72 Air National Guard F-16s Upgraded With ‘Fifth-Gen’ Radars

June 24, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Seventy-two F-16s across the Air National Guard have been upgraded with fifth-generation radars, giving the fighters the ability to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision, the Air Force and Northrop Grumman announced this month.

The completion of the upgrades concludes a five-year process that started in 2017 when the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center awarded Northrop Grumman a contract worth $243 million to update the radars on the F-16. That was in response to an urgent request from U.S. Northern Command, which said it needed the fighters outfitted with the radars to track “small cross-section threats,” such as cruise missiles.

The new Active Electronically Scanned Array radars derive from the radars that Northrop Grumman has put in the F-22 and F-35, the contractor said, and provide “earlier and longer range target detections and tracking.”

The F-16’s previous mechanical APG-68 fire control radar could track no more than two objects at a time, Lt. Col. Michael Trujillo, the D.C. Air National Guard’s 113th Aerospace Control Alert Detachment commander, said in a release. Now, he said, “I can target more things than I can shoot.”

The old radars also had “near-zero capability” against cruise missiles, the release states, a particularly worrisome issue given the proliferation and development of such missiles in recent years.

“The completion of these deliveries highlights Northrop Grumman’s continued commitment to rapidly field fifth-generation radar capability to the fleet to counter and defeat increasingly sophisticated threats to our nation and its allies,” said Mark Rossi, director of SABR programs for Northrop Grumman, in a company press release.

The Air Force celebrated the final installations of the new radars with a ceremony at Joint Base Andrews, Md., on June 9. The 113th Wing, the first unit to start getting the new radars, began receiving them in 2020, boosting its ability to provide defense of the national capital region—the 113th ACA is among the most active alert fighter air defense units in the nation.

All told, the new radars were installed in F-16s spread across 12 ANG units at nine bases.

“This has not been without a lot of labor, without a lot of advocacy, and without a lot of people saying, ‘I don’t have another dollar to spend on an old F-16,’” Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh, director of the Air National Guard, said at the ceremony.

These 72 F-16s won’t be the only ones to get the fifth-gen radars, though—hundreds more are slated to get a combined upgrade package in the coming years, one that will include AESA radars.

Looser Marijuana Rules Added to House Panel’s NDAA—But No Changes to Vaccine Mandate

June 24, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Service members facing potential discharges for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine received little relief from the House Armed Services Committee as it marked up the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act on June 22, with a series of provisions challenging the vaccine mandate getting voted down.

Troops hoping for changes to the Pentagon’s approach to marijuana, however, were buoyed by a pair of amendments included in the committee’s version of the NDAA that was approved in a bipartisan 57-1 vote.

COVID-19

Several thousand service members have now been discharged from the military for refusing the COVID vaccine—the Air Force in particular has separated 583 Airmen, according to the latest data, fewest among the services. Thousands more may still be booted, as the services process thousands of requests for religious, administrative, and medical exemptions, while multiple lawsuits on the issue are still ongoing.

Republican lawmakers on the HASC introduced seven amendments aimed at either ending, modifying, or mitigating the Pentagon’s vaccine requirement throughout the markup process. Proposals ranged from ending the requirement within 30 days, to creating accommodations for “natural immunity,” to blocking punishment for Cadets and Midshipmen at service academies.

In pushing for the proposals, the lawmakers argued that the mandate would create a readiness issue by forcing out service members and discouraging recruits from joining, that the young, healthy population that makes up the bulk of the military is at a low risk of complications from COVID, and that the long-term effects of the vaccine are still unknown.

On the other side of the issue, Democratic lawmakers pointed to the list of other vaccines that service members must get, the regulatory approval and scientific consensus behind the vaccines, and the readiness issues that a COVID-19 outbreak can cause.

Ultimately, two of the amendments related to the COVID-19 vaccine were adopted—one introduced by Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) that suspends any COVID-19 vaccine requirements for DOD contractors until the comptroller general releases a study on the potential impacts of such a requirement; and one from Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) that removes any time limit on the requirement that service members discharged over the vaccine receive no less than a general discharge under honorable conditions, a provision included in the 2022 NDAA.

The rest were voted down along party lines.

Marijuana

While more and more states across the country have opened up their laws surrounding medical and recreational marijuana, the Pentagon still has a firm zero-tolerance policy. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, possession of less than 30 grams of cannabis can result in dishonorable discharge and up to two years of confinement.

But a pair of amendments approved by voice vote would take steps towards loosening the DOD’s rules.

The first, introduced by Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.) calls for the Military Justice Review Panel to draft recommendations for new sentencing guidelines in the UCMJ for possession and use of cannabis, specifically directing the panel to compare those guidelines “to the sentences typically imposed for other comparable offenses, such as offenses involving the misuse of alcohol.”

