Despite New Policy, Space Force Remains Stymied by Classification

Despite New Policy, Space Force Remains Stymied by Classification

Dec. 11, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

ORLANDO, Fla.—Nearly a year after the Department of Defense signed off on a new policy meant to reduce classified restrictions on space programs, not a single weapon system has yet made it through the process, the head of U.S. Space Command said Dec. 11. 

That’s not to say they’re not trying, Gen. Stephen N. Whiting said at the Spacepower Conference.  

But the wait highlights the bureaucratic hurdles SPACECOM and the Space Force face in trying to integrate allies and commercial partners into their plans. 

The DOD policy change, signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks in January 2024, did not declassify anything on its own. Instead, it established a process to enable officials to “pull down” classification levels for systems previously designated Special Access Programs, a restriction level that exceeds top secret clearances, and to re-designate them at “more rational classification levels,” Whiting said. 

Space Force leaders have pushed back on over-classification for years, and criticism dates back to before the Space Force was formed. Limits on access makes coordination harder and frustrates operators who may not be informed of certain capabilities until just before or even after they might need them. Even if the weapons programs stay top secret, moving them down from SAP provides a “massive value to the warfighter,” noted then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb in February. 

Yet even that has proven “difficult,” Whiting said. 

“There’s just a lot of work to do when you’re taking something from a very high classification level and pulling it down,” Whiting told reporters. “Things like, you’ve got to move all the information off of different networks onto other networks. And that is not trivial work. There is work ongoing to take our blue systems and run it through that process. But no blue system has gone through that process completely.” 

Making progress is critical, Whiting added, “because that will make us better as part of this broader warfighting team, if we can truly have the right conversations about the capabilities that we’re bringing to the table.” 

In the meantime, the issue continues to frustrate operators in the field, said Chief Master Sgt. Tina R. Timmerman and Chief Master Sgt. Jeffery J. Grela, senior enlisted leaders for the Space Force components to U.S. Space Command and U.S. Central Command. 

“We still have significant over-classification problems,” Timmerman said in a panel discussion. 

“The one obstacle we’ve been seeing—no surprise— … is over-classification, or, in all fairness, perceived over-classification of what it is we do, which is an inhibitor to really partner to the level that we’d like to partner,” added Grela. 

For allies trying to decide what space systems they should develop with limited budgets while not duplicating things unnecessarily, over-classification is a major frustration, said Air Marshal Paul Godfrey, a UK officer who’s serving a tour as the Space Force’s Assistant Chief of Space Operations for Future Concepts and Partnerships. 

“You want to develop relevant capabilities and capabilities that will be interoperable,” said Godfrey, who brings a personal perspective on the issue having been the first head of U.K. Space Command. “But a lot of the time you don’t know what is available. You just don’t know what you don’t know.”

Space Force officials have begun saying they want acquisition strategy to be “allied by design,” so investments are closely coordinated with allied countries. The Department of the Air Force’s International Affairs team has increased information sharing, said Steven A. Ruehl, director of policy and programs in that office. Declassifying more can only help. But Godfrey cautioned that secrecy is always going to be part of the space picture.  

“We don’t need to share everything,” he said. “Everyone needs their own information that they’re going to protect. But currently we are not sharing enough.”  

American MQ-9 Drone Shot Down in Syria—by US Ally

American MQ-9 Drone Shot Down in Syria—by US Ally

Dec. 11, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

A U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper was mistakenly shot down in northern Syria on Dec. 9 by the U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces, U.S. officials told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The Kurdish-led SDF is the United States’ principal partner in the fight against the Islamic State group in Syria, and the downing of the American MQ-9 appears to have been a case of mistaken identity. The group has been battling the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army for control in northern Syria, where Turkish drones have been operating against the SDF.

“The incident was a result of friendly fire from partner forces conducting operations in the region who misidentified the unmanned aircraft as a threat,” a U.S. defense official told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The drone was operating on a mission as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the campaign against the Islamic State group, the defense official said.

The downing of the U.S. MQ-9 was first reported by CNN. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh confirmed the downing of the drone, but did not say who was responsible for the incident.

“There’s been no change to our partnership with the SDF when it comes to ensuring the defeat of ISIS,” Singh said Dec. 11.

Images that appeared on social media on Dec. 9 show what appeared to be the largely intact wreckage of an MQ-9 in northern Syria. It was later intentionally destroyed, according to the defense official.

“U.S. forces have recovered appropriate aircraft components and destroyed the remaining portions of the aircraft,” the official said. “U.S. Air Forces Central is actively assessing the actions that led to the incident and will adjust tactics, techniques, and procedures to safeguard U.S., coalition, and partner forces and their associated assets.”

The SDF released a video of the downing of what it identified as a Turkish drone on Dec. 10. It is unclear whether that incident was related to the downing of the MQ-9.

