House, Senate Panels Unveil Compromise 2022 NDAA

Dec. 7, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Editor’s note: The House of Representatives passed the compromise 2022 National Defense Authorization Act the night of Dec. 7 by a vote of 363 to 70.

Leaders from the House and Senate Armed Services committees unveiled a revised 2022 National Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 7 in a bid to overcome gridlock and ensure the passage of the annual policy bill.

The new bill combines elements of a version passed by the full House and a version agreed to in the Senate Armed Services Committee, both in September. The 2022 NDAA also incorporates some of the hundreds of amendments proposed by senators after the SASC reported the bill to the full chamber.

The new bill authorizes $768 billion in spending, $740.3 billion for the Defense Department in line with the House and the SASC-approved draft and above the $715 billion defense budget requested by President Joe Biden.

The compromise bill includes a significant overhaul of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to remove the decision to prosecute certain crimes from the chain of command. One provision that was left out in the new draft would have required women to register for the draft.

For the Air Force, the new bill funds the service’s request to procure 48 new F-35s and adds five F-15EXs to an initial request for 12. It also prohibits USAF from retiring any A-10s while allowing the service to retire certain C-130s, KC-10s, and KC-135s.

In recent weeks, the Senate has struggled to pass its version of the 2022 NDAA quickly, with a majority of Senators voting against ending debate. Some lawmakers accused Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of trying to jam the bill through without enough time for consideration and amendment votes. Schumer had sparked bipartisan criticism by waiting weeks to bring the bill to the main Senate floor.

Those delays, combined with a conference between the Senate and House to resolve the differences between the two versions of the bill, would likely have pushed NDAA passage into 2022. Instead, the version made public Dec. 7 resolved differences outside of the conference process with the goal of passing the bill before Jan. 1, a Senate aide told Air Force Magazine.

The chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) along with Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) oversaw the negotiations that led to the new bill.

“We are pleased to announce we’ve come to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. This year’s agreement continues the Armed Services Committees’ 61-year tradition of working together to support our troops and strengthen national security. We urge Congress to pass the NDAA quickly and the President to sign it when it reaches his desk,” the group of four said in a press release.

Within a few hours of the bill’s unveiling, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in a “Dear Colleague” letter that the House will vote on the new NDAA the same night.

How quickly the compromise NDAA bill will advance in the Senate remains to be seen. Schumer is still pushing hard for the Senate to pass President Joe Biden’s signature spending bill, the Build Back Better Act, by Christmas. At the same time, lawmakers are still working to raise the debt limit and avoid a default, with an estimated deadline of Dec. 15. The legislative calendar tentatively calls for both chambers to recess starting Dec. 11.

Congressional leaders frequently point to the six decades of NDAA passage, but there have been instances of the bill not being enacted until a new calendar year. Most recently, the Senate voted to override a presidential veto on the fiscal 2021 bill on Jan. 1, 2021. The fiscal 2013, 2011, 2008, and 2006 bills were all enacted after the new year as well.

Pentagon leaders have raised additional concerns in recent days about the use of continuing resolutions to fund the government.

While NDAAs set policy and authorize funds, they do not appropriate the money the Defense Department spends. Continuing resolutions keep the government open, but at the previous year’s spending levels. The current CR runs through mid-February, and some have suggested a full yearlong CR is possible, prompting Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III to issue a statement Dec. 6 saying such a move would cause “enormous, if not irreparable, damage” to national defense priorities.

Afghanistan, Politics Lead to Decline in Public Trust of Military

Dec. 7, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Americans’ trust and confidence in the U.S. military has declined precipitously in 2021, according to the results of a survey. Experts lay the blame on increasing political polarization and the fallout from this summer’s turbulent withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s National Defense Survey released Dec. 1 found that just 45 percent of those polled said they had “a great deal of trust and confidence” in the military as an institution. That marks a 25-point drop from November 2018 and an 11-point drop since February 2021.

Just three years ago, 70 percent of those surveyed said they had a great deal of confidence.

