Watch, Read: ‘The Power of Unmanned Systems’

Oct. 14, 2022

Retired Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies moderated a discussion on “The Power of Unmanned Systems” with Steve Burd of Pratt & Whitney, retired Col. Mark Stiner of Elbit Systems of America, and Matthew George of Merlin Labs, Sept. 19, 2022, at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. Watch the video or read the transcript below. This transcript is made possible through the sponsorship of JobsOhio.

If your firewall blocks YouTube, try this link instead.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our panel. The Power of Unmanned Systems. As you’ve all heard, our next generation of fighters and bombers are envisioned as families of systems that incorporate autonomous collaborative aircraft or ACPs. ACPs will augment the capabilities of our most modern aircraft. While exactly how these aircraft might look is still not clear, these ACPs will need to have a high level of autonomy and a variety of capabilities to make them work in highly contested environments in that range. We also know that Secretary Kendall has placed a premium on buying large numbers of ACPs at lower costs. Today we have three perfect guests who are at the forefront of unmanned technology that will derive the developments of these systems moving into the future. Joining me today are Dr. Steven Burd, Mark Stiner, and Matthew George. Let me tell you a little bit about the gents here.

Dr. Burd is chief engineer for Pratt & Whitney Advanced Military Engine Programs, otherwise known as GatorWorks. Steve has a 24 year tenure at Pratt & Whitney with leadership roles and applied experience across numerous military engine platforms that extend across the product lifestyle from concepts to sustainment in the middle. Mark Stiner is a senior director of strategic business development at Elbit America. Elbit is a high technology company engaged in a wide range of programs, primarily in defense and homeland security areas. Stiner spent 22 years in the US Army as the retired colonel, and he also retired out of the job as military deputy for the Army’s Communications Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center.

And finally, Mr. George is the CEO of Merlin Labs and a good friend. Merlin Labs is developing autonomous flight technology that works with existing aircraft. Prior to Merlin Labs, Mr. George founded and led Bridge. Now, Bridge is a platform that supports AI-enabled mass transportation. So thank you, all three of you, for joining us today. And I’d like to get started by allowing you to make some introductory remarks from each of you and how your companies fit in to the overall picture for UAS. So we’ll start with Dr. Burd.

Steve Burd:

All right, well, thank you, sir. Yeah. Let me start by saying unmanned systems are playing an important role in terms of how we operate in the sky today. And as alluded to by the introduction, that role and the importance of unmanned systems is just going to continue to grow and carry more relevance. At Pratt & Whitney, we’re proud to be the power and propulsion provider for unmanned systems today. And with that horizon in front of us, we are positioning ourselves to meet some of the challenges that we see facing as we start to deploy more of these systems out there.

At Pratt, there’s a couple of things we’re really focused on at the moment. The first is continuing to support those unmanned systems that are flying today. There’s a sustainment element to them, and as they continue to operate, we are seeing the needs for additional capability and we’re working hard to bring forward new technologies and capability to enhance those platforms. We have established a number of years back a group that we affectionately call the PIG, Platform Integration Group, whose sole purpose is to work with the weapons systems contractors, non-traditional and traditional, to find ways that we can leverage our commercial off the shelf products to best suit those applications. Beyond that, on the technology side, we are using agile development to find the capabilities that provide the most enabling aspects of these future designs and building the new solutions that could be leveraged in these air vehicles in the future.

This includes scalable architectures that will allow for the greatest leverage across platforms and economies of scale. And lastly, many of these systems to really achieve the mission objectives that are out there, they need disruptive capabilities, and that’s a big focus in my area, specifically where we are trying to figure out what game changing capabilities in the integrated power propulsion and thermal side are needed and trying to ready those as quickly as we can going through technology maturation and demonstration. So it’s a pleasure to be here today and certainly I think this is a very relevant topic and looking forward to the discussion.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Thanks, Dr. Burd. Mark Stiner.

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

Thank you. As a former army aviator, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here at AFA and to be part of this panel. I thought I’d start by just taking a minute to talk about three trends that we see in the unmanned system space and then touch super briefly on where Elbit America is investing to meet those trends. The first is increased lethality. I think armed drones are not new. Drone strikes are not new, but I think what you’re seeing now is a massive proliferation of weaponized unmanned systems. I think everything from first person viewer drones that you buy off the shelf to larger systems that are actually employing anti-tank weaponry. You’re seeing a massive number of lethal unmanned systems. If you just look back at the evolution of unmanned systems, I think predominantly they were ISR systems, right? I mean, we’ve had drone strikes, but now I think there’s a huge investment happening globally in weaponized UAVs.

The second trend is one to many. So I think if you look at what’s happening today, what you primarily see are remotely piloted systems. We talk about unmanned systems, largely, they’re remotely piloted. You tend to see one operator or pilot controlling one platform, maybe in some cases for the larger, more complex systems, you’ll have two operators controlling a single platform. But with the proliferation of increasingly large numbers of lower cost systems, what you’re going to have is one operator controlling multiple platforms. So that’s going to drive the autonomy that we talk about. Everybody agrees that there’s going to be increased autonomy. I think one of the things that’s going to drive that trend is the fact that you have one operator controlling multiple systems. So they need to be able to react many more things without the operator intervention. And then the third trend is controlled from the cockpit or the fighting platform.

I think, again, when you look around today, predominantly the systems are controlled from often far away. But certainly by dedicated operators in a dedicated command shelter and that traces back to their lineages and ISR systems. So you have a dedicated operation cell that’s operating these things and then communicating with the people who are directly engaged in the battle. And I think that paradigm will shift, I think in conflicts of the future, what you’re going to see because of the immediacy, because the systems are lethal, weaponized, and integrated as part of the actual fighting that’s happening, they’re going to be controlled directly from the cockpit, from the land platform across the board. And so, Elbit is investing to meet these trends. We’re making large investments into the sixth gen cockpit and how future pilots will be able to control the aircraft while operating and interacting with a large number of systems. We’re building new platforms and we’re building a number of electronic warfare and other payloads to support those platforms. Thank you.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Thanks, Mark. Matt George.

Matthew George:

Hey guys. Good afternoon. All right, there we go. We’re still alive after lunch. My name is Matt. I lead up Merlin, unlike some of my colleagues. You guys may not have heard of Merlin. So a little bit about us. We’re a growth-stage aerospace startup, primarily based out of Boston, but we’ve got a big group in Denver, Colorado, Los Angeles, and a flight test facility in Mojave, California. So if you’re ever in the neighborhood, please look us up and we’ll have you out and come see some autonomous aircraft.

