Does Congress Care About Defending America’s Skies?

Does Congress Care About Defending America’s Skies?

Feb. 9, 2023 | By Brian J. Morra 

The following commentary is written by Brian J. Morra, a former Air Force Intelligence officer and retired senior aerospace executive. His most recent article for Air & Space Forces Magazine was “The Near Nuclear War of 1983.” His novel about the 1983 incident, titled The Able Archers, was released in March 2022. 

The appearance of a Chinese surveillance balloon over North America in recent days should cause Americans to ponder just how safe they are from aerial attack. Can we defend our airspace from modern drones (unmanned air vehicles), hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles, and—yes—from airships? Congress should hold hearings promptly to determine the answer. 

The war in Ukraine has highlighted the lethal impact of air and missile attacks on civilian lives and economic infrastructure. New graphic images of the destruction wrought by Russia’s air campaign against Ukraine appear daily. Ukraine’s economy is now operating at Depression-era levels. Is the United States any better protected? 

The fact is that the United States has not deployed a robust air defense system to secure its territory since the Cold War. Does the American public realize this? Does Congress? We’ve seen in Ukraine that the absence of an integrated national air defense leads to vast death and destruction.   

On Feb. 6, Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told reporters that his command had not been aware of previous balloon incursions by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). He asserted that “we did not detect those threats and that’s a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out, but I don’t want to get into any further detail.” Uniquely, NORAD is a binational U.S.-Canada organization that detects air threats to both countries under a unified command structure.  

The same day that Gen. VanHerck met with the press, the Chinese government confirmed reports that a Chinese balloon had floated over Latin America and the Caribbean. “These balloons are all part of a PRC fleet of balloons developed to conduct surveillance operations, which have also violated the sovereignty of other countries.” Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters.  

Apparently, the intelligence community has reassessed indications of four balloon incursions dating back to the Trump administration and determined that they also were perpetrated by the PRC. 

According to the White House, the balloon that traversed the United States was first detected on Jan. 28 when it entered Alaskan airspace near the Aleutian Islands. By the end of the day on Jan. 30, it exited American airspace and flew over Canada. The PRC’s balloon re-entered American airspace over Idaho on the Jan. 31. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed President Biden about the presence of the balloon on Jan. 31. The president requested military options to deal with the intruder. 

Congress should ask the following questions. Why was the president not briefed until Jan. 31 when the balloon entered American airspace on Jan. 28? What is the protocol for informing the White House about an airspace intruder? How clearly do the White House and the Congress understand the respective roles and missions of NORAD and the Missile Defense Agency regarding air and missile threats? Is there a seamless and timely command structure for assessing and dealing with air and missile threats to the United States? 

The answers are important because the United States and Canada already face several daunting threats. The most alarming potential threat is a nuclear-armed ballistic missile launched by North Korea. And one must assume that Kim Jong Un has paid careful attention to the Chinese balloon incursion. In past years, Kim has threatened the use of an electromagnetic pulse device to cripple North America. A high-altitude airship might be an ideal delivery platform for such a devastating attack.  

For its part, China is in the midst of a massive nuclear arms buildup, shedding its long-stated nuclear policy of “sufficiency” and aiming for nuclear superiority over both Russia and the United States. This week, U.S. Strategic Command issued an unclassified statement stating that China now has more land-based ballistic missile launchers than the U.S. China is advancing its nuclear modernization program faster than most observers thought possible. Both Russia and China have robust hypersonic missile programs, which are designed to defeat our ballistic missile defenses in Alaska and Europe. Iran threatens to deploy a nuclear weapon soon, and it has the means to develop delivery systems for such a weapon.  

Congress ought to hold hearings and ask the appropriate defense and intelligence community officials to explain their plans to protect America. If roles and missions are unclear, then get them clarified. If resources are insufficient, which they surely are when our Air Force has the oldest fleet of planes in its history, then Congress should lead the way in determining where money can be reallocated to national air and missile defense without increasing the defense budget. There are plenty of legacy platforms and failed programs the armed services want to divest, where money could be harvested and re-purposed to improve the nation’s air and missile defenses.

