James M. McCoy, Former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Dies at 91

James M. McCoy, Former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Dies at 91

James M. McCoy, who was the sixth Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, and who was the first former enlisted member to be president and chairman of the Air Force Association, died July 13, three weeks shy of his 92nd birthday. He was a recipient of AFA’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

McCoy was born in Iowa and entered the Air Force in 1951. He served first as a radar operator with Aerospace Defense Command in Alaska, but a glut of radar operators after the Korean War motivated him to seek a new career in training.

He returned to be a drill instructor at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, from 1956 to 1957 and became a technical sergeant in just five years. While at Clark Air Base, the Phillipines, where he was in charge of base noncommissioned officer training, he set up and operated a command post during the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis, coordinating inbound and outbound USAF aircraft. He then spent a year as assistant to the commandant of cadets at the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the University of Notre Dame, Ind.

In 1960, McCoy was commandant of Strategic Air Command’s NCO preparatory school at Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Ind., and in 1962 was an instructor at the 2nd Air Force NCO Academy at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., becoming its sergeant major by 1966. In that year, he also received his bachelor of science degree in business administration from Ambrose College in Davenport, Iowa. He was an honor graduate of the 2nd Air Force NCO Academy.

McCoy was head of Headquarters, 2nd Air Force’s training branch then transferred to Headquarters, SAC, where he was in charge of NCO professional military education, setting up SAC’s own NCO Academy and NCO Leadership Program.

In 1970, McCoy was in charge of NCO operations training at the 41st Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Wing at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, where he supervised training programs for H-3, H-4, H-53, and HC-130 rescue aircrew throughout the Pacific and Southeast Asia; and as senior enlisted adviser to the wing commander.

He move up to Headquarters, Pacific Air Forces, as chief of military training and deputy chief of staff for personnel in 1973, refreshing courseware. He graduated with the first class of the U.S. Air Force senior NCO academy at Gunter Air Force Station, Ala., that same year.

In an interview, McCoy said, “I had gone from a wing, to a numbered air force, to a major command. I was going back to a wing.” He would have been eligible for retirement within a year, and he considered putting in his papers, but he decided to stay in, saying, “You look at every opportunity that comes along, and you don’t turn it down based just on what it looks like. I looked at it as another opportunity to further my professionalism.”

McCoy was named one of the 12 Outstanding Airmen of 1974 during his assignment with PACAF.

In 1976, McCoy returned to SAC as its senior enlisted adviser and during this assignment also chaired two worldwide senior enlisted conferences for AFA, which identified challenges to enlisted life and recommended improvements.

McCoy was named Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force in 1979, advising Chief of Staff Gen. Lew Allen Jr. and Air Force Secretary Hans M. Mark on enlisted issues. In a 2015 interview, McCoy said that during his time as CMSAF, the service was still reeling from the post-Vietnam-era malaise and the so-called “Hollow Force.” Both recruiting and retention were struggling. Helped in part by what he described as a resurgence of national patriotism in 1980, as well as a re-emphasis on discipline and grooming standards, both retention and recruiting improved significantly. He retired from USAF in 1981 after 30 years of service.

In retirement, McCoy settled in the Omaha, Neb., area where he was active with community, business, and civic organizations. But he focused on the Air Force Association, ultimately serving two terms as National President (1992-1994) and two terms as Chairman of the Board (1994-1996). He was the first enlisted Airman to hold both jobs. He was also the first enlisted person to chair the Air Force Retiree Council.

In 2007, the Airman’s Leadership School at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., was named for McCoy. In 2016, he was inducted into the Strategic Air Command Hall of Fame.  

In 2021, AFA awarded McCoy its Lifetime Achievement Award in the school at Offutt that now bears his name. Upon receiving the award, McCoy said, “It means a lot to me because of what AFA has done” over its history. He added that “a lot of people think it’s an officer’s association. It’s not. I’m living proof of that.” Gerald Murray, the 14th Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force and the second enlisted Airman to to be the Chair of AFA, presented McCoy the award.

Murray, who rose through the ranks to follow McCoy as the 14th Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force and is the only other former enlisted leader to become AFA’s Chairman, praised McCoy as a role model.

“Chief McCoy joined the Air Force at 18 and our association not long after,” Murray said. “Many are life members, but he led a life of membership—leading and giving his all at every level and in every way. He was an inspiration, and his mark is long-lasting.”

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr said McCoy “left a legacy that highlights the instrumental role senior enlisted leaders have in our mission, both as executors and advisors.”

“Improving education, equality, and quality of life were hallmarks of his time in service that helped shape the force we have today,” Brown continued, “and his dedication to Airmen and families continued in his post-retirement work with the Air Force Association and other civic organizations. I am grateful for his contributions to our service and am saddened to learn of his passing.”

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass said McCoy “was an icon of our great Air Force; a leader among leaders; a patriot of unparalleled honor and dignity.”

“When we talk about standing on the shoulders of giants, we are talking about Airmen like CMSAF McCoy. His passion for giving back to Airmen was exceeded only by his humility. He will be missed by all. Please, keep his family in your thoughts and prayers.”

McCoy received numerous medals and citations, including the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Award.

Hypersonic ARRW Flies Successfully for Second Time, Completing Booster Tests

Hypersonic ARRW Flies Successfully for Second Time, Completing Booster Tests

The Air Force accomplished a second free flight of its hypersonic AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, in a test off the coast of California on July 12, the service announced. The test concludes the booster test phase of the program and clears it for operational testing later in 2022, USAF said.

The test marked the 12th time the ARRW had flown captively on a B-52 bomber and the second time it had successfully separated from the launch aircraft; it flew successfully in May. Three earlier attempts at test flights ended in failure, as the missile either failed to separate from the carrier aircraft or failed to fire a booster rocket. Those setbacks caused USAF to reduce funding for the program.

In the July 12 test, “The AGM-183 weapon system reached hypersonic speeds, and primary and secondary objectives were met,” the Air Force said.

“The test successfully demonstrated booster performance, expanding the operational envelope,” Armament Directorate Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Heath Collins said in a press release.

“We have now completed our booster test series and are ready to move forward to all-up-round testing later this year,” he added. The release didn’t define “all-up-round testing.”

A root cause analysis of the most recent test failure indicated that a loose wire prevented the missile from functioning as planned, service officials said.

The ARRW, four of which can be carried on the pylons of a B-52 bomber, is planned to be USAF’s first operational hypersonic weapon, one that can fly in excess of Mach 5. The two-stage missile is first accelerated to high speed by a booster rocket, at which point the hypersonic vehicle then separates from the booster and glides to its target.

The weapon “is designed to provide the ability to destroy high-value, time-sensitive targets,” the Air Force said. “It will also expand precision-strike weapon systems’ capabilities by enabling rapid response strikes against heavily-defended land targets.”

Jay Pitman, vice president of air dominance and strike weapons at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which builds the ARRW, said, “This successful test underscores our shared commitment to develop and field hypersonic weapons on accelerated timelines to meet critical national security needs. I am proud of the strong partnership we have built with the U.S. Air Force, on this and other key programs.”

Lockheed Martin said the test “demonstrates ARRW’s ability to reach and withstand operational hypersonic speeds, collect crucial data for use in further flight tests, and validate safe separation from the aircraft to deliver the glide body and warhead to designated targets from significant standoff distances.”

Details of the July 12 test were not immediately made public.

The May 14 test—the first successful flight—was carried out by the 419th Flight Test Squadron and the Global Power Combined Test Force at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. In that test, USAF said the ARRW separated from the launch aircraft and that the rocket burned for “the expected duration,” which wasn’t specified.

In the fiscal 2023 Air Force budget request, the services moved some ARRW funding to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, which is an air-breathing hypersonic weapon that will be smaller and capable of being carried on a fighter-sized aircraft.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has downplayed the role of hypersonic weapons in the last year, saying that while they make good sense for China’s needs, USAF is better served by investing in less-costly, level-of-effort and standoff munitions that can affordably service the thousands of targets that would need to be hit in a widespread Pacific conflict.

House Begins Debate on NDAA, With Amendments to Slow Air Force Retirements of F-15s, RC-26s

House Begins Debate on NDAA, With Amendments to Slow Air Force Retirements of F-15s, RC-26s

The House of Representatives is poised to pass its version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, but first it has to wade through hundreds of amendments and the hours of debate that will come with them.

The House Armed Services Committee considered roughly 800 amendments to the NDAA as part of its markup process in June. Another 1,200 were introduced as the bill passed through the House Rules Committee on July 12 and onto the floor for debate July 13.

“We don’t need 1,200 amendments, and past a certain point, it becomes more difficult to do this,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the HASC, said during the Rules Committee hearing. “And I hope members will be more judicious in how they present this. At a certain point, you simply can’t process it. … There are going to be amendments that we’re not going to let in here simply because we don’t have time to go through them.”

To that end, the Rules Committee approved 650 amendments to go to the House floor for debate and votes. Among those 650 were several provisions aimed specifically at the Air Force and Space Force.

Divestments

The Air Force turned some heads with its request in the 2023 budget to retire 33 of its oldest F-22s, and both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees took action in their versions of the NDAA to block that move.

The Biden administration made its case to proceed with the divestments in a statement of administration policy from the White House Office of Management and Budget to the Rules Committee on July 12 , arguing that “requiring the Department to maintain a minimum inventory of major platforms limits the Secretary’s ability to optimize future force structure, increases the long-term cost of sustaining the force, and further delays necessary efforts to keep pace with the People’s Republic of China’s challenge in key warfighting areas.”

But none of the amendments being considered in the House would reverse HASC’s provisions that not only require the Air Force to keep the older F-22s, but to upgrade them.

Instead, an amendment by Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) would limit the number of F-15s the Air Force can divest, at least until the service provides a report to Congress on the number of F-15s—including F-15Cs, Ds, Es, and EXs—it plans to buy and retire in the next five years, broken down by year and location, as well as an assessment of the negative impacts of such retirements and plans to replace those missions.

Bentz’s amendment also calls for the Air Force to explain its plans to procure fewer F-15EXs. Service leaders have adjusted their plans for the F-15 fleet recently, and that includes a smaller buy of F-15EXs to free up funds for other priorities.

Similarly, an amendment by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) would prohibit the Air National Guard from retiring the RC-26 Condor, a tactical ISR platform the Guard has also used for counternarcotics, disaster response, and civil support missions.

Kinzinger’s amendment does allow the Secretary of the Air Force to retire individual RC-26s on a case-by-case basis if they are no longer mission capable, but it would force the Air National Guard to provide more funding for a platform that leaders say costs millions of dollars per year to keep going.

Those same leaders have said they can use other, cheaper technologies such as drones to perform the same missions the RC-26 handles, but Kinzinger’s amendment would require the Guard to maintain “a fleet of fixed wing, manned ISR/IAA aircraft.” The provision would also require an independent assessment of how the Air Force can modernize that fleet over the next decade.

Finally, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.) proposed an amendment that would stop short of blocking the Air Force from retiring any KC-135s, but it would express the sense that the service shouldn’t do so without replacing them on a one-for-one basis with KC-46s.

All three amendments were included in en bloc packages for consideration on the House floor, meaning they are virtually guaranteed to be approved.

Space Force Cyber Squadrons

Another amendment included in a package addresses how the Space Force will fill its current and future cyber-focused squadrons. Specifically, the provision by Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) would require the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations to review the staffing requirements for those squadrons.

“Specifically, the review shall consider the specific sourcing of existing billets of the Space Force that are optimal for transfer to cyber squadrons, and the administrative process required to shift such billets to cyber squadrons,” the amendment’s summary reads.

The Space Force currently has three cyber squadrons—the 61st Cyber Squadron, the 62nd CYS, and the 65th CYS—as part of Space Delta 6. According to media reports, four more will stand up in the near future.

Cancer Study

A recent study from the Air Force revealed that fighter pilots from 1970 to 2004 experienced higher rates of certain kinds of cancer, and advocates are pushing for more study on the issue, to include more services, aircrew, and other areas. 

Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), a former Air Force pilot, is one such advocate, and he included an amendment that would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to “study the incidence of and mortality of cancer among individuals who served in the Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps as aviators and aircrew.”

Pfluger’s amendment would also cover maintainers, and it would require the study to look at “chemicals, compounds, agents, and other phenomena” that could potentially be linked to higher rates of cancer among the individuals studied. The results of the study would have to be reported to Congress by the end of 2025.

Analysts: Ukraine Needs U.S. Aircraft; U.S. Needs to Stop Self-Deterring

Analysts: Ukraine Needs U.S. Aircraft; U.S. Needs to Stop Self-Deterring

The weapons the U.S. and NATO have been providing Ukraine are not enough to reverse Russia’s invasion, and the process of providing F-16s from U.S. stocks should begin as soon as possible, analysts said in an AFA Mitchell Institute online seminar.

Panelists also said the U.S. should not be fearful of Russia’s nuclear threats and that Vladimir Putin will invade more countries if not stopped in Ukraine.

“Time is not on our side,” said Evelyn Farkas, former assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.

“The battle for Ukraine is … not just for Ukraine, not just for Europe, but it’s for the international order. And if we don’t defeat Russia militarily on the battlefield in Ukraine, we are going to have a whole lot of trouble politically and militarily all around the world.”

Farkas noted that “winter is coming. The Russians are regrouping, and, really, the only way to get back at them is to use airpower and to provide more assistance to the Ukrainians.”

Panelists said Ukraine’s best chance for beating back Russia’s advances will come through air-launched standoff missile strikes on Russian rear areas and supply lines, as well as command and control centers and airpower working in concert with Ukrainian ground forces.

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies, said the Russia-Ukraine war has effectively been ongoing since 2014 and will not likely be over quickly, so “there’s time” to provide Ukraine with F-16s and train some of its experienced pilots to fly them.

Ukrainian pilots have boasted that they could be ready to fly F-16s in a couple of weeks, and Deptula said that’s not too far off the mark.

Because they are already skilled aviators, Ukrainian pilots who have flown MiG-29s and Su-27s are “looking at more of a transition course from four to six weeks … That certainly is reasonable for … getting the Ukrainian pilots up to speed” on the F-16, he said.

And while few countries have volunteered their own F-16s for Ukraine, and Lockheed Martin has a waiting list of several years for new ones, Deptula said Congress has agreed to let the Air Force retire 48 F-16s “this year. So clearly those are surplus to U.S. needs and” could help the Ukrainians “reconstitute their air force before the end of the year.”

Mitchell scholar Heather Penney, who is a former F-16 pilot, said that while it would only take a few weeks to transition Ukrainian pilots to the F-16, learning to employ its sensors, systems, and weapons effectively would take a few months. But Deptula said the war will not be over before that could happen, if the training started soon.

Members of the panel said that in the meantime, the U.S. could provide MQ-1C Gray Eagles or even MQ-9 Reapers to give Ukraine more air strike capability and persistent watch over the battlefield for target spotting functions and “actionable intelligence,” Deptula said.  

Absent fresh airpower, though, panelists said the weapons being supplied to Ukraine—such as artillery—don’t deliver a decisive capability and engage the Russians “at their own game,” he added.

To go on the offensive, the Ukrainians need to strike Russia’s rear areas, Farkas said, and “not just defend but re-seize their territory.” The U.S. should also put pressure on Israel to provide Ukraine with its Iron Dome air defense systems, she said.

She also noted that Slovakia has said it would consider giving Ukraine its MiG-29s, which Ukraine already knows how to employ.

Farkas said Vladimir Putin “does not want war with NATO or the United States” and that those countries should not be so nervous about standing up to him because of his threats of using nuclear weapons. Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon “would be the quickest way to get us directly involved” in the war, she said.

“He’s not interested in opening up another front with NATO right now,” she argued. But “if he prevails … and gets some kind of compromise with Ukraine, some kind of stalemate … he will turn to the Baltic states next. He will use as an excuse access to Kalliningrad, and he will definitely press and probe our defenses.”

