MH-139, Behind Schedule, Now Risks Failing Requirements, DOD Says

Jan. 23, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

Editor’s Note: This story was updated Jan. 25 to include the Air Force’s updated timeline for a Milestone C decision on the MH-139.

The Air Force’s new MH-139 Grey Wolf helicopter is at risk of not meeting “operational effectiveness requirements,” the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester declared in a new report.

Problems with the automatic flight control system, sensor display, and intercom system, along with its cabin layout and “restrictions on takeoffs in crosswinds or near obstacles” have raised concerns during ground and flight testing. The DOD Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) 412-page annual report, released Jan. 19, covers more than 240 programs the office reviewed in the past year. Its conclusions and recommendations on the Grey Wolf were not previously widely known.

DOT&E questioned the MH-139 program’s testing regimen, including both the amount of testing leading up to a key milestone and the enduring need for ballistic and electromagnetic testing.

The MH-139 is intended to replace the Air Force’s aging UH-1N Huey helicopters used by security forces to support the service’s missile fields and also to transport government and visiting officials around the Washington, D.C., area. Based on the AgustaWestland AW139 civilian helicopter, it is supposed to offer enhanced performance, which requires testing to prove crews can “operate up to the edge of the allowed operating envelope.”

The concerns in the report emerged only a few months after Air Force officials had voiced optimism that the Grey Wolf was regaining momentum and ready for military utility testing after months of delays.

When a team of Boeing and Leonardo first won the contract for the aircraft, initial operational capability was projected for 2021. Delayed Federal Aviation Administration certification, however, pushed that timeline back.

While DOT&E found that military flight testing has been close to plan, the report said “persistent problems in acquiring technical data and some aircraft components from the contractor are delaying execution of some portions.” Meanwhile, tests conducted so far indicate problems the agency says that “represent a risk to MH-139 meeting operational effectiveness requirements.”

Among the newly identified deficiencies:

The certified envelope of the automatic flight control system does not match the expanded envelope required in the military version
Issues with sensor display availability to the crew in the cabin
Problems with the on-board intercom system that enables the crew to communicate
“The capability of the cabin layout to support employment of armed tactical response forces”
Changes to the “type of hoist [and] the location of the fast-rope insertion/extraction system bar,” along with other cabin modifications, identified by foreign users.

The Air Force is working on these issues, the report said: “The program is pursuing options to modify the cabin layout to support the tactical response forces and their required equipment while also working with [Air Force Global Strike Command] to update their concept of operations.”

The expanded flight envelope may present maintenance issues by straining powertrain components, and testing is still ongoing on the helicopter’s armor and fuel system against ballistic threats.

Yet amidst these issues, the DOT&E report notes that the Air Force is still planning on reaching a Milestone C decision—whether or not to enter production—in the near future.

“Due to the limited time between the start of government-led flight testing and the Milestone C decision, there are limited opportunities to collect operationally representative performance data to inform the decision,” the report said. It recommended more time for such testing before committing to production.

On Jan. 24, an Air Force Life Cycle Management Center spokesman told Air & Space Forces Magazine the service is now targeting a Milestone C decision in February or March.

The report also made recommendations involving the helicopter’s survivability, urging testing for both electromagnetic pulses and ballistic threats.

Saltzman’s Priorities for Space Force: Three New Lines of Effort

Jan. 20, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman has set his priorities for the Space Force, defining three critical areas of focus: combat-ready forces, personnel management, and partnerships—with the other military services, other agencies, and with allies.

Saltzman outlined “three lines of effort” in a series of “commander’s notes” published Jan. 18:

LOE 1: Fielding Combat-Ready Forces

LOE 2: Amplifying the Guardian Spirit

LOE 3: Partnering to Win

Taken together, the three letters represent Saltzman’s first direct, broadly published guidance to Guardians about where the Space Force is headed under his leadership. He succeeded Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond as the service’s second-ever CSO on Nov. 2, 2022.

Fielding Combat-Ready Forces

Saltzman’s push for combat-ready forces is more about training and preparedness than fielding resilient new satellite constellations. “A capable and resilient weapon system will be operationally ineffective if its personnel, expertise, tactical employment, and sustainment are insufficient for the mission,” Saltzman wrote.

