Three Cadets Receive Degrees—But No Commissions—After COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal

May 25, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

A grand total of 973 Cadets graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy on May 25, with the vast majority commissioning into either the Air Force or the Space Force. But for three in particular, the day was destined to end with a degree but no immediate future in military service.

Those three Cadets have continued to refuse the COVID-19 vaccination, putting them at odds with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III’s order that all service members get the shot or receive an accommodation.

As a result, the U.S. Air Force Academy Board, made up of Academy leaders, decided during their standard review of the class of 2022 to let those Cadets graduate with a bachelor of science degree but not allow them to commission into the Air Force or Space Force, the Academy confirmed in a statement.

The statement, however, does include the caveat that the Cadets won’t be able to commission “as long as they remain unvaccinated.” Lt. Gen. Richard M. Clark, superintendent of the Academy, has set a deadline of Aug. 1 for Cadets to begin a COVID-19 vaccine regimen or face disenrollment, potentially leaving a small window for the refusers to reverse course.

Originally, the number of seniors refusing the vaccine was reported to be four, but one of the Cadets decided to take the vaccine.

Because of their inability to commission into the Air Force or Space Force, the three remaining Cadets could be on the hook to reimburse the government for their tuition costs, similar to how other Cadets removed from the Academy as juniors or seniors owe either service obligations or tuition repayment.

That decision, however, has yet to be made and will be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force, the Academy said in its statement.

According to the Department of the Air Force’s most recent statistics, the department has separated 399 service members over their vaccine refusals. Thousands more have seen their requests for religious accommodations be denied, leaving them with limited options—get the shot, appeal to the Air Force surgeon general, or start the separation/retirement process. If their appeal is denied by the surgeon general, as more than 2,700 already have been, the service members have five days to start the vaccination process or face separation.

The overwhelming majority of Airmen and Guardians, however, have gotten vaccinated—some 98.6 percent of those on Active duty.

Joining their ranks May 25 will be 937 Cadets commissioning as well as graduating—843 into the Air Force and 94 into the Space Force.

Of those 843:

417 are scheduled to attend pilot training.
11 are scheduled for combat systems operator training.
9 are scheduled for air battle manager training.
24 are scheduled to be remotely piloted aircraft officers.
382 will be in nonrated career fields.

Also included in the graduating class are 16 international Cadets—appointees from foreign countries that have spent four years at USAFA.

Guam Would Get Command Center With Integrated Air Picture in Missile Defense Agency Budget

May 25, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

The strategically important U.S. territory of Guam would get 360-degree sensor coverage, missile defenses, and a command center in a plan put forth in the Missile Defense Agency’s fiscal 2023 budget request.

MDA director Vice Adm. Jon A. Hill made the case for the array of new defensive systems during a May 23 event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., after highlighting all the capabilities that would be located on the island if Congress approves the plan.

“Location does matter,” Hill said. “If you just go look at where Guam is on the map, it is inside an area that is absolutely tactically relevant,” Hill said of the Pacific island that is 2,500 nautical miles from mainland China and home to U.S. military installations including Andersen Air Force Base and Naval Base Guam with its Polaris Point Submarine Base.

“You’ve got repair facilities there. We’ve got the Marine Corps there. We’re going to be stationing long-range fires there. It needs to be defended,” Hill said.

He said Guam is not yet defendable against ballistic, cruise, or hypersonic missiles. The fiscal 2023 budget request, which is now before Congress, seeks to close that gap and to prepare Guam to be the most forward Pacific site in the defense of the U.S. homeland.

“If you were to pluck out the most important thing about what we’re going to do on Guam, it is going to be that command center,” Hill said.

The planning and budget for Guam answers the needs outlined by the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Adm. John Aquilino, he added.

Guam’s Command-and-Control Center

Hill considers the defense of Guam to be the MDA’s second-most-important priority behind homeland defense against ballistic missiles from rogue nations. MDA’s budget requests $539 million for architecture work and for design and development of multiple land-based radar systems and procurement of weapon system components.

“If you look at how you fight the battle in the INDOPACOM region today, it’s fairly dispersed in terms of command and control,” Hill explained. “So, you really need to have an area that brings in all the space and land-based and sea-based assets from a sensor perspective and fuses that data and then selects the appropriate way to go after it.”

Aquilino and his team will be part of the development process, ensuring that the command-and-control center is appropriately laid out for mature technologies and the technologies of the future.

