DOD Mum on China’s Nuclear-Capable Hypersonic Weapon, Hints US Needs to Step It Up

Oct. 19, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Across the defense establishment, government officials have declined to comment on a recent report that China fielded a nuclear-capable hypersonic weapon in August, but on Oct. 19, defense policy nominee Alexandra Baker told senators there was a “sense of urgency” for the Defense Department to develop similar capabilities.

Baker addressed senators during her nomination hearing to be deputy undersecretary of defense for policy when she said the U.S. needed not only hypersonic weapons but space-based weapons to counter China.

“We … will need to have a sense of urgency about developing not only the capabilities but the concepts of operation that will allow us to counter some of the developments that we’re seeing the PRC put forward,” she said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.

“They have pursued a strategy of seeking to blunt U.S. advantages over a number of years, so not only in terms of hypersonics but also in space, counterspace, cyber,” she added. “All of these are areas that if confirmed, I would seek to prioritize.”

For two days, DOD officials representing U.S. Space Command, the Pentagon, and the Defense Secretary refused to comment directly on the alleged Chinese capability reported by Financial Times on Oct. 17.

“We will not comment about the specifics of these reports,” Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said. “We have made clear our concerns about the military capabilities China continues to pursue, capabilities that only increase tensions in the region and beyond. That is one reason why we hold China as our No. 1 pacing challenge.”

At an Oct. 18 event hosted by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Air Force Col. Kristopher Struve, vice director of operations for North American Aerospace Defense Command, also opined on the threat posed by advanced hypersonics, according to a report by Defense One.

“It’s that ability to provide a warning to our national leadership,” he said. “The thing that concerns us with hypersonics is our warning time and our warning capability, as these things launch high and then cruise at a lower altitude than we see our normal ICBMs.”

Senators were eager for more information about the threat during the Oct. 19 nomination hearing.

Douglas Bush, the Army’s acquisition nominee, also weighed in.

“The entire DOD, including the Army, does need to continue to work rapidly to improve our deterrence capability, including in the area of hypersonic missiles,” he said.

The Financial Times story cited five people familiar with the test, saying the Chinese weapon circled the globe before reentering the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. Although the missile reportedly missed its target by more than 20 miles, according to U.S. intelligence, it demonstrated advanced Chinese progress on hypersonic weapons.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall was explicit about the need for similar hypersonic and even space-based weaponry in recent comments at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference on Sept. 20.

“There is a potential for weapons to be launched into space, then go through this old concept from the Cold War called the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System,” Kendall said.

The Air Force Secretary said such a launch would not require a traditional ICBM trajectory.

“It’s a way to avoid defense systems and missile warning systems,” he explained.

Kendall also made a reference to other offensive capabilities, saying there is “a potential to actually put weapons in space.”

In his keynote address at ASC, Kendall warned about the growing sophistication of Chinese weaponry, including “hypersonic weapons, a full range of anti-satellite systems, plus cyber, electronic warfare, and challenging air-to-air weapons.”

The range of these weapons has “gone from a few hundred miles to thousands to literally around the globe.”

Recent U.S. tests of hypersonic weapons have shown mixed success, with several failed tests reported by the Air Force in 2021.

“I would like to see it be better,” Kendall said of progress on hypersonics, declaring he was “unsatisfied.”

“I think we will get there,” he added. “But we have to solve the problem first of where we’re trying to go, and then get there as quickly as possible.”

KC-46, F-35 Provide Lessons for Future Testing, Pentagon Nominee Says

Oct. 19, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Lessons from the KC-46 and F-35 will prove useful to the testing community in the years to come, the nominee to take over the role of director of operational test and evaluation for the Pentagon told lawmakers Oct. 19.

Nickolas Guertin, put forward by President Joe Biden to lead the Defense Department’s testing and evaluation efforts for major acquisition programs, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of a slate of nominees and received questions on two of the Air Force’s highest profile modernization efforts, both of which have endured ongoing testing issues and deficiencies.

The Air Force has identified six Category 1 deficiencies in the KC-46, most prominently with the tanker’s troubled Remote Vision System, the camera that distorts and, in some light, obscures the boom operator’s view. That has led to the aircraft manufacturer Boeing announcing that it will develop and install a new system, dubbed Remote Vision System 2.0, with the hope of putting it in planes starting in late 2023.

Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to pledge that he would keep testing and evaluation of RVS 2.0 on schedule, Guertin said he would and pointed to a key area where previous testing for the tanker had fallen short.

