Replacing Physical Prototypes with the Digital Twin

Replacing Physical Prototypes with the Digital Twin

Feb. 3, 2023 | By Todd Tuthill

Since its inception, the digital twin has proven to be a revolutionary design tool for the aerospace and defense (A&D) industry. The ability to develop and test new products using virtual models (digital twins) before producing them physically has saved companies valuable time and money. Digital twins are used throughout the program lifecycle and have reduced engineers’ reliance on physical prototypes. Yet when can we stop building prototypes altogether?

There are still multiple obstacles in the A&D industry that prevent the comprehensive digital twin from replacing physical prototypes. These obstacles can be narrowed down to culture, processes, and technology.

To begin, imagine hearing on your next commercial flight, “Welcome to Autonomous Airways. This is our inaugural pilotless flight.” Then you hear the pilot’s welcome message from a voice that sounds like your iPhone. Most of us would unbuckle our seat belts and leave the plane. 

The technology to enable pilotless commercial flight already exists, but it is not yet certified, and more importantly, it is not yet culturally acceptable. Ninety percent of your last commercial flight was already flown by a computer, but we all feel much better knowing that a real human pilot is there to take over if the computer makes a mistake. 

We as people will need to build confidence in autonomous aircraft in careful, methodological steps. Building confidence in the comprehensive digital twin to replace physical prototypes will be no different. Engineers, program leaders, and regulatory agencies will need to learn to accept digital twins as prototypes, starting with less complex systems like circuit boards and landing gear struts, gradually scaling up toward full aircraft models.

This will require a change in our processes relating to prototypes and digital twins. Presently, engineers build a digital twin to model what they expect from physical hardware. These digital twins have enabled a “fly it before you build it mindset” Next, they build and test a physical prototype of said hardware and use the data gathered from those tests to validate their digital twin. This type of process sees truth in the physical piece, not the digital twin. To replace physical prototypes, engineers, program leaders, and regulatory agencies need to believe that the digital twin is the truth, eventually circumventing the need for validation testing with real hardware. 

Engineers already have tools and software to virtually replicate complex systems. However, the integration of these simulated systems must continue to improve. Add this integration to seamless, out of the box simulation, with the right fidelity, running in real time, and confidence in digital twin performance will significantly increase. Continually validating and optimizing these digital twins with data and insights from physical test will eventually provide the fidelity and confidence needed to enable modeling and validation of very complex systems that have yet to be built in the physical world.

Replacing physical prototypes with digital twins requires visionary leaders throughout our industry who believe it can be done, who can inspire their companies to believe in it, too. Obstructions in culture, processes, and technology may prevent it now, but they will be overcome in time, and physical prototypes will go the way of slide rules and 8-track tapes.

About the Author:

Todd Tuthill is the Vice President for Aerospace and Defense at Siemens Digital Industries Software. He joined Siemens in June of 2022 after more than 30 years in the Aerospace and Defense industry. His engineering background is in systems design with functional engineering and program leadership roles and a strong vision for digital transformation. 

Tuthill’s aerospace leadership career spans McDonnell Douglas/Boeing, Moog, Raytheon and Siemens, and his experience encompasses all aspects of A&D programs, including design, model-based systems engineering, software engineering, lean product development, supplier/partner management and program management. In his new role at Siemens, Tuthill is a passionate advocate for the advancement of digital transformation across the A&D Industry.

US Gains Access to More Bases in the Philippines

US Gains Access to More Bases in the Philippines

Feb. 2, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The U.S. will be able to rotate troops and build facilities at four military bases in the Philippines, officials from the two countries announced Feb. 1, deepening their military cooperation to counter China. 

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Philippine Secretary of National Defense Carlito Galvez made the joint announcement during Austin’s visit to the Philippines.  

The deal expands the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which did not allow U.S. troops to be based in the Philippines but did authorize access to “agreed locations … on a rotational basis, for security cooperation exercises, joint and combined military training activities, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief activities,” according to the State Department. 

The two countries had previously agreed to five locations, including four air bases. The U.S. has already allocated $82 million in infrastructure for those bases, the Pentagon noted in a release. 

Officials declined to name the locations of the four new bases, with Galvez saying in a joint press conference that they will do so after consultations with local authorities. Possibilities include Clark Air Base, where the U.S. Air Force operated until 1991. In 2012, the Philippines agreed to give U.S. forces limited access to the base. 

The U.S. and the Philippines have a long military relationship, dating back to the Spanish-American War, after which the U.S. acquired the territory from Spain. Even after its independence following World War II, tens of thousands of Filipinos joined and served in the American military, and the U.S. maintained a robust presence in the Philippines for decades. In 1991, the Philippine Senate voted not to reauthorize the basing agreement, and the U.S. left its bases there the following year.

