North Korea’s Launch of Nuclear-capable Cruise Missile a ‘Threat’ to the Region, Says Pentagon

North Korea’s Launch of Nuclear-capable Cruise Missile a ‘Threat’ to the Region, Says Pentagon

The state news agency of North Korea confirmed the successful tests Sept. 11-12 of long-range cruise missiles it claims can carry a nuclear warhead, prompting the Pentagon to condemn the north’s military program.

“The activity itself certainly highlights the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s] continued focus on developing its military program and the threats that it continues to pose to its neighbors and the international community,” Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said at a Sept. 13 press briefing.

Kirby said his comments were based on press reports and were not a Defense Department confirmation that the tests took place.

The official North Korean news release called the long-range cruise missile a “strategic weapon,” necessary for deterrence, and said it hit targets 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) away. Although that’s far from a threat to the U.S. homeland, it is easily within reach of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific region, especially those in South Korea and Japan.

It is unclear whether United Nations sanctions on North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs would prohibit the types of tests that took place over the weekend.

Kirby said cruise missiles typically travel shorter distances with a smaller payload than longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles that U.S. missile defense systems are prepared to intercept from North Korea.

“A ballistic missile can often travel much longer distances at greater speeds than a cruise missile,” he said.

However, cruise missiles can be a powerful threat to regional interests.

“They can be much more precise in their targeting because they’re multi-directional,” Kirby said. “A cruise missile basically flies like an airplane, an un-piloted airplane, and so it can zig, it can zag, it can can do all kinds of different maneuvers before it hits its target.”

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command released a statement following the alleged DPRK test Sept. 12 saying it would consult with allies and partners and continue to monitor the situation.

“The U.S. commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remains ironclad,” the statement read.

New Rules to Attend AFA Conference: Proof of Vaccination or Negative COVID Test Now Required

New Rules to Attend AFA Conference: Proof of Vaccination or Negative COVID Test Now Required

Attendees to the Air Force Association’s 2021 Air, Space & Cyber Conference must present proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test taken within the prior three days to attend the conference in person Sept. 20-22.

After two consecutive virtual conferences, AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference returns next week live and in-person at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Md. In addition to the vaccination or test mandate, masks must be worn indoors during the conference, except while eating or drinking, according to Prince George’s County, Md., rules.

Department of Air Force personnel, both military and civilian, are only authorized to attend in person if they are fully vaccinated. Other attendees may get around the vaccination requirement by testing negative for COVID-19 within three days of attendance and showing the results of that test on arrival.

Regardless, to obtain a badge, all attendees must either: 

  • Show proof of vaccination, such as a vaccine card or digital vaccine passport, indicating the attendee is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, or 
  • For non-DAF attendees only, show proof of a negative test result from a COVID-19 test obtained within three days of arrival at the conference venue 

“Leading in the midst of a pandemic is a challenge to say the least,” wrote AFA Chairman of the Board Gerald Murray, former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force; and AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright in a letter to members. “We are fortunate that our Air and Space Forces are in such capable hands. While we all would like to put away the masks and stop talking about pandemic statistics, the reality is the disease continues to spread and the risks remain high. Taking prudent measures such as these are necessary precautions to enable face-to-face engagement, the hallmark of a successful conference.”

Conference attendees should bring documentation with them, such as a printed or digital vaccine passport. No conference badges will be printed without such proof. “We recognize that this may slow down our process and that it may mean longer waiting times,” said AFA President Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “But we also know that inconvenience is a small price to pay to get back to in-person events.”

He urged attendees to go to the conference center on Saturday or Sunday to get badges before the crush of opening day. “If you go early, you can beat the crowds and get a jump on the whole event,” Wright said. “The earlier you come, the faster the process will be.”

AFA’s Air, Space, & Cyber Conference is the leading professional development event for Air Force and Space Force officers, enlisted members, civilians, veterans, and defense industry leaders and representatives. The ASC conference brings together top Air Force and Space Force leadership, industry experts, and government officials to discuss challenges facing the aerospace and cyber communities today and in the future.

The theme for this year’s event is “Air and Space Leadership for our Nation—Today and Tomorrow.”

