Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says

Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says

Russia’s failure to seize control of the skies during its invasion of Ukraine raises serious questions about the concept of air superiority—and how the U.S. might actually benefit from a contested domain in a future conflict, the Air Force’s top planner suggested Sept. 6.

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, detailed those questions as part of a virtual fireside chat with the Atlantic Council on the future of air warfare in light of the Russia-Ukraine war, which has lasted more than six months now.

In those six months, the airspace above Ukraine has been contested, as Russia’s more technologically advanced air force has been largely stymied by cheap, effective Ukrainian air defense systems. 

Those results have led Hinote to conclude that “the barriers to entry for denial, for denying the use of airspace, are much, much lower these days than the barrier to entry for extending control and keeping control of the airspace,” he said.

Controlling airspace, or air superiority, has long been a central tenet of U.S. Air Force strategy. But given that the costs of achieving and maintaining that superiority have grown relative to what it takes to deny it for others, a “very interesting question” occurs, Hinote said.

“The question in my mind is, is there a chance, is there a situation in modern conflict, where mutual denial of a space is good for someone, operationally and strategically?” he said.

Given that the U.S. is interested in seeing the status quo preserved—China not invading Taiwan and Russia not invading a NATO ally—Hinote suggested that the low likelihood of any one nation achieving air superiority in a conflict might be a deterrent.

“Our potential adversary, China, has written deeply about what it believes are the prerequisites for victory, for success in military operations,” Hinote said. “They believe that you need to be able to establish air superiority, maritime superiority, and information superiority. … So, if we could prove that we can mutually deny air, maritime, and information, the logical conclusion is that our potential adversary never gets to the point where they’re ready to go, where they’re ready to start something we don’t want to see started. If that’s true, then I think this idea of mutual denial, especially in those three spaces, is key.”

And if the mutual denial of air superiority is an advantage for the U.S., “then we need to have a military that can achieve mutual denial, even at the edges of the battlespace, even on the doorstep of our adversaries,” Hinote added. “And clearly, that’s what we’re seeing when we see a place like Ukraine.”

While Ukraine is still seeking “fast and versatile” platforms such as the F-16 to challenge Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, the defenders have used weapons such as the Stinger short-range air defense system and the S-300 missile defense system to keep Russia’s air force largely “absent” from the conflict, in the words of Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall.

The success of those weapons, Hinote noted, raises other questions about how to “project power into the air and affect it there.”

“It’s not going to matter what domain that projection comes from. And increasingly you’re going to not worry about it. Increasingly, you don’t mind if the effect of mutual denial comes from the land. Clearly that is happening today,” Hinote said.

Moving away from such a concern is part of a broader shift that Hinote—among many in the Pentagon—is pursuing as part of the joint all-domain operations concept.

“As somebody who is thinking about joint all-domain command and control and is thinking about how we get from our current doctrine, which was really very centered on domains, to a doctrine that feels very fluid in domains, I see a lot of challenge there,” Hinote said. “I also see a tremendous benefit if we can do it.”

As it specifically relates to air power, though, Hinote said he would welcome discussion with the Army and other services about the roles and responsibilities of each service. In the meantime, the Air Force is looking to change the “cost-benefit analysis” of air superiority.

“We want to get to the point where shooting a missile at something is more expensive than taking the missile shot. That’s the radical difference right there. Because typically, we have been thinking about using air power in ways that involve very exquisite platforms and capabilities, that are very expensive,” Hinote said. “And a missile, or sets of missiles, or even a dozen missiles coming at it are much cheaper than that one particular platform. We’re trying to turn that around, and we think we can, and when that happens, it has the potential to change the entire return on investment for both our adversary and for us.”

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Brianne E. Kelleher 

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Brianne E. Kelleher 

The Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2022 will be formally recognized at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference from Sept. 19 to 21 in National Harbor, Md. Air Force Magazine is highlighting one each weekday from now until the conference begins. Today, we honor Tech. Sgt. Brianne E. Kelleher, the command language program manager for the 655th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Group at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 

Kelleher is an Urdu linguist. Urdu is a tertiary language among the Afghan population—Dari and Pashto being the most widely spoken languages there—but its scarcity made Kelleher’s knowledge of it all the more valuable to those refugees for whom Urdu is primary. So when a tasker arrived to Kelleher’s Reserve unit to find Airmen to support Operation Allies Welcome, she didn’t need to be voluntold or even asked twice before signing up. 

“My entire career is CENTCOM-centric,” Kelleher explained. “So … watching Afghanistan, watching Kabul fall … it rips your heart out.” 

She was given 24 hours’ notice before heading to Task Force Holloman, which she described as “deployment conditions in the desert.” In just two days, Kelleher and her team assembled an entire language support cell to support a makeshift “village” of refugees. There was no infrastructure in place before the cell was created, meaning there were no existing plans for efficient communication with incoming refugees.  

“These people that were coming in just went through the hardest situation in their entire life, and they want to make sure that they have support,” Kelleher said. “They’re actual living people that were counting on us.” 

Kelleher
Tech. Sgt. Brianne E. Kelleher of the 655th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Group is one of 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year. MSgt. Patrick OReilly, USAF.

To remedy the situation and streamline the operation, Kelleher’s 23-member linguist cell created directional signage in Urdu, Dari, and Pashto and developed processes for translation and publishing dissemination. Over the two weeks of Operation Allies Welcome, her cell received 95 aircraft and processed more than 3,500 refugees through medical and visa procedures. Kelleher also developed a lost child alert system that distributed the information of lost refugees in their native language, ultimately reuniting more than 300 children with their families. 

“It was chaotic, and messy, and things were not great,” she said. “[But] we all just worked in concert. It was [actually] quite a beautiful thing.” 

Kelleher’s involvement with refugees and migrants extends beyond her support at Holloman. Back home in Dayton, Ohio, she and her husband, also an Urdu linguist, volunteer at local organizations to support Afghan and Somali families who are transitioning to American life. While the organizations support the families on “big picture” items such as paying for food stamps and finding jobs, Kelleher is able to fill in gaps and help refugees and migrants set up their internet at home, read their mail, or know where their local grocery store is. 