“It’s especially important that the systems are tested the way they will be operated operationally, and to have those things come out as a part of fielding them is not the time we want to discover those problems,” Guertin said.

The F-35, meanwhile, has had its share of issues as well. In July, Defense News reported that the Joint Strike Fighter’s list of critical deficiencies was down to seven, after hitting 13 in 2019. The exact nature of the most recent deficiencies have not been publicly disclosed, but Guertin hinted Oct. 19 that the complexity of the stealth fighter’s systems made it such that real-world testing was sometimes a challenge.

“One of the things we need to be thinking about as we move forward into the future is a tighter alignment between modeling complex systems like the F-35—it’s got a lot going on under the hood—some things you’re not going to be able to test operationally all at the same time in a threat-representative environment, so we need to be thinking about how we combine modeling and simulation of those environments with applied physical testing,” Guertin told Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

The Air Force has used “digital twins” in the recent past, creating a virtual replica of a platform then simulating tests to shorten the testing time before fielding a system. The goal, acting Air Force acquisition boss Darlene Costello said in July, was to save physical tests only for the things that most require it.

Guertin seemed to agree with that view, writing in response to the Senate panel’s advanced policy questions that “digital technology, including strategic use of modeling and simulation, should be used much more frequently” to provide quicker, more incremental updates for systems.

However, there are limitations to digital modeling and simulations, Guertin later wrote. Specifically, these processes require real-life data that is accurate and reliable so that the simulations reflect operational reality.

“The early costs of [modeling and simulation] may be high, but it produces significant dividends in testing of the follow-on iterations of a system or a similar system,” Guertin wrote.

As the Air Force proceeds with development of the Next Generation Air Dominance platform, officials have already used digital methods to design the planned sixth-generation fighter. And when it comes time for testing and evaluation, Guertin said Oct. 19 that the F-35 has been a “great use case” to build upon.

“We need to be taking full advantage of the lessons, both good and bad, in how we position ourselves in the future for taking advantage of those kinds of technologies as we build up these more and more complex systems, as we move further forward into the future,” he said.

Gen. Colin Powell, Joint Chiefs Chair in Desert Storm and Secretary of State Under G.W Bush, Dies at 84

Oct. 18, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Colin Luther Powell, U.S. Soldier, diplomat, and statesman, died Oct. 18 at the age of 84. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he advised President George H.W. Bush during America’s response to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing swift victory in the 1991 Gulf War. He also presided over the invasion of Panama and a sharp reduction in the size of the U.S. military after the end of the Cold War. His public stature was such that he was courted by Republicans and Democrats alike to be a presidential candidate, but he declined the offers. Powell faulted himself for not arguing more forcefully against a second war in Iraq while he was Secretary of State; in later years, he was a popular author and speaker.

His death was attributed to complications from the COVID-19 virus; a breakthrough case, as Powell was fully vaccinated, but in recent years he had suffered from blood cancer that severely degraded his immune system.

Powell achieved a number of firsts for a Black man: the first to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, first to be Secretary of State—the only person to hold both positions other than George C. Marshall, who did so under President Harry S. Truman—and the first to be National Security Advisor. He was only the fourth Black man to be a four-star Army general. Powell was considered to be the least apolitical general since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Raised by immigrant Jamaican parents in the South Bronx, Powell attended New York City College and found his calling with the ROTC program there. He was commissioned in the Army and enjoyed a meteoric, 35-year career that included two tours in Vietnam. He rose to the rank of brigadier general by the age of 42, and after serving as military assistant to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and command of V Corps, Powell was tapped by President Ronald Reagan to be National Security Advisor.

At the White House, Powell, still on Active duty as a three-star general, advised Reagan on arms agreements and renewed détente with the Soviet Union, coming to national attention and establishing him in the inner circle of foreign policy experts. Though peripherally involved in the “Iran-Contra” scandal of selling weapons to Iran to create funds for the anti-Sandinista movement in Nicaragua, he was not publicly identified with it. He left the White House in 1989 to become the four-star head of Army Forces Command. Just a few months later, however, Powell was appointed to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs by President George H.W. Bush.

Late that year, Powell and Bush approved plans for a toppling of the Manuel Noriega regime in Panama. Called “Operation Just Cause,” which was executed in just over a month’s time, the invasion was ostensibly meant to protect access to the Panama Canal.

