Australia, US, UK Seek ‘Seamless’ Defense Industrial Base

Australia, US, UK Seek ‘Seamless’ Defense Industrial Base

July 14, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Following meetings with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, Australian defense minister Richard Marles said the two countries and the U.K. are working toward creating a “seamless” mutual defense industrial base to draw on the capabilities of all three countries for future defense systems.

Speaking with defense journalists at the Australian embassy in Washington, D.C., Marles, who is also deputy prime minister, said “the focus of the meetings this week” has been to “to collaborate more closely” on defense procurement; specifically, “artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and counter-hypersonics” as well as the previously announced sale of nuclear attack submarines to Australia by the U.S.

“We are building a technology coalition,” Marles said.

Military collaborations under the previous administration will continue under the new administration in Canberra, Marles said. These include previously announced cooperative efforts in hypersonics research, munitions development, use of Australia’s Woomera test range by the U.S., and Australia’s acquisition of F-35 and F/A-18 fighters, among other programs. Air Force B-2 bombers are deploying to Australia for an exercise.

“We see hypersonics and counter-hypersonics as a critical technology; it’s one of those that we’ve identified in the context of AUKUS,” Marles said, “in terms of sharing the technology … and collaborating more in the future on developing the technologies. So we certainly see this area as a significant priority.”

“It is essential that we are developing those technologies for our respective defense forces,” he added.

He contined that the AUKUS nations are seeking “to move from interoperability to interchangeability” in defense hardware” and that Australia’s aim is “not competing with the U.S. [defense] industrial base, but complementing it.”   

Marles shot down rumors of Australia seeking to buy B-21 bombers once the aircraft has emerged from development and is in production, saying without elaboration that no such discussions have taken place.

“Announcements will be made in the first quarter of 2023” about the specifics of the submarine deal, Marles said, which will also include U.K. participation as well as what Australia will do for submarine capability while it’s waiting for the new boats. The current class of boats will likely be service-extended, but that won’t be the only solution, he said. He suggested that other new AUKUS cooperative defense programs will be announced in early 2023 as well.

Marles said he doesn’t view the “Quad”—Australia, India, Japan, and the United States—as a “Pacific NATO,” as China has accused the countries of creating. The group is “not an alliance, not a security alliance” but instead “four like-minded countries working together” to promote democracy and prosperity in the region, Marles said.

“It’s not for any other country to say who we should work with,” he asserted.

Asked if he expects the group to grow, he said he expects the members will “want to grow what it does … and grow the agenda.” But he noted that one of the first official acts of the new prime minister was “to attend a meeting of the Quad. That’s very much an indication of our commitment to that architecture and the potential we regard for that in the future.”

Two More B-2 Bombers Arrive in Australia to Train With RAAF

Two More B-2 Bombers Arrive in Australia to Train With RAAF

July 14, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Two more B-2 Spirits arrived in Australia on July 12 in support of a bomber task force mission as U.S. Airmen trained alongside personnel from the Royal Australian Air Force.

The new bombers join two others that arrived July 10 at RAAF Base Amberley. All four B-2s are from the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. The bombers’ deployment will help support the Enhanced Cooperation Initiative under the Force Posture Agreement first signed more than a decade ago by the U.S. and Australia.

“Training and operating with our Australian partners has been an absolute blast,” Lt. Col. Andrew Kousgaard, commander of 393rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, said in a statement. “Since our advance team hit the ground over a week ago, U.S. Airmen have integrated with their Australian counterparts in every specialty: fuels, logistics, maintenance, aviators, you name it.”

Airmen from the 131st Bomb Wing, the Missouri Air National Guard’s associate unit of the 509th Bomb Wing, are also in Australia.

While the bombers and Airmen are in the Indo-Pacific, they plan to conduct training for “hot” refueling with Australian equipment as well as aerial refueling with RAAF KC-30s, Kousgaard said in a release.

“We simply cannot operate effectively by ourselves in this environment, and learning to effectively integrate with our partners is absolutely critical to success,” Kousgaard said. “We’re training against that ‘tyranny of distance,’ alongside our Australian partners on this deployment, and that experience is truly invaluable.”

A Whiteman B-2 became the first bomber of its kind to land at RAAF Base Amberley in March, but in the week since July 10, the stealth bombers have become a frequent sight in the skies near Brisbane.

B-2s previously flew over Australia in 2020 as part of training during a deployment to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia. This past June, B-1B Lancers that deployed to Guam conducted hot pit refueling operations with the RAAF.

This also won’t be the first time an RAAF KC-30 has refueled USAF bombers. The tanker refueled an American B-52 during testing in 2017 and B-1Bs during an exercise in 2021.

CSIS Cruise Missile Defense Plan Would Cost Less Than CBO’s, Reduce Need for Fighters

CSIS Cruise Missile Defense Plan Would Cost Less Than CBO’s, Reduce Need for Fighters

July 14, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

U.S. Northern Command’s homeland cruise missile detection and defenses must be upgraded to respond to new threats, experts say, and a major D.C. think tank proposes a multi-layered defense that would require fewer Air Force fighters in the air and use new E-7 Wedgetails, the report’s authors told Air Force Magazine.

The report, “North America Is a Region, Too,” by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) proposes a solution costing hundreds of millions of dollars less than a 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, and top Pentagon brass are listening.

