Adding New AETP Engine to F-35 Means Air Force Alone Would Pay for It

Sept. 15, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force would have to bear the full development and integration cost of putting new Adaptive Engine Technology Program engines in its F-35 fleet because the other services can’t fit the powerplants in their versions of the fighter, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick told reporters Sept. 15.

“If it’s a one-service, … unique solution, the cost of that solution will be borne by that service,” Fick said. Asked if moving forward with the AETP on the F-35 will depend on whether the Air Force is willing to bear that cost, he replied, “I think so.”

The Air Force could go it alone on the AETP, he said. But the longstanding agreement among F-35 partners is that “you have to pay to be different.”

Fick, speaking at a roundtable with defense reporters in his Arlington, Va., office, said he has visited GE Aviation’s Evendale, Ohio, plant to see its XA100 version of the AETP engine and came away “very impressed” and “energized” by the effort. Pratt & Whitney’s version of the AETP is called the XA101. Pratt & Whitney is the sole builder of the F-35’s F135 engine.

For the Air Force’s F-35A, “the technology could be remarkable,” Fick said. But, GE and Pratt & Whitney’s AETP engines would “require significant modifications” to fit in the Navy’s F-35C and are “completely a non-starter” for the Marine Corps F-35B, which has vertical takeoff/landing capability. Both engine makers have said the AETP engines will not fit in the F-35B. It might be possible to alter the AETP engine to fit in the F-35C, and if so, “some cost sharing there might be possible,” Fick said.

But at a minimum, choosing to put AETP on any part of the F-35 fleet would mean at least two powerplants to manage for the fleet, and possibly three, Fick said.

“We know we have a demand,” and the Block 4 version of the F-35 will need improved performance from the F135 engine, Fick said. Although the first three capability increments of Block 4 can function with the existing engine, “we know that, going beyond that, we need to do something different,” and the all-up Block 4 can’t fully exploit its new capabilities without more power.

The services are all interested in a more efficient engine that has better “thrust-specific fuel consumption,” Fick noted, and AETP “brings some efficiency gains along with it.” But their wishes must be prioritized—fuel efficiency and range versus thrust or cooling, for example—before a plan can be developed.

The House Armed Services Committee, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, said the Joint Program Office has to develop an AETP insertion program, with first capability in 2027.

It would be unfair for the “Navy, Marine Corps, and [international] partners all footing part of the bill” to integrate an engine in the F-35 that only the Air Force can use, Fick said.

To meet the need for more power, Fick said his office is working closely with Pratt & Whitney and the Pentagon to develop a “family of options” for how to give the fighter more engine power. “We need to start … to put a solution set in place to give us the power and cooling we need” for the upgraded version of the fighter.

He noted that Pratt & Whitney has released information about the Enhanced Engine Program—EEP 25 and EEP 25+—which are “re-coring efforts” to improve the F135.

The JPO is “bringing all the pieces together” to assess a way forward, with a series of “Courses of Action” options, but “we know that AETP is one potential solution,” Fick said. If AETP is part of the solution, there will still be a need for EEP to ensure “we’ve got everybody covered.”

Fick would not speculate on how much it would cost to create a separate engine production, maintenance, and supply train for the F-35. Pratt & Whitney has suggested it would cost $40 billion over 50 years of F-35 operations, but Fick declined to say whether he believes that figure to be accurate.

All that said, Fick professed that he “loves competition” and said he’s a “big fan of having two viable manufacturers in the defense space. What we need to figure out, as an enterprise, is are we willing to pay the cost associated with that?”

The JPO is building cost assessments for several options to address the F-35’s power needs, and he expects that work will take 6-12 months.

Regardless of whether the AETP is introduced to the F-35 fleet, “we’re going to have to have supply chains for an updated engine and the legacy engine, even if we go with something that’s common across all the platforms. We have 700 aircraft in the [worldwide F-35] fleet today, and if I add 100 a year across the next five years, that’s 1,200 aircraft before I field an advanced engine.” Those aircraft will all need an engine sustainment enterprise, he said.

“The sustainment footprint” for any option “has got to be established, and supported,” he said.

