F-15Es Deploy to Kadena as F-22s, F-16s Head Home

F-15Es Deploy to Kadena as F-22s, F-16s Head Home

April 10, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

F-15E Strike Eagles deployed to Kadena Air Base, Japan in April, joining F-35s to bolster the Air Force’s fighter fleet on the strategically important island in the western Pacific.

Meanwhile, the F-16CMs and F-22s that were previously forward deployed to Kadena have returned home, according to their respective home bases. The Air Force is rotating fighters through Kadena as it sends the aging F-15C/D fleet back to the United States after more than 40 years of permanent Eagle operations on the island. Save for the A-10, the Air Force has had every active type of fighter aircraft cycle through Kadena in the last five months: F-15C/Ds, F-15Es, F-16s, F-22s, and F-35s.

“Modernizing capabilities in the Indo-Pacific theater remains a top priority,” Kadena Air Base’s 18th Wing said in a news release. “This reception of advanced fighter aircraft at Kadena ensures the 18th Wing remains postured to deliver lethal and credible airpower to ensure the defense of U.S. allies and a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

On April 8, F-15Es from the 336th Fighter Squadron at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C. touched down in Okinawa, according to the Air Force.

That same day, F-22s Raptors and Airmen from the 525th Fighter Squadron assigned to Kadena headed home to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. On April 10, F-16CMs from the 480th Fighter Wing returned to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany.

Kadena’s two-squadron F-15C/D fleet, 48 strong before the drawdown began, is gradually being sent to the Boneyard or Air National Guard units. The Air Force has promised to put newer and more advanced fighters on Kadena to make up for the lack of a permanent presence.

In November, the Alaskan F-22s were the first new rotational unit deployed to the key southern Japanese island, which lies some 450 miles from Taiwan—the closest U.S. airbase to the self-governing island China claims as its own. F-16CMs later joined the Raptors in January 2023.

In March, F-35s from the 355th Fighter Squadron at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska deployed to Kadena. After a roughly two-week overlap, the F-16s and F-22s have now departed. F-22s were originally supposed to replace Eagles as the Air Force’s main air-to-air fighter, but further production was cancelled in 2009. Kadena’s F-15s are the last Eagles in service in the Active-Duty force. F-15Es are multi-role fighters, unlike the original F-15.

“The F-15E is a proven combat platform that brings some unique capabilities into our already formidable mix of aircraft here at Kadena,” Col. Henry Schantz, 18th Operations Group commander, said in a news release.

The F-22s had an eventful deployment to the western Pacific, becoming the first fifth-generation fighters to deploy to Tinian and the Philippines. JBER said the aircraft flew 1,100 sorties during their four-plus month deployment. The F-16s stayed around three months and their deployment generated fewer headlines. The deployment of F-15Es and F-35s —along with the remaining F-15C/Ds—ensures Kadena will have a mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft for now.

Boeing: Developmental Flight Testing for the T-7 Expected This Summer

Boeing: Developmental Flight Testing for the T-7 Expected This Summer

April 10, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Developmental flight testing of the T-7A Red Hawk advanced trainer will likely begin this summer, as ejection seat issues that delayed the program seem headed for resolution soon, according to Boeing and Air Force sources.

Problems with the ejection seats prompted USAF and Boeing to slow the program down in December, delaying production deliveries until the second half of 2024. The seats did not behave as expected in tests with pilot manikins representing the smallest class of potential pilots.

“We anticipate EMD (engineering, manufacturing and development) flight testing will begin this summer after receiving the military flight release,” a Boeing spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We continue to progress on T-7 escape system testing. Along with the U.S. Air Force, we have compiled a lot of data that shows we are moving in the right direction.”

The spokesperson also highlighted March 29 testimony from Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter, who told the House Armed Services tactical aviation subcommittee that “we did have a substantial achievement in February of getting through performing a sled test dealing with some of the issues of the escape system that we were hung up on.”

Clearing those tests “would allow us to get to a military flight release and begin the developmental testing, so we are now moving forward from areas where the program had gotten stalled,” Hunter added.

Boeing has built five T-7As and continues to fly T1 and T2, which were built before program award, to gather data. But the other aircraft are awaiting clearance to fly, and the Air Force Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has barred any military pilots from flying the T-7A pending resolution of the ejection seat issue, preventing government flight test activities from being initiated.

