It’s Official: ARRW Is Done When All-Up Tests Conclude. What’s Next?

March 30, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

The AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) program will end after test flights of the last two developmental missiles, Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter told the House Armed Services Committee on March 29.

Hunter’s declaration came just a day after Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said the service has shifted its hypersonic weapon focus from ARRW to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile.

The Air Force “does not currently intend to pursue follow-on procurement” of ARRW, Hunter wrote in testimony prepared for his appearance before the HASC tactical aviation panel. The missile, built by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, was not discussed during the actual hearing.

Even so, “there is inherent benefit to completing All-Up Round (AUR) test flights … to garner the learning and test data that will help inform future hypersonic programs and potential leave-behind capability,” Hunter wrote.

The fiscal year 2024 Air Force budget request includes $150.3 million in research, development, test, and evaluation funding to “complete” the ARRW program, Hunter noted.

Mark Lewis, head of the National Defense Industrial Association’s Emerging Technologies Institute and a national expert in hypersonics, told Air & Space Forces Magazine the service shouldn’t abandon the ARRW’s boost-glide hypersonic technology but perhaps should shift these efforts back to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in hopes of developing a future capability.

“We are going to finish ARRW testing, then we are going to make a procurement decision, but right now we do not have any money planned in the five0year budget for ARRW,” an Air Force spokesperson said.

Neither Hunter nor the spokesperson offered a specific reason as to why the ARRW will not be pursued.

Asked for comment, a Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control spokesperson said the company “remains committed to developing hypersonic technology on an accelerated timeline to meet this critical national security need. Through flight test discoveries, and with our applied learning, we will continue to further hypersonic capabilities.”

In its budget justification documents, the Air Force said 2024 activities on the ARRW program include “contract closeout,” finalization of documentation and analysis, “and activities to support the leave-behind capability.”

Appearing before the House Appropriations Committee on March 28, Kendall said “we’re more committed to the HACM at this point in time than we are to ARRW.”

Kendall’s remarks were framed by a discussion of the latest ARRW test—the second of the operationally configured system—which he characterized as “not a success” because data from the event was lost or not collected. Kendall said program engineers are “trying to understand what happened.” There are two more missiles available for testing, and “there may be some leave-behind capability,” Kendall said.

The ARRW managed a successful all-up test Dec. 9, which Kendall called “a very successful flight, which was a big step forward,” but the missile has struggled with spotty performance in testing. There were three failed tests in 2021 before a success in 2022.

ARRW was launched as a quick-and-dirty response to hypersonic missiles already fielded by China and Russia, under “mid-tier acquisition” authorizations from Congress by which some of the normal bureaucratic prototyping steps can be skipped or streamlined. The missile is a boost-glide weapon which is accelerated to hypersonic speed by a rocket, at which point the hypersonic vehicle separates and glides to its target.

The HACM, meanwhile, is an air-breathing cruise missile. Raytheon won the contest to build the HACM last year, using an engine built by Northrop Grumman, based on technology explored under the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) program led by the Air Force and theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Kendall said the Air Force has money in its five-year plan “to move HACM forward,” as the technology underwriting it “has been reasonably successful.” Because the HACM is smaller than ARRW, it can be carried on more kinds of aircraft “and give us more combat capability, overall,” Kendall said. The ARRW would only have been employable from bombers due to its size.

The Air Force is requesting $382 million for HACM in 2024, Hunter wrote in his prepared testimony. That money would fund “critical design” and maturing of the “digital ecosystem” needed to verify the design, as well as flight test hardware in preparation for a flight test in fiscal 2025, he wrote. All this would enable procurement by fiscal 2027, he added.

Kendall left the door slightly open to further work on ARRW, telling lawmakers that if the final test flights are successful, “then we’ll revisit it … as we build the [2025] budget and see what will be done in the future.”

Lewis, former head of defense research and engineering and former Chief Scientist of the Air Force, said he was disappointed by the Air Force’s decision to terminate ARRW.

While the Air Force’s “strong focus” on HACM is “absolutely correct” because of its applicability across a wider portion of the force, the ARRW would have given the Air Force a longer-range and heavier striking option, Lewis said, adding that a boost-glide weapon is harder for enemy air defenses to stop.

“I’ve always likened it to the F-15/F-16 high-low mix,” he said, with a great number of HACM-like “air breathers” playing the F-16 role—“they’re less expensive, you can launch a lot of them”—but still having some of the heavier, more expensive ARRW-like boost-glide weapons for particularly hard targets.

“I’d like to have both, but if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose, I’d choose the HACM,” he said. “Depth of magazine really matters.”

Lewis added that he wasn’t surprised ARRW has had test problems because “I think people underestimate how hard it is to actually build a tactical-scale rocket/boost-glide system.” A boost-glide system is extremely difficult to sort out and something DARPA should potentially re-engage with, Lewis said.

“It’s exactly the sort of problem DARPA was designed to solve,” he added.