Punishments for the misuse of alcohol in the military can vary, depending on whether the service member is on duty, but typically even at their worst include a bad misconduct discharge, lighter than a dishonorable one.

The second cannabis-related amendment came from Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who proposed requiring the Pentagon to conduct a study on the use of medical marijuana instead of prescription opioids for service members on terminal leave before separation or retirement.

The study would track service members diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, or other conditions with severe pain who might otherwise be prescribed opioids. The amendment also includes a provision to protect those service members’ other benefits despite their marijuana use.

“I know a lot of service members who have been really unfairly treated by the system … and I know a lot of veterans who actually choose to use cannabis so that they don’t become addicted to the opioids, which is what the VA regularly prescribes,” said Moulton, who is a veteran, as is Brown. “We need to look at this more carefully, and we need to push DOD to do so.”

Changes Coming to the Commissary?

Another amendment that was also approved as part of the HASC markup came from Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), and it could carry major implications for service members’ shopping.

Under Green’s amendment, no commissary or military exchange would be allowed to sell any goods manufactured, assembled, or imported from China. The amendment was adopted by voice vote, but not before critics warned that it could carry major implications for junior service members.

“At least half, if not more, of the products sold in the PX or the commissary, where I’ve been to and continue to go to, are made in China,” said Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.). “So I just point that out, because in essence, although it sounds great … it would have the adverse effect for our military families. We would in essence make them go out into the civilian world to purchase many of the goods that they rely on.”

Proponents, however, said the military stores could use products manufactured from anywhere else in the world and predicted that service members would be willing to sacrifice some to combat China’s economic power.

Processes May Matter More Than Technology in ABMS Creation, Generals Say

June 23, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

Improving the processes and culture already inherent in battle management command and control could make a bigger difference in the success of the Advanced Battle Management System than any new technology. Some new processes are already being fielded, said leaders who are coordinating ABMS for the Department of the Air Force and the Space Force.

Air Force Brig. Gens. Jeffrey D. Valenzia, the DAF’s ABMS cross-functional team lead, and John M. Olson, the Space Force’s joint all-domain command and control and ABMS lead, talked about the vision for the ABMS—the DAF’s portion of the broader JADC2 concept—in a live-streamed conversation June 23 with retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Steps will include figuring out how to separate command from control; how to aggregate sensing data from all platforms; and how to distribute communications, including via a space-based data transport layer.

The militaries the U.S. needs to be able to contend with already take advantage of slow battle management by employing “shoot-and-scoot technologies [with which] they can expose themselves in order to engage us and very quickly disappear before we can close the kill chain,” Valenzia said—the kill chain ostensibly taking as long as hours to close that “in some cases needs to be in seconds.”

“If I’m looking at defending a force that’s in the field,” he said, “what I can’t do is create a system where a commander is making a play-by-play decision as we are executing. I need a control apparatus who simply can execute. … We need to decouple it, and we need to distribute it.”

Doing so would make battle management C2 less vulnerable.

“Today we take sensors, information, communications, and the people who make these decisions, and we like to put them in a tent, or we put them in an airplane—put them in extraordinarily vulnerable positions—and then we tell them, do the best with what you have, which is oftentimes insufficient,” Valenzia said.

Olson named the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) as no longer sufficient, “and you might even say the traditional air operations center is no longer viable in the modern contested environment,” he said.

On the other hand, “technology,” Valenzia said, “has allowed us now to imagine a world where we don’t have to rely on the sensor that’s sitting on top of my airplane anymore. In fact, I can start to aggregate sensing data from multiple sources. We also are starting to develop the technology that my communications can be more distributed—I can start using space-based communications. Now I don’t need a direct-line-of sight tie.”

But technology made a smaller difference than the services expected when they modeled the effectiveness of today’s command and control processes as though all intelligence data were available ubiquitously.

“We saw a one-third improvement in our kill chain,” Valenzia said—the actual target time is classified and “much shorter than hours.” Next, modeling more stress on the C2 system with “a target reported every couple minutes for a 24-hour period … we saw less than a 10 percent improvement—actually reverse what we expected. We expected to see a compounding improvement with technology.

“And so what you find when you do the hyper analytics is that our process is killing us. So ABMS is not just looking at technical solutions” but also “process improvements, which forces us to come to terms with some old paradigms.”

Meanwhile, “real joint progress that we’re fielding now with our joint partners” means the DAF is “already operationalizing this idea of a reimagined battle management every day,” Valenzia said.

However, a new digital infrastructure to underlie the system of systems can’t be avoided.