The overall trend over the past few editions of the survey has been downward, going from 70 percent in 2018 to 63 percent in 2019 to 54 percent in February 2021. But the most recent drop is the biggest, recorded just two months after many Americans were shocked by reports from Afghanistan that included video of civilians breaching the airfield at Hamid Karzai International Airport, desperate to flee the Taliban and clinging to the side of Air Force aircraft.

“You can’t underestimate the searing images from the Afghanistan withdrawal and [their effect on] people’s trust in the institution,” retired Army Maj. Gen. John G. Ferrari, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Air Force Magazine. “So I think that had a very large, large effect. And so I think that the second thing will be, OK, does time kind of dim that image, or is this kind of a new normal for the military?”

Retired Marine Col. Mark F. Cancian, now a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security Program, said he thinks reversing the fallout from the Afghanistan withdrawal, absent any other damaging incidents, will take a year.

“There could even be events where the military has an opportunity to shine—some foreign operation, maybe it could be humanitarian assistance or something,” Cancian said.

But it’s not the end of the Afghanistan War alone that contributed to lower public trust, experts said. For years now, pollsters and academics have noted declining public trust in institutions. The military has mostly been spared, actually building up trust after the Vietnam War and turning itself into one of the most trusted institutions in America. The creep of partisan politics, however, has become increasingly difficult to avoid.

The Reagan Defense Survey found that Republicans, Democrats, and independents all reported lower levels of confidence in the military. Republicans reported the biggest decline among those saying they have a great deal of confidence—a 17 percent drop from February and a 34 percent drop from 2018. By comparison, Democrats recorded drops of six and 17 percentage points, respectively, while independents had drops of nine and 28 points.

Republicans’ declining trust coincides with Republican lawmakers increasing criticism of military leaders for focusing on issues such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as extremism in the ranks.

“If there’s continuing loss of trust in institutions, it is almost inevitable that the military gets dragged into that a little bit, because it is a factor with political polarization,” said Nathalie Grogan, a researcher with the Center for a New American Security. “And that is, to my view, the biggest problem with the declining trust, is that the military is being seen as a political institution. And that’s demonstrated with the very significant drop in trust in the military among political conservatives.”

The military has politicized itself in very few instances, Grogan said. Instead, civilian leaders and politicians have increasingly politicized the military. The result, she warned, is “increasing polarization and partisanship if civilian elected officials don’t make an effort to exclude the military—which they have not made that effort. They’ve been including the military in their partisan squabbles.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, speaking in a taped interview with Defense One streamed online Dec. 7, also pointed to increasing partisanship as a cause for concern.

“The military doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and as you take a look at the landscape around the country, things have become a lot more partisan in recent years,” Austin said. “And if you look at what’s going on on various websites, that really adds fuel to some of that partisanship, but I think it’s very, very important that our military remain apolitical.”

Ferrari theorized that over roughly two decades of war, the public’s perception of the military allowed it to defy the trends of increasing polarization and decreased trust. With the war over, though, the military is now experiencing many of the same factors driving down trust in other institutions.

Potential Impact on Recruiting

While Ferrari and Grogan both noted that the armed services are starting from a much higher level of confidence when compared to others, the impact of these recent declines could be especially important when considering recruiting.

Recent surveys have shown today’s youth are less inclined to serve in the military. The Reagan National Defense Survey recorded declining trust among all groups, but the lowest levels were among those under 30 years old; more than 30 percent of the age group either said they had not much confidence at all or just a little confidence.

“If we see a downturn in recruiting because parents, influencers, no longer trust the institution, then we’re going to have a big problem, rapidly,” Ferrari said.

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby, asked about the survey during a press briefing Dec. 6, added that recruiting isn’t the only issue.

“The men and women who serve in this department come from homes and families all over the country, and so the American public’s perceptions of the United States military matters to us, not just from a recruiting perspective, although that’s valid, but also from a representational perspective,” Kirby said.

In order to reverse these trends, Ferrari argued, military leaders should look to keep the armed services out of the headlines and not get drawn into partisan politics. In particular, Grogan said, the military should focus on the National Guard and how the Guard works with the public.

“That would be a very significant first step to rebuilding trust in the military, because the National Guard is the part of the armed forces that civilians will have the most contact with,” Grogan said. “Active-duty troops, with very few exceptions, are not interfacing with the public, but the National Guard often does, and it’s been incidents with the National Guard that have been politicized over the past couple years.”