“It’s very baseline, very intimate support,” Kelleher said. “[It can feel] a lot better than [helping with] the bigger stuff.” 

In fact, one of the Afghan families she worked with closely in the Task Force Holloman “village” moved to Dayton. Kelleher visits them regularly to check on their well being, but also to play games, have dinner, and simply enjoy sharing time together. 

“We consider each other family,” she said. 

For Kelleher, having a heart for those people who need you is central to being a linguist. She said the Air Force’s culture helped shape her “get it done” attitude. That, combined with linguistic cultural training, is what made her and her cell’s efforts at Holloman so exceptional.  

“I am not an island,” Kelleher added. “It’s all my linguists and all my leadership. All of us had to come together. I’m just the one who gets to wave and say thank you.” 

Meet the other Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2022:   

B-52s Fly Over Middle East for Bomber Task Force Mission

B-52s Fly Over Middle East for Bomber Task Force Mission

A pair of B-52s flew over the Middle East on Sept. 4 as part of a bomber task force mission, integrating and training with partner nations and other U.S. aircraft along the way.

The B-52s, from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., took off from RAF Fairford, U.K., where they are deployed, for their bomber task force mission and flew over the Eastern Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula, and Red Sea, according to a press release by Air Forces Central.

Along the way, the bombers linked up with fighters, tankers, and other aircraft from the U.S., U.K., Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, including the F-15, F/A-18, RC-135, E-3, KC-135, KC-10, KC-46, FGR-4, and A-330.

“This Bomber Task Force is a strong, clear representation of enduring U.S. commitment to the region,” Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, AFCENT commander, said in a statement. “In addition to maintaining a sufficient, sustainable force posture, AFCENT is able—in concert with our partners—to rapidly inject overwhelming combat power into the region on demand. Threats to the U.S. and our partners will not go unanswered. Missions like this BTF showcase our ability to combine forces to deter and, if necessary, defeat our adversaries.”

In addition to the U.K., Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, senior national representatives from 16 coalition nations provided enhanced logistical support for the BTF mission, and units from Army Central provided simulated firepower from the ground, the AFCENT release stated.

“This kind of operation demonstrates the collective capabilities of the military partnership we’ve developed in the Middle East,” Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, said in a statement. “We have the ability to put a significant measure of combat power in the air alongside our partners very quickly. We can do the same on the ground and at sea.”

Also joining the B-52s were three F-16s from the Israeli Air Force, which escorted the B-52s through Israel’s airspace, according to a statement from the IAF. The AFCENT release, however, made no mention of Israel’s involvement.

This marks the fourth bomber task force mission in the Middle East in 2022. All four have involved the B-52—two flew with KC-10s and KC-135s during a presence patrol in June; one flew with F-22s and aircraft from nine other nations in March; and one flew with Marine Corps F/A-18s in February.

It also marks yet another public display of solidarity and force on this latest deployment—the B-52s previously integrated with fighters from Norway and Sweden while flying to Europe and later flew over four NATO allies in southeastern Europe.

However, this latest mission comes just a few weeks after an exchange of attacks between the U.S. and Iran-affiliated militants in northeastern Syria; and as the U.S. and Iran continue to negotiate a deal to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement meant to limit Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon and lift U.S. sanctions. 

President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, and since then, Iran has enriched uranium to levels consistent with the construction of a nuclear weapon. Iran provided a written response Sept. 2 to a U.S. proposal that the State Department described as “not productive.” At the same time, Israeli officials have been advocating for the U.S. not to reenter the deal or not to agree to new concessions.

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Master Sgt. Kade N. Forrester 

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Master Sgt. Kade N. Forrester 

The Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2022 will be formally recognized at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference from Sept. 19 to 21 in National Harbor, Md. Air Force Magazine is highlighting one each weekday from now until the conference begins. Today, we honor Master Sgt. Kade N. Forrester, the infrastructure flight section chief for the 11th Contracting Squadron at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, D.C. 

Forrester successfully led two flights in his squadron to stand up the Air Force’s newest wing and to execute a lead service transfer at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. That leadership transfer, from the Navy to the Air Force, was the first of its kind in Department of Defense history, so he had no rulebooks to play by or predefined procedures to follow. 

“We were writing how this process should go as we went,” Forrester said. “Essentially, every action we took was a benchmark.” 

The Air Force officially took over command of the base Oct. 1, 2020, and was given two years to become fully operationally capable. Forrester’s contracting squadron was brought in to make the transfer possible. The job took creativity and perseverance: Only seven people were on the team, and their office was in a dusty room where, on the first day, they brainstormed how to complete the assignment.  

“I’ll ultimately say the biggest aspect for our success was our commander’s trust. He put that trust in us that day, empowered us to go take action,” Forrester said. “And in return, we had that trust in him. He reassured us, and he went to battle for us a lot of times. He always had our backs.” 

Forrester
Master Sgt. Kade N. Forrester, left, a contracting specialist who helps prepare, negotiate, and award contracts to qualified vendors as well as evaluate their performances, is pictured at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., July 22, 2022. Forrester is one of 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2022. Air Force photo by Nicholas Pilch.

Forrester’s responsibilities were to develop quality assurance plans, day-to-day operations, and the base’s Government Purchase Card (GPC). 

“I had a little experience in [GPC],” Forrester said. “So the fact that the commander trusted me with that, that meant a lot to me. So I went above and beyond trying to figure out the program.” 

“Above and beyond” is exactly what he did. Forrester’s acumen was exemplified when he launched a $111 million Simplified Acquisition Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) program. By finding creative solutions to source products and contractors, Forrester’s SABER plan slashed acquisition timelines by 70 percent on 24 highly visible projects and saved more than 1,000 labor hours across the wing. The plan was critical for getting the base to FOC by 2022. 

After the transfer was complete, Forrester’s credibility was recognized by the career field manager who selected him for executive leadership development to shape the future of the contracting workforce in the Air Force. His leadership and innovation also earned him the Department of Air Force’s Contracting Ninja of the Year and Air Force District of Washington Innovation in Contracting Individual of the Year Awards in 2021. 

Forrester said that his upbringing and family culture have played a vital role in preparing him to operate on an “above and beyond” level. 

