How a Small Fleet of E-11A Business Jets Allow USAF to Communicate Across the Middle East

June 21, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

Amid the reduction in America’s airpower in the Middle East, one asset has proven its resilience: the E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) aircraft of the 430th Expeditionary Electronic Combat Squadron.

This high-demand asset remains key in maintaining communications for U.S. and coalition military operations. Despite its placement in a global hotspot, Air Forces Central (AFCENT) has only a handful of fighter squadrons and limited mobility aircraft to meet considerable demands. The same goes for the E-11As and approximately 20 aviators that remain on call 24/7.

Air & Space Forces Magazine had a rare opportunity to talk to the Airmen who fly critical missions in the Middle East as pilots on the E-11A BACN, commonly pronounced “bacon.”

The E-11As help the Air Force, other American services, and a myriad of coalition partners communicate via radio and share data. During the U.S.’s years in Afghanistan, the aircraft also extended the range of communications links to mountainous terrain, which led to the aircraft’s ability to be likened to “Wi-Fi in the sky.”

“It’s catchy, but it doesn’t thoroughly represent really the nature of the BACN mission,” Lt. Col. R. Clayton McCart, the squadron commander, said of the nickname. Instead of merely extending range, McCart said, the E-11 takes different types of information and ensures that it is compatible with a wide variety of platforms.

“The big thing is that’s between dissimilar platforms with varying electronic capabilities,” McCart explained. “Modern warfare requires communications … or conveying data, and in a joint and interoperable way. Those data sources are often dissimilar. So we’re really [applicable] to many different mission sets.”

McCart and pilots under his command in the 430th EECS declined to discuss where they were based or operational details of most missions, as a condition of offering a rare glimpse at the E-11’s role in the Air Force’s most active combat zone.

But the Airmen did discuss the E-11’s role in one mission that has put Airmen and aircraft to the test: the humanitarian aid airdrops over Gaza that AFCENT has been conducting since March. The U.S. coordinates its missions with its Jordanian-based planning cell, often drops alongside the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and must deconflict airspace with Israel and other nations. E-11s have supported a total 33 U.S. airdrops into Gaza, AFCENT said, fulfilling the mission each time.

“I think we do a really good job with the U.S. Air Force as far as our communication goes. But when coalition forces are speaking a different language, not literally, but figuratively, then we’re able to take that, regardless of whatever systems they are running, and integrate that,” said Capt. Britton Ellington, an E-11 pilot, who has flown missions to support humanitarian aid airdrops. “We have a considerable stand-off range where we’re able to link up a lot of those players, kind of translate all those languages, and convert those into something that everyone can understand and see.”

USAF aircraft have been involved in defending U.S. troops from aerial threats in Iraq and Syria, conducting airstrikes against Iranian-aligned militia targets, supporting efforts to fend off Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in Yemen, and flying missions in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the campaign against the Islamic State group. So the life of an E-11 crew can be a busy one.

“We’re not constrained to just the airdrops, this is multifaceted and directional, and so we’re on call by the Combined Air Operations Center,” McCart said. “We’re at their beck and call and the ATO [air tasking order] that comes out of the CAOC.”

Despite the lack of aerial refueling, the Bombardier business jet’s range—6,000 miles in the latest models—allows it to conduct multiple missions in one flight with a crew of just two pilots. The BACN payload is made by Northrop Grumman.

“What makes us beneficial in CENTCOM is sortie duration,” Ellington said. “We’re able to stay airborne through multiple vul times [vulnerability windows], if you will. We’re able to accomplish the airdrop and still have plenty of loiter time to accomplish other ATO tasks in the same day.”

McCart rattled off some of the capabilities that could be used in an ATO, including “cross-COCOM strike support” throughout CENTCOM.

One mission the BACN is no longer called upon to perform regularly is helping combat search and rescue (CSAR) operations, which is, in no small part, why the E-11 exists in the first place.

