F-35A Crashes at Hill AFB; Pilot Safely Ejects

Oct. 20, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

An F-35A fighter assigned to the 388th Fighter Wing crashed at the north end of the runway at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, on Oct. 19. The incident occurred at about 6:15 p.m. local time, according to the wing.

The pilot ejected and was taken to a local medical center for observation, Hill Air Force Base said.

“Flying military aircraft is a risky business that we all accept when we go do it,” Col. Craig Andrle, commander of the 388th Fighter Wing, said in a news conference Oct. 19. “These things happen. Tonight, first and foremost, we’re thankful he’s OK. He got out of the aircraft.”

Hill Air Force Base and the 388th Fighter Wing asked followers on Twitter and Facebook who saw the crash or may have found related debris to reach out by email or phone. They said that the cause of the crash was unknown and would be investigated. Andrle said the pilot was returning to Hill from a routine training mission.

Hill is home to the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings, both of which fly the F-35A.

Security camera video obtained by a local news outlet showed the aircraft crashing into a mountainous area and erupting into flames. Multiple videos and photos posted to social media showed the ensuing fire. State fire officials said the crash caused an eight- to 10-acre wildfire on DOD land.

“All of us as pilots take every opportunity we have to mitigate the damage to anything on the ground, so I do know that the pilot made his best effort to avoid any buildings or anything on the ground prior to ejection,” Andrle said.

This was the seventh crash of the Lockheed Martin-made F-35. It was preceded by crashes of two USAF F-35As, two Marine Corps F-35Bs, one U.S. Navy F-35C, one Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-35A, and one Royal Air Force F-35B.

Report: Better Space Situational Awareness Needed to Mitigate Future Debris Risk

Oct. 20, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

The effects of Russia’s 2021 anti-satellite weapon test on just one commercial satellite constellation illustrate the urgency of just one aspect of space safety.

The nonprofit Aerospace Corp.’s Space Safety Institute, in its 44-page “2022 Space Safety Compendium”—the first of its kind, released Oct. 19—examines not only how the ASAT test’s resulting debris brought about problematic orbital conjunctions in the thousands but also how future constellations, planned in droves over the coming decade, are likely to affect the space environment.

A “dominating commercial space market” is expanding the scope of space missions to include the likes of commercial human spaceflight and even industrial activities such as mining. But all that new activity is also shining a light on the limitations of “current safety measures and norms,” according to the report.

Its authors make 35 recommendations on themes including space situational awareness—in part to try to model the effects of debris—as well as space operations, launch and reentry, “cyber and spectrum,” and human spaceflight safety.

“Some recommendations are broad outlooks for the future,” according to the report, while “others are concrete next steps that the space sector can take. The variety of scope and scale … reflects the diverse set of space safety challenges.”

Debris from Russia’s 2021 ASAT weapon test, in which it struck a nonworking Soviet satellite with a ground-launched missile, forced SpaceX’s Starlink to maneuver 1,700 times “in the first months” afterward, and on a single day this August, about a third of the constellation passed closely to one or more pieces of debris several thousand times in what’s been termed a “squall.”

Aerospace Corp.’s Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies has worked on software tools to analyze “potential collision and explosion scenarios,” but the report concludes that more such tools “should encompass a vast array of space operations” such as simulating the breakup of debris and predicting the subsequent risk to spacecraft.

Since SpaceX’s Starlink constellation has proven itself effective for the Ukrainian military, Russian officials have said commercial satellites could become military targets.

More recommendations in the report include:

Space situational awareness: A “holistic” approach with enhanced data handling; and reducing the uncertainties in tracking so satellite operators don’t have to be notified as often about close calls.
Space operations: Actively removing debris from orbit while creating regulatory processes and ways for stakeholders to collaborate.
Launch and reentry: A “comprehensive national airspace system” and taking disposal into consideration when designing a spacecraft.
Cyber and spectrum: Getting “cyber intrusion detection and prevention applications” onboard spacecraft—something the Space Force has said the service’s existing satellites are lacking.
Human spaceflight safety: Addressing “the in-space rescue capabilities gap” with rescue plans included in launch plans.

White House: Space Missions Are Federal, so No Need for a Space National Guard

Oct. 19, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

President Joe Biden’s administration is not backing off its opposition to the creation of a Space National Guard, even as a group of lawmakers continue their push for it.

