Boeing Says It’s Ready to Help USAF ‘Accelerate‘ Delivery of E-7 Ahead of 2027 Timeline

July 22, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

FARNBOROUGH, U.K.—The Air Force’s aging E-3 Sentry fleet is on its last legs. The service has already asked in the 2023 budget to retire half the fleet, and its replacement, the E-7 Wedgetail, has been selected.

But now, lawmakers and observers are asking a new question: How quickly can the Wedgetail actually be delivered? The Air Force has said the first prototypes will be delivered by 2027—but Boeing, the contractor behind the airframe, says it is ready to help accelerate that process.

“There’s a lot of options, and we’d be happy to explore those with the U.S. Air Force,” Tim Flood, Boeing’s senior regional director of international business development for Europe and the Americas, told reporters at the Farnborough International Airshow when asked about the possibility of getting the Wedgetails into service faster.

The urgency to replace the E-3 is nothing new. Gen. Mark D. Kelly, head of Air Combat Command, said in October 2021 that he wanted the wanted the E-7 in the fleet “two years ago.” The degraded state of the E-7 fleet has made it such that it requires a “Herculean” effort just to keep mission capable rates around 50 percent, he added.

The airframe is so old and unreliable, there is already a capability gap, meaning retiring much of the fleet before the E-7 is ready won’t incur more risk than already exists, Gen. David S. Nahom, former deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, told Congress in May.

Yet at the same time, acquisition officials say they have moved fast in the process to select the Wedgetail but that they will not “rush” the process to get it into the fleet.

The current plan calls for funding for two “rapid prototypes,” one each in 2023 and 2024, followed by a production decision in 2025, two full years before the prototypes are delivered in 2027.

Members of Congress have expressed concerns about that timeline, pressing Air Force leaders on the possibility of moving those dates up. In May, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it takes two years to build the airframes, based on Boeing’s 737 Next Generation aircraft, and another two years to modify them, and that the U.S. may be stuck behind other customers with their order. Still, he left the door open that “there are things that we could do … to maybe get access to aircraft earlier one way or another.”

The Air Force has reportedly already decided, however, that it won’t pursue one of those potential ways. According to multiple media reports, Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary for acquisition, recently said the service will likely not look to buy used 737s and adapt them, a route taken by the Royal Air Force.

Yet even with that option off the table, Flood indicated that Boeing could still find ways to get the E-7s to the Air Force faster.

“First of all, the capacity to deal with 737 [Next Generations] is strong … So to incorporate the modification program, there is capacity there to accelerate,” Flood told reporters. “We will talk to the U.S. Air Force about how fast they want to move and how to … find ways to increase the schedule.”

Flood added that Boeing’s Renton, Wash., facility that manufactures 737s for military use would be able to increase production, based on customer demand. In addition to the E-7, Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon aircraft is based on the 737.

Pentagon Seeks Blended Wing Body Concepts for Possible New Cargo, Tanker Aircraft

July 21, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Pentagon has put out a call for blended wing body aircraft concepts that could be applied to future military tanker and cargo aircraft as well as commercial aircraft, according to a solicitation posted by the Defense Innovation Unit.

The Pentagon wants “concepts of design of an advanced aircraft configuration that provides at least 30 percent more aerodynamic efficiency than the Boeing 767 and Airbus A330 families of commercial and military aircraft, enabling operational advantages such as increased range, loiter time, and offload capabilities,” according to the solicitation.

The Boeing 767 and Airbus A330 are the bases for the KC-46 and KC-30 Multi-Role Tanker Transport, the only strategic tankers now in production.

An Air Force Research Laboratory spokesperson said the solicitation “is not connected to the KC-Y program” but did not say whether it’s related to the KC-Z, which the Air Force has not defined but could be a stealthy aerial refueling aircraft. The solicitation did not mention stealth or low observability, but BWB-type aircraft, as “flying wings,” would likely have a much lower radar cross section than traditional types.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has in recent months cautioned the defense industry that analysis indicates that the KC-Y requirement—a follow-on to the 179-aircraft KC-46 program—seems to be best met by buying more KC-46s, with additional capabilities. Lockheed Martin has said it wants to offer its LMXT tanker, based on the Airbus KC-30 MRRT, for a KC-Y competition.

