Chiefs, Part 5: ‘Buzz Was Right’

Chiefs, Part 5: ‘Buzz Was Right’

Nov. 8, 2022 | By Tobias Naegele

In its 75-year history, 22 Airmen have led the Air Force as Chief of Staff. Each came to the post shaped by the experiences—and sometimes scar tissue—developed over three decades of service. Each inherited an Air Force formed by the decisions of those who came before, who bequeathed to posterity the results of decisions and compromises made over the course of their time in office. Each left his own unique stamp on the institution. As part of Air & Space Forces Magazine’s commemoration of the Air Force’s 75th anniversary, Sept. 18, 2022, we interviewed all of the living former Chiefs of Staff.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, CSAF 18 (2005-’08)        

The one thing everyone knows about Gen. T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley is that he was fired from the job. Being relieved short of completing his four-year tour as Chief was not on the radar when Moseley moved up from Vice Chief to become Chief of Staff in September 2005. 

Moseley had been the vice Chief for two full years. His prior experience included commanding U.S. Central Command Air Forces for nearly two years before that and before that two years as the Chief Air Force legislative liaison. Few were better versed on the issues facing the service at the time. But Moseley was no politician. Shaved-headed and stiff-necked, he remains as bluntly plainspoken now, 14 years after leaving office as he was when the bombshell struck in July 2008. 

Moseley was enroute to a Corona meeting—a gathering of Air Force four-stars—in Dayton, Ohio, when word came that he and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne were both being relieved, a stunning dual beheading executed by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates whose frustration with the Air Force had become a public feud in recent months. 

Gates had considered the Air Force “one of my biggest headaches” for some time. But in a speech at the Heritage Foundation on May 13, 2008, he unloaded his concerns publicly: “There is a good deal of debate and discussion—within the military, the Congress, and elsewhere—about whether we are putting too much emphasis on current demands—in particular, Iraq—and whether this emphasis is creating too much risk in other areas, such as preparing for potential future conflicts; being able to handle a contingency elsewhere in the world; and overstressing the ground forces, in particular the Army,” Gates said. 

“Much of what we are talking about is a matter of balancing risk: today’s demands versus tomorrow’s contingencies; irregular and asymmetric threats versus conventional threats,” Gates went on. “As the world’s remaining superpower, we have to be able to dissuade, deter, and, if necessary, respond to challenges across the spectrum. Nonetheless, I have noticed too much of a tendency toward what might be called ‘Next-War-itis’: the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict.”

Gates had taken over as Secretary in 2006 from Donald H. Rumsfeld, as the War in Iraq descended into its messiest phase. Two-and-a-half years prior, President George W. Bush had flown onto the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and delivered a televised speech in front of a giant banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.” By the 2006 mid-term elections, that image had come to haunt the administration. Far from being over, things had only gone downhill from that moment on. By 2006, it was clear the Army was ill-sized or equipped for the mission in Iraq, recruiting was suffering, and the Army was lowering its standards for incoming troops. The Iraq War had become precisely the kind of quagmire the administration had wanted to avoid, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had become a media sensation in the wake of 9/11, had fallen out of favor. 

The weekend before the election, the Military Times newspapers wrote that, regardless of the outcome, the time had come for Rumsfeld to go. “His strategy has failed and his ability to lead is compromised,” the editorial said. By Wednesday morning, victorious Democrats were in full agreement. “The Army Times has spoken,” said Nancy Pelosi, who would soon be the next Speaker of the House. 

That afternoon, Bush announced, with Rumsfeld standing awkwardly on his right and Gates on left, that change was coming to the Pentagon. 

That Gates would shake things up was a foregone conclusion. But that his focus would be the Air Force, rather than the Army, was not quite so clear. But Air Force leaders were not solely focused on the Iraq problem. They saw trouble on the horizon—and in their own aging force. 

By 2006, the weapons that had so impressed the world in 1991’s Operation Desert Storm had aged 15 years. Except for 100 or so Predator unmanned aircraft, the force was otherwise much the same, though smaller, and without some capabilities that had been sacrificed over the intervening years. The force was also getting tired; the service had been flying nonstop patrols over Iraq for 15 years and had supported combat operations in Somalia (1992-’93), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), and Kosovo (1998-’99), prior to going to war in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). 

The job description of the Chief of Staff is spelled out clearly in Title 10, U.S. Code: The Chief leads the Air Staff, with responsibility for “recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, … training, servicing, mobilizing, demobilizing, administering, and maintaining of the Air Force.” The Chief administers today’s force, but his real work is in ensuring that tomorrow’s force is up to the job. Each Chief is heir to the decisions of those who came before him, and each Chief leaves a legacy to those who will follow. 

Moseley was worried about the future. In January 2007, China successfully conducted an anti-satellite missile test, destroying a defunct satellite and producing thousands of space debris fragments that continues to orbit the Earth even now. Air Force leaders saw the strike as a wakeup call, a clear indication not only that China was ascendant China in the East, but that it was honing the ability to threaten a key U.S. advantage: air and space dominance. 