Resiliency, which Raymond cited as his “No. 1 priority” for the Space Force remains essential, Saltzman said. But he takes a more expansive view, seeing threats not only to satellites but also “ground stations, networks, data, and mission-critical support facilities,” he wrote. Adversaries seek to exploit weakness and vulnerability wherever they can find it, and it is incumbent on Guardians to ensure they can fight through such attacks.

The Space Force’s role is to present space capability to the Joint Force—including personnel ready to “conduct prompt and enduring operations against an adversary.”

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate last September, he stressed the need to invest in test and training technology so that Guardians are prepared for real-life threats, and he repeated that refrain in his letter.

“We must have range capacity and representative training devices capable of preparing Guardians to engage a thinking adversary in a realistic threat environment,” Saltzman wrote.

Similarly, the CSO echoed previous comments about the need to develop tactics, techniques and procedures for space operations. “Operational concepts and tactics must be continuously developed, assessed, and enhanced through a service-wide campaign of learning, led by the units entrusted with our systems,” he wrote.

Amplifying the Guardian Spirit

Expanding on the Space Force’s Core Values of Character, Connection, Commitment, and Courage, Saltzman defined three core traits of the Guardian Spirit:

Principled Public Servant: Guardians are expected to demonstrate the Space Force’s core values as members of the profession of arms, a critical part of the U.S. public’s trust in the military.

Space-minded Warfighter: Guardians should have a “deep understanding” of space operations and be “experts” in deploying space capabilities against an adversary.

Bold and Collaborative Problem Solver: Guardians should “engage with, analyze, and debate new ideas and perpetually challenge the status quo,” without fear of failing or adapting. They should also seize the initiative and be “comfortable empowering subordinates to act.”

Together, these traits are the keys to “taking care of Guardians,” Saltzman said, promising more details in a forthcoming “Guardian Handbook,” which will expand on the “Guardian Ideal” released in September 2021, the service’s foundational approach to talent management.

Saltzman acknowledged that in the Space Force’s quest to take care of Guardians, “we have not reliably hit this mark in the past,” an apparent reference to complaints about the “Semper Soon” catchphrase used by Guardians frustrated by the service’s slow progress on structures and policies. The CSO said he is committed to personnel processes that are “transparent, predictable, and professional.”

Partnering to Win

Emphasizing the need for cooperation with a broad range of different organizations, Saltzman wrote in the third letter that “even with superlative talent and exceptional capabilities, the Space Force will not succeed without robust joint, coalition, international, interagency, academic, and commercial partnerships.”

As examples of those partnerships, Saltzman noted the Space Force’s close ties with both the Air Force, which provides much of the service’s support functions, and the National Reconnaissance Office. But Saltzman also wants the Space Force to engage with international allies, academia, industry, and others. “Foreign exchanges, deployments to industry, university partnerships, reverse industry days, security cooperation initiatives, and shared PME opportunities” are all avenues for partnering to make the Space Force stronger, he said.

The Space Force’s University Partnership Program has more than a dozen members, and it has already held a number of so-called “Reverse Industry Days,” where industry shares what it has to offer, as opposed to listening to service officials describe their needs. The Service’s partnership with Johns Hopkins University is another key partnership, one that will largely replace the need for its own War College.

Describing the three letters together, Saltzman said he hoped the newly defined lines of effort will generate “serious discussion at all levels,” and that “command teams are empowered to accelerate activities that align with these LOEs and discard activities that don’t.”

Weapons Chief Offers Details on the Air Force Munitions Roadmap

Jan. 20, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Although an interim munitions roadmap is informing the Air Force’s 2024 budget, the roadmap itself is intended to be a living document, rather than a single “artifact” that will be set and followed, the service’s weapons chief said in a recent interview.

The roadmap will primarily focus on the next five years with an eye farther down the road, and the future of Air Force weaponry may very well be modular, Brig. Gen. Jason Bartolomei, PEO for weapons and head of USAF’s armament directorate, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Bartolomei said Secretary Frank Kendall made him co-chair of the roadmap effort, called the Munitions Crosscutting Operational Enabler, or COE, last fall.

“I really think that the roadmapping process is helping to inform … the important budget decisions that are being made,” Bartolomei said. “But I think that the actual artifact of the roadmap is going to be a little bit fleeting, because we live in a dynamic environment and things are changing … more frequently than I think anyone … is comfortable with.”

He declined to say whether an unclassified version of the roadmap will be available, given that the document will be in constant flux.