Keynote speakers include Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., Space Force Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, and Scott Kirby, CEO of United Airlines Holdings Inc., among others.

A livestream option will be available, but only for those who register to attend virtually. It is not too late to register for either the in-person or virtual option.

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Justin Bennett

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Justin Bennett

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 Tech. Sgt. Justin Bennett an anti-terrorism program manager at RAF Lakenheath, U.K.

Bennett superbly managed the United Kingdom’s largest anti-terrorism program by directly contributing to 42 force protection projects valued at over $22 million, while being the wing’s focal point for anti-terrorism measures for the Chief of Staff’s initiative of accelerating change through agile combat employment.

His actions fused the wing’s first agile combat employment mission with United States allies, enabling 4,700 sorties for U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa’s largest fighter wing.

Bennett’s commitment to excellence, personally and professionally, led to his selection by his peers to be the wing’s 5/6 vice president. A 5/6 council is a group that supports and mentors junior enlisted Airmen. In this role, Bennett mentored 2,000 peers and piloted six professional development courses while completing 18 credit hours to finalize his master’s degree in intelligence studies.

He also guided three Air Force site activation task forces by coordinating 54 anti-terrorism security designs to construct a $3 billion F-35 campus for the arrival of EUCOM’s first fifth-generation aircraft, which culminated in his selection as the Air Force’s security forces support staff noncommissioned officer of the year.

“In only a couple of years he’s been a staff sergeant, achieved technical sergeant on his first try, and now he’s a master sergeant select,” said Alex Higdon, 48th Security Forces Squadron anti-terrorism officer chief, in a USAF release. “He’s the embodiment of success professionally, and he also grows Airmen personally and professionally, by helping them out in terms of their personal life. He’s the go-to guy if you want to get an answer, and get it quickly.”

2021 Outstanding Airmen of the Year honoree Tech. Sergeant Justin Bennett. USAF

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

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Christopher Bennett

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Christopher Bennett

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 Tech. Sgt. Christopher Bennett from the 81st Training Group at Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.

Bennett excelled as a deployed combat airspace manager for a special operations detachment in direct support of Operation Inherent Resolve. He fused conventional and special operations tenets while integrating airpower assets into 10 international strike packages.

Bennett sterilized tactical airspace for 29 special operations raids while developing anti-drone weapon employment safety procedures. Additionally, he secured 3,100 commercial flights through hostile airspace from Turkish and Russian air strikes.

Bennett’s efforts enabled and enhanced kinetic, non-kinetic, and intelligence collection operations throughout Iraq and Syria, which led to the capture of 14 high-value targets and eliminated 94 enemy combatants.

He was awarded the Army’s combat action badge for his role in the coalition preparation and response to the Iranian missile attack on United States bases in Iraq, culminating in a Bronze Star Medal nomination. He received presidential list honors while working on his advanced degree, completed a second Community College of the Air Force degree in Instructor of Technology and Military Science, and garnered the John L. Levitow award upon graduation from the noncommissioned officer academy. 

2021 Outstanding Airmen of the Year honoree Tech. Sergeant Christopher Bennett excelled as a deployed combat airspace manager for a special operations detachment in direct support of Operation Inherent Resolve. Air Force photo.

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

GE Says New Engine for F-35 Possible by 2027, but Not on STOVL Version

GE Says New Engine for F-35 Possible by 2027, but Not on STOVL Version

Engine makers should be able to meet House defense policy bill language calling for a new F-35 powerplant based on the Adaptive Engine Transition Program by 2027, but only for the conventional takeoff versions, a GE Aviation executive said.

“We would be eager to step up to the challenge to meet the 2027 deadline” that the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act included, David Tweedie, general manager for advanced combat systems at GE Aviation, said in a Sept. 10 interview, adding that doing so is “certainly within the art of the possible.”

He said, “We were encouraged by both the direction [to the Joint Program Office] to provide a transition plan, as well as authorization for an additional $257 million of funding above the President’s Budget request, so we are encouraged on all those counts.”