In August 1990, Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait. Powell advised that U.S. reaction be heavy and include internationally ironclad economic sanctions, but Bush decided, without consulting Powell, to reverse the invasion militarily. The buildup of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and surrounding coalition nations to deter and eventually defeat Iraq was called Operation Desert Shield.

Shortly after the buildup began, newly minted Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael J. Dugan gave a series of candid interviews with reporters traveling with him to inspect preparations in the Middle East. Dugan argued that if war came, a massive application of airpower would be required to whittle down the Iraqi Army, and that one goal would be to decapitate Iraq’s leadership. Soon after publication of the remarks, Dugan was fired by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, who said Dugan had given away too much information about war plans, even though most of what Dugan said had already been revealed in the defense press. Powell said little publicly about the firing, except that he concurred with it, but Pentagon insiders said Powell urged Cheney to fire Dugan, as Powell believed Dugan was over-promising what airpower could accomplish.

In a November 2017 interview with the San Diego Union Tribune, former Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak, who Bush and Cheney picked to replace Dugan, said that after his own inspection tour of Desert Shield preparations, he told Bush that the Air Force and other service air arms were “ready to go” but that Powell “was trying—I thought—to delay operations until the Army got ready.” McPeak added that, “My experience with the Army is that if you wait until the Army’s ready, forget about it,” noting that 8th Air Force attacked Germany in World War II well before a land invasion could begin.

Powell eventually acquiesced to a war plan created by Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, which closely followed what Dugan had laid out. Briefing the press at the outset of Operation Desert Storm, Powell said the U.S. plan regarding the Iraqi army was, “We’re going to cut it off, and we’re going to kill it.” In the actual conflict, air forces conducted a highly successful six-week bombing campaign that halved the Iraqi military, followed by a four-day ground operation. Air attacks continued during the ground offensive, but Powell told Schwarzkopf to stop them, as it had effectively become a slaughter that Powell believed would hurt U.S. standing in the world. Powell, Schwarzkopf, and other commanders were honored in a New York City ticker-tape parade in June 1991.

Gen. Norman H. Schwarzkopf, commander of U.S. Central Command, right, consults with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell as the men take part in a meeting regarding the Allied military coalition during Operation Desert Shield. Tech. Sgt. H. H. Deffner via National Archives.

In what became known as “The Powell Doctrine,” which he adapted from his former boss, Caspar Weinberger, Powell in 1992 laid out ground rules or tests the U.S. should check off before entering an armed conflict. It stipulated that the cause must be vital to U.S. security; the public be behind it; that overwhelming force should be applied to achieve rapid victory; and that an exit strategy must be set before the fighting starts.

After Desert Storm—and the self-dissolution of the Soviet Union—Powell implemented a reduction in the size of the U.S. military ordered by Bush. The “base force” concept saw about a 25 percent reduction in the force overall, with some aspects—Air Force combat airpower and personnel being one—seeing as much as a 40 percent reduction.

Powell was a holdover to the presidency of Bill Clinton, who advocated even deeper cuts to provide the nation with an economic “peace dividend” of winning the Cold War. Powell balked at the size of further reductions but acquiesced to some lesser cuts, particularly in the manning of the military services.

He resisted Clinton’s moves to allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, which eventually led to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. During his months serving under Clinton, Powell also pushed back against using force against Serbia in response to its genocidal campaign against Muslims in the Balkans—again preferring sanctions—and he supported allowing a weakened Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq, as a hedge against Iran. Powell’s final days as Chairman were marred by the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia, when he and Defense Secretary Les Aspin were criticized for failing to provide adequate protection for Army troops operating in that country.

Powell wrote a memoir called “My American Journey” about his humble beginning and success, and advice on leadership. He became a hot speaker, drawing six-figure fees. Admired by most Americans, he was approached to run for President but decided in 1995 he did not have the “fire in the belly” to be President. Though a lifelong independent, he eventually declared himself a Republican and spoke at Republican conventions, but in recent years distanced himself from the party over the policies of President Donald Trump.

Powell was the first Cabinet appointee of President George W. Bush, serving as his first Secretary of State, receiving unanimous Senate confirmation. During his tenure he reinvigorated the State Department and modernized it with new technology and communications gear. Powell clashed with both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on a number of foreign policy matters, including how to handle North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, which Bush wanted to confront.

Powell helped organize an international response to the 9/11 attacks, but it was a narrower coalition than in the 1991 Gulf War.