The effort is “really integrating and knitting together, very deliberately, the operations and the acquisition teams,” Bartolomei said. It is focused “on what weapons we think we need … over the next five years,” he added, with a view for long term as well, but “the future is less clear, the further out you go,” he said. “That’s why we’re really more focused on the near-term.”

Kendall has called out the need for Air Force roadmaps in airlift, electronic warfare, and munitions, as “cross-cutting” capabilities that underwrite his seven “operational imperatives.”

The weapons COE team “includes folks from the operational community, the intelligence community, the acquisition community, and the S&T (science and technology) communities,” Bartolomei said.

The goal is not so much “an artifact … or a one-time thing” but a “mission partnership” that will be enduring and assess munitions needs from a whole-of-Air Force perspective, he noted.

“We’re really building it in a way to where we’re able to refresh and learn as new information comes over time,” Bartolomei said.

The group aims to invest in “the right capabilities for the different mission sets that we see emerging,” he said, but also “in the right quantities. And so, this is obviously one part of the conversation is clearly on the military side of the equation, but this is also a discussion with our industrial partners.”

Asked if the future of Air Force weaponry will tend more toward munitions tailored to unique target sets or generic, mix-and-match components adaptable to a wide variety of targets, Bartolomei said there is “a lot of value” in the latter approach.

Thanks to open systems architecture and modularity, the Air Force no longer has to limit itself to “an all-up round” in every case.

“What we’re seeing with these weapons is … that there’s a lot of value in thinking about those weapons and the subsystems that make that weapon,” he said. The roadmap leaders have been “really clear with industry that we’d like to partner with them to be a little bit more focused on how we’re partitioning the technical subsystems in the system; how we’re thinking about the interfaces.”

Industry technologists have forecast that future weapons may be a mix-and-match arrangement of seeker heads, warheads or “effects generators,” and propulsion modules that can be selected for their combined properties. Modularity might also reduce production costs but would require a new kind of systems integration to ensure all the pieces work together as intended.

“I see the systems being more open and more modular.” Bartolomei said. “It’s an instance where you could see … both of those properties in our future weapons, both weapons that are niche, and you can see the upshot for our ability to produce.”

William LaPlante, head of acquisition and sustainment for the Pentagon, has in recent months pointed to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine as an example of why the industrial base must be in production with preferred munitions, so that their deployment can be accelerated at need. Too often, weapons are produced in waves, leading to economic inefficiency in buying materials and long-lead items.

LaPlante has also said that components for modern munitions should be interchangeable and produced in multiple partner nations, to both help with surge capability and to guard against bottlenecks and single points of failure, such as a particular factory or vendor suddenly shutting down. Such topics have been discussed in the last few months at Ukraine Contact Group and National Armaments Directors meetings.

Asked if the munitions roadmap enterprise is taking foreign partners into account, Bartolomei said “we’re interested in making sure that we can include involved our fellow service partners and our coalition partners, in how we’re thinking about weapons writ large.” That is “a really large task,” he said, but the group hopes to obtain “a comprehensive understanding of where we stand with weapons that includes the Air Force, our coalition partners, and certainly, the Navy.”

Guard F-16Cs Get New Home, Mission with Aggressor Squadron in Alaska

Jan. 20, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

With the Alabama Air National Guard’s 187th Fighter Wing set to receive its first F-35s this year, the unit’s F-16Cs are getting a new home—much farther north.

The first two of those F-16s, still adorned with their “Alabama” tail flashes, flew into Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, on Jan. 12. Within months, they’ll sport a new “wraith” black paint scheme as adversary aircraft with the 18th Aggressor Squadron. The two jets are the first of 19 “new-ish” aircraft the squadron will get this year, Squadron Commander Lt. Col. Albert Roper told Air & Space Forces Magazine in a phone interview.

“They’re fully combat-capable, combat-mission-ready aircraft,” Roper said in a phone interview. “So we’ll just bring them up here to Alaska. … they’ll go to the paint barn, we’ll do a new paint job on them. But we flew up here last week, so they’re flyable aircraft. And then once we get our pilots trained, so they get their familiarization flights, ground training, [simulator] training, computer-based training … we’ll start flying and put them on the line and put them up in the air and flying those aircraft as soon as the next couple of weeks.”

The Alabama ANG F-16Cs are Block 30 versions, representing an upgrade from the older F-16Cs the squadron has today, Roper said.

