US Army Likely to Field DOD’s First Hypersonic Weapons in Next ‘Year or Two’

US Army Likely to Field DOD’s First Hypersonic Weapons in Next ‘Year or Two’

Nov. 16, 2021 | By Shaun Waterman

The first battle-ready U.S. hypersonic weapon will be fielded within a year or two by the Army, and the Navy is not far behind, according to the Department of Defense official overseeing research into the emerging and disruptive technology.

The Army’s Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) program has already fielded transporter-erector-launchers and other ground elements, noted Gillian Bussey, director of DOD’s Joint Hypersonics Transition Office. “The only thing that’s missing is the missile,” she said. But, “We’re looking at having that fielded in the next year or two.”

Bussey told attendees of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Ascend space technology conference that the Army program will be the first U.S. hypersonic system “that will actually be deployed and … ready for use.” Bussey called it “a pretty successful effort.”

The Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike system will follow close on the heels of the Army version because both programs use the Common Hypersonic Glide Body, which, as Bussey pointed out, was successfully tested last year and has now been transitioned into both programs.

For its part, the Air Force has yet to stage a successful all-up test of the AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the service’s own boost-glide system. Bussey focused her presentation on the Air Force’s efforts to develop a scramjet—a supersonic combustion ramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missile—dubbed the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Concept (HAWC), a smaller hypersonic system that could be launched from a fighter aircraft.

Without providing new details, she touted a successful Sept. 27 test of the Raytheon-built HAWC, powered by a Northrop Grumman scramjet. She also mentioned Southern Cross, a joint project with the Royal Australian Air Force to develop a scramjet-powered technology demonstrator for a hypersonic cruise missile.

“What’s really nice about this project is we’re able to leverage 15 years of collaboration in Australia in a number of technical areas,” she said.

HAWC and ARRW are both still in testing and technology development—Phase 1 of a four-phase process—that Bussey outlined, although she listed them as “transitioning” to Phase 2, which is prototyping. Phases 3 and 4—fielding and program of record—still lie ahead for all of DOD’s hypersonic weapons programs, she said.

“We think we’re well on track to having a program of record with some of those systems [that we’re prototyping],” she said. “And that’s where you get to this point, the significant quantities that we need to really make a difference on the battlefield.”

Defense experts both inside and outside government have noted that a future war will demand thousands of aimpoints for precision munitions, but only small handfuls of hypersonic systems are being bought at this stage.

Building such a number of hypersonic weapons won’t be possible if they’re too expensive, Bussey warned. Her boss, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu, told reporters Oct. 12 that the department needed “more affordable hypersonics” as current systems can be priced at tens of millions per unit.

The Pentagon’s total budget request in the 2022 fiscal year for hypersonics research was $3.8 billion, up $600 million from $3.2 billion the year before.

Bussey said hypersonic cruise missiles, “allow for a lower cost per mission and … for launch platform flexibility,” which can also keep costs down.

The Joint Hypersonics Transition Office, part of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, was set up with a $100 million budget by congressional mandate in 2019 after concerns that the services’ hypersonic development efforts were duplicative and inefficient. Congressional overseers, Bussey said, “were concerned that across the department, there were too many disparate efforts. We weren’t really getting the efficiency out of the dollars that we were spending, that technologies weren’t transitioning, so they really charged us with focusing on transition and jointness.”

Bussey said her office is also “focused on expanding the DOD hypersonics ecosystem” and has established a university consortium with $20 million in research grants to draw academics into research that would advance the hypersonics development agenda.

Both China and Russia are pursuing hypersonic weapons programs and claim to have made breakthroughs. Missiles that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds are considered very hard to intercept, which makes them a disruptive technology, according to defense analysts. The National Defense Strategy declared hypersonic weapons a top research-and-development priority alongside artificial intelligence, robotics, and directed energy.

How to Break a Program: Funding Instability, Requirements Changes

How to Break a Program: Funding Instability, Requirements Changes

Nov. 15, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The fastest ways to hobble a major acquisition program are to put it through the funding instability of continuing resolutions or to apply constant major changes to the requirements once the program is well underway, panelists said on an AFA Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies webinar Nov. 15. The one major aircraft program over the past three decades that escaped serious problems in development and production—the Navy’s F/A-18E/F—benefitted from being largely left alone by Congress and senior Pentagon leaders in these regards.

“If you want to damage a program or make it unsuccessful, create requirement and funding instability,” said Randall G. Walden, head of the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which is currently managing the B-21 bomber and Advanced Battle Management System. “The moment you do that, you’re going to break the program.”

Every time he goes to Capitol Hill, Walden said he begs Congress to “please make [funding] stable.” Likewise, changing the requirements—whether driven by Congress or the Pentagon—“drives instability in the program where we may not have the money to cover it.”

The B-21 has gotten high marks from Capitol Hill, and Walden said the program’s success owes much to good communication with Congress, realistic requirements, and stable funding. Changing those aspects “most likely … results in time added, and time added equals cost added,” Walden said.

