in crisis, they excel,” he said.

Similarly, the Space Force used its model to refine tactics, train on procedures, and get prepared before Iran’s October attack, Miller said.

“If we didn’t have a force generation model designed to do this now, all we would have been doing was what I did back when I was on crew, which was processing the launch events as quickly as we could,” Miller said.

“Scrambling,” Naegele said.

“Exactly,” Miller replied.

Why Intelligence Agencies Think They Can Finally Build a Common Picture for Warfighters

March 5, 2025 | By Shaun Waterman

AURORA, Colo.—The defense intelligence community has tried three times in the past decade to build a “common intelligence picture”—a single data stream providing the information that combatant commanders, combined forces air component commanders (CFACCs), and their subordinates need to make decisions about the battlefield.

The first two attempts failed. But Greg Ryckman, deputy director for global integration for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said March 4 at the AFA Warfare Symposium that things are different today: Technology had improved, cultural barriers had eroded to an extent, and there is a new sense of urgency.

“We can’t afford not to do this, right?” Ryckman said, a nod to the looming 2027 deadline that China has set for being ready to invade Taiwan.

CIP vs. COP

A common intelligence picture, or CIP, is not the same as a common operating picture (COP), explained retired Air Force Col. Frederick “Trey” Coleman III, the former commander of the 505th Command and Control Wing.

“The CIP is fusing intelligence sources,” telling the commander everything that’s known about a particular enemy unit, he told Air & Space Forces Magazine on the sidelines of the event. “It is very qualitative.”

By contrast, he said, a COP is more geospatial, like a map showing the location of enemy and friendly units, “a very quantitative/defined depiction of where blue and red forces are located in a given area,” said Coleman, now chief product officer for military AI outfit Raft.

Both CIPs and COPs “are only as good as the data behind them,” said Coleman, “This is a data problem.”

Ryckman said that currently, different intelligence providers are each producing their own CIP, which is contrary to the spirit of the enterprise. “The most important thing about the common intelligence picture is that it is common—everyone should be looking at the same picture.”

Uncommon Intelligence Pictures

Despite the name, there has been little in common between different intelligence pictures, retired Col. Jon “BigDogg” Rhone, former commander of the 505th Test and Evaluation Group, said during a different session.

“The people that make the decisions are making decisions based on multiple panes of glass. It wasn’t too long ago that we were looking at anywhere from six to 13 different panes of glass, different information systems that the human brain has got to process, and that brain has to be the integrator,” said Rhone, who now works for SAIC.

Ryckman said the multiplicity of sources is the problem that CIP is designed to solve.

“What we have right now is a whole bunch of uncommon intelligence pictures out there, as everybody tries to solve this problem from where they sit. We can’t afford that anymore,” said Ryckman, “We cannot inject confusion into the [battlefield] situation.”

Ryckman spoke on a panel with Lt. Gen. Leah Lauderback and Maj. Gen. Gregory Gagnon, the top intelligence officers in the Air Force and Space Force, respectively.

The objective of the Department of Defense, explained Gagnon, “is to deliver unified action. That requires a unified set of understandings about where the enemy is and what their intent is. So this [common intelligence picture, or CIP] is a very important initiative.”

A potential high-end conflict with the likes of China is “really all about speed and scale,” said Lauderback. Targeting is about speed, she said, “but I think our intelligence problems are more concerned with the scale, the number of objects that we think that we are going to have to track.”

Drowning in Data

The danger, Lauderback said, is that analysts could find themselves “drowning, almost, in data.”

Ryckman agreed, noting the explosion of sensors and intel sources. “If you’d asked me five years ago, I’d have said our analysts need more data. Today, I would tell you that they’re swimming in data, and they have to figure out how to make sense of the data.”

Given all that, he continued, “no human has the ability to be an all-source analyst. If you don’t use machines to augment your human skill set, you’re a some-source analyst, because there’s no way for you to personally read every message that pertains to the problem you’re trying to solve,” he said.

