Cost of B-52 Re-Engining Jumps By Half in New Estimate of Refit

May 19, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The cost of the B-52 re-engining program has increased 50 percent because of integration issues, according to revelations in a House Armed Services panel hearing.

Air Force acquisition executive Andrew P. Hunter acknowledged the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) price hike as voiced in a question from Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) in testimony on service modernization.

“We currently believe there is cost growth from our design work that we did originally through the middle-tier acquisition program to what we anticipate we’ll be looking at [in] Milestone B,” which evaluates readiness for entry into the engineering and manufacturing development phase, Hunter said.

The B-52 CERP has been conducted as a middle-tier acquisition program to get underway rapidly and develop a prototype system but is now moving to a “traditional” program, and the Air Force is firming up the costs it expects to pay, Hunter said. The cost increases have more to do with integrating the engines on the B-52, which is a Boeing effort, and has less to do with the engines themselves, which will be built by Rolls-Royce, he added.

“I want to emphasize that a lot of that engineering work is actually inside the airplane, on the support struts, to which the engines attach, versus the engine itself, which is largely a commercial engine that already exists,” Hunter said. The engine needs only “a modest number of modifications,” he said.

“So it’s really about re-engineering 1960s aircraft to perform all the way through” to the end of the B-52’s lifetime, now envisioned as circa 2050.

The Air Force told Congress a year ago that the CERP effort had increased in cost by nine percent because of pandemic-related supply issues, to about $11 billion. Hunter did not speculate on a new cost estimate.

The end of the risk reduction and prototyping phase is rapidly approaching, Hunter said, and when it’s done, “we’ll have an effective design … [that will] allow us to go into an acquisition program to allow us to do that re-engining.”

At Milestone B, “we will … have in our hands the real, full cost of what it will take to do it, and we’ll set the original baseline for the full program … at that point,” Hunter said.

The Air Force will “assess” at that milestone whether “it still make sense to move forward with that program,” Hunter said, adding, however, that “we will need a new engine for the B-52 to get it out to its full lifetime.”

In an email response to a query from Air Force magazine, Boeing said the “50 percent differential in the CERP cost comes from an original, 2017 government estimate produced by the Air Force program office, compared to the latest 2022 estimate.”

The company said it “is our understanding that the government’s estimate has been adjusted over the years from the initial business case analysis, developed at a very early phase of the acquisition, to incorporate additional complexity” as well as “further historical fidelity on similar programs, as well as additional understanding of technical scope and complexity of the design.”

Rolls-Royce North America said through a spokesperson that the company “has been collaborating closely with the Air Force and program integrator Boeing on the CERP program.” There have been “no changes in engine pricing since the contract was awarded.”

The Air Force was not able to comment on the B-52 CERP cost increase by press time.

The CERP seeks to integrate eight new Rolls-Royce F130 engines per aircraft to replace the Pratt & Whitney TF33s, which are original equipment on the B-52Hs, built in 1962. The engines will be digitally controlled, requiring new pylons, new twin-engine nacelles, and wiring to connect the powerplants to the B-52 cockpit. The project is part of an overall modernization of the B-52 fleet that includes digital wiring, new communications, and a new radar, among other improvements.

Biden Supports Sweden’s, Finland’s NATO Bids—Wolters Highlights ‘Exciting Attributes’

May 19, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

President Joe Biden stood alongside the leaders of Sweden and Finland at the White House on May 19 to declare his “strong support” for their countries’ NATO bids, while Supreme Allied Commander Europe U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters highlighted the specialized deterrent capabilities the High North partners would bring to the alliance, if the concerns of Turkey are first assuaged.

“This is, in my view and the view of my team, a momentous day,” Biden said in a Rose Garden ceremony.

The president offered “the strong support of the United States” for the applications of the two Nordic democracies that are currently NATO Enhanced Opportunity Partners, the closest cooperative framework for non-members.

Sweden and Finland have for years participated in joint exercises and training and have fought alongside NATO troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Since Feb. 25, the day after Russia invaded Ukraine, Finland and Sweden also began enhanced intelligence sharing with NATO. On May 18, the nations formally applied to the alliance, which requires approval from all 30 current members.

Until then, Finland and Sweden are not protected by NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, but Biden said the U.S. would “deter and confront any aggression while Finland and Sweden are in this accession process.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also recently already voiced a willingness to help Finland and Sweden defend themselves during a NATO accession process.

At the White House, Biden highlighted the benefits Finland and Sweden would bring to the alliance.

“They meet every NATO requirement and then some,” Biden said. “And having two new NATO members in the High North will enhance the security of our alliance and deepen our security cooperation across the board.”

