Make The Right Decision: Consolidate Space Units into a Single Component

May 15, 2024 | By Charles Galbreath

One of the expectations of the new Space Force is that it will be an engine for innovation and “do things differently.” Achieving that aim means overcoming institutional resistance. This is the central challenge as the Department of the Air Force tries to manage space missions that have for years belonged to the Air National Guard.

The Space Force rightly wants to consolidate the Department’s entire space portfolio. Resistance has been strong. But a measure now in Congress would formalize the Space Force vision to unify the space missions now fulfilled by the Air Guard into the Space Force. Congress should approve the measure to ensure military effectiveness, minimize bureaucracy, and restrain costs—all critical factors as fiscal realities collide with burgeoning mission demand.

The debate over whether these military members are best off in the Air National Guard, a separate Space Guard, or in the Space Force has reached a boiling point. But the facts show this is more a tempest in a teacup than the “existential threat ” claimed by some in the National Guard.

This is really a debate over 578 space positions that would merge into the Space Force under the revolutionary and innovative Space Force Personnel Management Act (SFPMA). All told, they represent about 0.5 percent of the 106,700 total personnel in the Air National Guard. Yet because of the small size of the Space Force, they represent about 6 percent of the Space Force, which now numbers under 10,000 uniformed members.

While many are debating whether the affected individuals should be absorbed into the Space Force or form into a separate Space National Guard, what is crystal clear is that leaving them in the Air National Guard makes no sense. Continuing to manage space units within the Air Guard is leading to disjointed efforts for the sustainment and employment of these forces. No one would put the Air Force in charge of units from the Navy—the organizational construct and supporting infrastructure simply does not align. The same holds true here.

The role of a military service is to organize, train, and equip forces. This is best accomplished by the service responsible for its specific mission domain—air, sea, land, or space. Because the Air Force divested its space missions to the Space Force, the Air National Guard no longer reflects the active component it supports. The continuing Air Guard-Space Force divide risks stifling developmental pathways for personnel whose mission is space. Considerations also exist to effectively allocate operations and maintenance funds to ensure the equipment and personnel are ready for employment. Splitting this responsibility between the Air Guard and the Space Force unnecessarily complicates the process, reducing combat effectiveness.

Congress intentionally established the Space Force as a lean service, consolidating mission essential elements while retaining support elements largely in the Air Force. It did so to unify previously dispersed space organizations to meet the growing threats to our nation’s indispensable space architecture. Folding the Air Guard’s nine space units, located in six states, into the Space Force is a logical continuation of that process.

Attempting to create a separate Space Guard for such a small number of units and personnel is simply inefficient. Increased overhead costs, delays in decisions, and duplicative roles would waste taxpayer dollars. Both the Navy and Marine Corps have proven they can accomplish their missions without the need for a separate Guard Component. The Space Force can do likewise.

The SFPMA empowered the Space Force to employ both full-time and part-time military personnel, a unique solution that bypasses the need for separate Reserve or Guard structures. Thus, the Space Force can fully leverage its ability to hire Citizen Guardians, preserving unique expertise and posturing for surge capacity when needed. In addition, this structure uniquely allows Guardians to transition seamlessly between full-time and part-time status over the course of a career, erasing the division between the active duty and reserve members seen in all the other military services. For Air Guard personnel, this is essential. It enables their voluntary transfer into the Space Force, ensures them the part-time flexibility they seek, and preserves their assignments in their home states. Concern about these two factors can therefore be laid to rest.

Service leaders arrived at this desired end state after extensive study. The in-depth analysis completed by the Department of the Air Force objectively examined three courses of action—retain the units in the Air Guard, create a Space Guard, or consolidate within the Space Force—against eight planning factors. It is the most comprehensive, fact-based coverage on this topic to date.

A few discerning factors from this report stand out—readiness, unity of command, unity of effort, and cost. Understanding the operational readiness and employment ramifications of each option and the ability to achieve unity of effort and command favor consolidation into the Space Force. Secondly, short-term transition costs and long-term sustainment costs must factor heavily in this decision. While there will be some transition cost for both the Space Guard and Space Force consolidations options, the long-term sustainment of a single component will likely be less expensive than maintaining dual tracks. Consolidation is the clearest path forward.

Nothing in this decision threatens the National Guard system. The Air and Army National Guard forces remain key contributors to the Total Force and our nation’s defense. Our nation does not need to stand up a stand-alone Space Guard just to manage these 578 individuals. That defies logic and good sense. Careful and thoughtful analysis has proven that. So now, nearly five years after the establishment of the Space Force, it is time to resolve this debate once and for all. We must not allow the “way we’ve always done it” to dictate the way we do things in the future. These space units and their personnel belong in the Space Force. Let’s put them there and move on.

Retired Space Force Col. Charles S. Galbreath is a senior resident fellow for space studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Air Force Weapons School Celebrates 75 Years of Adapting to New Challenges

May 15, 2024 | By David Roza

In 1949, the Air Force’s new Aircraft Gunnery School opened at then-Las Vegas Air Force Base, Nev., with a group of World War II fighter pilots passing on their hard-won combat lessons to new crews.

Three-quarters of a century later, what is now the Air Force Weapons School has grown into one of the service’s premier institutions, a place where Airmen and Guardians alike can become experts in their weapons systems.