The blended wing body aircraft concept, because of its potentially large internal volume and aerodynamic efficiency, has been gaining interest from commercial airlines, cargo services, and the military for well over a decade. Boeing developed a BWB design for the X-48 program, which built and flew a subscale demonstrator in 2007 that received high marks. Lockheed Martin has also been promoting BWB concepts for tankers and cargo aircraft for a number of years.

“When integrated with projected 2030 engine technology, this advanced aircraft configuration is expected to provide at least 60 percent mission fuel burn reduction compared to current-day technology,” the DIU said.

It wants responses to the RFI by Aug. 2.

The RFI noted that the Defense Department consumes 77 percent of all the fuel used by the federal government, “and the majority of that is attributed to fuel for aircraft sorties supporting global operations.” The DIU said that “decades” of research into BWBs offer efficiencies that could sharply reduce fuel burn “and increase operational effectiveness, enabling longer-range sortie and reduced fuel logistics/supply chain risks.”

The solicitation is unusual in that its Air Force sponsor is not the Air Force Research Lab or the Life Cycle Management Center, but the Air Force Operational Energy Office. The DIU is also partnering with the Pentagon’s sustainability enterprise.

The Air Force has said that it is reviewing whether it will extend the service life of the C-17 Globemaster III or seek a new aircraft as its main strategic/tactical transport. It has ruled out a “stretched” model of the C-17 that would increase its internal load, as the service did with the C-141 Starlifter. The C-5M Galaxy underwent a major upgrade and re-engining in the last decade that is expected to keep that type operational into the 2040s.

The DIU said it wants interested companies to submit concepts showing how they will use digital tools and processes to “design, develop, test, verify, validate and certify the system for a possible follow-on prototype build, live-fly, and production.” These are to include engineering models in the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) “in a format that will serve as the Authoritative Source of Truth (ASot) for the entire design.”

It also wants the concepts to have modular, open-systems approaches for integration and upgrades.

Responses are to include the outer mold line and general arrangement of the aircraft; its performance and subsystems; what the risks are and how they can be bought down; a requirement analysis; a system engineering plan; a management plan; a life-cycle cost analysis; and plans for software design and ground and flight test plans. All of these are to come with a technology readiness level indicating their maturity.

Beyond the military applications, the DIU is looking for an analysis of how these aircraft could be applied to the civilian marketplace, with a marketing strategy, target customers, market potential, and the competitive advantages of such designs. The respondents are also to explain how they would manage intellectual property, create a management team, and provide an explanation of “how the commercialization plan would help reduce DOD procurement and life-cycle costs, and increase national security.”

The responses also need to include a manufacturing plan—along with an estimate of when production facilities could be ready to being manufacturing—as well as how these aircraft would connect to the joint all-domain command and control network.

New AFCENT Commander Takes Over at Al Udeid

July 21, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

In a hangar flanked by F-15s and Apache helicopters at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich was sworn in as the new commander of the Ninth Air Force, Air Forces Central, July 21. Grynkewich will be responsible for a 21-nation area of responsibility, some 15,000 Airmen, and combat operations over Iraq and Syria.

Newly minted chief of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, was on hand for the ceremony, commending the former CENTCOM director of operations and referring to him by his call sign, “Grynch.”

“There’s no question that Grynch is the right leader with the right temperament and the right experiences to lead AFCENT at this moment,” Kurilla said.

The CENTCOM commander said Grynkewich is now responsible for the daily missions in support of the anti-ISIS Operation Inherent Resolve over Iraq and Syria; protecting air bases against attacks from unmanned aerial systems; and conducting airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias; and will perform deterrence missions in support of allies and partners.

As commander of the Ninth Air Force, Grynkewich oversees its 332nd, 378th, 379th, 380th, and 386th Air Expeditionary Wings; Combined Air Operations Center; and Air Warfare Center.

Grynkewich said the Central Command region remains geographically important and requires innovative solutions to new threats in collaboration with partners and allies.

“This is an amazing region with a rich history, vibrant cultures, and a geostrategic importance that is difficult to overstate,” he said. “As we work together, we must find new ways to counter these new threats. As technology races ahead, we must identify the risks and exploit the opportunities the progress and change bring.”

Before welcoming Grynkewich to the command, Kurilla first acknowledged the progress made by outgoing Ninth Air Force commander Air Force Lt. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot.

