SDA to Launch First Satellites of Tranche 0 from Vandenberg

SDA to Launch First Satellites of Tranche 0 from Vandenberg

Editor’s Note: The March 30 launch of SDA’s Tranche 0 satellites was aborted at T-minus 3 seconds from liftoff. SpaceX’s livestream offered no reason for the abort but indicated both the Falcon 9 rocket and payload were “healthy.” The next launch window begins at 7:29 a.m. Pacific time on March 31.

Two and a half years after the Space Development Agency awarded contracts for “Tranche 0” of what is now called the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture—and after a few months’ delay—the agency is ready for its first big launch. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuiBsre2m64

While SDA has put a few experimental satellites in orbit before as part of a “rideshare” launch, this will mark the first milestone for the PWSA. Under the plan, the Space Force will have hundreds of small satellites, with new ones launched every few years to increase resilience and capabilities in orbit. 

“We’re pretty excited to show that the model actually does work, to be able to do that proliferation to get the capabilities to the warfighter at speed,” SDA director Derek M. Tournear told reporters on a March 29 teleconference. 

The SpaceX rocket will carry 10 satellites—eight for transporting and relaying data and two for missile tracking. A second batch is set to follow in June. The entire tranche consists of 28 satellites—20 for data transport and eight for missile tracking. 

Tranche 0 is intended to demonstrate capabilities that later tranches, starting with Tranche 1, will operationalize. Tournear described this first batch of satellites as the “warfighter immersion tranche,” giving service members the opportunity to work with the systems and understand their capabilities. 

Those demonstrations will start soon after the March 30 launch, Tournear said. 

“It will take single-digit weeks to get through test and check out of the satellites, initialization, and initial calibration, and that’s when we can start to actually do the warfighter immersion to participate in exercises and things like that,” Tournear said. 

The missile tracking satellites will “look for targets of opportunity for any kind of launches that we’re able to detect and track to help get calibration data,” Tournear said. SDA will then transition to formal assessments that track U.S. test objects in the spring of 2024. 

The data transport satellites’ biggest trials will be related to their ability to relay data to the ground using Link 16, the military’s tactical data network. Doing so will require FAA approval, Tournear noted, which will likely preclude the satellites from being integrated into the large Northern Edge exercise as previously planned.

“We have a lot of lower-level exercises that the warfighters are going to participate in to test everything out,” Tournear said. “Most of those on the Link 16 side, we’ll start out with tests at Eglin Test and Training facility to demonstrate that and really iron out all the bugs and figure out exactly how to do this connectivity with terrestrial Link 16 radios in space. And then we’ll start to participate in some other exercises then in the INDOPACOM region after that, primarily working with the Marines and some of their planned exercises.” 

Unlike future tranches, this initial batch of satellites will be operated from the Naval Research Laboratory, using refurbished ground antennas and existing ground station software. 

“The Naval Research Laboratory, they have flown and operated a number of other satellites in the past,” Tranche 0 program director Mike Eppolito said. “So they bring that legacy to bear here, to be able to buy down some of the risks and some of the timelines associated with developing [ground systems].” 

Each of the satellites going into orbit costs roughly $15 million. Tournear estimated the entire cost of Tranche 0 is around $980 million, which includes the cost of launch, ground segments, and operations and maintenance.

“Ours is intended to be the demonstration tranche that allows warfighters to sort of get their feet wet and start using the capabilities that we’re putting on orbit,” Eppolito said. 

Proven Higher Cancer Risk for Pilots and Ground Crew Sparks Search for Causes

Proven Higher Cancer Risk for Pilots and Ground Crew Sparks Search for Causes

Lawmakers pledged more study and action now that a Pentagon study has shown elevated cancer risks for military aviators and aviation ground personnel. Completed in January, the study is among the most comprehensive analyses of military aviator cancer yet.

The Defense Department examined health records for 156,050 aviators and 737,891 ground crew for the period 1992 to 2007, concluding that aviators were 24 percent more likely to be diagnosed with cancers of all kinds than members of the general population, when adjusting for age, sex, and race. Ground crew personnel were 3 percent more likely to be diagnosed with cancer.

Congress ordered the study in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act in response to growing concern among retired pilots concerned about an apparent rising incidence of cancer. 