Celebrating its 75th anniversary this week, the Weapons School produces new classes of about 150 personnel every six months from Nellis Air Force Base. Initially focused on fighters, the school now teaches about bombers, helicopter search and rescue, cyber warfare, space operations, and much more, with geographically-separated squadrons hosting platform-specific classes across the country.

But despite the change, one thing has remained constant, current Commandant Col. Charles Fallon told Air & Space Forces Magazine: a commitment to keep being better.

“When you look at where we began, with very few platforms post-WWII, to where we are now, it looks like wild change,” he said. “But the one thing that hasn’t changed, from its inception until now and into the future, is that we are always going to adapt and improve. That is at the heart of what we do.”

Now, as the Air Force and Space Force prepare to fight a near-peer adversary such as China or Russia, the Weapons School is adapting too, with a greater emphasis on synthetic training environments, multidomain integration, and human performance, so that weapons officers can keep pace with the fast-moving world of military threats and technology.

“Not only are we looking to make really fantastic weapons officers, we think part of that is just making better humans,” Fallon said. “If you can make a better human, then that better human will be a better weapons officer, a better tactician. They’ll be able to answer their nation’s call to lead Airmen.”

U.S. Air Force tactical air control party, or TAC-P, Airmen participating in exercise VIRTUAL FLAG: Battle Management in a synthetic, joint combat environment, ensuring joint operational and tactical warfighter readiness in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, and eight distributed locations, Aug. 15-19, 2022. U.S. Air Force photo by Deb Henley

Synthesized Success

For most of its history, the Weapons School emphasized live flight training as the way to prepare students for real-world operations. Indeed, weapons officers helped stand up the first Aggressor Squadrons: dedicated pilots who imitate hostile “Red Air” tactics to better prepare U.S. and coalition crews for combat. But in recent years, synthetic training has allowed Weapons School courses to simulate large-scale, high-tech battles that may not be possible on a real-world training range.

“When I first went through the school, it was ‘pound on your chest, we’re going to fly, we’ve got to do it live,’” said Fallon, a career F-16 pilot who now flies the F-35. “Now there has been such great advances in the synthetic environment that you can create an ultra-realistic and, in some cases, more realistic threat representation in-scenario than you could in the actual real-world environment.”

Traditional simulators taught crew members how to safely operate an aircraft, but manufacturers did not always incorporate realistic threat simulation into their design, Fallon explained. By contrast, synthetic environments often allow multiple simulators from different platforms to link together and represent threats realistically.

Fallon likened it to video games, which often fall into one of two categories: arcade or simulator. In an arcade racing game, for example, players hold a button to make the racecar go forward, while in a simulator racing game, players must shift gears and adjust for weather conditions, tire traction, and a range of other realistic factors.

“All of our simulators up until now have kind of been that arcade mode,” Fallon said. “Now we’re getting into the real simulation mode where the synthetic environment is almost imperceptible from the real world.”

While not a replacement for live training, synthetic environments help emulate threats or stand-off weapons that may be too long-range for the restricted airspace above a training range, or assets that may be too expensive to bring in more than once a year. But it also helps with the day-to-day skills Airmen and Guardians need to stay proficient.

“I can go in the sim for eight hours and those individuals can receive hundreds of reps and sets that would have taken an entire year of training live,” Fallon said.

Maj. Andrew Hong, 32nd Weapons Squadron (WPS) phase manager and instructor, Capt. Stephen Baker, 32nd WPS Cyber Warfare Operations (CWO) Weapons Instructor Course (WIC) student, and Maj. Michelle Bostic, 32nd WPS CWO WIC student, look at computer monitors at the 32nd WPS on Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., June 10, 2019. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Bryan Guthrie

Multidomain Masters

The push for synthetic environments occurs as warfare becomes more multidomain: the first-ever Bamboo Eagle exercise held earlier this year featured air, sea, cyber, and space operators working together in an eight day simulation of an Indo-Pacific conflict. That melding between domains is also happening at the Weapons School, where Fallon sees students from different platforms working together earlier in the six-month curriculum.

“That integration continues to push left in the timeline, and you honestly can’t start that early enough,” he said.

That was not always the case at the Weapons School, which for its first 43 years focused exclusively on fighters. That changed in 1992, with the activation of B-52 and B-1 bomber divisions; followed by HH-60 rescue helicopters, EC-130 electronic warfare planes, and RC-135 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance jets in 1995; and a space division in 1996.

Today, the Weapons School features 21 Weapons Squadrons, focused on platforms ranging from intercontinental ballistic missiles to CV-22 tiltrotor transports. The F-35 embodies that fusion: a multirole fighter jet with cutting-edge sensors and electromagnetic warfare systems. Almost 70 percent of the F-35 Weapons School syllabus involves some sort of integration with another platform, Fallon said.

“That’s a wild change from other platforms in the past, and we would assume every platform that onboards from here on out is going to be very typical of that,” the colonel said.

The mind-melding culminates in the three-week Weapons School Integration (WSINT), the capstone element where students work together to plan and execute “every aspect of air, space, and cyber combat operations,” according to the Air Force.

The growing emphasis on integration also reflects that the Weapons School, never known for being easy, may become even more demanding of students, who are already expected to be Ph.D.-level experts in their own platforms upon graduating.

“It was a real shock for someone who’d aced everything to date to consider failing a formal course,” wrote retired Lt. Col. Dan Hampton about his experience at Weapons School in his 2012 memoir “Viper Pilot.” Besides a heavy flying schedule, he and his fellow students also had to juggle hundreds of hours of academics covering aircraft weapons, systems, and tactics, write a graduate-level paper, and then present it to their instructors.

