Air Force to Account for Climate Change in Installation Master Plans

July 16, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force will implement changes to its installation development plans within the next five years that are aimed at shoring up each base’s vulnerabilities to natural disasters and climate change, a top official said in a congressional hearing July 14.

Jennifer L. Miller, acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment, and energy, told a House Armed Services subcommittee the department has already conducted initial assessments of the threats posed by severe weather and other natural disasters at more than 80 installations.

Those assessments, she said, will form the basis for the updated development plans, as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which required that “major military installations plan for climate change when drafting master plans.”

“We did issue last year our guidance on that,” Miller told Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who sponsored the bill that eventually became an amendment in the NDAA. “And so it was done through the Severe Weather and Climate Hazard Screening and Risk Assessment Playbook, which may sound fairly simple, to issue the guidance, but it was a 40-page analysis that really provided good information for the installation planners on how we wanted them to assess, and it included the 16 risks, from hurricanes to fires, that we needed each installation to assess against.”

The Air Force has seen firsthand the impact of severe weather recently. In the past several years, natural disasters have led to billions of dollars in repairs, as Hurricane Michael destroyed hundreds of buildings at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., in 2018 and floods covered roughly a third of Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., in 2019.

Both incidents destroyed buildings and equipment and impacted service readiness, with units from the 325th Fighter Wing and the 55th Wing forced to relocate, some for months or even years at a time.

As those bases continue to build back, though, Miller said the climate risk assessment undertaken last year is already proving helpful.

“Within the next five years, now that everyone’s done the initial assessment, that will roll into our installation development plans,” Miller said. “As we have that information, though, it allows us to modify—as an example, the Tyndall rebuild and the Offutt floodplain rise—to modify based on the risk assessment. Not only of what type of risk it would be, but then we also assessed each as a yellow-green-red [risk] for the 0-to-25-year [range] and then also the 25- to 50-year look.”

The climate’s impact on the military and installations was a topic echoed on both sides of the aisle in the July 14 hearing. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) asked civilian leaders from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Department for data on sea levels and temperatures, while Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) asked how they were complying with President Joe Biden’s executive order to prioritize climate change as a national security issue.

In response to Garamendi, Miller pointed to the Air Force’s work in “the operational energy arena,” saying the service has funded small projects with potentially large long-term benefits down the road, including everything from “the angling of our windshield wipers on our aircraft, to little winglets, to things that we’ve been able to modify [on] the aircraft, often stealing good ideas from industry.”

Miller also said the Air Force has conducted two “pull-the-plug” exercises, with plans for more, to ensure it can identify vulnerabilities to the service’s infrastructure, particularly for energy and water. Should a natural disaster strike, ensuring minimal disruptions in those areas will be key to maintaining mission readiness.

In that same vein, Miller told Wilson that the department has a “great interest” in small modular nuclear reactors. Before he left office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Defense Department to explore potential uses for such sources of nuclear power, including energy security and flexibility. Miller added July 14 that she is “excited to see what capabilities that provides us.”

Gillibrand Calls for Serious Crimes to be Handled by JAGs Outside Chain of Command

July 15, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said her bill to remove prosecution of serious crimes, including sexual assault, from the military chain of command is still needed, despite Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III’s commitment to do just that.

Long an advocate for tougher measures to prevent sexual assault in the military, Gillibrand had teamed up with Iowa Republican Joni Ernst and scored 66 co-sponsors for a bill that would remove the responsibility for prosecuting sexual assault and other serious crimes from the chain of command and also beef up training and enforcement measures.

In his first days in office, President Joe Biden tapped Austin to find a way forward after decades of failed policy changes. Following a 90-day independent review commission on sexual assault and harassment in the military, Austin accepted all the IRC recommendations, including the removal piece advocated for by Gillibrand.

But while supporting Austin’s narrowly focused effort, Gillibrand told defense reporters July 15 that Congress still must act on all serious crimes.

“This is an extremely light touch. It just changes where the case file goes first,” the Senate Armed Services Committee member said, explaining that her bill would have a military attorney from a Judge Advocate General’s Corps review completed investigations for serious crimes then decide if the case should go to court instead of to base commanders.

Gillibrand often cites a study that claims as many as 20,000 service members were sexually assaulted in the military in 2020. In her July 15 comments, she also said the rates of serious crime cases going to trial, and convictions, are dropping while retaliation occurs at a rate of 64 percent.

