Air Force’s Outgoing 1st Chief Architect Officer Offers 4 Steps for Overcoming Bureaucracy

April 19, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Preston Dunlap, the Department of the Air Force’s first-ever chief architect officer, is set to leave the Pentagon in the coming weeks, he confirmed in a lengthy LinkedIn post on April 18—and he has a long list of recommendations for those coming after him on how to combat Defense Department bureaucracy.

Dunlap’s departure, first reported by Bloomberg, marks the latest exit by a high-ranking Air Force official tasked with modernizing the department. In September 2021, Nicolas M. Chaillan, the first-ever chief software officer of the Air Force, announced his resignation, also on LinkedIn and also offering a candid assessment of the challenges facing DAF.

Dunlap first came to the Air Force in 2019, primarily to oversee the architecture of both the Air Force and Space Force. In particular, though, he was tasked with helping to jumpstart the development and organization of the Advanced Battle Management System, the Air Force’s contribution to joint all-domain command and control—the so-called military Internet of Things that will connect sensors and shooters into one massive network.

Under Dunlap, progress on ABMS proceeded with numerous experiments and transitioned to a program executive office. Dunlap also helped with the development of an “integrated warfighting network” to allow small teams of Airmen serving in far-flung locations to use their work laptops on deployments.

“It’s been my honor to help our nation get desperately needed technology into the hands of our service members who place their lives on the line every day,” Dunlap wrote on LinkedIn. “Some of that technology was previously unimaginable before we developed new capabilities, and at other times it was previously unattainable—available commercially, yet beyond DOD’s grasp.”

Initially, Dunlap wrote, he signed on for two years in the Pentagon, before agreeing to extend his stay for a third year. Now, as he departs, he is joining Chaillan in pointing out the DOD’s shortcomings when it comes to innovation and pushing the department to revolutionize its approach, especially for adopting new technologies, so that it can, in his words, “defy gravity.”

“Not surprisingly to anyone who has worked for or with the government before, I arrived to find no budget, no authority, no alignment of vision, no people, no computers, no networks, a leaky ceiling, even a broken curtain,” Dunlap wrote.

In looking to break through bureaucracy, Dunlap wrote, he followed four key steps that he urged his successor to follow: shock the system, flip the acquisition script, just deliver already, and slay the valley of death and scale.

In doing so, he said, he sought to operate more like SpaceX, the aerospace company founded by Elon Musk that has earned plaudits for its fast-moving, innovative practices.

“By the time the government manages to produce something, it is too often obsolete; no business would ever survive this way, nor should it. Following a commercial approach, just like SpaceX, allowed me to accomplish a number of ‘firsts’ in DOD in under two years,” Dunlap wrote.

Among those firsts, Dunlap referenced the integration of artificial intelligence into military kill chains, interoperability of data and communications across different satellites and aircraft, the deployment of zero trust architecture, and the promotion of security in software development, known as DevSecOps.

In addition, Dunlap argued for a “reformatting” of the Pentagon’s acquisition enterprise, an oft-criticized process seen by many as out-dated and antiquated. By leveraging commercial technologies, shifting focus to outcomes instead of detailed requirements, putting more investments in outside innovators, and pushing forward with a concerted, rapid pace, the Pentagon can start to “regrow its thinning technological edge,” Dunlap wrote.

In order to help develop innovation and progress, Dunlap also pushed for flexibility—both in how the department works and connects, and in how it develops new systems. In particular, he argued for open systems and open architectures to allow new systems to rapidly adapt to and integrate new capabilities as they are developed, pointing to the B-21 Raider and Next-Generation Air Dominance programs as examples of that approach.

“We should never be satisfied,” Dunlap closed by writing. “We need this kind of progress at scale now, not tomorrow. So let’s be careful to not…

“Lull ourselves into complacency, when we should be running on all cylinders.
“Do things the same way, when we should be doing things better.
“Distract ourselves with process, when we should be focused on delivering product.
“Compete with each other, when we should be competing with China.
“Defend our turf, when we should be defending our country.
“Focus on input metrics, when we should be focused on output metrics.
“Buy the same things, when we should be investing in what we need.
“Be comfortable with the way things are, when we should be fighting for the way things should be.”

Dunlap’s departure comes at a seeming inflection point for the ABMS program he was tasked with overseeing. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has indicated he wants to take a different approach to the program, focusing more on specific operational impacts delivered quickly and less on experiments showing advanced capabilities.

“We can’t invest in everything, and we shouldn’t invest in improvements that don’t have clear operational benefit,” Kendall said March 3 at the AFA Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla.. “We must be more focused on specific things with measurable value and operational impact.”

As part of that approach, Kendall has made it one of his organizational imperatives to more fully define the goals and impacts the ABMS program is going for.

dunlap Download

Last Goblet Turned Over for Dick Cole and His Comrades on 80th Anniversary of Tokyo Raid

April 18, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

On the 80th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid against Japan, Air Force leaders performed the last “goblet” ceremony, bidding a formal farewell to the last of the Raiders, Lt. Col. Dick Cole, and honoring his fellow aircrew members.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, at the Mattie Kelly Arts Center on the campus of Northwest Florida State College in Niceville, toasted the Doolittle Raiders, saying, “To those who have gone.” The Raiders trained for their historic mission in the area.

The April 18, 1942, mission, led by then-Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle, launched Army Air Forces B-25 Mitchell bombers from the USS Hornet aircraft carrier toward targets in Japan, mostly in the vicinity of Tokyo. Although the bombing attack inflicted minimal damage on the Japanese government and war industry, it proved a major morale boost to Americans, as it marked the first time the U.S. was able to strike back against the Japanese home islands after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It broke the Japanese military’s confidence that the home islands were impervious to attack and, according to Doolittle’s autobiography, “sowed doubt” in the minds of the Japanese that their military could protect them.

Of the 80 Raiders who took part in the mission, 72 made it home, and 61 survived the war, holding annual reunions from 1946. The Doolittle Tokyo Raiders Association created the “goblet ceremony,” where, at each annual reunion, survivors drank to fallen comrades from silver goblets bearing their names, while the goblets of those Raiders who had died the previous year were turned over and placed in a blue velvet box.

The last surviving Raider was Cole, Doolittle’s co-pilot, who died in 2019 at the age of 103. He raised the last toast to his comrades in 2017, unable to attend further ceremonies due to age and health. Cole built the box that houses the goblets.

