New Report: U.S. Should Stand Up a 10,000-Man Cyber Force

New Report: U.S. Should Stand Up a 10,000-Man Cyber Force

March 26, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

A new report calls on Congress to create a stand-alone military Cyber Force to Lead the Pentagon’s cyber capabilities, and an influential lawmaker endorsed the idea this week. 

Report authors retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery and Dr. Erica Lonergan from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs came to their conclusion after interviewing 76 active and retired military cyber professionals. Writing for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, they propose creating a Cyber Force modeled in part on the U.S. Space Force, and housing it inside the Department of the Army.

They join a growing chorus of advocates who say spreading cyber expertise across the military forces waters down the potential expertise that could be gained from more centralized leadership.  

Montgomery and Lonergan note that the military services are struggling with recruiting, acquisition, readiness, and leadership. 

“This paper is a criticism of the current system of force generation in cyber, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, even Space Force now,” said Montgomery. “That system is not working.” 

The services are not recruiting the right talent, too often focusing on the kinds of people who fit the physical demands of their other missions. 

“What’s happening now in the services, we get the best most cyber relevant person the service happened to have recruited,” Montgomery said. “Unless of course, that person is needed as a special operator [or] a nuclear operator in the Navy.” 

Cyber training, certifications, and pay standards vary among the services, Montgomery said, so troops with the same skills are sometimes paid at vastly different rates. In some cases, cyber units are completely reliant on a very few people for certain missions. 

“There are units that do complex work with malware development, and less than 10 percent of the unit is doing 90 percent of the work, because they’re the only ones who are qualified to do it,” Montgomery said. “Can you imagine going to an F-22 squadron and having the CO say, ‘I know I’ve got 25 pilots in here, but I just use two of them’?” 

Nor is there any guarantee that commanders of cyber units have the relevant background. 

“Interviewees for this project cite numerous examples of senior officers who have little to no experience in the cyber domain—even though the services have had 13 years since the creation of CYBERCOM to develop qualified senior leaders,” the report notes. 

And because no service owns the cyber mission, cyber acquisition tends to get lower priority than other missions, despite its importance across all domains. Congress has sought to remedy that by giving U.S. Cyber Command, a joint-force combatant command, more acquisition authority, but that arrangement is inconsistent with the military services’ missions, which are to recruit, train and equip their forces.  

“I actually think Cyber Command has done the best job it could have possibly done dealt the cards it had,” Montgomery said. “But if it’s going to do the job we expect it to do three years, five years, 10 years from now, we need a new model.”

A rendering of a prospective seal for U.S. Cyber Force (Design by Daniel Ackerman/FDD)

Montgomery and Lonergan argue for placing a new Cyber Force within the Department of the Army, just as the Marine Corps is in the Department of the Navy and the Space Force is in the Department of the Air Force. Once established, each military department would lead two service branches. Yet the similarities end there. The Marine Corps was created as naval militia, and its role as a naval service dates to its foundation; likewise, the Space Force was formed almost entirely from elements of the U.S. Air Force.

But military cyber skills are spread throughout the other military services, so drawing them together into a single branch would be a major hurdle.  

The bulk of Cyber Force billets would draw the 133 teams from all the services that conduct everyday cyberspace operations. These teams make up what CYBERCOM calls the Cyber Mission Force. Once combined, the authors envision a service of some 10,000 personnel managing a budget of $16.5 billion to start—roughly analogous to the Space Force, which is by far the smallest military service. 

Each of the individual services would retain some cyber-focused personnel, primarily to conduct defensive cyber operations tied to their military capabilities and information networks. 

A counter argument to a unified cyber force would be to treat CYBERCOM more like U.S. Special Operations Command, which also draws forces from across the services and has some of its own acquisition authorities. But that comparison misses some nuances, said Lonergan.  

“In the SOCOM model, each of the services is still providing the personnel to SOCOM to be employed, and those individuals are all trained in their unique domain-specific warfighting competency,” Lonergan said. In other words, Navy SEALs operate from the sea, while Army Green Berets operate on land. “But cyberspace isn’t like that,” Lonergan said. “There are no domain-specific functions that only a particular service is able to provide.” 

Retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis, former head of U.S. Southern Command and U.S. European Command, has also advocated for a cyber force, as has retired Army Lt. Gen. David W. Barno. The Military Cyber Professionals Association, an advocacy group that has dozens of general and flag officers among its board of advisors, has also called for such a change.

But the idea faces resistance in both the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Late last year, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy Mieke Eoyang said creating a new service would come at significant costs. “Be careful what you wish for,” she warned. Lawmakers considered tasking the Pentagon to study a cyber force last year, but dropped the idea from the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act before passing it. 

Yet there are also signs of shifting opinion. An earlier NDAA passed by Congress required the Pentagon to “study the prospect of a new force generation model” for U.S. Cyber Command, and then-CYBERCOM boss Gen. Paul Nakasone said shortly before his departure that “all options are on the table except status quo.” 

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), chair of the House Armed Services cyber, information technologies, and innovation subcommittee, endorsed more study of the Cyber Force idea. 

“I’m disappointed that we didn’t get the provision for a more fulsome study across the finish line in last year’s NDAA,” Gallagher said at the rollout of the new report. “But I hope we can in [the 2025] NDAA.” 

Gallagher stopped short of calling for a Cyber Force explicitly and he has cited the potential for bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency in the past. But he said the new report is “so powerful that it’s challenging my priors.” 

Gallagher won’t be in Congress to get such a measure approved, however. He announced in March that he is resigning effective April 19, leaving the Cyber Force without the kind of clear champion on the Hill that helped get the Space Force across the finish line. Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) led the charge for the Space Force. 

Congress Boosts Air Force 2024 Budget With More F-35s, Engine Spares

Congress Boosts Air Force 2024 Budget With More F-35s, Engine Spares

March 25, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

Congress added three extra F-35s to the Air Force’s fiscal 2024 buy in the appropriations bill passed and signed this weekend and boosted the fighter’s F135 engine account as well.

The final bill adds $541 million for F-35-related procurement, of which $277 million will buy the three additional A-variant fighters and $264 million will buy “engine spares,” split evenly between Air Force F-35As and the Navy and Marine Corps F-35Bs and Cs. It was not immediately clear whether the engine money would buy full-up spare engines or spare parts, but Congress has shown interest in improving F-35 readiness, which has suffered in the past due to engine and engine parts shortages.

The figures appear in the bill’s joint explanatory statement.

Of note, while the Air Force has included additional F-35s on most of its “Unfunded Priorities Lists” in recent years, it did not include the F-35 on its list for fiscal 2024.

The add would raise the Air Force’s 2024 buy to 51 F-35As, up from the 48 requested in FY24. In the new FY25 budget just presented to Congress this month, the Air Force only asked for 42 F-35s, explaining that it had to make cuts to several portfolios, including fighters, to live within the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which carved $2 billion out of USAF’s spending plan.

Lawmakers have voiced frustration with the Air Force for saying it needs 72 fighters a year to stop a steady decline in the fighter inventory and its average age, yet still continuing to divest older fighters and not replacing them on a one-for-one basis. In the FY25 budget, the Air Force only asked for 66 fighters—12 of which are F-15EXs—and capped the EX program at 98 aircraft, having originally planned to build as many as 188, and most recently, at 104.

In total, the FY24 bill funds a total of 86 F-35s for the armed services, including 16 for the Marine Corps and 19 for the Navy. The Pentagon asked for only 68 F-35s, across all services, in fiscal 2025.

The F-35 Joint Program Office said it is “aware of the additional three F-35As and will bring this new requirement into the Lot 18-19 negotiations” with Lockheed Martin, which have been underway for more than a year.

Program and industry officials expect unit costs of the F-35 to increase in the next lots, due to inflation, higher labor costs, and the fact that the Block 4 aircraft will be a more advanced platform than its predecessors, with more electronic warfare features and capability for more weapons, among some 80 upgrades.   

Asked for comment, a Lockheed spokesperson said that increased quantities are among “the main drivers to keep the F-35 affordable and are key to ensuring economies of scale and affordability across the life cycle of the program.”

The Air Force’s high water mark of F-35s bought in a single year was 60 in fiscal 2021. Since then, it has asked for fewer, explaining that it prefers to buy more future jets with the Block 4 configuration rather than have to later retrofit pre-Block 4 models to that standard. Under original program plans, the Air Force expected to be buying 110 F-35s per year by 2025. The service has never changed its total objective of 1,763 F-35s, set 25 years ago. At its current pace, it will not achieve that inventory until the 2040s.

Lockheed Martin has produced—but not delivered—dozens of F-35s since last fall, because they are configured with the Tech Refresh 3 suite of processors and software that is still being proven in flight tests. The TR-3 is the processing and software foundation of the Block 4. Lockheed is storing some 70 F-35s at an undisclosed location until the hold on deliveries is lifted, which industry and government officials expect to happen in late summer.

The JPO said it is “exploring the possibility of truncating the TR-3 with our industry partners, the U.S. services, and International Partners to ensure warfighters have the aircraft and capability needed,” but has not predicted when that decision might come. Pentagon officials have said they may be open to permitting deliveries to resume because the jets are needed to maintain the pace of delivery and absorption and to match pilot training requirements. Deliveries might resume first to international partners, one official suggested.

Why Setting Up Maj. Gen. Stewart’s Court-Martial Could Be ‘a Real Challenge’

Why Setting Up Maj. Gen. Stewart’s Court-Martial Could Be ‘a Real Challenge’

March 25, 2024 | By David Roza

Maj. Gen. Phillip Stewart, just the second Air Force general officer to ever face a court-martial, pleaded not guilty to charges including sexual assault, conduct unbecoming an officer, and controlling an aircraft within 12 hours of consuming alcohol, on March 21.

Stewart also requested a trial by a panel of his peers, which in the military must be made up of members who are at a rank higher or equivalent to the defendant’s. But finding generals to sit on a panel (the military equivalent of a jury) for the June 17 court-martial at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, could prove complicated due to the small field of candidates and the wide margin for the defense team to challenge their impartiality, according to a former chief prosecutor of the Air Force.

“It could be a real challenge where they keep busting quorum over and over,” retired Col. Don Christensen told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Stewart was relieved as the head of the 19th Air Force, which oversees all Air Force pilot training, by Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, the head of Air Education and Training Command (AETC), on May 9. If convicted on all charges, Stewart could face 60 years in prison, according to Jeffrey Addicott, a member of Stewart’s defense team.

The only other Air Force general to have been court-martialed, Maj. Gen. William Cooley, was convicted of abusive sexual contact by military judge alone. That means if a panel of members is formally seated for Stewart, he would be the first Air Force general to be tried by a panel. But that could be a big ‘if.’

AETC spokesperson Capt. Scarlett Trujillo said Robinson has selected an initial pool of potential panel members from a list of eligible general officers and they “have been notified in advance of the proceedings to enable ample time to clear their schedules to serve as members.” The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires at least eight panel members, Trujillo explained, and each must be on active duty with the armed forces.

However, the defense may try to convince the judge, Col. Matthew Stoffel, that some of the members do not belong on the panel. Besides being the right rank, panel members must also be considered free of actual bias and implied bias, Christensen said. Actual bias might take the form of a member explicitly stating a biased view or if they have a close connection with the defendant. But the standard for implied bias is “very wishy-washy,” Christensen said. 

In this case, a defense team could make a case for implied bias if a panel member has served as a convening authority (the ranking officer overseeing a court-martial) for a trial involving sexual assault, or even if they received extra training for how to oversee such cases.

“You’re supposed to use this objective member of society standard: Would an objective member of the community have significant doubt about the fairness of the process if this person was allowed to sit on the court?” Christensen said. “Things like prior training and prior action get into that implied bias world, and the judge has to make a determination using that standard.”

A long-standing principle called the “liberal grant mandate” means military judges are mandated to err on the side of granting a challenge rather than deny it and risk the perception of bias. 

There are few Airmen at the rank of major general and above—about 135—even fewer without the appearance of actual or implied bias, and an even smaller number who have little to no connection with Stewart and any witnesses who may be called to testify. That means voir dire, the preliminary examination of a witness or a panel member by the judge or counsel, could take a while.

“I’ve done trials where you go two or three days of voir dire and you keep busting quorum and have to bring in more members,” Christensen said. “Unless they have a bunch of other generals sitting in a room some place to add to the panel, you’re going to have a significant delay while they rearrange the schedules of six additional generals to come sit on the panel.”

The same problem arose in 2014 at the court-martial of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who was accused of sexual assault. More than 40 generals stationed around the world were summoned to Fort Bragg, N.C., to be interviewed, but most were rejected because they knew Sinclair or key witnesses, The Washington Post reported at the time. Sinclair eventually cut a plea deal. 

Panel problems could prove a winning strategy for the defense in Stewart’s case. In January, the general filed a request to retire in lieu of court-martial. Robinson must decide whether or not to endorse the request, but Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has ultimate approval authority. 

“He [Stewart] could be like ‘I’m going to make this as painful as possible for you so that you eventually give up and approve my retirement,’” Christensen said. “I’m not saying for sure that’s what he’s doing, but I would be tempted, if I were his defense counsel, to see if they can actually pull this off.”

Even if a panel is eventually selected, Stewart can still opt to be tried by judge alone, he said. After the preliminary Article 32 hearing in October, the judge, Col. Brian Thompson, recommended the case not proceed to court-martial and instead be handled administratively, Addicott said last year. If that’s true, it could presage the verdict of the judge overseeing the court-martial.

“If one judge thinks that the evidence is not strong enough to go to court, which tells you he thought it wasn’t strong enough to convict, you’d be inclined to think another judge would agree,” Christensen said.

The administrative challenges of seating a panel of general officers is one of the reasons why general officers are rarely court-martialed, Christensen explained. One way to mitigate the challenge would be to completely remove the convening authority from court-martials involving sexual assault and harassment. That would at least remove a common basis for the challenges of implicit bias that those generals often face when invited to sit on a panel, Christensen said. 

Stewart’s charges include six specifications:

  • Two specifications of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, failing to obey a lawful order or regulation, first for allegedly failing “to refrain from pursuing an unprofessional relationship” and second for allegedly controlling an aircraft within 12 hours after consuming alcohol. The first specification allegedly dates to March 6 and May 9, while the second allegedly dates to on or about April 14 at or near Altus Air Force Base, Okla.
  • Two specifications of violating Article 120 of the UCMJ, which covers rape and sexual assault, for alleged nonconsensual sexual contact, dated on or about April 13 and 14 at Altus.
  • One specification of violating Article 133 of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer, at or near Denver, Colo., on or about March 6 and March 8, where it alleges that Stewart, “while on official travel, wrongfully invite [redacted] to spend the night alone with him in his private hotel room[.]”
  • One specification of violating UCMJ Article 134, which refers to “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces,” for allegedly engaging “in extramarital conduct” on or about April 13 and 14 at or near Altus.
Air Force Generals Nominated to Lead US Forces in Japan and Alaska

Air Force Generals Nominated to Lead US Forces in Japan and Alaska

March 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

U.S. forces in Japan and Alaska are slated to get new leaders, as the Pentagon announced March 25 that President Joe Biden has nominated two Air Force major generals for their third stars and new assignments. 

Maj. Gen. Stephen F. Jost has been tapped to take command of U.S. Forces Japan and the 5th Air Force, while Maj. Gen. Case A. Cunningham has been selected to lead Alaskan Command and the 11th Air Force. 

If confirmed, both Airmen will be tasked with leading subordinate commands—U.S. Forces Japan is under U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, while Alaskan Command is under U.S. Northern Command. Both the 5th and 11th Air Forces are under Pacific Air Forces. 

Jost currently serves as commander of a different subordinate command, Joint Enabling Capabilities Command under U.S. Transportation Command. An F-16 and F-35 pilot, he has commanded at the squadron, group, and wing levels, and has spent most of the last five years in joint assignments. Prior to that, he spent almost two years in the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office, including time as its director. 

As head of USFJ and the 5th Air Force, Jost would succeed Lt. Gen. Ricky N. Rupp in overseeing some 54,000 military personnel. 

If confirmed, Jost will take charge as profound changes in U.S.-Japan military cooperation look set to take place. Multiple media outlets, including the Financial Times and Reuters, reported this weekend that the two countries’ leaders—President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida—plan to announce a major restructuring of the U.S. military command in Japan in April. The goal will be to tighten operational planning and exercises between the two nations to combat China’s growing power. 

The Space Force is also expected to activate its component command within U.S. Forces Japan in 2024.

Cunningham, meanwhile, is poised to take on a triple-hatted assignment as head of Alaskan Command, the 11th Air Force, and the Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Region. He would succeed Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, who has held the job since August 2022. 

Cunningham currently serves as commander of the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center, overseeing the 57th Wing, 53rd Wing, 99th Air Base Wing, 505th Command and Control Wing, 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing, the Nevada Test and Training Range, and the Air Force Joint Test Program Office. A former commander of the “Thunderbirds,” the Air Force’s air demonstration team, Cunningham has flown F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s. Prior to his current job, he was director of plans, programs, and requirements at Air Combat Command. Cunningham has led the Warfare Center through a transition to focus more on training to confront China.

If confirmed, Cunningham would command more than 22,000 service members and be responsible for monitoring and defending a key region that sees regular incursions by Russian aircraft approaching the NORAD Air Defense Identification Zone. What’s more, new NORAD and NORTHCOM commander Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot recently warned lawmakers that China could soon join Russia in probing the area. 

“What I’ve seen is a willingness and a desire by the Chinese to act up there (the Arctic),” Guillot said on March 14. “I expect to see air activity in the Alaska part of the Arctic as soon as this year, potentially. It’s a very big concern of mine.” 

The Chinese spy balloon that crossed the continental United States and generated international headlines in early 2023 first approached U.S. territory through Alaska.

Bombers Around the World: B-1s Land in Spain, B-52s at Diego Garcia

Bombers Around the World: B-1s Land in Spain, B-52s at Diego Garcia

March 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

U.S. Air Force bombers deployed across the globe this past weekend, as two B-52 Stratofortresses landed at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean on March 22 and two B-1 Lancers landed at Morón Air Base, Spain, on March 24. 

The pair of Bomber Task Force deployments, more than 5,000 miles apart, give Air Force Global Strike Command a presence in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, with relatively easy access to the Middle East as well. 

The B-52s flew into Diego Garcia from Barksdale Air Force Base, La., after a 30-hour direct flight. It is the first time the Air Force has announced a Bomber Task Force to Diego Garcia—a tiny island that is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory that services as a key base for the U.S. and U.K. militaries, which hosted American troops since the 1970s. B-1s landed there in 2021, and the last time a B-52 landed there was in 2020. 

“This deployment aims to enhance the readiness and training necessary to respond to any potential crisis or challenge across the globe, demonstrating the credibility of our forces to address a global security environment that is more diverse and uncertain than at any other time in recent history,” Pacific Air Forces stated in a release. 

While the island is in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility, the Air Force has used the island in the past as a base to send bombers into the U.S. Central Command area of operations. 

This latest bomber deployment for PACAF comes on the heels of B-52s from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., deploying to Guam at the end of January and operating there until March 6. 

The B-1s that landed in Spain came from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. While deployed, they will “generate sorties out of Morón AB and operate alongside numerous Allies and partners to increase interoperability and assure security commitments across the United States European Command area of responsibility,” a release from U.S. Air Forces in Europe stated. 

Reuters reported March 24 that the Russian defense ministry announced it scrambled a MiG-31 fighter to intercept two B-1 bombers headed toward the Russian border over the Barents Sea—the bombers reportedly turned around short of the border. Online flight trackers noted the bombers then flew on to Morón. USAFE did not immediately reply to a query from Air & Space Forces Magazine. 

As with PACAF, USAFE just recently had bombers in the region when B-1s from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., deployed to Sweden for a Bomber Task Force in late February before leaving March 1. 

The last Bomber Task Force deployment to Spain took place in March 2023. 

Congress to USAF: Not So Fast on Your Reorg Plans

Congress to USAF: Not So Fast on Your Reorg Plans

March 23, 2024 | By Greg Hadley and Chris Gordon

The Department of the Air Force’s plans to “reoptimize for great power competition” are meeting with skepticism in Congress, and lawmakers want more details before changes go into effect. Congress wants more detail from the Air Force and a six-month review on how its plans were developed, requirements included in the 2024 spending bill that passed the House and Senate March 22 and 23.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and his leadership team unveiled a sweeping 24-point plan to “re-optimize for great power competition” at the AFA Warfare Symposium Feb. 12, and leaders have been talking up the overhaul ever since.

Among the changes: A major command shakeup including creating a new Integrated Capabilities Command for the Air Force, a new Space Futures Command for the Space Force, the re-introduction of warrant officers in the Air Force, new exercises and inspections to ensure unit readiness, and new deployment rotation models.  

But Congress wants a say in any major changes and the long-delayed 2024 appropriations bill made clear lawmakers concerns: “To date, the Department of the Air Force has not provided thorough justification for this reorganization, a comprehensive implementation plan, or detailed budgetary information necessary for the Subcommittees to assess this plan.” 

The bill directs that any 2024 spending used for those changes be “designated a congressional special interest item for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming.” It also asks for its own six-month review of the decisions and the way in which leaders arrived at their conclusions.

By designating these matters as “special interest items,” Congress is asserting its oversight role. Typically, any such item costing more than $10 million must be reviewed by the chairmen and ranking members of four committees—the House and Senate’s Armed Services committees and the House and Senate Appropriations committees, according to the Congressional Research Service. How much reprogramming the Air Force is seeking in fiscal 2024 remains unclear; given the extent of the changes and the time it will take to work out details, most reprogramming will probably hit the fiscal 2025 budget, rather than fiscal 2024, which is already half over.

The new bill directs the Air Force to report, at least 30 days before formalizing any organizational changes, details explaining: 

  • How the change differ from the status quo 
  • How each phase of the change will be implemented and what each phase will cost 
  • Any new “offices, commands, or centers” to be established 
  • Any impacts to military and civilians position, itemized by location 
  • “the programmatic impacts of such decisions”  

An Air Force official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that not all that information is fully understood yet, but that the Department will keep Congress in the loop.

“We fully intend to keep Congress informed throughout the process, but we are at the early planning stages, and we have a lot more work to do to flesh out all the details,” the official said. 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin acknowledged both the missing details and the need for congressional buy-in Feb. 28 during a speaking engagement at the Brookings Institution.

“How we engage Congress, how we engage the stakeholders, how we look internally to our Air Force in different ways to accomplish this that aren’t fiscally intensive is going to be key to this—which is why it may be unsatisfying to some because we’re rolling this out without having the actual signed official document on what the end state looks like,” he said.

Kendall said from the start he wants to minimize costs, including moves for Airmen and Guardians, but that some costs will be inevitable.

“I think we can do so in a way which minimizes cost,” he said. “We have nothing in the ’24 or the ’25 budget for any of these changes. If we need any funds in those periods, we’ll do it through reprogramming.” 

Lawmakers appear concerned that the changes could remove some jobs from their districts, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a defense budget analyst.

“Ultimately politics is about who gets what,” Harrison told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “So I understand it’s inevitable that Congress would want to get into issues like this because it affects which districts get which jobs.” 

Retired Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the former head of Air Force Futures, agreed.

“These are understandable fears, and it will be important for the Department to allay them, even though it may feel like it is unnecessary or already accomplished,” he said.

But retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said Congress is effectively meddling, which is likely to slow down needed changes and could add costs.

“The reorganization is a major positive step and the Air Force is taking responsible action by implementing it,” Deptula said. “It does not need Congress to inhibit its execution by excessive micromanagement.”

More Detail

In addition to reprogramming oversight, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 180-day review of proposed organizational changes, as well as the process used to craft it, including: 

  • Factors considered in the reorganization 
  • Feedback from combatant commanders 
  • Analysis conducted to determine the key decision areas 
  • The business case analysis used and estimated costs involved 
  • Estimated time to implement the plan 
  • Criteria for success, including “interim operational capability and full operational capability” 
  • Whether input from a recent acquisition reform was considered 
  • The potential impact on joint and coalition forces 

Harrison said this report will likely require “a couple of people at least in the secretary’s office to just work with the GAO to make sure they give the GAO the information it needs and that they sell it in a way so that GAO report comes out not looking bad.”  

But any finding by GAO concluding that the process was flawed in any way could provide ammunition to skeptics seeking to derail the process, Harrison added, noting what appears to be a trend of congressional oversight spilling over into micromanagement. 

“I think the Pentagon ought to absolutely have the power to organize fources and organize the bureaucracy in the way they best see fit,” Harrison said. “Congress getting down and trying to micromanage how the Secretary of the Air Force organizes his office and all the different major commands within the Air Force, that is micromanagement, and that is not healthy. Of course, Congress should always be a check on the system, to make sure [the administration] doesn’t run awry and do something completely illogical. But you don’t want to be looking over folks’ shoulders, telling them every little decision that they need to make.” 

Deptula said more than question organization, Congress should be focused on finding the resources to ensure the Department of the Air Force has the funds it needs to enhance readiness and modernization. The Fiscal Responsibility Act, meanwhile, is poised to further crimp that cash flow.

“A reorganization alone cannot make up for over 30 years of inadequate funding of the Air Force, driven by arbitrary budget caps exacerbated by multiple continuing resolutions,” Deptula said. “Yes, Congress has oversight responsibilities, but they need to address the big picture reality of timely execution of their Constitutional responsibility to ‘provide for the common defense.’”

LRSO Nuclear Missile’s Development Extended, Funding Deferred

LRSO Nuclear Missile’s Development Extended, Funding Deferred

March 23, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force deducted $146.1 million in funding from its secretive AGM-181 Long Range Stand-Off missile program in fiscal 2025 but added more money back in later years, suggesting the program was either cut to meet the service’s spending caps or it has hit a technical problem. The development phase has been extended a year.

The LRSO will replace the 40-year-old AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile and eventually be the primary nuclear weapon for the upgraded B-52J Stratofortress and the new B-21 Raider.

Comparing Air Force budget documents for fiscal 2024 and 2025, LRSO’s procurement funds were cut $64.7 million for ’25 but increased more than $200 million in 2027. The request for research, development, test and evaluation was similarly cut in 2025 by $81.4 million, but an additional year of development, funded at $78 million in 2029, has been added. The previous budget called for development to end in fiscal 2028.

 Otherwise, the funding profiles laid out in the two budget requests are almost identical.

Budget documents indicate LRSO remains on track for a low-rate initial production decision in fiscal 2027, when production funding would surge from $295.5 million to $1.22 billion.

The missile passed its critical design review a year ago, and Air Force officials at the time said no major issues had been identified at that milestone. That suggests the funding rearrangement in 2025 was part of the Air Force’s solution to finding $2 billion in reductions necessitated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which capped spending across the government.

RTX’s Raytheon unit is developing LRSO, having prevailed over Lockheed Martin for the cost-plus development contract in 2021. The choice came somewhat early, as both companies were in the midst of parallel technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR) efforts, but the Air Force determined that the Raytheon solution was superior and pressed on into source selection.

LRSO funding grows substantially in the late 2020s, as the program produces a planned 1,087 missiles. While little is known of the LRSO technology, the Air Force has said it will not be a hypersonic weapon and will rely on its stealth, range and maneuverability for its survivability.

President Joe Biden’s administration confirmed the need for LRSO in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review after heavy speculation that it would terminate the program. U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Anthony Cotton told the Senate Armed Services Committee last year that he was “quite pleased” with LRSO’s progress, but the subject didn’t come up in this year’s hearing on strategic forces, conducted on March 21, which quickly went into closed session. Cotton argued in 2023 that while the ALCM is still “reliable [and] safe,” it’s long outlasted its planned service life and is overdue for replacement.

The LRSO escaped termination, Pentagon officials have said, because of the rapid growth of China’s nuclear arsenal and the need to develop deterrence strategies that work in a world with three peer nuclear powers instead of just two.

Initial Operational Capability will likely coincide with the end of the ALCM program, and from spending profiles for the two systems, that seems likely to happen in 2029.

Budget documents backing up this year’s request say that there will be “fewer test activities” in FY25.

Developmental activities for the coming fiscal year include design validation and verification; nuclear certification; “all-up round technical integration, warhead integration and aircraft integration.” Additionally, “coordination with external test agencies” will continue “in preparation for operational and post-production flight testing.” Other activities include efforts to enhance reliability and “design for manufacturing,” in preparation for Production Readiness Reviews, as well as planning for logistics and support systems, production of “carriage and launcher equipment, trainers, test equipment and support equipment.”

LRSO Planned Funding (in millions)

Account20252026202720282029
Procurement$70.3$295.5$1,215$1,685$2,210
RDT&E$623.5$601.6$288.3$76.5$78
Source: Air Force budget documents

After fiscal 2029, it will cost $4.2 billion to complete LRSO production, the documents show.       

Although originally expected to cost about $10 million per missile, the LRSO is now expected to cost about $14 million each. However, the Air Force does not include unit production goals or program acquisition unit costs in its justification documents.

The Air Force describes the LRSO as able to penetrate the toughest integrated air defense systems “from significant stand-off range in support of the Air Force’s global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function.”

From fiscal ’23-‘26, the program is buying  “ancillary equipment, warhead support equipment and field trainers required to be in place for Initial Nuclear Surety Inspection (INSI).” This must be accomplished “prior to fielding the weapon system and attaining Initial Operational Capability.”

FY25 procurement funds will buy “components required for Radiation Lot Acceptance Testing (RLAT)” along with items for advanced procurement.”

Airmen Taste Agile Chow Employment With New Mobile Kitchen

Airmen Taste Agile Chow Employment With New Mobile Kitchen

March 22, 2024 | By David Roza

As the Air Force pursues a strategy called Agile Combat Employment (ACE), where small teams of Airmen launch and recover aircraft at remote or austere airfields, one question persists: what are they going to eat?

While the military often relies on packaged Meals Ready to Eat for nutrients in the field, Air National Guard units around the world are enjoying fresh, hot meals made with a new field kitchen that can serve hundreds of troops in a shorter amount of time, make more kinds of food, and run far more efficiently than its predecessors.

The box-shaped Expandable Single Pallet Expeditionary Kitchen takes up just one standard aviation cargo pallet. Once in position, two of its sides fold down to form the floor of the kitchen while a tent-like material forms the roof and walls. Two people can complete the process in less than 15 minutes, the 127th Wing noted in a March 7 press release.

“We can cook almost anything with this. It’s completely self-contained,” said Tech Sgt. Anthony Renaud, a services craftsman with the 127th Force Support Squadron (FSS).

Prior to E-SPEK, the Air Force used the SPEK, which took up the same amount of space, a 463L pallet, but took four hours and eight people to set up, Chief Master Sgt. Dawn Porter, 127th FSS services manager, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The tent covering was more complicated, and the floor was “like a puzzle,” said William Hague, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and vice president of Babington Technology, Inc., which makes both the SPEK and the E-SPEK.

“It can take several hours to get the system set up and operational, and just as long to break it down and re-pack it out,” he said. By contrast, the E-SPEK requires relatively little assembly.

“You don’t have to do anything but roll a generator outside, bring a power cable over, and literally within minutes you can be heating up your appliances and get ready to start cooking,” he explained.

e-spek
An Airman works in a deployed Expandable Single Pallet Expeditionary Kitchen (E-SPEK) during Southern Strike 2023 at the Combat Readiness Training Center, Gulfport, Mississippi, April 14, 2023. (Screenshot via U.S. Army National Guard Video by Spc. Benjamin Tomlinson)

On March 7, the 127th FSS put E-SPEK to the test, serving up fresh burgers and chocolate chip cookies for lunch at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich., within an hour of set-up. Last April, the Mississippi Air National Guard used one to make chicken, green beans, rolls, and more during Southern Strike 2023, a large-scale ACE exercise. 

“This gives our members an opportunity to get a piece of home, to get baked cookies, to get scrambled eggs on the go, to get baked chicken,” Tech. Sgt. William George, a services specialist for the Mississippi Air National Guard, said at the time. “Everything that you would normally get at home, we can do it out of this.”

The SPEK was state-of-the-art when it was first adopted in 2003, Hague said, but the E-SPEK has more appliances, including a griddle, a 30-gallon skillet, a convection oven, a heated serving line that allows food to stay out for longer, and a three-component sink that rotates to save space.

“Now you can prepare the food in appliances that feel like your home or a restaurant kitchen,” he said.

The new appliances represent more than just added convenience: it also reflects a change in Air Force strategy. When SPEK first came on the scene, the military needed a kitchen that could feed an engineer unit while they built a larger forward operating base, Hague explained. Once the equipment for a larger, more permanent kitchen arrived, the SPEK could be packed away.

That was in 2003, near the start of the Global War on Terror, where the military stood up sprawling air bases across the Middle East. But now, as the Air Force prepares for small airstrips that can be packed up quickly to avoid being targeted by missiles, there are no larger kitchens coming to save the day.

“Roast beef, roast turkey, roast chicken, meatloaf, beef stew fresh out of the kettle, all of those were not possible in the original SPEK,” Hague said, but they are with E-SPEK.

The E-SPEK could prove useful outside of combat. Earlier this month, the Alaska Air National Guard used it in the field during a simulated natural disaster response exercise.

“Disasters like this bring a lot of chaos and you don’t often know what to expect,” Staff Sgt. Kua Xiong, a culinary specialist, said in a release at the time. “Our goal is to make life easier for those affected by disasters like this and get them fed.”

Two E-SPEKs can be loaded onto a standard 20-foot shipping container, but they can also be moved by airlift, flatbed truck, or sling-loaded from the bottom of a Chinook or Black Hawk helicopter. Sling-loading can be particularly useful when, for example, flooding cuts off the roads during a natural disaster.

“It can go places, with this capability, that our normal mobile kitchen would not be able to by road,” Maj. Dustin Eaves, force support officer with Mississippi’s 186th Air Refueling Wing, said about sling-loading an E-SPEK. “We can move it where we want to, drop it exactly where we need to.”

e-spek
A Mississippi Army National Guard helicopter sling-loads an Expandable Single Pallet Expeditionary Kitchen (E-SPEK) at Hagler Army Heliport, Miss., April 5, 2023. (Screenshot via U.S. Army National Guard Video by 2nd Lt. Jarvis Mace)

But while the E-SPEK itself is mobile, it needs food, water, and gas to make meals. The exact space requirements for those ingredients vary wildly depending on the kinds of meals, the number of meals, and the size of the unit being served. They might require a refrigerated shipping container or a dry stores container, or a multi-temperature container with one half frozen and one-half dry store. Last July, the Guam Air National Guard tried to use the E-SPEK to feed fresh meals to troops, but they had to resort to MREs for two days when their water delivery truck broke down.  

All kitchens need food and water, but the E-SPEK needs about 75 to 80 percent less gas than a comparable, generator-powered, electric kitchen, Babington says on its website. Hague said a company of Marines got two heat-and-serve meals (pre-cooked entrées heated up with boiled water: not quite fresh but not MREs either) a day on less than five gallons of JP-8 fuel.

Other meals may require more or less power: Porter, the 127th FSS services manager, said the system needs 25 gallons for the initial start-up, followed by 10 gallons for a typical eight-hour day. But in general, greater fuel efficiency means the Air Force does not have to bring as much gas across the Pacific in the middle of a war. Future versions of E-SPECK could be even more efficient: Hague said Babington is working out how to power the kitchen using radio batteries fed by foldable solar panels.

e-spek
Airmen with the 155th Force Support Squadron, prepare setup, Sept. 19, 2023, during Expandable Single Pallet Expeditionary Kitchen training at the National Guard air base in Lincoln, Nebraska. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Senior Airman Alexander D. Schriner)

So far, 21 E-SPEKS have been delivered to various Air National Guard units, with a 22nd due to ship to Puerto Rico later this month. The first was delivered to Hawaii in February, 2023, and Hague expects the Guard will buy about 98 in total.

More E-SPEKs could be on the way. In February, Babington announced that the kitchen had been selected by AFWERX, a branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory, for its Expedient Basing Challenge, an effort to field technologies that can “significantly reduce base setup response times from weeks or months to just hours or days,” AFWERX said in its challenge description. On its wish list are “Food technologies to provide high-quality and nutritious food for quick preparation while minimizing the footprint and need for kitchen facilities.”

Having been selected by AFWERX, E-SPEK is now qualified for Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) procurement, meaning any Department of Defense organization can award contracts directly to Babington for the next 12 months with no competitive bidding or solicitation required, the company explained.

Beale AFB Getting New Battle Management Squadron as U-2s Prepare to Retire

Beale AFB Getting New Battle Management Squadron as U-2s Prepare to Retire

March 22, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

As Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to bid farewell to its U-2 Dragon Lady fleet, it is poised to welcome a new battle management squadron, which will bring some 140 Airmen to the base starting in summer 2025.

The new squadron will stand up preceding the planned retirement of all 27 U-2 spy aircraft by fiscal 2026.

In a release, the Air Force announced the new squadron will integrate with the Common Mission Control Center at Beale, which falls under the 427th Reconnaissance Squadron of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing. The CMCC will provide integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data using AI and machine learning to streamline decision-making and reduce human communication. The service wants to enhance battle management of both manned and unmanned aircraft.

However, it is unclear what will happen to the personnel associated with the U-2 fleet within the 9th RW.

“As we prepare to begin retiring the U-2 Dragon Lady, the Air Force continues to work the details for a future mission at Beale AFB,” a base spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine on March 22. “For now, the 9th Reconnaissance Wing will continue to execute our mission to train and deliver persistent integrated reconnaissance and combat capabilities for the United States.”

The Air Force stated that the stand-up of this new squadron at Beale AFB is a vital step in modernizing its battle management capabilities. The service hopes to carry out this mission, which will likely involve radar and system control for monitoring global airspace, across multiple theaters simultaneously from a location outside the theaters of operations in the future.

The strategy mirrors what the service did last year when it established the 728th Battle Management Control Squadron at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., as the base transitioned away from E-8C JSTARS surveillance aircraft. Activated in February 2023, the squadron provides command and control for aircraft in U.S. Central Command, facilitating aerial refueling positioning and tactical reconnaissance.

Alongside the squadron, Robins welcomed an E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communication Node (BACN) squadron, a Spectrum Warfare group, and support units focused on the Advanced Battle Management System in its transition process. The first E-8 departed the base in 2022, and today, all 16 E-8 aircraft have been divested.

The U-2 spy plane first flew in the 1950s, conducting reconnaissance missions during a period of Soviet information blackout amid Cold War tensions. The fleet joined the 9th RW in 1976 and was upgraded in the 1980s. Today, they are rotated to operational detachments worldwide. Early this year, Beale AFB showcased a rare elephant walk featuring eight U-2s on its runway. The plane garnered national attention capturing high-resolution images of a Chinese spy balloon that was transiting the continental U.S. last year.

The plane’s departure follows the closing of the RQ-4 Global Hawk‘s reconnaissance mission at Beale. After nearly 20 years of serving at the base, the last RQ-4 drone left Beale in 2022. The RQ-4, including the Block 30 variants, were transferred to Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D., and then sent to their manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, for upgrades to be modified into Range Hawks and assigned to the Test Resource Management Center by early 2025.