“The problem begins with the threat, and the threat has already voted,” Tom Karako, director of CSIS’s missile defense project, told Air Force Magazine before the start of a July 14 conference on cruise missile defense.

“The threat has voted to include much more of what we would call air defense challenges, be they UAVs, be they cruise missiles,” he explained. The challenge of “air defense and cruise missile defense for the homeland has always seemed both overly expensive and perhaps pointless.”

Previous defense doctrine held that cruise missile defense was not necessary because a cruise missile attack would be coupled with a nuclear attack. Therefore, strategic nuclear deterrence was sufficient to deter both threats.

The CSIS report makes the case that cruise missile defense must be uncoupled from strategic nuclear deterrence given adversarial development of precision-guided missiles and the proliferation of long-range standoff cruise missiles.

Russia is one of the countries capable of striking the U.S. homeland with its new, low-flying, stealthy AS-23 cruise missile.

In Senate Armed Services Committee testimony May 18, head of U.S. Northern Command Gen. Glen D. VanHerck described how Russia’s new weapons complicate his command’s ability to defend the homeland with current capabilities.

“Russia has fielded a new family of advanced air-, sea-, and ground-based cruise missiles to threaten critical civilian and military infrastructure,” VanHerck said.

“The AS-23a air-launched cruise missile, for instance, features an extended range that enables Russian bombers flying well outside NORAD radar coverage—and in some cases from inside Russian airspace—to threaten targets throughout North America,” he explained. “This capability challenges my ability to detect an attack and mount an effective defense.”

Air Force Brig. Gen. Paul J. Murray, deputy director of operations at North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), speaking on a CSIS panel, said NORAD is looking at plans similar to the CSIS report for its own homeland defense design.

“The homeland is no longer a sanctuary,” he said, noting that the command sees Russia as the most important current threat but adds China as a threat by 2030.

“The threats that we face are not just from cruise missiles. We have threats from the sea floor all the way up to space,” he said, noting that adversaries have built and demonstrated conventional munition capabilities to reach the U.S. homeland in just the last five to six years. “That, I think, has also put a sense of urgency in this.”

Army Col. Tony Behrens, deputy director of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization (JIAMDO) of the Joint Staff, said the threat against the U.S. and Canadian homelands has proliferated and so has the cost to defend against it.

“Our adversaries have invested in the development of these threats through hypersonic technology, subsurface maritime capability projection, where cruise missiles can come at the homelands from any direction and across multiple directions simultaneously,” Behrens said.

Five Layers of Defense

The CSIS report calls for “layered defense in depth,” or integrated layered defense, instead of the perimeter-based defense and use of only the sensors carried by a fighter jet.

“We don’t try to defend everything, but we do try to defend a few things very well,” said Karako, describing a departure from legacy missile defense architectures to one that can provide up to several hours of warning time.

Matt Strohmeyer, a CSIS military fellow and co-author of the report, said the CSIS model builds on NORTHCOM/NORAD work done in recent years to develop global threat awareness using commercial-based space sensing from proliferated low Earth orbit satellites.

Strohmeyer said a proposed first layer would integrate data sources to get an earlier warning of when an adversary might be moving in the direction of an offensive attack.

Leveraging artificial intelligence, the first layer will look for “a change in pattern of life.”

“It’s understanding if you have a bomber base, or if you have a submarine base, what does the normal pattern of life look like at one of those locations?” he posed.  

Strohmeyer described how artificial intelligence would be used to detect a change in the normal numbers or movement of assets at the base and trigger a human study of the data to discern intent and deterrent response.

A second layer is known as the “21st Century DEW Line,” referring to the Cold War array of Arctic radar stations that provided distant early warning. The CSIS layer would use over-the-horizon radars to see thousands of kilometers farther by bouncing radar rays off the ionosphere. Australia uses the technology in its Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN).

While the radar would not be capable of providing high-fidelity imagery of the threat, the early detection could give hours of warning time and complement what space-based sensors are able to detect.

“The types of threats that we’re seeing emerging right now—threats like low-altitude cruise missiles, long-range cruise missiles—are difficult to be able to see and identify where they come from,” Strohmeyer said. “They can be launched from bombers—bombers that could launch and go any direction; they can be launched from submarines; they can be launched from surface combatants.”

An overlapping third sensor layer would integrate existing Federal Aviation Administration radars and other sensors to maintain custody of, or follow, the threat over North America.

A fourth layer, called Prioritized Area Defense or PAD, chooses a few areas of the United States to defend well as opposed to the CBO’s proposal for a perimeter defense of the entire continental United States. CSIS panelists said the debate about what should be covered, such as military assets, leadership, or population centers, has been ongoing for decades. A PAD radar coverage model in the report clusters the radar networks in U.S. coastal areas including the mid-Atlantic up to the Northeast and much of the Pacific coastline, with a cluster in the South.

A network of tower-based radars and electro-optical/infrared sensors would cover 500 km in diameter with 19 different sensor towers. Each PAD would have medium- and long-range surface-to-air missile interceptors rather than fighter aircraft to provide kinetic defense against an incoming threat.

Similar to the PADS, a fifth layer, called Risk-Based Mobile Defense, can be positioned where the threat is deemed to emanate from. In an Arctic response scenario, the risk-based platform can help forward-deployed fighters and be used in tandem with the E-7 Wedgetail, the Air Force’s next investment in airborne early warning.