Both nations have Arctic territory and broad training ground for multi-lateral exercises that have increased in recent years, as Russia has heightened its military presence in the Arctic and China has claimed that it is a “near-Arctic state,” with security implications.

Wolters, speaking after a meeting of the military chiefs of defense in Brussels on May 19, highlighted the special capabilities that Sweden and Finland would bring to the alliance as large, forested countries in a cold region that borders the Arctic. Finland, for its part, has a 900-mile border with Russia and is forced to operate within Russia’s anti-access/area denial (A2AD) bubble.

“We will be able to show tactics, techniques, and procedures with Finland and Sweden. They will be able to share with us their unique regional aspects that they have more expertise on than we’ve seen in the past,” Wolters said, noting that the new TTPs will “enhance the overall deterrence capability of NATO.”

“We look at those attributes … as tremendous opportunities to improve our ability to comprehensively deter,” Wolters said. “Those are exciting attributes that Sweden and Finland are going to teach us a lot about.”

Wolters was less effusive about news that Turkish President Recep Erdogan had blocked the start of talks about Finland and Sweden’s NATO entry.

Turkey reportedly wants the opposition Kurdistan workers party, or PKK, declared a terrorist organization by NATO allies, and he wants Turkey to be admitted into the F-35 program, from which Turkey was removed when it adopted Russia’s S-400 missile defense system.

“What we all want the most is for diplomacy to come to the forefront,” said Wolters. “And if that conversation took place, it is my hope as a result of that conversation, we get one step closer to achieving a diplomatic solution.”

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said DOD is discussing with Finland and Sweden the security guarantees they may require during the accession period. Russian President Vladimir Putin has in the past warned of consequences should Finland and Sweden join NATO.

“We are actively now talking to them about what kind of security assurances they might need or welcome,” Kirby said.

In Brussels, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark A. Milley met with both his Finnish and Swedish counterparts, and the DOD said Milley held his first call with his Russian counterpart, Chief of Russian General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov, since before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“The military leaders discussed several security-related issues of concern and agreed to keep the lines of communication open,” Joint Chiefs spokesperson Col. Dave Butler said in a statement.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III also met with his Swedish counterpart at the Pentagon on May 18.

“Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, a free, sovereign, and democratic neighbor, clearly demonstrates the threat posed by Mr. Putin to European security,” Austin said in welcoming remarks. “Our two militaries routinely exercise together. Your capabilities are modern, relevant, and significant, and your addition to the alliance will make us all better at defending ourselves.”

Eielson Celebrates Completion of F-35 Beddown, More Progress to Come

May 19, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, celebrated the beddown of its full complement of F-35s on May 13, with a ceremony just weeks after the base received the last of its 54 fighters.

The arrival of those F-35s in mid-April gave Eielson the Air Force’s second fully equipped, combat-coded F-35 wing, comprising two fighter squadrons.

The celebration marking the official end of a two-year beddown process featured Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, commander of Pacific Air Forces, and Col. David J. Berkland, commander of the 354th Fighter Wing, as well as officials from Lockheed Martin.

“The task of standing up two new F-35 squadrons was not small,” Wilsbach said during the ceremony, according to an Air Force release. “You made it look easy, but we know it was not. That’s because of the professionalism of the Airmen who work here at Eielson. The Icemen did a fabulous job of standing up this capability here, and the community around Eielson has also been incredibly supportive not only of our Icemen and our mission but this aircraft as well. We’re grateful in so many ways this mission has been so welcomed here.”

The Air Force selected Eielson to be home to the first operational overseas F-35s in 2016, and the 354th Fighter Wing accepted the first two aircraft in April 2020. At Eielson, fighter jets are able to reach anywhere in the northern hemisphere in one sortie and have access to the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, which features more than 75,000 square miles of airspace for training.

While the final jets have arrived, the work of fully integrating and settling the F-35 onto the base is still ongoing.

Berkland previously told Air Force Magazine that the 354th FW maintains a high operations tempo as it looks to build its experience and comfort level with the new fighter—some 44 F-35 training sorties a day. As that training continues, the 354th hasn’t declared initial operational capability yet.

It’s not just pilots that have to adapt to harsh Arctic conditions though—the challenge of maintaining the F-35s when temperatures are frequently sub-zero is one the Air Force has tried to address by spending some $600 million on 39 military construction projects.

Lt. Gen. Warren D. Berry, deputy chief of staff for logistics, engineering, and force protection, detailed some of those projects while testifying to the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee May 19, explaining how Eielson has created the space necessary, if needed, to ensure that no F-35 has to be parked outside.

