Heritage Foundation Ranks Air Force and Space Force as ‘Weak’ in New Report

Oct. 20, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The Heritage Foundation ranked both the Air Force and the Space Force as “weak” in its 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength released Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from low readiness and misaligned investment in fourth-generation platforms to insufficient space domain awareness and offensive space weapons to match peer capabilities.

Heritage, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank, rated Air Force capacity and capability as “marginal,” its middle ranking, while scoring readiness and the overall Air Force as “weak” on a five-point scale of very weak to very strong. The Air Force’s low ranking in readiness hinges on an annual average of 130 flight hours for pilots and insufficient investment in fifth-generation stealth aircraft most capable of facing peer adversaries. The Space Force was rated as “weak” across the board.

“On the Air Force, we’re a bit puzzled by its investment strategy,” index editor Dakota Wood said. The analyst said the Air Force was “spending more on research and development to have an Air Force that it would like to have in the 2030s, while it’s not buying enough of current production aircraft to replace its aging current fleet.”

The demands of two decades of war wore out the fleet, which has an average age of 31 years. Research and development dollars continue to outpace procurement, and the Air Force plans to cut 137 fighters and 32 tankers from its fleet by the end of fiscal 2022, leaving it at 69 percent of the Air Force that last fought a peer rival, the report finds.

“USAF currently is at 86 percent of the capacity required” to fight two major regional contingency operations, according to the report. “However, the disposition of those assets limits the ability of the service to deploy them rapidly to a crisis region. While the active fighter and bomber assets that are available would likely prove adequate to fight and win a single regional conflict, when coupled with the low mission capability rates of those aircraft …, the global sourcing needed to field the required combat fighter force assets would leave the rest of the world uncovered.”

Using the 2018 National Defense Strategy as a guidepost, the report cites mission capable rates of between 52 and 74 percent for legacy aircraft (fourth-generation and below) as insufficient to face a peer rival. It also notes a shortfall of 1,925 pilots, a number that improved slightly over the past year due to the lack of commercial hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also highlighted historic lows in sortie rates at less than 1.5 per week and flying time at 131 hours per year.

The report says the low rates are far below “healthy fighter force thresholds” of three sorties a week and 200 hours a year per pilot.

COVID had a severe effect on flight hours and sorties, the report assesses, and Heritage states that it will take several years of training for fighter pilots to recover what they lost in 2020. “Unfortunately, the Air Force is not moving on that path and will cut 87,479 flying hours from its budget in FY 2022—a reduction of 7 percent,” the report states.

Chart

Description automatically generated — Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation

Senior research fellow John “JV” Venable, 25-year Air Force veteran, told Air Force Magazine the purchase of fourth-generation aircraft over fifth-generation platforms puts the U.S. at a clear disadvantage against a peer rival.

“The Chinese and the Russians do not fear fourth-generation platforms,” he said. “But they do fear the F-35. That says a lot about what we should be buying right now.”

The Air Force asked to buy 12 F-15EXs in its 2022 budget request and included another dozen F-15EXs in its 2022 unfunded priorities list. However, in a notable break from tradition, the service did not request any new F-35 strike fighters in its 2022 unfunded priorities list.

“We could be applying that funding into the fifth-gen fighter force and actually moving the ball forward with regard to capability of our assets,” Venable said.

Neither the Air Force nor Space Force could immediately respond to a request for comment on the report’s findings.

Space Force Gets Failing Grade

Venable said the report rates the 2-year-old Space Force as “weak” based on aging and unprotected satellites, lack of space domain awareness, and insufficient offensive and defensive capabilities.

“The Space Force is not capable of meeting current—much less future—on-demand, operational, and tactical-level warfighter requirements,” states the report.

Venable said the Marshall Islands-based Lockheed Martin radar tracking system called Space Fence, which went online in 2020, only provides updates on the movement of some 26,000 objects every two hours.

“In between those two hours, what those platforms do, those satellites or missiles, … we wouldn’t have known that because of the limitation on our spaceborne and our land-based surveillance platforms,” he said, citing recent reports that China flew a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle through space in August.

Venable said the Space Force needs radars and satellites with optics to see spaceborne platforms and changes in the domain on a more regular basis.

House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama agreed that space-based platforms are lacking.

“Space-based platforms, unmanned assets, and more distributed logistics capabilities are essential to deterring China,” he said, also citing reports of the Chinese hypersonic missile test.

“We’re not in a good place,” Rogers told Air Force Magazine in a pull-aside interview when asked about U.S. hypersonics progress an event launch marking the launch of the report. “What I’m telling you is that we’ve got some things going on that are going to put us in a great place.”

