Report: Some of DOD’s GPS Alternatives Lack Complete Business Cases

Aug. 7, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

The Navy should complete the business cases for its proposed alternatives to GPS navigation so that Congress can properly oversee and fund the programs, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.

The Air Force’s business-case documents for its Resilient-Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (R-EGI), on the other hand, were complete.

The GAO report also criticized the Pentagon’s PNT Oversight Council for focusing most of its attention on modernizing the existing GPS constellation and little on new modes of positioning, navigation, and timing to fill in when GPS goes down.

The Defense Department’s growing reliance on GPS, coupled with other countries’ growing abilities to interfere with satellites—kinetically with anti-satellite weapons and through acts such as signal jamming and cyberattacks—have brought about the desire for “a diverse array of technologies” for PNT, according to the report:

“DOD’s intent in using this approach is that these alternative sources would work together, even when GPS is available, to check the accuracy of each source, including GPS, and combine information if the quality of a single source degrades.”

The most common mode of interfering with GPS is jamming—blocking communication between transmitters and receivers by sending out signals in the same band of radio frequencies, according to the report. Yet while jamming is limited in geographic range, cyberattacks “can have far greater reach as long as the target is accessible via a computer network, and can present a greater threat” the report said, characterizing “automation and connectivity” as “fundamental enablers of DOD’s modern military capabilities” that also “make weapon systems more vulnerable.”

USAF’s REG-I, a “multi-PNT” receiver for air platforms, includes GPS service plus inertial navigation, with an open architecture to accommodate future alternative PNT mechanisms.

The Navy’s receiver, the Upgrade to Global Positioning System based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Service (GPNTS), adds clocks plus inputs for commercial satellite data. The Navy is also acquiring celestial and inertial navigation systems and an upgrade to its Cooperative Engagement Capability sensor network for situational awareness. The business cases aren’t complete for any of the Navy’s programs.

The Army’s Dismounted Assured Position Navigation and Timing System (DAPS) for troops on foot and its Mounted Assured Position, Navigation, and Timing System (MAPS) for combat vehicles involve inertial systems along with clocks plus receivers for commercial satellite data. DAPS and MAPS have yet to transition from the “urgent” to the “middle tier” or “major capability” acquisition “pathways” like the Air Force’s and Navy’s.

The report acknowledges that depending on urgency and other factors, the services don’t have to turn in completed business cases but said that doing so is a “leading practice” that can help the DOD “improve its acquisition outcomes.”

“The information in a complete business case can help decision makers in DOD and Congress oversee acquisition efforts. With a complete business case, decision makers can better ensure that the necessary resources are available to match the program’s requirements, and that technologies used in a system will work as expected. Without a complete business case, as is the case with the four Navy efforts, DOD assumes more risk, which may result in reduced capabilities of the eventual system, delayed delivery of PNT capabilities to the warfighter, or unexpected cost increases,” according to the report.

The GAO report also pointed out that the DOD’s three-tiered PNT Oversight Council “only rarely addressed alternative PNT efforts” and instead “focused its efforts on addressing GPS issues,” which DOD officials said was “due to the pressing need to purchase computer chips to support M-code receiver cards,” referring to the department’s new stronger, encrypted signal.

‘Sole Purpose‘ Policy Didn’t Make It Into Nuclear Posture Review, but Biden Wants It in the Future

Aug. 5, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

President Joe Biden still hopes to shift to a “sole purpose” policy for nuclear weapons in the future, even as his administration’s new Nuclear Posture Review preserves the U.S.’s longstanding policy of “flexible deterrence,” a top Pentagon official said Aug. 5.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl, speaking at a side event at the United Nations’ 10th review conference on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, also promised that an unclassified version of the Nuclear Posture Review will be released “in the relatively near future.” A classified version and a brief summary were released in March.

The three-paragraph summary concluded by stating that the U.S. would only consider the use of nuclear weapons “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

That marked a walk-back from Biden’s pledge on the campaign trail to formally declare that the U.S.’s sole purpose for having nuclear arms is deterring or responding to a nuclear attack. A sizable group of Democratic lawmakers had also lobbied Biden after he became president to state in the NPR that the U.S. would never use nuclear weapons first in a conflict.

Republicans, on the other hand, vocally opposed such a move, as did allies and partner nations, according to media reports.

Complicating any potential changes in nuclear policy are the threats posed by both Russia and China. During the course of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly raised the threat of using its nuclear arsenal, and China has recently engaged in an expansion of its nuclear capabilities that Pentagon officials have called “breathtaking.”