Congress has opposed most of the services’ requests to sunset aging platforms and end non-performing programs because members don’t want to take the political heat for job losses in their districts. For the same reason, Congress opposes a new base realignment and closure commission. Closing bases the armed services no longer need would free up billions of dollars that could be applied to improving our national defenses. 

The Chinese balloon episode ought to be a wake-up call to the White House and the Congress and not be wished away as the next crisis comes to dominate the headlines. Hold hearings now and take appropriate action based on what is learned. There is no time to waste. 

For Defense Industry to Surge Production, Here’s What It Needs, Leaders Tell Congress

For Defense Industry to Surge Production, Here’s What It Needs, Leaders Tell Congress

Feb. 8, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Rapidly supplying Ukraine with weapons is prompting calls to surge munitions production, but the defense industrial base can’t do it without contractual certainty and funding predictability from Congress, industry association leaders told the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 8.

The companies comprising the defense industrial base—“DIB” for short—need “clear demand signals from Congress,” regulations that allow innovation, and action “at the speed of relevance,” Aerospace Industries Association president Eric Fanning told the HASC.

“Federal policy and investment in our national defense can be summed up in two words: unpredictable and inconsistent,” Fanning said.

Over the last 25 years, he noted, “Congress has passed more than 120 continuing resolutions instead of on-time appropriations bills.”

With continuing resolutions comes chronic uncertainty for companies on when or even if they will get paid in a timely manner or proceed to a new phase of development or production. That has deterred many companies from entering the business, driven others out, and deterred some from investing in capacity and long-lead items since they can’t predict when or whether the funding is coming, Fanning said.

The industry is also “still digging out from the effects of sequestration a decade ago,” which could “take years to unwind without a sense of urgency,” Fanning said.

Multiyear contracts, authorization for more long-lead materials purchases and a willingness to spend money on weapons that may not ever be used are the price of production capacity, he asserted.

The DIB has been optimized for peacetime needs, Fanning said, and so “excess capacity for surging is not … built into the system.”

David Norquist, head of the National Defense Industrial Association, said despite two consecutive National Defense Strategies declaring “the post-Cold War world is definitely over” and the need to prepare for military competition with China, “key industrial readiness indicators for great power competition are going in the wrong direction.”

For example, “we should expect the number of workers in the defense industrial base to be increasing. In 1985, the US had three million workers in the defense industry. In 2021, there were 1.1 million workers in the sector, and that number is remaining flat,” Norquist said.

The number of companies doing work in the defense sector has also declined, with some 17,000 companies having left the business in the last five years, he said.

“In particular, the Department of Defense recently estimated the number of small businesses participating in the defense industrial base has declined over 40 percent in the last decade,” he said. That’s likely related to the fact that “from 1985 to 2021, funding for national defense decreased from 5.8 percent to 3.2 percent” of the gross domestic product, and the Congressional Budget Office “projects a further decline to 2.7% by 2032,” he added.

Norquist’s statistics come from NDIA’s annual report on the health of the DIB, called “Warning Signs,” which was released the day of the hearing. It combined a survey of members with third-party data and analyses about the defense ecosystem. Most respondents said that despite “well-meaning” efforts to streamline defense work, most still find it “very hard” to work with the Pentagon, and that a key culprit is the long wait between winning a contract and actually getting it underway with money coming in the door. While big companies can usually ride that out, small businesses can’t.   

“Those non-traditional industries … cannot afford the many regulatory barriers to entry along contracting timelines and the disruptive uncertainty with annual appropriations,” Norquist said.

He also noted that “in 13 of the last 14 years, we’ve had long continuing resolutions that specifically prevent new starts or increased production rates. These trends are not consistent with creating the defense industrial base required for great power competition.”

And while a “brittle” supply base is a “strategic vulnerability” a “resilient” one “is a powerful deterrent,” Norquist said, echoing recent remarks from William LaPlante, the Pentagon’s acquisition and sustainment chief.

“The condition of the industry today is not the result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it’s successive decisions made over many years,” Fanning said.

He thanked the committee for authorities in recent years that can speed up some kinds of development and acquisition, but said the nation must “empower its workforce to move beyond a compliance culture to one that exercises existing flexibility.”

Witnesses also said they are struggling to attract and retain workforce, which Fanning called the “number one” issue among AIA members.

