New Air Force Trainer Jet Program Supports ‘Reforge’ Concept

Oct. 13, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force’s just-announced program to buy a new jet trainer is meant to support the “Reforge” overhaul of the fighter training enterprise put forward by Air Combat Command last year, but the program is in its earliest stage, and no timing for acquiring the airplane has been set, according to ACC.

“The platform desired is one that will meet the Initial Tactical Training platform requirements within the Reforge [concept of operations],” an ACC spokesperson said. Additionally, USAF is considering the option for it to be “an Adversary Air platform and [have] potential for growth/adaptation as a tactical surrogate.”

Air Force officials said a “tactical surrogate” could teach switchology and procedures to F-16 or F-35 pilots, for example, in a new aircraft in which the displays, possibly the controls, and the performance could be modified to simulate those fighters. The ACC spokesperson said the timing of setting a program to acquire the new aircraft will depend in part on the responses received to the request for information published Oct. 12, and no potential in-service date is yet available.

Service officials have suggested the Boeing/Saab T-7A Red Hawk could, like the T-38, fulfill both the advanced undergraduate pilot training as well as lead-in fighter training and aggressor sparring-partner roles, but the Air Force is exploring competition before settling on a particular type.

The service is “not limiting the aperture to any one platform” and is open to “any and all vendors that can meet the desired design,” the ACC spokesperson said.

The team of Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries would likely be considered a contender for the program, as they competed strongly for the Air Force’s advanced trainer competition with their jointly developed T-50A. Air Combat Command is also looking at leasing T-50s, or a similar jet, to develop the Reforge concept while the T-7A completes development and ramps up production in a project known as the RFX. A Lockheed Martin spokesperson could not immediately comment on the company’s plans to respond to USAF’s new request for information.

ACC put forward Reforge—short for “Rebuilding the Forge”—last year as the command’s planned overhaul of the fighter pilot training enterprise. It would consolidate some phases of pilot training and shift some instruction, previously done at receiving fighter training units, back to the undergraduate pilot phase. The goal is to accelerate the time needed to “grow” a flight lead—a fighter pilot who is qualified to lead a two-ship formation—by up to 18 months and free up some frontline fighters now held for training back to combat status.

The Reforge concept was suggested in part by the T-7A’s advanced capabilities. The jet will be able to simulate, onboard, many of the visuals and procedures a pilot would experience in a frontline fighter. Air Education and Training Command has said it does not plan to operate the T-7A as it did the T-38, given that it can do more with the T-7A. The Air Force is not yet sure if the 351 T-7As on order will be enough to make Reforge work; it has options for at least 100 more. Neither ACC nor AETC have discussed whether they will develop a similar program for bomber pilots.

The capabilities the Air Force said it’s looking for in the new Advanced Tactical Trainer echo those of the T-7A, although the Boeing airplane does not yet have external hardpoints, which USAF said it wants to be able to carry training rounds, data pods, electronic warfare gear, and extra fuel. The jet does have the simulation and playback capabilities ACC wants, and a ground simulator for the T-7A already exists; it could be modified to support new missions.

The Reforge concept reduces the time needed to mature newly minted pilots in part by eliminating some of the change-of-station transitions they would otherwise have to make, each incurring lengthy out-of-cockpit delays and loss of momentum in training. Drafts of the concept suggested that transitioning from instruction in the T-7A to a fighter-like variant of it would further smooth out those delays and accelerate training, because of the similarity of the aircraft.

The RFI said the Air Force wants at least 100 new jets in the Advanced Tactical Trainer role and may buy further lots of 50 aircraft, up to 200.

Lockheed Martin Delivers Laser Weapon for AC-130J Gunship

Oct. 13, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Lockheed Martin has completed factory acceptance testing and delivered a new laser weapon to the Air Force, the defense contractor announced Oct. 6, with the goal of mounting it on the AC-130J gunship.

“Completion of this milestone is a tremendous accomplishment for our customer,” said Rick Cordaro, vice president for Lockheed Martin Advanced Product Solutions, in a press release. “These mission success milestones are a testament of our partnership with the U.S. Air Force in rapidly achieving important advances in laser weapon system development. Our technology is ready for fielding today.”

