L3Harris Wins Contract to Upgrade Counterspace Systems

Oct. 27, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

Space Systems Command awarded L3Harris Technologies Inc. a $120.8 million contract to develop a “ground-based deployable electronic warfare capability” that can “reversibly deny satellite communications, early warning, and propaganda,” according to an Oct. 22 contract announcement.

Under the contract, L3Harris will upgrade 16 Counter Communications Systems at Peterson Space Force Base, Colo.; Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif.; Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla.; and classified locations outside the continental United States, according to the announcement.

“CCS is the only offensive system in the United States Space Force arsenal,” said Lt. Col. Steve Brogan, SMC combat systems branch materiel leader in the SMC special programs directorate, in a January 2020 Space Force release. “This upgrade puts the ‘force’ in Space Force and is critical for Space as a warfighting domain.”

Work is slated to be complete by February 2025 and will be performed in Melbourne, Fla.

Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. David D. Thompson said earlier this year that electronic warfare will remain a priority for the new service. Electromagnetic warfare is one of seven disciplines the Space Force listed as necessary to secure space in its Space Power doctrine released last year.

Of the Space Force’s $10.5 billion research, development, test, and evaluation budget for 2021, $57.2 million funded counterspace programs. It requested another $38.1 million in its 2022 RDT&E budget request.

Kratos, General Atomics Get Contracts for ‘Off-Board Sensing Station’ Unmanned Fighter Escort

Oct. 26, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force Research Laboratory awarded Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems Inc. and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems matching $17.7 million contracts for an “Off-Board Sensing Station,” which is an unmanned aircraft that would extend a manned fighter’s sensing range and also potentially carry additional weapons for that aircraft.

The cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts are potentially worth $49 million if a $31.4 million option is exercised. They call for the two companies to deliver a “base effort” within a year, while the “option technical effort” would be completed by the end of January 2024. The work supports AFRL’s Autonomous Collaborative Platforms program and is a technology maturation effort. Seven companies competed for the contract, but only one will be carried into fabrication.

The Broad Agency Announcement dates back to September 2020 under what AFRL called “Science and Technology for Autonomous Teammates,” or STAT, and proposals were submitted in April of this year. The Air Force expected to award two basic effort contracts but planned to exercise only one option; the BAA said AFRL “cannot afford” to exercise two options. The BAA said the service was looking for an open-architecture system “to achieve the goals of rapid time-to-market and low acquisition cost.” The OBSS is “the second aircraft demonstration in a product line concept for attritable aircraft development, treating the aircraft as a limited-life commodity,” USAF said.

Kratos, in a press release, said the OBSS is “intended to be an affordable, highly modular conventional takeoff and landing, jet-powered” unmanned aerial system. It aims to “provide significant performance for sensor extension missions” for manned aircraft, but also potentially offer a “significant offensive weapons volume” or “weapons bay extension.”

The concept is part of AFRL’s ongoing manned-unmanned teaming prototyping efforts and presumably explores using escort aircraft to augment the capacity and capability of manned fighters.

Kratos is heavily involved in the arena of low-cost attritable aircraft systems, and AFRL has already tested the XQ-58 Valkyrie and UTAP22 Mako in the arena of manned-unmanned teaming. General Atomics has an extensive line of UASs, including the Predator, Reaper, Gray Eagle, and Avenger lines serving the Air Force and Army.

Kratos said the OBSS—of which it declined to supply an image—is “a new addition” to the company’s UAS line, meant to employ kinetic and non-kinetic effects that “generate affordable, force-multiplier combat power.” It will use digital engineering methods to “develop, leverage, and integrate system-ready technologies” and perform “prudent early ground and flight demonstrations and experiments.”

Steve Fendley, Kratos Unmanned Systems Division president, said the contract shows Kratos is getting larger, “further enabling our economies of scale” across its UAS portfolio. The company seeks to help USAF supply “mass to the fight” by “bending the cost curve to enable the U.S. to acquire and employ large numbers of aircraft” that challenge an adversary and “force them to recalculate their options.”

