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.

Astronaut James A. McDivitt, shown here in his official 1971 portrait, died Oct. 13, 2022. McDivitt commanded Gemini IV, the second crewed Gemini flight, and Apollo 9, which tested the first lunar module in Earth orbit. McDivitt joined the U.S. Air Force in 1951 and was selected to be an astronaut in 1962. As commander of Gemini IV in 1965, McDivitt stayed in the capsule while crewmate Ed White became the first American to walk in space. The 1969 flight of Apollo 9 was the first to test all the hardware needed to land astronauts on the Moon, including the lunar module. McDivitt was the Apollo program manager for the Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 missions. He left NASA in June 1972. NASA

TRANSCOM Unveils More Agile Strategy to Deter China, Defend Logistics

Oct. 17, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

The United States can longer assume its logistics are safe from harm and must develop a more agile approach to contend with China’s growing ability to disrupt American and allied shipping and airlift, the head of U.S. Transportation Command Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost said Oct. 17.

“None of us want logistics to cause failure on the battlefield,” Van Ovost said. “We cannot do things the same way.”

Van Ovost presented the new plan for TRANSCOM in a speech to the National Defense Transportation Association in St. Louis. It reflects the new approach for dealing with future adversaries that will be soon be rolled out in the Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy.

“The ability to generate and sustain operational momentum in compressed timelines, to more destinations, with a limited capacity will be an imperative,” Van Ovost said.

Van Ovost said the vastness of the Pacific and China’s long-range strike capabilities has prompted the new approach. In the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. built up its forces for months before driving Iraqi troops out of Kuwait at a time of its choosing. In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s, TRANSCOM could airlift massive amounts of troops and materiel without any interference.

In the new age of conflict, the enemy will get a vote on when and where U.S. forces operate, possibly risking their ability even to leave the homeland, Van Ovost said.

“Over 85 percent of the joint force is stationed in the United States, and our competitors are on a trajectory that will present persistent threats across multiple domains including throughout North America,” the TRANSCOM strategy reads. “If these threats are left unresolved, our power projection capability will be put at risk and will force us to “fight to get to the fight.’”

TRANSCOM has already been forced to adjust to rapidly changing events. During the U.S. withdrawal of Afghanistan in late summer of 2021, Air Mobility Command, part of TRANSCOM, evacuated over 100,000 people from the country with little notice and planning as part of Operation Allies Refuge. Since the renewed Russian invasion of Ukraine, TRANSCOM has delivered billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance to Europe, as well as U.S. forces, including the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division.

Those operations, while successful, exposed weaknesses in handling data that slowed the effort, according to Van Ovost.

“Change is hard,” she said.

TRANSCOM’s efforts in Europe and Afghanistan pale in comparison to the effort that might be required to support a U.S. military operation in the Pacific, such as a defense of Taiwan. In the future, and especially in the Pacific, TRANSCOM will need to anticipate threats before they arise.

Van Ovost wants to use commercial planes and ships more to fill gaps in the U.S. military’s fleet. In Europe, two-thirds of TRANSCOM’s airlifts of aid to Ukraine have been operated by contracted airlines, not military aircraft and crews. Part of TRANSCOM’s new strategy entails building the capability to operate more nimbly by employing commercial assets, drawing on increased overflight access, and using a wider array of seaports, railways, and airfields.

“We must expand and strengthen our global transportation networks to facilitate our ability to aggregate force packages to fight and then disaggregate to survive during brief periods of domain superiority,” states TRANSCOM’s strategy.

“We must adopt the mentality that challenge is not synonymous with impossible and contested is not the same as impenetrable,” Van Ovost said.

Security Forces Airman Gets Bronze Star with Valor for Fighting Off Terrorist Attack in Kenya

Oct. 17, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

An Air Force security forces squadron flight sergeant received the Bronze Star Medal with Valor on Oct. 12 in recognition of his heroism in defending against a terrorist ground attack in Kenya in 2020.

Tech. Sgt. Jordan Locke, now a member of the 51st Security Forces Squadron at Osan Air Base in South Korea, engaged in an hours-long fight with the terrorists as they attacked Cooperative Security Location-Manda Bay, according to an Air Force press release.