“In the 2017 appropriations [bill], we had $161 million to build two 16-bay weather shelter facilities for the F-35s. Those are in place. There are another 18 parking locations indoors for F-35s, and when necessary, the wing can clear out some more space to make room for four, which handles all 54 of the F-35s,” Berry said. “So from what we see, we don’t see a shortfall of storage locations for housing F-35s indoors.”

Still, Berry indicated that more facilities are being worked on to support the F-35 mission.

“We also had in FY20 a project to build storage facilities for the support equipment that goes with the F-35s as well. So that project is underway to provide some indoor storage for those support equipment requirements for the F-35,” Berry said.

Air Force Lt. Col. Samuel Chipman, 356th Fighter Squadron commander (right), briefs visitors to Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, May 13, 2022. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jose Miguel T. Tamondong.

Dependence on Russian Aircraft Engines Could Prompt China to ‘Fix Their … Problem’

May 19, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

China’s dependence on Russian fighter aircraft engines may soon affect the People’s Liberation Army Air Force fleet if Russia can’t service or provide engines or parts for up to 40 percent of the Chinese fighters, experts at the China Aerospace Studies Institute conference said May 17.

China has yet to wean itself off Russian engines by mastering the technology, experts explained during a panel discussion on military cooperation between China and Russia. If Russia must resupply its own military over the course of a protracted war, that competing demand for parts could prompt China to focus more intently on building up internal expertise.

“China is still quite dependent on Russian components and probably will be for the foreseeable future,” said David R. Markov of the Institute for Defense Analysis.

Russia delivered nearly 4,000 engines for Chinese helicopters and other military aircraft between 1992 and 2019. China has also received Russian S-300 and S-400 air defense systems.

“I think they’re going to continue to buy engines from the Russians, though it’ll be interesting to see whether Russia can now supply these engines in light of the international sanctions,” Markov said, referring to economic blocks imposed by U.S. and European countries that limited Russia’s acquisition of technologies such as semiconductors, used by the Russian defense industry.

The situation gives China a much greater incentive to apply national resources to “fix the engine problem that they have,” he added.

Markov discussed China-Russia aerospace cooperation, tracing the history of Russia’s dual-use and military sales to China, including its technology transfer over the decades since the fall of the Soviet Union.

While China has made significant gains in acquiring key military technologies that helped develop its stealthy J-20 and J-31 fighters, Markov argues that, in the area of fighter engine production, China is still lagging because Russia withheld advanced secrets. China’s struggle in this area isn’t due to a lack of resources devoted to the effort but a lack of domestic expertise, he said.

Many of China’s scientists, engineers, designers, and production managers are in their late 20s and early 30s, and they lack the know-how that comes from apprenticeship programs and decades of specialized experience. To make up for that, China has contracted Russian specialists to work inside Chinese factories.

However, “This isn’t a ‘throw money at the problem’ solution,” he said.

“What they still have yet to understand is, modern aviation engines, particularly supercruise fighter engines, are more art than science,” Markov explained.

Engine workers at producers such as Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric have “tacit knowledge” that the Chinese are still lacking, he added.

“There’s a lot of phenomenology that takes place in an engine that we still do not … understand … with our qualitative computing technology,” Markov explained. “But there’s a guy named Joe who works at Cincinnati Milacron, who’s been working that thing for 30 years, [who] just knows, through experimentation, time, and experience, that you do this thing to make the engine get this outcome. And that’s the part where China just doesn’t have that capability yet.”

Markov believes China’s purchase of Su-35 aircraft from Russia was meant at least in part to get access to the type’s advanced engine and ancillary support and digital control system.

China has made strides, however, developing the WS-10 engine that powers its J-20 stealth fighter.

“The big game changer in much of this was the J-20,” Markov said. “It was the wake-up call to a lot of people following China: of how far they had come, and particularly with Russian talent.”

But China has struggled to develop its WS-15 engine that would give the J-20 supercruise capability, a defense analyst told Air Force Magazine during a sideline interview.

Russia still provides engines for up to 40 percent of China’s air force fleet, the analyst noted, posing the question: “Are they going to be able to sustain current readiness and flying operational capabilities in light of potential spare parts disruptions with this engine manufacturer?”

Hypersonic Missile Defense ‘A Few Years’ Away, Top Brass Tell Senators

May 18, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

The Senate Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces heard testimony from the Defense Department’s top missile defense leaders May 18 and demanded to know why the Missile Defense Agency’s proposed $9.6 billion fiscal 2023 budget will not yield more reliable defense against hypersonic weapons already being fielded by adversaries, including Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.