Eric M. DeMarco, Kratos Defense and Security Solutions CEO, said the company is “committed to disrupting the …national security market by providing rapid, agile, affordable, and relevant systems.” The OBSS award “reaffirms our approach to treat affordability as a technology.” He credited the company’s Ghost Works unit as designing its OBSS.

General Atomics could not immediately be reached for comment.

With One Week to Go, Thousands of Airmen, Guardians Set to Miss COVID Vaccine Deadline

Oct. 26, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

With a week to go until the Department of the Air Force’s Nov. 2 deadline for Active-duty Airmen and Guardians to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, nearly 95 percent of Active-duty Air Force and Space Force members are vaccinated, according to the latest data.

On top of the 94.6 percent who are fully vaccinated, 1.8 percent are partially vaccinated, leaving just 3.6 percent of the force who have not received any shot of the vaccine. Those figures confirm Defense Department Press Secretary John F. Kirby’s comment Oct. 25 that the “vast majority” of the total force have received the necessary shots.

At the same time, the Department of the Air Force, which has the earliest vaccine deadline among the services, will have to deal with thousands of Airmen and Guardians who have refused the vaccine. Out of more than 330,000 Active-duty members, 3.6 percent equates to more than 10,000 Airmen and Guardians. The shortest amount of time it takes to get fully vaccinated is two weeks after a single-dose shot such as Johnson & Johnson‘s.

Those who refuse the vaccine can seek a medical or administrative waiver, such as a religious waiver, to avoid it. The number of service members who have actually obtained those waivers, particularly religious ones, is “very, very small,” Kirby said.

The Air Force has not released any exact number on waivers, but a spokesperson told Air Force Magazine the service will begin reporting the “number of approved administrative and medical exemptions” in its weekly update.

Refusing the vaccine without a waiver “may be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Military commanders retain the full range of disciplinary options available to them under the UCMJ and must consult with their servicing Staff Judge Advocate for additional guidance on vaccination non-compliance,” the spokesperson said in an email.

The service currently has no plans to release data on disciplinary action taken against Airmen and Guardians who don’t get the vaccine, the spokesperson added.

Service members aren’t the only ones facing a deadline to get vaccinated, though. Hundreds of thousands of civilian DOD employees will have to be fully vaccinated by Nov. 22, and a memo released by the department Oct. 18 spelled out the enforcement process for that deadline, including a five-day period of “counseling and education,” a short suspension without pay of up to 14 days, and finally, “removal from Federal service for failing to follow a direct order.” More guidance is forthcoming, Kirby promised Oct. 25.

“We owe the workforce additional context about actual implementation on their part, and we’ll be having that out pretty soon,” he said.

Under an executive order from President Joe Biden, federal contractors must be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8. During a quarterly earnings call Oct. 26, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes said he expects that the mandate will cause “some disruption in both the supply chain and with our customers,” according to multiple media reports.

At the same time, Raytheon is “going to work our way through this,” Hayes added. The defense contractor implemented its own vaccine mandate before the White House did, and it has been joined by other major players in the industry who have announced plans to comply with the requirements, including Boeing, L3Harris, Honeywell, and Lockheed Martin.

Alternate Fighter Plan: Cut F-15EX, Extend F-22, Buy New Stealth Jets, More F-35s

Oct. 26, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force’s “4+1” fighter plan for the 2020s, unveiled in recent months, will leave the service with a fleet that’s too small and improperly configured to deal with peer threats. What’s needed is a plan that emphasizes stealth aircraft; rapidly retires non-stealthy and expensive-to-maintain “legacy” airplanes; and doesn’t create gaps in USAF’s ability to control the air in a conflict, according to new analysis from AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Mitchell released a paper Oct. 25 offering an alternate fighter roadmap, saying the Air Force’s plan is budget-driven rather than strategy-driven.

