Tactical Vehicle Rollover on WWII-Era Road Leaves 2 Airmen Disabled

Tactical Vehicle Rollover on WWII-Era Road Leaves 2 Airmen Disabled

June 20, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

One Airman was left permanently paralyzed below the waist and another suffered internal bleeding and had her leg amputated after an all-terrain, search-and-rescue tactical vehicle (SRTV) they were riding in rolled over on the island of Tinian last year. A subsequent investigation determined neither Airman was wearing a seatbelt or protective equipment, and the driver was speeding down a rough, World War II-era road. 

The mishap occurred last February during the Cope North exercise. That day, pararescuemen were being dropped over the water for an over the beach insertion to recover an isolated person. A Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) officer and a combat camera noncommissioned officer were supposed to meet the PJs on the beach—the TACP to provide communications support, the combat camera to capture images for public affairs. 

While another service members and an exercise participant drove a rental vehicle to the beach, the TACP officer volunteered to fuel and drive a SRTV-SXV Tactical Vehicle, a lightweight, open-air vehicle used by Guardian Angel rescue teams. 

The combat camera NCO had no experience on the vehicle and did not even know how to buckle the seatbelt, investigators wrote in a report. When she asked the TACP for help, he said they would not need seatbelts because the ride would only take five minutes. He also did not inform her that “ankle covering, boots, pants, gloves, eye protection, helmet, and seatbelts” are all required while operating the vehicle. 

With neither Airman buckled in, they drove down an unpaved road with vegetation growing close on both sides. Investigators noted that most roads on Tinian were constructed in 1944 when the island was a bomber base for the U.S. during World War II, and they have not been improved since. 

The combat camera Airman later told investigators she felt the TACP officer was driving too fast and told him to slow down, as gravel and vegetation hit her. The officer told investigators he did not remember hearing any warnings or requests to slow down. Instead, he said an issue with the steering caused the vehicle to drift into the brush on the passenger side, and he overcorrected, sending the vehicle into the brush on the other side. 

The vehicle then rolled over, ejecting both Airmen. A nearby civilian attempted to render aid, then went and informed other service members about the mishap. First responders were able to administer tactical life-saving care, and the combat camera Airman was quickly flown on a C-130 to Guam, where she was transferred to a medical facility. The TACP officer was moved to Guam later that day. 

The combat camera NCO suffered a pelvic fracture and internal abdominal injuries, resulting in “an above-knee amputation of the right leg and significant scarring and motor/sensory limitations on the left leg,” investigators wrote. The TACP officer “sustained serious injuries, resulting in permanent paralysis below the waist.” 

Based on the evidence, investigators estimated that the tactical vehicle was going between 40 and 50 miles per hour at the time of the accident. There was no posted speed limit, but a local police officer later said that given the road’s condition and the overgrown vegetation, he would have recommended a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. Manufacturer BC Customs recommends a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour on paved surfaces. 

Images of the crash site from the Air Force Accident Investigation Board report

Investigators wrote that during the acquisition process for the SRTV-SXV, officials became aware that the vehicle had a “tendency” to roll over due to its narrow wheelbase and high center of gravity. The manufacturer offered to install spacers to increase its wheelbase and lower the center of gravity, and while the Air Force eventually decided proper training would be enough to mitigate the risk without degrading performance, officials determined the vehicle in the mishap had the spacers installed. 

However, proper training could have been a factor in the mishap. The TACP officer told investigators he had received training on multiple types of tactical vehicles, as well as familiarization training from a pararescueman on the SRTV-SXV just days before the mishap. However, investigators found no documentation of that training, and the PJ told them he did not train the officer on the SRTV-SXV. Without proper documentation of training, the TACP was not qualified to drive the vehicle. 

Vehicle rollovers are one of the leading kinds of mishaps across the armed services. In 2021, the Government Accountability Office released a study of such incidents from 2010 to 2019 among the Army and Marine Corps and counted 3,753 noncombat accidents resulting in 123 service member deaths.

More recently, two Soldiers were killed and 12 more injured in Alaska when a tactical vehicle rolled over last October.

The Air Force has had issues as well. In 2020, two Airman died in the span of three days at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait after two separate rollover incidents. Air Education and Training Command’s safety directorate published a release June 19 noting the risk of rollover mishaps and a growing trend of fewer U.S. teens gaining driving experience.

Historic USAF Court-Martial Hits Snag as Too Many Generals Struck from Jury Duty

Historic USAF Court-Martial Hits Snag as Too Many Generals Struck from Jury Duty

June 20, 2024 | By David Roza

SAN ANTONIO—The trial of the second Air Force general in history to face court-martial hit a snag June 19 as the court ran out of candidates for the eight-seat jury—called a panel in the military—whose members must either be higher-ranked than the defendant or pinned on the same rank before him.

Of the 16 generals considered so far, nine have been dismissed and seven cleared to serve on the panel for Maj. Gen. Phillip Stewart, who on March 21 pleaded not guilty to charges including sexual assault, conduct unbecoming an officer, and controlling an aircraft within 12 hours of consuming alcohol. 

The potential jurors included two four-star generals, 12 three-stars, and two two-stars. Two lead Air Force major commands, four are MAJCOM deputy commanders, one is a Numbered Air Force commander, several are members of the Air Staff, and others are the heads of important centers across the country.

It is a mix never seen before in an Air Force court-martial. The only other Air Force general to have been court-martialed, Maj. Gen. William Cooley, was convicted of abusive sexual contact in 2022 by military judge alone.

Stewart was relieved as the head of the 19th Air Force, which oversees all Air Force pilot training, by Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, the head of Air Education and Training Command (AETC), on May 9, 2023. If convicted on all charges, Stewart could face up to 60 years in prison, according to his defense counsel.

The two-star’s trial began with administrative proceedings at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, on June 17, followed by two days of “voir dire,” where the trial counsel and defense evaluate potential panel members for bias that could cloud their judgment.

Of the 16 considered for panel service, three generals were dismissed over the weekend, while 13 traveled to Texas to take part in a group voir dire session followed by individual voir dire.

“This is my first time speaking with 13 general officers,” trial counsel Lt. Col. Peter Havern said during group voir dire.

Stewart requested a trial by a panel of his peers back in March. But the field of candidates is relatively small: there are just 39 lieutenant generals and 11 generals in Active-Duty service, plus a small group from among 68 major generals who pinned on before Stewart.

The defense team also has a wide margin to challenge the jurors’ impartiality. Besides being the right rank, panel members must also be considered free of actual bias and implied bias. Actual bias might take the form of a member explicitly stating a biased view or if they have a close connection with the defendant. 

But the standard for implied bias is more vague. A defense team could make a case for implied bias if a panel member has served as a convening authority (the ranking officer overseeing a court-martial) for a trial involving sexual assault, or even if they received extra training for how to oversee such cases.

“The implied bias standard is basically would a neutral member of the public who knows all the facts of the case have concerns about that person sitting as a court member?” retired Col. Don Christensen, a former chief prosecutor of the Air Force who is not involved in the case, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “What’s that mean? Who knows … it’s pretty wild wild west when it comes to implied bias.”

A long-standing principle called the “liberal grant mandate” means military judges are mandated to err on the side of granting a challenge rather than deny it and risk the perception of bias. 

Throughout the voir dire process, attorneys scrutinized the generals’ past service as convening authorities; their past interactions with Stewart; their professional and personal relationships with each other; and their beliefs and opinions on alcohol, adultery, and consent. 

“We grew up in the Air Force together,” one of the court members said about his fellow generals, none of whom said they had a close relationship with Stewart, though nearly all had occasional professional interactions with him in the past.

“If I’ve drank bourbon twice with you, it’s a close professional relationship,” said another general, who said he had that relationship with several fellow panel members but not with Stewart.

At times the voir dire process became deeply personal, with general officers sharing stories of family members, loved ones, and staff members who had experienced sexual assault. That kind of experience was often cited by Stewart’s defense team as a basis for implied bias. 

Another factor the defense team frequently cited as grounds for bias was whether the court member had a close working relationship with a widely known major general who the trial counsel plans to call as a witness. Still another was whether or not the court member expected Stewart to testify, with the defense citing the possibility that if Stewart does not testify it would color panel members’ judgement.

Context

Throughout voir dire, attorneys on both sides noted multiple times the importance of public perception that the trial is conducted fairly and impartially. In the past, general officers such as Maj. Gen. Thomas Fiscus and Brig Gen. Richard Hassan were demoted or allowed to retire rather than face court-martial after investigations found they had made inappropriate sexual advances on 13 women, or sexually harassed their subordinates, respectively.

Not until Cooley’s trial in April 2022 did any Air Force general officer endure a court-martial, but Stewart’s defense team fears the pendulum has swung too far.

“It’s looking more and more like a kangaroo court,” defense team member Jeffrey Addicott told Air & Space Forces Magazine in January, about three months after the presiding officer at Stewart’s preliminary hearing recommended the case not proceed to court-martial. 

Christensen described the presiding officer, Col. Brian Thompson, as a highly-experienced former prosecutor, but Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, head of Air Education and Training Command, decided to refer all charges to court-martial anyway. In January, Stewart filed a request to retire in lieu of court-martial, but the request was denied.

In the past, “you would often see, particularly general officers, get slapped on the wrist and then retire quietly,” Christensen at the time. “This one can’t be retired quietly because there is a lot of media interest in it.”

Christensen said the close scrutiny of court members could be part of the defense team’s strategy.

“I think they’re trying to say ‘we don’t think you can seat eight members,’ and they can make it so painful for the government that they let him retire,” he said. “I could be wrong but the large part of me thinks the strategy is: ‘the Air Force never had to seat a panel of general officers, let’s see if you can do it.’”

Next Steps

With just seven panel members, it will be at least a few more days before the court-martial can select an eighth member and then proceed to opening arguments. After court went into recess on June 19, the trial counsel sent Robinson, the convening authority, a list of new members to consider for jury duty. 

Assuming Robinson can detail those members early in the morning of June 20 and notify them immediately, those members have until 5 p.m. Central Time on June 20 to fill out a pre-voir dire questionnaire, then report to the Fort Sam Houston courtroom by 8:30 in the morning on June 22. The full panel is expected to reconvene at 8:30 in the morning on June 24.

It was not clear how many more generals were included in this second set, but even if the court reaches eight panel members, the defense can still opt to go judge alone.

Though they had to travel far from demanding and important jobs, only one of the first 13 generals who participated in voir dire early this week expressed any frustration at being detailed as a court member, and just two expressed any doubt that they could be free and impartial, despite numerous opportunities to get out of jury duty by expressing otherwise.

Some of that apparent willingness to serve may be out of a wish to help shape the image of the Air Force in a high-visibility trial, Christensen said, but some of it may also be borne out of their own past experience as convening authorities.

“They have all selected panels to do exactly what they’re doing and they all heard people whining ‘I can’t do this, let me off, general’,” he said. “And they’ve all had to say, ‘no, this is your duty.’ So I would hope that they would want to stay.”

Stewart’s charges include six specifications:

  • Two specifications of violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, failing to obey a lawful order or regulation, first for allegedly failing “to refrain from pursuing an unprofessional relationship” and second for allegedly controlling an aircraft within 12 hours after consuming alcohol. The first specification allegedly dates to March 6 and May 9, while the second allegedly dates to on or about April 14 at or near Altus Air Force Base, Okla.
  • Two specifications of violating Article 120 of the UCMJ, which covers rape and sexual assault, for alleged nonconsensual sexual contact, dated on or about April 13 and 14 at Altus.
  • One specification of violating Article 133 of the UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer, at or near Denver, Colo., on or about March 6 and March 8, where it alleges that Stewart, “while on official travel, wrongfully invite [redacted] to spend the night alone with him in his private hotel room[.]”
  • And one specification of violating UCMJ Article 134, which refers to “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces,” for allegedly engaging “in extramarital conduct” on or about April 13 and 14 at or near Altus.
New Report: B-52J Initial Operational Capability Will Slip Three Years to 2033

New Report: B-52J Initial Operational Capability Will Slip Three Years to 2033

June 18, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

Initial operational capability for the B-52J—the new designation for the bomber after extensive re-engining and upgrade programs—won’t be achieved until 2033. The three-year delay is due to issues both with its new engines and new radar, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.

In its annual assessment of in-development weapons programs, released June 17, the GAO said funding shortfalls hampered timely completion of design for the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program. As a result, the program won’t have a critical design review—and a contract award—until August 2025. That in turn pushed IOC to 2033, three years past the original plan and two years after a first delay was announced in 2022.  

The delays result from the Air Force “underestimating the level of funding” needed to complete detailed design of the re-engining, which pairs Rolls Royce F130-200 engines with new nacelles, pylons, and controls. Boeing is the integrator of the project.

“Specifically, as the B-52 prototyping effort was extended from preliminary design to critical design, program officials received a proposal for the detailed design work,” the report states. “Program officials stated that the proposal cost exceeded the program’s available funding, and that they asked Boeing to slow its level of work to align with available funding. They also noted that an associated materials contract could not be awarded, causing additional delays.”

Other delays stemmed from a “best practices” effort to solicit input from pilots and maintainers while the design was progressing, GAO officials said.

“Program officials noted that this feedback led to design changes, such as a redesign of service panel hinges to improve maintainer access,” the report states. Though applauding this approach, the watchdog said “the program does not plan to conduct integrated, systems-level testing in an operational environment prior to production, which could provide additional knowledge into how key systems will perform and reduce production risk.”

Program managers told the GAO that the accelerated component and lab testing “will allow them to mitigate technical risks prior to the first production decision.” The contractors delivered a virtual systems prototype in the fall of 2023.

Last summer, program officials with the Air Force, Boeing, and Rolls Royce reported the program as being on-track. The GAO noted, however, that official new program costs had not been set by January, the close date for the data included in its report. This was because the program was in the process of transitioning from an accelerated, mid-tier acquisition to a major defense program.

The CERP effort plans to flight-test a production-representative prototype “about 6 months after the first low-rate initial production decision,” the report noted. “Officials stated that this approach presents cost risk, but they are willing to trade off cost risk in order to maintain schedule.”

Meanwhile, costs on the B-52 Radar Modernization Program jumped 12.6 percent last fall versus the 2021 estimate, and the program “declared a cost breach,” the report stated.

The RMP’s cost was estimated at $2.34 billion in 2021—inclusive of development and procurement—but by the end of fiscal 2023 had climbed to $2.58 billion.  

The cost increase was attributed to buying more test hardware, staffing three integration laboratories, installing test gear, and “an additional year of contractor support,” but the principal technical issues involved “delays with the display and sensor processor.” A fiber optic line that was to allow the processors to talk to each other didn’t work, for example.

The B-52’s new radar is an adaptation and amalgam of those used on the Boeing F-15 and F/A-18. It uses the sensor from the F/A-18’s AN/APG-79V4, but pairs it with the processor in the APG-82 used on the F-15. Together, the two systems must fit within the space vacated by removing the B-52’s APG-166 analog radar system, which suffers from poor reliability, obsolescence, and parts scarcity. The new radar is expected to deliver vastly improved performance, both in operations and maintainability, and in both the conventional and nuclear roles. The new system—still lacking a name—will provide targeting information as well as weather and navigation aids.   

Low-rate initial production of the RMP has slipped from late 2024 to spring 2025, with various elements of the project slipping from three to six months, the GAO report stated. This made the watchdog agency nervous because testing won’t be completed before low-rate initial production starts, and this typically leads to costly reworks if something is found not to work properly.

The RMP is supposed to achieve initial operating capability in 2027, well before the CERP.  Program managers considered a two-stage designation for the combined upgrade: B-52I when the radars were installed, then B-52J once the new engines were added. The interim designation was dropped because the CERP was supposed to come close on the heels of the CERP. While that distinction may not seem very significant, a former program manager said “pilots need to know which kind of jet they’re stepping to; what to expect, and what [manual] to use.”

The overall B-52 upgrade also includes navigation and communication upgrades and structural improvements in some key areas. It is expected to extend the B-52 fleet’s life to the 2050s.

The Senate Armed Services Committee last week asked the Air Force to provide cost information for making the full fleet of 76 B-52s capable of nuclear operations. A portion of the fleet, under the New START treaty, lacks the hardening and wiring for that mission.

Elsewhere in the GAO’s report, it said the AGM-181 Long-Range Stand-Off missile—the nuclear weapon intended to succeed the AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile, carried only by the B-52—is still expected to achieve initial operational capability in 2030.

Air Force, Lockheed Test New Reentry Vehicle for Sentinel ICBM

Air Force, Lockheed Test New Reentry Vehicle for Sentinel ICBM

June 18, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force and Lockheed Martin announced their first test June 18 of a new reentry vehicle planned to ride atop the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile. 

An unarmed Mk21A reentry vehicle was launched late June 17 at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif. Mounted on a Minotaur I rocket, it flew over the Pacific Ocean, according to a Lockheed Martin press release. The Mk21A is an update to the Mk21 that is currently mounted to the Minuteman III ICBM. 

Neither the Air Force nor Lockheed disclosed any other details about the test, though Lockheed did note that “data collected during the event will further inform Mk21A design and future flight test activities.” 

The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center awarded Lockheed a $996 million contract for the Mk21A in October 2023. The reentry vehicles will ultimately be fitted with nuclear warheads and integrated into the Sentinel ICBM. In operation, the reentry vehicle is released near the top of the missile’s arc and descends back through the atmosphere towards the target. 

Sentinel has run into trouble recently, with cost and schedule overruns triggering a program review because the impact exceeded limits known as a Nunn-McCurdy breach.

The Nunn-McCurdy Act requires the Department of Defense to report to Congress each time a Major Defense Acquisition Program exceed certain cost thresholds. The Air Force declaired a critical breach for Sentinel in April, indicating cost increases greater than 25 percent over baseline estimates.

Mk21A is technically a separate program. Air Force budget documents show that the service plans to buy 426 reentry vehicles, with deliveries planned to begin in fiscal 2028 and continue through 2039. 

The Air Force is also funding research and development on a “next-generation reentry vehicle.” 

The Minotaur I rocket that launched the Mk21A on June 17 is part of a family of systems based on the Peacekeeper and Minuteman rocket motors, Space Launch Delta 30 noted in a release. The Mk21A is an update to the Mk21 that is currently mounted to the Minuteman III ICBM. 

Other elements of the Sentinel ICBM have been tested in the past few months. In February, manufacturer Northrop Grumman announced it had conducted a shroud fly-off test and a missile stack test. And in January, the company said it successfully tested the second stage solid-rocket motor of the missile. 

The Air Force wants to procure more than 600 Sentinel missiles to replace its aging Minuteman IIIs, which have been operational for decades and are well past their projected service life. The goal is to field the new ICBMs by 2030.

PHOTOS: B-2 Bombers Land on Guam for First Time in 5 Years

PHOTOS: B-2 Bombers Land on Guam for First Time in 5 Years

June 18, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Multiple B-2 bombers flew to the Pacific last week to participate in a large-scale joint exercise around Guam, Palau, and the Northern Mariana Islands. During the deployment, the stealthy bombers landed on Guam for the first time in years.

Pacific Air Forces released images of the B-2s flying alongside Marine Corps F-35Bs and landing at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, on June 13. While there, they participated in Exercise Valiant Shield, which concluded June 18. 

The Air Force has not announced a B-2 landing on Guam since 2019 during a refueling stop for a Bomber Task Force mission. The bomber made several appearances over Europe in 2023, and crews deployed to Australia in 2022 as part of a Bomber Task Force.

Valiant Shield is a biennial exercise, with the latest edition including all six services, as well as international partners for the first time. As part of the exercise, forces conducted a sinking exercise on the decommissioned hulk of an amphibious transport dock, launched high-altitude balloons from Andersen, conducted nighttime flying operations, and more, to build “real-world proficiency in sustaining joint forces by detecting, locating, tracking, and engaging units at sea, in the air, in space, on land, and in cyberspace in response to a range of mission areas,” according to a Navy release.

The Air Force, in particular, contributed a host of forces to the exercise. In addition to the B-2s from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., the exercise included: 

  • F-22s from Joint Base Langley–Eustis, Va.; and Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska 
  • F-16s from Misawa Air Base, Japan 
  • C-17s from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. 
  • C-130Js from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas 
  • B-1s from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.

      The C-130Js in particular participated in a maximum endurance operation to get to the exercise—echoing the epic 26-hour flight another C-130J crew took from Dyess to Guam in April, two C-130Js equipped with conformal fuel tanks flew 22 hours from Texas to the Pacific, with a quick stop in California, while two others made an additional stop. 

      The B-1s and F-22s took part in the formation flight over U.S. Navy and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships to kick off the exercise on June 7. 

      Neither Pacific Air Forces nor Whiteman Air Force Base have disclosed what missions or training the B-2s participated in during the exercise. 

      Air Force’s New Goal: 24 Deployable Combat Wings

      Air Force’s New Goal: 24 Deployable Combat Wings

      June 18, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

      The Air Force plans to field 24 Deployable Combat Wings to meet its rotational demands and provide a cushion for times of crisis, Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, deputy chief of staff for operations, said June 18. 

      Combat Wings replace squadrons as the “units of action” that the Air Force presents to combatant commanders when forces are needed. Deployable Combat Wings will include command, sustainment, and mission layers, and can either pick up and deploy as an entire unit, or add or exchange mission elements depending on a combatant command’s needs at the time.

      Getting to 24 DCWs won’t happen overnight. Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said June 14 that his staff is still developing the roadmap that will enable combat wings to be the operable deployable elements by late 2026.

      “I think the number that we’re shooting for right now is 24,” Spain said. “We think 16 Active-Duty and eight from the Reserve components.”  

      How many the Air Force can field may not equate to need, however.

      “The number that we can generate and the number that we need is absolutely what we’re talking about,” Spain said. “How many do we think we can actually generate with current resources? And how many do we need, not only to meet the current rotational requirements that we know we’re going to have or we’re likely to continue to have… but to give us some margin for combat credible and capable units of action beyond just the rotational part?” 

      Two dozen Deployable Combat Wings would allow the Air Force to maintain six wings each in the four phases of the Air Force force generation cycle: Prepare, Ready, Available to Commit, and Reset. Regular rotations would draw from the Available to Commit group, but in times of war, forces could be committed while in the ready, or “certified” phase, as well.

      “You have a bench in the certified phase that you might want to take some risk on depending on what’s going on in the world and forward deploy them,” Spain said. “That would be in the worst case: an existential fight that’s coming up and we’re willing to take that risk. You wouldn’t do that for day-to-day operations. But you do have [a ready capability] and they’re three-quarters of the way through that cycle and largely prepared to go.” 

      Rotational demand and availability would not be spread equally among the Active and reserve components, however. Drawn from both the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, the eight reserve component DCWs will have different deploy-to-dwell ratios, meaning more time home between deployments, and they may not be quite as fully equipped to deploy on their own.

      No deployable combat wing will deploy with “more than about four mission force elements,” Spain said. Typically, those elements have been equated with squadrons, and Spain said the reality is that in most cases a dozen aircraft would make up a force element for fighters.  

      Air & Space Warfighters in Action series presents featured speaker Lt. Gen. Adrian Spain, the Air Force’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, during a June 18, 2024, event moderated by Air & Space Forces Association President and CEO Lt. Gen. Burt Field, USAF (Ret.) at AFA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Photo by Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine

      Equipping those fully will be key to making units fully combat ready.

      “Historically, in order to get to the deployable element, we kind of raided the follow-on force’s kit, in order to make sure the first 12 got out the door sufficiently,” Spain said. The Air Force would prefer not to have to do that, however, and this year’s unfunded priorities list included $612 million to bolster nine new elements, in the hope that Congress will buy out that deficit. 

      The exact makeup of the Deployable Combat Wings’ force elements may vary, but Spain said the wings will be designed to be modular enough that the command and support elements can take on other kinds of capabilities than whatever is their native force element.  

      “Where we are going to need to train the command echelon is to be able to receive forces of any type, because it’s probably going to be rare that the mission element that you have at your base is exactly what the crisis demands,” Spain said. “But I may need a command echelon and sustainment echelon … so they may go and the force elements may go either to a different place or not deployed at all, because I need F-16s versus F-22s at this time.” 

      PHOTOS: B-52 Flies over Red Sea and Arabian Peninsula

      PHOTOS: B-52 Flies over Red Sea and Arabian Peninsula

      June 17, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

      Air Force B-52 bombers roared over the Arabian Peninsula twice last week, flying alongside an American MC-130J and allied fighters during bomber task force missions.

      The Stratofortresses, originally from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., came from RAF Fairford, U.K., where they are currently deployed for a bomber task force. 

      The June 12 and June 14 flights “incorporated fighter escorts from several coalition nations,” Air Forces Central said in a release, though they did not disclose what nations flew alongside the B-52. The release noted that the flights included passes over the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. 

      “Bomber Task Force missions highlight the U.S.’s ability to rapidly field combat airpower while enhancing training opportunities and interoperability for regional allies and partners operating alongside U.S. forces,” the release stated.

      On at least one flight, the B-52 was joined by a U.S. Special Operations Command-operated MC-130J. AFCENT noted in its release that the MC-130J took part in familiarization training this spring, with Airmen in the Middle East orienting themselves on “palletized effects”—cruise missiles on a pallet dropped out the back of cargo aircraft. 

      The B-52s’ tour over the Middle East comes as the region remains on edge. Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza continues, and Houthi rebels in Yemen have intensified their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Over the past several days, U.S. Central Command said it struck several Houthi missile launchers, sensors and drones, though it did not disclose what assets it used to conduct the strikes. 

      In April, B-1 bombers on a rotation in Spain deployed to Turkey for exercises, bringing them close to the Middle East. In February, B-1s flew from the continental U.S. to take part in dozens of airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. And last November, B-1s flew three missions in CENTCOM over the course of eight days. 

      It’s been a little while longer since a B-52 flew over the region—in March 2023, a B-52 from Minot was escorted by fighters from seven different countries during a bomber task force mission. 

      Lawmakers Want Briefing on Fund That Could Take Sentinel Off the Air Force Books

      Lawmakers Want Briefing on Fund That Could Take Sentinel Off the Air Force Books

      June 17, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

      Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are eyeing major changes to the U.S. nuclear deterrence enterprise in their version of the 2025 defense policy bill, calling for exploration of a special fund—potentially separate from the Air Force’s budget—to pay for the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program.

      Lawmakers also want to establish a new Pentagon overseer for all deterrence matters and information on increasing the size of the deployed Sentinel inventory.  

      The committee completed its markup of the 2025 National Defense Authorization bill with more than a dozen significant and specific steps to bolster the strategic deterrent, affecting all aspects of the nuclear triad. The bill’s text has yet to be released, but a summary was made available.

      One provision would require a briefing on “the establishment of a National Land-Based Deterrence Fund, including the cost elements of the Sentinel ICBM weapon system.” The Navy already has a National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund separate from its other shipbuilding accounts, meant to finance nuclear modernization from “across DOD’s budget rather than solely from the Navy’s budget,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

      Such a fund might move some of the Sentinel program outside the Air Force budget. Taking even some of that burden off the Air Force’s plate could help the service significantly, as it struggles to recapitalize its aging and shrinking aircraft fleet. Cost overruns alone on the Sentinel—mainly due to the massive scope of the civil engineering required to rehabilitate the nation’s ICBM silos—are expected to add up to nearly $50 billion; the equivalent of more than 600 F-35s.

      Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin said last week that the fiscal 2026 budget crunch—driven by Sentinel, budget caps, inflation, and more–is compelling the Air Force to rethink its Next-Generation Air Dominance program, the foundation of its future air superiority capability.

      It remains to be seen whether any briefing on a Sentinel-focused fund will take place. The bill must make it through the Senate, then be reconciled with the House version and signed into law by the president.

      Possibly connected with the discussion on funding Sentinel, Senate lawmakers also want to mandate a report on how the Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers will cooperate to “recapitalize the existing Minuteman II ICBM infrastructure.”

      The committee also seem interested in increasing the size of the Sentinel fleet. It mandates “no fewer” than 400 “responsive, on-alert, U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles to be deployed, except for activities related to maintenance, sustainment, and replacement, or activities to ensure safety, security, or reliability.” A deployed force of 400 ICBMs is the Sentinel plan, but the proposed bill would also require “a plan for acquiring and deploying up to 450 Sentinel ICBMs,” an increase of 50 missiles standing alert.

      The Sentinel program calls for 400 of the missiles to be based in silos, but production of 659 is planned, to accommodate thrice-annual surety/demonstration tests through 2075.   

      Boeing did not ultimately bid on the Sentinel program because it claimed Northrop Grumman—which got the award as sole bidder—had an unfair advantage as the only maker of large solid rocket motors. A provision in the bill would authorize increased funding “to support design and manufacturing of an advanced modular solid rocket motor.”  

      Beyond Sentinel, Senators indicated concern for the Defense Department’s entire nuclear enterprise. They want to create a “new senior Pentagon position” that would coordinate and oversee all nuclear deterrence policies and programs, a role now consolidated under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense programs, who also serves as executive secretary of the Nuclear Weapons Council. Brandi C. Vann is the acting incumbent in the role. Presumably, the SASC sees a higher-level position to perform this function, potentially at the undersecretary level.

      The committee also wants a firm plan from the Pentagon on how it plans to deter two peer nuclear powers. Nuclear deterrence has always been calculated against a single opponent—Russia—but the accelerating deployment of nuclear weapons in China’s military requires a new calculus. Lawmakers want “a DOD plan for deterring and defeating simultaneous aggression by two near-peer nuclear competitors, including requirements for nuclear force sizing.”

      The panel also directed the Pentagon and Department of Energy (DOE) to provide an assessment “of  the recommendations on the final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.” No further detail was provided, but last November the commission urged the national nuclear enterprise to update its processes, increase its output of nuclear materials, and broadly recognize and prepare for a world with three major nuclear powers.

      Lawmakers also want the Pentagon to review “implementation of the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, including overall risk management, and progress on meeting requirements to address long-term threats.”

      The U.S. has sized its nuclear forces based on the START treaty. But Russia’s exit from nearly all arms control treaties, coupled with China’s increasing nuclear arsenal, throws open the question about how many nuclear weapons are needed to deter both countries and lesser-armed members of the nuclear “club.”

      In a move to end debate on whether to pursue a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, Senators also would move to establish a program office for the weapon. The Navy has said a SLCM would not be provocative and would enhance deterrence by introducing a low-yield nuclear deterrent in the Indo-Pacific. The committee also wants to authorize “modification or development of the B61-13 gravity bomb and a variation of the W80 weapon for the nuclear-armed” SLCM.

      Without explanation, the SASC also voted to direct “the restoration of nuclear capabilities across the entire B-52 strategic bomber fleet.” The B-52 fleet is getting a massive upgrade to extend its service into the 2050s. The 76 aircraft are getting new engines, radars, navigation aids and weapons, including the new nuclear-armed Long Range Stand-Off missile. Collectively, the upgrades warrant the redesignation of the bomber from B-52H to B-52J.

      Lawmakers proposed an annual review of the Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC) program—which replaces the E-4 National Airborne Operations Center. The committee wants the report to update its “cost, schedule, and technical readiness levels for on-board mission systems.”

      CMSAF Flosi: What ‘Mission-Ready Airmen’ Means for You

      CMSAF Flosi: What ‘Mission-Ready Airmen’ Means for You

      June 17, 2024 | By David Roza

      It’s been a busy first 100 days for Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force David A. Flosi, who earlier this year visited bases around the world with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin and Secretary Frank Kendall heralding a massive reorganization of the service in preparation for potential conflict with China or Russia.

      Among other things, the reorg involves shifting to deployable combat wings, reorienting major commands, and replacing the ‘multi-capable Airmen’ concept with ‘mission-ready Airmen,’ a move meant to push Airmen to help accomplish a unit’s mission, rather than just pick up an unrelated series of tasks.

      “I assess that all of our Airmen are multi-capable: in fact, I’ve yet to meet somebody that’s singularly capable,” Flosi told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “Mission-ready is very specific: it means you are assigned to a specific organization that is going to employ a certain airpower methodology in a contested environment and we need you to be ready to execute that mission.”

      For example, if the mission is to deliver a certain weapon at a place and time using a certain platform such as a B-52, Airmen can work backwards to figure out what is needed to generate that mission.

      “I can drill into that enough to tell you ‘here’s what I need to be ready to execute that mission,’ as opposed to ‘here’s the functions that must exist,’” Flosi explained.

      Of course, B-52s have delivered weapons on targets for decades, so what makes the day-to-day work of a mission-ready Airman any different from that of earlier generations?

      The exact answer varies based on the unit and mission, but Flosi pointed to the example of the past 20 years of the Global War on Terror, where individuals or small groups of Airmen from as many as 93 different bases filled up a deployment to the Middle East, where they usually enjoyed uncontested communications, logistics, and air defense. With such protection and efficiencies in place, Airmen could afford to stay in their “functional stovepipes,” Flosi said.

      For example, a B-52 maintainer deployed to Qatar could wake up, brief, receive a work order, grab breakfast, wait until his part of turning the jet came up, complete his or her task, then step back off as the other specialists in electrical, avionics, hydraulics, or other systems completed their tasks on the jet.

      That arrangement may not be possible in a conflict with China or Russia, where enemy disruptions could leave small groups of Airmen to accomplish missions on their own. That means tomorrow’s B-52 maintainer might have to guide a jet down the taxiway, make food, purify water, fix a light cart, defend the airfield, or a wide range of other tasks needed to get the mission done.

      “We cannot put any more Airmen at risk than we absolutely must,” Flosi said, “which means we must pull all the capability out of every single Airmen that we put into harm’s way, and we have to un-constrain them from the functional stovepipes that we grow them in today.”

      U.S. Airmen assigned to the 20th Fighter Wing perform casualty carry techniques during an expeditionary skills training course at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C., March 20, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Steven Cardo)

      Also unlike past deployments, where Airmen spent a few weeks getting spun-up in-theater, tomorrow’s Airmen will have to hit the ground ready to perform missions in small groups, which means training for those missions together in-garrison.

      “That’s the whole idea of this new unit of action training together and exercising together,” the CMSAF said. “It expands beyond just the maintenance functions to ‘what conditions must exist for us to execute this mission.’”

      Feedback on the changes has so far been positive, because Airmen “very well understand the need to change our force presentation model,” Flosi said. But finding the resources to practice these concepts is a challenge. While wing commanders in the Indo-Pacific understand the need for change and are doing what they can to implement it, they are limited to their wing-level authorities and resources.

      “The feedback we’re getting from the force is ‘go faster,’” he said. “But they require some resources in order to fully exercise this new model, this new unit of action, so we’re working very hard on that.”

      There may be more news in the next few months as the Air Force starts to unveil a multi-service exercise called Return of Forces to the Pacific (REFORPAC) due to take place in the Indo-Pacific next year. 

      “Our Airmen are just thirsting for that type of capability,” Flosi said.

      Becoming mission-ready may also require a cultural shift, one that makes Airmen feel the “sense of purpose that comes with being a valued member of a team,” he explained. “Honestly, that motivates performance far more than most other things that we will spend time on here at the Pentagon.”

      Other leaders are also striving for a culture of purpose and empowerment through efforts such as Forging Warrior Hearts and Project Mercury. Some aspects of a ready force stem from quality-of-life issues such as housing, pay, and health care, Flosi said, while other parts come from the institution of the Air Force.

      “My role as a senior enlisted leader is ensuring that our processes: the machine behind the human that promotes people, that incentivizes performance, and that assesses performance, is aligned with this idea of mission-ready Airmen and empowered, capable, mission command, that’s built off of trusted teams,” he said.