Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Senior Master Sgt. Mark Schneider

Sept. 17, 2021

The Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021 will be formally recognized at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference from Sept. 20 to 22 in National Harbor, Md. Air Force Magazine has highlighted one each workday through today, the beginning of the conference. Today, we honor Senior Master Sgt. Mark Schneider, a paving and construction senior enlisted leader with the Air National Guard’s 200th RED HORSE Squadron at Camp Perry, Ohio.

Schneider led a team of 109 people tasked with delivering a $160 million life support area in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

Supervising the foreign operating base buildout, he streamlined the delivery of 17 construction projects, providing bed down for 3,000 personnel and three combatant commands. His knowledge and experience expedited the multinational acquisition of $3.2 million in project materials, accelerating the $13.1 million project portfolio two months ahead of schedule.

He steered the construction of two airfield upgrade projects supporting 49 aircraft valued at $25 billion; and spearheaded an NCO leadership course, instructing 37 personnel, amplifying a squadron leadership expertise.

“I had a lot of good influences over the years,” said Schneider in an ANG release. “They’ve tailored me and took me under their wing to prepare RED HORSE for the future, and I’m looking to do the same thing for my fellow Airmen.”

2021 Outstanding Airmen of the Year honoree Senior Master Sgt. Mark Schneider, a paving and construction senior enlisted leader with the Air National Guard’s 200th RED HORSE Squadron at Camp Perry, Ohio. Air Force photo.

Read more about the other Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021:

Lockheed Must Give Up Data to Get Shot at Long-Term F-35 Maintenance Contract

Sept. 17, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Lockheed Martin must give up proprietary technical data in order to have a chance at long-term performance-based logistics contracts in support of the F-35 fighter, the program executive officer said. If the company fails to satisfy on an initial version of the arrangement, the military services likely will take over more of the jet’s maintenance enterprise.

Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick, speaking with reporters Sept. 15, said Lockheed Martin got its big maintenance contract this week—worth up to $6.6 billion—with the proviso that it will transfer “provisioning and cataloging data” to the government before a full-up PBL contract is negotiated. If the company performs well on a “skinny” version of the PBL, the government will likely sign up for more. If not, the government will have the data it needs to bring more of the F-35 maintenance enterprise in house, Fick said.

Lockheed Martin pitched the PBL to then-Pentagon Undersecretary for Acquisition and Technology Ellen Lord in September 2019. The Joint Program Office, F-35 users, and the rest of the F-35 “community” assessed it, and “there was a lot of reluctance” to go ahead, Fick said. At the time, the community was “unsatisfied” with how the company was doing on F-35 sustainment.

After a review of options ranging from a “tip-to-tail PBL to standard, annualized, year-over-year contracts,” the community, headed by then-Navy acquisition executive James F. Geurts, decided that “we … as a Department … did not want to be trapped into a bad deal, for the schedule to be weaponized, and for us to have to sign a bad PBL,” Fick said.

Instead, the Pentagon chose a middle path, “where you could achieve most of the benefits of a [PBL] contract by focusing just on the supply chain management and the demand reduction piece,” he said. This mechanism seemed to offer the best return on investment, he added.

The rest of the work could then be offloaded to “a companion contract … more on an annualized basis,” Fick continued. “And so, the recommendation was to pursue that kind of approach. Lockheed, I think, referred to that as a ‘skinny’ PBL. Those were their words.”

“Back in the spring of 2020, we wrote [a memorandum of understanding]”—signed by Fick, Geurts, Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper, and Lockheed Martin’s then-general manager of the F-35 Greg Ulmer—“that really charted a … path [outlining] … what were the things required for us to actually move forward,” Fick said. One of them was the contract awarded this week, which gives Lockheed Martin an initial PBL for 2021, with options for fiscal 2022 and 2023.

“We’re going to start off with a three-year base plus two-year contract—that sets us on a glideslope that moves in the right directions.” If it works out, “we’ll start from a good launch-off point that puts us on the trajectory we think the Department should be on,” Fick explained.