“Under his command, this organization developed and matured a cloud-based capability to allow AFCENT to fight in the face of cyberattacks and kinetic strikes,” Kurilla said, noting that Guillot’s next assignment will be deputy director at CENTCOM.

Under his command, AFCENT also provided support from Gulf bases and carriers for the Afghanistan noncombatant evacuation operation in August 2021.

“You did not see the dozens of combat jets these men and women had overhead all the time. I can assure you the Taliban did see those aircraft,” Kurilla said. “The Taliban did see the AFCENT weapons trained on the Kabul airfield.”

Installs Begin on Production EPAWSS for F-15Es

July 21, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Boeing has begun installing the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System, or EPAWSS, on the first two F-15Es at the company’s San Antonio facilities, Boeing announced.

“Forty-three F-15Es will receive EPAWSS” under the first low-rate production batch, Boeing said July 21. The EPAWSS “is also the electronic warfare system that will equip the F-15EX Eagle II,” it noted.

Low-rate initial production of EPAWSS began in March under a $58 million contract from Boeing to BAE Systems, which developed the electronic warfare and jamming suite. A second LRIP contract is expected this year, and full-rate production is expected in 2023.

The Air Force plans to fit up to 217 F-15Es with the EPAWSS. In addition, all the new F-15EXs are being manufactured with EPAWSS installed, but the system isn’t expected to achieve initial operational capability until 2025. The Air Force planned for 144 F-15EXs, but the House reduced the fiscal 2023 budget from a requested 24 airplanes to 18.

While the Air force won’t say much about the capabilities of EPAWSS, it’s designed to give the F-15 pilot a means to detect, locate, and jam enemy radar, while also deceiving the adversary about the F-15’s exact position and heading. It uses “multispectral sensors and countermeasures,” according to BAE fact sheets, as well as high-speed signal processing, microelectronics, and “intelligent algorithms to deliver fully-integrated radar warning, situational awareness, geo-location and self-protection capabilities.”

Boeing called the system a “transformational overhaul to the survivability of the F-15.”

The EPAWSS “makes the most of mission effectiveness and survivability for the F-15 in contested environments,” said Prat Kumar, Boeing vice president for F-15 programs. The system “further strengthens a highly capable, lethal aircraft.” He said the F-15E and EX have “proven they can perform across a large-force environment to penetrate advanced enemy air defenses and improve mission flexibility.”

The two initial F-15EX aircraft, which are simultaneously undergoing developmental and operational testing, flew with EPAWSS in Operation Northern Edge last year. Boeing called the exercises “highly contested and complex,” and lessons learned from the war games “set the stage for future incremental improvements” in the system. Subsequent flight tests and exercises were run in October 2021 and February 2022.

Sources said the improved version of EPAWSS would kick in around the 60th installation; and that previous jets would be upgraded to the new configuration.

AFRICOM Nominee Calls for More ISR; SOCOM Nominee Names Uncrewed Systems

July 21, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

Nominees to lead U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Special Operations Command who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 21 described the Air Force assets they would need to better fight terrorism and counter influence by China and Russia.

Army Lt. Gen. Bryan P. Fenton is nominated to receive his fourth star and head SOCOM, replacing Army Gen. Richard D. Clark; and Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael E. Langley, the son of retired Air Force Master Sgt. Willie C. Langley, is nominated to receive his fourth star and head AFRICOM. Langley would be the first African-American four-star Marine and the first to lead the African combatant command (COCOM), replacing Army Gen. Stephen J. Townsend.

Both nominees cited the growing threat of terrorism in Africa and the importance of air support to prevent a threat to the U.S. homeland.

“I will need, as Gen. Townsend has, more ISR,” Langley said in response to a question from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, about the growing threat of Al Shabaab in Somalia and the Horn of Africa.

“ISR is an active deterrent. ISR is the commander’s sense to make sense, and it underpins all activities,” he explained. “Al Shabaab has increased capacity, and that really is the first ranking as far as affecting U.S. interests and U.S. people. So, they have aspirations for external operations, transnational operations.”

Army Lt. Gen. Bryan P. Fenton speaks at his confirmation hearing to lead U.S. Special Operations Command. Screenshot photo.