Olson envisioned a systems engineering approach to ABMS:

“You break a large problem down into functional pieces, manageable pieces, and you systematically tackle that. And I think that’s absolutely the approach that’s been taken, but I think we’re going to accelerate that to warp speed, if you will, on this.”

House Proposes ‘National Hypersonic Initiative’ to Boost Coordination, Testing, Industry Expansion

June 23, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

To increase coordination and resources for hypersonic weapons development, the House Armed Services Committee included a “National Hypersonic Initiative” in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act. The House panel wants the Pentagon to produce a report, due early in 2023, on how it will build up the hypersonics industrial base and testing infrastructure and what the effort will cost over five years.

In its markup of the fiscal 2023 NDAA, the House committee “notes the multiple programs and efforts” in hypersonics across the armed services and defense agencies but also the “limited industrial base and workforce with the requisite knowledge and infrastructure” needed to develop and test these systems. The HASC is “interested in the potential of an initiative to address current gaps” in the hypersonics development infrastructure “as well as to accelerate production and fielding.” Besides the Air Force, the Navy and Army are pursuing hypersonics programs, as are the Missile Defense Agency and NASA.

Pentagon and industry officials welcomed the attention to hypersonics but said much of what the language calls for is already happening.

The HASC version of the NDAA directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the committee by Feb. 1, 2023, “on potential options to establish” a National Hypersonic Initiative, which will specify:

“Innovative solutions” to create “leap-ahead technologies” for accelerating and increasing production capacity of hypersonic systems “across the current programs of record within the military services,” to include the potential use of government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities.
Ways to strengthen partnerships with academia and the private sector “with regards to [the] technology and producibility” of hypersonic weapon systems.
Areas in which the Pentagon can “collaborate across the interagency” to improve hypersonic development and testing capabilities.
Allies who are interested in collaborating on hypersonic technologies and who are able to make a substantive contribution to the knowledge base or actually co-develop or co-produce some systems.
“Other relevant lines of effort or work areas” determined by the Secretary of Defense.

An amendment offered by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) would specifically direct the Secretary of the Air Force to “upgrade the air-breathing test facilities” of the service “to support critical hypersonics development.” Lamborn wants the Air Force to complete any such upgrades within two years after starting them.

In a press statement, Lamborn also said the language provides $600 million “to accelerate testing” and development of hypersonic systems, including advanced defensive capabilities.

“The top-line amendment … will put important funding behind this effort and will go a long way toward helping us catch up with Russia and China on hypersonics.”

During a House Appropriations hearing, there was discussion of restoring funds withdrawn from the hypersonic AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon program (ARRW), but the panel voted not to do so.

An industry source said the House’s sense that there needs to be national coordination on hypersonics echoes a report from the Government Accountability Office in 2021 “that said the same thing … It’s been an ongoing theme, and there’s some truth there.”

Mark Lewis, head of the National Defense Industrial Association’s Emerging Technologies Institute and former Pentagon director of research and engineering, said, “I’m all for” a national hypersonics initiative, but “it’s kind of what we were doing in the last administration.”

The initiatives spelled out by the House match those put forward by Michael White, the Pentagon’s principal director for hypersonics, said Lewis, a hypersonics expert.

“Congress set up the Joint Hypersonics Transition Office,” he said, “and its job was exactly this, to coordinate across the department.” However, he said, “It’s still a work in progress … we can always have better coordination.”

Lewis applauded the House’s attention to hypersonic test capability, noting that, despite recent efforts, there’s still a shortage of both wind tunnels and live-fly range space.

“We need to do both,” he said, but of the two, Lewis said live-fly should get priority.

“We need to be flying more often,” he said. “We need to get into the air; that’s the ultimate test … We need infrastructure that gets us into the air routinely, not doing these … one or two flights a year. To the extent that the folks in the House can help with that, I think is actually very significant.”

Lewis noted that in the days of the X-15, a well established infrastructure conducted routine hypersonic testing with a recoverable vehicle, which could fly in a designated, over-land hypersonic test corridor.

“We don’t have that anymore,” he said, and restoring such a capability would be a huge boost to hypersonics research.

The reference to allies certainly includes Australia, he said, because Australia’s hypersonic development capabilities “are really quite good” and “they have that beautiful Woomera range,” which is an over-land hypersonic test area.

Overall, though, Lewis offered “hearty applause” for the language.

“This needs to be a national priority,” he said, and the fact that it is bipartisan language indicates “they’ve gotten the message, that hypersonics is an important future military capability. And they’ve also gotten the message that we are in a race that we’re currently losing, to deploy this technology.” Lewis also applauded the “setting of a timescale” because peer competitors “already have it, and we don’t.”

NDAA Proposals Address Joint Force Integration in Indo-Pacific

June 23, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

Amendments in a House version of the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would strengthen U.S. posture and resourcing at U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

One proposal to create a new joint command in Hawaii or Guam comes amid questions as to whether INDOPACOM is doing enough on its own to improve joint force integration in the Pacific theater.

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) pushed for INDOPACOM initiatives to strengthen America’s posture toward China.

“This year’s NDAA learns from the failure of deterrence in Ukraine and moves with a sense of urgency to better resource America’s posture in the Indo-Pacific,” Gallagher said in a statement released after the House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the NDAA after midnight June 23.

The ranking member of the HASC subcommittee on military personnel also helped secure an extra $1 billion to “turbocharge urgently needed infrastructure and posture-related efforts” at the command, and he called for a study to review how a joint task force (JTF) or sub-unified command in Honolulu or Guam could strengthen command-and-control structures before a crisis erupts.

INDOPACOM is already slated for $6.1 billion in the NDAA as part of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), which would do everything from build new infrastructure to increase the number of exercises and training events with partners and allies in the region. Hawaii and Guam would be major beneficiaries of the new funding.

“Guam and Hawaii provide the operational capability and logistical capacity to generate airpower for both contingency and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations,” a Pacific Air Forces spokesperson told Air Force Magazine in a written statement. “Their defensive posture will be significantly bolstered by the build-out plans.”

In an interview at PACAF headquarters at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, PACAF commander Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach told Air Force Magazine that the 2022 defense budget jumpstarted Air Force efforts to pre-position material and conduct agile combat employment (ACE) in the theater.

“The ‘22 budget provided for additional funds for ACE for construction that we needed that helps us to execute ACE and gives us airfields that are more capable and viable for conducting operations in the Pacific,” Wilsbach said.

“We need to stay the course to give us the capability to be able to deter, and if deterrence fails, to be able to prevail if conflict happens here in the Pacific,” he added. The PACAF commander added, however, that he needed the Army to step up and do its job to protect air assets and bases.

PDI military construction funds proposed in the fiscal 2023 budget include design and construction projects on the island of Timor and U.S. territories Wake Island and Tinian. The Tinian projects add capacity for airfield operations including refueling, takeoff, landing, and parking where no capacity currently exists.

Guam is already slated to host a future command-and-control center funded by the Missile Defense Agency that would benefit PACAF by creating an integrated air picture.

Gallagher’s proposed amendment calls on the INDOPACOM commander to study the creation of a joint task force or sub-unified command to better facilitate planning and execution of a contingency response should crisis arrive in the Indo-Pacific region.

Some current and former sub-unified commands are Alaskan Command under U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Forces Korea under INDOPACOM, and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, which ran the war there under U.S. Central Command.

Work Underway on Joint Force Integration

At the Hickam meeting, Wilsbach stressed his efforts to strengthen the Joint Force, something the NDAA amendment seeks to address should a JTF be created.

“The good news story is a lot is working,” Wilsbach said, describing a June 3 joint demonstration for INDOPACOM commander Adm. John C. Aquilino at PACAF’s 613th Air Operations Center (AOC). “We’re about as jointly integrated as I’ve ever seen, right now, every single day.”

While the Defense Department continues to develop technology to achieve joint all-domain command and control (JADC2), which would enable integration from all branches of the military, Wilsbach said the exercise at the AOC demonstrated that even with current technologies, the services are executing JADC2.

In the joint demonstration, air fires from the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps; surface-to-air fires from the Marine Corps and use of its radars and aircraft; and simulated surface-to-surface fires from the Army were employed together.

“We can integrate that all in time and space from the AOC,” Wilsbach said. “On a day-to-day basis, the operations are all very similar to that. They’re being integrated, and perhaps on a day-to-day basis, they’re not always a strike, or a simulated strike, but they could be.”

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said standing up a JTF before a crisis erupts is a good idea, but that he is not convinced INDOPACOM is preparing for a joint fight in the Indo-Pacific.

“Is PACOM really serious about preparing for potential conflict with China in the South China Sea?” he posed. “And then if they are, where’s the evidence of a unified, truly joint approach in doing so?”

Deptula said problems he sees today existed two decades ago when he served at PACAF headquarters. One is a lack of a means for attacking moving ships in all weather. Another is sufficient munitions stocks to execute major regional conflict in the Indo-Pacific, but construction is underway in Guam to address the munitions storage shortfall. He also called for hardening of aircraft shelters in Guam. But instead, the Missile Defense Agency is working with the Army to create a 360-degree, multi-layered missile defense of Guam. Likewise, Deptula called for a plan for how the Army would provide air base defense and how it would travel with the Air Force to ACE locations at islands across the Pacific.