At the center of the Air Force’s modernization plans was the F-22 Raptor, the stealthy fifth-generation air-dominance fighter. This was the key weapon the Air Force wanted for the future. But it was also Exhibit A in Gates’ case against “Next War-itis.” The stealth fighter was unparalleled in the world and a generation ahead of any rival. But it was also an “exquisite” technological marvel, intended for a war that Gates didn’t think was ever going to happen. 

“I kept saying, ‘We can’t defer this. We have to fund the [F-22],’” Moseley said in a May video interview. “That’s when I got accused of Next-war-itis. And I wrapped myself in that. I said, ‘Man, I want that framed on the wall.’ Because that’s an A-plus for me doing my job: organize, train, and equip. If someone thinks I’ve got Next-war-itis, hallelujah! I do! Because that’s my job. A combatant commander fights today’s fight. I’m fighting tomorrow’s fight.” 

That future fight would challenge the nation with technology and weapons far more complex than anything the insurgents could muster in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Moseley saw his requirements as obvious: “We need the best air -superiority fighter. We need the best utility fighter. We need the best penetrating bomber. We need a reliable tanker. We need a combat search-and-rescue helicopter that can go some distance. And every combatant commander said, ‘Thank you.’ The Army Chief, the Navy CNO, the Marine Commandant, they all said, ‘I get it.’” 

Not Gates. 

Prior to Gates’ arrival, Moseley and Wynne had already secured both Rumsfeld’s and the President’s support for modernizing. “The President had even agreed to give us the money,” Moseley said. Bush, who was flying F-102s in the Air National Guard when Moseley was in fighter training, liked to point out when meeting with his national security team that the two of them were the only fighter pilots in the room. 

But now Rumsfeld was gone, and Bush was trying to rescue a presidency damaged by the Iraq War. Gates was running the Pentagon. The wind had shifted. 

“I remember one time in a discussion with President Bush,” Moseley said. “He said, ‘Moseley, you said you think we’re going to fight the Chinese or the Russians?’ I said, ‘Mr. President, I’m praying not. … I think the probability is very low. But I think there is a 100 percent chance we’re going to fight their aircraft and their SAMs and their early-warning radars.’ And he goes, ‘I agree with you.’ So I said, ‘Therefore, you need an Air Force and a Navy that is beyond question the most technically capable, skilled, and modern because that’s where you can persuade, dissuade, and deter.” 

The Air Force executed a mission area analysis that took more than a year, preparing modernization roadmaps for each mission area: strategic lift, tankers, space, air superiority, suppression. The analysis covered every major defense system. “And out of all that, we defined the budget deficit for the force that we needed,” Moseley said, “and we took that to every combatant commander and got his OK, and I personally briefed it to the Navy CNO, the Marine Commandant, and the Army Chief, and I said, ‘Look, you don’t have to agree with me, just please don’t get in my way.’” 

When he presented it to Rumsfeld and the President, he had a friendly audience. “Secretary Rumsfeld’s handshake with me was that we would modernize and re-cap the Air Force,” Moseley said. They would use multi-year deals to buy out their C-130J and F-22A requirements, then focus, in order, on the new tanker, the combat search and rescue helicopter, the F-35, and new survivable maneuvering systems for all four families of satellite systems. And they would acquire a new bomber that would reach initial operational capability by 2018. 

“Rumsfeld said, ‘Press.’ The President said, ‘How much more do you need?’ I said, ‘$20 billion more a year.’ He goes, ‘Deal.’

Rumsfeld had no hesitation. According to Moseley, he said, “We’ve put you in this position, haven’t we?” And Moseley answered, “Yes, sir, the department has, because we kick the can on things, we study things, we jack around with them. We’re flying airplanes right now in combat that were never designed to fly this long. And we’re asking our kiddos to go do this, and yes, they make it look easy. People think it’s easy. It’s not.”

The problem in Iraq wasn’t the Air Force, but the Army. It didn’t have enough forces to man the mission, its vehicles were too light to withstand increasingly sophisticated improvised explosive devices, body armor wasn’t good enough, recruiting was in the dumps, and the public was turning against the war. America had invaded Iraq with the Army it had, to paraphrase an infamous Rumsfeld comment, not the Army it needed, and to keep that fight going it had to sacrifice the very forces it would need to stave off China and Russia in the future. 

“We were hemorrhaging money,” Moseley said. “I get it. But if it’s going to cost $48 billion to buy MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles], then write a $48 billion check. You don’t take the seed corn for the next 20 years to do it. Because it’s not going to end well.” 

Discussions in the tank, where the Joint Chiefs met, focused almost exclusively on the Army’s challenges: “Almost every problem we dealt with in the tank was an Army problem: Recruiting, retention, the size of the Army, the force deployment rotations of units.” 

The need for more overhead intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance flights. Gates wanted the Air Force to do more. Moseley, who was the first Wing commander to use the Predator at the 57th Wing in 1996-97, understood the issue firsthand. Moseley told Gates the Air Force was all in, but that the Army actually had more ISR to answer its needs than the Air Force did. 

“Look, we’re giving you everything we’ve got,” Moseley recalls telling Gates. “We can close down the Weapons School, we can throttle down the schoolhouse, and we’ll do it. But you’ve also got a few hundred of these things [Army Shadow UAVs] that are living in the Army, that are in garrison, and the Army won’t deploy them.” 