 HASC chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said the war in Ukraine has “laid bare” the U.S.’s inability to surge weapons production, and he accused the Biden Administration of refusing “to use the authorities and resources Congress gave them last year to provide the necessary relief” from problems spurred by inflation, workforce shortages and bureaucracy.

Rogers and several other members also noted that the U.S. is dependent on China for a number of raw materials, such as rare Earth elements, that play a key role in many weapon systems. But Fanning said that while the aerospace industry can find other sources of the metals, “it’s the processing” of the ores that is largely monopolized by China.

Ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) called the health of the industrial base “a growing … huge challenge” which “we were certainly aware of” before the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. The U.S. “suddenly found ourselves in desperate need of a lot more of certain production items” because of Ukraine “and discovered we did not have the surge capacity” necessary.

“We have heard consistently from our industrial partners, that they are not going to build a level of manufacturing capability necessary to produce stuff if they don’t know that someone’s going to buy it. … The cliché now is that ‘we need a demand signal,’ which basically means we need the government to promise [to] ‘pay us one way or another before we will make the investments to be able to make things quicker and faster.’ So we need to figure that out,” Smith said.

Smith said it won’t be possible to go into overdrive production of every defense article, as “we just do not have the resources … to be able to prepare for every conceivable contingency,” and the private sector won’t make the investment “on a wish and a promise.”

The situation is the result of China throughout the “late 1990s and early 2000s … [being] where you went to make stuff” without having to pay “huge labor costs [and] certainly no environmental regulations. It was cheap. It was easy.” But now, he said, “we are beginning to diversify in a bipartisan way.”

He added that the U.S. can’t meet this challenge on its own, “and I know people don’t like hearing that,” but the capacity situation will require efforts from U.S. allies and partners as well. As much as “people want America to be independent … that’s not the way the global economy works. We need to increase our capacity, absolutely. But we also need to work with trusted partners.”

Fixing the problem will take time, Fanning said, particularly the workforce issue and “building the ecosystem” of the industrial base to be more responsive and resilient.

Norquist said the industry needs “more than a signal” but “a contract” on a multiyear basis, and that will provide all the incentive necessary. Industry wants to “get ahead” of the contract, though, so it can lay in the workforce and infrastructure to compete well for work, so he urged the Pentagon and Congress to be direct in saying what they want and to then back it up with the money.

C-17s Rush U.S. Rescue Teams to Türkiye After Earthquake

C-17s Rush U.S. Rescue Teams to Türkiye After Earthquake

Feb. 8, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

A pair of U.S. Air Force C-17s arrived in Türkiye on Feb. 8, carrying disaster relief personnel and equipment to help with the recovery from a massive earthquake. 

The 7.8 magnitude earthquake, which struck Feb. 5, has killed at least 12,000 people across Türkiye and Syria and sparked a humanitarian disaster—tens of thousands injured, many people homeless, and others still trapped under the rubble. 

U.S. Transportation Command was tapped to transport aid, and within 24 hours of notification, two flights departed, one each from Dover Air Force Base, Del.; and March Air Reserve Base, Calif. The aircraft were from the 305th Air Mobility Wing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst and the 176th Wing of the Alaska Air National Guard. 

“Air Mobility Command, under the direction of U.S. Transportation Command and in coordination with The U.S. Agency for International Development is providing airlift to support emergency humanitarian assistance to respond to the devastating impacts following the earthquake in the region,” an AMC spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine. 

According to a release from TRANSCOM, the two flights carried 159 people, 12 rescue dogs, and 170,000 pounds of specialized equipment.  

That included specialists and equipment from Fairfax County, Va., and Los Angeles County, Calif. Both teams are certified by the U.S. Agency for International Development for international disaster assistance efforts. 

Landing at Incirlik Air Base, they were greeted by U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye Jeffry Flake. The 728th Air Mobility Squadron assisted in receiving and unloading the aircraft. Incirlik, located some 200 kilometers from the earthquake’s epicenter, suffered no major damage, according to the 39th Air Base Wing‘s Facebook page. Some facilities were closed on base, but all personnel were safe and accounted for.  

