Saltzman Keeps His Focus on Developing Operational Concepts and Tactics

Jan. 12, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

With the Space Force now in its fourth year of existence, Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman wants to develop the service’s essential warfighting processes—and make sure Guardians can perfect them through practice.

In a pre-recorded interview with the Space Force Association streamed Jan. 12, Saltzman listed fielding “resilient, ready, combat-credible forces” as his top priority.

“We have to build the infrastructure and the processes and procedures to make sure [Guardians have] got what they need,” he said. “Whether it’s the test and training infrastructure, simulators that can replicate adversary threats and the interactions you would get, multiple units working together to solve operational challenges—all of that needs to take place before we get into an actual conflict, so that our operators are fully ready. That’s really the priority that I’m going after.”

Watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which bogged down despite Russia’s superior forces and technology, reinforced the importance of high-quality training and tactics, Saltzman said. “The side that practices the best will have an advantage early in the conflict,” Saltzman said. “So that’s what I want to do, make sure we have the skills and the experience on day one of the conflict.”

Systems and technology count a lot, but if that’s the sole focus, he added, “you only [have] half the equation.”

The Space Force needs to develop and validate its approach to combat and dominating in the heavens. “It starts with operational concepts,” Saltzman said. “You say, how is it that we will control the space domain so that we can do what we want to do with space assets, achieve the effects that we want to achieve, while denying the adversary the ability to use their space capabilities to target ground forces and maritime forces and air forces? That’s the classic definition of control of the domain.”

The Space Force has a capstone doctrinal document, “Spacepower,” and a commander’s strategic plan for Space Operations Command. But the service is still in the process of fleshing out and codifying its operational concepts. And while control of the domain remains the goal, much like the Air Force seeks air superiority, there are specifics that need to be considered in space, Saltzman said.

“What’s the plan? And we have to test those [concepts] to make sure we don’t create debris fields,” Saltzman said. “We’re trying to be responsible users in space, but we still have to be able to disrupt an adversary. So how do you do that?”

Once those core concepts are finalized, he added, “you start to look at the systems you have and build the tactics, techniques, and procedures that the operators will need to employ.”

TTPs, as those considerations are often called, cover such basic considerations as “How do I move satellite communications beams? How do I detect a rendezvous proximity opposite to what an adversary is trying to do? How do I do that in real time?” Saltzman said.

And while those tactics can be developed in theory, they also need to be rigorously tested in a way that proves they work, Saltzman said. That’s why investing in test and training infrastructure is so essential.

“You have to practice it on a range where you can control all the inputs,” Saltzman explained. “You have to practice it against what we would call an opposition force—aggressors—to use the vernacular, because it’s a thinking adversary, and [the fight] is going to be dynamic. How do your operators respond in that dynamic adversarial set of conditions?”

Building the range of skills and experience necessary to optimize the Space Force will take time. Saltzman is eager for Guardians to test and train their skills inside the Space Force, but he also wants them to capture experience outside the service’s bounds.

“I want to make sure that when you come into the Space Force, your skills and your knowledge of technology, for example, doesn’t atrophy simply because you’re part of the military now,” Saltzman said. One way to do that is to forge deeper partnerships with industry and academia to help ensure Guardians stay “current on what the state of the world is, the state of the art is in terms of technology and leading edge capabilities.”

That might entail short tours of duty in industry, where they can be exposed to what the commercial sector is doing. “And tjhen they come back in and bring that knowledge with them,” Saltzman said. “So we keep things fresh inside the Space Force.”

New Rules for Vaccine Refusers After DOD Lifts Its COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

Jan. 12, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

Thousands of Airmen and Guardians who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 no longer have to get the shots—and those who faced disciplinary action for failing to get vaccinated will have their records wiped clean.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III formally rescinded the Pentagon’s vaccination requirement Jan. 10, as required by the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act passed late last year. The change ends more than 16 months of angst since the policy was first announced in August 2021. Active-duty Airmen were given less than two months and reservists less than four to get the vaccines.

More than 95 percent of Airmen and Guardians met the deadlines, and according to the Department of the Air Force’s most recent data, 97.6 percent of the total force, or more than 478,000 members, are fully vaccinated.

Still, that leaves more than 11,000 Airmen and Guardians not fully vaccinated. While thousands of service members applied for medical, religious, or administrative accommodations to the requirement, only 1,069 members won approvals.

Under Austin’s orders, all waiver requests still pending will be dropped.