Even after that, the two countries maintained close ties and conducted frequent military exercises together. During President Rodrigo Duterte time in office, he threatened to scale back joint exercises with the U.S. and pursued closer ties with Russia and China. That delayed implementation of the EDCA. 

After Duterte left office in 2022, he was succeeded by Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the son of controversial former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who ruled for more than 20 years, imposing martial law for part of that time. 

Under the younger Marcos, relations between the U.S. and the Philippines have strengthened, and EDCA projects are again ramping up. Said Austin: “This relationship is strong, and we will continue to work hard to strengthen it further.” 

Last week U.S.. Pacific Air Forces Airmen visited Clark Air Base and Basa Air Base in the Philippines for a subject matter expert exchange with the Philippine Air Force. They discussed “munitions, maintenance, logistics, and hot pit refueling … [in] a precursor to cooperation in future large exercises in the Indo-Pacific region,” according to a Feb. 2 news release. 

Galvez expressed interest in expanding the Philippine Air Force’s capabilities with U.S. platforms and further engagements in the future.  

“We really need C-130s, and also those Black Hawks that we bought that we configured to search-and-rescue capability,” Galvez said. The Philippines signed a deal for 32 Black Hawk helicopters in February 2022 and has made moves to acquire C-130Js as well. 

F-22s Scramble from Nellis in Response to Chinese Spy Balloon Over US

F-22s Scramble from Nellis in Response to Chinese Spy Balloon Over US

Feb. 2, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev.—The Pentagon is tracking what it says is a Chinese surveillance balloon over the continental United States, it said Feb. 2.

The U.S. military scrambled two Air Force F-22 Raptors from Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. on Feb. 1 in response to the incident, Air & Space Forces Magazine has confirmed. A senior defense official said the U.S. considered shooting the balloon down over Montana.

“We had been looking at whether there was an option yesterday over some sparsely populated areas in Montana,” the senior defense official told reporters Feb. 2. “But we just couldn’t buy down the risk enough to feel comfortable recommending shooting it down yesterday.”

The balloon remains over the U.S., though the Pentagon said they do not think it poses a significant risk.

“The U.S. government, to include NORAD, continues to track and monitor it closely,” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder said. “The balloon is currently traveling at an altitude well above commercial air traffic and does not present a military or physical threat to people on the ground.”

The U.S. has been “tracking it for some time” after the balloon “entered the continental United States airspace a couple of days ago,” the senior defense official said.

The senior defense official said President Joe Biden was briefed on the balloon and asked for military options. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, who was on travel in the Philippines, convened top senior military leaders, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley and Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the head of North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The senior defense official said Milley and VanHerck recommended “not to take kinetic action due to the risk to safety and security of people on the ground from the possible debris field,” which led to Biden deciding not to use force against the balloon. According to the Pentagon, the balloon is still at a “high altitude” over the continental U.S., though they declined to specify its protected flight path or current location.

A ground stop occurred Feb. 1 at the airport in Billings, Mont. according to air traffic control data, where the senior defense official noted the U.S. considering shooting the balloon down. Residents in Montana noted an unusual object in the sky, according to local media reports. A user on Twitter captured a video of the two F-22s refueling over Utah.

The Air Force maintains intercontinental ballistic missile fields across a wide swath of Montana, as part of the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.—one of three American strategic nuclear ICBM bases.

“Clearly the intent of this balloon is for surveillance,” the senior defense official said. “And so the current flight path does carry it over a number of sensitive sites.”

The U.S. is confident the balloon is from the People’s Republic of China, Pentagon officials said.

“I’m not going to go into all the ways in which we know that it’s a PRC balloon,” the senior defense official said. “I will just say we have very high confidence that this is a PRC balloon. Very high confidence. So we do not doubt that this is a PRC balloon. And that is an assessment shared across our intelligence and analytic community.”

The Pentagon declined to provide exact details on the size of the balloon, though the senior defense official said it was “sizable” and would have posed a risk to civilians on the ground if it was shot down due to its size and height. The senior defense official noted reports of pilots spotting the balloon.

Ryder said “instances of this kind of balloon activity have been observed previously over the past several years.”

The senior defense official noted, however, that the balloon was staying over the U.S. longer than in previous cases.

“It is not the first time that you had a balloon of this nature cross over the continental United States,” the senior defense official said. “It has happened a handful of other times over the past few years, to include before this administration. It is appearing to hang out for a long period of time this time around, more persistent than in previous instances.”

The incident comes at a sensitive time. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken was due to travel to China in the coming days in an effort to open channels of communication between the two countries. It is not clear if that visit will go ahead. High-level military-to-military talks between China and the U.S. have not occurred despite a recent public plea by Austin after a Chinese jet intercepted a U.S. Air Force RC-135 over the South China Sea in what the Pentagon said was an unsafe manner. The Pentagon said they were unsure what motivated the Chinese to send a spy balloon over America.