Even though Putin is paying a heavy cost for the Ukraine war in men, equipment, and sanctions, Farkas said Putin doesn’t face strong domestic opposition but might if he is forced to order a nationwide draft and the Russian people start facing dire hardships.

“And they might then say, ‘This is not our war. We don’t want to participate,’” Farkas asserted, and Russian leaders “would face a similar situation” to when the Soviet Union paid a huge price in casualties during its Afghanistan war.

Ukraine also needs more naval capability to keep its remaining ports open, and the panelists urged provision of more aircraft or drones that can launch anti-ship missiles, such as the U.S. Harpoons that have been provided.

Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the MQ-1Cs “would be very helpful” in moving the Ukraine war from two dimensions to three. He said the U.S. should have a clearly defined goal for the outcomes it wants from Ukraine because the war there affects relations with NATO, the Chinese, and the broader world.

“There have been … kind of vague comments about weakening the Russians,” he said, but the U.S. and its allies should provide at least enough military assistance to “blunt Russian advances, retake territory, and bog the Russians down in a campaign much like what they faced in Afghanistan,” which would cause them a loss “domestically.”

“The types of systems that we’re providing right now” such as Stingers, Javelin anti-tank missiles, artillery, and old vehicles “unfortunately, I don’t believe are going to let us achieve those objectives,” Jones said. Instead, Ukraine “needs systems to target dug-in Russian ground forces.” Besides higher-end unmanned aircraft, Jones said main battle tanks and medium- to long-range standoff missiles are needed.

“I see too much reticence right now” on the part of NATO leaders, he added, “too much concern about escalation” on Russia’s part. “Those concerns have been exaggerated.”

Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute said the Ukrainians need to be equipped to fight “the way NATO would fight Russia.” Instead, “we have been equipping Ukraine to fight Russia the way Russia would fight itself,” with short-range artillery and ground systems. Fighting NATO’s way “would help them regain the advantage.” That means providing aircraft and more naval capability.

NATO would use standoff missiles and electronic warfare, he said, “to suppress Russian air defenses, attack their depots and command centers.” Ukraine also doesn’t have the means to follow up strikes on command centers with the ability to “degrade Russian troops at scale … Aircraft can help you do that behind enemy lines,” Clark said.

Jones said Russia’s strategy so far requires that “they put their ground forces in vulnerable positions.” Their ground forces have shown that “they’re not very good, with significant problems of corruption, morale, training, leadership, [and] logistics” and so would be vulnerable to air attack. “So a much more significant … sustained air campaign” is in order for Ukraine.  

Clark said Russia has an advantage in that it has developed “rungs on the escalation ladder” from use of mercenaries and militias all the way up to nuclear weapons; and the West should emulate that to blunt Russia’s seeming veto power over greater Western involvement in Ukraine.

“We must accept more risk,” Farkas said. “History shows … if you can’t stop a leader like Hitler in the first phase, you’re going to face worse in the next phases.” Putin has shown that he will back down when confronted by resolve and “firmness,” she said.

But “we’re playing it too safe,” she said. “We are too worried about Russian escalation, and we shouldn’t be.”

FSI Defense—All In For The Air Force

FSI Defense—All In For The Air Force

FlightSafety International (FSI) is a name that resonates with pilots around the globe. Since 1951, FSI has been an industry leader in the education and training of aircrew and maintenance personnel. While being a well-established company, FSI continues to transform to meet customer needs.

The development of innovative solutions is key to the transformation that complements FSI’s proven training programs as well as a renewed focus on improving the overall quality of products and programs. One significant transformation is the establishment of FSI Defense, formerly FlightSafety Services Corporation (FSSC).

Prior to FSI Defense, government and military customers interfaced with multiple FSI business units – such as FSSC, FlightSafety Simulation Systems (FSS), or FlightSafety Simulation Systems Visual (FSSV) – to discover the appropriate business entry point. Today, FSI Defense gives the United States Air Force, and other government entities, a single touchpoint for all training business. This change eliminates the product-centric approach and instead emphasizes a more holistic customer-focused approach. FSI Defense listens to the Air Force and other customers to create training solutions that meet their future needs. The best answer could be a ready off-the-shelf product or may require research and development. Either way, FSI Defense is all in for providing customers a rigorous and data-based training program that utilizes innovative technological advancements that best prepare airmen for their mission.