“Being raised in Jamaica, [I was] raised with a strong sense of pride,” he said. “[We view each action] as reflective of our culture. So you never want to fail.” 

But the reason Forrester is still in the Air Force at all traces back to a senior airman, Christina Lewis, who taught him early in his career that “it’s your job to take care of others.”  

“She took time to invest in me,” he said. “Since that day, I’ve been trying to pay back tenfold what she did for me, and I’ve made it my motto: Take care of folks.” 

Forrester is currently on assignment at the Naval Postgraduate School pursuing a master’s degree in business administration and contracts and acquisitions. 

Meet the other Outstanding Airmen of the Year in 2022 below:  

CV-22 Fleet Cleared to Start Flying Again After Safety Stand Down

CV-22 Fleet Cleared to Start Flying Again After Safety Stand Down

After a little more than two weeks, the Air Force’s CV-22s have been cleared to fly again.

Air Force Special Operations Command has ended its stand down for the Osprey, which began Aug. 16 in response to a safety issue, Lt. Col. Rebecca Heyse, director of AFSOC public affairs, confirmed to Air Force Magazine on Sept. 2. Breaking Defense first reported the end of the grounding.

The stand down began Aug. 16 after two incidents of “hard clutch engagement” in the course of six weeks.

Hard clutch engagement involves the clutch that connects the rotor gear box to the engine slipping, then catching hard, causing the aircraft to lurch.

Prior to those two incidents, AFSOC’s Ospreys had only experienced hard clutch engagement twice in the last five years. No injuries were reported as a result of the incidents, but the Ospreys did have to land immediately after them.

AFSOC has still not identified the root cause of the issue, Heyse told Air Force Magazine in a statement. But the major command has developed mitigation guidelines to deal with instances of hard clutch engagement and is working on multiple lines of effort to address the problem.

Specifically, the new guidelines are focused on flight operations like the ones where most of the incidents took place. The guidelines include:

  • Modifying takeoff techniques.
  • Including squadron leaders in risk mitigation discussions for operations at higher risk of such incidents.
  • Incorporating and modifying scenarios of hard clutch engagement in simulator training.
  • Increased training for marginal flight power and aborted takeoffs.

“Until a root cause is identified, and solution implemented, the focus is on mitigating operations in flight regimes where HCEs are more prevalent and ensuring our aircrews are trained as best as possible to handle HCEs when they do occur,” Heyse said.

In addition to the mitigation guidelines, AFSOC has also given its CV-22 crews surveys, both to assess their understanding of what to do in instances of hard clutch engagement, and to allow them to submit feedback or potential solutions for the problem.

Maintainers are also conducting one-time inspections to verify and compare data in the Air Force maintenance information system, so that accurate information “in regards to drivetrain component operating times” is being provided to the CV-22 Joint Program Office and Bell Textron, the aircraft’s maker.

As part of a medium-term effort, AFSOC is also considering replacing drivetrain components after they reach a certain number of flight hours. The long-term goal remains to identify the root cause of the incidents and figure out a materiel solution.

White House Asks Congress for $11.7B in Ukraine Aid as Part of Continuing Resolution

White House Asks Congress for $11.7B in Ukraine Aid as Part of Continuing Resolution

President Joe Biden’s administration is asking Congress to approve another $11.7 billion in security and economic aid for Ukraine as part of a continuing resolution to keep the government funded to start fiscal 2023.

The request, announced by the White House Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 2, comes as Congress seems increasingly unlikely to pass a 2023 budget by the deadline of Oct. 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

“It’s clear that Congress will first need to pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to keep the Federal government running,” OMB’s statement reads.

Continuing resolutions generally keep funding levels frozen at the previous year’s level, but adjustments can be made through “anomalies” to allow for more immediate funds. 

The White House wants this anomaly because funds from previous packages to boost Ukraine in its conflict with Russia are running low, OMB’s statement says, with three-quarters distributed or committed, and more will follow in the next month.

Of the $11.7 billion requested, $4.5 billion would go toward military equipment and replenishing Pentagon stockpiles, $2.7 billion to defense and intelligence aid, and $4.5 billion to budgetary support for Ukraine’s government.  

Congress has approved two substantial aid packages for Ukraine since Russia began its invasion in late February—the legislature authorized $13.6 billion in March, followed by $40 billion in May.

That second package actually represented an increase from the $33 billion Biden had requested. At the time, he said that money was intended to last through September, which OMB noted in its latest announcement.

This new round of aid is intended to last through December, the announcement added. In addition to the $11.7 billion for Ukraine, OMB is also asking for an extra $2 billion “to help address the impacts [the Russia-Ukraine war] has had on domestic energy supply and reduce energy costs in the future.”

Over the past several months, the Department of Defense has steadily announced new packages of aid. Most recently, DOD rolled out a $2.98 billion defense package Aug. 24, Ukraine’s independence day, that included high-end air defenses, radar, and counter-unmanned aerial systems.

That same day marked six months since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine. The conflict has since devolved into a bloody stalemate, with Russia failing to achieve its goal of toppling the Ukrainian government but still occupying parts of eastern and southern Ukraine. Recently, however, Ukrainian armed forces have reportedly started a counter-offensive meant to push the Russians out of those occupied territories.

We’re Changing Our Name to Air & Space Forces Magazine

We’re Changing Our Name to Air & Space Forces Magazine

Air Force Magazine becomes Air & Space Forces Magazine with the release of our September issue.  

The magazine’s digital address will change Sept. 8, when all the content will migrate to the new AirAndSpaceForces.com home page. All existing content and links will remain fully functional through this transition.

“Changing the title of a storied publication—and Association—is not something to be taken lightly,” said Air & Space Forces Magazine’s Editor in Chief Tobias Naegele in a news release announcing the change. “Changing a name that is even older than our Association itself, a publication created at the direction of Hap Arnold himself, meant turning a page. But just as flexibility is the key to air power, so it is in publishing, as well.”

Air Force Magazine launched as an official military publication in 1942, and ownership was transferred to the Air Force Association after its creation in 1946. At various times it also included a subtitle, making the publication Air Force Magazine and Space Digest.

AFA’s board of directors voted in March to change the association’s name to Air & Space Forces Association in an overt sign of its commitment to the Space Force as an equal component of the Armed Services and the Department of the Air Force. Changing the title of the magazine was a natural follow-on to that decision.

AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, who is also the magazine’s publisher, said the new title “reflects the new name of our storied Association and the reality that out of one Department of the Air force live two independent yet tightly linked military services. The breadth of that coverage is not new, but the name change makes that clearer to everyone. Seeing is believing, and we want our commitment to space to be right there for all to see.”

Lockheed Martin and USAF Stir the Secret Sauce of Innovation

Lockheed Martin and USAF Stir the Secret Sauce of Innovation

Early morning, April 18, 1943. A formation of 16 P-38 Lightning aircraft cruises 50 feet above the Solomon Sea en route to a fixed point 400 miles northwest of Guadalcanal. Secrecy and detection avoidance demand complete radio silence and a roundabout route that adds 200 miles to the trip.

Operation Vengeance is underway. Its target: Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, commander in chief of the Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet.

Lockheed-built P-38s and their crews had a finite window of opportunity to intercept Yamamoto, who was traveling southeast at the end of a 315-mile leg from Rabaul to Bougainville in the South Pacific. Arriving precisely one minute ahead of plan, the four attack group pilots found and shot down Yamamoto’s transport bomber. It was a crucial morale builder as Allied forces continued their long journey toward Japan.

“It happened on the shoulders of giants, the men and women who built the planes and then operated them in the Army Air Corps,” said retired Air Force Gen. Gary North, vice president of customer requirements at Lockheed Martin. “You think about the P-38, the B-24—very successful in both theaters of operation. They helped lead us out of World War II and into the birth of our Air Force.”

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation was an early air power pioneer, part of an American industrial machine that ramped up wartime production on a scale unparalleled before or since. Lockheed’s ascendance as an exemplar of American aerospace ingenuity and, in the wake of its 1995 merger with Martin Marietta, to its position as the world’s preeminent supplier of advanced defense technology, from precision munitions and hypersonic missiles to radar-evading 5th Generation fighter aircraft. 

Lockheed Martin’s collaboration with the Air Force evolved steadily over time as a closely integrated partnership, the result of a culture uniquely constructed to nurture the best innovators and rapidly adapt to changing threats and opportunities.

“You change things because the threat necessitates it, and we saw that in the Reagan years, which was the buildup that made us so successful in Desert Storm and beyond,” North said. “And then we saw an innovation of change in 9/11—these events, these shifting tectonic plates that forced you to be able to adapt at the speed of need.”

Foundational Relationship

Two months after Operation Vengeance, Lockheed experts were called in to the Army Tactical Service Command to help counter the growing threat from German jet fighters. Within a month, Lockheed engineer Clarence “Kelly” Johnson and his team conceived what would become the P-80 Shooting Star, the United States’ first operational jet. Without a contract in hand, Lockheed engineers began work with the goal of delivering their first prototype in 150 days. Johnson’s team did it in just 143.

Steeped in secrecy, the P-80 grew out of Lockheed Martin’s legendary Skunk Works® division. Even now, 85 percent of Skunk Works programs remain shrouded in secrecy, but its legacy is long and dazzling, including developments that led to the U-2, SR-71, F-117, F-22, F-35 and so much more.

Cold War Collaboration

Lockheed was on the forefront of a new era in which the U.S. found itself locked in a strategic competition and Cold War with the Soviet Union. Discretion and revolutionary design were essential to gain strategic advantage in the high-stakes competition playing out on the world stage.

“Coming out of World War II, leaders realized that the world was going to change in the strategic domain, particularly with the advent of the atomic age and nuclear weapons,” North said. “This generated some strategic thought.”

It was a natural fit for Lockheed and the Air Force, and they consistently worked together to leapfrog the international competition.

As the Cold War intensified, speed and performance were the focus, and Lockheed broke one barrier after another. Its X-7 ramjet test vehicle, which began development after World War II and continued into the 1950s, set records for air breathing flight, achieving speeds of more than 2,800 mph and reaching 106,000 feet in altitude. After scraping the edge of the atmosphere, Lockheed created its Missiles Division, now known as Lockheed Martin Space.

Lockheed’s three-stage X-17 solid-fuel rocket, developed in the 1950s, could achieve 9,000 mph, providing crucial data for better understanding the rigors of re-entering the atmosphere that helped shape the future of ICBM development.

Throughout the Cold War, the need to understand what adversaries were doing demanded its own technological advancements. Lockheed’s U-2 Dragon Lady flew so high—more than 70,000 feet—that it was believed to be beyond the reach of ground-based interceptors when it was introduced in 1955.

On Oct. 14, 1962, Maj. Richard Heyser completed a photo shoot exposing the establishment of Soviet nuclear missiles in San Cristobal, Cuba. The mission captured 928 photos that led to a showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union that put the two nations on the brink of nuclear war. Two weeks later, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles, ending the Cuban missile crisis but proving the enduring value of irrefutable surveillance photography.

In the early 1960s, two schools of design thought emerged for dealing with adversary threats. One was fly fast at low level. That school produced the F-111, a deep strike aircraft that remained in the USAF inventory for three decades, from the Vietnam era to Operation Desert Storm, where it destroyed more targets and logged more missions than any other aircraft in the conflict.

The other design path was to fly high and go fast. Lockheed’s single-seat A-12 very high altitude reconnaissance aircraft reached Mach 3 in 1962, paving the way for the two-seat SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance jet, which had the advantage of extreme speed that the U-2 lacked. 

The Blackbird exemplified the speed of the times, exceeding 2,000 mph. And it could sustain flight well above 80,000 feet. If detected, it could outrun any aircraft or missile that tried to catch it. After logging 53,490 hours—11,675 of those more than Mach 3—the SR-71 retired in 1998, concluding its 30-plus-year history with speed and altitude records that remain unchallenged to this day.

In 1990, an SR-71 left Los Angeles headed for retirement at Washington, D.C.’s Air and Space Museum. Along the way, the aircraft set four speed records, including making the transnational flight of 2,299 miles in just 64 minutes, 20 seconds—an average of 2,144.8 mph.

But again the threat advanced and something completely different was required. “Most people don’t know this, but the SR-71 was generally recognized as the first marginally stealth airplane, because some parts of the platform had nascent technology and coatings on it,” North said.