After $4 billion in investment by the Air Force, through several successive technology programs, GE is in the final stages of testing its XA100 engine and Pratt & Whitney is also testing its XA101. The AETP program is a risk-reduction effort designed to make sure the technology is available if the Air Force wants to move on to a new powerplant for its fighters. Tweedie said the plan was always to develop an engine that could be applied to the F-35 at midlife, and to other, future aircraft, but not as a retrofit to the F-15, F-16, or F-22. The AETP engines were “optimized to the F-35 … from the beginning,” he said.

However, the AETP engine will not be able to power the F-35B, the short takeoff/vertical landing version of the Lightning II, Tweedie said.

While “we think we have a very competitive offering for the F-35A and the F-35C, … we did not design the AETP engine to integrate with the F-35B. It was beyond the scope of what we set out to do,” he said. While Tweedie did not comment on how hard it would be to adapt AETP engines to this application, he did say it would be “beyond the budget and timeframe” set by the House to accomplish.

Pratt & Whitney, which makes the F135 engine that powers the Joint Strike Fighter, argues that putting a new engine in the jet would cost $40 billion more over the remaining expected 50-year life of the program, chiefly in sustainment costs, because of the need to develop and maintain at least two engine logistics enterprises while continuing with the F135 for the F-35B. Pratt & Whitney says it can make modifications to its F135 that would be sufficient to meet all the Joint Strike Fighter’s future power and thrust needs, with margin; and that its AETP could not be adapted to the F-35, as it “will not fit” that aircraft’s engine space.

The AETP engines were developed because the Air Force recognized that engine technology of the 1990s had gone about as far as possible, and engineers were struggling hard to squeeze even a percentage point or two more performance out of it. The AETP engines add a third airstream to the traditional turbofan cycle, giving it better thrust and providing more air for cooling, while making it more fuel efficient in cruise.

The F-35 JPO does not have an engine roadmap for integration of a new powerplant in the jet, but creating one is likely to be on the agenda of the next top-level meeting of F-35 partners and users. The JPO has not committed to using AETP technology in the fighter.

“The … AETP is in the very early stages of development and is not currently an F-35 requirement,” an F-35 JPO spokeswoman said. The Joint Program Office is “working with the AETP program office and our industry partners to evaluate this new engine technology for possible use in the F-35.”

GE announced on Sept. 7 that it has begun testing the second all-up example of its XA100 AETP engine at its Evendale, Ohio, plant, which Tweedie said would likely be a “two-month effort, plus or minus.” The company says its version of the engine surpasses the F135 by 10 percent in thrust and 25 percent in fuel efficiency, along with a “significant reduction in carbon emissions.”

GE claims its XA100 engine has more thrust and fuel efficiency than the F-35’s current engine, the F135 from Pratt & Whitney. GE courtesy photo.

After GE has wrung out the XA100 at Evendale, it will be transferred to the Air Force for testing at Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tenn., where there is more sophisticated equipment that is only available to the Air Force.

It’s unclear how exactly the program will advance beyond this final stage; Tweedie said the contractors are “looking forward to what’s in the fiscal ‘23” budget request, as the 2022 version did not include out-years spending plans. “We have not seen a … finalized Air Force acquisition strategy,” he said.

But in a Sept. 7 Defense News conference, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said it’s important to press on with it, even if it isn’t used in the F-35.

“You’ve got to continue the R&D [research and development] … so that you have options in the future,” Brown said. “If we stop the R&D on this, we basically shut ourselves off from having an option to go forward.”

GE would “need to see something in the ’23 budget to keep this momentum going,” Tweedie said of Brown’s comments, paraphrasing Brown as saying, “’You can’t stop.’ And that’s true of any major development effort. There’s a lot of cycle time lost if you bring that effort to a complete halt.”

The Air Force has had superior fighter engine technology for generations, Tweedie said, and “10 years ago, the Air Force came to industry and said, ‘We need to earn that again; we need the next generational leap in technology.” The AETP program, and other such projects before it, were focused on being “ready to go launch that next full-scale engineering and manufacturing development program … We’ve met the Air Force’s objective to burn that risk down.”

Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-35 fighter, has worked with both GE and Pratt & Whitney throughout the AETP program to ensure that what they were developing would fit in the F-35; that “access panels, and all the other things” needed for service and maintenance would line up, Tweedie said. Lockheed Martin “has been an active participant in this program from Day 1,” and the resulting powerplants should, with development, “fit seamlessly” into the jet.