But of it doesn’t work out, the Pentagon “wants options,” he said.

Under the “way the program was established, based upon the TSPR [Total System Performance Responsibility] construct,” the government didn’t get “all the data that we would have, if we had started the program in a more organically focused” way.

So, the MOU mandates that Lockheed Martin provide that “provisioning and cataloging” data, which would allow the services to take over “more of the supply chain management” if the company fails to perform.

“We’re using the incentive of the PBL to get decent pricing on the tech data required, so that at the end of that PBL, the services have an option for moving forward.”

If Lockheed Martin “kills it” and performs well, “and we’d love to stay there, then I think we’ve laid a great groundwork for a second PBL,” Fick said. “If not—if the services and the department and partners are unsatisfied—we have an option to do something different.” He said it is unlikely the F-35’s maintenance would be competed among other contractors.

After the three-year opening effort, Lockheed Martin would get its first PBL from fiscal 2023 to 2027, Fick said. But he hastened to add that the initial PBL is “not a done deal” and there’s no guarantee that the 2022 and 2023 options will be exercised.

Fick also said that while F-35 production Lots 15-17 are in negotiation now, a contract does not have to be inked by the end of the this month, which is the end of the fiscal year. “I’d love to get it done in October,” he said, but he declined to estimate how many aircraft would be in the mix, except to say the figure will “make sense” based on “what has gone before.”

Austin Announces Increased Air Operations, Force Deployments to Australia

Sept. 16, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III revealed Sept. 16 further air defense cooperation measures with Australia and that more U.S. troops will be heading there, going beyond President Joe Biden’s announcement a day earlier that the United States and United Kingdom will share nuclear submarine technology with the Pacific ally in the face of a growing threat from China.

Speaking alongside Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and their Australian counterparts at the State Department, Austin said the U.S. and Australia will increase exercises, training, and sharing of defense technology.

“We will continue to explore … greater and more frequent engagement and air capabilities,” Austin said. “More training opportunities for our ground forces and increasing our logistical footprint in Australia as well.”

In his first hint at what the now overdue force posture review may reveal, the Secretary indicated Australia will receive more U.S. troops.

“Today, we endorsed major force posture initiatives that will expand our access and presence in Australia,” Austin said in his opening statement, noting further force integration and interoperability would be part of that effort.

Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton said that would mean more basing for American troops.

“I do have an aspiration to make sure that we can increase the numbers of troops. Through the rotations, the air capability will be enhanced, our maritime capability enhanced, and certainly the force posture enhanced,” Dutton said. “And if that includes basing and includes the storage of different ordnances, I think that is in Australia’s best interest.”

The Australians said the air cooperation agreement would span all platforms, with Dutton pointing to the multinational Talisman Sabre exercise with the U.S. in July.

In August 2020, B-1s operating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and B-2s from Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia participated in a training exercise, dropping training bombs at three Australian training locations. In November, the U.S. and Australia formalized an agreement to cooperate on the development of long-range prototype hypersonic weapons. Austin did not respond to specific questions about the bombers or hypersonic weapons cooperation.

Dutton also said Australia and the U.S. reached a “space framework agreement” to increase his country’s space knowledge and capabilities, but Austin declined to elaborate.

A China Heavy Meeting

The annual “2+2” meeting, held in Washington, D.C., this year due to tight COVID restrictions in Australia, focused heavily on security in the Indo-Pacific region.

Australia and China are in a detente stretching 12 months since Australian comments that the origin of the new coronavirus needs further investigation. China slapped back with export restrictions on Australian agriculture and wine.

China also reacted swiftly to the deal for sharing nuclear submarine technology, calling the move an arms race and promising retaliation.

Australian China-watchers predict further Chinese cyberattacks on Australia but admit the relationship is already at a low with no high-level dialogue occurring between the two nations.

Blinken sought to assure that the United States will not leave Australia alone “on the pitch.”

“The United States will not leave Australia alone,” the Secretary of State said. “We’ve raised publicly and privately our serious concerns about Beijing’s use of economic coercion against Australia.”