The final goblet ceremony was deferred due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the desire to mark it on the 80th anniversary. Kendall drank the final toast to Cole and the other Raiders, along with Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and other senior leaders as well as members of the Doolittle Raiders’ families.

Cole attended the Air Force Association annual conference in 2016, when the new B-21 bomber was assigned the nickname “Raider” in honor of the members of the Doolittle mission. Upon Cole’s 2019 death, AFA president Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright called him an “ambassador for airpower … up until the very last.”

The Raiders trained in secret for several months before the mission, learning how to coax their B-25s into the air with a minimum of takeoff space while carrying twice the B-25’s normal load of fuel. The aircraft were also modified in other ways, with much regular gear—including radios, guns, and Norden bombsights—removed to lighten the aircraft and extend their flight time.

The raid launched 10 hours ahead of schedule because the Navy detected a Japanese vessel that might have raised a warning. To preserve surprise, the mission launched 200 miles farther from Japan than the plan called for.

Doolittle and Cole had the toughest takeoff, as their bomber was first in line, with the shortest amount of deck space. Their technique was to reach the edge of the flight deck as the ship crested a swell, leaving more room to gain airspeed after departing the ship. A total of 16 B-25s departed the Hornet. The original plan called for the aircraft to land in China, but the early takeoff doomed most of them to crashes or water ditches. A sole airplane landed in Russia and was confiscated, its crew imprisoned until later in the war.

Though Doolittle feared a court-martial for losing all the aircraft under his command, the mission was deemed a great success, and Doolittle was advanced two steps, to brigadier general. He finished the war as a three-star general, having commanded the 8th Air Force in Europe, but was advanced by Congress to full four-star general rank in 1985.

U.S. Military Posture Changes Needed in Europe, Pentagon Says

April 18, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has changed the security situation in Europe, and the U.S will have to shift its long-term military posture there as a result—but it’s too soon to say how, according to Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby. Kirby also said Russia seems to be trying to “learn from its mistakes” in Ukraine but still has most of its pre-war combat capability, despite its losses.

“The European security environment has changed and will stay changed as a result of Mr. Putin’s willingness to conduct an unprovoked invasion of a neighboring state,” Kirby said in a press conference. Russia’s military “failures notwithstanding, that war is still ongoing” and is prompting a review of the U.S. posture in Europe, he said. While Kirby had “no answers for you today” about what those will be, discussions are ongoing within the Pentagon and with allies and partners, and no decisions will be made “without full consultation” with them.

Asked if it was true that Russia retains some 85 percent of the conventional combat capability it had before the Feb. 22 invasion, Kirby declined to quote figures.

“I don’t want to get into percentages and specific data here on their combat power,” he said. “I would just say that we still believe that they have the vast majority of their combat power available to them, even with the losses.” For the invasion, Russia assembled a combined-arms team including “aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, special operations, airborne … and they still have a majority of that available to them, even with the losses that they’ve sustained in the last few weeks,” Kirby said.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said April 12 that the Ukraine war had not appreciably changed the service’s assessment of forces needed for the European theater, as USAF had been contemplating the European situation since it began withdrawing forces from the Middle East over the last couple of years. The invasion was predicted by intelligence last fall and had largely been accounted for in the fiscal 2023 budget, Brown said. Still, USAF has moved additional fighters, tankers, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft into the European theater over the past few months, as well as bombers on a rotational basis, all to reassure NATO allies who feel threatened by the invasion of Ukraine.

Kirby said Russia is “trying to learn from past mistakes” in its invasion and that the appointment of Gen. Alexander Dvornikov as commander of all Ukraine operations is an acknowledgement that the initial operational concept for command and control was flawed, as was the concept for logistics, which Kirby characterized as a failure. It’s “too soon to know” if Russia has effectively learned much from its mistakes so far, he said.

Kirby also reported that some Russian units that launched attacks on Kiev are being withdrawn to Belarus for “refit” and will probably “go back in” when they are re-equipped and resupplied.

The Pentagon has said repeatedly that while the invasion of Ukraine makes Russia an “acute” threat, China remains “the pacing threat” according to summaries provided of the new National Defense Strategy, an unclassified version of which has yet to be made public.

IG Report: USAF, Army Must Do More to Prepare Arctic Bases for Climate Change

April 18, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force and Army need to do a better job of preparing installations in the Arctic for the impacts of climate change, according to a new report by the Defense Department inspector general.

The IG report issued April 13 looked at six bases in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions and found that at all six, officials “did not conduct installation resilience assessments and planning required by DOD directive and public law.”

The six bases studied were:

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska
Clear Space Force Station, Alaska
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
Thule Air Base, Greenland
Fort Greely, Alaska
Fort Wainwright, Alaska

The report states that at many of these installations, leaders were either unaware of those requirements or didn’t have the guidance and resources necessary to meet them.

Instead, leaders’ “day-to-day focus was on reacting to immediate problems or reducing risk to existing hazards, rather than planning for future hazards,” the report states.

Some details about those existing problems were redacted as part of the unclassified report. But the report does list “cracked runways, sunken foundations, and multiple power outages” as effects from the changing climate that have affected the bases.

In particular, the thawing of permafrost, as well as the refreezing that can subsequently occur, have created issues for paved areas, most critically on runways.

“Leaders described and we observed extensive damage to the Thule AB runway shoulders and aircraft hangars from permafrost melt and the freezing and thawing of water that is collecting under the airfield infrastructure,” the report states. At Eielson, a member of a maintenance squadron assigned to the F-35 “described the challenges from the soil freezing and thawing beneath the infrastructure on the base.”

Images included in the report also show damage to facilities at Thule and Eielson caused by water freezing and melting.

Not just changing temperatures are having an effect. The report also details the impact of increasingly severe weather by noting the damage a storm wreaked on a hangar at Eareckson Air Station, located on one of the westernmost islands in the Aleutian chain.

“In addition to the damage to Hangar 7, the pier sustained significant damage from a storm in February 2020, leaving it in critical condition and in need of repair. The pier is critical for the success of the air station’s mission because any disruption in the supply of fuel to the installation would result in catastrophic mission failure,” the report states.

Concerns about how DOD installations are equipped to handle the impacts of climate change have grown over the last several years, particularly as the Air Force has dealt with catastrophic damages to Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., from a hurricane and Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., from flooding.