Vaccine refusers whose accommodation requests were denied were given five days to start the vaccination process, file an appeal, or request to separate or retire. For those whose appeals were denied, the five-day clock restarted. Ultimately, 834 were booted for refusing the vaccine, according to Air Force figures.

Commanders also “retained the full range of disciplinary options available to them,” Air Force spokeswoman Rose Riley told Air & Space Forces Magazine, including issuing administrative paperwork, nonjudicial punishment, or referral of court-martial charges.

Exactly how many Airmen and Guardians received such punishments is unclear—Riley said the department does not track that data at a DAF level.

Any Airman or Guardian negative paperwork filed against those seeking special accommodations will now be removed. In his memo, Austin instructed the military departments to “update the records of such individuals to remove any adverse actions solely associated with denials of such [accommodation] requests, including letters of reprimand.”

The Air Force stopped imposing such punishments months ago. In July, a federal judge in Ohio blocked the DAF from taking disciplinary action against Airmen and Guardians seeking a religious accommodation, and a panel of judges upheld that ruling in November.

By law, all of those kicked out received at least a general discharge under honorable conditions, with some receiving an honorable discharge. The difference between the two carries implications for the kinds of benefits separated Airmen can take advantage of. While those with a general discharge can usually still receive medical benefits and home loans from the VA, they do not have access to the educational benefits from the GI Bill. And those with a general discharge may also be prevented from being able to reenlist.

The Airmen and Guardians booted from service for refusing the vaccine will be allowed to “petition their Military Department’s Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records to individually request a correction to their personnel records, including records regarding the characterization of their discharge,” Austin wrote in his memo. Such changes, however, are not guaranteed.

For those still in the service, being unvaccinated will no longer result in punishment—but could still carry implications for their careers. Austin specified in his memo that commanders will still be able to consider the “immunization status of personnel in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.”

“We have a responsibility for the health and welfare of our forces. And so … depending on the situation and the circumstances, it’s incumbent on commanders to to ensure that they’re doing what they need to do,” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder told reporters Jan. 12.

US and Japan Agree to Protect Each Other in Space, Citing Chinese Threat

Jan. 12, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

The U.S. and Japan are expanding their security commitment into space as part of a series of new actions aimed at bolstering the countries’ defenses against China and other threats in the Pacific.

U.S. officials said “attacks to, from, or within space” could lead to the invocation of Article V of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, in which the two countries could “act to meet the common danger” if either country is attacked on Japanese territory.

During a joint press conference with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa, and Japanese Defense Hamada Yasukazu, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said space attacks present “a clear challenge,” necessitating the move to bolster the countries’ Article V commitments into space.

In their remarks, the Japanese officials presented a striking view of China as a threat to the world order that must be countered. Japan adopted a pacifist military policy following World War II, but now, both the U.S. and Japan see China as a possible military foe. Citing Japan’s new national security strategy and the fall release of the U.S. National Defense Strategy which describes China as America’s “pacing” challenge, leaders from both countries said their interests were firmly aligned.

“China presents an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge,” Hayashi said. “Its foreign policy to recreate international order to serve its self-interest is a grave concern for the Japan-U.S. alliance and for the whole of the international community.”

Japan’s new national security strategy will massively increase defense spending to two percent of gross domestic product and develop new “counterstrike” capabilities. Japan’s southernmost tip lies around 100 miles from Taiwan, the self-governing island Chinese leaders aim to unite with the mainland. A recent series of wargames by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that Japan would quickly be drawn into a conflict over Taiwan if America came to Taipei’s aid.

Austin said recent Chinese behavior in the region was “provocative,” with increased military flights and naval operations over the median line of the Taiwan Strait as part of a “new normal.” China also recently intercepted a U.S. Air Force RC-135 over the South China Sea in what the U.S. military said was an unsafe manner, an action Austin condemned during his press conference.

Hayashi said that America and Japan’s recent military strategies are “based on the increasingly severe security environment” and cited North Korea and Russia, in addition to China, as growing threats to international order.

U.S. President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio will meet at the White House on Jan. 13. Austin welcomed Hamada to the Pentagon on Jan. 12.

“There is clear strategic alignment between the visions of President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida,” Austin said.

In recent months, Japan has been drawn into China’s and North Korea’s recent shows of military force, and Japan has unresolved territorial claims with Russia. China’s recent moves surrounding Taiwan involved missiles falling into Japan’s exclusive economic zone in August. In October, a North Korean ballistic missile flew over the Japanese mainland for the first time in five years.