And then, we have an incredible group in New Zealand where we’ve partnered with the New Zealand government to deploy the world’s first nation-level autonomous air cargo network. I always joke to folks that I get to live every little kid’s dream, which is being able to go build technology and systems to make giant flying robots. But one of the things I think we should really talk about today, and I think has been a conversation throughout at least sort of the past AFA and this AFA, is being able to take autonomous systems from the future tense and bring them into the present tense.

So instead of saying what we will be doing or what we want to be doing, being able to bring that back to the present tense and saying, what are we doing to make meaningful steps to be able to go get there? At Merlin, we’re now leading the space deploying $150 million to be able to go develop autonomous systems in the future.

First, taking large airplanes and going from two pilots down to one. So we’re developing a system that acts as a co-pilot on a very, very large aircraft. We announced a couple months ago that we were selected to be able to go bring crew reduction to the C130J in partnership with our friends at AFSOC and SOCOM, and then being able to go take that pilot and eventually then power a totally uncrewed flight. So we’re really proud of the work that we’re doing, especially on the civil side where we announce the world’s first certification basis for takeoff to touchdown autonomy, including the only time ever that there’s been a certification basis issued on truly non-deterministic autonomous system as opposed to a rule-based system. So really excited to be here, really excited to be able to go continue the conversation about how to take autonomy from the future tense and bring it back into the present tense.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Very good. Thanks, Matt. Well, let’s dive a little bit further into this topic. And when we think about near peer competition, what comes to mind in today’s world, a lot of problems, but mass is one of them, and we need capacity of all types of aircraft to be able to compete to fight and win against a peer. So I’d ask you all why is, first of all, why is mass important, and then how might ACPs help with the balance of mass in our favor? And I’ll start with you, Matt.

Matthew George:

Yeah, great. As everybody here knows, we in a near peer competitive environment, we’re not just talking about one aircraft type, we’re talking about multiple aircraft types. So as folks like General Pringle and General White have talked about pretty extensively, being able to go say we only have one type aircraft that’s able to fly autonomously, is not enough to be able to go support the war fighter. One of the things that we’re most excited about is taking a pilot and making an autonomous pilot that can be applied wide variety of aircraft. So as some of you are pretty well aware, we are taking that concept and applying it to a wide variety of missions, starting first with cargo and refueling and then accelerating it from there.

So when we talk about mass, especially in the near peer competitive fight, we’re not just talking about massive aircraft, but we’re talking about massive mission types where we can be able to go deploy autonomy to refuel, to resupply, and free up our very precious human pilots to be able to go perform those high cognition missions that are best performed by a human and taking those missions that can be performed best by autonomous systems, dull, dirty, and dangerous missions, and enabling those to be flown by an autonomous system.

And we’re really excited to have an aircraft diagnostic autonomy platform where we can put it into everything from a very low cost King Air where we’re working in partnership with companies like Dynamic Aviation out of Virginia on their king air platforms, all the way up to highly sort of exquisite new aircraft like the C130J, and then some future platforms as well. So when we think about mass, we’re not just thinking about mass in terms of the number of aircraft. But we’re thinking about mass in terms of the missions and the types of aircraft that can be powered by autonomy.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Hey, Matt, we’ll circle back on autonomy in a second. It’d be pretty interesting, but Mark over to you for a discussion of mass and how ACPs might help that.

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

I think one of the things about mass is it needs to be affordable. I think one of the things that we’re seeing in Ukraine is the Russians, they had some good equipment, we think, but they didn’t have enough of it, and it wasn’t sustainable to deal with the conflict that they’re in. So I think when you think about mass, it’s got to be producible, it’s got to be affordable, it’s got to be trainable, and it’s got to be sustainable, or it’s not going to be relevant at the end of the day.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Not very good. Steven?

Steve Burd:

Yeah, I think there’s good points made here. I meant, like you said, ACPs, it’s plural. There will be different levels of autonomy. There will be different mission sets required of these vehicles. So we’re talking large numbers. And I’ll say as a nation, we have to find a way, whether through affordability or whatnot, to find a means to produce these in the quantities that we need within some of the financial constraints we have. Now, with that said, we know our peer adversaries are producing these in large quantities as well, and why do we need them? Well, in a couple respects, defensive. If our peer adversaries have quantities, well, we need to be able to interrupt any attacks that they have on their end. Having large quantities of various systems is a good enabler to help prevent the effectiveness of those attacks. Similarly, on the offensive, it’s all probabilities and effectiveness.

If we have enough of these quantities to perform the right missions with the right capabilities, that will allow us to increase our probabilities and effectiveness on the offensive side. Thirdly, they’re about protecting our pilots. We want our pilots to come home safely. And if you can couple the crewed aircraft with un-crewed aircraft, that’s a big step in the right direction to allowing that capability to happen. In addition, these platforms offer up new opportunities to battle in the war space, including special operations. And just by the mass, just bringing the confusion and the uncertainty, we need to maintain an advantage in the battlefield. It’s a complex situation. There’s a lot of needs out there. We’ll have to find that path. But at least from our perspective, the advantages in going this direction are very clear.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Very good, doctor. Hey, Matt, I’m going to come back to you here because there’s been a lot of talk about research and just figuring out what ACPs might look like. It’s not real clear. We had a workshop at Mitchell Institute for the audience not too long ago where we talked about ACPs. We had a number of experts and very interesting workshop with some tremendous insights. Well, you, Matt, at Merlin, you were saying you’re building autonomy software to allow larger aircraft to operate independently. What’s the state of autonomy technology? How could it be used for war fighting? Is it close? Far? Where is it at?

Matthew George:

So I’ll be controversial and say far. So I think if we had the ability to be able to go back and look at the last, I don’t know, 15 years of AFA where we talk about what the future of truly autonomous collaborative aircraft could look like. We’ve sort of been putting up the same slides for a really, really long time. I think what I’m most proud of about the work that we’re doing in Merlin, especially in collaboration with our partners at AFSOC and SOCOM, is being able to go take the first baby steps in order to be able to go get there. So for those of you who are pilots in the room, there’s a pretty gradated process to be able to become a pilot. We don’t first start you out and throw you in a dog fight with another fighter aircraft. We start with basic piloting skills.

So what we’re doing at Merlin about building an autonomous co-pilot allows us to be able to go build a pilot and gain tens of thousands of hours of trust in that pilot as the second required crew member aboard in the aircraft with a human pilot sitting by its side, able to be able to go safely take control of the aircraft. If we make this binary step to full autonomy where we’re taking a large amount of aircraft and putting it out into the world and saying it’s got to be perfect, then we’re going to be in a position where it’s never going to be perfect and we’re never going to fly anything, and we’re never going to field anything.

