Pentagon Brass: 2023 Budget Built off ‘Inaccurate’ Inflation Rates

April 6, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

With many lawmakers already pushing to increase the top line of the Pentagon’s fiscal 2023 budget, top defense officials acknowledged April 5 that their budget request was based off inflation rates that were “incorrect.”

At the same time, they argued, the $773 billion request would be enough to pursue the Defense Department’s goals of modernization to match the threat of China and Russia.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, and Pentagon comptroller Michael J. McCord appeared before the House Armed Services for nearly five hours, defending their recently-released budget request as numerous representatives, both Republican and Democrat, questioned whether it was enough to keep pace with surging inflation and if proposed cuts to legacy systems were taking too great a short-term risk.

“Despite predictions from leading economists that record inflation will endure, the White House directed the Pentagon to assume a rate of only 2.2 percent for FY23,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the committee’s ranking member. “We’re now at 8 percent inflation. To get to an average of 2.2 percent next year would require months of unprecedented low inflation. Everyone here knows that’s not going to happen. Nearly every dollar of increase in this budget will be eaten by inflation. Very little, if anything, will be left over to modernize and grow capability.”

Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) later added that there is bipartisan support for “at least making sure that the department is keeping pace with inflation.”

The debate over inflation’s impact on the budget began before the budget was even released and has emerged as one of the key sticking points for many legislators, particularly Republicans, who argue that given the pace of inflation, the proposed funding represents a negligible increase below what the military needs. On April 4, every Republican member of the HASC joined together to urge a top line increase.

In the run-up to the budget release, experts speculated that If the budget was built on an assumption of continued high inflation, it could be a “downer” for the stock market; but if it used an assumed escalation of just two percent, it could be criticized for lowballing the number and being unrealistic.

And Milley, speaking April 5, acknowledged that the assumed rate is thus far inaccurate.

“This budget assumes an inflation rate of 2.2 percent, which is obviously incorrect because it’s almost 8 percent. And it might go up, it might go down. But most forecasts indicate it’s going to go up, and it could level out at nine or 10 percent. Who knows? But it’s clearly higher than what the assumption was in this budget.”

McCord, meanwhile, has acknowledged that inflation has become a significant issue in crafting the budget but argued that the commonly cited measure of inflation, the consumer price index, which has risen 7.9 percent in the last 12 months—is not applicable for the DOD.

“We in the Department of Defense don’t use—have never used—the CPI as what is relevant for what we do,” McCord told Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)

Pressed by Brooks as to the rate of inflation for purchases the Pentagon has to make, McCord said his staff has seen a four percent jump in the past year and based the budget on that.

Later in the hearing, however, McCord acknowledged that four percent rate was formulated before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And questioned by Slotkin as to whether the department could adjust the budget based off the rate of inflation, he agreed.

“We are going to need to work with the committees, I believe, going forward to look at what’s actually happening on the ground. As the Secretary said, we had to snap the chalk line at some point. To finish the budget, you have to make some assumptions and then move on,” McCord said. “And we normally revisit our own situation internally, which generates reprogramming that we send to you. We’ll do that as soon as possible this year as well.”

While the top line may still rise to account for more inflation, the 2023 budget will still face scrutiny from Congress as it moves to divest older platforms to free up funds for newer ones—the Air Force in particular is asking to retire or transfer 250 aircraft and only wants to procure around 82 more.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a former Air Force commander and pilot, acknowledged that it is necessary to get rid of some platforms to make way for new ones. But questioning Milley, he raised concerns that the services are cutting too much too fast, creating too much risk before the new platforms are fully operational.

Milley, however, disagreed.

“I don’t think we’re taking too much risk relative to Russia and China, which is the focus of the [National Defense Strategy], focus of the budget,” said Milley. “I recognize the numbers go down in both shipbuilding and in aircraft. But … I want to focus folks’ attention on the capability that is being bought versus just raw numbers. A lot of the aircraft that are coming out, for example A-10s—A-10s have very little utility relative to a high-end fight against China, for example.”

Old A-10s could be used in foreign military sales for allies and partners who could use that capability, Milley added, but those determinations have to be part of a larger threat assessment.

It’s not just A-10s that had lawmakers concerned, though. Representatives also pressed Milley and Austin on how the DOD would replace the capabilities of the E-3 AWACS and E-8C JSTARS, which are projected to take heavy cuts in the budget request.

In both cases, Milley and Austin insisted there would be “no significant capability lost relative to Russia and China,” thanks to alternate platforms.

Milley Endorses More Permanent Bases in Europe—with a Slight Twist

April 5, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reignited talks about more permanent U.S. bases and troops in Europe, especially in the eastern portion of the continent where allies and partners are clamoring for it to counter Russia’s influence.

On April 5, the Pentagon’s top general endorsed that push—with a slight twist.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, testifying to the House Armed Services Committee, noted that Europe is facing a potentially pivotal moment in its history given Russia’s aggression, and said that “as a general rule of thumb,” U.S. presence in a region is a good deterrent.

In that regard, Milley echoed comments made by U.S. European Command boss USAF Gen. Tod D. Wolters, who told Congress a week ago that after European nations adjusted their own contributions to defense across the continent, the U.S. would do the same, and “my suspicion is we’re going to still need more.”

But while Wolters declined to say whether he thought that increased presence should be permanent or rotational, Milley said it should be a little of both.

“My advice would be to create permanent bases, but don’t permanently station. So you get the effect of permanence by rotational forces cycling through permanent bases,” Milley told Ranking Member Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) “And what you don’t have to do is incur the cost of family moves, PXs, schools, housing, and that sort of thing. So you cycle through expeditionary forces through forward deployed permanent bases.”

Lawmakers and Milley both noted that several countries in Eastern Europe have even gone so far as to offer to build and pay for permanent bases for the U.S. to use, including Poland, Lithuania, and Romania.

“They’re very, very willing to establish permanent bases. They’ll build them, they’ll pay for them, etc., for us to cycle through on a rotational basis,” Milley said. “So you get the effect of permanent presence of forces, but the actual individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine is not permanently stationed there for two or three years.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, appearing alongside Milley, didn’t give any indication whether he supported Milley’s idea. Instead, he deferred any decisions about basing in Europe until after discussions with NATO.

“NATO is going through a process right now to really kind of assess how we expect the security architecture in the region is going to change for the foreseeable future or has changed for the foreseeable future,” Austin said. “… If NATO deems that it’s appropriate to change its footprint, then certainly we’ll be a part of that. Our goal is to make sure that we continue to reassure our allies and partners, especially those that are on the eastern flank, and especially our allies that are in the Baltic region.”

The U.S. presence in Europe has declined precipitously since 1991 and the end of the Cold War, with another noticeable decline as America became involved in conflicts in the Middle East. Until recently, there were around 60,000 troops on the continent, roughly a fifth of the presence in the 1980s and just shy of half of that in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Recently, however, that figure has jumped to around 100,000 as troops have poured into the region, bolstering NATO’s eastern flank.

“I can’t think of a better signal that we could send to our allies and to Putin that we are committed to NATO than this basing issue,” Rogers said.

GBSD Finally Gets a Name: ‘Sentinel’

April 5, 2022 | By Greg Hadley and John A. Tirpak

The Air Force announced a name and designation for the intercontinental ballistic missile system long known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent: LGM-35A Sentinel. The name recycles one already given to one of the Air Force’s secret spy drones.

The Sentinel, being developed by Northrop Grumman, is set to replace the Minuteman III as the land leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, beginning with initial operational capability in 2029 and full operational capability by 2036.

“The name Sentinel recognizes the mindset that thousands of Airmen, past and present, have brought to the deterrence mission” over decades, said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall in an official release. As those Airmen have “kept the watch; always vigilant and ready,” the name will “serve as a reminder for those who operate, secure, and maintain this system in the future about the discipline and responsibility their duty entails.”

Sentinel joins the ranks of Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, and Peacekeeper as the land-based ICBM missiles that have maintained America’s nuclear deterrent since the early 1960s. Its nomenclature—LGM-35A—is a bit puzzling, however, as the Minuteman was the LGM-30 and the LGM-118 was the successor Peacekeeper. The Air Force could not immediately explain the derivation of the nomenclature.

The GBSD name has been assigned to the new missile program for years now as the Air Force’s modernization efforts have wound their way through Congress and the Pentagon. In February 2021, then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John E. Hyten lamented the lack of an official name for the project.

“We’ve got to find a name for the GBSD,” Hyten said. “GBSD just doesn’t hack it. … Because GBSD is very hard to explain to the American people … GBSD requires me to define the term before I actually get into it, so for God’s sakes, Air Force, let’s get a name for the thing and start moving forward.”

The missile will, however, have to share the “Sentinel” moniker. The Air Force named its stealthy RQ-170 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance drone the Sentinel in the mid-2000s. The Sentinel, built by Lockheed Martin, was considered a key element in locating and tracking Osama bin Laden, leading to the special operations raid that killed him in Pakistan in 2011. An RQ-170 also crashed in Iran, where that government claimed to have back-engineered it and built their own version. An Air Force spokeswoman told Air Force Magazine there are no plans as yet to rename the RQ-170.

The LGM-35A will be stationed at missile bases where the Minuteman III is already emplaced—F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.; Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.; and Minot Air Force Base, N.D.

US Must ‘Slash Costs’ to Afford Space Superiority, Raymond Says

April 5, 2022 | By Shaun Waterman

The U.S. military can’t afford the new proliferated, multi-orbit satellite constellations it needs unless military contractors cut costs by an order of magnitude, the Space Force Chief said.

“We must also slash costs,” Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, Space Force Chief of Space Operations, told the 37th annual Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo., April 5. “The government cannot afford a distributed resilient force design, unless industry makes this change with us,” he added. Addressing industry directly, he told them, “We need you to deliver. We need you to deliver at cost points of double digit millions rather than triple digit [millions] or billions.”

“If we’re going to migrate away from large monolithic system systems to hybrid diversified space architectures, we cannot continue to build expensive satellites with exquisite mission assurance. We need to focus on reduction of costs as a key driver,” he said. The Space Warfighting Analysis Center, as part of its work designing a new space architecture for the Space Force, is “identifying specific cost targets and the trade offs” needed to reach them in future constellations, he added.

The shift from space architectures based on a handful of extremely expensive satellites, to ones using constellations of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of smaller, less costly satellites, typically in lower orbits, is the cornerstone of Raymond’s plan to make U.S. space capabilities better able to survive a shooting war in orbit, a quality the military calls resilience.

“The transformation to a more resilient architecture is the centerpiece of our budget submission in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget request” just issued by the President, said Raymond.

“Resilience is important because it denies the adversary first mover advantage, the benefit of a sudden decisive attack in space,” Raymond said. By allowing the U.S. military to ride out a sneak attack in orbit, resilience bolsters deterrence and thereby helps keep the peace, he added.

“Our primary purpose is to deter war,” Raymond said. “We do that by showing strength, by showing that we would win. In peacetime we must be visibly present in orbit just as we are on land, on the sea, and in the air, to show that the rules-based order that we have upheld since WWII applies everywhere, including space.”

Part of ensuring that superiority is maintaining the U.S. military’s technological edge, which many believe to be eroding, especially over advancing near-peer adversaries like China.

“To maintain our enduring advantage, we need that fluency throughout our ranks to solve problems quickly,” Raymond said, “So we’re working to develop an organic coding capability from the ground up.”

He highlighted the “Supra Coders,” a program launched last year that provides advanced software coding training for Guardians in Space Operations Command deltas, Space Force’s tactical-level units. “Unless you’re an astronaut, you experience space through data, lots and lots of data.” And handling that data requires software.

The idea of Supra Coders, Raymond explained, is to give Deltas a native coding capability, so they can fix software issues quickly without having to wait for specialist assistance or contractors to show up. The program, which is funded for 60 students this year, will grow to 90 in fiscal 2023, Raymond said.

The need to maintain superiority in space also was a central theme in Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s symposium keynote.

Because space-based capabilities like GPS and satellite communications ensured U.S. military advantage in other domains, Kendall explained, “Space is a great enabler and essential for all other military operations.”

“We are not yet at a time where control of space alone implies military control of the planet. That is still science fiction. But we are at a point where control of space is essential, if one has to control the air, the sea, or the land,” Kendall said. He added that America would share that control with its allies and partners, increasing numbers of which, most recently the Australians, had set up their own Space Commands, facilitating cooperation with United States.

Kendall urged U.S. allies to “Continue to build out your military space enterprises so we can work together and benefit from your perspectives, competencies, and shared investments.”

Even U.S. allies with limited space capabilities could join, he pledged. “Nations that do not intend to build out the full array of space systems can still meaningfully contribute to the transformational architectures that the Space Force is building, and benefit from the services and products that we all can provide together,” he said.

That partnership theme was echoed in the third keynote, from Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Stacey A. Dixon. Over the 37 years the Space Symposium has met, Dixon observed, “the nature of space exploration and exploitation, and what space means to our nation, to our national security, and to humankind, all of that has changed,” she said. The space domain, “once the exclusive purview of governments, is now open to all.”

“It is no longer one small step,” she said, “It’s not even just one giant leap, it is the promise of a transformed world.” But she warned that there were “many different visions” competing to shape that future.

In the contest to determine the future of space, the world’s democracies had one “extraordinary advantage” over authoritarian adversaries like Russia and China, Dixon said. “Our underlying system of free, open, and competitive markets and businesses, working together with government, academic institutions, and others outside of government, along with the vital role of the free press.” This “constellation of independent and incredibly innovative parties, partnerships, and the values that sustain them, is something autocracies cannot match,” she concluded.

US Space Command Formalizes Strategy to Buy More Commercial Satellite Services

April 5, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

Colorado Springs, Colo.—U.S. Space Command wants to start acquiring commercial satellite services and released the overview of a new strategy to do so.

The head of the command, Army Gen. James H. Dickinson, elaborated on the plan April 5 in a press briefing at the Space Symposium here.

Plussing up the providers of space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance creates a “many” problem for any entity that wants to interfere with U.S. activities, Dickinson said. In other words, “many” satellites would have to be destroyed or disabled “to have any appreciable effect.”

“It’s not just one company that does it—many companies do that,” Dickinson said.

He said the images of the Russia-Ukraine war being shown in the press prove why bringing companies onboard is a good idea.

“We can all see the quality of that—how good it is,” Dickinson said.

With so many companies that “want to be part of the broader DOD enterprise,” the command could get access to information about places it can’t currently monitor: “We’re not in all those parts of the world—I mean, that’s a fact,” Dickinson said.

The strategy will result in a framework for how the command should “collaborate, integrate, and partner with commercial industry” as well as “mitigate capability gaps,” improve the resiliency of DOD’s overall space architecture, and “gain and maintain technological and operational advantages over adversaries,” according to a fact sheet.

The strategy won’t “provide program specific solutions,” “overstep service prerogatives,” “replace existing acquisitions processes,” or “serve as a defense innovation or industrial base driver.”

The satellite services may include other activities besides ISR, such as space control or modeling and simulation. The command expects benefits to include faster decision-making and acquisition fulfillment.

Three “ways” to reach the “strategic end state” the command envisions, include:

Fulfilling some needs with off-the-shelf technology, including command and control battle management systems, IT systems “to include [artificial intelligence/machine learning] and big data management, modeling and simulation systems, space control systems,” and satellite communications.
Improve resilience by prioritizing “operational intelligence [space domain awareness], SATCOM bandwidth,” and quantum computing, among others.
“Gain and maintain technological advantages over adversaries” by partnering with companies “in ways that are more relational as opposed to purely transactional.”

Asked what Space Command will do to help mitigate any counterspace risk the companies may assume by working with the DOD, Dickinson mentioned sharing information with them about space domain awareness “so that our commercial providers understand what’s going on in and around their assets.”

Implying that the DOD’s satellites can still outperform commercial constellations in some aspects, Dickinson said the plan allows the command to preserve its “exquisite” assets for things only they can do.

C-17 Crew Who Saved 153 During Afghanistan Evacuation Awarded Distinguished Flying Cross

April 5, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Four Airmen who crewed a C-17 during the noncombatant evacuation out of Kabul, Afghanistan, in August 2021 received the Distinguished Flying Cross, the nation’s fourth-highest award for heroism, on April 1.

Lt. Col. Dominic Calderon, 1st Lt. Kyle Anderson, and Master Sgt. Silva Foster are Reserve Airmen from the 349th Air Mobility Wing at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., while Senior Airman Michael Geller is Active-duty and is assigned to the 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.

Last summer, those four Airmen were flying on a C-17 tasked with delivering the 82nd Airborne Division to help secure Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul when the capital city fell to the Taliban on Aug. 15.

Faced with a dynamic environment, the mission shifted to evacuating as many people as possible. The minimally-manned crew was able to adjust in chaotic conditions. As crowds of desperate Afghans swarmed the flightline, the C-17 flew out 153 U.S. citizens, allied partners, and vulnerable Afghans, according to an Air Force release.

“The conditions that day were like none I had ever seen,” Calderon said shortly after the mission. “The airfield was breached and there were mass crowds entering the airfield. Still, the crew performed well under enormous pressure. I couldn’t be more proud of the way the entire crew operated.”

Also honored during the ceremony was Staff Sgt. Dennis Gonzales-Furman, from the 437th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Joint Base Charleston, S.C., who served as the aircrew’s flying crew chief during the mission in Afghanistan.

Calderon, Anderson, and Foster are the first mobility Airmen in the Reserve to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross since 2004, according to Maj. Gen. Matthew J. Burger, Air Force Reserve deputy commander. There are only 45 Reservists still serving who have been awarded the DFC.

“This is a special honor for these Airmen and the entire 349th Air Mobility Wing,” Col. Jacquelyn Marty, 349th AMW vice commander, said in a statement. “Having these three Reserve Citizen Airmen recognized for their extraordinary achievement with this medal has woven them into our enduring history.”

Foster, who served as loadmaster during the mission, called the award “the biggest honor I ever experienced,” and Anderson cited the historic nature of the award, which has been given since 1926.

“For us to receive something like this is such an honor,” Anderson said in a statement. “It was an honor to serve alongside such an experienced pilot like Maj. Calderon and a loadmaster like Master Sgt. Foster. It was paramount to our success that evening to have all that knowledge and breadth of experience onboard.”

Digitalization and the Future of Aerospace Program Productivity

April 5, 2022 | By Dale Tutt

Aerospace development programs are challenged on almost every level imaginable today. Aerospace & Defense (A&D) teams continue to struggle with upfront planning as they start a new program. What tasks are needed? How long will each task take? And how many resources are required? Not having a good grasp at the outset of a program cascades into poor program execution, making it nearly impossible to meet budgets and schedules later in the process. All too often, resources don’t meet requirements, leading to an apparent lack of program discipline, especially when a new requirement emerges or there’s a change in scope. When electronic systems and software are added into the mix, the complexity increases exponentially.

In my nearly 30 years of working in product development, I can’t recall a time when there’s been so much complexity – and so much demand to go faster. A&D teams are without question facing a variety of challenges internally and externally – and yet, it’s also a time of great innovation and promise.

Digitalization is emerging as the crucial advantage that modern aerospace programs can turn to in the face of so much complexity. Quite simply, digitalization increases productivity by providing visibility into how specific requirements impact downstream engineering and manufacturing. This can be achieved by using a comprehensive digital twin and digital thread, which provide a robust understanding of A&D products and processes. Digital thread-based solutions enable multi-disciplinary processes and weaves relevant data together to present a rich, full view of product, production and process in a coherent, actionable manner.

Complexity is not something to shy away from, but rather it is something aerospace teams and their tier one suppliers should embrace and turn into a unique competitive advantage. Companies need to move faster. They must lower development costs to decrease production and operating costs. In my experience, successful companies are the ones who have the ability to quickly evolve their business models and out-innovate the competition.

Digitalization and digital threads enable customers to take complexity head-on, allowing greater productivity and innovation. A digital thread is a collection of integrated solutions, software and best practices digitalized to provide visibility, collaboration, automation and traceability within a key domain – connecting to other digitalized domains. Based on the industry needs there are seven areas where digital threads can help address this complexity and encompass the entire product lifecycle:

Program Management

Program planning and execution issues cause significant schedule delays and cost overruns, impacting profits and a company’s ability to invest and win future programs. Consistent program planning and execution excellence is essential to long-term company success, as companies are able to avoid cost overruns and schedule delays.

A digital thread for program management provides teams with a systems-based approach to project planning. It integrates cost, schedule, risk and technical requirements into a fully planned, resourced and budgeted program management solution. It provides one common solution and an integrated view across all domains of a company’s pursuit or program.

Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)

As complexity increases there is significantly more information that needs to be managed. The document-based and disconnected systems and processes of the past are no longer able to manage this complexity causing schedule delays, cost increases, and lost opportunities – just to name a few. Companies are seeking model-based processes to automate tasks and simplify the management of the product and program data.

An MBSE digital thread can orchestrate the technical program and scope across the entire enterprise and lifecycle, providing the platform for faster and more efficient product development, even in the face of increasing complexity. By facilitating early analyses and simulations tied to requirements and functions, companies can reduce the consequence and impact of “issues” that have historically popped-up at system integration and evaluation. MBSE helps companies move from early system modeling to building the digital thread for the full program lifecycle, and delivers a better development experience and sets A&D teams up for faster success in the future.

Product Design and Engineering

The need to design and develop new products faster at less cost is driving A&D companies to seek new processes for designing and building aircraft. In many cases, companies are looking to adopt agile product development processes. Further, companies must now re-think their product design approaches to innovate and collaborate faster to reach specialized markets faster. As new materials and technologies become available, companies need solutions to quickly implement these technologies to be more competitive – in weeks, not years.

A product design and engineering digital thread can introduce agile engineering into a company. This digital thread encapsulates an integrated and open design ecosystem to accelerate product development by tackling the most complex problems in design and engineering with the best solutions for electrical systems, mechanical systems, and performance engineering. Further, this digital thread has the capability to transform classical engineering approaches to include new materials (composites, additive, electronics) and advanced user experiences (virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality). More than just 3D computer-aided design, the comprehensive digital twin provides multi-disciplinary design and optimization for electrical and electronics design, analysis and simulation, software management and manufacturing simulation.

Verification and Certification

Product complexity is driving new regulatory requirements, which increases the verification burden on companies for new products – increasing cost and risk of schedule overruns. To complicate matters, verification and certification costs have continued to increase, and now represent up to 75 percent of the product development costs, leaving little room in the budget for last-minute, discretionary items.

A digital thread for verification can help make certification an integral part of the overall product development process. It gives A&D companies a robust certification execution plan and incorporates all the needed certification activities within the overall program plan. This digital thread allows companies to create a cooperative relationship with the regulatory authority. Companies can more easily include the authorities within the planning, execution and auditing activities through a dedicated access within the product lifecycle management system.

Supplier Collaboration

Forces of globalization continue to affect the supply chain, partners and workforce. Supply chains are distributed across the globe, making collaboration and effective management of the supply chain more difficult. Internal collaboration within product teams is also more difficult as the workforce becomes more dispersed, and more employees work remotely. Collaboration and innovation are stymied by document-based or siloed processes, and product certifications become unaffordable based on inefficient and out-of-date processes.

A digital thread for supplier collaboration can provide an interface between functional domains, and suppliers can be automated for improved collaboration. As a model-based process, it builds the comprehensive digital twin to link requirements to source selection and all contract deliverables throughout the product lifecycle. It enables data rights management and intellectual property protection for exchanged data throughout the supply chain, anywhere in the world.

Manufacturing and Production

As companies seek to optimize their production processes to improve quality and reduce cost, production environments require the ability to share data insights from current processes and turn this into actionable information with a digital twin. Companies are looking for a better way to manage capital-intensive manufacturing resources and processes, to accelerate their production ramp-up, and seek to incorporate new manufacturing technologies or concepts faster.

A manufacturing digital thread can orchestrate production processes and bring relevant production data to every aspect of program development. It proves concept viability of products by including manufacturing feasibility analyses through simulation early in the design process using the production digital twin. It validates production readiness with detailed manufacturing planning and virtual commissioning and incorporates design changes quickly to the factory floor to reduce re-work.

Maintenance and Support

A major driver of operational cost is unscheduled maintenance. Scheduled maintenance also increases operational costs. The end customer is seeking predictive health monitoring and on-condition maintenance procedures that can reduce the cost and schedule impacts of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. To provide predictability of operational costs, many companies are turning to “pay by usage” of products. This is driving the need for higher reliability and better methods to estimate operational costs so that providers can make profit.

A maintenance digital thread can provide manufacturers, owners and service organizations a means to support complex products within a service management environment. This digital twin can plan the entire support system, including spares provisioning and service plans tied to the model-based configuration.

Figure 1: To address increasing complexity in the Aerospace and Defense Industry, Siemens Digital Industries Software has developed seven digital threads leveraging the Xcelerator Portfolio that cover the entire product lifecycle.

Turning Complexity into a Competitive Advantage

Through digitalization, aerospace manufacturers and their supply chain partners can make more powerful, better-informed decisions based on a robust analysis due to the full traceability inherent in a digital thread. Digital threads not only address increased program complexity, but also increased levels of integration. As the foundation of a digitalization strategy, they enable Program Execution Excellence for A&D companies in a closed-loop process, while promoting organic learning across the organization and/or across multiple programs.

It is incumbent upon aerospace and defense companies to adopt digital transformation, and organizations like the U.S. Air Force, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Boeing Defense are leading the way by embracing digitalization. I’m excited to see what the future holds as A&D companies and teams of all sizes adopt these digital threads and discover how complexity can be a friend, not foe – and how digitalization lays the groundwork for untold and unimaginable innovation and success.

Dale Tutt is the Vice President of Aerospace and Defense Industry, for Siemens Digital Industries Software. He is responsible for defining the industry strategy for Siemens, leading definition of industry solutions for Aerospace and Defense customers.

Department of the Air Force Announces Candidates for STARCOM Headquarters

April 4, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Six bases are being considered as the eventual home for the Space Force’s Space Training and Readiness Command, the Department of the Air Force announced April 4.

All five of the locations currently designated as Space Force Bases are under consideration—Buckley, Peterson, and Schriever in Colorado; Patrick in Florida; and Vandenberg in California. In addition, Los Angeles Air Force Base, which is set to be renamed Los Angeles Space Force Base, is a contender.

Site surveys of the bases will begin in late April or early May 2022, DAF said in a release, with assessments based on “mission, infrastructure capacity, community support, environmental considerations, and cost.”

At the moment, STARCOM is transitionally based at Peterson, in Colorado Springs, Colo.

In addition to STARCOM’s headquarters, the department also detailed the state of the basing decisions for the five Deltas that help make up the field command.

Delta 1, which is focused on training, is permanently located at Vandenberg Space Force Base.

Delta 10, focused on wargaming and doctrine, only has one candidate location being considered—Patrick Space Force Base, “because of its proximity to a Department of Defense modeling and simulation capability with resident space expertise,” according to DAF. Delta 10 is temporarily located at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Deltas 11 and 12, focused on range and aggression and test and evaluation, respectively, have the same two candidate locations: Schriever Space Force Base and Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. Both locations “offer existing range infrastructure that supports test, training, and exercise activities within close distance to range and aggressor stakeholders,” according to the department release. Delta 11’s temporary location is Schriever, Delta 12’s is Peterson.

Delta 13, focused on education, doesn’t have any candidate locations at the moment. The Department of the Air Force said it will conduct a strategic basing process for the Delta after the Space Force establishes its curriculum and structure. It is currently based out of Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

Site surveys for Deltas 10, 11, and 12, will finish in 2022, the department said.

STARCOM was the last of the Space Force’s three field commands to stand up, and it’s the last still looking for a permanent headquarters—Space Operations Command is headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base, and Space Systems Command is headquartered at Los Angeles Air Force Base.

F-16s to Serve Nearly Two More Decades, Replacement Choice Still 6-8 Years Away

April 4, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

Additional budget documents set to be released later this month will start to map an improvement program for the F-16, to support that type serving almost another two decades, the service’s deputy chief of staff for plans and programs said. USAF doesn’t have to decide on what the F-16’s replacement will be until 2028 or later, he added.

The F-16 will be ideal for a variety of missions not requiring high-end stealth and survivability, Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom told Air Force Magazine in an interview. The jet will continue to be USAF’s low-end, multipurpose force builder.

The F-16 can be that “one airplane that can do a lot of low-end missions, and remarkably cheaper than a fifth-generation platform, and it can do them well,” he said. It can “satisfy an objective in the Middle East and a week later, fly [combat air patrol] over a point on the U.S., and do a homeland defense sortie. It’s pretty amazing. And do that at half … [the] operating cost of any other air platform we have out there.”

Nahom asserted that, “There’s a utility to that. That’s why you’re seeing the investment in the post-block, our latest-model F-16s. Because we think we can get another 18-20 years out of them.”

The A-10, he said, is a good close air support platform for increasingly rare situations where air defenses are thoroughly suppressed or nonexistent.

“But can it do homeland defense? Well, no. …There’s a lot of things an F-16 can do. And I’ll tell you, it does pretty good CAS, too.” The Air Force has limited resources, he said, and so it makes more sense to invest in an F-16 fleet that can do a host of missions rather than the A-10, which “can only do one.”

Rather than a high-low mix, Nahom said USAF’s future fighter force structure would be better described as a bell curve with the bulk being low/medium capability F-16s and medium/high capability F-35s. At the very low end would be a small number of aircraft only able to operate in permissive environments while the upper end would be aircraft like the F-22 and the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, tuned to the most demanding conditions.

“So now, the question is, what replaces” the F-16, Nahom said.

“Let’s fast forward to the 2035/2036-ish timeframe. Is there still a need for that low-cost platform? I think, right now, there is,” he said. “And what does it look like? Do we replace it with another F-16-looking thing? Did the F-35 come down in cost enough where we can buy more of them? Is it something else? Is it unmanned at that point, because we can do things differently?”

All of that, he said, is “a question for another day. The good thing is, we don’t have to do anything right now. We’ve got 18-20 years of life left on 600-plus F-16s that are doing great work for our nation.” The decision on how it will be replaced is “probably six, eight years away,” he said.

In the meantime, USAF can concentrate on “getting the F-35 right,” recapitalizing squadrons with F-35s and F-15EXs, and increasing the overall capacity of the force, while developing the “NGAD family of systems and upgrading the [F-22] Raptor in the meantime.”

The Air Force doesn’t have to make any decisions about a near-term, low-cost manned platform because it has the post-block F-16s, Nahom said. And, though he acknowledged the modifications are “expensive,” he said, “for what we’ll get out of that airplane, it’s well-spent money.”

Nahom did not discuss what improvements will be coming for the F-16 or whether it will need yet another Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) structural upgrade.

A year ago, the Air Force began discussing its “4+1” fighter roadmap, which forecast a new fighter to succeed the F-16 in the 2030s. Called the “MR-X,” the fighter was notionally described as being “able to affordably perform missions short of high-end warfare.” It would be digitally designed and optimized with capability described as being “generation 4.5,” meaning short of a full stealth platform, to keep its cost down. Documents supporting the roadmap said the F-35 could be that aircraft if its purchase price could be “brought significantly lower,” or the MR-X could be a clean-sheet design built on the rapid turnover plan envisioned for the NGAD, in which new iterations or leap-frog designs appear about every five years.

Nahom said it’s essential to get out of the A-10 business on the planned schedule because the Air Force needs the manpower to maintain and support new platforms like the F-35 and NGAD.

“At some point, we’ve got to move the people that are operating and maintaining A-10s into the F-35s that are actively coming off the line right now,” he said. With unlimited funds, “we’d keep the A-10 as long as we could,” but the service must make choices and it is choosing a fleet that is the most versatile, he asserted.