The new study found even higher rates with specific types of cancer. For example, aircrew were 87 percent more likely to suffer melanoma, 39 percent more likely to have thyroid cancer, and 16 percent more likely to contract prostate cancer. For ground crew, the most elevated rates were for brain and nervous system cancers (19 percent increased risk), thyroid cancer (15 percent higher risk), melanoma (9 percent higher risk), and kidney and renal pelvis cancers (also 9 percent higher risk). 

Actual rates are probably higher, researchers acknowledged, as “data from VA and civilian cancer registries were not included.” 

The Associated Press first reported the study’s findings earlier this month. A copy obtained by Air & Space Forces Magazine build upon a 2021 study from the Air Force’s School of Aerospace Medicine, part of the Air Force Research Laboratory, which studied the health histories of fighter pilots and backseat aircrew from 1970 to 2004. Among nearly 35,000 aviators studied, results also showed double-digit elevated risks for melanoma and prostate cancer. 

“We have two, arguably, bellwether studies,” said retired Air Force Col. Vince Alcazar, head of the Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association’s aviator medical issues committee, in an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. “Their exact conclusions are not the same, but they align on the basic themes of elevated aviator cancer, which as a headline seems to continue to surprise people in government, both lawmakers and leaders inside the Pentagon.” 

At a House Appropriations Committee hearing on March 28, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) challenged both Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. to get to the bottom of these risks. 

“Let’s get our arms around this. Let’s work together,” McCollum said. “We have a big military health budget … and I know that members are concerned about this. So what can we do to help you? There might be specific things you need to have us look at and direct the money to go there.” 

Brown emphasized the need for more study to continue to better understand the issues. 

“We will learn more and more as we collect more and more data and start asking more and more questions about particularly those that are flying in fighter cockpits,” Brown said. It’s important to understand what factors drive the cancers in order to design protection into aircraft to guard against future exposure. “Because you’re exposed to the sun more,” he said, but “you also have a radar in the airplane. [We’ll] try to understand what the causes may be associated with those and then how we may take some mitigation.” 

Both studies focused on cancer rates, not causes. A range of possible factors, including galactic cosmic radiation, ultraviolet radiation, radar radiation, exposure to jet fuel and fumes, and non-ionizing radiation from radars and jamming equipment all pose potential risks. These hypotheses must be studied, however, to reach more advanced conclusions. Advocates say even more work can be done to capture all the necessary data.  

“Databases that track diagnosis of cancer and death from cancer, those databases aren’t as old as we would like them to be, nor probably as we need them to be in a more ultimate sense,” Alcazar said. 

Work on both fronts is set to unfold in the months ahead. Having found elevated cancer rates, the 2021 NDAA now requires the Pentagon to perform a Phase 2 study to identify what hazardous or carcinogenic materials, environments, or duties might be contributing to that elevated risk, and to examine time frames, dates and locations of service, and specific types of aircraft that might further indicate trends.  

In addition, the DOD is looking at a follow-up to the original study to include more data from other databases. 

On top of that, Alcazar said advocates are working with members of Congress to introduce legislation directing so-called “nexus” studies to determine if there is scientific evidence tying any particular exposure or carcinogen to a risk of cancer diagnosis or death. 

Alcazar and the Red River Valley Pilots worked with Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), a former Air Force F-15 and F-22 pilot, and others to introduce legislation in the last session of Congress; now they intend to reintroduce a bill, Alcazar said. 

“I’m optimistic in a guarded way that the aviator cancer study adds to not only the conversation but accelerates it in Congress,” said Alcazar, pointing to the successful passage of the PACT Act last year, which offered expanded benefits for veterans exposed to toxins during their service. 

“One of the things that [the PACT Act] did was it took the phrase ‘toxic exposure’ and injected it into conversation and stripped away the sort of skepticism and mythological elements, I think, that were present in a lot of people’s minds,” Alcazar said. “And I think this study kind of stands on that a little bit.” 

Determining toxic exposures matters for both the Pentagon and Air Force, that can then take action to mitigate those exposures for those currently serving, and for veterans’ advocates, who want to ensure those who become sick from their service get the care they need. 

“We may not know how big this problem is,” Alcazar said. “And the size of the problem matters because we have to deploy resources that are solutions to match it. So particularly on the veterans side, it’s important that we get to an a well-designed nexus study … and that multi-year study, we now transform that into law and policy, so that we can help the flyers that are sick today. We can’t bring back the ones that have succumbed. What we can do is create tracking and treatment that is more in-time oriented, so that we improve outcomes.” 