In a statement of administration policy on the Senate’s version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act released Oct. 18, the White House Office of Management and Budget once again made clear that it believes a Space Guard is unnecessary and instead touted its proposal for a hybrid “Space Component” that includes full-time and part-time Guardians.

Unlike policy statements from last year, however, the OMB went further in arguing that all space missions currently performed by the Air National Guard are federal in nature—meaning states have no need for a Space National Guard.

“DOD’s space missions currently performed by members of the National Guard are solely Federal missions and should be migrated to the Space Component over time,” the policy statement reads.

The White House’s argument, in effect, is that there are no specific missions for which states need military space forces, so those should be consolidated on the federal level.

That’s a new element of the administration’s argument against the Space Guard, an argument it first started making last year when a proposal to establish a Space National Guard was included in the House’s version of the NDAA.

In its policy statement on that NDAA, the White House contended that establishing a Space National Guard would cost up to $500 million annually, an estimate that proponents of the new Guard argued was based on inaccurate assumptions.

This year, OMB dropped the $500 million annual cost estimate from its critique, instead simply noting the “additional overhead of a separate component.”

On the opposite side of the issue, those in favor of a Space National Guard have argued that the cost would be only several hundred thousand dollars—enough for cosmetic changes such as name tape, unit flags, and signs.

And while the White House is arguing that space missions are all federal, Space National Guard boosters have claimed that many Guard members serve in part because of the state-level missions they’re able to contribute to, such as disaster relief or humanitarian aid.

Ultimately, the proposal for a Space Guard was dropped from last year’s NDAA as top lawmakers drafted a compromise bill outside of the usual conference process. But the issue is back again in this year’s authorization act.

In June, the House Armed Services Committee approved a provision creating the Guard in its markup of the NDAA. That provision was included in the bill the entire House passed in July.

On the Senate side, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not include the Space National Guard in its markup, a move that the White House said in its policy statement that it “appreciates.” But a group of seven Senators have introduced an amendment that would establish an SNG. That bipartisan group includes Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who introduced the Space National Guard Establishment Act back in May, alongside 10 other co-sponsors.

The fate of the NDAA amendment remains to be seen. It is one of roughly 900 that have been proposed on the Senate floor. Lawmakers will adopt some of those amendments in a package, actually debate and vote on a few, and simply drop the rest, but those actions likely won’t happen until after the November midterm elections.

New Image Shows How B-52 Will Look After Engine, Radar Replacement

Oct. 19, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

A new image from Boeing shows how the B-52H will look after a series of modifications that the Air Force has said are significant enough to warrant re-designating the aircraft as the B-52J or K. The image was rendered from a digital prototyping model and is likely to closely resemble the final version.

Prominent in the image are the larger-diameter fans of the new F130 engines to be built by Rolls-Royce North America. Also noteworthy are how the engine nacelles, each containing two engines, are set higher and farther forward than the nacelles for the Pratt & Whitney TF-33 engines with which the B-52 has been flying since 1962. The new engines are set higher in part to provide more ground clearance. The need to validate how the new engines/nacelles will behave in relation to the wing and flap system is a major part of the flight testing program set to start in the next two years.

A B-52H Stratofortress aircraft assigned to the 23rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron takes off at RAF Fairford, U.K., Sept. 21, 2022. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Eugene Oliver.

The nose of the aircraft will also be streamlined, losing the blisters that currently house the forward-looking infrared/electro-optical viewing system to facilitate the new radar, a variant of the AN/APG-79 used on the Boeing F/A-18EF SuperHornet. The FLIR/EO system was used for terrain avoidance and battle assessment, but some of those functions will migrate to the radar or already have shifted to either a Litening or Sniper targeting pod, which the B-52 can carry on a wing pylon.

In addition to the engines and radar, the B-52 is getting an updated cockpit, a “hybrid” analog-digital engine control system, communications and navigation enhancements, and the deletion of one crew member station.

Also prominent in the images are two large humps on top of the fuselage, near the wing roots. A Boeing spokesperson said the humps are “not new and not part of our program,” but they seem larger than any fairings or blisters now in that area, which house GPS and other comm/nav equipment. Pressed, the Boeing spokesperson said, “I have nothing for you on that,” a phrase that sometimes indicates a classified issue. The humps’ location and size might suggest a larger, anti-jam GPS antenna.