Those “five layers together get us that defense in depth,” said Strohmeyer. “So, we’re not just waiting with a catcher’s glove to receive cruise missiles at the last second, but we’re trying to influence those cruise missiles throughout their entire life cycle.”

An Affordable Solution

To defend against cruise missile threats, CBO found in a February 2021 report that DOD would have to spend between $75 billion and $465 billion over 20 years.

The CSIS report says integrated layers of defense can be done over the same period for half of the low-end CBO estimate, roughly $32 billion, and be paid for over eight fiscal years not exceeding $2.5 billion per year, Karako said.

“[The CBO’s] particular architectures are, I would say, constrained by some assumptions, and that’s what really drove them to some really, really big numbers,” explained Karako, who said the CBO relied heavily on expensive fighter jets and one type of sensor.

“They’re using fighter aircraft, primarily as the tracking, combat identification, and engagement mechanism,” he said. “It’s expensive to keep fighters in the air all over the continental United States, all the time.”

Karako said the Air Force budget already includes money for over-the-horizon radars and that adopting a homeland missile defense strategy like the one proposed by CSIS would actually save Air Force resources.

“Having some fixed or semi-fixed assets in the homeland will help alleviate the strain on the fighter aircraft,” he said. “[The CBO] would have a ton of expensive fighter aircraft flying circles around CONUS all the time, and they can’t go do other things.”

The CSIS cruise missile defense strategy is also built in a way that it can expand to new missions in the future, either up to the level of hypersonic missile defense or down to cover the threat posed by unmanned aerial systems.

Karako said the long-range interceptor proposed in the CSIS model is the MK41 Vertical Launching System, which is being used to develop the hypersonic Glide Phase Interceptor.

“We’ve used this common launcher so that when that capability arrives, you can just pop it right in the canister,” he said, describing the Mark 41’s shipborne missile canister launching system.

Strohmeyer said the CBO report and the new CSIS report are promoting debate in defense analysis circles about how to design homeland defense affordably.

“We can now say, ‘Hey, there’s ways that we can do this affordably as well,’ to create not only a capable defense, but a credible deterrence,” he said.

Karako said the threat posed to the U.S. homeland is no longer theoretical. Russia used more than 2,800 missiles in the first 125 days of its war with Ukraine, and many of those missiles were cruise missiles.

“This isn’t some boutique niche capability. These are the weapons of choice time and time again,” he said. “As we say in the report, it’s coming soon to a theater near you, here in the United States.”

Environmental Review of Space Command’s Ala. HQ Site Finds ‘Minimal’ Adverse Effects

Environmental Review of Space Command’s Ala. HQ Site Finds ‘Minimal’ Adverse Effects

July 14, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

An environmental assessment by the Department of the Air Force found that adverse effects of building the headquarters of U.S. Space Command at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., would be “short-term and not significant.”

A favorable environmental assessment should have been all Redstone Arsenal needed to lock in the selection, but after investigations by the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office, the DAF must also revisit aspects of the selection itself. 

The DAF selected the Army post in 2021 as its “preferred alternative” to house the newly reconstituted unified combatant command. Then-Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper had scrapped the original search before it concluded and directed the DAF to start over with a process borrowed from Army Futures Command that let local communities self-nominate. 

However, government officials from Colorado—where the command has its temporary home at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs—have objected to Alabama’s selection, arguing that former President Donald Trump picked the site as a political favor and that the DAF failed to consider some important factors.

Already, one member of the delegation has raised objections to the draft environmental assessment, saying it contains a factual error and only considers new construction.

As it prepares the final environmental assessment, the DAF will also take into account “concerns regarding full operational capability” along with housing affordability and the availability of child care and support for members of the military and veterans, it said in a statement accompanying the release of the draft assessment.

The draft environmental assessment posted online July 13 for a 30-day public comment period includes reviews of six sites: Redstone Arsenal; Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.; Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.; Peterson; the Port San Antonio technology and innovation campus in Texas; and Florida’s Space Coast Spaceport.

The command’s proposed 464,000-square-foot office building and additional 402,000 square feet of parking will accommodate 1,450 to 1,800 personnel. The building is envisioned as having a “dignified architectural character without excessive ornamentation” to “convey the importance” of the command’s mission, according to the DAF’s environmental assessment.

The assessment accounts for the “impact of 1,800” personnel on land use, resources, transportation, and other factors. It found that the proposal would have “no significant impacts on the human or natural environment,” according to the report’s abstract. The figure of 1,800 accounts for “a potential but not yet approved number of National Agency Representatives and contractor personnel supporting USSPACECOM missions who might be co-located with the permanent HQ.”

The assessment found that the cumulative effects of the work on soil erosion, water runoff, hazardous waste, and noise at Redstone Arsenal “would be minimal since the projects are generally dispersed over a wide area. It should be noted that the expected impact to air quality, which has a broader [region of influence], would be minimal even with the increase in construction activities and use of combustion engine equipment.”

Members of Colorado’s congressional delegation have sent letters to the DAF raising objections to Alabama’s selection. They’ve cited suspected unfairness, and the GAO’s investigation found that Peterson had been identified as the preferred location before a meeting took place with White House decision-makers.

Colorado’s delegation has also cited the longer time they say the command would take to reach full operational capability, or FOC, there.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said in an interview in April that getting to FOC in Colorado might take a matter of months, whereas in Alabama, it could take years. 

