Biden Signals U.S. Defense of Taiwan—Pentagon Stays Mum

Biden Signals U.S. Defense of Taiwan—Pentagon Stays Mum

May 23, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

President Joe Biden again drew into question America’s “strategic ambiguity” regarding the defense of Taiwan by saying the United States would become involved militarily if China invaded the island. However, Pentagon leaders declined to discuss military plans or strategy when asked to elaborate.

At a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo, Biden said China was “already flirting with danger right now by flying so close and all the maneuvers they’ve undertaken.”

When asked whether the United States would get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, Biden said, “Yes.”

“That’s the commitment we made,” the president affirmed.

Biden voiced agreement with the “one China” policy, which acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China. However, at the same time, the Taiwan Relations Act provides that the United States will supply Taiwan with weapons necessary for its self-defense.

Biden compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

“The idea that it can be taken by force—just taken by force—is just not appropriate,” Biden said. “It will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine. And so, it’s a burden that is even stronger.”

Biden didn’t say what he meant by getting involved militarily.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III was asked to elaborate on Biden’s comments.

“The President was clear on the fact that the policy has not changed,” Austin told reporters.

“The president said our ‘one China’ policy has not changed. He reiterated that policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,” Austin said in a joint press conference alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark A. Milley. “He also highlighted our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to help provide Taiwan the means to defend itself.”

When pressed on the President’s affirmation that the U.S. would respond militarily, Austin said: “The President was clear on the fact that the policy has not changed.”

Milley was likewise evasive.

“I appreciate the opportunity to not answer a question,” he said in response to a reporter’s question.

“There’s a variety of contingency plans that we hold,” Milley continued. “All of them are highly classified—Pacific, Europe, and elsewhere—and it would be very inappropriate for me at the microphone to discuss the risk associated with those plans relative to anything with respect to Taiwan or anywhere else in the Pacific.”

Asked if he supported sending U.S. troops to Taiwan, Milley said he would render his advice “at the moment in time” to the President and the Secretary of Defense.

Security experts have said Chinese control of Taiwan would pose serious security risks for the United States and U.S. allies in the Pacific.

Biden’s forward-leaning comments are reportedly the third time in his presidency that he has committed the U.S. to military intervention in the defense of Taiwan, prompting Beijing to express “strong dissatisfaction.”

“Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said May 23.

“China has no room for compromise. No one should underestimate the strong resolve, determination, and capability of the Chinese people in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity,” he added, noting that failure of the U.S. to abide by its agreements “undermine peace across the Taiwan Strait and China-U.S. relations.”

Second Meeting of Ukraine Defense Contact Group Adds Nations, Yields ‘Sharper’ Focus

Second Meeting of Ukraine Defense Contact Group Adds Nations, Yields ‘Sharper’ Focus

May 23, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III hosted his second Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in a virtual format May 23, drawing 47 nations that back Ukraine’s fight against Russia but leaving questions about when the war might end.

New coastal defense systems and more artillery, armor, and tanks were highlighted among Ukraine’s needs as its major shipping port remains closed, cutting off the country economically from the world. Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark A. Milley told reporters that targeted assistance will continue but that Ukraine’s political leadership alone would decide any concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the conflict.

“In terms of what his overall strategy is, that’s unknown,” Austin said of Putin’s thinking, speaking in the Pentagon briefing room following the group meeting. “Our effort is to do everything that we can to strengthen Ukraine’s hands on the battlefield and also at the negotiation table.”

In recent days, Russia has expelled Ukrainian opposition from the Sea of Azov port city of Mariupol and has consolidated gains in the Russian-speaking east of the country. Experts believe Russia will begin a tight administration of the city, protect against a counteroffensive, and expand gains in the south of the country to cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea.

Milley said the U.S. will continue to provide arms to Ukraine for as long as directed while better managing the risk of escalation with Moscow now that a military-to-military communication channel has re-opened. Meanwhile President Joe Biden signed a $40 billion Ukraine assistance bill May 19 that will continue to flow arms until at least September.