The fighting in Syria is complex, with many different parties. The U.S. and Turkey are NATO allies, but Turkey has long regarded the SDF as an adversary, even as the U.S. and SDF have worked together. In October 2023, a U.S. F-16 downed a Turkish drone when it tried to target SDF forces near U.S. troops. The U.S. has urged Turkey and the militias it supports to avoid conflict with the SDF in recent days in the wake of the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria on Dec. 8.

The SDF and Turkish-backed rebels agreed to a U.S.-mediated ceasefire on Dec. 9 in Manbij, which called for the SDF to pull out of the northern border city, where there had been heavy fighting. The SDF is trying to stop the Turkish-backed rebels from advancing further and aims to prevent the capture of the primarily Kurdish city of Kobane.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) boss Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla visited Syria and met with SDF leaders and U.S. service members on Dec. 10. The U.S. has some 900 troops in Syria as part of the mission to defeat the remnants of the Islamic State attempting to make a comeback.

That same day, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. called his Turkish counterpart to emphasize U.S. concerns. That call followed a call from U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III earlier in the week to his Turkish counterpart. On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is heading to Turkey on Dec. 13 in a bid to prevent further escalation of violence in Syria.

The U.S. military conducted a punishing series of airstrikes against the Islamic State group on Dec. 8 with U.S. Air Force B-52s, F-15Es, and A-10s in an attempt to stop the group from exploiting the current instability in the country.

“We’re taking capability off the map for them. Our initial assessment is that they were successful and that we did kill a number of ISIS operatives in the desert,” Singh said of the airstrikes.

How Congress, DOD Can Help Small Businesses Meet New Cyber Rules 

How Congress, DOD Can Help Small Businesses Meet New Cyber Rules 

Dec. 10, 2024 | By Shaun Waterman

Congress and small business advocates are working on a series of fixes for a new Department of Defense cybersecurity certification program they fear will otherwise be a major disincentive for smaller, nontraditional defense suppliers to bid on Air Force and other defense contracts. 

On Capitol Hill, there is a draft bill that would create a tax credit to cover part of the cost of compliance for the smallest companies. And some advocates are also suggesting Small Business Administration loans might be available to help businesses cover the upfront costs. 

The long-delayed Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program, or CMMC, was finalized this year and the requirements will start to show up in defense contracts by the end of next year, said Rachel Grey, the director of research and regulatory policy for the National Small Business Association. 

“We support a congressional fix to help small businesses comply with CMMC,” she told Air & Space Forces Magazine.  

The CMMC is designed to ensure that defense contractors handling unclassified but still sensitive data known as Controlled Unclassified Information comply with cybersecurity guidelines from the National Institute for Standards and Technology, or NIST. But advocates are concerned that the comparatively high costs of compliance may discourage smaller, more innovative companies from competing for defense contracts. 

“The costs of compliance risks shutting small businesses out of the defense industrial base,” said Grey, noting the investment in CMMC compliance must be made upfront, before any contract award. 

The aim of securing the defense industrial base, or DIB, against foreign cyber intruders is widely shared, including by NSBA, said Grey. But “the burden is not sustainable for small businesses,” she said. 

Lawmakers addressed the issue in report language accompanying the must-pass National Defense Authorization bill for 2025, stating that “with the finalization of the rules for the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, we believe it is important that the Department of Defense provide additional assistance to small businesses in the defense industrial base navigating this process.” 

The Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2024, proposed by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.), would allow companies with fewer than 50 employees to deduct 30 percent of their compliance costs, up to a maximum of $50,000, from their annual tax bill.  

The bill was developed by Fitzgerald’s office after discussions with staff from the Senate Small Business Committee and the DOD Chief Information Officer, said attorney Robert Metzger, who has acted in a volunteer capacity as a liaison on the legislation between the Hill and the Pentagon for almost two years. 

Metzger said it’s unlikely the bill will make it into the NDAA, which is currently being finalized, but there’s a good chance it gets included in a major tax bill due early next year. 

According to DOD figures, there are over 56,000 small defense contracting businesses that will eventually be required to get a third-party assessment of their compliance with the NIST cybersecurity standards, Metzger said. If all of them could claim the maximum allowable credit, the tax revenue lost would amount to $2.83 billion. But if the credit was only available to the smallest companies, those with fewer than 50 employees, the cost would be reduced to $1.04 billion. 

Moreover, Metzger points out, many companies may not claim the maximum amount which would also reduce the cost. And since the implementation of CMMC contractual requirements is spread over seven years, so will the costs of compliance.

“The objective here was to start with something that would be significantly helpful to the companies most in need, while being … fiscally prudent, administratively responsible and focused solely on new costs” coming directly from CMMC compliance, he said. “You don’t want it to be open to waste, fraud, abuse or gaming.”

“There will be lots of jostling as to the parameters of this legislation” as it moves forward, Metzger added, warning against special interests “exploiting” the measure by expanding it too far, which he said would reduce the chances of it passing. 