“There’s about a decade gap in the software upgrade and hardware upgrades,” Roper said. “So I look at it as the airframe and the engine, it’s still a Block 30 F-16. But [they] kind of ripped out things like the coaxial cables, speed transmitters, and the processors and replaced it with kind of like ethernet and then increased the processing capability of the computers.”

Other upgrades represent “leaps and bounds in technology,” Roper said: Improved center display units provide greater clarity for pilots and the avionics suite supports the Hybrid Optical-based Inertial Tracker, or HObIT, which attaches to a pilot’s helmet and provides targeting data and more.

That means the 18th Aggressors can be more effective training assets, “to increase what we’re able to replicate and present to the combat Air Force,” Roper said. That means replicating more advanced threats in everyday training and at some of the Air Force’s biggest training exercises every year, including Northern Edge in May, and Red Flag-Alaska events in June and August.

The remaining ANG F-16s will arrive over the next several months, Roper said, with the last deliveries targeted to come before Sept. 30. Meanwhile, all but two of the 18th Aggressor Squadron’s legacy F-16s will head to the Boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The two that will remain are dual-seat F-16Ds that will be retained for orientation flights.

Coyote Air Defense Weapon Shoots Down Drones Attacking US Outpost

Jan. 20, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

Three drones attacked a U.S. base in southeastern Syria on Jan. 20, the latest in a series of threats to the strategically positioned outpost, U.S. Central Command said.

Two of the drones were shot down by the ground-based Coyote air defense system, according to a U.S. official, who said American forces had no prior warning of the attack.

But the remaining drone struck home at Al Tanf Garrison, wounding two members of the Syrian Free Army, a partner force the U.S. military has trained as part of its campaign against ISIS militants.

CENTCOM said no U.S. personnel were harmed, but American troops were present at the time of the attack.

The military’s Coyote is a new counter-drone system developed by Raytheon Technologies. Originally a tube-launched unmanned aerial vehicle that could be deployed from the ground, air, or a ship, the Army selected it in 2018 for “near-term” counter-UAS. The air defense version of the system uses a Coyote equipped with a seeker and warhead to intercept drones. In 2022, Raytheon and the Army said the Coyotes successfully destroyed mock enemy drones during 2021 testing at the Army’s Yuma Proving Ground.

Facing increased threat from Iranian-made drones in the hands of rebel groups, CENTCOM has been seeking enhanced counter-UAS weapons for some time. U.S. forces have countered drones in the region with air-to-air missiles, Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) rapid-fire anti-air guns. The Coyote augments air defenses with a small, moveable anti-drone capability that behaves like a short-range surface-to-air missile system.

The Al Tanf outpost is located near Syria’s border with Iraq and Jordan, and has been in place since 2016 when it was established to help combat ISIS. The base drew objections from Iran, which backs rival militias in Syria and supplies them through Iraqi territory.

On June 8, 2017, an Iranian Shahed-129 drone flew into southeastern Syria and dropped a bomb near the U.S. partner force, which is also known as the Maghaweir al-Thowra. The drone was shot out of the sky by an F-15 using an AMRAAM missile. Later that month, an F-15 shot down another Iranian drone that was flying toward southeastern Syria.

More recently Al Tanf was struck on Aug. 15, 2022, by an Iranian-backed militia in central Iraq. The Biden administration retaliated later that month.

CENTCOM said the Jan. 20 attack used “three one-way attack drones.” The U.S. official said it was too early to attribute blame for the strike or say how the U.S. might respond.

Countering drones has been a persistent problem for CENTCOM and the command has worked to build a better, more integrated air defense system, and the Coyote system adds another element to that network. Air Forces Central has also conducted combat air patrols in the area as part of the broader effect to protect U.S. forces.

On Jan. 18, U.S. and Syrian Democratic Forces conducted an operation in Eastern Syria to capture an ISIS provincial leader, CENTCOM said on Jan. 19. Around 900 U.S. troops are based in southern and eastern Syria and another 2,500 U.S. troops are in Iraq.

“Attacks of this kind are unacceptable–they place our troops and our partners at risk and jeopardize the fight against ISIS,” CENTCOM spokesperson Col. Joe Buccino said in a statement on the latest attack.