20 Years Later: Reflections and Lessons from a General Who Smelled the Smoke on 9/11

20 Years Later: Reflections and Lessons from a General Who Smelled the Smoke on 9/11

The building shook for only an instant and the soot from the smoke was clean within 48 hours, retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula recalled two decades after the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. But America’s national security priorities had been lost in the fog of war for a generation. Only now is strategy again aligning with threat.

An externally focused defense strategy turned to the homeland after the al-Qaida attacks, consolidating intelligence and protecting the nation against another terrorist attack, but mission creep led to strategic errors that would set the nation behind adversaries, said Deptula, now the dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, in an interview with Air Force Magazine as he reflected on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, then Maj. Gen. Deptula was dressed in his blues sitting at his Pentagon office at 5D156. He was director of the Air Force 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. After the attack, he would be called in to design the air response against the Taliban, putting him at the center of an evolving assessment of global terrorist targets against an evasive enemy, hampered by burdensome restrictions and patchy intelligence.

Deptula was two corridors down from where American Airlines Flight 77 would strike the west wall of the Pentagon.

“I’m sitting at my desk, and I get a call from my deputy, Brig. Gen. Ron Bath… He said, ‘Hey, General Deptula, turn on the TV,’” Deptula recalled.

American Airlines Flight 11 had struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

“It was just a beautiful day, up and down the East Coast. There wasn’t a cloud in the sky; crisp, wonderful, blue sky day,” Deptula recalled, wondering how a pilot could hit the building.

“Then, as I’m watching, wham! Here comes the second, and immediately, everyone who did watch it, when they saw the second airplane, it’s like, ‘This isn’t an accident,’” he said.

“This is an intentional attack,” he continued. “And the next thought that went through my mind, I’ll always remember this as well: ‘You know, the Pentagon would make a logical third target.’”

Dean of the Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies now-retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula pictured in his Pentagon office in 2001. Courtesy of David A. Deptula.

The Building Shook for an Instant

Thirty-four minutes after Deptula watched American Airlines Flight 175 crash into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, he heard a muffled explosion and felt a momentary quake.

The Pentagon had been hit by American Airlines Flight 77.

“The building shook, just for an instant,” Deptula recalled, ascertaining what had just happened. “The alarms went off almost immediately.”

The two-star directed staff to account for everyone in his division and once the task was complete, he dismissed them for the day. He himself was dismissed while critical staff, including the Joint Chiefs, assembled at the alternate command center at Bolling Air Force Base, now Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling, in Southeast Washington, D.C.

The remainder of the afternoon was a hectic effort to get home: Walking past closed Pentagon exits, observing smoke and fire from across the inner courtyard, unable to reach his wife with downed cell service. Finally, Deptula walked out the Pentagon river entrance and across the street to the marina, where he watched news reports on a small portable TV and conducted an interview with Washington Post reporters while waiting for a lift home.

“One of the biggest things I noticed was the quiet, the silence,” he recalled. “It was quiet. Black smoke billowing over the other side of the Pentagon, the opposite side from the river entrance, and then here are these two F-16s orbiting overhead. That’s why I say, ‘This was surreal. It’s quiet. The Pentagon’s on fire, two Air Force F-16s doing combat air patrol over Washington, D.C. Just eerie.’”

Deptula went into work at the damaged and soot-covered Pentagon the following day, only to be sent home until the intact part of the structure could be cleaned and secured.

Returning to work on the Air Force QDR seemed distant with the nation poised to strike back at an as-yet undefined enemy.

“The thing that you begin to think about is, ‘Who’s responsible for this? Where are they located? What are the options for response?’” Deptula recalled. He had already begun to share his operations experience as principal attack planner for Desert Storm in the Pentagon’s Checkmate wargaming center. There, he heard some of the ideas under consideration by U.S. Central Command contingency planning cells.

Then, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper called Deptula into his office.