“I used to fall asleep standing up in the shower at the end of the day,” Hampton wrote. “It sucked. I loved it.”

Still, part of the expectation at the Weapons School is to raise the standards, “so that every single class is more difficult than the class prior to it,” Fallon said.

“As our understanding of the pacing challenge continues to evolve, we continue to add on,” he said. “All the things that we have asked our graduates to do for the past 75 years, that’s just the norm. And then anything new is a growth on top of that. The old stuff doesn’t go away, there’s nothing that comes off the plate.”

The Weapons School plate has more on it now than ever before, but new advances in human performance could help students consume more and digest it faster to keep pace.

Human Performance

The Weapons School is often “the nexus of the latest and greatest technology and what things you can do with that technology,” Fallon said. “But for right now, it’s people that operate all of our technology, and so that’s where we really need to lean in and invest.”

Recent efforts include taking lessons from science and academia on how people cognitively behave and receive information. For the past year and a half or so, the school hired a contractor to perform cognitive brain mapping on students and instructors, examining their brain waves, stress levels, and their abilities to learn and adapt. The data so far hints that future syllabi could benefit from having time off or “very targeted recovery, rather than just ‘Hey, you’re gonna fly every single day for five days,’” Fallon said. “And then at the end of the week, we wonder why someone’s not getting better.”

Several hundred students and instructors are also tracking their sleep and daily routines through wearable technology, which helps them better understand how to perform at their best.

“We can’t continue to burn people out into the red and then wonder why they’re not getting it,” Fallon said. “We need to allow them to get into what we call a flow state, so that they can actually perform at their peak. Then we need to proactively work that into the syllabus, which is something that’s never been attempted here before.”

Maj. Justin Hargrove, 509th Weapons Squadron KC-135 pilot, Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash., wears the coveted United States Weapons School Graduate Patch during Deliberate Strike Night at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, June 16, 2016. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum

Beyond making sure students perform at their best in Weapons School, Fallon also wants graduates to keep improving long after they put on the school’s iconic patch.

“The real problem is once you put that patch on your shoulder, training in the Air Force literally stops,” Fallon said. “There are no more upgrades that I can put you in, there is no formal course I can send you to to get you more training in your platform.”

The default assumption, he explained, is that the patch-wearer is at the top of their game and the best of the best.

“My question is just, can you make them better?” the colonel asked.

Synthetic training could play a role by remembering an individual’s weak areas from past experiences, then targeting those whenever they hop in a simulator. The technology is not there yet, the colonel said, but once it is, it could ensure weapons officers retain their edge.

Inflection Point

The Air Force Weapons School has a 75-year tradition of excellence, one that Fallon is reminded of every time he walks through the front door and is greeted by a statue of Brig. Gen. James “Robbie” Risner, the Korean War ace who was shot down during the Vietnam War and helped keep up the spirits of his fellow prisoners of war at the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.”

“That is definitely a visceral thing that physically hits you in the face every single morning when you walk in, and it really means something,” Fallon said.

Though Risner was not a weapons officer, every year a graduate receives the Risner Award for embodying the Weapons School’s values: humble, approachable, and credible, and for doing something “of great credit for the community and represents the patch the best,” Fallon explained.

Capt. “Zoom” Tucker, B-1B pilot assigned to the 77th Weapons Squadron, at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, prepares to board her aircraft for a night mission during a U.S. Air Force Weapons School (USAFWS) Integration exercise at Nellis AFB, Nevada, June 3, 2021. U.S. Air Force photo by William R. Lewis

The Weapons School’s heritage will be on display May 17 during a celebration of the school’s anniversary. In a separate event, the base will also rename the headquarters complex for the 57th Wing and 99th Air Base Wing the Gen. John P. Jumper Headquarters Complex after the 17th Air Force Chief of Staff who served as the Weapons School flight commander from 1974 to 1977.

Jumper will attend the events, as will Air Combat Command head Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach and U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, himself a former Weapons School commandant.

That celebration of the school’s heritage is well-timed, Fallon said, as the Air Force prepares for possible conflict against China or Russia on a tight budget and short timelines. Weapons officers from years gone by also had to adapt to challenges with limited resources, and “we can do that too,” the colonel said. “We can be those people.”

“This is a great inflection point for our institution and it is probably happening at the exact right time,” he said.

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with information from Nellis Air Force Base clarifying which building will be dedicated to Gen. John Jumper.

Top Lawmakers Want to Slash F-35 Production, Put Funds Toward Test Capacity

May 14, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

Exasperated with the delays to the F-35’s Tech Refresh 3 update—which has held up deliveries of completed fighters since last fall—the House Armed Services Committee wants to slash the military services’ fiscal 2025 F-35 purchase by at least 10 aircraft and as much as 20.

The “chairman’s mark” of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, signed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), yanks $1 billion from F-35 procurement, shifting about $850 million to cover the cost of adding another Cooperative Avionics Test Bed aircraft, making a “digital twin” of the F-35, and setting up another Mission Software Integration Laboratory. It also directs Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to implement a series of “corrective actions” on the program.