The next phase of stealth had little similarity to the long, sleek, and powerful SR-71’s iconic design. Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk was a Skunk Works special, drawing from numerous other aircraft and featuring a stunningly unique design with angled facets and an otherworldly look.

Science magazines hinted at stealth, but little was known about the aircraft. The Nighthawk’s combat debut came in Operation Just Cause over Panama in 1989, with a curtain call in which it provided the opening fireworks for Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Lockheed Martin took stealth to a new level with the development of the F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter and, later, the multi-role, multi-national F-35 Lightning II.

Timeless Innovation

Lockheed wasn’t all about speed and stealth, however. Its C-130 Hercules remains a workhorse of the fleet nearly 70 years after its original introduction. The aircraft has been reinvented multiple times over the decades, and its timely utility makes it the longest produced military aircraft in history, flown by air forces around the world. Its variations range from special operations AC-130s to cargo aircraft and specialized versions fitted for various intelligence and electronic warfare applications.

Its massive sibling, Lockheed’s C-5 Galaxy, remains the largest airlifter in the Air Force inventory 52 years after its introduction. Its payload capacity is twice that of any other USAF cargo aircraft.

During Operation Allied Force over Serbia in 1999, Air Force aircrews flying Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters helped recover pilots down behind enemy lines. Many more were recovered during Operations Enduring Freedom in 2001 and Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Peacetime utilization of the HH-60s was also high. After Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, more than 20 Pave Hawk crews flew in and around New Orleans to save more than 4,300 Americans.

Following the Pave Hawk is today’s HH-60W Jolly Green Giant II Combat Rescue Helicopter. With greater range, integrated avionics and enhanced digital connectivity, these helicopters provide Air Force rescue crews with new tools for their noble mission—That Others May Live.

These successes and many more are part of a larger evolving process—scaling innovative solutions through the development of critical, breakthrough technologies that ensure those who serve get in front of emerging threats and disasters.

21st Century Security Solutions

The dynamic threat landscape is driving innovation in stealth, information sharing, command and control, and hypersonic missile technology. Accelerating the integration of digital technology and delivery of advanced capabilities brings faster decision-making to the defense arena. Ensuring networked security is vital.

Hypersonics, first pioneered with the X-7 and X-17, are seen as the future of warfare. In March 2022, Lockheed Martin, in partnership with The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Air Force Research Lab and Aerojet Rocketdyne, successfully demonstrated its Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). This historic flight reached speeds in excess of Mach 5—3,800 mph, altitudes greater than 65,000 feet and helped further understanding of operations in the high-speed flight regime. Just two months later, Lockheed Martin tested the AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), and in July a second ARRW demonstration achieved speeds greater than Mach 5.

Lockheed Martin engineers demonstrated their multi-domain prowess in July 2022, employing the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Lightning II as an aerial sensor to help a Lockheed Martin MIM-104 PATRIOT Advanced Capability missile intercept a cruise missile in a successful test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

The F-35’s versatility as a flying sensor and communications suite is unparalleled the world over. Combining radar-evading stealth with the most advanced integrated avionics suite, it is the centerpiece of the U.S. Air Force’s fighter modernization strategy and the choice of U.S. allies on four continents. The Air Force is building out F-35 capacity and capability, bringing up operational squadrons in the continental United States, Alaska, and the U.K., and operating seamlessly with allies.

The Lightning II built on Lockheed Martin’s record of innovation, including the earlier 5th Generation experience with the F-22 Raptor and on the demonstrated success of the ubiquitous F-16 Fighting Falcon.

First flown in 1976 and operational with the USAF since 1978—and the first of more than 25 Allied countries shortly after— the F-16 remains a marvel of innovation, North said. Having flown more than 3,700 hours in the airplane, he said he never doubted its remarkable design and production quality. “Every upgrade added to its capability, a demonstration of the teamwork between the military and Lockheed Martin in continually improving on a superior airplane.”

Today, Lockheed Martin is still at it, leveraging the “secret sauce” of its Skunk Works division, North said. “The secret is the incredible relationship between the government, the program managers and the labs that we work with, and our ability to recruit, retain and develop talent,” he said.

The mutually supporting partnership between Lockheed Martin engineers and Air Force engineers and Airmen fuels a continuous striving for the next evolution of aviation technology. This partnership is rooted in a deep understanding and a shared commitment to the mission ahead, and the desire to stay “ahead of ready” in the needs of the warfighters.

“The thing that really drives the relationship is a desire to always match to the needs of the mission,” North said. “Lockheed Martin does that better than any other company in the world.”         

Lockheed & USAF: A Long-Term Partnership

Lockheed Martin’s history with the Air Force dates back long before USAF was an independent military branch. Here are just a few highlights from the past 75 years.