US Announces $2.5 Billion Package for Ukraine—But Experts Say More Urgency Is Needed

Jan. 19, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

On the eve of a pivotal meeting on how to help Ukraine respond to Russia’s nearly yearlong invasion, the Biden administration announced a $2.5 billion military aid package Jan. 19, which will send Stryker armored personnel carriers for the first time and also provide “critical support for Ukraine’s air defense,” according to the Department of Defense.

Armored forces and air defense are likely to be the top focus of the meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, according to DOD officials.

As part of this latest aid package, the U.S. will provide Ukraine with 90 Stryker armored personnel carriers, 59 more Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, eight more Avenger air defense systems, and additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and HIMARS.

“The Kremlin’s most recent air attacks against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure again demonstrate the devastating impact of Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine,” a DOD news release stated. “This package provides additional NASAMS munitions and Avenger air defense systems to help Ukraine counter a range of short- and medium-range threats and bolster Ukraine’s layered air defense. The 59 Bradley IFVs included in this package, together with the 50 Bradleys previously committed on January 6, and the 90 Stryker APCs will provide Ukraine with two brigades of armored capability.”

The U.S. aid, however, comes amid some debate among allies supporting Ukraine, principally over whether German-made Leopard tanks will be in the mix. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III met with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius on Jan. 19 in an attempt to forge a common position.

Pentagon officials described the allied support as a carefully calibrated effort to help the Ukrainians defend their sovereignty without escalating the war into a direct U.S.-Russian confrontation.

“There’s kind of been these phases and our security assistance has really focused on surging capabilities for the phase,” Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, told reporters at the Pentagon on Jan. 18, following a trip he made to Kyiv.

But there is some consternation among former officials and defense experts about whether the West is moving fast enough and doing enough to support the Ukrainians.

“They’re making a bunch of incremental decisions and trying to make it sound prudent,” Eliot Cohen of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “And it’s not prudent in war because that might be an approach that works in other walks of life, but it doesn’t work in war.”

As Ukraine’s energy grid has been pummeled by Russian missile and drone attacks, Western countries have provided air defense systems, and talks will center on that element in the upcoming meeting, according to Kahl. The Avenger system, which uses multiple Stinger man-portable air defense launchers mounted on a truck, is a relatively low-cost way to help Ukraine battle Russia’s drone barrage.

The U.S. and Germany have previously said they will provide advanced Patriot air defense systems to help protect Ukrainian cities from Russian ballistic missile attacks.

But it will take months to train Ukrainian groups to operate the Patriot systems. While the U.S. first promised to a Patriot battery in December, Ukrainian troops have only just started to train on the system in Fort Sill, Okla.

“The top priority remains air defense,” Kahl said. “They’re clearly not just trying to turn the lights out across Ukraine. They’re also trying to exhaust the ability of Ukrainian air defenses to continue to protect Ukrainian airspace. So Ukrainians know that we know that and as a consequence, we’re committed to keeping making sure that the Ukrainians remain viable.”

Tanks have been another nettlesome issue.

Poland has said it is ready to send Leopard tanks, but since the tank is of German origin, it officially needs Berlin’s approval first.

But Germany has made it clear that it does not want to be the first to introduce Western-made tanks onto the battlefield.

“Consent is a secondary issue here,” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Jan. 18. “We will either get this agreement quickly, or we will do the right thing ourselves.”

While the U.K. says it is sending a squadron of Challenger II tanks, America’s main battle tank, the M1 Abrams, has not been pledged.

Finland has also said it is willing to send some of its German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine, but leaders in Helsinki are waiting on NATO members to take the lead.

Amid the public debate, President Biden spoke with German chancellor Olaf Scholtz to discuss “their ongoing assistance to Ukraine,” according to a White House readout of the call.

Outside of government, there has been frustration over Berlin’s response.

“Germany is in danger of forfeiting its hard-earned moral authority if it does not step forward in a clear, decisive way to do all it can to ensure Russia does not win,” retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, said in a tweet.

The U.S. previously said it will provide 4,000 Zuni rockets and an unspecified amount of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) guided bombs in the past month. The U.S. has been providing anti-radiation missiles for months, and it is adding an unspecified amount of High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) in the latest package, though those munitions are intended to attack surface-to-air sites, while the Zunis and JDAMs offer a strike capability. Zuni rockets come in guided and unguided variants, though the Pentagon declined to say which type the U.S. is providing when asked by Air & Space Forces Magazine, citing operational security. Systems that are not on the table at the meeting are fixed-wing aircraft and long-range ATACMS missiles.