Deptula said all the service components would participate in a JTF, if stood up, but the key force would be air power. Whether a hypothetical JTF commander is an Air Force officer or a Navy officer would indicate whether INDOPACOM is “serious” or “stuck in the past,” he said. “To conquer the tyranny of distance of the Pacific, one needs to go 600 knots, not 20 knots—not to mention having the flexibility for rapid response, optimal survivability, lethality.”

“I’m pretty convinced that ‘Cruiser’ Wilsbach is on top of it, in my view,” Deptula said. “He’s very realistic and has a good grasp of the situation, but I can’t say that about the rest of the service components in the Pacific.”

INDOPACOM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) international security fellow John Schaus agreed that the services are not thinking in a joint manner.

“None of the services spend enough time thinking about how they are going to contribute to a joint force in a joint fight to achieve national objectives,” Schaus told Air Force Magazine in a recent interview.

One way services practice joint integration is through exercises. But all too often, Schaus said, a service won’t participate unless the exercise meets their internal needs.

“Each of the services has requirements for training and proficiency. And if that exercise helps you, but it doesn’t help me, I don’t have an incentive to participate,” Schaus said. “That leaves each service less joint.”

HASC Won’t Force the Air Force to Hold a Bridge Tanker Competition

June 23, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Several lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee were disappointed in their effort to force the Air Force into a competition for its KC-Y “bridge tanker.” Their proposed amendment failed to make it into the committee’s markup of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.

The panel did agree, however, to limit the service’s move to retire half its E-3 Sentry fleet before finally passing its version of the NDAA shortly after 2 a.m. June 23 by a bipartisan 57-1 vote.

KC-Y

Deep into the lengthy 16-hour markup process that started the morning of June 22, Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.) introduced an amendment that would have prevented the Air Force from awarding any contract for its bridge tanker “unless such contract is awarded using full and open competition.”

Carl’s provision came in response to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s remarks in recent months that the likelihood of a competition for the KC-Y—to bridge the gap between the KC-46 and the long-term vision for a “KC-Z”—has declined as the Air Force has done more work on the program.

“As we look for requirements, look further out, the requirements start to look like a modified KC-46 more than they do a completely new design,” Kendall told reporters in March. “So we’re working our way through finalizing those requirements. Again, we’ll be doing due diligence market research analysis.

“… I want to be very transparent about this. I think that there’s still a possibility for competition out there. But as we’ve looked at our requirements, the likelihood of a competition has come down.”

Thus far, only two companies appear to be interested in bidding for the contract. Lockheed Martin and Airbus have proposed their LMXT platform based on the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport, and Boeing is set to re-enter the KC-46 Pegasus.

The KC-46, however, has been plagued by a number of serious deficiencies, most prominently with its Remote Vision System, which has caused issues with refueling.

“We don’t have aircraft that work,” said Carl, citing those problems. “We do not have aircraft that fulfills 100 percent [of requirements]. … And now we’re being asked to turn the checkbook over to the Air Force. I refuse to allow that to happen. I encourage everyone to think and think hard on this one. We cannot let the DOD, the Air Force, any branch of the government, to continue to run away with our checkbook and do what they want to do. They have to be responsible.”

Carl represents Alabama’s 1st District, which includes Mobile, where Lockheed Martin has said it will build the LMXT.

On the other side of the issue, Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment to Carl’s amendment effectively stripping it of its intent, allowing the Secretary of the Air Force to award a sole-source contract.

“The idea that somehow we’re just going to throw a check out the window and say, ‘Yeah, just keep buying them,’ is nowhere near the truth,” Norcross said. “We’re looking at unknown requirements that will probably not be here at the earliest until the end of the year. Yet we’re trying to make a decision that will box that in, telling you how you’ll have to do it, even before you know what we’re doing.”

In many ways, the debate over the proposals broke along parochial lines—Rep. Mike Rogers (R), also from Alabama, spoke in favor of Carl’s proposal, as did Rep. Anthony Brown (D) from Maryland, where Lockheed Martin is headquartered. Meanwhile, Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) advocated for Norcross’ amendment—Larsen represents Everett, Wash., where the KC-46 is built, and Courtney’s district borders Middletown, Conn., where the KC-46’s engines are made.

HASC chair Rep. Adam Smith, also from Washington, voiced support for letting the Air Force award a sole-source contract if it wants to, saying that doing so would allow the service to avoid contract protests that could drag the process out. He did, however, include a caveat.

“We will drive up the costs if we force them into a competition and force them into that more lengthy process,” Smith said. “Now, if we’re sitting here a year from now, and that camera doesn’t work and it’s not moving forward, we don’t have a choice at that point. We’ve got to go get something else.”