Pentagon Leaders Still Say ‘No’ to F-16s, MQ-9s for Ukraine

Pentagon Leaders Still Say ‘No’ to F-16s, MQ-9s for Ukraine

Top U.S. defense officials dismissed the notion that the U.S. would provide aircraft—manned or unmanned—anytime soon to Ukraine in Congressional hearings March 28 and 29.

While Kyiv has repeatedly asked for F-16 fighters and MQ-9 drones, the Biden administration has refrained from providing them and argued the systems would be of limited use to Ukraine in the current phase of its fight against Russia’s invasion.

Instead, U.S. officials argue Ukraine has more pressing needs such as air defense, armor, and artillery. They also contend that Russia’s own capable air defense systems would limit the utility and employment of manned aircraft.

“That air domain is a very hostile airspace because of the capability that the Russians have for air defense,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 28.

Much of the debate has focused on manned fourth-generation fighters, such as F-16s. Pentagon and White House officials have not ruled out providing them to the Ukrainians, but have suggested that such a move may only come after the war is over.

“That won’t help them in this current fight,” Austin said. “And will they have a capability at some point down the road? We all believe that they will, and what that looks like, it could look like F-16s, it could look like some other fourth-generation aircraft.”

Poland and Slovakia have recently said they are providing 17 Soviet-era MiG fighters to Ukraine. The top U.S. Air Force leader in Europe, Gen. James B. Hecker, said those aircraft would mark a helpful capacity boost to Ukraine, which has already lost about 60 planes, but they will not significantly change battlefield dynamics. The U.S. is also providing an unspecified number of JDAM extended-range guided bombs for Ukraine’s air force.

Still, while members of Congress have expressed a willingness to send aircraft, Biden administration officials are holding out even as Ukraine prepares for a spring counteroffensive against the Russians.

Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, told Congress in late February that providing F-16s to Ukraine would be costly and time-consuming—older F-16s would cost at least $2 billion, he estimated. At least two Ukrainian pilots have traveled to the U.S. to evaluate their skills in simulators, U.S. officials have said.

“If you’re talking to F-16s, whenever you make that decision, in order to put together what needs to be put together to provide that capability is going to be 18 months or so in the making,” Austin said. “We will continue to work with our allies and partners to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs.” 

Another system the U.S. has declined to provide is the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper drone. MQ-9s have been a hallmark of U.S. counterterrorism operations in the Middle East, most notably firing Hellfire missiles at targets. They have the ability to loiter for over 20 hours and gather intelligence.

They also appear to be available. The Air Force wants to divest 48 older MQ-9s in fiscal 2024, and the manufacturer of the aircraft, General Atomics, has pledged to provide its company-owned drones to Ukraine

But the U.S. has instead opted to give Ukraine smaller tactical drones for ISR and strike missions, and both Austin and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would not be feasible for Ukraine to use MQ-9s.

“It is not a survivable platform if they try to use that in that environment,” Austin said.

A U.S. MQ-9 on a surveillance mission was downed recently over the Black Sea when a Russian fighter jet clipped its propeller while harassing the American drone, leading the USAF to crash it into the water.

“It’s big and slow,” Milley said of the MQ-9, which has a 20-meter wingspan and a cruising speed of about 230 miles per hour. “It’s going to get nailed by the Russian air defense systems. And in terms of its capabilities, I’m not sure what it’ll get you beyond the smaller, faster, more nimble UAV systems that we are providing, as well as some other countries are providing.”

Critics of the administration’s policy say MQ-9s would not have to go directly into Russian integrated air defense systems (IADS) to be useful to Kyiv.

“The proposed use of the MQ-9 is as a long-range sensing and targeting aircraft at a stand-off range—not to fly into the teeth of a fully robust and operational IADS,” retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Moreover, Deptula argued, if the U.S. donated MQ-9s it planned to get rid of anyway, the aircraft could provide value to Ukraine even if they were shot down. For example, the drones could force Russia to expend air defenses of its own and could also highlight Russian radars so Ukrainian forces could attack them with air-to-surface missiles or surface-to-surface missiles, especially if the U.S. opted to provide Army ATACMS missiles to Kyiv.

Deptula—who planned the air campaign for Operation Desert Storm and the opening attacks of Operation Enduring Freedom—said that the administration appears to be “deterred by the concern of escalation” with Russia and is not “making choices that provide the best military advice for the Ukrainians.”