And so, while “a sole purpose declaratory policy has long been supported by President Biden … the NPR concluded that now is not the time for making that change,” Kahl said. Such a decision ensures “continuity and stability” in U.S. nuclear policy, he added.

At the same time, “we retain the goal of moving towards the sole purpose declaration in the future, and the NPR makes that clear,” Kahl added. “And we will work with our allies and partners to identify concrete steps that will allow us to do so. We also continue to adhere to a negative security assurance not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and are in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”

The U.S. has released nuclear posture reviews in 1994, 2002, 2010, 2018, and now in 2022. Kahl did not say if or when the Biden administration might release a new Nuclear Posture Review or amend this latest one.

There is also uncertainty regarding China’s goal for its nuclear arsenal, Kahl said. Previously, the Pentagon had estimated that the Chinese had 200 nuclear warheads and would double that number by 2030. More recently, however, those estimates have jumped to 700 warheads by 2027 and 1,000 by 2030. Kahl said that the final number could wind up “quadrupling” what China has now.

All the while, the U.S. and China have not engaged in substantive arms control or strategic stability talks akin to the New START treaty between the U.S. and Russia, Kahl confirmed.

“We are open to strategic stability dialogue conversations with [China]. We are open to initiating conversations on arms control. … The necessary condition for that conversation to happen is a reciprocal willingness from Beijing to entertain those conversations,” Kahl said. “And to date, they have not expressed a willingness to engage in either a sustained strategic stability dialogue or arms control.”

The countries’ leaders, Biden and President Xi Jinping, have mentioned the possibility of such talks in their conversations, Kahl said. But thus far, there has been no follow through.

Instead, tensions are rising over House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Taiwan, which has sparked an intense backlash from China including military exercises surrounding the island, as well as an announcement Aug. 5 that the Chinese military was cutting off communications with their American counterparts.

Kahl criticized the latest move as “bad news” with potentially dangerous consequences.

“Mature responsible nuclear powers don’t cut off military to military contacts and communication in the midst of heightened tensions. They don’t do that because it increases the prospect for misperception and miscalculation,” Kahl said.

Mildenhall KC-135 Crews’ Unique Rapport: ‘I Don’t Know That I Could Choose Another Airplane’

Aug. 5, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

RAF MILDENHALL, U.K—The ops tempo has increased as of late, but after every sortie, the pilots, co-pilots, and boom operators flying the KC-135s of the 100th Air Refueling Wing still gather for a debrief.

And in those sessions, the Airmen develop a bond they feel is special to those who fly on the Stratotanker.

“There is a potentially 18-, 19-year-old enlisted dude, and two majors or a lieutenant colonel and a major, or a captain or whatever,” Tech. Sgt. Blake Soule, a KC-135 boom operator, told Air Force Magazine. “And they sit together, and the boom can say to the pilots, ‘Hey sir, I need more out of you here. You didn’t do this very well,’ and vice versa. And that is such an important piece of building that rapport … and it’s really unique. A lot of other airframes that have a crew, the enlisted and the officers don’t really mix too much. They don’t operate the entire sortie in that way. So yeah, it’s a very beneficial way to work and to build that trust with your other crew members.”

Even on other tankers, the relationship between the pilots and the crew in the back can be different, said Capt. Jori Ingersoll, a KC-135 pilot.

“As far as the relationship, it’s all based on trust,” Ingersoll said, the three-person crew trusting the boom operator with “connecting multi-million dollar aircraft with multi-millions of dollars of fuel between the two of them.”

The KC-10 Extender typically has a crew of four, with a flight engineer. The new KC-46 Pegasus has two pilots and a boom operator, with room for up to 12 more crew members. But with the KC-135, the boom operator’s job can extend far beyond the act of refueling.

“They get to decide how involved they are in an airplane. And especially at Mildenhall, it’s a great involvement,” Ingersoll said. “When we do pattern work, the boom operator is the God’s eye view in the back. They can see everything outside, all of our instruments, the way the pilots are reacting. They cross check, so they double check us on airspeed, altitude, back us up on the radios. They’re, I mean, essentially another copilot in the back.”

Soule credited that “camaraderie” at Mildenhall in part to the 100th ARW’s relatively small, tight-knit group of pilots and boom operators. With 15 KC-135s, the wing is less than a quarter the size of the Air Force’s “super” tanker wing, the 92nd Air Refueling Wing at Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash.