Meanwhile, Australia and the United States are now faced with a resulting deterioration in their relationships with France, which loses a major submarine agreement with Australia. The French minister of defense did not respond to an Air Force Magazine request for comment. France moved to demonstrate its displeasure, reportedly canceling a celebration of the U.S. defense partnership scheduled for its embassy in Washington.

Austin also downplayed rising tensions with China in a response to a question from Air Force Magazine.

“On the issue of China, let me just emphasize upfront that this agreement, this relationship, is not aimed at anything or anyone,” he said. “The intent here is to help improve our trilateral cooperation and our capabilities across the board.”

The Australian defense minister was less coy, saying it was indeed about China.

“This is not the first time that we’ve seen different outbursts from China in terms of Australia’s position,” Dutton said in response to the same question.

“It’s formed the basis of much of our discussion here with our colleagues—very significant uncertainty, and more so than any time since the Second World War,” he added later. “We do believe it’s in Australia’s national security interests to deepen our relationship with the United States.”

Under the new trilateral security agreement, dubbed “AUKUS” for Australia, U.K., and U.S., officials will spend the first 18 months determining a path forward for sharing nuclear submarine technology to build a fleet of Australian nuclear-powered submarines. Dutton said the current Royal Australian Navy fleet of conventional diesel submarines will undergo a life extension in 2026 that will take it to the 2040s.

The capabilities that nuclear-powered submarines could deliver to Australia will greatly increase Australia’s reach and help Australia safeguard the Pacific, Dutton said.

AUKUS will also include defense cooperation in areas of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and additional undersea capabilities.

B-2 Crashes at Whiteman; No Injuries, But Status of Operations Withheld

Sept. 16, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

A B-2 bomber is lying damaged on the side of the runway at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., after a crash early Sep. 14. Air Force Global Strike Command is withholding information about the condition of the aircraft and the operational status of Whiteman’s sole runway, but no one was injured in the mishap.

The unidentified aircraft—most of the 20 B-2s are named for a state—“experienced an inflight malfunction during a routine training mission” at about 12:30 a.m. local time, an AFGSC spokeswoman said. It was damaged on the runway “after an emergency landing,” she said. There were no personnel injuries and no fire as a result of the accident, and no munitions were aboard the aircraft, she said. Further details will be provided after an investigation.

AFGSC issued a notice to Airmen (NOTAM) shortly after the accident to keep at least six miles away from the base. The initial notice said the airspace would be restricted through Sept. 17. The reason for the NOTAM was given as “to provide a safe environment for accident investigation.”

The command declined to answer questions about whether Whiteman’s runway is operational or whether B-2s are continuing to operate while the crash is being investigated and the aircraft recovered. Whiteman is home to all 20 of the Air Force’s B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, although typically a handful are away from the base on deployment or detached to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., for testing.

The accident marks the third major mishap for the B-2 since it began operational service in 1991. One (“Spirit of Kansas”) crashed and burned during a takeoff from Guam in 2008 and was a total loss. A second (“Spirit of Kitty Hawk”) was badly damaged in a 2010 fire, also at Guam. However, that aircraft was partially repaired, flown back to the continental U.S., and received a four-year restoration before returning to service.

Satellite photos of the Sept. 14 mishap, circulated online, show the aircraft having departed the runway but remaining apparently intact, possibly having dug into the ground with one wing. Heavy contact between the flying wing bomber and the runway or the ground would likely involve serious damage to its exquisitely contoured, low-observable surfaces and treatments.

AFGSC could not say how long the accident investigation will take, and it is too soon to say whether the jet can be repaired and returned to service.

Kendall, Air Force, Space Force Leaders Discuss Gender and Racial Disparity Review

Sept. 16, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Six of the the Department of the Air Force’s top leaders appeared together virtually Sept. 16, discussing the results of a recent racial and gender disparities survey released by the Air Force Inspector General.

The survey identified disparities in recruitment, retention, and promotions among women, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and Pacific Islanders, after a review released in December identified many of the same issues for Black Airmen.