The environmental assessment clarifies that in “the final stages of the selection phase, the importance of quickly reaching [FOC] was discussed by senior leaders and considered as a fifth decision factor” along with “mission, infrastructure capacity, community support,” and costs to the DOD. The report doesn’t include time estimates to reach FOC at each site.

Hickenlooper released a statement July 14 taking issue with the review, saying it “did not consider the prospect of renovating existing infrastructure at Peterson Space Force Base (SFB) in Colorado Springs, despite seeking to accommodate a similar number of personnel to the building’s current capacity.”

The statement also said “the draft review mixes up weather threats in Huntsville and Colorado Springs, inaccurately stating that tornadoes are a ‘high’ threat at Peterson SFB.”

In reply to a request for comment on the statement, a DAF spokesperson said, “We encourage the public to utilize the public comment process as part of the environmental assessment.”

Hickenlooper, too, encouraged the public to take part.

This story was updated at 6:43 p.m. Eastern time to include statements by Sen. John Hickenlooper and a Department of the Air Force spokesperson.

Ukraine Flies ‘Suicide Missions’ With MiGs, Awaits U.S. Decision on F-16 Training

Ukraine Flies ‘Suicide Missions’ With MiGs, Awaits U.S. Decision on F-16 Training

July 13, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

On Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon from June 19 to 25, two Ukrainian pilots described the challenges they face flying outdated, analog MiG-29s on the front line of a war against sophisticated Russian jets.

They were asking for F-16s and the training to fly them.

Ukrainian pilots describe their sorties as “suicide missions,” according to one Ukrainian pilot who gave only his call sign “Nomad” for operational reasons in a video interview with Air Force Magazine.

“Every one of us understands that we have lack of capability in old airplanes,” said Nomad, who was not part of the group in Washington, D.C. “The Russian airplanes have much more capabilities. They usually fly beyond visual range. They usually use missiles that have a range of more than 80 miles.”

Nomad described the story of a pilot friend on a recent night mission in the eastern Donbas region who flew with no radar, searching the night sky for a dogfight with a Russian fighter, limited to heatseeking missiles at visual range. On countless other missions, Nomad said, by the time a Ukrainian pilot has seen the Su-30 or Su-35 jet he is up against, “it has already fired.”

“Each pilot in Ukraine is eager to start training on F-16s,” he added.

Nomad is the only Ukrainian pilot in the United States right now, part of an Air Force leadership program at Columbus Air Force Base, Miss., that began before Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, but he regularly speaks to fellow Ukrainian pilots. In spite of his pleas to return and enter the fight, Nomad’s leaders ordered him to stay in the United States and finish the program.

“I am a backup plan,” said Nomad, explaining that the Ukrainian Air Force hopes he can be among the first Ukrainian pilots to enter F-16 fighter training. “I’m ready to go.”

Nomad said the MiG pilots in his group fly two to three sorties per day in planes with 1980s technology against new Russian fighter jets.

“My guys, they were struggling fighting against Russian pilots in advanced airplanes,” he said.

“We talk a lot about American pilots,” he continued. “They train a lot. They fly a lot. They have a lot of experience, and they have really nice airplanes to fight against someone. So, everyone wants to fly an F-16.”

He added: “That’s the reason why we are really highly motivated to train on F-16s.”

Col. Yuri Ignat, chief spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force Command, told Air Force Magazine that Ukraine has at least 30 pilots with sufficient English-language skills ready to travel to the United States for fighter pilot training along with the corresponding engineers and maintenance teams, if a deal can be struck.

“To learn the first stage of takeoff and landing and flying from point A to point B, it will take a few weeks, but to learn how to fight on it, to learn how to use missiles, we will take around six months,” Ignat said by videoconference from Ukraine’s Air Force headquarters in Vinnytsia, Ukraine.

Ignat said the Ukrainian Air Force flies in squadrons of 12 aircraft, and it believes two F-16 squadrons plus reserve platforms would turn the tide of the war with Russia. He said transfer of F-16s, either by the United States or another nation, would ultimately require U.S. approval.

“We are defending our cities with fighter jets, those cities like Zaporizhzhia, Mikolaev, the cities that are under the Ukrainian control,” he said, referring to front line cities threatened by Russia in the south and east of Ukraine.

“We also will need these fighter jets to use for the de-occupation of our territories,” he said. “We are not speaking about attacking territories, but we are speaking about de-occupying those that are Ukrainian.”

Ignat said the Ukrainian Air Force would follow the lead of nearby Eastern European nations such as Poland and Romania that have already made the transition from MiGs to F-16s and have flown both platforms together.

Concerns about sufficient runways are misplaced, he said, because Ukraine is flying its military missions out of civilian airports during wartime. Polish F-16s and American F-15E Strike Eagles have participated in exercises in Ukraine, using Ukrainian runways, in 2018 and 2019.

Both Ukrainian airmen said a principal reason Ukraine seeks F-16s is the airplane’s ability to conduct suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) missions.

Ignat said Russian media and social media are already spreading news stories about the possibility that Ukraine can receive modern American jets.

“It makes them nervous,” Ignat explained. “Because they understand that as soon as Ukraine will have modern jets, that will help us to destroy their ground air defenses that are located on the occupied territories of Ukraine and which they are using to strike targets in our territory.”

He added: “That will basically leave them without the control of the air, and they will run away immediately.”