New engines were the major reason the B-52G became the B-52H in 1962, Col. Louise Ruscetta, senior materiel leader for the B-52, said in August. But given that the combined engine/radar program represents “the largest modification in the history” of the B-52, a new designation is likely, Ruscetta said. There may be an interim designation because the radar will be installed before the engines and will drive a change in operating and maintenance manuals and documentation. The documents will change again once the engines have been replaced. The Air Force and Air Force Global Strike Command are looking at “how do we define” the new variant or variants, Ruscetta said.

The new radar is an active electronically scanned array type as used by fighters. It will take up far less room than the old mechanically scanned system, so the change will create growth space for electronic warfare functions, Ruscetta said. At least some of the B-52 fleet will be operational with both new radars and new engines by the end of the decade.

F-16s Intercept Russian Bombers Near Alaska, NORAD Says

Oct. 18, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

A pair of U.S. Air Force F-16s intercepted two Russian bombers flying near Alaska on Oct. 17, NORAD announced. The bombers never entered U.S. or Canadian airspace. Officials said they did not see the Russian planes as a threat or provocation.

“No indication that there was any unsafe, unprofessional behavior,” Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters. “They did not pose a threat.”

The Tu-95 Bear-H bombers were tracked entering the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone or ADIZ. An ADIZ can include international airspace to help identify approaching aircraft early. The Alaskan ADIZ covers a large area over the Pacific.

The Alaskan NORAD Region detected, tracked, and positively identified the bombers entering and operating in the ADIZ before dispatching two F-16s to intercept them. NORAD’s press release did not specify which units the F-16s belonged to.

The 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson Air Force Base operates F-16s. RED FLAG-Alaska 23-1, the latest installment in the regular Red Flag series of exercises, is currently taking place as well, with F-16s from the 35th Fighter Wing at Misawa Air Base, Japan, flying in the area.

In its release, NORAD officials stressed that the Russian bombers flying in the ADIZ “is not seen as a threat nor is the activity considered provocative.”

“NORAD tracks and positively identifies foreign military aircraft that enter the ADIZ” and “routinely monitors foreign aircraft movements and as necessary, escorts them from the ADIZ,” the statement added.

In September, NORAD announced it had identified and tracked “two Russian maritime patrol aircraft” in the Alaskan ADIZ. Similar incidents occurred in March and January of 2021.

None of those instances, however, involved Russian bombers, and no fighters were sent to intercept those aircraft. The last time NORAD announced that it had identified any Russian bombers in the ADIZ was in September 2020, and the last time it announced that it sent fighters to intercept any aircraft was in August 2020.

This most recent incident comes amid increased tension between the U.S. and Russia. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked international outrage. America has imposed severe sanctions on Russia and sent billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.

Earlier this month, Russia and NATO said they would proceed with large-scale nuclear exercises in the coming weeks, even as Russian President Vladimir Putin has engaged in nuclear saber-rattling that has raised fears he might use his arsenal. The NATO exercise, called Steadfast Noon, is centered at Kleine Brogel Air Base, Belgium.

Advances in Hypersonics Require Quicker Movement on Talent, Testing, Manufacturing

Oct. 18, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The U.S. remains behind China and Russia in the development of hypersonic systems, and catching up will require the Pentagon to accelerate the recruiting and education of experts in the field, invest heavily in test capabilities and work with industry to create a hypersonics industrial base.

So said technical experts, members of Congress, and a senior Defense Department official during an Oct. 18 streaming event hosted by The Hill.

Heidi Shyu, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said the Pentagon is sponsoring scholarships for both undergraduate and graduate work in hypersonics-related fields.

“Last year, we had 482 scholars” enter the program, which pays for bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. programs in exchange for a post-graduate commitment to work in government a matching number of years. She said the Pentagon is looking for a “significant increase” in that number next year.

“We also need to figure out how to keep the talent…in this country,” Shyu said, noting that many countries and foreign firms are anxious to hire hypersonics experts.

Shyu insisted that there is a great deal of urgency in the Pentagon’s efforts to develop hypersonic weapons and match other countries in this regard, but cautioned that it is not the sole area of competition, and hypersonics should not be emphasized at the expense of other worthwhile technology pursuits.

Hypersonics match Russia and China’s strategic goals, but the U.S. has many different priorities, Shyu said, calling hypersonic weapons simply part of a “vast portfolio” of new technologies the U.S. is pursuing for future weapons. It is one of 21 priority areas of scientific research being pursued by her office. Asked if hypersonic weapons will replace any weapons now in the inventory, she repeated that they will be “part of the portfolio.”