“That harkens all the way back to the early 2000s … the mountains and comm limitations of Afghanistan drove the need for beyond-line-of-sight communications,” McCart. “That’s where we were. And here’s where we are.”

The E-11 has proved its worth to the Air Force beyond the Middle East.

Though BACN has had a mission since 2008, the E-11 will have a permanent home at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., with the standup of the 18th Airborne Command and Control Squadron to form a more traditional home station and deployment model. Robins received another new E-11 in November. The Air Force wants a fleet of nine by the end of fiscal 2027, as the USAF takes delivery of roughly one new aircraft per year. The service had five aircraft in its inventory at the end of fiscal 2023.

A U.S. Air Force E-11A BACN displayed at the World Defense Show outside Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in February 2024. Photo by Chris Gordon/Air & Space Forces Magazine

AFCENT declined to say how many E-11s are forward deployed. One E-11—a fourth of the fleet at the time—was lost and its two pilots were killed in a 2020 crash in Afghanistan.

Though the terrain of Afghanistan is not what the BACN crews confront these days, the basic mission of ensuring data and information reach the right place remains.

“I think what makes the E-11 so dynamic is it’s not just about mountains; it’s about any place where we have assets spread out, and the coalition aspect of this mission, where we have people coming from all over the world for a specific mission,” E-11 pilot Capt. Joseph Viteri said. “And so we position ourselves somewhere where we can actually be that glue. We can be that transfer of communication between one coalition member and get them closer to our other coalition members and get the mission completed. So that can happen over land, sea, mountains, desert, whatever, because of just the distances involved.”

Can More Be Done to Respond to Russia’s Space-Based Nuke?

June 21, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Four months after issuing a public warning that was revealed to be about Russia developing a nuclear anti-satellite program, leading lawmaker Rep. Mike Turner still thinks the White House needs to do more to reveal details about the threat and subsequently deter Moscow from deploying it.

Yet at least one expert believes such actions must be approached cautiously.

Turner, the head of the House Intelligence committee, renewed his warnings about the Russian space nuke at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on June 20, saying President Joe Biden’s administration is “sleepwalking” into “Day Zero,” a term Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman has used to describe the launch date of such a nuclear anti-satellite weapon.

“In order to avoid Day Zero, the Biden administration must immediately declassify all known information concerning the status of Russia’s nuclear anti-satellite weapons program,” Turner argued.

Turner’s warning in February prompted media reports and eventually a statement from the National Security Council that the danger involved an anti-satellite weapon the Russians have been developing that would violate an international treaty that bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John F. Plumb confirmed last month that Russia was developing an “indiscriminate” nuclear weapon designed for deployment in space, emphasizing its potential devastating impacts on communications, commerce, and national security. He added that while the threat isn’t “imminent,” the Pentagon is concerned about it.

However, disclosing all information about the threat to the public, as Turner suggests, could come with risks, said Charles Galbreath, senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“It is a question of what do we divulge, and to whom, and for what reasons,” Galbreath told Air & Space Forces Magazine, highlighting the different needs and understanding of political leadership, the military, and the public. “What are we gaining from making something public? Because once we reveal how we know, that would potentially burn the source, and any additional information that we could have received from that source is then lost.”

Beyond more disclosure, Turner also called for the White House and Pentagon to crank up actions and suggested that every option— including economic sanctions and military measures—should be on the table.

“You do not hear the administration saying, ‘That red line is so great that we are going to implement an additional regime of financial restrictions, sanctions,’ and even look what we are going to do with our allies and NATO to make a strong statement to Russia, to understand that this is not something that is going to be accepted,” said Turner.

Galbreath noted that economic sanctions have thus far been ineffective in deterring Russia from aggressive actions, such as in Ukraine.

“An option would be to persuade Russia that the international community, including nations like China, would all be adversely affected by the detonation of a nuclear weapon in orbit,” said Galbreath. “We would view any nation that committed such an act as a terrorist state rather than a legitimate government. The entire globe would take action to prevent them from ever having that capability again in the future.”