“‘I just got a call from Chuck Wald, the 9th Air Force Commander,” Deptula recalled Jumper saying. “‘He’d like you to deploy to Southwest Asia to become the commander of the [U.S. Air Forces] Central Combined Air and Space Operations Center to design the response, plan the response, and help in the execution of our response. Do you want to go?”

Striking Back at the Taliban

Deptula settled into his new role at Prince Sultan Air Base, southwest of the Saudi capital of Riyadh, within days of the 9/11 attacks. He would be responsible for designing the initial attacks on the Taliban and al Qaeda that commenced on Oct. 7, 2001.

Many strategic options were on the table from a cover for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein to launching simultaneous counter-terrorism activities globally. As intelligence came in, options were refined. At one point, the United States even proposed working together with the Taliban.

“Very early on, we offered the Taliban the option to work with us to help us kick out al-Qaida,” Deptula said. “Then it became evident that they did not want that. Then we kind of raised the stakes in the context of, ‘Well, if you’re not going to do that, then you are liable for protecting our adversary and will come under attack as well.’”

CENTCOM planners wanted to assure that the people of Afghanistan knew this was not an attack on them, but on the Taliban who were harboring al-Qaida.

But limitations were plentiful, and strategic errors ensued.

“We could not drop a bomb in Afghanistan without approval of the four-star commander of Central Command, which was ridiculous,” Deptula remembered. Infrastructure was off limits.

The command wanted roadways and lines of communication to be in place to move humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.

The restriction led to one of “the most grievous strategic errors” of the war, Deptula recalled, allowing Taliban leader Mullah Omar and the senior most Taliban leadership to enter a compound in Kandahar and not strike.

“This is like manna from heaven to combat planners because I can take out the senior Taliban leadership and all of their senior staff on the first night of the war,” Deptula remembered. “I’m talking to the commander of the Predator outfit going, ‘What the hell is going on? Why is this taking so long to get approval?’”

Approval did not come. Concerns about mud huts within the collateral damage circle prevented the strike.

Nonetheless, the coordination of airpower with the “light touch” of special operations forces and the indigenous forces of the Northern Alliance led to the collapse of the Taliban government by December.

“We’d already accomplished our critical U.S. national security objectives in Afghanistan,” Deptula said, noting his own departure in mid-November.

“We’d removed the Taliban from power. We had worked to assist a government friendly to the United States and our interests in their place, and we’d eliminated the al-Qaida terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan,” he said. “What we should have done was [say], ‘See you later, have a nice life. If you do it again, we’ll be back.’”

‘Unobtainium’ Mission Creep

The mission in Afghanistan had been accomplished even before Central Command finished deploying its land forces. Instead of fighting, the military took a non-military role, Deptula assessed.

“By the time they got into theater, they realized, ‘OK, the Taliban are gone. Friendly government. Al Qaeda is gone. Now, what do we do?’” he said. “So, in the largest example of mission creep, they sought to win hearts and minds and change a collection of sixth-century tribes into a modern Jeffersonian democracy, which is what we’ve been trying to do for the last 20 years. But it’s unobtainium. Nor is it a military mission or role.”

Institutional equities butted heads, Deptula opined, as the Army fought to “prove their relevancy” in the wake of a decade of swift air successes that preceded 9/11, from Bosnia to the Gulf War. The investment and commitment of U.S. forces in Afghanistan would bog down the American military for two decades while adversaries like China invested in military modernization.

“9/11 happened. And it had an enormous strategic effect on the government and the military of the United States,” Deptula offered.

America’s defenses had always been faced externally. Important changes were made. The Department of Homeland Security was stood up, the Intelligence Community was united under the Director of National Intelligence and the Transportation Security Administration was established.

“We are more attuned to terrorism as a critical national security threat than we ever have been before,” Deptula said.

In Afghanistan, changes in military strategy hampered the American force.

“When we shifted from a strategy of counterterrorism to one of counterinsurgency, we shifted from a set of objectives that were in the U.S. critical national security interest to a set of objectives that were not, and that’s very frustrating,” Deptula said. “We shouldn’t get counterterrorism confused with counterinsurgency and getting involved with nation building and trying to change other nations into our image.”

The United States neglected future threats by continuing to push for total success in Afghanistan, he said.