If nothing else, Cancian said, the latest survey should serve as a reminder that public trust is earned.

“The military has no right to being the top-regarded institution in the United States—it is something it has earned over the course of my professional life,” Cancian said. “When I started my professional life as a young Marine lieutenant, the military was at the bottom, and it’s taken them literally half a century of work to get to the top.”

Austin Warns of Yearlong CR as China Invests Heavily in Military Technology

Dec. 6, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III outlined Dec. 4 the vital importance of U.S. defense investment keeping pace with that of China before issuing a statement warning that such competition would suffer “irreparable” damage if Congress opts for a yearlong continuing resolution, a real possibility being discussed by lawmakers after a second short-term fix that funds the government until mid-February.

“Some have even suggested a CR could last an entire year,” Austin said in a statement released by the Pentagon on Dec. 6.

The Secretary warned that such a continuation of current fiscal year 2021 funding would be an “unprecedented move that would cause enormous, if not irreparable, damage for a wide range of bipartisan priorities—from defense readiness and modernization, to research and development, to public health.”

Austin highlighted how a yearlong CR would stymie innovation priorities in cyber, artificial intelligence, and hypersonics.

In keynote remarks at the Reagan National Defense Forum on Dec. 4, Austin said China was uninhibited in its own defense investments and pursuits.

“China is pouring state funds into key sectors,” he said. “The PLA is rapidly improving many of its capabilities, including strike, air, missile-defense, and anti-submarine measures. And it’s increasingly focused on integrating its information, cyber, and space operations.”

President Joe Biden’s proposed defense budget includes the largest-ever investment in research and development, some $112 billion for fiscal year 2022.

Austin said that includes work on stealthy and unmanned platforms as well as improved resiliency under sea, in space, and in cyberspace. Investments such as the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, slated for $5.1 billion, would invest in 100 military construction projects, some with partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific region to improve base access and ramp up joint exercises.

But no new investments will happen with a yearlong CR.

“Not being able to start those initiatives will definitely have an impact,” Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said during a Dec. 6 briefing in response to a question from Air Force Magazine.

Kirby referred to Austin’s comments at the Reagan forum in explaining how planned DOD investments are specifically targeted to counter “the kinds of threats that could emanate from places like Russia and China.”

“I understand the interest in hypersonics, but it goes beyond that,” he said. “When you can’t start new programs, when … you don’t have that money to spend on that sort of investment, it absolutely will affect your capabilities going forward.”

China’s Impact on the Evolving US Footprint in CENTCOM

Dec. 6, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The recently completed Global Posture Review directed further analysis to determine the right force mix in the U.S. Central Command area of operations, but one thing is certain, the command’s director of operations said Dec. 6: The U.S. footprint won’t look like it has in the past.

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China intends to grow its overseas military capabilities, expanding into Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf region, and Africa, with the overall objective of “adjusting the global order,” said Maj. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, U.S. Central Command director of operations, during an AFA Air and Space Warfighters in Action virtual event.

“China cannot achieve their objectives without going through the U.S. CENTCOM AOR,” Grynkewich said. “So, as we look at what our posture is in the Middle East, we need to recognize China as an aspiring global power—they’re not just a regional problem—and think about what a sufficient force level is in CENTCOM. Again, it’s going to be nothing like it was in years past, with a couple of ground wars at their heights a decade ago or so. But it certainly is not zero.”

China also gets about 50 percent of its hydrocarbons, the main component in petroleum and natural gas, from the Central Asia region. “That means something,” Grynkewich added. “It means that the central region is important to China. And if it’s important to China, it probably ought to be important to us, as well.”

Grynkewich did not offer specifics of what the classified Global Posture Review revealed, but he did say that in the short term to expect a reduced force presence, something that is already coming to fruition with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. There will also be a shift to a more dynamic operating concept.

The drawdown in Afghanistan resulted in a downsizing of U.S. forces in the region. Grynkewich noted that the two fighter squadrons previously based in Afghanistan are no longer in the command and that the U.S. tankers and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets that previously supported those operations have been repositioned.

