F-15EX Fires First Missile Successfully

Jan. 31, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The F-15EX successfully fired its first weapon on Jan. 25, launching an AIM-120D missile at a BQM-167 unmanned aerial target over the Gulf of Mexico, the Air Force announced.

Maj. Benjamin Naumann and Maj. Mark Smith, pilots with the 40th Flight Test Squadron, flew the fighter during the test fire, as part of the 53rd Wing’s Combat Archer—an air-to-air weapons system evaluation program.

The F-15EX “detected the drone using onboard sensors, acquired a weapons-quality track, and launched the missile at the target” as part of the test, the Air Force announced in a release. The shot was then determined to be a success.

“This was an end-to-end verification of the entire weapons system, which will pave the way for more complex missile shots in the future,” Colton Myers, F-15EX test project manager with the Operational Flight Program Combined Test Force, said in a statement.

The missile fire marks a major milestone for the F-15EX, which first arrived at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., for combined developmental and operational tests in March 2021.

Soon after, the new fighter participated in Northern Edge 21, a wargame in Alaska. The Eagle II posted a mixed record at the exercise, “shooting down” some adversaries but also getting shot down itself.

After Northern Edge, the fighter underwent “developmental flight and ground testing” that revealed several issues with its Suite 9 software system that were resolved. It deployed in October to Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., for a week’s worth of operational tests.

Combining developmental and operational testing “has been critical to our test success, allowing us to break the mold of ‘traditional’ testing, while ultimately resulting in an overall better product for the warfighter, and in a shorter timeline than if we adopted the traditional approach,” Myers said in a statement.

Right now, the Air Force has just two F-15EXs in its fleet, both at Eglin. In the coming years, though, that number will expand significantly. The Air Force signed a deal with Boeing to buy up to 144 of the jets in the next 15 years, though that number could change.

The fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act included 12 F-15EXs, and the 2022 NDAA authorized 17 more after the Pentagon asked for a dozen in its budget request. However, Congress has yet to pass an appropriations bill to actually increase funding for fiscal 2022.

Kendall: Air Force Still Digging Itself Out of ‘Readiness Hole’

Jan. 31, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Department of the Air Force is set to embark on a readiness review as it works to dig itself out of a “readiness hole,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said during a virtual Coffee Talk event with Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass.

During the Jan. 27 event, Kendall was asked by a viewer how he planned to address bureaucracy affecting maintenance by inhibiting acquisition of parts and equipment.

Kendall responded by noting that bureaucracy is just one of several problems facing the service’s sustainment enterprise and, by extension, its readiness.

“I’m very concerned about our readiness levels, our availability of the current fleet. Some fleets like our battle management fleet, AWACS as well, are not anywhere near where they need to be,” Kendall said.

Kendall cited multiple reasons for the sustainment problems, including “some issues … in terms of the IT system, how well it supports that in terms of delays and so on. There were supply line issues, in terms of the supply chain. There’s some issues with bureaucracy and a number of things,” Kendall said. “In some cases, we’re operating pretty old aircraft, and it’s hard to get the parts for them. It’s a long lead time to get them made for us because they’ve been out of production for a long time. So there’s a range of things there that we have to look at.”

Reports from the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office have shown the availability and mission capable rates of Air Force aircraft declining over time. Data from the Air Force has also pegged the average age of the fleet at over 29 years old, with some of the battle management/C3 aircraft that Kendall referenced averaging more than 40 years old.

The E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) in particular has been frequently cited as an aging aircraft in need of replacement. Commander of Air Combat Command Gen. Mark D. Kelly noted in 2021 that “it takes a miracle … every day just to get it up in the air.”

All these readiness issues, Kendall said, are the result of sequestration—automatic spending cuts that started in 2013 and extended for nearly a decade.

“We dug a readiness hole during that period just because we didn’t have resources for it,” Kendall said. “And to be honest, we’re still digging our way out of it. Sequestration has been gone just a short period of time now, and I think we’re getting better. It’s a trade-off we have to make, between near-term operational capabilities and things longer [term] as we look at budgets, try to balance some of the costs.”

Kendall’s sense that the Air Force’s readiness issues are improving will be put to the test soon. “We’ve got a big readiness review coming up at headquarters here pretty shortly. We’ll be looking at all these issues,” he said.

Regardless of what the review finds, the department needs to take a more integrated approach to sustainment to ensure its aircraft are ready to fly, said Kendall.

“We need to basically design our systems for sustainment, for maintenance. We need to put the systems … in place that will support them efficiently,” Kendall said. “And frankly, we haven’t paid enough attention to that, at certain times and on certain programs, certainly.”

Ukraine Invasion Would Be ‘Horrific,’ But US Forces Meant to Reassure NATO

Jan. 28, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

American forces deployed to or on standby for Europe are meant to reassure NATO allies in the face of a huge Russian military buildup around Ukraine, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said in a Jan. 28 press conference. And though he insisted that U.S. forces will not enter Ukraine, except those delivering war goods or to train Ukrainian soldiers, Austin emphasized that Russia will still face grave consequences if it doesn’t de-escalate what looks like a planned invasion of Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has arrayed more than 100,000 troops around Ukraine, and has “increased Russian naval activity in the Northern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea,” so he “clearly now has” the capability to invade Ukraine, or to seize “cities and significant territories,” Austin said. Russian military moves, accompanied by its “media spouting off now about alleged [anti-Russian] activities in Eastern Ukraine” and disinformation meant to create a “potential pretext” for strikes on Donbass or further incursions into Ukraine are “straight out of the Russian playbook,” he added.

“They’re not fooling us,” Austin said.

If Russia invades Ukraine, it will “violate the bedrock principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self determination.” The U.S. and NATO “take this very seriously,” he said, repeating several times that the U.S. commitment to honoring its Article 5 mutual defense agreement with NATO allies is “ironclad.”

Austin and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley told reporters, though, that this buildup “feels different” from previous Russian exercises or saber-rattling.

“This is larger in scale and scope … than anything we’ve seen in recent memory,” Milley said.

Austin warned Putin that a military move on Ukraine will “accomplish the very thing Russia says it does not want: A NATO alliance strengthened and resolved on its Western flank.”

The 8,500 alerted troops in the U.S. are “ready to go” if NATO activates them, Austin said. The U.S. forces in the region now “provide great value just by virtue of their presence” and “reassure our partners that we’re interested in helping them,” Austin said. However, he emphasized that “these are temporary deployments.”

Ukraine shares a border with four NATO allies—Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania—and the U.S. will defend its allies if necessary, Milley said.

But, “conflict is not inevitable,” Austin said. Putin can easily “de-escalate” and withdraw his forces. “There is still time and space for diplomacy.” Austin said the U.S. and NATO have “offered Russia a path away from crisis and toward greater security,” but whatever Putin decides, the U.S. “will stand with our allies and partners.”

In the meantime, Austin touted the provision of $2.7 billion worth of security aid to Ukraine since 2017, with $650 million of that within the last year, and said President Joe Biden has authorized $200 million more in the form of “additional Javelins and other anti-armor weapons, grenade launchers, large quantities of artillery and small arms, ammunition, and other equipment. Those deliveries are ongoing.”

Milley said it’s the policy of the U.S. to “continue to support an independent Ukraine,” and the U.S. will continue to “enhance” Ukraine’s ability to protect itself. He touted Ukraine’s 150,000 active duty troops are a “highly regarded territorial force” and militia, and have credible air defense bases, depots, and artillery.

“Their combat capabilities have improved since 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea,” Milley asserted. But “they need additional help to defend themselves, especially from an invasion force the size of the one that Russia is currently massing, if Russia chooses to invade Ukraine.”

He warned Putin that an invasion “will not be cost-free in terms of casualties, or other significant effects.”

Milley said the U.S. has “zero” offensive capabilities or permanent forces in Ukraine, but has a small group of forces there to train Ukrainian troops in “tactics, techniques, and procedures.” NATO has “130-plus brigade maneuver forces, not including U.S. forces; 93 squadrons of high-end fighters, four carriers, [and] many more surface combatants” available. It’s a “very, very significant” force, he added.

If Russia “unleashed” its forces on Ukraine—“the ground maneuver force, the artillery, the ballistic missiles, the air forces, all of it packaged together, … it would result in a significant amount of casualties,” Milley said. In “dense urban environments, along roads and so forth … It would be horrific. It would be terrible.”

“The right answer here is a diplomatic solution,” he added.

GAO Warns Air Force: Think Twice Before Owning KC-46 Tanker Fix

Jan. 28, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak

The Government Accountability Office wants the Air Force to do more testing and evaluation of Boeing’s fix for the KC-46 Pegasus tanker’s Remote Vision System before proceeding with it, because the Air Force would be on the financial hook if it doesn’t work out.

In a new report released Jan. 27, the GAO said that Boeing’s fix for the RVS—one of a number of KC-46 deficiencies still being corrected—involves new technologies that may not yet be mature enough to move forward, posing a risk of cost and schedule growth.

Boeing has eaten more than $5.4 billion in overruns on the Pegasus. The company took a charge of $406 million on the program in the last quarter of 2021 that pertain to the RVS.

So far on the program, “the government’s financial risk has generally been limited to the ceiling price of its contract with Boeing,” the GAO said, but “the Air Force plans to close its review of the contractor’s proposed redesign and assume financial responsibility for it” without:

Assessing the system’s technology readiness level
Developing a plan to raise it to the appropriate TRL
“Integrating and testing the system prototype in an operational environment”

The GAO worries the Air Force will accept an RVS “that contains immature technologies and greater risk of cost and schedule growth.” The sooner the Air Force makes the technology assessments and fit-checks the system operationally, “the sooner it can identify design issues and proactively take steps to mitigate any further cost growth and delays in delivering promised capability.”

The Air Force disagreed, saying it needs to take an accelerated approach to the RVS in order to field it at the “speed of relevance.” It also took issue with the GAO’s findings overall, saying the audit agency suggests the new RVS doesn’t work, when “the Air Force made extraordinary efforts to ensure the RVS 2.0 design will meet warfighter requirements.” The service said the system will provide “significantly enhanced capability to the warfighter” when deployed. The design is “on track to meet all but one relevant contract requirement,” and Boeing and USAF are working “collaboratively on a corrective action plan,” USAF said.

The Air Force and Boeing are still working on “seven critical deficiencies,” which will delay the declaration of full-rate production on the KC-46 until “at least September 2024 and will contribute to nearly $1 billion” in cumulative cost growth, the GAO reported. However, the Air Force will have procured the majority of the planned 179 KC-46s “before the critical deficiencies are addressed” and full-rate production is declared, the audit agency said.

Of the seven, two are related to the RVS. Among the others, one has to do with excessive stiffness in the refueling boom; one is a flight management system instability; one has to do with cracks in a drain tube, while another is about cracks in the drain mast, and the last has to do with fuel system leaks. Previous problems with cargo pallet locks detaching and air duct clamps cracking have been resolved.

The deficiencies in the existing RVS, include:

The camera system—by which the boom operator, behind the cockpit, views the tanking operation—doesn’t deliver a clear picture of the boom as it makes contact with the receiving aircraft under all lighting conditions
This lack of clarity has caused some unintentional contacts with the receiving aircraft, which can damage the low observable features of stealth aircraft.
Although the RVS is supposed to provide a “3-D” image to the boom operator, depth perception has been a problem. On the KC-135 and KC-10, the boom operator views the tanking operation directly, through a window.

The Air Force is assuming more responsibility—and risk—for the program because it wants to go beyond the original requirements for the airplane. The RVS 2.0 is seen by the Air Force as a pathfinder for a future autonomous refueling system that won’t require a boom operator at all. When the Air Force asked for industry interest last summer in a KC-Y follow-on tanker, it said it’s interested in “autonomous” refueling. This will be especially important if a future “KC-Z” tanker is an uncrewed drone, although Air Mobility Command has been non-committal about the requirements for that aircraft. Tanking autonomy could also reduce crew needs on the KC-46.

The RVS 2.0 will allow the KC-46 to automatically see and identify an aircraft as it approaches the tanker, then configure the refueling system—boom angles, etc.—to match the approaching aircraft’s specific needs.

The service and Boeing agreed to a cost-sharing arrangement on the new system, which corrects Boeing’s deficiencies but answers newly-added service requirements. Boeing is releasing interim software updates on the way to the RVS 2.0.

In disputing the GAO’s findings, the Air Force said its memorandum of agreement with Boeing on the RVS 2.0 allows a “non-standard” approach to achieve an “accelerated timeline” to getting the capability fielded. The design was vetted “to a level of detail that exceeds” what would normally take place at a preliminary design review, USAF said. Moreover, the service said it’s “unlikely” that technical readiness assessment would discover “significant risks not already identified and tracked by the program,” and this step would probably add between six and 12 months to accomplish. That would be “either too late to affect the design” or delay RVS 2.0.

USAF uses “a robust Risk, Issue and Opportunity program,” with “tightly monitored Technical Performance Measures,” to obtain a solid understanding of the maturity of the critical technologies involved in RVS 2.0, the service said.

The Air Force likewise disagreed with GAO’s recommendation to develop technology maturation plans for RVS 2.0 technologies, for the same reason: It would cause delay.

There’s a “comprehensive plan” to burn down every “identified risk” in technology maturity, USAF said, and there are numerous reviews at various milestones to ensure this is happening.

Finally, the Air Force disagreed that there should be testing of an RVS “full prototype” on the KC-46 in an “operational environment” prior to closing the preliminary design review, saying this is “not practical.” The time it would take to get a prototype ready “is similar to the time necessary to get the first developmental test article.” Having to comply with this recommendation would add up to two years to the RVS fielding timetable, USAF said, and it’s unnecessary because “prototypes of the cameras have already flown,” with more flights already scheduled. The RVS 2.0 components have been tested in the laboratory and it’s been confirmed that the “flight environment will not result in degraded performance.” Besides, there will be the usual developmental and operational testing of the system, the Air Force said.

Even so, the Air Force has decided not to close the preliminary design review, service officials said, because the panoramic viewing system isn’t yet up to USAF’s comfort level.

Pentagon’s New Space Acquisition Arm to Take Shape in 2022

Jan. 28, 2022 | By Amanda Miller

The Space Force colonel headed to the Pentagon to lead in space architecture, science, and technology will take up a new role in a new office under a yet-to-be-confirmed new assistant secretary.

Starting in July as deputy executive director of the Space Architecture, Science, and Technology Directorate, Col. Eric J. Felt will report to the Department of the Air Force’s first assistant secretary for space acquisition. President Joe Biden has nominated former National Reconnaissance Office executive Frank Calvelli for assistant secretary.

Felt said in an interview that he plans to draw on his experience as director of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, both in terms of research and on the acquisition side.

“I’ve prototyped some of these new, faster, more efficient ways of doing acquisition,” Felt said. “If it works, the Space Force can then scale those up.”

Provided that Calvelli’s confirmation goes through, “I will be there with others to support him and stand up this office and make sure that we can effectively support the Space Force,” Felt said.

Addressing aspects of space acquisition that he expects to work on:

“We’ve got a lot of the critical capabilities—good things that we’re delivering under the current system—but there’s a lot of room for improvements,” Felt said. “What I’m hearing from our senior leadership is that we need to go faster—accelerate the pace of things to keep up with the threat.”

Felt mentioned the Space Enterprise Consortium, which facilitated faster contracting processes for small businesses, as one successful new acquisition strategy he was involved in. He also plans to draw on his championing of the security-focused DevSecOps approach to software development and showing that it’s “much more successful than the traditional waterfall approach.”

Air Force Secretary: No Excuse for Unresponsive, Slow IT

Jan. 28, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

A recent open letter by an Air Force employee demanding that the Pentagon upgrade its IT systems struck a chord with many on social media—and now, the Secretary of the Air Force has weighed in, saying the service has “got to be better” on the issue.