The discussion about a unique engine for the Air Force’s F-35A raises again the question of whether, after 20 years, it’s time for the services to each have their own program office to manage their own variants of the fighter. But Fick said, “that would be unhealthy.” While commonality among the variants is much lower than once envisioned, the differences are “mainly in the way they take off and land,” he asserted.

The commonality in cockpits, “switchology,” weapons, mission systems, “all those are identical” and continue to provide savings and interoperability that have a huge return on investment, Fick said.

Milley’s Office Defends Calls to China as ‘in Keeping With Duties’ as CJCS

Sept. 15, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Facing intense partisan criticism over his actions in the final few months of President Donald Trump’s administration, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley’s office released a statement Sept. 15 seeking to defend him.

Milley’s statement comes after details from the forthcoming book “Peril,” written by reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, were reported Sept. 14. Particularly, Woodward and Costa wrote that Milley, worried about President Trump’s actions following the Nov. 3 election, twice called Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, once in November and again in January, to reassure him that the U.S. would not strike China with nuclear weapons. During one call, Milley went so far as to assure Li that if the U.S. were to attack, Milley would give Li advance warning.

The details from the book were reported by The Washington Post and immediately set off a controversy, with several senators and representatives calling on Milley to resign, be fired, or be court-martialed for undermining civilian control of the military.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was one of the most prominent voices calling for Milley’s dismissal, saying his actions create a “dangerous precedent that could be asserted at any point in the future by Gen. Milley or others. It threatens to tear apart our nation’s longstanding principle of civilian control of the military.”

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), however, defended Milley, saying in a CNN interview that Milley, as part of his job, “would call a meeting, given the concerns of an unhinged president at that period of time.”

Trump himself issued a statement saying that if the report was true, Milley had committed treason.

Milley, who was sworn in as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2019, is halfway through a four-year term in the position, though he can be fired by the President.

In a Sept. 15 statement, Joint Staff spokesperson Col. Dave Butler confirmed that the calls took place but defended them as proper and in keeping with Milley’s role.

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia. These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity, and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict,” Butler’s statement read.

“His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability. All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated, and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.”

In “Peril,” Woodward and Costa also detail an incident in which Milley gathered senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, “saying the President alone could give the order—but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved,” according to the Post report.

The statement from Milley’s office sought to portray the incident as another instance of Milley performing his duties as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

“In keeping with his responsibilities as senior military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, General Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues,” the statement said. “The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject.”

Speaking during a press briefing Sept. 15, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby refused to comment on the “validity” of the report but did say, “I see nothing in what I’ve read that would cause any concern.”

“What I can tell you is it is not uncommon at all for the department to continue to review security protocols, particularly when it comes to our strategic deterrence capabilities, that we constantly take a look at the protocols and procedures to make sure they’re still relevant,” Kirby said. “It is completely appropriate for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as the senior military advisor to the Secretary and the President, to want to see those protocols reviewed on whatever frequent basis that he wants to do that.”

Kirby appeared to react with surprise when asked if Milley should be tried for treason because of his calls to China as Trump suggested, saying, “Typically, when the Chairman or the Secretary interact with their counterparts, it’s a function of the job. They have to do that.”

“Part of the value in having these communications, particularly with countries like Russia and China, with which we are experiencing tension, is to try to reduce the risks of miscalculation and conflict, to try to take down tensions, to make clear what our national security interests are,” said Kirby. “The communications channel between our Chairman and a chief of defense is a really key vehicle for transmitting and communicating those kinds of messages.”

Kirby added that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III “has full trust and confidence in Chairman Milley and the job that he is doing,” a sentiment echoed by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who said Sept. 15 that President Biden “has complete confidence in Chairman Milley .”

Biden Announces Deal to Share Nuclear Submarine Technology with Australia

Sept. 15, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

President Joe Biden stood in the East Room of the White House on Sept. 15 alongside video monitors with the leaders of Australia and the United Kingdom to announce the sharing of nuclear submarine technology with Australia, part of a trilateral security agreement to respond to growing Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region.

“The future of each of our nations and indeed the world depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Biden declared after brief comments from his counterparts.

“We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region and how it may evolve,” the President added. “This is about investing in our greatest sources of strength—our alliances—and updating them to better meet the threats of today and tomorrow.”