“As the world’s sole superpower, we need to be able to be prepared to deter, and if necessary, defeat threats across the spectrum of conflict, from humanitarian assistance all the way up to global thermonuclear war,” Deptula said. “The pendulum swung too far.”

Whiteman B-2s Integrate with Norwegian F-35s

Whiteman B-2s Integrate with Norwegian F-35s

A pair of U.S. Air Force B-2s integrated with Norwegian F-35s over the North Sea on Sept. 8 as part of a recent Bomber Task Force deployment.

The mission was “designed to test escort procedures, stand-off weapon employment, and the suppression and destruction of air defenses,” U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa said in a press release. During the flight, the two different aircraft were able to link and use fifth-generation data-sharing capabilities.

“The mission demonstrates the value of our continued presence and relationships,” said Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa commander, in a statement. “What our collective Airmen accomplish on these missions is vital to our alliance and maintaining agility as we move into the future.”

The three B-2s, from the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., arrived at Keflavik Air Base, Iceland, on Aug. 23.

This marks the second time in the last year and a half that B-2s from Whiteman have integrated with F-35As from the Royal Norwegian Air Force. Back in June 2020, the 509th Bomb Wing conducted a “long-range, long-duration” training mission with the fighters north of the Arctic Circle.

Since arriving in Iceland, the American bombers have also flown over RAF Fairford in the U.K. and integrated with F-15Cs from the 48th Fighter Wing based out of RAF Mildenhall over the North Sea, according to released photos.

The concept of deploying bombers to new locations as part of task forces, as opposed to a continuous presence outside the U.S., was first introduced in April 2020 and was championed by then-Global Strike Command boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray.

In February, Ray said the Bomber Task Forces had increased morale and readiness, provided new training opportunities, and strengthened partnerships while projecting the Air Force’s global reach and power. At the time, he said the service was planning on “expanding beyond the normal” locations such as Fairford, U.K.; Diego Garcia; Moron, Spain; and Guam.

DOD Finalizing First-ever Digital-only Tech Conformance Plan for New Satcom Terminals

DOD Finalizing First-ever Digital-only Tech Conformance Plan for New Satcom Terminals

The Department of Defense is finalizing a new technical reference architecture (TRA) for satcom terminals it will buy—a highly detailed description of the engineering requirements for the devices, which maintain global two-way satellite communications for aircraft and other deployed forces.

And for the first time, the TRA, typically a document hundreds of pages long, will instead be produced in digital form, according to Michael Dean, who heads the satcom team for the DOD’s chief information officer.

The digital tool being developed in partnership with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) was “pretty cool,” he told Air Force Magazine on the sidelines of the Satellite 2021 conference. Potential vendors could load in data about the terminals they manufacture and quickly understand where their products might fall short, rather than having to pore over hundreds of pages of a PDF. “You just click … and it kind of tells you that, ‘no, you’re out of tolerance, or yes,’” you’re in conformity, Dean said.

The digital TRA tool uses the same model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach that powers digital twin technology—already used by the Air Force to predict engine performance, test satellites for cyber vulnerabilities, and teach artificial intelligence to fly planes.

The TRA tool will also gather data required for the DOD’s rigorous certification process, which ensures satcom terminals actually conform to their own specifications. “That can take a long time,” Dean said, so the tool was designed to capture as much of the data required for certification as possible. When vendors “build their terminal design, and they plop it in [to the digital TRA], then when the folks that do the assessments … look at it, a lot of the work is already done for them.”

The TRA is currently undergoing an internal approval process, Dean said, but he hoped to have it finalized by the start of 2022. “So we’re in the final stages—it seems to be on track,” he said, adding that he’d know by November if they would make their end-of-year target.

One new requirement in the TRA, Dean said, would be for an automated registration function for new satcom terminals, part of an effort to get a better handle on DOD satellite communications called the satcom enterprise management and control environment.

Dean explained that the DOD currently relies on manually compiled spreadsheets to keep track of its terminals: “It’s a data call—it’s a manual process. It’s very labor intensive.” Because all the data was manually entered, it was not authoritative. “It’s hand jammed—you can make mistakes. And so you’ve got bad data. You’ve got duplicated data,” he said.

