SOCOM Selects 5 Armed Overwatch Prototypes

May 17, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

U.S. Special Operations Command has awarded a total of $19.2 million to five companies for prototype demonstrations as part of the Armed Overwatch effort to buy a low-cost aircraft to fly surveillance and strikes in austere locations.

According to a May 14 award notice, the aircraft selected to proceed are:

Leidos Inc.’s Bronco II
MAG Aerospace’s MC-208 Guardian
Textron Aviation Defense’s AT-6E Wolverine
L-3 Communications Integrated Systems’ AT-802U Sky Warden
Sierra Nevada Corp.’s MC-145B Wily Coyote.

The prototype demonstration will take place at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and is expected to be completed by March 2022, the notice states. If the prototype project is successful, a company could be requested to provide a proposal for a follow-on production award.

SOCOM proposed the Armed Overwatch program in the aftermath of the Air Force’s light attack experiment and plans for the selection to replace the current U-28 Draco fleet. The command wants to buy about 75 of the aircraft to fly close air support, precision strike, and special operations ISR in austere and permissive environments.

Air Force Special Operations Command boss Lt. Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife said in February that he wants procurement in fiscal 2022. “We can do that at relatively low risk based on what we’ve seen from the vendors who have indicated that they intend to bring platforms to demonstrate for us in the coming months,” he said at the time.

Congress in the fiscal 2021 defense policy bill blocked SOCOM from buying aircraft, but allowed the command to move forward for the flying demonstration.

“I think Congress is appropriately and prudently exercising their oversight role,” Slife said. “I would view this as a lower-risk enterprise than perhaps some charged with oversight do, but the fact that we see it differently doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.”

SOCOM boss Gen. Richard D. Clarke told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March that armed overwatch is needed because in “many remote areas, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and close air support assets are stretched thin and come at a high cost.”

How Tech Is Turning JADC2 from Concept to Reality

May 17, 2021

In the Pentagon’s vision, Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) will connect sensor data, powerful computer processing, and artificial intelligence algorithms through a lightning-fast, resilient network. That capability will give U.S. forces an edge so decisive it could deter aggressors from even contemplating future conflicts.

“Our 21st century digital enlightenment has all the right ingredients coming to bear … to generate decisive outcomes across the spectrum of conflict,” Lt. Gen. Chris Weggeman, deputy commander of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, said at the 2020 Air Force Information Technology and Cyberpower Conference.

It will take a whole range of technologies to bring that vision to life, from edge processing to data management.

Retired Air Force Col. David Stickley, a former senior leader at the Defense Information Systems Agency and now an executive at Dell Technologies, sees a new convergence taking place today as the various capabilities needed to enable JADC2 and the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) come of age.

David Stickley, Strategic Programs, Dell Technologies, discusses the Advanced Battle Management System and how Dell is helping the U.S. Air Force achieve its goals.

C2 Fundamentals

The key to JADC2 are those last two characters, Stickley says. Command and control at the speed of modern combat operations requires four key capabilities: Data handling and storage, secure processing, connectivity, and software applications that turn data into information.

“The Air Force is just overwhelmed with data,” he says. A single F-35A Lightning II combat jet is a veritable flying sensor package, generating terabytes of data on every mission. Turning that data into useful information faster is critical. Just a short while ago it might have taken days to process all that data, but today, air crews can plug it into processing units wherever they are and get insights “in near real time.”

For JADC2 to work in combat, it must be able to make use of that data instantly. Either the data gets processed or “all this will wind up on the cutting room floor,” said Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Dennis A. Crall , the Joint Staff’s director of command, control, communications and computers (J-6), in a DOD interview.

Secure processing refers to the need to safeguard information in an environment where that data is being managed as close to the data source as possible. “You certainly have to have the processing, storage, and analytics capability to manage that data at the edge,” Stickley says.

No less critical: The connectivity and authentication to ensure the data gets where it needs to go securely. “Once you come up with a piece of actionable knowledge,” Stickley says, “you have to be able to transmit that data” — and do so under duress.

“We have to break away from the hard fixed networks that we built over the years and leverage software-defined networking,” he says. Defining network components in code means network configurations can be changed rapidly and infinitely, adding resilience and flexibility to network architectures.

The networking piece will be key to driving the real-time responsiveness JADC2 will require. “This is about fires, and speedy engagement,” Crall said in a Defense Department release. “If you think of it in those terms, we need to set aside for a minute what we own and what we do and look at where the department needs to be.”

Networks and processors are just the skeleton of a system that will ultimately be driven by algorithms and applications forged in code. Kessel Run, the Air Force agile software programming center, has helped pave the way for developing Air Force software solutions on the fly and then iterating improvements over time. Stickley says Dell has contributed support and guidance to the project. Ultimately, he says, “the portability of those applications across multiple weapons systems is what will be the key to ABMS’ future.”

Dell is working with Kessel Run to achieve an “ultimate goal,” Stickley says: “The ability to have lightweight mobile apps that work the same way as the apps on our mobile phones. We ought to get to that same operational capability in the Air Force.”