The new trilateral security agreement known as “AUKUS” for Australia, U.K., U.S. builds on a defense partnership that has been ramping up with Australia in recent years in areas ranging from rotational troops to joint training and the joint development of hypersonic weapons.

In August 2020, B-1s deployed to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, and B-2s at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia made multiple flyovers dropping training bombs at the Australian training areas at Delamere, Bradshaw, and Mount Bundley. In November, the U.S. and Australia announced plans to build long-range prototype hypersonic weapons that ride air currents to fly shorter distances at mach speeds.

The Sept. 15 announcement comes a day after Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III welcomed his Australian counterpart to the Pentagon.

“It’s an exceptionally close relationship,” Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said.

“The kinds of aggressive activities that we’re seeing out of China in the Indo-Pacific region is causing all of us, the international community not just the United States, to make sure that we are focused appropriately on that behavior,” he added.

During his virtual remarks, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the agreement will lead to a sharing of defense technology among the three partners.

“Our world is becoming more complex, especially in our region, the Indo-Pacific,” he said.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson added that the agreement will have repercussions for decades to come.

“This will be one of the most complex and technically demanding projects in the world lasting for decades, and requiring the most advanced technology,” he said. “Only a handful of countries possess nuclear-powered submarines, and it is a momentous decision for any nation to acquire this formidable capability.”

All the leaders emphasized that the technology sharing is for nuclear-powered submarines with conventional weapons. The proposed new Australian submarine fleet will not carry nuclear weapons.

“This initiative is about making sure that each of us has a modern capability, the most modern capabilities we need to maneuver and defend against rapidly evolving threats,” Biden explained.

Nuclear-powered submarines are more stealthy, maneuverable, and survivable, as well as faster, with far greater endurance than conventionally powered submarines.

The nations committed to spend the next 18 months in consultations developing a plan for how to help Australia develop the fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. DOD will take the lead for the United States, alongside the Department of Energy and Department of State.

In the afternoon Pentagon press conference ahead of the President’s announcement, Kirby declined to comment on media reports about the agreement or whether it would provoke China.

The Defense Department regularly stresses how China is a pacing challenge for the United States, and actions with Pacific allies and partners are intended to maintain the “international rules-based order.”

“The Secretary has said that he considers the No. 1 pacing challenge for this department to be the PRC [People’s Republic of China],” Kirby said. “We’re going to stay laser focused on that, and our relationship with Australia … is a key part of our ability to continue to maintain that focus.”

Survey Finds Broad Public Support for Nuclear Deterrence, Modernization

Sept. 15, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

A vast majority of voters believe that nuclear deterrence should be one of the highest priorities for the Department of Defense, with a majority also supporting modernization efforts, according to a new survey.

The survey, commissioned by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and run by Seven Letter Insight, asked more than 2,000 voters for their views on national security and nuclear arms, at a time when the Pentagon and Congress are working to replace or update all three legs of the nuclear triad. For the Air Force, this means replacing the aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile with the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and introducing the B-21 Raider bomber. At the same time, the U.S. Navy is working to bring on the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine.

The necessity of the GBSD in particular has been questioned by key lawmakers, and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has said the program’s future will depend on the results of a Nuclear Posture Review. The latest estimates place acquisition costs for the GBSD at $100 billion, with a full life cycle cost of $264 billion lasting into the 2070s.

But a full 81 percent of respondents to the survey said they supported “ground-based nuclear capabilities” when asked to choose between two statements, one emphasizing the security benefits of such a system and the other emphasizing the high costs.

Later in the survey, respondents were told that nuclear deterrence makes up roughly five percent of the defense budget and were asked if the U.S. should increase the figure, keep it the same, or decrease it. Roughly 80 percent of all respondents said that five percent figure should either stay the same or increase, with slightly more saying it should stay steady.

Douglas Birkey, executive director of the Mitchell Institute, expressed surprise at the broad support for deterrence despite the cost.

“In my opinion, we bent over backwards to try to be really impartial on this. I was concerned that when people were going to look at this, they would say, ‘You had to juice these numbers. There’s no way they could be this overwhelmingly one-sided.’ And yet that was kind of it,” Birkey said.

Birkey argued that previous polling on the subject has used leading questions or selective information to produce certain responses. In contrast, he said, the goal of this most recent survey was simply to gauge the baseline feelings of voters while providing only the most essential information.