Shyu said there is a “significant amount” of funding in the fiscal 2023 budget for the hypersonic test enterprise and predicted a larger amount in the 2024 budget now being built.

Asked about Russia’s use of hypersonic missiles in Ukraine, Shyu said “not everything” demands a hypersonic solution, and Russia’s targeting of a dam with such a weapon was “not the best use” of the technology.

“The dam is still there,” she noted.

Shyu said she will also seek ways to simplify hypersonic systems toward increasing their produceability and therefore lowering their cost.

“If they’re too expensive, you can’t afford very many,” she said.

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ), chair of the House Armed Services tactical air & land forces subcommittee, said he believes there is bipartisan support for hypersonics development and an understanding on both sides of the political aisle that the technology is essential, and that the U.S. is in a catch-up mode.

While he is concerned about the pace of progress, “I think we’re going to be able to meet the timelines” the various services have set for achieving initial operational capability with their various hypersonic weapon systems.

Norcross said he’s concerned, too, not only about a shortage of scientific and engineering talent, but a shortage of workers in aerospace trades, and said Congress should work harder to attract people to work in these trades, which he said can be very lucrative, without the need for “a lot of college debt.”

In visits with allies, Norcross said they have the same workforce concerns.

Asked how he makes the case for strong defense outlays with members of his party who advocate spending less on national security, Norcross said that aggression from China and Russia is “absolutely the case” for why defense should not be shorted in the budget.

“We can absolutely spend it better,” he said, insisting that “the oversight we perform is critically important” but “now, more than ever” defense is a high priority. “We need to spend it, but spend it wisely,” he said.

The industrial base has “not been given the right signals to be ready for this,” he added, and “we have to ramp up.”

Donations of weapons to Ukraine is “increasing … the challenges” of keeping the U.S. military stocked and ready, Norcross added. He also called House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s recent comments—that getting Ukraine military aid through Congress will be harder if Republicans win back the House—“surprising, given what we are hearing, both in open and classified sessions with our colleagues.” There are plenty of checks and balances and “accountability” for the aid, he said.

He also said he doesn’t see any “gaps in support … for our allies in this case.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), in a recorded interview included in the broadcast, said hypersonics is “maybe the most important issue facing the future of our strategic forces.” He claimed there is a “strong consensus” between the two chambers of Congress and between the political parties to provide the needed funds for it.

In the coming National Defense Authorization Act, there is a “hypersonics initiative” to provide more research and development money, to the tune of an additional $2 billion, he said.

Lamborn cited test capacity for hypersonics as a key concern, and said the U.S. is well behind China in that regard. He said he’s still trying to “get to the bottom” of why hypersonics was neglected for so long after the U.S. did pioneering work in the field and allowed China to capitalize on that research and get ahead.

“We kind of dropped it … thinking other things were higher priorities,” Lamborn said, adding that it is his “A-1” priority. He insisted that hypersonics “parity” with China and Russia will be a “stabilizing, not destabilizing” development. He also said he’s pushing for development of space tracking systems that will help in building a hypersonic missile defense capability.

Mark Lewis, director of the National Defense Industrial Association’s Emerging Technologies Institute, said China and Russia are ahead of the U.S. in hypersonics “by any measure I can construct,” those countries having “stolen our homework.”

They built on our success, built on our research, and they’ve gone to deployed systems while we’re still in the research and development phase,” Lewis said, before noting that Russia’s failure to use hypersonic weapons in Ukraine “very effectively” says more about Russia’s capabilities “than about the capabilities of hypersonics.”

There is reason for optimism in the bipartisan support for hypersonics and its high priority with the Pentagon, Lewis said, and “all the services have hypersonics programs, and they all make sense within the context of those services.”

Echoing Lamborn, Lewis said the key roadblock to hypersonics success is test infrastructure. Investments are being made “but we’re still not there,” with a “backlog” in tunnel work as well as flight test. There’s a waiting list of “months, if not years” for access to certain kinds of tunnels and airspace.

“That’s not a recipe for success,” he said.

Meanwhile, explaining the importance of hypersonics is still a recurring issue.

“You would think the case has already been made … it’s been studied to death,” Lewis said. He noted that in various wargames, if the U.S. faces an adversary with hypersonic weapons, “We lose. It’s as simple as that.”

Another roadblock is coordination, and hypersonic advance needs to be viewed as a “whole of nation, whole of government problem if we’re going to turn this capability over to our warfighters.”