Space Development Agency director Derek M. Tournear has also suggested a global response would be needed to respond to a nuclear weapon in space, calling its potential use an “attack on the world.”

If Russia were to detonate such a weapon system in space, the ramifications could quickly spill over into everyday life. During the Cold War-era “Starfish Prime” test in 1962, the U.S. detonated a nuclear weapon in low-Earth orbit, disabling eight out of 24 satellites and causing a power blackout in Hawaii.

To prepare for Russia’s weapon, Galbreath said the U.S. should enhance the resilience of its satellite systems by proliferating them and making them less susceptible to nuclear events.

“A few of our satellites today have radiation shielding and multiple redundancies, ensuring that if one subsystem fails, another can back it up,” said Galbreath. “With less expensive satellites, they lack the levels of redundancy or shielding, but cheaper satellites can be replenished by launching new ones, as their design life is typically only a couple of years. So, through a combination of shielding some assets and reconstituting lost assets rapidly, any effect from a nuclear detonation space could be minimized.”

After Turner’s criticism, White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said the administration has been “working hard” to persuade other nations to join the U.S. in clearly outlining the dangers posed by an anti-satellite weapon designed to carry a nuclear payload.

“We’ve been working this particular problem set from every possible angle, including through intense diplomacy with countries around the world and, obviously, through direct conversations with Russia.” Kirby told reporters on June 20.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far denied any intention to deploy nuclear weapons in space. Washington affirmed that such developments would breach international treaties prohibiting nuclear weapons in space.

Flying Hours: USAF Seeks Stability Before Seeking Growth

June 21, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is trying to stabilize its flying hours program, after years of declines that alarmed observers and lawmakers. Using up the flying hours available is the first step to buying back more hours in the future, the Air Force operations boss said this week.

The flying hours budget declined from 1.45 million flying hours in 2019 to 1.07 million in 2024, a total decline of 26 percent. USAF is seeking 1.09 million for 2025, but Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain said the 2024 figure will likely be the standard for the time being.

“We’ve come to what we are calling a reasonably executable number at about 1.07, 1.06 million flying hours,” Spain said at an AFA Warfighters in Action event. “Regardless of the cost, that’s what we’re going to ask for each year.”

Less than two decades ago the Air Force had about 1.6 million flying hours, enabling pilots, navigators, and weapons systems officers more cockpit time to hone their skills. Now, after years of cuts, the program “is short of the true readiness requirement for the forces that we have and the operators we have,” Spain said.

But even if more hours were available, the Air Force probably couldn’t use them all.

“We haven’t executed [much] over 1.1 million hours in a very long time,” Spain said.” And so part of this is on us to actually go execute the hours. But the ask and the position we’re in now is that we are going to stabilize at this number each year, and it’s my job to work with the MAJCOMs of today to execute above that number so that we can go ask for more flying hours because we’re able to actually execute. Until we do, then this is the number we’re at for the next few years.”

In 2023, the latest year for which budget documents included the data, the Air Force flew only 1.03 million of its 1.13 million budgeted flying hours. That left more than 9 percent of flying hours unused.

Year	Requested	Executed	Percentage
2025	1.093 million	N/A	N/A
2024	1.066 million	N/A	N/A
2023	1.126 million	1.028 million	91.30%
2022	1.151 million	1.149 million	99.83%
2021	1.238 million	1.156 million	93.38%
2020	1.325 million	0.909 million	68.60%
2019	1.454 million	1.099 million	75.58%

Source: Air Force budget documents

There are multiple reasons for the shortfall, Spain said: growing sustainment costs, declining aircraft availability, a shortage of skilled maintainers, and a shortage of pilots have all contributed to the challenge. When Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife had Spain’s job last year, he noted in March 2023 that: “If you gave more Flying Hour program funding, we wouldn’t be able to generate the sorties because we don’t have the flight line maintainers to generate them …. These things are all interconnected.”

One year later, Spain suggested little has changed. “it’s really about aircraft availability at the end of the day, and mission capable rate,” he said.