Matt George, head of research for Seven Letter, called the level of support for nuclear deterrence “mind-boggling”—91 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement that nuclear deterrence is “critical to our national safety and security. It should be one of the highest priorities of the Department of Defense.” More than half of respondents said they strongly agreed with the statement.

Questions about modernization presented other surprising results. When told the current Minuteman III system is over 50 years old, 54 percent of respondents said the ICBMs should be replaced by a modern system, compared to 23 percent who said they should be refurbished to extend their current life and just five percent who said they should be eliminated entirely.

“The public perception is that U.S. current capabilities are modern,” George said. “When they find out that that is perhaps not the case, it impacts their perception of what they thought they had.”

When informed that Russia and China have been modernizing their nuclear arsenals, support for replacing Minuteman III rose to 65 percent, compared to 15 percent in favor of refurbishing. When shown an image of missile silos recently built by China, 67 percent favored a new system.

“The American public just doesn’t know a lot about this stuff,” George said. “Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but what is pretty apparent is that with information, they can make some informed decisions and that they come to conclusions.”

More broadly, survey respondents indicated widespread support for the idea that defense spending increases their feeling of security—69 percent said spending either greatly or somewhat increases their feelings of security.

Those numbers also surprised Birkey, who said he thought the high costs associated with recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have soured more Americans on the idea of spending.

The security threat that most concerned survey respondents was a cyberattack. More than 70 percent of respondents said they were extremely or very concerned about a potential cyberattack, either by another nation or terrorist group.

“Cyberattack is current, it’s real,” said retired Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzriem, director of research at the Mitchell Institute, referencing recent high-profile examples of cyber threats that have generated headlines and awareness of the issue.

Below cyber threats, the biggest national security threat concerning survey respondents were other countries or terrorist groups obtaining a nuclear weapon, with an actual nuclear attack ranking lower on the list.

The survey, conducted online from Aug. 10 to Aug. 23, has a margin of error of 2.1 percent, with a voter sample mirrored off 2020 voting records and exit polling.

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Master Sgt. Hannah Walters

Sept. 15, 2021

The Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021 will be formally recognized at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference from Sept. 20 to 22 in National Harbor, Md. Air Force Magazine is highlighting one each workday from now until the conference begins. Today, we honor Master Sgt. Hannah Walters, an operations superintendent with the 67th Special Operations Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, U.K.

Walters led a 91-member team during a multinational exercise where she showcased interoperability between the United States and partner nations. Her leadership helped cement NATO alliances and counter adversarial efforts within the European theater.

She also orchestrated a remote-area survey and certified one forward area refueling point, two drop zones, and eight base facilities, paving the way for U.S. European Command to operate in the Arctic region.

Walters provided command and control for 24 air and maritime assets during a search and rescue mission. She also drove a CV-22 exercise that validated the wing’s afloat forward staging capability.

Walters excelled academically by completing a bachelor of science degree and the Joint Special Operations University’s enterprise management course, where she earned honor graduate recognition.

2021 Outstanding Airmen of the Year honoree Master Sgt. Hannah Walters. Air Force photo.

Read more about the other Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021:

With Arlington Groundbreaking, Air Force Memorial Will Soon be Inside Cemetery

Sept. 14, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers broke ground Sept. 14 on an expansion of Arlington National Cemetery intended to add 80,000 gravesites and to make the Air Force Memorial the face of a new southern entrance to the cemetery.

The expansion, which will include the site where the Navy Annex once stood and the slope between the Air Force Memorial and the Pentagon, will add 50 acres to the cemetery, realign roads, relocate the service complex, and incorporate access to the Air Force Memorial. Planners believe the expansion will draw thousands more visitors to the site. Officials hope the additional space will ensure the cemetery can remain active for another 150 years.

“Our fabulous Air Force Memorial will continue to shine,” said AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “From the beginning, it was always the expectation that the Memorial would eventually be incorporated into Arlington Cemetery. This design, with the Memorial as a major point of entry, will ensure even more visitors will come and experience its soaring spires and the Airmen the site memorializes.”

