US Has Lost Conventional Overmatch, Needs Investment to Maintain Deterrence

Sept. 21, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

China has advanced so far and so fast in its air and space power that the Air Force’s ability to deter through conventional forces is at risk, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mark Kelley said Sept. 21. He said the combat air forces are short 12 squadrons of multirole aircraft.

“By any measure, we have departed the era of conventional overmatch,” Kelly said in a speech at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

“When you have conventional overmatch, strategic risk is low. But that’s not where we’ve arrived in terms of conventional deterrence.”

The combat air forces are less than half the size they were when the U.S. prevailed quickly and with relatively few casualties in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the size of the combat air forces is well below where various unclassified studies have said they need to be, Kelly said. The exact numbers are highly classified, he said.

Kelly said the Air Force needs 60 fighter squadrons to meet all the responsibilities it’s carrying with regard to homeland defense, overseas contingencies, overseas presence, and crisis response, but only has 48 squadrons of what he termed “multirole” fighters. He has an additional nine squadrons of A-10s, which he called “attack” aircraft, but they lack the multirole capability that allows them to be plugged into the global force management scheme. Combatant commanders want multirole aircraft to be able to fulfill a variety of missions, which the A-10 cannot do. He lauded the A-10 community as brave and willing to go wherever they’re sent, but lacking in the capabilities needed to meet COCOM needs and prevail in air-to-air combat.

The shortages are felt mostly in Pacific Air Forces, which needs 13 squadrons but fields only 11, and in crisis response forces, which are five squadrons short of requirements, Kelly said.

There’s also an insufficient number of squadrons transitioning to new aircraft. Kelly said eight squadrons should be in that process but only three are.

“If there is an insufficient number in conversion, that either means your fighter force is getting smaller, getting older, becoming less capable, or all three,” he said.

The age of the fighter fleet was 9.7 years in 1991, but is 28.8 years now, he noted.

Readiness is also taking a dive, Kelly said, with fighter pilot flying hours hovering around 9.7 hours a month, versus 22.3 just before Desert Storm.

“Some folks may surmise that I’m trying to make a case for 134-fighter squadrons or 10-year-old aircraft where pilots get over 20 hours a month,” Kelly said, and while that would be a good thing, “it completely misses the point,” which is that declining readiness of the fighter force raises the risk that an adversary will see an advantage, resulting in a failure of conventional deterrence.

Kelly ticked off a series of combat air force achievements of China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which has gone from a rudimentary force to one that has nearly caught up to USAF through the rapid, “iterative” deployment of better aircraft and greater capabilities.

He also warned that there are “fourth-generation aircraft with fifth-generation capabilities,” and that it’s become too simplistic to pigeonhole aircraft into various categories. Older aircraft are carrying increasingly sophisticated sensors and weapons, he said.

Kelly also argued that there must not be a tradeoff between capacity and quality in the Air Force. He noted that Germany in World War II fielded rocket planes, jet fighters, jet bombers and rudimentary ICBMs—a truly advanced capability—yet got “completely destroyed,” because it failed to have enough air force assets.

“What I’m arguing for,” he said, is a force that will discourage any potential opponent from even contemplating a war with the U.S.

“Who wants to pick a fight with a nation that has 134 fighter squadrons” that are modernized, well-equippped and well trained, he asked. “No nation in their right mind,” he answered.

Kelly said the nation must stay on a rhythm of fielding at least 72 new fighters a year, and keep allies and partners at a comparable level of capability, because the U.S. will depend on them to provide mass.

He said the Air Force is still planning a “4+1” fighter force comprised of F-22s—which must be kept credible until the Next-Generation Air Dominance Fighter arrives, he said—the F-15E/EX family for “large munitions and payloads,” the F-35 for taking down enemy air defense systems, and the F-16 as the “capacity” airplane, with the A-10s as an attack aircraft force that will phase out circa 2030.

In a later press conference, Kelly told reporters it is too soon to think about the effect on the structure of the force that uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft will have; they will need to be put in the hands of “the captains” who will figure out the best use of such aircraft. It’s also too soon to calculate how many CCAs could be substitute for a fighter squadron, if indeed such a metric is ever applied.

AMC Commander Lays Out ‘Mobility Manifesto,’ Including Look at Limited Aircrews

Sept. 21, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

With an ambitious goal of being ready to fight inside the Pacific’s first island chain by August 2023, Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Mike Minihan laid out what he called his “Mobility Manifesto” at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference, highlighted by plans to move more boldly in the Pacific and test smaller crews on the KC-46 and other aircraft.