In the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required major military installations to plan for climate change when drafting their master plans. In response, the Air Force issued a 40-page “Severe Weather and Climate Hazard Screening and Risk Assessment Playbook” to installations. By July 2021, more than 80 installations had completed an initial risk assessment, with plans to finish the changes to master plans at every base within five years, said Jennifer L. Miller then-acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment, and energy.

In October 2021, the DOD issued a Climate Adaptation Plan for the department to incorporate climate resiliency into its decision-making.

At the same time, the importance of the Arctic has become increasingly emphasized, especially as melting ice caps have increased shipping lanes and access to the region. In 2019, the DOD released its Arctic strategy, and the Air Force followed with one of its own in 2020. USAF Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, head of U.S. Northern Command, has repeatedly pushed for more funding for the region as well.

Despite all this, “most installation leaders at the six installations we visited in the Arctic and sub-Arctic region were unfamiliar with military installation resilience planning requirements, processes, and tools, and installation leaders did not comply with requirements to identify current and projected climate-related environmental risks, vulnerabilities, and risk reduction measures, or incorporate these considerations into plans and operations,” the IG’s office found.

To address that issue, the report recommends that the Air Force’s installations czar “establish priorities, develop milestones, and identify planning and training resources for the Department of the Air Force” and “establish Department of the Air Force installation orders requiring installation commanders to identify climate risks, conduct assessments, determine climate vulnerabilities, and identify and plan for follow-on climate resilience measures for current and future climate changes in installation master plans.”

In response to those recommendations, Edwin H. Oshiba, the current acting assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment—a.k.a. czar—told the IG that the Department of the Air Force would complete Installation Climate Resilience Plans for all major installations within 36 months. He also agreed to provide oversight with the Air Force’s major commands and Space Force’s field commands over the installation commanders to ensure they plan for climate change’s effects.

Air Force Fields a New Rifle for Airmen Across Missions

April 18, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is almost finished distributing nearly 1,500 new rifles to security forces, pararescuemen, Guardian Angels, and explosive ordnance disposal Airmen, the service announced April 16.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center is in the final phase of delivering the Squad Designated Marksmanship Rifle after procuring approximately 1,464 of the guns.

The SDMR is a semi-automatic, 7.62x51mm-caliber rifle designed by Heckler & Koch, initially developed for the Army to give units the ability to engage targets precisely up to 600 meters away.

For the Air Force, the SDMR will help fulfill multiple missions.

For security forces performing base defense operations, it will replace the M24 Sniper Weapon Systems currently in use.

For pararescuemen and Guardian Angels tasked with personnel recovery, it will replace the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper Systems rifle. The SDMR will save Airmen five pounds in gear on missions.

For explosive ordnance disposal technicians, the SDMR will be used to “to eliminate small munitions in their standoff munition disruption activities,” according to an Air Force release.

“Being able to field one solution that can effectively achieve multiple missions epitomizes Air Force acquisition strategies and shows [Airmen’s] ability to adapt to any situation,” Matthew Hamer, head of AFLCMC’s Small Arms Program Office, said in a statement.

The Army first began accepting deliveries of the SDMR in 2020 and is scheduled to finish fielding the new rifle by the end of 2023, with some 6,000 rifles being distributed.

By comparison, the Air Force’s smaller order was fielded this year.

The SDMR is the second rifle the Air Force has fielded in recent years. In 2020, the service finished delivery of 2,700 lightweight 7-pound, 5.56 mm rifles to be carried in an Airman’s ejection seat. Assemblable in roughly 30 seconds, that rifle was designed to hit man-sized targets at a distance of 200 meters.

Spangdahlem Delivers F-35 Air Power to the Eastern Flank

April 18, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany—A Russian cruise missile had just hit Lviv, Ukraine, in late March when a U.S. Air Force F-35 arrived to airspace in nearby Poland. The 34th Fighter Squadron pilot could faintly make out the civilian population and the aftermath of the strike below.

“You could see the smoke from where they said the cruise missile hit at the airport,” said Capt. Alex Harvey, 31, who is part of a squadron deployed from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, on a NATO Polish Air Policing mission.

“Since we’re such a defensive posture, and we’re there to just do the policing mission, it can get routine,” added Harvey, the squadron’s chief of weapons and tactics. “That made it real for me.”

Before deploying, Harvey and 20 other pilots had been on alert as an immediate reaction force. Each night he watched the news. Each night, he and his wife wondered if he would be sent to NATO’s eastern flank.

Then, on Feb. 13, the day before Valentine’s Day, the squadron deployed. Another member, Maj. Nolan Sweeney, 34, left a bouquet of flowers on the stairs for his wife.

Russia invaded Ukraine a week after the squadron arrived to Spangdahlem.

Sweeney and Harvey now wear mustaches. They are deployed.

Maj. Nolan Sweeney of the 34th Fighter Squadron, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is an F-35 pilot deployed to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, for a NATO Air Policing mission in Poland. Staff photo by Abraham Mahshie.

In the two months since, the pilots have flown hundreds of sorties, commuting 650 miles each way in their Joint Strike Fighters to eastern Poland. In that time, Russia has launched more than a thousand missiles at Ukraine, populating the skies with its fighters from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

NATO Air Command maintains more than 130 aircraft on alert with 24/7 Air Policing missions up and down the eastern flank of the alliance.

Air Policing missions have scrambled to face Russian jets launched from Crimea, and they have observed Russian aircraft violating international norms in airspace near Poland. Polish Air Force officials say the Russian jets fly without transponders and do not file flight plans. Still, since the invasion was launched, the NATO pilots have made no intercepts, a move to escort an aircraft out of NATO airspace.

“We’re there to defend the West from the East,” said Harvey.

“We’re there just to look around, say, ‘Hey, what’s going on in Ukraine that we can see from this far? What’s going on in Belarus and those areas?’” he added. “But we’re just literally there just to be there.”

Within a week of the deployment, President Joe Biden announced that six F-35s would be forward deployed on rotation to three eastern flank countries: Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. For several days, the F-35s took off and landed from NATO countries strategically located and compatible with American aircraft.

The six have since pulled back to Spangdahlem for a full suite of support personnel and their own hangars. In their place, F-15s, F-16s, and Marine Corps FA-18s have deployed to conduct Baltic and enhanced Air Policing missions along the eastern flank.