Mission capable rates measure the percentage of time an aircraft is able to perform at least one of its core missions. Rates have been particularly poor for older workhorse fleets like the B-1 and F-15C.

Spain said the Air Force has also had a harder time adjusting to “unplanned events,” like severe weather or unexpected maintenance.

Another issue is the trade-off between time in the cockpit and time in simulators, which can be particularly critical for fifth-generation aircraft which can’t exercise all their capabilities in open-air exercises, lest adversaries gain insights that could be used to counter them. The increasing fidelity of simulators has also brought into question how the USAF should measure true, open-air flying hours.

Simulators “can’t replace flying,” Spain said. “It is a thing that allows us to stress our operators in a way that they can’t execute on our open-air ranges. But they still need to go fly and they need to fly in tactical environments to simulate both the stressors and the fog and friction of weather, night, actual ground that you can hit … and those elements of airmanship and proficiency that you can only get while flying.”

The Pentagon is investing heavily in efforts like the Joint Simulation Environment that will allow pilots to train in advanced environments like never before. And simulators can also play a role in helping the Air Force address its pilot shortage, Spain added, potentially changing the speed with which new pilots can be trained.

But the pilot shortage could get worse before it gets better, as its roots are planted deep in decisions made a decade ago.

“We made some decisions in the mid-2010s to [add] fewer people and to produce fewer pilots in those year groups,” Spain said. Now those smaller year groups are coming up on the end of their active duty obligations. “Despite the fact that we might have pretty decent retention, Spain said, “if a year group is too small, 45 percent of 500 is different than 45 percent of 800.” That could leave the Air Force short by hundreds of experienced pilots for critical staff jobs where flying experience is typically required.

“We have to work a little harder to talk to those folks who are up for an elongated commitment or restructuring of the contract, if you will, and let them know we need them,” Spain said.

Air & Space Warfighters in Action series presented 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

Airmen Face Inspections as ACC Boss Calls Out ‘Discernible Decline’ in Standards

June 21, 2024 | By Greg Hadley and David Roza

Air Combat Command boss Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach has ordered tens of thousands of Airmen to face inspections in the next few weeks to make sure they’re meeting Air Force standards for dress and personal appearance.

Wilsbach’s directive, which will cover nearly 80,000 Airmen assigned to ACC, came in a June 10 memo that was circulated on social media. An ACC spokesperson confirmed its veracity to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

In the memo, Wilsbach noted that “while the majority of Airmen maintain professional standards, there is a discernable decline in the commitment to, and enforcement of, military standards in the Air Force.” As a result, he is giving commanders until July 17 to conduct unit-level “standards and compliance inspections.”

Those inspections will include open ranks inspections, in which flights of Airmen are formally inspected together, to review service members’ uniforms, customs, and courtesies. There will also be records inspections, in which commanders will review personnel files to determine if Airmen are up to date on their medical exemptions or religious accommodations, and if their religious accommodations need to be reevaluated due to new circumstances.

Finally, the ACC surgeon general will develop a shaving education course “to help Airmen understand the proper medical protocols to reduce irritation caused by shaving,” according to the memo. All Airmen will have to attend the shaving course before they are granted or can renew a medical exemption from the Air Force’s shaving standards.

The ACC spokesperson cited the Air Force’s February update to its dress and appearance standards document, DAFI 36-2903, as the impetus for the command’s inspections, calling them a “natural progression” to make sure all Airmen are in line with the update.

The spokesperson also noted ACC’s renewed focus on readiness as part of the Air Force’s “re-optimization for great power competition.” Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin has said ACC is “transitioning into a different type of command” as part of the effort, focusing on readiness for the entire service and ceding control of Numbered Air Forces that present forces to combatant commands.

ACC’s memo noted that “readiness begins with the enforcement of high standards” and “enforcing standards goes beyond simply maintaining order and discipline; it is a foundational mission imperative.”

Former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass also highlighted the importance of standards to readiness and a perceived slip last June, writing at the time that “history shows that when standards erode, military capabilities and readiness decline.”