Holding his ground under fire, Locke helped to conduct overwatch security, which allowed other service members to continue the fight, the release added.

“That fight had lasted four to five hours, and within those four to five hours, we were fired upon multiple times,” Locke said in a statement. “Bullets were impacting right next to me.”

Al-Shabab terrorists launched the attack on Manda Bay on Jan. 5, 2020, killing a U.S. Soldier and two American contractors in the terrorist group’s first ever attack on a U.S. military base in Kenya. However, U.S. and Kenyan forces were able to repel the terrorists and secure the base.

In the aftermath of the attack, service members were “so mentally and physically exhausted,” Locke said, leading him to check on his teammates.

“There’s a huge difference between saying, ‘Are you OK?’ and actually sitting down and having that conversation with them to make sure that they’re OK and to see if there’s anything that I can do on my end to help them,” Locke said.

Locke is just the latest of several Airmen to earn decorations for their actions during the attack. Master Sgt. Mathue B. Snow, now at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., was recognized with a Bronze Star medal earlier this month, and Senior Master Sgt. Jeremy D. Mapalo received a Bronze Star with Valor in August. Both Snow and Mapalo are also security forces Airmen.

Staff Sgt. Colleen F. Mitchell, an aerospace medical technician, was recognized as one of the Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year in 2021 for her actions during the attack. She helped establish a casualty collection point and activated and led a team of four augmented medical personnel to provide immediate triage and assessment; and provided emergent prolonged field care for more than 16 hours.

Three Kenyan service members were also recognized by U.S. Africa Command and given U.S. Joint Service Commendation Medals.

According to the Air Force, roughly three percent of Bronze Star medals are awarded with valor—given when the service member is in direct combat and demonstrates heroism “above what is normally expected while engaged in direct combat with an enemy of the United States, or an opposing foreign or armed force, with exposure to enemy hostilities and personal risk.”

Image of New B-52 Cockpit Shows a Cleaner Layout

Oct. 17, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

A new Boeing image shows the B-52 cockpit will take on a cleaner, more streamlined appearance after the bomber completes a program of some of the most substantive changes in its 60-year history.

The image is still considered notional but will likely be close to the final version of how the BUFF’s “front office” will look, starting in the middle of this decade.

The digital image, released by Boeing to Air & Space Forces Magazine, shows a layout with many new “glass cockpit” color displays, but retaining some of the “steam gauges” and analog-style displays from the B-52H’s six decades of service.

Dominating the dashboard will be four large color multifunction displays which will present a variety of flight status information, as well as imagery from the B-52’s new radar system—derived from the F/A-18’s AN/APG-79 radar—as well as presentations of the new B-52 datalink and imagery from Sniper or Litening optical/infrared targeting pods.

The displays may also play a role in employment of the B-52’s new hypersonic weapons—the bomber will be the initial platform for the AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW—as well as its new nuclear weapon, the Long-Range Stand-Off missile, or LRSO.

The center console will also feature an updated throttle station, to control the B-52’s eight new Rolls Royce F130 engines, which will be digitally managed.

A Boeing statement accompanying the image said it shows off “new 8 x 10 digital displays, hybrid mechanical-to-digital throttle system, new data concentrators units (2x), new engine fault maintenance recorder, new engine air data system (and) modified system panels, as well as structural, electrical, pneumatic and hydraulic updates associated with this modernization effort.”

The Air Force opted to change out the B-52’s eight Pratt & Whitney TF-33 powerplants with eight new engine—rather than consolidate to four larger turbofans—for a variety of reasons, most having to do with the limited takeoff clearance of larger-diameter engines; the need for a more radical redesign of the engine/wing/pylon interface and a desire for simplicity in the conversion, and to avoid risk that could delay or derail the program. Continuing with eight engines is also expected to make for an easier transition of B-52 pilots to the upgraded aircraft.

Air Force officials have said they are contemplating re-naming the B-52H the B-52I or B-52J after it receives new radars and engines, because the aircraft will be substantially different enough after the upgrades to warrant a new designator and to keep clearer records of maintenance and pilot hours.

Boeing is the integrator for the various upgrades being installed on the B-52, and will perform much of the internal reconfiguration of control systems and wiring on the initial B-52s at its San Antonio, Texas facilities. Later work will be done at the B-52 depot at the Oklahoma Air Logistics Complex in Oklahoma City.

Roper, Former Joint Chiefs Chair Join Defense Innovation Board for First Meeting in Two Years

Oct. 17, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Former Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, and Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman were among the seven new members of the Defense Innovation Board introduced Oct. 17, as the influential civilian advisory board held its first meeting under new chair Michael R. Bloomberg.

The DIB, composed of academics, technologists, and others experts, consults with the Secretary of Defense and offers recommendations on how the Pentagon can become more innovative and technology-friendly.

The Oct. 17 meeting, held mostly behind closed doors, marks the board’s first gathering in more than two years. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III temporarily halted the work of more than 40 civilian advisory boards and their subcommittees in January 2021, before approving the DIB and several others to resume this past February.

At the same time, Austin announced his pick of Bloomberg, media magnate and former mayor of New York City, as the new chair.

In public remarks after the first meeting, Bloomberg emphasized the need for the board to push the Defense Department to keep rapidly experimenting.

“Innovation isn’t only about science and technology. Innovation starts with people. And it requires building an organizational culture that can develop new ideas, take a few big swings, live with the inevitable misses, and then scale up the ideas that show the most promise,” Bloomberg said. “Fostering that kind of culture is where we can play a helpful role, and we are building from a very strong foundation.”

The seven new members of the board introduced include:

William Roper Jr., distinguished professor at Georgia Tech, senior adviser at McKinsey and Company, and former assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, co-founder of Inflection AI, and partner at Greylock.
Adm. Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations
Gilda Barabino, president at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.
Susan Gordon, Board of Directors member at CACI International, Avantus Federal, MITRE, and BlackSky.
Ryan Swann, chief data analytics officer at Vanguard.
William “Mac” Thornberry, former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and member of Board of Directors at CAE.

Roper’s return to the Pentagon comes roughly 20 months after his tenure as the Air Force’s top acquisition official ended. Within the department, he earned a reputation as an innovator eager to push boundaries and pursue cutting-edge technology. Since he left, he had a brief tenure as CEO of drone-maker Volansi and has advised or joined the boards of several other startups.

Having experience inside and out of the Pentagon, Roper said he is hopeful “to try to bring both of those worlds together on the Defense Innovation Board.”

“I certainly know how challenging innovation is inside of the Pentagon and the services, so I plan to treat every recommendation as if I had to implement it myself,” Roper added. “And hopefully we’ll be able to help move the ball forward for those who are serving right now in government.”

In reconvening the board, Austin asked officials to look at two issues in particular, according to Bloomberg—the Pentagon’s relationship with investment capital, and input for the department’s National Defense Science and Technology Strategy.

Roper highlighted that first area as a particularly important issue and a way for the Pentagon to establish new ties with industry.

“I see huge potential for innovation in the private sector,” Roper said. “It’s a way that we can help counterbalance the consolidation that we’ve had in the defense industrial base—not the fault of those companies, it’s the way we’ve done business that’s forced that consolidation. Allowing companies that are a little bit of .com, a little bit of a .gov, be able to work successfully in national security on their path towards commercial success, global success, can be a winning formula for the U.S.”

Such an approach would also be beneficial to the Pentagon, Gordon added, as the two have become increasingly linked.

“Right now we have a much clearer picture that there is a shared value proposition between the department and private sector,” said Gordon, the former principal deputy director of National Intelligence. “We don’t totally know how to prosecute it yet. But I don’t think it’s ever been clearer that their fates are tied together, that … the national security decision-makers, the department depends on the energy in that sector.

Roper agreed, but also noted that the Pentagon should look to be strategic in its own investments and avoid duplicating efforts in the private sector.

“Not everything needs to be a huge priority, because the private sector is going to move a lot of technology along—and shame on this building if it doesn’t leverage it—but it’s not going to move everything along at the pace that the warfighters will need,” Roper said. “So I think it’ll be different today than it would have been, say, 15 years ago doing this. So there will have to be a proper dissection of what technology will be moved because of private investment for commercial means that can be leveraged, and this building needs to be a fast adopter of it, and then what technologies will not be, and this building needs to be the investor and the accelerator itself. And if it gets that right, it gets the best of both worlds.”