“I don’t know why they did what they did,” the senior defense official said. “I will say that the past number of times it did not loiter over the continental United States for an extended period of time. It’s different. And precisely why they made the decision to make this different I think really is a question for them.”

Air Force Launches New Stealthy Tanker Program, with Delivery Projected for 2040

Air Force Launches New Stealthy Tanker Program, with Delivery Projected for 2040

Feb. 2, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force launched its search for the Next-Generation Air-Refueling System (NGAS), a stealthy tanker project intended to deliver its first aircraft around 2040, with a Jan. 31 request for information to industry. The new tanker is to be capable of surviving in contested airspace, but the service is open to all ideas about its size and performance.

Contractors are invited to submit ideas for the NGAS that will be considered in an Analysis of Alternatives getting underway in October, according to the announcement on SAM.gov. Responses to the RFI are due March 2.

The RFI marks the formal start of what has previously been called “KC-Z.” The KC-X program became the KC-46 now being acquired; the KC-Y has become the so-called “bridge tanker” still in definition, and KC-Z the Air Force now refers to as NGAS, or “increment three” of its three-phase tanker recapitalization effort.

The Defense Innovation Unit and the Air Force are already looking at concepts for a future blended-wing body tanker, but the Jan. 31 solicitation specifically leaves open the configuration.

The Air Force “is interested in innovative solutions in all size and performance classes that might address the stressing mission requirements” of delivering fuel in contested airspace, the announcement said. The speed of the aircraft concepts submitted “should be compatible with modern receivers.”

The concepts put forward can have novel technologies or operational concepts, but the Air Force said all the risk needs to be ironed out to a Technology Readiness Level of 6—meaning a representative model or prototype system has been tested in a relevant environment—before 2032.  

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, speaking on a Council on Foreign Relations webinar on Jan. 11, said the threat posed by China is driving the Air Force away from traditional tankers, wherein a commercial aircraft is adapted into a mobility aircraft.

“The threat’s taking that freedom away from us,” he said, adding that with new cargo and tanker aircraft designs, USAF has to put “a high premium on survivability.” Chinese and other adversary aircraft and missiles can track tankers and shoot them from long range, compelling the Air Force to move toward survivable concepts, he said. The new tanker will have to “move beyond” traditional concepts and “survive in an environment the current fleet hasn’t had to work [in].”

In June 2022, the Air Force sent out a request for the “Advanced Aerial Refueling Family of Systems,” a dual-track program seeking a KC-46 follow-on with additional capabilities like a communications node and advanced navigation systems, while separately pursuing an advanced tanker with the survivability to operate near enemy airspace. The NGAS is now defined as that second track.

Kendall has indicated he thinks an improved KC-46 will likely be the solution to the “bridge tanker” requirements, consistently downplaying the idea of a competition.

A proposed amendment to the fiscal 2023 defense budget mandating a bridge tanker competition didn’t make it to the final bill, but supporters have said they will try again this year.

The request for info for the NGAS instructs industry to provide detailed performance characteristics of potential aircraft, including their size and weight, “takeoff and landing, climb, cruise, and representative mission performance.” The Air Force also wants to know if the aircraft proposed can use “regional or improvised airfields or other, non-traditional basing.”

The new tankers will have to be able to receive fuel in mid-air as well as provide it to other aircraft. The respondents should also identify the level of maturity of the designs, what the greatest risk areas are, and how contractors would mitigate them in a development program. Officials want “timelines to fielding” the proposed solutions.

Respondents should explain how their solutions might “change the way aerial refueling operations would be executed,” what operational or support changes would be needed to introduce these new concepts, and how “your proposed solution [will] increase, improve, or expand the current and planned capabilities of the tanker fleet (including KC-135, KC-46, and Bridge Tanker).”

The concepts also have to address how they will support unmanned aerial systems and “address anticipated threats … in the 2040 timeframe.” Industry respondents also need to submit their ideas on how they will counter cyber threats to their aircraft concepts, and broadly, identify the “high-level cost implications” for any new technologies put forth. Potential offerors also have to state what kinds of engines they would put on their aircraft and what kind of fuel savings they can achieve versus present-day tankers.

The program will make use of digital modeling and simulation techniques and any proposals must use a modular, open-systems architecture.

The Air Force also wants to know if the proposers can offer “innovative teaming arrangements of traditional military prime contractors with non-military contractors to achieve a mix of experience in advanced aero-configuration design, lean programs, and rapid airframe development and manufacturing.” The service is looking to expand it supplier base both to increase competition and avoid “vendor lock,” wherein a particular contractor enjoys a virtual monopoly on upgrades and software.

Industry has already offered up a variety of approaches to future tankers, ranging from blended wing body concepts to small, highly stealthy tankers that could penetrate heavily defended airspace along with strike aircraft.