“When you look at where we are today, and the Air Force’s plans for how they intend to get to the fighter force of the 2030s, there’s going to be a significant gap, a decrease in capacity—and, in some cases, capability—before we get to” the 2030s fighter force the service envisions, said Heather Penney, Mitchell senior resident fellow and author of the study, in a briefing for reporters. Mitchell’s plan offers an alternative path to the fighter force USAF seeks, she said. The report is titled, “The Future Fighter Force Our Nation Requires: Building a Bridge.”

Mitchell recommends the Air Force do what’s necessary to bring on at least 200 new fighters a year, just to keep the force at its current numerical levels. Current rates “are nowhere near this level,” Penney wrote.

The “4+1” plan spelled out in recent months calls for the F-22, closely followed by the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, as one leg; the F-35, the “cornerstone” of the fleet, as another; the F-15E/EX as a supplement to carry big weapons as a third; and F-16s to serve as a force-capacity maintainer. The A-10s are described as the “plus one” for close air support needs, as it can neither dogfight nor penetrate enemy airspace. Both the F-22 and A-10 would phase out in 2030, USAF has said.

The faults in USAF’s strategy are that it doesn’t buy F-35s fast enough; it retires the F-22 before its replacement is in hand; and it spends scarce dollars on non-stealthy and “increasingly irrelevant” F-15EXs that should go to an all-new fighter than can survive and be built in numbers, said retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of Mitchell. The Air Force must also plan for combat losses unlike what it has experienced in the last 20 years, he said, due to the accelerating capability of adversaries such as China.

“The Air Force must revisit its decision to slow production rates” of the F-35, Penney said in the report. Numbers must be increased so that legacy aircraft that are no longer up for peer fights can be retired “one for one” with new jets, she said. Meanwhile, investing in the F-15EX—which, despite being updated with new flight controls and electronic warfare, will remain a non-stealthy aircraft—should be abandoned in favor of a rapid program to introduce a stealthy new and less expensive force—a multirole fighter complement to NGAD. The Air Force has referred to this airplane as a generation “4.5 plus or 5.0 minus” aircraft. The airplane is roughly analogous to the F-16 as the “low-end” fighter to the F-15’s “high end” in the 1980s.

Retiring the F-22 before a full force of NGADs is in hand—what Mitchell described as “gapping the force”—would allow China “the fait accompli it seeks” in potential conflicts such as with Taiwan, Deptula said, because the Air Force would not be credibly able to challenge it.

The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies presented an alternative fighter force roadmap during a virtual rollout event on Oct. 26. Top left to right: Mitchell Senior Resident Fellow Heather Penney and John Venable, senior research fellow for defense policy at The Heritage Foundation. Bottom left to right: Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute, and retire Lt. Gen. John Michael Loh, former commander of Air Combat Command.

Mitchell’s eight recommendations to the Air Force are:

Develop a “planning force” that actually meets the National Defense Strategy’s requirements to deter peer adversaries while having enough in reserve to deal with a possible second conflict. This would “go a long way in educating the American public and the Congress” in understanding USAF’s fighter force structure requirements; and explain the risks of not building the requisite inventories.
“Extend legacy F-16s, wholly divesting the F-15C/D, A-10C, and F-15E inventories as F-35 production ramps up.” The F-16s can still function in “permissive environments” and can affordably provide multirole capacity in the near term, wrote Penney, a former USAF F-16 pilot, but the other airplanes “should be fully divested on a one-for-one replacement rate” as F-35s are built. The money saved would be put toward buying F-35s and procuring the NGAD.
Kill the F-15EX and use the funds to launch a “new, stealthy, general-purpose fighter design” that USAF has tentatively dubbed the MR-X. The Air Force “accepted the F-15EX not because it will be relevant to future warfare” but because of a desire for a competitive production line to spur operating cost reductions on the F-35. The MR-X would be affordable and “relevant to the threats of the future,” whereas the F-15EX, because it is not stealthy, would have to “stand off” so far from enemy territory that it would “negate” the value of standoff weapons strapped to it. Mitchell said the F-117 and YF-16 are models of how USAF can “advance new designs and capabilities affordably.”
Ramp up the F-35, offsetting F-15C/D, A-10C, and F-15E retirements. Penney told reporters that while Lockheed Martin has negotiated a peak production rate of about 155 F-35s a year, the additional tails needed could be obtained “by adding a third shift.” The Air Force has said it prefers to wait for the Block 4 version of the F-35, but Penney wrote that those aircraft now in production “have the foundation” for Block 4 and could be updated later. Increasing F-35 production also “provides some hedge” if NGAD is delayed. Mitchell documents assert that “every F-35A that is not bought between now and [2030] is one less Block 4 aircraft in the Air Force’s 2030 inventory.”
Close the F-35 Joint Program Office. Deptula said the JPO as now structured—run by a committee of F-35 users, both U.S. and international—takes too long to reach decisions and moves too slowly to stay ahead of threats. The services all have their own F-35 “integration offices,” so this wouldn’t be hard to accomplish, Penney said, and the result would be more focused on each user’s needs, particularly those of the Air Force.
Keep and modernize the F-22. Deptula noted that telling Congress the F-22 will retire in 2030 means the jet would not get needed upgrades in the late 2020s, because Congress would not want to fund improvements that would go into airplanes about to phase out. Rather, Penney wrote, the F-22 provides meaningful capability for “both the European and Pacific theaters,” and USAF should not let go of the F-22 until the NGAD is fielded and operational. The air superiority mission “must not be gapped,” Deptula said.
Accelerate “and remain steadfastly committed to” the NGAD. Penney called NGAD the “foundation of the future fighter force” but noted it won’t be fielded until the 2030s. USAF must remain “wholly committed” to seeing it through.
Abolish the “pass through” section of the Air Force budget. Deptula noted that the pass-through—monies that appear to be part of USAF’s budget but are not controlled by it, being diverted immediately to classified DOD programs, mostly in space—give Congress the impression that USAF’s budget is about 20 percent bigger than it is. Deptula said that since the 1991 Gulf War, it appeared as if the Air Force has “received nearly $1 trillion more” than it actually has; and that removing this idiosyncrasy would better illustrate how underfunded the service is, relative to the other services. Moreover, “Space Force was basically an unfunded mandate,” which the Air Force is paying for out of hide, with little additional appropriation, even though it is absorbing space functions of the other services, he said. Given general agreement that dealing with China is mainly an Air Force problem, abetted by the Navy and to a much lesser degree the Army, budget proportionality is needed, he said; in buying power, USAF has been last among the services for more than 30 years.

“The Air Force faces a crucial transition,” Penney wrote. While USAF leaders are struggling to recapitalize “core missions while staying within serious budget restraints”—the Air Force must in the same timeframe recapitalize three-fourths of the nation’s nuclear deterrent—it’s been pushed to delay fighter programs so much that its “ability to fulfill its national defense responsibilities” is threatened. The Air Force has grown “too old and too small” to meet all the missions demanded of it, and past efforts to cannibalize the force, paying for new programs by retiring still-relevant capabilities, “have not worked.”

Flatly, she said, the Air Force “does not have the combat aircraft capacity” to cover its global responsibilities while functioning in “a high operational tempo of a complex and multipolar world.”

Slowing the F-35, and buying the “50-year-old” F-15EX design is “not a sound means to build the fighter force the nation needs,” she said. Though “well intentioned” and attempting to live within political reality, the Air Force’s 4+1 plan “only widens the gaps in foundational … capabilities” at a time when the world is getting “increasingly complex and dangerous.” Fighter recapitalization “cannot be put off any longer.”

ISIS-K Could Have Ability to Strike Outside Afghanistan in Six Months, DOD Official Says

Oct. 26, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Islamic State’s Khorasan branch, responsible for the suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members during the evacuation from Kabul, could develop the capacity to strike outside Afghanistan within “six to 12 months,” the Pentagon’s policy chief warned Oct. 26.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin H. Kahl, testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the security situation in Afghanistan, added that al-Qaida could develop the same capacity within one to two years. Both terrorist groups, he said, already have the intent to strike the U.S.