Langley also said terrorist groups ISIS, al-Qaida, and JNIM are spreading across the Sahel, the Lake Chad Basin, and into West Africa, leading to instability that is further fueled by Russian mercenaries.

Confronting the threat will require a diplomat-like engagement with African countries and new partnerships, he said, responding to a question by SASC chairman Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who noted China’s aggressive moves to secure a naval port in the Gulf of Guinea.

“Working with other countries, I think we set the bar,” said Langley, who led Marine forces in Europe and Africa. “That’s going to be the biggest deterrent or assurance actions, as I mentioned, that’s going to deter China from trying to take over the west coast of the African continent.”

In Somalia, where Langley deployed in support of operation Restore Hope, he said the void created by the withdrawal of American troops in January 2021 could lead terrorist groups and America’s adversaries to move in. He cited how Russia’s mercenary Wagner Group filled a similar gap in Mali.

SASC ranking member Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who retires at the end of his term, warned committee members of rumors that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III plans to cut funding to AFRICOM and collapse the European and African special operations forces into one unit.

“I’ve heard from four different sources unrelated that these plans to downgrade are out there,” Inhofe said. “Given the growing strategy and strategic importance of Africa to the national security, this would be short sighted and would make implementing the NDS in Africa much harder.”

In contrast to rumored funding cuts to DOD’s Africa interests, much focus was given to how Fenton planned to strengthen special operations capacity in the Indo-Pacific as a deterrent to China.

“I would start with, the role is, in concert with the COCOMs, developing asymmetric, scalable options for the COCOMs via our special operators’ placement, access, and influence, presenting multiple dilemmas to the Chinese, in this case, and INDOPACOM, and also developing and strengthening the partner and ally piece that’s a comparative and competitive advantage for this nation,” he said.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked Fenton to describe what such partner building would look like.

“They would look like small teams in countries throughout the region,” said Fenton, who served as commander of Special Operations Command Pacific and deputy commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

Fenton said the teams would speak the language; be culturally attuned; have served in the region for years; develop, implement, train, advise, and assist plans; and present options both to the country and to the INDOPACOM commander.

The SOCOM nominee agreed with prior high-level defense assessments that China is preparing the capabilities for a Taiwan invasion “in this decade.”

Asked what lessons he drew from the Ukraine conflict, Fenton pointed to the early investment in Ukraine’s special operation forces, space-based data collection, and unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

“The use of open-source satellite imagery and modern technology, small UASs, is blunting and has denied Putin, in many ways, his desired objectives,” Fenton said.

The 30-year special operator was also asked what future investments he hoped to make to strengthen the command.

“I would start with capabilities that will enable us and advantage us in contested environments,” he said. “They may look like manned and unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and certainly leveraging technology to give us an advantage.”

Loyal Wingman or ‘Untethered’ Drone? Why Not Both, Industry Leaders Say

July 21, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

FARNBOROUGH, U.K.—As the Air Force moves forward with plans to team manned and unmanned systems in the future, the service might be best served by pursuing platforms that can function on their own as uncrewed aircraft—but are still capable of working as “loyal wingmen” to manned systems.

So said several executives of top defense contractors at the Farnborough International Airshow this week, emphasizing flexibility in how these new aircraft would be able to operate.

The question of how the Air Force should approach the concept of manned-unmanned teaming has been an open one. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has endorsed the idea of unmanned combat drones, designed to work with manned aircraft and “run plays” called by the pilot. He’s also called for up to five drones to fly alongside fighters.

Other ideas proposed have run the gamut—some have focused on just one “loyal wingman” to extend a fighter’s sensing range or potentially carry more weapons, while others have called for swarms of drones to go with each jet, each performing different functions. Some are based around the drones being autonomous, functioning independently, while others envision the drones performing preprogrammed tasks as directed.

“The Air Force has made comments around ‘loyal wingman’-type operations, manned-unmanned aircraft. We’re fully engaged with that,” Boeing Phantom Works vice president and general manager Steve Nordlund told reporters. “Our concept around that is it’s not about a platform and surrounding that platform with a swarm of UAVs. We believe in swarm technology. What we really want to do is be untethered from the platform and to be able have the autonomous vehicle go where it’s needed, regardless of where the platform is.”

Such an approach would provide “flux ability” for operators, Nordlund added.