The leaders of U.S. Northern Command and the Missile Defense Agency along with the assistant secretary of defense for space policy and others took turns explaining how DOD plans to scale up testing of lasers and other forms of directed energy to counter ballistic missile, cruise missile, and hypersonic missile threats while they optimistically spoke of 2027 for a potential “earlier” delivery of the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI). Instead, defense leaders said the military relies on risky terminal-phase interceptors and new space sensors that will provide “fire control quality” data to weapons.

“Fire what? What are we firing?” subcommittee chair Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) asked MDA director Vice Adm. Jon A. Hill, underscoring the fact that no adequate interceptor yet exists.

“I am gravely concerned about the strategic change in the whole scene of battle that hypersonics represent,” King said. “I want a sense of urgency.”

Hill said the fiscal 2023 budget request calls for $2.8 billion for the NGI and said two contractors are ahead of schedule and may deliver in 2027, before the 2028 planned fielding.

Sen. Deb Fisher (R-Neb.) echoed the chairman’s concern.

“I get really nervous when I hear dates like 2028 for something, and we’re pleased that it’s 2027,” she said. “How are we going to condense the time period and maybe have to accept more risk?”

Hill emphasized that the MDA is “not starting from zero” on hypersonics defense.

“There’s work that’s being done now in that architecture. So, decisions can be made early for that proliferation and planning,” he said.

But Hill admitted that the best defense against a hypersonic weapon remained the Sea-Based Terminal capability fielded by the Navy aboard ships.

“We have an ability with SM-3 [missiles] in the upper tier to take out that threat,” he said, but he admitted that missile defense against hypersonic weapons needs to move “away from the terminal area.”

The terminal phase of a hypersonic weapon’s trajectory is when it descends from a roughly 50 kilometer cruise altitude to its target at a speed of approximately Mach 10, while maneuvering to avoid defenses.

“You have to defend there, but [it] is the most difficult place to engage because you really don’t know where terminal is going to be because it is maneuvering, and it is high speed,” Hill said.

Rather, he highlighted fiscal 2023 investment in the Glide Phase Interceptor, for which DOD will select one of three contractors to develop a system that can target hypersonic weapons in the more vulnerable cruise phase, when the weapon is gliding at about 40 kilometers to 60 kilometers in altitude with the ability to maneuver to evade detection.

Again, King challenged the MDA director on when the capability will be fielded.

“We’re moving towards a demo over the next few years,” Hill said.

Hill made note of another item in the fiscal 2023 request to help address the threat of hypersonic weapons—the $89 million deployment of two satellites to support the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor, or HBTSS, that will provide fire control data to weapons.

Directed energy was also discussed as a potential solution to the growing missile threats posed by great power adversaries and rogue nations.

“Directed energy, a defense-specific technology, is a key critical technology area we are developing to counter a wide variety of current and emerging threats,” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering David Honey said in his opening statement.

Honey said the scope of efforts will allow directed energy to counter cruise missiles in the near term; hypersonic missiles in the near and medium terms; and ballistic missiles in the long term. Honey did not specify what he meant by the timeframes provided.

To do that, DOD’s research and engineering office is working to rapidly scale the power of directed energy.

“Countering hypersonic and ballistic missiles will require substantially more laser power,” he said. “R&E will begin scaling laser powers in fiscal year 2023 and is examining opportunities to accelerate the scaling significantly.”

Lawmakers and defense officials acknowledged Russia’s use of hypersonic weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine as a factor that normalizes the use of the weapon.

“Russia has fielded large numbers of long-range cruise missiles, including hypersonic missiles that can cause enormous damage to infrastructure [and] create strategic effects with conventional warheads,” NORTHCOM commander Gen. Glen D. VanHerck said in his opening comments.

While stressing the varied missile threats to the American homeland, VanHerck nonetheless gave an unclassified assessment about the effectiveness of Russia’s use of missiles on the battlefield in response to a question from Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).

VanHerck said DOD first assessed that the Russian missiles were not working as well as U.S. missiles but then determined that they are “on par” with U.S. capabilities.

“Not all of them—specifically their cruise missiles,” he said. “They’ve had challenges with some of their hypersonic missiles as far as accuracy,” he said.

“I would not take away from a strategic perspective that Russia’s cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, their strategic capabilities, have severely underperformed.”

This story was updated at 1:53 p.m. May 19 to extend VanHerck’s remarks about Russian missiles.