He argued against Bush’s desire to engage in a second Iraq war, arguing that if the U.S. conquered Baghdad, it would assume the expensive responsibility for feeding and policing that nation until a new government could be installed. He later wrote that he did not argue forcefully enough against Operation Iraqi Freedom, feeling that Bush had already decided to attack and that Powell’s counsel would be devalued if he continued to oppose the war.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks at the National Museum of American Diplomacy, January 2017. Photo courtesy of the National Museum of American Diplomacy.

In a February 2003 speech at the United Nations, Powell presented the case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he might give to terrorists, and could not be left in power, citing U.S. intelligence. Powell’s reputation and authority swung public and world opinion, but the intelligence eventually proved faulty, and he later said in an ABC news interview that his U.N. speech would be a permanent “blot” on his reputation, a “painful … part of my record.”

In his book, “It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership,” Powell said he was “mostly mad at myself for not having smelled the problems” in the run-up to the second Iraq war, saying his instincts had failed him.

Powell did not stay for a second Bush term, insisting he always planned to serve just one term, leaving government service in 2004.

In retirement, Powell lent his name and money to a number of causes. City College created the Colin Powell School of Civic and Global Leadership, for which he served as chairman of the board of visitors. In 1997, he created America’s Promise, an organization to help at-risk children. He endorsed President Obama’s presidential bid in 2008 and served as an adviser during Obama’s administration. In 2016, he said he would not endorse Trump’s candidacy, and in 2020, he accused Trump of having “drifted away from” the constitution.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said “the world [has] lost one of the greatest leaders that we have ever witnessed,” saying Powell was a “personal friend and mentor. He always had great counsel.” As a Soldier and statesman, Powell “was respected around the globe … It is not possible to replace a Colin Powell. We will miss him.”

McPeak, asked for comment, said, “Colin was a good guy—smart, but also possessing considerable charm, while at the same time being a ‘man’s man.’” Powell was “a world-class bureaucratic in-fighter. I never won an argument [with him], even though I was usually right.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright, president of the Air Force Association, praised Powell’s leadership.

“General Powell was a warrior-statesman whose leadership was foundational to America’s overwhelming victory in Operation DESERT STORM,” Wright said. “His support for Gen. Norm Schwarzkopf and Lt. Gen. Chuck Horner ensured the effectiveness of combat air forces and empowered our Airmen to be effective at every level. His standing among warfighters, and the American people remained strong to the end and was a compelling testament to his enduring strengths as a leader.”

Senate Appropriations Proposes $500 Million Extra for Space Force in 2022

Oct. 18, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Senate Appropriations Committee released its version of the 2022 Department of Defense Appropriations Act on Oct. 18, as lawmakers look to provide the Pentagon with its annual budget before the current continuing resolution funding the government expires Dec. 3.

The $725.8 billion bill would raise DOD spending above the total proposed by President Joe Biden’s administration back in May and put it in line with similar increases included in the National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House.

While the NDAA authorizes the funds for the Defense Department, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act actually appropriates the money. The House Appropriations defense subcommittee reported its version of the bill, which kept spending in line with the administration’s request, back in July, but the entire chamber has not proceeded with a vote on it.

The Senate panel’s version, meanwhile, adds spending across four main priorities, according to a report issued by defense subcommittee chair Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)—countering China and investing in the Indo-Pacific; artificial intelligence, cyber, and microelectronics; space; and infrastructure and public shipyards.

In particular, the bill would increase the Space Force’s total budget to $17.9 billion, an extra $500 million on top of what the young service requested for 2022, which was already $2 billion more than 2021. That would mark around a 2.9 percent increase over the service’s request and more than 16 percent over 2021.

A healthy portion of the $500 million increase—some $120 million—is dedicated to weapons system sustainment, which was a key part of USSF’s unfunded priorities list. Another $61 million would be dedicated “to accelerate a cislunar flight experiment.” Cislunar space, the region between the Earth and the moon, has increasingly become an area of interest for the Space Force, along with commercial and civil space organizations, as of late. On top of that, an extra $75 million is dedicated to “increased basic research.”

The bill does include a reduction of $433 million for the Space Force’s Overhead Persistent Infrared satellites, which the report states “are being developed on fixed-price contracts, yet funding is requested in excess of the contracted value.”