“So if there’s an aircraft in a different vicinity that has a need, … the unmanned system can respond to that,” said Nordlund. “So that interoperability piece becomes really important; the level of quantity becomes really important; how that handoff happens is really important. So those are a lot of the things we’re working on, both procedurally as well as the technology.”

Nordlund’s endorsement of an “untethered” system echoes comments made by John Clark, the new head of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works program—earlier this month. Clark said the company had done analysis that determined that the best approach was a “distributed” team with uncrewed aircraft working in a “detached” way.

But Nordlund went further in saying the system should be set up so that the uncrewed aircraft can still come back to the manned one and act as a “loyal wingman” if needed.

“I want the flexibility to be able to serve that mission that is at hand that day and be able to do both of those. Tethered when it needs to be tethered, untethered when it needs to be untethered, is what I think our customer would desire to see,” Nordlund said.

One of the contractors that has frequently been connected to the “loyal wingman” concept is Kratos. Its Mako and Valkyrie unmanned aircraft have been tested as part of the Air Force’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Systems and Skyborg platforms, demonstrating key characteristics such as autonomy, affordability, and the ability to fly alongside manned fighters, translating data.

And Jeffrey Herro, a senior vice president in Kratos’ unmanned systems division, also endorsed the idea of the drones being able to function on their own and within a teaming concept.

“I view these systems like we have as yet another tool in the arsenal of the pilot in command of a manned aircraft,” Herro said. “You might say this is another airplane. Well, it is, but it is actually just another toolset in his cockpit, potentially. It just happens to be off board in another airplane. … That’s one way to do it. These things can also be reasonably more autonomous and a standalone system to accomplish particular mission sets.”

Such flexibility could offer intriguing opportunities when it comes to planning and executing operations, added Robert Winkler, vice president of Kratos’ corporate development and national security programs.

“I think it’s really important, that idea of disaggregating sensors and platforms for a disaggregated strike package,” Winkler said. “And [then] it comes together at the right time. It doesn’t have to launch from the same location, but you can make that package on the fly.”

Kendall, Brown Address the Question of Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine

July 21, 2022 | By James C. Kitfield

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 11:29 a.m. Eastern time to clarify Brown’s remarks. Brown did not acknowledge currently training Ukrainian pilots on U.S. fighters. Rather, he acknowledged continued conversations about potential future support to the Ukrainian Air Force, to include training “in various capabilities and capacities.“

ASPEN, Colo.—The question has darkened the counsels of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months to a degree arguably not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis: If Russian President Vladimir Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon to gain the upper hand in its already historically bloody slog of an invasion of Ukraine, how should the U.S. military respond?

For the audience of senior U.S. officials and national security experts at the Aspen Security Forum, it was a question that Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. had seemingly spent considerable time pondering.

“That’s really a hypothetical question, and I can’t tell you how we should respond because it’s up to the President to decide,” said Brown, a featured speaker at the forum that began July 19. “As a member of the Joint Chiefs and Chief of the Air Force, which controls two legs of the strategic nuclear triad—ICBMs and bombers—my role is to discuss possible options and the risk associated with each if the President should request them.

“First we need to understand the message we want to send, keeping in mind that it’s all about deterrence. The goal is not to get into a broader conflict than exists today. We also need to pay a lot of attention to risk—so that options don’t lead you down a slippery slope of escalation.”

Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall has also been thinking about the use of nuclear weapons in ways that he finds reminiscent of his decades as a Cold War warrior in government and private national security jobs.

“For a long time, Russia has had a doctrine of increased reliance on tactical nuclear weapons, so as we watch the Ukraine war evolve, everyone is very conscious of the fact that they have that capability,” Kendall said, also speaking at the Aspen forum. “I haven’t seen any evidence that they actually plan to use nuclear weapons, and it would definitely be a mistake … I’ve always thought that nuclear weapons are just inherently so destructive and dangerous. The only time they’ve ever been used was by the United States, and we used them for the purpose of bringing an end to an incredibly devastating conflict.”

Wars change the course of history, and the first state-on-state aggression and cross-border invasion in Europe since World War II has focused the attention of military and national security experts worldwide. As the discussions at the Aspen forum made clear, U.S. military experts are already using the Ukraine war to go to school on Russian military capabilities, even as they contemplate what lessons potential adversaries such as China are drawing from the conflict.