“There have been times where the Ukrainians have asked things we haven’t provided,” Kahl said. “Most of the time we have; some of the time we haven’t. I think, though, our track record as a partnership is pretty good.”

Russia’s attacks, however, often come from areas outside the range of U.S.-provided systems the Biden administration has given Kyiv. Drone bases are set up in occupied Crimea, but the GMLRS missiles fired from HIMARS launchers only have a range of about 50 miles.

“Get the right weapons into their hands,” Cohen said, highlighting ATACMS. “By doing that you help demoralize the Russians because part what’s giving the Russians hope is exactly this kind of dribbling in of really advanced systems. They really need to be able to hit Russian targets throughout the entire depth and breadth of Ukraine.”

“In war speed matters,” Cohen added.

During a visit to Washington, British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said the West needs a strategy to aid Ukraine to win the war, not merely sustain itself against Russian attacks. While noting his country’s leading role as the second-largest military aid donor to Ukraine behind the U.S. and its recent provision of Challenger IIs, Cleverly said it was a “moral imperative” to ensure Ukraine wins on the battlefield.

The war is now a brutal battle of artillery and armor–Kahl said the war is a “grinding slugfest.”

Cleverly, the U.K.’s top diplomat, said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy was to outlast the West. Cleverly, who met with Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his visit to Washington, said Ukraine’s allies should not play into the Kremlin’s hands.

“It will cost so much more in human lives and so much more in money, if we allow this to be a long, drawn-out attritional war,” Cleverly said Jan. 17 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “What Putin should understand is we are going to have the strategic endurance to stick with them until the job is done.”

The latest U.S. package includes:

Additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
Eight Avenger air defense systems;
59 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) with 590 TOW anti-tank missiles and 295,000 rounds of 25mm ammunition;
90 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) with 20 mine rollers;
53 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs);
350 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
20,000 155mm artillery rounds;
Approximately 600 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds;
95,000 105mm artillery rounds;
Approximately 11,800 120mm mortar rounds;
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
12 ammunition support vehicles;
6 command post vehicles;
22 tactical vehicles to tow weapons;
High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs);
Approximately 2,000 anti-armor rockets;
Over 3,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition;
Demolition equipment for obstacle clearing;
Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
Night vision devices;
Spare parts and other field equipment.

What’s Needed to Put Nukes in S. Korea? It’s Time to Start Planning, New Report Says

Jan. 19, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

An independent, bipartisan commission is recommending the U.S. and South Korea begin “pre-decisional” discussions about what it would take to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons to the region should tensions reach a point where such a move is warranted.

The 14-member Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Commission on the Korean Peninsula, comprised of former diplomats and defense officials, as well as academics, concluded that redeploying nuclear weapons is not necessary under present conditions. But its report and recommendations, released Jan. 19, acknowledge the “perilous landscape” for the U.S.-South Korean alliance.

Members of the panel include retired Army Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, former commander of U.S. Forces Korea; Randall G. Schriver, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs; Richard L. Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State; and Katrin F. Katz, former director of Korea, Japan, and Oceanic Affairs for the National Security Council.

INorth Korea spate of recent nuclear missile tests have increased tensions on the peninsula, with U.S. aircraft flying show-of-force missions alongside South Korean fighters and, last week, Republic of Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol announcing that his country may be forced to either ask the U.S. to redeploy nuclear arms on the peninsula or to develop nuclear weapons of its own.

Yoon’s comments sparked a wave of debate over nuclear proliferation; a public poll in South Korea suggested growing support for countering the North’s nuclear program with one of its own.

Brooks offered a cautious outlook at a virtual event for the report’s release. “Under the present circumstances, especially given the second purpose of extended deterrence, which is to prevent proliferation,” Brook said, “nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula…is not helpful at the present time or needed.”

But as part of a series of recommendations for bolstering extended deterrence, the commission did include “one door that was left open,” Brooks said.

“The allies should consider tabletop planning exercises for the possible redeployment of U.S. nuclear weapons to South Korea,” the recommendation states. “This planning should be explicitly pre-decisional. The timeline and scope of weapons … should be left deliberately ambiguous. Decision-making would be calibrated to shifts in the security environment and the North Korean threat level.”

Planning exercises should consider factors such as storage facilities for nuclear weapons, joint training on nuclear safety and security, and “certifying Korea-based U.S. F-16 units or F-35 replacements for combined exercises and nuclear missions,” the report adds.