In a call with reporters when the second review was released, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said the report “basically points out very clearly, and I think very convincingly, that there are a lot of disparities within the Air Force, in a number of facets of the Air Force experience,” pledging to address the issue.

Speaking again Sept. 16 in a virtual town hall streamed to Facebook, Kendall once more promised to keep focus on the issue of racial, ethnic, and gender disparities, saying, “This is the start of the process, not the end of it.”

Kendall was joined in the town hall by his No. 2, Undersecretary Gina Ortiz Jones, as well as the heads of both the Air and Space Forces, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, along with the services’ top enlisted leaders, Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass and Chief Master Sgt. of the Space Force Roger A. Towberman. Maj. Christine Guthrie moderated the discussion.

Jones, the first woman of color and second openly gay person to serve as undersecretary of the Air Force, said in reading the report that she was struck by what was not in it.

“The report very clearly talks about some of the disparities for minorities and for women. But it’s not talking about disparities for female minorities,” Jones said. “And when we think about having a very targeted approach to ensure that we are addressing some of the unique challenges, some of the unique barriers faced by some of our Airmen and Guardians, we have to understand the intersectional challenges that are presented.”

Speaking with reporters at the time of the report’s release, Air Force Inspector General Lt. Gen. Sami D. Said said the service is not planning any more reviews at the moment to study disparities facing other minorities, such as the LGBTQ community or religious groups. But he did note that he wasn’t “saying no” to the idea permanently.

The most recent review did find that one in every three female service members said they had experienced sexual harassment during their careers. Kendall called that figure “just not acceptable,” with Jones adding that the Air Force is seeking to be “as efficient, as effective as we can be” in streamlining data collection and supporting survivors of harassment and assault.

Beyond harassment, though, Jones also noted that the survey found that 24 percent of female Airmen and Guardians decided to delay telling their unit commanders when they were pregnant, fearing that it would affect their career opportunities. Guthrie, framing that statistic as indicative of a lack of trust in leadership, asked Brown and Raymond specifically how their services were training leadership to better handle those issues.

“One of the areas that I’ve talked about … is how do we develop our first line supervisors,” said Brown. “Whether it’s at the NCO level or the officer level, when we go to Airman Leadership School or [Squadron Officer School], we don’t spend as much time talking about how you understand diversity [and] other people’s perspectives.”

Brown also pointed to the Air Force’s revised wing, vice, and group command screening boards—the service announced Aug. 24 that it was making changes aimed at enhancing “senior leader talent management.” Part of that, Brown said, is by improving diversity. Specifically, he said, boards have been instructed to “not only take a look at [a candidate’s] experience based on their career field, but also look at the diversity of the talent that we have inside of our Air Force, and score appropriately.”

Raymond added that it is important for leaders to speak with and listen to young Airmen and Guardians and framed the issue of diversity and inclusion as one of readiness.

“A more diverse force is a more ready force. It is fundamental to the readiness of our service,” Raymond said.

Bass, the first woman of color to hold her position, also pressed back in her remarks against criticism from some that the focus on diversity and inclusion is unnecessary.

“I might offer that … it’s probably time to wake up and read the over 17,000 comments from over 100,000 Airmen and Guardians that have said that there’s some challenges,” Bass said of the criticism. “So I say, yeah, we do need to wake up.”

Towberman, for his part, stressed the need for respectful dialogue on the issue.

“I can’t change hearts and minds if I don’t first understand hearts and minds, and I can’t understand anything if I’m not willing to listen,” Towberman said. “So, if it’s thinking and if it’s conversation, I’d say in general terms it’s healthy, it’s moving us where we want to be. This is about having conversations, about working together to get through it. We can’t do that if we shut anyone down. If it’s misbehavior, it’s a different thing.”

Kendall echoed Towberman’s point and said he had had a recent experience in that regard, speaking to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Cruz has been a particularly vocal critic of diversity initiatives in the military, and Kendall acknowledged that the two men “don’t agree about pretty much anything.”