Rogers, who keynoted the launch event, cited classified information in the hypersonics area that was “really exciting.” He also said he is not worried about recent Air Force failed hypersonics tests.

“It’s one of the things I keep trying to get members to get accustomed to,” he said. “I want people to push the envelope and fail because every time you test and fail, you learn something. That’s how Kim Jong Un finally developed a missile that could reach the United States.”

The report is complimentary of the President’s proposed $17.4 billion 2022 budget for Space Force, a 13 percent increase over FY 21, but it highlights ongoing growing pains.

Heritage praises Space Force for assimilating 60 disparate offices related to space from across DOD in its first two years, but warned that a significant portion of the 21,200 space professionals that remain in the Army and Navy must be incorporated into the Space Force to “remedy the dysfunctional oversight or command and control issues that the Space Force initiative was intended to resolve.”

The report says it is not likely such transfers will be complete until fiscal year 2024 or later. The transferring of space-related units and missions from the Army and Navy has been delayed by the failure of Congress to pass a 2022 budget.

Venable said the Space Force is also behind adversaries such as China in terms of offensive capabilities in space. He said the U.S. has ground-based blinding assets that can temporarily impede a satellite’s operations, whereas China has anti-satellite missiles on Earth and laser platforms on orbit right now.

“We have no true, at least unclassified, systems that can take an offensive punch to the Chinese,” he said.

Rogers also addressed the Space Force’s apparent lack of space weapons compared to the known capabilities of adversaries China and Russia.

“We intentionally are moving or developing Space Force in a layered effort over a five- or six-year period,” he said. “I expect us to, as it matures, to continue to put more and more money in what they’re developing both offensively and defensively. So, I’m pretty pleased with where we are there. I would like to be pacing that well in other areas.”

KC-46 Completes First F-16 Coronet After Interim Capability Release

Oct. 20, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Just days after Air Mobility Command cleared the KC-46 to start refueling Air Force F-15s and F-16s, a tanker from the 22nd Air Refueling Wing completed the Pegasus’ first Tanker Airlift Control Center-tasked F-16 Coronet.

Coronets are missions in which a group of fighters are assigned one or multiple tankers to fly with them over an ocean to ensure the smaller aircraft have enough fuel.

The KC-46A from the 344th Air Refueling Squadron at McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., flew to Naval Station Rota, Spain, where it linked up with F-16s from the D.C. Air National Guard’s 121st Fighter Squadron.

The tanker then flew with the fighters, which were returning from a deployment to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, across the Atlantic to their home station of Joint Base Andrews, Md.

The Oct. 16-17 mission followed closely on the Oct. 13 “interim capability release” issued by AMC that allowed KC-46s to refuel all variants of the F-15 and F-16 using the air-to-air refueling boom. It was the third such release, after AMC first cleared the tanker to use its centerline drogue, then permitted it to use its boom to refuel C-17s, B-52s, and other KC-46s in some circumstances.

With the most recent release, 62 percent of aircraft that “request air refueling support” from U.S. Transportation Command can now be accommodated using the Pegasus tanker, AMC said.

As the KC-46 has been allowed to take on more missions, the Air Force’s KC-10s and KC-135s have been freed up for other missions. This proved especially vital in August, when AMC’s fleet was stretched thin by the Afghanistan non-combatant evacuation operation that involved scores of airlift and tanker aircraft. This led to the KC-46 performing its first operational missions.

Yet while the tanker continues to expand its mission set, it still has years to go before it is expected to be declared fully operational. The plane’s boom has been plagued by issues, principally with the Remote Vision System, a 3-D video display that has suffered from latency and blind spots in certain conditions. As a result, the KC-46 has previously scraped aircraft when trying to refuel them, which is of particular concern for stealth airframes such as the F-22, F-35, and B-2, which have sensitive treatments to keep their observability low.

B-1s Operate From Diego Garcia for First Time in 15 Years

Oct. 20, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

B-1 bombers operated out of Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia for the first time in more than 15 years recently as part of Pacific Air Forces’ bomber task force missions.

The B-1B Lancers, along with about 200 Airmen from the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., landed on the small island in the Indian Ocean on Oct. 17, the Air Force announced in a press release.

“Global B-1 operations not only provide strategic deterrence to our nation’s adversaries, but also strong, palpable assurance to our allies,” Lt. Col. Ross Hobbs, 37th Bomb Squadron director of operations, said in a statement. “It’s been over 15 years since B-1s have operated out of this location and the 37th Bomb Squadron is beyond proud to be back. We are extremely grateful for the opportunity and well prepared to meet our nation’s call.”

Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Archipelago. Along with Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, it marks a key strategic base for military operations in the Indo-Pacific region. The Air Force, in particular, has used the island as a base to send bombers into the U.S. Central Command area of operations.

The Air Force introduced bomber task forces in 2020 as an alternative to continuous bomber presences outside the continental U.S. Since then, B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s have all deployed to the Indo-Pacific at different times, often integrating with allies and partners or participating in exercises.

“Bomber Task Force missions, in support of INDOPACOM’s operational and strategic objectives, are extremely valuable to our aircrew because of the multi-country integration opportunities,” Hobbs said. “They also give us the opportunity to showcase the unmatched range, speed, and lethality of the B-1.”

B-2s last deployed to Diego Garcia in August 2020, while B-52s operated from there in January 2020 during a period of increased tension with Iran.

Elsewhere across the globe, B-1s from 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron of Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, are deployed to RAF Fairford, England, as part of a bomber task force for U.S. Air Forces in Europe.

Right on Cue, North Korea Testing Ballistic Missiles, as Predicted by DIA

Oct. 19, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

No sooner had the Defense Intelligence Agency issued its North Korean Military Power report, in which it predicted Pyongyang would resume ballistic missile tests, than North Korea did exactly that, lofting a submarine-launched ballistic missile Oct. 19.

The test, in which an SLBM launched from the port of Sinpo into the Sea of Japan, was detected and characterized by South Korea, which said the missile attained an altitude of about 40 miles, traveling about 280 miles downrange. Japan said two missiles were fired.

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command issued a statement saying it is “aware” of the missile launch and that “we are consulting closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan, as well as other regional allies and partners.” The U.S. “condemns these actions” and calls on Pyongyang to “refrain from any further destabilizing acts.” INDOPACOM assessed that the missile doesn’t pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or that of its allies, and said it will continue to monitor the situation. The U.S. commitment to the defense of South Korea and Japan “remains ironclad,” INDOPACOM said.

The DIA, in its Oct. 15 report, said, “it is possible we could see a test of a long-range missile” from North Korea “over the next year.” Even if such tests were not forthcoming, “Pyongyang will probably focus on training and improving its missile forces, which are increasingly central to North Korea’s deterrence strategy,” the DIA said.

The report reiterates DIA’s previously stated assessment that North Korea is focusing on ballistic missiles—and its nuclear program—to deter the U.S. from an attack. The asymmetric strategy emulates some of Russia’s approach to national security since the end of the Cold War, substituting weapons of mass destruction for conventional capability. The DIA judges North Korea’s conventional power to be extremely large but increasingly obsolete, especially compared to U.S. and South Korean forces on the peninsula, hence the emphasis on the asymmetric strategy.

Pyongyang continues to pose a “critical security challenge” to the U.S. and its allies, the DIA said. The North Korea report is patterned after the Pentagon’s “Soviet Military Power” assessments of the 1980s, which it has revisited in recent years with similar reports on China.

North Korea has claimed that it’s conducted other missile tests in recent weeks, including that of a hypersonic missile, called the “Hwasong 8,” in September, although U.S. Strategic Command could not verify that. The United Nations has barred North Korea from conducting long-range ballistic missile tests or pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The last time Pyongyang conducted a long-range, land-based ballistic missile test was in November 2017, and its last known nuclear test was two months before that.

North Korean President Kim Jong Un’s “vision” for his nation’s military is to have an ability to “directly hold the United States at risk” and compel it to make policy decisions “beneficial to Pyongyang,” DIA director Lt. Gen. Scott D. Berrier said in the report.

The DIA said North Korea’s asymmetric strategy includes cyber espionage, cyber theft, and cyberattacks on “critical infrastructure” in adversary countries. Though North Korea appeared to be on the brink of collapse 30 years ago—suffering a three-year famine that killed “almost a million people”—it endures against all odds, the DIA said, becoming “a growing menace” to the U.S. and its allies in the region.

North Korea’s huge conventional forces are capable of a “high-intensity, short-duration attack on the South with thousands of artillery and rocket systems.” This capability could cause “thousands of casualties and massive disruption to a regional economic hub.” Kim Jong Un has put “overriding priority” on military investments, to the detriment of all other economic sectors, the DIA said.