More help is expected: Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder, the Pentagon’s chief spokeman, told reporters that a team from U.S. European Command would arrive Feb. 9 to assist USAID’s Disaster Assistance Response Team. Other aid is likely in the weeks ahead. U.S. Air Force assets are crucial for transporting personnel, equipment, and humanitarian aid in response to natural disasters. 

China Refuses to Talk with Austin After Balloon Shoot Down, Pentagon Says

China Refuses to Talk with Austin After Balloon Shoot Down, Pentagon Says

Feb. 8, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

Beijing has rebuffed Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III’s latest attempt to talk with his Chinese counterpart following the U.S. downing of a Chinese spy balloon, the Pentagon said Feb. 8. 

The balloon’s intrusion over the continental U.S., and the failure to establish a dialogue between senior defense officials on both sides, has complicated the White House’s effort to avoid a further escalation of tensions.

“Secretary Austin, his office, did reach out to request a phone call after the balloon was taken down,” Pentagon press secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder told reporters. 

“The PRC declined to take that call,” he added, referring to the People’s Republic of China and defense minister Wei Fenghe. “We will remain open to communication. We do not seek conflict.”

China continues to insist the balloon was not a spy platform, but instead a rogue weather balloon, and should not be handled as a military matter. The head of China’s meteorological agency has been fired, according to news reports. 

U.S. officials say China has flown at least four previous balloons into American airspace and Washington has clear intelligence the balloon was being used to surveil sensitive U.S. sites, including Malmstrom Air Force Base’s nuclear international continental ballistic missile silos in Montana.

The balloon’s flight derailed a planned trip to China by Secretary of State Antony Blinken—a setback to the Biden administration’s efforts to maintain open communication with China. In November, President Biden spoke of trying to put “guardrails” on the relationship after meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and Secretary Austin spoke with Wei in November and expressed similar views.

But this is not the first time that the Chinese have rebuffed offers from the Pentagon to talk. Air and Space Forces Magazine reported in January that Austin sought to talk with his Chinese counterpart after a Chinese J-11 fighter intercepted an Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint in international airspace near China.

In that incident, the Chinese plane flew within 20 feet of the U.S. surveillance plane over the South China Sea. Ryder said Feb. 8 that the RC-135 mission was unrelated to any intelligence gathering out of China’s balloon program.

In a statement released Feb. 7, Ryder said Austin requested a call with his Chinese counterpart immediately an F-22 Raptor from 1st Fighter Wing shot down the balloon Feb. 4 off the coast of South Carolina.

“Lines between our militaries are particularly important in moments like this,” Ryder said. “Unfortunately, the PRC has declined our request. Our commitment to open lines of communication will continue.”

The Department of Defense did not immediately respond when asked by Air & Space Forces Magazine if Austin’s call was specifically about the balloon incident or was an attempt to avoid a heightening of military tensions. 

“I don’t think this is particularly surprising that they’re not doing it in this case,” said Zack Cooper, a senior fellow and China expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “But it does raise a bigger issue, which is that the administration has been talking a lot about putting guardrails on the relationship. It just doesn’t seem like the Chinese are willing to do that in a serious way at the moment.

“I think the Chinese tend to take a pretty competitive approach to crisis management mechanisms, which is to say that when they think it would be helpful to them, they will answer the phone,” Cooper added.

After Ryder’s comments, the Chinese Embassy in Washington reiterated the claims that the balloon was for civilian purposes to Air & Space Forces Magazine and said China communicated its views on the incident to the U.S.

On Feb. 7, the Charge d’Affaires of the Chinese Embassy made “stern representations with senior officials of the U.S. Department of State and White House National Security Council on the U.S. attack on a Chinese unmanned civilian airship by force,” according to the embassy.

U.S. officials, however, continue to insist their actions were lawful and necessary.

“The fact is China engaged in this irresponsible action: a violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity and internet international law,” Blinken said. “We continue to look to China to act responsibly as well as to help us in managing this relationship responsibly.”

Experts say immediate prospects for the beginning a serious security dialogue are dim, especially following the postponement of Blinken’s visit to China and each side’s recriminations over the balloon incident.

“We’re in an uncertain place,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert and managing director of the German Marshall Fund’s Indo-Pacific program. “The Chinese side should agree to improve crisis communication mechanisms, and their system makes it very, very difficult to do so. And we should keep trying. But I just think it’s going to be very, very difficult to achieve.”