The Army’s Shadows were organic assets to its battalions, and the Army didn’t have a model for pulling them out and deploying the operators as detachments. “I said, ‘Give us the airplanes and give us the sensor operators. … This is a no-brainer. We’ll shut everything down and give it to you,” Moseley said. Gates’ response, as Moseley recalls it: “It’s more complicated than that.” 

Moseley found himself disagreeing with the Army over other issues, as well. When the Army wanted Airmen to help drive convoys moving fuel, food, ammunition and other supplies to forward units, Mosely asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. why the Army could not manage this on its own. 

“George, does every Army company commander have a driver?” Moseley asked. 

“Oh, yeah,” Casey said. 

“And the drivers are trained in small arms and self-protection?”

“Oh, yeah.”  

“So why don’t you guys deploy your own drivers? The company commander can drive his own jeep.”

It was no use. Airmen started doing Army convoy duty in 2004 and thousands continued to do so for several years afterward. 

Gates had begun his career as an intelligence officer in the Air Force, including a year at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. But Gates soon joined the CIA, and growing up as an analyst there had not endeared him to the Air Force. In the early 1990s, while with the CIA, he had tried to get the Air Force to join in developing unmanned aircraft but was rebuffed, Gates wrote in his book. 

“I think he was just frustrated. The surge was about that time and none of the Joint Chiefs were in favor of that.  I think there was just a lot of anxiety.” As Wynne said in a 2008 interview with Air Force Magazine, Gates “didn’t beat up the Army, which had almost a thousand Shadows. He beat up the Air Force, which had about 100 Predators.”

Gates couldn’t have dismissed Wynne and Moseley over the UAV dispute, and the F-22 debate—which amounted to a U-turn in terms of administration policy—did not amount to a fireable offense either. What did work as suitable cover, and to end, once and for all, the discussion about building more F-22s, was the sloppy performance of a B-52 bomber crew in Minot, N.D. On Aug. 29, 2007, a B-52H Stratofortress lifted off from Minot and flew to Barksdale Air Force Base, La. On board were six AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles, each one carrying a W80-1 variable yield nuclear warhead. No one realized the error for a day and a half, so the nuclear weapons had effectively gone missing—what the Air Force calls a Bent Spear incident.

A series of investigations followed. A number of officers were disciplined. And the following June, Moseley and Wynne were asked to resign. The Air Force had indeed become lax about nuclear weapons handling and procedures. But no one in the know ever believed the dismissals were about the nukes. Moseley and Wynne had fought hard for the funding and programs they believed in, and they had warned, loudly and often, of the consequences if those investments were put off any further, predicting that aircraft would age, become unsafe, and that training and readiness would decline. The record shows that’s exactly what happened. 

Says Moseley today: “Buzz was right.”

STARCOM to Expand Space Training Exercises in Coming Months

STARCOM to Expand Space Training Exercises in Coming Months

Nov. 8, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

International personnel will join the Space Force in December for its flagship training series Space Flag, just one new aspect of Space Training and Readiness Command’s planned slate of space-oriented exercises.

Activated in August 2021, STARCOM is one of three USSF field commands, roughly equivalent to an Air Force major command in the newer service’s flatter organizational structure. STARCOM added new types of personnel to Space Flag in 2022, when the exercise also received accreditation as a Joint National Training Capability.

The JNTC accreditation gave the command “more incentive to bring in other service partners,” said Maj. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton, commander of STARCOM. A Space Flag event in August, for example, involved members of the Army’s 1st Space Brigade practicing electronic warfare alongside Space Force Guardians. The event also included more cyber and intelligence personnel, Bratton told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September.

“We actually brought the cyber team in like a week or two ahead of time [for] the cyber portion of the exercise,” Bratton said. “Then the outcomes of that impacted the space operations piece.”

Doing so amounted to “a good first step” in incorporating cyber, Bratton said, “but we really need to integrate them together. … I think in December, we’ll be a little more integrated, and then I expect in next year’s Space Flag series, that cyber team will be fully integrated.”

In addition to Space Flag, STARCOM has begun to stage its new Skies series of exercises for Guardians and space personnel in the Air National Guard. 

Black Skies, a live-fire electronic warfare exercise against a satellite target for USSF’s Space Operations Command, took place in September. Guardians practiced attacking what Bratton characterized as “the beginnings” of a training range in orbit—the range coming to be known as the National Space Test and Training Complex, or NSTTC. 

The Guardians practiced EW against a legacy satellite target, the existence of which was why, Bratton said, Black Skies came first in the series.

A new Red Skies exercise will focus on orbital warfare, he said, which will call for a new “orbital warfare capability,” though “live-flying an asset on orbit” is unlikely to happen as soon as 2023—“as much as my team is super excited about doing that.”

A Blue Skies series will eventually focus on cyber, while a new command and control exercise, Polaris Hammer, begins in February.

Bratton said the fiscal 2023 and 2024 budgets will determine how much more STARCOM might be able to add to the NSTTC, while it’s already developing the range’s “digital side.” Meanwhile, the balance of live vs. virtual training remained a question.

“How do I weigh the value of live training versus simulation, and how do I know which provides a better training environment?” Bratton said. Right now, space operators in the Space Force never operate a real satellite until they arrive at their first unit, arriving prepared with only classroom instruction.