Austin’s June 22 announcement to accept all of the IRC’s recommendations, coupled with the accountability demand related to sexual assault and harassment and domestic violence, drew questions as to whether the bill was still needed.

“I fully support removing the prosecution of sexual assaults and related crimes from the military chain of command,” Austin told lawmakers a day after he was briefed by the IRC. “The department will likely need new authorities to implement many of the IRC recommendations, and we will most assuredly require additional resources, both in personnel and in funding.”

Even with the DOD commitment and the bill’s co-sponsors, some SASC senators still oppose an act by Congress, with ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) releasing a letter June 22 signed by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who opposed changing the command responsibility.

The inclusion of Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark A. Milley appeared to fly in the face of prior comments he had made.

“My mind is completely open to all kinds of opportunities to change here,” Milley told The Associated Press on May 2. “We, the chain of command, the generals, the colonels, the captains, and so on, we have lost the trust and confidence of those subordinates in our ability to deal with sexual assault.”

To date, SASC Chairman Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an Army veteran, has refused to take up the Gillibrand bill in committee, offering instead to incorporate parts of the bill into the National Defense Authorization Act.

Gillibrand said she intended to work to get her bill into the NDAA, but she did not have faith it would pass out of conference. (Politico reported late July 15 that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had assured her the bill will get a standalone floor vote.)

“I think it is necessary to have a floor vote no matter what because I have lived through the challenge of passing something in the Senate Armed Services Committee, passing the same exact legislation in the House Armed Services Committee, and having it still be taken out in conference because the DOD does not approve of it,” Gillibrand said. “I don’t believe that our bill won’t be watered down, reduced, or modified inappropriately in conference.”

The senator made the case that adding all serious crimes such as rape and murder to the JAG responsibility would not overburden the military lawyers, of which there are 4,479, including 379 JAGs at the 0-6 level.

Based on 2016-2019 statistics, she believes each JAG would be responsible for two cases per year.

Gillibrand also argued that accepting the IRC recommendations regarding sexual assault and harassment was not enough, saying all serious crimes needed to be part of a reform to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“We’re still fighting very hard for the bright line. We think it’s preferable to just one set of crimes,” she said, citing successful examples from American allied militaries.

Focusing on just crimes that mainly impact women, and women of color, further marginalizes female service members, she argued.

“The fact that we have a Secretary of Defense who says we should take sexual assault and other related crimes out of the chain of command, and that it does not affect good order and discipline and does not affect the ability of command control, is revolutionary and groundbreaking,” she said. “I just wanted to do it in the right way.”

Progress on B-21 Means Current Bombers Need a Fast Retirement

July 15, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force needs to move quickly as it brings on the B-21 and modernizes the B-52, because operating four bombers at a time is not sustainable. This means the venerable B-1s and B-2s need to head to the boneyard for retirement ASAP, the service’s top planner said.

The secretive, next-generation B-21 Raider is being built right now and will be flown in the “not-too-distant future,” said Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, the deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, during a July 14 AFA Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies event. When that happens, the Air Force will be flying the B-1, B-2, B-52, and B-21 simultaneously.

“That is not affordable,” Nahom said. “The B-1 and B-2, as phenomenal as they are, we’ve got to get those out of service as the B-21 comes on and we get ourselves to that two-bomber fleet, which is a B-21 and a modernized B-52.”

Lt. Gen. David Nahom, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, speaks with retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, on July 14.

In the near term, B-52s are undergoing significant modernization, including re-engining, upgraded avionics, and a new “digital backbone,” Nahom said. B-52s will leave service to receive the upgrades, making fewer bomber available for tasking.

“We’re going to have a deficit in availability while those airplanes are being modified,” he said. “That is my biggest concern on the bomber fleet … over the next, I’ll call it, five to seven years as we bring on the B-21 and then just beyond that when we start bringing out the B-1s and B-2s. I think this is the critical time,” Nahom said.

The Air Force eventually wants to grow to a fleet of 220 bombers. As the B-21 comes online, the service will begin sending B-1s and B-2s to the boneyard.

The Air Force expects the first B-21 to roll out of the factory and make its first flight in 2022, when it heads to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., for testing. The first of 17 B-1s planned for retirement already flew to the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., as the service prepares to draw down that fleet to 45 aircraft, split about evenly between its two operating bases: Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., and Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.