Across the entire department, the bill also proposes a $500 million program “to increase adoption of artificial intelligence capabilities at combatant commands” along with an extra $100 million to improve recruitment and talent development for those in AI-related fields.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would also receive a bump in funding under the bill, with $70 million to increase the agency’s efforts on “AI, cyber, and data analytics,” and $80 million for its Electronics Resurgence Initiative 2.0.

As for the Air Force, the bill would leave USAF’s request for 48 new F-35s and 12 new F-15EXs untouched. The service had asked for no additional F-35s and 12 additional F-15EXs as part of its unfunded priority list, and the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed buying one extra F-35 and five more F-15EXs.

Yet while the appropriations bill does not include those increases, it does include an extra $1.8 billion for procurement of 16 new C-130Js for the ”modernization of two Air National Guard operational wings,” the bill’s report states. It also adds six more MH-139 helicopters, listed as “UH-1N replacement.”

Austin Visits Non-NATO Partner Georgia to Tout New Russia Deterrence Efforts

Oct. 18, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Before Russia took NATO by surprise in 2014, invading Ukraine and taking the Crimean peninsula, some 200 miles from NATO shores, there was Georgia. In the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2006, Russian President Vladimir Putin spurred a frozen conflict, and Russia still occupies some 20 percent of Georgian territory.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III visited Tbilisi on Oct. 18 ahead of the NATO ministerial meetings in Brussels Oct. 21-22. He assured the aspiring NATO member that the U.S. is at its side. During the visit, he signed a defense memorandum to enhance deterrence amid continued Russian hybrid warfare, including disinformation and cyberattacks.

Austin also met with Defense Minister Juansher Burchuladze and Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili while in the Black Sea country. In public remarks, Austin thanked Georgia for contributing forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, and he highlighted progress Georgia is making to reach NATO interoperability.

“Georgia has paid a heavy price with 32 killed in action and 293 wounded in Afghanistan,” Austin said, while underscoring the “tremendous value” of the Georgia-U.S. partnership.

“This is a critical region to us,” he added. “We have many shared interests and, of course, shared values, and we see a number of opportunities for security cooperation.”

Sandwiched between Russia and NATO ally Turkey on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, Georgia had been one of the most vocal pro-western countries in the region, but its ruling party has made recent overtures toward Moscow, former U.S. ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly indicated in an August Foreign Policy article.

With Russia already strengthening its Black Sea Navy fleet and boosting its anti-access, area denial capabilities near NATO’s eastern flank, Austin’s visit and promise to help resist Russian pressure could not come soon enough.

In 2018, the United States launched a $53.4 million Georgia Defense Readiness Program and began training Georgian troops for the first time to protect their own sovereign territory. The program, run by Army and Marine Corps personnel deployed to Georgia, trained infantry companies and tactical unit commanders while also helping Georgia create policies and processes to train and equip their own forces. During the visit, Austin witnessed a medical training event and met with U.S. special operations forces deployed to Georgia.

With the readiness agreement expiring at the end of 2021, Austin and Burchuladze inked a new Georgia Defense and Deterrence Enhancement Initiative.

The six-year deterrence plan will strengthen and modernize Georgia’s military institutions and further NATO interoperability, focusing on higher-level military units and operations. U.S. personnel will also help train Georgia’s maneuver brigades in combined arms operations to integrate fires and engineering capabilities.

“Georgia continues to make progress in terms of military reform and capabilities,” Austin said after what he called an “excellent brief” by Georgia Defense Forces leaders on areas of improvement.

The agreement will give Georgia additional capability to train their forces, Austin added.

In a meeting with Prime Minister Garibashvili, Austin was forceful in outlining the threat Georgia faces from Russia.

“The United States condemns Russia’s ongoing occupation of Georgia and its attempts to expand influence into the Black Sea region through military coercion and malign activities,” he said.

Georgian media reported that Garibashvili in public comments following his meeting with Austin later in the day emphasized how the U.S. will help modernize Georgia’s defense forces and declared Georgia “a loyal ally [to the U.S.] in the region.”

VIDEO: From Munitions to Electromagnetic Warfare, Every Mission Capability Area Panel at ASC21

Oct. 18, 2021 | By Scott King

The Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Md., brought together top defense experts in September to discuss some of the biggest topics and challenges facing the Air Force and Space Force in a series of 10 “Mission Capability Area” panels. Those sessions are now available for everyone to view.