That, combined with the 100th ARW being the only permanently based USAF tanker wing in Europe and Africa, means the Airmen at Mildenhall get plenty of experience with real-world missions.

“A lot of the boom operators have more time in the flare than a lot of the pilots have in the airplane,” Ingersoll said. “So the amount of experience that they have and the amount of diverse mission sets that they see is oftentimes well above what a pilot sees with the experience. So there’s a lot of respect that goes to that. I don’t know that I could choose another airplane because of what a cool relationship the three of you have to have.”

That sense of community is also boosted by some of the KC-135’s more unique aspects, Soule said. The aircraft has been flying for more than 60 years, and while that has made it a target for divestment in recent Air Force budgets, it also gives the crews who fly it satisfaction in keeping it going.

“I kind of take a little bit of pride in knowing how the airplane works, hydraulic cables and pulleys,” Soule said. “It’s not electric fly-by-wire. It’s not through a TV screen. It’s just a window and my eyeballs and some hydraulic fluid and a joystick. And I think that helps within the community build rapport among the crews and pride in what we do, is loving your airplane.”

There are still challenges in keeping the jets flight-ready, though, and Ingersoll credited Mildenhall’s maintainers for allowing the crews to maintain their high ops tempo.

“You’re dealing with older equipment, so you’ve got to be nice to it,” Ingersoll said. “And our maintenance teams … we couldn’t get off the ground without them … There will be times when we’ll have a piece of equipment break, and they’re the first to respond. They determine the timeline of us being able to get off the ground. It’s harder to troubleshoot these airplanes, because other airplanes will have a computer that will go ‘[bing], that’s the problem.’ And this airplane, [you’ve got] cables and cords. You really have to have a mechanical, intellectual brain to figure out what’s going wrong and how to fix it.”

So as more and more units transition over to the KC-46, Mildenhall is ready to stick with the KC-135 as needed.

“The 135 is a like a 1968 Mustang, and the 46 is a brand new 2023 luxury Rolls-Royce,” Soule said. “They both have their merits. They both do what they do well.”

PACAF Ponders Inter-Pacific Academy for NCOs as Partner Recruitment Lags

Aug. 5, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

When top Air Force leaders graced the stage at a senior noncommissioned officers’ summit Aug. 1 to urge attendees from 65 nations to collaborate with the United States, one region was noticeably underrepresented: the Indo-Pacific.

Of the 39 partner nations that Pacific Air Forces identifies in the Indo-Pacific region, only eight were represented at the summit. Most there, such as Japan and Australia, were longstanding allies. At a similar event as part of the September 2021 Pacific Air Chiefs Conference at PACAF headquarters in Hawaii, only 13 Pacific partner nations sent their senior enlisted leaders to attend.

Pacific Air Forces is hoping an effort to create an Inter-Pacific Air Forces Academy for regional NCOs will help strengthen relationships and enhance interoperability in the region defined as the most important according to the National Defense Strategy.

“We have many regions that are here today,” including South America, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, and Africa, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass told Air Force Magazine before the start of the weeklong event.

“What all of those nations will come together and see is kind of that shared purpose and that shared commitment that we have to one another,” Bass said. “Relationships aren’t built overnight. And so, we have to have touch points like this, where we come together and forge the relationships and trust that we’re going to need for years to come.”

Asked if she will be reaching out to new INDOPACOM partners, Bass said the ties already existed.

“I don’t think they’re new ties,” she said. “The ties have already been there with a lot of our INDOPACOM nations. We’re continuing to strengthen them.”

But Command Chief Master Sergeant of Pacific Air Forces Sergeant David R. Wolfe told Air Force Magazine that outreach to the region hasn’t been that easy. Especially for smaller nations dependent on their economic ties to China, fostering a security partnership with the United States could come with costs.

“Every country in the world has economic ties with China,” Wolfe said. “What we need from our partner nations is to communicate the value of the enlisted force, to their success in integrating militarily with all of the partnerships that we have out there already.”

Wolfe said the U.S. goal is for partner nations in the Pacific to value their enlisted corps in a way that will make them “relevant, ready, trained” with a level of competence on par with long-standing American partner nations in the region.

The eight attending states were Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Mongolia, Singapore, Thailand, and a representative from the island of Taiwan.