“I think it’s important to have a limited tax credit measure to help those who need it most, and to focus that help upon the new costs that CMMC requires. And I think if it’s done prudently, it should have a fair chance of success. Beyond that, I take a cautious approach to expanding the size of the credit, who may claim the credit, or for what,” he said. 

The Pentagon broadly supports the idea of such a limited tax credit, according to Stacy Bostjanick, DOD’s deputy chief information officer for cybersecurity, who said it was one of a number of ideas being looked at to mitigate possible negative effects of CMMC on small business participation in the DIB. 

“There’s a tax incentive that’s going through the Congress now—well, we’re hoping it goes through—and we’re supportive of that,” she said during a recent webcast, “We’re trying to find any means possible to help alleviate some of the pain and struggle for our small businesses.” 

But others note that the tax credit, while a positive idea, would only be available to businesses after they had spent the money. 

“The costs are incurred in advance of any possible revenue,” explained ML Mackey, chair of the Small Business Division of the National Defense Industrial Association, a trade group for military contractors. 

“Small businesses live or die by their cashflow,” she said, “Typically, they don’t tend to have cash reserves sitting around. They use what revenue they have to try to grow and scale.” 

Mackey is the cofounder, co-owner, and CEO of Beacon Interactive Systems, ​a small business which is digitizing Air Force flight lines and first became a military supplier through an SBIR contract. 

“From my own and my colleagues’ experience, for the small business owner, those kinds of upfront costs often mean refinancing their home or taking on credit card debt in order to make that leap of faith and do what they need to expand and grow,” she said. 

Mackey was clear that businesses needed to meet the costs of compliance, but pointed out it was a national security priority to increase the number of smaller, more innovative, and nontraditional technology suppliers in the DIB. 

“How do we help create a runway such that they can effectively get their CMMC certification and be able to execute on contracts and deliver that much needed, critical innovation for national security needs?” she asked. 

She said one interesting idea would be to expand the innovative work done in the past two years by a partnership between the DOD’s Office of Strategic Capital and SBA’s Office of Investment and Innovation. Their Small Business Investment Company Critical Technology Initiative leverages existing SBA loan authorities to match private capital investment in critical technology areas. 

“We could do the same kind of thing to make that patient capital [loans with a long repayment period and low interest rate] available to companies that are in critical technology sectors and need support to meet CMMC requirements upfront,” she said, “We don’t need new programs, we can use existing loan vehicles that are already in play.” 

Metzger added that implementing such a large and ambitious program within the DOD would take continuing leadership attention and called for the formation of a steering group within DOD.

“These things don’t just execute themselves,” he said. “You need leadership. You need management, oversight, administration, process, training, policies, guidance, instructions, and we’re just at the start of all that.”  

He pointed out that although CMMC was designed and produced by the the Pentagon’s CIO’s office, it will actually be implemented in contracts written by the department’s acquisition workforce. “There are other parts of DOD that have a say in this, as well,” he said. “Research and engineering [have a view] as to what it does to the innovators; defense intelligence [agencies provide] the threat information that should inform the cyber policy, etc, etc.” 

Given all the different players, Metzger argued, “It seems to me necessary that, under the leadership of the Deputy Secretary of Defense or even the Secretary, you need a CMMC executive steering group to essentially oversee this and make sure that we don’t just thrust it upon a big industrial base and hope for the best, because hope is not really a great substitute for planning.” 

Space Force Wants Unique Boot Camp for Guardians

Space Force Wants Unique Boot Camp for Guardians

Dec. 10, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

ORLANDO, Fla.—Space Force leaders are looking at how they can create a distinct Basic Military Training program for Guardian recruits, and eyeing new locations for the BMT enterprise.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman listed the idea among things he wants to accomplish in 2025 during the Spacepower Conference here this week. He also hinted at other personnel changes ahead.

“We’ve got to get the BMT right-sized and in the right location,” Saltzman said in a question and answer session. Guardians and Airmen both go through BMT at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas. They have done so since October 2020, Saltzaman said, because BMT “requires a lot of overhead” and USSF leaders wanted to move fast to build out their ranks.  

The Space Force has gradually introduced its own Space Force-specific wrinkles to BMT. The first Guardian training instructor graduated from the Military Training Instructor Course in 2021, and the following spring, the first all-Guardian class inaugurated a new space-focused curriculum.

Splitting Guardian BMT off entirely would therefore be “a natural part of the evolution,” Saltzman later told Air & Space Forces Magazine during a media roundtable. “At some point you say, ‘Well, we’ve got to train and educate our own people.'” 

Just what this new Space Force BMT will look like—and where it might be based—are still to be determined. “We’re trying to figure out what’s the right scope, what’s the right scale, what’s the right evolution away from [having] the Air Force training our inductees and getting to a more Guardian-focused environment,” Saltzman said. 