Last month at the annual American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics convention and exposition, Boeing unveiled a stealthy-looking hybrid blended wing body concept for mobility applications having a butterfly empennage and embedded engines. Lockheed Martin has also shown stealthy BWB-type concepts for future airlifters and tankers.

Kendall said there’s no commercial blended-wing body concept the Air Force can take advantage of “yet,” but the service is looking at such concepts with the DIU because commercial variants could also significantly reduce the airline and freight industry’s consumption of fuel.   

Kendall has also designated airlift as one of the three “cross-cutting” enabler mission areas that touch all of the Air Force’s activities—the other two being electronic warfare and munitions—and underlie all of his seven “operational imperatives.” Each enabler has been assigned an operational and acquisition co-leader to facilitate the development of capability roadmaps.

HASC Organizes with 17 New Members—Including a USAFA Grad

HASC Organizes with 17 New Members—Including a USAFA Grad

Feb. 2, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

A month after the new session of Congress began, the House Armed Services Committee formally organized Feb. 2, setting its subcommittee rosters and introducing the new members who will help oversee the Pentagon. 

In his first opening statement as chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) focused on the Pacific, promising a hearing next week to “examine the threats we face from China and how best to prepare our military to deter and defeat them.” 

Rogers emphasized the committee’s oversight responsibilities, and his Republican majority is expected to aggressively question so-called “woke” Pentagon programs pursued by the Biden administration. 

With the President’s fiscal 2024 budget request expected to be released in March, Rogers pledged to cut Defense Department programs that don’t address future threats. “We’ll find a lot of savings at the Pentagon,” he said. But Rogers also said “modernizing our military will cost a lot of money,” and under his leadership “we cannot shy away from that investment.” 

Ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) “concurred” with all of Rogers’ opening remarks and emphasized the need to continue supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. 

How exactly all these priorities will play out in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act and budget will be the business of the next nine months or so. There is growing interest among some members of both major political parties in holding defense spending in check or even cutting it. But at the same time, growing concern about whether the U.S. military is funded and equipped to deter China or others from going to war with U.S. allies and partners.

tThe HASC will have 17 new members, including 11 Republicans and six Democrats, meaning nearly 30 percent of the committee is new to DOD oversight. 

Among those six new Democrats: freshman Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.), the fourth U.S. Air Force Academy graduate ever elected to Congress. Davis left the Air Force as a captain after eight years on Active-duty. He worked as a mortuary officer; coordinated operations for the VC-25A “Air Force One” at Joint Base Andrews, Md.; and served at an ROTC detachment in North Carolina. 

Two other former Airmen are already on the committee—Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) is a retired brigadier general and ISR pilot with experience in the EC-130H and RC-135 and Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) served for four years at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.

Also new to the committee are two representatives whose districts include Air Force bases: Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) represents Holloman Air Force Base and parts of Kirtland Air Force Base—as well as White Sands Missile Range and Los Alamos National Laboratory—and Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.) has parts of Maxwell Air Force Base in her district.  

In addition to the new members, Democrats also named their ranking members for each of the seven subcommittees, including three new to leadership roles.  

On the Strategic Forces subcommittee, which oversees nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, and national security space programs, longtime Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.) has been succeeded by Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.). A retired Marine, Moulton briefly ran for president in 2019, during which he dismissed the need for a separate Space Force, instead calling for a separate military branch focused on cyber. He has also argued in favor of nuclear arms control, but against a “No First Use” policy. 

On the Military Personnel subcommittee, Rep. Jackie Speier (Calif.) will be succeeded by Rep. Andy Kim (N.J.), whose district includes Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Kim has co-sponsored legislation that would expand health care for National Guard members. 

On the Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems subcommittee, Rep. Jim Langevin (R.I.) will be succeeded by Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.), whose district includes much of Silicon Valley  

Full list of subcommittee rosters 

Cyber, Information Technology, and Innovation

  • Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.)—Chairman                  
  • Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)            
  • Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) 
  • Pat Fallon (R-Texas) 
  • Dale Strong (R-Ala.) 
  • Morgan Luttrell (R-Texas) 
  • Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) 
  • Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) 
  • Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) 
  • Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—Ranking Member 
  • Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) 
  • Bill Keating (D-Mass.) 
  • Andy Kim (D-N.J.) 
  • Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) 
  • Jared Golden (D-Maine) 
  • Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) 
  • Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.) 