Chief Scientist of the Space Force Joel B. Mozer moderated a discussion on Digital Engineering and Advanced Manufacturing. Joining him were:

Wallis Laughrey, vice president of strategy and chief transformation officer at Raytheon Intelligence & Space;
Eric Hein, vice president for defense advanced development and space programs at Spirit AeroSystems; and
Renee Pasman, director of integrated systems at Lockheed Martin.

Chair of the Moorman Center for Space Studies Chris Williams moderated a panel on space and overhead platforms with:

Eric J. Brown, senior director for military space mission strategy at Lockheed Martin;
Bill Gattle, president of space systems at L3Harris Technologies; and
Paul Tilghman, senior director of Azure Spectrum Technologies at Microsoft.

Brig. Gen. Tad D. Clark, director of electromagnetic spectrum superiority, helmed a panel on electromagnetic warfare, joined by:

Jerry M. Wohletz, vice president and general manager of electronic combat solutions at BAE Systems;
Steven Kiepe from the Leidos Innovation Center; and
Anthony Nigara, vice president of strategy and business development for space and airborne systems at L3Harris Technologies.

Yvette S. Weber, associate deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology, and engineering, oversaw a panel on autonomous systems with:

Matthew Boyer, systems engineer senior staff at Elbit Systems of America;
Jarod Patton, autonomous systems solution architect at Leidos; and
Diem Salmon, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for New American Security.

Brig. Gen. Jeffery D. Valenzia, the Air Force’s cross-functional team lead for the Advance Battle Management System, moderated a panel on ABMS and JADC2. He was joined by:

Richard S. Stapp, corporate vice president and chief technology officer at Northrop Grumman;
Steve Nordlund, vice president and general manager of Phantom Works at Boeing; and
Ross Niebergall, vice president and chief technology officer of L3Harris Technologies.

Maj. Gen. Daniel L. Simpson, assistant deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance,
moderated a panel on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—commonly called C4ISR—and was joined by:

Matthew Apostolou, director of advanced ISR requirements and integration with Collins Aerospace Systems’ ISR and space solutions division;
James “J.R.” Gear, vice president in charge of Washington Operations with L3Harris Technologies; and
Mike Shortsleeve, director of strategic development at General Atomics Aeronautical.

Department of the Air Force Chief Data Officer Eileen M. Vidrine oversaw a discussion of data management, focusing on software engineering, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and analytics, and was joined by:

Akash Jain, chief technology officer of Palantir Technologies;
Thomas Treakle, Dell Technologies services account executive; and
Robert Audet, director in the advanced solutions segment for Guidehouse.

Col. Patricia A. Csànk, associate director of resource integration under the deputy chief of staff for logistics, engineering, and force protection, moderated a panel on logistics, sustainment, and mission support. She was joined by:

Retired Maj. Gen. Robert McMahon, senior adviser for Systecon;
Retired Maj. Gen. Stephen T. “Steve” Sargeant, CEO of Marvin Test Solutions; and
Anthony Pedroni, vice president of development for NextEra Energy Resources.

Brig. Gen. Robert K. Lyman, assistant deputy chief of staff for cyber effects operations, led a panel discussion on 5G, cyber operations, and cybersecurity. He was joined by:

Retired Col. Lance Spencer, client executive vice president for AT&T’s Global Public Sector;
Ed Vasko, director of Boise State University’s Institute of Pervasive Cybersecurity; and
Stephen Marker, vice president of strategy & business development cyber systems at General Dynamics Mission Systems;
Daniel G. Rice, vice president of 5G.MIL programs at Lockheed Martin.

Col. Michael J. Power, commander of the 90th Maintenance Group, moderated a panel on weapons and munitions, joined by:

John “Snooze” Martins, director of international programs for MBDA;
Mark Altobelli, director of advanced weapons and missile systems at Boeing’s Phantom Works; and
Retired Maj. Gen. Jon Norman, vice president of customer requirements and capabilities for Raytheon Missiles & Defense.

As National AI Panel Shuts Down, New Think Tank Emerges to Continue Its Work

Oct. 18, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

The congressionally chartered National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has completed its work, but the team that created its 756-page report will continue, backed this time by its former chair, Eric Schmidt, who is committing his own money to the new effort, dubbed the “Special Competitive Studies Project.”

The project is funded by the Eric & Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation, a family-led nonprofit.