Kelly Stephani, a professor of hypersonics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champagn, said “the window is closing” on getting hypersonics technology moving at the right speed because it takes up to eight years to develop a Ph.D. in appropriate disciplines. Given where other countries currently stand, the U.S. is significantly behind, she said.

“We need to ramp up … yesterday,” she said, echoing the remark that tradespeople are needed to translate theory into hardware.

“We have to increase tenfold our investment” in recruiting and educating hypersonic engineers and scientists, Stephani said.

“If you think about the number of masters and PhDs we’re producing now, it’s not sufficient to replace the retiring workforce. So if we’re going to get serious about this … we need to invest more in these university partnerships, they need to be integrated directly with government and industry partners, so our students are ready to transition upon graduation,” Stephani added.

On top of that, industry is challenged to manufacture hypersonics-specialized materials and components “at scale,” Stephani said. This will require “reinventing our strategy and approach” to some items, too many of which are sourced from overseas.

Lewis said China “worries me the most” because they are the closest to fielding true operational capabilities in significant numbers—the intelligence community has kept track of the Chinese progress in that area, and the Chinese themselves have showcased it at time.

“It’s not a secret. They showed it off at a military parade in 2019,” Lewis noted.

Hypersonics “exactly match their needs in their part of the world,” Lewis said, giving China the ability to hold naval vessels and Air Force bases in the region at risk. “It makes sense in the context of what the Chinese hope to gain,” he said.

Air Force Strength Now ‘Very Weak,’ Heritage Foundation Report Says

Oct. 18, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force’s readiness has hit new lows due to pilot shortages, low flying hours, and aging aircraft, the Heritage Foundation’s 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength found—leading the conservative think tank to give the service its lowest possible rating of “very weak.”

The Space Force, meanwhile, still needs more assets to cope with rapid growth in the domain, the report found. That, coupled with a lack of publicly known offensive and defensive weapons systems and capabilities, led to a rating of “weak” for the second year in a row.

Overall, the U.S. military’s strength was rated as “weak” on a five-point scale of very weak to very strong, the lowest score Heritage has given the military since it began the index in 2015. Of the individual services, the Air Force scored the lowest, with only the Marine Corps and the overall nuclear enterprise getting ratings of “strong.”

“The common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation caused by many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity in spite of repeated efforts by Congress to provide relief from low budget ceilings imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011,” the index’s executive summary states.

Air Force

In Heritage’s inaugural 2015 index, the Air Force was the only service given a rating of “strong,” buoyed by positive marks in capacity and readiness.

For many years, the service maintained at least a “marginal” rating. That changed in the 2022 index as a continued decline in readiness led to its first-ever “weak” assessment, even as capacity and capability were still judged to be “marginal.”

That trend continued in the latest report, with capacity and capability holding steady but readiness declining even further in the authors’ eyes.

“Like a three legged stool, success or failure is determined by the weakest leg,” senior research fellow John Venable, a 25-year Air Force veteran, wrote in explaining the overall “very weak” grade.

Specifically, Venable cited the Air Force’s failure to reverse shortages of both pilots and flying time for those pilots.

“The summer of 2022 should have found the Air Force all but fully recovered from the effects of COVID-19. Readiness levels as measured by operational sortie rates and flying hours should have been well above the historic lows reached during the pandemic; instead, they have grown only marginally,” Venable wrote. “The service’s ability (or willingness) to fund and then generate sorties and flying hours for training has now spiraled well below the hollow-force days of the Carter administration with equally dismal readiness levels.”

The index cites the average flying hours per month for fighter pilots, which increased from 8.7 to 10 between 2020 and 2021, but is still well below prior years.

Broadly speaking, flying hours actually declined across the board from 2020 to 2021, according to Air Force data previously provided to Air & Space Forces Magazine, as airlift, bomber, and tanker pilots all got less time in the air.

Air Force leaders have acknowledged fewer flying hours for pilots is a problem. At a Heritage Foundation event in June, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said he was “not happy with where we are” and noted the decline began with budget sequestration in 2011.

The Heritage index argued that “the current generation of fighter pilots, those who have been actively flying for the last seven years, has never experienced a healthy rate of operational flying.”

“Those numbers are so low in a high-performance fighter that pilot competence levels drop to the point where even excellent pilots begin to question their execution of very basic tasks and where the execution of complex mission tasks can become overwhelming,” Venable wrote.