Potential locations for Space Force BMT include: 

  • Patrick Space Force Base, Fla. The Space Force is in the process of relocating Space Training and Readiness Command there, and moving a subsidiary program like BMT could be an obvious solution.
  • Schriever, Peterson, or Buckley Space Force Bases in Colorado. Long a hub for USSF activity, these bases have a strong concentration of Guardians, even if they aren’t home to launch facilities.  
  • Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif. With a large swath of land and a steady, but smaller number of launches compared to the Florida Space Coast, this West Coast base could also have the space needed for a training facility.  

Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force John F. Bentivegna said it’s still to be determined exactly how long and how intense Space Force BMT should be. “What do we need Guardians to know? What is the process we need to go through, transitioning Guardians from civilians into service members?’” he said. “Maybe that’s seven weeks long, maybe it’s shorter, maybe it’s longer. But let’s figure out what we need to do. And then that location may be different than where it is today. But … first, without any kind of barriers, what do we need do for the nation to develop the Guardians that we need? And we’ll go from there.” 

Basic training varies across the military services. Air Force BMT lasts seven and a half weeks; Army and Navy basic lasts 10 weeks, and Marine Corps Boot Camp is 13 weeks long. The Space Force recruits far fewer new Guardians each year—only around 800 compared to tens of thousands for the other services. Its recruits also tend to be older and more highly educated, and that suggests different requirements and needs for basic training. 

Personnel Changes 

In other personnel moves that could come in the months ahead, Saltzman and Bentivegna spoke of altering the standards for promotions.  

Bentivegna, who unveiled an ambitious project to transform career paths for enlisted Guardians only months ago, used the stories of individual Guardians to help explain his thinking on altering the promotion system from one based on competitive scores to one focused on competency levels.  

A Specialist-2 who is already working on wideband and nuclear command-and-control satellite communications while achieving the highest possible qualification rating proves that point, he suggested. “How do we modernize our current fully qualified promotion system to more align with the responsibilities we’re placing on these young Guardians?” he asked. “There’s a way that we’re going to move forward to better align those responsibilities, that skillcraft, with the modernized fully qualified promotion system. … This is the epitome example of why I think that’s a phenomenal idea,” he said. 

Saltzman described the evolution of the Space Force’s consolidated personnel system, which is gradually taking in Air Force Reservists and converting them into Guardians. The first to transition were full-timers, but part-timers will soon follow.

“It’s a different model,” the CSO said. “We’re really excited to see that and I think by the end of ’25 we’ll have completely pulled in all of that part-time workforce.”

Saltzman did not discuss it, but coming soon will be a similar transition for National Guardsmen working in Space-focused jobs. Congress is expected to pass the compromise National Defense Authorization bill, which would empower the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer Air National Guard units into the Space Force. The National Guard Association of the United States opposes the legislation, but after more than four years of debate, the issue appears now to be nearing closure. Once approved, the bill would set in motion the transfer of about 570 billets, but individual Guardsman could not be transferred against their will.

CCA Increment 2 Requirements Left for New Air Force Leadership to Choose

CCA Increment 2 Requirements Left for New Air Force Leadership to Choose

Dec. 10, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force still hasn’t set the requirements for the second increment of its Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, service acquisition executive Andrew Hunter said, leaving decisions about the project—such as payloads and whether it will be more or less sophisticated than Increment 1—to the incoming Trump administration.

Hunter also said during an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the ongoing review of the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter includes a “combined analysis” of the Next-Generation Air-refueling System, or NGAS, as the two are closely linked. Like the CCA program, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has deferred any decisions about the future of NGAD to the next administration.

Progress on Increment 2 of CCA, “loyal wingman” drones meant to fly alongside manned platforms, has already been stalled, as Congress has not passed a fiscal 2025 defense budget with funds to start the next phase of the program, Hunter said.

In the meantime, the Air Force is still wrestling with “working through different options. Is it more capable? Is it more affordable? Where on the spectrum will Increment 2 land? Those are questions to be explored,” Hunter said.

“We do have some ideas of how we would see Increment 2 fitting into the broader Air Force force design, and that will help shape that dialog with industry,” he said, without elaborating on those ideas.

“We’ll work closely with industry in doing that work, because I think different companies may well have different concepts,” he added. “Some will prove to be more advantageous and more innovative than others, and then we can start to hone in on exactly what does Increment 2 look like. So … still a lot to be determined in that process.”

Service officials had said they expected to provide industry with their preferred ideas for Increment 2 by the end of this year, but Hunter’s comments indicate that’s not going to happen.  

Increment 1 of the CCA program—intended to provide a relatively low-cost, autonomous escort for fighters—is being built by Anduril Industries and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Increment 2 was initially seen as a more advanced platform, with a high degree of stealth and capability, but more recently, service leaders have said it could be a less sophisticated aircraft built in large quantities. The Air Force has been wargaming various future force mixes to see what characteristics provide the greatest combat payoff.

In wargames conducted last year, large numbers of cheap—but not necessarily disposable—CCAs seemed to answer more theater commander needs than smaller numbers of very stealthy ones.

Hunter emphasized that the CCA program is ongoing and iterative, and that good ideas will get the attention they deserve.  