Eric Schmidt was chief executive officer, then executive chairman, at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, from 2001 to 2017, then served as a technical adviser to Alphabet until 2020. He ranks 30th on Forbes’ 2021 list of “400 wealthiest Americans” with a fortune worth $23.5 billion. He has become a major influencer in defense technology and innovation over the past several years. He served on the NSCAI from 2018 to 2021 and simultaneously led the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board for most of that time, which he chaired from 2016 to 2020 as it drafted DOD’s ethical principals for AI.

Schmidt was technical adviser when Google briefly joined DOD’s Project Maven, which uses machine learning to identify people and objects in intelligence imagery, in 2018. After Google staff objected, however, Google discontinued its ties with the program. Robert Work, who is credited with starting Project Maven as deputy defense secretary in 2018, was Schmidt’s vice chair on the NSCAI and is his co-chair on the new Special Competitive Studies Project, or SCSP.

Schmidt continues to invest in AI technology and heads the list of investors in AI startup Rebellion Defense, founded in 2019 and reportedly valued at $1 billion as of September. Rebellion’s CEO is Chris Lynch, the founding director of the Defense Digital Service and the driving force behind the “Hack the Pentagon” bounty hunting program and the Pentagon’s failed Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI, cloud computing program.

The new SCSP, an LLC within the family nonprofit, aims to make recommendations to the government not only on AI but also on other “emerging technologies” that will “reshape our national security, economy, and society,” according to spokesperson Tara Rigler, who held the same role with the national AI commission.

Joining Schmidt on the SCSP board of advisors are Work, the former deputy secretary of defense who is a consultant and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, or CNAS; Michele Flournoy, a CNAS co-founder and its current board chair, and former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration—Flournoy and Work serve together advising AI contractor SparkCognition Government Services; Nadia Schadlow, former deputy national security adviser for strategy in the Trump administration; and former U.S. representative and chair of the House Armed Services Committee William M. “Mac” Thornberry (R-Texas).

“All potential conflicts of interest will be closely monitored by legal counsel,” Rigler said.

SCSP draws its historical inspiration from the Cold War-era’s Rockefeller Special Studies Project, or SSP, launched in 1956 by Nelson A. Rockefeller, the grandson of John D. Rockefeller Sr., co-founder of Standard Oil. Nelson A. Rockefeller would later become governor of New York then Vice President during Gerald Ford’s presidency. Rockefeller’s project was led by Henry Kissinger, who became national security adviser and Secretary of State under Richard Nixon and Ford.

“In the midst of the Cold War, as the U.S. was facing roiling domestic and international conditions, Rockefeller and Kissinger brought together some of the nation’s leading thinkers to study the major problems and opportunities confronting the country, to chart a path to revitalize American society, restore a strong bipartisan national security strategy, and renew American leadership,” explains the Oct. 5 news release announcing SCSP’s launch.

Yll Bajraktari, who was the NSCAI’s executive director, will serve as the chief executive officer at SCSP. He was chief of staff to retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster during McMaster’s tenure as national security adviser to Donald Trump.

Rigler confirmed that more members of the NSCAI staff are moving over and that SCSP “is still recruiting and hiring additional members, including experts on areas that SCSP will look into.” She said Bajraktari will “build a team of technologists, national security professionals, and subject-matter experts to study and recommend methods to strengthen America’s long-term competitiveness.”

Rigler said SCSP is “building its research plan around the areas that we believe national leaders need to focus on, specifically topic areas essential to ensuring our national competitiveness.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated at 11:25 a.m. on Oct. 19 to note that the Special Competitive Studies Project has a board of advisors and Yll Bajraktari will serve as SCSP’s chief executive officer.

Lockheed Martin Says It Will Compete for Advanced Fighter Trainer

Oct. 15, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Lockheed Martin will offer a solution to the Air Force’s new Advanced Tactical Trainer aircraft, a new jet the Air Force is planning to bridge undergraduate flight instruction and full-up fighter certification. However, the company declined to say what it might offer for the nascent competition.

The Air Force issued a request for information seeking industry interest in an Advanced Tactical Trainer on Oct. 12, saying it has a need for at least 100 and perhaps as many as 400 of the new airplanes.

Lockheed Martin “is an air power solutions leader, delivering capabilities across the entire spectrum of training and combat aircraft,” a company spokesperson said. It has made “significant advances in digital engineering and open architectures that are accelerating development, production, upgrades and responsiveness.” The company looks forward to “closely reviewing the requirements” for the ATT system “and developing the best solution to meet the Air Force’s future needs.”