My ‘Aim High!’ Story

My ‘Aim High!’ Story

‘Aim High!’ inspired me to excel in the United States Air Force. Now, as a retired Airman, there is a yearning to share my experiences. I have often thought what if some aspects of my story could inspire Airmen, or motivate young men and women to join the United States Air Force? If that were to happen, then a retired Airman would have done something memorable, though he or she may never know. 

My ‘Aim High!’ story is my progression from an Airman Basic to a colonel, and what it took to succeed in the world’s greatest air force. In June 2022, my publisher released my memoir, ‘Uncommon Duties in the United States Air Force.’ Drawing from personal experiences and observations, I discussed what it took to accomplish the mission, and the incredible values instilled in Airmen. 

Trained as an intelligence officer, I worked side-by-side with Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, US diplomats and international officers. I was associated with the Air Intelligence Agency, US Mission to NATO, the US Mission to the European Union, Headquarters Central Command, and the US Air Forces Europe and Africa. My assignments took me to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, The Republic of Georgia, Germany, Greece, Korea, India, Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey. To accomplish my mission, I had to have a clear understanding of how my Air Force duty was linked to the President’s National Security Strategy. Achieving consensus with allies takes patience. One must have a broad background of various topics for success in security cooperation, and there should be no philosophical conflicts with one’s organization’s mission. More importantly, one must have a keen awareness on the dynamics of leadership. 

The study of leadership is necessary and must be studied. The US Air Force is a complex organization, and requires individuals with a vast array of different skills and abilities (diplomatic, technical, sociological and scientific, to name a few) to protect the United States’ and allies’ airspace. To successfully lead, Airmen must have the ability to work at ease on different functional areas during a work day – thus, Airmen must continuously broaden their knowledge base. I have found the need for leaders to be insightful, have to ability to think critically, anticipate problems, and have empathy to deal with individuals with different cultural backgrounds and needs, and not be afraid to make decisions. 

My service was an enriching experience. Throughout my career, I have had countless opportunities to work on issues that were vital to the United States’ national interests in several places in the world. Working alongside exceptional Airmen and other members of the Armed Services, I came to believe and even more convinced that service was good for me and that it broadened my perspectives on many issues. It was an extraordinary learning experience as I interacted with Airmen from different backgrounds (from pilots, medical doctors, technicians and intelligence and policy planners), who projected an enthusiasm about the Air Force for what they do and what they are required to do.  

My book has three sections: Section I focuses on my initial contact with the military, my draft board, as I sought to get an exemption while in college in the early 1970s; my basic military and other required Air Force training, to include the Air War College, and a few assignments. In Section II, I discuss my perspectives on leadership and what I learned to be effective. For the most part, the key to success is the need to self-reflect to identify one’s weakness, change one’s approach and implement a personal education program. And in Section III, I share my views on what issues might lie ahead for the Air Force and what can be done. 

Service in the US Air Force is an honorable profession, and Americans will expect and trust Airmen to defend our nation. In an organization with a rich legacy, ‘Aim High!’ will continue to be the clarion call to excel. All Airmen will have fabulous opportunities to shape their own incredible ‘Aim High!’ story and hopefully encourage others to join and protect the nation. 

The Department of Defense approved my book for publication, and it is now available on Amazon.

US, Russia Stop Sharing Nuclear Forces Data in Another Blow for New START

US, Russia Stop Sharing Nuclear Forces Data in Another Blow for New START

The U.S. will not share key data on its nuclear arsenal with Russia after Moscow refused to do the same with its own strategic forces, Biden administration officials said March 28—yet another blow to the New START agreement.

The move marks the first time the Biden administration has responded to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement that he was “suspending” Moscow’s participation in the treaty.

“Under the treaty, we exchange data on kind of high-level numbers,” assistant secretary of defense for space policy John Plumb told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee. “Russia responded that they will not be providing that information. So as a diplomatic countermeasure, the United States will not be providing that information back.”

The two countries faced a March 31 deadline for exchanging detailed data on their numbers of deployed nuclear forces as part of a regular six-month cycle. 

New START limits the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed warheads. U.S. officials say they assess that Russia is still under its treaty limits, and Pentagon leaders have stated they plan to adhere to the other provision’s limits and are not keen to engage in an arms race.