“Everyone is learning from current events in Ukraine. Russia is learning something, as is Ukraine. The United States and China are also learning, along with the rest of the global community. We’re only four-plus months into the war, and it’s by no means over, so there are more chapters to be written,” said Brown, who noted how quickly the Western alliance unified behind the most punishing economic sanctions on a large country in history as an early lesson. That has profound implications that are being studied closely not only by the United States and its NATO allies, but also by potential adversaries such as China. “From a military perspective, we’re also paying close attention to how Russian forces initially proceeded and how the Ukrainians reacted. And while it’s not a new lesson, we’re seeing clearly the value of air superiority and the reality that it’s not guaranteed.”

Indeed, the Russian military’s failure to quickly gain air superiority over the Ukrainian battle space despite a seemingly overwhelming advantage in aircraft numbers remains one of the enduring mysteries of the war. Part of the answer may be in the thousands of Stinger and other man-portable air defense missile systems that Western nations flooded into Ukraine. It also seems likely that U.S. intelligence overestimated the capabilities of the Russian air force. Regardless, the failure played a major role in Russian forces’ failure to take the capital of Kyiv, and their subsequent retreat from western Ukraine.

The lesson in the critical importance of establishing air superiority is one the Air Force needs to refocus on, Brown noted, as the service moves from two decades of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it enjoyed a permissive air environment, to a focus on great power competition with the likes of Russia and especially China.

“We’ve operated in the past 20 years in a realm where air superiority was not contested,” Brown noted, and enemies such as al-Qaida in Iraq, the Taliban, and the Islamic State “did not have air forces or air defenses, and those are capabilities the Air Force will have to deal with in the future. Because air superiority is critical in allowing for freedom of movement for your ground forces. So we’re seeing in Ukraine that permissive air environments are not going to be the future.”

Another lesson cited was the critical and increasing role that space capabilities such as satellite surveillance and communications, and offensive and defensive cyber operations, will play in modern warfare. U.S. assistance to Ukrainian forces in the cyber realm, for instance, is largely credited with helping Ukraine fend off persistent Russian cyberattacks on critical communications nodes.

The Ukraine war has clearly demonstrated that “cyber offensive and defensive operations are critical to helping you communicate and move information, and deter and change an enemy’s behavior and confuse them by putting out deceptive information,” Brown said. “Because all modern militaries are highly dependent on moving information in order to impact decisions, and they need to protect that information, there are plenty of opportunities going forward in the cyber realm.”

Perhaps the preeminent question that shadowed discussions at the Aspen Security Forum was what lessons Beijing is taking from the Ukraine war and how those might impact its plans to reunify with Taiwan, by military force if necessary.

“I hope the lesson China is getting from the Ukraine war is that the economic consequences of such an act of aggression are extreme, and should be avoided at all costs, and the West needs to stick together [behind sanctions] to make sure they learn that lesson,” Kendall said. “China should also see that invasions intended to result in quick wins may not be successful, and you can get bogged down in a long campaign that you are not prepared for. I also hope that Taiwan is gaining lessons from the Ukraine war that can help them be successful in their own defense.”

Pentagon, Under Mandate, Creates New Office to Investigate and ‘Mitigate’ UFOs

July 21, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Defense Department is standing up a new organization to investigate unexplained aerial phenomena, particularly where it potentially affects military activities, the DOD announced July 20. The move was directed by Congress.

The new organization is the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO, which replaces the Airborne Object Identification and Management Group. AARO will report to the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security, Ronald S. Moultrie. The AARO itself will be under the direction of Sean M. Kirkpatrick, most recently chief scientist at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s missile and space intelligence center.

The organization is mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2022, which contained language directing the Pentagon to create a formal organization to routinely investigate UAP as they affect defense activities. It was spurred by hearings wherein the Pentagon was unable to explain video obtained from Navy F/A-18s, ships, and other units of unknown flying objects that came close to U.S. military platforms and activities.

Defense witnesses speculated at the time that UAPs could be adversary nation systems unknown to the U.S., or something else. The Pentagon has avoided characterizing UAPs as extraterrestrial in nature, but has acknowledged such a possibility, as the services do not think the performance of the objects observed to be within the technological capabilities of China, Russia, or other nations.