Back in July, John T. Godfrey, the acting U.S. Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, warned that ISIS-K remains a “serious threat” and said he agreed with military officials that the group could reconstitute capabilities within two years.

That assessment, however, was before the final withdrawal of American troops and the collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces, leading to the Taliban seizing control of the country. Now, the threats posed by ISIS-K and al-Qaida highlight the uncertainty surrounding future terror threats from Afghanistan.

ISIS-K and the Taliban are each other’s “mortal enemies,” Kahl said, but the Intelligence Community is not yet sure of the Taliban’s ability to prevent ISIS-K from developing capabilities. In the Doha agreement signed in February 2020, the Taliban agreed to renounce al-Qaida, but officials have testified that it never abided by that condition of the deal. Kahl indicated Oct. 26 that the two groups’ relationship remains complicated but said the Taliban is “wary” of letting al-Qaida use Afghanistan to launch external attacks due to fear of international reprisals.

The timeline Kahl articulated for ISIS-K and al-Qaida was based on estimates from the Intelligence Community, but “those estimates … are based on no U.S. or coalition intervention,” said Army Lt. Gen. James J. Mingus, director for operations for the Joint Staff. “The goal would be to keep those time horizons where they’re at now or push them even further.”

Right now, the only way for the Defense Department to monitor that threat and intervene is through “over-the-horizon” capabilities, the closest of which are stationed in the Persian Gulf area.

Mingus, echoing comments by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark A. Milley and U.S. Central Command boss Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., said conducting counterterrorism efforts from the Gulf, a several-hours flight from land-locked Afghanistan, is “harder, but we believe we have the assets in place right now if necessary to disrupt and or degrade the terrorist networks in Afghanistan.”

“We are deploying ISR over Afghanistan every single day,” Kahl added. “We also have national technical means. … We are sharing intelligence with regional partners and with our other partners, the U.K. and others, who are very focused on this problem set. So we will get after this challenge and we will try to grow our capability to get after it.”

As part of the effort to grow capabilities, the U.S. has had conversations with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two countries that border Afghanistan, about basing agreements, Kahl said, though he declined to discuss more details in an unclassified setting. Pakistan, another Afghanistan neighbor, has also been “pretty good” in working with the U.S. on counterterrorism negotiations, Kahl added.

“Pakistan is a challenging actor, but they don’t want Afghanistan to be a safe haven for terrorist attacks, external attacks, not just against Pakistan, but against others,” Kahl said. “They continue to give us access to Pakistani airspace, and we’re in conversations about keeping that airspace open.”

NGAD, New Weapons, E-3 Replacement Among Air Combat Command’s Top Priorities, Kelly Says

Oct. 25, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Next-Generation Air Dominance Fighter is Air Combat Command’s top priority, because without it, the Air Force can’t provide the control of the air the whole military depends on to operate, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mark D. Kelly said. He also named a replacement for the E-3 AWACS, new weapons, and command and control improvements among the command’s top needs.

Speaking at a Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies virtual event, Kelly said NGAD is his No. 1 requirement. He described it as a sixth-generation air superiority system able to operate at long ranges—farther than would be encountered in the European theater. Kelly said NGAD is “designed to operate beyond a single spectral band of the RF [radio frequency] spectrum, to thrive in a multispectral environment,” and it also “senses” the battle space and “connects” the rest of the force, so “that I can put [it] in the adversary’s back yard.”

The NGAD is really a multi-service requirement because the other services are “not remotely—remotely—designed to operate without” control of the air, Kelly noted. “Everyone’s counting on the Air Force to provide that.”

Kelly’s other priorities include:

Fulfilling the “fighter roadmap,” which he laid out at the AFA Air, Space & Cyber conference in September. This includes F-35s, F-15s, F-16s and, until around 2030, A-10s and F-22s;
“Fifth-generation AMTI,” or airborne moving target indicator capability; a replacement for the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS);
Air base defenses—possibly including directed energy systems;
“Fifth-gen weapons for our fifth-gen Air Force”;
And, investment in joint all-domain command and control.