“We all understand that nuclear deterrence isn’t just a numbers game,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in December before Putin announced his suspension of the treaty. “In fact, that sort of thinking can spur a dangerous arms race.”

The data the U.S. plans to withhold includes information on the number of bombers, missiles, and nuclear warheads that are deployed at specific U.S. bases. However, the U.S. is continuing to provide Russia with notifications of the movements of its strategic bombers, missiles, submarines, and their operational status as required under the treaty. 

“We are going to continue to examine what diplomatic countermeasures are appropriate,” Plumb said. “What we’re trying to do is balance both responding to Russia’s irresponsible behavior, but to continue to demonstrate what we believe a responsible nuclear power actually should be.”

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, was critical of the U.S. decision not to share data but said the administration was right to continue the notifications. 

“That will reduce the possibility that Russia misconstrues a particular movement of a strategic system as something that it is not,” Kimball added. 

Russia has refused onsite inspections, declined to attend meetings on compliance issues, refused to exchange data, and has stopped notifying the U.S. of the movements of its strategic nuclear forces. Moscow, however, hasn’t rejected all limitations on its nuclear forces. In suspending its participation in the accord, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Moscow would continue to observe limits on the number of nuclear warheads it can deploy under the treaty “in order to maintain a sufficient degree of predictability and stability in the sphere of nuclear missiles.” 

Moscow will continue to notify the U.S. when it plans to test launch intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles under a 1988 agreement, the foreign ministry said.

The White House noted the tit-for-tat nature of the U.S. response but said it made the decision not to provide the data to Russia because Moscow was unwilling to hold up its end of the bargain.

“We would prefer to be able to do them, but it requires them being willing as well,” National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby said of the data exchanges.

Kirby said the Biden administration is still holding out hope to revive the treaty, which expires in 2026.

“We believe that the New START treaty is good for both our countries—heck, it’s good for the world—when our two countries are in full compliance with our New START obligations,” Kirby said.

The future of arms control is unclear. U.S. officials and military leaders have cautioned that with China’s increasing nuclear expansion, the U.S. will face two large, and possibly unconstrained, nuclear-armed countries for the first time in history. But China has shown no interest so far in joining nuclear talks with the U.S., and the U.S. and Russia are not currently involved in talks about a possible agreement after New START and have previously had deep differences over what should be covered under a future accord.

“A competition is underway among major powers to try to shape what comes next,” Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton said when he took over U.S. Strategic Command in December. “New perils are ahead of us.”

Air Force ICBM Boss Says Cancer Study Now Underway,  First Phase Expected to Take 6-10 Months

Air Force ICBM Boss Says Cancer Study Now Underway, First Phase Expected to Take 6-10 Months

The Air Force’s study of possible links to elevated rates of cancer among personnel who worked on intercontinental continental ballistic missiles has begun, the commander in charge of the U.S. ICBM fleet confirmed March 28.

The initial phase of that study will mine cancer registries for information and compile a database, Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, said in testimony to Congress. The data collection phase began in the past two weeks, and the entire study will take six to 10 months to complete, according to Bussiere. Members of the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, which is leading the study, began visiting ICBM bases in early March.

“But we’re not going to wait until that’s done,” Bussiere told members of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee. “If we find something, then we’re going to drill down into that causal area.”

A presentation detailing cancers among missileers who served at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., was posted on social media in January, sparking renewed concern among crews who have worked on the nation’s ICBMs, which are spread across Malmstorm, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., and Minot Air Force Base, N.D.

Air Force Global Strike Command commissioned the “Missile Community Cancer Study” in February to examine all intercontinental ballistic missile wings and personnel who support the Air Force’s ICBM mission. Bussiere told Congress the Air Force would act quickly if it finds red flags early in the data collection phase.

“We started our efforts,” Bussiere said. “The first phase is to look at all the cancer registries in the Department of Defense as well as those that are available from the state level and see if we have higher incident rates within the areas that we do missile field operations.”

The presentation looking at Malmstrom missileers indicated that at least nine service members from the base had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a former missileer and now a Space Force Guardian, created the presentation; it was subsequently posted to the popular, unofficial Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page, which led to renewed focus and reporting on the issue.

“There are indications of a possible association between cancer and missile combat crew service at Malmstrom AFB,” Sebeck wrote.

Many missileers have long worried that their job exposes them to aging equipment, bunkers, and silos that can cause health problems—Sebeck cited “known hazards” such as chemicals, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, and other materials associated with the older facilities and equipment.