Part of MDA’s vision is giving the INDOPACOM commander a single integrated air picture.

The Air Force already has the data streams, he said, and the command-and-control center will bring them together in a way that is operational to the warfighter.

“Yes, it is a challenge. I think it is the hardest thing we’re going to do, and that is the most important aspect about Guam,” Hill said. “You could talk about radars and launchers and weapons all day long, but if we don’t get command-and-control right, none of that will matter.”

Defense of Guam

Guam is currently protected by the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile defense systems and a Navy ship at sea providing forward defense.

Building on Guam’s layered defenses would add Patriot missile defenses to the THAAD battery and relieve the three to four Navy ships required on rotation for protection of the island.

“What MDA will do from a mission space perspective is leverage the Aegis fire control for ballistic missile attack and for hypersonics,” said Hill, referencing the SM-3 and SM-6 sea-based missiles now used for ballistic and hypersonic missile defense, respectively.

Patriots and THAAD would be part of an Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) along with Sentinel radars and Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment (IFPC) missile interceptors.

“So, we’ve got it from top all the way to bottom in terms of that layered defense,” Hill said.

Finding sites for all the new military infrastructure remains a challenge for defending Guam. Only 27 percent of Guam’s land is available for use, Hill said, and all the services are competing for space.

The island is the size of the city of Chicago, and maintaining its beauty is vital to the tourism sector that forms its lifeline. But MDA has installed radars, interceptors, and missile systems while preserving the natural beauty of Hawaii and Alaska.

“When I say difficult, I’m talking about siting—the fundamentals of where you’re going to place this equipment,” Hill said. “I’m also talking about respecting the beautification of that island, right? We don’t want to go into a major tourist area and just overmilitarize.”

Likewise, an adversary can target static systems, so missile defense systems will be a modified version of current mobile offensive varieties. Likewise, studies are underway to determine if the command-and-control center will be made mobile.

“When I lay it out, in the end, I think it’s good for Guam to have that capability,” Hill said of the decision to go with mobile launchers, which have fewer missiles and add logistical considerations, such as fire control and reloading.

Hill said MDA is in the final stages of selecting some 19 sites to position assets, but defense of Guam can fully operationalize under the fiscal 2023 budget request.

“You’re going to have to deal with ballistic missiles. … You’re going to deal with cruise missiles, and you’re going to deal with hypersonic threats,” Hill said of the challenges of defending Guam. “So, that’s really what’s reflected in [the budget] is that sort of capability on the island because it deserves to be defended.”

General Electric—A Reliable Partner from the Very Beginning

May 25, 2022

In 1941, Gen. Henry H. “Hap” Arnold of the then-U.S. Army Air Corps, personally reviewed a jet engine patented by Sir Frank Whittle flying on a Gloster E.28/39 aircraft. Impressed by its design, Arnold arranged for a Whittle engine to be brought back to the U.S. and tasked General Electric (GE), known for its work on turbosuperchargers, to use the Whittle design as the foundation for developing the first U.S. jet engine. Arnold’s request for a new jet engine launched a partnership that continues today, with the ongoing development of GE’s XA100 designed for the F-35, along with thousands of GE engines that power the current Air Force fleet.

“The primary challenge of the day was that engines lose power at higher altitudes where air density decreases,” said Darin DiTommaso, vice president of engineering for GE Edison Works, GE’s advanced military products organization. “GE had developed a turbosupercharger that demonstrated the ability to reduce the amount of power loss at higher altitudes, so the U.S. Army Air Corps selected GE to develop an engine we called the I-A.”

At the time, GE’s development of the I-A engine was a secret program. So secret, in fact, that the engineers tasked with the project became known at GE’s Lynn, Mass., plant as the “Hush-Hush Boys.” The engineers succeeded, as the I-A engine first ran on April 18, 1942, and flew six months later in October 1942, powering the Bell XP-59.

The rapid development of the I-A engine put GE on its trajectory to becoming a world leader in jet propulsion technology. The investments made into the I-A’s research and development laid the foundation for the future success of several engines, including the J47, the world’s most-produced engine.

“Jet engine development is one thing, but it’s another to mass produce it on a regular basis,” DiTommaso said. “We developed a supply chain and cultivated the relationship between our engineering and manufacturing organizations, enabling the J47 program to produce more than 35,000 engines, primarily for the F-86 and B-47.”

General Electric employees work on the J47 engine at the company’s Lockland plant in 1950. General Electric photo.