When asked specifically if Lockheed Martin will offer the T-50A—with which it and partner Korea Aerospace Industries finished second in the Air Force’s T-X Advanced Trainer competition—or offer a different airplane, or a clean-sheet design, the spokesperson declined comment.

However, the carefully-worded response suggests that Lockheed Martin might indeed offer a fresh concept, as Boeing’s T-7A Red Hawk was chosen largely because of its tailored approach to the T-X requirement and the record time in which the company designed and fabricated prototypes of the new trainer. Lockheed Martin’s statement emphasizes that it has the capability to do that, as well. In fact, it recently opened a new production facility at its Skunk Works Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif., specifically for short-run production and rapid prototyping of advanced systems.

Industry officials said at the time of the T-X down-select that Lockheed Martin was taking the Air Force at its word when the service said it preferred a non-developmental airplane for that contest. The company had actually helped KAI develop the T-50 with the intent of offering it to the Air Force as a T-38 replacement in the early 2000s, but that competition was deferred more than a decade.

Service officials said they initially believed a non-developmental T-X approach would offer the lowest risk and price, but Boeing’s digitally-designed proposal, at about $10 billion less than what USAF expected the T-X would cost, persuaded the service that the clean sheet was actually the lowest-cost solution.

Lockheed Martin is likely to secure an Air Force contract for a T-7A surrogate—the T-50—with which the Air Force plans to develop its “Reforge” overhaul of the fighter pilot training enterprise. But service leaders in recent years have touted an aircraft common to the T-7A as offering a two-birds-with-one-stone way to gain another platform without heavy additional development costs, which also has the benefit of using the simulator and training infrastructure and courseware that will come with the T-7A.

The T-7A is not a shoo-in for the ATT program, though. The Air Force has said it’s open to all offerers and wants capabilities—such as wing hardpoints—that the T-7A does not have. The Air Force also wants a less sophisticated combat aircraft on which it can partner with countries lacking the resources for a fighter like the F-35 or F-16. Former Skunk Works president Rob Weiss said the company developed a clean-sheet design for T-X but dropped it when the cost figures suggested the non-developmental approach better met USAF’s needs.

Space Force Shakes Up Acquisition Again in Effort to Achieve Efficiencies

Oct. 15, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The Space Force confirmed that it will reorganize space acquisition and space policy authorities starting Oct. 18 in an effort to streamline decision-making in line with Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s plan announced in August.

As first reported by Breaking Defense on Oct. 15, the Department of the Air Force described a plan to break out space policy from the as-yet unnamed space acquisitions chief. The move would reduce the number of personnel required to sign off on policy decisions by transferring space policy to the Chief of Space Operations and the Secretary of the Air Force.

In August, Kendall described his plan to consolidate the Space Acquisition Directorate from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, or SAF/AQ, into a new organization, Space Acquisition and Integration, or SAF/ SQ. Space acquisition policy remains within SAF/ SQ, while broader space policy moves to Space Force and responsibility for international affairs shifts to the deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, or SAF/ IA.

No further details were available by press time.

Kendall in August named Brig. Gen. Steven P. Whitney to head the space acquisitions office until an assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration is named. Whitney has managed the reorganization pending the appointment of that new civilian leader.

Congress has for months railed against the slow pace of space acquisitions reform and the absence of a civilian chief. In a July report, the House Appropriations Committee claimed the Air Force was dragging its feet.

“The Committee remains concerned that the Air Force has not taken more aggressive action in addressing longstanding space acquisition issues,” the report read.

Lawmakers also said the Air Force had “made little progress in defining what the Space Force will be doing that is fundamentally different than when it was a component of the Air Force.”

On Sept. 20 at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference, both Kendall and Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond expressed confidence in the reorganization of space acquisition, even though an assistant secretary had not yet been named.

“We’re actually interviewing people right now for the space acquisitions assistant secretary position,” Kendall said at the ASC media briefing, foreshadowing the office reorganization and personnel movement. “So, it’s moving forward. I’m reasonably happy with the pace.”

Raymond commended Kendall for his moves to change the space acquisition process.

“One of the things that Congress discussed when they passed the law that established the Space Force was the need to move at speed and to bring unity of effort across the department to reduce duplication,” Raymond said at the briefing. “This acquisition piece that the Secretary has really advanced from Day 1 coming in the office is a critical part of that.”