The amount of flying hours is not the only issue that is hurting readiness. With mission capable rates declining, and fleets getting older, the overall numbers of combat-capable aircraft ready to rapidly deploy indicate the Air Force would “struggle to respond to a regional contingency, much less hold the readiness levels, competence, and confidence levels required to square off against a peer competitor,” Venable wrote. From a personnel standpoint, the service has yet to close a persistent shortage of pilots.

Space Force

The Heritage report praised the Space Force’s integration of units and assets from across the Department of Defense since its founding and the importance of the GPS satellite constellation. But analysts argued that the young service has yet to show improvement in capacity, capability, or readiness, giving each category a rating of “weak.”

In particular, the report dings the Space Force’s space situational awareness capabilities and capacity, warning that as private industry and other state actors build out their presence in space, the service will be challenged to keep track of bad actors.

When it comes to defensive and offensive weapon systems, the report acknowledged that it is limited because so many of the Space Force’s capabilities remain classified. But based on publicly available information, “there is little evidence that [the Space Force] is ready for the threat envisioned by Congress when it authorized creation of the Space Force,” the report states.

Future of F-35 Production Will Depend on US ‘Budget Priorities,’ Lockheed Martin CEO Says

Oct. 18, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

Lockheed Martin suggested the long-term sales prospects for its F-35 jet are uncertain amid worries the Department of Defense may begin to pivot away from the program. In the short term, new production of the F-35 will go down in 2023.

“The U.S. government’s got to kind of determine what its budget priorities are at the macro level going forward,” Lockheed Martin CEO James D. Taiclet said on a quarterly earnings call Oct. 17.

Much of the U.S. military’s focus is shifting towards strategic deterrence, Taiclet claimed—that means more of the defense budget will be spent on new Air Force programs such as the B-21 stealth bomber and the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile that will replace the Minuteman III.

“There’s going to be a significant amount of defense budget proportionally spent on the nuclear revitalization,” Taiclet said. However, Lockheed Martin’s boss said that should not come at the expense of tactical aircraft.

“The conventional threats have gotten worse instead of better,” Taiclet said. “As we look forward into the next two or three or four years, that’s going to be a budget issue for the U.S. government.”

The company put its short-term decreased F-35 production down to supply-chain issues and the need to fill outstanding orders.

“There will be a period of catch-up,” Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave said of the F-35. “Production will be down next year.” Malave said the company expected supply chain issues and other “headwinds” facing the program will “normalize heading into 2024.”

The company expects a Lot 16 F-35 order worth more than $8 billion to be completed by the end of 2022. In August, the Pentagon awarded a $7.6 billion Lot 15 contract to Lockheed Martin for up to 129 aircraft with 49 F-35As bound for the Air Force.

In the future, Lockheed Martin sees strong demand for the F-35 abroad but some tepidness for the plane at home. In light of Russia’s aggression, European militaries have bolstered their defense spending, including F-35s. In September, the Swiss government signed a contract for 36 F-35As—Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the U.K all already operate the fighter, and Belgium, Finland, Germany, and Poland have all officially selected it. Greece and the Czech Republic are also seeking to buy.

The DOD, however, has been less keen on new aircraft purchases. The Air Force requested just 33 F-35As in its 2023 budget, which has yet to be passed by Congress.

Lockheed has set a long-term objective to produce 156 F-35s a year.

“It takes about 80 U.S. aircraft to make that happen per year with another 75 or so coming from international,” Taiclet said. “We see the international demand. It’s going to be up to the U.S. government to try to support that number.”

Some U.S. uncertainty stems from outstanding issues regarding what capabilities future F-35s will have, not just budget concerns.

The services are awaiting Lockheed Martin’s long-planned Block 4 and Technical Refresh 3 improvements to the jet and DOD’s own decision on the powerplant for Block 4 fighters. If a newly-designed, more expensive option from the Adaptive Engine Transition Program is chosen, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has suggested the service will be forced to buy fewer F-35As.

Lockheed’s executives acknowledged that America’s yearly F-35 buys would result from not just the DOD’s future budget priorities but what Congress ultimately decides to put into law. In the case of the Pentagon’s fiscal 2023 budget, that hasn’t happened yet.

“The defense budget is expected to go above and beyond what the President’s original submission was,” Taiclet said, adding the final bill “probably would benefit” the F-35.

For now, Lockheed Martin’s goal of 156 F-35s per year still stands.