“Those vendors who didn’t succeed in Increment 1 were able to take a lot of the work that they had done, a lot of the design teams, and … put them directly against Increment 2,” Hunter added. “So this is not a high stakes ‘win or lose for 30 years’ for industry. If they don’t succeed in one competition, the next competition is right around the corner.”

Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman reportedly submitted Increment 1 concepts that were substantially stealthier and more complex than Anduril and General Atomics’ selected proposals. Some industry officials whose proposals didn’t win have confessed to misreading the Air Force’s desires and have said they plan to offer less costly and sophisticated concepts for Increment 2.   

Hunter said the Air Force has strived throughout the three-year life of the CCA program to “sustain competition over time among multiple competitors,” and this is “a feature of having these different increments.”

At this point, there’s “nothing to say” about a potential Increment 3, which senior USAF officials have previously speculated could be a program conducted in partnership with an international partner. Increment 3 is “a little bit out there in the future,” Hunter said.

Hunter also said the CCA will have a very different sustainment model than USAF’s traditional approach, echoing previous comments from Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin.

Traditionally, most of the flying in the Air Force is done for training, but because the CCA’s “crew” will be a computer, that’s not necessary, he said.

“It will not be the case that every CCA has to routinely fly for training purposes, as you would see with a crewed platform. So I think … the sustainment approach to CCA will be simpler.” He added that “they will not be 30-year, 50-year assets” and won’t be designed that way.

“My expectation is, sustainment costs for CCA are likely to be lower than a crewed platform, and I would expect by a reasonable margin, but … [programmers] have to really dig into that. They’re very good at doing this sort of analysis and understand those implications,” he said.

NGAD and NGAS

Hunter also said there’s “no outcome yet” on the analysis of whether or how the Next-Generation Air Dominance program should be restructured.

There’s been “a lot of very good analysis being done in a very rigorous fashion there,” he said, especially in terms of how the NGAD will be complemented by the Next-Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS). The review has been “a combined analysis” of the two projects, he said.  

“It makes sense to look at them at the same time and to have complementary, if not even combined, analysis of those things,” he said.

“The key part of that analysis will come when the FY 26 POM (Program Objective Memoranda) is finalized, and that will happen next year,” Hunter noted, adding there’s “not much more to say about that.”

He allowed that an analysis of alternatives for NGAS is “very mature and is definitely reaching the final stages,” and this has revealed insights about the future tanker fleet.

New B-52 Engine Covers Keep Ice Away in Harsh Winters

New B-52 Engine Covers Keep Ice Away in Harsh Winters

Dec. 10, 2024 | By David Roza

Special new covers developed by Air Force Global Strike Command should save time and money by keeping B-52 bomber engines from icing up in Arctic environments.

With regular deployments to northern Europe and a wing stationed in North Dakota, B-52s are no strangers to chilly weather. Maintainers cover the aircraft’s eight engines to protect them from the cold, but the current system does not provide a full seal or sufficient insulation, Charles Hoffman, Global Strike Command’s chief of media operations, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. 

That means ice, which can damage the engines, delay takeoffs, and force Airmen to spend time de-icing the engines, Master Sgt. Adam Vasas, a champion for the new cover project, said in a Nov. 20 press release.

“We found 10 engines were damaged across 2021-2023 due to ice debris, which resulted in $17 million in damages and 160-plus manhours lost,” he said.

Airman 1st Class Samantha Coleman, 5th Aircraft Maintenance electronic countermeasures specialist, de-ices a B-52H Stratofortress at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., Jan. 11, 2017. A mixture of heated fluid and hot water is sprayed on the bombers prior to launching in cold weather conditions. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class J.T. Armstrong)

Fixing the issue fell to STRIKEWERX, a kind of innovation incubator that helps research, test, and scale solutions to Global Strike Command problems. STRIKEWERX started looking into the engine icing problem in July 2022, and by that October it had a prototype modified from a previous design that would let maintainers heat the engine cowling of the B-52. That prototype did not pan out, but Vasas and other experts kept working on it.

The result is the Transhield Pod Cover, which wraps around the engines to seal all ducts, inlets, and exhausts. Also used to protect boats, commercial aircraft engines, and other military equipment, the Transhield ArmorDillo fabric is covered in polyurethane, which prevents water intrusion and corrosion, Hoffman said. 

“Maintainers will now have the ability to operate more efficiently in Arctic weather environments, while people and equipment previously dedicated to keeping the engines warm can be utilized elsewhere or saved in reserve,” Vasas said in the release.

b-52 engine cover
New covers should prevent ice from building up on B-52 engines for the entire fleet at Minot Air Force Base, N.D. (U.S. Air Force Courtesy Photo by Master Sgt. Adam Vasas)

Unlike past covers, this one has a built-in adaptor that lets maintainers attach a ground heater hose to blow heated air into the engine inlets.

“The heating becomes necessary due to extreme low temperatures,” Hoffman said. “This is a standard maintenance practice and the covers allow the heating to be more efficient by containing the heat [and] by blocking the wind and insulation.”