Although built on “production” tooling, T1 and T2 are not fully representative of the eventual operational aircraft. The three other aircraft are.

The ejection seat issue arose at the same time as separate concerns about flight controls, and the combination prompted the program delay, but the flight control problem was resolved several months ago.

Sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine the Air Force either improperly evaluated data gathered during earlier ejection seat testing, incorrectly instrumented the manikins, or both. A reassessment of the data, combined with the testing Hunter referenced, now show that the seats are compliant, the sources said.

T-7A
A manikin ejects from a Boeing T-7A Red Hawk in June during ongoing qualification tests of the ejection system for the T-7A at the Holloman High Speed Test Track (HHSTT) at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. U.S. Air Force photo

The Air Force removed T-7 procurement funds from its fiscal year 2024 budget request, thinking it would not be able to start production due to the ejection seat delay. The service could not immediately say if it has any plans to reprogram funds in 2024 to get production underway sooner.

According to its budget justification documents, the Air Force plans to build 94 T-7s over the next five fiscal years at a cost of $2.205 billion. Production begins with 14 aircraft in fiscal 2025, followed by 21, 23, and 36 in 2026-28, respectively.  Funding starts at $330.6 million in 2024 and ramps up to $834.2 million by 2028. To complete the planned buy of 351 aircraft is estimated to cost a total of $7.65 billion, including funds appropriated thus far, and assuming the planned aircraft are purchased.

The T-7A is the first USAF aircraft being designed to accommodate small women, and ensuring the ejection system works for their body types has been flagged as a potential problem for some time.

The Government Accountability Office, in its 2021 Weapon System Annual Assessment, said the T-7’s ejection seat was one of two “primary” risks to the trainer’s development, and in the following year’s report, pegged the ejection seat as a “top” program risk.

The next major programmatic milestone for the T-7A is planned for November, when Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief William LaPlante will decide whether the aircraft can enter Low-Rate Initial Production, known as Milestone C. Aircraft delivered after that decision point would arrive in late 2024.

In December 2022, a Boeing spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the company was working with USAF “to re-baseline the schedule” for flight test and production, which would take into account supply chain issues and labor shortages that have also afflicted the program.

Biden Administration Defends Afghanistan Withdrawal Decisions in New Report

Biden Administration Defends Afghanistan Withdrawal Decisions in New Report

April 6, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

On April 6, the White House issued its account of the decisions that preceded the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as Congress is moving to investigate President Joe Biden and his administration’s decision-making during the crisis.

The 12-page summary largely blames former President Donald Trump’s administration for putting the U.S. in a weakened position with the Taliban. It also faults the Afghan government and its security forces for allowing the country to rapidly fall into the hands of the enemy in August 2021.

The summary, however, does not discuss the recommendations from top military commanders that the U.S. retain 2,500 troops in the country while trying to negotiate a better agreement. Nor does it note the assessment by the Pentagon’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) that the withdrawal of Western contractors hobbled the Afghan air force as it struggled to hold the line against Taliban fighters.

Separately, the Department of Defense sent its long-awaited classified Afghanistan After Action Review to Congress.

The classified after action review has long been completed but had not previously been shared outside the executive branch. National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby told reporters neither the Pentagon document nor another classified review by the State Department that was also sent to the Congress would be made public.

The 21-year-old Afghan conflict is still the subject of a politically charged debate. A year and a half after the U.S. withdrawal, the Taliban remains in power, women and girls have been barred from schools, and the country is mired in poverty.

The White House summary argues the U.S. accomplished its main objective of defeating al-Qaida and the difficulties in Afghanistan accrued over multiple administrations.

“The president’s decision to end the war in Afghanistan was the right one,” Kirby said. “The United States had long ago accomplished its mission to remove from the battlefield the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.”

Republicans, however, accused the Biden administration of mishandling the withdrawal and withholding information.

“President Biden made the decision to withdraw and even picked the exact date; he is responsible for the massive failures in planning and execution,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R.-Texas) said in a statement. “It is also unfortunate it took my subpoena threat to prompt the administration to finally provide the classified after-action reports from the Afghanistan withdrawal.”