When asked about the modernization of the IBCM fleet during the hearing, Bussiere noted the Air Force needs the new Sentinel ICBM to replace increasingly antiquated elements of the current Minuteman III fleet.

“We struggle with our current maintenance and sustainment of the Minuteman III,” Bussiere said. “It’s a very old weapon system. In the last five years, we’ve had 2.5 million maintenance man-hours, which is a 30 percent increase over the previous five years, and we’re anticipating a 25 percent increase in the next five years, so the solution to that aging weapons system is the Sentinel.”

Maintenance crews are among those who also have concerns about the dangers their work may have exposed them to.

The Air Force conducted two previous studies into cancer concerns in 2001 and 2005. But the latest developments “illuminated” the issue once again, Bussiere said.

“Although there had been previous studies specific to Malmstrom, I asked the Air Force Surgeon General and the Chief and Secretary if I could do a more comprehensive study that looked across all of our AFSC—Air Force Specialty Codes—that serve in the missile field operations, and all three of our bases to make sure we have a deep understanding if we’re putting our Airmen at risk and if we are we’re going to mitigate it,” Bussiere told the subcommittee.

AFGSC has also encouraged former service members to come forward. It established a website with resources on non-Hodgkin lymphoma and pledged to keep former Airmen and the public updated.

“We are responding with both urgency and transparency to compile comprehensive data to understand the risk to our Airmen and their families,” Bussiere wrote in his opening statement.

As the presentation made by Sebeck highlighted, health concerns among ICBM crews are not limited to current members of the Air Force. Over 400 members of the Space Force, including Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, are former missileers.

“If you think you need help, go get help and go get screened. Go see a health professional and ask all your questions, and get the help that you need,” Saltzman said at the AFA Warfare Symposium. “I think that’s the most important thing. We don’t need to wait for a study to emphasize that.”

During his opening statement, Bussiere noted that investing billions in modernizing the nation’s nuclear arsenal must go hand-in-hand with looking after the welfare of those who work with those weapons.

“The U.S. must ensure our weapons are capable and ready, our Airmen are empowered and equipped,” Bussiere said. “The Airmen of Air Force Global Strike Command continue to fulfill our mission with discipline, excellence, and pride. However, a number of our Airmen also face personal challenges, including health concerns, housing, and childcare availability. And we are working to develop prompt and comprehensive solutions to ensure our Airmen are getting the care they need and deserve.”

Better Goals, Data Tracking Could Help Ease Military Recruiting Strain, GAO Finds

Better Goals, Data Tracking Could Help Ease Military Recruiting Strain, GAO Finds

The Department of Defense needs to collect and track more data, develop better goals and strategies, and monitor the effectiveness of its plans when it comes to recruiting and retaining service members, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released March 28.

The report comes as recruiters across the military struggle to hit their recruiting goals. Earlier this month, the head of the Air Force Recruiting Service, Maj. Gen. Ed Thomas, said the branch would likely come up 10 percent short of its target for the Active-Duty component this year. Service officials frequently cite challenges such as low unemployment, fewer eligible young Americans, and declining familiarity with military service.

“DOD is facing its most challenging recruitment environment in 50 years,” wrote the GAO, which cited military data showing that only about one in four people in the U.S. between the ages of 17 and 24 are able to meet the education, physical fitness and other standards for military service.

But while there are stiff headwinds, the GAO found that the military can also work smarter towards recruiting and retaining service members. Retention in particular is a boost for both national and fiscal security, as it can take several years and several hundred thousand dollars to train someone in a highly-technical military career field.

GAO’s three general recommendations to track more data, develop better strategies, and monitor their effectiveness were informed by several past studies the office conducted. For example, when the GAO wrote that the Department of Defense “has not collected or tracked sufficient data to help support decisions related to its recruitment and retention efforts,” it pointed to a 2022 study about how the Army and Marine Corps have no clearly-defined active duty service obligations for Soldiers and Marines who complete advanced cyber training, an expensive course for which the military should expect a substantial return on investment, GAO argued.

The Army, Marine Corps, and the Air Force also “do not track staffing data by work role,” in the cyber field, the GAO noted. “As a result, military service officials cannot determine if specific work roles are experiencing staffing gaps.”

In a similar vein, the GAO said the Army, Navy, and Air Force should use data on civilian pay to guide retention bonus decisions for enlisted medical service members.