The U.S. Air Force today bases A-10s and F-16s at both Osan and Kunsan Air Bases and has not announced plans to replace them with F-35s, but over time, F-35s will supplant those older platforms. The U.S. withdrew its nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula in 1991.

Considering logistical steps for supporting nuclear arms in South Korea is necessary to ensure preparedness for all possible contingencies, Katz argued.

“I think it’s somewhat irresponsible to not think about those things and talk about it fully in the abstract,” Katz said. “So I don’t think we should be fearful of talking about the thing itself, and I think there’s a little bit of that right now.”

The commission also recommended the U.S. consider shifting its strategic and nuclear posture in the region, such as whether it would make sense to maintain a “continuous presence of … either U.S. submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles or strategic bombers, or investing in infrastructure in South Korea to [support] U.S. dual-capable aircraft.”

The Air Force regularly deploys bombers to the Indo-Pacific through its Bomber Task Forces, typically basing those deploying units in Guam and flying missions to Australia and Japan. Recently, however, B-52 nuclear-capable bombers and a B-1B Lancer flew with South Korean fighters near the peninsula, in response to North Korean missile tests.

The commission also recommended maintaining existing military exercises, expanding cooperation in space “to enhance reconnaissance capabilities,” and providing South Korea direct access to the Space-Based Infrared System for missile warning. The U.S. recently agreed to extend cooperation in Space with Japan, another strong ally in the region.

Daring Hostage Rescue Nets 2 Distinguished Flying Crosses

Jan. 19, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

Two Airmen were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for their part in in a daring, dangerous hostage rescue operation in Africa more than two years ago. Three others on the mission received Air Medals. The awards were presented at a Jan. 11 ceremony at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.

Maj. Kyle Konkolics and Senior Master Sgt. Christopher Reedy received DFCs, the military’s fourth-highest award for heroism, for a short-notice mission in Northern Nigeria, where they rescued Philip Walton, a 27-year-old U.S. citizen who had been abducted in neighboring Niger, according to a contemporaneous report.

Others on the mission were Staff Sgt. Christin Springs, Tech. Sgt. Thomas Morgan, and Staff Sgt. Robert Duck, all of whom received the Air Medal for their efforts.

Flying CV-22 Osprey and MC-130J Commando II aircraft, the Special Operations Airmen transported members of Navy Seal Team 6 from Rota, Spain, to Nigeria for the rescue operation, which concluded with no U.S. casualties. KC-135 tankers and an AC-130J gunship also supported the operation, according to media reports at the time.

The 11-hour flight to Nigeria was the longest-distance night-time hostage rescue in Pentagon history, according to the Air Force release, and involved the CV-22’s longest flight at high altitude, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

According to citations for the awards, flying at high altitude in the CV-22’s unpressurized cabin caused several members of the assault team to suffer hypoxia from lack of oxygen. Crews had to conduct multiple air-to-air refueling operations in the dark over remote, desolate terrain, and at least one KC-135 suffered an electrical failure, and

In the midst of the operation, the CV-22 in which Reedy was flying suffered a “total loss of critical aircraft systems,” according to the citation. Reedy helped regain the use of one radio and coordinated a refueling and landing with no cockpit displays. Konkolics, piloting a second CV-22, escorted the malfunctioning aircraft for its emergency landing and then rejoined the formation to continue the mission, landing in “an unknown threat environment to recover the hostage and assault force at an unplanned, austere landing zone with obstacles mere feet away from his aircraft,” his citation reads.

Morgan also assisted with the emergency landing in a remote, austere environment, while Duck was recognized for giving his oxygen mask to members of the assault force who were suffering from hypoxia. Springs was honored for her efforts in refueling the MC-130J despite degraded communications.

Members of the 58th Special Operations Wing and Maj. Gen. Phillip Stewart pose during an award ceremony at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, Jan. 11, 2023. During the ceremony, members of the 58th Special Operations Wing were awarded The Distinguished Flying Cross or The Air Medal for their actions during a hostage rescue mission in 2020. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Spencer Kanar.

Emphasis on Speed, Commercial Capabilities Highlight a Changing Culture in Space Acquisition

Jan. 19, 2023 | By Christopher Prawdzik

Integrating commercial partners and priming an ever-accelerating development and acquisition process will define the future for Pentagon space programs, acquisition leaders predicted at the 2023 GovCon Wire Space Acquisition Forum on Jan. 18.