The Air Force Operational Energy Savings Account gave Minot Air Force Base $1.2 million to buy engine covers for its entire B-52 fleet. Each cover costs about $12,800, but they should save about 7,500 manhours, according to the release.

The new covers are designed for the B-52H equipped with T-33 engines, Hoffman explained. They will remain functional until the arrival of the B-52J, an improved version with new engines, radar, communications, navigation, and other equipment to keep the bomber running through the 2050s. The J model will sport Rolls Royce F130-200 engines with new nacelles and pylons, which would require new engine covers. 

That’s still a few years away though: a government watchdog report in June estimated that the B-52J won’t reach initial operational capability until 2033.

Saltzman Defines 6 ‘Core Truths’ About Space Force and Warfighting

Saltzman Defines 6 ‘Core Truths’ About Space Force and Warfighting

Dec. 10, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

ORLANDO, Fla.—As the Space Force nears its fifth birthday, Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman emphasized Guardians’ unique role as warfighters and defined what he called “six core truths” about the Space Force and its warfighting operational purpose.

“Guardians are warfighters, not simply force providers,” Saltzman said during the Spacepower 2024 conference, but that role is not well understood across the nation nor even among the services. “This is another one of those things that older services take for granted. Can you imagine telling a Marine that they’re not a warfighter, that the Marine Corps is just a force provider? Absolutely not.” 

Yet questions about the nature of the Space Force have persisted since its creation five years ago, on Dec. 20, 2019. While some argue the Space Force should focus solely on operational support for other services, Saltzman has consistently emphasized the need for the Space Force to think and operate like the warfighters needed to ensure the U.S. military retains its strategic advantages in space—and to counter adversaries’ efforts to degrade or deny those advantages. 

Saltzman cited six “core truths” about the Space Force: 

  • Space Force capabilities are critical to the joint force 
  • The Space Force must defend its capabilities for the Joint Force to project power 
  • The Space Force must protect the Joint Force from space-enabled targeting 
  • Space is a warfighting domain 
  • The Space Force is responsible for organizing, training, equipping, and operating space capabilities 
  • Guardians are uniquely trained for warfighting in, from, and to space. 

“We still have a lot of educating [to do],” Saltzman said. “Even within our service, there are people who don’t fully understand.” 

Yet signs of progress are encouraging: Saltzman cited U.S. Indo-Pacific Command boss Adm. Samuel Paparo’s views on space as an example. 

“He will right out say, if we can’t have space superiority, I won’t be able to achieve my objectives in the western Pacific,” Saltzman said of Paparo. “That’s your U.S. Navy, regional combatant commander, saying how important space superiority is for the joint force.” 

Paparo’s reliance on space in the Indo-Pacific is signficant. China’s ambitions in the region and its growing space capabilities pose a threat—and USSF is determined to counter those advances.  

“Our best PR comes from China and Russia,” Saltzman said. “Every time somebody says, ‘Well, how much do we really need to invest,’ one of those countries does something incredibly irresponsible in space, and they say, ‘OK, we get it.’” 

Yet there are hurdles to gaining the recognition the Space Force craves.  

“We have to deny the adversary the use of their space-enabled targeting, so we have to do responsible counterspace campaigning,” Saltzman said. “And that’s where I think we’re in the biggest back-and-forth in continuing education. What precisely do we need? What technologies are available and have proven themselves, that allow us to do the kind of counterspace activities that we need? And I think there’s a negotiation going on. There’s education going on.” 

Military space leaders have grown more and more comfortable talking about counterspace requirements, a major change from only a few years ago when even the mention of offensive space weapons would get officials “kind of berated by their senior leadership,” Saltzman said. 

But officials have begun to be a little more daring. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and JROC Chair Adm. Christopher Grady referenced space weapons in a recent interview with Defense Scoop, saying, “We know that hypersonics allow us to defeat adversary hypersonics; and then, we also know that hypersonics allow us to leverage hypersonic aircraft and spacecraft missions in those two domains.”

Bolder discussion of offensive space is necessary, advocates say, so the Space Force can better deter adversaries—and doing so can also help define the service as a warfighting organization. 

“It’s our job to make sure that we think through the spectrum of operations, the spectrum of needs that are necessary, and we produce capabilities,” Saltzman said. “So while we’ve held it close to the vest before, some of that was just kind of hand-wringing, it wasn’t really something we needed to protect.  

“… We have to be able to deny first-mover advantage by being resilient. That’s a warfighting capability. And we have to conduct counterspace operations to deny an adversary the ability to target our forces with space-enabled targeting. Those are offensive and defensive capabilities.” 

Creating doubt and mystery also has a certain warfighting value.  The Space Force does not need to show its entire hand, Saltzman said.

“You’re not going to get that from any warfighting organization: ‘Let me tell you precisely how I intend to attack an adversary’ so that they can respond in a way to counter,” he added. The Space Force’s job is like any military service: to field capabilities so they can be used to achieve intended effects; and the more credibility it has, the more wary its adversaries will be.