The project breaks down into two pieces: the road work and the cemetery expansion, which cannot begin until the road work is at least 70 percent complete. Estimated to take six years, the expansion plan will cost about $350 million, of which the first $60 million came from the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

The road project will realign and replace roadways and construct new pedestrian and bicycle paths. New parking facilities and a new operations complex, to include an office building, warehouse, and maintenance bays, is also planned.

Army Secretary Christine Wormuth and Maj. Gen. Joel D. Jackson, commander of the Air Force District of Washington, attended the ceremony. Unlike most national cemeteries, which are controlled by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Arlington is operated by the Army.

Internment at Arlington National Cemetery is limited to retired veterans with more than 20 years of service; service members who were killed or wounded in action and awarded the Purple Heart Medal; decorated combat veterans awarded a Silver Star or higher; former prisoners of war; and service members who died while on Active duty. A 2018 advisory panel recommended above-ground internment for the remaining World War II and Korean War veterans who do not otherwise qualify.

An Arlington National Cemetery spokesperson said the 150-year extension of the cemetery’s operational life presumes revised eligibility criteria. Rule-making is underway, and proposed criteria are expected to be released next year.

Arlington National Cemetery hosts 25 to 30 funeral services each day and 10 on Saturdays for a total of 3,000 to 5,000 yearly burials.

Blinken Faces Congressional Panels over Afghanistan Withdrawal

Sept. 14, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 13 and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Sept. 14, testifying for nearly a combined nine hours about the U.S.’s withdrawal from Afghanistan that ended with scenes of chaos in Kabul and the deaths of 13 service members in a suicide bombing.

Over the course of two bruising sessions, Blinken was pressed hard on both the final weeks of the military withdrawal as well as future plans to rescue Americans and Afghans still in the country hoping to flee Taliban rule.

Blinken’s appearances are the first of several congressional hearings scheduled for top officials from President Joe Biden’s administration to address the withdrawal.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III is set to answer questions from the House and Senate Armed Services committees in the next month, but scheduling conflicts prevented him from testifying Sept. 14. That led to criticism from several senators, including committee chair Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who hinted he might subpoena Austin to make him testify.

Final Few Months

Before both committees, Blinken repeatedly referenced intelligence assessments that led him and other top U.S. officials, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, to believe the Afghan government and security forces would hold out for weeks or even months, instead of collapsing within days, as they did.

“What we did not anticipate was that 11-day collapse of the government security forces,” Blinken said Sept. 14. “That’s what changed everything.”

In the run-up to the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, Blinken said, the worst-case scenario projected in the winter and spring of 2021 was that the Afghan government would fall in 18 to 24 months. By July, that timeline was moved up to the end of 2021.

Even as that happened, though, the U.S. military left Bagram Airfield, the hub of American operations during the Afghanistan War. That decision was criticized sharply by many Republican lawmakers during the recent hearings, citing the airfield’s expanded capacity and more strategic defensive location as superior to that of Hamid Karzai International Airport, where the evacuation eventually took place.

Blinken said the decision to leave Bagram when the military did was made by the Pentagon, not the State Department, but he defended the move as the right one in the context of the evacuation.

“Bagram is about 40 miles from Kabul. To the extent that the population that you’re seeking to evacuate is mostly in Kabul, the airport by far most convenient to them would be the airport in Kabul, HKIA,” Blinken said.

As the Taliban advanced from March to August, Blinken said, the State Department sent “19 specific messages” to American civilians in Afghanistan urging them to leave the country and offering assistance to do so. Many of those Americans, he added, are dual nationals who have lived in Afghanistan for years and for whom leaving the country is an “incredibly wrenching decision.”

But Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) pushed back on Blinken, pointing out a seeming disconnect between those messages for Americans to leave and the delay in processing Special Immigrant Visa applications for Afghans who had worked with the U.S. military—problems with the SIV program were noted for months before the withdrawal.

“If we were so concerned that we were sending these grim emails that Americans should have received and left the country immediately, how come we weren’t moving more quickly—why did it take 99 days before the first charter flight took Special Immigrant Visa applicants out?”

Blinken replied by saying he took over an SIV program that was “in a dead stall” with a large backlog. No interviews for the program had been conducted in Kabul for nine months, he claimed, and the State Department surged manpower and resources to the issue, raising the number of visas issued from 100 per week to 1,000.