September 18, 1947: As Stuart Symington is sworn in as the first Secretary of the Air Force, the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, a year before being redesignated F-80, is America’s first jet-powered operational aircraft. Sikorsky’s H-5 Hoverfly is USAF’s rescue helicopter and six Lockheed aircraft types are in development or test and numerous WWII aircraft remain in the inventory, including Lockheed C-69 Constellation transports and approximately 200 P-38J/L Lightning fighters.
April 12, 1953: After Air Force ace Capt. Joseph McConnell claims his eighth MiG kill over Korea, his F-86 Sabre suffers mechanical difficulties and ejects over the Yellow Sea. Two Sikorsky H-19s from the 3rd Air Rescue Squadron  recover him minutes after he hits the water.
July 23, 1953: Martin chief test pilot O.E. “Pat” Tibbs makes the first flight of the first Martin-built B-57A Canberra medium bomber. When B-57 production ended in 1959, USAF had acquired a total of 403 Canberras.
March 4, 1954: The Lockheed XF-104, supersonic superiority fighter makes its first flight. On May 18, 1958, an F-104A sets a world speed record of 1,404.19 mph, and on December 14, 1959, an F104C sets a world altitude record of 103,395 feet. The Starfighter was the first aircraft to hold simultaneous official world records for speed, altitude, and time-to-climb.
August 23, 1954:  Lockheed’s YC-130 Hercules tactical transport prototype flies from the Lockheed plant in Burbank, Calif., to nearby Edwards AFB, setting the stage for the ubiquitous aircraft. Today, there are more than 2,600 C-130 variants in the skies, including five major production models, and more than 70 variants—the longest, continuous, active military aircraft production line in history.
August 1, 1955: Article 341, prototype for Lockheed’s U-2 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft makes an inadvertent first flight during a high-speed taxi test at Groom Lake, Nevada. The Dragon Lady still flies today. 
June 11, 1957: The first test launch of the Lockheed Martin legacy company Convair B-65 Atlas (later redesignated SM-65; later still, designated HGM-16) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is carried out from Cape Canaveral AFB, Fla. The Atlas, America’s first ICBM was declared operational and served for six years.
February 6, 1959: The first test launch of the Martin SM-68 (later HGM-25) Titan I intercontinental ballistic missile lifts off from Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida. Entering operational service in 1962, Titan I was the United States’ first multistage ICBM, providing an additional nuclear deterrent to complement the U.S. Air Force’s Atlas missile.
July 20, 1960: The last of about 100 flights by a Lockheed X-7 ramjet test vehicle is completed. Lockheed built The 26 X-7s and set multiple speed and altitude records for air breathing vehicles, topping out at Mach 4.31 and, on a different flight, an altitude of 106,000 feet.
June 17, 1963: The first Sikorsky S-61 prototype flies. A variant of the Navy SH-3 Sea King antisubmarine warfare helicopter, it will evolve into the CH-3C utility, and HH-3E Jolly Green Giant, the workhorse rescue helicopter of the Vietnam era.
August 19, 1960: The reentry vehicle containing film images, captured by a classified Lockheed Missile and Space Company KH-1 reconnaissance satellite, is recovered in mid-air over the Pacific by a Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar—the first usable intelligence images from the Corona satellite family.
April 26, 1962: Company test pilot Lou Schalk makes the first true flight of the Lockheed A-12 high altitude, high speed reconnaissance aircraft at Groom Lake, Nev. Developed by the Lockheed Skunk Works—the A-12 is the forerunner to the YF-12 interceptor and SR-71 Blackbird.
December 21, 1964: Company test pilots Dick Johnson and Val Prahl make the first flight of the variable geometry, or swing-wing, F-111 deep strike aircraft from Carswell AFB, Texas, next to the company’s plant in Fort Worth. A total of 562 F-111s were built.
August 28, 1967: Company test pilot Bill Park makes the first flight of the Lockheed U-2R Dragon Lady high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Although similar in appearance to the early model U-2s, the U-2R is about one-third larger and powered by a much more powerful J57 engine. About 50 U-2Rs were built, later upgraded with an F118 turbofan engine and other improvements and redesignated U-2S.
June 30, 1968: The Lockheed C-5A Galaxy, then the world’s largest aircraft is flown for the first time Five years later, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, battle tanks flown directly to Tel Aviv on the C-5s were on the front lines within 90 minutes. Two recently completed upgrade programs will keep what’s now designated the C-5M Super Galaxy flying until at least the 2040s.
January 20, 1974: Company test pilot Phil Oestricher takes the General Dynamics YF-16 prototype out on a high-speed taxi test at Edwards AFB, Calif., but the aircraft makes an unplanned and unofficial first flight. Today, about 3,000 of 4,588 F-16s produce are in service today in 25 countries.
June 18, 1981: Company test pilot Hal Farley makes the first flight of the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, the world’s first production stealth aircraft. First used during capture of the Panamanian strong man Manuel Noriega in 1989, F-117 pilots would carry out the first strikes against Baghdad on the opening night of operation Desert Storm in 1991. 
September 30, 1983: Officials at the Air Force’s Rome Air Development Center at Rome, New York approve the AN/FPS-117 built by legacy Lockheed Martin GE Aerospace. Developed under a program called Seek Igloo, this low power, long-range, phased array, 3D air search radar that operates in the D-Band modernized the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line series of radar stations across the Arctic, from Alaska through Canada over Greenland to Iceland. The FPS-117 reached full operational capability later in 1983.
June 17, 1983: Air Force Systems Command Ballistic Missile Office, the 6595th Missile Test Group, and a contractor launch team carry out the first test launch of the Martin Marietta (a legacy Lockheed Martin company) LGM-118 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. The missile travels 4,800 miles to strike successfully in the Kwajalein Test Range in the Pacific.
1985: Launched in the heat of Santa Barbara California’s “Infrared Valley,” Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control’s Santa Barbara Focalplane facility is established.
September 29, 1990: Lockheed test pilot Dave Ferguson makes the first flight of the Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) prototype . It is the forebear of the F-22 Raptor. 
April 5, 1996: The new Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules transport takes its first flight. Now with more than 500 aircraft built, the C-130J  (as of 2022) is today flown by 26 operators worldwide, including the Active-duty U.S. Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command.
September 7, 1997: The first flight of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter is made, six years after Lockheed won the competition in 1991. On May 12, 2005, the first combat-capable Raptor was delivered to the Air Force at Langley AFB, Va.
1997-2009: Twenty GPS IIR and GPS IIR-M satellites built by Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Air Force are launched, adding new capabilities, signals, and anti-jamming to the GPS constellation. 
December 15, 2006: The first flight of the first F-35 Lightning II multivariant, multirole, multinational fighter includes a military power takeoff and a series of maneuvers to demonstrate the handling qualities of the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant.
May 7, 2011: The first Lockheed Martin-built Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) geosynchronous Earth orbit satellite for the U.S. Air Force is launched from Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla. Follow-on space vehicles will form an orbiting Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) missile warning constellation equipped with powerful scanning and staring surveillance sensors.
June 26, 2014: The Air Force awards Sikorsky the contract for the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH), the follow on aircraft to the HH-60G Pave Hawk. The HH-60W takes its first flight five years later, on May 17, 2019, and is dubbed the Jolly Green Giant II.
June 24, 2016: The fifth of five Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) secure, narrow band communications satellites is launched from Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla. Originally built for the U.S. Navy, MUOS was transferred to the U.S. Space Force in 2022. 
April 14, 2018: Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) are used in combat for the first time. The U.S. Air Force deployed B-1 bombers and launched 19 JASSM missiles at the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons production facility. 
September 26, 2019: The U.S. Air Force declares Initial Operational Acceptance for the ground control system of the Lockheed Martin Space-developed Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS).
March 28, 2020: The newly created United States Space Force (USSF) declares operational acceptance and initial operational capability of the Space Fence S-band radar on the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Space Fence, now the world’s most advanced radar, provides uncued detection, tracking, and accurate measurement of space objects, including satellites and orbital debris, primarily in low-earth orbit (LEO).
September 21, 2021: The first demonstration of air-launched palletized munitions from a mobility aircraft (a Lockheed Martin C-130) is carried out. 
May 14, 2022: U.S. Air Force Armament Directorate and Lockheed Martin conduct the first successful hypersonic-boosted flight test of the AGM-183 AGM-Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). Launched from a B-52H Stratofortress based at Edwards AFB, Calif., the test demonstrates the system’s ability to attain hypersonic speed—in excess of Mach 5. ARRW is the first air-launched hypersonic weapon for the Air Force.
Chiefs, Part 2: A Quest for Stability, A Last Stand on Integrity