Still, these F-35s are flying six-hour-long sorties that require two to three KC-135 tanker refuels from the 92nd Air Refueling Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash., also deployed to Spangdahlem.

The winter weather and limited capability of eastern flank nations to host fifth-generation aircraft has presented challenges.

From broken refuelers and dangerous icing conditions, to bad weather that can prohibit a safe landing, numerous unknowns have challenged the aviators’ composure and training.

On a recent day, Harvey arrived to his Air Policing zone in eastern Poland with 20 minutes of fuel before he was notified that his tanker had broken and could not refuel him.

“If it goes wrong, it can go wrong in a very poor way,” said Harvey.

“We assume [the tanker] is going to be there. What if they’re not? Or, we assume we can go to this field. What if we can’t because the weather’s bad? That kind of stuff is intense,” he said.

“Now I’m in a tough spot. So, now I’m in an emergency-divert profile to somewhere else,” he speculated. “I go to Slovakia, maybe. Do I limp back to Germany, maybe? Maybe I can’t, or maybe I have to land in really bad weather, which is—that’s pretty tough.”

Harvey was able to land in Lask, Poland, where Marine Corps FA-18s are performing an Air Policing mission. There, he was able to refuel and trade patches with the Polish refueler before firing an afterburner takeoff to ensure he had enough runway space.

Once they’re performing their NATO Air Policing mission, they defend NATO airspace. They deter.

Still, they see a war happening below them.

On their radar, aviators have seen all classes of Russian fighters and Ukrainian platforms in the sky. Other F-35s on Air Policing missions from RAF Lakenheath, U.K., or British or Dutch F-35s, are forming their own radar pictures that are automatically shared.

“I can see the entire Polish border from Slovakia to Kaliningrad,” said Harvey.

“If his radar detects an airplane, that’s, let’s say, approaching NATO, my jet shows that to me as well,” he explained. “We’re still defensive, and whatever could happen with that, we all know about it together. So, there’s less chances of surprises, less chance of miscalculations. It’s still de-escalatory.”

The F-35’s sensors also penetrate deep into Ukraine.

The F-35 has radar, infrared, and other sensors that form a picture hundreds of miles into Ukraine and Belarus, gathering information that is displayed on the cockpit screen, shared with allied F-35s on Air Policing missions nearby, and relayed to NATO command centers.

The U.S. government has publicly said it shares intelligence with Ukraine that is helping the country to produce battlefield successes. The 34th Fighter Squadron pilots would not say if the data their aircraft gather on Air Policing missions contributes to that picture, but U.S. Air Forces in Europe confirmed that information collected through a variety of platforms adds up to a common intelligence picture.

Before the Russia-Ukraine war, American F-35 pilots trained daily on their own and with allies during occasional exercises and joint training in simulators.

Now, day in and day out, Airmen build airmanship and decision-making skills. They communicate with each other and NATO allies, sharing best practices about the platform’s use and learning theater insight from European allies.

Their aircrafts are also “talking” to each other, sharing data and putting into practice all of the combat capabilities in which the fifth-generation aircraft was designed to excel.

“Our aircrafts are talking to one another,” said Sweeney. “You add in more F-35s, now the capability increases exponentially.”

Added Harvey: “The F-35 specifically works better the more F-35s that are talking to each other.”

SUBHED

Russia has repositioned its forces in Ukraine in recent weeks, moving away from Kyiv and refocusing on areas of eastern and southern Ukraine where it has had more success.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objectives are not known, but his desire for a greater Russia, one that reconstitutes the Soviet Union’s former states and spheres of influence, contradicts the current world order.

The Baltic states are no longer part of the Soviet Union. Poland is not a satellite country. Romania and Bulgaria are free democracies. Nine NATO countries on the eastern flank do not want to be part of Russia’s sphere of influence.

NATO Air Policing is the deterrence measure meant to ensure that boundary in the sky is not crossed.

“When we go up there, it’s not just a Wisconsin dude sitting in a gray aircraft up there,” said Sweeney. “It’s a representative of what NATO’s mission is: to deter, train, and provide readiness.”

Harvey spoke of the “honor” of being the execution arm of the NATO deterrence policy.

“You can see for miles and miles, just with your own eyes up there,” he said.

“You can look out, and you can see Lviv, for example, and it’s just particularly moving, knowing that all is right there,” he added, reflecting on the war and his NATO mission. “It has been, and I pray, will continue to be a purely defensive part.”

Losses in Ukraine Won’t Change Russian Threat or USAF Posture, Brown Says

April 15, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Russia’s mounting losses of conventional equipment in the Ukraine war—and its likely inability to replace that hardware anytime soon, due to economic sanctions—won’t substantively change how the U.S. views the threat from that country, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. That’s because the threats posed by Russia’s nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities remain unchanged.

“You have to look at the threat holistically,” Brown told reporters during an April 12 media roundtable. “We can’t take the threat and separate … conventional and nuclear. … It’s all together.” That fact keeps Russia as an “acute” threat, Brown said, using the word applied in the new National Defense Strategy.

Moreover, “the fact that they’ve struggled, conventionally, may put the risk of nuclear/chemical/bio use at a higher level. So in some cases, it makes it a bit more unpredictable, and it puts the threat in a different context that we need to be concerned about,” he said. Senior Pentagon officials have speculated that continued humiliation of Russia’s army by the lesser-equipped Ukrainian forces, and Russia’s disorganized and overall clumsier operations, may provoke harsher measures from the Russians, such as chemical or nuclear weapons use.

Asked if Russia’s losses affect how the Air Force should invest in its European capabilities, Brown said, “not necessarily.”

“If we look at the 2018 national security strategic guidance … we already focus on [China] as the pacing challenge [and] Russia as an ‘acute’ threat,” Brown said. “Might there be some tweaks? I don’t see a wholesale change. Because these are things we’ve already been thinking about. … We’ve been thinking about it for the past several years as we started coming out of the Middle East,” he said, and conditions have already largely been accounted for in USAF posture.

Brown said the Air Force has been paying close attention to the Russian invasion of Ukraine—as have others—and “we’re all learning,” he said.

“We learned some things, based on what we’re watching and what we’re seeing. We all will. And it may drive some adjustments” in USAF’s long-range plans, “but I don’t see it making a wholesale change.”