Longevity soon became a trademark of GE’s engines.

By 1959, GE’s J85 engine powered the first flights of the T-38 trainer, an aircraft that remains in service today. Another GE engine, the J79, famously powered the F-4 Phantom for the Air Force, a handful of which still fly today internationally.

“That longevity validates the quality of the J85 and J79 designs, which reflects on the quality of our engineers, product support team, supply chain, and operators on the manufacturing and assembly lines,” said DiTommaso. “Technology continually improves, and key deliverables and requirements change. We’ve adapted our designs as requirements asked for much more fuel efficiency and thrust, but the true value of an engine like the J85 is really in its simplicity and low cost.”

GE further benefited from its participation in the 10-year “Great Engine War” competition with Pratt & Whitney from 1984-1994.

“Competition forces you to collaborate with the customer in order to fully meet their needs across a variety of challenging requirements,” DiTommaso said. “As a manufacturer, you have to listen to the customer—in this case the Air Force—to deliver what they want at the time they want it. Our collaborative relationship builds trust so that when things don’t always go perfectly, you can still work through issues together.”

GE’s advanced F110-129 engine has been significantly improved to adapt to the unique demands of the F-15EX, with increased airflow, jet engine efficiency, a three-stage chord blisk fan, and an advanced radial augmentor to reduce complexity, improve maintainability, and increase the life span of parts.

The trust developed between GE and the Air Force directly empowers pilot success in major military air campaigns, such as Operation Desert Storm.

“About 80 percent of the U.S. and Allied aircraft in Operation Desert Storm were powered by GE, more than 5,000 engines in all,” DiTommaso said. “We supported the F-16s, F-117s, F-18s, A-10s, Blackhawks, and Apaches as well as military transports. No matter the aircraft, our goal is for the pilot to never have to think about the engine so they can focus on their mission.”

GE is continuing that mission today, innovating to develop the world’s first-ever flight-weight three stream adaptive cycle engine—the XA100—to bring next generation technology to the cornerstone of the Air Force fleet, the F-35.

“The Air Force expressed the need for better fuel efficiency, more thrust and thermal management, and the XA100 delivers, bringing 25 percent better fuel efficiency, 10 percent more thrust, and twice the thermal management capability,” DiTommaso said. “The first engine-to-test campaign is complete and we’re now in the second phase of our second engine-to-test campaign at Arnold Engineering Development Complex. We’re very pleased with how it’s performing and looking forward to an opportunity to bring that capability to the field.”

DiTommaso is confident that GE’s military business, because of the relationship it has cultivated with the Air Force over its 75-year history, will continue to flourish into the future.

“Our relationship with the Air Force is built on a series of successes and close collaboration,” DiTommaso said. “Today, GE and its joint venture partners power around 40 percent of U.S. Air Force aircraft, and we continue to be a key strategic partner in improving their existing fleet’s sustainment and readiness. We’re going to continue listening, collaborating, and delivering innovative technologies and products that will keep our Air Force leading the world. GE is honored to play our part and looking forward the next 75 years.”

Space Force Unveils Uniform Tweaks, OKs Neck Tattoos and More

May 24, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force released updates to its appearance and uniform policies May 24, detailing more permissive regulations governing tattoos, facial hair, and makeup.

Among the various changes the Space Force is making from the Air Force’s policies, the new Guidance Memorandum allows Guardians to have a single neck tattoo—as long as it is authorized, does not exceed one inch, and does not pass a vertical line drawn from the beginning of the ear, essentially keeping it to the back of the neck.

Like the Air Force, the Space Force will also allow one tattoo per hand in the shape of a ring, no more than 3/8 of an inch wide.

“There are no other size or placement limitations on tattoos” as long as they comply with Department of the Air Force regulations, the memo adds.

The Space Force will also allow male Guardians to have longer mustaches, extending 1/4 of an inch horizontally from the corners of the mouth. That’s in line with proposed changes from the Air Force, which currently limits Airmen to mustaches that don’t extend beyond the corners of the mouth. A leaked Air Force memo detailing the same standards as the Space Force circulated on social media recently, but no official changes have been announced for the older service.

On top of that, the Space Force will allow male Guardians to wear cosmetics such as foundation and concealer, though “only to cover scars or blemishes.”

In addition to those grooming and appearance standards, the Space Force memo also laid out several new uniform policies and pieces for Guardians’ Air Force dress uniforms, while the Space Force waits for its own version.

Those changes were previewed by Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Roger A. Towberman earlier this year in a video message sent to Guardians in which he said the moves were intended to “space it up a little bit.”

Among the tweaks, Guardians will now be able to wear the service’s enlisted rank insignia as available. They can also swap out the buttons on their service dress coat to ones that feature the Space Force’s “Delta, Globe, and Orbit,” switch their nameplates to hexagonal ones, wear new U.S. collar insignia also featuring a hexagon, and sport the new Space Force Service Cap Badge on wheel and bucket caps.

Finally, the memo also allows Guardians to purchase gray shirts and black bottoms to serve as PT gear “in lieu of the Air Force PTG pending release and availability of the official Space Force PTG at a Guardian’s home station military clothing sales store.” The clothing, however, can feature only one small visible trademark logo per item, and the back can either be blank or feature a Space Force logo or Delta.

“Guardians have been waiting a long time for this policy to drop, and I couldn’t be happier to get it out there and start getting this stuff on the shelves,” Towberman said in a statement. “I appreciate their connection, which brought us these ideas, and the character they’ve shown waiting patiently for us to work through the policy process. It’s time to space it up.”

The Space Force’s work on its own service uniforms continues. The final design has been approved, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond said in April, but testing and production still has to happen, and that could take some time as the military and the broader U.S. deal with supply chain issues.
Raymond did, however, model the new service uniform during several recent hearings before Congress, featuring several small tweaks and a better fit than when the uniform was unveiled in September 2021.

Air Force E-7 Promotion Rate Hits Lowest Point in Years

May 24, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force Personnel Center announced May 24 that just 14.8 percent of eligible tech sergeants were selected for promotion to master sergeant in the 22E7 promotion cycle, marking the service’s lowest E-7 promotion rate since at least 2010.

All told, 4,040 technical sergeants were selected to become master sergeants out of 27,296 eligible candidates—both the lowest number of promotions and the highest number of candidates going back more than a decade, according to data compiled by Air Force Magazine.

In a press release, AFPC credited the drop in promotions to a “recent enlisted grade structure revision conducted by the Department of the Air Force” that resulted in a 0.5 percent decrease in master sergeant authorizations.

At the same time, record-high retention that accompanied the start of the COVID-19 pandemic drove up the number of eligible candidates, the release noted, creating a historically selective year.

An AFPC spokesperson confirmed that the final figure of 14.8 percent is the lowest promotion rate the service has had for E-7s since the 2019 cycle, when the Air Force switched to its current system of using promotion boards to evaluate all candidates. Prior to that, the service used some form of testing as part of its evaluation process.

Yet even prior to that, E-7 promotion rates generally stayed above 20 percent in the decade prior. The exceptions were in 2013 and 2014, when force reductions slashed the number of promotions. Even then, however, the promotion rate stayed just above 15 percent—the lowest it had been in decades, according to Air Force Times.

Direct comparisons between the most recent numbers and those from under a different promotion system aren’t “apples to apples,” the AFPC spokesperson noted.

The full list of those who earned promotions this cycle will be posted at 8 a.m. Central time May 31, AFPC said in its release. However, many on social media noted that the list was prematurely posted May 23 on myPers. Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass acknowledged the mistake in a Facebook post.

“In this digital age, we are going to have information leaks, and it’s easy to share without thinking. We must do what we can to prevent that, there’s no doubt about it … promotion lists, operations, missions … we need institutional rigor online,” Bass wrote. “Concerning yesterday’s spillage … I appreciate the Airmen who held fast and allowed command teams the time to properly notify their people.”

While Bass asked for Airmen to avoid looking at the list, copies have already been widely shared on unofficial Reddit and Facebook pages, where hundreds of Airmen have seen them.

Air Force E-7 Promotion Rates Over the Years

Year	Eligible	Promoted	Percent Rate
2022	27,296	4,040	14.80
2021	24,721	4,676	18.92
2020	22,286	4,649	20.86
2019	19,422	4,733	24.37
2018	20,866	6,176	29.60
2017	20,169	5,166	25.61
2016	21,504	5,019	23.34
2015	23,619	5,301	22.44
2014	22,678	4,073	17.96
2013	37,608	5,654	15.03
2012	19,809	5,464	27.58
2011	19,538	6,618	33.87
2010	21,829	5,424	24.85

Space Force Can Only ‘Mitigate’ China-Russia Space Cooperation

May 24, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

The China-Russia relationship in space has serious security implications as the tenuous allies unite financing and know-how in an effort to displace U.S. space superiority and threaten America’s space architecture, according to a panel of experts at the recent China Aerospace Studies Institute conference.