The F-16’s ability to carry long-range missiles reaching 100 km will also keep Russian bombers at bay, he said, and prevent more civilian attacks like those that have killed Ukrainians at a shopping mall and recreation center in recent weeks.

But the Defense Department and White House have been silent about the possibility of F-16 training.

“On training of pilots, there are no current plans to train Ukraine on any air platform other than those that they are using every day effectively in the battle right now,” a senior defense official said in response to a question from Air Force Magazine at a July 8 Pentagon briefing.

Legislative Efforts

A Ukrainian defense official who spoke to Air Force Magazine said the June delegation visited the Pentagon and met with Nathaniel Adler, principal director for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia policy, in addition to representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The delegation also met with more than a dozen representatives and senators from both sides of the aisle, including Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who is co-sponsoring legislation that would finance the training of Ukrainian pilots.

Also in the House, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would authorize $100 million to provide training to Ukrainian pilots and ground crews to become familiarized with American aircraft. It doesn’t say who would provide the training. A July 11 letter from the Air and Space Forces Association called on members of the House rules and foreign affairs committees to support the amendment.

“Since it appears the War of Russian Aggression on Ukraine will continue for an extended duration, our nation must prepare now to ensure a long-term, steady flow of sophisticated weapons so our Ukrainian allies may continue to repulse this invasion,” the letter said. “In no area is this more important than the air.”

AFA argued in the letter that the inevitable attrition of the Ukrainian Air Force would eventually lead to Russian air superiority.

“This amendment may provide the military capabilities necessary to keep the Ukrainian Air Force in the fight,” the letter said.

A Ukrainian defense official who was part of the June delegation said U.S. concerns about escalation with Russia were voiced repeatedly.

“Ukraine is not afraid to attack and to fight back—maybe America should not be afraid also to fight back,” Ignat said in an effort to counter the American government concern.

“There is no way we will give up on Ukraine,” he continued. “And for the U.S., if Ukraine loses, it will be a big loss in terms of the global development of democracy, in terms of leadership in a free world.”

James M. McCoy, Former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Dies at 91

James M. McCoy, Former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Dies at 91

July 13, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

James M. McCoy, who was the sixth Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, and who was the first former enlisted member to be president and chairman of the Air Force Association, died July 13, three weeks shy of his 92nd birthday. He was a recipient of AFA’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

McCoy was born in Iowa and entered the Air Force in 1951. He served first as a radar operator with Aerospace Defense Command in Alaska, but a glut of radar operators after the Korean War motivated him to seek a new career in training.

He returned to be a drill instructor at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, from 1956 to 1957 and became a technical sergeant in just five years. While at Clark Air Base, the Phillipines, where he was in charge of base noncommissioned officer training, he set up and operated a command post during the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis, coordinating inbound and outbound USAF aircraft. He then spent a year as assistant to the commandant of cadets at the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the University of Notre Dame, Ind.

In 1960, McCoy was commandant of Strategic Air Command’s NCO preparatory school at Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Ind., and in 1962 was an instructor at the 2nd Air Force NCO Academy at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., becoming its sergeant major by 1966. In that year, he also received his bachelor of science degree in business administration from Ambrose College in Davenport, Iowa. He was an honor graduate of the 2nd Air Force NCO Academy.

McCoy was head of Headquarters, 2nd Air Force’s training branch then transferred to Headquarters, SAC, where he was in charge of NCO professional military education, setting up SAC’s own NCO Academy and NCO Leadership Program.

In 1970, McCoy was in charge of NCO operations training at the 41st Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Wing at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, where he supervised training programs for H-3, H-4, H-53, and HC-130 rescue aircrew throughout the Pacific and Southeast Asia; and as senior enlisted adviser to the wing commander.

He move up to Headquarters, Pacific Air Forces, as chief of military training and deputy chief of staff for personnel in 1973, refreshing courseware. He graduated with the first class of the U.S. Air Force senior NCO academy at Gunter Air Force Station, Ala., that same year.

In an interview, McCoy said, “I had gone from a wing, to a numbered air force, to a major command. I was going back to a wing.” He would have been eligible for retirement within a year, and he considered putting in his papers, but he decided to stay in, saying, “You look at every opportunity that comes along, and you don’t turn it down based just on what it looks like. I looked at it as another opportunity to further my professionalism.”

McCoy was named one of the 12 Outstanding Airmen of 1974 during his assignment with PACAF.

In 1976, McCoy returned to SAC as its senior enlisted adviser and during this assignment also chaired two worldwide senior enlisted conferences for AFA, which identified challenges to enlisted life and recommended improvements.

McCoy was named Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force in 1979, advising Chief of Staff Gen. Lew Allen Jr. and Air Force Secretary Hans M. Mark on enlisted issues. In a 2015 interview, McCoy said that during his time as CMSAF, the service was still reeling from the post-Vietnam-era malaise and the so-called “Hollow Force.” Both recruiting and retention were struggling. Helped in part by what he described as a resurgence of national patriotism in 1980, as well as a re-emphasis on discipline and grooming standards, both retention and recruiting improved significantly. He retired from USAF in 1981 after 30 years of service.

In retirement, McCoy settled in the Omaha, Neb., area where he was active with community, business, and civic organizations. But he focused on the Air Force Association, ultimately serving two terms as National President (1992-1994) and two terms as Chairman of the Board (1994-1996). He was the first enlisted Airman to hold both jobs. He was also the first enlisted person to chair the Air Force Retiree Council.