Together they represent a selection of U.S. partners in the Pacific that already have long-standing defense and security ties. They buy U.S. defense equipment, or in the case of Mongolia, they represent a country where PACAF intends to increase its defense assistance in coming years.

“We’re missing way more than I would like to,” said Wolfe, noting the absence from the summit of quad member India and growing defense partners Indonesia and Vietnam. “We did everything that we could to get as many countries as we possibly could here.”

Notably, none of the smaller Pacific nations were present. Recently, PACAF held the Valiant Shield exercise in the South Pacific nation of Palau and has been competing fiercely with China for defense relationships on smaller islands that would be valuable for employing the agile combat employment concept, whereby aircraft can land and quickly depart in austere environments with minimal equipment.

Wolfe said the lack of Indo-Pacific attendance at the NCO event was less a matter of countries being concerned about what China thinks than their own lack of investment in their NCO corps.

“The main reason is that there is a variable level of commitment to the enlisted force in our partner nations,” he said. “An event like this sends the message to our [partners]—we just had the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force here spending an hour with just us.”

PACAF’s main objective for the senior enlisted summit was to take the steps to establish an Inter-Pacific Air Forces Academy for NCO training. Wolfe later said that an Aug. 2 PACAF breakout session discussed the fundamentals of the future school and what manpower and resources other nations might be able to contribute.

The academy is more than U.S. altruism—it’s about alignment with National Defense Strategy objectives.

“We can’t go into a partnership with a country that doesn’t at least have some terms of reference that are similar to ours for interoperability,” Wolfe said.

An example would be a country that also flies the F-35. To be interoperable with the United States, that country must be able to “do things like we do,” such as maintenance, launching, and turning the aircraft after landing to launch again the next day.

“It’s only a few countries in this room that could do that because they don’t have the workforce, the enlisted corps, to be able to be a 24-hour operation,” he said.

Interoperability enhances integrated deterrence as well, the concept promoted by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III whereby all the levers of national power are used to deter an adversary such as China.

“Integrated deterrence isn’t integrated if you don’t have countries that can do like things,” Wolfe said.

While only the eight nations present unanimously supported moving forward with the Inter-Pacific Academy, notably Canada and the United Kingdom indicated they wanted to have a role as well.

“Everybody’s worried about China—it doesn’t matter where you’re at on the globe,” Wolfe said, noting that many European nations are sending aircraft to joint exercises in the Pacific as competition with China steps up.

The academy idea builds on the successful National Guard State Partnership Program to train partner nations in the Pacific and a PACAF program that dispatches mobile training teams for professional military education and for sergeant training.

Wolfe cited the Philippines as PACAF’s most aggressive partnership at the moment. He said that even with a recent political change of government that has indicated a willingness to cooperate militarily with China, the Philippines is still deepening its integration with the United States.

Wolfe said Bass is working with the Philippines to help establish an NCO first sergeant position that would be proposed to the country’s military leadership.

“I would say small forward progress with the new government,” he said of the Philippines, adding that Singapore was also a “stalwart partner.”

PACAF views Brunei, India, and Sri Lanka as additional Pacific countries where it can deepen its NCO partnerships, the PACAF command chief indicated.

“We have a program to evaluate where everybody’s at kind of on the spectrum,” Wolfe said. “All we’re trying to do is help every country take whatever the next step is.”

Air Force Pilot Program Centralizes Resources for Sexual Assault, Harassment Survivors

Aug. 4, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Department of the Air Force launched a pilot program Aug. 1 to centralize resources for survivors of sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, and other forms of “interpersonal violence.”

The Integrated Response Co-Location Pilot program is being tested at seven locations across the DAF to evaluate the effectiveness of a more-encompassing approach to responding and assisting survivors, an Air Force release stated.

Under the pilot program, five services for Airmen, Guardians, and their families will be gathered into one location:

Sexual Assault Response Coordinator
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate
Domestic Abuse Victim Advocate
Victim’s Counsel
Religious Support Team

The seven bases where the pilot program will launch are:

Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas
Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif.
Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.
Hill Air Force Base, Utah
Misawa Air Base, Japan
RAF Lakenheath, U.K.
Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.

Data from the next six months at those seven bases will be compared to data from seven “control” bases.

“This is about supporting victims, plain and simple,” undersecretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones said in a statement. “Co-locating support services for victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other forms of interpersonal violence is meant to help victims easily navigate available resources. We’re committed to increasing awareness of response services, minimizing the number of times a victim has to tell their story, and collecting the data to improve response and prevention efforts.”