And our near peer competitors are going to continue to accelerate their progress against us. So my opinion, and I know is an opinion that other people may not share, but being able to go bring autonomy into very real steps by putting it into the cockpit of an Air Force aircraft, getting it up in the air, and then starting to build that experience actually on the aircraft as opposed to sitting and showing PowerPoints and renders and videos of what it could look like and actually demonstrating what it can look like, trained and trusted by a human pilot in the left seat.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Giddy-up, Matt. Thank you. That’s good. Let me segue a little bit here to talk about solving the range and payload issue. And Dr. Burd, you’re familiar with this. Given the premium that’s being placed on lower cost and mass, what’s Pratt & Whitney doing to balance this capability with lower cost? What are the trade-offs?

Steve Burd:

Yeah, without question, affordability is going to be a big part of the equation. We’re going to have to continue to strive to find ways that the air systems and the power and propulsion that are inherent to them find their way through business cases and manifest themselves in the way that we can procure these systems in large quantities. But there’s a but, what I’ll say is engine systems are not always a commodity. Some cases they’re being treated that. But when you look at these systems, as we just mentioned here, these systems will have different capabilities needs. They will have different mission sets.

All these different aspects, these requirements, these ilities that we’re going to be looking for from these systems do provide some differentiation that has to be recognized. Now, with that said, when you do look at these systems, and I’ll just speak from the engine side, is the low cost model maybe does work for some systems. If you’re looking at a low cost decoy where the capabilities are very focused in terms of getting a missile system to a destination over a certain time and distance, there could be opportunity for a low cost paradigm for those types of systems. But as you look at more sophisticated systems, that’s where the cost challenge becomes a little bit more difficult when you’re looking for capability that actually costs some money to develop and to deliver. So we’re very focused, I’ll say, on both ends at this point in time. We look at some of our smaller and mid-size engine platforms that will be prime candidates in the near term for these ACPs.

And we’re working very hard to find ways of continuing to reduce the cost of those systems through different approaches with manufacturing, supply chain, different design features, trying to add value to them to get more capability out of the same systems. And then on the far end, these systems, when you look at the fact that they’re going to be going into contested airspace, require significant power levels to accomplish the missions that they need for the sensors and the other systems. That’s where some large companies like ourselves, we do have some differentiating capabilities, and it’s really the onus on us is to continue to mature those capabilities so that they’re ready and they’re ready in a way that doesn’t break the bank. There’s a value with that. And that’s really our challenge, to make sure that we’re bringing forward the value that the customers are willing to pay for at the end. So again, different systems, different cost models, we recognize that, but you got to play the spectrum here, and that’s some of the challenges that I think we’re facing as a whole.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah, very good. Let me ask, Mark, you, a question, because you’ve got some experience in this. One way that is envisioned to use UAVs is in a swarming behavior or tactic as you want to call it. There are not too many options to defend against this, and you’re working in that Mark at Elbit. You’re a lead for, I guess, the swarming UAS and encounter UAS initiatives. Can you tell us about that current state of play and are swarms a reality? Can we defend against them?

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

Thanks. Well, swarms are a reality. I mean, I think we’re seeing one of the things people are doing to overwhelm defenses is simply to employ large numbers of systems to defeat countermeasures. Elbit America really got into the counter UAS business as part of our border security program. I know this is AFA, maybe people in this audience don’t know the company that way. But Elbit America’s been involved in security for a number of years as a prime contractor along our border with Mexico, and we’re seeing a large number of commercial low-cost drones being employed by our adversaries in the border. And we’ve got a number of systems deployed down there to defend against those, and they’re highly effective. When you look at low cost drones, or frankly, any remotely piloted drone, right? I said earlier today, today what you’re primarily seeing are remotely piloted vehicles. So remotely piloted vehicles, the easiest way to attack them is to attack the data link.

If you’re remote in control of that, those data links, they’re making emissions. They can be detected, they can be targeted, they can be defeated. That’s being done, that’s an affordable thing to do, and it’s a highly effective defense at the moment. I think what we’ll see, if you look at the trend, I think you’ll see sort of an investment, counter-investment, counter-counter measure. I think that the unmanned systems, this is where you get into the autonomy, right? Because the data links, the remotely pilot aspect is the easiest way to feed them. You’re going to see platforms in the future that operate without that remote piloting, without a data link, and so now your primary method of defeating them is degraded. So now you have to be able to physically detect them.

Probably you’re going to need active sensors to actually detect them, but yet you have to be able to physically detect them without their own emissions, and you have to be able, probably, to kinetically defeat them. So this is where Elbit’s investing, right? We’re looking at high energy lasers to attack the target. We’re making major investments into new active sensors like radars, which can track thousands of targets simultaneously, and provide firing solutions so that they can be targeted and defeated. I think that’s the swarm of the future is going to be large numbers of vehicles that have to be detected, tracked, and defeated all in a very short amount of time. Yeah.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah, we need that for base defense, so hurry it up if you would. So we see a lot of countries now who want to have this capability. You see an explosion of UAVs. We’ve either talked about Nagorno-Karabakh, Syria, of course, Ukraine, and Russia. We see what’s going on there. Even Taiwan is stepping big into this. So I’d like to ask all three of you your thoughts about if you are a new entrant as a country, as a nation into the world of UAVs, what do you need to be prepared to do? What do you have to have in order to use this technology effectively? I’ll start with you, Matt.

Matthew George:

Yeah, I’ll defer to my two colleagues who work a little bit more closely on that end of the spectrum. But one of the things we’ve talked about is, particularly with some of our partners at the Air Force, is being able to go use the Air Force is existing advantage. So the Air Force that we built to the best air force in the world. So how can we take those assets that we already have and enable those assets to fly with high degrees of autonomy, with structural barriers for a new entrant to be able to come and compete with us one to one for those autonomous capabilities. Whereas, on the smaller end of the spectrum, we have seen throughout the world the ability for state and non-state actors to be able to go match us or get pretty close to matching us one for one in smaller systems.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Mark, how about it?

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

So a lot of our work is with the smaller systems, that’s where a lot of my comments are. And I guess the alarming answer to your question of what does it take to get in the business of unmanned aircraft is not a lot, right? I think what we’re seeing is that it’s pretty easy to get off the shelf technology, which is very readily available at low cost and put weapons on them. I mean, one of the most effective things that I’m seeing happening is just taking first person viewer racing drones that a lot of people here may operate and putting explosives on them and flying them right into targets. It requires very little technology. It requires very little money, it requires no training. These things are just bought by people and used every day, and they could be done in high numbers. So this is what we’re seeing is one of the reasons that I think we’re going to see a lot of need, investment and counters to those types of low cost systems.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah, very good. Dr. Burd?