The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies discussed its recent paper, “From EMD to Milestone C and Beyond: Common Issues that Affect Developmental Programs Transitioning into Production,” during a Nov. 15 virtual event.

The panel was discussing a Mitchell paper by retired Lt. Gen. Mark D. Shackelford, “From EMD to Milestone C and Beyond: Common Issues that Affect Developmental Programs Transitioning into Production.” Shackelford was the senior Air Force uniformed acquisition officer in his last assignment.

Shackelford looked at major aircraft development programs including the B-1B and B-2 bombers; the C-17 airlifter; the KC-46 tanker; the A-12 joint attack plane; and the F-22, F-35, and F/A-18E/F fighters, and of all of them, only the F/A-18 Super Hornet could be considered a largely untroubled program, he said.

The reasons the Super Hornet was an “outlier” to the other major aircraft projects had to do with a number of factors, Shackelford said.

“There was a good relationship between government and contractor, based on their prior relationship on the earlier Hornet,” he said. The program used “integrated product teams, … strictly controlled requirements, had stable funding—only two minor reductions over 12 years—seven test aircraft, ample time to test, a logical workshare arrangement, and substantial management reserve,” he said.

Shackelford hastened to add, though, that while the F/A-18E/F had some “substantial differences” compared to the F/A-18C/D, the Super Hornet was “not a clean-sheet design, but an evolution of the earlier Hornet.” Most of the other programs examined were pursuing some technologies for the first time.

Of the others, some of their banner problems were that the B-2 “started manufacturing before design was complete,” while the F-22 program “underestimated cost and schedule and suffered from a very aggressive bid from the prime contractor” with an “unrealistic cost and schedule [that] distributed workshare” among three different contractors, “and, later in [engineering and manufacturing development], a hands-off approach” from government, leaving too many decisions in the hands of Lockheed Martin.

The notorious 1980s A-12 stealth program suffered from just about every area in which the Super Hornet excelled, Shackelford said, with an adversarial government-contractor relationship, unrealistic schedule and budget, immature technology, and excessive classification that prevented good oversight.

“Lack of flexibility compounds these management problems,” Shackelford noted. “Not being able to recover from a misstep, or negotiate a solution to an unexpected challenge, can leave government or the contractor to double down on approaches with negative outcomes.”

Government needs to apply “active contract management,” he said. Ideally, it also should “own the technical baseline … and make changes to its contractor approach as needed. The goal is to build trust and partnership, backed up by data and accountability.”

When asked if the existing milestone system is in need of an overhaul, given the need to accelerate programs, Shackelford said no.

“I would go so far as to say that the milestone system is OK,” he said. “But we need to be able to tailor the milestone system to deal with the challenges that a particular program is facing. Things like spreading out a milestone event to multiple mini-milestones is one solution that’s commonly taken with that.“ Walden said this is precisely the approach the B-21 has taken, particularly with software.

The true value of the milestone system is “that it gets the detail of what’s going on in the program up to the very top decision-makers so that they get insight into … the overall status of the program. And we’ve got to be careful to keep them informed,” Shackelford said.

The “key decision-makers are actually part of the audience for this paper … because they’re the ones that control things like funding,” he added. Milestone reviews help create a consensus understanding of expectations for a program and “how to deal with them,” Shackelford said.

He found no universal warning signs that a program was headed for problems “other than the importance of communication.” While good progress has been made in pushing decision-making to lower levels, “in general, the information still needs to flow back up so that these decision-makers do control at the very top level, … so that they’re aware of things and have an understanding of the impact of the decisions that they make.”

Vets Group Calls VA Program to Target Toxic Exposure from Burn Pits ‘Wonky Doublespeak’

Vets Group Calls VA Program to Target Toxic Exposure from Burn Pits ‘Wonky Doublespeak’

Nov. 15, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The White House directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to help veterans exposed to burn pits and other in-service toxic hazards get the care they need, but a leading veterans group says the effort is just more “wonky doublespeak that doesn’t accomplish or change anything.”

During the two decades of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, a widespread practice of toxic burn pits exposed thousands of service members to carcinogens who have developed diseases decades after service separation, making the veterans ineligible for care if they cannot prove their disease was service related. Despite high-profile efforts by the likes of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and comedian Jon Stewart, who helped pass similar legislation for 9/11 first responders, numerous bills have floundered. Now the VA is taking another approach through a pilot program and “exposure model.”

“The goal of this new model is to lower the burden of proof for veterans impacted by exposures and [to] speed up the delivery of health care and benefits they need,” a Nov. 11 VA press release stated.

“We are seeking more information from veterans, more evidence from more sources, and looking to take every avenue possible to determine where a potential presumptive illness based on military service location may exist in a more expedient and holistic manner,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough in a statement. “We want all veterans who may have been impacted to file a claim even if it was previously denied.”