Looking Forward

In both hearings, Blinken estimated that there are roughly 100 Americans still in Afghanistan who have expressed a desire to leave. Other officials have used that same figure for more than a week now.

The exact number of Afghan SIV applicants, meanwhile, is unclear but likely numbers in the thousands—Rep. Ami Bari (D-Calif.) said his office alone has submitted 10,000 names of Americans and Afghans to the State Department. Blinken praised the work of State Department diplomats, veterans groups, and non-governmental organizations aiding in those evacuation efforts.

To get Americans out, Blinken said the U.S. is working to re-establish commercial operations at the airport in Kabul and is talking with the Taliban to ensure they are allowed to leave. At the same time, Blinken also acknowledged Sept. 13 that the Taliban is refusing to let several charter flights leave Mazar-i-Sharif International Airport in northern Afghanistan. There are reported to be a number of Americans included on those flights, and Blinken said the U.S. government needs “to see a process put in place to allow those flights to start to move.”

For Afghan visa seekers, the process could be more complicated. As the Taliban seized control, some applicants, fearing retribution for working with the Americans, destroyed documents critical to their applications. Blinken told senators that the State Department is working on a way to ensure those people get the documents they need, but he declined to speak more on the issue in a non-classified setting.

Blinken also declined to speak in a public setting on how the U.S. will maintain “over-the-horizon” intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to ensure terrorist organizations do not flourish in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

That issue has been debated for months. Currently the closest U.S. air base is Al Udeid in Qatar, several hours from Afghanistan, and the U.S. has been negotiating with closer countries, such as Uzbekistan, for basing options.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) pressed Blinken on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin had “threatened” U.S. President Joe Biden to not place American ISR capabilities in the region, but Blinken said the issue should be discussed in a classified setting.

New $6.6 Billion F-35 Sustainment Contract Paves Way for Performance-Based Logistics Deal

Sept. 14, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

A new F-35 sustainment contract to Lockheed Martin “paves the way” toward a performance-based logistics contract that the company has been angling for since 2019 and is worth $6.6 billion if all options are exercised. But all bets are off about hitting the Air Force’s long-term F-35 operating cost goals as Congress mulls whether to develop new engines for the fighter.

The contract, which covers fiscal 2021 and has options for 2022 and 2023, sets cost per flying hour targets for the F-35 that Lockheed Martin must meet.

In 2012 dollars (all F-35 costs are calculated in base year 2012), the cost per flying hour for the Air Force F-35A would improve by $3,600 from current levels, down to $30,000 by 2023. For the global fleet of F-35s—including all three variants, and all international users—the improvement would be 8 percent over the same period, from $36,100 to $33,400.

The Air Force has set a goal of $25,000 per flying hour by 2025 for its F-35As. If it doesn’t get there, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has said the service may have to act to address the affordability of the fleet. That could include operating the F-35s less frequently or buying fewer of them, he said.

“We are on the glideslope” to achieving the “25 by 25” goal with the new contract, a Joint Program Office spokeswoman said.

The contract covers the air vehicle only. Pratt & Whitney has separate contracts for management of the F135 engine.

The contract covers “on-site support of day-to-day operations from [Lockheed Martin] field service representatives, engineers, and Autonomic Logistics Information Systems (ALIS) administrators, along with global enterprise support for sustaining engineering, supply chain, repair and replenishment material, and training,” the Joint Program Office said in a press release.

The contract “drives improvements to performance through a refined performance incentive structure focused on year-to-year improvements” in full mission capable and supply rates, the JPO said.

In 2019, Lockheed Martin pitched the Pentagon a performance-based logistics (PBL) plan for the F-35 under which it would achieve the “25 by 25” goal, but it required some investment both by Lockheed Martin and the government.

In February, Lockheed Martin officials said they were negotiating a “skinny” version of the PBL contract with the JPO, under which intermediate cost reductions would be less, though it could still hit the “25 by 25” target. At that time, the company believed it would get a series of “try before buy” five-year contracts to demonstrate that it could achieve the operating cost reductions. The government ruled out longer-term contracts because it was unwilling to lock in a long-term commitment. The company said it can get economic quantity parts and materials costs from its suppliers only if it gets signed assurances that the funding is forthcoming.