Steve Burd:

Yeah, I think both of you spoke well about the small side. I’ll just go a little bit to the larger side and I’ll bring it a little bit to what I’m seeing here domestically. There’s been a pretty large appetite for new companies, new entrance to try to enter the market. That on one side, it’s been very interesting seeing the innovation that’s coming forward from some of those. But on the flip side, we’re also seeing a lot of mixed results in that. We’re seeing a lot of interesting concepts out there, interesting prototypes and the like.

And I’ll say to your question, maybe the challenge here for us, for the United States and the like, is that when you look at these larger systems, getting that design, that concept design forward, that’s the easy part. To actually get a system out there that can work, that can function, that’s where there’s a lot of important knowhow out there within our industry today to make sure that the subsystems work, that the integration works, that we can deliver a system that can achieve its mission, has the endurance, the durability that can actually be produced at a higher rate with the capability we need.

So I bring this forward that there is a differentiation between the small side and maybe the higher, larger side, higher value type ACPs where I think there’s really a good opportunity to take advantage of what some of the new entrants are doing in getting them married with some of us and the OEMs to take some of those great vision concepts and make them a reality to help fill the void that we see as we look forward to bringing forward a whole family of ACPs.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah, yeah. Very good. Thank you. Well, let’s go back to ACP technology, and I want to ask all of you, and I’ll start with Matt. Some of this technology is available today. Matt, you said a few minutes ago, some of it’s way out there a bit. But what are some of the major milestones or obstacles we’ll have to overcome to move forward with the technology we need for these notion of ACPs supporting other aircraft and maybe even operating independently? So, in other words, in five to 15 years down the road, where are we going to be with this technology, Matt?

Matthew George:

All of the technology problems for being able to go deploy a large aircraft autonomously, and when I say autonomously, I mean an aircraft, it’s able to go think on its own, not operated by a remote operator in sort of a link list environment. There’s some massive technology barriers that we still have to be able to go get there, but there’s no break-a-glass of physics technology problems in there. The problem, at least in our opinion, and in my opinion that I’ve seen the most, is the willingness of both the defense sector as well as the commercial sector to make small incremental progress along that pathway to be able to go get there. I think we often hang our hats on these huge technology problems of what if, what if, what if. And by doing lots of studies and by doing a lot of talking, we’re not actually out there going and flying, and we’re not actually substantially de-risking the problem.

So if somebody had a magic wand, or if I had a magic wand or actually a dangerous thing, you don’t want me with a magic wand, I promise. But if I had a magic wand, one of the things that I would do in order to be able to go meaningfully move this along is to create 24 month milestones of saying, how can we get autonomy onto an Air Force aircraft? And General Slife at AFSOC has been a really big proponent of this, where he has given us a 24 month time horizon to be able to go start to bring autonomy onto large Air Force aircraft and be able to go meaningfully demonstrate it. So by doing that, we can make so much more progress than if we do what we continue to do, which is really just think about it and delay instead of actually going flying, iterating, and flying again.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah, Mark. Thanks, Matt.

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

So I think when you talk about ACP, the C is for collaborative, and so collaboratives, it’s two-way. So we’ve really, so far we’ve been talking a lot about the platforms, the unmanned platforms and what they’re going to do and the autonomy that they’re going to have and how they’ll make decisions and what payloads they’ll have. But there’s also the collaboration, which is the actual pilots, right? Pilots aren’t going away by any stretch. I think the future battle space is definitely going to need pilots. I think the airspace is going to be very crowded with large numbers of vehicles. You’re going to have a huge number of friendly manned and unmanned vehicles and a lot of enemy manned and unmanned vehicles.

And so one of the areas that we’re doing a lot of investing, thinking, talking to our partners in the Air Force about is what does the cockpit look like? What kind of sixth gen systems do you need as a pilot to be able to visualize that very crowded battle space, right? How can you understand what large numbers of things are doing at any point in time and then be able to provide direction often, to many of the friendly ones based on your understanding? How do you control those things, employ those things while still fighting the aircraft that you’re in. And so that’s really, I think, one of the challenges that we’ll have to solve before we reach the desired end state.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah, very good. And how about trust? Trust in these systems by those pilots.

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

Yeah, trust is a big one. I think it’s going to be incremental. I think you were talking about that. I think, in general, progress tends to be more incremental than revolution, revolutionary technology. I think we’ll begin to see things that are autonomous, but maybe not machine learning vehicles that are adapting and making all their own decisions. I think as a pilot and talking to pilots, I think pilots really want systems they can team with that they understand and can predict, right? I think you want systems that have a high degree of capability. But are really operating on some autonomy algorithms that you can understand and predict until you get more comfortable with them as a teammate. This is the way I think it’ll work, and of course it’s going to require some robust cyber protection as well.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

No, I appreciate that. Dr. Burd, back to that question about what obstacles are out there to get to the technology we need?

Steve Burd:

Yeah, I think to a good extent, we’re still trying to figure out what ACPs are and what we can do with them and what we want to do with them. I think there’s some really good dialog, some very good progress out there with a couple of platforms that there’s been company investment in, there’s been government investment in to really show what that capability might offer. But to a good extent, we’re not moving at the speed of relevancy. I know that’s a term that’s been out there. But I think it really applies in this instance in that there are a lot of things we can do, and we’re continuing to contemplate what those things are doing instead of starting to take some action. Right now, the possibilities are pretty large, and we need to get a little bit of focus out there so we can quickly mature platforms and get some of this capability fielded while we continue to figure out what the next generation of those capabilities could be.

So some of the challenges with that, I guess, lead to helping as a community figure out where our focus needs to be, aligning the budgets that are needed so that we can actually make that progress. And the fact that we have uncertainty, we don’t have solidified budgets. You look at someone like myself that’s representing a company, when we look at those two elements, that provides an awful lot of uncertainty in our business cases. So it really doesn’t bode well for us to invest in something that carries a lot of uncertainty. So really looking for those three pieces or four pieces to come together. A little better clarity of where we need to go, roadmaps and plans that are aligned with that so that we as a company in partnership with the government, can align and rally behind those roadmaps to get some parts and vehicles flying.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Yeah. Very well said. We’ve only got a couple minutes left, but you bring up, all three of you bring up a pretty good insight that the government, Department of the Air Force in particular might be able to do better, telling industry or communicating with industry about clear choices and going in a direction and getting to procurement. Any last minute comments on that from industry?

Matthew George:

Yeah, I think we’re living in a really exciting time. So from our perspective, for the first time, we have all the technology building blocks in order to make this happen. And we look out in the room, right? Selection bias of those of you who chose to spend some time in this room today during this panel, the folks here are going to be the folks that decide what the next 100 years of aviation look like. The previous 100 years are built around a human pilot. Unequivocally, the next 100 years are built around human pilots plus autonomy. We are at a pivotal moment where the technology’s available, and it is our collective choice about what to be able to go do with it.