Ultimately, Norcross’ amendment was approved by a 36-22 vote, putting it in the NDAA that was passed by the entire committee, but the opposition warned it isn’t going away anytime soon.

“Just know this: If we lose today, this is coming back next year,” Rogers said before the vote.

E-3 Sentry

One provision also added to the NDAA that proved far less controversial was an amendment from Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) that would restrict how and when the Air Force can start to retire its aging E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet.

Language regarding the E-3 was already included in the chairman’s mark of the NDAA released June 20 that called for allowing just 10 E-3s to be retired until the Air Force reported back on its future airborne warning and control plans, and on developing air moving target indication, battle management, and command and control capabilities; the impact of retiring 15 AWACS planes; and a detailed comparison between the E-3s and the Air Force’s planned replacement, the E-7 Wedgetail.

Bice’s proposal, adopted as part of a package of amendments in a simple voice vote, would go beyond that, putting a hard cap of 13 aircraft that can be retired. And of those 13 planes, five could be retired only after the Air Force entered into a contract to procure the E-3’s replacement, the E-7 Wedgetail. That deal is not expected until at least fiscal 2023.

On top of that, Bice, whose district borders Tinker Air Force Base, where part of the E-3 fleet is located, called for two of the AWACS aircraft to be designated as training aircraft.

Gulfstream: A Historical Partner in Critical Transportation for Senior Leaders

June 23, 2022

Gulfstream has been a critical Department of Defense partner throughout its history. While Gulfstream first delivered its modified Gulfstream GII aircraft to the U.S. Navy in 1967, the company has been directly supporting the U.S. Air Force since 1983.

“Almost 40 years ago, we delivered the first C-20B Gulfstream GIII aircraft at the 89th Airlift Wing at Joint Base Andrews to support critical transportation for executive airlift command and control mission,” said Troy Miller, regional vice president for military and special mission sales at Gulfstream. “We’ve been providing Gulfstreams around the world ever since.”

Since then, Gulfstream has continued to provide aircraft, logistics, and maintenance support to securely transport senior political and military leaders.

“Recently, we have also expanded our support by modifying special missions’ aircraft, most notably our modified G550s to support the EC-37B Compass Call program,” Miller said. “We’re modifying those aircraft for the mission system’s prime contractors: L3Harris and BAE Systems. Together, we’re addressing the critical airborne electronic attack requirements that the Air Force has made clear it requires in the EC-37Bs that are slated to replace the current fleet of EC-130Hs.”

Gulfstream’s support of executive airlift command and control is vital to ensuring senior leaders stay connected when they travel.

“Over the years, we’ve improved the secure communications capabilities of our aircraft,” Miller said. “Our C-37As and C-37Bs are equipped with secure communication suites that enable our senior military and government leaders to conduct business securely during those long-range flights.”

Gulfstream’s experience in developing business jets prepared them to continually innovate to enhance their aircraft.

“As a leading business jet manufacturer worldwide, Gulfstream focuses first and foremost on safety,” Miller said. “But we also focus significantly on innovation by developing and implementing new capabilities and technologies into our aircraft to improve communications, navigation, and environmental conditions in the cabin.”

As an example, Miller offers the modifications made to secure communication capabilities for the senior leaders, including combatant commanders.

“Our aircraft provide reliable, safe, and productive air transportation over long ranges and high altitudes of operations at high speeds,” Miller said. “In response to increased demand for secure communications, we provide a work environment that senior leaders can conduct their critical business, particularly command and control missions, in-flight.”

In 1999, the General Dynamics Corporation purchased Gulfstream, enabling Gulfstream to innovate and expand its product lines to meet the demands of the future with aircraft like the new Gulfstream G700, which is currently undergoing flight testing.

“The G700 offers increased range, speed, and 56 percent more space in the cabin compared to the G550,” Miller said. “A larger cabin provides air transportation for more people and the ability to accommodate additional crew rest capability or galley capability for the special missions. We’re excited to have our newest aircraft address the Air Force’s emerging and evolving requirements.”

This addition is significant considering Gulfstream’s G550 continues to be one of the most prolific contributions the company has made to the Air Force, as evident by its recent incorporation into the C-37B fleet.

“With more than 600 G550s in service, that aircraft continues to be our most productive,” Miller said. “The C-37Bs are based on the G550 and recently, the Air Force has taken delivery of two additional C -37Bs. Without question, the G550 has been the workhorse that best represents Gulfstream addressing the needs of the Air Force to date.”

Gulfstream is a proud historical partner of the Air Force. Recently, two G550s delivered to Joint Base Andrews were selected to honor the Tuskegee Airmen and the Berlin Airlift, respectively, on their tails.

“Considering the Air Force’s emphasis on historical significance, it was humbling and a joy for our aircraft to receive a tail number that represents these historical events and figures,” Miller said.

It was a poignant reminder of the Air Force’s rich history, motivating Gulfstream to continue supporting the Air Force’s needs far into the future.

“Gulfstream’s next-generation aircraft family, including the G400, G500, G600 and G800, along with the G700, represent industry-leading capabilities and technology, and different segments of the performance spectrum in terms of ranges, sizes, and capabilities,” Miller said. “As we continue to develop new aircraft and modify our products, we will continue to support the executive airlift command and control needs and the special missions needs of the U.S. Air Force over the next 75 years.”

House Panel Approves Space National Guard, More EC-37Bs, and a Big Topline Boost to 2023 NDAA

June 22, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

One of the Air Force’s top unfunded priorities and a renewed push for a Space National Guard were both approved by the House Armed Services Committee on June 22 as part of the panel’s marathon markup of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.

The committee also voted to increase the top line of the 2023 NDAA by $37 billion on top of the $773 billion requested by the Pentagon. But in a concurrent hearing, the House Appropriations Committee, which actually controls the purse strings, voted for a much smaller increase, setting the stage for what is likely to be a fierce debate in the coming months.

Space National Guard

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) was responsible for introducing the amendment for the Space National Guard, which was included in a package of non-controversial amendments and approved by voice vote.

It’s an issue he tried to address in last year’s NDAA—his amendment then was also approved by the committee, but it contradicted language in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the bill, and when it came time for leaders to draft a compromise version, it was left out.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget has also come out against a separate Space Guard, releasing a statement of administration policy saying it “strongly opposes” such a move as it would create unnecessary bureaucracy and increase costs by up to $500 million annually. The Space Force, meanwhile, has proposed creating a “Space Component” that is a combined hybrid of full-time and part-time Guardians.

In May, though, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced legislation that would create a Space National Guard, formed from the eight states and territories that currently have Air National Guard units with space missions. Advocates say a new entity is needed because members of those Air National Guard units don’t have a direct connection with the Space Force and have essentially been “orphaned” by the Air Force, and argue that the costs have been overestimated.

But while Crow’s amendment would seem to have some support in the Senate, the SASC did not address the issue in its own markup of the 2023 NDAA. Should the House and Senate adopt their respective versions of the bill unchanged, a conference committee will have to draft a compromise.

Unfunded Priorities Partially Fulfilled

The second-highest unfunded priority the Air Force included in the annual list it sent to Congress in April was also its most expensive one—$978.5 million to procure four more EC-37B Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft.

That ask was, for the most part, fulfilled as part of a sweeping amendment offered by Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and approved in a 42-17 vote. Golden’s amendment provides $884 million for four additional aircraft to bring the total fleet to 10. It also puts the HASC’s bill in line with its Senate counterpart.

Golden’s amendment also partially addresses what the Air Force identified as its top unfunded priority—$579 million for weapons system sustainment—by adding on nearly $379 million.

Other unfunded priorities, however, such as the addition of seven more F-35As to the Air Force’s buy of 33, were not included in Golden’s amendment nor the HASC chairman’s mark. The House Appropriations Committee also did not change the F-35’s procurement this year, despite protests from Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who called the total of 61 aircraft “simply not enough to keep up with what we’re facing.”

Top line

The main impact of Golden’s amendment was to increase the top line of the 2023 NDAA by $37 billion, nearly 4.8 percent. A large chunk of that increase is devoted to combatting the effects of rising inflation, a common theme throughout this year’s budgeting process.

In particular, Golden’s amendment would give an “inflation bonus” of 2.4 percent to service members making less than $45,000, an addition projected to cost $800 million. Another $6 billion or so is devoted to addressing inflation’s impact on military construction and fuel costs.

But while the House Armed Services Committee is ready to boost spending, the House Appropriations Committee is not. The key panel stuck with the total of $762 billion in the 2023 NDAA (which doesn’t include military construction) proposed by defense subcommittee chair Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), a total that is roughly in line with the Pentagon’s request.

“What we choose to spend our defense dollars on is … incredibly important. We must modernize our force to compete with our peer adversaries, but the latest weapon systems and platforms are only effective if they can be used appropriately and if they can be maintained appropriately and in the long term,” McCollum argued.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the chair of the HASC, made a similar argument in his committee hearing, pushing back against proponents who say that maintaining large numbers of less capable platforms has a quality of its own.

“That’s one of the dumbest damn things I’ve ever heard,” Smith said. “If I have 100 different things that are incapable of doing anything, you’re not better off if you have 200. Now we can debate whether there is quality here … but please don’t give this ‘Well, we’ve got a lot of them, so we must be in good shape, right?”

Smith and McCollum, however, will face opposition from Republicans—and some Democrats—who want to increase defense spending. Indeed, HASC’s $37 billion increase is actually smaller than the $45 billion added by the committee’s Senate counterpart; and Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), who voted for Golden’s amendment, called the $37 billion “a start,” adding that she hoped the compromise process with the Senate would land on a total “somewhere north” of it.

This is the Best Time to Take Risks, Brown Says

June 22, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is trying to strike a balance between fight-tonight readiness and future capabilities, and the current situation offers the most favorable conditions to focus more on investment, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said in a think-tank presentation.

“This is probably the best opportunity” to accept some risk in day-to-day readiness versus long-term investment, Brown said in a Hudson Institute streamed event. He also commented on how Russia is prosecuting its air war in Ukraine by keeping its air units close to ground units and not venturing far from them.

The Air Force has to “balance risk over time,” Brown said, and trade off the needs of the service with those of combatant commanders, who are charged with developing here-and-now operational plans, Brown said.

“I don’t think the combatant commanders should take all the risk,” he said, nor should the services, which are trying to prepare for the future.

“If we had a rheostat where we could move things back and forth, you could see, this is probably the best opportunity to do this,” Brown said. He also said the services should not all be “in a bit of a valley” at the same time, with regard to readiness or investment.

“That’s why it’s important for the Joint Force to see ourselves” as a whole, he said.

Brown has previously argued for new metrics to assess readiness, and he did again, saying, “the way we measure readiness … is usually based on availability of platforms and trained Airmen … but if you continue to use it at this rate today, what’s it going to look like tomorrow? That part, I think we need to do a better job on.”

The services should constantly be asking themselves, “What do you need to be ready for?” he said.

“I just think we can do this better. We have data, we have tools … and models” that can better assess readiness, he said, “and do a little better job at forecasting, which will inform your decisions … and see what the future may look like.”

He argued for revamping the Global Force Management system, saying that when he was at U.S. Central Command, heavy use was made of carrier battle groups, but he was told that continuing to use them at that rate would result in shortages later.

“We don’t pay attention to things over time to see the readiness trends,” he said. “You may drive yourself into the valley … and wonder how you got here.”

Brown said he’s made a point to engage with members of Congress and their staffs on various Air Force initiatives, to explain what the service is thinking and doing, and why. Asked if he believes his “4+1” fighter plan will be allowed to proceed, Brown said, “I think it will.” The security situation is changing, calling for “increasing dialog,” he said, but he believes Capitol Hill is onboard.

“We’ve been pretty successful for the last two years” in getting Congress to go along with the Air Force’s plans, he said.

He said he has also impressed on all levels of the service the need to “be all on the same page in terms of our message” so that Congress gets a unified perspective from the service. He has told commanders to look beyond their “functional areas” and see things “across the enterprise … What’s best for the United States Air Force.” That was successful in the last National Defense Authorization Act, “and you’re seeing [that] … again in this round, this year.”

Brown declined to say whether he sees a greater emphasis on long-range strike, again saying he’s trying to find the “sweet spot … mix of capability and capacity.” Shorter-range assets such as fighters will be important for the “campaigning” aspect of the new National Defense Strategy, he said, as they provide an opportunity to work with partners and allies. Both long- and short-range platforms will have greater utility with longer-ranged weapons that are in development, he said.

The Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) will be crucial, though, “to not only get the information for almost all those targets” but passing that information on to “those long strike platforms or a shorter-range fighter.”

Finding that sweet spot entails constant wargaming and analysis, he said, and is subject to frequent change.

“Moving the levers back and forth” of investment in capability versus readiness will provide the best possible answer, but no plan is perfect, and no plan “survives contact” with an enemy, Brown allowed.

Brown was asked if the Air Force is doing any “lessons learned” analysis of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine, and he said that effort is ongoing.

“How we would do it,” Brown said, is to attack air defenses and establish air superiority over a broad area of operations where U.S. ground forces were operating.

“That’s not the way the Russians have operated,” though, he said. Russian forces have kept their air forces “more closely [to] where they had ground superiority. So, based on their doctrine, they’ve stuck … where their ground forces are, and don’t venture very far from them.”

The Ukrainians have been successful in denying air superiority to Russia in part by not keeping their air defenses “static,” Brown said.

“They stay fairly dynamic, which made it more difficult” for Russia to find and destroy Ukrainian air defense systems.

“If you can’t do dynamic targeting very well, you’re going to have a hard time,” he said. This is “something we do, I think, … really well. And something we’ll continue to work on.”

He also expressed surprise that Russia is having such a hard time countering Ukrainian air defenses, noting that they are Russian-made systems.

“They’re going against their own” system, he said. “They should know how to defeat them.”