Al Ueltschi, the founder of FSI, would often say, “The best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained crew.” This spirit continues to inspire FSI and FSI Defense in the quest for innovative excellence. One such endeavor is FlightSmart® – an advanced analysis tool developed in close cooperation with IBM, based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. The idea is for FlightSmart® to collect and analyze a pilot’s performance data and compare the focus flight to data previously collected from several “good” flying scenarios. This will allow us to capture insights using evidence-based training methodologies and predict the best training approach to improve the pilot’s performance.

Similarly, FSI teamed with GE Digital™ to use actual flight data to reduce overall fight risk and simultaneously improve training to manage threats before they become reality. “Actual flight data allows us to tailor training to address safety threats before crews even experience them,” said Brad Thress, President and CEO of FSI. This program is currently deployed in all FSI learning centers including those training military equivalents of civilian business aircraft. These examples illustrate how FSI and FSI Defense are innovating to better prepare pilots and aircrew for flying operations.

FSI Defense continues to innovate, placing an even greater emphasis on improving the caliber of programs and products. It embraces a mindset that emphasizes quality over quantity and safety over speed and cost. FSI Defense delivers product reliability, availability, and reduced life-cycle costs.
The company believes that continuous improvement generates the best, long-term results that ultimately provides the best value solution.

The turbulent business and supply chain environment created by COVID-19 makes it even more important to adhere to a quality assurance (QA) process. All FSI products adhere to the QA principles of “fit for purpose” and “right first time,” eradicating waste and unnecessary costs and delivering solutions through the realignment of product manufacturing.

Two principles guide the “good idea” concept and requirement phase: solutions that are suitable for the intended purpose and striving to eliminate mistakes. They are implemented before the start of the design phase and again when the Air Force takes delivery. The task of engineering is to make it work, while the task of QA is to make it work all the time.

FSI Defense is unwavering in its commitment to deliver the most suitable, innovative, and quality training solutions possible. Training airmen to stay sharp, fine-tune, and prepared for any challenge.

B-21 Director Walden Leaving RCO to Advise LaPlante at Pentagon

B-21 Director Walden Leaving RCO to Advise LaPlante at Pentagon

Randall G. Walden, head of the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office, where he has directed development of the B-21 bomber and the Advanced Battle Management System, is moving to a new job at the Pentagon to advise the DOD’s acquisition and sustainment chief, William A. LaPlante.

Walden, who is the director and program executive officer for the RCO, has been named “senior executive advisor” in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, according to a July 11 announcement from the Air Force.

The service could not immediately say whether a successor at the RCO had been determined.

LaPlante, formerly the Air Force’s acquisition executive, put Walden and the RCO in charge of B-21 development in 2015, when the Air Force selected Northrop Grumman to build what was then called the Long-Range Strike Bomber. LaPlante at the time described the choice of putting a major weapon system such as the B-21 under the RCO, rather than in a traditional program office, as a way to use lean management techniques with minimal Pentagon bureaucracy while taking advantage of the RCO’s ability to conduct projects in secret.

Pentagon leaders and cleared members of Congress alike have lauded the B-21 as a well-run program. The Air Force’s current service acquisition executive (SAE), Andrew Hunter, revealed in June that the B-21 is actually under budget.

Walden has reported that six B-21s are in construction at Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, Calif., plant and that the first one will likely roll out in 2022. Walden had also predicted the first article would fly this summer, but Air Force officials have since walked back that prediction.  

The Air Force has disclosed relatively few other products of the RCO, but one noteworthy program was the X-37B mini-space plane, one of which broke its own on-orbit record July 6. The RCO also says it developed the integrated air defense system installed around the “National Capital Region” after the 9/11 attacks.

