Biden Promises Response if Russia Uses Chemical Weapons in Ukraine, Calls for Continued NATO Unity

March 24, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

President Joe Biden warned that the United States will respond if Russia uses chemical weapons against Ukraine. Biden also promised to take in 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, provide $1 billion in humanitarian support to Ukraine, and a impose a new round of sanctions against Russian politicians, entities, and defense companies.

“Putin was banking on NATO being split,” said Biden, in Europe accompanied by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.

Biden said he called for the March 24 unscheduled NATO leaders summit, and subsequent meetings with European and G-7 counterparts, in order to keep allies and partners united in the punishing sanctions regiment against Russian President Vladimir Putin since “Russia began its carnage in Ukraine” one month prior, on Feb. 24.

“He didn’t think we could sustain this cohesion. NATO has never, never been more united than it is today,” he added, reflecting on December and January phone calls with Putin. “Putin is getting exactly the opposite of what he intended to have as a consequence of going into Ukraine.”

Biden also said he is working with European leaders on ways the United States can provide food and energy security amid worries created by the Russia-Ukraine war. Both Russia and Ukraine are major providers of wheat to Europe, and many European countries depend on Russian oil and gas. The U.S. has ended imports of Russian oil and gas and hopes to export more liquefied natural gas to European ports to help allies reduce their purchase of Russian energy.

The new sanctions against Russia, in unison with the European Union, target more than 400 individuals and entities. Included are more than 300 members of the Russian legislative body Duma, oligarchs, and defense companies.

Biden made note of the more than $2 billion in defense assistance already provided to Ukraine, including air defense systems, armor, and ammunition that continues to flow into Ukraine through a variety of secret overland routes from NATO eastern flank countries. The President announced no new defense package or materials, and the $800 million package of additional military support, signed March 16, has yet to begin delivery.

Biden also said 100,000 Ukrainian refugees will be permitted to immigrate to the United States with a focus on reuniting families. European countries have already absorbed more than 3.5 million refugees from the conflict. Biden is set to travel to Poland, the largest recipient of Ukrainian refugees, March 25 and March 26 for meetings with leaders and to visit refugee camps.

Much speculation has arisen as to the possibility that Biden might somehow try to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which would require either Zelenskyy to leave the besieged capital or for Biden to fly into an active war zone.

After beginning to describe his itinerary, Biden reversed course and said that he hopes to “see a lot of people.”

The President refused to admit that his early ruling out of direct military intervention before the start of the invasion had emboldened Putin, and he dismissed a reporter’s assertion that American sanctions were meant to deter an invasion by Russia.

“I did not say that … sanctions would deter him. Sanctions never deter,” Biden said, noting that the “maintenance of sanctions” for the entire year would stop Putin.

“The single most important thing is for us to stay unified, and the world to continue to focus on what a brute this guy is, and all the innocent people’s lives that are being lost and ruined,” Biden continued.

On China, Biden said that during his recent call with President Xi Jinping, he made it clear that economic access to the United States and European Union would be “in significant jeopardy” should China choose to provide economic or military assistance to Russia.

The President ended by emphasizing that the alliance must hold strong if it is to stop Putin:

“We have to stay fully, totally, thoroughly united,” he said.

‘Boxed Into a Corner,’ Russia Could Be a Counterspace Wild Card

March 24, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

China’s space infrastructure has made it more of a military match for the U.S. than Russia, in terms of space, but Russia presents more of an “unknown,” especially as it’s “boxed into a corner” in its invasion of Ukraine, said a top Space Force intelligence officer.

Maj. Gen. Leah G. Lauderback spoke during the Defense One/Nextgov Intelligence Summit streamed March 24.

As the Space Force’s senior intelligence officer for its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance “enterprise,” which amounts to about 800 people, she said she tries to instill a “warfighting mentality”—specifically, “How do we defend the capabilities that we have?”

Russia made a dramatic offensive demonstration when it launched a kinetic anti-satellite weapon at one of its own derelict satellites in November 2021, creating a debris field of more than 1,500 objects in low Earth orbit. As of February, that debris was causing so-called “squalls” of conjunctions, or close approaches, with satellites. An estimated 40,000 conjunctions were to take place in the first week of April alone.

Russia also has demonstrated a satellite that flew close to a U.S. satellite, Lauderback said: “They had what we assessed as a counterspace capability essentially flying near one of our capabilities and following us around.”

The Space Force’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war has included gathering intelligence to present to U.S. Space Command and U.S. European Command along with services such as GPS. “It’s battle space awareness. It’s missile warning—it’s things of that nature,” Lauderback said. “Communications. I say that’s a huge one—that we support all the other warfighters out there.”

But an intelligence officer really wants to “understand the adversary,” Lauderback said, and the Space Force is also tasked with “observing, and watching, and being able to try to characterize what is happening in the Ukraine crisis.”

While she gauged China as “more of a rational actor at this point,” she estimated that “Russia is more of an actor that I feel is unknown, and maybe more of a concern, about being boxed into a corner”—a situation in which “you’re not a hundred percent certain what it is that they will do.”

Russia also doesn’t have as high a stake in the orbital environment as the U.S. and China.

“Russia does not use it nearly as much,” Lauderback said. “They are very good at what they do from a space perspective and a counterspace perspective, but they are less dependent on it.”

China, on the other hand, has observed the U.S.’s use of space since it came into play in the Gulf War, and “has truly built a capability and a counter space capability,” making it “truly the challenge” from the Space Force’s perspective.

“I mean, it’s incredible to see,” Lauderback said. “It’s not just about their counterspace—that does threaten us—but it’s also how they use their space capabilities, their intelligence collection capabilities. Because what are they using that for? Of course, they’re using that to track us.”

Unlike Russia’s trend, that advancement could lead to dependency.

The difference, “is that China has an overwhelming capability, and they need it,” she said. “They’re going to be, at some point, dependent on their own use [of] space.”

North Korea Tests New ICBM; VanHerck Touts Need for Missile Defense

March 24, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

North Korea test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile, officials from Japan and South Korea said March 24, marking North Korea’s first ICBM-range test in years and once again ramping up tensions in the region.

According to a release from the Japanese Ministry of Defense, the launch occurred early that afternoon local time, with the missile flying 71 minutes, reaching an altitude of more than 6,000 kilometers, and landing roughly 1,100 kilometers away in the waters off Japan’s western coast.

South Korea’s Defense Ministry later estimated the missile altitude at 6,200 kilometers and stated that South Korea had launched several missiles in response.

Analysts told multiple media outlets that the March 24 flight data indicates the system could potentially reach the U.S. homeland, exceeding the altitude and flight time of the 2017 test that North Korea said proved it could strike anywhere in the continental U.S.

In 2018, the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un declared a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests. But in March, the Pentagon revealed that North Korea had twice tested a new ballistic missile system, on Feb. 26 and March 4. Although at the time press secretary John F. Kirby said that the tests “did not demonstrate ICBM range,” he warned they were likely intended to precede a full-range test in the future, “potentially disguised as a space launch.”

At that time, the Pentagon said U.S. Indo-Pacific Command would intensify its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance efforts and increase its ballistic missile defense readiness.

On March 24, INDOPACOM released a statement, saying the latest launch “does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, territory, or that of our allies.”

“We are aware of the DPRK’s ballistic missile launch today and are consulting closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan, as well as other allies and partners. The United States condemns these actions and calls on the DPRK to refrain from further destabilizing acts,” the statement adds.

The White House also issued a statement, characterizing the launch as a “test of a long-range ballistic missile” and warning that “the door has not closed on diplomacy, but Pyongyang must immediately cease its destabilizing actions.”

In a March 24 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) questioned U.S. Northern Command boss Gen. Glen D. VanHerck about his capacity to protect the homeland from a North Korean strike, citing “analysis of the flight path” showing that the missile could hit America.

“I’m comfortable with where we are today, based on the intelligence I have, with the current capabilities and capacity of North Korea,” VanHerck said. “Going forward, I do believe they could exceed my capacity and capabilities. That’s why it’s crucial to keep Next-Generation Interceptor on time or early. In my discussions with [Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Adm. Jon A. Hill], he’s confident right now that they’re on that path.”

The Pentagon awarded contracts to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon for the NGI program, which is scheduled to start fielding in 2028—VanHerck indicated during the hearing that it is possible it could be ready before then.

But the most recent developments from North Korea indicate a need to shore up the current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, VanHerck added.

“I am very concerned about my ability to pace the capacity of production that we assess and the capability that we assess the North Koreans continue to adapt to,” VanHerck said. “That’s why the funding for the service life extension program for the current ballistic missile defense capability is so crucial. Thank you for that funding. And that’s why Next-Generation Interceptor is crucial as well, because it will help both get after the additional capacity problems and the capability problems.”

NATO Activates Nuclear Defense Element as Ukraine Prepares for Chemical Attack

March 24, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

NATO activated a specialized defense element to protect against a potential mass-casualty chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon attack by Russia in Ukraine. The move came as alliance defense ministers met in Brussels on March 24, promising new types of assistance to Ukraine.

“We are taking measures both to support Ukraine and also to defend ourselves,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at the conclusion of the leaders summit and before the start of a G-7 meeting.

U.S. government officials have warned that Russia is threatening the use of non-conventional weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine, which Stoltenberg said could affect citizens within NATO’s borders.

“Any use of chemical weapons will totally change the nature of the conflict,” Stoltenberg said. “There’s also a risk that it will have a direct effect on people living in NATO countries, because we can see contamination, we can see the spread of chemical agents or biological weapons into our countries.”

The secretary-general said NATO’s top commander, U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, activated NATO’s chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense element.

“Allies are deploying additional chemical and biological and nuclear defenses to reinforce our existing and new battlegroups,” Stoltenberg said.

A NATO official told Air Force Magazine that activation of the CBRN units from the NATO Response Force involves a battalion-sized force, or about 400 Soldiers.

“They are not deploying right now, but will be put to higher alert,” the official said in a written statement.

U.S. European Command, which Wolters also leads, referred questions by Air Force Magazine to NATO, which declined to provide additional operational details about the CBRN units.

In recent days, U.S. government officials have warned that Russia’s rhetoric heightens the real possibility that Russia would use chemical weapons to compensate for its intransigence on the battlefield.

On the South Lawn of the White House on March 23, President Joe Biden called the danger that Russia could employ chemical weapons “a real threat.”

In a brief to reporters ahead of the NATO meeting, a senior administration official explained that NATO has a Combined Joint CBRN Defence Task Force, which includes specially trained and equipped forces able to deal with the threats posed by chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear weapons in the event of attacks against NATO populations, territory, or forces.

In his March 24 briefing, Stoltenberg said the allies had agreed to deliver new CBRN capabilities and training to Ukraine that could include detection equipment, protection and medical support, and training in decontamination and crisis management.

Other measures were taken to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank.

Stoltenberg said the alliance voted to establish four new battle groups in Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. The four eastern flank battle groups will join four existing battle groups in the Baltic states and Poland as an enhancement to the NATO defense posture. It is unclear yet who will lead the new battle groups. The United States, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom already serve as NATO “framework nations,” contributing significant forces and leading the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, respectively, the Defense Department said in a March 24 statement.

Biden said in a statement that the creation of the new battle groups is “a strong signal that we will collectively defend and protect every inch of NATO territory. The President also said that between now and the June NATO summit in Madrid, plans will be developed for “additional forces and capabilities” to strengthen NATO defenses.

Responding to a virtual address by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the alliance, Biden also promised “significant, and increasing, amounts of security assistance to fight Russian aggression.”

In his address to the alliance, Zelenskyy said resistance to impose a no-fly zone has led to 10 million people becoming migrants, including 3.5 million in NATO countries, as well as the destruction of cities and civilian deaths from air bombardment. Zelenskyy called for NATO to respond as a whole with “military assistance without restrictions.”

“Ukraine asked for your planes so that we do not lose so many people. And you have thousands of fighter jets. But we haven’t been given any yet,” he said, calling for NATO to donate 1 percent of its aircraft and tanks to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy also said that Russia had used phosphorus bombs that day, a possible start of chemical warfare. He warned that Putin intends to go beyond Russia, into the Baltic states and Poland. The Ukrainian President, dressed in a green army fleece, told alliance members they had yet to show “real actions.”

“NATO has yet to show what the alliance can do to save people. To show that this is truly the most powerful defense union in the world,” he said.

Finland Reassesses NATO Entry in Wake of Russia-Ukraine Conflict

March 23, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

In the Winter War of 1939, Joseph Stalin looked at Finland and thought he could roll over the country in a matter of days.

Instead, 105 hard-fought and costly winter fighting days between the Soviet Union and Finland passed from December 1939 to March 1940, when Stalin signed a peace deal after heavy losses of personnel and equipment. Finland lost territory but not its independence.

Finland was still recovering from multiple wars with the Soviet Union when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization formed in 1949. Its Nordic neighbor Norway became a founding member, but Finland chose instead to learn to live with Russia, with which it shares an 832-mile border.

Seven decades later, that may change.

Finland has withstood ever-present threats from Russia, investing in its military and building a capable Air Force to protect a dispersed population on territory that spans from the Baltics to the Arctic Sea. In recent years, Finland has grown closer to NATO as an Enhanced Opportunity Partner while retaining its independence. That independence keeps Finland outside of NATO’s Article 5 clause, which guarantees protection of all 30 allies.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reversed national policies across the continent.

Germany and once-neutral Sweden now provide lethal assistance to Ukraine. And staunchly independent Finland now favors joining NATO for the first time in its history, according to the national Yle poll.

Finland is accustomed to threats from the Russian Federation, but providing military assistance to Ukraine during an active conflict created new risks.

“Finland’s decision-making context is more challenging than most of the countries in Europe because we are living next to Russia,” Finnish air and defense attaché Col. Petteri Seppala told Air Force Magazine in an interview at the Embassy of Finland in Washington, D.C.

“We are not part of NATO. We are not part of Article 5. We don’t live under NATO’s nuclear umbrella,” said Seppala. As a member of the military, Seppala said he does not take a position on whether Finland should join NATO, noting that’s a political decision.

The Finnish airman, a Saab 35 Draken and F-18 pilot, explained that Finland’s geostrategic position next to Russia informs every assessment about its security environment.

Finland also has deep experience defending against hybrid threats from Russia, including misinformation and information operations. A highly educated society and a comprehensive defense approach that draws on all sectors have also helped Finland stand up to Russian intimidation.

“That’s a good combination of countering the Russian hybrid warfare,” Seppala said.

“Our defense capabilities are credible. The people in Finland, they think that it’s credible, and people in Russia, they think that it’s credible,” he added. “It tells something about the Finnish spirit. We call it ‘sisu,’ which means that you don’t give up. And we don’t give up.”

NATO Support Grows

Finnish support for joining NATO has traditionally been in the range of 20 percent to 25 percent, but as Russia built up its forces on Ukraine’s border, public support for joining NATO surpassed half the population in February and then hit an all-time high of 62 percent in a March survey.

The Yle poll suggests that if Sweden were to apply for NATO membership, Finnish public support would rise to 77 percent, and if Finland’s political leadership threw their support behind NATO entry, Fins would favor it at a rate of 74 percent.

“We are living in a totally different kind of times. We have never seen anything like this in Finland people,” Seppala said.

Seppala said ever since Finland joined the European Union in 1995, it has sought to adopt a standardized Western military system. That meant utilizing NATO interoperable hardware and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). The decision has made Finland fully interoperable with alliance partners, a skill it hones with regular exercises with NATO partners.

Finland’s ties to NATO have extended to its support for Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, Finland has provided economic, military, and non-military assistance to Ukraine.

While Finland’s decision was tough as a non-NATO member, the implications for allowing Russian aggression are real.

“There are scenarios that for us they won’t stop in Ukraine,” Seppala said of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s broader goals.

“They will continue to some other places like Georgia, some people say Finland, because we are not part of NATO, there is no Article 5,” he said. Seppala said that while a Russian attack on Finland is unlikely, retaliatory hybrid attacks are now happening and may increase.

Finland has weaned itself off energy dependence on Russia, recently activating a nuclear reactor in order to provide a vital energy source should Russia cut off exports. The Finnish government is likewise analyzing how it can completely do away with Russian oil and gas.

The Ukraine crisis has even prompted Finland to take additional integration steps with NATO that it has not before taken, utilizing new information and intelligence-sharing channels.

“You can’t get any closer to NATO not being a member,” said Seppala.

Finland passed up on earlier opportunities to join NATO when the Baltic states and former Warsaw Pact countries began to enter after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“We believe that we had really good, credible homeland defense capabilities. We had deterrence, even without the alliance,” explained Seppala of thinking in the years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. “The world order is under a permanent and huge change of the times now.”

The modern context will prompt Finland’s political leaders to take a deep look at the nation’s security situation and ask important questions.

“What are the right relationships, alliances, and partnerships that are actually useful in the new world order?” Seppala posed. “And that’s what Finland also has to do.”

Pilots Safe in Unrelated F-22, F-16 Crashes

March 23, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

An F-22 crashed on landing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and an Oklahoma Air National Guard F-16 crashed in western Louisiana in separate incidents March 22 and 23, respectively.

The landing gear of the F-22, from the 325th Fighter Wing, collapsed on landing at 10:25 a.m. local time March 22. The pilot was checked out at the base hospital and found to be “in good condition,” a 325th spokesperson said. The jet was conducting a training mission, as opposed to an operational sortie.

An F-16 belonging to the Oklahoma Air National Guard’s 138th Fighter Wing crashed in a woodland area near the Louisiana-Texas border about 11:15 a.m. March 23, but the pilot ejected, was recovered, and was being medically evaluated, an Air National Guard spokesperson said.

The F-16 crashed south of Fort Polk Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana. The pilot was taken to the facility after landing. Further details were not available.

The extent of damage to the F-22 has not yet been assessed, and the F-16 is presumed to be a total loss.

An F-22 experienced an almost identical landing gear collapse accident a year ago, on March 15, 2021, which also involved a jet from the 325th Fighter Wing at Eglin. The unit has been operating out of Eglin since Hurricane Michael destroyed most of its assigned operating location, Tyndall Air Force Base, in 2018. Landing gear mishaps have been a continuing problem for the F-22 fleet.

The F-22 fleet of some 182 aircraft has experienced 32 “Class A” mishaps and 50 “Class B” mishaps over the 21-year life of the program. A Class A accident entails a fatality or loss of the aircraft or incurs more than $2.5 million worth of damage. A Class B accident is one causing serious injury and/or damage valued at between $500,000 and $2.5 million. F-22 accidents of all types have increased substantially since 2015.

There have been 25 Class A mishaps involving USAF F-16s since 2015, including three in the past year, one of which was fatal to the pilot.

Air Force officials said that although multiple crashes so close together in time have sometimes prompted a fleetwide safety stand-down, that is not being considered because the accidents involved different aircraft types, under very different circumstances, with no common thread. However, one official said wing commanders may be urged or directed to use the two accidents to highlight the importance of safety and to issue reminders to this effect.

New Leaders Named to Advisory Panel on Women’s Service

March 23, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has named the first new “leadership cadre” of an influential women’s advisory committee after disbanding the board along with dozens of others in January 2021 then restarting them incrementally.

The Pentagon announced March 22 that Shelly O’Neill Stoneman, described as a government affairs professional, will chair the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, or DACOWITS, and also named four retired military leaders who will chair the board’s subcommittees. Stoneman succeeds retired Air Force Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger, the Air Force’s first four-star general. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III concluded Wolfenbarger’s term and hundreds of others.

The OSD said Stoneman is a “seasoned organizational leader” with “two decades of executive branch and congressional experience on defense and foreign policy matters” and that she is the spouse of a former Army infantry officer.

To be appointed to the chair of “the premier entity providing the Secretary of Defense advice and recommendations” about women’s service is “an incredible honor,” Stoneman said in the statement.

Within days of Austin’s confirmation as Defense Secretary and after last-minute appointments by the Trump administration to various DOD civilian advisory boards, Austin ended the terms of hundreds of volunteer members—all those in positions the Secretary has the power to appoint. At the same time, he ceased all the boards’ operations for a “zero-based review” to “get his arms around” each one’s utility.

Thirty-six of the boards had been cleared to restart operations as of Feb. 9, when the DOD announced that Austin had named former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as chair of the Defense Innovation Board.

In a tradition that dates to the beginning of the federal government, the boards provide expertise from the civilian world. By holding public meetings, they also provide a forum for public input, according to the General Services Administration, which monitors advisory committees such as the DOD boards and others across the federal government. The boards don’t have any decision-making powers.

Since Austin deemed in August 2021 that DACOWITS could restart, the department “explored a larger pool of the nation’s talented, innovative, private and public sector leaders, whose service will provide a more diverse and inclusive membership that promotes variety in background, experience, and thought in support of the committee’s mission,” according to the statement. The “civilian men and women” of the committee advise on women’s “recruitment, retention, employment, integration, well-being, and treatment.”

Other members of the DACOWITS leadership team announced March 22 all served as board members under Wolfenbarger, including:

Vice chair: Retired Navy Vice Adm. Robin R. Braun
Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee chair: Retired Army Lt. Gen. Kevin W. Mangum
Employment and Integration Subcommittee chair: Retired Navy Command Master Chief Octavia D. Harris
Well-Being and Treatment Subcommittee chair: Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Jarisse J. Sanborn

As of the last announcement of boards cleared to restart operations in February, none had been recommended to cease. Four had not been ruled on:

Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory Council
*Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council
Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct (wasn’t populated at the start of the review)
National Reconnaissance Advisory Board

Boards approved to restart include:

Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery
Advisory Panel on Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs
Army Education Advisory Committee
Air University Board of Visitors
Board on Coastal Engineering Research
Board of Advisors for the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (not listed in Austin’s original memo)
Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Board of Visitors for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
*Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy
Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (not currently populated)
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces
Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing
Defense Business Board
Defense Health Board
Defense Innovation Board
Defense Policy Board
Defense Science Board
*Department of Defense Board of Actuaries
*Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries
Department of Defense Wage Committee
Education for Seapower Advisory Board
Inland Waterways Users Board
Marine Corps University Board of Visitors
National Defense University Board of Visitors
National Security Agency Emerging Technologies Panel; the Advisory Board for the National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Education Board
*Reserve Forces Policy Board
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory Board
Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel
U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
U.S. Army Science Board
*U.S. Military Academy Board of Visitors
*U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors
U.S. Strategic Command Advisory Group

The OSD did not immediately respond to a query about the status of the remaining boards.

*Some or all members of the boards preceded by an asterisk may have remained in their positions because the Secretary of Defense does not have the authority to appoint or remove those members.

DOD Gives Services More Options for Measuring Body Composition

March 23, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

For the first time in years, the Pentagon has updated its Physical Fitness/Body Composition program, granting the services wider latitude to devise their own systems and tests.

DOD Instruction 1308.03, issued March 10, allows the respective services to measure body composition using “[body fat] calculations, waist-to-height ratio, abdominal circumference, height-weight screening, or any combination thereof.” The Defense Department previously mandated that all services use “circumference-based methods”—commonly referred to as the tape test.

There are still standards that have to be met, though. If services continue to use body fat calculations, they must set standards no higher than 26 percent and no lower than 18 percent for men, and no higher than 36 percent and no lower than 26 percent for women.

If the services choose to use height-weight screening, sometimes called body mass index, the upper standard has to be between 27.5 and 25, and the lower standard has to be at least 19.

If the services use circumference tests, they’ll have to “use evidence-based reference indexes corrected for height that are not biased against short or tall service members,” the instruction continues, recommending that any circumference test also incorporates height.

For years now, service members have complained that circumference tests don’t always accurately measure body fat. In some cases, service members say they have excelled during PT tests, only to fail the body measurement.

The new DOD instruction includes a clause seemingly addressing that issue as well, allowing the services to “implement policies that exempt personnel from negative consequences of exceeding body fat standards if high scores on physical fitness tests are attained.”

The Air Force made waves recently when images leaked on social media purported to show the service’s new scoring chart for waist-to-height ratio—any ratio between 0.40 to 0.49 would be deemed low risk; a number between 0.50 and 0.54 would be deemed a moderate risk while still meeting Air Force standards; and any number at 0.55 or above would be deemed high risk.

The Air Force surgeon general’s office stated at the time that any images released were “pre-decisional and subject to change.” The office has said it has settled on waist-to-height ratio as “the best available method for assessing body composition.”

The changes to the DOD instruction regarding physical fitness programs are less dramatic, but still telling. Whereas previous versions of the instruction included specific examples of exercises to measure aerobic capacity, muscular strength, and muscular endurance such as running, sit-ups, and pull-ups, the new instruction does not include any examples.

This shift comes after the Air Force introduced new alternate exercises into its PT test, as the Army presses forward with its new-look fitness test, and AS the Space Force looks to move away from the once-a-year test entirely, instead relying on wearable fitness trackers and software solutions to continuously monitor Guardians’ health.

The new instruction still calls for the services to test for cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength, and muscular endurance.

SASC Chair Watching to See How F-35 Performs in Europe

March 23, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drags on and the U.S. and NATO continue to bolster their eastern front, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said he’ll be watching closely to see how the F-35 performs in Europe.

Speaking at a March 23 roundtable hosted by the Defense Writers Group, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he remains committed to building out the fighter fleet. At the same time, he hinted that the coming months could play a key role in building his confidence in the program, which has simultaneously struggled with cost overruns and sustainment issues while earning praise for its performance.

“I think once we have reached the point of validation, and particularly observing what they do in Europe, we can be more confident going forward with the system,” Reed said. “But you know, we’re committed to that system, to getting the squadrons full and having it be part of our operational Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy.”

Reed’s comments come just days after Bloomberg reported that the Defense Department is trimming its budget request in 2023 to procure just 61 F-35s instead of 94 as originally planned. That figure is also lower than the request for 85 fighters in 2022, the 85 requested in 2021, and the 98 funded in 2020.

Asked about Bloomberg’s report, Reed once again pointed to the tension between capabilities and sustainment as a question “the Air Force is asking.”

“I have heard glowing comments from pilots and operators of the capacity of the aircraft to perform. I’ve also heard, as you have, of issues of maintenance, issues of cost, of sustainment—there’s extreme costs in sustainment,” said Reed. “So these aircraft are highly capable. But the question that we have asked, and I think the Air Force is asking: Are they sustainable, durable? And until they answer those questions, I think they’re not going to rush in and acquire a significant number. They’re on pace to … acquire another group this year.”

Reed also pointed to potential production delays associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the Pentagon’s budget request, set to roll out March 28, may include a reduced buy of F-35s, the Lightning II has featured in the NATO response to Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

The U.S. deployed F-35s from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, on Feb. 16 to enhance NATO’s defense posture, and those jets were later sent to Romania and Poland, joining American F-15s and F-16s deployed there. The Netherlands also deployed a pair of its F-35s to Eastern Europe.

At the same time, Germany announced that it will buy 35 F-35s to bolster its air force as part of a larger overall boost in defense spending prompted by Russian aggression. Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Switzerland all are F-35 customers as well.

Just a few months prior, amid Russia’s buildup prior to invasion, the first American F-35 arrived in Europe as part of the 495th Fighter Squadron at RAF Lakenheath, U.K.

But even as the F-35 program continues to expand, Reed cautioned against celebrating it as a total success, saying there are lessons to be learned from its issues.

“Going back to the beginning of the F-35, it was—and you know, we’ve seen this before, so we should have been a little bit brighter, I guess—but it’s like the Swiss Army Knife of aircraft,” Reed said. “It’s for the Marine Corps—vertical lift. It’s for the Navy—carrier takeoff. It’s for the Air Force, who have a different context, and etc. And we took one aircraft, thought it would be cost effective to do one, and I think we’ve learned that that might not be the best approach.”