“The mission of the AARO will be to synchronize efforts across the Department of Defense, and with other U.S. federal departments and agencies, to detect, identify, and attribute objects of interest in or near military installations, operating areas, training areas, special-use airspace, and other areas of interest,” the Pentagon said.

The AARO will also, “as necessary … mitigate any associated threats to safety of operations and national security. This includes anomalous, unidentified space, airborne, submerged and trans-medium objects.”

The new organization is also to coordinate its activities with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The new organization’s “main lines of effort” include:

Surveillance, collection, and reporting of UAP-related activity.
Identify UAP system capabilities and their design.
Conduct intelligence operations and analysis of UAPs.
Mitigate and “defeat” UAPs.
Provide governance for UAP-related activities.
Obtain science and technology of unknown systems.

Air Force Acquisition Boss Says Service’s Need for New Systems Is ‘Pretty Sharp and Pretty Urgent’

July 21, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

FARNBOROUGH, U.K.—Air Force acquisition chief Andrew Hunter sees the need for faster design and development cycles for the service—they just likely won’t happen as quickly as his predecessor pushed for.

As part of a panel discussion at the Farnborough International Airshow, Hunter laid out his view of an Air Force acquisition and sustainment enterprise very much starting to take advantage of cutting-edge capabilities such as digital design and 3-D printing after years of futuristic promise.

But he stopped short of calling for new innovations to be delivered at breakneck pace. Will Roper, on the other hand—who preceded Hunter as assistant secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics—made waves by calling for the Air Force to build new fighter models every five years, leveraging digital engineering, agile software development, and modular, open architectures.

Subsequent Air Force leaders, however, have backed off those aggressive timelines. Secretary Frank Kendall, in particular, made it clear that it will take longer to develop platforms such as the fighter at the heart of the Next Generation Air Dominance program.

Hunter, for his part, called Roper’s goals “challenging,” but also indicated his support for moving faster and with more urgency.

“Our hope is that we will be able to have a faster pace in delivering new systems, new products. My predecessor in this job talked quite a bit about the goal to get there, and he had some very challenging parameters about how rapidly we were going to produce new fighter aircraft and aircraft. … But I do think we can definitely see a faster pace of adoption,” said Hunter. “And we see the need for it. So from an Air Force perspective, there is a need for new systems that is pretty sharp and pretty urgent. Particularly when it comes to uncrewed aircraft, there’s a lot of work to be done in that space.”

Like Roper, Hunter also strongly endorsed the potential of digital engineering, whereby digital models of new platforms are designed, constructed and tested. In particular, Hunter pointed to common design tools as especially useful because they allow for industry and government to integrate and collaborate more easily.

“When it comes to projects where we’re really early on and we’re engaging with multiple industry partners and multiple design houses and their teams that support them underneath … being in the same design tool [means] the government can evaluate what’s happening and what the quality of the design is and its predicted performance with its own people in the same tool,” Hunter said. “Not with a stack of paper that has to be FedExed to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and delivered by 5 p.m. on a Saturday. It’s just instantaneous because we’re working together on it. And what that drives, it drives a more agile development and design process.”

Such an approach isn’t notional, Hunter said—it’s currently being used as part of the NGAD program

“And it’s not just with a contractor that’s already been selected,” Hunter added. “It’s with multiple competitors. So I think it’s helping us drive a more competitive process, even in areas of government procurement where traditionally competition is hard to get.”

Digital engineering could also improve sustainability, he added, as designs can be tweaked, modeled, and simulated thousands of times to maximize efficiency before they’re actually built.

But it’s not just digital engineering that Hunter sees as a technique of the future being deployed now. He also pointed to the Air Force’s use of additive manufacturing as a modern industry innovation that has made its way into the service.

“Even on old aircraft … we can resurface parts. So as parts get worn, we use a cold spray technique to lay down new layers of metal on an existing part and essentially bring it back to a like new condition, and put it back on the jet,” Hunter said. “The performance is restored … to almost like new condition and have it go on for years. And there are cases where a lot of those parts are challenging, if not impossible, to buy spares. They’re no longer in production. So it’s a really critical capability.”

All told, innovations like those are pushing Air Force depots to look more like “factories of the future,” Hunter said. And while there’s still some older “specific tooling” that is used for certain aircraft, the overall approach is shifting to one based on modern industrial innovations.