China is bolstering its military space program and has tested anti-satellite weapons as recently as 2007. Russia, meanwhile, has issued public threats against U.S. and Western satellites being used to help Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion. U.S. military leaders have warned that space assets would likely be targeted in future conflicts.

“China is absolutely developing a wide array of counterspace and antisatellite capabilities that could be used in a future conflict,” Brian Weeden of the Secure World Foundation, which promotes the peaceful use of space, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “I think that, coupled with the prevalence of space capabilities in the current Ukraine conflict has created concerns in Tokyo and Washington that a future conflict with China may involve attacks in satellites.”

Leaders from Japan and the U.S. said the move to include space as part of Article V was an important new deterrent.

“The outer space component of this is important to the security and prosperity of our alliance,” Blinken said. “That is significant.”

Weeden said the move appeared aimed at dissuading China from viewing an attack on a U.S. or Japanese satellite as more permissible than other military action.

“I would interpret this as a signal to Beijing that Tokyo and Washington consider attacks on their military satellites in the same vein as attacks on military aircraft or ships,” Weeden, a former Air Force space operations and ICBM officer, said.

In addition to new space cooperation, the U.S. will deploy MQ-9 Reapers to Kanoya Air Base, a Japanese base, to “increase maritime domain awareness” in the East China Sea, according to the DOD.

The U.S. will also upgrade its force posture in Japan, stationing a Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR) there, which will have intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and anti-ship capabilities, according to the Pentagon. It will be reorganized from the current 12th Artillery Regiment into the 12th Marine Littoral Regiment.

The DOD also said Japan and the U.S. “committed to expand joint/shared use of U.S. and Japanese facilities,” though there were no explicit pledges to increase the ability for U.S. forces to operate from Japanese bases.

Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder said no firm plans about basing have been set, though he noted during a press briefing on Jan. 12 that the U.S. military wants to take “advantage of opportunities to be able to position forces throughout the Indo-Pacific region in a distributed way that provides us with agility, flexibility, and maneuverability to be able to respond to any regional threats.”

The Air Force has looked to disperse its aircraft to more bases as part of the Agile Combat Employment doctrine. The CSIS report on its wargames recommended the U.S. “fortify and expand” air bases in Japan so U.S. aircraft could continue operating in a conflict with China to “dilute the effects of missile attacks” to American aircraft on the ground.

“We want to be effective, and we do need to expand and normalize training at distributed air bases that exist throughout Japan,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and the former vice commander of Pacific Air Forces. “That would complicate any kind of a contingency involving a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.”

New Report, Leaders Detail How the US Can Stay Ahead of China in Space Race

Jan. 12, 2023 | By Christopher Prawdzik

Accelerating commercial cooperation and leveraging resources are crucial to competing with China in a new space race, according to Air Force Maj. Gen. John M. Olson, mobilization assistant to the chief of Space Operations at U.S. Space Force.

Olson’s remarks came during a National Defense Industrial Association discussion Jan. 11 regarding a report on the state of the space industrial base.” The report’s three authors were joined on a panel by Olson, Air National Guard Brig. Gen. Steven Butow, and Air Force Col. Eric Felt, as they discussed components of the strategic vision laid out in the report and how to best leverage relationships among government and industry.

Based on input from more than 250 key government, industry, and academic participants, the report recommends a number of actions. Among these are establishing a “North Star Vision for Space,” a focal point to maintain a competitive advantage with China, and accelerating the licensing process that is hindered by six-decade-old policies. In addition, the report recommends enhancing acquisition of commercially sourced assets for warfighters and strengthening the space industrial base.

“As we look at protecting this planet, it’s clear that we’ve got to get off this planet to do so, and that involves big significant thrust in looking at power production and manufacturing and leveraged use of lunar resources and other resources,” Olson said. “Now we’ve got the technology, now we’ve got the capability, now we’ve got the will, now we’ve got the funding, and I think it’s a matter of an existential race and an existential challenge to drive the significant benefits that come from being a first mover.”

Butow, director of the space portfolio at the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit and commander of the California Air National Guard, emphasized the ambition and competitiveness that China brings to the space race. He warned that the United States must not disadvantage its own economic system because of outdated policies, especially while China continues to innovate.