Not Soon Enough

The E-3 is “unsustainable without a Herculean effort,” Kelly said, and while there are “miracle workers” in the maintenance force that keep it flying, “there’s only so many miracles [they] … can pull off before physics come into play on a 45-year-old airframe.” The AWACS of today is “outdated and only getting older” and also “just not interoperable with what we need to do” in a multispectral battle, Kelly said. Getting a new platform “can’t happen fast enough.”

The Air Force made its first move toward a new AWACS, the Boeing E-7A Wedgetail, last week in an industry solicitation, but Kelly could not provide a timeline for acquiring it. “I want them in the inventory … two years ago,” Kelly said. “Not to be flippant, but that’s actually the answer I would give Congress and anybody else.”

He said that neither he nor the Air Force have done a good job “of unambiguously articulating the no-fail [nature] of the air domain sensing piece.”

He said he’s in constant contact with the acquisition organizations of the Air Force, “and we’ll defer to them with regards to how fast it can actually happen,” but, he said, “I don’t think it will happen in 2022 or 2023, but I can guarantee you I’ll be talking to them on a weekly basis to make sure we get it as soon as we can.” The Air Force, he said, needs “a modern sensing grid.” He also said he’s agnostic about other potential solutions, but “if you know of one, send me an email, because I don’t know of any.”

Though Kelly did not mention the new Advanced Tactical Trainer among his top priorities, this, too is an important new program, he said. The T-38s used in that mission now “have 1960s-era tail numbers,” he said, and every day, it becomes “more disconnected” from the modern systems fighter pilots need to learn. “We can’t fill that void fast enough.”

Asked if acquiring the system—the requirements of which are very similar to the capability in the new T-7 trainer—will have to wait until the T-7 buy is complete, Kelly said the ATT won’t necessarily be a T-7 variant.

The T-7 program of record is 349 airplanes, Kelly said, and Air Education and Training Command needs those as soon as it can get them, to train the youngest aviators.

“There could be a different solution out there,” he said, but “I need to get our aviators, as soon as I can, something that is not such a leap” from 1960s technology in the T-38 to 2021 technology in the F-35. “Right now, I’m putting that tactical bridge on the shoulders of our young instructors on the flight line.” But he has, again, signaled the acquisition community that the fighter trainer needs to come sooner than later. He needs something cheaper than $20,000 per hour flying cost, but “closer to $2,000-$3,000 an hour.”

Making Progress on F-35

While Kelly admitted that the Air Force is chronically short of engines for the F-35 due to parts supply issues, he said great progress has been made in reducing the shortage from as many as 48 F-35s that were grounded “for power modules or some engine issues” to less than 40 aircraft. That is “not a trivial accomplishment,” Kelly said, “because every day, they’re introducing more jets to the system. So, it’s not a small improvement, it’s an exponential improvement, and I expect that trend to continue to zero.”

Getting there, however, required Kelly to “curtail some of our airshow schedule” to make sure “we don’t over-consume our engines for not a good return on our training investment.”

Kelly said he is satisfied with about 200 training hours for F-35 pilots per year, supplemented with simulators, and said that 65 percent aircraft availability is also acceptable, because it can be surged to over 70 percent. He said, the 65 percent figure is “a steady state line” for him.

Engine Issues

While he’s aware of “pressure” on the supply of engines for F-15s and F-16s, Kelly said he’s meeting all of the demand. Where engine issues are serious, he said, are on TF33 powerplants used on the E-3 AWACS, E-8 JSTARS, and B-52. Those engines are so old and hard to get parts for that aircraft are being cannibalized “before those engines cool down” to feed others.

Reaper’s Future

The MQ-9 Reaper will persist in the force, and ACC is moving to give it the capability to take off and land autonomously in bad weather, Kelly said. That will also reduce the manpower needed for the launch and recovery effort.