Since the Russian invasion began in mid-February, various organizations have counted Russia’s losses at a low of 460 armored vehicles to a high of 2,000 vehicles. Aircraft losses number about 45, according to various international defense-watcher organizations, including eight Su-25 attack fighters, three Su-30s, four Su-34s, and an Su-35, the latter of which is counted as Russia’s top operational fighter. The list also includes an An-26 transport, 16 transport and attack helicopters, and a handful of unmanned drones. Russia has also lost its Black Sea flagship heavy cruiser—the Moskva—and a number of smaller vessels.

Under economic sanctions levied by the U.S. and other nations, Russia is blocked from importing a number of key aerospace materials and technologies, including microprocessors, and is strapped for hard currency, making it difficult for Russia to reconstitute lost equipment in the near future.

Asked whether Russia’s logistical failures in Ukraine—with armored columns outrunning their fuel, food, and ammunition supplies and having to abandon equipment—had prompted USAF to reconsider its own logistics, Brown said it has only underscored that USAF has to “think differently” about how it deploys for war.

“I think we do a pretty good job” on logistics, Brown said, but “I think it’s going to help us as we have a conversation both internal and external to the force.” The focus will be not just on logistics for USAF but “also for the teammates or allies and partners.”

Brown said the Air Force is investing more in pre-positioning of heavy items such as fuel and water, and emphasizing agile combat employment packages that focus on combat aircraft, munitions, parts, and essential maintenance gear. This will also contribute to readiness, he said. Rather than a unit “shut down” and ship all its operating kit to a deployment location, conduct an exercise, and then be unable to resume home-base activities while it waits for the return of that gear, it can instead take only a minimal amount, use pre-positioned materiel, and be ready to resume home-base activities almost right away.

The Air Force will also have to come up with other new logistical ideas unique to the theater.

“It’s going to be more dynamic,” he said, “because the distances are much longer” in the Pacific than in Europe, which has road and rail to take some of the load.

Part 2: Q&A With Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom on the Future Fleets

April 15, 2022 | By Tobias Naegele and Abraham Mahshie

Air Force Magazine Editor in Chief Tobias Naegele and Pentagon Editor Abraham Mahshie sat down with Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, for an exclusive interview that touched on everything from the the Next Generation Air Dominance platform to the Air Force’s plans to replace the aging AWACS fleet.

This is Part 2 of that interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.

Air Force Magazine: If you didn’t have to fund that big nuclear modernization thing all out of your budget, what would that do to the rest of the plan?

Nahom: Well, it’s more money.

Air Force Magazine: It’s a lot more money. It would change everything if you didn’t have to …

Nahom: I mean, there’s a lot of things. But it’s our duty as the Air Force to make sure we have that two-thirds of the nuclear arsenal. And so, there’s a lot of things I could wish for, but obviously, more [budget] is probably No. 1.

Air Force Magazine: Well, that’s kind of where I’m going. Do you think that the Air Force really needs a much bigger check?

Nahom: Well, I’ll let you ask leadership that one. I mean, obviously, if you have more money, you’re not making as tough resource decisions if you have more money. I mean, that’s obvious. But the nation gives our Air Force a lot of money to equip our Airmen and our force. It’s not up to me completely, but as the A-8, it’s up to me to be part of the process to make sure that we do our best with the resources we’re given.

Air Force Magazine: So you’re investing a lot in NGAD, almost $2 billion. It’s a family of systems, you used the term yourself. Who are the members of that family? In the back of your SUV, how many, what does that family look like?

Nahom: It’s hard to get into specifics. I probably have to get back to you on that and find out exactly what I can and can’t say. I want to make sure that we don’t discuss anything classified or pre-decisional.

But the intent is … Air dominance—air superiority—is the American way of war. Our Joint Force assumes we have it. And the only people that are going to give them air superiority is the U.S. Air Force. That’s what we do. And as warfare changes, especially when you look at what a conflict would be like in the South China Sea, we’re going to have to continue to evolve.

I’ll tell you, one thing is interesting: If you look at our fighter platforms from development, we’ve never developed a fighter with the ranges of the Pacific in mind. And so this would be a first. Really everything, including the F-35, has been designed with Europe in mind. And Europe ranges are a lot different. So I think it’ll be a fascinating time as we continue to develop out what our air dominance, air superiority is going to look like in the future.

Air Force Magazine: And that’s a built-in part of the NGAD requirement?

Nahom: Well, I won’t say it like that, but I’ll just say that our leadership has said, we have a pacing challenge, and it’s in that part of the world, and we have to make sure that we, as an Air Force, are equipped. And the days of taking off out of your airfield and declaring air superiority over your airfield are probably not here. Probably, you’re going to go quite a distance and have to do that and then get quite a distance to get back, and you’re probably going to be in contested airspace. So it’s a different-looking problem set.

Air Force Magazine: Do you know, by chance, what it would have cost to upgrade the F-22 fleet that’s instead going away?

Nahom: I’ll check and see if we can share that. But you know, you have to wait. You’re looking at fifth-generation combat power. We have a fifth-generation airplane coming off the assembly line right now. And so you have to make decisions. Do you want to do this, or do you want to buy more F-35s? Because you’re not going to do both. And so I think we made a good risk, a good financial decision about putting the oldest F-22s in the boneyard while we modernize the majority of the fleet, and we make sure we keep our eyes on the future.

Air Force Magazine: And then how do you continue training the pilots for those F-22s?

Nahom: Well, it’s interesting, and I came out of the F-22, so I understand the difference between the two airplanes—the block 20s, which are the aircraft we’re retiring, to the Block 30, 35, which are our front-line fighters.

Because of the nature of the hardware and software in those airplanes, the difference [between] them is getting greater and greater over time, because we keep putting more capability on the operational Raptors that’s not being put on the training ones, because they don’t have the capacity. … And so what you’re finding is the students that go through the school, you learn on an airplane, [and] you really have to relearn a lot of things when you get to your operational units.

And we’ve gone through this over time. I mean, when I first started out, I went through my first F-15 school in the F-15A, and when I got to my operational unit, the F-15C, it was like almost a complete restart. You’ll see this in the F-16s as well—you see a big difference in the training airplanes.

You try to minimize it as best you can, so when a young kid goes through the training, when they show up to their operational unit, it’s a quick top-off, and they’re off to the races. It’s not that way with the Raptor right now. So, what we’re going to do is … we’re going to take some of those Block 30/35s and turn them into a training unit, and it will be able to train [students] at a higher level. And so you’ll have a much more full-up round when the young pilot shows up at his or her operational unit.