Intelligence and Special Operations

  • Jack Bergman (R-Mich.)—Chairman      
  • Austin Scott (R-Ga.) 
  • Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) 
  • Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) 
  • Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) 
  • Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) 
  • Morgan Luttrell (R-Texas) 
  • Cory Mills (R-Fla.) 
  • Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—Ranking Member 
  • Bill Keating (D-Mass.) 
  • Jason Crow (D-Colo.) 
  • Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) 
  • Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) 
  • Jeff Jackson (D-N.C.) 
  • Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) 

Military Personnel

  • Jim Banks (R-Ind.)—Chairman               
  • Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)                            
  • Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)     
  • Jack Bergman (R-Mich.)                   
  • Michael Waltz (R-Fla.)   
  • Brad Finstad (R-Minn.)   
  • James Moylan (R-Guam) 
  • Mark Alford (R-Mo.) 
  • Cory Mills (R-Fla.) 
  • Andy Kim (D-N.J.)—Ranking Member                                                         
  • Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.) 
  • Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) 
  • Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.) 
  • Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) 
  • Don Davis (D-N.C.) 
  • Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) 
  • Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) 

Readiness

  • Michael Waltz (R-Fla.)—Chairman       
  • Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) 
  • Austin Scott (R-Ga.)   
  • Mike Johnson (R-La.)   
  • Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.)     
  • Brad Finstad (R-Minn.)        
  • Dale Strong (R-Ala.) 
  • Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) 
  • James Moylan (R-Guam) 
  • John Garamendi (D-Calif.)—Ranking Member  
  • Jason Crow (D-Calif.) 
  • Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) 
  • Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) 
  • Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.) 
  • Gabriel Vasquez (D-N.M.) 
  • Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) 
  • Don Davis (D-N.C.) 

Seapower and Projection Forces

  • Trent Kelly (R-Miss.)—Chairman         
  • Rob Wittman (R-Va.) 
  • Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) 
  • Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) 
  • Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) 
  • Mike Johnson (R-La.) 
  • Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) 
  • Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) 
  • Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) 
  • Mark Alford (R-Mo.) 
  • Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)—Ranking Member  
  • John Garamendi (D-Calif.) 
  • Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) 
  • Jared Golden (D-Maine) 
  • Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) 
  • Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.) 
  • Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) 

Strategic Forces

  • Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)—Chairman    
  • Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) 
  • Mike Turner (R-Ohio) 
  • Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) 
  • Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) 
  • Don Bacon (R-Neb.) 
  • Jim Banks (R-Ind.) 
  • Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) 
  • Dale Strong (R-Ala.) 
  • Seth Moulton (D-Mass.)—Ranking Member  
  • John Garamendi (D-Calif.) 
  • Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) 
  • Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) 
  • Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) 
  • Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.) 
  • Gabriel Vasquez (D-N.M.) 

Tactical Air and Land Forces

  • Rob Wittman (R-Va.)—Chairman  
  • Mike Turner (R-Ohio) 
  • Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) 
  • Sam Graves (R-Mo.) 
  • Don Bacon (R-Neb.) 
  • Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) 
  • Pat Fallon (R-Texas) 
  • Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) 
  • Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) 
  • Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) 
  • Donald Norcross (D-N.J.)—Ranking Member  
  • Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) 
  • Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) 
  • Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) 
  • Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) 
  • Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) 
  • Jeff Jackson (D-N.C.) 
  • Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) 
SASC Announces New Members, Air Force Vet Is Ranking Member

SASC Announces New Members, Air Force Vet Is Ranking Member

Feb. 1, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Senate Armed Services Committee released its member roster for the 118th Congress on Feb. 1, naming a new ranking member and including three freshmen Senators.  

All of the newcomers are Republicans; Democrats return the same 13 Senators from the last Congress, led by chairman Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who has chaired the committee since 2021 and been its ranking Democrat since 2015. 

The new ranking member is Air Force veteran Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who succeeds Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) as the committee’s senior Republican. Wicker served on Active-Duty from 1976 to 1980 and then in the Reserve until 2003 as a judge advocate. He is the first Air Force vet to hold a leadership role on the committee since Barry Goldwater in 1987—fellow Airman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) served on the committee for more than a decade and a half but always in support of Inhofe and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

Wicker’s home state of Mississippi is brimming with military installations, including Columbus Air Force Base and Keesler Air Force Base. In the last Congress, he co-sponsored unsuccessful legislation seeking to limit planned retirements of T-1 trainers at Columbus. Wicker will lead a group of a dozen Republicans, one fewer than last Congress, reflecting Democrats’ new 51-49 majority in the chamber. 

Among those dozen lawmakers will be three new faces—Sens. Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), Ted Budd (N.C.), and Eric Schmitt (Mo.). Mullin was elected as Inhofe’s replacement, while both Budd and Schmitt are taking spots previously held by the other Senator for their states: Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.), respectively. 

Mullin will represent Oklahoma’s large Air Force population: the state 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. 

Budd represents a state with a heavy Army presence, but North Carolina is also home to Pope Field and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Schmitt, meanwhile, represents Whiteman Air Force Base and its B-2 bombers. 

In a press release, Tillis touted his work on the SASC, particularly on the personnel subcommittee. He is taking on a new assignment on the Senate Finance Committee. 

Also leaving the committee—without a replacement due to Republicans’ decreased numbers—is Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Blackburn represented the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Complex. 

The SASC release did not include details on the panel’s seven subcommittees, saying an announcement is coming in the “near future.” Tillis is the only subcommittee chair or ranking member from last Congress not to be on the committee this session. 