But a veterans group says creating another model to study possible relationships of in-service environmental hazards to medical conditions is not the promise of presumption of disease they need for immediate care.

“This does nothing and is insulting,” said Mark T. Jackson, an Army veteran working on behalf of the Stronghold Freedom Foundation, which represents service members who served at Karshi-Khanabad (K2) Air Base, a secret Uzbek staging base for the invasion of Afghanistan. Veterans assigned there have since developed numerous rare cancers and other ailments.

“The solution is automatic presumption of service connection for ANY veteran who presents ANY illness known to be caused by the carcinogens known to be present in burn pits, radiation, and contaminate soils,” Jackson said via e-mail. “It’s mostly wonky doublespeak that doesn’t accomplish or change anything.”

A White House fact sheet acknowledged there are “gaps and delays” in the scientific evidence showing a conclusive link to adverse health impacts, which include a range of respiratory and gastrointestinal ailments. The result is that many veterans do not have access to VA care.

The new VA “comprehensive military exposure model” goes beyond what science can prove to include other scientific research and factors, but it does not require any changes.

“VA developed a new model to accelerate the decision-making process to consider adding new presumptive conditions,” the statement read.

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who sponsored an omnibus bill to help veterans exposed to toxins, said in a statement Nov. 11 that the new model is a good start but that legislation is also needed.

“For too long, veterans have had to prove that they were exposed to toxicants by their government or face waiting decades for the science and presumption decisions to catch up,” Takano said in the statement.

The move will “attempt to reduce that burden and ultimately, speed up the delivery of” benefits, he added.

“We still must pass comprehensive legislation to ensure all veterans exposed to toxins during their service have access to VA’s high quality care and benefits,” he said. “Today’s announcement makes it clear—the momentum is on our side.”

Jackson worries the move just buys the VA more time to look at its own data and practices while sick veterans continue to fend for themselves.

“They are going to review a few diseases with their new model and develop a new one and then give themselves 90 days to then consider a change to rulemaking,” he said. “If that works, they intend to use the model on other conditions with the same non-committal outcome.”

Jackson said veterans must apply within 10 years for some conditions, while for Iraq War veterans, the grace period is just five years. The White House fact sheet calls on Congress to extend the period of coverage after separation for 3 million Iraq veterans.

“This is another betrayal wrapped up in wonktalk and lawyerese that does precisely nothing for K2 vets or any veteran suffering—or who will one day suffer—from diseases caused by burn pits,” Jackson said.

For the Pentagon’s part, spokesperson John F. Kirby said Nov. 15 that Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III would throw his weight behind the effort.

“This is an issue that the Secretary takes very seriously,” Kirby said in response to a question from Air Force Magazine. “[Austin] fully supports the VA Secretary’s desire to make care for these maladies more available and to reduce the burden on our veterans of proof.”

Integrating, Upgrading, and Protecting America’s Defense Systems is Essential for Our National Security

Integrating, Upgrading, and Protecting America’s Defense Systems is Essential for Our National Security

Nov. 15, 2021 | By Michael Marks

Foreign adversaries increasingly are incorporating technological superiority into strategic planning to gain advantage over the U.S. While sometimes coming from true scientific advances and genuine research and development (R&D), for some adversaries reverse engineering, intellectual property theft, corporate espionage, and cyber intrusions constitute official state policy. Our adversaries have endeavored to ramp up their own capabilities, at times surpassing our own to pursue their strategic interests. In a 2021 interview, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley cited “artificial intelligence, hypersonics, biotechnologies,” as examples of where China and Russia are ahead of the U.S.

Much of the technology advances and innovations are driven by microelectronics. In accordance with Moore’s Law, computer chip speeds have doubled every 18 months since 1965. Lately, however, technological development has surpassed this pace. The U.S. has not been the only beneficiary of these advances that help to drive many of the foundations of our economy and contribute to qualitative military superiority. It is therefore imperative that the U.S. strive for competitive technology advantage in general, while pursuing a strong national defense, powered by leading technological breakthroughs.

To address this challenge, in September 2020 the Department of Defense released its “Unleashing Data to Advance the National Defense Strategy” framework that stresses the need to “transform the Department into a data-centric enterprise.” The U.S. Army and Air Force subsequently agreed to jointly develop joint all-domain command and control (JADC2) to transform how we manage, secure, and leverage data as strategic assets. JADC2 will ensure rapid and efficient dissemination of military messages, strategies, and tactics, without threat of interception. Vice Adm. Jeffrey Trussler, deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare explained “it’s about that speed of decision … We [must] link our systems, sensors, weapons, platforms together like we never have.”