The White House document was written by Biden’s National Security Council. Kirby said Biden provided his personal input. As vice president, Biden was skeptical of the military’s push to send reinforcements to Afghanistan. But the crux of the White House’s case is that the new administration inherited a difficult situation.

“President Biden’s choices for how to execute a withdrawal from Afghanistan were severely constrained by conditions created by his predecessor,” the White House document states.

The U.S. only had 2,500 troops in the country when Biden took office. The White House also notes the Trump administration had reached an agreement with the Taliban that pledged U.S. troops would leave the country by May 2021—an agreement made without consulting the Afghan government.

Subsequently, when Biden took office “the Taliban were in the strongest military position that they had been in since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country,” the White House document states.

The White House also argues the Afghan government was to blame for its defeat. “President Biden urged the Afghan government to take steps to harden the resolve of the Afghan forces,” the document states.

But U.S. military experts warned before the withdrawal that a rapid and total withdrawal of U.S. military and contractor support would undermine the Afghan military’s morale and its ability to use airpower against its foe.

“If we don’t provide them some support they certainly will collapse and that is not in our best interest,” Gen. Frank McKenzie, then-head of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2021, four months before the withdrawal. “So I am concerned about the ability of the Afghan military to hold on after we leave, the ability of the Afghan Air Force to fly in particular after we remove the support for those aircraft.”

A scathing report from the SIGAR released last month cited the lack of contract maintenance support for the Afghan Air Force as a key blow that led to the Taliban gaining more control as the U.S. committed to heading for the exits.

While the White House did not find fault with its own decision-making, it noted the intelligence community failed to accurately forecast how events would unfold.

“As late as May 2021, the assessment was still that Kabul would probably not come under serious pressure until late 2021 after U.S. troops departed,” the document says.

“Clearly we didn’t get it right,” Kirby said. But “the purpose of it is not accountability,” he added, but “understanding.”

The Air Force Is Offering Enlisted Airmen a $10,000 Bonus to Join the Reserve

The Air Force Is Offering Enlisted Airmen a $10,000 Bonus to Join the Reserve

April 6, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is offering a $10,000 bonus for prior-service enlisted Airmen who join the Reserve and fill an open job in an effort to boost flagging recruiting numbers for the component. 

The bonus will be available to Airmen through Sept. 30, 2023, an Air Force Reserve Command spokesman told Air & Space Forces Magazine, with the potential of it becoming a standardized recruiting incentive.

The Active-Duty Air Force’s troubles meeting its recruiting goals have been well documented, as leaders and recruiters struggle with low unemployment rates, a competitive job market, and declining eligibility and propensity to serve. 

But things are even harder for the Guard and Reserve, which draw a majority of their force from Airmen leaving Active-Duty—the Reserve in particular aims for around 70 percent of its recruits to have prior service. Retention jumped during the COVID-19 pandemic and is still generally high. Fewer Airmen leaving Active-Duty means a smaller pool from which the Guard and Reserve can pull. 

That all added up to the Reserve missing its fiscal year 2022 recruiting goal of 8,400 new members by nearly 2,000—around 24 percent shy, according to an Air Force release. That goal went up to 9,300 accessions for 2023, and an Air Force Reserve Command spokesman said projections have the Reserve coming up 3,500 short, roughly 38 percent, though recent trends have been more positive.

“This bonus is one of many policies and incentive adjustments to help the Air Force Reserve ensure we can recruit the quality Airmen we need to safeguard our combat readiness,” Maj. Gen. Ed Thomas, Air Force Recruiting Service commander, said in a statement. “The move is also important to encourage our Airmen separating from active service to ‘stay blue’ and continue to use their skills and training for the nation as part of the Reserve.” 

In order to qualify for the bonus, Airmen must sign on for three years in the Reserve. That’s slightly shorter than required for the initial enlistment bonuses the Air Force offers for the Active-Duty component, which range from four to six years. 

The Air Force expanded its use of initial enlistment bonuses several times in 2022 as recruiting struggled. Officials added another financial incentive this year by reinstating the Enlisted College Loan Repayment Program, which helps enlisted recruits pay back student debt up to $65,000. 