Beyond insufficient data collection, the military also does not have the right plans, goals, and strategies to guide recruitment and retention efforts, GAO wrote. For example, the office wrote that the Army, Navy and Air Force should develop annual retention goals by skill level for enlisted medical personnel, and the Air Force should analyze staffing levels by officer grade in order to target retention bonuses for particular pilot communities.

The Department of Defense should also give the services guidance on developing plans with clearly-defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes for both recruiting and retaining female service members. While the proportion of women in the active duty military has steadily risen to 17.3 percent as of 2021, women were 28 percent more likely to leave the service than men, GAO found in a 2020 study

For both men and women, GAO wrote that some of the challenges for recruiting service members include physical fitness, education level, declining interest in the military, medical qualifications, criminal history, and commercial sector job opportunities. One strategy GAO recommended was to update and clarify tattoo policies across the services. Recently the Air Force joined the Space Force in allowing recruits with one-inch tattoos on their hands or neck to join the service.

On the retention side, some of the key challenges GAO found include commercial sector opportunities, dependent care, deployments, family planning, job dissatisfaction, organizational culture, quality of life, and sexual harassment or sexual assault. Though the various services have made efforts in recent years to mitigate some of these challenges, the GAO said the Department of Defense is not positioned to fully monitor the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention efforts.

Among its recommendations, GAO called for the Navy to evaluate the effectiveness of the surface warfare officer career path, training, and policies; for the Air Force to establish a comprehensive metric for tracking remotely-piloted aircraft personnel accession and retention efforts; for the Department of Defense to review its special and incentive pay programs for key principles of effective human capital management, establish measures for efficient resource use, and routinely assess the effect of nonmonetary incentive approaches, such as assignment flexibility and educational opportunities.

Though all of these measures may sound small, incremental improvements are the kind that Thomas and Air Force recruiting officials believe will help the service get through its current recruiting difficulties.

“Much to our disappointment there is not one silver bullet but there are many things that we can do better,” the general said earlier this month at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

Of all the services, the Space Force in particular has shown a keen interest in trying to work with Guardians to overcome work-life challenges such as child care or dual-military spouse work assignments.

“We have to be retention focused,” Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Roger Towberman said in his keynote speech at the 2022 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference, noting that there are more steps to request child care in the military than there are to leave the service. “And that means that no one has a reason to quit. It can’t be easier to leave than it is to get help.”

As Unfunded Priority Lists Pour In, Austin Backs an Effort to End Them

As Unfunded Priority Lists Pour In, Austin Backs an Effort to End Them

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III wishes “wish lists” would just go away.  

Asked by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) whether he would favor repealing the law requiring service leaders to provide Congress with a list of unfunded priorities at a Senate Armed Services Committee hear, Austin said “I would support that.”  

The unfunded priorities lists—or “wish lists” as some call them—have been an annual rite of spring in Washington for nearly three decades. Critics from both parties say they are a backdoor around the administration, enabling service leaders to make direct appeals to Congress and undermining the executive branch.  

Warren is among a bipartisan quartet of Senators seeking to end the process. Along with Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Angus King (I-Maine), she introduced the Streamline Pentagon Spending Act late in the last Congress, seeking to end the statutory requirement for UPLs. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) offered a corresponding bill in the House.  

The legislation has yet to be formally reintroduced in the new Congress, but Warren’s questions indicate her continued interest.  

“This year’s Department of Defense request is an $842 billion budget, one of the largest budgets in history,” Warren said. “Now, despite the massive size of this budget request, the committee is already receiving letters from various parts of DOD saying that they need billions of dollars more. DOD calls these unfunded priority lists. I call them wish lists. And I’m concerned about how they distort our budget process.”  

In last year’s budget cycle, the military services and unified commands requested more than $20 billion combined. According to media reports, this year the Air Force is seeking another $2.5 billion in unfunded priorities, the Space Force is seeking $434 million, and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command is looking for $3.5 billion.  

Lawmakers use the lists to boost the Pentagon’s topline budget and remove barriers to investment imposed by whichever party is in the White House at the time. Austin said the base budget request this year covers the requirements the administration sees as necessary to support the new National Defense Strategy.  

“The service chiefs and commanders are required by law to submit those unfunded requests,” Austin told legislators. “And I do believe that all of our commanders and chiefs believe that what’s on there is important. Now, I’ve asked our commanders and our chiefs to make sure that they build their requirements for readiness and combat capability into their base budget.”  