Targeted U.S. assistance packages include long-range weapons, armor, and unmanned aerial vehicles, Austin said.

“We’ve gained a sharper and shared sense of Ukraine’s priority requirements and the situation on the battlefield,” Austin said, noting the contact group participation of Ukraine Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov.

“In terms of what their needs are, they really are pretty much the same as they were the last time we talked,” Austin said, referring to an April 26 in-person meeting at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. “The fight is really shaped by artillery in this phase.”

Austin refused to speak to specific new systems that may be under discussion, such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). Milley, however, said the U.S. continues training Ukrainian troops on modern weaponry in several nearby countries.

Austin also said the meeting of the contact group included new nations Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ireland, Colombia, and Kosovo, expanding the network of countries willing to provide aid to Ukraine.

New arms donations highlighted by the defense secretary included Danish Harpoon anti-ship launchers and missiles; Czech attack helicopters, tanks, and rocket systems; and more artillery from Italy, Greece, Norway, and Poland. Overall, Austin said the United Kingdom has played a “leading role” in helping to coordinate and send its arms into Ukraine.

Austin will next meet with members of the contact group on the sidelines of the NATO defense ministerial in Brussels on June 15.

U.S. Defenses in Europe

Milley highlighted the expansion of U.S. deterrence in the European theater related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, noting that troop levels have raised by more than 30 percent in recent months from 78,000 to 102,000.

“We stand ready as part of a whole of government approach for the United States, and really a whole of alliance approach and partner effort,” he said.

Air assets include 12 fighter squadrons and two combat aviation brigades.

U.S. Air Force fighter squadrons operating in the theater include F-16 deployments to Fetesti Air Base, Romania, and F-35s deployed to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. The Marine Corps is operating F/A-18 at Lask Air Base, Poland, and Navy E/A-18 Growlers conduct air policing missions from Spangdahlem.

NATO Air Command confirmed to Air Force Magazine recently that further U.S. assets include RQ-4 Global Hawks, MQ-9 Reapers, U-2s, E-8C Joint Stars, and a variety of tankers operating from both Spangdahlem and RAF Mildenhall.

Milley said however that the United States was careful not to come into conflict with Russian forces, noting that there are presently no U.S. vessels in the Black Sea, which Russia has mined and conducts military operates with its Black Sea fleet.

To prevent accidental conflict and to manage escalation, Milley for the first time since before the Feb. 24 start of the conflict spoke to his Russian counterpart May 19.

“We have been able to re-open communications at the military-to-military level,” Milley said. “The Secretary has all of us in this building, throughout the military, focused on managing risk and the potential for escalation.”

Reflecting on diminishing U.S. stocks of arms due to presidential drawdown authority shipments to Ukraine, Milley described critical munitions and preferred munitions, such as small arms, tanks, Javelin missiles, man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), smart munitions, and precision-guided missiles.

“Right now, the risk to ourselves is relatively low,” Milley said. “Our risk has been managed appropriately.”

Air Force C-17 Delivers 78,000 Pounds of Infant Formula

Air Force C-17 Delivers 78,000 Pounds of Infant Formula

May 23, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

An Air Force C-17 flew from Ramstein Air Base, Germany, to Indianapolis on May 22, delivering 132 pallets of specialty infant formula to help address the shortages currently affecting parents across the U.S. 

All told, the aircraft, assigned to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, delivered 78,000 pounds of formula, enough for more than 750,000 eight-ounce bottles. 

It’s the first step of U.S. Transportation Command’s Operation Fly Formula, an effort to source infant formula from abroad as U.S. production has cratered in recent months, leading to empty store shelves and outrage among parents. 

President Joe Biden announced the operation May 18, with the White House initially saying that the Defense Department would use contracted commercial aircraft to deliver the formula from Switzerland to Indiana. 

But as TRANSCOM planners worked on the issue, it became clear that to contract a flight would take at least several days, according to a May 23 press release.