Chiefs, Part 2: A Quest for Stability, A Last Stand on Integrity

In its 75-year history, 22 Airmen have led the Air Force as Chief of Staff. Each came to the post shaped by the experiences—and sometimes scar tissue—developed over three decades of service. Each inherited an Air Force formed by the decisions of those who came before, who bequeathed to posterity the results of decisions and compromises made over the course of their time in office. Each left his own unique stamp on the institution. As part of Air Force Magazine’s commemoration of the Air Force’s 75th anniversary, Sept. 18, 2022, we set out to interview all of the living former Chiefs of Staff, ultimately interviewing Chiefs from 1990 to the present.

Gen. Ronald Fogleman, CSAF No. 15 (1994-’97)

When Gen. Ron Fogleman became Chief of staff in 1994, the Post-Cold War drawdown was well underway, and the military was embroiled in social issues. The Navy’s Tailhook scandal had fueled a rethink of women’s roles in the military, and in aviation in particular. President Bill Clinton, the first Baby Boomer to become president, was also the first since Franklin Delano Roosevelt not to have served in the military, and had campaigned to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.  

Fogleman was not the first choice; having already been told he was not going to get the job in May of 1994, he was contemplating retirement when, in August, McPeak called to tell him he would be the next Chief. He had barely two months to prepare.  

“The Air Force had been through all this turbulence—restructure, drawdown, all kinds of events had occurred that were causing angst within the Air Force,” Fogleman said. “At the same time, we had been given sort of a Northern Star, this thing called Global Reach, Global Power … which gave the blueprint for what the Air Force was going to look like.” Fogleman asked his fellow four-stars what the Air Force needed, and answered his own question: Stability.  

That may have been his focus, but it wasn’t to be his legacy. Every Chief sees his areas of interest collide with the reality of the present day. Seven months after Fogleman took office, a B-52 Stratofortress crashed at Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash., during a practice flight for an air show the next day. The crash, which was caught on video and ended in a fiery collision with the runway, killing all four Airmen aboard, was blamed on the pilot’s recklessness and on a culture of permissiveness that had failed to challenge the pilot’s documented pattern of behavior.  

Then came the bombing of Khobar Towers, in which 19 Airmen died, and the controversial case of Kelly Flinn, the Air Force’s first female B-52 pilot, whose case set off media and congressional fireworks about double standards for men and women in uniform. Flinn had engaged in an affair with the husband of an enlisted Airman and ignored warnings to end the matter. Eventually, she was charged with the crime of adultery, a matter few in the public realized was a crime under military law. Flinn claimed she was the victim of a double standard; the Air Force argued the opposite. When details of the investigation spilled out in the media, the case drew congressional interest.  

All this played out at just about the same time as another famous adultery case: President Clinton’s affair with White House Intern Monica Lewinsky. Flinn, who was about the same age as Lewinsky, was cast as a victim in the media, but as the perpetrator in the case brought against her. When Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall floated the idea of granting her an honorable discharge, Fogleman said that if she did so she would have to start looking for a new Chief. Her behavior, he would say later, didn’t merit that honor. It was, he told an interviewer in 1997, the only time he made such a move, but it foreshadowed Fogleman’s ultimate decision to retire early, rather than live out his full four-year tour.  

“It’s a tour, not a sentence,” he would say more than once. He was free to go when he chose, and he remained true to that promise.  

The Flinn and B-52 cases, among others, convinced Fogleman that what the Air Force needed more than stability was more basic: It needed to hew to its own values.  

“It became obvious to me that while the Air Force was going through some things, it might have lost sight of its real values,” Fogleman said. “And so I began to try and send the message of what it was we did—deter, and if deterrence fails, we fight and win America’s wars. That’s why we’re here. We’re not a social organization. We’re not an employment agency. We’re here to fight and win America’s wars. So if you sign up with the Air Force, that’s what you expect. And, oh by the way, we have some values and some standards, which have got to be universally known—everybody’s got to know what they are—and they’ve got to be uniformly applied, so that whatever applies to an enlisted troop applies to an officer.”  

Fogleman, who had taught history at the U.S. Air Force Academy, launched onto the lecture circuit. He set out to speak with all of them, making stops in Nebraska, the Pacific, and in Europe. Adopting the Academy’s Core Values—Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do—he shared his view of what Airman should stands for. “I’m very proud of that,” he said. “It’s the only thing I know of in the United States Air Force that was adopted basically 25 years ago and which is still there today. And that’s the way it ought to be: You need some stability in a force.”  

But the 1990s did not deliver stability. Small-scale contingencies followed one after the other. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. No-fly-zone enforcement over Iraq continued nonstop. Budgets declined as the nation sought its post-Cold War “peace dividend.” Culture wars took root. Each of the services fought for relevance to match its capabilities to a changing world order, but instead of unity, there was infighting. 

“The 1990s was a period, from my perspective, where the United States of America missed an opportunity,” Fogleman says. “We had a chance to demobilize. After every major war we had demobilized—even after the Second World War. The Cold War required us to have generally larger standing forces than we’d ever had before. But at the end of the Cold War, we had a chance to demobilize and invest in smart things. Getting ready for the future.”  