The pilot program follows on a November 2021 report from the Air Force’s Interpersonal Violence Task Force, which found that more than 35,000 Airmen and Guardians said they had experienced some form of behavior in the past two years that the task force identified on a “Continuum of Harm.” Those behaviors, 81 in total, included everything from physical violence to sexual harassment to workplace bullying and hazing.

The majority of those service members said they didn’t report the behaviors, with many saying they didn’t think anything would be done or that they thought it would make things worse for themselves. Of those who did report, the majority said they were not satisfied with the support services provided.

One of three recommendations from that report was to establish “a one-stop policy for victims of interpersonal violence.”

GE, Pratt & Whitney Publicly Pitch F-35 Engine Plans as Decision Looms

Aug. 4, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

FARNBOROUGH, U.K.—Meeting with reporters, industry leaders, and military officials from across the world at the Farnborough International Airshow, engine-makers GE Aviation and Pratt & Whitney laid out their competing visions for the future of F-35 propulsion in July.

While executives from both companies agreed that the fifth-gen fighter’s engine program needs a change, they continue to pitch sharply different approaches—and assessments of what the problem itself is.

GE is pushing to replace the current F135 engine with its cutting-edge XA100, developed as part of the Air Force’s Advanced Engine Transition Program and described by David Tweedie, GE’s general manager of Advanced Combat Engines, as providing a generational-level jump in capabilities.

Pratt & Whitney is offering what it calls its F135 Enhanced Engine Package, which Jennifer Latka, vice president of the F135 program, likened to a “block upgrade” that will be cheaper, faster to field, and more than sufficient for the Joint Program Office’s needs.

Both contractors took extra steps to publicly make their case, as Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has hinted that a final decision could be coming soon. Pratt & Whitney used advertising on London buses to appeal to decision-makers visiting Farnborough, while GE participated in a public forum session.

Need for Change

Leading Pentagon officials and lawmakers have expressed frustration with the F-35’s sustainment problems, particularly with the engine, for years now. And the issue seemingly reached a critical point when Air Force leaders said in July 2021 that more than 40 of the service’s F-35As were without an engine due to maintenance issues—nearly 15 percent of the fleet.

Acknowledging those problems, Latka pointed to several factors, including increased demand for power and cooling for other systems on the jet, delays in standing up maintenance depots, and a sustainment enterprise that differs from previous fighter programs.

Still, the program has improved as of late, she said.

“We continue to work on reliability improvements, to keep the engine on the wing even longer,” Latka said. “And we’re in a very, very good place right now. We have improved the aircraft-on-ground situation by 75 percent between January 1 and now, so we’re far, far exceeding the program’s objectives.”

Yet as leaders now look to the future of the F-35, they face a decision in how drastically they want to overhaul the engine, depending on whether they simply want better thermal management or even more.

Adaptive Engines

As part of AETP, both GE and Pratt & Whitney have developed prototypes of adaptive engines—propulsion systems that Tweedie says will provide “next-generation capability.”

In particular, GE is claiming that the XA100 would improve the F-35’s range by 30 percent, its acceleration by 20 to 40 percent, its fuel efficiency by 25 percent, and its thermal management capabilities by 100 percent.

Tweedie laid out three reasons for those jumps: the engine’s ability to transition between modes optimized for thrust and for range, a third stream of air to help with cooling, and “advanced materials and manufacturing techniques” such as ceramic matrix composites and 3-D printing that produce parts that are lighter and can withstand more heat.

Thus far, GE has built two prototype XA100 engines. Tweedie declined to disclose exactly how many hours of run time those engines have gotten during testing at both GE and Air Force facilities but said it was in the “hundreds.”

“We’re very pleased with the results so far on both the engine tests. And the more we run it, the more we really like this engine,” Tweedie said. “And it’s meeting the aggressive and challenging goals that were set out there. And when we conclude this phase of testing, we really believe we’ve met the objectives of the Air Force, which were to not do an incremental improvement but to fundamentally make that generational change.”

That generational change could be delivered “by the end of the decade,” Tweedie said. That timeline is slightly longer than one proposed by Congress in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which called for every Air Force F-35 to get AETP engines by 2027. Tweedie previously said such a goal is “certainly within the art of the possible.”

Getting there, however, would require coordination and cooperation between the Joint Program Office, the various services, and Congress, Tweedie acknowledged, and there is a significant problem in that regard: The XA100 will fit on the F-35A and F-35C, but its ability to integrate onto the short-take-off-and-vertical-landing F-35B is unclear.