Indiana ANG ‘Blacksnakes’ Prepare to Say Goodbye to the A-10

Indiana ANG ‘Blacksnakes’ Prepare to Say Goodbye to the A-10

Feb. 8, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Blacksnakes of Indiana Air National Guard will go “Brrrt” only a little while longer, as the 122nd Fighter Wing prepares to say goodbye to its A-10s. 

On. Jan. 26, the wing announced on social media it had officially been approved for a conversion from A-10s to F-16s. A little more than a week later, 10 of the wing’s 21 aircraft returned to Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base from Guardian Blitz, a training exercise that will be the unit’s last before converting to the F-16, the wing said.

The Air Force first proposed replacing all 21 A-10s on a one-for-one basis in its fiscal 2023 budget request, and after years of resisting the divestment of any A-10 aircraft, Congress agreed as part of the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act to let the Air Force reduce the A-10 fleet from 171 to 153. 

“Conversion to the F-16 will allow the 122nd to build upon past successes and continue to pass the trials of the National Defense Strategy in new ways, long into the future,” Col. Joshua C. Waggoner, 122nd Fighter Wing commander, said in a statement. “Since conversion to the F-16 was first proposed more than five years ago, the 122nd has continuously worked to be poised and ready when given the opportunity. There will be a lot of changes and challenges, but our professional Airmen are prepared.” 

Air Force leaders have repeatedly said the close air support aircraft will not be relevant to future fights and needs to be retired to free up funds for modernization efforts.  Yet the A-10, famed for its 30mm cannon that can fire 3,900 rounds per minute and its four decades of service in support of ground troops in the Middle East, has consistently dodged divestment efforts thanks to fierce support from influential lawmakers. 

The 122nd Fighter Wing has flown the A-10 since 2010, gaining notoriety for its jets’ nose art inspired by the unit’s “Blacksnakes” nickname. But the unit actually flew F-16s for the better part of two decades leading up to a 2010 switch. The last exercise for the 122nd’s A-10s was Guardian Blitz, which concluded Feb. 6 at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., and Moody Air Force Base, Ga. The exercise practiced having small teams of Airmen and aircraft deploying to remote locations on short notice.   

“You can’t afford to take people from every shop, from every specialty,” Chief Master Sgt. Kyle D. Hoopingarner, 122nd Fighter Wing command chief, said in a release. “Some of them need to be able to cross over and learn about another shop’s job so that they can do their primary job and they can help out with a secondary job as well.” 

A spokesman for the 122nd Fighter Wing told Air & Space Forces Magazine there is not yet an established timeline for the unit’s F-16s to arrive or for its A-10s to depart. Many of the departing aircraft will be redistributed to other units rather than sent to the Boneyard. 

LISTEN: New Details from the Audio of the Chinese Spy Balloon Shoot Down

LISTEN: New Details from the Audio of the Chinese Spy Balloon Shoot Down

Feb. 7, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

Days after a U.S. Air Force F-22 shot down a Chinese surveillance balloon off the coast of South Carolina, new details are coming to light, aided by the work of hobbyists.

Unlike some U.S. military missions in combat zones, flight trackers and ordinary citizens were able to monitor radio frequencies and air-tracking services as the F-22 Raptor scored its first known air-to-air kill, firing a missile from 58,000 feet and ending the weeklong saga of a Chinese balloon floating over the United States.

“FRANK01, Splash one!” an F-22 Raptor pilot from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. called out after the balloon was hit with an AIM-9X Sidewinder.

“The balloon is completely destroyed!” a pilot adds.

An Air Force spokesperson and a U.S. official told Air & Space Forces Magazine the audio communications were authentic.

“The audio is authentic and depicts communication from the 1st Fighter Wing pilot confirming the aerial target was destroyed,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “It’s important to clarify this audio is communication between the pilot and air traffic control that can be heard by anyone on the same frequency.”

On the afternoon of Feb. 4, it soon became apparent that the shoot-down of the balloon was imminent. Local airports in South Carolina were closed. The Federal Aviation Administration closed airspace for a “national security effort.” President Joe Biden gave a thumbs up as he boarded Air Force One when asked if the U.S. was going to shoot down the balloon .