There is no time to lose; our adversaries are not standing still. As an example, China has made artificial intelligence dominance by 2030 the centerpiece of its 2017 strategic plan. And the hackers in China’s cyber-Ministry of State Security have arguably become an even more important state asset than the traditional military. According to the 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) annual threat assessment, “China presents a prolific and effective cyber-espionage threat, possesses substantial cyber-attack capabilities, and presents a growing influence threat.” Recently a U.S. Trade Representative investigation of intellectual property theft found “Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said, “Whoever … [leads the artificial intelligence] sphere will … [rule] the world.” Cyber espionage and related activity supports this objective. In January 2019, Russia’s hacking group Nobelium launched a devastating supply chain attack on the SolarWinds Orion platform, compromising intellectual property at over 18,000 different organizations. The Nobelium hackers were inside these organizations for 14 months, pivoting through networks and exfiltrating the most sensitive proprietary secrets. The Russians have even penetrated the cybersecurity giant FireEye and stolen 300 of its top proprietary cybersecurity tools.

It’s said that “data is the new oil” and sorting through unprecedented volumes of big data at a rate that exceeds our adversaries is “the real challenge facing commanders,” according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. Security officials report cybersecurity threats accelerating in 2021, far outpacing the dangers of 2020. Threats of interception by enemy forces have never been higher and are less centralized. Therefore, communications must be secured by advanced encryption protocols.

Many new players in the tech space are seeking defense contracts. While bringing fresh ideas and innovation, they need partnerships with experienced contractors that can lead the efforts. Silicon Valley is known for rapidly developing consumer-grade technologies, with a “first to market” mentality. This drives security breaches, cyber leaks, and Zero-Day vulnerabilities. While seriously harming consumers, in the military arena such breaches could have deadly consequences.

To succeed, JADC2 needs to be led by a company that has reliably supported the national security community and has done the work for decades. While no system is immune from data breaches and vulnerabilities, these companies are detail oriented and can draw upon their experience to build systems that are cyber hardened and less likely to experience failures during critical moments in military operations. The stakes are just too high to do otherwise.

JADC2 will revolutionize defense communications and data transfer, but without secure communications, and a reliable company leading, we will fall even further behind our foreign adversaries. Our military leaders and Congress must properly invest in these programs and entrust the development to those able to handle it.

Michael Marks leads Intelligent Decision Partners, a consultancy specializing in competitive intelligence, opposition research, technology scouting, forecasting, and predictive analysis. He was assistant director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy from June 1986 to January 1988. 

Chair of Powerful Senate Appropriations Committee Won’t Seek Reelection in 2022

Chair of Powerful Senate Appropriations Committee Won’t Seek Reelection in 2022

Nov. 15, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

A complete change in leadership is coming for one of the most important committees in the Senate, a change that could have trickle-down effects on the defense subcommittee that wields major influence over the Pentagon’s budget.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced Nov. 15 that he would not seek reelection in 2022. Leahy currently serves as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which oversees all discretionary spending legislation.

Senate committee leadership posts are most commonly decided by seniority—Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is currently the second-most senior Democrat on the Appropriations panel but is widely expected to pass up the job as she did for the Senate Judiciary Committee during the current Congress.

Without Feinstein, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is in line based off seniority to step up as either committee chair or vice chair, depending on which party controls the Senate after the 2022 midterms. She currently serves as chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Meanwhile, the Appropriations vice chairman, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), announced in February that he would retire rather than run for reelection in 2022. He’s followed in seniority by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, but given McConnell’s status as leader of the party in the full Senate, he is exceedingly unlikely to take on additional duties as the chair of any committee.

That would leave Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in line to take over as either chair or vice chair alongside Murray. A similar process could unfold on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, where Shelby is also the ranking member, followed by McConnell and then Collins in seniority.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) is the current chair of the defense subcommittee, one of 12 sub-panels under Appropriations, but Leahy was also a member of the panel, meaning his departure will leave an open seat, a relatively rare occurrence as of late—Democrats have added just two new members to the committee since 2015.

While the Senate Armed Services Committee exercises the most oversight over the Pentagon and generates the annual National Defense Authorization Act that sets policy and authorizes funding, it is the Appropriations Committee that oversees the actual appropriation of monies, and the Defense subcommittee in particular is responsible for drafting the initial version of the appropriations bill that funds the DOD.

Roughly half of all discretionary government spending goes to defense, making a spot on the Appropriations defense subcommittee “equivalent to being on the other 11 subcommittees,” Mark Harkins, senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, told Air Force Magazine. That makes any opening or change on the defense subcommittee a coveted spot.

“When you think about an appropriations bill, the first place it has to pass is a subcommittee, the second place it has to pass is the full committee, and then it has to pass the House and the Senate floor,” Harkins said. “So at each one of those levels, you get a bite at the apple, so to speak. And so if you’re at the beginning of the process, you have more opportunities for more bites, which allows you … to try to ensure that policy and money is more directed towards your state or district.”