The Airborne High Energy Laser (AHEL) has been in development at Lockheed Martin since at least 2019, when the company received a contract for integration, testing, and demonstration of such a weapon on the AC-130J aircraft.

Air Force leaders, however, have been talking about the possibility of a laser weapon onboard the AC-130J Ghostrider for much longer than that.

Back in 2015, then-Air Force Special Operations Command boss Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold issued a challenge—to get a high-powered laser onboard the AC-130J by the end of the decade. That timeline was later pushed back to 2022 by Heithold’s successor, Lt. Gen. Marshall B. “Brad” Webb.

What capabilities the AHEL will bring to the AC-130J remain to be seen. Lockheed Martin claims that its spectrally combined fiber laser weapon systems—of which AHEL is one—are “ready to defend against small rockets, artillery shells and mortars, small unmanned aerial vehicles, small attack boats and lightweight ground vehicles that are approximately a mile away,” according to the company’s website, which also features an image of a hole smoldering in the hood of a pickup.

In response to queries from Air Force Magazine, though, a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said “the specific capabilities of the AHEL laser cannot be discussed at this time” and deferred questions to the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Dahlgren Division, which gave Lockheed Martin a $12 million, five-year contract award in July 2021 for technical services, integration, testing, and demonstration of the AHEL. The Dahlgren Division subsequently deferred comment to Air Force Special Operations Command.

In 2015, Heithold described the laser weapon as primarily for protection from surface-to-air attacks, as modern threats reduced the windows in which the aircraft could operate.

Webb, however, envisioned it as an offensive capability, too, being used to disable enemies’ communications, transportation, and power supply, according to National Defense Magazine.

In its press release, Lockheed Martin said it has delivered the AHEL for integration with other systems before ground testing and “ultimately flight testing aboard the AC-130J aircraft.” The contractor added that it is on a “rapid schedule” to demonstrate the weapon on the AC-130J.

The AC-130J is used for close air support, air interdiction, and armed reconnaissance, and already features 30 mm and 105 mm cannons, precision-guided missiles, and small-diameter bombs.

Air Force Wants Up to 400 Advanced Fighter Trainers Like T-7s

Oct. 12, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is seeking “at least 100” and as many as 400 Advanced Tactical Trainer aircraft both to train fighter pilots and to serve as adversary aircraft in training, a role similar to that now performed by the AT-38.

While the Air Force seems likely to be looking at adding to the role of the T-7A, the service did not mention that airplane or its maker, Boeing, in the request for information published Oct. 12.

The service said its RFI is “very similar” to one issued by the Navy for a post-T-45 jet trainer, and to “reduce the burden of crafting a response,” contractors can simply submit the same information as they did to the Navy. The Air Force said it is conducting “market research” to determine what company might be able to respond to the requirement.

Air Education and Training Command, Air Combat Command, and the Life Cycle Management Center did not immediately respond to queries about the RFI. The government wants responses by Nov. 23; it did not specify when it wants to take delivery of the trainer jet.

Air Force leaders have for several years suggested that the T-7 Advanced Jet Trainer could likely be the basis of a companion trainer/aggressor aircraft in the mold of the T-38/AT-38 but have insisted that the new jet must first pass muster as an advanced jet trainer before being adapted to other roles. Former ACC Commander retired Gen. James Holmes said he also could envision the T-7 as the basis for a lower-cost, lightweight export fighter or a homeland defense platform, but the T-7 as yet lacks external hardpoints for weapons and has only an optional aerial refueling system.

The Air Force plans to buy 351 T-7A advanced trainers. If Boeing were to receive the additional work as well, the figure could exceed more than 700 airplanes. In the past, Boeing has suggested a market for the T-7A and variants of at least 1,500 airplanes. Boeing is partnered with Saab of Sweden on the T-7A. Its website says the T-7A has “provisions for growth” to be a light fighter or attack aircraft. Boeing did not return calls by press time.