“We don’t think that’s exactly right,” he said, “and so we’re trying to balance that with the resources we have.” He said partnering with a university program, such as with the Air Force Academy’s FalconSAT program to build and fly cubesats, could provide a cost-effective solution.

This story was updated at 7:55 a.m. Nov. 9 to include information at the Polaris Hammer exercise.

T-38 Crashes Near Columbus AFB—Pilot OK

T-38 Crashes Near Columbus AFB—Pilot OK

Nov. 7, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 11:15 a.m. Nov. 23 to clarify where the crash took place.

A T-38A Talon jet trainer of the 14th Flying Training Wing crashed near its home of Columbus Air Force Base, Miss., about 2:30 p.m. local time Nov. 7. The pilot ejected and survived, a base spokesperson said. No one on the ground was hurt.

The T-38 experienced “an in-flight emergency” and went down approximately 20 miles from the base, according to a press release, but details of the mishap will await the results of an investigation now underway. The pilot, whose name was withheld pending further inquiry, was taken to a hospital for evaluation.

Only one pilot was flying the two-seat, supersonic aircraft.

“We’re thankful the pilot ejected safely, and we appreciate the continued support of the Columbus community and our community partners,” the 14th’s vice commander Col. Jeremy Bergin said in a press statement.

“We continuously train our pilots to react appropriately for all emergency situations such as the incident that occurred today,” Bergin said.

Two pilots—a USAF instructor pilot and Japan Air Self-Defense Force student pilot—died in a T-38 crash at Dannelly Field near Montgomery, Ala., in February 2021—the crash was later attributed to spatial disorientation. A day earlier, a T-38 crashed at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., due to a landing gear malfunction, which did not claim the life of the pilot. T-38 crashes over the past five years have chiefly been attributed to pilot error.

The supersonic T-38, built by Northrop, entered service in 1960 and has been modified a number of times to restore its structural strength and improve its training capabilities. The Air Force is developing the Boeing T-7A to take its place, but the T-38 fleet is not expected to be fully retired until about 2030. The Air Force uses the T-38 for advanced undergraduate pilot training for pilots headed to fighters and bombers, as a companion trainer for some aircraft, and as a graduate-level fighter training platform. The type is also used as an “aggressor” aircraft to provide sparring partners for some USAF fighters. More than 1,100 T-38s were built and have served the Air Force, Navy, NASA, and foreign operators.

USSF’s Bythewood Takes Command of Joint ‘Space Troopers’

USSF’s Bythewood Takes Command of Joint ‘Space Troopers’

Nov. 7, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

SCHRIEVER SPACE FORCE BASE, Colo.—Space Force Brig. Gen. Dennis O. Bythewood took over U.S. Space Command’s Joint Task Force-Space Defense on Nov. 4, becoming only the second commander of the task force’s 300-400 “Space Troopers” at Schriever Space Force Base, Colo. 

Army Gen. James H. Dickinson, the commander of U.S. Space Command, presided over the ceremony. He described Army Maj. Gen. Thomas L. James, the outgoing commander, as “an exceptional officer” and “constant gentleman.” 

James served simultaneously as U.S. Space Command’s director of operations. He assumed the roles the same day the Defense Department reestablished U.S. Space Command in August 2019. The task force, abbreviated JTF-SD, was one of two functional component commands activated the same day.

James characterized the task force’s “unique and absolutely critical national mission” as “protecting and defending our access to key space systems.” The mission includes space domain awareness, warning satellite operators of threats, and “space superiority,” which is to ensure “the conduct of operations at the time and place of our choosing.”

Some of James’ contributions included the “fusion” of commercial and Missile Defense Agency remote sensing data into the military’s space domain awareness; and the creation of “new response options to counter a range of threats,” Dickinson said. “Simply put, Tom was the right leader at the right time for this unique and certainly demanding command.”

James, whose next position will be announced at a later date, previously commanded the Army’s 1st Space Brigade.

Bythewood served as James’ deputy commander of the task force, “so he knows the business and the stakes that are involved today,” Dickinson said. “Dennis displays an intense dedication to the mission and genuine care for his people. Because of his war fighting focus and high integrity, Dennis is ready to assume command of this organization.”

Bythewood said the task force would “continue to innovate as we have the last couple of years to better understand our area of responsibility and execute our space superiority mission.” He said the command is “developing the foundational intelligence needed to maximize our capabilities, and when new ones are delivered, we will synchronize those with support from USSPACECOM.”

Dickinson warned that space’s “strategic and operational environments will only grow more complex.

“And we all know when we see the news every day that the Chinese and the Russians are developing and demonstrating capabilities that can hold our space assets at risk,” he said. “Our freedom of access and action in the domain is not guaranteed.” 

Attending the ceremony in Shriever’s gymnasium were retired USAF Gen. John E. Hyten, the 11th vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Space Force’s Lt. Gen. Steven N. Whiting and Deputy Commander of U.S. Space Command Lt. Gen. John E. Shaw.

This story was updated at 7:49 a.m. Nov. 9, 2022, to correct that James’ next assignment will be announced at a later date.

NASAMS Arrive in Ukraine in US Bid to Bolster Air Defense

NASAMS Arrive in Ukraine in US Bid to Bolster Air Defense

Nov. 7, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

Ukraine has received its first National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS), providing the country with a long-awaited capability as its infrastructure is being attacked by Russian missiles and Iranian-made drones.

Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov announced Nov. 7 that the first of the systems, which were purchased by the United States and donated to Ukraine, had been deployed.

The system will “significantly strengthen” Ukraine’s military and “will make our skies safer,” Reznikov said in a tweet.

The delivery of the NASAMS represents a concrete step toward fulfilling recent U.S. pledges to improve Ukraine’s somewhat porous air defenses. The U.S. is providing an initial two NASAMS, with six on order from contractors Kongsberg and Raytheon. Pentagon officials have said the additional six might not arrive for about 18 months.

Throughout Russia’s invasion, Russia’s air force has failed to achieve air superiority due to Ukraine’s successful employment of Soviet-era air defense systems and donated equipment, such as thousands of U.S. Stinger short-range, low-altitude missiles.

“Russia’s aircraft losses likely significantly outstrip their capacity to manufacture new airframes,” Britain’s Ministry of Defense said in a statement Nov. 7. “The time required for the training of competent pilots further reduces Russia’s ability to regenerate combat air capability.”

In response, Russia has begun using long-range cruise and ballistic missiles fired from aircraft flying over Russian territory and ships in the Black Sea. Russia is also employing an increasing number of Iranian-supplied drones. While Ukraine claims it has successfully shot down most of the drones over its territory, Russia has still been able to get past Ukrainian defenses and do substantial damage to Ukraine’s electrical grid to the point that contingency plans to evacuate Kyiv are being discussed in the Ukrainian capital.

In October, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley said the U.S. and its allies would help Ukraine begin building an integrated air and missile defense system because of missile and drone threats, including from Russia’s fleet of low-cost Iranian-designed drones. The U.S. has said that the Russians are piloting them from Crimea with Iranian technical assistance.

The NASAMS are a capability Ukraine has been promised for months. In July, the Pentagon said it would begin purchasing the systems, though the full delivery would take years.

According to a paper released Nov. 7 by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British think tank, Ukraine sorely needs equipment such as NASAMS and the advanced German IRIS-T to augment current capabilities.

“Additional ammunition and more launchers for the highly effective IRIS-T SLM and NASAMS systems are also critical to enable the Ukrainian Air Force to defend remaining electricity infrastructure and protect repair work from higher-end cruise missile attacks,” the paper states. “With rolling blackouts already affecting much of the country and the weather already getting cold, the urgency of these requirements is hard to overstate.”

The two NASAMS Ukraine is now deploying are just one element of improved air defense. On Nov. 4, the U.S. pledged money to refurbish disused HAWK medium-range air defense systems and then donate those to Ukraine.

“The West must avoid complacency about the need to urgently bolster Ukrainian air-defense capacity,” the RUSI report said.

Russia’s increased use of low-cost drones presents an issue for Ukraine’s air defense even if those weapons are shot down, forcing Ukraine to expend its valuable supply of surface-to-air missiles.

One benefit of the NASAMS is the use of adapted air-to-air missiles placed in a ground launcher, known as Surface-Launched AMRAAMs. Newer NASAMS can also launch other normally air-to-air missiles, such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder. The U.S. and its allies have significant stocks of those missiles, according to the Pentagon.

Still, Ukraine has pleaded for more Western systems, and the RUSI report indicates that much more assistance will be needed.

“We continue to insist that countries, wherever possible, provide Ukraine with as much air defense as possible as soon as possible,” Austin said Oct. 27

Here’s What the 2022 Midterm Elections Could Mean for the Pentagon, Air Force

Here’s What the 2022 Midterm Elections Could Mean for the Pentagon, Air Force

Nov. 7, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

As voters head to the polls Nov. 8 for the 2022 midterm elections, major potential changes to congressional power hang in the balance. For the Department of Defense—and the Air Force, in particular—here are meaningful shifts to watch for and new faces to track:

Majority/Minority

As the 2022 campaign has reached its final stages, the growing consensus among political handicappers is that control of the House of Representatives is very likely to flip from Democrats to Republicans. Data journalism site FiveThirtyEight’s model puts such a likelihood at 83 percent; The Economist’s model is at 78 percent; and Politico’s forecast is “likely Republican.”

By contrast, the Senate is wide open. FiveThirtyEight’s model favors the Republicans by a narrow 55-45 margin; The Economist’s is at 57-43; and Politico rates it as a “toss-up.”

Republicans winning control of one or both chambers would set up at least two years of battles between President Joe Biden’s White House and Congress. 

On defense issues, in particular, Republicans have spent much of the past two years hammering Biden on multiple fronts. On spending, they have decried the Pentagon’s last two proposed budgets as insufficient, especially given rising inflation rates; added a sizable increase in fiscal 2022 funding; and are currently trying to do so again for 2023.

Some Democrats have actually endorsed those increases, as well, ensuring their passage even with Republicans in the minority. But if control flips, Republican lawmakers will likely have an easier time adding on to Biden’s budgets as they see fit.

That calculus could be complicated if Democrats hold on to the Senate, however, sparking more inter-chamber debate, especially if Democratic leaders remain committed to keeping the growth of defense spending down.