Air Force Magazine: Can I follow up on a couple points on the EX that you mentioned? Was part of the decision to go with the F-15EX that you can get them faster than F-35s? And then on the South China Sea, protecting our interests out there, does the EX work better for those needs?

Nahom: When the chief outlined the four-fighter fleet, we talked a lot about the F-15 platform. And I’ll say it like that, because the way in which we would use an F-15EX and the way we would use an F-15E would be pretty comparable. They’re obviously similar airframes, similar OFP, as well as they’re going to carry similar weapons. The advantage of an F-15 platform is the ability to carry some outsize weapons that you [wouldn’t] necessarily put internal into a fifth-gen airplane.

It also carries a lot of weapons and a lot of gas, which gives you an advantage in certainly critical infrastructure protection in permissive areas. Think homeland defense, point defense. Think of your ability to protect and defend, and doing a mission that you don’t necessarily need a fifth-generation airplane. So you kind of almost think of it as like a truck. It can haul some things. We don’t need a large fleet of them. And I think you’ll see in our budget, we’re not going after a large fleet. But I think the Air Force is going to find that platform very useful, not only in permissive environments and defending, but also in its ability to carry outsize weapons and its contributions into the high-end fight.

Air Force Magazine: So let’s go back to NGAD. You’re talking about fifth-generation or sixth-generation capabilities. The plan is to still have the F-35 as the backbone fifth-generation capability. What about fifth-generation weapons? We keep hearing this come up: We need fifth-generation weapons to go with a fifth-generation aircraft. What does that mean?

Nahom: We are certainly invested in … much improved—I won’t say fifth-generation, let’s not put a generation on it, I don’t want to define something here today. But let’s say much improved air-to-air weapons that are comparable with our platforms. We’re also investing in a lot of air-to-surface weapons that are improved and comparable with our weapons as well. We can check and see if we can give you specifics on what those are.

… I think you’ve heard [Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mark D. Kelly] say that you can’t run around with fifth-generation platforms and third-generation weapons.

Air Force Magazine: That’s really what I was driving it. So what do you do in advance of that?

Nahom: We are certainly invested in them. This is one of those trade-offs, too, because you want the stockpiles if you have a conflict today, but you also want to be invested in the advanced weapons for tomorrow. And I think you’ll see in our budget a pretty good measurement between those two. But I’ll tell you, we have a lot of discussion on that, certainly with OSD and CAPE and the other services, because we invest in weapons as a Joint Force. Certainly the Navy and Air Force platforms carry the same weapons, and that’s how Americans would want that. So we work very closely with our Navy counterparts to make sure that we’re adhering to the stockpiles we need if something should happen near-term and making sure we are adjusting with the times, let’s just say.

Air Force Magazine: Well this includes there, again, the range issue. Is the [AIM-260 JATM] long range?

Nahom: It is, yeah. Ranges are always gonna be a factor. Going forward, I’ll tell you, the Air Force is committed to making sure we have the open-air ranges we need. Our features are obviously the NTTR—the Nellis Test and Training Range—and the JPARC up in Alaska. There’s other ranges. … You’re going to see a big push in the Gulf Coast, because we’re putting a lot of F-35s in the Gulf Coast, so you want to make sure that they have the ability to train there.

But the big thing, when you look at training to that level, we also have to adhere to the virtual. We have to make sure we have the virtual environment that’s needed, so our crews can train to the highest … threats, because you’re not always going to have the open-air ranges. You’re not always going to have the adversary air and the weapons and the things you need in open-air ranges. So we’ve got to adequately augment it with the correct virtual environment. And we are correctly invested in making sure we get that.

Air Force Magazine: And that’s been one of the holdups really for F-35, right?

Nahom: In the joint simulation, yeah. And that’s a big part of us, because that virtual environment they’re building is certainly something we can build upon for training as well.

Pilots still need to fly—that’s a big part of readiness. But they also need to be overwhelmed and challenged and have the threat densities that aren’t always available in open air. I would love to declare the UTTR over Salt Lake City and the Nellis one big range and tell all airlines to go away for about an hour, but I just don’t see that in the cards.

[Laughter.]

Air Force Magazine: You also have a challenge, though, just exercising some of the capability on that airplane that you can theoretically only simulate without giving away its [capabilities].

Nahom: No, I mean, we’ll find places to make sure we test weapons. We will adequately test weapons. But obviously, there are some things you’re going to have to simulate. But you know, there’s also a piece of it—why do we still have WSEP? Because sometimes a simulation works too good, and it’s nice to know where the imperfections are in the system and test them. And I think we, as an Air Force, do that better … than any air force in the world.

Air Force Magazine: So I want to talk about the [AIM-260 JATM] again, because Gen. Wilsbach talked about China in that context at AWS just recently. So does that buy back some capability? Does that create for us a new counter threat? Will it buy back some of the edge that the Chinese have with the PL-15?

Nahom: The 260 is a wonderful weapon, and we’re really looking forward to getting it in service. I think when you mix that with our platforms, certainly the Raptor and the enhancements we’re putting into the F-22, that is going to help us keep our advantage. But we can’t stop, because our adversaries aren’t stopping. And that’s why you see our investments in things like NGAD and moving past that. But we’re very excited about the upgrades we’re making to the F-22 and excited about integrating the JTAM onto that platform.

Air Force Magazine: So ACE, can we talk a little bit about ACE? I think there was some discussion yesterday about investing in pre-positioning and so on. Really ACE is about this ability to be instantly mobile and get anywhere quickly. So pre-positioning is almost a misnomer in a sense.

Nahom: People talk about ACE and logistics under attack, and they kind of almost talk about them in the same sense. I like to separate them out. And that might be a little too simple, but when I think about logistics under attack, I do think of pre-positioning, because if the stuff is already there, I don’t have to bring it into the theater. That simplifies my logistics problem if it’s already there. So I think there is an aspect of that.

But everything comes with balance. If you’re going to pre-position everything, and you’ve got a couple of theaters, you have to buy two of everything. And we don’t necessarily, as a nation, want to buy two of everything.

Air Force Magazine: You might have to buy three of them, or four.