Lockheed Martin and Korean Aerospace Industries submitted the runner-up in the T-X competition, the T-50A they jointly developed and could potentially partner on for the Advanced Tactical Trainer program as well. That aircraft, plus a combat-capable F-50, have been exported to countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, and Thailand. Air Combat Command has discussed buying or leasing a handful of T-50As or similar aircraft to develop the “Reforge” future basic fighter trainer program in advance of the T-7As arrival in service, now set for 2024. Full operational capability of the T-7A is slated for 2034; in the interim, the Air Force will continue to operate the T-38.

The RFI said the aircraft sought will be used for initial tactical training, “adversary air support,” and as a “tactical fighter surrogate of existing and future” Air Force frontline fighters. The Air Force wants “feasibility, estimated cost, and schedule for at least 100” of these aircraft and as many as 200 more in lots of 50. The service wants a two-seat airplane “plus an option for a single seat” model with options to use the rear seat area for other mission gear.

The airplane sought would have capability for a speed of Mach 0.9 and be able to “replicate current and future fighter aircraft systems” by providing an embedded training environment to build “transferable skills, systems management skills, and decision-making skills” for weapons employment. The jet is to have a large cockpit display and one hardpoint on each wing to carry at least one Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation pod or a Combat Air Training Missile. The hardpoints also have to be able to carry an external fuel tank or an electronic attack or countermeasures pod or “other future pods.” Endurance is to be 90 minutes, of which 30 minutes would be “tactical maneuvering.” The jet is to have a ceiling of at least 45,000 feet and have a structural instantaneous G of 7.5, plus a sustained 6G maneuver.

The controls must have a “universal stick and throttle connection” to “enable reconfiguration of the flight controls to mimic Hands on Throttle and Stick of frontline” Air Force fighters.

The jet is to have a “secure open architecture.”

The Air Force is “also interested” in capability to use a helmet-mounted display system, onboard power sufficient to power wing stations and electronic countermeasures pods, and an infrared sensor. It has a preference for an airplane with an automatic ground collision avoidance system (GCAS) and a zero-zero ejection seat, as well as an “engineering analysis or option” for aerial refueling and an infrared search and track system (IRST), among other nice-to-have features.

To go with the jet, the Air Force wants a “smart chair” simulation-like device that can provide a virtual reality for ground-based flight practice.

UK Presses UN on Treaty Over Space Weapons

Oct. 12, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

As the United Nations General Assembly contemplates an international treaty to prevent an arms race in space, international support for such an effort appears to be gaining steam.

A “global wave of opinion,” meanwhile, in the form of an open letter, is adding momentum to the idea of first agreeing on a single urgent issue.

The United Kingdom’s Permanent Representative to the U.N.’s Conference on Disarmament Aidan Liddle said Oct. 6 that the U.K. plans to introduce a resolution in the current session to form a working group to study how to prevent “an arms race in outer space.” The U.N., he told the General Assembly’s First Committee, “must look broadly at the behaviors, actions, and omissions that could lead to conflict, not only at capabilities or placement of weapons.”

Michael Byers, co-director of the University of British Columbia’s Outer Space Institute, called a working group “the first step in treaty negotiations” during a webinar Oct. 12. Byers is UBC’s Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law and also a law professor at Duke University. He is a visiting professor at several universities abroad. He is among a number of experts who signed an open letter in September calling for a limited-scope treaty to ban kinetic anti-satellite weapon tests similar to past tests performed by the U.S., China, Russia, and India. Other signers included representatives from academia, think tanks, and former diplomats and government officials.

The letter’s authors superimposed the debris trajectories from India’s 2019 test—only those pieces big enough to be tracked—onto a future orbital scenario involving four planned megaconstellations of communications satellites. While India made “a good-faith effort” to limit debris at the time, the future scenario of such a ground-launched missile rendered an altogether dangerous outcome.

“You get this very visual, almost shocking, insight into how dangerous another anti-satellite weapon test would be in this new environment—literally tens of thousands of additional satellites, and the debris all crossing those orbital shells,” Byers said. “The chances of a collision would be almost exponentially higher” and could render “at least part of low-Earth orbit too dangerous for astronauts and very risky” for satellites.

Scientists have known for decades that “one collision—by creating tens or hundreds or thousands of pieces of additional debris—will then increase the chances of subsequent collisions,” Byers said. “If another test takes place, perhaps by Pakistan or Iran or North Korea, it could be catastrophic.”