“If we want to have robust capabilities that are really coupled to the state of the art of technology, we really need to make sure that we’re investing properly in the research and development area,” he said, adding that this includes “prototyping activities that we do with commercial companies, new and old, that are doing really interesting things to give us that competitive advantage in space.”

Felt, director of architecture and integration in the office of the assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration, said his focus has been speed and agility in the acquisition process. Despite bureaucratic hurdles, he said his department looks to maximize efforts in the areas they control.

“I do think we’re going to reach the point where the acquisition process is not the slow part that is keeping us from beating China,” Felt said. “The acquisition part is going to be lean and nimble, and you’re going to look to other things such as the requirements process, [planning, programming, budgeting, and execution] process, that are going to be the limiting factors in how fast we can go.”

Felt also noted assistant secretary for space acquisition Frank Calvelli’s emphasis on speed throughout the acquisition process and how to best compete. One component of this, he said, was the acquisition of smaller systems, which allows warfighters to acquire new technologies more quickly.

“We want to buy those that are useful, and then that sends the right signal to industry as to what our value function is,” Felt said. “And then they can respond much faster than the government can to help fulfill our future needs and make sure we maintain a technology edge against China.”

Olson also said speed was critical when it comes to funding and how the National Defense Authorization Act can contribute to this expansive effort, which is constantly looking for new industry partners while keeping on top of advances in technology.

“We’ve adopted a policy of: ‘Exploit what we have; buy what we can; and only build what we must,’” he said. “And I think that simply and effectively implements, leverages that which is within our control, driving creativity, driving that innovation within the operations and the applications.”

A second panel discussion included industry representatives to add their perspectives on the report and the future of the space race.

Chris Shank, vice president and general manager of air and space programs at Maxar, said discussion of a unified vision for national security in the space environment is extremely important—and the message must be compelling.

“I think there’s an element that Space Force will need to articulate, a similar essence, if you will … I hate to say this, but it is a bumper sticker that we can all memorize and keep in our heads, and that is our North Star,” Shank said. “It’s not lengthy in terms of compelling, and then you have to be persistent about it, you have to communicate it.”

Aaron Dann, a vice president of strategic force programs, payload, and ground systems division at Northrop Grumman Space Systems, said taking an international approach to science and technology is key for the U.S. to maintain its technological lead.

“The research we do crosses borders, and I think [provides the] ability to allow us to better work with our international allies on our defense intelligence programs,” Dann said. “Those are some of the key areas, I think—really leveraging our international partners, alliances, allies, and also looking at our people and how do we grow that talent.”

Richard Klodnicki, president and CEO of Aereti Inc., added that comparisons to the Chinese must be done with an understanding of how they operate.

“Their education system is based on rote memorization, whereas the American [system] is based on early memorization and moving to critical thinking, and so they’re going to be stuck in an environment where they can only show what they’ve memorized and what they stole,” Klodnicki said. “So I caution against trying to compete with China on its field, wherever the United States sets the standards that we want to meet.”

DOD Budget: Will Congress Cut in 2024—or Hold Steady?

Jan. 11, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

After back-to-back years of significant spending increases for defense, Congressional hawks may face stiffer opposition in the year ahead, with pushback from members of both major political parties.

Opposition to defense spending increases from one wing of the Republican Party emerged during the protracted process to elect Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as Speaker of the House. To secure the speakership, McCarthy reportedly struck an agreement with about 20 conservative lawmakers that included a commitment to cap discretionary federal spending in the fiscal 2024 budget at 2022 levels.

If McCarthy keeps that commitment, defense spending would have to be cut from $858 billion in 2023 to $782.5 billion, the 2022 level. That’s a cut of more than $75 billion.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a retired Air Force brigadier general now on the House Armed Services Committee, doubts that will happen. In an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine, Bacon said most Republicans won’t support such a cut.

“There is a small group who thinks the military is being overfunded,” Bacon said. “And there’s a perception that there are agencies that [are] not providing value to warfighting and things like that. But it’s a small group out there—and I think the military should always be auditing and trying to find out where it can save money and build efficiencies. But the [vast] majority of Republicans wants to have a strong military.”

A similar split marks the Democrats, where the progressive wing advocates for cuts, while the “Blue Dog” moderate Democrats are closer to Bacon’s position. The group sent a letter to McCarthy on Jan. 10 opposing any reduction in defense spending. Signatories to the letter included Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), both members of the HASC.