In the course of a meeting shortly after he took office, though, Kendall said he and Cruz had a “very good conversation” on the issue of race. Specifically, Kendall said he brought up the example to Cruz of times when he has been pulled over by the police while driving.

“I pull over, and what I’m thinking is, ‘Maybe I can talk myself out of this—maybe I can get my military ID and he won’t give me a ticket or give me a warning,’” said Kendall. “I’ve never been afraid. I’ve never been afraid once when a cop has stopped me at any time at any place.

“There are a lot of our fellow teammates who have not had that experience. They’ve had a very different experience. And for the rest of us to understand that and appreciate it will take us a little ways down the road of being more whatever you want to call it, but I would say just more aware, more conscious of how we all haven’t had the same type of experience.”

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Senior Master Sgt. Marcus Banks

Sept. 16, 2021

The Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021 will be formally recognized at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference from Sept. 20 to 22 in National Harbor, Md. Air Force Magazine is highlighting one each workday from now until the conference begins. Today, we honor Senior Master Sgt. Marcus Banks, an installation management flight superintendent with the 316th Civil Engineer Squadron.

Banks led 162 engineers in the sustainment of 1,000 facilities and Kunsan Air Base, South Korea’s power projection platform. His actions propelled 6,000 multinational F-16 sorties that helped quell North Korean aggressions.

He led a tiger team and developed a strategic plan for 38 dormitories, which resolved 5,000 repairs and 178 emergencies. Banks’ leadership closed five congressional inquiries and upheld the quality of life for 2,800 joint service members.

He also advanced the wing’s coronavirus defense plan, driving two courses of action and delivering 2,000 restriction of movement rooms. His efforts isolated 1,000 threats with zero base spread and safeguarded 4,200 warfighters.

As the unit control center superintendent through four exercises and three typhoons, his team proved the wing’s base and airfield recovery capabilities and restored base operations within seven hours.

2021 Outstanding Airmen of the Year honoree Senior Master Sgt. Marcus Banks. Air Force photo.

Read more about the other Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021:

31st Fighter Wing Conducts Agile Combat Employment Training in Slovenia

Sept. 16, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

F-16s and personnel from the 31st Fighter Wing, based out of Aviano Air Base, Italy, recently participated in an agile combat employment exercise in Slovenia from Sept. 7 to 10, as top generals from both countries met to discuss the U.S.-Slovenian partnership.

Exercise Agile Wyvern also included U.S. Army paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade and Airmen from the 31st Security Forces Squadron. The forces practiced air-to-air engagements, calling airstrikes, and deliberate strike missions with their Slovenian counterparts, according to a press release.

USAFE has been conducting agile combat employment operations for more than a year now, with the goal of pushing Airmen outside of their comfort zone and asking them to work in remote or austere environments while utilizing different skill sets.

For Agile Wyvern in particular, the goal was to “test the compilation of equipment that we have to be quick and agile,” said Maj. Joseph Basala, 31st Fighter Wing plans and programs chief of agile combat employment. On top of that, Airmen were asked to take that equipment to a non-U.S. airfield, in this case Cerklje ob Krki Air Base, Slovenia, and ensure operations continued seamlessly.

“Agile Wyvern is important because sometimes when you just exercise on your base, you don’t see your shortfalls, because you have everything you need there, but then you come out here and have the opportunity for more experience and training,” Tech. Sgt. Philip Thach, 31st Communications Squadron noncommissioned officer in charge of agile communications, said in a press release.

As part of the exercise, F-16s rapidly dispersed from Aviano to Slovenia, along with “tactical command and control assets and support personnel and equipment,” and operated from Cerklje ob Krki alongside the Slovenian Armed Forces.

The exercise marked the capstone event for the 31st Fighter Wing to achieve ACE initial operational capability.

It also included a meeting between Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa, and Brig. Gen. Jason E. Bailey, commander of the 31st Fighter Wing, with BG Roman Urbanč, deputy chief of the general staff of the Slovenian Armed Forces, and Col. Janez Gaube, 15th Wing commander at Cerklje ob Krki Air Base. The commanders discussed the importance of cooperation to make the ACE concept work, according to a press release from the 31st FW.

“Our Airmen benefit greatly from working alongside Slovenian forces,” Harrigian said in a statement. “These bilateral training exercises enhance our interoperability and help us maintain joint readiness, making us all better.”

Adding New AETP Engine to F-35 Means Air Force Alone Would Pay for It

Sept. 15, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force would have to bear the full development and integration cost of putting new Adaptive Engine Technology Program engines in its F-35 fleet because the other services can’t fit the powerplants in their versions of the fighter, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick told reporters Sept. 15.

“If it’s a one-service, … unique solution, the cost of that solution will be borne by that service,” Fick said. Asked if moving forward with the AETP on the F-35 will depend on whether the Air Force is willing to bear that cost, he replied, “I think so.”

The Air Force could go it alone on the AETP, he said. But the longstanding agreement among F-35 partners is that “you have to pay to be different.”

Fick, speaking at a roundtable with defense reporters in his Arlington, Va., office, said he has visited GE Aviation’s Evendale, Ohio, plant to see its XA100 version of the AETP engine and came away “very impressed” and “energized” by the effort. Pratt & Whitney’s version of the AETP is called the XA101. Pratt & Whitney is the sole builder of the F-35’s F135 engine.

For the Air Force’s F-35A, “the technology could be remarkable,” Fick said. But, GE and Pratt & Whitney’s AETP engines would “require significant modifications” to fit in the Navy’s F-35C and are “completely a non-starter” for the Marine Corps F-35B, which has vertical takeoff/landing capability. Both engine makers have said the AETP engines will not fit in the F-35B. It might be possible to alter the AETP engine to fit in the F-35C, and if so, “some cost sharing there might be possible,” Fick said.

But at a minimum, choosing to put AETP on any part of the F-35 fleet would mean at least two powerplants to manage for the fleet, and possibly three, Fick said.

“We know we have a demand,” and the Block 4 version of the F-35 will need improved performance from the F135 engine, Fick said. Although the first three capability increments of Block 4 can function with the existing engine, “we know that, going beyond that, we need to do something different,” and the all-up Block 4 can’t fully exploit its new capabilities without more power.

The services are all interested in a more efficient engine that has better “thrust-specific fuel consumption,” Fick noted, and AETP “brings some efficiency gains along with it.” But their wishes must be prioritized—fuel efficiency and range versus thrust or cooling, for example—before a plan can be developed.

The House Armed Services Committee, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, said the Joint Program Office has to develop an AETP insertion program, with first capability in 2027.

It would be unfair for the “Navy, Marine Corps, and [international] partners all footing part of the bill” to integrate an engine in the F-35 that only the Air Force can use, Fick said.

To meet the need for more power, Fick said his office is working closely with Pratt & Whitney and the Pentagon to develop a “family of options” for how to give the fighter more engine power. “We need to start … to put a solution set in place to give us the power and cooling we need” for the upgraded version of the fighter.

He noted that Pratt & Whitney has released information about the Enhanced Engine Program—EEP 25 and EEP 25+—which are “re-coring efforts” to improve the F135.

The JPO is “bringing all the pieces together” to assess a way forward, with a series of “Courses of Action” options, but “we know that AETP is one potential solution,” Fick said. If AETP is part of the solution, there will still be a need for EEP to ensure “we’ve got everybody covered.”

Fick would not speculate on how much it would cost to create a separate engine production, maintenance, and supply train for the F-35. Pratt & Whitney has suggested it would cost $40 billion over 50 years of F-35 operations, but Fick declined to say whether he believes that figure to be accurate.

All that said, Fick professed that he “loves competition” and said he’s a “big fan of having two viable manufacturers in the defense space. What we need to figure out, as an enterprise, is are we willing to pay the cost associated with that?”

The JPO is building cost assessments for several options to address the F-35’s power needs, and he expects that work will take 6-12 months.