The two countries’ space cooperation, including in the military realm, has become inextricable since 2018 and works against U.S. interests, said Kevin Pollpeter, senior research scientist at the CNA think tank’s China Studies Division.

“I don’t think we can separate China and Russia. I just don’t think that’s possible,” Pollpeter said in response to a question from Air Force Magazine following a panel discussion May 17 on China-Russia space cooperation at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.

“While the countries do not have completely overlapping security concerns, they do share a strong desire to counter U.S. leadership, including in outer space,” he said. “What we need to do is, we need to mitigate whatever problems that relationship may cause for us.”

The two countries’ military space cooperation includes the areas of ballistic missile defense, space debris monitoring, and satellite navigation. The resulting exchange has included technology transfer, weapons sales, combined exercises, and compensating measures, Pollpeter said.

International Isolation Spurs Cooperation

Sanctions imposed on China following the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square began the space cooperation as China looked to Russia for the technology it needed. By 1997, the two countries’ leaders started regular dialogue that included a subcommittee on space. Russia faced a similar sanctions problem for which it sought Chinese help when the international community imposed sanctions in 2014 after the occupation of Crimea.

“Tiananmen resulted in a number of embargoes that took place that made [China] increasingly more reliant on Russia as a potential source of technology, particularly for dual use and defense,” said Pollpeter. “After Tiananmen, China started looking more to Russia, and Russia started looking more to China for help with supporting their own space program.”

Both countries have since claimed their union is the result of U.S. actions.

“There’s very much these sort of outward expressions here of how the U.S. is driving China and Russia closer together,” Pollpeter said, citing public statements on both sides.

China began cooperating with Russia on ballistic missile defense after the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. That same year, Putin said Russia would help China create a missile defense warning system, although open-source reporting has not revealed that such a system yet exists.

“There appears to be some sort of technology transfer going on,” Pollpeter added. “There’s been joint exercises—the Aerospace Security 2016 and 2017 involved joint air and missile defense planning and coordination.”

Russia has also provided China with S-300 and S-400 missile defense systems, and Pollpeter cited analysis that suggests the Chinese HQ-9 and HQ-19 missile defense systems are very similar to the Russian systems.

Another area of cooperation, space debris monitoring, may sound innocuous, reflected Pollpeter, but he explained that it has security implications.

“If you have a space debris monitoring system, then you actually have a space domain awareness or space surveillance system,” he said. “This very much has a military role in helping China and Russia better monitor U.S. movements up in space.”

Little is known about the satellite navigation cooperation between the two nations other than there are compatibility and interoperability activities between the Russian and Chinese equivalents to GPS—the GLONASS and BeiDou navigation systems. This includes the presence of augmentation stations in each other’s countries and performance monitoring.

“What they really want to do, then, is demonstrate that in a world where the U.S. and China could come into military conflict, they have an alternative,” he said. “They don’t have to rely on BeiDou exclusively. They also have the Russian system.”

China and Russia have also teamed up to submit, in 2008 and 2014, space arms control treaty proposals to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament prohibiting weapons in space, but Pollpeter says the resolutions have loopholes.

“There’s nothing there prohibiting storage or the research and development, and there’s no verification. So, lots of big faults with this,” he said. Likewise, the resolutions do not prohibit the use of anti-satellite. “This cooperation appears intended to portray both countries as striving for the peaceful use of space while doing little to constrain Chinese and Russian acquisition and use of space weapons.”

Space Force ‘On Track’ to Meet China Space Challenge

China doesn’t publicly discuss anything about its counterspace capabilities, and Pollpeter said it’s not known whether it and Russia cooperate in that area.

“A lot of it’s so opaque that when you get into something like counterspace, they’re not going to discuss that,” he said. “What China is developing is a capability that really is designed to threaten the United States space architecture from the ground all the way up to geosynchronous orbit.”

A 2018-to-2022 agreement only deepened the countries’ space cooperation.

The watershed agreement advanced Chinese and Russian cooperation on launch vehicles, rocket engines, space planes, lunar and deep space exploration, remote sensing, electronics, space debris, satellite navigation, and satellite communication.

Pollpeter doesn’t think the Space Force can disrupt the China-Russia joint effort.

