Taiwanese F-16 Crash Lands at Honolulu Airport After Luke AFB Training

June 7, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 1:06 p.m. Eastern Time on June 7 to include the information from a Defense Department official; and at 6:27 p.m. to include details from another DOD statement.

HONOLULU—A Taiwanese F-16 crash landed at Honolulu’s Daniel K. Inouye International Airport on June 6 on its way back after conducting training at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., according to local media reports.

The fighter jet reportedly made a hard landing at 2:45 p.m. local time after its front landing gear failed to deploy. The pilot was not injured. The nose of the aircraft was visible, pinned to the 4R runway with commercial aircraft diverted until a crane could remove the aircraft.

A Defense Department official confirmed to Air Force Magazine than “an F-16 hard landing occurred at Honolulu International Airport. The incident is under investigation.” DOD officials later said, in a statement:

“[An] F-16 aircraft declared an In Flight Emergency … June 6 at approximately 1500 p.m. HST. The pilot was evaluated at the scene” then taken to a “military treatment facility for evaluation.”

Taiwanese media reported May 26 that four F-16s had landed in Honolulu en route to Luke Air Force Base for training, their identifying markings covered. Taiwan has previously requested from the Pentagon a Pacific Coast training center for its aircraft, which require some dozen aerial refuelings to reach the Arizona training center from the island, which is situated 100 miles off the coast of China.

Tensions between China and the United States have risen in recent weeks after President Joe Biden gave vague assurances during a trip to the region that the United States military would become involved should China invade Taiwan. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and other defense officials regularly state that China is the department’s pacing challenge.

Taiwan is administered independent of China, but it is not recognized as a separate nation by the U.S. Department of State.

The U.S. One China policy recognizes Beijing as the only government of China, but the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act provides that the United States will adequately arm Taiwan to defend itself. In recent years, Taiwan has purchased millions of dollars in U.S. defense articles to protect itself from a potential invasion by Beijing.

U.S. military leaders have estimated that China could be militarily prepared to invade Taiwan as early as 2025.

U.S. Pacific allies, including Japan and Australia, are bracing for the possibility of supporting the United States should a conflict with China arise in the Taiwan Straits.

Chinese UAV Industry Creates New Challenge for the US Air Force

June 6, 2022 | By Abraham Mahshie

China’s growing capability in the production of unmanned aerial vehicles, along with its lack of end-user restrictions, will require the U.S. Air Force to ramp up counteroffensive measures, panelists and attendees at the recent China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) conference told Air Force Magazine.

“That’s one of those things that scares me,” Brendan Mulvaney, CASI director, said in an interview.

Mulvaney believes that high-power microwave energy directed at a swarm of cheaply produced Chinese unmanned aerial vehicles is not enough to defeat the threat.

“We’ll be able to take out a whole bunch of drones, but I don’t know that that’s applicable everywhere, all the time,” he added.

The lower cost and lack of end-user restrictions means lesser developed countries can purchase and employ UAVs much in the same way Ukraine has used them to great effect against a better armed and financed Russia.

That possibility means added lethality to any nation or armed group desiring to target U.S. assets in the future.

“A smaller nation very well could have a whole ton of drones that we just haven’t thought about,” said Mulvaney.

The UAS threat, enhanced by China’s growing defense industry capability, was one of the themes discussed during a May 17 panel discussion on China-Russia cooperation held at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.

“If you buy Chinese equipment, they’re not setting up restrictions on how it can be used, and where it can be used,” said David R. Markov of the Institute for Defense Analysis. “That is a benefit in particular parts of the world, particularly for unmanned aerial systems.”

Markov cited Saudi Arabia’s use of the Chinese UAV Wing Loong II, which can carry up to 480 kg of payload on 12 wing hard points, in operations in Yemen.

As of January 21, the State Department reported $126 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, including high-end missile defense systems like the Patriot and Apache, Chinook, Blackhawk, and light attack helicopters.

None of the sales included U.S. armed drones.

The State Department says the United States works with the Saudi-led coalition to support the government of Yemen against Houthi rebels, but the U.S. still worked with Saudi Arabia “to minimize civilian casualties in this conflict.” Such worries have slowed or stopped Congressional foreign military sales in the past, perhaps leading Saudi Arabia to turn to China for its drones.

China Displacing Russia in Defense Technology

China’s technological development, in part boosted by years of cooperation with Russia’s defense industry, has positioned the Chinese defense industry on the cutting edge of new war technologies like UAS.

“China is really now a pacing threat for technology development around the world,” said Markov.

“China’s goal has been able to try and capture a significant portion of the market, and they’re particularly targeting the markets where the Russians are in central south and Southeast Asia,” he added. “China will continue to shape the direction and the character of these regional competitions.”

Markov expects China to supersede Russia in the African market as well, where a number of dictators and Democratic governments alike have gone after opposition and terrorist groups with unintended civilian casualties.

“On the arm sales piece, I think we’re gonna see China see a huge opportunity in markets where it previously hadn’t succeeded,” Markov assessed.

Markov said the proliferation of Chinese unmanned platforms will soon be a problem for the U.S. Air Force.

“The price point is so cheap, and the operating costs are so low that many of these countries can’t afford not to buy from China,” he said, pointing to Azerbaijan’s heavy use of UAS during its 2020 conflict with Armenia.

“We’re not doing nearly enough to deal with the unmanned systems problem,” he added. “I’m not sure we’re set or geared to think about that problem, and certainly not in the countermeasure side of the house.”

C-17 Guard Crew Honored for Valor During Kabul Airlift

June 6, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

One New York Air National Guardsman received the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor, and five of his fellow Airmen were awarded an Air Medal with Valor on June 4 in recognition of their actions aboard a C-17 during the noncombatant evacuation out of Kabul, Afghanistan, in August 2021.

Capt. Matthew McChesney, an instructor pilot with the 137th Airlift Squadron and a pilot with Delta Airlines in his civilian life, served as the aircrew commander for the mission and received the Distinguished Flying Cross, the nation’s fourth-highest award for heroism.

Other members of the crew—Lt. Col. Andrew Townsend, Capt. Jonathan Guagenti, Tech. Sgt. Joseph Caponi IV, Staff Sgt. Evan Imbriglio, and Staff Sgt. Corey Berke—got Air Medals, and Tech. Sgt. Byron Catu, the flying crew chief for the mission, previously received the Meritorious Service Medal.

As part of Operation Allies Refuge, the Airmen from the 105th Airlift Wing and their C-17 were diverted from a previous mission in South America to fly a Special Operations Aviation Regiment MH-47 Chinook helicopter and 22 personnel from Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, to Hamid Karzai International Airport, according to an Air Force release.

Initially, the C-17 had to turn back from Kabul, as the Taliban overran the capital city, the Afghan military collapsed, and hundreds of desperate civilians swarmed the air field.

But on their second attempt, the flight crew, call sign Reach 824, was able to position their aircraft to circle Kabul waiting for an opening to land—in part thanks to refueling from a KC-10 and its crew.

On final approach, the C-17 faced small arms fire from the ground, with one round striking a winglet. Upon landing, the crew unloaded its MH-47 Chinook and 22 personnel within 40 minutes amid a chaotic environment.

Gaugenti, one of the copilots on the mission, said in an Air Force release that the crew was later informed that the helicopter and personnel they transported into Kabul were able to move “over 800 people out from the countryside who otherwise would not have made it to Kabul.”

Over the next two weeks, Reach 824 returned to Kabul several times, evacuating 348 people, and, in their final mission, transporting the bodies of 13 service members, killed in a suicide bombing, from Kabul to Kuwait.

“I am grateful there are Americans who step forward to serve our nation, to kiss their families goodbye to join the fight, to tell their employers, ‘I know what we do is important, but right now my nation needs me, and I have to go,’ ” Army Gen. Daniel Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said during the ceremony recognizing the crew of Reach 824. “It is nothing short of inspiring to be in your company.”

Reach 824 is the latest group of Airmen to be recognized for their bravery and valor during the airlift out of Kabul. Four Airmen who crewed a different C-17 were awarded DFCs in April after flying out 153 U.S. citizens, allied partners, and vulnerable Afghans as crowds still swarmed the flightline in some of the most chaotic moments of the operation.

US Remains Leader in Emerging Technologies, But China Makes Some Gains, Study Finds

June 4, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

When it comes to key emerging technologies like additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and space, the U.S. remains the leader in innovation, according to a new study prepared for the Air Force.

Analyzing hundreds of million of patent applications from across the world, the report from the RAND Corp. found that in six areas—Additive manufacturing (AM), AI, space, quantum, ceramics, and sensors—where there have been surges in interest over the past few decades, U.S. inventors have typically been “first to file in areas of technological emergence, far more often than other countries,” the report states.

That lead in patent applications has held up even against China, which Pentagon and Air Force officials have repeatedly called their pacing challenge and main priority.

The report’s authors also looked at technology areas where the U.S. has led the way, only to then be followed by China.

“The time difference between when this emergence happens in the U.S. and when the emergence happens in China, in these cases, is typically [nine to 10] years,” Richard Silberglitt, one of the study’s authors, told Air Force Magazine.

“When it’s the other way around, in the very few times that somebody other than the United States is the leader in the first emergence, when it’s China, the United States doesn’t always follow. Sometimes China has an emerging technology and the United States, inventors in the United States don’t care about it, so the United States doesn’t follow. But when the United States does follow China, typically we’re right on top of them within [1.5 to 2.5] years. And within [one to two] years, it’s hard to tell who’s ahead.”

The study was commissioned by the Secretary of the Air Force’s office, Silberglitt said, as part of “the big question of, how’s the U.S. doing relative to other countries in technology?”

The answer would seem to give some reassurance about the U.S.’s advantages in areas that many experts say will be crucial to the future of warfare.

But Silberglitt noted that the study does contain some insights that require further analysis.

For one, the authors looked at instances when the U.S. and China had surges in similar areas within a few years of each other—so-called “close emergences.” It then broke down which country typically had more early patent filers, which “may indicate which country is leading the technological competition in these emergent subclasses,” the study states.

“For these close emergencies, which it turns out are a tiny percentage of all of the emergences, [two] percent … but in this very, very small case of the U.S. and China emerging at almost the same time, we found that there’s a difference in who has the earliest patents,” Silberglitt said.

From 2001 to 2008, the U.S. typically had the edge in filing first, leading 95 percent or more of the time. From 2009 to 2017, however, that trend reversed, with China leading the majority of the time, though not by as wide a margin.

While the U.S. remains the technological leader by total number of first emergences, “China and the United States are now approaching parity, or in some cases the United States is falling behind, in areas of close competition,” the report states. Some of that phenomenon could be caused by a pattern Silberglitt and his co-authors have noted.

“In the U.S., when you see an emergence, a surge of patent applications in a particular area, it’s typically pretty gradual. I mean, it goes up exponentially, but it goes up over a very long time. It takes about 20 years before it reaches saturation,” Silberglitt said. “With China, our experience has been that it’s a much, much shorter time. … So if you have two S curves you’re comparing to each other, and one of them’s more gradual and the other one goes up faster, who’s going to have more early applications?”

There also could be another pattern at play.

“Typically when China has an emergence, it’s very focused,” Silberglitt said. “If you look at the other areas that are connected in this network, there’s not so many of them. Whereas with the U.S., when you see one of these emergences and look at the other areas that are connected, there’s a host of them. So in other words, the U.S. inventors are trying to apply their applications, we infer, to many, many, many areas, as broadly as possible. And the Chinese inventors are focusing on some areas which may be the areas that the government is most interested in.”

The impacts of those differences are still to be determined. Among the next steps recommended by Silberglitt and his co-authors is further study into the quality of the patents filed across countries, going beyond just the raw totals counted in this analysis.

And moving forward, it also remains to be seen if the Pentagon and the Air Force can become more rapid adopters of commercial technologies and innovations—leaders have frequently complained that the Defense Department’s outdated acquisition policies prevent it from being on the cutting edge, especially with small- to medium-sized companies.

In that regard, the RAND study provides a potential roadmap, identifying 36 such companies that have been early filers for patents in emergent technologies—their names, however, are not included in the public report.

Air Force Revives Sled Testing for Hypersonics Work

June 3, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force has demonstrated renewed capability to run a vehicle at hypersonic speed on a sled track and recover the test article, adding another means to test hypersonic technologies, according to the service’s Arnold Engineering and Development Complex.

In two tests since July 2021, conducted at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., vehicles were accelerated to more than 5,000 feet per second on a 10-mile-long sled track, then decelerated and the payloads recovered, AEDC said. The tests were conducted by the 846th Test Squadron at Holloman.

The Holloman High-Speed Test Track (HHSTT) is a capability unique to the Defense Department, and is “the only sled track capable of recovering sleds with test articles from velocities over Mach 5,” according to Daniel Lopez, project manager for the tests.

Called the Hypersonic Sled Recovery effort, or HSR, the runs were made to “prepare for the increased need for hypersonic test and evaluation in support of the National Defense Strategy,” Lopez said.

A lack of adequate testing facilities for hypersonic projects has been identified for several years. The DOD is working with NASA to expand hypersonic test capabilities at Arnold’s Tullahoma, Tenn., site, as well as at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and other locations.

One of the drawbacks of testing hypersonic vehicles in free flight is that there are few ways to decelerate and recover the vehicle for post-flight analysis. The X-51 vehicle, for example, was the first to exceed 200 seconds of air-breathing hypersonic flight, but all the X-51s were lost when they hit the ocean, as planned. An industry source familiar with hypersonic testing said it isn’t worth the cost or time to try to create a means to “catch or land” such missiles after they complete their high-speed flights. Even the inclusion of a parachute affects the shape and weight of the vehicle and would require further engineering time, and “we’re in a bit of a hurry,” he said.

The Air Force’s developmental AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, has suffered from some simplistic failures, but the tight scheduling of range time and assets has slowed the re-run of some of those tests, as the program had to “get back in line” to try again.

“We have a very robust portfolio of testing going on right now, … including hypersonics, and range time is precious,” according to a test official. An expert in hypersonics research said the sled tests are “impressive. But also, frankly limited in the useful data it can provide.” Short of full-scale testing at altitude, all test methods, from tunnels to digital simulations, have drawbacks.

Lopez called the program a “multifaceted” effort that covers “development and resurrection of various braking methods, sled designs, and thermal protection systems, as well as gaining proficiency in conducting recovered hypersonic missions.”

Before the recent tests, recovered hypersonic missions hadn’t been made at Holloman for about 18 years.

The track is a monorail of 50,971 feet (about 10 miles); it’s the longest of the sled systems at Holloman. There is a 3.8 mile monorail at the base, but that’s too short to get a test vehicle up to Mach 5 or higher, and recover the test article, Lopez said. Even so, that track was used to set a world land speed record of 9,465 feet per second, or about Mach 8.4, or 6,453 miles per hour, he noted.

Holloman also offers test data “to verify lethality effects, impact survivability, aerothermal and weather effects, separation dynamics, guidance system performance, sensor performance, and other key performance metrics.”

Rainfield capability was upgraded at Holloman last fall to test the effects of high speed flight through weather, Arnold said. The upgrade was based on analysis of natural rainfall.

Lopez said the HSR project will continue to expand the capabilities of the sled track, adding additional braking methods in order to test sleds moving at Mach 6 or higher. The test track is also being upgraded to allow testing at 10,000 feet per second versus the current limit of 9,400 fps.

GAO Finds ‘Significant Shortfalls’ in Space Command HQ Process—But Lets Final Decision Stand

June 3, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Government Accountability Office identified “significant shortfalls” in the transparency and credibility of the Air Force process that led to the selection of Redstone Arsenal, Ala., as the preferred location for the headquarters of U.S. Space Command in 2020, but it did not identify any laws or policies that were violated, setting up the process to reach its final stages after months of limbo.

The GAO’s report, released June 2, is the second study of the basing decision released in recent weeks, following a report from the Pentagon Inspector General in early May.

That Defense Department IG report concluded that the Air Force’s process was “reasonable” and was primarily focused on identifying whether the Air Force broke the law or deviated from DOD policy. In contrast, the GAO report analyzed the basing decision process against its own “Analysis of Alternatives” best practices, which are aimed at helping “agencies consistently and reliably select program alternatives that best meet their needs.”

Of the 21 best practices recommended by the GAO, the Air Force fully or substantially met seven, partially met seven, and minimally met or did not meet seven. Broken down across four main characteristics, the report found that the Air Force minimally met the best practices for credibility—assigning a score of 2.3 out of 5—and only partially met the best practices for unbiased and well-documented decision—giving each characteristic a score of 3.0 out of 5.

In particular, the report assessed that the Air Force failed to conduct sensitivity analyses, testing whether changes to their base assumptions would fundamentally change scores for each of the six locations identified as finalists.

Air Force officials, however, noted that their basing process complied with federal law and seemingly questioned whether the “Analysis of Alternatives” best practices are applicable for basing decisions.

“We note that the AoA methodology is fundamentally rooted in Major Defense Acquisition Programs,” acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for energy, installations, and environment Edwin H. Oshiba said in a written response to the GAO report. “The objective of the DAF strategic basing process is to provide a relative cost comparison between options, but the Department does not seek to fix a specific ‘program cost.’”

Oshiba also argued in his written response that the Air Force had conducted sensitivity analyses on “workforce and cost-related criteria” at several points, but the GAO rejected that argument, stating that “considering different options or formats for comparing alternatives or reporting results is not the same as performing sensitivity analyses focused on changes in key assumptions,” adding that the Air Force’s analysis was not used to inform key decision-makers about potential uncertainties.

Based on its report, the GAO recommended that the Air Force “develop guidance for future strategic basing decisions that is consistent with GAO’s AoA best practices.” But the report made no mention of reopening the Air Force’s selection of Redstone Arsenal, leading both critics and supporters of the decision to claim validation.

In separate statements, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) both said they were “pleased” with the GAO report, which Shelby said proved the Air Force followed “strict criteria,” and Tuberville calling the process “robust and objective.”

On the other hand, a contingent of Colorado lawmakers—Sen. Michael Bennet (D), Sen. John Hickenlooper (D), Rep. Doug Lamborn (R), and Rep. Jason Crow (D)—released a statement stating that both reports “confirm that the basing process lacked integrity and neglected key national security considerations.”

The selection process for SPACECOM’s permanent home has been a fraught one—the DAF scrapped its first list of finalists selected using its usual strategic basing criteria before then-Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper decided to go with a different process—one developed by Army Futures Command—in which local communities got to make pitches.

As detailed in both the IG and GAO reports, the new process led to a selection phase with six final candidates. After ranking the finalists based on 21 criteria, Redstone Arsenal initially emerged as the preferred candidate. However, the GAO report detailed a late change in information from then-Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., that would have reduced the need for military construction and shortened the timeline for SPACECOM reaching full operational capability. Peterson is now officially a Space Force Base.

That led to Peterson being identified as the preferred location, according to draft documents, going into a White House meeting with top decision-makers. After the meeting, though, Redstone was restored as the preferred location. Former President Donald J. Trump has taken credit for “single-handedly” making that decision, but the GAO report states that there was “not consensus among the officials we interviewed regarding who ultimately made the decision to name Redstone Arsenal as the preferred location.”

Ever since the announcement, Colorado lawmakers have fought hard to keep SPACECOM headquarters at its temporary home of Peterson, demanding investigations into the basing decision. But with the release of the GAO report, the Air Force is moving ahead with the next steps in the process, a service spokeswoman told Air Force Magazine.

Specifically, the Air Force is complying with one of the IG’s recommendations to review concerns expressed by top decision-makers like the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Space Force’s Chief of Space Operations, and the head of SPACECOM pertaining to the command’s final operational capability timeline. Once that review is completed, it will be incorporated into the final environmental analysis. When that analysis is released, there will be a 120-day period in which the public can offer comments. After that, a final decision will be made.

The spokeswoman declined to give a timeline for when the environmental analysis might be completed, only saying that it would be “soon.”

Five US Aircraft Left to Certify with KC-46 Tanker

June 3, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Only five U.S. aircraft have yet to be operationally certified to refuel from the KC-46, but the Pegasus can still tank up those aircraft in an emergency, according to Air Mobility Command. The last certifications will be driven by test events and not a calendar schedule, AMC said.

While AMC announced June 2 that some 97 percent of U.S. Transportation Command air refueling taskings can be met by the KC-46, the tanker is not yet certified for the A-10 attack jet; B-2 bomber; CV-22 tiltorotor special operations turboprop; E-4 flying command post, and MC-130H special operations tanker.

“We’re continuing to work through operational certifications” on the last five airplanes, “but they face no technical hurdles,” an AMC spokeswoman said. The only jet that doesn’t apply to is the A-10, which is restricted because of the KC-46’s “stiff boom” deficiency, she noted. The issue affects lightweight aircraft such as the A-10 being unable to deliver sufficient power to compress the boom enough to maintain refueling position.

The latest Interim Capability Release “is not tied to what the KC-46A can or cannot refuel,” the spokeswoman noted. “It is tied to what it can be tasked to refuel by USTRANSCOM. The fleet is now available to be tasked, on a daily basis, to any receiver/mission set released under
this and previous ICRs.”

The ICR is a “conditions-based approach to increase tanker capacity, bringing daily ‘taskable’ capabilities, at scale with predicted reliability, for Joint Force employment,” she added.

It’s not known whether all the remaining aircraft will be certified in the next ICR certifying aircraft for operational taskings from US TRANSCOM, as those clearances depend on testing which is event-driven, not calendar-driven, the spokeswoman said.

There have been six ICRs since July 2021 certifying types of aircraft for operational refueling; the first of which cleared aircraft using the centerline drogue-type refueling system. Subsequent batches cleared aircraft using the KC-46’s boom system.

Testing continues to certify allied aircraft with the KC-46, most of which use the centerline drogue-type refueling system.

The Air Force is conducting refueling testing with the remaining five aircraft behind the KC-46, which could pass fuel to them in a national emergency.

Even when all aircraft have received clearance to refuel with the KC-46, the type will still not be declared technically “operational” because of continuing deficiencies with the existing Remote Viewing System used by the boom operator. A fix for the RVS has been developed and the cost of it will be shared between the Air Force and KC-46 builder Boeing, because it expands on the capabilities the Air Force originally wanted from the system and thus goes beyond the fixed-price nature of the KC-46 contract. The RVS is expected to be resolved with a “2.0” system in the next 18-24 months.

The problems with the vision system have to do with lighting and depth perception by the boom operator, whose station is just behind the cockpit of the KC-46. On the KC-135 and KC-10, the boom operator, located in the tail of the aircraft, had a direct view of the refueling aircraft. However, the RVS adds capabilities for blackout refueling and greater visibility to the sides of the jet, where aircraft waiting to refuel typically maintain station with the tanker.

Accelerating Warfighter Solutions That Enable Agile Combat Employment

June 3, 2022 | By Adam Wells

Our national defense priority is now once again on the high-end fight, requiring the Services to embrace the need to modernize rapidly. However, in many cases our military advantage has eroded away from decades of resisting change on an institutional level, and lack of budget to effectively transform. With the real threat of near peer conflict looming, some might say our peers have surpassed our capabilities, leaving many to ask if it is too little, too late.

For decades, USAF maintenance support equipment has been one of the least funded portions of the budget. Many of these items were delivered with the aircraft they support roughly 40 years ago. Importantly, while the aircraft have undergone numerous upgrades, such as supporting Smart weapons, the armament support equipment which is required to keep them fully mission capable has often been neglected. In fact, most armament test equipment has become obsolete, in that the equipment does not support the functional testing requirements of the modernized aircraft armament systems.

Enabling Agile Combat Employment

As the U.S. Air Force further refines what is needed to Fly, Fight, and Win, a new doctrine note was recently released defining the concept called Agile Combat Employment (ACE). ACE, like the overarching directive to Accelerate Change or Lose from Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr., requires many elements to be successful.

To be most effective, those in the Air Force responsible for procuring armament test equipment need to adopt a new method of assessing and replacing obsolete armament support equipment. In other words, modify their approach to adapt to the ACE concept that demands innovative approaches such as armament test equipment easy for multi-capable Airmen to employ across the multiple types of armed aircraft they will be required to support found in tailored force packages. ACE puts a premium on easy to use, easy to sustain, easy to deploy, high-performance, small footprint, and rapid test time equipment. The armament support equipment should be capable of supporting all Air Force armament test. Most current Air Force armament test sets can only test the aircraft they were fielded with, and as stated earlier, often lack the ability to perform the functional tests required to support Smart weapons.

For full realization of the maximum potential of ACE and other concepts needed to “Fly, Fight, and Win,” warfighters should be exploiting existing advancements, most importantly COTS solutions to reduce acquisition cost and fielding time. One such COTS solution was developed by Marvin Test Solutions and has been deployed worldwide since 2011 – The MTS-3060A, SERD #75A77, Universal O-Level Armament Test Set – known globally as the SmartCan™. The SmartCan is the most advanced handheld armament test set serving on the flightline today in 12 countries, and most recently purchased by the Air National Guard to support all of their armament test needs on their A-10, F-16, and F-15 fleets.

MTS-3060A SmartCan Universal Armament Test Set (shown with adapter and cable kit) — **Figure 1. MTS-3060A SmartCan Universal Armament Test Set** **(shown with adapter and cable kit)**

SmartCan has the power to address many of the current test gaps found in the armament community and the capacity to meet future requirements. Importantly, the ANG has published post-demonstration reports addressing the capabilities of the SmartCan™ to support not only their aircraft, but those of Air Combat Command as well, including their F-15Es and F-16 Block 50s.

In order to ensure the armament test needs of today and the future are met – across the USAF’s inventory of armed aircraft – commonality, capability and configurability should serve as the cornerstone for armament test equipment managers with the overall goal to support tailored force packages with a minimal footprint. Importantly, the SmartCan has already proven its ability to eliminate many armament test sets on the flightline and support multiple aircraft. SmartCan, for more than a decade, has been helping to transform air forces and their flightline maintenance operations around the world meet these goals.

The threats to National Security move at the speed of our enemies and not at the pace of the bureaucracy. Change should not should not be prevented or delayed; aggressive action is needed at all levels to ensure that high-tech solutions have the foundational support required to maximize their effects. Now more than ever, it is time to accelerate change or lose. And, losing is not an option.

Kendall: KC-46 Might Have Worked Better If Not Fixed-Price; Pegasus Now Cleared for 97% of US Aircraft

June 2, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall thinks the KC-46 program may have worked better if it had not been under a firm-fixed-price development contract, and he took responsibility for that, saying that when he was previously at the Pentagon, the acquisition system didn’t fully appreciate how complex the job was.

“I’ll take the hit for that,” Kendall said in a streaming interview with the Heritage Foundation June 1.

In a related development, the Air Force says it has now certified the KC-46 to refuel 97 percent of the aircraft the Pentagon needs it to.

The KC-46 “was supposed to be a low-risk program,” but the Pentagon’s acquisition enterprise “didn’t look closely enough at the design,” which was “more risky … than people realized, at the time,” Kendall allowed.

Kendall was principle undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics when Boeing’s entry won the KC-X competition in 2011.

Boeing was in a hot competition for the KC-X with Airbus “and they want[ed] to win. So, they’re going to tell you the best story they can,” Kendall said, suggesting that Boeing made out that the Remote Vision System (RVS)—and the KC-46 generally—was less technically challenging than it really was.

Boeing at the time promoted the aircraft as a straightforward and relatively modest modification of its 767 freighter, enhanced with a modern glass cockpit and the RVS, which was to have expanded the vision and capabilities of the boom operator versus the KC-135 and KC-10.

“I always held KC-46 up as the archetypical fixed-price development program,” Kendall, said, noting that it “met all five” of his criteria at the time for a program that could safely be conducted under a fixed-price contract, but “we still got into deep, big trouble.”

He added that “we might not have, if it had been a cost-plus program, and the government supervised the contractor more aggressively.” However, in a fixed-price arrangement, “you’ve got to let the contractor kind of do what it wants, because he’s taking the risk on the cost.”

Kendall’s remarks suggest he will be more skeptical of contractor claims and lowball bids, even when the system being negotiated is relatively straightforward and well understood.

In April, Boeing CEO David Calhoun said the company would re-think its strategy of lowballing big government contracts, after losing $5.4 billion on the KC-46 alone and recently another $1 billion on the T-7A trainer and VC-25B Air Force One replacement. The Air Force has not had to pay any of those overruns, but it has suffered significant delay on the KC-46, which is still not considered truly operational despite many aircraft having been fielded for several years.

Kendall’s five requirements for entering into a fixed-price contract, which he set out in 2012, said the program must have :

Firm requirements, with “a clear understanding of what we want the contractor to build.”
Low technical risk, based on “mature technologies”
Qualified suppliers, wherein the bidders have a proven capability to deliver what’s being put on contract
Financial capability to absorb overruns “that may not be foreseeable”
Motivation to continue—such that the contractor sees a business case that will eventually provide a return on investment. Kendall wrote in a government paper for acquisition officials, “It is unrealistic to believe contractors will simply accept large losses. They will not.”

Incremental Progress

Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, announced June 2 that the KC-46 has been granted a seventh interim capability release (ICR), clearing more aircraft to be refueled from the new tanker, which can now refuel 97 percent of the airplanes that AMC is required to pass fuel on a daily basis.

The new aircraft now cleared to take fuel from the KC-46 include the B-1B bomber, all C-135 variants, the E-8 Joint STARS radar aircraft, the EC-130H Compass Call, F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighter variants, KC-10 tanker, and the Navy’s P-8 Poseidon patrol jet.

Minihan, in an AMC press release, noted that, a year ago, the KC-46 was “not cleared to operationally support any U.S. TRANSCOM [Transportation Command] missions.” However, after review by “professionals across the enterprise analyzing data and making risk-informed decisions, we’ve deliberately and aggressively accelerated the Pegasus’ operational use.”

He added, “Credible and reliable KC-46A tanker capability is now available to our joint and international partners. Let’s go.”

The KC-46 made a seven-week deployment to Spain for evaluation in an operational environment, coinciding with the need to demonstrate AMC refueling readiness during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Minihan said the aircraft performed well during that deployment. The next steps in development will be to analyze those lessons learned and accelerate certification with foreign and allied aircraft that are meant to refuel from the KC-46, Minihan said.

While AMC was not immediately able to identify those aircraft still outstanding for certification with the KC-46A, the B-2 bomber is not yet on the list of cleared aircraft. Part of the KC-46’s deficiencies include a boom stiffness that has the potential to scratch the stealthy surfaces of the B-2 and other stealth aircraft. However, the F-22 and F-35 are both cleared for the Pegasus.