And if we make small incremental progress towards that incredibly important end goal, to be able to go make our skies safer and to make airplane safer for our pilots, the opportunities are absolutely endless. But if we delay making those hard choices to be able to get to that future, we see the definition of that future to somebody else. And we’re working really, really hard at Merlin to be able to go define what that future is in collaboration with a lot of folks in this room. But that’s the imperative that we all have.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Well said. I’ll track it at that.

Col. Mark Stiner (Ret.):

Oh, I guess I would just conclude by saying I think the Air Force has done an amazing job of working with industry, our company included. I applaud you for being very open with industry and doing an excellent job of really describing how you see future conflicts playing out and what types of things you’ll need to include the area of unmanned systems and autonomous systems, and how you envision using those. I think to really move forward, the next step is going to be to actually lay out acquisition strategies to acquire those things and timelines, and when will there be competitions and when will there be contract awards, because that’s really what’s going to allow industry to align their investments to have the products ready for the competitions.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Thanks, Mark. Take them, Steve.

Steve Burd:

Yeah, and I agree with both the other panel members here. I mean, the conversations, the dialog up to this point in time have been really productive in terms of describing what the art of the possible is. It is time at this point in time to translate that into acquisition strategies, roadmaps, and the like. We as a company are making small, medium-sized large bets on, I’d say, our read of the situation. Again, walking into a little cloud of uncertainty. The more we can clarify where we need to go, what those plans will be, what those programs and records will be, that’ll help align where we go. It’ll help pretty much light the fire behind our butts so that we can move more quickly. So those things are needed. Again, you look at the situation, we have to move faster and we have to move now.

Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem (Ret.):

Very good. Well, thanks to Merlin Labs, and Elbit, and Pratt & Whitney for your participation today. Gents, thank you for being on the panel. That concludes our panel. I do want to give… We’re about 20 seconds over. There is another event today on manned teaming, myth and reality. It’ll be here in Potomac C, at 15:45, hosted by Mitchell Zone, Heather Penney, and it extends this in great depth, this conversation into some other areas that I think you all will enjoy. So, thanks for all your service. This concludes the panel.

NATO, Russia to Hold Nuclear Exercises Despite Tensions

Oct. 13, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

Russia and NATO will go ahead with large-scale nuclear exercises in the coming weeks despite concern over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hints that the Ukraine war might prompt him to turn to his nuclear arsenal, U.S. and NATO officials said.

The NATO exercise, called Steadfast Noon, involves American nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and fighter jets, which will not carry live munitions, White House National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby told reporters Oct. 13.

The upcoming NATO exercise involving 14 countries has been long planned, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said delaying or canceling the exercise would send the wrong message about NATO’s resolve in the face of Russian aggression.

“It would send a very wrong signal if we suddenly now canceled a routine, long-time planned exercise because of the war in Ukraine. That would be absolutely the wrong signal to send,” Stoltenberg said. “NATO’s firm, predictable behavior, our military strength, is the best way to prevent escalation.”

The U.S. twice put off routine tests of its Minuteman III missile this year, the first time to avoid inflaming tensions with Russia during the Ukraine crisis and the second time to avoid any miscalculation on China’s part as the Chinese military engaged in a show of force near Taiwan. A Minuteman III test launch eventually took place Aug. 16.

U.S. officials predicted that Russia would soon go ahead with its own large-scale nuclear exercises. The Russian drills would be the second since February 2022. Putin oversaw the February exercise that tested sea, land, and air-based ballistic and cruise missiles and other weapons.

“We expect Russia to conduct its annual strategic nuclear exercise—they call it GROM—as early as this month,” Kirby added.

The Western officials cautioned that the Russian exercise was expected and did not appear to be linked to Putin’s suggestions that Moscow might resort to nuclear weapons in the face of setbacks in Ukraine.

In a national address Sept. 21, Putin warned that “Russia will use all the instruments at its disposal to counter a threat against its territorial integrity.” He added, “This is not a bluff.”

“We will monitor that as we always do,” Stoltenberg said of the upcoming Russian exercise. “And, of course, we will remain vigilant, not least in light of the veiled nuclear threats and the dangerous rhetoric we have seen from the Russian side.”

Some nuclear policy experts expressed concern that Russian and NATO nuclear exercises might heighten apprehensions as each side seeks to determine what options might be tested.

“The events are normal,” said Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists in an interview. “But we don’t know, of course, what’s being exercised, whether that is also normal.”

The Russians, for their part, might portray the NATO exercise as an ominous development and use it as pretext to escalate their activities in the region.

“That is definitely a danger,” Kristensen added.

The Western officials stressed that the NATO exercise will take place more than 600 miles away from Russia and does not involve a Ukraine scenario. “This exercise is not linked to any real-world events or what Russia is doing,” Kirby said.

ACC and USAF HQ are Crafting Collaborative Combat Aircraft Requirements

Oct. 13, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

While collaborative combat aircraft are among Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s “operational imperatives,” Air Combat Command was already working on the idea, the Air Force reported.

Kendall “has been providing direction for Collaborative Combat Aircraft” to ACC through the operational imperatives, but Headquarters, Air Force, and ACC “were already in the process of identifying a path to realize CCA capability” when Kendall set the concept among the list of OIs, a USAF spokesperson said.

Senior USAF leaders at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September said they were looking for a swift pace of experimentation, prototyping, and production of CCAs—in as few as two years—but the concept is still far from defined as to what missions the uncrewed aircraft will perform, how sophisticated they need to be, and how they will take direction from and interact with the human pilots in their formations. Kendall has broadly suggested that as many as “four or five” CCAs could accompany a single crewed aircraft. He sees CCAs as an affordable way to expand USAF capacity and to compel an enemy to expend many munitions to disable an attacking USAF formation.

Asked whether the CCA requirement is being handed down to ACC from USAF leaders, or whether there is a “pull” requirement from ACC, Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter said at the conference, “That’s a good question.”

He continued that the requirements community “was an integral part” of creating the OIs: “So I would say that, as far as I can tell, we have very strong buy-in from the requirements community [and] from ACC” as to the need for, and utility of, CCAs. But he could not say exactly how the requirement was generated or where it stood in the requirements process.

The spokesperson said Headquarters, Air Force, and ACC “are now working with industry to further develop requirement documents.”

The issue is not trivial, as USAF leaders have for years lamented that promising new concepts or technologies, developed in the labs and potentially even used in live experiments and exercises, sometimes fail to transition to programs of record without a “pull” requirement from a user command, which may not even know the technology exists. This gap between concept and program of record is often referred to as “the valley of death.”

Hunter, at the AFA conference, said USAF leaders remain “engaged continuously” with user commands.

He noted, too, some “cultural resistance” to the idea of CCAs, saying this is to be expected because “change is hard.” But he also said CCAs have top-down support from Kendall, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., and ACC commander Gen. Mark D. Kelly.