“AMC is the Joint Force maneuver. AMC is the meaningful maneuver,” Minihan declared Sept. 21. “There is too much water and too much distance [in the Pacific] for anyone else to do it relevantly, at pace, at speed, at scale. Everybody’s role is critical, but Air Mobility Command is the maneuver for the Joint Force. If we don’t have our act together, nobody wins.”

Minihan, who ascended to his role in October 2021, recalled that just before his promotion ceremony, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. urged him to “go faster,” echoing his mantra of “Accelerate Change or Lose.”

In the push to do so, Minihan noted four gaps that concerned him: command and control, navigation, maneuvering under fire, and tempo.

Seeking to address those gaps, Minihan detailed more than a dozen initiatives he’s pursuing, including the idea of removing the co-pilot from the KC-46, leaving the tanker with a crew of two—the pilot and the boom operator. Reports of such a move first came to light in July, sparking pushback from some who felt it would strain an already undermanned force.

“You’ll have to forgive me. I don’t think fighter pilots are the only ones that have a birthright to fly an airplane solo,” Minihan said. “And as much as I admire and trust that crowd, I admire and trust mine in exactly the same way.

“There’s a real operational need for it. In order to generate the tempo required to win, it’s not hard to imagine a pilot and a boom on the bunk sleeping with a pilot and a boom in seats, getting the mission done. And I’d rather test that out now than try to figure it out when the shooting is going on.”

And it’s not just the KC-46 that may eventually operate with skeleton crews. Minihan also included an objective in his manifesto to explore limited aircrew operations for other major weapons systems.

The KC-10 Extender, like the KC-46, usually has a crew of three. The KC-135 Stratotanker generally has a crew of four—two pilots, a navigator, and a boom operator. Other AMC airlifters like the C-17 and C-130J typically have two pilots and a loadmaster.

Minihan’s interest in being able to sustain a higher ops tempo and longer sorties was also reflected in his stated goal of having the KC-46 fly a 30-hour and 36-hour sortie—a Pegasus previously broke AMC’s endurance record with a 24.2-hour flight in May.

Such long flights, covering massive distances, may be needed in the Indo-Pacific region, a vast area known for its “tyranny of distance.” The Air Force and the broader Pentagon have increasingly emphasized the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility as part of a pivot toward competition with China, and Minihan went so far as to credit his promotion to commander of AMC to his previous experience in the region.

That focus on the Pacific will continue with Mobility Guardian 23, AMC’s “crown jewel” exercise, Minihan said. That event, scheduled for next summer, will take place “over the Pacific with the scheme of maneuver I briefed the Chief, so I can demonstrate a win,” Minihan said.

Previous versions of Mobility Guardian have been in Michigan and Wisconsin and the Pacific Northwest, but Minihan stressed the importance of AMC being able to fly and project power into the Pacific, arguing that there is “more permissive than nonpermissive” air there.

Running through a series of famous air battles in USAF history and adversaries’ capabilities, Minihan said the takeaway should be to not overestimate China’s capabilities and instead move boldly.

“When you base your argument on threat rings, you’re making some flawed assumptions,” Minihan said. “The first being that it’s a worst-case scenario. It extends persistence that’s not real. It extends a custody that’s not real. And it extends a magazine depth that’s not real. Invest in our tenacity and go. We don’t have a choice.”

Starting down the list of tasks and objectives he has set, Minihan acknowledged that there is plenty of work to be done to fulfill his goal of: “We’re not ready to fight and win inside the first island chain—but we will be in a year.”

Ultimately, though, he framed it as a matter of will.

“We can decide to accelerate. We can decide to change. We can decide to be lethal,” Minihan said. “We can decide to maneuver, and we can decide to win.”

Air Force’s PME Strategy Shifts Toward Great Power Competition, Joint Campaigns

Sept. 21, 2022 | By Chris Gordon

Professional military education must better prepare Airmen for real-world warfighting scenarios, commander of Air Education and Training Command Lt. Gen. Brian S. Robinson said Sept. 21 at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

The Air Force’s new educational approach aims to create combat leaders more coherently and effectively and to do away with the curriculum that will not be applicable in a conflict.

This follows a review of Air Force PME after the 2018 National Defense Strategy charged that PME had “stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity.”

After that, the Air Force redesigned its PME syllabi to focus more on practical lessons its students can apply on a future battlefield with an increased emphasis on America’s real-world adversaries.

“That feedback was heard,” Robinson said.

Over half of the Air Force’s PME will now focus on joint operations and air campaign planning. China, now known as the “pacing threat,” is front of mind.

More uniformed faculty have been brought in across AETC, the Air Command and Staff College, Air University, and other education centers after the service decided too large a proportion of instructors comprised civilian subject-matter experts.