The Reaper will be “a key contributor to our sensing grid” for years to come, Kelly said, due to its ability to carry a “pretty decent” weapons load and Gorgon Stare long-dwell intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance pods.

As for what comes after the MQ-9, Kelly touted a new program for a low-observable unmanned adversary air system that could also carry sensors and perform an operational role outside of training.

AFRL, Industry to Launch Fourth-Generation Spacecraft Thermal Control

Oct. 25, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The Air Force Research Laboratory will soon have the first operational oscillating heat pipes flying in space, marking the first operational application of fourth-generation spacecraft thermal control. The technology was previously tested aboard the secretive X-37B reusable spaceplane, AFRL said.

The laboratory is partnering with ThermAvant Technologies and its system integrator, Maxar Technologies, to develop and deploy the technology, which is lighter weight, “highly-efficient,” and more affordable than the thermal management subsystem used today, according to an AFRL release. Satellites need to dump heat generated from their own electronics and from the sun to avoid ruining their systems, including optics and atomic clocks.

“Oscillating heat pipes have flown in space before, but now OHPs are being relied upon to serve a mission purpose,” said Jon Allison, the thermal thrust lead for the Spacecraft Component Technology Branch of the AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate. “The on-orbit operation of OHPs marks an important milestone in the technology transition.”

AFRL began looking at OHPs in 2008. ThermAvant, based in Columbia, Mo., developed the OHPs through a Defense Department Small Business Innovation Research contract, and AFRL’s Space Vehicles Directorate designed and built the hardware, along with a few other companies, for an orbital test in 2012. The technology flew again aboard the fifth X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle flight in 2017, which stayed in orbit for a record-setting 780 days.

The heat pipes themselves are static, but the fluid inside oscillates causing the heat transfer, according to the release. “The OHP is a simple, wickless heat pipe capable of rejecting more than 200 times the maximum heat load of an axially grooved heat pipe, and transporting more than 45 times more heat than copper,” according to AFRL.

Allison said this new technology could be used in space for the next 20 years.

“We have seen how every generation heralds a new era in spacecraft thermal control by introducing a new, revolutionary technology,” Allison said. “The first generation used only thermal conduction, the second generation introduced heat pipes, and the third generation introduced loop heat pipes. The advent of each new generation enabled larger, more powerful spacecraft.”

However, Allison predicts the fourth-generation technology will do the opposite, focusing instead on “smaller and more powerful spacecraft.”

More than 53,000 Afghan Evacuees on US Bases as Pentagon Monitors Readiness

Oct. 25, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

More than 53,000 Afghan evacuees remain at eight military bases throughout the continental U.S., but despite the resources needed to support that population, the military’s readiness has not been adversely affected, the Pentagon’s spokesman said Oct. 25.

Defense Department Press Secretary John F. Kirby, speaking during a press conference, detailed the distribution of Afghan special immigrant visa holders, applicants, and other evacuees across geographic combatant commands, with the vast majority in the U.S.

“In the Central Command area, there are just over 3,000 Afghan evacuees. In the European Command area, there is 463. And then here at CONUS bases under NORTHCOM’s authorities, there are 53,157 at eight locations,” Kirby said. “Thus far, 6,689 of them have been released for resettlement, and they’re on their way to their new lives.”

At the start of September, U.S Northern Command commander Gen. Glen D. VanHerck told reporters 25,000 Afghans were at the eight bases, which include Joint Base McGuire–Dix–Lakehurst, N.J., and Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. VanHerck also said the bases would eventually be able to house up to 50,000 as they built up infrastructure akin to “eight small cities.”

Nearly two months later, Kirby acknowledged the time and effort it is costing the military to maintain the infrastructure to support the evacuees and said the DOD continues to monitor for any impact on readiness.

“We’re very proud of the role that we’re playing and of the terrific job, the compassion that our men and women are showing every day—not just here at home but overseas—and in making sure that these evacuees have a safe and secure environment to live and to work on their process towards citizenship,” Kirby said.