During that time, Robert Brisson, TRANSCOM’s joint staff deputy director of operations, brought up C-17s that were “on Bravo Alert at Ramstein,” according to the release.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III approved the use of military aircraft, and the Department of Health and Human Services contracted for trucks to transport the formula from Switzerland to Germany, a TRANSCOM spokesperson told Air Force Magazine.

Airmen from the 721st Aerial Port Squadron helped to unload the formula and then place it on the C-17, which flew to Indianapolis International Airport. There it was greeted by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack as well as FedEx trucks to further transport the formula.

While the Air Force provided the aircraft for the first shipment of formula, the Defense Department has already contracted out the second flight of Operation Fly Formula to a commercial partner, the White House announced May 22. And moving forward, the TRANSCOM spokesperson told Air Force Magazine, the plan is to continue to have commercial partners provide the flights for the operation.

Loads Data for New B-21 Stealth Bomber Confirms Digital Models; Rollout May Be Weeks Away

Loads Data for New B-21 Stealth Bomber Confirms Digital Models; Rollout May Be Weeks Away

May 23, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Loads testing on the first B-21 Raider bomber is progressing well and matching computer predictions, and a rollout will follow completion of these tests and final equipment installs in the coming weeks, the program director said.

“The data we are seeing back from the loads calibration has been very promising and consistent with digital models,” said Randall Walden, director of USAF’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which is developing the B-21.

“We will complete these tests in the coming weeks and conduct a series of final systems installs and coatings before ultimately moving into flight line ground test operations after rollout,” Walden said through a spokesperson.

His comments indicate that there will be a formal rollout outside Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, Calif., assembly plant before the B-21 test activities begin. Walden indicated in March that those activities would begin by midyear.

Walden’s remarks added context to the Air Force’s statement May 20 that the B-21 will not fly until 2023. He said that all previous B-21 first flight estimates “have been ‘no-earlier-than’ projections” and reiterated that first flight will be event-driven rather than calendar-driven. Walden made his most recent first-flight estimate in early 2021, when he forecast that the first B-21 would take to the air in mid-2022.

The coatings Walden referred to are last-step applications of material to the aircraft’s exterior to absorb, deflect, or frequency-shift incoming radar signals, which attenuate the B-21’s radar cross-section. Coatings were a persistent issue for the B-2 Spirit bomber until Northrop Grumman—which makes both aircraft—developed machines to apply both outer-layer tape and coatings in a more consistent, even way. At the time, a company official said it marked a shift in application “away from being an ‘art’ to a ’science’” and making the process more repeatable and less prone to error.

Six B-21s are in production at Plant 42 in Palmdale, Walden has reported, with the first aircraft on its landing gear and externally complete in most ways.

Outside engine runs, calibration of various controls, and low- and high-speed taxi tests will precede the first flight.

Substantial declassification of secret aircraft usually accompanies the beginning of outside-the-factory activities such as engine and taxi tests because the airplane will be in full view to outside observers and satellites. Walden has previously indicated that the first B-21 has moved outside Northrop Grumman’s facility at least once, however.

The general appearance of the B-21 is not a secret. The Air Force revealed its overall flying wing shape in 2016, and two subsequent “artist’s interpretations” in January 2020 and July 2021 have revealed some details about the shape of the nose, its unusual upturned cockpit windows, and the arrangement of its landing gear. Consistently absent from Air Force renderings, however, have been any details about its air intakes—which Walden said underwent a “major redesign” about five years ago—and its exhaust area. The inlet redesign had something to do with providing more air for the B-21’s Pratt & Whitney engines, likely buried in the fuselage behind a serpentine inlet to hide the fan blades, which are a major radar reflector.

When the B-2 rolled out in November 1988, the Air Force had planned to keep its exhausts out of plain sight of the assembled guests, hoping to preserve a little longer the configuration of their infrared-masking features, but Aviation Week and Space Technology overflew the ceremony in a small private plane, obtaining overhead views of the B-2 and details of its exhaust. Today, the profusion of high-resolution commercial imaging satellites would make it hard for the Air Force to keep the aircraft out of sight from above while tests take place.

B-21 Raider First Flight Now Postponed to 2023

B-21 Raider First Flight Now Postponed to 2023

May 20, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Without explanation, the Air Force now says the first B-21 bomber will not make its first flight until 2023, pushing back at least six months from the previously expected timetable.

“Recently, the Air Force released a new estimate for first flight; projected for next year, 2023,” a service spokeswoman said May 20. The service said it’s trying to be as “transparent” as it can be about the project, and “this estimate reflects the current status of the program.” She did not attribute the delay to any particular cause. Many other high-profile programs, such as Boeing’s T-7A trainer, have recently reported delays due to supply chain issues and labor shortages.

The B-21 “remains within its acquisition program baseline for cost, schedule, and performance established at Milestone B award, which was based on an independent government estimate for the program,” the spokeswoman said.

Rapid Capabilities Office director Randall Walden predicted in early 2021 that the B-21 would fly in “mid-2022,” and in March said that the first flyable example was largely assembled and undergoing outdoor calibration tests. These, he said, would be followed by taxi tests and first flight, but he did not give a timetable.

Air Force and industry sources say the service likely will still roll out the first B-21 in calendar 2022, because the aircraft will have to venture outside Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, Calif., plant for engine and other testing.

“The B-21 program continues to ensure the first flight test aircraft is a high-quality build and production-representative, in order to drive an efficient flight test campaign and rapidly field this critical combat capability,” the spokeswoman said. The first flight will be “data- and event-driven, not a date-driven event,” meaning the aircraft will fly only when the Air Force believes it’s ready to do so.

While trying to be transparent with Congress and the public on the B-21, USAF said it is “protecting sensitive program information from adversary exploitation” and is constrained in the details it can provide.

Walden said in March that the program had not been significantly affected by supply chain issues, raising the possibility that an anomaly has been discovered in test.

Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have recently praised the B-21 as well-run and a model acquisition; Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said recently it has been an “exquisitely run program.”

Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom told the House Armed Services Committee May 19 the service is eyeing as many as 145 B-21s, but a full acquisition strategy has not yet been determined; it awaits the completion of engineering and manufacturing development.

The Air Force plans to spend nearly $20 billion on producing the B-21 during the future years defense plan running from fiscal 2023 through fiscal 2027, and another $12 billion on research and development for the program during that same period, for a total of $32 billion over the FYDP. The B-21 will succeed the B-1B and B-2 bombers now in service, but the exact dates of those turnovers has been walked back in recent years. Three years ago, the plan was for the B-2 and B-1 to retire in 2031 and 2032, respectively. But Nahom told the HASC those dates depend on progress with the B-21, and pledged they will not retire until they “shake hands” with the B-21s that replace them.

Since contract award, the Air Force has said the B-21 will be a “available” for combat use in the “mid-2020s.”

Leaked Air Force Memo: Bigger Mustaches Are Coming

Leaked Air Force Memo: Bigger Mustaches Are Coming

May 20, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force mustache you a question—Are you ready for longer, more fulsome mustaches?

That’s according to a draft of a new memo posted to social media this week, revealing that the Air Force is on the verge of allowing men to grow their mustaches up to a quarter of an inch out from the corners of the mouth.

The memo, posted on the popular unofficial Facebook page Air Force amn/nco/snco, is signed by assistant deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services Gwendolyn R. DeFilippi. 

An accompanying email suggested the change would go into effect May 20—an Air Force spokeswoman confirmed to Air Force Magazine that the memo is an “internal, working draft” that is subject to change, and as of May 20, no formal changes have been announced.

According to the memo, mustaches will not be allowed to extend below the lip line of the upper lip, cannot extend beyond a horizontal line extending from the corners of the mouth, and must stay within vertical lines 1/4 of an inch from the corners of the mouth. An accompanying image shows the specifications.