Byers said he’s optimistic that the limited treaty could be agreed on quickly for a few reasons: The “major spacefaring states don’t need to test anymore” and have the ability to simulate and conduct nondestructive “fly-by tests, where they just aim at a set of coordinates, rather than an actual satellite,” Byers said. He also cited the 1962 “test called Starfish Prime, at 400 kilometers above the Pacific Ocean,” which “worked much better as an anti-satellite weapon than the United States had expected,” Byers said. The test disabled six satellites, including three operational satellites belonging to the U.S.

Wihin a year, Byers said, the Soviet Union, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom negotiated the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear testing in space. “It was the first space treaty—it was before the Outer Space Treaty—so whether it was a realization of a risk to access to low-Earth orbit [or something else], the spacefaring states came together and negotiated, and that’s what we’re suggesting needs to be done with respect to kinetic anti-satellite weapons tests” today.

Byers said a wider space weapons treaty has been stalled in the U.N.’s Conference on Disarmament, which requires a consensus to pass measures, and applauded the U.K.’s strategy of taking the issue to the General Assembly, which instead requires a majority vote.

A vote could come within weeks, Byers predicted.

Thousands of Airmen Will Miss USAF’s COVID Vaccination Deadline

Oct. 12, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

A full-court press by Air Force leaders to encourage vaccines won’t be enough to prevent thousands of Airmen and Guardians from missing Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s Nov. 2 deadline for Active-duty troops to get COVID vaccinations, just three weeks away.

As of Oct. 11, 95.9 percent of Active-duty Airmen and Guardians had received an initial dose, and 86.5 percent were fully vaccinated. That means nearly 13,000 Airmen and Guardians could face disciplinary action.

“We continue to make progress on this,” Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby told defense journalists Oct. 12.

Department-wide, 96.7 percent of Active-duty service members have received at least one dose, and 83.7 percent are fully vaccinated, Kirby said.

“The Secretary’s expectation is that commanders will try to get these troops to make the right decision based on information and education,” Kirby added. “It’s a lawful order, so obviously if after all that effort the lawful order is disobeyed, there could be disciplinary action.”

Kirby said commanders have “lots of tools” available short of using the Uniform Code of Military Justice to threaten or punish service members for not taking the vaccine by the deadline imposed by their service.

Air Force spokesperson Rose Riley told Air Force Magazine that once the deadline passes, disciplinary actions will range from verbal counseling to administrative discharge.

“Commanders have full authority to use the UCMJ in terms of how they approach disciplinary action,” she said.

The Air Force wants to avoid that.

Kendall and Undersecretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones “have both been active on their social media accounts in terms of reminding Airmen of the importance, reminding them of the deadlines that we’ve established,” Riley said.

In a Sept. 27 tweet, Ortiz Jones wrote that every day, she receives news of another Department of the Air Force teammate lost to COVID.

“We need to be mission ready—we need to be vaccinated,” she tweeted.

Three days earlier, Secretary Kendall tied vaccination to national security.

“The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine are clear,” he wrote. “In order to effectively protect our nation and those we love, we must effectively protect ourselves from this disease.”

The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine are clear. In order to effectively protect our nation and those we love, we must effectively protect ourselves from this disease. #OneTeamOneFight https://t.co/ke9vC6VNTL
— Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (@SecAFOfficial) September 24, 2021

With the Nov. 2 deadline looming, and the full Air Force Reserve and National Guard deadline a little over a month away on Dec. 2, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. on Oct. 8 also tweeted the deadlines along with a message to the force: “Maintaining mission readiness begins with you.”

Refusing to vaccinate also has operational implications, Riley said, as some countries require vaccination to enter. The Air Force could not immediately confirm whether any Airmen have been unable to deploy to their assignments due to lack of a COVID vaccination.

“We’re not taking any action until we meet that deadline,” she said of those Airmen likely to miss it.

Riley said that until the deadline day, Airmen can request religious or medical exemptions. There is a 30-day processing time to review such requests.

Across the Air Force and Space Force, including the Reserve and Air National Guard components, the Department of the Air Force was 91 percent partially vaccinated Oct. 11 and 81.3 percent fully vaccinated. That rates higher than the Defense Department as a whole, which tracked at 80 percent partially vaccinated and 65 percent fully vaccinated, according to Kirby.

‘Flying Hospitals’ Treated Sick Afghans, Prompting New Capabilities

Oct. 12, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Afghans fleeing the Taliban in August concealed medical conditions ranging from battlefield wounds to high-risk pregnancies out of fear that doing so might cause U.S. military members to bar them from escaping Kabul. In response, Air Mobility Command provided medics and nurses, turning transports into “flying hospitals” that delivered a baby and developed new means of care on the fly.

“A vast majority of individuals coming out of Afghanistan did not disclose their medical needs,” Brig. Gen. Norman S. West, command surgeon for Air Mobility Command, said in a sideline interview during AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Md. AMC assigned 30 technicians and 30 nurses from nine medical groups to rescue efforts.

“We knew that by having medics on the aircraft, we could provide that medical care should they need it,” West said.

Passenger Medical Augmentation Teams, pairing a nurse and medical technician, accompanied each evacuation flight. They treated partial amputations, festering wounds, dehydration, heat-related injuries, and pregnant women with diabetes, malnutrition, and high blood pressure.

Of about 72,000 Afghans flown out of Afghanistan, roughly 9,000 of them were were pregnant, West said.

“We’re talking about individuals who are in their last trimester, who shouldn’t be flying,” West said. “But when your life depends on it, you do whatever you have to do.”

Soon, AMC also began to fly obstetrician-gynecologists on the evacuation flights. “What we don’t want to do is start moving our Afghan partners who have sacrificed everything for us, and have them give birth and not be able to do something about it,” West said.

When terrorists attacked a crowded airport gate, killing 13 U.S. service members and injuring 18 more, AMC was able to quickly evacuate the wounded, rerouting an aeromedical evacuation flight that was about to take off from Ramstein Air Base, Germany, from a another requirement and dispatching it to Kabul.

AMC spokesman Capt. Frederick M. Wallace said the jet was re-tasked on the runway. “This kind of flexibility is key to responding to dynamic situations around the globe,” he said. When troops are wounded and need a level of care unavailable where they are, AMC’s job is to “get there as quickly as possible.”

The Afghans were flown safely to onward locations in the Gulf region and European countries where enhanced medical attention was available on site. Once out of Afghanistan, many of the women remained at base housing for the remainder of their pregnancy.

One woman gave birth aboard a C-17 evacuation flight from Afghanistan.

“This is something we’ve never done before,” West said of the new and varied ways the medics were employed during the evacuation effort. “We’ve always had a binary solution: aeromedical evacuation or critical care air transportation, and there was never an in-between.”

AMC is now looking at how to provide specialty care on flights, including obstetrics, burn care, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or ECMO, heart-lung specialists.

“It literally is a flying ICU is what you have. It is one of the most impressive things you’ll see,” West said. “And we are the only nation that has this robust kind of system.”

USAF Changing Enlisted Promotion Recommendations to Favor Experience and Performance

Oct. 12, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Changes are coming for the Air Force’s enlisted promotion system, changes that USAF leaders say better reward experience—as long as it’s backed up by “sustained performance.”

The changes principally affect how Enlisted Performance Reports will be scored, with the introduction of the new Promotion Recommendation Score, the service announced in a news release.

“Our Air Force values the experience that our Airmen bring with them,” Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass said in the release. “The Promotion Recommendation Score is a step in the right direction to ensuring we recognize that experience, along with sustained superior performance.”

The new system, like the current one, will continue to use a maximum of three EPRs in the Airman’s current grade when calculating points. The new system, however, will do away with the current system’s practice of weighting point totals based on the number of EPRs evaluated.

Under the current system, when an Airman has three years or more in the eligibility window, that Airman’s most recent EPR is worth 50 percent of the Airman’s score; the middle EPR is worth 30 percent; and the oldest of the three EPRs is worth 20 percent of the weighted EPR points. If only two EPRs are available, then the more recent one is worth 60 percent and the older one is worth 40 percent. And for Airmen with only one EPR, it is worth 100 percent of their weighted points.

That approach has meant Airmen with the same level of performance in a current year and with more experience could end up with fewer overall points.

In the new system, weighted points are gone. Instead, full point values are awarded for each year. The system is still designed to place the most emphasis on the most recent EPR.

For the most recent EPR, Airmen will receive 250 points for a “Promote Now” recommendation, 220 points for “Must Promote,” and 200 points for “Promote.” And for Airmen with only one eligible EPR, that will be the extent of their score.

But Airmen with a second EPR can receive anywhere from 10 to 20 points based off the promotion recommendation they received in that review, and Airmen with a third EPR can add an additional five to 15 points.

The new system also eliminates any point value for the “Not Ready Now” recommendation and does away with the “Do Not Promote” recommendation entirely.

These changes will impact senior airmen and staff sergeants who are promotion-eligible beginning with the 22E6 promotion cycle.

“The transition to the new Promotion Recommendation Score is another integral step in shifting our culture and accelerating change to ensure we can develop and assess the enlisted force we need to win in the future. We value our Airmen’s experience, and we must show them that,” Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said in a statement.

Bass previously pledged to reinstate the importance of experience when evaluating Airmen for promotion, according to Military Times, reversing a change to the system that started in 2014 that USAF leaders said at the time was focused on job performance.

The tweak to the promotion system is one of several changes coming in 2022. The Air Force will soon allow Airmen to choose alternate exercises for their physical fitness tests.

China Likely Stepping Up Stealth Fighter Production

Oct. 8, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Chinese manufacture of the J-20 Mighty Dragon, touted by China as a stealth fighter, will likely increase, based on comments offered at the recent Zhuhai air show (Airshow China 2021) by program officials, who nevertheless did not disclose any production ramp rates.

Some 15 J-20s flew in formation at Zhuhai, which took place in late September and early October, and observers reported an additional group of the aircraft parked on the runway.

Global Times, a state-run news organization, quoted J-20 deputy designer Wang Hitao as saying Chinese industry can “satisfy any level of demand from the People’s Liberation Army Air Force for the J-20.”

Wang said advanced aircraft development usually takes a long time, but “particularly for equipment like the J-20, we need to do it faster in all aspects, including designing, production, testing, and crafting.” He reported the fighter has turned in “outstanding” performance in stealth, sensors, and firepower, Global Times said.

Chinese officials said the J-20 is flying with indigenous WS-10C engines, and aircraft made a number of flying demonstrations at the air show. Engines have long been a sore spot in Chinese aviation, and early versions of the Mighty Dragon depended on Russian-designed powerplants.

In a separate article, Global Times quoted Sun Cong, chief designer of the FC-31, deployed on carriers—an F-35 lookalike—as saying “people will … see good news on the next-generation aircraft carrier-based fighter jet” in the coming year.

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a confirmation hearing Oct. 5 that “Our commanders tell us that by 2025, the Chinese will have more fifth-generation stealth fighters on the front line than we do.” Asked for context, a spokesperson for Inhofe said the information was based on testimony provided by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s commander, now-retired Adm. Philip Davidson, during a March posture testimony.

The South China Morning Post, another state-run media outlet, has reported that China fields 150 J-20s in four air regiments, most operating in the interior of the country, which are reportedly dedicated to training and tactics development.

To match just the USAF—not counting Navy and Marine Corps inventories—China would have to build 500 fifth-generation J-20s and FC-31s between now and 2025, or 125 aircraft per year.

Just before Zhuhai, Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office announced that peak production of the Lightning II will occur in 2023, at a rate of 156 aircraft per year, and stay at that level “for the foreseeable future.” That figure will, however, meet the demands of more than a dozen partners and foreign military sales customers.

For calendar 2021, Lockheed Martin plans to deliver 133-139 F-35s, ramping up to 151-153 of the aircraft in 2022. The company has fallen short of planned deliveries because of supply chain problems stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Air Force acquisition objectives for the F-35 have not changed since the program’s inception. The service plans to buy 1,763 F-35s, of which it has already taken delivery of about 300. At the current rate of production, the Air Force would take delivery of its last F-35 in the 2050s.

The Air Force has not disclosed plans to buy more than 43 or so F-35s annually until after the Block 4 version starts coming off the production line in 2023, meaning the service will likely have about 652 fifth-generation fighters in the 2025 time frame, counting F-35s and 180 F-22s, but not counting inventories with the Navy and Marine Corps. Those services plan to acquire 273 F-35Cs and 420 F-35B/Cs, respectively, in total.

Amid Growing China-Taiwan Tension, Lawmakers Call for End to ‘Strategic Ambiguity’

Oct. 8, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Amid a surge in Chinese aggression toward Taiwan in September and October, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for the U.S. to break from its longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” when it comes to the defense of the island.

Speaking during a virtual forum hosted by Politico on Oct. 7, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) agreed that the policy—whereby the U.S. refuses to officially say whether it would intervene militarily if China invades Taiwan—needs to change, saying doing so would act as a deterrent to the Chinese.

“I think that removing the ambiguity would be good and would probably have a calming effect on China’s aspirations,” said Tillis, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I think it’s also important for the American people to understand how devastating China’s invasion of Taiwan would be, economically in terms of safety and security in that region. I do believe that we need to make it clear to China that there’s a consequence.”

“I certainly would move away from strategic ambiguity,” Bera agreed. “I use the term ‘strategic deterrence,’ but deterrence only if there’s clarity in that deterrence. And often, we just talk about the military and deterrence. There’s economic, as well. What kind of multilateral sanctions would be placed on China should they invade Taiwan? What else would happen in the region?”

Concerns about China’s ambitions toward Taiwan have been growing as of late. Since the start of October, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense has reported 150 aircraft from the People’s Liberation Army Air Force entering the Taiwanese Air Defense Identification Zone, a record-breaking number.

“The United States remains concerned by the People’s Republic of China’s provocative military activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability. We urge Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic, and economic pressure and coercion against Taiwan,” Defense Department spokesperson Lt. Col. Martin Meiners said in a statement to Air Force Magazine.

Foreign policy experts, meanwhile, say the recent actions are intended to be a show of strength and aggression.

“No matter what your viewpoint is, it’s a sign of aggression,” John Venable, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Air Force Magazine. “It’s just, what is the aggression focused on? I think in all of 2020, there were some 380 reports of Chinese aircraft penetrating Taiwanese Air Defense Zone, the ADIZ. And if you go back in history, that was probably the largest number that had been in recent years, if not ever. … And in the last week and a half, we’ve had some 150.”

Some fear that China is building toward an invasion of the island, which the Chinese government considers part of its territory. Taiwan’s defense minister has warned that China will be ready for a full-scale invasion by 2025, according to The Guardian. Others point to the recent actions as an example of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s looking to test the U.S.’s commitments in the region.

Dating back to 1979, the U.S.’s China-Taiwan policy has been rooted in the Taiwan Relations Act along with three joint communiques and six assurances. As part of that approach, the federal government has agreed “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character,” regularly selling the Taiwenese military weapons and equipment.

Nowhere, however, has the U.S. officially committed to intervening with force if Taiwan is attacked. Proponents of strategic ambiguity have argued that such a move would weaken deterrence by encouraging Taiwan to declare formal independence, angering China in the process.

“Strategic ambiguity, I believe, just flew out the window with Xi,” Robert Wilkie, former Veterans Affairs Secretary and undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told Air Force Magazine. “He has threatened all of his neighbors—India, Australia, Japan, and Taiwan. This is not the 1970s, when that notion was first entertained by Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Xi has blown right through that, and Taiwan, I believe he sees as the linchpin—not just to eject the United States from the region, but his legacy as the most important Chinese leader ever.”

For now, the U.S. continues to follow that policy, with a DOD spokesperson telling Air Force Magazine that “the United States has an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. This is why we will continue to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability. … The U.S. commitment to Taiwan is rock solid and contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within the region.”

However, the Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 7 that U.S. Marines have been deployed in Taiwan for at least a year, helping train Taiwenese service members. The Chinese government soon replied by calling for the U.S. to cut military ties with the island.