Moore: ‘It’s Time to Move On’ from Block 20 F-22s, JATM Still on Schedule

Moore: ‘It’s Time to Move On’ from Block 20 F-22s, JATM Still on Schedule

April 6, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

It would cost a minimum of $7 billion to upgrade and operate the 32 Block 20 F-22s the Air Force is seeking to retire, money the service thinks is better applied to the Next Generation Air Dominance program. Beyond that, though, it would also take a decade to do and peel limited engineering resources away from the F-35 program, Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr., vice chief of staff for plans and programs, said March 6.

Speaking at a panel hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, Moore also gave a rare status report on the highly classified AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, saying a surge in future funding for the AIM-120 AMRAAM—which JATM Is supposed to replace—is only an indication that the Air Force is investing more in munitions overall, not a warning sign that JATM is in trouble.

F-22

Just to keep flying the Block 20 F-22s as they are costs the Air Force about $485 million a year, Moore said, for a price of $3.5 billion through the end of the decade. To upgrade those aircraft to Block 35 standards, though—as some in Congress have urged—would cost an additional $3.5 billion.

Such a move would be the wrong investment to make, Moore argued, given that the entire F-22 fleet will be retired in favor of NGAD around 2030. It would cost even more to keep those aircraft on par with the rest of the fleet, but Moore did not provide a specific price for that expense.

On top of price, there is a larger, practical challenge; the effort needed to upgrade the 32 airplanes “would take a decade to get started,” Moore said. “There’s a lot of engineering work that that would take.”

The engineering work is especially troublesome because Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-22 and F-35, has limited capacity, Moore said.

“Lockheed is not fully staffed for engineers,” Moore said. “So if we were to stand up an effort like this, it would be reasonable to expect they would have to pull some engineering talent off of F-35—probably that means Block 4—in order to get this accomplished. I don’t think that is a [worthwhile] trade to us.”

Moore did not mention it, but Lockheed is also almost certainly one of the companies vying to build the NGAD, which is already well along in prototyping and risk-reduction. That effort would further tax the company’s engineering corps.  

Air Force budget documents show the service already plans to spend more than $9 billion upgrading its remaining F-22s through the end of the decade, equipping them with stealthy external fuel tanks to extend their range; new sensors in underwing pods; improvements to the jet’s stealthy attributes, plus communications, navigation and other upgrades.

The Air Force is also asking for more than $22 billion in its five-year defense plan for NGAD. Moore’s comments indicate the planned F-22 retirements account for about a third of NGAD funding in that time.

In March 29 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee’s tactical aviation panel, Moore said the Block 20s are not “competitive” with the latest Chinese J-20 stealth fighters. And while the aircraft could be used for training, Moore said they are so out of synch with the combat-coded Block 35s that pilots are receiving “negative” training from them, meaning they have to “unlearn” habits developed in the Block 20 before they can become proficient in the Block 35.

“They’re not combat representative,” Moore added during the Mitchell event. “They will never be a part of the combat force. They don’t have the most modern communications. They don’t shoot the most modern weapons. They don’t have the most modern electronic warfare capabilities. They will not become combat representative aircraft, and so we elected to maintain our position from [fiscal year] ‘23 that it’s time to move on from the Block 20.”

Moore also told lawmakers that if USAF is directed to keep flying the Block 20s as an unfunded mandate as it was last year, it will have to “work with” Congress to figure out how it could comply.

“In the event that we are again restricted from divesting those aircraft but … the money has not been appropriated to fly them, there’ll be a half a billion dollars of something that won’t get done,” Moore said. “Perhaps it’ll be NGAD. Perhaps it’ll be munitions. Perhaps we’ll stand down the F-22 fleet. But no matter what, there’ll be a half a billion dollars worth of something that doesn’t get done unless the restriction comes with an accompanying appropriation.”

The Air Force rarely discusses which budget offsets are used to pay to particular investments, but Moore made it clear that in this case, the savings from the F-22 retirements are meant to go to NGAD.

“In order to get into the early-to-mid ‘30s with a force that can win, we have to get to a sixth-gen fighter and that’s NGAD,” Moore said.

Munitions

While the Air Force is looking to divest the F-22, one weapon slated for a funding surge is the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile funding, after appearing to wind down over several years. Moore was asked if that’s a sign the AIM-260 JATM, which is to succeed the AMRAAM, is having problems, or whether the Air Force simply seeks greater stockpiles.