Recordings of radio transmissions, synced up with video, shed new light on how the engagement went down. Media, aviation enthusiasts, and local citizens were ready to capture the moment.

At 2:39 pm Eastern time, an F-22, callsign FRANK01, took out the balloon with an AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has an advanced infrared tracking system to pinpoint its target. The missile appeared to hit the area where the balloon is connected to its surveillance payload, shredding the balloon and causing the payload to fall around 60,000 feet into the ocean.

F-15C Eagles from Barnes Air National Guard Base, Mass., callsigns, EAGLE01 and EAGLE02, helped coordinate the F-22’s shot, which was taken six miles off the coast. The F-15s then monitored the balloon debris as it fell, using their sensor pods to pinpoint its location. A search is now underway by the Navy and Coast Guard to gather up pieces of the balloon.

“At the direction of the President, the U.S. military brought down the balloon at the first available opportunity over U.S. territorial waters while protecting American lives, and maximizing the prospects of recovering the payload,” Stefanek added. “Work is underway now by the military to collect and recover the payload.”

SASC Reveals Members, Chairs of Its 7 Subcommittees

SASC Reveals Members, Chairs of Its 7 Subcommittees

Feb. 7, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Senate Armed Services Committee announced the leadership and rosters for its seven subcommittees on Feb. 7, with five panels getting new chairs and the influential Airland subcommittee welcoming four new members. 

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) is the new chair of the Airland panel, which oversees both Army and Air Force planning and operations policy and programs (with some exceptions). Kelly, who succeeds Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), is a retired Navy captain and astronaut and represents a state with a robust seven military installations—including Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Luke Air Force Base.  

Kelly has been an outspoken in advocating against retiring A-10 close air support jets, fighting Air Force efforts to divest the airplanes. He’s also supported establishing a Space National Guard and has sought more information on the Armed Overwatch program. 

Kelly will lead an 11-member panel with several new faces, especially on the Republican side—Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) are all new additions to the subcommittee. 

Fischer, who is also the top Republican on the Strategic Forces subcommittee, represents Offutt Air Force Base, home of U.S. Strategic Command and much of the Air Force’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaisance fleet. 

Mullin also represents a large Air Force population: Oklahoma hosts Altus Air Force Base, Tinker Air Force Base, Vance Air Force Base, and Will Rogers Air National Guard Base. C-17s, KC-135s, E-3s, T-1s, T-6s, T-38s, F-16s, and MC-12s are all based in the state, and Will Rogers is slated to host the schoolhouse for the new Sky Warden aircraft. The service also relies on the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex to perform maintenance for dozens of kinds of aircraft.  

Mullin is one of three freshman Senators to join the committee, alongside Ted Budd (N.C.), and Eric Schmitt (Mo.). All three are on the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee. 

The Emerging Threats subcommittee, which oversees policies and programs related to science and technology, special operations, intelligence, and more, will be chaired by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who shifted from her post atop the Personnel subcommittee. 

Replacing Gillibrand atop the Personnel subcommittee is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Meanwhile, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) flipped their seats; Kaine will now lead the Seapower and Readiness subcommittee and Hirono will head Management Support. 

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the only new face among the panel’s top Republicans, will be the ranking member on the Personnel subcommittee. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee Rosters

Airland   

  • Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)—Chair 
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 
  • Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) 
  • Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) 
  • Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) 
  • Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) 
  • Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) 
  • Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) 
  • Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) 
  • Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) 

Cybersecurity  

  • Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.)—Chair 
  • Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) 
  • Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) 
  • Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) 
  • Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)  
  • Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) 
  • Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) 
  • Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) 

Emerging Threats and Capabilities  

  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)—Chair 
  • Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) 
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) 
  • Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) 
  • Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) 
  • Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)  
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) 
  • Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) 
  • Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) 
  • Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) 

Personnel  

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—Chai 
  • Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 
  • Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) 
  • Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) 
  • Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)  
  • Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) 
  • Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) 
  • Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.)  

