Air Force Moving Toward Multi-Domain Munitions, Away From ‘Exquisite’ Types

Nov. 30, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is moving away from weapons meant to strike specific types of targets and instead toward generic munitions with “low-cost, swappable” payloads that can be used in a variety of ways, Air Force Global Strike Command planner Maj. Gen. Jason R. Armagost said Nov. 30.

Speaking on an AFA Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies webinar, Armagost said the munitions of the future will be made of lightweight materials and be either very fast or stealthy for survivability. Other goals are to increase production numbers, reduce cost, and expand the types of targets that can be struck on a single mission while avoiding weapons “exquisitely” tuned to a specific purpose.

The new “multi-domain” munitions will comprise the main body of USAF’s conventional weaponry, with the only specialty weapons likely to be lightweight, high-speed, long-range missiles to attack mobile targets and heavy munitions geared to take out “hardened, deeply-buried” targets.

“Those are two very different [targets] that require some very different characteristics,” he said. For other targets, generic weapons with selectable effects are the way forward.

The virtual event was held to discuss a Mitchell paper, “Affordable Mass: the Need for a Cost-Effective [Precision-Guided Munition] Mix for Great Power Conflict,” written by Mark A. Gunzinger. The paper said the Air Force needs to “fill the gap” between standoff and direct attack munitions with affordable munitions that can be produced en masse. Gunzinger said USAF will need more munitions in the future because adversary air defenses will be able to shoot down individual weapons, meaning more missiles or bombs will be needed to destroy fewer targets. He also said submunition technology may make it possible to take out “more targets per weapon, instead of just … targets per sortie.”

Armagost noted that he “lived through the ‘Great Hellfire Drought of 2018,’” when there were shortages of preferred precision munitions.

“You don’t want to get into a situation where you’re having to get creative with legacy weapons that don’t really answer the mail in a high-end fight,” he said. “It’s arguably not a sustainable answer to the military problem at hand.”

The new weapons need to have “utility across the range of force structure and weapons platforms.” They need to connect to the existing kill chain “and/or, in the future, a long-range kill chain,” he asserted, in which targets are “developed … en route,” especially for long-range strike platforms that “take off many hours before the action takes place,” Armogost said.

The defense industry is rapidly developing new multimode seeker technology, which is making such munitions possible, he noted.

And just as the industry is adjusting to open-systems architecture, Armagost said the Air Force will take the same approach with weaponry. “We don’t want vendor lock” nor to have munitions that are “tied to a specific platform,” he said.

Armagost said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has shared his thinking on munitions.

“He has said that future munitions need to be long range, they need to be relevant—and part of that relevance calculus is cost—and we need a sufficient volume of fire,” Armagost said. “How do we design that back into the strategy, … make our weapons-capabilities mix fit with our fifth-generation force and our legacy force.”

The conclusion is that “everything has got to be multi-domain,” added Armagost. “We can’t think in strict terms of, ‘This weapon is designed for this specific target.’ … It’s inherently multi-mission, … it has to have that flexibility built in.”

Armagost said Kendall has shown a “willingness” to take some short-term risk in buying fewer legacy weapons and investing in the development of new ones, with an eye toward, “What can you do for $300,000 per weapon?” That’s what Gunzinger argued is likely the “sweet spot” for munitions that have a broad range of applicability across the battle space.

“That may involve a mix of boosted weapons,” Armagost added, with an “additively manufactured” motor coupled to existing munitions to give them more standoff range. Another approach would be “low observable, lifting-body kind of designs, [or] we may design a seeker that gets us under” the $300,000 mark, he said. Armagost said the Air Force is anxious to “capitalize on the work that’s already been done” by allies or partner nations in these respects, “to really get the most bang for our buck.”

It’s important that “we don’t … design a force that lasts 10 days,” he said, referencing a chart in the Mitchell paper that said the Air Force would likely run through its standoff munitions inventory in just over a week in a Pacific conflict, given the profusion of targets.

Armagost said it’ll be a “series of ongoing decisions … and tradeoffs” to decide when to let go of the current family of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and other precision-guided munitions and to move on to a new future family of multi-domain munitions. The transition will occur as concepts of operation and the nature of the kill chain evolves, he said.

Gunzinger said ideally the transition would have taken place “five years ago,” so it needs to happen “as quickly as possible.”

China and Russia are “not waiting,” Gunzinger said. “They’re building up their forces and next-generation weapons. We’re already behind. We’re in a deficit. We have a force that’s too small for one war, and we know that. So, we’ve got a lot of work to do to catch up.”

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, head of the Mitchell Institute, said the JDAM is “kind of like a P-40” fighter from World War II. “It’s time to move on. … The Air Force needs to get serious about investing in … new concepts, and doing it fast.”

Deptula also said the discussion about the DOD-wide portfolio of weapons needs to rationalize how the money is spent, noting that the current cost estimate for the Army’s Long Range Hypersonic Weapon is $40 million each. For the cost of two of those, the services could buy “66 or more Stand-in Attack Weapons, and hit 66 aimpoints” instead of two, Deptula argued. Hypersonic missiles are “not a level-of-effort weapon,” he said.

ISR Missions for Space Force ‘Just Make a Lot of Sense,’ USECAF Says

Nov. 30, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

While the Air Force is in the midst of a push to modernize its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, it’s the Space Force that could wind up taking on more ISR missions in the years ahead, Undersecretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones hinted Nov. 30.

Speaking during an Air Force Association Air and Space Warfighters in Action symposium, Jones was asked about the Department of the Air Force’s vision for the future of ISR. In response, she pointed to the USSF.

“When we think about ISR, I think what’s important is ensuring that we are thinking … not just from the Air Force perspective, but also from the Space Force perspective,” Jones said. There are many things that just make a lot of sense to do from space, in the interest of resiliency, in the interest of capability. And so [it’s about] ensuring that there’s a right balance there.”

As Air Force leaders increasingly emphasize strategic competition with China, an emphasis has been on acquiring and fielding platforms that will be better equipped for a high-end fight.

This led to the Air Force requesting to cut back on ISR operations in its fiscal 2022 budget, specifically by the MQ-9 Reaper drone. The service has also sought to retire its E-8C Joint STARS fleet. The intent behind these moves, leaders said, is to free up money for modernization efforts, such as making the MQ-9 more survivable in contested areas and further developing the Advanced Battle Management System, an ambitious effort to connect sensors and shooters using advanced technology and artificial intelligence.

The Space Development Agency, meanwhile, is in the midst of an effort to build out the National Defense Space Architecture, a constellation of satellites that will be used for tracking targets as well as missile warning, communications, data coverage and sharing, and other capabilities.

The first layer of the NDSA is the Transport Layer, aimed at ensuring data and connectivity across the globe. Tranche 0 of that layer is expected to launch by March 31, 2023, with Space Development Agency Director Derek M. Tournear saying he hopes to roll out new capabilities every two years.

“If you hear [Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall] talk about our space architecture, it’s one of our strategic advantages, but we’ve got to make sure it continues to be that and how we [might] identify some opportunities in the ISR domain … in the space realm,” Jones said.

The Space Force, for its part, has already expressed an interest in the ISR mission. Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond said back in May that the service will get involved in providing tactical ISR, normally the realm of the Intelligence Community. The proliferation of small satellites and the dropping cost of launches made such a move possible, Raymond said, and it is “complementary” to the service’s existing missions.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the agency responsible for building out the National Defense Space Architecture. The Space Development Agency is responsible for procuring satellites for the NDSA.

Lack of Trust in Leaders Prevents Airmen From Serving to ‘Full Potential,’ Jones Says

Nov. 30, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

When Gina Ortiz Jones walks into the Pentagon, the undersecretary of the Air Force has a clear goal—“to be the undersecretary that I wish I would have had when I was a cadet.”

There’s a particular reason for that. When Jones was first joining the AFROTC at Boston College, she had to sign an agreement saying she would not participate in homosexual behavior as part of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in place.

That experience was “very formative,” Jones said during an Air Force Association “Air and Space Warfighters in Action” symposium Nov. 30—as formative as her later deployment to Iraq as an intelligence officer.

“So my opportunity to get an education, my opportunity to serve our country, my opportunity to die for our country, all that goes away, just because at the time we didn’t have enough leaders who had the courage to say anybody ready and willing to serve their country should have the opportunity to do so,” Jones said.

Now, Jones said, she wants to be a leader that ensures Airmen can serve to their full potential. And that means working to bridge the divide between commanders’ perceptions of personnel issues, what lower-ranking Airmen say is happening, and their trust in leaders to fix it.

Those gaps in trust and perspectives were highlighted in several recent disparity reports released by the Air Force’s Inspector General, which gathered data on promotions, discipline, and ascensions based on race, ethnicity, and gender, but also gathered feedback from Airmen and Guardians on how they believe the Department of the Air Force handles issues such as harassment and discrimination.

“When we think about the moment in time that we’re in, … we don’t have time or talent to lose, and it’s important, as we think about the pacing challenge, that we are a place where folks understand they can serve to their full potential,” Jones said. “And that is why our policies, everything we do, everything we say, is an expression of the value that we place or do not place on somebody’s service.”

Jones offered an example of a particularly “eye-opening” disparity report, which found that 24 percent of female Airmen and Guardians who had been pregnant while serving said they delayed reporting the pregnancy to superiors out of fear that it would negatively impact their professional opportunities.

“When I talk about, we don’t have time or talent to lose, that is fundamentally about a lack of trust in your leader’s ability to ensure you can serve and make decisions about how you serve,” Jones said.

“This is fundamentally about leadership,” Jones added. “And when we talk about ensuring people can serve to their full potential, you’ve got to understand that there are some unique challenges that folks have that are certainly out of their control, but we as leaders can create an environment that takes down barriers.”

By and large, the reports found that Air Force and Space Force leaders often think they have the tools needed to adequately address those issues—but the rank and file sometimes have a far different view. Nineteen percent of minority Airmen and Guardians said they didn’t trust their chain of command to address issues of “racism, bias, and unequal opportunities,” while 10 percent of female Airmen and Guardians said they didn’t trust leaders to appropriately handle “derogatory comments and behavior that are sexual in nature.”

“In some places there is a significant gap in how leaders understood how well things were going and how the rank and file understood how things were going,” Jones said. “And that’s important, because, again, you can’t lead folks if you don’t know what their challenges are. … And more importantly, if you don’t have a strong understanding of what is underlying some of these challenges, your approach is going to at worse be seen as tone deaf, or potentially be seen as not effective, or potentially counterproductive, right?”

In particular, Jones cited the rate of trust, or lack thereof, women of color in the Air and Space Forces have in their chain of command. Jones publicly pushed for the department to further study the data to understand the intersection of race and gender, and a subsequently released addendum found that Black women in particular had the least trust in leadership to address those issues, with Hispanic and Native American women also reporting relatively low trust.

Those findings, Jones said, are especially important given the findings of another recent study, conducted by the RAND Corporation, that looked into propensity for military service compared to the total eligible population and found women of color have an especially high rate.

Knowing that, Jones said, the Air Force needs to do a better job of addressing incidents like the deaths of Airman 1st Class Natasha Raye Aposhian and Army Spc. Vanessa Guillen, both women of color who were killed by fellow service members.

“If we know who’s got a higher propensity to serve, yet we are not seen as truly understanding just how significant those events were, then we’re going to do ourselves a disservice and not be seen as a place where people can serve to their full potential,” Jones said.

Undersecretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones speaks about the challenges today’s leaders face, from addressing disparities within the force to preparing for a future fight against a peer adversary such as China.

Biden to Nominate LaPlante to Succeed Lord as Pentagon Acquisition and Sustainment Chief

Nov. 30, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak and Abraham Mahshie

President Joe Biden will nominate William LaPlante as undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, moving to fill a crucial and long-vacant Pentagon leadership post, the White House announced Nov. 30. LaPlante, a defense management veteran, enjoys solid support on Capitol Hill and should be confirmed easily, although the Senate may not take up his nomination until early 2022.

LaPlante, who served as the Air Force’s acquisition, technology, and logistics chief from early 2014 until late 2015, was the architect of the B-21 bomber contract, the subsequent success of which has earned praise even from harsh Pentagon critics such as House Armed Services Chair Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.). If confirmed, LaPlante will succeed Ellen M. Lord, who held the top acquisition and sustainment job from early 2018 until early this year. In the nine months since, Stacy A. Cummings has filled the role in an acting capacity.

LaPlante is “a seasoned national security leader with nearly four decades of experience in acquisition, technology, sustainment and the defense industrial base,” the White House said. While serving as the Air Force service acquisition executive, LaPlante realized “nearly $6 billion in ‘should cost’ savings” in service programs.

When Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall held the post LaPlante is nominated for, and LaPlante was the Air Force acquisition executive, the two reportedly had an effective working relationship.

If confirmed, LaPlante will need to tackle the challenges of sustaining the F-35 program as it transitions from development to mature system; increase the size of the Navy; manage the modernization of the nation’s nuclear triad; and work with the defense industrial base to provide new capabilities and the capacity needed for a multipolar, great-power competition world. He will need to adapt new congressional authorities to accelerate defense procurement and sort out a byzantine and parochial defense software enterprise.

LaPlante is president and chief executive officer of Draper Laboratory, a nonprofit engineering innovation company. Prior to that, he was senior vice president and manager of national security programs for the Mitre Corp.

While LaPlante’s nomination is a big step in getting the Pentagon firing on all cylinders, there are still 13 positions requiring Senate confirmation for which there are still no nominees, including Secretary of the Navy. In addition, some 22 nominees are waiting for a confirmation hearing or vote. Another 22 have been confirmed. The most senior other vacancies are deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, which would be LaPlante’s No. 2, and deputy undersecretary for intelligence and security.

An engineer with a doctorate in mechanical engineering from Catholic University, LaPlante has served on a range of scientific boards. At Mitre, the federally funded research and development center, he spearheaded public-private partnerships to help develop advanced command and control, system of systems concepts, as well as new cyber and supply-chain approaches.

Among the many boards LaPlante served on are the National Defense Industrial Association, the U.S. Strategic Command Senior Advisory Group, and the Naval Research Advisory Committee.

2022 NDAA Hits More Hurdles in Senate as Continuing Resolution Deadline Looms

Nov. 29, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Back from a Thanksgiving week recess, the push to pass the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act hit another snag Nov. 29, as the Senate failed to vote to end debate on its version of the bill.

The 45-51 vote fell well short of the 60 votes needed, ensuring that the effort to invoke cloture failed and seemingly pushing the timeline for passing the annual defense policy legislation back. At the same time, Congress is staring down a Dec. 3 expiration date for its continuing resolution to keep the government funded. Under a CR, the Pentagon and other branches of government continue to operate with funding levels set from the previous year, delaying new programs and potentially costing money.

In remarks on the Senate floor just before the vote, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of trying to “jam [the bill] through the Senate without adequate consideration.”

Inhofe also said that Schumer mishandled the Senate schedule, resulting in a last-minute rush that precluded an “open and robust” debate on amendments.

Inhofe’s comments follow a Nov. 19 sequence of events in which an effort to have separate floor debates and votes on 19 key amendments was derailed when a number of Republican Senators raised objections in protest of their own amendments not being considered. Among those 19 amendments was legislation that would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq; prevent the Pentagon from taking adverse personnel actions against service members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine; and reduce topline spending. It is unclear if or when those amendments will now be considered.

Inhofe’s counterpart on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), argued that the process of putting together the NDAA has been “bipartisan” and included plenty of consideration of amendments, pointing to more than 100 amendments adopted in committee and 57 included in a “manager’s packet” as part of the bill considered on the main floor of the Senate.

“This is an unusual departure from what is typically the custom of this body, particularly when we’re beginning with a bill that has so much bipartisan support,” Reed said of the latest vote against cloture.

As multiple Senators noted, Congress has passed an NDAA every year for six decades now. That process can sometimes take until the very end of the year, but even by recent standards, the 2022 bill is behind. Even after the Senate does pass its version of the NDAA, the House and Senate will have to undergo the conference process, which is now likely to have its latest start since the 2013 bill.

Despite this, both Inhofe and Reed said they are confident the NDAA will eventually pass.

“We will have to do the NDAA. It will be done. I think Senator Inhofe is as committed to that as I am,” Reed said. “And we will have to use the procedures that are appropriate to get it done.”

Of the 57 amendments adopted in the manager’s package and awaiting passage, one from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) calls for the Air Force to present to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees “a strategy for the Department of the Air Force for the acquisition of combat rescue aircraft and equipment.”

The Air Force’s combat rescue fleet is currently in the midst of a transition, as the HH-60W Jolly Green II is slated to replace the HH-60G Pave Hawk over time. The HH-60W, however, has faced potential delays due to protests of a roughly $1 billion contract for upgrades, and while the helicopter has completed developmental testing, it is still undergoing operational tests.

Another amendment, offered by Reed and Inhofe, would give the Space Force the authority to vary the number of officers considered for promotion to major general until the end of 2022. The Space Force’s current corps of general officers is light on two-stars—just three are currently in the service, compared to 10 brigadier generals and six lieutenant generals.

USAF Orders 15 Silent Arrow Cargo Delivery Drones for Tactical, Humanitarian Roles

Nov. 29, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

The company Silent Arrow will scale down its 1-ton cargo delivery drone to fulfill an order by the Air Force for 15 of the smaller vehicles, which will be redesigned under the new name Silent Arrow Precision Guided Bundle, or SA-PGB, the company announced Nov. 29.

The smaller vehicle will be based on Silent Arrow’s GD-2000—short for Glider, Disposable, 2,000 pounds—which is already “being delivered and operated to directly serve heavy-payload, autonomous cargo resupply needs throughout the world,” according to a Nov. 29 news release.

The Air Force awarded the company a Small Business Innovation Research Phase 2 contract on Nov. 12 for the work. The aim is for a vehicle that can be deployed at high altitudes and air speeds.

“The SA-PGB is specifically designed for side door and multi-unit (swarm) ramp deployment, compatible with a much-expanded fleet of delivery aircraft ranging from the civilian Cessna Caravan to the military C-17,” the company said. The smaller glider will be for “humanitarian and tactical markets,” it added.

The SA-PGB will be 39 inches long and a maximum weight of 500 pounds with a carrying capacity of 350 pounds. The company cited its existing spring-deployed wing design and 40-mile standoff distance in the release. Design and engineering will take place at Silent Arrow’s Irvine, Calif., headquarters with testing at the Pendleton UAS Test Range in Pendleton, Ore.

“We look forward to an exciting flight test program in 2022 and quickly getting this new capability into the hands of the warfighter and disaster relief organizations alike,” said Silent Arrow’s founder and CEO Chip Yates in the release.

How the Space Force Is Fast-Tracking New Tech to Clean Up Orbital Debris

Nov. 29, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

Small businesses teaming up with nonprofit research institutions have a head start at proposing concepts for mitigating orbital debris and other aspects of on-orbit servicing, assembly, and manufacturing.

A series of webinars in December and January address the broad technical tracks in the Space Force’s Orbital Prime series of contract solicitations leading up to the first deadline Feb. 3 for a Small Business Technology Transfer solicitation. STTR contracts require the participation of a nonprofit institution.

Orbital Prime is the first major effort of Space Prime, which is a part of SpaceWERX that will work on both funding and policy issues surrounding certain market sectors. SpaceWERX describes itself as both the Space Force’s innovation arm and as part of the Air Force’s multifaceted AFWERX innovation hub.

SpaceWERX director Lt. Col. Walter McMillan said in the Nov. 17 announcement of Orbital Prime that a separate Small Business Innovation Research solicitation would also be announced. The next Broad Agency Announcement solicitation for SBIR contracts, which doesn’t require nonprofit participation, is listed as Dec. 1-Feb. 10.

The Space Force doesn’t want to go into the business of on-orbit servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, known as OSAM—of which debris removal is a type—by creating a new program of record but instead hopes to “commercialize an entire mission area,” McMillan said in the announcement of Orbital Prime.

At the same time, the selection of the on-orbit activities is a chance “to really get after a senior leader priority,” McMillan said. He cited past remarks by Space Force Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. David D. Thompson and Space Force Maj. Gen. DeAnna M. Burt of U.S. Space Command.

McMillan said SpaceWERX consulted fellow government entities, academic institutions, startups, small businesses, and major contractors about research areas that could make a significant impact.

“For our initial effort, we’re going to be laser-focused on doing an on-orbit demonstration of active debris removal within the next two years,” McMillan said. “It’s a very aggressive schedule, I know. But we’re excited to really move the needle within one specific mission area.”

SpaceWERX defined three technical tracks on which it would like teams to propose ideas:

On-orbit object approach: “Approach and rendezvous with the Resident Space Object (RSO), to include space debris, etc., using approach and Rendezvous Proximity Operations (RPO) algorithms.
On-orbit object acquisition: “Capture and Control the orbital object and/or perform Rendezvous Proximity Operations Docking (RPOD).
On-orbit object service: “Remediate the RSO by repairing, repositioning, refueling, deorbiting, reusing, or recycling, etc.”

McMillan said Orbital Prime is SpaceWERX’s first major effort. But in the meantime, the organization, which was created in December 2020, has partnered with the Air Force Research Laboratory on the 2021 Hyperspace Challenge in which 13 small businesses and 11 university teams were selected to compete for cash prizes by working on six problems ranging from rapid initial orbit determination to rocket cargo for global logistics. The 2021 finalists of the Hyperspace Challenge’s pitch competition will be announced on Dec. 2, according to the competition website.

Meanwhile, officials globally have said orbital debris will be a comparatively greater risk in the next several years after a Russian test of an anti-satellite weapon resulted in the creation of an estimated 1,500 new pieces of debris large enough for the Space Force to track.

DOD Announces Force Posture Changes in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, but Future of Spangdahlem AB Still Unclear

Nov. 29, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The Pentagon completed its Global Posture Review (GPR), which it said will include a framework for “coherent” force posture decisions, including key movements in the Indo-Pacific region and Europe.

In a Nov. 29 press briefing, Mara Karlin, who is performing the duties of deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said the Indo-Pacific will be the Defense Department’s priority theater with more rotations, investments, and exercises, while the U.S. will enhance its “combat credible deterrent” to Russia in Europe.

DOD has held close to the vest its decision-making regarding the overdue force posture review, but it confirmed that President Joe Biden’s decision to rescind former President Donald Trump’s troop cap in Germany and share nuclear submarine technology with Australia are part of larger strategic shifts that will eventually lead to troop reductions in other regions.

Biden in February reversed a Trump decision to withdraw 12,500 troops from Germany after that country failed to meet a NATO goal of spending 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, hitting pause on the previous administration’s plan to pull USAF F-16s from Spangdahlem Air Base and move them to Aviano Air Base in Italy. The F-16 squadron is the base’s only flying unit and U.S. Air Forces in Europe’s only Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses fighter squadron. In July 2020, then-Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said the U.S. also was cancelling plans to move tankers and special operations forces to Spangdahelm.

The Spangdahlem moves did not come up in a background briefing with reporters or an on-the-record discussion in the Pentagon briefing room Nov. 29, and the U.S. Air Force could not confirm whether the review permanently reversed those moves.

However, the force posture review did keep 500 troops who are part of a U.S. Army Multi-Domain Task Force and Theater Fires Command in Wiesbaden, Germany, officials said. Also, seven military sites in Germany and Belgium previously slated for return to host country will remain in DOD hands.

Additional Russian deterrence measures that could involve more rotational troops are still being negotiated, the official said. Poland currently has 5,500 U.S. troops, while Baltic and Black Sea NATO allies close to Russia have requested additional rotations and more troop presence.

One official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified posture review said the new administration in January “sought to re-establish a strategy-informed, coherent posture decision-making process and restore healthy civil-military relations in the department.” The official later explained that meant strengthening civilian oversight of posture decisions.

“Many of the Global Posture Review outcomes remain classified for operational security reasons and to preserve the confidentiality of our consultations with allies and partners,” Karlin said. “Consistent with the Secretary’s focus on China as our pacing challenge, the priority region for the Global Posture Review was the Indo-Pacific. The Global Posture Review directs additional cooperation with allies and partners across the region to advance initiatives that contribute to regional stability and deter potential military aggression from China.”

The Defense Department has previously expressed a desire to expand basing and access across the Indo-Pacific, including for the Air Force’s agile combat employment concept of operations, which distributes forces to smaller, more austere operating locations and decreases reliance on large, traditional air bases. Military construction projects will also increase in the region, and there will be new fighter and bomber rotational deployments to Australia, Karlin said.

Some of the initiatives had already been announced, with $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2021 funding approved for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative that would benefit Guam and an announcement that Australia would become part of an agreement with the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, to share nuclear submarine and other defense technology.

In September, Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton said more air rotations would be coming.

“I do have an aspiration to make sure that we can increase the numbers of troops. Through the rotations, the air capability will be enhanced, our maritime capability enhanced, and certainly the force posture enhanced,” Dutton said during a State Department briefing alongside Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III. “And if that includes basing and includes the storage of different ordnances, I think that is in Australia’s best interest.”

Australian Ambassador to the U.S. Arthur Sinodinos told reporters at a November Defense Writers Group discussion that enhanced air cooperation could mean joint investment, citing the example of the Joint Strike Fighter program and U.S.-Australia partnership on hypersonics research.

Karlin said the U.S. “continues to remain concerned” about North Korea’s “problematic and irresponsible behavior,” noting Austin is heading to South Korea on Nov. 30 where he will discuss “changes to our extended deterrence” in the region. She said the review made the U.S. Army rotational attack helicopter squadron and artillery division headquarters in South Korea permanent.

The official emphasized that the GPR involved interagency discussion and consultation with NATO allies, Australia, South Korea, and a dozen Middle East and African partners.

Excluded from the force posture review were decisions regarding Afghanistan and functional areas, including nuclear, space, and cyber. The rationale for the exclusions were that the Afghanistan withdrawal was a National Security Council-led process and that the functional areas of high importance to national security should be treated separately.

The official said that rather than immediate troop movements in the Middle East, Austin ordered a review of the posture in the region. To deter Iran and to provide protection from Iran’s proxies in Yemen and elsewhere, Patriot missile defense systems will remain in place, and maritime assets will be repositioned.

In Africa, no specifics were revealed other than a recommendation to continue fighting violent extremist organizations. Terrorist groups have expanded in the sub-Saharan region known as the Sahel, where France has led counterterrorism efforts with American air support since 2014. French President Emmanuel Macron, facing mounting public pressure, promised to withdraw his 5,000 troops. After a joint meeting in October, President Biden committed to provide additional assets to Macron, but the White House and DOD have not provided further details.

In December 2020, then-President Trump ordered all U.S. forces out of Somalia, hindering training efforts with local forces fighting the terrorist group al-Shabab. Despite U.S. Africa Command’s complicated maneuvers to fly troops into Somalia for training missions, no announcement was made regarding the repositioning of forces or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in the country.

In Central and South America and the Caribbean, the GPR recommended continuing the humanitarian and disaster relief mission and fighting drug trafficking, but no mention was made of force movements.

Air Force is 120 Airplanes Smaller Since 2020, But Fighters and Bombers Stay About Level

Nov. 24, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force trimmed 120 airplanes from its fleet in fiscal 2021, gaining the most aircraft among its F-35 fighter squadrons and giving up the most from its B-1 bomber units, according to data provided by the Air Force. With puts and takes, the Air Force’s kinetic shooter fleet, not including special operations, stayed about the same, at 2,301 aircraft.

The F-35 fleet gained 61 aircraft in 2021, with the most—33 airplanes—filling out squadrons at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, in Pacific Air Forces, which now has 43 jets. Another 13 bolstered Air Education and Training Command’s training squadrons, giving it 115 in total. Air Combat Command picked up six F-35s, for a total of 122, and the Air National Guard gained nine, for a total of 20. Air Force Materiel Command has two for test. The Air Force had 302 F-35s as of Sep. 30., the end of the fiscal year. The F-35 fleet is now second only to the F-16 fleet in size.

Global Strike Command gave up the 17 B-1B aircraft the Air Force asked Congress to let it retire last year, leaving it with a force of 45 of the bombers, which remain distributed between Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, and Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The other two bomber fleets—the B-2A and B-52H—remained at 20 and 76 airplanes, respectively. Eighteen B-52s are in the Air Force Reserve Command and two “belong” to Air Force Materiel Command, for testing, although former Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Timothy M. Ray predicted as many as 12 may switch from AFGSC to AFMC to support testing of a variety of new weapons, particularly hypersonic missiles.

The F-22 fleet remained static at 185 aircraft, but eight airplanes apparently transferred from Air Combat Command to Pacific Air Forces.

While ACC gained two brand-new F-15EX aircraft, U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the Air National Guard each gave up an F-15C. Air Combat Command has just 23 F-15C/Ds, while the ANG has 136, PACAF owns 53 and USAFE 20, with AFMC having five for test, for a total of 237 F-15C/D.

The F-15E fleet of 218 aircraft are mostly in ACC, with 158; while USAFE has 55 and AFMC has five for test.

The F-16C/D fleet of 937 aircraft—down just one from 2020—is mostly in the Air National Guard, which has 332 of the jets. The next largest operator is ACC, with 168, followed by PACAF, with 135 and AETC, with 134. USAFE has 78 F-16C/D while AFMC, which uses them as chase planes as well as for test purposes, has 36.

The A-10C fleet, which the Air Force says it will not reduce further until around 2030, is at 281 aircraft; unchanged from 2020. The bulk of those, 115, are in ACC, while the ANG has 85, Air Force Reserve Command has 55, and PACAF has 24. The remaining two are with AFMC for test purposes.

The MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft fleet increased by 33 airframes to 323. AETC gained 24 Reapers for training.

Air Combat Command gained one AT-6 light attack aircraft for development of tactics and partnership concepts with coalition nations.