While Lewis said he is not privy to the reasons why the most recent ARRW test failed, he noted that in development programs, there are “noble failures, when things don’t work because you genuinely didn’t understand the physics; you made a mistake in the engineering, but it’s all good because you needed to learn more,” and then there are “stupid failures, where the fin falls off or the booster doesn’t light or whatever.”

“I hope we wouldn’t cancel something because of a stupid failure,” he said.

The demise of ARRW also worries Lewis because it may send an awkward message to industry and development programs generally.

“One of the things I worry about are the overall signals that we give to the community,” he said. “On the one hand, we say, ‘You’ve got to be allowed to fail. You’ve got to fail early and fail often.’ But as soon as someone fails, we cancel their program.”

‘The Arctic is Trying To Kill You’: What It Looks Like When Airmen Train Far North

March 30, 2023 | By David Roza

How’s this for an early-February getaway: Spend five days and four nights on a frozen island in the Arctic Ocean, where the temperature ranges from a balmy negative 25 degrees Fahrenheit to a windchill of negative 65 degrees.

Two Minnesota Air National Guardsmen had the pleasure of such a trip recently, thanks to the Canadian military. The Air Operations Survival course is hosted twice a year at Resolute Bay, Nunavut, during the daylong darkness of the winter, in an attempt to simulate “as close as possible the conditions associated with an Arctic bailout,” according to the Canadian government.

Chief Master Sgt. Jeremiah Wickenhauser and Master Sgt. Cody Hallas, both members of the 133rd Contingency Response Team, trained at Resolute Bay with instructors from the British and Canadian militaries, alongside other service members from France, Germany, and New Zealand, Wickenhauser confirmed to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“The Arctic environment is constantly trying to kill you; every task is harder in the cold,” Hallas said in a recent release written by Wickenhauser. “Every task takes longer, and the risk of serious injury is always present. Moisture management and the inability to dry gear is a huge issue. Cold, wet gear is miserable to wear and work in and extremely dangerous in the Arctic.”

Students learned to cut snow blocks, build shelters, cook food, melt water, and stay warm, the release noted. Some of the instructors were Canadian Rangers, a sub-component of the Canadian Army Reserve whose members “live and work in remote, isolated, and coastal regions of Canada,” according to the Canadian government.

The Canadian Rangers shared a freshly-killed seal with the students and showed them how to build an igloo, which the students “spent one cold night trying to sleep in,” Wickenhauser wrote.

Though difficult, Wickenhauser and Hallas’ training at Resolute Bay could prove vital at a time when interest—and tensions—in the Arctice are growing. Though the U.S. military has plenty of mountain, sub-Arctic, and extreme cold weather training, those environments are not the same as the Arctic, which is generally frozen and dark in the winter and impassable and light in the summer.

“Even the most qualified mountain team in the Special Forces Regiment would not be considered Arctic-capable,” three Green Berets in October wrote in an October 2022 paper on Arctic security for the Air Force’s Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs. “Becoming Arctic-capable requires immersion in the actual conditions throughout the entire training and validation pathway, as our Scandinavian partners do.”

Some units in the Minnesota Air National Guard and the New York Air National Guard frequently undergo Arctic training. For example, Wickenhauser, Hallas and fellow guardsmen from Minnesota and New York spent most of May 2022 on an ice cap in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, learning how to set up a base camp, conduct Arctic first aid and groom a ‘ski-way’ for ski-equipped aircraft like the New York ANG’s LC-130 to land on.

Arctic powers such as Russia, the U.S. and, increasingly, China, are flexing their military might in the region as melting sea ice opens up new trade routes and natural resources—but national security experts worry that the U.S. is still underprepared for such a fight.

“While the military services’ respective Arctic strategies acknowledge the importance of the Arctic and the need to develop the capabilities needed to operate and compete in the region, direct investment in Arctic-capable platforms, training, and infrastructure continues to lag,” Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, head of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), wrote in a March 23 statement for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“It is necessary that the joint force has the ability to compete, fight, and win in the Arctic in the coming years,” VanHerck added, “and the time for the services to invest in the required equipment, infrastructure, and training is now.”

Airmen from the New York Air National Guard’s 105th Airlift Wing experienced that lack of infrastructure when they flew six C-17 transport jets carrying hundreds of Canadian Army reservists and more than 90 tons of cargo out of Quebec and landed at the Resolute Bay Airport earlier this winter. The airport does not have radar, and the runway is made up of frozen gravel and ice, according to an Air Force press release.

“We flew 2,000 miles … unloaded and loaded cargo and people and flew another 2,000 miles back, basically all on our own,” one of the C-17 pilots, Lt. Col. Andrew Townsend, said in the press release.

The austere conditions also challenged the loadmasters taking cargo on and off the C-17s. They had to do weight and balance calculations using pencil and paper, since the cold caused computer malfunctions, according to the press release. They also had to knock chunks of ice and snow off of cargo pallets.