The reaction among Airmen on social media has been mixed—something ACC projected in its memo—with some arguing the inspections will take time away from mission and others arguing it is a necessary and needed part of being in the military.

“Most Air Force members want to do fulfilling work like deter conflict or crush our adversaries in aerial combat. Grooming standards are a pretty basic expectation in the U.S. military; it’s disappointing that we have to waste time on enforcing them,” an Air Force officer with experience in ACC told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The focus on shaving waivers, in particular, has sparked debate—many Airmen have advocated for years for the service to allow beards without a waiver. Currently, Airmen are allowed to grow beards if they receive a religious exemption or a medical waiver for conditions such as pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), also known as razor bumps, a skin condition caused by ingrown hairs that makes shaving painful and can lead to scarring if skin is not given a chance to heal.

Waivers have become easier to obtain in recent years, but advocates say there is still a cultural stigma around facial hair that can hold back Airmen’s careers. Lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee voted last month to create a three-year Air Force test program studying the effects of beards on safety, discipline, morale, and inclusivity, but that legislation is still pending.

Watchdog: Air Force Plan to Divest Old F-22s Has Too Many Holes

June 20, 2024 | By David Roza

A government watchdog said the Air Force’s proposal to divest 32 of its oldest F-22 fighter jets leaves too many questions unanswered for Congress to make a well-informed decision.

Specifically, the service needs to provide better information about what toll the divestments would take on the F-22 program’s ability to train pilots, test new capabilities, and meet mission requirements, the Government Accountability Office wrote in a June 18 report. The service also needs more analysis on the costs of maintaining the current fleet and of possibly upgrading the 32 jets in question.

“We respect the Air Force’s need to make difficult budget decisions in the face of limited resources and having to provide the necessary tools to the warfighter,” GAO officials wrote. “This does not, however, alleviate it of the responsibility to document the process and data it uses to make these decisions.”

The Air Force currently has 185 F-22s—150 in the Block 30/35 configuration, 33 in the Block 20 configuration. Block 30/35 includes upgraded radar, weapons, and communication, enhanced GPS systems, and improved cockpit and heads-up displays. The Block 30/35 jets also have better air-to-ground attack capability and can fire modern AIM-9X and AIM-120D missiles.

Lagging farther behind are the Block 20 jets, which are used primarily for training new pilots. Air Combat Command officials said new F-22 pilots spend 90 percent of their initial flight training on Block 20s, but the Air Force thinks the Block 20s are not worth the cost of maintenance as the service looks to modernize.

The F-22 Raptor Demonstration Team performs in Alaska, July 12, 2020. (Air Force photo by 1st Lt. Sam Eckholm)

Wear and Tear

One modernization effort is the Next-Generation Air Dominance program, a family of systems that are supposed to replace the F-22 as America’s ace-in-the-hole for air-to-air combat. The Air Force thinks it would save about $1.8 billion for programs like NGAD between fiscal years 2024 and 2028 by divesting the Block 20 F-22s, but GAO says the service has not done its homework checking those calculations.

Small as it is, the F-22 fleet did not meet its mission capability or aircraft availability goals in any fiscal year from 2011 to 2021. In fact, most F-22 combat squadrons have 24 Block 30/35 jets to make sure there are 12 mission capable aircraft at any time. If the Air Force transferred 32 Block 30/35 jets to training squadrons, it would leave just 18 total aircraft at each combat unit, the report noted.

“This would increase the wear and tear on these aircraft since, according to Air Combat Command officials, new pilots often have hard landings and make other mistakes that are tough on aircraft,” the watchdog agency explained.

It is also unclear how long the F-22 fleet would have to sustain that tempo, since there is no publicly available date for when NGAD could take the Raptor’s place. Indeed, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said last week that NGAD faces an uncertain future amid the service’s competing modernization priorities.