The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies formally released a paper Oct. 13, “Five Imperatives for Developing Collaborative Combat Aircraft for Teaming Operations,” which urges the Pentagon to get operators involved with developing the nascent technology, to ensure that it is combat-relevant and user-friendly. The paper had previously been briefed to reporters.

The paper recommends that, before rushing to field CCAs, the Air Force first develop a concept of operations as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures for their use, with heavy pilot and operator input. The technology will have no value unless pilots feel they know what CCAs will do and can trust them to do it, paper author Heather Penney said.

She also noted that the Air Force has work to do to ensure resilient communications with CCAs in contested and denied airspace; and to develop procedures for what CCAs will do in a “comms out” situation. Finally, the Mitchell paper recommends the Air Force ensure that adding CCAs to combat formations doesn’t unduly burden pilots with additional work that might be unmanageable.

“There is a risk … of task saturation” unless this is taken into account early, with the development of software and the human-machine interface, Penney said on a streaming event.

Although Penney warns that the Air Force’s fighter pilot shortage will make it challenging to find ones able to help in CCA development, Maj. Gen. Charles S. Corcoran, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, said development teams should instead “set up shop … in squadrons” so they can learn the environment pilots operate in firsthand and gradually insert CCAs into exercises, the better to familiarize pilots with what they can do and to tweak those capabilities to be “truly useful.”

Proposed NDAA Amendments Would Block T-1, C-40 Retirements—but Increase A-10 Cuts

Oct. 13, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Senate will deliberate over the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act in the coming weeks after leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee took the annual policy bill to the floor Oct. 11.

And as lawmakers debate the legislation, they’ll also have to contend with more than 900 amendments that had been filed as of Oct. 13. Already, Republican and Democratic leaders have agreed to a block of 75 amendments, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), chair of the SASC, remarked from the Senate floor.

Of the hundreds more still to be considered, some have little to do with national security, with Senators simply hoping to attach their proposals to a bill that is typically considered must-pass. Others touch on everything from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate to military housing and child care to funding for specific programs.

For the Air Force, in particular, a number of lawmakers have proposed provisions that would affect the service’s fleet of aircraft and its personnel.

In years past, members of Congress have used the NDAA to block the Air Force from divesting or retiring older aircraft. That process could play out again, as Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) introduced an amendment that would prohibit any funds authorized in the NDAA from being used to reduce the size of the T-1 Jayhawk trainer fleet.

The Air Force has been planning to phase out the T-1A in favor of pilot training that relies heavily on simulators, an approach dubbed Undergraduate Pilot Training 2.5. In its 2023 budget request, the service asks to retire 50 of the 178 trainers.

While Hyde-Smith wants to stop that from happening this year, she introduced a separate amendment offering the Air Force a roadmap for what it will take for her to get on board with retiring the T-1. That provision, co-sponsored by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), would prohibit any T-1 retirements until UPT 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—current estimates put that in 2034.

Both Hyde-Smith and Wicker represent Columbus Air Force Base, Miss., which hosts a squadron of T-1s.

It’s not just the T-1 that could be saved from retirement. Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth from Illinois introduced another amendment that would block any 2023 funds from being used to retire the C-40 Clipper, a transport aircraft that carries senior military commanders, Cabinet officials, and members of Congress.

Their amendment follows on a similar proposal in the House version of the NDAA, also introduced by Illinois lawmakers—much of the small C-40 fleet is based out of Scott Air Force Base, Ill.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed legislation that would block the Air Force from reducing the capability or manpower in any B-1 bomber squadron so it can’t meet its current “designed operational capability statement.” The only exception would be for squadrons in the process of replacing B-1s with new B-21 Raiders.

That amendment was one of two Cruz proposed to keep the B-1 relevant for the future fight. The Air Force is planning to move away from it in the coming years. In a second proposal, Cruz, along with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), calls for an extra $30 million in research money for testing hypersonic weapon systems on the B-1.

And it’s not just aircraft that lawmakers are trying to save. In separate amendments, both Hyde-Smith and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) proposed prohibiting the divestment of any “Tactical Control Party specialist force structure from the Air National Guard” until the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, along with the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, submit a report detailing the capability gaps such a move would create.

Amid all the moves to block retirements, however, one proposed amendment would do just the opposite. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced legislation declaring that the Air Force “shall divest 42 A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft” in 2023.

Such a move would go beyond the Air Force’s own proposal to cut 21 A-10s and would mark a significant reversal from years past, when lawmakers have persistently stopped the service from retiring the beloved close air support jet.

Whether or not the Senate approves Scott’s amendment, Congress does seem poised to finally allow at least some A-10 retirements to happen, with other versions of the NDAA allowing the proposed cut of 21 to stand.

DAF’s New Civilian Career Roadmaps Aim for More Diverse, Functionally Proficient Leaders

Oct. 13, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

The Department of the Air Force hopes to improve both diversity and retention within its 170,000-member civilian workforce by introducing a pair of career roadmaps—one of them tailored to developing “functional leaders” for the first time.

Civilians should look over the two roadmaps—the other a more conventional path for “enterprise leaders”—and decide which one they want to pursue, then communicate with supervisors and career field managers for more details, according to a video by the Air Force Personnel Center that compares the two paths.

A DAF-commissioned study by the RAND Corp. published in 2020 found that women and Black and Hispanic men started at lower civilian pay grades, on average, than White men. Women, in particular, were less likely to “catch up” over the years, in turn limiting their numbers eligible for senior leadership. Women and minority groups generally believed a person’s sex and race affected promotion opportunities, and an analysis of data revealed that women made up about 35 percent of civilians overall but only 21 percent of those in the top two pay grades.

The RAND study also found that a perceived lack of advancement opportunities and the expectation of geographic mobility—the willingness to pack up and move—negatively affected retention.

The DAF’s civilian science and engineering career fields employed the relative fewest racial and ethnic minorities and women, according to a 2021 report on disparities by the department’s inspector general. The IG office confirmed that the DAF’s civilian workforce had “seen improvements in minority and female representation,” possibly attributed to “significant policy changes” adopted in 2015.

The new roadmaps are appropriate for civilian employees “whether they are mobile and aspire to be enterprise leaders or whether they want to be the best functional expert they can be in their given locale,” Glenda Scheiner, director of civilian force management, said.

The roadmap to develop “functional leaders” departs the most from the DAF’s conventional talent management process, according to a news release announcing the change. The functional roadmap emphasizes deeper technical expertise in a single functional area rather than the broader, cross-functional experience encouraged on the enterprise side.

Once a staff member chooses a roadmap, they won’t be locked in.

“Leaders understand that career aspirations and personal circumstances may change,” according to the release, so people may switch “at any given point in time.” To accompany the new functional and enterprise roadmaps, “career field managers will build career-specific versions” of each DAF-level roadmap.

The roadmaps outline the experience, education and training, and leadership roles civilians should pursue for advancement throughout their careers. Both tracks emphasize functional proficiency early in a career and furthering the technical expertise later on.

On the enterprise side, recommended education maxes out at a master’s degree and offers the possibility of a degree in management, with some required professional military education. Functional leaders, on the other hand, should seek master’s or doctoral degrees in a specific discipline, with PME being optional.

RAND’s study recommended formally requiring supervisors and managers to take part in their staff’s career development. The DAF did not immediately reply to n question about whether it will require supervisors to address the new roadmaps with their staffs.

Hybrid Capabilities Propel Industry Partners to ‘Accelerate Change and Win’

Oct. 13, 2022

Emerging threats in space and the rise of commercial satellite technologies are driving the national security space sector in a new, hybrid direction to answer the evolving needs of the Air Force and Space Force.

“Traditional aerospace and defense companies develop their national security space systems based on customer requirements and an acquisition strategy,” said Jason Kim, CEO of Millennium Space Systems, a Boeing Company. “But commercial companies don’t have to abide by those requirements or acquisition cycles.”

Commercial companies continually invest to upgrade their technology, as long as they see a return on that investment.

This private financing model provides a unique opportunity for industry partners to push Air Force and Space Force capabilities ahead of modern-day demands to meet the needs of the future.

“Commercial companies are not designing systems based on a requirements pool, an RFP, or an agency’s acquisition strategy,” Kim said. “They are seeing things in the market based on modern technologies that are commercially available and providing that as a capability. It’s becoming more of a commercial technology push that creates new market demand, while also addressing a government requirement not yet thought of before.”

Founded in 2001, Millennium Space Systems, a small satellite prototype and constellation company, embodies this hybrid nature of leveraging both commercial technologies and traditional aerospace and defense industry capabilities, including secure and tailored systems.

“We started off taking a lot of the commercial dual-use technologies that were available at the time and space-qualified them with the aim of providing systems on rapid timelines and at affordable costs,” Kim said. With its acquisition by the Boeing Company in 2018, Millennium gained the capability to scale its systems and deliver entire constellations of satellites.

“We’re now seeing our systems delivered in missile warning, missile tracking, ISR, and advanced space science missions,” Kim said. To build at that kind of scale, Millennium is continually tech-refreshing. “We invest constantly in research and development and are regularly tech refreshing our components and mission capabilities,” Kim said.

The lessons taken from the first launch of small satellites can be applied to the next launch. “We’re an engineering company, and we operate our spacecraft, so we’re able to get data on all of our spacecraft components on-orbit and feed that back to the design process. We’re able to apply what we’ve learned into how we manufacture our constellations to improve and tech refresh our components every time we deliver them.”

This capability enables the Air Force and Space Force to align with the go-fast message of Chief of Space Operations Gen. John Raymond and his partner in arms, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.

“The Air Force has stated that we have to ‘Accelerate Change or Lose’ to respond to the advanced threats challenging our capabilities,” Kim said. Millennium addresses that imperative by taking “the most advanced systems in the commercial world” and “space-qualifying those capabilities and making them secure and interoperable,” he said.

Millennium builds 80 percent of its spacecraft components in-house. “A majority of those components are using dual-use commercial technologies,” Kim said. “For example, we take battery technology from the commercial automotive industry and apply that to national security space missions to gain cost savings and faster timelines for our customers.”

This is what Kim means by “space-qualifying” commercial tech.

“Space qualification entails having the right experts that know how to test these components for radiation, susceptibility to upsets, and latch up,” he said. Requirements vary depending on the deployment model.

“The distinct radiation environments of LEO [low-Earth orbit], MEO [mid-Earth orbit] and GEO [geosynchronous orbit] demand different constraints, requirements and limitations on these technologies,” Kim said.

Space-qualifying these technologies requires a rigorous process of radiation testing, vibe testing, and thermal testing in vacuum chambers similar to conditions experienced during a launch and orbit. “Once we test all these components in piece parts, we’re able to take that data and really select the parts that are able to withstand the harsh environments that our systems are going to operate in.”

As part of Boeing, Millennium can access a host of capabilities with expertise in supply chain management, manufacturing, and so much more. “We’re able to take advantage of a lot of resources that [Boeing] provides in mission domain expertise,” Kim said. “[Boeing] has a lot of senior technical fellows that we’re able to deploy to our different flight programs to help us enhance capabilities and overcome challenges. We also have been able to bring in a lot of expertise in model-based systems engineering and digital engineering, which includes the tools that they’ve invested in and the processes that they’ve developed over the years, as well as a lot of the proof points and lessons learned from other programs in other domains.”

Millennium Space Systems remains an agile, flexible player, providing its customers with the best of all worlds: The nimbleness of a startup and the strength and experience of an aerospace giant.

“Millennium can keep ahead of advanced threats, to really sense the threats, track them, and provide information directly to the warfighters,” Kim said. “Our hybrid nature enables us to do two things: Invest to bring forward future capabilities and to rapidly adapt to changing requirements. That’s what our customers need.”

Air Combat Command Declares IOC for New Rescue Helicopter

Oct. 12, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Air Combat Command said its new HH-60W Jolly Green II has achieved initial operational capability, a key milestone for the new combat search and rescue helicopter.

Lockheed Martin, whose Sikorsky business unit makes the helicopter, and ACC each announced the achievement in separate press releases Oct. 12.

Achieving IOC means the Air Force now has the Airmen, equipment, and logistics in place to deploy a package of four HH-60Ws to any independent location for up to 30 days.

“It’s an exciting day for combat rescue as we bring a new platform and its upgraded capabilities into operation,” said Maj. Gen. David Lyons, director of operations at ACC, in the release. “Current and future combat environments require us to maneuver further and faster than ever before, and the capabilities provided by the Jolly Green II supports the platform’s viability for our Air Force Personnel Recovery core function for as long as possible.”

Sikorsky has delivered 24 HH-60Ws thus far, with dozens more aircraft still to come. The 23rd Wing at Moody Air Force Base, Ga., and the 58th Special Operations Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., both have the helicopter, which completed testing at Duke Field, Fla., and Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

The HH-60W had its first operational deployment from Moody on Sept. 23, to provide rescue services in support of contingency operations. A 23rd Wing spokesperson could not immediately confirm where the helicopters deployed.