In the future, he said, the U.S. is more likely to rotate forces into CENTCOM on an as-needed basis, depending on the situation on the ground. “In other words, rather than having a Carrier Strike Group in U.S. CENTCOM all the time, you’ll see a Carrier Strike Group come and go as the situation dictates,” he said.

Grynkewich said as the airpower and overall force posture changes, it’s “natural” to also re-evaluate the value of key operating locations such as Ali Al Salem, Kuwait; Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates; al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar; and Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia—all key launching pads for counterterrorism operations.

“It’s very meaningful to those nations that we have a presence there,” he said. “They view it as important to their own security that the Americans are there with them. And, so, it’s critical. That doesn’t mean that the installations are going to stay static. Certainly the number of Airmen at those locations, the number of Guardians, and others at those locations will change as our footprint changes.”

The 2020 ballistic missile attack on al-Asad Air Base, Iraq, also re-enforced the potential vulnerability of bases in the region to Iranian ballistic missiles and attacks by Iranian proxies.

“I think those nations are very aware of that,” Grynkewich said. “It’s not just a threat to our Airmen that are there, if you will. It’s a threat to the capital cities of many of those countries, and so they’re very keen to think about what it means to them … from a defensive perspective to have U.S. capabilities.”

At the same time, he noted, U.S. Central Command continues to think about the importance of building relationships with host nations, and operationally, what those host-nation agreements might mean for future contingency planning.

“We’re always going to be re-evaluating exactly what the footprint is, and do we have the bases where we want them to be,” he said. “I think given the importance that those bases have to the relationship, any decision to shutter a base or something like that would certainly be made at a higher level than U.S. Central Command, just because of the implications on the relationships that it would have.”

Space Force Focuses on Culture in ‘Intimate’ New Orientation Course

Dec. 6, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

The Space Force’s orientation course for people transferring into the new service—civilian and military alike—draws from the “welcoming and intimate” formats the Air Force’s major commands offer in their chiefs’ orientation courses for chief master sergeants.

Space Training and Readiness Command held the first Guardian Orientation Course the week of Nov. 15-19. The course is “expected to be offered to all current and future transferees within a year of their transfer” in hopes of “accelerating their contributions,” according to a news release.

The Space Force expects about 960 transfers from other military services or government agencies over the next year.

“Our competitors are increasing their activities, such as the recent Russian [anti-satellite] test, which was a significant event,” STARCOM commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton said in the release. “Our job is to prepare you all for these actions and the doctrine to support it.”

STARCOM plans to offer the weeklong course 12 times a year at Peterson Space Force Base, Colo.’s National Security Space Institute, with up to three more at other sites, according to the release.

Peterson is STARCOM’s temporary home, referred to as “provisional,” pending a formal decision on where to base the headquarters. Space Force Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond led the command’s activation at a ceremony in August.

The weeklong Guardian Orientation Course provides “29 hours of instructor contact over a 40-hour period” to 50 students at a time, according to the release. It addresses the Space Force’s organizational structure and how the service relates to the Air Force and the Defense Department’s unified combatant commands. Students will tour USSF facilities and get briefed on a range of topics, such as history, culture, and promotions; and will receive introductions to the Space Force’s personnel strategy, The Guardian Ideal, and its Space Capstone Publication doctrine statement.

“This is the first time a branch will have been created with members from all armed services,” said Space Force Lt. Col. Ryan Durand, provost of the National Security Space Institute, in the release. “We have the unique opportunity to build and define what our culture will be.” The institute describes itself as the Space Force’s “focal point for space continuing education.”

In the lead-up to establishing the STARCOM field command—the organizational equivalent of an Air Force major command—Bratton told Air Force Magazine his vision for the orientation course was a “space-specific kind of acculturation training” to help promote a sense of belonging among interservice transferees coming from a mix of backgrounds. They’ll also receive job-specific training.

Reaper Drone Crashes on Runway at Holloman

Dec. 6, 2021

An MQ-9 Reaper drone was taking off from Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., when it crashed on the runway at about 7:55 a.m. Dec. 6.