Guardsmen to Guardians: New NDAA Gives Space Force What It Wants

Guardsmen to Guardians: New NDAA Gives Space Force What It Wants

Dec. 9, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force is feeling the love from Congress, which approved its biggest wishes, such as converting space-oriented Air National Guard units into Space Force ones, in the compromise 2025 National Defense Authorization bill unveiled Dec. 7.  

Congress backed multiple Space Force priorities in the 1,800-page bill, which sets policy for the Pentagon.  

Enabling the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer Air National Guard units with space missions into the Space Force may be the biggest of these, laying to rest a roiling debate over whether the Guard would gain an ongoing role in the newest military service. The Space Force sought a simpler system with a single component, including neither a National Guard nor a Reserve. Instead, USSF will have full- and part-time members, unique among the armed services.  

The House sought to allow the move only if the Secretary gained approval of the governors in whose states those space-focused units were located. But the Senate argued in favor of the Space Force vision, and won out in the end. But the Department of the Air Force proposal did not win its entirety. The NDAA, if approved, will limit to 578 the number of personnel the Space Force can transfer, rather than the 700 personnel cited in an Air Force study. Nor can any individual Guard member be transferred to the Space Force without their consent. Finally, the measure requires the Space Force “to the maximum extent practicable” not to relocate any individuals for three years following the transfer, and to keep units in the state where they are now located for 10 years.

The Air National Guard must retrain and reassign any Guard member who decides against transfer.  

Not included in the transfer, but still subject to study, is the 222nd Command and Control Squadron, a New York National Guard unit that provides support to the National Reconnaissance Office. The bill requires a report on “the organizational future of the 222nd, focusing on options that ensure the unit’s continued support to the NRO while accounting for its broader integration into U.S. space missions,” lawmakers wrote. Options include incorporating the 222nd into the Space Force, keeping it in the Guard, or creating a hybrid structure. 

The National Guard Association of the United State derided the decision to forgo a Space National Guard as a “backroom deal … struck in defiance of a century of legal precedence, the fierce opposition of the nation’s governors, and the clear intentions of the incoming administration.” That last point suggests the issue might come up again. President-elect Donald Trump promised at NGAUS conference this summer that he would establish a Space National Guard, a decision that is not up to him alone, but rather must be enacted in law by Congress. 

Acquisition Moves

The NDAA, which is expected to be approved this week, also approves the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve, a program for incorporating industry satellites and space systems in peace and wartime to supplement the military. 

Often compared to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, the CASR is a key part of the Space Force’s broader goal to tie commercial capabilities into its structure as much as possible. Officials have said the first CASR contracts will go out in early 2025. 

Another provision gives the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition the power to put on a watch list companies that do not perform as required.  

Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition Frank Calvelli has led a charge to transform the military’s space acquisition enterprise and has not been shy about criticizing industry for poor performance. He has said he would use the watch list more liberally—right now, Space Systems Command is responsible for adding companies to the list and has only done so once. 

The NDAA would make Calvelli’s office responsible for maintaining the watch list and grant him broader latitude for putting companies on it by inserting a catch-all clause saying a contractor can be added to the list if there is evidence of “any other failure of controls or performance of a nature so serious or compelling as to warrant placement of the contractor on the watch list.” 

The bill would also add extra limits to what the Space Force can do with a contractor on the watch list, such as awarding a contract or subcontract, exercising an option on a contract, or executing a grant, cooperative agreement or other transaction. 

Another provision in the bill requires “completion and operation of satellite ground systems before associated satellite launches,” while allowing the Secretary of the Air Force to waive that requirement as needed. Calvelli has made finishing ground systems before launch one of his key tenets for successful space acquisition. 

JSE: How Air Force Aims to Get More Pilots into ‘World’s Best F-35 Simulator’

JSE: How Air Force Aims to Get More Pilots into ‘World’s Best F-35 Simulator’

Dec. 9, 2024 | By Tobias Naegele

ORLANDO, Fla.—The same virtual test environment used to complete operational testing for the F-35 is now driving the “best F-35 trainer in the world” and is about to be replicated from a single site in southern Maryland to five “super sites” around the nation.

The Air Force and Navy are pouring billions into the Joint Simulation Environment to expand the system from its starting point at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent Naval Air Station, Md., to far larger installations at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.; Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.; and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.

Longer term, the Air Force plans to have JSE sites at all its F-35 bases, including Hill, Luke, Eglin, Eielson, Davis-Monthan, and other National Guard sites, and overseas bases like RAF Lakenheath in the U.K., said Derek Greer, integrated battlespace simulation and test department head at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD). “We are working with the Air Force and the Navy to get at least an eight-ship of F-35 and manned Red Air at all of these sites,” he said.

Stripped down versions are now at sea on aircraft carriers. Lacking the full-scale simulators at Patuxent River, they still have features that have helped deployed fighter squadrons maintain certain skills in environments where they would not otherwise be able to practice them. All that is possible because of the precise way the simulators mimic the actual flight software.