Minot B-52s Head to Guam for Bomber Task Force Deployment

July 15, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

B-52s returned to the Pacific this week for a bomber task force rotation during which they will take part in a large-scale, Australian-led exercise.

The B-52s deployed from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., touching down at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, on July 14, according to a Pacific Air Forces release. The deployment comes after the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., deployed to the base in April.

As part of this deployment, the bombers will take part in Talisman Saber 2021. The exercise will include more than 17,000 personnel from Australia and the U.S., along with participants from Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. India, Indonesia, France, and Germany will observe, Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said during a July 14 briefing.

The exercise “will strengthen our relationships and interoperability among key allies and partners and enhance collective capability to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific,” he said.

The B-52 deployment shows that the Stratofortress is still carrying the load for the Air Force’s bomber fleet, as the B-1 faces readiness issues that include a stand down earlier this year. B-52s are also currently deployed to Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar.

B-1s last deployed to Andersen as part of a bomber task force in October 2020. The Air Force shifted to the bomber task force model from the continuous bomber presence mission in April 2020, favoring smaller, less predictable rotations of aircraft to the region.

National Guard Could Run Out of Funds if Congress Doesn’t Reimburse $521M Spent to Protect Capitol After Insurrection

July 15, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Party politics may prevent the National Guard from conducting critical training in the final months of the fiscal year unless senators on both sides of the aisle can agree on how to reimburse some $521 million in expenses related to the protection of the Capitol compound for five months following the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Two dueling bills languish in the Senate Appropriations Committee, while the House passed on party lines a Democratic-sponsored bill in May.

The problem is the price tag.

Sen. Patrick Leahey (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, introduced a hefty $3.7 billion bill July 12 that includes $1.83 billion for the Defense Department. In addition to the requested $521 million in Guard funding, $1.3 billion is slated to cover COVID impacts to the department; $761 million is for COVID testing and treatment; and $549 million is for personal protective equipment and cleaning supplies.

The comprehensive security bill pitched by Leahey also provides $22 million to the Department of Justice to help pay for prosecutions related to the Jan. 6 insurrection and $25 million for judicial security. Citing unmet COVID-19-related needs, $425 million is slated for programs to support women and children, including domestic violence, sexual assault services, and child welfare.

The $1.9 billion bill passed by the House in May, by a narrow 213-212 margin, similarly provides $40 million to pay for the prosecution of Jan. 6 insurrectionists and $170 million to protect federal judges and courts. It would also invest heavily in protecting against future attacks on the Capitol by following recommendations from a special panel led by retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honoré. Proposed measures include $250 million for retractable fencing, $200 million to establish a National Guard quick-reaction force, and $160 million to harden windows and doors.

Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Richard Shelby’s (R-Ala.) $629 billion bill seeks only reimbursement for the Capitol Police and National Guard.

“Funding for the Capitol Police and National Guard must not be held hostage because the Democrats insist on billions more in spending that lacks full support at this time,” Shelby said in a July 13 statement.

GOP Call for a ‘Clean Bill’

House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) is demanding that Congress pass a “clean” funding bill that would reimburse the National Guard’s expenses for compensating Soldiers and Airmen and leave out other Democratic priorities.

Bank accounts are running dry, which means annual trainings, drill weekends, and operational maintenance will be canceled in August and September, National Guard Bureau Chief Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson told Pentagon reporters June 23.

“It will have a very significant impact on National Guard readiness,” he said. “It’s critical for us to get it this year because the funding will be required for us to complete not only our drills but all operations and training we have scheduled.”

The National Guard Bureau told Air Force Magazine that its finances have not improved in the three weeks since Hokanson spoke at the Pentagon, and the same dire consequences exist for Airmen and Soldiers.

That means Congress has three weeks to act before its monthlong recess.

The National Guard had one of its busiest years on record in 2020, deploying more than 21 million service days to respond to missions that included the domestic COVID-19 response, natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires, overseas missions, and the protests that followed the death of George Floyd.

By far the Guard’s largest deployment, peaking at 26,000 service members from all 50 states and four U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, was the mission to protect the U.S. Capitol, which ran until late May with a price tag of half a billion dollars.

“This partisan bill harms our National Guard,” Rogers wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, referring to the House bill, in a letter made public July 12. “We must come together and pass a clean supplemental to ensure the National Guard, which remained unnecessarily at the Capitol with your support, has the funds needed to train for and fulfill their mission.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said the security bills to reimburse both the Capitol Police and the National Guard need to be about more than just paying old debts, but also preventing such incidents from ever happening again.