The 49th Wing at Holloman said no injuries had been reported and access to the base was not affected, according to preliminary information released by email.

First responders were “on the scene to ensure safety and security,” and the cause of the crash was under investigation.

A Reaper assigned to the wing was damaged in a previous accident when it skidded off the runway Sept. 2, 2020, also during a takeoff attempt.

With Russia on Multiple Fronts, DOD Team in Ukraine Assesses Air Defense Needs

Dec. 3, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

A Defense Department team is on the ground in Ukraine assessing what the country needs to protect itself from air, naval, electronic, and cyber warfare threats as Russian troops gather on multiple fronts, a senior Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine, describing an emphasis on what assistance can be delivered “today.”

Ukraine has been engaged in a low-intensity conflict with Russian-backed separatists in the eastern Donbass region since 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula. Presently, an estimated 40 Russian battalion tactical groups and more than 115,000 personnel surround Ukraine after a second front was opened on the 600-mile northern border with Belarus following the joint Zapad exercises between Belarus and Russia in September.

“Russia doesn’t need only Donbass,” a senior Ukrainian defense official said on condition of anonymity. “If we are talking about Russian long-term goals, they want all Ukraine.”

The U.S. has sought to protect Eastern Europe’s largest democracy, a non-NATO partner, by stepping up defense assistance and calling on Russia to explain the buildup of more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. In terms of what defense assistance can be immediately provided by the United States, the Ukrainian official said: “This is a political question.”

During Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s August visit to Washington, President Joe Biden announced an additional $60 million in anti-tank javelin missiles, which have in the past helped push Russian tanks farther from the frontline. The assistance is part of $400 million in assistance over the past year and some $2.5 billion since 2014. But the greatest Russian threat is now perceived to be from the air.

Speaking at the Dec. 2 Atlantic Council discussion “Will Russia Invade Ukraine Again?”, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst said he believed immediate defense assistance to Ukraine is possible and should be covertly transferred to the country.

“We should be able to get certain weapon systems to Ukraine right now,” he said. “We should be thinking seriously about stronger anti-air defenses, including perhaps Patriots. We should be thinking about anti-ship missiles, things that would make it clear that … there’ll be great Russian casualties if they move.”

U.S. European Command declined to reveal where Patriot missile batteries are located in the region and told Air Force Magazine that it supports “de-escalation in the region and a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.”

U.S. Transportation Command declined to discuss specific countries or operations but said it was conceivable to move a Patriot battery via air.

“We prefer to move a battery via surface,” TRANSCOM spokesperson Scott Ross told Air Force Magazine. “When we need to move a battery or any other kind of cargo or organization and it needs to be there quicker because of mission priorities, we will use military lift, or commercial lift, depending upon what course of action makes the most sense for that particular event.”

Ross, out of operational security, declined to describe the transportation aircraft that would be used to move a Patriot battery.

The Ukrainian official said the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and DOD are talking about what defense assistance is possible. Any decision on immediate assistance would be up to the White House.

“We are in [the] process and the Pentagon is under consideration what can be supplied to Ukraine in [the] short term,” the official said.

The official confirmed a Defense Department working group is in Ukraine evaluating the country’s defense needs, and he described a November meeting between Ukrainian Minister of Defense Oleksii Reznikov and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III. He also said Reznikov received support from a bipartisan group of American lawmakers during his visit.

“Everyone said, ‘Yes, we support you. We are going to push. We are going to increase,’” the official said of proposals to increase foreign military financing to Ukraine.

No matter what the largesse of Congress can provide, once the National Defense Authorization Act passes, defense purchases take time, and Ukraine’s needs are urgent.

“Something which we need tomorrow we cannot buy right now,” the Ukrainian official said. “In fact, we needed it yesterday, but if you want to buy it, it’s quite a long process to procure.”

Balancing Immediate and Long-Term Needs

Ukraine has medium-term plans for upgrading its air defense systems, but the urgent need to protect its borders from a possible Russian invasion has prompted a foreign military sales request and negotiations for immediate deterrence capabilities.

Congressional aides involved in Reznikov’s visit told Air Force Magazine that Stinger anti-aircraft weapons were recommended as a bridging solution. The Ukrainian defense official said that with a 13,000-foot altitude range, the system could help defend against a threat from attack helicopters.

