Ukraine Requests New Defense Assistance Amid Increased Tensions With Russia

Nov. 19, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Ukrainian Minister of Defense Oleksii Reznikov said Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III promised his “unwavering” support to deter Russian aggression as border tension builds. Reznikov also confirmed Nov. 19 that Ukraine requested additional U.S. foreign military sales for its air and naval defenses.

“We have to defend our air and sea,” the defense minister said at a press conference at the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, D.C.

Reznikov said Russia is using hybrid warfare, including helping Belarus push migrants across the European border, to destabilize the region and distract Eastern European NATO members Lithuania and Poland. Russia also holds Ukraine’s energy security hostage with the recently completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will allow Russia to circumvent Ukraine and cut off gas access, if it chooses.

The new Ukrainian Defense Minister met with Austin for the first time at the Pentagon Nov. 18 during yet another tense period in Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia. This time, Russia’s unexplained actions could spell imminent invasion, prompting Reznikov’s last-minute trip to Washington just a month after Austin visited Kyiv. It is estimated that Russia has amassed up to 90,000 troops on Ukraine’s eastern border near the Ukrainian capital.

“We have a well-developed and a powerful land force. The need is an air defense and missile defense,” Reznikov said.

The defense minister said the U.S. Congress and Defense Department have voiced their backing of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and that a DOD team will travel to Ukraine to assess the country’s needs.

“I got a very strong position from Secretary Austin that they will be shoulder and shoulder with us, Ukraine,” Reznikov said in response to a question from Air Force Magazine.

The defense minister, nonetheless, acknowledged that arms sales require State Department and congressional approval.

“Not only Secretary Austin would be deciding—it’s also a political decision,” he added.

A State Department spokesperson declined to confirm to Air Force Magazine on Nov. 19 that such a letter of intent had been received from Ukraine but provided a list of the $2.5 billion in training and equipment assistance provided to Ukraine since 2014.

The assistance includes tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite imagery and analysis support, counter-battery radars, and night vision devices and thermal scopes, which are used by front-line troops defending against Russian-backed separatists and elite Russian sniper units.

At the Pentagon on Nov. 18, Austin voiced his support to Ukraine, echoing a message President Joe Biden conveyed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during an August visit to Washington.

“Our support for Ukraine’s self-defense, sovereignty, and territorial integrity is unwavering,” Austin said. “We are monitoring closely recent Russian military movements near your borders, and we’ve made clear our concerns about Russia’s destabilizing activities and our desire for more transparency.”

A History of Support

Reznikov said in his comments at the Ukrainian Embassy that more than $200 million in annual assistance from the United States has followed the same pattern: Russian aggression matched by U.S. capabilities.

First, he said Russia posed a land threat with its tanks on the southeastern border in the Donbas region, where a low-intensity conflict continues with Russian-backed separatists. The U.S. response was to provide Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Russia then intercepted sensitive military communications, and the U.S. provided high-tech communications equipment. In 2020, Russia’s rapidly expanding Black Sea navy fleet began incursions into Ukrainian territorial waters, and the United States provided Mark VI and Island-class patrol boats.

Now, Russia is positioning attack helicopters and fighter jets near the border to complement its robust anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems in place in occupied Crimea. That’s why the U.S. team will travel to Ukraine to assess its defense needs.

The defense minister declined to describe the specific foreign military sales requests made but confirmed that a letter had been conveyed to the State Department.

Reznikov also said a frank discussion with Austin at the Pentagon confirmed intelligence that Russia was building up troops for exercises and leaving behind military hardware and weaponry for future use.

The defense minister also said he was confident the U.S. would stand with Ukraine to deter a Russian invasion.

“The main idea is that to stop aggression, we need to show clearly that the cost will be too high,” he said, noting that he previously spent two years as a negotiator with Russia and he knows that members of the Russian government are pragmatic.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley spoke to his own Ukrainian counterpart, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Lt. Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, after the Pentagon meeting Nov. 18.

“We’re going to ensure this communication on a regular basis,” Reznikov said of that meeting.

Biden has long pressed Ukraine to crack down on corruption and increase transparency in its institutions. The defense minister took pains to assure the U.S. that Ukraine has made strides in reforming its defense apparatus and coordination between the president, parliament, and Ministry of Defense.

“My personal task is to ensure the implementation of comprehensive reforms for the development of the armed forces,” Reznikov said, citing reforms in personnel management, acquisitions, and social issues, including housing and compensation of service members.

Reznikov deflected a question about NATO entry, saying path to entry was a political decision that depended on all 30 members of the alliance and that such a decision was not on the NATO agenda.

During his August visit to Washington, Zelensky told Biden that Russia’s aggression was an urgent threat. Ukraine and the U.S. signed a defense strategic framework, but at a Mount Vernon event Aug. 31, Zelensky told Air Force Magazine the framework was too vague.

“This is just the direction, the framework,” he added. “I need more substance.”

Reznikov said Nov. 19: “My task today is to provide substance to this agreement and to implement its provisions.”

Retire the MQ-9 by 2035? Not So Fast, Defense Analysts Argue

Nov. 19, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force needs to reconsider its plans to retire the MQ-9 Reaper by 2035, given the drone’s capabilities and potential uses when measured against financial constraints and mission demands, defense analysts from four different think tanks argued Nov. 19.

Experts from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, RAND Corp., the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Hudson Institute, speaking at a virtual event, all agreed that the MQ-9’s useful life is far from over, even as the Air Force proceeds with modernization plans for continued divestment in the platform.

“From a cost perspective, for me, this is kind of a slam dunk,” said Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at CSIS. “If you want to look to retire platforms in the Air Force inventory, I can give you a list of things you ought to start looking at, and [the MQ-9] is not on that list.”

The Air Force has announced some upgrades for the MQ-9 in the coming years. But ultimately, the plan is still to start retiring the fleet, which is the largest fleet of remotely piloted aircraft in the USAF’s inventory, starting in 2030 and finishing by 2035.

The reasons for that, argued retired Maj. Gen. Lawrence A. Stutzriem, director of research at AFA’s Mitchell Institute, are two competing factors—the Air Force’s need for modernization and the limits of the budget.

Right now, the service is pursuing or procuring new fighters, bombers, tankers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, in addition to its drone fleets. All of those efforts will cost billions, but the Air Force’s budget continues to lag behind the other services, and the Pentagon’s overall budget is not expected to grow significantly in the coming years.

With limited funds and numerous priorities, Air Force leaders have adopted a strategy of asking to retire older “legacy” platforms to free up money for newer programs. The MQ-9 has been caught up in that push, Stutzriem said, which is a mistake.

“Yes, retiring the Reaper frees up some money,” said Stutzriem, who wrote a policy paper on the MQ-9 for the Mitchell Institute. “But from a cost per effect … what you can do with this for the lowest cost per flying hour is extraordinary.”

The argument for moving on from the MQ-9, observers have noted, is its lack of survivability in contested environments. Such a deficiency seemingly puts it at odds with the Air Force’s need to modernize to keep pace with China.

But such a mindset ignores current realities, both Harrison and Stutzriem said—demand for the MQ-9’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities across combatant commands remains strong.

“There is an insatiable demand for ISR right now,” Harrison said. “And that is only going to continue to increase in the future. So the Air Force has actually got to be asking itself, how is it going to meet that demand or even try to meet some fraction of that demand? If you’re in a budget-constrained environment, you’ve got to be looking at cost-effective ways of meeting that demand out into the future. We’re talking steady state, peacetime demand that is a driver of this right now. It’s not just in CENTCOM, it’s in INDOPACOM. It’s in SOUTHCOM. It’s in AFRICOM. It’s all over.”

And even beyond the current demand for ISR in environments where the Reaper can perform its duties, the MQ-9 could take on a broad range of new missions with relatively affordable investments and upgrades, Stutzriem argued, including:

Wide area surveillance in regions of strategic competition.
Air and missile defense.
Maritime and littoral operations.
Communications relays.
Arctic domain awareness.
Cruise missile defense of the homeland.
Defense support of civil authorities.

In particular, the MQ-9 has more to offer than some think in a potential conflict with China, said Bryan Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute. While it won’t be flying over “downtown Beijing,” as Stutzriem noted, it can operate in the Indo-Pacific region to monitor and warn of incoming threats, going places where the U.S. may be reluctant to send manned platforms such as the Air Force’s E-3 AWACS or the Navy’s E-2 Hawkeye.

“The MQ-9 can provide you that passive surveillance platform to give you a network that provides the [airborne early warning] capability we need in that long gap that’s going to emerge between the Chinese coast and the places where E-3s and E-2s can operate,” Clark said. “That airborne early warning capability could be sufficient to give you the warning you need of an incoming missile attack or an incoming bomber attack.”

The key to enabling these new uses is innovation, Stutzriem said, citing “that principle of strategies that you can use old things, current things, in powerfully new ways if you’re creative about it.” And the best way to go about finding creative solutions, argued Caitlin Lee, associate director of the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center at RAND, is to trust the Airmen currently flying the Reaper to adapt.

“They’re in the best position to do this. They’re first movers, early adopters, and they are an essential source of bottom-up innovation in the service,” Lee said. “So the Air Force leadership needs to do what’s necessary here, which is support continuing to produce and fly the Reaper, and also support the people who fly these airframes every day in combat, and who are just absolutely critical for any kind of unmanned innovation going forward.”

Here’s What CSAF Thinks You Should Be Reading, Listening To

Nov. 19, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. added two new books, a podcast, and a documentary to his leadership library aimed at encouraging Airmen to expand their thinking, avoid “hindsight bias,” learn about their heritage, and find ways to remove potential barriers to service and/or promotion.

This is what he has to say about each selection:

Think Again, Adam Grant

“When was the last time you changed your mind? In Think Again, Dr. Adam Grant offers prescriptions for our Airmen to ‘rethink’ by seeking out information that goes against our entrenched or bureaucratic views. … Individual and collective rethinking should be done on a recurring basis to maintain our competitive advantage against our pacing challenge.”

The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order, Rush Doshi

“To inform our rethinking, Dr. Rush Doshi provides a masterclass on rethinking our blind spots regarding China’s strategic ambitions, … [by unpacking] the complex tapestry of China’s grand strategy.”

Knew It All Along, Katy Milkman’s Choiceology Podcast

“One rethinking pitfall, ‘hindsight bias,’ clouds how we view the past in the retrospect of the present,” writes Brown in a letter to Airmen. This podcast “shows us how to avoid selectively choosing details to make sense of the past.”

Red Tail Angels is a three part documentary series on the formation, early years, contributions and legacy of the famed Tuskegee Airmen. Featuring interviews with historians, pilots, and many of the Tuskegee Airmen themselves. Produced by Air Force Television Pentagon (SAF/PAI). Episode One premiered on Veterans Day. Source: USAF

Red Tail Angels—The Story of The Tuskegee Airmen, Air Force Public Affairs

“Nearly 75 years ago, the Tuskegee Airmen pioneered a new paradigm of diversity within military aviation. Today, Action Order A challenges us to rethink the standards of our pilot selection process to identify and remove potential barriers,” Brown said.

Parsons Gets to Work on New Air Base Defense Plan for Europe, Africa

Nov. 18, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

An initial team of Parsons employees arrived at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, on Nov. 15, and its members are now working daily with U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa, designing a plan to better defend U.S. air bases in the European and African theaters.

The move comes about three months after Parsons received a 10-year, nearly $1 billion indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity Air Base Air Defense contract to “design, mature, procure, integrate, operate, and maintain Air Base Air Defense (ABAD) systems” across USAFE-AFAFRICA, according to a company release.

The government wants a mix of sensors and kinetic and nonkinetic systems that can find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess a range of threats, from small unmanned systems to hypersonic missiles.

Shaun McGrath, Parsons’ ABAD program manager, told Air Force Magazine the team will initially focus on establishing the requirements necessary to carry out the first phase of the contract.

In Phase 1, Parsons will help establish the Ramstein Air Defense Systems Integration Lab, or RADSIL, at Ramstein. The lab will be operated by Airmen and serve as the command and control center for air base defense operations in the European and African theaters.

The goal is to build an integrated system of systems that uses both commercial and government off-the-shelf software and hardware to help the service digest mass amounts of data that can be replicated at other locations and potentially on an expeditionary basis. That’s a key factor as the Air Force moves toward a more distributed concept of operations, known as agile combat employment.

“It’s much like me showing up in a location, trying to figure out how we’re going to do a bare base stand up. This is the same thing,” McGrath said. “It’s how do you get everybody to work together? How do you figure out what the actual requirements are? And, how do you start to phase that in so we can actually, successfully get into Phase 1.”

Rapidly Evolving Threat

Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of USAFE-AFAFRICA, told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September that threats—especially those from Russia—were evolving so rapidly, the Air Force needed a better way to defend its larger bases as well as the more austere locations it will be operating.

“We had to accept the fact that we probably weren’t in the position we wanted to be,” Harrigian said. So, in February, the command launched an initial demonstration to try to determine what sensors were already available and then try to find a way to fuse that data “into a picture that then was supported by decision-making tools to minimize the number of people required to do this mission set. That’s kind of our goal. We recognize that you can’t have a whole bunch of people doing this or it will never get resourced,” Harrigian told reporters at the conference.

McGrath said Parsons and its industry partners are building upon and then operationalizing USAFE’s original efforts.

Harrigian said one of the big challenges will be finding cross-domain solutions capable of crossing various classification levels and then figuring out how to filter that through a decision-making algorithm that uses emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

“So that’s where we’re starting with them,” Harrigian said, referring to the Parsons team. “And, clearly, as we go through the budgetary side of it, this is what we’re communicating back up to the Air Force to figure out, ‘OK, how do we turn that big idea, the [concept of operations], into a level of funding that is scalable and tailorable for the broader Air Force. There’s still some decisions to be made there, and I don’t want to get in front of everybody, but I think the conversation is going in the direction that I expected it to, which is some of this we’re gonna have to figure out.”

Although Ramstein will remain the Air Base Air Defense hub, Harrigian said Aviano Air Base, Italy, is “the next place I’d like to go.” However, as of September, agreements with the host country were still being worked out.

“I am in the camp of, ‘Let’s go faster on this,’ because I think it’s inside of the price point that should make it affordable for us to expand this at a speed that gets after what [Chief of Staff] Gen. [Charles Q.] Brown is pushing to accelerate change,” Harrigian said.

DOD Inspector General Finds Pentagon Leaders Acted Appropriately on Jan. 6

Nov. 18, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Officials within the Defense Department acted appropriately and reasonably in reacting to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, a DOD inspector general’s report found, determining that they “did not delay or obstruct” a response to the U.S. Capitol Police’s request for assistance.

The Nov. 18 report, however, does include a dozen recommendations for the Pentagon to consider to better its defense support of civil authorities, ranging from clarifying chain of command issues to better communication equipment to more planning and training.

The inspector general’s office interviewed 44 witnesses as part of its probe, including then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher C. Miller, then-Secretary of the Army Ryan C. McCarthy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. James C. McConville, and head of the National Guard Bureau Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson.

The report was ordered Jan. 15 in the wake of the insurrection, which saw hundreds of people breach the U.S. Capitol attempting to disrupt the certification of Electoral College results and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The riot, which resulted in U.S. Capitol Police officers being overwhelmed and beaten and one protestor being shot, sparked outrage—and questions as to why it seemed to take so long for the National Guard to deploy and restore order.

In March, Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, testified that the Defense Department took more than three hours to approve a request for the D.C. Guard to deploy to the Capitol.

The inspector general’s report, however, states that when Walker made the request, he “could not clearly articulate to his staff what the [Capitol Police] specifically needed,” leading to McCarthy heading to the Metropolitan Police Department to coordinate with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser directly.

Based on witness testimony, the IG concluded that “a chaotic and confusing situation” unfolded that affected the key conference call during which the U.S. Capitol Police Department requested DOD assistance, resulting in subsequent confusion that took time to clear up.

On top of that, the D.C. National Guard “is not an emergency response organization,” and military leaders are trained to plan out operations with key details instead of simply sending troops “into an uncertain situation as they become available,” the report states.

Those conclusions led to the IG’s finding that Pentagon leaders’ actions Jan. 6 were “appropriate, supported by requirements, [and] consistent with the DOD’s roles and responsibilities.”

Still, the inspector general recommended that the DOD review and update its Defense Support of Civil Authorities policy and guidance concerning U.S. Northern Command’s role in providing support to civilian authorities in and around the D.C. region, as well as command and control of the D.C. National Guard, including an operational commander for Defense Support for Civil Authorities (DSCA) matters. The IG also recommended integrating DOD’s command and control with civilian authorities.

In addition to command and control, the department can plan and train better for such situations, the report concluded, from codifying the process for other agencies to request DOD for DSCA issues, to forming contingency plans for DSCA situations, to conducting training for how to submit requests for support.

The D.C. National Guard should also refine its process for selecting and certifying individuals to serve on its Quick Response Force, noting that “members assigned to the QRF were not sufficiently trained to conduct high-intensity civil disturbance operations such as the situation presented on Jan. 6, 2021.”

Finally, D.C. National Guard personnel should be issued and trained on proper communications equipment, the report states, noting that much of the communication that occurred Jan. 6 happened over personal cell phones.

Will Airmen, Guardians Be Separated for Refusing Vaccine? ‘Pretty Straightforward,’ Kendall Says

Nov. 18, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Will Airmen and Guardians who continue to refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and don’t get an exemption from the rule be separated?

“It’s actually a pretty straightforward question,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Nov. 18, all but outright stating that vaccine refusers will be booted from service.

Kendall, addressing the question during a virtual town hall on Facebook, did not explicitly say that every single person who refuses the vaccine without an exemption will be separated. But he made it clear that DOD leadership doesn’t see how those who refuse the vaccine can continue to serve.

“The bottom line is that willfully disobeying a lawful order is incompatible with military service. And to get a vaccination is a lawful order,” said Kendall. “The Secretary of Defense put that order out. We’re implementing it in the Air Force. There isn’t any question about it being a lawful order. We have to do a lot of things to take care of the health of the force, and people have been required to get vaccinations for a number of things.”

The Department of the Air Force has yet to publicly lay out a standardized process for dealing with those who refuse the shot—a spokesperson told Air Force Magazine on Nov. 3 that disciplinary action for disobeying a lawful order would be taken in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the commander level using an escalatory approach.

Since then, the Navy and the Marine Corps have made it clear—Sailors and Marines who refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine will get the boot. Sailors have five days to start the vaccination process if their request for an exemption is denied, and Marines will start the separation process as soon as they are determined to have outright refused the vaccine.

As of Nov. 16, 1,067 Airmen and Guardians have formally refused the vaccine, while 4,817 have religious accommodation requests pending, 1,617 have received some form of exemption, and 2,184 are simply listed as having not started the vaccination process. All told, 97.3 percent of the Active-duty force is at least partially vaccinated.

Air Force policy requires the service to rule on religious exemption requests within 30 business days, a deadline the service may struggle to meet given the crush of waiver-seekers. Yet even if someone does receive an exemption, Kendall questioned whether the unvaccinated would be able to serve in the same way as those who do get the shot.

“There’s a possibility of getting an administrative or medical exemption. There’s a possibility of applying and getting a religious accommodation and getting proof of that. But then there’s a question of even if you do get that, is it still compatible with service, is it still possible for you to deploy [without] it, for example?” Kendall said.

And for those who don’t get an exemption and still refuse, “there are going to be consequences for that,” Kendall said. “Ultimately it is incompatible with military service to disobey lawful orders. Every one of us, whether you’re an officer or enlisted person, takes an oath that says, ‘I will follow the lawful orders of those appointed over me.’ That’s universal, and so that I think that should give you the answer to the question.”

Australia-US Alliance to Include Enhanced Air and Space Cooperation

Nov. 18, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Australia is declaring its allegiance to the “global rules-based order,” the U.S. Defense Department’s code for keeping China in check, with a host of joint military capability development plans that go beyond the recent high-profile sharing of nuclear submarine technology.

“Australia’s role has increased in prominence because of what’s happening in the region,” Australian ambassador in Washington, D.C., Arthur Sinodinos said at a meeting of the Defense Writers Group on Nov. 16.

“China has risen, and the center of gravity of the global economy, the global geopolitics, if you like, has shifted to the Indo-Pacific,” he added. “That’s raised real challenges. Our strategic circumstances have changed.”

On the 70th anniversary of the ANZUS Security Treaty between the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, Australia plans to invest heavily in defense, with close to $200 billion over 10 years. As part of the new trilateral security agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., known as AUKUS, the Pacific ally also plans to jointly develop a range of new military capabilities with the United States to fulfill, in part, a strategic aim to develop 60 critical technologies.

“This is not just about submarines,” the ambassador underscored.

“My prime minister puts particular focus on the non-submarine aspects of AUKUS,” he said, citing artificial intelligence, machine learning, cyber warfare, quantum computing, and separate undersea warfare capabilities. “It’s all very important capabilities for Australia to develop high-level capacities in, and that we cannot do on our own.”

Sinodinos said China’s telecommunications interference and economic aggression were a motivation behind Australia’s renewed look at its own national security. Likewise, Australia’s national security interests align with strengthening the U.S. military partnership.

“We bring a lot to the table, but we benefit enormously,” he said.

In part, Australia intends to develop its own indigenous military capabilities.

“What we’re trying to do with sovereign capabilities is that … in the context of a conflict, we have access on-shore to, for example, precision-guided munitions that might otherwise be in short supply,” he said. “By having that capability, we’re actually stronger allies and partners.”

Air and Space Cooperation

In 2020, Australia and the U.S. agreed to jointly work on a new air-breathing hypersonic attack cruise missile in the DOD program Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment (SCIFiRE).

Sinodinos said the program continues on pace.

“On hypersonics, we have been doing further work with the U.S. about the potential of these developments,” the ambassador said without elaborating.

Sinodinos also elaborated on what he meant by “enhanced air cooperation” with the United States.

“The Joint Strike Fighter, for example, is an example of a technology where we got in on the ground floor with the U.S. to help develop,” he said of the nine-country, jointly funded program that led to the development of the F-35. “That’s a philosophy we’re bringing to some of the other capabilities.”

Australia’s early involvement in the program helped the country to better understand the technology and the supply chains required, he said.

“When we talk about enhanced air cooperation, it’s also about that technological aspect,” he said.

In the area of space cooperation, Sinodinos, who as a minister of industry helped establish the Australian Space Agency, said Australia sought to improve space situational awareness and strengthen its launch capabilities.

“Space is an area where we think we can bring strengths to the table,” he said, noting a desire to establish launch capabilities in South Australia. Sinodinos said Australia was in the process of negotiating a technology safeguard agreement for the exchange of information and technology with NASA around space launch.

Sinodinos also noted that Australia set up a working group on force posture initiatives in 2020 and currently hosts 2,500 U.S. Marines in the northern city of Darwin.

“We’ve also entered into a sort of a classified agreement on strategic intent on capabilities,” he said, possibly referencing the Pentagon’s ongoing force structure review. “Once that paper is out, things will be a lot clearer publicly, and we’ll be able to speak about this more publicly as well.”

Listen to a USAF Astronaut’s Emergency Call With NASA After Russian ASAT Test

Nov. 18, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

Air Force Col. Raja Chari is the astronaut onboard the International Space Station heard receiving emergency instructions from the Johnson Space Center after Russia’s Nov. 15 anti-satellite weapon test, NASA confirmed to Air Force Magazine.

Commander of the Crew-3 mission—the third under SpaceX’s contract to transport astronauts in its Crew Dragon capsules—Chari is a test pilot and member of NASA’s “Artemis Team” of astronauts picked to prepare for moon missions.

“Heads-up, 15 minutes to the next debris field pass,” a voice from the space center says in the audio clip, which had been played more than 42,000 times as of Nov. 18.

“Is the conjunction still a yellow risk, or has it changed?” Chari replies.

“It’s an equivalent yellow for the next debris pass,” says the official in Houston. “And then also, we are estimating that the probability of a hit to Dragon would be lower than the rest of the ISS.”

Chari asks for confirmation that someone from SpaceX is “on console” in case of a hit and proposes the idea of staying suited up in spacesuits and flying back home if so, emphasizing, “This is all if Dragon takes a hit.”

“Alteration to that proposal,” says Houston. “If Dragon takes a hit, we will get you back on station.”

The ISS made it through two close passes by the debris without a reported hit.

The four-member crew—three U.S. astronauts and a German—arrived at the ISS on Nov. 11 only to have to get ready to bug out a handful of days later. Navy submarine warfare officer Lt. Cmdr. Kayla Barron is another Artemis astronaut along on the Crew-3 mission.

The Artemis Team of which Chari and Barron are members comprises 18 astronauts, four of whom would theoretically be tapped for a flyby of the moon on NASA’s Artemis-2 mission; and up to four who would go on NASA’s first moon landing mission since the Apollo era. NASA had projected the goal of landing people on the moon by 2024, but a report this month by its Office of Inspector General clarified that the human landing will likely take place several years later than that because of program delays.

When Chari was selected for NASA’s 2017 astronaut class, he served as commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron and director of the F-35 Integrated Test Force, according to his NASA bio. He had more than 2,500 hours in the F-35, F-15, F-16, and F-18 and flew the F-15E in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He graduated from the Air Force Academy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Naval Test Pilot School.

Austin to Review Strike Policies After Civilian Deaths, Reaffirms Work to Counter Adversaries

Nov. 17, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The Defense Department may change its policies to hold leaders accountable when military strikes go awry and innocent civilians are killed, said Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on Nov. 17. During a rare press briefing by Austin at the Pentagon, he also questioned Putin’s actions on Ukraine’s border, but when asked, he did not explain why deterrence has failed to quell Iran’s malign activities or say why China is further along in the development of hypersonic weapons than America.

“The American people deserve to know that we take this issue very seriously and that we are committed to protecting civilians and getting this right,” Austin said, referring to an Aug. 29 airstrike in Kabul that killed 10 civilians, including seven children.

“We have more work to do in that regard, clearly, and I recognize that,” Austin added.

The target in the strike was thought to be an ISIS-K operative but was revealed to be an aid worker and his family. An investigation found that confirmation bias and poor communication caused the error, which took place just three days after 13 American service members were killed by an ISIS-K attack during the noncombatant evacuation operation at Hamid Karzai International Airport.

In a 2019 strike against ISIS in Baghuz, Syria, brought to light by the New York Times, dozens of civilians were killed along with 16 fighters before U.S. Central Command allegedly covered up wrongdoing and disallowed an investigation of war crimes.

The report claims the strike was conducted by a Special Operations unit called Task Force 9. U.S. Special Operations Command spokesperson Col. Curtis J. Kellogg told Air Force magazine, “allegations of a cover-up are inaccurate based on the facts U.S. Central Command provided.”

Nonetheless, Austin committed to change U.S. policies once two independent studies are available. He also said he is now reading recommendations that he requested from the commanders of SOCOM and CENTCOM following the Kabul strike.

“We must work harder. I’m committed to adjusting our policies and our procedures to make sure that we improve,” he said.

Asked if he would impose disciplinary action or otherwise hold people accountable, Austin said: “I believe that leaders in this department should be held to account for high standards of conduct and leadership.”

Austin said the department will shortly review two outside studies on civilian harm, one conducted by the RAND Corp. as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020, which will be released soon; another, on civilian casualties in Syria, which is in security review.

Russia, Iran, and China

Austin, who is slated to meet with his Ukrainian counterpart at the Pentagon on Nov. 18, said it is still unclear why Russian President Vladimir Putin is massing troops on the Ukrainian border.

“We’re not sure exactly what Mr. Putin is up to,” Austin said, noting that he is in frequent contact with the head of U.S. European Command, USAF Gen. Tod D. Wolters.

“These movements certainly have our attention. And, you know, I would urge Russia to be more transparent about what they’re up to, and to take steps to live up to the Minsk agreements,” Austin said, referring to the 2014 agreement that reduced conflict between Russia and Ukraine in that country’s southeast Donbas region.

Security analysts are worried Russia may be massing troops again with the intent of another land grab after Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, leading to international sanctions.

Iran’s malign activities in the Middle East were also discussed, as the Secretary was asked to clarify why the USS Essex did not fire on an Iranian naval helicopter Nov. 13 that circled three times and came within 25 yards in the Gulf of Oman.

“We are prepared to defend our interests and our partners going forward,” Austin said. “We’re going to continue to work with our allies and partners to ensure that we communicate to Iran that this type of behavior won’t be tolerated again.”

Separately, the Secretary said DOD is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that the Pentagon supports diplomatic efforts for Iran to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the so-called “Iran nuclear deal” that President Donald J. Trump withdrew from in 2018.

Austin also repeated his refrain that China is America’s “pacing challenge” in the wake of China’s alleged orbital hypersonic weapon test in August.

“We also have to maintain the capabilities to defend ourselves,” Austin said. “We’re working as hard as we can to ensure that we can defend ourselves against a range of threats going forward.”

However, Austin could not say why China appears to have fielded a hypersonic weapon before the United States.

“We continue to move as fast as we can to develop capabilities. And again, we look at our full range of capabilities, and not just one specific capability, as we look at our adversaries,” he said.