The journey did not end at Resolute Bay for 37 Canadian and American Soldiers, who were flown another 60 miles north via LC-130. The ‘Skibird’ landed on a ‘ski-way’ that had just been groomed onto the sea ice by Airmen from the 109th and members of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s 440th Transport Squadron.

The Canadian Rangers and other indigenous Arctic people could play a vital role in supporting U.S. and allied military operations in the far north. The October 2022 paper on Arctic security noted that during World War II, the U.S. relied on more than 6,000 Native Alaskans who volunteered to conduct surveillance activities along remote coastlines. Though that unit shut down after the war, the Canadian Rangers play a similar role in Canada today.

However, relationships are a two-way street, and many Alaskan communities lack access to running water, broadband internet, and affordable household goods. Living standards deteriorate further when supply chains become stressed and food, sanitation, and medical equipment stop arriving, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski wrote in 2022.

If the U.S. does not devote more resources to these communities, other countries like Russia or China may do so in an attempt to win influence there, the authors of the Arctic security paper argued.

“Investing in Indigenous Alaskan communities is a chance to deny competitor influence, rebuild trust with Native Alaskan communities while establishing multi-use infrastructure with multi-domain effects, and increase our military’s Arctic readiness,” they wrote.

Collaborative Combat Aircraft Will Join the Air Force Before NGAD

March 29, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

The first iterations of Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the drones that will pair with manned platforms, will join the Air Force’s fighter fleet in “the later 2020s,” several years before the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, service acquisition chief Andrew Hunter told the House Armed Services tactical aviation panel on March 29.

Hunter also emphasized that CCAs will augment all types of tactical aircraft, not just the NGAD system.

Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr., deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, also set the top three missions of the CCAs, in order, as:

shooters

electronic warfare platforms

sensor-carrying aircraft

The NGAD and CCAs are “on different timelines,” Hunter said, although they are “obviously closely related to one another as part of a family of systems.”

NGAD, he said, is a “very high-end capability” geared to the threat environment of the 2030s, and “we are working very hard to deliver [it] …in the early 2030s.” CCAs, meanwhile, are slated to join the force later this decade. Hunter also said the notional number of CCAs will be between 1,000 and 1,500 aircraft.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told the House Appropriations defense panel on March 28 that CCAs could cost between one-half and one-quarter as much as an F-35. Lt. Gen. Michael J. Schmidt, F-35 program executive officer, quoted the price of an F-35A as $82.5 million in the March 29 hearing, which would put CCAs between $41.3 million and $20.6 million.

For the CCA program, “we are very much focused on speed-to-ramp, so we are looking to field that capability as rapidly as possible,” Hunter said. The Air Force’s approach in seeking proposals from industry for the autonomous, uncrewed aircraft will put a priority on contractors’ ability to “perform as quickly as possible,” Hunter said.

Moore, echoing previous Air Force officials, emphasized that CCAs are intended to build up the Air Force’s fleet of combat aircraft at an affordable price, providing the “amount of iron that needs to be in the air to confront an adversary like China.”

“The way that we can do that affordably is by buying CCAs, and by creating mass with CCAs,” he said.

The task now will be to define the tactics, techniques, and procedures needed to employ this new kind of weapon, and answer questions like whether CCAs will be part of manned fighter squadrons or “a separate entity,” and whether they will fly alongside crewed aircraft or “come together on the battlefield” from different places.

“Ordinarily we provide a requirement to industry, they come back with what we’ve asked for, and we know that it does exactly what we asked. In this case, we’ve asked a question to industry to see what’s possible rather than tell them exactly what we want,” Moore said.

The 2024 budget includes a request to create an experimental operations squadron which will explore and answer these questions, Moore said.

Asked what the CCAs will be counted on most to do, Moore laid out three basic mission sets.

First and foremost, he said, is “the ability to augment the combat force as shooters.” Second is “the ability to conduct electronic warfare” and the third is “the ability to be sensors in the battlespace.”

Pressed by lawmakers as to whether the Air Force needs seven additional fighter squadrons, as the service stated in the 2018 white paper, “The Force We Need,” Moore said it will depend on the success of the CCA concept.

“But certainly, capacity is an issue and the mass that it takes to confront an adversary like China is intense,” Moore said.

Both Hunter and Moore emphasized that CCAs are being procured in addition to all the crewed fighters the Air Force plans to acquire, not in lieu of any of them. They will “augment” the manned fighter force, not replace it, Hunter said.

SDA to Launch First Satellites of Tranche 0 from Vandenberg

March 29, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

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

March 29, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

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

March 29, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

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.”

Ukrainian Su-27 takes off for another combat mission.
But it would be easier for him if the F-16 helped him. pic.twitter.com/1Cps5GlNHh
— Ukrainian Air Force (@KpsZSU) March 24, 2023

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

March 29, 2023 | By Col. Marty Z. Khan, USAF (Ret.)

‘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

March 28, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

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

March 28, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

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.”