In a widely-shared LinkedIn post on Jan. 25, Michael Kanaan, the director of operations for the Air Force’s Artificial Intelligence Accelerator at MIT, reeled off a long litany of complaints about Defense Department IT, mostly centered on its sloth-like slowness. He ended each with a simple request: “Fix our computers.”

“I wrote an email the other day that took over an hour to send … I opened an Excel file today, my computer froze and needed to be restarted … I turned on my computer and it sat at 100 [percent] CPU usage,” Kanaan wrote of the problems he has faced.

At a virtual Coffee Talk event Jan. 27, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall was asked for his thoughts on Kanaan’s letter.

“I haven’t seen as extreme conditions as were described in … [that] list,” Kendall said. “This is, if you haven’t heard it, it’s a long list of notional, to some degree, or anecdotal problems people have with our IT systems. And it’s very forcefully put,” Kendall said. “We’re certainly working those problems. And, as I mentioned earlier, giving our people the tools they need to do their jobs—in many cases, that’s their IT tools, so things that they use every day at their desks. So we’ve got to get better.”

Kanaan’s letter drew more than 1,700 reactions on LinkedIn and scores of comments from fellow DOD employees, with many echoing his observation that the Pentagon has lost “HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of employee hours last year because computers don’t work.”

It was a complaint that was also acknowledged by the Air Force’s chief information officer, Lauren Barrett Knausenberger, in a written response to the post.

“Oh man,” wrote Knausenberger, “I echo your open plea to fund IT. It’s the foundation of our competitive advantage and also ensures every single person can maximize their time on mission.”

Knausenberger later told Air Force Magazine that “there’s just not enough money to fix it all at once. Everything is harder than it needs to be due to our legacy debt.”

Kendall also cited funding as an issue, but he quickly noted that didn’t make the current state of affairs acceptable.

“There are resource issues that affect that, there are things that we have to do to comply with certain requirements that affect that a little bit,” Kendall said. “But there’s really no excuse for not having IT that’s responsive and capable. So we get it, and we’re working on it.”

Kendall’s pledge was backed up by Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass, who added that Knausenberger has already been working on the issue.

“Folks always say like, ‘I wonder if they know?’ I assure you, we do because we do experience those same challenges, and it’s frustrating as heck that we have to do so,” Bass said. “What I will tell you is this is a complex issue on multiple fronts: networking, infrastructure, hardware, etc. Where my faith really is, is in our chief information officer. I’ve seen the strategy that she’s outlined myself and penned it to paper on, here’s what we have to get after. We’ll just have to work really hard to make sure that we’re able to budget for the foundation of what every single one of our Airmen and Guardians need.”

Pentagon Report: Air Force Should Work With Army, Navy on Hypersonic Best Practices

Jan. 28, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force should work closely with the Army, Navy, and Defense Department to identify best practices and share data as it looks to get its hypersonic missile program back on track, according to the recommendations of a new Pentagon report released Jan. 27.

The AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon is intended to be the Air Force’s first hypersonic weapon, deployed in the early 2020s. But over the course of 2021, the weapon failed three booster flight tests, raising fears that the program could be delayed.

An issue with a fin actuator led to the failure of the first booster flight test for the Air Force’s hypersonic missile, while the service continues to investigate what caused a second failure, the DOD’s Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation revealed in its annual report.

The DOT&E report didn’t recommend that the Air Force revise its schedule for the program, but it did detail the unexpected “hardware and software” problems that caused problems for ARRW at multiple stages of testing in fiscal 2021.

First, the report noted, during captive carry flight tests, two unexpected events occurred, “which required a redesign of the fin control system.”

Those events delayed the first flight of ARRW, which then-Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper had predicted would happen before the end of 2020. Sources later told Air Force Magazine that the failure was caused by “dumb mistakes;” one reported that a technician failed to follow a checklist and another reported an improperly fastened control surface.

Then, when the first booster flight test finally occurred in April, the weapon did not even leave the wing of the B-52 carrying it, as was widely reported at the time.

The DOT&E report states that the missile “by design, did not separate from the B-52 because the system determined there was a fin actuator problem.”

That issue was fixed before a second flight test in July, and the missile did safely separate from the aircraft.