Nahom: We hope not. But I think there’s got to be a balance. I think there’s some things we should put forward. If it’s heavy and cheap, and a host nation is OK with us stockpiling it there, or we have a facility, let’s do it. If it’s expensive, exquisite, and small, and we can move it quickly, maybe we don’t want to commit that to one theater and have to buy two or three.

And so I think there’s certainly a balance, and we’re looking at what that is, because the days of having months to build that U.S. iron mountain are probably not there with the way modern warfare is. So we’ve just got to balance it.

When I think of ACE, we have to have the ability to be able to operate, not from one or two or three large footprints in a theater, but maybe operate from many, many places and much smaller, offering up a much more difficult problem to our adversaries. Operate in places they don’t expect us, operate from many places, and be able to move and be agile when we do it.

Air Force Magazine: So that’s why the pre-positioning thing seems to be kind of counterintuitive, because you’ve got small groups, they can’t all come from the same place.

Nahom: I mean, there’s places that you wish some things were there, I tell you, one of the hardest things to move is fuel. If you could tell me where we could possibly be, and I could count on there being gas there all the time, I’d say sign me up. But it’s one of the heavier and more difficult things we move in a theater. In a place like the Pacific, it’s not going to be as prevalent as it is in places like Europe or even the Middle East and all the places we fly in and out of. So could there be some pre-positioning? You would like that.

Air Force Magazine: And that’s the sort of thing…

Nahom: It’s just not everything. You can’t put everything forward. But there could be some things you put forward and are there waiting for you. But I think the the ACE piece, though—the ability to jump in maybe to a large location and then spoke out to smaller locations or come right into smaller locations and operate out of many areas where an adversary may not have expect us, and in much smaller footprints where you’re not as vulnerable and maybe not as attractive to target, because you’re not as vulnerable, and still be able to operate.

I’ll tell you, I’ve done it before. … It’s not easy. And so we say, ‘Oh, yeah, just take four jets over there, six over there.’ Let me tell you right now, when you split up a maintenance package. …

Air Force Magazine: Because now you don’t have the specialist you need, you don’t have the quality of the equipment you need …

Nahom: You know, it’s amazing, you start finding your limitations. I mean, I remember operating out of the Pacific, we were operating out of several locations for training for different exercises. And I remember them asking me, and I was the ops group commander down at Kadena at the time, they’re asking me, ‘What’s the long pull—what are you missing?’ I go, ‘Seven level avionics maintainers.’ I only had enough for three locations. I had enough jets for like six locations. But three of those locations were not going to have the right avionics specialists. So if something broke, it was going to stay broke.

And so these are things you start thinking through when you start operating out of many places—what is that long pull? And it may be a certain thing, and you may be putting a crew chief on an airplane with a small part. It’s really fascinating. You see it in the Pacific, because not only do you have great distances, you don’t necessarily have great transportation between those great distances. The ways you can get around Europe are amazing—road, rail, small planes, large planes, shoot, discount airlines. You name it, you can get around.

Air Force Magazine: When you mentioned fuel, it got me thinking about, are there some Pacific Deterrence Initiative dollars going into maybe building up some partner?

Nahom: I don’t want to get into the details of PDI. But obviously, we’re investing, and we’re investing in our facilities over there and making sure that we can ACE in many locations, but I’ll leave it at that. I want to be careful with what I say.

Air Force Magazine: Can you help me understand the bridge … how the tanker shortfall that’s coming and pre-positioning fuel can help that?

Nahom: What tanker shortfall?

Air Force Magazine: I guess when you start to retire some KC-10s before the KC-46s all come online?

Nahom: No, the KC-10s are actually divesting pretty commensurate with the KC-46 bed down. In fact, if we don’t retire some KC-10s, we’re going to have parking location problems, because some of the places—McGuire is probably the perfect example—we’ve got to be careful, there’s not enough ramp space for the KC-46s coming in if I don’t get some KC-10s out.

So I think, actually, the KC-10 is on a really good profile. And we need to leave it there. We’re at a nice couple-year divestment plan for it. We’re taking care of the jets at the end. We’re taking care of the crews. We’re transitioning. We’re transitioning the missions, and the two locations we’re going into where the KC-10s are coming out, McGuire and Travis, are doing great. We’re really excited about getting the new capability in there.

The KC-135 is a little different. We’re going to retire some KC-135s this year, as you saw. One of the things we want to make sure we keep on track is we’re investing a lot of money in air refueling. In fact, we’re investing more in the air refueling enterprise this year than we did last year—we actually increased funding. The No. 1 thing we can do is keep the recapitalization of our tankers fleet on track. Right now, that’s KC-46. So we’ve got to keep the KC-46. I’ll tell you, that was challenging. When you look at all the challenges I had this year with resources, that was one of the challenges, to make sure we keep KC-46 on track, and we did. And we, as a nation, just need to keep going. Because when we get to the end of the KC-46 buy and we start looking at KC-Y and beyond, the KC-135s on the ramp were still built in 1960 and ’61. So it’s important to keep going,

Air Force Magazine: You’re getting rid of a lot of AWACS: half the fleet. And I suppose half the fleet wasn’t working anyway.

Nahom: Well, I think first AWACS has served our nation extremely well. But you know, it’s a 707 on a very old engine, and the maintenance challenges—the two big things for the E-3 fleet [are] the maintenance challenges as well as the capability. There’s capabilities out there it just doesn’t possess because of the age of the system. It’s time to move on. And so what we need to do is, we need to divest some to free up the resources so we can invest in a replacement. And so all that money’s going into a replacement platform, and we are going to get at that as quickly as possible.

Air Force Magazine: So Wedgetail, presumably …

Nahom: Right now, we’re looking very hard at Wedgetail. Wedgetail has got an advantage, because it’s got the capability we want. It’s a new airframe, so it’s going to have the maintainability that we would want. We’ve got some partner nations flying it—the Royal Air Force is ordering them right now. So it’s a hot line. So it’s externally very attractive.

What we’re doing right now, we’re doing a very quick study with industry to make sure there’s not other things out there that would match that capability. And then our plan is to get after pretty quickly. But we have to do due diligence to make sure there’s not anything else out there with industry that would meet our requirements.

Air Force Magazine: So let’s say, best case, you settle on that hot line. It’s still five years or so before you have an airplane. So what do you do for that five, seven years that you’re without half of a fleet that has been in pretty high demand?