America’s military, and the Air Force in particular, cite service members’ intellect and decision-making skills as critical advantages over rivals such as China, which have a manpower advantage over the U.S. and possess some of the same advanced technology.

Key to the quality of the U.S. armed forces is the strength of noncommissioned officers. U.S. military leaders have routinely cited Russia’s lack of an NCO corps to enable lower-level decision-making as one of its weakest points. With that in mind, Air University’s NCO Academy is also shifting its focus to creating better critical thinkers in battle.

“We’re going to have a good turn of the wheel on that this year coming and get that rolled out,” Robinson said. “It’s going to be across the board for all PME sources.”

The goal is to graduate Airmen who understand how to apply air power to joint, multi-domain planning and operations. In addition, the Air Force’s PMEs want to increase wargaming to test the practical application of what its students learn.

“Our Airmen are our competitive advantage vis-a-vis PRC or Russia or any other significant adversary,” Robinson said. The Air Force must ensure that “we’re pushing them, developing them, recruiting them in the right direction, so that they have confidence that they can go forth and help the Air Force return to the great power mindset.”

Strong Military-Community Partnerships Tackle Quality-of-Life Problems

Sept. 21, 2022 | By Nick Adde

The days when military installations and the communities in which they are located kept an arm’s-length from each other are long gone.

“In the early 1980s, you had everything within the confines of the base. And the base really did not talk to the local community. It was highly discouraged for a spouse to work,” said Kathleen Ferguson, an AFA board member and former principal deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and energy, who moderated the discussion at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. “Seventy percent of our families [now] live off base, and we are looking to increase opportunities for spouses to work.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., who was part of the panel, credited military spouses with leading the change in base-community relations. He cited the service’s 2021 “Five and Thrive” initiative, which focuses upon child care, health care, housing, education, and spouse employment.

The Five and Thrive plan took on added importance in recent years, Brown said, as inflation, skyrocketing housing prices, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

“We extended the temporary housing allowance, partly because it was taking people so long to find housing,” Brown said.

He added that he would like to see military families be able to plan a budget that is “not going to be a roller-coaster ride” once the economy stabilizes.

“We’ve got to be a bit more responsive,” Brown said. “I think we have all the data, all the tools, but we have got to move a bit faster.”

When the Association of Defense Communities was established around 50 years ago, its primary focus was dealing with issues such as land use and the aftermath of base closures, said panelist Matt Borron, the organization’s executive director. Those issues are still relevant, he said, sharing space with the quality-of-life concerns addressed in Five and Thrive.

“The issues you want to tackle cannot be tackled only within the fence line,” Borron said. “All of this stuff transcends the fence line. And if you’re not working with your community, you’re not going to make a dent.”

Flexible responses that address specific circumstances typically work better than dogmatic top-down approaches, said panelist Robert Moriarty, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations.

“The Air Force is a large organization and we have a lot of authorities at our disposal,” he said. “Sometimes it takes a little bit of effort to make sure we’re in concert with that, and also working with the communities and the installation.”

Some situations are best addressed by the communities, Moriarty said, while the Air Force should try to tackle others.

“We’ve got to listen to those voices out there and see what the needs are. We have a tremendous amount of authority. We have a lot of tools at our disposal. It’s a matter of getting smart people to look at it,” Moriarty said.

Panelist Glen McDonald, who manages strategic projects and development at Gulf Coast State College in Panama City, Florida, provided a first-person testimony as to why good base-community relations are important. When Hurricane Michael ravaged the area in 2018, the wind and rain made no distinction between infrastructure and powerlines in the community and at nearby Tyndall Air Force Base. Community partnerships set up some six months before Michael hit provided what he called “small wins,” which sparked the arduous process of rebuilding. The base commander knew the local county and city managers, the sheriff, and other community leaders, McDonald said.

“It was very helpful. But I will tell you the foundation was set with community partnerships, and community leaders that work with wing commanders,” McDonald said. “My advice to everyone is don’t wait. Don’t think someone else is going to do it. Be kind and courageous and go talk to your military members. If you have an idea, don’t be afraid to talk about it.”

Bass Announces Changes to Assignment Policies—Including Job Swaps

Sept. 21, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is poised to revamp how it does assignments, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass announced Sept. 21—including a policy allowing Airmen to swap assignments with each other.

Bass detailed the changes in a keynote address at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference, while also announcing the service will begin field testing digital tests for enlisted promotions and debut a new foundational document intended to educate Airmen on the Joint Force, the “Purple Book.”

Assignment Changes

The changes to enlisted assignments are the result of recommendations from the Enlisted Assignment Working Group, Bass said. The working group, which she first announced in April 2021, was tasked with making the assignment process more flexible and transparent, with an eye toward how assignments should look in 2030 and beyond.