When Tester was named chair of the subcommittee earlier this year, observers noted the implications for nuclear modernization, as his home state of Montana hosts Malmstrom Air Force Base, one of three bases armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

Similarly, Murray and Collins’ potential leadership roles could have implications for their states. A recent Pentagon study found that Washington state ranked in the top 15 nationally in both defense spending and personnel stationed there, with Boeing accounting for $3.8 billion in defense contractor spending. The Air Force in particular spent more than $1.3 billion in Washington, 14th most among all states and the District of Columbia.

Maine, meanwhile, is farther down the list in terms of total money and personnel but ranks 11th in percentage of state GDP that comes from defense spending—roughly $1.8 billion of that goes to General Dynamics, which owns the Bath Iron Works shipyard. The Air Force spent just $55 million in Maine in 2020, 47th among states.

All of these moves are still more than a year away, however, as Leahy is set to stay in the Senate until his term ends in January 2023. In the meantime, he will likely play a leading role as Congress looks to pass the appropriation bills necessary to fund the government—the continuing resolution currently funding it at fiscal 2021 levels expires after Dec. 3.

“The most powerful nation on Earth is running on autopilot,” Leahy said in a speech on the floor of the Senate on Nov. 4. “And we only have four weeks until the government shutdown, unless Congress takes action. It’s not a theoretical exercise. The actions we take or don’t take in this chamber, with respect to the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills, affect people’s lives, but also the direction of this nation.”

US Officials: Russian Anti-Satellite Test Created Extensive New Orbital Debris Field

US Officials: Russian Anti-Satellite Test Created Extensive New Orbital Debris Field

Nov. 15, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

The U.S. government said Nov. 15 that a Russian anti-satellite missile test created hundreds of thousands of new pieces of orbital debris in a “dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible” act that threatens the interests of the whole world.

State Department spokesperson Ned Price confirmed reports and speculation from earlier in the day, saying in the department’s daily briefing that Russia had “recklessly conducted a destructive satellite test of a direct-ascent satellite missile against one of its own satellites.

“The test has so far generated over 1,500 pieces of trackable orbital debris and hundreds of thousands of pieces of smaller orbital debris that now threaten the interests of all nations,” Price said. “In addition, this test will significantly increase the risks to astronauts—and cosmonauts—on the International Space Station as well as to other human spaceflight activities. Russia’s dangerous and irresponsible behavior jeopardizes the long-term sustainability of outer space and clearly demonstrates that Russia’s claims of opposing the weaponization of space are disingenuous and hypocritical. The United States will work with our allies and respond to Russia’s irresponsible act.”

He estimated “trackable” pieces of debris to be “at least somewhat sizable.”

When asked about what options the U.S. might have to respond, Price said that aside from condemning the attack, he didn’t want “to get ahead of where we are,” and he mentioned that the department doesn’t always “telegraph specific measures.”

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby told reporters Nov. 15 that Russia had not notified the U.S. of the test in advance, which according to reports forced astronauts on the International Space Station to take shelter in return ships.

Russia recently opposed a United Nations resolution to “make recommendations on possible norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviors relating to threats by States to space systems.”

U.S. Space Command acknowledged in an earlier statement that it was aware of “a debris-generating event in outer space” and said it would “continue to ensure all space-faring nations have the information necessary to maneuver satellites if impacted.”

“We are also in the process of working with the interagency, including the State Department and NASA, concerning these reports and will provide an update in the near future,” according to the command.

In a later statement from the command, the debris “will remain in orbit for years and potentially for decades.”

A Nov. 15 launch window, an overhead pass of the nonworking signals intelligence satellite Cosmos-1408 within the window, the periodically coinciding orbits of the ISS and satellite, and similar periodic warnings reportedly given to the ISS crew, seemed to confirm the theory as the story developed.

Astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who is widely followed for his expertise tracking and cataloging space launches and objects in Earth orbit, predicted that the full extent of such a debris field wouldn’t be known for a long time: 

“I would expect thousands of pieces of cataloged debris from a satellite the size of [Cosmos 1408] … However, it may take days to weeks for the first debris objects to be cataloged and years [for] them all to be located,” McDowell tweeted.

Only a few days earlier, the ISS crew had to maneuver out of the way of a piece of debris left over from China’s 2007 ASAT test.

China, India, Russia, and the U.S. have destroyed satellites in tests: China’s 2007 test, a direct rocket ascent like Russia’s test Nov. 15, created “large amounts of orbital space debris,” according to the Secure World Foundation’s 2021 edition of the report “Global Counterspace Capabilities—An Open Source Assessment.”   

The report cites “strong evidence that Russia has embarked on a set of programs since 2010 to regain many of its Cold War-era counterspace capabilities.” The report acknowledged what appeared to be a new direct-ascent ASAT program, stating that Russia “does not appear to have the capability to threaten targets beyond [low Earth orbit]”—such as medium Earth orbit, the home of GPS satellites. The report assesses Russia as “highly motivated to continue development efforts.”