Challenges for ‘Stagnated’ PME Include Lack of Intellectual Diversity or Data to Best Apply Skills

May 18, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

U.S. professional military education needs to be more rigorous and data-driven, and the military services need to do a better job of actually utilizing the skills service members learn through PME, lawmakers, academics, and Pentagon officials said in a congressional hearing May 18.

The 2018 National Defense Strategy raised some eyebrows when it stated that PME had “stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity.”

Four years later, facing the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee, a pair of PME experts and two Defense Department officials outlined a number of issues still facing military education.

Summing up their concerns toward the end of the hearing, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) laid out three main problems.

“One is whether we are selecting the best and the brightest to go to these institutions,” Gallagher said. “The second is whether the institutions themselves are on par with their civilian counterparts, who have a much fancier name or credential. … And then the third, and perhaps most important, is how we’re tracking our utilization of graduates.”

Who’s Going

Before the Goldwater-Nichols Act became law in 1986, joint assignments were considered a “pariah,” retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert E. Schmidle Jr. told lawmakers. But when that legislation became law, it transformed the importance of such assignments and joint professional military education.

In a similar way, Schmidle urged Congress to use its powers to reform PME so that officers who take advantage of educational opportunities still have chances to advance in their career.

Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor at the Naval War College, went further in recommending that lawmakers establish a two-track system—a more condensed version for service members looking to fulfill requirements and a more expansive one for those who want to pursue a graduate degree.

Such a system would be valuable, Johnson-Freese argued, because it would offer flexibility to service members who don’t necessarily want an advanced degree but do want to participate in PME. And it would also solve another issue.

“Frankly, there are just students who aren’t interested, for whatever reason, and they don’t add much to the seminar,” Johnson-Freese said. “I had a student say, ‘So I did all the reading, all the work, and I’m going to get an A-, and the man next to me who didn’t spill his coffee every day is going to get a B+.’ Let him take a more condensed version and get him out of the classroom.”

Academic Rigor

Such an approach would also help address another issue the experts raised—academic rigor.

When Schmidle attended the Marine Corps War College as a young officer, he remembers walking into an “academic boot camp” where students felt pressure to excel or face embarrassment in the classroom.

In contrast, Johnson-Freese said that now, too many professors who are retired service members are too focused on “accommodating” students rather than challenging them intellectually.

On top of that, relying too much on retired officers as instructors can shift the focus of classes from the future to the past, stifling innovation, Johnson-Freese argued. And because collaboration with civilian academic institutions has been discouraged in the past, there is less intellectual diversity, she added.

For his part, Schmidle advocated for wargaming to gain an increased focus in institutions’ curricula, saying it would force students to translate theory into practical action and allow the services to identify potential future leaders sooner.

Data-Driven Improvement

The Pentagon does conduct surveys of PME graduates and their supervisors on its impact and usefulness, Vice Adm. Stuart B. Munsch, director of joint force development, told Rep. Jackie Speier. But he did not have the data from those surveys immediately available, highlighting another concern—how to assess PME at all.

To do so, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness Shawn G. Skelly cited the Pentagon’s data strategy, which includes an objective of sharing data broadly across the entire enterprise. Such an approach, Skelly said, is key for PME.

“I am personally looking forward to taking the military education enterprise in that direction, because we’re learning lessons as to how to drive accountability, to make data available, to bring it together,” Skelly said. “Because it’s not just one service’s data and displaying that—it’s how you do the relationships and then create that power in there.”

The goal, Skelly said, is for all PME programs to produce data for analysis. From there, it’s a question of having the right talent management system.

“It’s not just the data itself and governing through that data. … We have to have a personnel management, talent management system that can understand the attributes that all our service members bring when they assess, whether through their high school graduation or their bachelor’s degree, what we impart to them through the education programs they go through, either at the tactical level when they’re more junior, then when they go to staff colleges and war colleges, what we intend to impart to them, what they take away, what they demonstrate through their competencies,” Skelly said.

“That’s the way we have to get after it. It’s the data. It’s the objectives of the education, understanding the impact of it, and then the attributes to the individuals to create an appreciation of the force and whether we have the sufficient knowledge and wherewithal for the positions that need it.”

Making sure the services leverage PME throughout a service member’s career is especially important, Skelly noted, not just in a person’s next assignment.

“We have a history of not making the most out of that and being able to account for it beyond their pay back tour. You get your education, you owe several years,” Skelly said. “But what do we do after that? … How do we know what we’re getting, as to who makes three stars, who makes more, who goes to particular commands that suit their training, or do they just happen to wind up someplace? Especially with regard to cyber, AI, and other technologies that are emerging, we can only impart exquisite knowledge to so many. We have to ensure that they’re put in places to utilize that.”