“We really focused on doing the A and the C [models],” Tweedie said. “Now the B model does present certainly unique integration challenges, without question. But now that we have the prototype design laid flat, it’s in the test cell, it’s running, we know what we’ve got. … We are under contract from the Joint Program Office, working collaboratively with Lockheed and Rolls-Royce on the lift fan, to look at, what can we do with the XA100? And how can we leverage that into an F-35B? And what would be the capability improvements that we can provide to that platform? And what are the incremental costs in development and time associated with coming out with a B model capability leveraged from what we’re doing on the A and the C?”

The study is still ongoing, Tweedie said, but GE hopes to have data by this fall.

Pratt & Whitney, meanwhile, is adamant that neither the XA100 nor its own AETP engine, the XA101, will work on the F-35B.

“No matter what anyone tells you, it’s not going to fit inside a STOVL,” Latka said. “There’s a third duct in the XA engines, both ours and our competitor’s, and that physically doesn’t work. … There’s still a tremendous amount of design work to do on the aircraft because the new engine is 1,000 pounds more, and all of that structural analysis hasn’t been done yet.”

Tweedie declined to confirm how much heavier the XA100 is but said GE has worked with F-35 maker Lockheed Martin and the Air Force to ensure that the added weight will be “certainly tolerable and not a challenge from an integration perspective.”

EEP

While Pratt & Whitney is down on the idea of an AETP engine on the F-35, the engine maker believes it will be used on a future fighter.

“In my opinion, the AETP program, thank goodness for it, because we need to stay ahead of our adversaries as it relates to propulsion,” Latka said. “It’s one of the few advantages we have from a defense standpoint. And that program really matured sixth-gen technology for propulsion, and it will absolutely be used, whether it’s GE or Pratt & Whitney. That is what we’ll be moving into NGAD.”

But such technologies aren’t needed for the F-35, Latka argued, and installing them in only some of the F-35 fleet will create costly, separate supply chains and sustainment enterprises. In speaking with international delegations at Farnborough, Lakta said a common concern was maintaining “that international alliance, right, and keeping the glue together.”

In contrast, Pratt & Whitney is arguing that its “Enhanced Engine Package” will solve what it believes is the F135’s main issue—thermal management.

“The problem statement, even though there’s no official requirement, it’s sort of derived, is around this cooling issue. … You would never in a million years put a new engine, brand-new engine, into an aircraft to solve the cooling issue,” Latka said. “And that’s why Pratt & Whitney is offering the enhanced engine package, which is a core upgrade.”

That’s not to say that some elements of the XA101 couldn’t become part of the F135. Being part of AETP, as well as the Navy’s fuel burn reduction program, Pratt & Whitney has “the ability to leverage those investments and pull a little bit of the new stuff onto the existing engine,” Latka said.

Latka also claimed that the future block upgrades won’t be necessary over the course of the F-35’s life cycle—projected to reach 2070—because the core upgrade at the heart of the Enhanced Engine Package will produce more than enough thermal management to handle future systems that may be added to the fighter.

“In the future, if you want to bring even more into the jet, you don’t even need to do this again,” Latka said. “You’ve still got margin and headroom, and it allows the partnership to remain across the As, Bs, and Cs and the international partners because everybody maintains the same configuration [of] propulsion system.”

NRO Director: Agency Will Accept Instructions From Space Command

Aug. 4, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

The leader of the National Reconnaissance Office said the NRO will follow instructions from U.S. Space Command if needed. Meanwhile, the NRO awaits a finding by the Space Force on whether the office’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities “need to expand.”

In a webinar hosted by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies on Aug. 4, NRO director Christopher Scolese described how the office is formalizing its roles and relationships among the defense space and intelligence agencies.

Addressing the needs of both the Defense Department and Intelligence Community, the NRO gets its instructions—“what to look at and listen to”—from the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Scolese explained.

“They collect all the requirements from the combatant commands, from the broader DOD, and from the Intelligence Community,” Scolese said. The two agencies “then let us know where the priorities are, and then we go off and manage the constellation.”

The NRO has had “a longstanding relationship” with U.S. Space Command and its predecessors, Scolese said. Now the two entities are hammering out “the framework for how we’re going to operate under various conditions.