At that point, however, “an unexpected test event after release from the B-52 aircraft … prevented the booster motor from igniting, leading to a loss of the test asset,” the report states.

The report did not give a cause for the second failure, saying the Air Force is “currently conducting a Failure Review Board to determine the root cause(s) of the failure and implement corrective actions to the missile system before the next booster test flight.” The second test did demonstrate that the fin actuator issue from the first test has been resolved.

However, while the report only covered fiscal 2021, the program endured another setback in December, when a third booster flight test failed—as in the first test, an issue during the launch sequence prevented the missile from ever leaving the B-52, according to an Air Force statement.

The DOT&E report did offer three recommendations for the Air Force regarding ARRW:

Collaborate with the Office of the Secretary of Defense stakeholders and the Army and Navy hypersonic program offices to identify and leverage common best practices, test corridors and infrastructure, test data management and analyses, and modeling and simulation capability.
Verify, validate, and accredit all modeling and simulation tools intended to enable an adequate assessment of ARRW performance.
Conduct an adequate survivability assessment of ARRW in a cyber-contested environment.

The first recommendation comes at a point where the Army’s Long Range Hypersonic Weapon is set to fly “in the next year or two,” making it the Pentagon’s first hypersonic weapon, according to Gillian Bussey, director of DOD’s Joint Hypersonics Transition Office. The Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike system, which uses the same glide body, should follow soon after.

Meanwhile, Air Force Brig. Gen. Heath A. Collins, program executive for weapons, said back in September that the ARRW program was still on pace to be in production by the end of 2022—if USAF was able to determine the cause of the second test failure and resume flight testing by the end of 2021.

Making Agile Combat Employment Real

Jan. 27, 2022 | By Matthew Donovan

Not since the Cold War with the USSR has the United States faced the specter of high-end conflict with a peer competitor. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that our nation’s defense sits at a strategic inflection point based on the advancing military threats presented by China and Russia.

Today, the global strategic environment is categorized by the reemergence of strategic competition—with now two near-peer competitors—who can operate across all domains of warfare and simultaneously employ all aspects of their national power. Like our other military branches, the Air Force faces these emerging challenges while fielding a force only half the size, following force reductions in the decades since the Cold War.

America’s ability to globally defend the nation and its allies is grounded in its ability to project combat power anywhere on the planet. In the past, this meant maintaining a robust global posture; however, fiscal constraints resulting in reduced force structure, coupled with advances in threat capabilities, present an increased vulnerability to U.S. overseas military assets. Furthermore, our adversaries have studied our force deployment and invested heavily in pervasive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and all-domain long-range offensive capabilities that put our global footprint at risk.

To counter this emerging threat, the Air Force introduced Agile Combat Employment as a method to rapidly deploy across dispersed operating locations within a theater without sacrificing combat capability. When employed, ACE enables Airmen to conduct operations faster and at higher levels of complexity, all from distributed locations. Using ACE concepts, combat assets would continue to move from location to location, exploiting opportunities to attack while keeping key assets out of harm’s way.

The Air Force is already demonstrating an initial ability to bring ACE to the battlespace by focusing on non-material solutions like developing Multi-Capable Airmen. However, to fully mature this concept requires attention to the core elements that enable ACE’s operational framework.

By coupling ready-now solutions with the latest technological innovations, the mission essential capabilities required to implement ACE could be significantly bolstered. The Air Force has an opportunity to reimagine how they generate combat missions from austere locations and design tailorable force packages to enable Airmen to quickly conduct operations from bare base airfields in key theaters.

So, what capabilities could the Air Force include in these agile and connected force packages to enable operating combat missions from dispersed locations? Fortunately, many of the fundamental technologies needed to make ACE real already exist. Through a combination of space-based early warning systems, over-the-horizon radars, passive wide-area surveillance systems, and low-band radars, industry can provide commanders the indications and warning capabilities they need to make decisions and take decisive action at a moment’s notice through communications packages that are mobile, survivable, secure, and sustainable across the electromagnetic spectrum.

We can help ensure commanders get the right information, in real time, by deploying mobile, resilient, and protected communications networks with minimal infrastructure requirements. Providing mobile access to the military’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite communications network will be critical to closing this capability gap, as will the widespread adoption of other advanced communications technologies. Commanders need the ability to task their forces and provide a common operational picture in denied, disconnected, intermittent, or limited bandwidth environments.

In addition, currently existing directed energy systems represent a cost-effective base defense capability that can quickly transition to countering cruise and ballistic missile threats. Other investment areas include the indications and warning capability that is so critical, particularly in the Pacific theater, to immediately provide access to DOD networks in contested environments. Also currently available are autonomous and transportable Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) radar air traffic management systems, remote virtual air traffic control towers, and mobile precision approach and landing systems that can all be included as part of a support “kit” when establishing a dispersal base location.

ACE is the right strategic choice for the Air Force based on the two near-peer threats, but its feasibility hinges on continued material investment and closing known mission capability gaps to truly equip an agile forward deployed Air Force. Industry has clearly heard the call for action from Air Force senior leaders and is ready to bring our innovative capabilities to bear on meeting this 21st century challenge.

Matthew Donovan was Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Acting Secretary of the Air Force, and Undersecretary of the Air Force during the Trump Administration. Today, he is vice president of requirements and capabilities at Raytheon Intelligence & Space, a unit of Raytheon Technologies that provides terminals that connect to the Pentagon’s AEHF network and the Air Traffic Navigation, Integration, and Coordination System, among other programs and systems.

F-15Es Deploy to Estonia to Aid NATO Air Policing Amid Russian Tensions

Jan. 27, 2022 | By Greg Hadley

Half a dozen U.S. Air Force F-15Es landed in Estonia on Jan. 26 to aid NATO’s enhanced air policing mission, as tensions in Eastern Europe continue to simmer over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine.

While in Estonia, the American fighters will integrate with a detachment of Belgian F-16s, NATO Allied Air Command said in a press release. In addition to working on the enhanced air policing mission, they will also work with NATO allies in the Baltics to practice air-to-air and air-to-ground maneuvers, the release said.

The six F-15E Strike Eagles are assigned to the 4th Fighter Wing from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C, the Air Force noted in releasing photos of the fighters landing at Amari Air Base, Estonia.

The photos also showed Airmen from the 4th Fighter Wing and the 48th Fighter Wing from RAF Lakenheath, England, arriving in a C-130J on Jan. 24 to support the mission.

“Baltic and enhanced Air Policing are enduring NATO missions that deliver constant vigilance of Allied airspace and contribute to the Alliance’s collective defense posture,” Maj. Gen. Jörg Lebert, Chief of Staff of Headquarters Allied Air Command, said in a statement. “The additional aircraft will work closely with the current detachments to increase our readiness, build crucial interoperability, and underline the robust solidarity across the Alliance.”

NATO’s air policing mission is focused on monitoring for “airspace violations, suspicious air activity close to the alliance’s borders, or other kinds of unsafe air traffic,” with fighters being tasked to scramble in response to any threat.

Reuters, citing an official at Amari Air Base, reported that the U.S. fighters will be deployed “until the end of next week”—Feb. 4 or 5.

The deployment of the F-15Es comes just two weeks after the Air Force sent F-16s to Poland en route to Lithuania and Estonia to train with Eastern European allies on air policing. At the time, U.S. Air Forces in Europe stressed in a statement that the deployment was “long planned.”

Still, the deployments come at a time when any military activity in the region is sure to garner interest. Russia has maintained a troop presence of some 100,000 along the Ukrainian border for months now, with sophisticated air force and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities that experts believe would allow for a swift invasion.

President Joe Biden has said he will not send any American troops to Ukraine itself, but Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III recently ordered 8,500 troops in the continental U.S. to prepare to deploy to Europe for a potential Ukraine contingency within five days. Biden has also sought to warn Russia off a potential invasion, threatening a “heavy price” for Russian President Vladimir Putin if he does so.

At the same time, NATO allies along the eastern flank have clamored for an increased U.S. presence in their countries—Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė, and Romanian President Klaus Iohannis have all indicated a willingness to host more troops in the past few months.