“By the way, they’re going to benefit the whole of Air Force,” Bass said of the changes in her keynote address.

Among the changes are switches to assignment priority posts for military training instructors, military training leaders, and recruiters, Bass said. The service will also remove time-on-station requirements for expedited transfers, an issue linked to ensuring survivors of sexual assault and harassment can move away from abusers and get a fresh start.

Another change Bass announced that garnered cheers from the thousands of Airmen in attendance will affect recently deployed troops.

“For Airmen returning from deployment, you will not have a ‘report no later than date’ within 120 days from the date that you return,” Bass said—ensuring service members will have time to recover and reset after deployments before moving to a new assignment.

Perhaps the biggest round of applause, however, came after Bass teased a new “assignment swap policy.”

The Air Force previously had an assignment exchange program for Airmen in the continental U.S. Enlisted and officers could find other Airmen with the same grade and speciality and apply to swap assignments.

The program was shut down, however, when it was determined to be “unfair,” according to an Air Force Personnel Center post on Facebook. Because Airmen had to cover their own moving expenses, some in the lower ranks couldn’t afford to participate. All told, less than 5 percent of Airmen took advantage of the program.

Bass declined to share any details on the new assignment swap policy, and an Air Force Personnel Center spokeswoman told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the service is still “in the early stages of establishing” program, with no set start date established.

“We are working with our partners to build out the process and identify business rules to make the program more inclusive with minimum restrictions,” the spokeswoman added.

Still other changes are coming to assignments, Bass promised.

“There’s a whole lot more coming, but I knew this would get to the media, and I’d get the details wrong. So there’s more coming,” she said.

Digital Upgrades

Elsewhere in her speech, Bass gave a nod to the “#Fixourcomputers” rallying cry that has become popular among Airmen frustrated with the service’s outdated IT systems, displaying a picture of herself from her early days in the Air Force, working at a computer.

“We all realize that we have a whole lot of work to do on some fronts,” Bass acknowledged. “That said, we have dedicated leaders who are well aware of these IT and these system challenges and they are very committed to getting after this, especially our CIO,” Lauren Barrett Knausenberger.

In particular, Bass pledged improvements to myEval, the new enlisted and officer evaluation system application that launched early this year but has garnered negative reviews from users.

The problems with myEval aren’t stopping the Air Force from going digital in other areas, though. “We will start field testing digital WAPS and finally bring promotion testing into the 21st century,” Bass said.

Digital testing for the Weighted Airman Promotion System has been a longtime goal for Bass. Earlier this year at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium, she pledged that if digital WAPS testing didn’t happen before the end of 2022, “something is wrong.”

The move to digital testing would eliminate the possibility of losing paper tests in the mail. There have been several such incidents in recent years, costing some Airmen a shot at promotion. It would also help usher the promotion process into the modern era, something Bass has said is crucial for cultivating and retaining Airmen.

Purple Book

Also in the digital realm, Bass’ speech included a moment when a QR code flashed on the screens flanking the stage, directing those who followed it to the Air Force’s newest “foundational” document—the Purple Book.

The 39-page document is intended to help Airmen “internalize what it means to fight jointly, understand the missions of the Joint Force, appreciate the joint organizations that are leading the fight, comprehend how to integrate in a joint warfighting environment, and identify how the Air Force fits into the joint construct,” its Purpose section states.

It includes basic information about the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commands, joint components and task forces, and other DOD-wide agencies. It also establishes basic principles, functions, and ideals for joint service members.

The Air Force is “the first service and the only service who has a book to help [you] become a better joint-minded service member,” Bass said.

The release of the Purple Book was one of the objectives established in the Enlisted Force Development Action Plan released by Bass, and follows on new editions of the “Blue and Brown Books—“The Profession of Arms: Our Core Values” and “The Enlisted Force Structure,” respectively.

Reserve Misses Recruiting Goal; Leaders Cite Decline in Accessions

Sept. 21, 2022 | By James C. Kitfield

The Air Force will hit its Active-duty recruiting goals for fiscal 2022, which ends Sept. 30, but the Guard and Reserve will fall short by about 1,500 recruits each, or about 2.1 percent for the Air Force Reserve.

Air Force Reserve Command boss Lt. Gen. John P. Healy and Command Chief Master Sgt. Timothy C. White Jr. spoke about the shortfall to Air & Space Forces Magazine at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

Q: The military services have faced well publicized difficulties in meeting their recruiting goals over the past year. How has the Air Force Reserve fared in recruitment?