 “JSE was born out of the need to get F-35 through operational test,” said Greer, who led off a panel discussion on JSE at the Interservice/Industry Training and Simulation Conference on Dec. 3.  “We did not have the threat density, nor the threat complexity at our open-air ranges to fully stress and evaluate the F-35, so the decision was made long ago that we needed to do a chunk of the F-35 operational test program in a simulator. … In partnership with the Air Force, we built the facility at Pax River to do exactly that.”

In fiscal 2024, 820 F-35 pilots used the JSE trainers at Patuxent River, including Pacific Air Forces squadrons stationed at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; RAF Lakenheath; and the Air Force Weapons School at Nellis, Greer said.

Now the Air Force and Navy are working together to scale the system far beyond its original purpose, an ambitious effort that will draw on both military and industry expertise. Col. Matt Ryan, simulators division chief and senior materiel leader for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, said scaling the program to become the joint-force training asset envisioned will take years and extensive effort.

Yet the payoff for the effort will be huge: as the number of locations increases, so will the number of pilots that can leverage this training.

“We’re trying to take something that was meant for a single purpose at a single place, almost for a single point in time, and scale that out to be used at many places, for all time, for almost all people,” he said, speaking at the same I/ITSEC briefing. “That’s a pretty significant scaling challenge. It certainly means that the original design as we knew it, even just two or three years ago is probably not going to be sufficient moving ahead. So we spent the last year doing some work to do some re-architecting … so that we can turn it into a scalable solution that deploys well to multiple sites.”

The Nellis site will be a major site for the Air Force, as will the Edwards site, with a lot of validation and developmental test activities. But the primary focus will be mission rehearsal, large force exercises, unit-level training, and continued operational test. “We see other use cases as far as experimentation and potentially developmental tests in the future, but all centered around real-time mission-level operations,” Ryan said.

The F-35 is the only fighter supported in JSE today, but F-22 is in the works he said. Other functions and features could be developed to add space data and, potentially, to make JSE useful to Space Force users, Ryan said.

Funded by the F-35 Joint Program Office, JSE starts with a series of “F-35-in-a-Box” simulators built by F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin. The simulators are a full re-hosting of the underlying operational flight program software used in the actual jet, so precise it can be used for operational test and evaluation—and therefore ideal for training, because it is such a precise representation.

The fighter simulator links to a government-owned software integration stack, which incorporates digital models mimicking the performance of U.S. weapons and, even more important, leveraging the latest classified intelligence data to precisely imitate the performance parameters of adversary aircraft and weapons.

That means pilots can using JSE trainers to face the exact threats they would face in combat—including not just kinetic threats, but precisely modeled electromagnetic spectrum effects that take into account clouds, terrain, wind, and other factors.

The level of control, speed, and repetition possible makes JSE not only effective, Greer said, but also highly cost-effective, especially for training in complex multiaircraft operations.  

“When we start talking eight-ship training, the Red Air picture, the ground picture—simply getting eight airplanes off the ground for training—you’re talking a very challenging logistical,” Greer said. “Then if we think about what the right air picture would be against that eight ship, it could be eight vs. eight, eight vs. 12, eight vs. 16, 20, whatever. It is very expensive proposition to fly, and fly repeatedly, to get our pilots the reps and sets needed to really become excellent with a tactic. But in JSE, we’re able to do eight, 10, even 12 missions per day. That’s eight vs. 20, 12 times in a day. It is really more than any one squadron can handle.”

JSE is a mission trainer; it does not replicate live-flight performance training and is not a substitute for time spent physically flying the airplane. But the F-35’s capabilities are such that some tactics and procedures and some functionality cannot be leveraged on training ranges because doing so could givie away secrets to potential adversaries. This is where JSE is valuable: providing the ability to run through scenarios repeatedly until pilots are highly skilled in those procedures, Greer said.

“From an affordability perspective, getting those reps and sets in in the simulator, where we don’t need to pay for a lot of gas, we’re not putting all those hours on the engines, it is a huge dividend,” Greer said. And just as importantly, he added, “we’re able to replicate the threat very, very actively—probably more accurately than we can in the open-air range.”

That includes intelligence-derived models for red air, ground, and surface-to-air missile threats. JSE includes the Air Force-developed Virtual Airborne Threat System, which enables red force operators to simulate adversary pilots flying against blue-force operators.

“That has really changed the fidelity, really the ball game in terms of presenting a complicated air picture to our blue fighters,” Greer said. “Having fifth-gen blue fighters actually man red-air cockpits, and bring that maneuverability, has brought our realism to an all-time high.”

One key to the realism is new software called GRID, a high-speed engine that crunches the math to mimic the propagation and performance of radio frequency, infrared, and other signals, accounting for external factors—clouds, mountains, other aircraft—as well as tactical choices, such as angle of attack, angle of depression, and so on, all in real-time.