In 2007, the Airman’s Leadership School at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., was named for McCoy. In 2016, he was inducted into the Strategic Air Command Hall of Fame.  

In 2021, AFA awarded McCoy its Lifetime Achievement Award in the school at Offutt that now bears his name. Upon receiving the award, McCoy said, “It means a lot to me because of what AFA has done” over its history. He added that “a lot of people think it’s an officer’s association. It’s not. I’m living proof of that.” Gerald Murray, the 14th Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force and the second enlisted Airman to to be the Chair of AFA, presented McCoy the award.

Murray, who rose through the ranks to follow McCoy as the 14th Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force and is the only other former enlisted leader to become AFA’s Chairman, praised McCoy as a role model.

“Chief McCoy joined the Air Force at 18 and our association not long after,” Murray said. “Many are life members, but he led a life of membership—leading and giving his all at every level and in every way. He was an inspiration, and his mark is long-lasting.”

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr said McCoy “left a legacy that highlights the instrumental role senior enlisted leaders have in our mission, both as executors and advisors.”

“Improving education, equality, and quality of life were hallmarks of his time in service that helped shape the force we have today,” Brown continued, “and his dedication to Airmen and families continued in his post-retirement work with the Air Force Association and other civic organizations. I am grateful for his contributions to our service and am saddened to learn of his passing.”

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass said McCoy “was an icon of our great Air Force; a leader among leaders; a patriot of unparalleled honor and dignity.”

“When we talk about standing on the shoulders of giants, we are talking about Airmen like CMSAF McCoy. His passion for giving back to Airmen was exceeded only by his humility. He will be missed by all. Please, keep his family in your thoughts and prayers.”

McCoy received numerous medals and citations, including the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Award.

Hypersonic ARRW Flies Successfully for Second Time, Completing Booster Tests

Hypersonic ARRW Flies Successfully for Second Time, Completing Booster Tests

July 13, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force accomplished a second free flight of its hypersonic AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, in a test off the coast of California on July 12, the service announced. The test concludes the booster test phase of the program and clears it for operational testing later in 2022, USAF said.

The test marked the 12th time the ARRW had flown captively on a B-52 bomber and the second time it had successfully separated from the launch aircraft; it flew successfully in May. Three earlier attempts at test flights ended in failure, as the missile either failed to separate from the carrier aircraft or failed to fire a booster rocket. Those setbacks caused USAF to reduce funding for the program.

In the July 12 test, “The AGM-183 weapon system reached hypersonic speeds, and primary and secondary objectives were met,” the Air Force said.

“The test successfully demonstrated booster performance, expanding the operational envelope,” Armament Directorate Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Heath Collins said in a press release.

“We have now completed our booster test series and are ready to move forward to all-up-round testing later this year,” he added. The release didn’t define “all-up-round testing.”

A root cause analysis of the most recent test failure indicated that a loose wire prevented the missile from functioning as planned, service officials said.

The ARRW, four of which can be carried on the pylons of a B-52 bomber, is planned to be USAF’s first operational hypersonic weapon, one that can fly in excess of Mach 5. The two-stage missile is first accelerated to high speed by a booster rocket, at which point the hypersonic vehicle then separates from the booster and glides to its target.

The weapon “is designed to provide the ability to destroy high-value, time-sensitive targets,” the Air Force said. “It will also expand precision-strike weapon systems’ capabilities by enabling rapid response strikes against heavily-defended land targets.”

Jay Pitman, vice president of air dominance and strike weapons at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which builds the ARRW, said, “This successful test underscores our shared commitment to develop and field hypersonic weapons on accelerated timelines to meet critical national security needs. I am proud of the strong partnership we have built with the U.S. Air Force, on this and other key programs.”

Lockheed Martin said the test “demonstrates ARRW’s ability to reach and withstand operational hypersonic speeds, collect crucial data for use in further flight tests, and validate safe separation from the aircraft to deliver the glide body and warhead to designated targets from significant standoff distances.”

Details of the July 12 test were not immediately made public.

The May 14 test—the first successful flight—was carried out by the 419th Flight Test Squadron and the Global Power Combined Test Force at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. In that test, USAF said the ARRW separated from the launch aircraft and that the rocket burned for “the expected duration,” which wasn’t specified.

In the fiscal 2023 Air Force budget request, the services moved some ARRW funding to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, which is an air-breathing hypersonic weapon that will be smaller and capable of being carried on a fighter-sized aircraft.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has downplayed the role of hypersonic weapons in the last year, saying that while they make good sense for China’s needs, USAF is better served by investing in less-costly, level-of-effort and standoff munitions that can affordably service the thousands of targets that would need to be hit in a widespread Pacific conflict.

House Begins Debate on NDAA, With Amendments to Slow Air Force Retirements of F-15s, RC-26s

House Begins Debate on NDAA, With Amendments to Slow Air Force Retirements of F-15s, RC-26s

July 13, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The House of Representatives is poised to pass its version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, but first it has to wade through hundreds of amendments and the hours of debate that will come with them.

The House Armed Services Committee considered roughly 800 amendments to the NDAA as part of its markup process in June. Another 1,200 were introduced as the bill passed through the House Rules Committee on July 12 and onto the floor for debate July 13.