A staffer for a HASC airland subcommittee member told Air & Space Forces Magazine that “we are trying to get the attention” of the Pentagon and F-35 maker Lockheed Martin, “that we are tired of talking about [F-35 delays] and hearing excuses. … Once and for all, let’s get this thing straightened out.” He said the committee backs the F-35, but as the TR-3 is the basis “for everything to come, we need to get this on a solid basis now.”

The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy requested 68 F-35s in the fiscal 2025 budget, asking for 42, 13, and 13 of the fighters, respectively. The draft NDAA will slice at least 10 aircraft from that collective buy, to 58 total aircraft—36 F-35As, 11 F-35Bs, and 11 F-35Cs among the services, respectively.

If the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Program Office make a series of corrective actions in the program that satisfy the committee, they can avoid cuts of yet another 10 aircraft. If not, there will be a further reduction to just 48 F-35s in total, leaving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy with 30, 9, and 9 F-35s, respectively.

F-35 Procurement for 2025

Aircraft	2025 Budget Request	House NDAA with Corrective Actions	Without Corrective Actions
F-35A	42	36	30
F-35B	13	11	9
F-35C	13	11	9
TOTAL	68	58	48

The Program Executive Officer for the F-35, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael J. Schmidt, has testified in recent weeks that the pace of TR-3 testing has been slowed by insufficient test assets and numbers of programmers. Because testing is incomplete, aircraft manufactured with the TR-3 hardware/software package can’t be delivered and have been parked immediately after coming off the production line. An estimated 75 aircraft are completed and in storage at an undisclosed facility, awaiting delivery.

Schmidt has also said the Block 4 upgrade—for which the TR-3 is the basis—is being “reimagined,” with a new timeline that would defer many Block 4 capabilities to the 2030s.

Completion of TR-3 testing is now a year late, and Schmidt has testified that even a “truncated” version of the software—something less than the full TR-3—won’t be available until the third quarter of this year. Schmidt told Congress the F-35’s international partners have agreed to the truncated version of the package in order to get deliveries moving again, but government sources said a decision to do so has still not been made. One said the JPO is waiting “until the software is stable.”

Lockheed Martin chairman Jim Taiclet told financial reporters in April that the truncated version would allow pilots to practice using systems that won’t be fully operational until the all-up TR-3 comes long. He called it a “combat-capable training” version of the software. He also said only 75-110 F-35s out of a planned 156 will be delivered in 2024, although annual deliveries typically vary from the production figure.

Schmidt has said the fully completed TR-3 won’t arrive before 2025.

The delays have meant that U.S. and foreign F-35 customers have not been able to make a timely transition from previous fighters to the new ones.

A spokesperson for the F-35 Joint Program Office said “we are reviewing the chairman’s mark and look forward to working with Congress to keep the F-35 program ready to address national defense requirements.”

A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin said “we look forward to working with the Administration and Congress as the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget receives full consideration in the months ahead.”

The draft NDAA directs Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to create and submit a new acquisition strategy for the F-35, “with appropriate actions and milestones,” as well as a “digital twin” of the aircraft and its mission systems. A digital twin is a full digital model of the aircraft with all elements, down to the fasteners. These models are typically used to refine designs and facilitate upgrades.

The Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATB, or “CATBird”) tests F-35 radar, avionics and other RF systems. Congress wants a second one added to the F-35 test enterprise.

Austin is also to present an acquisition strategy to procure “at least one new Cooperative Avionics Test Bed aircraft for the F-35 enterprise.” There is one such 737-based “CATbird” now, which is government owned/contractor-operated, used to test radars, avionics, and other equipment for the F-35.

The Defense Secretary is furthermore to present a strategy to set up a new F-35 mission software integration laboratory (SIL) “to enable concurrent testing of TR–2 and TR–3 mission system hardware, software, and any existing or new F–35 capabilities.”

Neither a new CATbird nor a new SIL can be procured and built quickly. The CATbird is an extensively modified, bespoke aircraft, bearing an F-35 nosecone and wing elements and extensive evaluation gear. The original aircraft took over a year to modify. A new SIL will require a building and software engineers to fill it, at a time when the defense industry generally has complained about being able to hire programmers.

The HASC earmarked $200 million for the new CATbird, $350 million to create the digital twins, and $300 million for the SIL.

The committee also directed Austin to “implement a plan of corrective actions and milestones to resolve all deficiencies and recommendations” contained in the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation annual report to Congress. Among these were an insufficient number of test aircraft, cyber testing, integrating the F-35 with the Joint Simulation Environment, and logistics systems.

The committee additionally wants a corrective action plan from Austin that will “minimize F-35 new aircraft production interruptions and resolve all programmatic deficiencies” with its APG-85 radar hardware and software. Austin is to put into effect corrective actions recommended by the F-35 software Independent Review Team commissioned by Schmidt and Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall.

Allvin: What Ukraine and the Middle East Have Shown USAF About Airpower

May 14, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Air superiority still matters, but not necessarily in the case of Russia and Ukraine, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said May 13, as he delved into the lessons learned from the ongoing conflicts in the region and the Middle East.

“Air superiority still matters, and we need to understand we’re probably not going to be able to do it the way we used to, nor is it necessary,” said Allvin at a Council on Foreign Relations event.

Allvin’s comments build on remarks both he and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife have made in recent months, arguing that the service must change how it defines and pursues air superiority, an essential tenet of its doctrine.

The Air Force defines air superiority as essential, but its significance varies depending on mission objectives, requiring adaptable capabilities for commanders. Allvin argued that air superiority’s traditional significance has altered due to the evolving nature of warfare—a point he first made during the AFA Warfare Symposium in February.