The full list of Senate Armed Services Committee members: 

  • Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) – Chairman 
  • Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) 
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) 
  • Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) 
  • Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) 
  • Tim Kaine (D-Va.) 
  • Angus King (I-Maine) 
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) 
  • Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) 
  • Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) 
  • Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) 
  • Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) 
  • Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)  
  • Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) – Ranking Member 
  • Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) 
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) 
  • Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) 
  • Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) 
  • Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) 
  • Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) 
  • Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) 
  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) 
  • Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) 
  • Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) 
  • Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) 
How to Talk About a Potential War with China

How to Talk About a Potential War with China

Feb. 1, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Mike Minihan generated international headlines when a memo to his Airmen in which he suggested the U.S. “will fight in 2025” with China leaked to the media. In the days that followed, national security experts and even Airmen themselves have split on the message, with some praising Minihan for his plain talk and others worrying that he needlessly turned up tensions with his rhetoric.

Former National Security Adviser Robert C. O’Brien wrote on Twitter that Minihan’s memo “demonstrates solidarity with the men & women he leads by telling them the truth that all of us at the senior level know but few are willing to utter. He should be commended.” 

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, praised Minihan in a LinkedIn post, saying he “should be commended for the clarity in which he delivers his messages, sense of urgency, and speaking as a warfighter—not a bureaucrat, politico, or academic.” 

In an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine, Deptula deemed Minihan’s memo “wholly appropriate,” and a necessary reminder for AMC Airmen, who are responsible for all the Air Force’s cargo and refueling missions. 

“Air Mobility Command is a combat-oriented command,” Deptula said. “Its day-to-day airlift missions often appear more like a commercial airline mission than an organization in the thick of flying and fighting. But the point that Minahan was making is the violence of combat comes quickly. And he wants his crews to be thinking about that and ready to support delivering devastating consequences to the enemy in a very hostile environment.” 

AMC is not immune to danger, he said citing the noncombatant evacuation out of Afghanistan in August 2021 that involved hundreds of C-17 flights in and out of hostile territory, and the Vietnam War, when the Air Force lost more than 100 mobility aircraft.  

Minihan was rightly “trying to instill this perspective on his Airmen, that they need to be thinking about what’s necessary to succeed in combat against our pacing threat and raise that awareness that it’s not business as usual in that this possibility could come sooner rather than later.” 

Notably, Minihan’s comments are consistent with those of others who have sounded alarm over China, ranging from Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael M. Gilday, who said in October the U.S. should prepare to fight in 2022 or 2023. In 2021, Adm. Phil Davidson, then head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, predicted China might take military action against Taiwan by 2027—a timeline some have since dubbed “the Davidson window.” 

Minihan was “doing what we pay general officers to do,” Deptula said—that is, “to motivate and prepare their forces, and to get them thinking about the potential threats that we face.” 

Some lawmakers have also lauded the memo, praising Minihan for characterizing the situation with China in stark terms. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the chair of a new House Select Committee focused on competition with China; and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, all supported the general.

Predictably, however, others have been critical. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the HASC, said on TV that he worries “when anyone starts talking about war with China being inevitable.” Generals, he added, “need to be very cautious about saying we’re going to war.” 

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow and director of research in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, echoed that concern. “We’re awfully cavalier about this idea that we might fight China, right?” said O’Hanlon, a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, in an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We’re talking about World War III. …That’s a not a way we can afford to think, because if this war happens, we’ve already lost.” 

Generals sometimes do get called out for their word choices, with retired Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis having drawn particular criticism in the past. In this case, O’Hanlon said, China’s growing nuclear arsenal and military might calls for increased “strategic sophistication.” 

“It was one thing when Jim Mattis said it about the Taliban,” O’Hanlon said. They and al-Qaida “did not have nuclear weapons and did not pose existential threats to the United States and potentially could be defeated or at least contained on a battlefield. It’s entirely something else to say this about the world’s number one rising power with several hundred nuclear weapons and a central place in the entire world economy.” 

When officers become generals, they “are no longer just technical facilitators of the application of lethal military power—that’s no longer their only job,” O’Hanlon said. Though Minihan’s memo was intended for an internal audience of Airmen, O’Hanlon said its public impact after its leak shows why generals should exercise caution when crafting broad messages. 

“Damage has been done, because the Chinese have read it and probably taken it as a window into our thinking,” O’Hanlon said. “And to the extent they believe that the United States has settled on a paradigm of the inevitability of a U.S.-China war, that could affect their crisis decision making and make them more inclined to escalate if they think the war is going to sort of happen anyway.” 

Others commenting on social media suggested the AMC commander was saber-rattling. Replying to Deptula’s LinkedIn post, Air National Guard Brig. Gen. Walt L. Moddison cited poor performance by U.S. forces in past war games as reason to tone down such comments. Moddison declined an interview request, saying he was speaking for himself and not his organization. 