U.S. Space Command declared events in 2020 to be tests of Russian ASAT systems, including a co-orbital maneuver between two satellites and another rocket launch. The U.S. also declared that a Chinese rocket launch in 2014 was an anti-satellite test, but the foundation said, “Very little information is available in the public record about this launch, other than that it occurred, remained suborbital, and does not appear to have had a clearly evident target.” 

India destroyed one of its own satellites in an ASAT test in 2019. The Air Force said at the time that it was tracking about 270 pieces of debris from India’s test.

The U.S. destroyed a satellite in 1985, before many satellites were in orbit, by launching a missile from an F-15A. The report points out that today, the U.S.’s midcourse missile defenses have inherent anti-satellite capabilities—the system may even be more successful at targeting a satellite in a predictable orbit, simply by virtue of it being predictable, than one on a ballistic trajectory. 

The U.N.’s resolution to address norms of space behavior by creating an open-ended working group passed its First Committee by a vote of 163-8. China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela joined Russia in opposing the idea. 

Meanwhile, a group of experts from academia and think tanks, along with former diplomats and government officials, have signed an open letter, first published in September, calling for a limited-scope treaty to ban kinetic anti-satellite weapon tests.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 5:14 p.m. Eastern time to include U.S. Space Command’s expectation that new debris will pose a threat for years to come.

KC-46 Arrivals Herald End of KC-10 Era at McGuire Even as Capacity Questions Persist

KC-46 Arrivals Herald End of KC-10 Era at McGuire Even as Capacity Questions Persist

Nov. 14, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST, N.J.—The arrival of two KC-46 Pegasus refuelers to the 305th and 514th Air Mobility Wings on Nov. 9 proved both joyous and bittersweet for Airmen as the new capability signaled the end of the KC-10 era at the base even amid continued concerns about air refueling capacity.

When the roaring new engine of “Pudgy 01” powered down for the first time, silhouetted by a cloudless blue sky at the mouth of Hangar 2021, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst’s role as the East Coast hub for next-generation global refueling operations came into clearer focus for hundreds of Airmen and special guests.

Still, base commanders admit the new platform, hampered by delays and pending Boeing technology fixes, will likely not be ready to take on missions for a year.

“The aircraft is pretty capable of arriving in its current condition,” 305th AMW commander Col. Scott M. Wiederholt told Air Force Magazine, citing three Air Mobility Command interim capability releases that clear the refueler for 70 percent of weapons systems.

“We can certify those for operational use now, so the KC-46 will take up that bandwidth and certain elements and mission taskings to allow the main tanker force—the KC-135 and the remaining KC-10s—to continue, to deploy and operate around the world and in other capacities,” he added.

McGuire will receive 24 KC-46 refuelers over the next 18 months and will retire its remaining 21 KC-10s in that time. Seven have already been sent to the boneyard, with three more scheduled for divestment before the year is out.

The first KC-46 Pegasus tankers arrive at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. Staff video by Abraham Mahshie, edited by Mike Tsukamoto.

However, since 2020, there have been at least eight Category 1 deficiencies (six in 2020 and two this year) that have prevented the KC-46 from conducting real-world missions. On the day of the celebratory arrival of its first two aircraft, base leaders insisted such fixes were normal.

“Like any weapon system, there’s challenges and upgrades and block upgrades that occur throughout the life cycle of that aircraft. It’s going to be similar with the KC-46,” Wiederholt said.

The six Category 1 deficiencies in 2020 included auxiliary power unit duct clamp cracks, a problem with the boom telescope actuator preventing the refueling of slower aircraft, and most importantly, a problem with the Remote Vision System (RVS) that made it hard for boom operators to discern depth perception in certain lighting conditions. The RVS fix is not due for three years, but Boeing promises an enhancement soon.

The deficiencies delayed initial operational test and evaluation for the KC-46.

Wiederholt doesn’t expect McGuire’s KC-46s to be tasked for missions for at least a year, even as KC-10s move to the boneyard at a pace of about one a month beginning in January 2022.

“It’s going to take us about that long to get a squadron fully up to speed and all of our aircrew and maintainers ready to generate, fly, and then operate the aircraft,” he said. “I would say that that’s pretty normal whenever you receive a weapon system.”

At present, the 2nd Air Refueling Squadron has four trained KC-46 crews and is building up to 26 crews over the next year to 18 months.

End of the KC-10 Era

The KC-10 played a prominent role during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1991. In the post-9/11 era, KC-10s were integral to protecting the homeland and were used nearly 1,400 times during operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

“As a longtime KC-10 guy, that’s the only weapon system that I’ve flown,” said 87th Air Base Wing vice commander Col. Robert D. McAllister. “There is a little bit of sadness.”

McAllister flew 4,900 hours over a 22-year career in the KC-10 that included multiple deployments to Iraq. His most memorable flight, however, was a simple repositioning after deployment in November 2011 when he took on a 30-year Air Force veteran on space available from Scott Air Force Base, Ill., to Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

“My most special flight in a KC-10 is [when] my dad was a retiree,” he said of his father, who has since died. “So, here he gets to see his son doing what he loves on the weapon system.”