Healy: Well, we’re not meeting our recruitment goal this year, either, so it’s a challenge that stretches across all components. We’re at just over 68,000 recruits this year versus our 70,300 authorized end strength. So recruiting is a challenge, one first identified by the Army a couple of years ago when their recruiters first saw a steady decline in accessions. That’s been a topic of significant discussion between myself and [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.], and it is a problem we’ll continue to work together in an effort to come up with creative solutions. We have to approach it from a total force perspective, because I want to ensure that when a young major leaves the Active component, his or her first choice is to pursue a continuation of service with the Air Force Reserve or Guard. And that’s been a challenge.

Q: What have you identified as the major causes of the recruiting shortfall?

Healy: One key cause is a natural attrition we saw as a result of COVID-19. Because of the pandemic, recruiters were unable to get out to the normal recruiting venues that they focused on in the past. So we are now working to get recruiters back into those venues as we increase our outreach. The numbers of individuals in the potential recruiting pool who are physically and mentally qualified has also been decreasing. We’re also having to come to terms with the mentality of a new generation, to try to figure out how to get them interested in serving in the military. That has also been a challenge.

Q: How does the mentality of that next generation of recruits differ from their predecessors?

Healy: Well, I have a 24-year-old and a 25-year-old at home, and I was unsuccessful in recruiting them! I almost convinced my 25-year-old nephew to join. So it’s a fundamental challenge to understand the mindset of this new generation. I will also tell you the pandemic shifted some fundamental norms in our society in terms of how younger people consider what they want out of their lives and careers. We’re having some trouble identifying and drawing into service those younger Americans who want to be part of something larger than themselves. I would also note that a 20-year-old today has no memory of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which were a significant driver over the last couple of decades in terms of both Active-duty and reserve recruitment. That was the context that provided the answer to the question of whether I prioritize rising up the company ladder or doing something that is bigger and more important. So now we’re struggling to reach some of those people.

Q: Are there other ways the pandemic impacted reserve recruitment?

White: Yes. When it comes to drawing people into public service, in the past the U.S. military was the litmus test. After watching the amazing medical professionals and first responders who stepped up during the COVID-19 crisis, however, a lot of young people who are called to service now realize they can give back to society and make a difference in their communities without leaving. So we’re seeing some of that talent that we in the U.S. military used to capture going into fields like medicine, first responders, and teachers. As the general said, many of those young people we’re trying to attract weren’t even born on 9/11.

Q: Have the struggles of the Active-duty components in terms of recruiting rippled into the reserves?

White: Yes. In the past our recruiting models were based on 70 percent of recruits coming from the Active component and 30 percent representing non-prior-service individuals. Right now we’re not achieving that 70-30 mix. In fact, we’re probably at 60-40 and in some cases 50-50, depending on the military occupational specialty. That means we have to adjust our budgets for schools and training to qualify non-prior-service individuals to serve. We’ve never had to do that in the past.

Healy: I love those non-prior-service individuals who come in off the street to serve, but there is a significant bill involved to train them. There’s obviously a cost-benefit to recruiting an individual into the reserves who has already had a career in the military and is fully trained.

Q: Does the fact that the nation’s unemployment rate of 3.7 percent is historically low—and is considered near full employment by many economists—directly impact recruiting?

Healy: Yes, and I’ll use myself as an example. As a pilot in the Air Force Reserve, I’m on loan from an airline. When I left Active service, I joined the Reserve in order to continue serving, but also as a security blanket in case I was furloughed by the airline. Today there is a pilot shortage, with the airlines talking about a hiring spree for pilots that will last for the next 20 years. So pilots who are leaving Active duty and might have joined the reserves in the past are going right into civilian cockpits and staying there. We’re not capturing those pilots to the degree we have in the past.

Senior Enlisted Leader: Ukraine is an ACE Success Story

Sept. 21, 2022 | By James C. Kitfield

Pacific Air Forces only recently developed the concept of agile combat employment in response to the growing threat to its air bases from China’s ballistic missiles, and already ACE is rapidly transforming Air Force planning, training, and doctrine. At its core, ACE is officially “a proactive and reactive operational scheme of maneuver to increase survivability while generating combat power.” The concept impacts virtually every aspect of the service’s operations, as a panel discussion by command chief master sergeants made clear at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

Ukraine and Agile Ops

“Whenever people ask me about ACE, I always point to Ukraine as a perfect example, because we’re now in day 209 of Russia’s planned 72-hour operation, and the second-largest air force in the world still hasn’t achieved air superiority over the 27th largest air force,” said Benjamin W. Hedden, command chief master sergeant for U.S. Air Forces in Europe. “That’s amazing, and Ukraine has accomplished that feat with agile combat employment.”

Since Russia’s capture and annexation of Crimea in 2014, he noted, the Ukrainians have worked hard to adopt the U.S. military model of a professional noncommissioned officer (NCO) corps focused on the intent of senior commanders and empowered to take the initiative in difficult circumstances. On the eve of the Russian invasion last February, the Ukrainian military put that training to good use with agile tactics of rapid redeployment and deception.

“So when the Russians struck the air ramps where Ukrainian combat aircraft were sitting the day before, they were gone. The Ukrainians are continually moving their aircraft and surface-to-air batteries,” said Hedden. As a result, according to open sources, Russia has lost an estimated 55 fixed-wing aircraft, including four in just the last 10 days.

“That’s crazy, because the Ukrainians are accomplishing it with a much smaller but more agile force,” Hedden said. “Their attitude is ‘give us the weapons and a little training, and we’ll take the fight to the Russians.’ So that’s the best example I know of what agile combat employment can do for the U.S. Air Force.”

A related lesson of the Ukraine war is the imperative of being nimble enough to operate inside an enemy’s “targeting cycle.” “We have to understand the enemy’s targeting cycle, and be fast enough to move within it, whether that means moving in 12 hours or 12 minutes,” said Hedden. “We have to be faster in terms of moving our equipment, taking the fight to the enemy, recovering our forces, and then relaunching again.”

Another critical lesson from Ukraine is that a professional NCO corps, well trained and empowered to take the initiative, is the U.S. military’s “asymmetric advantage” over its adversaries. “Russia doesn’t have a professional NCO corps, and China wants to emulate ours, but that takes decades to accomplish,” Hedden said.

The Fight Club

To realize the promise of ACE, Air Mobility Command leaders have established a think-outside-the-box team of functional experts called “The Fight Club.” Composed of officers and NCOs, its mission is to envision what a winning, agile “scheme of maneuver” would look like against an adversary such as China. The group’s first realization is how tough the challenge will prove.

“There are still major gaps in the concept beginning with command and control, because this is a really huge area of operations,” said Brian P. Kruzelnick, command chief master sergeant for AMC. “Contested logistics and maneuver are also very hard problems to solve, because think about running an obstacle course while someone is shooting at you. Operations tempo is another tough one. But our Airmen are living and breathing these challenges every day.”

AMC runs an air expeditionary center that cross trains Airmen on the multiple skill sets needed to arrive at an austere air base, establish security and command-and-control, and get operations off the ground. The center represents an advanced course in training “multi-capable Airmen” who will be necessary to realizing the ACE concept of operations.

“I know the term ‘multi-capable Airmen’ freaks some people out, but if you’ve deployed in the last 30 years and you were asked to do something outside of your sole specialty, you are already a multi-capable Airman,” said Kruzelnick. “All it means is that you go out to an austere location, find gaps in achieving the mission, and you stand in those gaps. So multi-capable Airmen are nothing new, we just gave it a new name and put some structure behind it.”

Another challenge in the ACE concept of operations is the need to drive home the commander’s intent to the lowest operational echelons. The chances that smaller units will become cut off from higher command inherently grow the farther the force is dispersed from major operating bases.

“We have to be realistic that agile combat employment raises the possibility that units will be operating in an environment of degraded command-and-control, with incomplete or inaccurate information, and often times without the specialists or subject-matter experts we are accustomed to having at our big air bases,” said John G. Storms, command chief master sergeant for Air Combat Command. “That means we’ll be thrusting our junior leaders into less-than-ideal conditions and asking them to make the best decisions possible with the information at hand at the time, executing according to their commander’s intent. That’s going to be a tough situation, but if you’re a young leader, it’s a perfect opportunity to express your leadership abilities.”

Maximizing Exercises & Allies

Another lesson that stands out from early development of ACE as a doctrine is the need for rigorous training and regular exercises to identify gaps in capabilities and concepts. Whenever possible, those training events and exercises will need to be joint service and include international allies to better reflect how the Air Force will fight in a real-world scenario.

“As we prepare the Air Force’s enlisted corps for ACE operations, we have to develop training and exercise regimes that are really tough, and allow our enlisted leaders to take prudent risks and not be afraid of making mistakes,” Storms said. “Debriefs also need to be timely and accurate in order to ensure we learn from the mistakes we do make, because those lessons will determine how we operate in actual combat.”

The Air Force will also need to include as many allies and partners in its exercises as possible to acquaint them with the considerable operational demands of ACE. Joint exercises will also make the point to potential adversaries such as Russia and China that allies remain an asymmetrical advantage for the U.S. military.

“We need to always remember that we will not go to war alone, but rather with our allies and partners,” said Hedden, the USAFE command chief master sergeant, who noted that the interoperability enjoyed by NATO allies, many of whom fly F-35 fighter aircraft, is a force multiplier.