USAF Leaders on Hypersonics, B-21 Production, the E-7 Transition, and Buying Fewer HH-60s

May 18, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

With a repeat of a hypersonic missile test coming up in the summer and the potential to speed up production of the B-21 Raider, the Air Force is “committed” to putting hypersonic missiles on its long-range bombers, said Lt. Gen. Duke Z. Richardson, the top USAF acquisition official.

Air Force leaders testified May 17 before the Senate Armed Services Committee and addressed hypersonics, the bomber, the transition to the E-7 Wedgetail, and the plan to buy fewer HH-60 Combat Rescue Helicopters.

ARRW Hypersonic Missile

“We are pleased to report” that the hypersonic AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, “successfully completed boosted test flight 2B” from a B-52 on May 14, Richardson told the committee. “The next boosted test flight is slated for this summer.”

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall expressed concern about the boost-glide ARRW after three prior test flights failed and has said the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, an air-breathing hypersonic system, is progressing well. The Air Force shifted ARRW production money back to development in the fiscal 2023 budget and boosted HACM.

E-3 AWACS Transition to E-7 Wedgetail

Responding to concerns from Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) that the Air Force is seeking to divest nearly half its E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet in fiscal 2023—creating a capability gap—Gen. David S. Nahom, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, said the E-3 fleet is so unreliable that waiting four years for its intended replacement, the E-7 Wedgetail, won’t incur significant new risk.

“When you look at the E-3 fleet right now, and look at taking 15 of the 31 airplanes away, we are concerned with the gap,” Nahom said. “Unfortunately, with the condition of the E-3, we have a gap right now,” he said. The condition of the fleet, due to its age and classified “capability issues,” has already created a deficit.

“There are things we need the E-3 to do that it cannot do right now” in terms of “peer threats,” Nahom said. “We struggle to keep roughly half that fleet airborne,” with “significant maintainability challenges.” The “entirety of the savings” of divesting the 15 E-3s has been applied to the E-7, he said.

“We recognize this is a gap. Unfortunately, the gap exists right now,” he said.

Richardson added that the AWACS fleet represents “an emergency situation” and that USAF “moved very quickly to do the market research” on viable alternatives.

“We’re really pushing hard to get on contract” with Boeing in early 2023, he said. “We want to make sure we do that smartly and not … rush,” he said. “So, we’ll go through two or three solicitations with Boeing to make sure we get the requirement correct,” and that means developing only a “minimum of things that are mandated to be new on the airplane,” such as M-Code GPS and cybersecurity issues.

Richardson promised that USAF will go “as fast as we can to close that gap.” But “for the most part, this is a non-developmental effort.”

Getting the “green aircraft” on which the Air Force version of the Wedgetail will be built with take two years, with a further two years to modify those aircraft into operational platforms for testing—“specifically the radar”—Richardson said. The fiscal 2023 budget requests two aircraft, the first of which will be available in 2027, he said. “More will start flowing after that.”

The program can’t be sped up, Nahom said, and given “confined resources, we needed that money” from divesting the E-3 to “get the E-7 started.”

Richardson said the program could potentially be accelerated: “If we had a third aircraft for test, that would speed things along. But we don’t think it’s smart to rush the contract.”

The “real way” to speed up the program, he said, is, “once we’re done with that certification work, is procure at a faster rate on the back side.” Nahom added that the aircraft can be made operational quickly because Australia, which has operated the aircraft for a decade, has “already offered to help us” with crew, maintainer, and air battle manager training.

“We’ll be able to do that very quickly, and we haven’t been able to do that before,” Nahom added.

Lt. Gen. Joseph T. Guastella Jr., deputy chief of staff for operations, said the E-3 “is exhausted. Much of the Air Force’s fleet is in that condition. It’s not maintainable in the field, and it has those capability gaps, and those things, together, put us in this situation.” The one positive, he said, is that with fewer E-3s to maintain, the Air Force can “get that remaining fleet as healthy as we can.” He also said the E-3s will be deployed more judiciously and for shorter durations, “just long enough to get missions done, then turn them back and restore their health.”

This “episodic” employment is the best way to address the capability gap, Guastella said.

Looming Gap in Anti-Jamming

The Marine Corps has asked to divest 25 EA-18G Growler stand-in jamming aircraft, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked if the Air Force is considering developing its own stand-in jamming platform.

“We have not,” Nahom said, adding that the Air Force will continue to depend on the Navy providing EA-18 capability. He asked, however, to discuss the matter further in closed session.