During Walden’s 20-year Air Force career as a flight test engineer, he worked at times on classified projects. He retired in 2002 and was appointed to the Senior Executive Service that same year, subsequently working on special access programs, in the RCO, and as the director of test and evaluation for USAF. He became head of the RCO in 2014.

LaPlante was determined to write a good contract for the B-21 that could adapt to a changing threat, and the fact that the award handily survived a protest from the losing Lockheed Martin-Boeing team could be called one of LaPlante’s signature achievements while he was the Air Force SAE. He insisted on an open architecture for the B-21, and while USAF secured a fixed-price contract for the initial aircraft, the development program was a cost-plus arrangement that rewarded Northrop Grumman for hitting milestones early.

Air Force Promotes Fewest Tech Sergeants in a Decade

Air Force Promotes Fewest Tech Sergeants in a Decade

A few days after warning that promotion rates for enlisted noncommissioned officers were likely to drop over the next several years, the Air Force Personnel Center announced the statistics from the 22E6 Air Force promotion cycle July 12—with the fewest number of Airmen getting promoted to technical sergeant in at least a decade.

All told, 5,430 staff sergeants were tapped to become tech sergeants, AFPC said in a release. The full list of those promoted will be released on myPers 8 a.m. Central time July 20.

The total number of those promoted represents a dramatic decline from 2021, when 9,422 Airmen were selected. At least 7,500 staff sergeants had been selected in each of the previous seven years, and even in leaner years such as 2014 and 2013, at least 5,500 Airmen were promoted. Air Force Magazine could not immediately confirm statistics from before 2012.

The lowest promotion rate for E-6s this decade still belongs to 2013—5,654 were selected out of 37,608, for a rate of 15.03 percent. By comparison, the 2022 cycle had 33,935 eligible candidates, making for a promotion rate of 16 percent.

From 2015 on, though, promotion rates for technical sergeant stayed consistently above 20 percent, sometimes exceeding 30 percent. 

But such numbers are unlikely in the near future, the service has warned, as a result of high retention amid the COVID-19 pandemic, end strength numbers plateauing, and recent enlisted grade structure revisions.

In particular, leaders say the grade structure revisions were necessary to combat a decline in experience among Airmen in the NCO corps.

“The majority of the experience decline was attributable to the Air Force trying to achieve an enlisted force structure with too many higher grades,” Col. James Barger, Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency commander, said in a statement. “We also found that experience levels would continue to decline unless the Air Force lays in more junior Airmen allocations and fewer E5-E7 allocations.”

The goal, Barger said, is to reach a “healthier” distribution of Airmen across grades by fiscal 2025—seemingly indicating that lower promotion rates could continue for another two or three years. The service has already announced its lowest E-7 promotion rate in years—14.8 percent for 2022, down from 18.9 percent the year before and a decade-high of 29.6 percent in 2018.

AFPC noted in its release on E-6 promotions that this is the first cycle that incorporated the Promotion Recommendation Score. The new system, introduced in October 2021, is intended to better reward experience by getting rid of weighted scores for Enlisted Performance Reports, instead offering additional points for up to two older EPRs while still placing the most emphasis on the most recent one.

Potential E-6s this cycle also faced a new Promotion Fitness Examination for the first time. In December, the Air Force announced it was switching the test from 100 knowledge-based questions to 60 knowledge questions and 20 “situational judgment test” questions.

A number of other changes are being implemented to Air Force personnel management, such as the introduction of the Airman Leadership Qualities and their incorporation into feedback forms.

Air Force E-6 Promotion Rates Over the Years

YEARSELECTEDELIGIBLEPROMOTION RATE
20225,43033,93516.00
20219,42234,97326.94
20208,24628,35829.08
20199,46729,32832.28
20188,41627,55530.54
20178,16725,55231.96
20167,50133,56922.35
20158,44635,86323.55
20146,68438,34417.43
20135,65437,60815.03
20128,51837,40222.77
Sources: Air Force news releases, Air Force Times
B-2s Deploy to Australia for Bomber Task Force Mission

B-2s Deploy to Australia for Bomber Task Force Mission

A pair of B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., arrived in Australia on July 10, starting a new bomber task force mission in the Indo-Pacific just days after the Air Force completed its last one.

The B-2s from the 509th Bomb Wing landed at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, according to a service press release, and will take part in “training missions and strategic deterrence missions with allies, partners and joint forces.”

“This deployment of the B-2 to Australia demonstrates and enhances the readiness and lethality of our long-range penetrating strike force,” Lt. Col. Andrew Kousgaard, 393rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron commander, said in a statement. “We look forward to training and enhancing our interoperability with our RAAF teammates, as well as partners and allies across the Indo-Pacific as we meet PACAF objectives.”

The bombers’ deployment will also support the Enhanced Cooperation Initiative under the Force Posture Agreement first signed more than a decade ago by the U.S. and Australia.

Collaboration between the two nations has increased even more recently, with the announcement of the AUKUS agreement, which will include enhanced air and space cooperation, as the allies look to challenge Chinese influence in the region.

More concretely, recent bomber missions in the Indo-Pacific have included training with the Royal Australian Air Force. 

In 2020, Whiteman B-2s deployed to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia then flew over Australian training areas while Marines and Australian troops trained together to control the strikes. In 2016, a B-2 from Whiteman landed at RAAF Base Tindal. Most recently, B-1s that deployed to Guam in June conducted hot pit refueling operations with the RAAF in Australia.

Those B-1B Lancers arrived home to Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., on July 4 to finish their bomber task force rotation. Less than a week later, the B-2s from Whiteman arrived in Australia.

This past March, a B-2 from the 509th Bomb Wing became the first bomber of its kind to land at RAAF Base Amberley, part of a quick turnaround amid more than 50 hours of flying. During that mission, the B-2 integrated with Australian F-35s, EA-18 Growlers, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, as well as American F-16s and F-22s.

A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit, assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing, Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., arrives in support of a bomber task force training exercise at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, Australia, July 10, 2022. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Dylan Nuckolls.
Construction of Gulf War Memorial Begins on the National Mall

Construction of Gulf War Memorial Begins on the National Mall

The installation of a new monument in Washington, D.C., recognizing Gulf War veterans begins July 14 with the formal groundbreaking of the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial.

Situated on the National Mall to the north of the Lincoln Memorial, the new park-like monument will honor veterans who served on Active duty in support of the two operations. 

The memorial commemorates “the service and sacrifice” of the military personnel who from 1991 to 1992 “liberated Kuwait from Iraq and defended Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula from further invasion,” according to information from the National Desert Storm Memorial Association. Kuwait is the lead donor contributing to the memorial.

Derived from Gulf War veterans’ responses to a five-question survey, the monument’s design presents the war’s historical events and significance along with the “unique environmental and battle conditions experienced” by the troops who fought in it, according to the association. 

Survey replies led the association to conclude that the design should reflect the war’s desert environment; should include a statue of Soldiers wearing chemical warfare protective gear; and should represent the war’s so-called “left hook” maneuver by ground troops—a trick by which the U.S. Army cut off supplies and prompted Iraqi forces’ retreat. 

After consideration, the association chose not to feature the names of service members who died in the war because doing so “would omit the names of so many of our comrades who were lost outside of the parameters” of the dates bookending the two operations; and because its educational purpose is distinct from that of monuments such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which is meant instead as “a place of mourning, healing, and reconciliation.”

Gulf War
An artist’s rendering of the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial. Image courtesy of the National Desert Storm Memorial Association.

“This memorial represents and includes many degrees of sacrifice,” according to the association, including that of those who died in theater, those who since died as a result, “and those who are currently suffering as a result of their honorable service.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies, served as a principal architect of Desert Storm’s air campaign and said the war was historically significant because, among other reasons, it “set expectations for low casualties,” “presaged the age of precision weapons,” marked the first use of a joint force concept of operations, and was the first time “airpower was the key force” in achieving victory.

The association intends to complete the memorial’s construction by Veterans Day of 2024. The groundbreaking will be livestreamed at www.ndswm.org/live at 10 a.m. Eastern time July 14.