Aside from money, a change in control would also likely result in clashes between Congress and the White House over issues such as climate change, COVID-19, diversity and inclusion, and abortion—issues that administration officials have said are important to readiness, but which Republicans have frequently pushed back on, arguing that they are political and take focus off lethality.

Many such clashes would likely unfold in the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual policy bill that regularly attracts hundreds of amendments. This past year alone, lawmakers debated provisions that would have protected abortion access for service members, rolled back the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and limited diversity programs within DOD. Such amendments usually passed or failed along party-line votes.

Besides the NDAA, a Republican majority would have the ability to call hearings on issues that matter most to them. Pentagon officials and lawmakers have already had high-profile clashes over so-called “wokeness” in the military, and those could increase if Republicans have the ability to call hearings on the matter.

Finally, a switch in majority parties could mean a push toward more aggressive policies against China. House Republicans have pledged to establish a “Select Committee on China” if they take the majority, and the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), issued a statement after the release of the National Defense Strategy saying the U.S. needs to “rebuild our naval fleet to deter Chinese aggression towards Taiwan” and calling for the restart of the Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program, which the Biden administration canceled in its Nuclear Posture Review.

Key Air Force Changes

The relaunch of the SLCM-N would likely be the biggest change between parties when it comes to the nuclear triad. The Biden administration has reversed course and endorsed the modernization of the Air Force’s land and air legs, a position Republicans support as well.

Similarly, there appears to be bipartisan support on issues such as modernization efforts for the F-22 Raptor, accelerated development of hypersonic weapons, and even long-resisted cuts to the A-10 fleet.

But Republican leadership in the House and/or Senate could still spell significant changes for the Air Force, particularly if funding increases.

Air Force leaders have said they would have bought more F-35 fighters in this past year’s budget if they had had more resources—a beefed-up budget could give the service the opportunity to do just that.

A number of Republican lawmakers have also expressed alarm about the Air Force’s plans to retire older aircraft at a faster rate than it buys new ones to pay for other modernization efforts. It remains unclear how far they would go to change those plans, however.

There also could be a change in how the Air Force handles its tanker fleet—a number of lawmakers have voiced displeasure at Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s indications that there may be no competition for a future KC-Y tanker, with the service seemingly prepared to go with a modified KC-46.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the leading Republican on the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, have both critiqued that plan, and Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.) tried to include an amendment in the NDAA that would have forced the service to hold a competition for KC-Y, though it was voted down.

In some ways, the tanker issue is parochial, with both Carl and Rogers representing a state where Lockheed Martin has said it will build the LMXT, its proposed alternative to the KC-46. But nearly every vote in favor of holding a competition came from Republicans, and Rogers has already said he wants to revisit the issue next year. Should he become chair of the HASC—and Wittman chair of the subcommittee—they’ll have the ability to push the issue to the forefront.

Changing Faces

Rogers’ possible ascension to the top spot on the HASC depends on Republicans winning the House, but should that occur, the Space Force would have one of its leading advocates in a key position on Capitol Hill—Rogers was instrumental in pushing for the creation of the new service.

But his Democratic counterpart in that push, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), isn’t even on the ballot this November. He announced his retirement earlier this year, and his departure from Congress in January 2023 will create an opening for a new top Democrat on the HASC’s Strategic Forces subcommittee.

Cooper is just one of several top HASC officials retiring after this election. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), currently the chair of the Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems subcommittee, is leaving, as is Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), head of the Military Personnel subcommittee. Their departures will set off a mini-leadership shuffle among Democrats on the committee, though Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) is expected to continue as the party’s top lawmaker on the panel. For Republicans, the only change forecast among subcommittee heads is the departure of Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who led her party on the Tactical Air and Land Forces panel.

Meanwhile, up-and-comers Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.)—a former Airman and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance pilot—are all in races Politico has rated as toss-ups.

On the Senate side, the Armed Services Committee will get a new top Republican, as longtime leader Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is retiring. His likely replacement is Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), a former Air Force judge advocate whose constituency includes Keesler and Columbus Air Force Bases. Wicker co-sponsored a proposed amendment for this year’s NDAA that would slow the Air Force from reducing the size of the T-1 Jayhawk trainer fleet until Undergraduate Pilot Training 2.5 has been implemented across the service and USAF submits a date to Congress by which the T-7A trainer will achieve full operational capability.

No other members of the SASC are retiring after this election, but one is in a tough re-election battle. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) is in a toss-up race, according to Politico, though he does maintain a narrow lead in the polls. Kelly is currently the chair of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, but he is also the most junior Democratic senator on the SASC, meaning that even if he does win re-election, his position on the panel could be in peril if Republicans win a majority.

Elsewhere in the Senate, the powerful Appropriations Committee is set to get new leaders from both parties, as Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) are both retiring. According to reports, they’ll likely be replaced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), though Murray is up for re-election and Politico has only rated the race as “Leans Democratic.” Collins, meanwhile, will also take over as the top Republican on the Appropriations Defense subcommittee, while Democrats will still be led by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

Air Force Vets in Congress

At the moment, 15 Air Force veterans are serving in Congress—13 in the House, two in the Senate.

Of those 15, three are retiring at the end of this Congress: Rep. Kaiali’i Kahele (D-Hawaii), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-Ore.). Bacon is the only one in a race that is considered competitive.