Nahom: It’s in high demand, but it’s also stressed and challenged. So I think we have to be realistic with where we are with that fleet. But there’s also some risk involved. And just like many of our fighter fleets are going to go down in numbers before we can get them back up, we just believe we have to commit to recapitalize this fleet and get after it.

In current resources, there’s just not a path to do it without taking some decrement in capacity in the near term. There’s just not a path. You’d love that world where you can maintain capacity and bring the new system on and just keep going. It’s not there. It’s too much to maintain the old systems and invest in the new. And there’s not resources to do both at the same time.

Air Force Magazine: Is [airborne moving target indication] going to be a capability that’s sort of merged into that airplane?

Nahom: Right now the intention for what is going to replace E-3 is primarily getting after AMTI, the airborne moving target indicator system, the ability to see things moving through the air, and that’s all things moving through the air.

GMTI is very important, the ability to see things moving on the ground—we found it very valuable over the years. JSTARS is in the same boat, if you will, if not worse, just because of the age and the stress on that platform. GMTI is different because there’s other ways to get after it. We have other airborne platforms, as well as, without getting into the details, certainly, you’ve heard us discuss the potential for space-based capability. And I’ll leave it at that. We also have other platforms, we can mitigate some of the capacity, the RQ-4 Block 40. And there’s some other joint platforms, too.

We will continue to mitigate the GMTI while we get to the next phase, but when you look at GMTI, when you look at some of the opportunities, they’re not there with AMTI. We certainly feel, at least in the interim, we have to go back after another airborne platform like an E-7, potentially.

Air Force Magazine: Space would not be an answer?

Nahom: Right now we’re not looking at that. We’re looking at least what we could call a bridging solution. But we have to get to a more maintainable modern platform that can do the mission that’s expected. And we’ve flown, obviously, alongside E-7s for years with our Australian allies. And we’re very impressed with the performance of that airplane. So obviously, again, we’re looking at it, but we have to do due diligence with industry.

Air Force Magazine: The B-21, you started out, they wanted 80. Then they wanted 100, then they wanted 120, then 145.

Nahom: Obviously we’re going to a two-bomber fleet. So we’ll get to the B-21 and the modified B-52. My focus as your A-8 right now is making sure we have the resources applied so we get the B-21 development, and we get [these] B-52 modifications moving. Because I’ll tell you, the B-21 is doing wonderful. It’s going to be a great airplane, a great capability for our nation.

The B-52 is a pretty complex undertaking, and you’re taking an old platform, you’re making it a new platform. And so how we manage that over the years, with taking airplanes offline so we can modify it with new motors and new internal software and hardware [while keeping] enough capacity for near-term conflict is going to be a challenge.

But the B-21. I would say the final number is not settled. But right now the focus, just like anything, is, let’s keep this development moving. The program’s doing well. And I think you heard Mr. Walden and others say we’re going to fly it relatively soon, which should be pretty exciting.

Air Force Magazine: So there’s also an unmanned bomber?

Nahom: Yeah, I don’t want to get into the ACPs, the collaborative platforms, just yet, because I’m not sure what we can or can’t say yet.

But obviously, you know we’ve been experimenting with unmanned systems in different ways than we have in the past with MQ-9s and MQ-1s and others. So we’re doing a lot of RDT&E and experimentation on what that looks like in the future, because all platforms that we use in a high end conflict, may or may not be crewed.

Air Force Magazine: Well, it comes back to this idea of a family of systems. Are you anticipating—like NGAD is going to be a family of systems—is B-21 going to be a bit of a family of systems as well?

Nahom: If you look at the Secretary’s [operational imperatives], that’s exactly what we’re looking at. And I think right now, as we’re looking at the operational imperatives, is what exactly does that look like? And there’s some exciting technology out there. Whether we can get after it and get it in a manner where we can get military utility out of it in long-range strike or in that air dominance role is what the experimentation is all about.

Air Force Academy Separates 22 Cadets for Cheating

April 15, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force Academy has separated 22 students and put 210 on probation as a result of the widespread cheating scandal in the spring of 2020, the Academy’s superintendent told its Board of Visitors on April 13.

All told, almost every disciplinary case from the incident has now been resolved, according to a presentation from Lt. Gen. Richard M. Clark. Of the 245 Cadets implicated in the cheating, 232 have now been punished; seven were determined to have committed no violation; three had their cases dropped; and three are either on hold or have a decision pending.

In March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic first began to spread across the U.S., USAFA sent freshmen, sophomores, and juniors home, pivoting to distance learning for the first time.

But that presented opportunities for students to game the system.

“We had some that were using unauthorized websites, some that plagiarized on papers, some that collaborated on tests when they weren’t authorized to do so. It wasn’t just one group. It was just a bunch of different actions that we were made aware of,” Clark said in response to a question from Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), himself a retired USAF brigadier general.

Most of those suspected of cheating admitted to their actions—all told, 231 confessed.

The disciplinary process, however, unfolded slowly as the school waited for students—who run the process of holding fellow cadets accountable for honor code violations—to return to campus for the fall semester before taking punitive measures. By January 2021, only one student had been expelled, and another had resigned.

At the same time, the academy undertook a reassessment of its honor code and policies, Clark said.

“The real action here, though, is the action we took afterward as a team, to take a look at our honor code, but also to take a look at: How are we developing them to live honorably and helping our Cadets understand the importance of that,” said Clark.

In February 2021, USAFA organized an honor code design sprint including Cadets, alumni, and other members of the academy to consider that issue. The group came up with three main themes to address.

“First, we realized that we weren’t emphasizing the ‘why’—why is this important that our Cadets own the mantra of living honorably?” Clark said. “ … We realized there was a lack of trust in the system, that they didn’t see the consistency in the way the honor code was administered. … And then, lack of intentional development. We were doing a fairly good job of development, but maybe it wasn’t in the right place and the right amounts in the right place.”

Looking to address those issues, the academy has increased staffing and curriculum for the honor system and updated and clarified parts of the honor code.

The early returns thus far have been promising—the number of honor code violations in the 2021-2022 school year, less than a month from final exams, is at its lowest point in more than a decade, after reaching a new high last year, according to data from Clark’s presentation.

This isn’t the first time a large number of Cadets have been forced out after cheating. In 2007, 18 students were either expelled or separated. In 1965, 105 Cadets were booted for cheating or for stealing and selling test papers. There have been other recent probes into cheating in 2019 and 2017.