“If we fail to provide secure doors, windows, tunnels, street barriers, and grounds, then we could be leaving [the Capitol] vulnerable to another Jan. 6 style attack,” Reed said in a statement July 13. “If Senate Republicans refuse to plug needed security gaps it will be a disservice to the brave men and women who defend the U.S. Capitol.”

Reed also called for supporting the Leahey bill that would pay for safeguarding Afghan translators who worked for the U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and could be targeted by the Taliban after the U.S. withdrawal is complete.

‘Operation Allies Refuge’ Will Fly Interpreters Out of Afghanistan, White House Says

July 14, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The White House on July 14 announced Operation Allies Refuge, an effort to fly interpreters who helped the U.S. military in Afghanistan out of the country.

The operation is beginning as the Taliban is makes major gains in the country now that the U.S. has withdrawn about 95 percent of personnel and equipment. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the interpreters, and others from Afghanistan who helped the U.S., are “courageous individuals” who have proven their value.

The State Department is leading the effort, and Psaki, citing operational security, provided no details on the number of interpreters who would leave or exactly when flights would begin.

Defense Department spokesman John F. Kirby, in a separate briefing, said the Pentagon has not been asked to provide military transportation for the personnel, likely meaning chartered flights will be used to fly them out of Afghanistan.

The Pentagon’s role in the operation is to identify locations, including military installations, that could be used to temporarily house the Afghan individuals as they await their special immigrant visas to come to the United States.

“We have identified some as potential candidates,” Kirby said. “We have not made final decisions on them. … Some are not U.S. installations and therefore would require, if they’re in foreign countries, require those host nations to agree. And so, we’re just not at that final stage.”

The Pentagon has an “action group” embedded in the State Department to help identify Afghan individuals who may not be in the special immigrant visa program but should be in it, Kirby said.

President Joe Biden previewed the effort during a White House address last week, telling those who helped Americans, “There is a home for you in the United States if you so choose. We will stand with you, just as you stood with us.”

Pick to Lead DOD Acquisition Withdraws His Nomination

July 14, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Michael Brown, the Pentagon’s nominee to lead Defense Department acquisition, has withdrawn his nomination, citing ongoing scrutiny for allegedly circumventing hiring regulations while leading the Defense Innovation Unit.

Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said July 14 that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III received a letter from Brown “expressing his desire” to withdraw from the nomination process. Brown raised concerns about a lengthy investigation and a desire not to slow down the nomination process, Kirby said.

Brown has led the Defense Innovation Unit since 2018, and when asked if he would still lead that unit, Kirby said he did not have personnel changes to announce.

President Joe Biden nominated Brown for the role in early April. Later that month, Defense One reported that Brown allegedly circumvented hiring regulations, with some employees having received special treatment. This allegedly included the DIU writing job descriptions specifically to eliminate other applicants.

The Defense Innovation Unit, established in 2015, is the Pentagon’s direct line to Silicon Valley and other technology hubs for outreach between the Defense Department and tech industry.

The news of Brown withdrawing was first reported by Inside Defense.

More than 40 F-35s Without Engines, Air Force Leaders Say

July 14, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

More than 40 F-35s across the U.S. Air Force are currently without engines according to the most recent data, top officials told Congress on July 13.

Speaking before the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Darlene Costello said 41 of the fifth-generation fighters don’t have an engine due to maintenance issues, while 56 F135 power modules are currently being repaired at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla. There are 272 F-35A jets in the Air Force’s inventory, meaning nearly 15 percent are without an engine.

Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick, F-35 program executive officer, confirmed Costello’s numbers while noting that the exact number can be calculated in different ways.

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), however, expressed discomfort about providing funds to buy more F-35s while a significant number of jets are already in the service in need of engines.

“The idea of rolling [out] a new aircraft with an engine while others are sitting—and I’m hearing the numbers and we can argue over which ones they are—but [that is] certainly something that is a real concern,” Norcross said.

Norcross was just one of several representatives to voice concerns about the F-35 program during the July 13 hearing, with others hitting on familiar topics of high sustainment costs and delayed production while discussing the 2022 budget request for fixed-wing tactical and training aircraft programs.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) cited a Government Accountability Office finding that fewer than four percent of F-35 engines have been delivered on time, asking if the military was looking at alternative engine options to keep sustainment and operation costs down.