“But obviously we also have a commensurate responsibility to defend this country, and one of the things that we’re constantly reviewing is the degree to which our readiness to do that is being affected by this fairly sizable mission set. And we don’t believe now … that our readiness to defend the nation is being adversely affected, but clearly there are assets, resources, time that are being devoted to this, that are in some cases not being devoted to other things, and so we’re watching that very closely.”

Kirby also reiterated that all evacuees have to pass through a security screening process and receive the necessary vaccines before being transported to the U.S., where they will eventually be resettled in communities. The Associated Press reported Oct. 23, however, that a number of Afghans who “triggered potential security issues during security vetting” have been sent to Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo.

“We’ve surged resources and we deployed some additional personnel from relevant departments and agencies overseas to Camp Bondsteel to effectively vet individuals who require further processing before onward movement, and there are a range of Afghan evacuees at Bondsteel to include many Afghan families, women, and children who we’ve definitely prioritized being able to keep them together,” Kirby said, adding that the U.S. had agreed to relocate all Afghans from Kosovo within 365 days.

US Supports ‘Stronger and More Capable’ European Defense, Austin Says

Oct. 22, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The U.S. supports “a stronger and more capable” European defense, but that defense should not duplicate the functions and capabilities of the NATO alliance, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said during an Oct. 22 press conference in Brussels.

Austin, speaking at his first in-person NATO Defense Ministerial, was responding to a question regarding recent efforts by some European Union members to expand the bloc’s military units with a rapid reaction force.

Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia proposed the initiative, according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, which would include “space and cyber capabilities, along with special forces and air transport.” French President Emmanuel Macron has also backed the idea of a European army, according to the BBC.

While Austin demurred when asked what kind of capabilities he’d like to see the EU develop, he did say that “we certainly support a stronger and more capable European defense, and one that contributes positively to the trans-Atlantic and global security that’s compatible with NATO.”

Austin’s comments echo those made by President Joe Biden during a phone call with Macron last month—a joint statement issued afterward said that “the United States also recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defense, that contributes positively to trans-Atlantic and global security, and is complementary to NATO.”

Both Austin and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Oct. 22 that the EU and NATO should ensure their capabilities work together, instead of duplicating each other.

“We’d like to see initiatives that are complementary to the types of things that NATO is doing,” Austin said. “So we see, hopefully, these two organizations working together to enhance security in the region and ensure that that trans-Atlantic bond remains strong.”

“What is needed are more capabilities, not new structures,” Stoltenberg said. “Our trans-Atlantic alliance remains the bedrock for our security.”

The EU and NATO share 21 common members, out of 27 and 30 total, respectively. Another four NATO members are currently candidate countries to join the EU. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. European Command has more than 70,000 personnel permanently stationed in the region.

Biden and Macron’s discussion of European defense last month was prompted by the AUKUS deal, with the U.S., U.K., and Australia agreeing to a pact highlighted by the sharing of nuclear submarine technology with Australia. That agreement was widely interpreted as an attempt to counter China in the Indo-Pacific but angered France, who had a previous deal with Australia for submarine tech.

Coming out of the Defense Ministerial, however, Austin said the U.S. and its NATO allies remain dedicated to contesting China’s influence.

“We’ve seen increasing interest in our allies and partners to ensure that they engage our partners in the Indo-Pacific and work with our partners to ensure that we collectively work to ensure that the Indo-Pacific area, or region, remains free and open, and the international rules-based order remains in place here,” Austin said.

While Austin and other top defense officials have continually stressed China as the U.S.’s pacing threat in recent months, Austin’s visits ahead of the Ministerial, to Georgia, Ukraine, and Romania were largely focused on the threat of Russia.

“I think what President Biden wants out of any kind of relationship with Russia is predictability and stability. And I think with nations like ours, I think that’s very, very important,” Austin said Oct. 22 in response to a question about Russian deterrence. “Again, we want to make sure that we continue to support our allies and partners in their desire to protect their sovereign territory and their desire to increase their resilience. So you’ll see us continue to do that. You’ll see us continue to work with our NATO allies and partners.”