“Because it will be necessary for us to coordinate and, in some cases, take direction. And we have agreed to do that. We’re in the process of developing the strategies on how that happens, and when it happens, and under what situations it happens,” he continued. “For the most part, it’s a coordination effort, but it sometimes will be, ‘Hey, you need to do this.’ And we will do that.”

Like the Space Force, Scolese said the NRO is adding to its satellite constellations to make them more resilient against attacks—and that doing so is also making the system “more responsive” because with more satellites, the office can revisit sites for observation more frequently.

Smaller satellites built on common buses are also adding to the constellations’ resilience because they’re fast to replace and can be launched from more sites. NRO launches have now taken off from Rocket Lab’s New Zealand hub and NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia in addition to the typical Eastern Range and Western Range launch sites in Florida and California; and an air-launched flight from the U.K. is coming up later this year.

“Having the capability to launch pretty much from almost anywhere in the world gives us great flexibility,” Scolese said. “Should we lose a capability either due to a mission failure or … if we should lose them due to some adversary action that would take them out, we now have more places to go off and launch from and, therefore, reconstitute the constellation.”

Scolese said he didn’t foresee big changes to the NRO’s role based on a study of its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities. He didn’t see a need for the Space Force to contract separately for commercial ISR products because it makes the information it acquires readily available.

“So the mechanism is there already for organizations to take advantage of,” Scolese said. Meanwhile the Space Force is “studying ISR in general. They will find out if we need to expand that, or if it’s fine as is, and then we’ll adjust, or adjust as a community.”

Ukraine Needs NASAMS to Defend Against Russian Cruise Missiles

Aug. 4, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

Russia’s long-range bombers fire cruise missiles against Ukrainian civilian and military infrastructure nearly unimpeded, so Ukraine needs surface-to-air missile systems that can track and destroy cruise missiles, a senior Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine.

Russian TU-160 and TU-135 strategic bombers take off in Russian airspace, off-limits territory for attack with the U.S.-supplied weapons that Ukraine now operates. Once airborne, they launch deadly cruise missiles capable of hitting targets across Ukraine. Then the bombers safely land, having never been in danger.

The destruction has been relentless. Civilian apartment buildings, recreation centers, shopping malls, and port facilities. Russia alleges to have also hit Ukrainian weapons depots.

Ukraine’s network of surface-to-air missile systems has helped. The Norwegian-built National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), which is also used to protect Washington, D.C., will be an added advantage. But two systems announced by President Joe Biden on July 1 and under contract by the U.S. government for Ukraine are believed to be months away from delivery.

A Ukrainian Defense Ministry official told Air Force Magazine they are hoping the NASAMS will arrive by mid-September.

“We need specific systems that can track and shoot down cruise missiles,” Chief Master Sergeant of the Ukrainian Air Force Kostiantyn Stanislavchuk told Air Force Magazine on the sidelines of the Senior Enlisted Leader International Summit near Washington, D.C.

Stanislavchuk was on hand to tell NCO leaders from more than 60 countries how Ukraine’s NCO corps has been able to push back Russia thanks to U.S. and NATO standard training.

Still, the enlisted chief said there are limits to what Ukrainian forces can do against superior Russian aircraft and sophisticated cruise missiles.

“In the current air picture, we’re seeing the Ukrainian Air Force is dominant in the areas that they are controlling right now,” he said. “The Russians are not even getting close to actually pushing through it. They can’t because there’s too much defense, there’s too much coverage on that area.”

Stanislavchuk said he wanted to see all of Ukraine protected by the Ukrainian Air Force. He told a story from the early days of the conflict to demonstrate the will of Ukraine’s pilots.

Four Russian fighters were observed approaching Kyiv.

The Ukrainian Air Force launched two MiG-29s to intercept the aircraft. When the two pilots got airborne, they saw 12 Russian aircraft flying from four points.

“In air battles, we were significantly outnumbered by the enemy,” Stanislavchuk recounted to the NCO group Aug. 1.

“Two of our pilots did not deviate from the course and went straight to the enemy,” he said. “As a result of the dogfight, we lost one pilot who was killed, while the other pilot completed the mission and returned to base. The invaders lost three of their planes.”

Stanislavchuk said the Ukraine Air Force’s other main gap, in addition to SAMs that can shoot down cruise missiles, is modern aircraft. Ukraine now flies Soviet-era MiG-29s and Su-24s.

“With cruise missiles, it is more difficult for our air defense. Our only system of air defense of the state is no means of anti-missile defense,” he told the group, saying Ukraine’s air defenses are no comparison with the U.S.-made Patriot missile batteries operated by Poland and Romania.