The previous rules called for mustaches to “not extend downward beyond the lip line of the upper lip or extend sideways beyond a vertical line drawn upward from both corners of the mouth.”

Mustaches and the Air Force have a deep history, thanks in large part to Brig. Gen. Robin Olds, one of the service’s most celebrated fighter pilots who grew quite the luxurious mustache that was against regulations at the time.

Airmen often honor Olds during “Mustache March,” growing ’staches in his memory. 

On top of that, one of Olds’ vice commanders in Vietnam was then-Col. Daniel “Chappie” James Jr., who would go on to become the first Black four-star general in U.S. military history—and who also sported a mustache of his own.

The move to loosen regulations around facial hair comes on the heels of several other changes the Air Force has made to grooming standards in the past few years, allowing male and female Airmen to grow their hair out longer, permitting women to wear braids and ponytails, granting longer shaving waivers for men, and making it easier to obtain those waivers.

Despite this, leaders have remained firm in resisting calls from many Airmen to allow full beards.

A leaked memo showing the proposed new standards for Airmen’s mustaches. Facebook/Air Force amn/nco/snco
Air National Guard Leaders: Time is Running Short for a Space Guard

Air National Guard Leaders: Time is Running Short for a Space Guard

May 20, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

If Congress doesn’t act to establish a Space National Guard soon, leaders in Air National Guard units with space missions will need to start having some difficult conversations with their Airmen.

That’s the warning from multiple commanders during a virtual event hosted by the National Guard Association of the United States, in which participants ratcheted up their push for a separate Space Guard—and argued that the Space Force’s alternate proposal isn’t sufficient.

The debate over how to organize the Space Force’s reserve component began almost as soon as the new service was created in 2019, and various proposals have been bandied about with no resolution. 

But for now, the Space Force has settled on a construct called the “Space Component,” a hybrid full-time and part-time structure that would be unique in the military. Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond has told members of Congress that it is the service’s main legislative proposal this year as lawmakers begin to draft the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.

Such a move on its surface would seem to be in line with Raymond’s mandate that the service remain “lean and agile”. But critics like Col. Jason Knight, commander of the 195th Operations Group in the California Air National Guard, say it would actually limit the Space Force’s flexibility and delay its development—and leave their Airmen out to dry.

“Our expectation, and the Guard Bureau’s expectation, is those individuals that are no longer in missions that support whatever they were—in my case, I’d have space electronic warfare and one satellite command and control unit that would go away—our expectation is those individuals need to be re-managed or repurposed,” Knight told reporters during a briefing May 19.

There are currently more than 1,000 members of the Air National Guard involved in space missions, spread across seven states and one territory—Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, and Guam. If the Space Component becomes a reality, many would be left behind in the Air National Guard and forced to transfer to a mission different from the one they’ve been working on throughout their careers.

Such a scenario could play out soon, depending on how the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act turns out.

“I heard they, they being the Space Force, were given direction to plan for FY 2025 when they needed to have everything converted over,” Knight said. “ … If that’s the case, then these moves will be happening probably by this summer, right? If this summer we don’t see it in the NDAA, then we’re going to have a problem. 

“The problem for me is I’m going to have to go and talk to my Airmen about, ‘Hey, I’m sorry, we don’t have a job for you here in space. We’re going to have to find something for you.’ That’s going to, obviously, result in probably a lot of folks wanting to leave and move on to something different, which is not a good thing for the nation, I would argue.”

The alternative would be to have the Guardsmen transfer into the Space Component. But the ANG commanders warned that such a move would hurt their states’ Guards and discourage service members who serve in part to support Guard missions like disaster relief or humanitarian aid.

“While supporting the federal mission of homeland defense on full-time status, on different occasions I’ve had the opportunity throughout those years to also support my state through multiple disasters—hurricanes, wildfires, pandemic response, and also travel to other states to support,” Brig. Gen. Michael A. Valle, commander of the Florida Air National Guard, said during a recent virtual Schriever Spacepower Forum event hosted by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “That … is what space professionals in the Air National Guard do today and can continue to do so if we establish a Space National Guard: We can conduct and do the mission while being available to support our state and our country.”

In testifying to Congress, Raymond has laid out an alternative to both a Space National Guard and a Space Component—maintaining the status quo and continuing to have the Air National Guard provide support for the space mission.

But Col. Michael Bruno, chief of the Joint Staff for the Colorado National Guard, said that idea is a nonstarter.

“If we keep the status quo and the Air National Guard space mission stays in the Air Force, the problem becomes increased bureaucracy, the man hours to find the workarounds, specifically when it comes to funding,” Bruno said. “Because the U.S. Air Force is focused on [the mission of] ‘fly, fight, and win.’ … They no longer do space missions. That has already moved on to U.S. Space Force. If they have an organization underneath them that is still fighting space missions, and their mission is to fly, fight, and win, we’re not going to get the same needed funding to continue our missions and that bureaucracy of going through the Air Force to get to U.S. Space Force is just going to keep increasing, and it’s just going to cause problems at the national level.”

Air National Guard space leaders have repeatedly referred to their units being “orphaned”—left behind by the Space Force and without any corresponding unit left in the Air Force. And beyond the logistical and bureaucratic challenges that poses, there are implications for individual Airmen, said Col. Adam Rogge, commander of the 233rd Space Group in the Colorado Air National Guard.

“I want all of my enlisted Airmen to look at a chief master sergeant and say, ‘I can make it to that rank. There’s plenty of opportunity for me to do that in this service.’ I want my lieutenants to look at Mike Bruno and Jason Knight and say, ‘I can make it to colonel, I can make it to brigadier general,’” Rogge said. “If we continue to be a one off, it’s an untenable situation … if you think about, what are the opportunities for leaders?”

Help could be on the way in the form of legislation backed by a dozen Senators to establish a Space National Guard, but that proposal may face opposition from critics who point to a White House Office of Management and Budget statement of administration policy saying a Space Guard would cost up to $500 million annually.

That estimate is inaccurate, ANG leaders argued, based on the assumption that a Space Guard would require new facilities and layers of bureaucracy. In actuality, they say, the cost of a Space Guard is only several hundred thousand dollars—enough for cosmetic changes such as name tape, unit flags, and signs.

“These future space Guardians would continue to accomplish their mission in their current facilities with their current equipment,” Bruno said.

Ukraine War Shows Congress that Arming Taiwan Now Can Deter China

Ukraine War Shows Congress that Arming Taiwan Now Can Deter China

May 20, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

Lawmakers studying the lessons learned from the Ukraine war believe that speeding delivery of F-16s and Stingers among other kit to Taiwan, and forming a clear defensive coalition in the Pacific, could deter China from a mid-decade invasion.

“Taiwan is seeing delays right now in stingers, harpoon coastal missile defense systems, and F-16 [upgrades],” Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) said May 19 at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and nonproliferation, held the day President Joe Biden began a trip to South Korea and Japan.

Barr quoted the Taiwanese Minister of Defense, who said that China will be capable of mounting a full-scale invasion of Taiwan by 2025 and Taiwan may not get American-made and paid-for weapons in time.

“The current timetable for deliveries to Taiwan are falling behind,” Barr said, noting that 66 F-16 fighter jets are not expected for delivery until 2026, 108 Abrams tanks in 2027, and 40 Paladin self-propelled Howitzers in 2027.

“I hope we’ve learned our lesson from Ukraine that pre-invasion arms, military assistance, is a deterrent. And failure to provide that beforehand is an invitation for aggression,” Barr added. “This is unacceptable if we are to deter the [Chinese Communist Party’s] growing aggression.”

But the Ukraine war is already taxing the U.S. industrial base. The United States has given more than a quarter of its stock of Stinger air defense weapons to Ukraine, and the industrial base does not have the capacity to quickly replace the weapon system. The Defense Department has said it intends to replace the weapon stocks “one-for-one,” but has acknowledged that could take years.

During the hearing, a panel of Indo-Pacific experts assessed the lessons China is likely taking from Russia’s invasion. In particular, they agreed that deterrence failed and warned that preventing China from invading Taiwan will require adequately arming Taiwan and a clear commitment of the United States and Pacific partners to come to Taiwan’s defense.

Chinese Assumptions

“The Chinese assumption is that what we did in Ukraine, they’re envisioning a light version of that for Taiwan,” said Bonny Lin, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.

Lin also said China has not condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Beijing is walking a fine line to continue doing business with Russia, including the sale of semiconductors, without systematically evading sanctions.

Charles Edel, CSIS Australia chair and senior adviser, said China also announced a major food purchase with Russia before the Feb. 24 invasion and signed a deal with Russia to buy more gas, demonstrating a willingness to give Russian President Vladimir Putin a lifeline and maintain their strategic alliance.

The American Enterprise Institute’s director of Asian studies Dan Blumenthal told members of the subcommittee it was important for the United States to build a political coalition with other nations and show China that many countries would defend Taiwan if it were invaded.

“We need private diplomacy that focuses on the fact that we are going to need first and foremost to build a political coalition, political unity, around the fact that we are going to push back against Chinese aggression. That work hasn’t even begun,” he said.

In part, Blumenthal explained that confusion arises with allies because the United States has both a One China policy, which acknowledges Taiwan as part of China with no official diplomatic relations of its own, and a Taiwan Relations Act, which allows for the U.S. to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan. The resulting policy, known as “strategic ambiguity,” means China does not know if the United States will come to Taiwan’s defense.

“We have to be working now just to go around the world and say, ‘Look, if China attacks Taiwan, here are the foundational principles of international law, international relations that it is violating.’ And we need to come up with that foundation, and we need to sell it,” Blumenthal said.

If not, he argued: “It’s going to affect our military operations, because political unity is going to be the number one ingredient to success in military operations.”

Strategic Impacts

Blumenthal explained that if China took Taiwan, Japan would no longer be defendable, and China’s strategic position in the Pacific with Taiwan under its control would be a threat to the United States.

“With an attack on Japan, you begin the unraveling of the alliance system in the Asia Pacific. The alliance system in the Asia Pacific is what has kept us safe since World War II,” he said. “A forward defense of Taiwan is essentially a forward defense of the American homeland.”

Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) concluded that it’s time the United States did away with the policy of strategic ambiguity, better arm Taiwan, and clearly state—along with coalition partners—that it would defend Taiwan if it were invaded by China.

“Military confrontation, the chance of that goes up, as China thinks that Taiwan is weak, and they could take them or they think the United States is not committed,” said Chabot.

“I think rather than strategic ambiguity, we ought to have strategic clarity,” he said. “Where they know we would be there; they know Taiwan is strong. So, they decide military action makes no sense. Then we have peace. We avoid war.”

New Air Force One Will be 2-3 Years Late; Battle Brewing Over KC-Y

New Air Force One Will be 2-3 Years Late; Battle Brewing Over KC-Y

May 19, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The VC-25B, or “Air Force One,” replacement will be as late as 36 months, and members of the House Armed Services Committee warned USAF that they plan to push for competition on the KC-Y stage of aerial tanker recapitalization, which Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has said the service may skip.  

Air Force acquisition executive Andrew P. Hunter, testifying before the HASC power projection panel, said the VC-25B is “anticipating a delay to the previously approved schedule on the order of 24-36 months …[or] two to three years.” The previous estimate had been 17 months late.

 It’s “quite a significant delay,” he said.

Boeing is the sole-source contractor for the VC-25B and is converting two 747-8s for the job. Hunter said Boeing’s subcontractor to do the interior finishing couldn’t do the work, a problem that’s “been known for some time,” but it’s taken further effort to assess the full effect of that setback on the schedule.

Boeing “had to bring in someone else to do that work” and take some of it in-house, Hunter said.

The two- to three-year delay in initial operational capability “means we will have to sustain the existing aircraft longer,” Hunter said, warning the committee that it will see changes in the fiscal 2024 budget submission to that effect as well as a request for “further resources to cover the gap.” The existing VC-25A fleet is more than 30 years old and suffers from “vanishing vendor” parts issues and general obsolescence, and has already been extended in service.

He added that “I believe we can take care of it within the resources within the program.”

An Air Force spokesperson said the delay “is due to a combination of factors,” including “impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic,” the change of vendors for the interior work, “wiring design timelines and test execution rates.” She said the Air Force “currently expects a 24-month delay” in the program.

The Air Force “recommends” that the “objective”—or goal delivery time—should be set at 24 months, while the “threshold,” or must-have, be set at 36 months, the spokesperson said. The Pentagon’s acquisition and sustainment chief, William LaPlante, will decide on the timing after “an update to the acquisition program baseline,” she said.

“Based on how the contract was written, as the expected completion date moves to the right, the threshold date also moves to the right,” she noted. “The new schedule baseline will contain the updated completion timeline.”

Hunter was warned by several members of the committee that they are unhappy with Kendall’s recent comments that the KC-Y phase of tanker recapitalization may simply be a sole-source to Boeing, and that they will push hard for a competition on that phase.

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) noted that Kendall has called competition an important tool for driving both quality and lower costs and asked Hunter why the Air Force is “walking away” from that idea on the tanker.

Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.) said the HASC would “go ballistic” in the absence of a competition. Lockheed Martin has said that if it wins the KC-Y contest with its LMXT tanker—based on the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport—it would build the jet in Alabama.

Kendall told reporters on the eve of the fiscal 2023 budget rollout in March that “I want to be very transparent about this. I think that there’s still a possibility of competition out there, but as we’ve looked at our requirements, the likelihood of competition has come down.” Near-term, the requirements for KC-Y “start to look like a modified KC-46 more than they do a completely new design.” The service had previously said it views the KC-Y as a “bridge tanker” to a next-generation aircraft.

Hunter said the Air Force is still “gathering data” on what the KC-Y requirements should be and that the process will be completed in the fall, when a decision will be made as to whether to compete the KC-Y, which will replace both KC-135s and KC-10s.

“We are awaiting inputs from the requirements community,” Hunter said.

There could be “some difference” in the near-term versus long-term requirements for new tankers, Hunter said.

The three-stage KC-X, KC-Y, and KC-Z plan for tanker recapitalization “was formulated probably a decade ago, and the environment has evolved substantially since then,” Hunter said.

The need for “something like KC-Z”—which has notionally been described as a potentially stealthy, next-generation type of aircraft—“is growing more urgent over time, and that’s definitely part of our calculus,” Hunter noted.  

However, “we want to deliver capability the warfighter needs in the 2020s timeframe.” That would likely mean sticking with the KC-46 for the next tranche of tanker replacement.

Carl pointed out that Boeing has had severe problems with the KC-46 and claimed that “it only works 85 percent of the time,” conflating mission capability with the fact that the Pegasus is now certified for 85 percent of the planned list of aircraft it’s supposed to be able to refuel. He also pointed to delays on Boeing’s T-7 trainer, a new cost increase on the B-52 re-engining, and the Air Force One delay and said “I’m extremely concerned” about the Air Force “putting all its eggs in one basket” with the tanker.

“Somehow … we still feel comfortable putting all this business in their lap,” he said, adding, “that’s dangerous.”

Carl said the KC-46 “can’t compete” with the “Airbus/Lockheed plane” and insisted that the tanker program be “re-bid.”

Lockheed Martin announced this week that it would build the automated boom for the LMXT in Arkansas.

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), whose district includes Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, said buying more KC-46s would get the Air Force more tankers to deal with Pacific theater threats “in the 2027” timeframe.