On July 14, 2020, McAllister volunteered to send his KC-10 out with class.

“It was an honor for me to take the first one from McGuire and the first one in the whole fleet to the boneyard,” he said, noting the mixed crew of Reserve and Active-duty members that flew the KC-10 to its resting place at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

While the arrival of the two KC-46s drew mixed emotions, McAllister thinks about the Air Force’s new capabilities and the excitement he senses in young Airmen.

“It’s gonna be a great weapon system,” he said. “Everyone says they love to fly it. They’re excited about it. It’s gonna bring these new capabilities. It’s like getting a new car.”

KC-46 pilot Lt. Col. Nick Arthur told Air Force Magazine the new refueler brings key advantages over the KC-10 he used to fly.

“It’s a super comfortable plane to fly, all the advanced avionics we could want in the cockpit, tons of situational awareness,” he said.

Among the most important features is onboard equipment that gives the pilot what Arthur called “battlespace situational awareness,” rather than relying on radio calls from AWACS and other command and control platforms for updates.

“So before, you’re just kind of waiting on the C2 platforms to give you the awareness that they think you need, whereas now we have more of an ability to get the awareness on our own,” he said.

Senior Airman Dominic Baverso, 21, was not even born when the KC-10, with its round, steam dials, first went into service. For the boom operator, making the transition to the KC-46 has been smooth, even with reported RVS challenges.

“The technology now, it just tells you the issues flat out,” he said. Baverso explained that gauge readings from legacy platforms require a series of steps and prior system knowledge to diagnose a problem.

“There’s obviously still a need for systems knowledge. However, the airplane helps you come to a final decision as to what is happening in that moment,” he said. “It’s just honestly altogether a really awesome, really great airplane, really capable airplane, especially compared to the legacy platforms.”

The Fixes and the Future

McGuire base commanders and lawmakers briefed on the KC-46 deficiencies still expressed confidence that America’s global refueling requirements will not be diminished even as the number of tankers in the active fleet grows smaller.

“It’s not just about managing tails, it’s about managing people,” said Col. Erik G. Brine, vice commander of the 514th Air Mobility Wing.

Brine offered that the pace of training is keeping pace with forecasts for global tanker needs. Likewise, until it fully divests, the KC-10 will continue to operate missions.

McAllister said U.S. Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command have a plan to “augment” during the next two years of transition to the KC-46.

“In terms of our adversaries, we still have the ability and the capacity with about 68 percent of our tankers in the Guard and Reserve, so we rely on that,” he said.

McAllister said the Air Force is providing funds to get more KC-135 capacity from the Guard and Reserve on a volunteer status.

Wiederholt added that with interim operational capability, which frees up the Pegasus for more missions, the KC-46 will begin to take up bandwidth in the near-term.

“That is the key component of the interim capabilities release,” he said. “We can certify those for operational use now.”

New Jersey Democrat and House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Andy Kim said he has heard that the Air Force plans to keep capacity up.

“We’ve been able to get a good sense of the choreography of that transition,” he told Air Force Magazine.

Kim also said he was confident in Boeing’s ability to make the course corrections needed on schedule.

“I’m not concerned because I feel like we’ve had very honest conversations over the years … about this aircraft and making sure that we have that commitment to get everything to where we need to be,” he said. “There’s always going to be some challenges when there is a changeover, that kind of era of technology.”

Boeing told Air Force Magazine in a statement that the new RVS 2.0 system with full-color cameras, 4K ultra-high definition screens, and high dynamic range sensor and display technologies is expected to be delivered in 2024.

“The specific timeline is subject to the efforts of both Boeing and the US Air Force,” the statement read.

In the meantime, Boeing is implementing an “interim enhancement” known as enhanced RVS, which includes upgrades that reduce image distortion.

“This will improve human factors for the aerial refueling operator by eliminating physiological effects and eye fatigue,” the statement read.

New Jersey Democrat and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Menendez celebrated the KC-46 arrival and said sustaining America’ s refueling capacity will require lawmakers to shepherd the National Defense Authorization Act to passage intact.

“It is a tremendous day for the joint base, a tremendous day for American ingenuity, and a tremendous day for national security,” he said. “This is part of a continuing obligation to make sure that as we deal with the National Defense Authorization bill, that we have the wherewithal to keep it on track, to have what we need to be able to have the mobility anywhere in the world.”

For the Airmen of McGuire, the arrival also means a new culture that will involve cross-training C-17 and C-130 crews.

“We’re developing a new culture, right? This is not going to be the KC-135 culture. It’s not going to be the KC-10 culture. It’s going to be the KC-46 culture,” Wiederholt said. “It’s going be fun to watch and fun to watch that culture grow.”