That matters because terminals need access to a limited resource—satellite bandwidth—which has to be apportioned out. Different terminals have varying capabilities and might employ different frequencies. Without authoritative data on which terminals are out there and what capabilities they have, commanders can’t prioritize resources efficiently, Dean said.

“Our terminal segment is the tail that wags the [satcom] dog … I’ve got a lot of terminals that aren’t very interoperable. Some of them are digital. Some of them are analog. Some of them speak certain protocols—some of them don’t.”

An authoritative catalogue of terminals, compiled automatically as the new terminals come online, would let the DOD “leverage certain enterprise capabilities—automatic resource allocation, for example,” Dean said, allowing algorithms to dole out bandwidth.

The 9/11 Mission was to Take Down Any Unresponsive Aircraft. The Only Option: ‘Fly Into It’

The 9/11 Mission was to Take Down Any Unresponsive Aircraft. The Only Option: ‘Fly Into It’

The first day back at work wasn’t supposed to go like this. The 121st Fighter Squadron had returned on Saturday from a Red Flag deployment in Nevada; Monday was a day off.

Now, on Tuesday, District of Columbia Air National Guard squadron leaders were meeting at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., to set training priorities. Heather Penney, a green first lieutenant, was in the meeting because her secondary duty was squadron training officer.

The session was interrupted when someone opened the door a crack to let the assembled officers know an airplane had flown into the World Trade Center.

“And we all looked outside, and it was a crystal-clear, blue September Tuesday morning,” Penney recalled. The weather was likely the same in New York, and the pilots speculated that either “someone totally pooched [fouled up] their instrument approach,” or some small aircraft sightseeing on the Hudson had made a really bad turn.

The group returned to its meeting. A short while later, the door was opened again, this time wide, and a noncommissioned officer said a second aircraft had flown into the WTC, “and it was on purpose.”

With urgency but professionalism, the group looked at each other and asked, “What do we do now?”

Over the following hour, unit leaders tried to get orders to act. While state Air Guard units get instructions from their governors, D.C. has no governor, so the Guard takes orders directly from the President. Further, the base was not an alert facility, so it was not tied in with the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The Secret Service has a heavy presence at Andrews, however, because it is the operating base for Air Force One.

Brig. Gen. David F. Wherley Jr., 113th Wing commander, ordered his Airmen to begin preparing for a possible launch. He called his Secret Service contacts, seeking authorization for an improvised combat air patrol mission.

As they hurried to pull on their flight gear in the life support shop, Penney and her flight lead, Maj. Marc Sasseville, had a perfunctory conversation about what they would do if they found the inbound airliner they had been told was on its way toward Washington.

They would be launching with nothing on board but about 100 rounds of training ammunition—simple bullets with lead tips, not the usual 20 mm high-explosive incendiary rounds used in combat. AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were being unpacked and built up at Andrews’ weapons area, but it took time to assemble the missiles, and the cart that transported them from the far side of the base moved at a top speed of just nine miles per hour. The Sidewinders would have to wait for a second flight.

Penney, remembering an accident investigation that her father had participated in, recalled that 737s simply dropped from the sky if they lost their tails, leaving “a very tight debris field.”

The mission here would be to bring the airliner down causing as few casualties as possible on the ground, but primarily to make sure that it did, indeed, crash without reaching its target.

The training ammunition wasn’t going to be enough to do the job, Penney explained, “even if you’re a perfect shot.” There was really only one way to take down a large airplane under these circumstances.

“Fly into it,” Penney said.

Sasseville said he would ram the cockpit; Penney intended to take out the tail. “I know for sure that if I take off the tail, that it will just go straight down,” so she intended to “aim the body of my airplane” at the empennage.

Penney was hoping to have enough time to eject after the impact, but was keenly aware that she’d have to stay with the F-16 until it struck the airliner.

“It was very clear that, yeah, this was”—Penney declined to finish the thought—probably going to be a one-way mission.

Wherley soon received orders from the Secret Service to intercept any approaching aircraft and keep them away from an eight-mile circle around downtown. “That allowed an ROE-build,” said Wherley in a 2004 interview, referring to rules of engagement.