According to Military Times, 19 other former Airmen are running for Congress, all in the House. Two of them are heavily favored to win: Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Donald Davis (D-N.C.).

Another five are in races Politico has rated as either a “toss-up” or “lean”: Chris West (R-Ga.), Zach Nunn (R-Ia.), Keith Pekau (R-Ill.), Sam Peters (R-Nev.), and J.R. Majewski (R-Ohio).

LaPlante: Congress Will Support Multiyear Weapons Procurements

LaPlante: Congress Will Support Multiyear Weapons Procurements

Nov. 4, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Congress is of a mind to allow the Pentagon to do more multiyear procurement—in the billions of dollars—particularly of munitions, given the situation in Ukraine and its implications for other potential conflicts, Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief William LaPlante said.

“We’re going to have multi-year authority, I believe, from the Congress,” LaPlante said at a Nov. 4 acquisition conference held by George Mason University.

“They are supportive of this. They are going to give us multi-year authority, and they are going to give us funding to really put into the industrial base … billions of dollars … to fund these production lines. That, I predict, is going to happen,” he said.

He noted that members of Congress have written to him expressing surprise and distress that many weapons being supplied to Ukraine—Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (which LaPlante said are being called “St. HIMARS” because they are having such a huge effect in Ukraine’s success)—have long been out of production, which cannot easily be restarted.

LaPlante reiterated his recent comments that “production is deterrence” and that his priority is neither experiments nor prototypes, but instead capabilities that can be put into the hands of operators “at scale.” Ukraine’s partners can supply that country with munitions while Russia is running low, he noted.

There will be no need to “incentivize” companies to build greater production capacity, LaPlante said, because the Pentagon is going to show people “we’re serious about it” in a way that “we have not done since the Cold War.”

At a recent NATO Armaments Directors meeting on Ukraine chaired by LaPlante, members said they’ve heard that companies want to see a solid “demand signal” for high-volume production before investing in capacity.

He acknowledged that they’ve been burned before.

Paraphrasing what he’s heard from companies, LaPlante said, “‘ Sure, you’re going to put a lot of money against this now—in the midst of a crisis—but two years from now, you’re going to leave me holding the bag. And if you say, you’ve never done that to me—you’ve done it to me before.’ So that gets back to the multiyear.”

He continued that “It’s pretty simple” how to get companies on board.

“You put it in the RFP [request for proposals], and you do it.” The Pentagon needs surge production, and “we’re going to have to contract for it.”

LaPLante said he’s been “very vocal” about the need for multiyear procurements on munitions.

“When people see that there are multiyear contracts coming along for munitions and that we’re going to put production lines at higher capacity, and we’re going to pay for it, and we’re going to put it in the RFP, and we’re going to award to it, they’ll pay attention,” he said.

He also said the armaments directors agree that NATO needs not just interoperability, but interchangeability, with multiple plants in multiple countries making identical items in order to have greater surge capacity.

LaPlante said an industry official told him, “‘To be honest with you, you’re going to have to make us do it. We will not do it on our own, because it actually puts us at a disadvantage to our competitor. If my stuff is interchangeable with another company’s stuff, then I’ve just lowered the barrier of entry.’” Nevertheless, it will be done because it will be part of the contract, he said.

Similarly, the Pentagon will have to put open architectures into contracts, because “otherwise, it’s not going to happen.”

LaPlante said there’s also fatigue among the allies for highly complex weapon systems that take a long time to develop at great cost. The allies and partners are agreed that they will, where possible, take advantage of the investments they have all made in new systems to reduce costs and broaden production.

“An example would be the E-7, which the Air Force is interested in … It’s a Boeing plane that Australia paid the non-recurring [costs] for, to fit it up as an AWACS replacement.” With a little extra investment for communications, “it’s done,” LaPlante said. “You’ve got yourself an airplane. It’s in production—imagine that. People are going to want to do more of that.” There will be more co-production agreements, and the U.S. and its allies will also “share more information,” he said.

The new National Defense Strategy extensively features “integrated deterrence,” LaPlante said.

“If I was somebody we were trying to deter, I would pay a whole lot of attention if a [U.S.] production line showed up in Australia and Japan for capabilities that previously had only been produced in the United States.”

Missile Defense of Guam Is ‘Big Issue,’ DOD Official Says

Missile Defense of Guam Is ‘Big Issue,’ DOD Official Says

Nov. 4, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

The U.S. is “clearly committed” to its plans to significantly improve its missile defense of Guam, a senior defense official said Nov. 3, expanding on a key theme of the recently released Missile Defense Review.

“Missile defense of Guam is a big deal,” John Plumb, the assistant secretary of defense for space policy, said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s going to require persistent layered defenses. We have cruise missile threats. We have ballistic missile threats, general air threats. So doing that is a big issue, and we are very clearly committed to it.”

The U.S. territory in the Western Pacific is a major U.S. military and logistical center that may be within the range of Chinese missiles. The 2022 National Defense Strategy, released jointly with the Missile Defense Review for the first time, called China the “pacing threat” to America over the coming “decisive decade.”