“What about jets who are flying above?” the official posed. “So, this is very short range. To some extent, in trenches it’s good equipment.”

The Ukrainian Army currently maintains trench positions in the southeastern Donbass region, where it faces off against the Russian-backed breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

“It depends what we are going to protect. If we want to protect a big city, we need kind of long range,” he said. “We need to assess every situation, and we are doing this with the U.S. side.”

The Ukrainian military official would not confirm the precise systems requested, such as long-range Patriot missile batteries or Stinger short-range air defenses, saying instead Ukraine has requested from the United States “capabilities.”

“We are talking about what type of capabilities we need, what we need urgently, and our defense team works with [the] American air defense team to find out decisions for short term, for longer term,” he said. “It doesn’t mean we don’t have them. But to deter aggression, we need to improve them.”

From a practical standpoint, it is air defenses and not aircraft that Ukraine needs most urgently.

Ukraine has Europe’s seventh-largest Air Force at approximately 144 platforms, but much of its fleet is aging Soviet-made aircraft. Ukraine combat aircraft include MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su-25s and Su-27s. Upgrading to American F-16 aircraft would require “five to 10 years,” the official said, using the example of Poland’s transition to a modern American Air Force.

Strong Words of Support

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, following a foreign ministers meeting in Riga, Latvia, on Dec. 2, voiced the political support of the alliance but said it was up to each NATO partner to negotiate defense assistance with Kyiv.

“Ministers made clear any future Russian aggression would come at a high price and have serious political and economic consequences for Russia,” Stoltenberg said in a press briefing, noting potential increased economic and financial sanctions as well as political restrictions.

The NATO Secretary General also pointed to the alliance’s reaction to the 2014 invasion of Crimea, which led to the deployment of battle groups in the Baltic region and Poland and an increased presence in the Black Sea, including air policing, rotational troops, and more exercises.

Stoltenberg did not promise military assistance.

“We provide support to Ukraine with capacity building. Allies provide training, equipment, and advice. And also share information with them,” he said.

Following a meeting with his South Korean counterpart Dec. 2, Austin described the danger Russia poses but declined to speculate on a potential U.S. response.

“Russia has a substantial amount of forces in the border region, and we remain concerned about that,” he said, adding that information warfare is being used by Russia to undermine Zelensky’s legitimacy.

The Ukrainian defense official said Ukraine has asked other NATO allies for defense assistance. In some cases, domestic law prohibits it. At the NATO defense ministerial level, Ukraine commission discussion has been blocked by Russian ally Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, he added.

“It’s quite complicated with NATO. NATO doesn’t have itself weapons, its weapons of nations,” the official said. “We are working with all possible NATO nations, but some countries legally cannot sell us any weapons.”

Security analysts have theorized that Russian President Vladimir Putin needs a land bridge through the Donbass to the Crimean peninsula, which it currently spends billions of dollars to support and militarize.

The Ukrainian official said the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol on the Azov Sea stands in the way of such a tactical move, and it is well defended. Ukraine’s larger concern, rather, is Russian troops poised northeast of Kyiv and across the border in Belarus. Russian aggression may be the beginning of an escalation that ultimately seeks to make Ukraine part of Russia, as in Soviet times.

“We need to protect all our country,” the official said, noting concerns related to the new front to the north. “There is no chance we are not fighting. We are going to fight.”

Raymond Cancels Trip After COVID-19 Contact

Dec. 3, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond has canceled a trip to California this weekend after having close contact with multiple individuals who tested positive for COVID-19, the Space Force confirmed Dec. 3.

Raymond was scheduled to appear at the Reagan National Defense Forum, hosted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute in Simi Valley, Calif., to participate in a panel discussion on the Space Force and the “new space economy.” Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. David D. Thompson will go in his place, Space Force spokesperson Lynn Kirby told Air Force Magazine.

“Gen. Raymond recently came in close contact with multiple individuals who just tested positive for COVID-19,” Kirby said in a statement. “Out of an abundance of caution and following the advice of medical professionals, he will no longer travel to the Reagan National Defense Forum. … Gen. Raymond has been tested within the last 24 hours, and we have no positive results to report at this time. He is fully vaccinated and has received the booster.”