“We don’t need 1,200 amendments, and past a certain point, it becomes more difficult to do this,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the HASC, said during the Rules Committee hearing. “And I hope members will be more judicious in how they present this. At a certain point, you simply can’t process it. … There are going to be amendments that we’re not going to let in here simply because we don’t have time to go through them.”

To that end, the Rules Committee approved 650 amendments to go to the House floor for debate and votes. Among those 650 were several provisions aimed specifically at the Air Force and Space Force.

Divestments

The Air Force turned some heads with its request in the 2023 budget to retire 33 of its oldest F-22s, and both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees took action in their versions of the NDAA to block that move.

The Biden administration made its case to proceed with the divestments in a statement of administration policy from the White House Office of Management and Budget to the Rules Committee on July 12 , arguing that “requiring the Department to maintain a minimum inventory of major platforms limits the Secretary’s ability to optimize future force structure, increases the long-term cost of sustaining the force, and further delays necessary efforts to keep pace with the People’s Republic of China’s challenge in key warfighting areas.”

But none of the amendments being considered in the House would reverse HASC’s provisions that not only require the Air Force to keep the older F-22s, but to upgrade them.

Instead, an amendment by Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) would limit the number of F-15s the Air Force can divest, at least until the service provides a report to Congress on the number of F-15s—including F-15Cs, Ds, Es, and EXs—it plans to buy and retire in the next five years, broken down by year and location, as well as an assessment of the negative impacts of such retirements and plans to replace those missions.

Bentz’s amendment also calls for the Air Force to explain its plans to procure fewer F-15EXs. Service leaders have adjusted their plans for the F-15 fleet recently, and that includes a smaller buy of F-15EXs to free up funds for other priorities.

Similarly, an amendment by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) would prohibit the Air National Guard from retiring the RC-26 Condor, a tactical ISR platform the Guard has also used for counternarcotics, disaster response, and civil support missions.

Kinzinger’s amendment does allow the Secretary of the Air Force to retire individual RC-26s on a case-by-case basis if they are no longer mission capable, but it would force the Air National Guard to provide more funding for a platform that leaders say costs millions of dollars per year to keep going.

Those same leaders have said they can use other, cheaper technologies such as drones to perform the same missions the RC-26 handles, but Kinzinger’s amendment would require the Guard to maintain “a fleet of fixed wing, manned ISR/IAA aircraft.” The provision would also require an independent assessment of how the Air Force can modernize that fleet over the next decade.

Finally, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.) proposed an amendment that would stop short of blocking the Air Force from retiring any KC-135s, but it would express the sense that the service shouldn’t do so without replacing them on a one-for-one basis with KC-46s.

All three amendments were included in en bloc packages for consideration on the House floor, meaning they are virtually guaranteed to be approved.

Space Force Cyber Squadrons

Another amendment included in a package addresses how the Space Force will fill its current and future cyber-focused squadrons. Specifically, the provision by Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) would require the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations to review the staffing requirements for those squadrons.

“Specifically, the review shall consider the specific sourcing of existing billets of the Space Force that are optimal for transfer to cyber squadrons, and the administrative process required to shift such billets to cyber squadrons,” the amendment’s summary reads.

The Space Force currently has three cyber squadrons—the 61st Cyber Squadron, the 62nd CYS, and the 65th CYS—as part of Space Delta 6. According to media reports, four more will stand up in the near future.

Cancer Study

A recent study from the Air Force revealed that fighter pilots from 1970 to 2004 experienced higher rates of certain kinds of cancer, and advocates are pushing for more study on the issue, to include more services, aircrew, and other areas. 

Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), a former Air Force pilot, is one such advocate, and he included an amendment that would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to “study the incidence of and mortality of cancer among individuals who served in the Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps as aviators and aircrew.”

Pfluger’s amendment would also cover maintainers, and it would require the study to look at “chemicals, compounds, agents, and other phenomena” that could potentially be linked to higher rates of cancer among the individuals studied. The results of the study would have to be reported to Congress by the end of 2025.

Analysts: Ukraine Needs U.S. Aircraft; U.S. Needs to Stop Self-Deterring

Analysts: Ukraine Needs U.S. Aircraft; U.S. Needs to Stop Self-Deterring

July 12, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The weapons the U.S. and NATO have been providing Ukraine are not enough to reverse Russia’s invasion, and the process of providing F-16s from U.S. stocks should begin as soon as possible, analysts said in an AFA Mitchell Institute online seminar.

Panelists also said the U.S. should not be fearful of Russia’s nuclear threats and that Vladimir Putin will invade more countries if not stopped in Ukraine.

“Time is not on our side,” said Evelyn Farkas, former assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.

“The battle for Ukraine is … not just for Ukraine, not just for Europe, but it’s for the international order. And if we don’t defeat Russia militarily on the battlefield in Ukraine, we are going to have a whole lot of trouble politically and militarily all around the world.”

Farkas noted that “winter is coming. The Russians are regrouping, and, really, the only way to get back at them is to use airpower and to provide more assistance to the Ukrainians.”

Panelists said Ukraine’s best chance for beating back Russia’s advances will come through air-launched standoff missile strikes on Russian rear areas and supply lines, as well as command and control centers and airpower working in concert with Ukrainian ground forces.

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies, said the Russia-Ukraine war has effectively been ongoing since 2014 and will not likely be over quickly, so “there’s time” to provide Ukraine with F-16s and train some of its experienced pilots to fly them.