“We hope for that,” Taiclet said. “We expect it because that’s the need, and that’s where we think the F-35 program is going to go.”

Jim McDivitt, USAF Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, and Apollo Astronaut, dies at 93

Oct. 18, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Brig. Gen. James A. McDivitt, a fighter pilot in the Korean War and Air Force test pilot and astronaut in both the Gemini and Apollo program who later managed the Apollo lunar landing program and became a business executive, died Oct. 13 at the age of 93.

McDivitt’s 1969 Apollo 9 mission, the first test of all the vehicles and gear to be used in reaching the moon, paved the way for the Apollo 11 lunar landing four months later.

Born in Chicago, Ill. in 1929, McDivitt entered the Air Force as an aviation cadet in 1951 and earned his wings and commission a year later. He trained in the F-80 and in late 1952 was assigned to the Korean theater, where he flew 145 combat missions in the F-80 and F-86, twice receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Returning to the U.S., McDivitt served at McGuire and Tyndall Air Force Bases as an interceptor pilot. In 1959, he was first in his class completing his undergraduate degree in aeronautical engineering through the University of Michigan and the Air Force Institute of Technology.

That same year, he applied to, and was accepted by, the Air Force test pilot school. He graduated from that course as well as the first class of the Aerospace Research Pilot School. He then worked on a number of developmental aircraft—including as a chase pilot on the X-15 program—and he was due to head the F-4 Phantom test program when in 1962 he was selected by NASA for the second group of astronauts.

McDivitt was assigned to command Gemini IV, the most ambitious U.S. spaceflight up to that point. He flew the four-day mission in 1966 with fellow astronaut Edward White; it was the first Gemini flight to be commanded by a space rookie. During the 66-orbit mission, White made the first spacewalk by an American, and the pair conducted a dozen other scientific and medical experiments, although an attempt to rendezvous with the Titan rocket’s spent upper stage did not succeed, due in part to NASA’s still nascent understanding or orbital rendezvous techniques. A computer failure forced McDivitt to improvise an unplanned and unrehearsed method of re-entry, all the while struggling with a stuck thruster, but the capsule made a safe landing just 50 miles from its target.

Three years later, McDivitt commanded the three-man Apollo 9—flying with lunar module pilot David Scott and command module pilot Russell Schweickart—which was the first space test of both the Apollo command/service module (CSM) and lunar landing vehicle, both together and separately.

The shakeout flight also marked the first transfer of crew from one spacecraft to another, and the second docking of two crewed spacecraft. McDivitt and Scott flew the lunar module 100 miles away from the CSM to test its handling and systems. Schweickart also tested the backpack to be worn on the moon, in a two-person spacewalk with Scott. McDivitt successfully re-docked with the CSM, jettisoned the lunar module as planned and made a safe return to earth.

The successful mission cleared the way for the Apollo 10 dress rehearsal of the moon landing in lunar orbit two months later, and the Apollo 11 landing just two months after that.

Although offered command of a later moon landing mission, McDivitt opted instead to become manager of lunar landing operations in the Apollo Spacecraft Office, and later head of the Apollo Spacecraft Program, responsible for planning Apollos 11-16 and overseeing a redesign of the lunar module to allow longer stays on the moon.

McDivitt stayed in the Air Force through his astronaut career, and was promoted to brigadier general in early 1972. A disagreement with NASA leaders on crew selection for Apollo 17 prompted McDivitt to resign from the program a few months later, however. He retired from NASA and the Air Force soon afterward, before the last Apollo moon mission at the end of that year.

Almost immediately, McDivitt took up the position of executive vice president of the Consumers Power Company in his home state of Michigan. Three years later, he joined the Pullman, Inc. railroad company as an executive vice president and director, and later that year became president of the Pullman Standard Division.

In 1981, McDivitt joined the Rockwell International aerospace company, as senior vice president for government operations and international. He worked at Rockwell for 14 years until his retirement in 1995.

Among his Air Force decorations, McDivitt received the Distinguished Service Medal, three awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross, four Air Medals and Air Force Astronaut wings. He also received the NASA Exceptional Service Medal. He was awarded honorary doctorates from Seton Hall University and Miami University of Ohio.

McDivitt was a member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Tau Beta Pi engineering honors society, the Phi Kappa Phi honors society, and the Atlantic Council on Foreign Diplomacy. He logged more than 4,500 hours of flying time, with more than 3,500 in jet aircraft.