Allvin said air superiority demands consistent capacity and coordination with other domains to fully exploit the battlefield, an area where both Russia and Ukraine have been lacking.

“Neither side has been able to have much of a continued momentum,” the general said. “Largely, because they haven’t been able to control from the air and be able to support a combined arms operation.”

And while the USAF is not involved in the conflict, the results carry implications for the U.S.

“The traditional idea of how American airpower is, we have used our airpower to roll back the enemy air defenses, and then freedom to and freedom from attack, and the airspace is ours for a long period of time,” said Allvin. “But it’s also not necessary, because if you have the ability to gain air superiority and synchronize it with the reason why you have it to enable a combined arms fight, then it’s still effective. But right now, neither side is able to do that, because they aren’t able to leverage that. And even if they could, the electromagnetic spectrum and electronic warfare is alive and well in that country.”

Modern aircraft rely on electronic warfare support to penetrate heavily defended air space. Experts suggest achieving air superiority over areas controlled by capable adversaries may require pairing low observable combat aircraft like the F-35 with electronic warfare capabilities.

Last month, the Air Force’s Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife, also explored the shifting dynamics of air superiority, citing the explosion of small, one-way attack drones on the frontlines of Ukraine and against U.S. outposts in the Middle East. Slife cited the defense of Israel against Iranian drone attacks in April as an example of an effective layered air defense, where the U.S. and its partners intercepted missiles and drones launched from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Allvin also cited the significance of the episode.

“There’s a lot that went into what turned out to be a quite successful response to the salvo that Iran tried, because, had that succeeded, that might have definitely blown the top off, but it didn’t,” said Allvin.

U.S. Air Force F-15E and F-16 fighters shot down more than 70 drones during the attack, which involved over 100 ballistic missiles, 30 land-attack cruise missiles, and 150 drones. U.S. and Israeli officials claimed to intercept “99 percent” of the drones and missiles, with Israel taking out the majority of the threats.

“There’s so much that went on behind the scenes, the actual the orchestration of the actual event was remarkable,” said Allvin. “It was mostly due to the work, the coordination that was done ahead of time.”

Allvin said broader U.S. efforts in the region helped “keep the Middle East from boiling over,” serving as a testament to the effective treatment of allies and partners in the region.

Air Force leaders have been consistently hammering home the importance of integrated air and missile defenses (IAMD) as of late. The U.S. and NATO allies have expanded the role of IAMD in exercises, citing the two ongoing conflicts that underscore the need to swiftly counter aerial threats and foster early collaboration.

House Defense Bill Would Slow F-15E Retirements, Add Future F-15EXs

May 14, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The leading lawmaker on the House Armed Services Committee is proposing significant changes to the Air Force’s plans for its F-15 fleet, preventing the service from cutting 26 F-15E Strike Eagles and adding money for more F-15EX Eagles IIs in 2026, according to a draft version of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The moves are aimed at preventing the Air Force from shrinking its fighter fleet—at least for now.

HASC chairman Rep. Mike Rogers’ (R-Ala.) mark of the annual defense policy bill prohibits the retirement of any F-15E Strike Eagles for the foreseeable future. The Air Force’s 2025 Presidential Budget Request asked to retire 26 F-15Es next year—and keep drawing down the fleet afterward.

Instead, the draft NDAA “would prohibit the retirement of any F-15E tactical fighter aircraft, with certain exceptions, until the Secretary of Defense submits a fighter aircraft capability and requirements study that estimates the number of fighter aircraft needed by the Air Force to meet the requirements of geographical combatant commanders,” according to the proposed legislation.

The study the committee wants is due by the end of 2025. Until then, the current F-15Es would need to stay in service.

“The Secretary of the Air Force may not retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage or on backup aircraft inventory status any F–15E aircraft until a period of 180 days has elapsed following the date” Congress is briefed on the report, due by Dec. 31, 2025, the draft NDAA states. Under the plan, aircraft deemed costly write-offs after accidents or due to other damage would be allowed to be stricken from the fleet.

However, whether such an action will be enacted into law remains to be seen. The full committee must hold a markup hearing for the NDAA, which allows members to offer amendments. Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee plans to mark up its version of the NDAA in June. Eventually, a conference committee will compromise between the two versions and produce the final bill.

The Air Force has wanted to significantly reduce the number of F-15E Strike Eagles in recent years. For 2024, it originally had plans to cut more the F-15E fleet by 119 aircraft, for a final inventory of just 99 fighters. The 2024 NDAA that was enacted into law limited the number of Strike Eagles that could be retired through fiscal 2029 to 68 aircraft, though some lawmakers oppose the retirement of any F-15Es.

In 2025, the Air Force wants to eliminate 26 F-15E Strike Eagles with less powerful Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-220 engines. The service argues that this will help fund upgrades to the remaining fleet and make the aircraft better suited to a near-peer fight.

The Air Force plans to put the Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS) on the F-15s it keeps, which provides “an advanced digital electronic warfare system capable of defeating modern threat systems in contested airspace,” the service’s 2025 budget documents state.

Separately, the size of the F-15EX Eagle II fleet continues to be debated. The Air Force initially planned to purchase 144 of the fighters, an advanced fourth-generation replacement for the old F-15C/D Eagles. But that number has repeatedly shrunk. The Air Force’s 2025 budget proposes capping the fleet at 98 aircraft after buying 18 more F-15EXs and ending production.

The draft NDAA has different plans—it would authorize $271 million in advanced procurement spending for 24 more F-15EXs to come in 2026, which would bump the fleet to 122 airframes. The Air Force has not revealed its 2026 budget, but like the 2025 budget, it will be capped at one percent growth by the Fiscal Responsibility Act and require significant tradeoffs.

“We do have constraints,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told reporters during a briefing on the 2025 budget in March. “We’ve got some tough choices ahead when we get into ’26, which we’re really building now.”

In addition to changing the Air Force’s F-15 plans, the draft NDAA also takes aim at the F-35, which has been plagued by problems with the Technology Refresh-3 upgrade, causing the Pentagon to refuse delivery and forcing Lockheed Martin forced to park brand-new jets.

The draft NDAA proposes slashing the Pentagon’s overall purchase of 68 F-35s to 58 fighters, and would further “permit the Secretary of Defense to accept delivery of only 48 of 58 F-35 aircraft authorized for procurement during fiscal year 2025 until the secretary submits to the congressional defense committees certain corrective action plans and acquisition strategies that will improve research, development, testing, evaluation, and production issues and deficiencies identified across multiple areas within the F-35 program enterprise.”

The Pentagon appears to be on its way to get its way with some aircraft, at least as of now. The Air Force has repeatedly tried to divest aging A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft. Congress balked for years, but the draft bill clears the way for Air Force’s planned 56 A-10 retirements next year.

Draft NDAA Would Let the Space Force Absorb Guard Units—with Restrictions

May 14, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

A draft version of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act would allow the Department of the Air Force to transfer Air National Guard units with space missions into the Space Force—but the language is not without compromise in light of the fierce pushback the proposal has faced in recent weeks.

In his chairman’s mark of the defense policy bill, House Armed Services Committee leader Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) largely adopts the language proposed by the Air Force, which would fold all Guard units with space missions into the Space Force’s new hybrid full-time/part-time structure.

The bill does, however, differ from the Air Force proposal in a few ways:

It limits the number of personnel that could be transferred to “not more than 580 members of the Air National Guard.”

If any service member prefers to stay in the Guard, the bill would require the Air Force to provide retraining and reassignment to a different ANG job, instead of merely allowing it as laid out in the Air Force proposal.

The Space Force will be required to continue performing the mission of any transferred unit in the state where it currently resides, with the bill eliminating a provision of the legislative proposal that would have allowed the Air Force to move missions after it has informed and justified the move to Congress.

It remains to be seen whether these changes will be enough to stem the tide of criticism levied at the Air Force proposal—the National Guard Association of the United States, the governors from every state and territory, and 85 members of Congress have expressed opposition to the idea.

These critics have argued that the move would defy precedent and undermine governors’ authority over their National Guards and go against the wishes of Guardsmen, with internal surveys showing a majority do not want to transfer to the Space Force.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has insisted such fears are overblown, saying the number of affected personnel would be small and the Space Force will not force personnel to move. He and Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman say the switch will provide more flexibility for the service and allow Guardians to move between full-time and part-time status.

A recently released Air Force analysis found that only nine ANG units would move to the Space Force, with 578 full-time and part-time billets. Those numbers are lower than what Space National Guard advocates have cited—the report says that Airmen who perform support functions would stay in the ANG no matter what.

POLITICO previously reported that Rogers, who supports the Air Force proposal, said, “unless it becomes apparent to me that it’s not going anywhere, it will be in [the NDAA] and then somebody can just try to take it out” during the House Armed Services Committee markup process.

Spokespeople for Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who helped spearhead a letter from lawmakers criticizing the Air Force proposal, could not immediately offer a comment.

Even if the proposal makes it through the HASC markup process, it still must survive an amendment process in the full House and a negotiation with the Senate to make it into law.

Commercial Space

In the strategic forces subcommittee mark of the NDAA, there are three sections aimed at bolstering the Space Force’s relationship with commercial space companies.

The first would formally establish a Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve (CASR)—essentially a space version of the Air Force’s Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet, allowing the Space Force to use commercial satellites in times of crisis or conflict.

The exact nature of when the CASR could be called upon is left up to the Secretary of Defense, but the program’s establishment is likely to play a key role in the Space Force’s broader plans to work with the growing private sector in space. The service released its Commercial Space Strategy in April, and lawmakers included another provision in the draft NDAA encouraging the Space Force to expand the number of mission areas where it integrates commercial capabilities and requiring a yearly briefing on the strategy through 2029.

Finally, the draft NDAA proposes the creation of a pilot program of a “hybrid space architecture” for satellite communications—connecting military communications satellites with commercial ones across different orbits to improve resiliency. The bill includes $2 million for the demonstration.

A GPS III satellite in orbit. Courtesy of Lockheed Martin

Budget Moves

With the Space Force budget facing its first-ever reduction in 2025 after several years of rapid growth, the draft NDAA proposes cuts in authorized spending for research and development and procurement.

On the R&D side, the big cut is a $139 million reduction for classified programs. For procurement, the single big cut is to the GPS III Follow-On program, with a proposed drop from $647.2 million to $332.6 million.

In an accompanying explanation, lawmakers wrote that the reduction would eliminate one of the two proposed GPS IIIF satellites the Space Force wants to buy in 2025, because “the committee is concerned about the delays to launch currently available space vehicles and that the procurement funding is out of sync with the cadence of launch.”

The explanation also notes that the Space Force is exploring ideas for “building smaller, less expensive GPS space vehicles to augment the current architecture and provide distributed resiliency,” an initiative dubbed GPS Lite. Lawmakers expressed enthusiasm for the idea and are asking for a briefing with more details.

T-6 Instructor Pilot Dies After Ejection Seat Goes Off on the Ground

May 14, 2024 | By David Roza

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with information identifying the pilot.

An Air Force instructor pilot died early in the morning on May 14 from injuries sustained when the pilot’s T-6A Texan II training plane ejection seat activated during ground operations the day before, the 82nd Training Wing at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, announced in a press release.

“An investigation into the cause of the incident is underway,” wrote the wing, which later identified the pilot as Capt. John Robertson, a member of the 80th Operations Support Squadron.

“This is a devastating loss for Captain Robertson’s family and loved ones, and for the entire 80th Flying Training Wing,” Col. Mitchell J. Cok, the acting wing commander, said in a statement. “Captain Robertson was a highly valued Airman and instructor pilot. Our deepest condolences go with all who knew and loved him.”

Cok thanked first responders on the base, who “immediately provided life-sustaining care” and “allowed time for Captain Robertson’s family to be at his side when he passed.”

The 82nd is the host unit at Sheppard, while the 80th Flying Training Wing runs the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) Program, a multinational school where students and instructors from across NATO learn and teach the basics of flying.

The wing flies the T-6, a two-seat propeller plane often used for basic aviation lessons in undergraduate pilot training, and the T-38, a two-seat jet typically used to teach future fighter and bomber pilots. Two years ago, 76 T-6s and 203 T-38s were grounded due to concerns about potentially faulty ejection seat parts. The grounding affected 40 percent of the T-38 fleet and 15 percent of the T-6 fleet.

At the time, Air Force Materiel Command said the explosive cartridges used in the ejection seats may suffer from “quality defects.” Each seat has multiple and redundant explosive cartridges. Two months after the stand-down, the Air Force had found no faulty cartridges on any of the T-6s, Breaking Defense reported at the time.

“Our primary concern is the safety of our Airmen and it is imperative that they have confidence in our equipment,” Maj. Gen. Craig Wills, then-head of the 19th Air Force, said at the time.

t-6 — T-6 Texan trainer aircraft line up for an elephant walk on April 7, 2023 at Sheppard Air Force Base, Tex. (U.S. Air Force courtesy photo)

The average age of the T-6 fleet is 17 years old, according to 2023 data. While spry compared to the T-38’s average age of about 56 years, senior Air Force leaders say the age of trainer aircraft is slowing down pilot production.

“From the time they [student pilots] are commissioned—because of the challenges we’re having with T-6 and T-38—we have a little bit of a backup. It can be as many as four years,” then-Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told the House Armed Services Committee in 2023. “So almost an 18 month- to 24 month-wait just to get into pilot training.”

A T-6 made an emergency “belly flop” landing at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, on April 3 after its pilot declared an in-flight emergency. No one was injured in the incident.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more details become available.

Canadian Defense Minister: China Spy Balloon Was ‘Wake-Up Call’ to Modernize

May 13, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

Canada’s defense minister said a Chinese spy balloon‘s infamous weeklong path over North America in 2023 was a “wake-up call” for his country, as he shuttled around Washington to sell Ottawa’s bolstered defense strategy to his American allies.

“The balloon incident, I think, was a good wake-up call for all of us that we needed to do more,” Bill Blair told Air & Space Forces Magazine from the rooftop of the Canadian embassy during a news conference with the Capitol dome looming in the background May 13. “It really put a lot of energy behind NORAD modernization, for example, because we saw the limitation of our existing domain awareness assets.”

On May 13, Blair met with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III at the Pentagon and spoke to the military press corps before jetting to the Canadian Embassy for a think tank discussion attended by academics, aides, and defense attachés, pledging that Canada will be a more robust military power in the future.

Blair and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled “Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defense” in April.

In 2023, Canada spent just 1.38 percent of gross domestic product on defense, far short of NATO’s two percent target. The government now says Canada’s defense spending will be 1.76 percent of GDP by 2029-2030—still short of NATO’s target. However, much of the investment is in capabilities that can help the U.S.

“Continental defense is the primary focus,” a senior U.S. defense official told reporters of Canada’s plans last week, highlighting investments in airpower, over-the-horizon radar, and surveillance. “I’m very encouraged across the board with everything I’ve seen out of Canada.”

The plan includes $38.6 billion strengthen NORAD over the next 20 years. As Blair indicated, North America is no longer a sanctuary from nefarious aerial activity, highlighted by the Chinese spy balloon’s path over Alaska, Canada, and the continental United States in January and February of 2023.

“Some of the investments we are committed to making are in many ways justified by the concerns raised in that incident,” Blair said. “Standing up for the principle of integrity and sovereignty of borders also requires us to put action behind our words.”

While there has not been a foreign balloon incursion into the U.S. since, the new boss of NORAD, Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, has said Chinese aircraft could be flying near the U.S. airspace by the end of the year. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” to the concern of U.S. officials and Blair, who repeatedly highlighted the threat of more Russian and Chinese submarines coming towards North America as global warming opens up waterways.