Ukrainian pilots have boasted that they could be ready to fly F-16s in a couple of weeks, and Deptula said that’s not too far off the mark.

Because they are already skilled aviators, Ukrainian pilots who have flown MiG-29s and Su-27s are “looking at more of a transition course from four to six weeks … That certainly is reasonable for … getting the Ukrainian pilots up to speed” on the F-16, he said.

And while few countries have volunteered their own F-16s for Ukraine, and Lockheed Martin has a waiting list of several years for new ones, Deptula said Congress has agreed to let the Air Force retire 48 F-16s “this year. So clearly those are surplus to U.S. needs and” could help the Ukrainians “reconstitute their air force before the end of the year.”

Mitchell scholar Heather Penney, who is a former F-16 pilot, said that while it would only take a few weeks to transition Ukrainian pilots to the F-16, learning to employ its sensors, systems, and weapons effectively would take a few months. But Deptula said the war will not be over before that could happen, if the training started soon.

Members of the panel said that in the meantime, the U.S. could provide MQ-1C Gray Eagles or even MQ-9 Reapers to give Ukraine more air strike capability and persistent watch over the battlefield for target spotting functions and “actionable intelligence,” Deptula said.  

Absent fresh airpower, though, panelists said the weapons being supplied to Ukraine—such as artillery—don’t deliver a decisive capability and engage the Russians “at their own game,” he added.

To go on the offensive, the Ukrainians need to strike Russia’s rear areas, Farkas said, and “not just defend but re-seize their territory.” The U.S. should also put pressure on Israel to provide Ukraine with its Iron Dome air defense systems, she said.

She also noted that Slovakia has said it would consider giving Ukraine its MiG-29s, which Ukraine already knows how to employ.

Farkas said Vladimir Putin “does not want war with NATO or the United States” and that those countries should not be so nervous about standing up to him because of his threats of using nuclear weapons. Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon “would be the quickest way to get us directly involved” in the war, she said.

“He’s not interested in opening up another front with NATO right now,” she argued. But “if he prevails … and gets some kind of compromise with Ukraine, some kind of stalemate … he will turn to the Baltic states next. He will use as an excuse access to Kalliningrad, and he will definitely press and probe our defenses.”

Even though Putin is paying a heavy cost for the Ukraine war in men, equipment, and sanctions, Farkas said Putin doesn’t face strong domestic opposition but might if he is forced to order a nationwide draft and the Russian people start facing dire hardships.

“And they might then say, ‘This is not our war. We don’t want to participate,’” Farkas asserted, and Russian leaders “would face a similar situation” to when the Soviet Union paid a huge price in casualties during its Afghanistan war.

Ukraine also needs more naval capability to keep its remaining ports open, and the panelists urged provision of more aircraft or drones that can launch anti-ship missiles, such as the U.S. Harpoons that have been provided.

Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the MQ-1Cs “would be very helpful” in moving the Ukraine war from two dimensions to three. He said the U.S. should have a clearly defined goal for the outcomes it wants from Ukraine because the war there affects relations with NATO, the Chinese, and the broader world.

“There have been … kind of vague comments about weakening the Russians,” he said, but the U.S. and its allies should provide at least enough military assistance to “blunt Russian advances, retake territory, and bog the Russians down in a campaign much like what they faced in Afghanistan,” which would cause them a loss “domestically.”

“The types of systems that we’re providing right now” such as Stingers, Javelin anti-tank missiles, artillery, and old vehicles “unfortunately, I don’t believe are going to let us achieve those objectives,” Jones said. Instead, Ukraine “needs systems to target dug-in Russian ground forces.” Besides higher-end unmanned aircraft, Jones said main battle tanks and medium- to long-range standoff missiles are needed.

“I see too much reticence right now” on the part of NATO leaders, he added, “too much concern about escalation” on Russia’s part. “Those concerns have been exaggerated.”

Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute said the Ukrainians need to be equipped to fight “the way NATO would fight Russia.” Instead, “we have been equipping Ukraine to fight Russia the way Russia would fight itself,” with short-range artillery and ground systems. Fighting NATO’s way “would help them regain the advantage.” That means providing aircraft and more naval capability.

NATO would use standoff missiles and electronic warfare, he said, “to suppress Russian air defenses, attack their depots and command centers.” Ukraine also doesn’t have the means to follow up strikes on command centers with the ability to “degrade Russian troops at scale … Aircraft can help you do that behind enemy lines,” Clark said.

Jones said Russia’s strategy so far requires that “they put their ground forces in vulnerable positions.” Their ground forces have shown that “they’re not very good, with significant problems of corruption, morale, training, leadership, [and] logistics” and so would be vulnerable to air attack. “So a much more significant … sustained air campaign” is in order for Ukraine.  

Clark said Russia has an advantage in that it has developed “rungs on the escalation ladder” from use of mercenaries and militias all the way up to nuclear weapons; and the West should emulate that to blunt Russia’s seeming veto power over greater Western involvement in Ukraine.

“We must accept more risk,” Farkas said. “History shows … if you can’t stop a leader like Hitler in the first phase, you’re going to face worse in the next phases.” Putin has shown that he will back down when confronted by resolve and “firmness,” she said.

But “we’re playing it too safe,” she said. “We are too worried about Russian escalation, and we shouldn’t be.”