“Twenty years ago, a U.S. F-16 pilot flying in Europe needed a U.S. ground crew to turn that aircraft around, but if we are flying an F-35 in Europe in the future we need to be able to drop into an Italian F-35 base and get turned around and back in the air quickly,” he said. “That’s where we need to be in the future with ACE, because it means we won’t have to rely on strategic airlift and moving as many major forces quickly into an overseas theater when the bell rings.”

Lawmakers: Congress, Air Force Must Work Together to Address Capacity Risk

Sept. 20, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Congress needs to do a better job of providing the Air Force with steady, consistent funding; the Air Force needs to find ways to develop programs faster; and the two need to work together to ensure that the service can build capacity for both the present and the future, a pair of Airman-lawmakers said Sept. 20.

Rep. Kaialiʻi Kahele (D-Hawaii) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) offered bipartisan support for the Air Force and the importance of airpower at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. Kahele is a member of the Air National Guard and has flown C-17s, while Pfluger is in the Air Force Reserve and has flown F-22s.

“The story needs to be told in a way that mentions that insatiable appetite, that demand for air power,” Pfluger said of the Air Force’s public perception. “When anything pops up around the world, what is the first phone call that’s made? It’s to air power. It’s to space power—it’s to the Department of Air Force. The political capital needed to send an airplane is not nearly as high as [what] would be required for boots on the ground or any sort of other method or other department or other domain.”

What Congress Can Do

Promoting air power in Congress could be especially critical, Kahele and Pfluger agreed, because of the threats posed by China and Russia and the possibility that the Pentagon will need to prepare to deter and fight on two fronts while staying within a budget.

“We may not need every service to have a two-front-war capacity, capability. That is the narrative that I think we need to coalesce around on the Hill,” Pfluger said. “That is what we can do something about with a limited-resource environment.”

The issue of the resources is particularly crucial for the Air Force given the need to modernize and build up capacity after decades of getting smaller and older, a fact highlighted by retired Col. Mark Gunzinger of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, who called the issue a “budget-driven spiral toward a hollow force.”

Part of the issue, all three agreed, is the practice of “pass-through” funding, whereby funds are routed through the Air Force to classified programs out of its control—making the service’s budget look larger than it is, especially compared to that of the Army and Navy.

Eliminating the pass through “is so important,” Kahele said. Removing it from the budget will create “transparency for the decision-makers on the Hill and for the American public.” In addition, it will help to restore parity in budgets. That will allow “the United States Air Force to be able to compete against the other branches. Historically, it has been one-third, one-third, one-third. But if you look at the Air Force’s budget as presented by the administration, it’s about $230 billion. That is not reflective of what the Air Force has money to spend on.”

All told, pass-through funding accounted for roughly $40 billion in the Air Force’s 2023 budget request. It’s an issue lawmakers have tried to address before, and Pfluger urged Airmen and Air Force supporters to contact members of Congress to push them to keep pressing the issue.

But even if pass-through funding changed, there would still be the problem that almost annually now, Congress fails to pass a budget by the start of the fiscal year, instead relying on continuing resolutions that keep the government open but funded at the previous year’s level.

Air Force leaders have frequently decried CRs, and said they prevents the service from starting new programs or doling out contracts in a regular, predictable manner, and Pfluger pledged that “we are committed to making sure that we can avoid those CRs … to allow policymakers inside the Department of Defense and Air Force to do what’s needed to deter.”

But Congress appears all but certain to need a continuing resolution to start fiscal 2023 on Oct. 1, and Kahele warned that a full budget and the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy for the Pentagon, may not pass until December, after the midterm elections in November.

What the Air Force Can Do

While Congress struggles with the budget, the Air Force could stand to change as well, both congressmen agreed, especially when it comes to breaking through the Pentagon’s notorious bureaucracy.

“Our request, from the other side of the river, is that the Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force move at the speed of relevancy to face these threats,” Pfluger said. “No longer can we afford to have 15-, 20-year programs like when I was part of the F-22. We have to move at the speed of relevancy when it comes to acquiring new weapons systems and getting them into an operational level of service.”

At the moment, Pfluger said, the Pentagon and the Air Force don’t account for political risk when formulating acquisition schedules. That can backfire when programs are delayed or face issues, Kahele added.

“In the conversations I’ve had on [the House Armed Services Committee] and seeing different members debate, I know that they get upset when we are not able to get the platforms on time, on schedule, what we ordered,” Kahele said. “And we can talk about F-35. We can talk about the KC-46. But it’s going to take a whole-of-government effort with the defense industry to be able to produce the platforms that we’ve ordered, and produce them on time and on schedule.”

Working Together

While both Congress and the Air Force can make improvements, it will all but certainly take time to get there. And in the meantime, there’s still the pressing issue of the service needing to confront current challenges and threats.

It’s an issue that requires both the executive and legislative branches of government to work together, Pfluger said, especially given the threats and risks involved.

“I think we do have a real problem with risk right now. Specifically when it comes to our fifth-generation fighters, when it comes to the transition between the B-2 and the B-21, are we going to be able to actually execute what the NDS states that we need to be ready to execute?” Pfluger said. “And this is a real decision that we’re going to have to make on both sides. … And we need to come together in both branches of government and have that clear-eyed discussion.”

Van Ovost: Time to Invest in Next Generation of Tankers, Airlifters

Sept. 20, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force needs to start investing in its “next generation of strategic mobility and refueling assets,” U.S. Transportation Command boss Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost said Sept. 20—and that means replacing the two pillars of those respective fleets.

“The C-17 has demonstrated its merits countless times, but the last one was delivered to the Air Force in 2013,” Van Ovost told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber conference. “When we receive the last KC-46 at the end of this decade, we will still have hundreds of Eisenhower-era KC-135s in our fleet that must be recapitalized.”

Aerial Refueling

In June, the Air Force sent a request for information to the aviation industry launching the Advanced Aerial Refueling Family of Systems (AAR FoS) program. The program, intended to develop new and existing technologies to go on both current tankers and future ones, detailed some of the attributes it needs, including connectivity, survivability, and increased situational awareness.

Van Ovost called those required attributes “heartening” and detailed how TRANSCOM helped shape them with its own studies.

“We’ve been working with [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], PACAF in particular, on how we would employ those airplanes … and what environment they will be in and what we’re refueling,” Van Ovost said. “It really sort of calculates what kind of airplanes we need, and in what positions.” The simulations also show whether “you can modulate how much more fuel they take; or if they take less fuel, would they have this or that, [and] what value would that be to the battlefield.”

Air Mobility Command, the Air Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense receive the results of those sturies, Van Ovost said, and will help inform the requirements for the service’s KC-Y “bridge tanker” and KC-Z programs. Requirements for KC-Y are set to be unveiled this fall, while work on the KC-Z future tanker begins in 2023, officials have said.

Van Ovost also detailed some of the capabilities she believes future tankers will need.

“I can tell you, spoiler alert, it’s got to be connected like the KC-46,” Van Ovost said. “Gone are the days where you can just go out there and go to an anchor orbit and just wait for someone to come. It has to be connected and have some sort of battlespace awareness, even if it’s MacGyvered on … because that is key to survivability.”

On top of that, maneuverability will matter so that the aircraft can be “in the fight, literally linked to everybody so that it can be of more value,” Van Ovost said.

And if tankers are in the fight, they’ll need some form of defense.

“I’m not saying you have to have an onboard defense, but have a defense,” Van Ovost said. “What is it? What’s the spectrum defense? What’s the kinetic defense? But that could look like multiple things. It could look like a loyal wingman. It could look like you’re on the network and someone else on that network sees it and takes care of it, and they aren’t anywhere close to you.”

All of those requirements, however, aren’t locked in, and Van Ovost said TRANSCOM will likely conduct wargames to test them in “more of a final stage.”

Mobility

While the push to replace the 60-year-old KC-135 has been going on for years now, the C-17 Globemaster III is relatively new in comparison, and the Air Force hasn’t sought to cut its fleet.

But while the average C-17 is decades younger than the KC-135, the airlifter has been used hard—with no obvious immediate successor.

“It’s been critical to the fight. But I’m aware that we’re using them a lot, and there are no [active production lines] for a capability like that—a roll-on, roll-off kind of capability” versus lifting, Van Ovost said of the C-17. “It makes a huge difference for throughput if you can roll on, roll off an airplane.”

Van Ovost also noted that the C-5 Galaxy, the Air Force’s largest airlifter, isn’t “getting any younger, either,” heightening the importance of keeping the C-17 fleet airworthy.

The Air Force has articulated plans to keep the C-17 in service through the 2050s—but Van Ovost suggested that TRANSCOM is already looking ahead to its successor.

“We need to be able to … consider in the concepts looking forward, how much stuff are we moving forward, what kinds of stuff, and what kinds of capabilities that airplane will need?” said Van Ovost. “So as we do these studies, we keep the airlift in the fight, and we keep pushing to the Air Force and refreshing what we think the next airlifter should look like.”

What exactly that will be, Van Ovost didn’t say. But she did point to the Air Force’s operational concept of agile combat employment—emphasizing smaller teams of multi-capable Airmen who can operate in remote or austere locations—along with similar ideas from the other services, as what will “really define” the aircraft’s requirement.