Instead, Fogleman said, the nation got caught up in pursuing a strategy built on a perceived need to fight two major regional contingencies at the same time. “We literally wasted tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars maintaining an army force structure that, when 9/11 came, was the wrong Army—and then they had to rebuild it anyway,” he said.   

That decision to “glom on to these two major regional contingencies” as a force-sizing construct was the central error of the era, Fogleman said. “We had never been able to do that. During the Second World War … we made a decision to fight in Europe and then go to the Pacific. … Folks had lost sight of that. And so instead they decided to try and keep this large standing military force in peacetime and just wasted hundreds of billions of dollars doing that.”  

Fogleman had wanted to think harder about the future, to invest in the kinds of technologies that had been used to such devastating effect in ousting Iraq’s occupying army from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. But the leading strategy makers at the time had an Army bent, and that colored the strategy they developed, undervaluing air power. They saw small wars and peacekeeping as central missions in the 1990s, and reasoned that the United States could afford to delay weapons modernization by skipping a generation of technology. Fogleman saw that as folly.  

“Anybody who had watched what was going on could see that after the first Gulf War, the Chinese went to work studying what we had done,” Fogleman said. “And they began, back in the 1990s, trying to build the capability to negate our combat capability—or emulate it.” 

Fogleman’s predecessor, Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, had likewise viewed this as an error, but he says it was not surprising. “Victory is a poor teacher,” McPeak said. “And we were victorious. Defeat isn’t even a good teacher, because the tendency is to do tomorrow what you did today.” Changing course, making a dynamic and bold commitment to break with the past and move in new directions, was the harder course to take, but it required greater imagination and determination. “There are too many rice bowls that have to be broken, too much furniture has been bought,” McPeak said. He offered an example: “You can’t tell the Marines that they’re never going to use vertical takeoff in combat, that you cannot logistically support operations off the beach—you can’t get the bombs there or the fuel there, so they’re not going to operate off the beach.” But the decision to build as much commonality as possible into the F-35 while offering Air Force, Navy, and Marine variants required compromises in performance, capacity, and range that affected all of those planes, not just some.  

The Marine version “sized the profile of the F-35,” McPeak said. “And while the F-35 looks like it’s going to be a pretty good airplane, it is never going to be as good as it could have been if it was not sized by the big fan.”  

Similarly, the two-MRC [major regional contingencies]strategy cost more to sustain and left less money to invest in next-generation technology. In an interview with Richard Kohn conducted in December 1997 and published in the Spring 2001 edition of Aerospace Power Journal, Fogleman recalled being visited by a two-star Army general representing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili. The officer sat on the couch in Fogleman’s office and said, “I have a message from the Chairman.” The message, he explained to Fogleman, was that the Chairman wanted the Quadrennial Defense Review to “maintain as close to the status quo as we can.” In fact, he went on, “the Chairman says we don’t need any Billy Mitchells during this process.”  

Fogleman was stunned. But that was just the beginning. He had a modernization program in place, but as the QDR unfolded, it became clear it would be a budget-driven review, rather than strategy driven. The F-22 had been fully funded to that point, but now as the Department sought to find $60 billion in cuts, it began to draw attention. Fogleman saw it as the most revolutionary program the Pentagon was pursuing, combining stealth, super cruise, and integrated avionics: “a quantum jump” in capability that would be critical “in such situations as the Taiwan Strait crisis … we need that airplane.”  

Fogleman fought for it, but did not sense his advice was valued by Defense Secretary Cohen, a former senator, who had succeeded William Perry in early 1997. By then, he was growing increasingly frustrated in his role. But the last straw was not about airplanes, but about people and accountability. It went back to the values message he had been delivering throughout his tour as Chief. On June 25, 1996, a truck bomb exploded at an Air Force housing complex called Khobar Towers. The explosion killed 19 Airmen and wounded close to 500 others. It was one in a string of such attacks that dated back to 1983 when a Marine barracks in Beirut exploded, killing 241 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers.  

The Americans at Khobar Towers were responsible for Operation Southern Watch, the southern no-fly zone over Iraq. The facility was known to be a target and threats had already been received when the attack took place. To Fogleman, it was clear America was at war. But in the aftermath of the attack, he became convinced that the Intelligence Community had failed the Airmen at Khobar Towers—that they had the warnings but failed to understand the risk. When some time later Brig Gen. Terryl J. Schwalier, the commander at Khobar, was selected for promotion to major general, the issue became a political matter. 

“I had a commander who had done everything in his power, and he was in the field in wartime conditions and was struck by an enemy,” Fogleman said. “You either support the commander or you make a scapegoat out of him. And I was not about to make a scapegoat.”  

Defense Secretary William Cohen disagreed. “So then it became clear that my military advice was not valued,” Fogleman said. “If the people above you don’t value that advice, then it’s time to get out of the way and allow somebody else to come in and provide military advice for your service. From my perspective, it was in the best interest of the Air Force that I depart and that they get somebody else.”  

In his brief public statement, Fogleman wrote: “My values and sense of loyalty to our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and especially our Airmen led me to the conclusion that I may be out of step with the times and some of the thinking of the establishment. This puts me in an awkward position. If I were to continue to serve as Chief of Staff of the Air Force and speak out, I could be seen as a divisive force and not a team player. I do not want the Air Force to suffer for my judgment and convictions.” 

Looking back now, he acknowledges that had he stayed in place another year, some of what he’d done “would have become institutionalized. Instead, they were allowed to die.” The Battle Labs he established did not survive—six labs designed to create new capability rapidly in specific areas. “Does that sound like something we have today, something they had to reinvent? Yes.” Likewise, he established information operations squadrons. Those too did not survive, but were later recreated.  

“That last year is when you can institutionalize things,” he said. “And so in that context, I failed the force by leaving early.” Fogleman retired early, he says. He did not resign. He was not protesting anything. But he felt it important that he announce his retirement before Cohen made his final determination on Schwalier, perhaps because it might change his mind, but in any event so that the retirement would not be seen as a response to that decision. The story played out in the media as a protest regardless. Fogleman has been trying to set the record straight ever since. 

Posted in Uncategorized