If the U.S. were to enter a conflict with China, Guam would be critical to support U.S. operations. China has been increasingly aggressive in its claims over Taiwan. President Joe Biden has pledged to defend the self-governed democratic island that Beijing claims as its own. As the home of Anderson Air Force Base, as well as a major naval base, Guam is key to supporting large U.S. air operations in the Pacific. B-1 bombers and A-10 close air support aircraft have recently been operating from Guam, the westernmost part of U.S. soil.

“The defense of Guam, it’s clearly about China,” said Plumb, whose portfolio includes missile defense. “Just no beating around the bush. That’s what it is. Guam is a power projection hub for us. We have military forces there. We have U.S. citizens there, and we’re going to protect it.”

Guam is a U.S. territory, not a state, but the Missile Defense Review clarifies that it should not invite China or any other nation to view an attack on Guam, one-fourth of which is land owned by the U.S., as less significant.

“We’ve also very clearly stated an attack on Guam is, in fact, an attack on the U.S. homeland in case there had been any misunderstanding about that by the adversary,” Plumb said.

However, unlike the continental U.S., Guam does not have fixed air defenses. Currently, the island is primarily protected by an ad-hoc system of Army Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems and Navy ships off its coast with Aegis systems.

THAAD “gives us protection from ballistic missiles, and some of the other missiles as well, but it is somewhat limited in scope,” Navy Rear Adm. Benjamin Nicholson told Air & Space Forces Magazine in June.

U.S. commanders have expressed a desire for a comprehensive system that can detect and destroy ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic weapons, and other threats. If the U.S. Air Force is to fight a high-intensity conflict in the Pacific, Guam will be crucial to stage, refuel, repair, and rearm aircraft. To counter threats to major hubs such as Guam, the Air Force hopes to adopt what it calls agile combat employment (ACE), or distributed operations. But the vastness of the Pacific ocean means constructing new airstrips in the region will not be easy and that Guam will play a significant role as the Air Force moves forward with ACE.

“I can’t get it soon enough,” Pacific Air Forces Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach said of improved missile defenses. “So I need them to push it up—hurry up and field those capabilities for them and for us.”

Those concerns have been heard by civilian leaders at the Pentagon and were formally backed up in the Missile Defense Review, Plumb insisted. The Department of Defense has proposed over half a billion dollars in fiscal 2023 to build a 360-degree, integrated air and missile defense system for Guam.

“We are going to fund that, and we’ve addressed it kind of head-on, and we’re investing in it to a significant tune, and we’ll continue to do so to make sure that we can do it,” Plumb said. “That is new because it’s the difference between saying we should do things and actually doing them.”

AMC Investigating Class A Mishap That Damaged KC-46 Boom, Fuselage

AMC Investigating Class A Mishap That Damaged KC-46 Boom, Fuselage

Nov. 4, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Air Mobility Command is investigating a potential Class A mishap involving a KC-46 Pegasus tanker that left the plane’s boom and fuselage damaged in October.

The incident, which occurred Oct. 15, was first reported by Air Force Times after images circulated on social media showing the refueler with a cracked boom and a dented tail cone. AMC spokesperson Capt. Natasha Mosquera confirmed the details to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The KC-46 in question belongs to the 305th Air Mobility Wing from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., and was flying back to the base from the United Kingdom when it experienced an “in-flight emergency after experiencing a problem with the refueling system, causing damage to the boom and fuselage,” Mosquera said.

Air Force Times reported that the problem occurred while the KC-46 was refueling an F-15 due to the two planes flying at such different speeds that the boom forcibly broke away from the fighter and hit the KC-46.

Mosquera told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the cause of the problem had not been determined, with an investigation scheduled to conclude in late November. 

The Air Force defines Class A mishaps as those that result in a death or permanent disability, cause more than $2.5 million in damage, or result in the destruction of an aircraft. No injuries were reported from this mishap.

The final cost of the incident, however, won’t be determined until the investigation is complete. After that, AMC may convene an Accident Investigation Board to study the issue further.

The 305th AMW first began accepting KC-46s just shy of a year ago.

The Pegasus has endured a high-profile series of problems that limited the tanker’s operations for months and delayed declaration of initial operational capability by years. It was only this past September that the Air Force declared the aircraft ready for worldwide deployments and combatant commander taskings, including in combat, with the sole exception of the A-10.

Among those issues, the Air Force determined several years ago that the KC-46’s boom was too stiff, meaning it “would not extend or retract during flight testing unless subjected to more force” than some aircraft could manage, according to a Pentagon inspector general’s report.

At the same time, the service also uncovered problems with the aircraft’s Remote Vision System, the setup of cameras and monitors the boom operator uses to connect the tanker to the refueling aircraft.  The system has been found to wash out or black out in certain conditions, such as in direct sunlight, and sometimes causes problems with the operator’s depth perception. That creates the risk of the boom operator accidentally hitting the aircraft the KC-46 is refueling.

Both the boom and RVS problems have been labeled Category 1 deficiencies, the most serious, and are still unresolved. Mosquera confirmed to Air & Space Forces Magazine that fixes for both issues are still years away.

However, it is still not clear whether either of those problems contributed to the recent mishap, and Mosquera indicated that there have been no extra alerts or precautions put in place because of it.

“AMC is confident in the KC-46’s ability to project and connect the Joint force worldwide and will continue to meet global taskings in support of combatant command requirements,” she said.