Even if the Air Force published a date tomorrow, there could still be years of delays similar to the ones that have befallen the F-35 fighter and T-7A trainer, GAO noted. Divesting the Block 20s could also cramp F-22 developmental and operational testing programs, which are already under-resourced, the report added. The watchdog argued that Congress could make a more-informed decision if the Air Force’s calculations were sound, but those are not publicly available.

“Materials supporting the Air Force’s divestment decision stated that these issues, along with their associated risks, required further analysis,” GAO noted. “We were not provided documentation that these issues were analyzed.”

Some of that may be due to current Air Force budget guidance, which “does not require the Air Force to provide key information to Congress regarding divestment decisions,” the GAO found.

Airman 1st Class Nicholas Hull, 94th Aircraft Maintenance Unit crew chief, marshalls in a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor aircraft at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, May 13, 2020. (U.S. Air Force photo by Nicholas J. De La Pena)

Upgrades?

The Air Force argues that the Block 20s are too outdated to fight a war against China, but GAO noted that the service did not adequately explore the idea of upgrading the jets to the Block 30/35 configuration. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin estimated it would cost at least $3.3 billion and at least 15 years, largely due to the time and cost of restarting parts production lines. The price tag would work out to at least $100 million per tail, more than the cost of a brand-new F-35.

Lockheed Martin told GAO the upgrade cost estimates were not submitted in response to a formal request for proposal by the Air Force and should be considered notional. Neither the Air Force or contractor looked into upgrading the Block 20s with other parts from active production lines or achieving some other configuration besides Block 20 and Block 30/35.

“Because the Air Force did not fully assess its options to upgrade, the Air Force and congressional decision makers have limited insight about the potential consequences of Block 20 upgrades and are not well-positioned to make informed determinations about the future of these aircraft,” the watchdog wrote.

After the Air Force proposed divesting Block 20 F-22s in its fiscal year 2023 budget proposal, Congress included language in that year’s defense bill prohibiting the service from divesting the jets until fiscal year 2028 so that more information could be gathered, including GAO’s report.

Earlier this year, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees blocked the Air Force’s proposal to retire 32 F-22s in their markups of the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization bill.

The Senate also directed the Air Force to provide “an annual report on the Air Force tactical fighter force structure” and work with the Navy to develop a plan for air superiority in the 2030s and ‘40s.

The pause could give the Air Force more time to explore the costs of upgrading or divesting its Block 20 F-22s. The GAO said the service did not agree with its recommendations to fully document the options for divesting and upgrading, but it encouraged Congress to consider requiring the Air Force provide such data before making divestment decisions.

The Navy already has a similar program requiring the Navy Secretary to submit a detailed rationale and exploration of options to Congress in order to decommission or inactivate a battle force ship before the end of its expected service life, GAO pointed out.

“Without guidance, the Air Force may continue to make budget proposals to Congress that include divesting assets without documenting the impact of these decisions on its entire fleet,” the watchdog added.

New Report: USSF’s Missile Warning Satellites in All Orbits Face Challenges

June 20, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force is working on dozens of new missile warning and tracking satellites that will go across every orbit in space—geosynchronous, polar, medium-Earth, and low-Earth. But a new report from a government watchdog noted issues in those programs which could lead to delays and other challenges.

As part of its annual weapons assessment report released this month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked at five different missile warning/missile tracking programs within the Space Force, all of which are expected to start delivery in the next few years and comprise a massive portion of the service’s budget plans: $24.77 billion in the next five years.

Next-Gen OPIR

The longest in development, the Next-Generation Overhead Persistent (OPIR) Infrared program is meant to succeed the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program and actually consists of three segments:

Next-Gen OPIR GEO: Two satellites that will go into geosynchronous orbit.

Next-Gen OPIR Polar: Two satellites that will go into polar orbit.

FORGE: The ground segment that is meant to provide command and control and data processing for the satellites.

Originally, the Space Force planned to buy three GEO satellites, but the service’s other efforts in low- and medium-Earth orbit led it to cut one in its 2024 budget. Congress approved that cut, though some lawmakers expressed concerns about it and requested more information on the issue.