“This declaration is a vote of confidence from U.S. Air Force leadership and demonstrates the critical role of and need for the HH-60W,” Nathalie Previte, vice president of Sikorsky Army & Air Force Systems, said in a statement. “Sikorsky is committed to continuing deliveries of the Department of Defense’s only dedicated combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopter and to provide the most capable platform to rescue crews who depend on this aircraft day-in and day-out to conduct vital life-saving missions.”

ACC said in February in a release that it anticipated full operational capability by now. The Air Force’s 2023 budget request sought to reduce its HH-60W purchase plans from the originally planned 113 to 75. Both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have balked at that plan, with each asking the Air Force to report back on on the future of CSAR in their respective defense bills.

The Jolly Green II is an upgrade over the HH-60G Pave Hawk, which the Air Force has flown since the 1980s. The new helicopter has more range and is more survivable, and it features advanced avionics and other benefits. It is one of two new helicopters the Air Force is bringing into service, with the MH-139 Grey Wolf having recently entered utility testing after a yearlong delay.

US, Allies Pledge Improved Air Defenses for Ukraine

Oct. 12, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

The United States and allies will help Ukraine build a more comprehensive air defense system to protect key targets from Russian attacks by cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and aircraft, U.S. officials said Oct. 12.

“What Ukraine is asking for and what we think can be provided is an integrated air and missile defense system,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said as representatives from about 50 nations met in Brussels. “That doesn’t control all the airspace over Ukraine. But they are designed to control priority targets that Ukraine needs to protect.”

Russia launched a barrage of missiles and air strikes against a variety of civilian targets in Ukrainian cities, including its capital, Kyiv, on Oct. 10 in retaliation for the bombing of a key bridge linking Russia to the occupied Crimean peninsula.

“These attacks killed and injured civilians and destroyed targets with no military purpose,” President Joe Biden said in a statement, calling the Russian strikes “utter brutality.”

Ukraine renewed its plea for better air defense systems to protect the population following the attacks, and the so-called Contact Group countries responded favorably.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said help will come soon. “The systems will be provided as fast as we can physically get them there,” Austin said at his news conference with Milley. “We’re going to do everything we can, as fast as we can to help the Ukrainian forces get the capability they need to protect the Ukrainian people. That’s very, very important to us.”

The allied officials did not say when such defenses might be put in place and acknowledged connecting different pieces from a myriad of nations would be a technical and logistical challenge and would require training of Ukrainian forces.

“The task will be to bring those together, get them deployed, get them trained because each of these systems is different,” Milley said.

Ukraine would also have to develop a detection and command and control system and link all the components together.

“It’s quite complicated from a technical standpoint,” Milley said. “It is achievable, and that’s what we’re aiming at.”

The U.S. leaders detailed several specific systems they said could help form the basis of Ukraine’s new air defenses, in addition to systems such as Soviet-era S-300 systems already in use that have “been very effective,” according to Milley. Advanced systems, such as the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) are already in the pipeline but will take years to be fully deployed.

For example, Milley noted the I-HAWK, a legacy U.S. Army medium-range surface-to-air system which he said the Ukrainian government has specifically asked for. Milley and Austin also mentioned Germany’s InfraRed Imaging System Tail (IRIS-T) system, which is now being delivered. The possibility of U.S.-made Patriot batteries and Israeli defenses was floated by Milley, though he acknowledged such systems were among those that could be used rather than concrete offers from a particular country. Ukraine has repeatedly asked for Patriot systems and Israel’s Iron Dome.

Some experts cautioned that it would be difficult to build an exhaustive air defense system for Ukraine and that an ad-hoc system would have to be adopted in practice.

“It may be something closer to interoperability, or frankly, it may just be instead of integration, aggregation,” Tom Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. “But it’s the right aspiration. The threat makes it necessary to think imaginatively about these things.”

Neither side has been able to control the skies over Ukraine with their air force, despite Russia’s overwhelming relative advantage as one of the world’s biggest air forces. U.S. leaders have noted that Ukraine’s ability to deny Russia air superiority has prevented Russia from making sweeping gains on the battlefield by taking out the Ukrainian military from the air and allowing Russian ground forces to operate unmolested.

Much of the world’s attention had shifted to the war of attrition occurring in the east and south of the country as Ukraine fights to regain control of its territory using artillery and ground forces.

Russia, however, possesses long-range weapons, primarily air-launched cruise missiles that it can fire from bombers inside Russian airspace, as well as ballistic missiles.

These missiles can make it through to targets inside Ukraine due to the lack of a comprehensive air defense system Ukraine’s allies now say they will work to help provide. Some defenses the U.S. supplied early in the war, such as man-portable Stinger missiles that can be fired at low-flying planes and helicopters, are useless in the face of the standoff weapons Russia is implementing. According to the U.S. and Ukraine, thousands of Iranian-made drones have also been ordered by Russia, though Ukraine has had better success against those weapons due to their slow speed and low attitude.

In the future, Ukraine wants a system that can defend against both planes and missiles at low, medium, and high attitude.

“It’s a mix of all these that deny the airspace,” Milley said. “You’re trying to create a defensive system.”

Pentagon Nominates New AFGSC Commander, New Deputy CSO for Operations

Oct. 12, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

President Joe Biden nominated a pair of Air Force and Space Force generals for promotion and assignment to critical new roles, the Pentagon announced Oct. 12.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere is nominated for a fourth star and to be the next commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, while Space Force Maj. Gen. DeAnna M. Burt is to receive a third star and take over as deputy chief of space operations for operations, cyber, and nuclear.

If confirmed, Bussiere would replace Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, already confirmed by the Senate to become head of U.S. Strategic Command; Burt, if confirmed, would succeed Lt. Gen. Chance B. Saltzman, also already confirmed to become only the second Space Force Chief of Space Operations.

Bussiere has been deputy commander at U.S. STRATCOM since April 2020. A command pilot, he has flown F-15s, F-22s, B-1s, and B-2s, and commanded at the at Squadron, Group, Wing, and Numbered Air Force levels. He led bomber squadrons and the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., the Eighth and Eleventh Air Forces, and U.S. Northern Command’s Alaska Command. He also has experience at AFGSC headquarters, having been special assistant to the commander and inspector general in two prior stints.

Burt is currently special assistant to Space Force Chief Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, who is to retire in November when Saltzman replaces him. But Burt moved to that post only recently, having previously commanded the Combined Force Space Component Command, a multi-national subordinate command of f U.S. Space Command, where she was dual-hatted as vice commander of Space Operations Command. She was succeeded in that post in August by Maj. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess.

Burt’s prior commands include the 2nd Space Operations Squadron, the 460th Operations Group, and the 50th Space Wing, and she was director of operations and communications for Space Operations Command.

Should Burt be confirmed, she would join a small cadre of three-star generals in the Space Force’s ranks—there are currently six total. She would also join Lt. Gen. Nina M. Armagno as the only female three-stars in the service.