“We don’t see a delay in JATM,” Moore said. “And we want to get to JATM as quickly as we possibly can.” He said the budget also includes “along with some AMRAAM investment, some facilitization money that will help us get to JATM faster. Once we can start procuring it, we’ll get to quantity as fast as we can,” he added.

Moore added that munitions production has been one of the top questions from members of Congress in this season of budget hearings, given the experience of Ukraine and the heavy drawdowns of U.S. weapons provided in aid to Kyiv.

Lawmakers want to know the Pentagon’s plans to respond to those pressures, and Moore said his reply is that the services are investing in “any munitions line that’s hot and is producing weapons right now.”

That’s not just AMRAAM, he said, “it’s any place where we can buy munitions. Because the reality is, when we tried to surge to go into Ukraine, the surge capacity wasn’t there. And industry is ramping up as quickly as they possibly can.”

To Deter Attacks in Space, US Needs Resilience—and an ‘Offensive Threat,’ Experts Say

To Deter Attacks in Space, US Needs Resilience—and an ‘Offensive Threat,’ Experts Say

April 6, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

Space Force officials have frequently touted the young service’s need for resilience, calling for more satellites in different orbits to deter an adversary’s attack. 

But in the complex calculus of deterrence, the Pentagon cannot only rely on defensive measures like proliferated architectures, experts and military leaders said April 5 at the Mitchell Institute’s Spacepower Security Forum. The U.S. also needs offensive options, they said.

“The whole idea of proliferation, of disaggregation, is the defensive part of deterrence equation,” said retired Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, the former commander of Air Force Space Command and current explorer chair of the Mitchell Institute’s Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence. “And history teaches that that’s never enough—witness the Maginot Line. So I think it’s part of a deterrence strategy, but that deterrence strategy also needs to have the offensive threat to signal to the adversary, to deter them from attacking.” 

The Space Force’s offensive capabilities are mostly hidden behind a veil of classification—much to the chagrin of some national security observers. However, Maj. Gen. David N. Miller, director of operations, training, and force development for U.S. Space Command, said that the Pentagon is working to ensure it can respond as necessary. 

“If we can’t fight through that initial salvo or whatever [an adversary’s] demonstration is, and demonstrate some level of resilience—that we’re going to be able to not just take it, but respond, then it’s not credible,” Miller said. “We will take, at the time of our choosing, whatever the response that we think appropriate. But it is not something that we’re sitting on our hands waiting for, and I want to assure Gen. Chilton that we’re getting after it. We are in a transition from a permissive force design to a warfighting force design.” 

The issue of a combat-credible force postured to hold adversaries’ assets at risk is one that Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman has highlighted in both his “Lines of Effort” and his “Competitive Endurance” theory. He noted it again during a keynote address. 

“A resilient force can deter attacks and, when necessary, withstand, fight through, and recover rapidly from them,” Saltzman said. “A ready force has the training, tactics, and operational concepts required to accomplish mission across the spectrum of operations—from competition to high-intensity conflict. A combat-credible force has the demonstrated ability to execute and sustain operations in the face of a determined adversary.” 

In particular, Saltzman has advocated for responsible counterspace operations—the U.S. cannot have a “Pyrrhic victory” in space in which it wreaks damage that endangers its own assets. That marks a dramatic change from years past, said retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute. 

“It wasn’t that long ago that you couldn’t say space and offense in the same sentence together,” Deptula said. 

But tangible offensive capabilities are crucial to convincing adversaries an attack is not worth it, Chilton argued. 

“The adversary has got to doubt that they can effectively take out all the capabilities that our joint force relies to conduct operations,” Chilton said. “They have to doubt that they can achieve that, they have to doubt that they can blind our operational level from a tactical level and cut off their communications. And they must also believe that we have the capability and the will, and it would be best if we could demonstrate that, to hold immediately their space architecture at risk that they depend on to maintain control of their forces.” 

What exactly those capabilities are will likely remain unknown to the public for now. At the AFA Warfare Symposium last month, Saltzman told reporters he is “comfortable” with the Space Force’s current level of public disclosure.

“I think we have the ability to deter and show enough capability through resiliency to disincentivize the attacks,” Saltzman said. “The idea of reveal and conceal—that’s almost a way of saying, ‘If an adversary is not paying attention to you, are they deterred by you?’ You can talk yourself into a lot of circles about, ‘If I don’t know there’s a capability, will that deter me from something?’ That’s not how we need to talk about deterrence in space. I think I can set the conditions that make any attack into space impractical, non-mission-impacting, self-defeating to some degree.”

NATO Air Exercise Will Offer Germany ‘High Value’ Lessons on F-35 Operations, Luftwaffe Boss Says

NATO Air Exercise Will Offer Germany ‘High Value’ Lessons on F-35 Operations, Luftwaffe Boss Says

April 5, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

JOINT BASE ANDREWS, Md.—The head of the Luftwaffe arrived in the U.S. this week to strengthen cooperation with the U.S. Air National Guard and its F-35s before a massive German-led exercise that is to take place in June to underscore the defense of NATO.

“It’s going to be high value,” Chief of the German Air Force Lt. Gen. Ingo Gerhartz said of his military’s opportunity to learn about the fifth-generation fighter during the upcoming Air Defender 23 exercise.

Germany inked a roughly $9 billion deal for 35 F-35s in December 2022. Gerhartz said the Luftwaffe will begin training on F-35s in the United States in 2026 and operating the jets in Germany in 2027.

Arms sales to Europe have spiked since Russia invaded Ukraine last year, and one of the platforms seeing an uptick is the F-35, the multi-role stealth fighter made by Lockheed Martin. Germany, Finland, and Switzerland all signed deals for the jets in 2022.

The F-35 deal will enable the Luftwaffe to replace its aging Tornado fleet. In wartime, German F-35s might even be equipped with U.S. nuclear bombs under NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangement. 

In the meantime, the Air National Guard will send six F-35s to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany for the Air Defender exercise, which will help the Germans get a head start in familiarizing themselves with the aircraft. 

All told, around 220 NATO aircraft will participate in the exercise, which will run from June 12-23. The Luftwaffe plans to have around 60 aircraft participate, including fighters and tankers.

Modernizing the German Air Force has been a high priority for Gerhartz, who assumed his command in 2018. Gerhartz has flown F-4s, MiG-29s, Tornados, and Eurofighter Typhoons. During the conflict in Afghanistan, he flew more than 50 ISAF sorties in Tornados. His official biography states that he has worked to foster German-Israeli ties, which included joint flyovers over the Israeli parliament in 2021.

Gerhartz said the upcoming exercise will provide a learning opportunity for his airmen.

“We can, first of all, connect the legacy fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons with the F-35,” Gerhartz said. “Let’s see, okay, what is the challenge of operating the F-35? So we are, right now, on the learning side to see how the F- 35 is integrated.”

Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh, the director of the Air National Guard, said that the ANG has already been passing on lessons to the Germans. 

Air National Director Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh and Chief of the German Air Force Lt. Gen. Ingo Gerhartz walk the flightline at Joint Base Andrews, Md. Photo by Chris Gordon/Air & Space Forces Magazine

The first Guard unit to operate the F-35 was the 158th Fighter Wing out of Burlington, Vt. That unit will be the one heading to Germany for the June exercise and was previously deployed to Spangdahlem last spring to bolster NATO’s eastern flank. 

“When you look at a Guard location, it’s not like a big Active-Duty base,” Loh said. “Same thing when you look at a German base.

“So all the lessons learned: here’s the footprint for the simulators, here’s a footprint for the F-35 and for the shelters, and everything else like that, we’ve shared all that data,” Loh added. 

Gerhartz and Loh toured the Andrews flightline April 5, which was filled with U.S. assets that will be heading to Germany including F-16s, F-15s, A-10s, MQ-9s, C-17s, C-130s, KC-135s, and KC-46s. Two fighters roared overhead before touching down at the base. A few minutes later, a pair of Vermont ANG F-35s taxied and parked in front of the two generals.

“It’s good for us,” Gerhartz said.

Editor’s Note: This article was updated April 11 to clarify Germany’s role in the organization of Air Defender.

It’s Official: The Re-Engined B-52 Will be the B-52J

It’s Official: The Re-Engined B-52 Will be the B-52J

April 5, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Once they receive their new Rolls Royce F130 engines, B-52Hs will become B-52Js, according to the Air Force’s fiscal 2024 budget documents.

The designation resolves a question that had been debated for several years, as the B-52 undergoes some of the most significant improvements in the H model’s 61-year service life.

“Any B-52H aircraft modified with the new commercial engines and associated subsystems are designated as B-52J,” the Air Force said in justification documents for its 2024 budget request.

The service had been considering various designations for the improved Stratofortress, because in addition to new engines, the B-52 will also be receiving a new radar, as well as new communications and navigation equipment and weapons, among other improvements intended to keep it credible and capable through the 2050s.

Given the number of major changes, Global Strike Command had considered using interim designations—“J” model aircraft would have then become B-52Ks.

One of the improved weapons the B-52 was supposed to get was the hypersonic AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), but in the 2024 budget, the Air Force said it’s moving to “close out” the program after a couple more tests and shift its emphasis to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM).

The B-52 re-engining project name has also evolved from the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) to CERP RVP, for Rapid Virtual Prototyping, the Air Force said in its budget request.

The re-engining effort was launched as a mid-tier acquisition in order to save time and get capability sooner. The program will become a Major Capability Acquisition at the end of the RVP effort, the Air Force said.

The upgrades will also open the door to other changes, USAF noted.

“As B-52 CERP brings additional capability to the B-52, emerging security/certification requirements (nuclear hardening, cyber security, program protection, etc.) will also need to be addressed. Several concurrent aircraft upgrades during the B-52 CERP may necessitate temporary facilities or facility upgrades/ modifications.”

The Air Force is asking for nearly $3 billion in B-52 procurement across the future years defense plan, starting with a modest $65.82 million in 2024 but ramping up to over $1.1 billion each in 2027 and 2028.

Of the overall amount, the Radar Modernization Program alone claims $845.9 million, peaking in ’27 at $271.95 million. Separately—not included in the procurement account—research, development, test, and evaluation associated with the Radar Modernization Program is requested at $371 million, ending in 2026. The RMP procurement funding is to procure 74 radar kits, three training systems kits, and two engineering and manufacturing development kits.

The new radar is a variant of the Raytheon AN/APG-79, an active, electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar used on the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter. It replaces the APG-166, which the Air Force says suffers from severe “vanishing vendor” issues and parts problems that will make the radar “unsupportable” before 2030.

Besides a dramatic improvement in maintainability, the AESA will add significant new capabilities in search, ground mapping, and electronic warfare. The new radar’s physical footprint is also much smaller than the system it replaces, creating growth capacity in the front of the aircraft. The B-52’s nose-mounted electro-optical blisters will be removed and a new radome installed with the new radar.

The re-engining program is funded for $2.56 billion, all in the RDT&E budget, peaking at $650.5 million in 2025. The program seeks to replace the original-equipment Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines with Rolls Royce F130s. The change is expected to eventually pay for itself through 30 percent better fuel efficiency and elimination of engine overhauls, as the F130 will not need an overhaul for the duration of its expected life on the B-52 wing.

“Along with the new engines, CERP will replace associated subsystems, such as engine struts and nacelles, the electrical power generation system, and cockpit displays,” the Air Force said. “The development, production and installation of new engines and related subsystems will replace the legacy equipment on all 76 B-52H aircraft.”

Including monies expended so far, the total cost of the B-52 CERP Middle Tier of Acquisition effort will be $1.32 billion, including RDT&E, the Air Force said.

The Air Force expects B-52Js with both new engines and new radars to be available for operational use before the end of the decade.

SDA’s Tournear ‘Just Not’ Afraid of Satellite Shootdowns. Supply Chain Is the Greater Worry.

SDA’s Tournear ‘Just Not’ Afraid of Satellite Shootdowns. Supply Chain Is the Greater Worry.

April 5, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

As the Space Development Agency celebrates the successful first launch of its planned constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites, director Derek M. Tournear says he’s no longer concerned about China or Russia trying to shoot U.S. satellites down. 

“I’m not worried about any physical threats to the satellites themselves. I’m just not,” Tournear said April 5 at the Mitchell Institute’s Spacepower Security Forum. 