Even with the cut, the first GEO satellite appears likely to miss its 2025 launch date, the GAO found.

“The program continues to face schedule challenges, driven largely by the mission payload,” the agency’s report states. “According to the program office, flight hardware production and integration challenges already delayed payload delivery by roughly 11 months until July 2024. As a result, payload and space vehicle integration delays will likely result in launch delays and program cost increases. Our work in this area indicates that a launch delay of at least a year is likely for the first GEO satellite.”

The report, which is based on data up until January 2024, did note that program officials said they were “resolute” in trying to solve scheduling problems and meet their original launch date. But GAO is not the only one sounding the alarm about that not happening. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acqusition and Integration Frank Calvelli told lawmakers in written testimony this spring that Next-Gen OPIR GEO was a program he was “watching closely.”

“The payload is in test, but over a year late,” he wrote. “We cannot afford delays, and I am engaging with this program frequently to mitigate further slips.”

That mission payload will be modified to go on the Next-Gen OPIR Polar satellites, which have more time before their first launch in 2028. However, the GAO report noted that program officials are “tracking risks associated with the integration of the main mission payload onto the space vehicle.” Should the satellite have to be modified, it could cause integration issues leading to delays or extra costs.

An artist illustration depicts a Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (Next-Gen OPIR) system in GEO orbit. Next-Gen OPIR is intended to replace the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), beginning with its first launch in 2025. **Lockheed Martin illustration**

Yet perhaps the bigger risk to the Polar satellites is FORGE, which officials say has made incremental progress but still has a ways to go.

“Numerous development, integration, and testing steps are needed before the FORGE command and control functions will achieve readiness for system-level testing,” the GAO report states. “If FORGE command and control functions are still immature by the end of fiscal year 2026, the first polar satellite launch is likely to be delayed and program costs are likely to increase.”

The Space Force has selected four companies to work on a FORGE C2 prototype and plans to pick one to move forward later this year, the GAO noted, but the prototype would have to be completed by late 2028 to support the first Polar satellite launch.

In the interim, the service is working on what it calls Next-Gen Interim Operations (NIO) as a placeholder for FORGE. Considering the delays with FORGE’s C2 development, the interim “will be the only system available to command and control the space vehicles for several years,” the report notes.

Tracking Layer

The first eight demonstration satellites of the Space Development Agency’s (SDA’s) Tracking Layer are in low-Earth orbit after launches last year, and the agency’s focus has now turned to the 28 satellites that will make “Tranche 1” of that layer.

Expected costs on the Tranche 1 Tracking Layer have dipped 6 percent compared to last year, the GAO report noted, which did not note any schedule risks. SDA officials have said speed is their top priority, above cost and performance.

Yet performance in Tranche 1 may suffer, the GAO report warns. Specifically, since SDA developed an optical communications terminal (OCT) standard to encourage competition and interoperability.

‘However, it has a challenge of ensuring interoperability among multiple vendors because, per testing officials, the SDA OCT standard is different from commercial OCT standards, and vendors can have different interpretations of it,” the report states.

As a result, SDA officials said they may need to process the Tracking satellites’ data on the ground, then send it back up to the agency’s Transport Layer satellites for distribution. Such an arrangement could lead to delays in missile warning.

MEO

In between geosynchronous and low-Earth orbit, Space Systems Command has been working on a constellation of medium-Earth orbit satellites, slated to start launching in late 2026, early 2027.

The GAO report noted two critical technologies for these satellites that will not be mature until September 2026, according to program officials: optical sensors that will allow the satellites to pass data to each other directly, and “large format focal plane arrays, which are sensors that can capture images with high resolution and sensitivity.”

Officials also noted problems with shared access to the modeling and engineering tool being used to design the satellites and their payloads. Work on the report was completed before the Space Force announced it was canceling its contract with RTX to produce three of the nine satellites meant to go in the first batch.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated June 21 to correct the current estimate for the number of satellites in the Tranche 1 Tracking Layer.

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

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

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.