Penney and Sasseville powered up immediately.

Normally, an F-16 preflight took 10 to 20 minutes. Now, she and Sasseville were rolling within seconds; the crew chiefs were “still under the jet, pulling pins” even as the fighters surged forward, she said. In two minutes, at full afterburner, they were airborne.

It was about 10:40 a.m., just an hour after American Flight 77 had struck the Pentagon, and Sasseville and Penney knew they had a grim mission. At least one airliner was still believed inbound toward Washington, D.C. Their job was to get over the city as soon as they could and act as the “goalie” CAP: to bring down any aircraft ignoring orders to turn away.

As Sasseville and Penney screamed skyward, banking toward the Potomac River and Washington, Penney said the whole scene was dream-like. In the center of an extremely congested triangle of commercial airports—Reagan National and Dulles in Virginia, and Baltimore-Washington in Maryland—D.C. was typically abuzz with airliners, business jets, and general aviation airplanes. Sometimes, it could take two minutes to get departure clearance from Potomac Control—an eternity in a gas-guzzling F-16.

By midmorning on 9/11, however, nothing else was up. “It was eerily silent,” Penney recalled. “That part was very surreal.”

Sasseville and Penney flew over the Pentagon, then proceeded west-northwest, as instructed, looking for the inbound airliner. In the confusion of the morning, they were looking for United Airlines Flight 93, which, unknown to them, had already crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

F-16s from the North Dakota ANG soon arrived and also took up station, having flown up from Langley Air Force Base, Va. The D.C. and North Dakota F-16s set up a high-low CAP, with the Fargo jets staying above 18,000 feet, looking for inbound threats from over the ocean, while Penney’s flight stayed low, on the lookout for threats trying to sneak in at low altitude, as the previous attacks had done.

Because they had been dispatched by NORAD, the Fargo Vipers were joined by a tanker, and all the F-16s over Washington took turns refueling.

They remained up for four hours, and when Penney and Sasseville landed back at Andrews they left plenty of other interceptors over the city. Upon landing, they were whisked to a room “with more generals than I’d ever seen in my lifetime,” Penney said.

“We stood at the head of an oval table in front of the entire group, and it was standing room only, and they asked us all sorts of questions about the morning and the sorties, and what we had seen,” she said. It was heady stuff for a first lieutenant who had only been assigned to the base for nine months.

Almost immediately, the two F-16s relaunched—now fully armed—to fly another four-hour mission over the capital.

During this second sortie, they received instructions over the encrypted radio to escort Air Force One, which was inbound on its way to Andrews. “I then flew point, leading the package back,” Penney said. “The first sortie, we were far more focused on doing the task at hand,” she said. Hours later, it was still “hard to believe” what had happened.

Penney spent some of the time on the second sortie above the Pentagon, looking down at it with her jet aircraft’s infrared targeting pod, trying to get the events of the day to seem more real.

The D.C. Air Guard served as Washington’s CAP resource for the following two weeks, but of the 32 pilots assigned to the unit, only about eight were full-timers. Many of the traditional Guard pilots were airline pilots “stuck in different parts of the country” when air travel was abruptly halted on 9/11. For the D.C. Guard, the air defense mission represented “24-hour operations with decreased manpower,” Penney said, “very work intensive.”

The situation didn’t leave much time for reflection. While it was a “dramatic experience,” she became turned off by “the melodramatic media attention,” and postponed much personal reflection.

“I really didn’t process or think through all of that until a couple of years ago,” Penney said. However, as to the notion of having to take down an airliner with innocents aboard, “it was so abundantly clear in the moment that, while it would have been tragic and unfortunate, the moral choice was obvious.”

She said that at no point “did I feel conflicted, like, ‘Could I really do this?’”

The “total heroes” of the air action, she said, were the passengers on Flight 93 who ultimately made the goalie CAP unnecessary.

“What they did was courageous,” Penney said. “And I think for them it was also obvious, once they realized what was going on.”

Editor’s Note: Heather Penney is now a senior resident fellow at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. This article originally appeared in the September 2011 edition of Air Force Magazine.