By deploying hundreds of satellites in SDA’s new Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture, the Space Force is recalculating the economics of space warfare. SDA’s initial batch of PWSA satellites, dubbed Tranche 0, will number just 28. But close on its heals will be Tranche 1 with more than 150 satellites and Tranche 2 with more than 250. Tranche 1 launches are set to begin in the fall of 2024, and Tranche 2 will follow in 2026. 

“We’ll have hundreds and hundreds of these satellites up there,” Tournear said. “It will cost more to shoot down a single satellite than it will cost to build that single satellite. We just completely changed that value equation.” 

Replacing a space architecture built of massively expensive bespoke satellites with one assembled from numerous relatively cheap satellites, SDA and Tournear aim to convince adversaries that the math is no longer in their favor, rendering essentially useless China’s and Russia’s direct-ascent weapons. In theory, at least, such strikes effectively become as great a threat to the perpetrator’s satellites because of the debris that they would generate as to the U.S. satellites they might seek to shoot down.  

Cost 

For the U.S. strategy to work, SDA must hold down satellite and launch costs while driving increased performance. Tournear said SDA aims for a per-satellite cost under $15 million. 

“I’m counting on internal investments in industry to help push this forward,” Tournear said. “My goal is just like the cell phone model—we will keep the price of the satellites to the government essentially flat. Just like your cell phone has a certain fixed price … But the capabilities will continue to advance. So for that same price, every tranche will give you more and more capabilities for the same price. That’s kind of the model, just like the cell phone. Basically, the price is flat, but each new model has more and more capabilities.” 

Numbers 

The value equation also depends on SDA continuing to put hundreds of active satellites into orbit. Its first Tranche 0 launch this past weekend is a start, but Tournear aims to develop subsequent generations in parallel, similar to the way commercial technology products are developed. He’s already looking to Tranche 1 and Tranche 2, even before he completes Traunche 0.  

Tranche 1 contracts for 126 data transport satellites and 35 missile tracking satellites are already signed, as are orders for 12 satellites in the Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System. Tournear confirmed that Tranche 1 launches are slated to start in September 2024, with monthly launches to follow. 

Expanding on initial projections that Tranche 2 would consist of a 250-satellite Transport Layer and a 50-satellite Tracking Layer, Tournear said April 5 that the Tranche 2 data transport layer will be split three ways:  

  • 100 Alpha satellites, similar to those in the Tranche 1 Transport Layer
  • 72 Beta satellites with ultra-high-frequency and tactical communications payloads 
  • 44 Gamma satellites, carrying “advanced waveform” payloads 

SDA will issue a request for proposals for the Beta satellites “next week,” Tournear said, with RFPs for the Alpha and Gamma satellites to follow in late 2023 or early 2024. 

Tournear was thin on details about the Tranche 2 Tracking Layer, saying requirements are still being developed by SDA’s Warfighter Council. But he suggested it will encompass “on the order of 54” satellites and said an industry solicitation is likely in between the Alpha and Gamma RFPs. 

Threats 

Looking ahead, Tournear said he is confident SDA’s plan will deter physical attacks on U.S. satellites, but he remains concerned by “common mode failures”—problems or threats that could affect the entire constellation. 

“You can’t proliferate your way out of common mode failures,” he said. 

The two threats in particular: cybersecurity and breaches of the supply chain. 

Defense officials have increasingly voiced concerns about cyber vulnerabilities in space, including by means of ground stations which had not previously been seen as lucrative targets. But Tournear said SDA is now taking steps to ensure those architectures are also secure. 

“That’s why we have a lot of protections and constraints in place on our contracts that aren’t typical on what you would call a commercial, commoditized procurement,” Tournear said. “We put some requirements in it.” 

Satellite supply chains are also of concern. Supply chains in general garnered far greater attention as a result of weaknesses exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because breaches at the chip or component level are so difficult to, making the supply chain vulnerable to the likes of China.

Tournear said both problems concern him. “One is just your benign supply chain problems—can we really build these satellites this quickly?” Tournear said. “And we’re building up industry, so yes, we can, so we’re kind of keeping down that supply chain risk. The second one is more the nefarious supply chain [issue], and that’s the actual interdiction by a nefarious actor into a supply chain,” he continued. “We actually put a lot of protections in place in our contracts so that we can evaluate and make sure that we have nondestructive testing in place to detect that.”