Warren noted that past testimony from combatant commanders indicated they see funding unfunded priorities as necessary to combat unexpected, emerging threats. She pressed Austin on whether the Pentagon has “sufficient tools to address emerging threats without relying on the unfunded priority list.”  

Austin said it does. “We account for that as we build the budget,” he said.  

 Warren noted also that DOD Comptroller Michael J. McCord, in response to queries about the unfunded priority lists, had written that such lists are “not an effective way to illuminate our joint priorities.”  

In every budget battle, at every step of the process, there are winners and losers. Unfunded priorities are unfunded because they didn’t win favor with decision makers at one or another stage. In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates cracked down on the practice, which he saw as challenging his authority as secretary. Lawmakers objected, saying it is the responsibility of military officers testifying before Congress to share their best military judgment, rather than speak for the current administration. In 2016, they pushed through a measure in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act formalizing the process for presenting the lists. The measure Warren is pursuing would repeal that requirement.  

Kendall: Air Force ‘More Committed’ to HACM After Latest Unsuccessful ARRW Test

Kendall: Air Force ‘More Committed’ to HACM After Latest Unsuccessful ARRW Test

While the Air Force released scant details about the latest test of its AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon late last week, Secretary Frank Kendall told a Congressional panel it was “not a success”—and given ARRW’s checkered test history overall, Kendall indicated the service may shift focus to its other hypersonic program, the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile. 

“We’re more committed to HACM at this point in time than we are to ARRW,” Kendall told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee March 28.  

While Kendall did not specify exactly what went wrong in the March 13 test of ARRW—the second test of the all-up system—he did say the Air Force “did not get the data that we needed from that test,” and program engineers are “currently examining that, trying to understand what happened.”  

After that analysis is complete, “we’ll probably have to make a decision on the fate of ARRW,” he added. 

There are still two ARRW missiles left that the Air Force can use for tests, Kendall noted, and after that there may be “some potential for a leave-behind capability.” 

If the service does conduct tests with the two remaining missiles, “then we’ll revisit it, I think, as we build the [2025] budget and see what will be done in the future.”  

ARRW has struggled at times during the testing process. Three attempts to launch a prototype version of the missile failed in 2021 before a successful test flight in May 2022, and the first test of the operationally-configured weapon on Dec. 9, 2022, was “a very successful flight, which was a big step forward,” Kendall said. 

The ARRW is a boost-glide hypersonic weapon, which means it is accelerated to speed by a rocket and then glides to its target. The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, or HACM, is an air-breathing cruise missile. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control makes ARRW; Raytheon is the prime for HACM, which uses an engine made by Northrop Grumman. In its 2024 budget, the Air Force requested $150 million for further research, development, test, and evaluation of ARRW and $184 million for HACM. 

B-52s are envisioned carrying four AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) hypersonic missiles, as shown in this photo illustration. Lockheed Martin

“We have money throughout the five-year plan to move HACM forward,” Kendall said. The weapon’s underlying technology, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Air Force Research Laboratory, has “been reasonably successful, and we see a definite role for the HACM concept,” he added. 

Kendall also said the HACM, which is smaller than ARRW, is “compatible with more of our aircraft and it will give us more combat capability overall.” The HACM is to be small enough that fighter aircraft could carry it, whereas only bombers can carry the ARRW.  

ARRW is a mid-tier acquisition program, Kendall noted, meaning that it took advantage of congressional authorization to skip some of the usual procedures in order to rapidly prototype a weapon, with the goal of demonstrating a usable capability in a short period of time and that it could be quickly produced at scale.  

In announcing the March 13 ARRW test, an Air Force release stated it only met “several” objectives, and the test team was collecting data for further analysis. The service gave no further details at the time. The purpose of the test was to assess the ARRW’s “end-to-end performance” from captive carry through lunch, “booster ignition,” shroud separation, and hypersonic glide “to impact.”  

In its fiscal 2024 budget submission, the Air Force said program activities this year will comprise “contract closeout, finalize documentation and analysis, and activities to support the leave-behind capability.”  

Lockheed MFC vice president for air dominance and strike weapons Jay Pitman said at the AFA Warfare Symposium earlier this month that the company is “ready to go” into production on ARRW and has cleared 26 of 27 production readiness reviews with the government.