“There’s really little we can do to separate the two countries, especially [on] the space side,” he said. “The distrust and, let’s say, to some extent, animosity of both countries towards the U.S. sort of precludes, at this point, that any of those efforts can be successful.”

However, the China space expert believed the Space Force is moving in the right direction to confront the challenge posed by China’s military space endeavors.

“Space Force has a lot of things on its plate in standing up, but I think we’re broadly on track with trying to meet those challenges,” he said.

“If you look at what Space Force is doing with looking at redundancy, resilience, those sorts of things—even coming up with new doctrine or concepts of operations,” he added—“those are the sorts of things that we need to start doing in space.”

Key Air Force, Space Force Leaders Set to Retire

May 23, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Department of the Air Force announced the retirements of several key leaders within the Air Force and Space Force on May 23 while also unveiling more than a dozen new assignments for current or future one-star generals.

Lt. Gen. Joseph T. Guastella Jr., deputy chief of staff for operations, is exiting the service after nearly 35 years and roughly 22 months in his current position. During his term, the Air Force developed a new deployment model in which Airmen will cycle through four “bins,” each lasting six months for a 24-month cycle.

Patricia Mulcahy, the Space Force’s chief human capital officer, is also leaving after more than 40 years of service in the Army and as a civilian. As the Space Force’s first deputy chief of space operations for personnel, she was responsible for helping to craft the service’s first human capital plan, “The Guardian Ideal.”

Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office, and Lt. Gen. Marshall B. Webb, head of Air Education and Training Command, both retired with their successors in place. Webb officially ceded command of AETC to Lt. Gen. Brian S. Robinson in a May 20 ceremony, and Fick will be replaced by Maj. Gen. Michael J. Schmidt, who is also slated to receive a third star.

Three other senior leaders in the Air Force are also retiring, according to the announcement: James J. Kren, director of systems development in the Concepts, Development, and Management Office; Dr. Kamal T. Jabbour, senior scientist for information assurance in the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate; and Chief Master Sgt. Derek T. Crowder, the senior enlisted leader for the deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services.

In addition to the departures, the Air Force announced 13 assignments for current or future brigadier generals, as follows:

Brig. Gen. Terrance A. Adams, director of cyberspace operations for the deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and cyber effects operations. He will replace Brig. Gen. (Select) Melissa S. Cunningham, whose retirement was announced May 23 as well, just over a year after her assignment to that job.
Brig. Gen. Robert D. Davis, director of cyberspace operations for NORAD and NORTHCOM. He’ll replace Brig. Gen. Eric P. DeLange, whose retirement was also announced May 23.
Brig. Gen. John R. Edwards, director of strategic capabilities policy for the National Security Council.
Brig. Gen. Jonathan C. Rice IV, director of ISR operations for the deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and cyber effects operations.
Brig. Gen. David W. Snoddy, assistant deputy chief of staff for cyber effects operations for the deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and cyber effects operations.
Brig. Gen. Claude K. Tudor Jr., commander of Special Operations Joint Task Force-Levant in Southwest Asia.
Brig. Gen. Sean K. Tyler, commander of Defense Logistics Agency-Aviation.
Brig. Gen. (Frocked) Max E. Pearson, director of operations and military deputy for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
Brig. Gen. (Select) Daniel C. Clayton, deputy director of integration and innovation at Air Force Futures.
Brig. Gen. (Select) Doug D. Jackson, inspector general for Air Mobility Command.
Brig. Gen. (Select) Nathan L. Owendoff, chief of staff for Air Force Special Operations Command.
Brig. Gen. (Select) Jeffrey T. Schreiner, chief of staff for the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve in CENTCOM.
Brig. Gen. (Select) Geoffrey F. Weiss, deputy director of operations for the National Joint Operations and Intelligence Center, Operations Team One.

The Air Force also announced appointments to a number of senior leadership positions, as follows:

Lorna B. Estep, executive director of Headquarters AFMC.
Daniel E. Blake Jr., deputy director of staff, for the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force.
Daryl R. Haegley, technical director of control systems cybersecurity for the deputy chief of staff of logistics, engineering, and force protection.
Gaurav Sharma, chief scientist of the 711th Human Performance Wing in the Air Force Research Laboratory.
Chief Master Sgt. Justin Apticar, command chief master sergeant of the 19th Air Force.
Chief Master Sgt. Thomas E. Temple, senior enlisted leader for the deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services.

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

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.”