“We only have anti-aircraft defense equipment,” he explained. “In addition to aircraft, we also shoot down cruise missiles, although this is a difficult target.”

Stanislavchuk said the Russian strategic bombers are launching their missiles while flying over the waters of the Black Sea, from inside Russia, and from the Caspian Sea in particular.

He added that new fighter aircraft could be quickly employed and used with great efficiency, similarly to how Javelin anti-tank missiles had helped destroy more than 1,700 tanks and more than 4,000 armed combat vehicles as of Aug. 2.

Still, Russia is believed to have fired more than 3,000 missiles, ballistic and cruise, at Ukraine since the conflict began Feb. 24.

“We were utilizing javelins so accurately, so efficiently, it was just destroying the enemy left and right,” he said.

“Just getting the planes is going to be filling a huge part of the efforts that we need right now,” Stanislavchuk said. “We can just destroy them right there on the spot and keep pushing them further and further. Overall, it’s going to provide us a huge superiority in the air.”

Stanislavchuk said the Ukrainian military has demonstrated its motivation to quickly train and effectively use the weapons provided by other nations.

“With the modern planes, they will be utilized immediately. We will train up our pilots as quickly as possible to hit and control the airspace,” he said. Ukrainian Air Force officials have said they can train 30 available pilots on the F-16 in six months’ time.

Efforts to pass U.S. legislation that would fund the training of Ukrainian pilots has stalled, and the Pentagon has said the focuses of air support to Ukraine right now are unmanned aerial systems and High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). The U.S. has already committed 16 HIMARS systems to Ukraine, and 12 are known to be in use.

“As soon as we get the planes in the air, we start destroying airplanes as quickly as possible and as efficiently,” Stanislavchuk said of the prospect of receiving modern aircraft—“just because there’s just the motivation and the spirit to fight and destroy.”

USAFE’s Only Tanker Wing: Increased Work, But ‘Increased Reward, Too’

Aug. 3, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

RAF MILDENHALL, U.K.—The 15 KC-135s of the 100th Air Refueling Wing have popped up all over Europe in recent months, from the North Sea to the Adriatic, and from the skies over Poland and the Baltics to other parts of eastern Europe.

As the Air Force’s only permanently based tanker wing in Europe, that’s business as usual. But demand has picked up since Russia invaded Ukraine in February, and U.S. and NATO air patrols ramped up over NATO’s eastern flank.

But with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine creating uncertainty and instability in the region—and greater numbers of U.S. and NATO aircraft patrolling the eastern flank of the alliance—the demand for aerial refueling has risen as well.

“What we do hasn’t changed: Providing a ready force at a strategic forward base, and essentially projecting air power through what we like to call unrivaled air refueling across Europe and Africa,” Col. Gene A. Jacobus, commander of the 100th ARW told Air Force Magazine. “The pace at which we’re doing it? Yeah, that has increased.”

Given the wing’s unique status in the region, the ops tempo “is kind of perpetually high,” said Tech. Sgt. Blake Soule, a KC-135 boom operator. But he said the wing is now flying “more sorties, longer sorties, … more on the weekends.”

Increased work can translate into increased job satisfaction, said Capt. Jori Ingersoll, a KC-135 pilot. “There’s increased responsibility, there’s increased risk, but there’s increased reward too—more experience across the force, and we do our best to give those days back. But there’s something to be said that we’re here to accept that responsibility of giving our weekends to the Air Force and what we’re supporting.”

With more refueling flights, Mildenhall’s KC-135s are getting tasked with fewer aeromedical evacuations and airlift operations.

“We have these young Airmen, young pilots getting that experience right off the bat, but it’s just normal for us, because we’re just ready,” Ingersoll said. “But it’s something that shouldn’t be taken lightly either. There’s weekends where we are tired. When you talk about day-to-day ops, there’s no normal day for us, especially when we’re flying as much as we are.”

Perhaps years from now, these Airmen will look back at this operation as a historic moment in Europe and their own Air Force history.

“These are the good old days that we’re going to remember, this is the impact that we’re going to remember out of being based at Mildenhall,” Ingersoll said. “All of the cool high-priority stuff that we’ve been doing.”

Soule agreed. “It’s incredibly humbling and sobering to be able to do what we do,” he said. “To do stuff that affects NATO and the greater AOR and people’s lives.” It’s busy—but worth the effort.