Readiness and Management Support   

  • Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)—Chair 
  • Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) 
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 
  • Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) 
  • Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) 
  • Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)  
  • Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) 
  • Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) 
  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) 
  • Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) 

Seapower 

  • Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—Chair 
  • Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) 
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 
  • Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) 
  • Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) 
  • Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) 
  • Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) 
  • Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) 
  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) 
  • Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) 

Strategic Forces  

  • Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)—Chair 
  • Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)—Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) 
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) 
  • Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) 
  • Sen. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) 
  • Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) 
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) 
  • Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) 
  • Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) 
  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) 
China Now Has More ICBM Launchers than the US

China Now Has More ICBM Launchers than the US

Feb. 7, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

China officially surpassed the U.S. in total land-based nuclear missile launchers, U.S. Strategic Command told Congress last month, but the American nuclear triad still comprises greater stockpiles of missiles and warheads. 

The Jan. 26 letter from STRATCOM Commander Gen. Anthony J. Cotton came in response to a statute in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Pentagon to notify the Senate and House Armed Services Committees if it determined that China has more land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBM warheads, or ICBM launchers than the U.S. 

As of October 2022, Cotton wrote, China had more launchers. He did not specify exactly how many launchers China has. 

The change shows China’s rapid expansion in nuclear capabilities. In 2021, satellite images showed China was building 250 to 300 new ICBM silos in three different missile fields, although whether some or any of the silos are actually armed is unclear. The People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) also has dozens of mobile missile launchers, or transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. 

The U.S. has 400 Minutemen III ICBMs in silos spread across three missile fields and no land-based mobile missile launchers. Its ICBMs are capped under treaty with Russia. The U.S. also has nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-capable bombers. 

Cotton said China is developing a “bona fide” nuclear triad during his confirmation hearing. The PLA is developing a nuclear air-launched ballistic missile, a potential new class or subtype of submarine, and a secretive H-20 long-range bomber. 

Still, the most recent China Military Power Report from the Pentagon estimates that the Chinese have just six ballistic missile submarines, compared to 14 for the U.S. Navy, and that China only recently began fielding its H-6N nuclear-capable bomber. By contrast, the the U.S. Air Force has more than 90 nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers.

STRATCOM’s letter to lawmakers focused solely on land-based launchers. 

China is building up nuclear weapons and infrastructure at what former Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray described called a “breathtaking” pace, leading the Pentagon to estimate China’s future arsenal will reach 1,500 warheads by 2035. That has Cotton and others contemplating a future with two “near-peer” nuclear adversaries in China and Russia. 

While more than triple China’s current stockpile of around 400 warheads, the projected total is still far less than the 3,700 nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal.

“We can be confident that we still retain vast stocks far in excess of what the [Chinese Communist Party’s] ambitions suggest they will be to achieve in the near term,” said Dr. Melanie W. Sisson, a foreign policy fellow at the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Feb. 7. 

Dr. Brendan S. Mulvaney, director of the China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) at Air University, said that China must also deal with issues of command and control between its armed services. In a prior interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine he agreed that China will not match U.S. stockpiles in the near term.

Still, the fact that China now has more land-based missile launchers was met with concern in the Capitol. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, noted it in his opening statement Feb. 7 and issued a statement alongside Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chair of the HASC strategic forces subcommittee; Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), ranking member of the SASC strategic forces subcommittee. 

“This should serve as a wake-up call for the United States,” the four lawmakers said. “It is not an understatement to say that the Chinese nuclear modernization program is advancing faster than most believed possible. We have no time to waste in adjusting our nuclear force posture to deter both Russia and China. This will have to mean higher numbers and new capabilities.” 

Ukraine Has More Pressing Needs Than F-16s, Top Senator Says

Ukraine Has More Pressing Needs Than F-16s, Top Senator Says

Feb. 7, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Although Ukrainian officials insist they need modern combat aircraft like F-16s to repel Russia’s invasion, the jets wouldn’t make a “critical difference in the fight,” and Ukraine has more urgent needs, Senate Armed Services Committee chair Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said Feb. 7.

In an online Defense Writers Group discussion, Reed also discussed the possibility of deep defense budget cuts and Congressional reactions to the Chinese surveillance balloon that recently crossed the U.S. 

F-16s to Ukraine?

When evaluating any lethal aid request from Ukraine, the U.S. needs to determine whether it would make a difference “in their fighting model,” Reed said. And F-16s “at this juncture … are not the most pressing need” for Ukrainian forces.