“There is a great deal of work that needs to be done between Alaska and Norway,” Blair said during a Defense Writers Group event. “A great deal of that responsibility is Canada’s. I’m absolutely committed now. It’s clearly articulated in our defensive policy update that we’re about to step into that space.”

As for aerial threats, Canada’s fighter fleet comprises aging, unreliable CF-18 Hornets and too few experienced pilots to operate them. After the Chinese balloon incident, what turned out to be a likely harmless balloon crossed into Canadian airspace in the days afterward. It was American F-22 Raptors, not Canadian fighters, that took the object out over Canada on Trudeau’s order. NORAD provides for the common defense of North America by the two countries’ militaries.

To bolster its own airpower capabilities after years of delayed modernization, Canada ordered 88 F-35s, its first purchase of the type, in 2023, despite having been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter program—later dubbed the F-35—since the 1990s.

“I need to be able to fly new fighter jets that we’re acquiring into that space to fulfill my responsibilities,” Blair said. “I’ve got a lot of work to do and I’ve commitments to the United States that that we’re going to step up into that space. I want the Canadian Armed Forces to be persistently present in the north. I think even defending our own sovereignty requires more than occasionally flying a plane overhead.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Canadian Minister of National Defense Bill Blair participate in a bilateral exchange at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., May 13, 2024. DOD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza

Can the Air Force Do More to Shelter Its Aircraft from a Potential China Strike?

May 13, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

A group of lawmakers are pushing for the Pentagon to move with more urgency in fortifying ground protection of U.S. aircraft across the Indo-Pacific, arguing it is necessary to defend against the threat of China.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.)—the chair of the Select Committee on U.S.-China competition—Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and 13 other lawmakers all sent a letter last week to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro about the issue, comparing China’s investments in hardened aircraft shelters to the U.S. and asking for more information on the Air Force and Navy’s plans for such structures.

A hardened aircraft shelter (HAS), typically made of concrete or other durable materials, provides enhanced protection for aircraft against strikes. These shelters vary in size, from single-aircraft protection to modern facilities incorporating maintenance capabilities within the shelter.

“It would require weapons such as ground penetration or bunker buster bombs to breach these thick, reinforced concrete barriers,” Daniel Rice, China military and political strategy subject matter expert at the Krulak Center for Innovation and Future Warfare, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. He added that the shelters mitigate fragmentation from precision-guided bombs or other munitions aimed at damaging runways, therefore aircraft can survive even when an initial strike hits the runway, allowing for rapid runway repairs.

In the letter, lawmakers referenced ongoing research highlighting a disparity in the construction of hardened aircraft shelters between China and the U.S. According to the studies, China has built over 400 aircraft shelters in the last decade, compared to only 22 by the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific region.

Lawmakers also cited a 2023 wargame conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies looking at a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which found that approximately 90 percent of aircraft losses for the U.S. would occur on the ground in the scenario, rather than from air combat. Rice echoed these concerns.

“If the Sino-U.S. relationship devolves into conflict, and there is some sort of preemptive or first strike on specifically U.S. facilities, the survivability factor that hardened aircraft shelters provide is currently highly lacking, while China maintains a more hardened and survivable posture with these shelters and underground facilities,” said Rice. “It also suggests that any strike against Chinese targets would likely be less effective or require more munitions to achieve similar effects.”

Rice stressed the urgency of building these shelters on a key location like Guam. Currently, there is no HAS on Guam, and the 22 shelters the Pentagon has built in the last 10 years in the region were limited to South Korea and Japan. Guam, a largely exposed island with no mountains, is often a favorable deployment site for costly assets like bombers and fighters for regional exercises.

“There are strategic assets in places such as Hawaii or Alaska, but there is also a much higher political cost for China to strike those locations,” said Rice. “Guam, on the other hand, while serving as a focal point for U.S. forces flowing in and out, it is not a U.S. state. So it is more vulnerable and less politically costly for China in the scenario of conflict.”

Lawmakers also noted a reduced DOD military construction budget for the Indo-Pacific region from fiscal 2023 to 2024. Of the Pentagon’s $15.7 billion budget for military construction worldwide in 2024, less than two percent is allocated for base resilience projects in the region. Rice, who has written about China’s expansion of hardened aircraft shelters, noted that building hardened aircraft shelters and bunkers is a cost-effective way that doesn’t require high-tech to protect limited forces.

“It depends on the project scale, but generally, it can be easily built within a year or two, as long as funding is available and contracts are in place to proceed with construction, along with the necessary workforce,” said Rice.

Given the large losses expected in a possible conflict with China and the costs of replacing existing aircraft with newer ones, the U.S. Air Force and other services should focus on the survivability of their current stocks, Rice said.

“If there is a conflict between China and the U.S., there’s always a high level of attrition between both sides,” said Rice. “It’s a losing fight in terms of cost proposition and then time to reconstitute the force that is used. So anything that we can do to help cost curve and resource curve is beneficial. And if you multiply that across numerous hardened shelters and underground facilities for other critical resources, such as fuel, that’s a huge win when you’re trying to flow forces that will help us sustain any sort of conflict or power projection into the area.”

In their letter, members of Congress requested the secretaries provide them with information by May 29 on:

What steps the Air Force and Navy have taken to bolster their passive defenses

What plans they have to build hardened aircraft shelters or underground bunkers in the Indo-Pacific

Whether they plan to request extra funding for those projects

Whether there are any ways to increase the speed of these military construction projects