Even members from the small group of conservatives who made the deal with McCarthy are trying to push back on the idea that they support defense cuts. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was among the holdouts against McCarthy through more than a dozen votes for Speaker, but when asked where he stood on defense spending, a staffer noted tweets from Roy sent Jan. 8 in which he said defense cuts were “never discussed” in negotiations with McCarthy. He said whatever cuts are needed to bring overall federal spending back to 2022 levels could come from non-defense agencies.

With Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, however, deep domestic cuts will be hard, if not impossible, to push through.

Bacon noted how negotiators in recent years have settled on a formula in which “when you add a dollar to defense, you’ve got to add a dollar to nondefense funding, or if you cut a dollar, you’ve got to cut it down on the other side.”

Bacon called that a “terrible concept,” though it has proven necessary to avoid government shutdowns. The Republican holdouts want a return to regular order, where amendments are debated, rather than pushed through without objection, as has been the case with many bills in recent years.

With regular order, “it’s going to be debated on, and I don’t believe cuts to the military would survive a vote,” Bacon said. “And it’s certainly probably not going to survive the Senate.”

Congressional negotiators agreed to add $45 billion to DOD’s budget request for fiscal 2023 on top of a $58 billion plus-up the year before. Such increases passed with bipartisan support, but the potential for an unlikely alliance among conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats could generate a different scenario in 2024 and beyond.

“I suspect after the increases that we’ve done the last few years, we’ll probably be trying to keep spending … at the current budget plus inflation,” Bacon said. “I suspect that will be where we go. I mean, I don’t know that. I’m just one member out of 435. …I do think there’s a desire on our side to cut spending overall. But we’ve got to make sure that we have strong national security.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the HASC’s new ranking member after serving as its chair for the past four years, has generally opposed increases over the Biden administration’s request, but ultimately voted for the increase after losing votes to oppose them in committee.

In a fireside chat at the Brookings Institution on Jan. 11, Smith argued that the Pentagon should be able to invest and spend its money efficiently, even without massive increases.

“Overall, the approach should be, let’s look at the budget we have and then what we need to do, and then look at it from a cost-effective manner,” Smith said. “I think part of the problem is … if you look at it and go, ‘We need more money,’ well then, you’re just going to throw more money at it. If you look at it and say ‘This is what you got, make the best of it’—and I’ve used this line many times before—I had a [venture capitalist] tell me one time that he has not yet seen the entity that can’t be cut by 10 percent and get better at what they do. If I say that to anybody at the Pentagon, they [gasp.] … But you need to get into that mindset.”

Smith also pointed to increased investments from allies and partners as a way to boost national security without bulking up the Pentagon’s budget—Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and other NATO countries are all poised to boost their defense budgets in the year ahead.

Air Force and Space Force modernization programs will be on the table as Congress considers the 2024 defense budget plan. In Bacon, a former EC-130H and RC-135 pilot, USAF has an advocate familiar with its challenges.

“The B-21 is desperately needed,” Bacon said. “I think we need over 100 of those things. The B-21 gives us the chance to access any target in the world, through the toughest air defenses. Obviously, we’ve got to keep filling out our F-35 fleet because that’s going to be the dominant fighter in the world. To do any of this you’ve got to have tankers, so we’ve got to get tanker production. And our ICBM fleet is so old now, you cannot extend the life of it. You need to have those 400 ICBMs for deterrence. So I just think for the national security of our country, all these major programs are a must. Not that we want to use them—it gives us deterrence.”

In the delicate balance of funding those programs within a limited budget, Smith argued that Congress needs to help by allowing the Air Force and its sister services to retire aging systems that are costly to maintain and less relevant to future combat, rather than blocking those moves in order to protect bases back home. In particular, Smith cited the Air Force’s efforts to cut B-1 bombers, F-22 fighters, and C-130 cargo aircraft.

“Let’s get rid of the systems the Pentagon wants to get rid of. That is the continuous fight we have,” Bacon said. “You can save a lot of money if we get rid of those systems.”

Northrop Grumman Reveals It’s Developing the F-35’s New Radar

Jan. 11, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Northrop Grumman is building the F-35’s new radar, designated the AN/APG-85, the company announced Jan. 11. It described the radar as the “cornerstone” of the F-35’s future sensor suite and as the replacement for Northrop’s AN/APG-81, which is fitted to the existing version of the fighter.

The Air Force’s budget documents have referenced the AN/APG-85, an active, electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, since last year, but Northrop has not been allowed to discuss the program until now and wasn’t cleared to go much beyond its press release.

“The capability of the F-35 advanced radar will enhance the DOD’s ability to execute the National Defense Strategy in the future,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in response to an email query from Air & Space Forces Magazine. “Therefore, certain information will continue to be protected by enhanced security measures due to the critical nature of the technology.”

Northrop said the new radar is an “advanced multifunction sensor that will be compatible with all variants of the F-35 aircraft and will be capable of defeating current and projected adversarial air and surface threats.” It is not yet clear if it will be retrofitted to existing models of the fighter.

The new radar will probably be available in time to equip seven jets at the tail end of the Lot 17 F-35 contract, options for which were set between the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin earlier this month. The Joint Program Office said only that the new radar “is planned for fielding in Lot 17.” Lot 17 aircraft could potentially be delivered by late 2025 or early 2026.

Development of the radar “will incorporate some of the latest technologies available and help ensure air superiority,” the company said. “This advanced sensor will provide unparalleled battlespace situational awareness that translates into platform lethality, effectiveness and survivability.”

Neither Northrop nor the F-35 Joint Program Office would comment on the degree of commonality between the two radars, or whether the new unit will completely replace the old one or if only certain elements will be changed.

“We do not disclose technical information on operational capabilities,” the JPO said in response to most questions about the AN/APG-85.

Slides on Northrop’s website show the current AN/APG-81 being employed against adversary fighters, ground threats, against uncrewed aerial vehicles and cruise missiles, conducting bomb damage assessment, performing a ground moving target indicator (GMTI) role and performing a synthetic aperture radar mapping function. Presumably, the AN/APG-85 will go beyond those functions, with greater resolution and even less susceptibility to jamming and spoofing.

Government and industry officials have also spoken of the F-35’s radar being capable of performing electronic warfare, offensive directed energy operations and cyber warfare functions.

The radar will be developed and built at Northrop’s Linthicum, Md. facilities, where the AN/APG-81 is built now. The same facility also builds the APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR), an AESA that is being backfitted to the Air Force’s F-16s.

At the outset of the F-35 program, former Air Force Secretary James Roche told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the radar’s transmit and receive modules would be so reliable and degrade so gracefully, the unit would not need service and could be “sealed in” for the life of the aircraft.

“Until we come up with something better,” Roche said at the time. “Then we’ll open it up and seal in a new one.”

The new radar will be a key piece of equipment for the Block 4 version of the F-35, which will add a host of new capabilities to the jet, such as new electronic warfare capabilities and new weapons. The need to provide power and cooling for these additional features is one of the reasons the Air Force is in the throes of deciding whether to equip Block 4 versions of its F-35As with an all-new engine based on one of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) powerplants, or an upgrade package being touted by Pratt & Whitney, which is the sole maker of the F135 engine that powers the fighter.

Northrop noted that it is a major partner to Lockheed Martin on the F-35, and in addition to the radar, builds the center fuselage and wing skins, “several sensor systems,” avionics, mission systems and mission-planning software, pilot and maintainer training systems, “electronic warfare simulation test capability” and overall stealth capabilities.

FAA Failure Causes Massive Flight Delays—Air Force Says Operations Unaffected

Jan. 11, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

Commercial flights across the United States were briefly grounded after the Federal Aviation Administration’s Notice to Air Missions system (NOTAM), used for relaying key data to pilots, failed in the early morning of Jan. 11. But the Air Force said its military systems were not impacted and that it could work around any issues posed by disruption of the civilian NOTAM system.

“Military flights are not affected by the NOTAM system outage,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “The DINS (Defense Internet NOTAM SYSTEM) is functional and separate from the FAA NOTAM system, thus military are excluded.”

NOTAM alerts pilots and airports of real-time hazards and abnormalities that could interfere with flight operations.

The civilian NOTAM issue could still cause some problems for U.S. military planes that operate from dual-use civilian airfields, a relatively common arrangement for Air National Guard units, if runways are clogged with affected aircraft. But it was not immediately clear if any ANG operations were impacted.

Air Force officials noted that in addition to operating on a separate NOTAM system, military aircraft could gather information from other sources.

“If we require real-time updates, our pilots can get them from air traffic control or from installation to installation,” Stefanek said.

The FAA lifted its ground stop of flights nationwide shortly before 9 a.m., but not before it caused massive headaches for U.S. travelers. Disruptions in civilian airline travel due to storms and other technical problems can take days to sort out, with pilots and planes not being able to get to a location on time often having cascading effects. As of noon on Jan. 11, more than 7,000 flights were delayed, and more than 2,500 were canceled, the bulk of which were in the U.S., according to the flight tracking website FlightAware.

Those delays didn’t seem to affect the Air Force and the rest of the Pentagon—Flight tracking data from the website ADS-B Exchange indicated military aircraft remained operational as the FAA worked to sort out the NOTAM issue.

When asked by Air & Space Forces Magazine if there were any indications the system failed due to a cyberattack or nefarious activity, an FAA spokesperson said “the agency continues to look into the cause of the initial problem.” The White House said it did not have any indication the system was brought down by a cyberattack, but the government would thoroughly investigate the cause.

Russian Missiles Used Against Ukraine ‘Absolutely Filled’ With US Tech

Jan. 10, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

For months now, Ukraine has faced a barrage of Russian missile and drone attacks, straining its Soviet-era air defenses. But as the U.S. and its allies work to provide Ukraine with upgraded technology to defend against those strikes, an open-source intelligence analysis has found the Russian missiles have plenty of U.S. technology of their own.

In a Jan. 10 briefing, analysts from the Royal Institute of Strategic Studies, detailed how many of Russia’s missiles have American and other Western components, despite export controls in place.

“All of these pieces of equipment were absolutely filled with Western components,” James Byrne, the Director of the Open Source Intelligence and Analysis Research Group at RUSI, said. “For us, it’s very interesting, very surprising. Nearly everything that we found in those systems was manufactured, designed by American companies.”

Bryne said RUSI was able to conduct its extensive assessments in part because Ukraine has offered up weapons it has shot down, captured, or collected the wreckage of, for inspection by analysts.

“As the course of the war progressed, a lot of the components that we saw in these platforms and that we have since seen in these platforms are relatively new,” Byrne said. “The Russians have been doing it for a really long time, and they’re still doing it now.”

Byrne said the two largest suppliers of tech it found in Russian weapons were the U.S.-based Analog Devices and Texas Instruments—much of that technology has non-military applications, making a crackdown on their export harder. And according to the British think tank, Russia has various schemes to smuggle technology into the country, including front companies in third countries.

The U.S. has put in place expansive export controls to prevent American technology and goods from heading to Russia since Moscow’s renewed invasion begin in February 2022. That’s on top of other steps the U.S. took after the original Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, including the strengthening of export controls on weapons technology.

However, according to RUSI, some of the weapons used by Russia in Ukraine have been made in the past year.

“It’s always been the case that there was a huge interest in acquiring American technology,” Byrne said. “Despite Russian efforts to sort of build this sort of domestic homegrown semiconductor industry, despite the propaganda, despite the discussion about import substitution, they haven’t succeeded in doing that. I personally don’t think they will ever really be able to succeed in doing that. And so it leaves them really critically dependent on foreign technology.”

The Department of Commerce did not immediately reply to a request for comment from Air & Space Forces Magazine on the effectiveness of U.S. export controls.

As Russia has continued to pummel Ukrainian infrastructure this winter, the U.S. and its allies have sought to provide Ukraine with an integrated, modern air and missile defense network. Most recently, both the U.S. and Germany have pledged to give the Ukrainians one of its more advanced systems: the PATRIOT air defense system.

On Jan. 10, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder announced that Ukrainian soldiers will begin training to operate the PATRIOT at Fort Sill, the same place American troops are trained on the system, as soon as next week.

Doing so will require Ukraine to pull some troops off the front lines; Training on a U.S. PATRIOT battery takes several months, though it could be expedited by skipping some steps deemed nonessential.

“The longer those troops are off the line, they’re not actually engaged in combat, and so [we’re] trying to work with the Ukrainians to see what we can do to accelerate the training timeline,” Ryder said. “In terms of what that training will look like, it will consist of training in the classrooms, it will consist of training on the PATRIOT systems, and then of course, in a simulation lab as well before they actually deploy the capability on the battlefield.”

Ryder said Ukraine plans to send soldiers already trained in air defense to Fort Sill, where the Ukrainian troops will be instructed by the same teachers used for U.S. and allied troops who operate the system. Around 90 Ukrainians will be trained, which is the same number of troops the U.S. uses to operate its PATRIOT batteries.

Ryder also stressed the importance of not cutting too many corners in the training process, citing lessons learned from watching the Russians struggle with combined arms maneuvers due to poor training and techniques, leaving their advanced equipment less useful.

“My understanding is that nothing will be done that would prevent this from being employed to the maximum, most effective way possible,” Ryder said. “If give you a piece of equipment, I’m simply giving you a piece of equipment, but if I give you the equipment and I give you the training, I now give you a capability. So that’s really essential here to ensuring that not only do the Ukrainians have the equipment they need to fight, but also the training that’s going to enable them to operate it on the frontline.”

Wolters: Ukraine Needs Fighters, But There’s Still No Consensus Yet to Provide Them

Jan. 10, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and retired Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters thinks Ukraine’s allies and partners should provide fighters to that country, but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus view on when, and maintaining NATO solidarity is more important right now, he said Jan. 10.

Speaking during a Mitchell Institute webinar, Wolters, who retired as SACEUR and head of U.S. European Command last June, said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will discuss how fighter aircraft might be provided to Ukraine at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Germany at the end of January. But the goal will be to reach a consensus with members.

Austin “works this issue” of fighters routinely with the contact group, which includes not only NATO members but other interested parties, and in Germany, “he is going after this,” Wolters said.

“The goal, of course, is to achieve a consensus with that entire group and those nations, about what can” be provided to Ukraine and “be effective in the military campaign as it unfolds today; to work current ops to save as many lives as possible right now, and to ensure that your posture 5-10 years from now is best suited to guarantee follow-on success.”

Wolters said it isn’t clear when fighters should be provided, but “when it’s time, we have to be prepared to make those contributions with combat aircraft. And it is … my belief, based off capabilities that exist in the environment, that we’re still challenged, from a timing perspective, to make this move.” He suggested that there is not yet consensus in NATO about providing the fighters.

For now, “it’s about ensuring that [NATO’s] solidarity is never compromised, and that is part of the overall strategic campaign. And that comes into play when you start to pull this question apart about what is actually going in [to Ukraine] and what is holding off, for the time being.” He declined to say what objections have been raised about such a transfer.

Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder told Air & Space Forces Magazine that “we continue to have a very robust dialogue with the Ukrainians when it comes to their security assistance needs. They have an air force, and they’ve been employing [it] to great effect, in a lot of locations throughout Ukraine.”

Ryder added that “we’ll continue to have that conversation with them, [and] with our international allies, and our partners. And we’ll take a variety of considerations into fact into account—factors to include training, maintenance, sustainability, and also the availability of those types of systems.”

Ukrainian officials have asked the U.S. and its allies for advanced systems like the F-16 for months now, but USAF officials initially were cool on the proposal and have yet to fully commit.

Meanwhile, Wolters said Russia’s lack of precision in its weaponry is “appalling” and leading to countless unnecessary deaths among civilians. He didn’t offer an opinion on the theory that Russia is using hypersonic missiles because it is running out of lower-level precision weapons. But the advent of hypersonics “forces us to ensure that our indications and warning architecture is compatible” in NATO, to see such weapons before they are in their endgame. Authorities for response have to be “fast enough and long enough and accurate enough,” he said.

“The good news is, we have a lot of brilliant people in this country [and] our NATO nations and they’re all working very, very hard to continue to improve our indications and warning architecture from a hypersonics perspective, and that that is ongoing and needs [to] continue,” Wolters said.

Wolters declined to directly address whether he thought the airpower “stalemate” in Ukraine translates to a devaluation of airpower. Instead, he said there’s an academic debate about air superiority “versus [air] denial,” but said there’s no doubt that the nations on NATO’s eastern flank are safer for having a strong air capability among and behind them. He pushed for balance in capability across all domains.

“It’s never just one domain that that you have to be superior in. I believe you need to have a very, very balanced approach because it is a dilemma for the enemy.” A good strategy will include elements from “air, land, sea, space and cyber, to include the information environment,” he said.

Wolters noted that Ukraine’s use of Turkish TB-2 drones for target spotting and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, has been effective, and their role came to light “probably sooner than we wanted it to.”

He also lauded many NATO and partner nations for adopting the F-35, which he said contributes more than just precision attack and stealth, but a capability “in indications and warnings,” command and control, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. All that, plus its speed and range “speaks for itself,” Wolters said. The benefits of interoperability and networking offered by the F-35 and its proliferation among allies and partners “doesn’t bode well for an enemy of NATO,” he said.