In October 2024, the DIA was given the lead role in coordinating action on a CIP between the four Pentagon combat support agencies and set up a joint program management office with elements from the other three agencies—NRO, NGA, and NSA. Now, the office is working to bring the services in as well.

The CIP would enable data about enemy positions, capabilities, and intentions to be pushed down and out to the CFACC and their team in the AOC, to the wings and even beyond, said Lauderback. “We have to still get those commanders on the ground the intelligence that they need, so they can understand the battle space in those tactical moments, that will happen on an hourly basis in conflict,” she said.

Advances in Technology

Advances in technology could make a CIP possible this third time around, Ryckman said. Such a system requires an object-based approach, which brings together all the information about that object. For instance, a tank object would bring together all the data about its weapons capabilities, armor, electronic signature, and more. Being able to scale that to thousands of objects in a battlespace is impossible without new technology.

In previous efforts, Ryckman said, the different intelligence agencies within the Department of Defense “all looked at it from our independent contributions to building a CIP, as opposed to building an enterprise CIP, and figuring out what piece of that each of us could individually bring to the fight. So in terms of culture, we probably weren’t where we needed to be.”

CCA Logistics: How USAF and Industry Plan to Rise to the Challenge

March 5, 2025 | By Amanda Miller

AURORA, Colo.—This week’s revelation that the Air Force has designated its first uncrewed fighters set the stage for the makers of the two aircraft to talk about the logistics of deploying them to dispersed locations.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin revealed the alphanumeric designations—General Atomics’ YFQ-42 and Anduril Industries’ YFQ-44—on March 3 at the AFA Warfare Symposium. The two aircraft were the first to receive designations as part of the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. The Air Force envisions incorporating CCA drones into formations led by manned fighters.

The ability to place CCA drones across scattered locations within range of an enemy provided one of the prevailing cases for their development.

Distributed basing creates “multiple dilemmas for adversaries,” said Maj. Gen. Joseph D. Kunkel, the Air Force’s director of force design, integration, and wargaming. Those adversaries must then “make choices about whether they’re going to target or not—that’s a really big deal for us.”

At the same time, though, “that distributed basing also creates a lot of inefficiencies in how you might sustain something,” Kunkel noted in a discussion with industry representatives March 5.

Both drones are in the prototype phase.

Mike Atwood, vice president of advanced systems for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, said his company’s design mitigates that issue because it uses components already in MQ-9 Reapers, meaning it will have “a huge infrastructure of parts already deployed around the globe.”

Anduril Industries, meanwhile, decided early on that “everything had to be easily accessible” for maintenance and repairs, said Andrew Van Timmeren, the company’s senior director for autonomous airpower. The company has “virtual models of people reaching into places” to ensure ease of access and “simplicity, low sustainment, [and] low maintenance.”

In addition to simple designs and easily available parts, Kunkel said he has been thinking about “the best way to conduct logistics under attack,“ mostly by “keeping as much of the logistics out of that area where it can be attacked” as possible.

CCAs might themselves provide part of the solution to their own logistics puzzle. Kunkel described how the Air Force sometimes sends MQ-9s when it needs to transport parts between bases, and Atwood said one reason General Atomics included an internal weapons bay in its design was “for carrying not just missiles and kinetics” but also to “hide where you’ve put your most sensitive stuff.”

In keeping with the overall CCA concept, Van Timmeren said CCA munitions should also be “affordable and mass producible. … You don’t need exquisite munitions.”

To prepare the Airmen who will ultimately work on CCAs and possibly their logistics, Kunkel said Air Education and Training Command is “putting a lot of thought into that,” while the Experimental Operations Unit at Creech Air Force Base, Nev., is “putting these capabilities in the hands of warfighters; they’re going to figure that out.”

Kunkel said the uncrewed fighters are “going to change how we achieve air superiority,” characterizing their arrival as “just fantastic.”