Conventionally, the North Korean military is suffering from accelerating obsolescence, according to the DIA. Given that the opening round of any conflict across the 38th parallel will likely be fought in the air, the DIA judges Pyongyang’s aircraft and air defense systems as decades out of date. The most advanced fighters in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) military are 1980s-vintage, Russian-made MiG-29s, which, along with a lot of 1970s and earlier aircraft, comprise the bulk of the nation’s air force. Together with ground-based, “primarily fixed, but transportable” air defense missile batteries, they are capable of “basic air defense operations.” The DPRK air force would “struggle to penetrate South Korean air defenses in an attack role.”

Pyongyang fields 900 combat aircraft, 200 transports, and 300 helicopters, the DIA said. The most modern gear is clustered around Pyongyang itself. “The capital has one of the most dense concentrations of [anti-aircraft artillery] in the world,” the report noted.

Along with the MiG-29s, North Korea has some Su-25 Frogfoot attack jets and MiG-23 Flogger interceptors. The bulk of the air force is “much older,” and the country is “one of the only air forces in the world that still operates MiG-21s, MiG-19s, MigG-17s, and MiG-15s,” the latter of which date back to the Korean War.

The bulk of air defense missile systems are Soviet-era SA-2s, SA-3s, SA-5s, and SA-13s. The latter, though a “double digit” surface-to-air missile system, is a vehicle-based system designed to hit aircraft at “medium to low altitudes,” the DIA said. The rest are systems the U.S. defeated 30 years ago in the 1991 Gulf War.

Some new systems are being introduced in very small numbers. “During a 2020 military parade, North Korea first displayed a new mobile SAM launcher and accompanying radar that externally resembled the Russian S-300 and Chinese HQ-9,” the DIA noted.

North Korean pilots only get about 15-25 flying hours a year, so their proficiency is extremely basic.

Though the industry was capable of assembling combat aircraft from kits supplied by Russia and China in the 1980s and 1990s, “that capability has waned,” the DIA judged.

To maintain “its dated force,” North Korea must rely on “cannibalization and the purchase of spare parts from overseas markets.”

Pyongyang has a very basic capability to build “small to medium” unmanned aerial vehicles, mostly based on Chinese designs, and is importing others. Some of these have been used for “reconnaissance missions over South Korea and which could be equipped with rudimentary armaments,” according to the report, which notes these have GPS-waypoint navigational capability. A sole exception to the older UAVs is one based on the American MQM-107D Streaker, “that probably was acquired from Middle Eastern sources.” Pyongyang is expected to graduate to larger UAVs in the near future.

North Korea’s aircraft industry generally is limited to building airplanes, “such as the Cessna 172,” the DIA asserted.

Though Kim and President Donald Trump held a summit meeting in 2018, committing to a “denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula, with the aim of a “lasting and stable peace regime,” there’s no evidence that Kim is abiding by that goal, the DIA said.

“In the following years, North Korea tested multiple new missiles that threaten South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there, displayed a new, potentially more capable, ICBM and new weapons for its conventional force,” Berrier said in his foreword to the report. Pyongyang will continue to be “a challenge” for the U.S. for years to come, he said.

Ukraine Welcomes Austin but Calls for Air Defense and Vocal Support to Join NATO

Oct. 19, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Laying a wreath for fallen Ukrainian soldiers in the ongoing war with Russia, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III in Kyiv on Oct. 19 voiced support for the 30-year-old democracy, but Ukraine security experts say the Biden administration naively falls short and leaves Ukraine open to Russian invasion.

“I want to commend Ukraine’s brave men and women in uniform, who continue to stand up to defend our shared values and our core democratic principles,” Austin said at the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, where DOD officials have helped the largest democracy in Eastern Europe strengthen its military institutions and doctrine.

“The United States calls on Russia to end its occupation of Crimea, to stop perpetuating the war in eastern Ukraine, to end its destabilizing activities in the Black Sea and along Ukraine’s border, and to halt its persistent cyberattacks and other malign activities against the United States and our allies and partners,” Austin added in comments following his meeting with Ukrainian Minister of Defense Andriy Taran.

Austin’s visit comes just a month after he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Pentagon and signed a new defense cooperation agreement. During the visit, Zelensky said the agreement was too vague.

“This is just the direction, the framework,” he said in response to a question from Air Force Magazine during an event at Mount Vernon. “I need more substance.”

Ukraine watchers believe Biden is holding back defense assistance from Ukraine based on a belief by a high-level administration official that Putin could be swayed to help contain China.

“I mean, really, it’s like Three Stooges strategic thinking,” former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst told Air Force Magazine.

“This isn’t Afghanistan, where we spent trillions of dollars for an army that evaporated right as we were leaving,” said Herbst, who currently serves as senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. “This is a country which is able to defend itself against a much stronger foe, but [it] does need some help. So, why the hell wouldn’t we provide it?”