Asked if he is concerned that the Navy is divesting these aircraft, Guastella said, “It’s a critical capability … that the joint force has to have.”

B-21 Development Can’s Speed Up, But Production Might

Richardson said the B-21 bomber is “on schedule and on budget” and noted that six are in production. Asked what the Air Force needs from Congress to keep it that way, Nahom said “the steady investment. And I think we’ve had that. That’s why we’ve had success in this program … We’ve been well resourced, which has kept it on track.”

Richardson added that the Air Force and Congress have been “a great team on this” but warned that he’s never seen a program that didn’t have issues pop up.

“The program’s going really, really well. But there’s a lot of work to go,” he said. “I don’t know what bumps may come, but there will be bumps along the road, as we finish out the program, and we need to work through them.” He asked for “patience” when that happens.

“To be clear, I don’t know of any” problems with the B-21 now, Richardson said.

Cotton called the B-21 an “exquisitely run” program.

Nahom said USAF cannot “accelerate” development of the B-21 but that “there may be some acceleration in the number we buy after we have a fielded aircraft.” For now, “we’re moving at a good pace, but we don’t see acceleration in the near term.”

Richardson said he would “not recommend” trying to accelerate B-21 development.

“Speed with discipline is our mantra on that program … We’re moving as swiftly as we feel it’s prudent to do. Once we get further along in the system verification process … we should then look at” accelerating the buy, he said.

The Plan to Buy Fewer HH-60 Helicopters

Duckworth also said she’s worried about the 40 percent reduction in the HH-60 Combat Rescue Helicopter program, from 113 to 75, asking how the Air Force will conduct this mission with a shortage of airframes.

Nahom replied that in future scenarios, the HH-60 won’t have the “range … or survivability” to carry out the combat search and rescue mission (CSAR) and that USAF is looking at alternatives. USAF special operators performing CSAR have flown in Army MH-47s and Air Force CV-22s, which have longer range, and these approaches may be the bridge to a new capability, he said. But the Air Force doesn’t want to invest too much in a capability that it won’t be able to use in the nearer term, he added. He insisted that the service is not giving up the mission, which he called a moral imperative.

New Pentagon Office Overseeing Data and AI Nearing FOC

May 18, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

As the Defense Department looks to accelerate use of artificial intelligence and to connect its sensors and shooters into one massive data network, a new office overseeing those efforts will reach full operating capability in the coming weeks.

The Office of the Chief Data and Artificial Intelligence Officer (CDAO) will reach FOC by June 1, John Sherman, the Pentagon’s chief information officer and acting CDAO, told lawmakers May 18.

The milestone comes just a few months after Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks announced the new office and position in December, replacing the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and realigning the Defense Digital Service and chief data officer role.

The office stood up Feb. 1, with Sherman serving as the acting head. In April, the Pentagon announced that Dr. Craig Martell, a former executive at Lyft, LinkedIn, and Dropbox, would take over as the full-time CDAO.

Martell is set to join the enterprise in the coming weeks, Sherman told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on cyber, innovative technologies, and information systems.

In the meantime, those already in the office are working to define its structure. To this point, AI projects across the Pentagon have formed a massive sprawling enterprise—there are more than 600 efforts currently underway, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has said—making consolidation a key point.

“As part of the CDAO stand up, we have established a governance working group, and they are looking through over 40 different foundational documents that reference either the pre-existing organizations before CDAO or other roles and responsibilities that CDAO is taking over,” Margaret Palmieri, principal deputy to the CDAO, told lawmakers. “So we’re looking at it holistically and looking at governance, specifically, and all the different working groups in the department. I think we found about 21 that had oversight on some of our issues. We’ve been able to streamline those in the near term and take them down, actually reducing the level of bureaucracy around some of these issues and getting some more clarity.”

And it’s not just the larger DOD-wide offices and efforts that need to be coordinated—the services have their own AI ambitions. The Department of the Air Force, in particular, has already named its new chief data and AI officer, Brig. Gen. John M. Olson, and pursued projects to integrate AI into unmanned autonomous aircraft and target identification.

“There’s a lot of AI going on in the services, under the military departments, that we have some established governance there, much of which goes to the CIOs,” Sherman said. “But not all of it, and that’s an opportunity for us, and we need to tighten that up as well.”

The urgency to coordinate, strengthen, and further the Pentagon’s use of AI has been growing for some time now, with leading experts saying it will transform warfare. Former Google CEO and Defense Innovation Advisory Board chair Eric Schmidt has predicted it will be “a force multiplier like you’ve never seen before.”