Elsewhere on popular unofficial social media sites, Airmen have responded to Minihan’s memo with a mixture of debate and memes, with some arguing that the focus on a near-term war with China takes attention away from problems such as retention and maintenance on aging fleets. 

But Gallagher, a retired Marine Corps intelligence officer, said recent world events show the pressing nature of preparing for a fight with China.

“If we’ve learned anything from Ukraine, it’s that we need to take our adversaries at their word when they
threaten their neighbors and put hard power in their way before it’s too late,” Gallagher said in a statement. “General Minihan should be commended for directing his Airmen to take the threat seriously and preparing with the urgency that the situation demands.”

Hinote Urges Defense Innovation Board to Find Incentives for Faster Technology Development

Hinote Urges Defense Innovation Board to Find Incentives for Faster Technology Development

Feb. 1, 2023 | By Christopher Prawdzik

As the Defense Department engages commercial entities to speed innovation, cultural and structural differences between government and the private sector continue to be the biggest hurdle to rapidly deploying new technology, the head of Air Force Futures told the influential Defense Innovation Board at a recent meeting.

“It’s not an access to innovation problem that we’re dealing with, it’s an innovation adoption problem,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, noting a number of barriers he’s experienced in recent years. “I’ve witnessed each of these [barriers] stifle innovation on behalf of the bureaucracy and at the expense of tomorrow’s warfighter.”

Hinote made his remarks at the end of a two-day meeting of the new Defense Innovation Board. Chaired by Michael Bloomberg, the nine-member board includes academics, technology professionals, and other experts who advise DOD on emerging technology and innovation and how to promote military technological dominance. Among its members are former assistant secretary of the Air Force Will Roper and retired Adm. Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Passionate but positive, Hinote urged the board to identify incentives throughout the acquisition world that can speed technology development in a culture rife with bureaucratic roadblocks.

He said he’s witnessed leaders from three different administrations come in with a sense of urgency, only for that dynamic to not permeate through the bureaucracy. “Having the lack of sense of urgency in the middle is deadly, and that’s what it has been for us,” Hinote said.

One particular area Hinote focused on was risk timelines, noting that DOD’s actions are based on near-term risks, in contrast to its stated focus. Hinote also said there is a strong tendency to focus on “old ways” instead of new ones.

“There are a lot of soft vetoes in our department … and at any one point, there are so many different people, offices, interests that can block an action,” Hinote said. “They can’t start an action; they can’t initiate or get an action through, but they can block, and that’s a fact of life in this department that makes it very difficult to keep going.”

He added that there’s also a strong “not-invented-here culture,” where there can be competition between internal and external science and technology sectors. And while some competition between sectors can be good, Hinote added, it can be challenging when the timelines of a company differ from the government’s budget timelines.

It’s a particular issue with small startups whose fast-paced innovation might be perfect for DOD, but the startup must fund itself for multiple years until the budget process catches up with them. On top of that budget process, he added, is a lack of trust between the executive and legislative branches, particularly when looking at finding flexibility on how money is spent.

“At some point, we’re going to have to explore what types of transparency we need to get our congressional stakeholders semi-comfortable with the type of flexibility that we know we have to get to,” Hinote said. “And I think that involves a flexibility in intellectual property that we have not seen yet.”

In challenging the board to map out incentives, he emphasized the need to tap more into intellectual property and use it to scale.

For example, Hinote suggested that in critical times of need, if U.S. forces have good technology and an ally has good manufacturing capability, “it is in the national interest to release the intellectual property, give it to the partner and let them build the weapons, because at the moment, we are not able to build enough weapons fast enough,” he said.

Ultimately, Hinote said, the conversation must change, because oftentimes there’s little incentive to push technology boundaries, increase the speed of a bureaucratic process, or take risks.

“I don’t believe this is impossible; I don’t believe that people want to watch innovation flounder in our department,” he said. “But the incentives are structured in a way that makes it darn impossible, and until we call it out, I just don’t see how it gets better.”

In another brief to the board, Jason Rathje, director of the Office of Strategic Capital and co-founder and former director of AFWERX’s AFVentures division, insisted the government must do more to increase capital access for innovators.

With so many American companies investing and developing capabilities in science and technology, boosted by cooperation with academia, there has been world-class advancement in critical areas, Rathje said. But there needs to be a next step—to provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to have their technologies support national security goals.

Rathje added that OSC is looking at two new strategies to promote private investment as a national security tool: syndication and leverage.

“Syndication is a strategy that simply partners with private capital providers to co-invest in new technology efforts to help scale the business is we help scale the technology,” he said. “What leverage does is it lowers the cost of capital; private investors can make patient capital investments that are required, at the sizes that they’re required to invest, in deep technology companies.”