Pratt & Whitney Won’t Protest GE’s Win of F-15EX Engine Contract

Pratt & Whitney Won’t Protest GE’s Win of F-15EX Engine Contract

Nov. 12, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Pratt & Whitney has opted not to protest the Air Force’s sole-source contract to GE Aviation to power all the service’s F-15EX fighters, a contract worth $1.58 billion.  

GE’s contract, awarded Oct. 29, starts with 29 of its F110-GE-129 engines followed by seven option lots for a total of 329 engines, running ten years, if all the options are exercised. The Air Force is planning to build between 144 and 200 F-15EXs.

Pratt issued a short statement saying only that it “will not submit a protest regarding the F-15EX propulsion decision,” adding that it is “proud to continue our support of the USAF’s F-15 fleet.” Pratt’s F100-PW-220 flies in the F-15C fleet today. Meanwhile, its F100-PW-229 “is a world-class option in the area of performance, reliability, and safety for current and future F-15 and F-16 customers for decades to come,” the company said in a comment aimed at prospective export sales of those aircraft.

The Air Force initially planned to award the entire F-15EX propulsion work to GE, as its was the only engine certified for the aircraft and the Air Force wanted the acquisition to be as non-developmental as possible. After Pratt protested, the Air Force agreed to let the company offer its engine, with the proviso that Pratt bear the cost of certifying the -229 on the F-15EX.

Although the Air Force said Pratt & Whitney was a “qualified bidder,” neither it nor the company would say whether Pratt & Whitney had actually certified its engine on the F-15EX. Only two developmental F-15EX aircraft are flying, and both are involved with other testing—concurrent operational and developmental tests.

Pratt & Whitney also recently lost out in the competition to re-engine the B-52 bomber fleet—a contest won by Rolls-Royce North America—but seems well placed to earn engine improvement work for the F-35 fighter, if the Air Force decides it cannot afford to adopt one of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program engines developed by Pratt and GE in that fighter.

CMSSF: With Incoming Transfers, Sorting Through Promotions Will Be More Work With ‘Better Outcome’

CMSSF: With Incoming Transfers, Sorting Through Promotions Will Be More Work With ‘Better Outcome’

Nov. 12, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

As the Space Force looks to implement its new human capital plan and incorporate Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen into one new culture, the service’s top enlisted member does “worry a little bit” about getting it all right.

Chief Master Sgt. of the Space Force Roger A. Towberman, speaking Nov. 11 at a virtual event hosted by the Center for Space Policy and Strategy, acknowledged the enormity of the challenge facing him and other USSF leaders as they try to revamp how the military approaches some fundamental personnel matters, while adding that, “I think we’ve got a good idea of where we want to go.”

“Just a couple weeks ago, I was talking to one of the former Chief Master Sergeants of the Air Force, and I said, ‘You know, I think I was set up pretty well—I think I understood what I was getting into,’” Towberman said. “I knew how hard I was going to have to work. I knew the change we’re going to have to manage. I understood a lot of what I was stepping into, or thought I did. The one thing that I did not fully appreciate is the weight, … like I’ve led organizations before, large organizations, and I loved every single member of those organizations. This is different. So I do worry a little bit, because I feel this weight to get this right.”

One of the biggest personnel issues Towberman and other leaders will have to face is the promotion process. The Space Force has already split from the other services by saying it wants to use promotion boards instead of tests for every rank above E-4, a plan it is expanding in 2022.

But as the service starts to welcome transfers from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, trying to compare promotion candidates with wildly different backgrounds in different services will be a challenge, Towberman said.

“When I look at an NCO [evaluation report] of a Soldier next May in our first time that we bring them in, how will I compare their [professional military education] to Air Force PME? To a Sailor’s PME? I can’t, right? Like, it’s completely different,” Towberman said.

Even between the Air Force assets that transferred to the Space Force, Towberman said, there are “micro-cultures” that have to be blended together. And because of those differences, more work is required to make sure that when it comes to promotions, evaluators cannot rely on “shortcuts or proxies that we might have used when we all knew each other.”

“Don’t look at this, don’t look at this, don’t look at any of those shortcuts. You’re really gonna have to dig into these records and really work hard,” Towberman said of the mindset. “So it’s created more work, but it’s, I think, produced a better outcome.”

It’s not just across services, either. In November, Towberman said, the Space Force will assemble its promotion boards for E-8s and E-9s. But instead of looking at different groups based on the three different enlisted career fields—cyber, intelligence, and operations—the board will look at the larger group as a whole.

“The allocations are still going by [career field], but we’re looking at them as one group, so that we can iterate on that process and see what we learn and analyze, ‘OK, if it was just one list, do we feel like we’ve dialed this in or do we have blind spots that we have to work through?’” Towberman said. “Because what I know is there are super talented people across all of those specialties. But if I look at their records through the wrong lens, there may be a group that has an advantage, and so we’re working on that lens and trying to adjust it, all while we move towards this sort of competency-based approach, which is what we really prefer.”