Kirby declined to say whether Raymond is quarantining after the exposure. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines state that close contacts of a COVID-19 case do not need to quarantine if they are fully vaccinated unless they show symptoms. Regardless, they should be tested and wear a mask indoors in public.

Raymond’s announcement comes on the heels of the announcement that Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, has tested positive for the virus this week and is currently self-isolating.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. is also scheduled to appear at the Reagan National Defense Forum, for a panel discussion. An Air Force spokesperson confirmed to Air Force Magazine that he is still attending the conference.

Both Raymond and Brown have gone through COVID scares before—in October 2020, they both had to quarantine for two weeks after Coast Guard Vice Commandant Adm. Charles Ray attended high-level meetings at the Pentagon and subsequently tested positive. Later that month, Thompson, the No. 2 officer in the Space Force, tested positive. At that time, Raymond did not quarantine.

23,000 Airmen and Guardians Unvaccinated as Deadline for Guard and Reserve Passes

Dec. 3, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

More than 23,000 Airmen and Guardians across the Total Force remained unvaccinated against COVID-19 as the deadline for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve passed Dec. 2.

Out of more than 500,000 Total Force members, 95.3 percent are at least partially vaccinated against the novel coronavirus, according to data released Dec. 3 by the Department of the Air Force—the first military department to set a deadline under Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III’s vaccine requirement.

However, that still leaves more than 10,000 Air Force and Space Force service members seeking religious accommodations to the vaccine requirement; 2,323 who have received a medical exemption; 2,515 with an administrative exemption; and 3,233 who are recorded as having verbally refused the vaccine. Another 4,782 are noted as simply having not started the vaccination process.

Even though the reserve component had an extra month after the Active duty’s Nov. 2 deadline, the Guard and Reserve’s vaccination rate still lags behind—96.9 percent of the Active duty were at least partially vaccinated by their deadline, and that figure has now risen to 97.3 percent. Of the approximately 175,000 Guard and Reserve service members, 91.7 percent are at least partially vaccinated.

That’s been a consistent theme of DAF vaccination data released over the past few months, and other services have reported similar trends. The Navy and the Marine Corps’ deadlines for Active-duty service members passed Nov. 28, with 97.2 percent of Sailors and 95 percent of Marines at least partially vaccinated—but only 88 percent of Reserve Sailors and 79 percent of Reserve Marines, who have until Dec. 28, are vaccinated.

The Army’s Active-duty deadline is not until Dec. 15, and its Guard and Reserve components have until June 2022—96 percent of Active-duty Soldiers have started the vaccination process compared to just 69 percent of the reserves.

When the Air Force COVID-19 vaccine deadline for the Active duty first passed, roughly 800 Airmen and Guardians were said to have verbally rejected the vaccine, putting them at risk of punishment or even separation over refusal to follow a lawful order. Now, 1,108 Active-duty members and 2,125 Guard/Reserve members have verbally refused.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has taken a hard line on the issue, saying it is a “pretty straightforward” question as to whether those who refuse the vaccine will be booted from the service. He also questioned whether those who remain unvaccinated, even with an approved exemption, will be deployable. Those who are unvaccinated will not be able to PCS to a new assignment, according to a recently issued Air Force memo.

Meanwhile, as thousands of Airmen and Guardians seek religious exemptions to the vaccine rule, their chances of success appear to be slim. The Air Force has yet to approve a single exemption request, and the Navy and the Marine Corps haven’t granted any, either, according to their most recent data.

Even if not granted, the requests still pose a logistical issue for the department. Its policy calls for a decision within 30 days on requests for religious exemptions to mandatory vaccines from Airmen and Guardians within the continental U.S. But that policy was written with only a few requests at a time in mind, an Air Force spokesperson previously told Air Force Magazine.

When the Active duty’s deadline passed in early November, the Air Force recorded 4,933 religious exemption requests. A month later, that figure had only dropped to 4,754, with an extra 5,804 Guard and Reserve members now added to the pile.