Rathje also celebrated the OSC’s partnership with the Small Business Administration and working with the Small Business Investment Company program. SBIC provides investment opportunities to technology companies in their early stages by leveraging the Federal Credit Program.

“The way these investment funds work is that we can license new limited partnerships that are vertically focused on deep technology areas,” he said. “We can provide two dollars of leverage, two dollars of debt, for every dollar of private capital that is raised.”

The SBIC initiative began in December, and Rathje said they hope to begin receiving applications for the initiative by mid-year. In addition, OCS will soon publish its inaugural investment strategy, which will review critical technology sectors and provide assessments regarding capital availability.

CBO Estimates $15-18 Million Cost Per ARRW Hypersonic Missile

CBO Estimates $15-18 Million Cost Per ARRW Hypersonic Missile

Feb. 1, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

The unit cost of a missile “similar to” the Air Force’s AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) hypersonic missile would be about $15 million a copy over a large production run, but a comparable Army ground-launched system would cost almost three times more, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

In “U.S. Hypersonic Weapons and Alternatives,” the CBO said that a program “similar to” ARRW—which has now reached the phase of testing an all-up operational round—would cost $14.9 million each over a run of 300 missiles. Adding in platform integration and 20 years of sustainment, CBO estimates a program cost of $5.3 billion, not including development. The CBO used “similar to” because actual performance and costs are classified.

To reach its estimates, the CBO said it used the Army ATACMS missile, comparable to the ARRW in size and complexity, as a basis. It said it relied on “publicly available data” and no classified information in developing its estimates.   

If only 100 ARRW-like missiles are bought, the unit cost would be $18 million a copy, and with sustainment and integration, the program cost would be $2.2 billion.

The CBO estimates the ARRW, which it describes as a “medium range” hypersonic missile, would have a reach of 1,000 kilometers, or about 620 miles, and travel at an average speed of Mach 7. The ARRW is a product of Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control unit, with heavy input from the Skunk Works advanced development products division.  

However, an Army system “similar” to its Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon—like ARRW, a boost-glide hypersonic missile, but with longer range—would cost $41 million per round across a production run of 300 missiles, and with platform integration and 20 years of sustainment, would cost $17.9 billion for the program.

The LRHW, built by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, would have a range of about 3,000 kilometers, or 1,860 miles, and travel at a speed of about Mach 10, the CBO said.

The CBO did not estimate comparable unit costs for the Air Force’s Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, which will be an air-breathing, scramjet-powered air-launched missile. The HACM contract was awarded to Raytheon and Northrop last September, and the CBO said the program is not yet mature enough to make meaningful cost estimates.

Source: CBO

While the ARRW is intended to be carried by the B-52 and possibly the B-1 bombers, the HACM is meant to be carried by fighter-sized aircraft.

An inventory of 300 ARRWs, “would allow for more than 65 B-52 missions with four missiles each,” the CBO noted.

The comparison between the Air Force and Army programs is relevant because Army leaders have in recent years said the service is ready to share in—if not take over—the deep-strike mission using hypersonic weapons. Deep strike has traditionally—under the Key West agreements dividing roles and missions of the services—been an Air Force responsibility with long-range bombers.

The CBO report contrasted the fact that Army hypersonic missiles need a safe ground launch site, while Air Force bombers can launch from an unpredictable position, although the Air Force would have to launch the ARRW closer to the intended target.  

The CBO listed the costs and capabilities for various combinations of hypersonic weapons in order to provide Congress with context for making choices about which weapons to fund in coming budget deliberations.

In comparison to hypersonic weapons, the cost of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile—Extended Range (JASSM-ER)—a stealthy missile with a range of 1,000 km that travels at a far slower speed, is about $1.4 million per round.

Despite the high cost per shot of hypersonic missiles, the CBO said there may be military value in being able to strike extremely high-value targets from thousands of miles away with a flight time of only 15-30 minutes. Such strikes could also be useful in the early stages of a conflict.  

Compared to ballistic missiles with maneuvering warheads, hypersonic weapons would also enjoy somewhat better survivability, because ballistic missiles have a more predictable trajectory while hypersonic missiles can maneuver throughout their flight through the atmosphere.

However, there are substantial technological challenges still to overcome before hypersonic missiles are deployable, the CBO noted. The “fundamental” remaining challenge is “managing the extreme heat that hypersonic missiles are exposed to by traveling at high speeds through the atmosphere.” Surface temperatures of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit requires “shielding hypersonic missiles’ sensitive electronics, understanding how various metals perform, and predicting aerodynamics” at such high temperatures.

Since 2019, the Pentagon has spent more than $8 billion on hypersonic missiles, the CBO said, and the Defense Department plans to spend another $13 billion on the technology across the fiscal 2023-2027 future years defense plan, with yet another $2 billion earmarked for production of Army and Air Force weapons, as “the Navy has not yet requested procurement funding for the hypersonic missile it is developing.”