The Right Kind of Defense Assistance

The United States has provided Ukraine more than $2 billion in assistance since Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, but Ukraine watchers worry the assistance is not enough to stop another Russian invasion.

The military aid includes lethal capabilities such as anti-tank javelin missiles that have pushed Russian tanks farther from the border in the disputed Donbas region, where Russian-backed separatists and elite Russian sniper units kill Ukrainian soldiers almost daily. American anti-sniper assistance, such as sniper rifles, thermal optics, laser rangefinders, optical detection systems, and electronic warfare systems have helped save Ukrainian lives in the trenches.

Ukraine was also part of the Defender Europe 21 exercises with NATO this summer, and it co-hosts two annual joint exercises with the United States, the situational and field training Exercise Rapid Trident and the Black Sea maritime Exercise Sea Breeze.

Still, Ukrainian defense experts say it’s not enough if Russia decides to invade, as U.S. European Command worried in April when 100,000 Russian troops massed on the Ukrainian border. Putin later said the event was an unannounced exercise.

“The Russians are watching this visit closely, for sure,” Ukrainian security analyst and former diplomat Alexander Khara told Air Force Magazine by phone from Kyiv.

Khara noted the arrival of some 200,000 pounds of ammunition from the United States two days before Austin landed from Georgia, a sign that Ukraine is not alone in its war with Russia. But the analyst said much of Ukraine’s defenses were captured by Russia in Crimea, and the Russian troop buildup left most heavy equipment behind when it drew down forces. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman also recently said Ukraine joining NATO would be a “red line.”

“This administration is eager to have these predictable and stable relations with Russia,” Khara said of President Joe Biden’s stated goals with his Russian counterpart. “They are not going to irritate [Putin] by boosting support and military hardware, or with the integration vis a vis NATO.”

Herbst agrees that the U.S. policy toward Putin is deeply flawed.

“American assistance should be substantially larger than it is,” he said. “More military aid … and a clear threat of sanctions—major, major sanctions—if Moscow were to escalate its military engagement in Ukraine.”

Austin, in his public comments, highlighted the importance of the Black Sea region and strengthening Ukraine’s maritime domain awareness. Russia’s Black Sea Navy fleet has grown exponentially in recent years and increased harassment of international commercial and military vessels in the crowded body of water.

“The United States will continue to provide assistance to enhance the maritime capacities of not only Ukraine, but also Georgia, Romania, and Bulgaria,” Austin said, previewing his visit to Black Sea NATO ally Romania Oct. 20 before NATO defense ministerial meetings in Brussels Oct. 21-22. “We have long understood the importance of cooperation and unity among our allies and partners to deter Russian aggression.”

‘A Sucker’s Argument’

Khara said Russia has indicated it will act to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which could mean a full-scale invasion. Ukraine, he said, does not have the defenses in place to stop a Russian advance.

“We are just too vulnerable from the Russian air force that is encircling us,” Khara said, referring to Russian attack helicopter and fighter jet buildup in the occupied Crimean Peninsula, along the eastern border, and in neighboring Belarus.

“It’s not just air defense, but counter-artillery batteries and the means to stop the Russian advance by land as well,” he said.

In a September visit to Ukraine, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for more air defense support, and Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.) introduced a Ukraine air defense amendment that was voted into the House’s draft version of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act on Sept. 15. The amendment provides the possibility that the U.S. could finance an air defense system like Israel’s Iron Dome, which is jointly built by the Israeli defense company Rafael and Raytheon.

Herbst agreed that air defense is Ukraine’s biggest weakness.

“There’s no question that air defense is a defensive weapon system, right?” he said when asked if such a system would be a provocation to Moscow. “All that does is makes it much more costly for Moscow to commit aggression from the air.”

Khara believes the United States is reluctant to provide the necessary defense materials to Ukraine because it believes Russia can still partner in containing China, which reportedly tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic weapon in August.

“They have some illusions that it’s possible to have them on their side in, let’s say, [the] competition race with China,” Khara said. “The Biden administration … has put on hold promotion of Ukraine into the NATO, as well as boosting military support to a level that Russia will be made to stop its aggression.”

Herbst agrees that a show of moderation to Putin will not yield favorable behavior.

“That’s a sucker’s argument,” he said. “A predictable relationship with Russia means we allow Russia to run roughshod over the security order established certainly after World War II.”

He added: “Moscow’s appetites, again, go beyond Ukraine and Georgia. It goes to the Baltic states against whom they regularly commit provocations. It goes to NATO and the EU, who they are regularly trying to weaken.”

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.”