Regardless of whether the AETP is introduced to the F-35 fleet, “we’re going to have to have supply chains for an updated engine and the legacy engine, even if we go with something that’s common across all the platforms. We have 700 aircraft in the [worldwide F-35] fleet today, and if I add 100 a year across the next five years, that’s 1,200 aircraft before I field an advanced engine.” Those aircraft will all need an engine sustainment enterprise, he said.

“The sustainment footprint” for any option “has got to be established, and supported,” he said.

The discussion about a unique engine for the Air Force’s F-35A raises again the question of whether, after 20 years, it’s time for the services to each have their own program office to manage their own variants of the fighter. But Fick said, “that would be unhealthy.” While commonality among the variants is much lower than once envisioned, the differences are “mainly in the way they take off and land,” he asserted.

The commonality in cockpits, “switchology,” weapons, mission systems, “all those are identical” and continue to provide savings and interoperability that have a huge return on investment, Fick said.

Milley’s Office Defends Calls to China as ‘in Keeping With Duties’ as CJCS

Sept. 15, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Facing intense partisan criticism over his actions in the final few months of President Donald Trump’s administration, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley’s office released a statement Sept. 15 seeking to defend him.

Milley’s statement comes after details from the forthcoming book “Peril,” written by reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, were reported Sept. 14. Particularly, Woodward and Costa wrote that Milley, worried about President Trump’s actions following the Nov. 3 election, twice called Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, once in November and again in January, to reassure him that the U.S. would not strike China with nuclear weapons. During one call, Milley went so far as to assure Li that if the U.S. were to attack, Milley would give Li advance warning.

The details from the book were reported by The Washington Post and immediately set off a controversy, with several senators and representatives calling on Milley to resign, be fired, or be court-martialed for undermining civilian control of the military.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was one of the most prominent voices calling for Milley’s dismissal, saying his actions create a “dangerous precedent that could be asserted at any point in the future by Gen. Milley or others. It threatens to tear apart our nation’s longstanding principle of civilian control of the military.”

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), however, defended Milley, saying in a CNN interview that Milley, as part of his job, “would call a meeting, given the concerns of an unhinged president at that period of time.”

Trump himself issued a statement saying that if the report was true, Milley had committed treason.

Milley, who was sworn in as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2019, is halfway through a four-year term in the position, though he can be fired by the President.

In a Sept. 15 statement, Joint Staff spokesperson Col. Dave Butler confirmed that the calls took place but defended them as proper and in keeping with Milley’s role.

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia. These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity, and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict,” Butler’s statement read.

“His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability. All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated, and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.”

In “Peril,” Woodward and Costa also detail an incident in which Milley gathered senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, “saying the President alone could give the order—but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved,” according to the Post report.

The statement from Milley’s office sought to portray the incident as another instance of Milley performing his duties as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

“In keeping with his responsibilities as senior military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, General Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues,” the statement said. “The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject.”

Speaking during a press briefing Sept. 15, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby refused to comment on the “validity” of the report but did say, “I see nothing in what I’ve read that would cause any concern.”

“What I can tell you is it is not uncommon at all for the department to continue to review security protocols, particularly when it comes to our strategic deterrence capabilities, that we constantly take a look at the protocols and procedures to make sure they’re still relevant,” Kirby said. “It is completely appropriate for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as the senior military advisor to the Secretary and the President, to want to see those protocols reviewed on whatever frequent basis that he wants to do that.”

Kirby appeared to react with surprise when asked if Milley should be tried for treason because of his calls to China as Trump suggested, saying, “Typically, when the Chairman or the Secretary interact with their counterparts, it’s a function of the job. They have to do that.”

“Part of the value in having these communications, particularly with countries like Russia and China, with which we are experiencing tension, is to try to reduce the risks of miscalculation and conflict, to try to take down tensions, to make clear what our national security interests are,” said Kirby. “The communications channel between our Chairman and a chief of defense is a really key vehicle for transmitting and communicating those kinds of messages.”

Kirby added that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III “has full trust and confidence in Chairman Milley and the job that he is doing,” a sentiment echoed by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who said Sept. 15 that President Biden “has complete confidence in Chairman Milley .”