The JPO “negotiated aggressive cost savings and performance targets” that will benefit the enterprise and all customers, Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick said in a press statement accompanying the contract award. The JPO is committed to achieving needed capabilities “at a cost our taxpayers can afford.”

The contract “lays the groundwork for a transition to a supply support and demand reduction” PBL in the future, he said.

Hanging over the contract is Congress’ recent move to introduce a new engine for the F-35 derived from the Adaptive Engine Technology Program. The House Armed Services Committee, in its version of the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, directed that the JPO create a plan to introduce AETP engines by 2027. That move puts the “25 by 25” goal “in jeopardy,” a government official said.

Both Pratt & Whitney and GE Aviation, which have developed AETP engines, have said their new powerplants can only fit in the F-35A used by the Air Force. Getting the AETP to fit in the Navy’s F-35C version would require significant further development, and both companies have said flatly that their AETP engines “will not fit” in the Marine Corps F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant. Following the HASC direction would therefore mean maintaining at least two engine sustainment enterprises for the F-35, which would add to its operating price.

Directing a new engine would add “tremendous increased additional cost,” a government official familiar with the program said. “Adding requirements usually does, at least in the short term.” Hitting the “25 by 25” goal becomes problematic because it’s not known how much the new engines will cost to integrate, and “there are always teething troubles with new engines,” he said.

Another official said “it’s not clear to me that the AETP engine would be exportable. I’m not sure the [international] partners would be very enthusiastic about operating an engine in their F-35s that the U.S. government is, essentially, leaving behind.”

The JPO has said it does not have a requirement for a new engine, nor, in fact, does it have a master propulsion roadmap for the F-35. Establishing one is likely to be on the agenda at the next meeting of F-35 international partners.

“Competition is good,” a government official said, because it can drive better performance and price reductions, but introducing it in the F-35 “at this late stage” in the program will introduce development and multiple unique systems costs that could “easily wipe out whatever you save” in competition.

Pratt & Whitney has said it can make improvements to the F135 engine that now powers the fleet that will save $40 billion in cost avoidance over the life of the F-35, versus developing and fielding new engines for it.

Even if the new engines are developed for the F-35, “there’s still 600 F-35As that fly with the F135, and you have to keep a sustainment enterprise for them,” one official said.

“Trying to change a powerplant in … a fielded system is extremely complex,” said Brig. Gen. Dale R. White, Air Force PEO for fighters and advanced aircraft, in an August press conference, when asked about changing out the F135 engine. Although his portfolio doesn’t include the F-35, White observed that, “You have to think about what the return on investment might be.”

Fick is to meet with reporters Sept. 14 to discuss the way forward on the PBL and potential integration of new F-35 engines.

Outstanding Airmen of the Year: Tech. Sgt. Kelli Floyd

Sept. 14, 2021

The Air Force’s 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021 will be formally recognized at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference from Sept. 20 to 22 in National Harbor, Md. Air Force Magazine is highlighting one each workday from now until the conference begins. Today, we honor Tech. Sgt. Kelli Floyd, an infrastructure section noncommissioned officer in charge at the 20th Contracting Squadron at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

Floyd was the sole enlisted unlimited contracting officer in Air Combat Command. She used her expertise to establish the Department of Defense’s first ever microgrid—a groundbreaking contract worth $24 million. The grid provided 100 percent energy resilience for the 15th Air Force, Air Force Central Command, the 20th Fighter Wing, and all mission partners for the next 20 years.

As noncommissioned officer in charge, she led a pandemic support team that sourced personal protective equipment for 7,000 people and established the Air Force’s first contract for protective face coverings, three days before the Department of Defense mandate.

She was short-notice tasked to attend the Noncommissioned Officer Academy, where she led her flight of 15 members through a five-week virtual course and was named distinguished graduate.

“Kelli is a remarkable leader who truly understands our mission and, more importantly, does a phenomenal job developing future Airmen and shaping our Air Force of tomorrow,” said Maj. Titus Butler, 20th CONS commander, in a USAF release. “Her selection as one of the 12 Outstanding Airmen comes as no surprise and we are proud to work alongside her.”

2021 Outstanding Airmen of the Year honoree Tech. Sergeant Kelli A. Floyd. Air Force photo.

Read more about the other Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2021: