Air Force Changes T-38 Formation Approach After Instructor Pilots’ Poor Communication Led to 2021 Fatal Crash

May 31, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Poor communication and reactions from a pair of instructor pilots were the main causes of a fatal T-38 crash at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, in November 2021, that killed a student pilot and injured two others, a recently-released Air Force accident report found—and Air Education and Training Command has taken action in response.

The incident in question took place on Nov. 19 on the runway at Laughlin, involving two T-38s, the Air Force’s supersonic trainers, attempting a formation approach. The pilot killed was identified as 2nd Lt. Anthony D. Wentz, 23, a student in the 47th Flying Training Wing.

The Air Force Accident Investigation Board report, released May 25, detailed how Wentz was flying in the front of one T-38’s cockpit with an instructor pilot in the back, with another instructor pilot flying solo in the other trainer.

The sortie mission was part of Wentz’s pre-solo two-ship formation block of training—after the two jets swapped lead positions midway through the flight, they returned to base to conduct a formation approach—with Wentz and the instructor’s plane supposed to “clear off” the other instructor to land, then separate and perform a low approach.

However, during the pre-flight briefing, the instructors included a caveat that the plane that would land on the initial approach could change “if there was a difference in fuel.”

But when it came time for the formation approach, the instructor pilot in Wentz’s jet “failed to communicate” and the other instructor pilot “failed to verify” which plane would be landing—with a difference of 30 pounds of fuel, the instructor in Wentz’s plane “appears [to have] interpreted any fuel difference as sufficient to alter the plan,” while the other instructor did not.

Neither instructor explicitly confirmed a change in the flight plan, and both failed to intervene at several points when they could have requested more clarity.

On top of that, the instructors used differing techniques during the approach, and the student’s callsign usage became confusing as a result of the two jets changing lead positions, preventing the tower or the instructor pilot not in his jet from realizing that Wentz and his instructor believed they were supposed to be landing.

As a result, the first jet with one pilot landed, and a second later, the other T-38 with Wentz and his instructor landed virtually on top of it. The second plane’s nose landing gear impacted the first’s left horizontal stabilizer, and the second plane rolled. The instructor initiated the ejection sequence, but as the plane was inverted, Wentz’s ejection was “interrupted by the ground,” the report states, resulting in fatal injuries.

The instructor pilot suffered life-threatening injuries from his ejection and was transported to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. Due to his medical condition, he was not interviewed for the report. The report found that he failed to recognize a dangerous situation developing when he did not notice the other plane approaching the runway in a descent below them, which “would have been alarming and prompted immediate action.”

As a result of the mishap, Air Education and Training Command has expanded its training guidance for pilots for formation approaches, “further defining mission briefing requirements, raising the minimum altitude for this maneuver, re-emphasizing deconfliction responsibilities, and standardizing radio procedures to reduce the possibility of confusion,” spokeswoman Capt. Lauren Woods told Air Force Magazine in a statement.

The changes come just a few years after AETC stopped performing T-38 formation landings—when both planes land together—after a student pilot and instructor died in a crash. The Combat Air Force, which pilots enter after graduating from training, had already almost completely ended the practice.

Formation landings are still allowed during emergencies, and formation approaches, where one plane approaches the runway but doesn’t actually land, have remained a part of training.

Austin, Biden at Arlington Cemetery Draw Parallels to Ukraine Fight

May 31, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

In a Memorial Day address at Arlington Cemetery, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III drew parallels from veterans fallen from America’s longest war to Ukrainian soldiers fighting against Russia today to preserve democracy as Ukraine’s request for multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) remains unheeded.

“In the 21st century, the security of the world hinges again on the survival and success of the American experiment,” Austin said alongside President Joe Biden and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Today, on the battlefields of Ukraine, the world again sees the power of democratic citizens and soldiers to defy tyranny, cruelty, and oppression,” Austin added. “Their freedom is under attack.”

Austin honored the 2,461 Americans who died in Afghanistan before describing an ongoing global fight to preserve democracy and maintain the international order that has prevailed since World War II. The Defense Secretary highlighted the importance of close cooperation with partners and allies to preserve democracy, saying the United States would rise to meet the challenge.

Biden, likewise, said the Russia-Ukraine war was “between democracy and autocracy.”

“Today, in the perennial struggle for democracy and freedom, Ukraine and its people are on the frontlines fighting to save their nation,” Biden said. “But their fight is part of a larger fight that unites all people. It is a fight that so many of the patriots, whose eternal rest is here in these hallowed grounds, were part of.”

Yet, the United States is again facing a limit to how far it will go to meet Ukraine’s challenges against Russia without escalation.

Ukraine recently pleaded for MLRS—powerful rockets that fire farther than the U.S. howitzers now on the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine.

U.S. officials appear reluctant to give Ukraine systems that can reach inside Russian territory after Ukraine has made several cross-border attacks on the fuel depots reinforcing Russian forces as they solidify gains in the Donbas.

“We’re not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia,” Biden said May 30 on the South Lawn of the White House.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, said May 27 that MLRS are under consideration.

“I won’t get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet, but we are in constant communication with them,” Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said at his final Defense Department briefing before he takes an assistant press job covering national security issues at the White House.

“We knew when Russia decided to focus on the eastern part of the country and that Donbas region that it was going to be an artillery, a long-range-fires kind of fight,” he said. “It has proven to be that.”

Meanwhile, Russia is closing off the Donbas region and the new weapons, if approved, may not arrive in time.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, Russian forces entered Severodonetsk, the farthest eastern city still held by Ukraine. The move would bring Russia closer to fully capturing Luhansk province after artillery pummeled the city for weeks. A successful capture may also pin down Ukrainian forces operating in the region, and free up Russia to advance elsewhere, argued the Institute for the Study of War.

Russia now controls a land corridor to Crimea, but it has not moved on Ukraine’s vital port city of Odesa, although missile attacks and a naval blockade of commercial shipping continue.

A $40 billion assistance package passed by Congress in May gives Biden the authority to make an 11th presidential drawdown of key weapons from U.S. stocks, often delivered to Ukraine’s frontlines in a matter of days.

Kirby refused to outline what will be in the next package, but he said it will be tailored to Ukraine’s current battlefield needs.

“It’s not a hold-up here,” Kirby said when asked if the Defense Department was preventing the delivery of MLRS. “I understand that they have been asking for the assistance for a long time. And we have been talking to them. And I’m just not going to get ahead of where the decisions are.”

Space Force Finally Rolls Out Cyber Standards for Commercial SATCOM Providers

May 31, 2022 | By Shaun Waterman

The U.S. Space Force finally rolled out new cybersecurity standards for its commercial satellite vendors on May 28, saying those who could meet them might be able to charge more.

“We expect that cost [of security] to be reflected in the services that we’re buying,” Space Force official Jared Reece told Air Force Magazine. “If we’re going to want a more secure solution, we’re going to have to be willing to pay for that capability.”

The Commercial Satellite Communications Office, or CSCO, the office in Space Systems Command where Reece works, buys private sector satellite bandwidth for the U.S. military services. CSCO will begin third party cybersecurity assessments in September, Reece explained, piloting the process with a handful of volunteer vendors.

“Based on our conversations with industry, there’s a number of companies itching to go,” he said.
The Infrastructure Asset Pre-Assessment program, or IA-Pre, that Reece manages at CSCO, is designed to pre-qualify particular commercial assets, like a satellite constellation and its ground system, as meeting federal cybersecurity standards.

IA-Pre grew out of concerns about the ability of peer and near-peer adversaries to use cyberweapons to cripple commercial satellite networks on which the U.S. military increasingly relies. These fears were dramatically realized by the Russian malware hack that knocked thousands of users of Viasat’s KA-SAT European network—including large swathes of the Ukrainian military—offline, just as the tanks rolled across the border.

Viasat executives told Air Force Magazine back in March that the hackers would not have been able to execute their attack on any of the networks the company operates for the U.S. military.

IA-Pre replaces the current questionnaire-based process, where vendors self-attest to meeting cyber standards every time they submit a bid. Instead, they undergo a one-off third party assessment, plus mandatory follow-up reporting on a monthly basis. Once a system passes the assessment and is in compliance, it can be added to the Approved Platforms List, or APL, Reece said.

Having an APL of pre-certified cybersecure assets will speed up procurement of commercial services and avoid unnecessary duplication of cybersecurity acquisition requirements, Reece said last year, enabling CSCO to be more agile in its ability to onboard new capabilities.

But vendors will be incentivized to comply with IA-Pre because of changes in the acquisition rules that govern the way CSCO buys commercial services.

“I don’t have any misconceptions that everyone is going to be ready to go on day one,” he said. As IA-Pre requirements are phased in to CSCO contracts over the next three years or so, Reece said, the incentives for vendors to get on the APL by undergoing a third party IA-Pre assessment would sharpen, as compliance became a tradeoff factor, allowing vendors to potentially charge more.

Reece said CSCO has replaced the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable standard, which drove military acquisition officials to choose the lowest bidder who promised to meet the requirement, with a new pricing philosophy called Best Value Tradeoff, where they can choose a higher priced bid, if it represents better value for the government, based on certain factors that can be traded off against higher prices.

“As we implement this into our contracts, and it becomes a preference, and that’s the focus of the tradeoff criteria, hopefully that will incentivize industry to get their assessment scheduled and get their assets on the APL,” Reece said.

A key deadline will be September 2023, when CSCO will begin to sunset the questionnaire process, according to a Space Systems Command factsheet, meaning vendors will no longer have a choice about getting on the APL.

IA-Pre, first mooted to industry in 2018, and made public the following year, has taken years to finalize, but Reece said the time was needed to do “due diligence” to ensure the program would work, and to secure vendor buy-in.

Other efforts to impose federal cyber standards on vendors in the broader defense industrial base, like the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, have stumbled amid industry criticism.
“Commercial industry’s involvement is critical to ensure our success,” said Clare Grason, CSCO division chief and Reece’s boss, in a press statement announcing the roll out.

“We couldn’t really release anything until we really kind of solidified our feedback from industry and really developed a program that could be implemented successfully,” said Reece.

Alexander Purves, chief commercial officer with the Providence Access Company, a satellite consultancy, said the extended timeline was understandable in view of the pandemic and the fact that the functions and personnel of CSCO had moved twice as IA-Pre was being developed—from the Defense Information Systems Agency to the Air Force in 2018 and then to Space Force in 2020—all the while developing and managing over 100 major satellite procurements every year.

“I do not see this as a delay in IA-Pre, I see this as a competing number of pressures on the Space Force to do many things with a small team,” he said.

Because CSCO had been very transparent about the standards as they were being developed, releasing drafts for public comment and incorporating much industry feedback, Purves said, there was a “silver lining” to the postponed implementation. “The timeline lag has provided the industry time to get prepared,” he said.

Purves said many satellite vendors were near ready for their third party assessment, as they had been tracking the draft requirements as they evolved.

The tail end of compliance, he said, would likely be the subcontractors, who supply ground station services or rent antenna time to satellite operators. It would take time for IA-Pre to trickle down to those vendors, he argued.

“The third party infrastructure will lag behind and I’m not saying that as a negative. As a practicality, it’s not on the top of their to do list when the program has not yet been released and when they may not have any direction from their prime contractors or others further up the [supply] chain,” he said.

Senate Confirms More Than a Dozen Air Force, Space Force Generals to New Ranks, Positions

May 27, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

In the final few hours before the Senate adjourned for its Memorial Day recess on May 26, lawmakers approved a raft of some 3,400 pending military nominations, including a number of high-profile Air Force and Space Force generals to assignments that will significantly reshape some of the upper echelons of leadership.

Three USAF generals were confirmed to be deputy commanders of combatant commands—Lt. Gen. Timothy D. Haugh is set to go to U.S. Cyber Command, Lt. Gen. Steven L. Basham will go to U.S. European Command, and Lt. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot will join U.S. Central Command.

Haugh leads the 16th Air Force, the service’s information warfare-focused Numbered Air Force, and Air Force Cyber Command. In that role, he oversees a host of activities and helped to activate the service’s first spectrum warfare wing. He has prior experience at CYBERCOM, including a stint as director of intelligence, and he will serve as No. 2 to Army Gen. Paul M. Nakasone.

Basham served as deputy commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa. Now, he’s set to join Army Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, pending Cavoli’s Senate confirmation as the new EUCOM commander, at a critical moment in the theater, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continuing and the NATO alliance set to welcome Sweden and Finland.

Guillot has been the commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command, helping to oversee the military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. He will serve as the deputy to Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, who assumed command of CENTCOM in April.

Guillot’s replacement as AFCENT commander was also confirmed May 26—Maj. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, confirmed to become a lieutenant general, will make the jump from director of operations at CENTCOM and receive a third star. In his new role, he’ll immediately face the challenge of conducting so-called “over the horizon” operations in Afghanistan to monitor threats of terrorism.

Grynkewich was one of several Air Force officers confirmed to a third star, including:

Maj. Gen. John D. Lamontagne, the Chief of Staff at EUCOM, will become the deputy commander of USAFE.
Maj. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr., the director of programs under the deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, will succeed Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, who has been nominated to take command of U.S. Northern Command’s Alaskan Command and the 11th Air Force.
Maj. Gen. Michael J. Schmidt, the program executive officer for command, control, communication, intelligence, and networks, will become the new director of the F-35 Joint Program Office, succeeding Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick. The appointment is unusual in that leadership of the JPO traditionally swaps back and forth between the Navy and Air Force. Typically, under the program’s 20-year old arrangement, an Air Force F-35 Program Executive Officer would be succeeded by a naval officer, and the overseeing service acquisition executive would switch also, with the Air Force now assuming that role. The purpose was to ensure that both services got an evenhanded opportunity to shape the program. The JPO said the Navy will “retain the service acquisition responsibilities” when Schmidt takes over.
Maj. Gen. Charles L. Plummer, the deputy judge advocate general, will take on the lead role as the top judicial officer in the service.
Maj. Gen. Leonard J. Kosinski, deputy commander of the Fifth Air Force, will become director of logistics for the Joint Staff
Maj. Gen. Andrea D. Tullos, deputy commander of Air Education and Training Command, will move up a rank.

Also confirmed to become a lieutenant general is Brig. Gen. Caroline Miller, who will make the rare but not unprecedented move of skipping a rank. Miller will be the next deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services.

Miller and Tullos will increase the number of actively-serving three-star women in the Air Force to four.

Meanwhile, the Space Force will see its number of total general officers expand by more than 20 percent, as five colonels were confirmed to become brigadier generals—Col. Robert J. Hutt, Col. Anthony J. Mastalir, Col. Jacob Middleton Jr., Col. Kristen L. Panzenhagen, Col. Brian D. Sidari.

Prior to their confirmation, the Space Force only had 24 generals in its ranks, 11 of them one-stars. Panzenhagen in particular will become just the third woman to be a Space Force general, and Middleton will be just the third Black man.

Biden Nominates Lauderback as Deputy Chief for ISR, 24 Brigadiers to Two-Stars

May 27, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

President Joe Biden has nominated Maj. Gen. Leah G. Lauderback to be promoted to three stars and become Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and cyber effects operations. He also has nominated 24 brigadier generals to become major generals and to remain in their current assignments.

Lauderback now serves as deputy chief of space operations for intelligence. She not only advises Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond and the Department of the Air Force leadership on intelligence, but formulates policy and plans, while also evaluating and overseeing Space Force’s ISR enterprise. In the new position, she would oversee the USAF ISR enterprise, ranging from handheld drones to satellites and the Distributed Common Ground System dissemination enterprise, among other functions.

The 24 Brigadier Generals nominated to two-star rank are, in alphabetical order:

Brig Gen. David W. Abba, director of Special Access Programs Central Office, office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Department of Defense
Brig. Gen. Charles E. Brown, Jr., serving as chief of staff, headquarters, Air Mobility Command
Brig. Gen. Joel L. Carey, deputy chief of staff, Operations, NATO, Headquarters Allied Command
Brig. Gen. Julian C. Cheater, commanding general, Over-the-Horizon Counterterrorism, U.S. Central Command
Brig. Gen. Darren R. Cole, director, logistics, engineering and force protection at HQ, AMC
Brig. Gen. Heath A. Collins, program executive officer for weapons, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Air Force Materiel Command
Brig. Gen. Douglas S. Coppinger, deputy chief, Central Security Service, National Security Agency
Brig. Gen. Daniel A. DeVoe, commander, 618th Air Operations Center, AMC
Brig. Gen. Steven G. Edwards, Chief of Staff, HQ U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa
Brig. Gen. Michael A. Greiner, director, financial management, HQ AFMC
Brig. Gen. Stephen F. Jost, deputy director, joint strategic planning, J-5, Joint Staff, Pentagon
Brig. Gen. John M. Klein, Jr., inspector general, HQ AMC
Brig. Gen. Daniel T. Lasica, director, current operations, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, HQ USAF
Brig. Gen. Benjamin R. Maitre, director, force structure, requirements, resources, and strategic assessments, J-8, U.S. Special Operations Command
Brig. Gen. Caroline M. Miller, commander, 502nd Air Base Wing, Air Education and Training Command
Brig. Gen. John P. Newberry, program executive officer, bombers, AFLCMC
Brig. Gen. Evan L. Pettus, vice commander, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center, Air Combat Command
Brig. Gen. Bradley L. Pyburn, director of operations, 16th Air Force and deputy commander, Joint Force Headquarters Cyber, ACC
Brig. Gen. Mark B. Pye, director, concepts and strategy, and deputy chief of staff, Air Force Futures, HQ USAF
Brig. Gen. David J. Sanford, commander, Defense Logistics Agency—Aviation, DLA
Brig. Gen. Jennifer M. Short, deputy director, strategic planning and policy, J-5, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
Brig. Gen. David W. Snoddy, deputy director, operations, J-3, U.S. Cyber Command
Brig. Gen. Alice W. Trevino, commander, Air Force Installation Contracting Center, AFMC
Brig. Gen. Parker H. Wright, director, intelligence and information, J-2, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command

Memorial Day: A Time to Reflect and Remember

May 27, 2022

Memorial Day for so many is an extra day off, a time for pool openings, backyard barbeques, and the unofficial start of summer. For those who served, it is something far more solemn: A time to think about those who gave their all for their country.

In a Memorial Day message to the force, Air Force leaders expressed gratitude for the “courageous sacrifice” for those who paid the ultimate price for freedom and those who serve and sacrifice daily to defend and protect the United States. Calling the holiday a “solemn opportunity,” they urged the entire Air Force family to “reaffirm our own commitment of selfless service.”

“We are inspired every day by you—the Airmen, Guardians, and families who are so willing to serve and defend the freedom we enjoy,” wrote Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, Under Secretary Gina Ortiz Jones, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Roger A. Towberman, and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass. “We are also moved, especially today, by those who gave their last full measure of devotion in service to our Nation.”

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. honors those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. United States Air Force Band Video.

SDA Awards Contract for ‘Most Critical Element’ of Tranche 1 of Satellite Constellation

May 27, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Development Agency has already awarded contracts for most of the satellites that will form the beginnings of its massive planned constellation in low-Earth orbit, and on May 26 the agency awarded a deal for the ground systems to go with it.

General Dynamics Mission Systems won the contract, worth up to $324 million, to establish the ground operations and integration segment of Tranche 1 of the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA), the Pentagon announced.

As part of the deal, General Dynamics and its partners will establish two operations centers, one at Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D., and one at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. It will also build 12 ground stations—eight for Ka-band frequencies, two for S-band, and four with optical communications, an SDA official told reporters.

SDA, which is scheduled to transition fully into the Space Force later this year, has already awarded contracts for more than 120 satellites and is looking to add still more to its first tranche of the constellation—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and York Space Systems have all earned SDA contracts to design satellites, and more are to come.

It will be up to General Dynamics to develop “a common ground architecture, which integrates base and ground segments from multiple vendors in multiple configurations and allows … mission operations in a mesh networking control,” the SDA official said.

The Space Development Agency’s strategy includes awarding contracts to multiple vendors and encouraging unsuccessful bidders to try again for later tranches, as the agency looks to build an open satellite constellation without so-called “vendor lock.”

That approach, however, means that having a ground segment operator that can integrate all the different contractors into one system “really is the most critical element of Tranche 1,” the SDA official said, adding that it also “carries the highest risk for the overall Tranche 1 successful performance.”

That’s because “without a ground segment, our space vehicles orbiting around the Earth can’t really do what we need them to do,” the official said. “They can do things autonomously, but really in order to make things work as a complete network, as a complete enterprise, you really do need the ground segments to manage the enterprise and the mesh and the control of the space layer.”

Just as SDA has tried to avoid “vendor lock” with its satellite awards, it is also trying to ensure the O&I ground segment doesn’t get stuck with one contractor. To do so, the contract award details a strategy that “incorporates open architecture concepts and develops interfaces that can be communicated and standardized, so that the integration with all the different [space vehicle] vendors as they come on board can feed into the overarching ground networking enterprise,” the official said.

All told, SDA is estimating that Tranche 1 of the NDSA will consist of 166 satellites—126 for the Transport layer, dedicated to data and communications that will serve as the “backbone” for joint all-domain command and control; 28 for the Tracking layer, which will detect, identify, and track hypersonic weapons and other advanced missile threats; and 18 for the Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System, which SDA says will augment the Transport Layer “with demonstration and experimental capability.”

The first Tranche 1 satellites in the Transport layer are slated for launch no later than September 2024, with the first Tracking layer satellites currently scheduled for April 2025. But first, SDA plans to launch “Tranche 0,” a relatively small collection of 28 satellites, no later than 2023. Tranche 0 will include 20 satellites in the Transport layer, 10 each from Lockheed and York, and eight in the Tracking layer, with L3Harris and SpaceX supplying four each.

Cavoli: Sweden and Finland As New NATO Members Would Be Big Plus, Small Drag

May 27, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

If Finland and Sweden are admitted to NATO, they would make a huge contribution to the alliance and exact only a small additional investment from the U.S., Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In his confirmation hearing to be Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Cavoli, head of U.S. Army forces in Europe, was asked if, in his professional military opinion, adding Finland and Sweden would be a net gain for NATO. He answered that, “I look forward to the accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance from the military perspective.”

Each of those countries’ militaries “brings quite a bit of capability and capacity to the alliance from Day One,” he said, asserting that Finland’s army is “large, … well equipped, very well trained, very quickly [expandable], exercised very frequently, and absolutely expert in defending” its border with Russia.

Sweden has a growing military—whose ground forces will increase by a third in the next few years—and it has a large and capable naval fleet, with ports on the Baltic Sea, Cavoli said.

The addition of these two countries would mean “the entire [Baltic] Sea, with the exception of … a few kilometers, will be the coastline of NATO nations, which will create a very different geometry in the area,” he pointed out.

This fact creates an “almost geometric” increase in dilemmas for the Russians, Cavoli said, which it does not now have to deal with, “as they sail forth from St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad. So it will be advantageous.”

Finland has a history of defending itself against Russia in the “Winter War” of 1939, when that country repelled a Soviet invasion with much smaller forces, across an 800-mile-long border, Cavoli noted.

“That Winter War is studied not just by western armies, but as a model of how to beat a larger force, studied by the Russians as an important lesson to learn from their past,” Cavoli said.

Asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) if Finland represents a “hot stove” the Russians would not want to touch, Cavoli said “I wouldn’t want to do it if I were them.”

Russia “has not put too many ground forces on that border. It’s been an ‘economy-of-force theater’ for them, because they thought they had a relationship with Finland that allowed them to do that. This allowed Russia to concentrate ground forces in other places. That possibility will now go away for Russia,” Cavoli said, indicating that Russia will have to spread its forces over a wider area to match NATO.

“In addition to that, the Finns … are absolutely expert in defending that border,” Cavoli said, noting that he had made a snowmobile trip with the head of the Finish army along most of the frontier and admired the preparations and fortifications there.

In the air domain, Cavoli said Finland has American fighter jets—he misspoke, saying Finland has F-15s when in fact, it has F/A-18s—and has signed up to buy 64 F-35 fighters, “so they will arrive bringing capacity and capability.”

Cavoli said his Swedish counterpart, Gen. Karl Engelbrektson, is approved for “a 200-percent increase in his acquisition budget over a five-year period,” and Sweden is in the process of integrating Patriot air defense missiles into their portfolio; the first battery is already in place, he noted.

Sweden’s navy in the Baltic will also be “of enormous military significance to the alliance,” Cavoli said. The island of Gotland, which is Swedish territory, is an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the region. He also praised Sweden’s underwater and submarine capabilities.

The two countries could easily be integrated into the NATO command structure, Cavoli said, noting that the U.S. and NATO conduct numerous exercises with both countries, and there is common equipment and operational concepts. Besides Cavoli’s own Army component, U.S. Air Forces in Europe and U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, “do this all the time, as well.”

“We do exercises with Finland. I’ve got Soldiers in Finland right now,” Cavoli noted. “We just brought a couple of Stryker companies back out of there, and we’ve got a parachute battalion going up there this summer. We exercise frequently with Sweden, to include high-end air and missile defense.”

Cavoli thinks “it will be quite easy to integrate them quickly. We’ve been integrating them in our large-scale exercises as well as our operations abroad for some years, now.”

He said Sweden has agreed to up its defense spending to two percent of GDP by 2028, but the Swedish army chief has told him Sweden will more likely “get there by 2024.”

Sweden has adopted “a model of 3, 2, 1,” Cavoli explained.

“Go up to three brigades, which is adding an additional brigade—that’s adding a big chunk of it right there—The second part is to add high-end capabilities, so, the purchase of Patriot, which my command is helping them integrate into their units right now” and adding even higher technology systems, particularly in air and missile defense, he said.

Asked by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) if adding two new countries to the NATO alliance would “force the U.S. to do more than we are currently obligated to,” Cavoli responded that the U.S. would probably not see a large increase in its commitment to NATO as a result.

“I remain of the opinion … that at least in the ground domain, that this is not going to be a requirement for large additional forces, or [even] additional forces,” Cavoli said.

“I think exercises, and occasional presence—like we do with any ally—will increase.”

Pressed by Hawley on whether the admissions would require more basing or a shift in U.S. posture, Cavoli said, “I don’t know right now. The word ‘basing’ carries with it an enormous amount of other implications that I would have to consider deeply.”

He promised that if confirmed, he would provide Hawley with a detailed analysis of what admitting Finland and Sweden would require in terms of additional U.S. outlays to NATO.

US Exercises with Japan, South Korea in Response to North Korean Missile Test

May 26, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

In a show force over the Pacific, the U.S. conducted separate bilateral exercises with South Korea and Japan in response to North Korea’s May 24 ballistic missile test. The North’s test reportedly included an intercontinental ballistic missile, launched while President Joe Biden flew home from the region.

“This exercise was conducted to demonstrate our nation’s rapid reaction capabilities, high levels of force readiness, close coordination, bilateral interoperability, and credible deterrent capacity,” read a statement from U.S. Indo-Pacific command, referring to the exercise with Japan conducted on May 25.

The INDOPACOM statement also said that the U.S. and Japan’s Air Self-Defense force conducted a combined capabilities exercise over the Sea of Japan to “deter and counter regional threats.”

The exercise between the United States and South Korea included the firing of a Republic of Korea (ROK) Hyunmu-2 missile May 25 using the U.S. Army’s Tactical Missile System.

“To demonstrate the ability of the combined ROK-U.S. force to respond quickly to crisis events, the U.S. Eighth Army and Republic of Korea military personnel conducted a combined live-fire exercise,” read a statement from U.S. Forces Korea.

“Missiles were fired from the northeast of South Korea into the East Sea following appropriate notifications for air and maritime safety,” the statement said.

Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said May 26 that the U.S. is not afraid to respond with shows of force to North Korea’s violations of UN Security Council resolutions.

“We clearly are willing to do things bilaterally with either ally as well as trilaterally and we’ve already proven that,” he said.

Kirby said Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III is keen on improving trilateral cooperation between the United States, Japan, and South Korea, and there may be more exercises to come.

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command did not immediately respond to questions by Air Force Magazine about the exercises.

In recent days, Austin has called both his Japanese and Korean counterparts to discuss Defense Department analysis regarding the reputed three missiles launched by North Korea. While both South Korea and Japan have released statements describing North Korea’s 17th series of missile tests, including distances traveled, success, and the ICBM threat, the Pentagon has thus far refused to go beyond describing the bout as “multiple ballistic missile launches.”

“We’re still analyzing the data in the intelligence,” Kirby said. “We haven’t come to any final conclusions.”

North Korea’s ballistic missile launch was not the only adversarial activity of the week in the Pacific. On May 24, China and Russia conducted a joint exercise with bombers.

“They flew over the Sea of Japan and continued through the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea,” Kirby said, noting that the complex bomber exercise was likely planned far in advance. “It’s clear that China has and continues to look for ways to prioritize their relationship with Russia versus prioritizing the relationships with other countries in the Indo-Pacific.

Kirby went so far as to say that China was “alienating and isolating themselves” from other Pacific nations due to their tactics of “coercion and intimidation,” which in the past have included both economic and aggressive military action.

China’s foreign minister, however, is currently visiting up to 10 small Pacific island nations to secure a pact that would cover areas ranging from security to fisheries. U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters on May 25 that China “has a pattern of offering shadowy, vague deals with little transparency or regional consultation in areas related to fishing, related to resource management, development, development assistance and more recently even security practices.”

Austin, for his part, hopes to engender goodwill with Asia-Pacific allies with his fourth trip to the region in June. His first stop will be in Singapore to attend the Shangri La Dialogue hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Austin is scheduled to visit Thailand as well in what is shaping up to be a race with China to court countries in the region.

“He will also have the chance to meet with key Indo-Pacific leaders to again advance some of our defense relationships in the region,” said Kirby. “The Secretary will travel to Bangkok as the United States and Thailand take important steps towards modernizing the U.S.-Thai alliance and expanding the depth and breadth of our military cooperation.”