Yet with that push has also come concerns about the security and the ethical uses of AI. Rep Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) highlighted those issues and pushed for the new CDAO office to take the lead in helping to establish international norms and standards for AI’s use in warfare.

“Just as when the world came to terms with the horrors of chemical weapons in World War I, and the Geneva Convention was the result, I think this is a second Geneva Convention moment,” said Moulton, who served as an officer in the Marine Corps. “… I get that this basically falls under the State Department. But I don’t think enough people in State appreciate how important this is, and as one of the leaders in our government on the use and employment of AI, I would strongly encourage you to help mount an effort to work on this broader problem.”

Palmieri agreed with Moulton and revealed that DOD is “in the last few weeks of coordination” in developing a strategy for responsible AI.

Kendall: ‘Race For Technological Superiority With China’ Warrants Divestments

May 17, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

A record investment in research and development by the Department of the Air Force will help the United States win the long-term technology race with China, even while shrinking the fleet size before a possible mid-decade Taiwan contingency, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said May 17.

Recounting how China has “obsessed” him for years, Kendall said the “risk is going up as China continues to field more modern systems, and so we really have to focus on our future and take a little bit of risk in the process to do that,” Kendall said at National Defense University in response to a question from Air Force Magazine.

“The divestitures of programs are a way to find resources to invest in modernization,” Kendall added.

In the fiscal 2023, the Air Force proposes divesting 240 aircraft to afford $49.2 billion in research and development for the Air Force and Space Force.

“With the Air Force, Space Force, we need to transform two different sets of capabilities over time, and we need to do this as quickly as we can while maintaining a reasonable level of current capability,” the Secretary said before a crowd of several hundred service members, students, and China watchers gathered for the biennial China Aerospace Studies Institute conference.

Kendall said investments are in two bins: near-term and long-term. He described near-term investments to include the F-35 Block 4, the F-22 upgrade, new air-to-air missiles, and the E-7 Wedgetail replacement for the E-3 AWACS fleet. Long-term investments included Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and unmanned combat aircraft.

Kendall said Space Force near-term investments are in missile warning and improving space resiliency “over time.”

Kendall downplayed a key theme debated by China aerospace experts throughout the day—that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force is readying for a mid-decade invasion of Taiwan.

“There’s no way to know when or if China might do something aggressive, but they’re preparing over time,” he said. “We’re trying to maintain a current capability that’s adequate while we get to better capability in the future.”

Kendall used a chess analogy to explain why the Department of the Air Force needs to invest heavily in the future to counter China.

“They’re playing at least a couple of moves ahead,” Kendall said. “They’re not just designing for the things we already have, they’re designing for the things they think we’re going to have—or in some cases, the things that we’re really not very far along in development.”

Kendall added: “It is quite clear to me that we are in a race for technological superiority with China as far as conventional warfighting is concerned.”

China Aerospace Studies Institute director Brendan Mulvaney warned that China is closing the technology gap much faster than expected.

“I seriously hope that our next conflict is not with China,” he told Air Force Magazine in a pull-aside interview. “The Chinese are catching up far more quickly than we had ever anticipated.”

Mulvaney cited hypersonics and quantum computing as “niche fields” in which China may be on par with the U.S. military. China’s system of government, he noted, allows for stable, long-term planning and funding of the military, even if its economy slows.

“We need to pick up our pace to make sure we maintain this advantage,” Mulvaney said, explaining that what took the U.S. military 30 or 40 years to develop, China has been able to achieve in 10 to 15 years. “They’re closing that gap, and we need to make sure that we continue to accelerate so that they don’t catch us.”

In his closing remarks, Kendall recalled a previous stint at the Pentagon, when after the first Gulf War, China observed the American way of warfighting and made investment changes. Upon returning to government, Kendall assessed how far the one-party state had come in tailoring its defenses to target a small number of high-value U.S. assets.

“We are the dominant military on the planet until you get to within about 1,000 miles of China, and then it starts to change,” he said. “The reason it starts to change is because of what China has invested in. They’ve gone after a suite of capabilities designed to deter or defeat us if we intervene in their part of the world.”

Kendall said that suite includes a host of anti-satellite capabilities and long-range precision weapons that can evade some defenses.

“They can reach out to try to keep our aircraft carriers away. They can attack our forward air bases, in particular, within the region,” he said.

“I think very much about how risk is increasing over time and the need to modernize in a way which gives us the capability we need, not just today, but tomorrow, the day after that, and the day after that,” Kendall explained. “And the cycle I’m interested in goes out decades.”