Keynote speaker Frank Calvelli, assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, reiterated the nine guiding “tenets” of the acquisition process he unveiled in 2022. These include smaller and more resilient satellite systems, using existing technology, fixed-price contracts, and a start-to-launch period of no more than three years. He also emphasized using commercially available resources where possible.

“There’s no better way to make capability available faster than just to take advantage of what’s out there commercially today,” Calvelli said. “Whether that’s military satellite communications over commercial communications networks based on an awareness or even [a] commercial launch, leveraging commercial services at speed diversifies the architecture and adds resiliency.”

Inherent in this process, however, is the challenge of placing evolutionary technological development within a defined rapid acquisition construct.

Panelist Kelly Hammett, director and program executive officer for the Space Rapid Capabilities Office within the Space Force, argued for more objectivity on how certain systems may mature within this complex process. Though he agreed that working through Calvelli’s rapid acquisition model is effective, it has limits.

“That only works when you can go buy stuff that’s already been developed,” he said. “When we get some of our highly classified Space Command-driven, urgent priorities, the first thing is [to] understand that requirement very well, understand the maturity of the solutions that are potentially available, and … that drives your acquisition strategy,” he said.

Ultimately, Hammett said the goal is to ensure the requirement is correct.

“Essentially having a trade space in that requirement with a minimum viable product, and some room to trade cost performance schedule, is really key to setting up the program right,” he said.

Integral to this process, Hammett added, is having the right people in the right place to take advantage of all available tools.

He applauded Calvelli’s institution of quarterly portfolio reviews with metrics in space acquisition, noting that tracking those key leading indicators can keep the process on schedule. In addition, Hammett emphasized increased communication and interoperability, which has broken down some barriers in the process.

“When you have stovepipes and different decision processes in governance, you start to diverge,” he said. “That’s one other best practice that we’re starting to use, and it’s paying some dividends, but there’s a way to go on this.”

Gordon Kordyak, deputy director of the space programs directorate for the Air Force, agreed and said he’s focused on resilience and how to operate in a contested environment with emerging threats. Open dialogue and communication, he added, are crucial to ensure all players in the acquisition realm share a common understanding of what’s occurring throughout the process.

“We have to have a discussion about how requirements can be traded, how can requirements be thought of in a way to inform acquisition strategies such that we can take risks together as an operational community and acquiring community,” he said. “And most importantly, we’ve got to communicate about where we’re at in that progress [and] have transparency and an open discussion about when things go right [and] when things go wrong.”

Part of that discussion is “what is possible versus what is possible right now,” he added.

Col. Edward Ferguson, deputy director of space and missile defense in the office of the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment, said his team is looking at the acquisition process from an entire mission perspective. Part of that focus is ensuring on-time delivery and integration to ultimately help the warfighter.

“Commercial plays a huge part of that,” he said. “What it does is it allows us to quickly fill any kind of capability gaps that we may have; it allows us to look at where the DOD doesn’t need to go develop something.”

He noted that he’s seen a paradigm shift in the department, from a force behind in capability development to one that utilizes capability and enjoys the flexibility this provides to meet government needs. It’s prompted department-wide changes.

“A couple of really big changes that we’ve made within the department are the adaptive acquisition framework, and then also changing the milestone decision authority for a lot of our space programs down to the service acquisition executive,” Ferguson said. “Those two big changes allow us as a department to move faster to deliver that capability.”

Barbara Baker, deputy program executive officer at Space Systems Command, added that she’s seen the commercial market advance capabilities beyond imagination.

“What we’re up against now is really trying to break down walls to realize we have to be more integrated between what industry is doing with commercial to what specifically we need to go build for very specialized programs,” she said. “There is a trade space that has opened up, and we need industry’s help to educate us on all the capability out there, and even for our big prime defense contractors to be working with commercial to realize those opportunities.”

She added that this is not a “one-size-fits-all” proposition, and it’s crucial to determine the best paths to utilize available capabilities, particularly with the timelines that weigh so heavily on the process.

“Getting after the commercial piece is really being able to figure out how to leverage their capability while also meeting government networks’ specific warfighter needs and trying to figure out how to sort of build that capability to its maximum use, while then figuring out what is the remaining sort of subset of requirements,” she said. “That’s a ‘build only what we must,’ and it is definitely a mindset change.”