“Engine costs in sustainment are challenging,” Fick acknowledged, while also noting that no F-35 delivery has been delayed because of an engine. “And as we rapidly approach the 2,000-hour first scheduled engine removal, we will start to bear those costs in the sustainment of the air system. And we also know that we have begun to reach a flat or a flatter spot in the learning curve relative to the overall cost of production engines.

“When I couple that with the notion that post-the current Block 4 content, we will likely need increased power and increased thermal management capability from our propulsion system, I think that the need to look for options from a propulsion system perspective is present.”

In the meantime, Fick said, the joint program office is taking a three-pronged approach to close the engine gap, working to shorten repair time at Tinker, stand up repair operations at other facilities, and keep engines in planes longer.

For engine power modules in particular, Fick said, the program office now anticipates supply meeting demand by 2024, with the backlog being cleared by 2029.

The Block 4 upgrade, which the Air Force has said is key to ensuring the F-35 can win a peer fight, also came under scrutiny. Jon Ludwigson, director of contracting and national security acquisitions for the GAO, reiterated concerns from his office that the timelines attached to full production capability and the Block 4 have been too optimistic, setting up the program to miss deadlines. That, combined with supply chain issues and sustainment costs, “raise questions about how many aircraft can realistically be produced on time in the near term while supporting fielded aircraft,” Ludwigson testified.

Without Block 4, though, the Air Force decided not to add any F-35s to its 2022 unfunded priorities list, said Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs. For every F-35 the service buys before the Block 4 upgrade, he said there will be a cost to retrofit with the new capabilities. And in certain cases, Ludwigson added, those retrofits could happen before the aircraft are even delivered to the Defense Department in the first place.

The question of just how many F-35s the Air Force will order in the near future remains open ended; Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has said the results of an ongoing tactical aviation study will determine if the service will surge its production of the jet. On July 13, Nahom told the subcommittee that he expects that study to be completed by the end of the summer.

USAF Defends C-130 Cuts as Service Looks to Future of Tactical Airlift

July 14, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force faces an uphill fight with its plans to cut five units worth of C-130s, largely from the Guard and Reserve. The service, however, says the tactical airlift fleet can afford to absorb some risk and that there could be future lift possibilities outside of the venerable Hercules.

USAF wants to cut 55 C-130 tails, down to a fleet size of 255. Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, the deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, said that number “covers what we need for our tactical airlift fleet and includes support to the homeland.”

Nahom, speaking during a July 14 AFA Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies event, said the Air Force is “taking into account all the missions that our C-130 crews do every day.” But both Congress and the National Guard have questioned recently whether that is true. National Guard Bureau chief Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee in May that he needs the Guard to “retain every single one of those flying squadrons because of what they bring for our nation.” Plans, such as the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study, do not take into account what C-130s do at home, he said.

Lawmakers have largely agreed. The same House panel on July 13 passed its version of the fiscal 2022 Defense funding bill, which includes four more C-130s than what was requested in the Pentagon’s proposal.

Nahom said the Air Force is working closely with the Guard and Reserve to find ”mutually agreeable replacement missions, and we’ve been successful in some places.”

For example, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., has been selected to host the Air Force’s MH-139 Grey Wolf formal training unit. This mission would replace the Reserve’s 908th Airlift Wing and its aging C-130Hs.

“There’s ways we can do this, and in a very positive way with the Guard and Reserve, and we’re certainly going down that road,” Nahom said.

Additionally, airlift capacity and capability is in a relatively safe position, compared to other missions, such as combat aircraft. This means the Air Force can more safely remove some capacity and resources from tactical airlift and shift it to areas that need more funding and personnel.

Going forward, the Air Force is also looking at new ways to meet tactical airlift needs.

“When you say tactical lift, everyone goes straight to the C-130,” he said. “I’m looking at some future tactical lift. There’s some technologies out there right now that I think we need to stick our nose in and keep an eye on. Because when you look at logistics under attack and how we’re going to move things in a modern battlefield, it may not be in a Herk.”

This could include AFWERX’s “Agility Prime” effort to create a “flying car” for both commercial industry and the military. The Air Force is watching the Army’s Future Vertical Lift program, which is developing a next-generation helicopter for that service. And, the Air Force is talking with industry about some other capabilities that could provide lift in areas with smaller runways, or no runway at all, he said.