Rather, “ammunition, fighting vehicles—the tanks, I think, will be more decisive—indirect fire, the longer-range rocket system, HIMARS … all of that will have a more immediate impact” than fighters, and would be “much more easily adapted” into Ukrainian forces, Reed argued.

The air defense situation in Ukraine also wouldn’t allow for F-16s to be used “effectively” yet, Reed said.

The Ukrainians “have jet aircraft right now; Russian models that they use. They fly them infrequently, because the airspace is not permissive. It’s extremely difficult to get up in the air,” he explained.

“What they do is take off and fly at treetop levels until they reach their target, and they bounce up to the safest [altitude at which] they can drop their ordnance,” and try to return to base.

“They’ve lost some pilots doing that,” he said.

“So you have to ask yourself,” Reed continued: “what would the F-16 add? You’re not going to be able to take advantage of its range, its altitude, and those things because the airspace is not at all permissive.”

However, Reed did leave open the possibility of considering F-16s for the long term.

Beyond the question of F-16s, though, Ukraine is getting “a significant integration of advice and assistance coming from the West, not just the United States, but NATO, almost on a minute-by-minute basis,” Reed said. “And that advice, I think, is very, very helpful for them. We tend to focus on hardware rather than advice, assistance, intelligence, helping them connect their software etc. That might be more vital in this context, than an F-16.”

The senior lawmaker did say he is in favor of sending Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), to Ukraine, because ATACMS “can hit back further” than the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) the U.S. has previously given.

“What the Russians have done is they’ve moved back some of their command and control centers and depots to avoid the GMLRS. … So we have to get longer range systems in [to] disrupt their command and control, and supply,” Reed said.

Amid speculation and reports of a fresh offensive from the Russians, Reed said he thinks Ukraine “will hold” and go on an offensive of its own when equipped with the tanks and armored vehicle package just announced. Reed also praised the Ukrainians for showing “great ingenuity in taking the equipment we’ve given them and keeping it running,” and for their work with electronic warfare.

Should that offensive succeed in pushing the Russians to the point that they are “retreating en masse” and “nonfunctional,” Reed said he sees heightened danger of nuclear weapons being used by Russia, especially if the Ukrainians advance on Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.

“That’s where this discussion would heat up tremendously within the Kremlin,“ he said, before noting “it’s not that easy” to guess what Russia would do in those circumstances.

Congress

For the U.S., the biggest lesson learned from Ukraine was that the industrial base was not adequately configured to surge munitions production, and this is something Congress will be taking up in the coming year, Reed said.

The idea that weapon systems will be immediately canceled “if we determine it is not effective” for U.S. forces, “… that’s not going to happen immediately,” he added.

Reed also expressed skepticism about a proposal from some Republicans to cap defense spending at fiscal 2022 levels—which would mark a 10 percent cut—as a bargaining chip for raising the national debt limit.

“It would be a roughly $70-$80 billion cut,” Reed said, “at a time we’re in the midst of supporting active conflict; at a time we are seeing … provocative behavior by the Chinese. … I don’t think that would be an appropriate number and I don’t think it will receive a lot of bipartisan support here in the Senate.”

Chinese Balloon

Asked about the Chinese reconnaissance balloon that an Air Force F-22 shot down Feb. 5, Reed said he believes the situation was “handled very well” to avoid endangering people on the ground, and President Joe Biden “took steps to minimize whatever it was meant to gather” in the way of intelligence.

Like other members of Congress, Reed said he’s puzzled about why China sent the balloon, since “they can actually get probably more information from the satellites that are already flying above us than from a balloon. So it’s very difficult to determine why they did this.”

He also said one of the questions needing attention is “what was the point, and who ordered it? … What was the motivation? … What were they trying to accomplish? And what does that signal to us?” about China’s power structure.

“This could be one of those situations where this was not a policy decision made by [Chinese president Xi Jinping], but something below, and I think we have to look at that,” Reed suggested.

But the U.S. military is now recovering the surveillance package carried by the balloon, and “at the end of the day, we’ll probably gain more intelligence from this operation than the Chinese,”  which makes it “an awkward moment for them.”

Congress will be briefed on the incident next week.

One likely outcome is that Congress will insist on “denying any access to our airspace by China or anyone else,” Reed said. Congress will “certainly look” at any capability gaps exposed by the incident.