Streamlining app development will deliver advanced tools to the warfighter more quickly. “If there’s an update, you get that update instantaneously,” he says. “You’re not waiting for our team of folks to push out the next iteration. There are ways that we can do that, and … certainly Kessel Run is a great example.”

Urgent Need

Driving the need for faster command-and-control are rising challenges posed by advances made in the past 10 years by China’s military, as they seek to find seams in U.S. military tactics, technology, and strategy. “That’s forcing us to change the way we operate,” Stickley says. “Air Combat Command is moving to a wing operation center construct. They’re starting to push operational decision-making down to the squadron commander and, in many cases, they’re talking now about squadron-level deployments.”

As rival militaries gain more advanced technology, decision cycles are getting more compressed.

“It forces these principles that we’re talking about: The principles of data management, secure processing at the edge, a new connectivity solution, new applications,” he says. “Those all now have to be available in these very austere locations, and our current infrastructure simply does not support that.”

Speed isn’t just the essence of evolving U.S. combat strategies. It’s also key to accelerating and changing the way the military acquires and fields new capabilities, such as ABMS.

“That’s why we are so adamant about delivering these new capabilities in a new format,” Stickley says. “There’s an awful lot of capability that needs to be pulled together to support this new operational construct.”

In one Dell proof-of-concept project, the company developed “a very simple application that Airmen can use to expedite the weapons loading process,” Stickley says. “It lets you inform the crew and the remote flightline what weapons are needed for the next flight, allowing you to truly affect weapons deployments in a real-time fashion.”

Having the processing capability to run that app at the edge enables faster, more direct, and more efficient communication on the flightline. Likewise, software-defined networks, rather than fixed hardware networks, also allows for faster adaptability to changing circumstances, ensuring resilience, and enabling enhanced security.

“We have been hamstrung for years by fixed, closed networks, and in many cases, restricted bandwidth,” Stickley says, recalling his decades of experience managing military networks. Changing to a software-defined architecture will provide operators greater flexibility, and ultimately deliver critical insights in real time.

“We believe that software defined networking is the future of ABMS,” Stickley says. “We have to break away from the hard fixed networks that we built over the years and leverage software-defined networking, something we’ve been able to apply in many use cases to help the Air Force transmit decision quality data more quickly.”

JADC2 will benefit from this adaptable approach, which is made to order for the kinds of interconnectivity issues inherent to disparate military systems. “When you can take advantage of this best path, you’re reducing your security risk but you’re also increasing operational effectiveness. That’s huge.”

Garamendi: Pause GBSD As Other Nuclear Modernization Efforts Proceed

May 17, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force should pause the major recapitalization of its intercontinental ballistic missile fleet—a move top military officials strongly oppose—as budgets tighten and other nuclear modernization efforts proceed, a key lawmaker said May 17.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-California), the chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee who also serves on the strategic forces subcommittee, said he recently visited the Minuteman III wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, and is convinced of the need for nuclear modernization. However, he said top USAF officials have “confirmed” to him that the ICBMs can be life extended and still remain useful until the late 2030s, at which time a new ICBM “might be necessary,” he said.

“This single, common-sense step could save $37 billion,” Garamendi said during a virtual Arms Control Association event.

U.S. Strategic Command boss Adm. Charles “Chas” A. Richard recently told lawmakers there is “no operational margin” left in the ICBM and that it is at risk of “losing credibility” to potential adversaries or not even working at all. A few weeks later an unarmed Minuteman III shut itself down after the missile’s computer detected a fault during the terminal countdown, aborting the launch. That incident remains under investigation, but officials said at the time the ICBM “did exactly what it was designed to do.”

“We could reach a point where no amount of money” would mitigate that risk, Richard told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month.

Garamendi pointed to two Government Accountability Office reports that stated nuclear modernization programs will cost more than one trillion dollars over the next 30 years, and said the push to modernize every part of the nuclear arsenal at the same time is a “recipe for schedule delays.”

The Pentagon is planning to field the B-21 Raider, new submarines, the Long-Range Standoff Missile, and hypersonic weapons to modernize its overall strategic capability. Because of these efforts, the country can afford to pause both the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program and the fielding of the new “low-yield” Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile.

Simultaneously, the country needs to “aggressively pursue arms control” with Russia and China to reduce the overall need for nuclear weapons, Garamendi said.

He said there are ongoing discussions on if the silo-based ICBM leg of the nuclear triad is even necessary, another discussion opposed by top military officials. The Biden administration will undertake a new Nuclear Posture Review, which could address this issue, he said.

Richard, in expressing his opposition to removing a leg of the triad, said he would be forced to recommend that the bomber fleet return to a Cold War-type of alert posture if the triad became a dyad.

B-52s Simultaneously Operate in Europe, Middle East, and Indo-Pacific Theaters

May 17, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

B-52s deployed to Morón Air Base, Spain, on May 17 for a bomber task force deployment, making Europe the third area of operations where Stratofortresses are operating.

The bomber task force of B-52s from the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, will participate in joint and allied training in both Europe and Africa. B-52s are also deployed to the Middle East for combat operations out of Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, and there also is a task force of B-52s deployed to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

B-52s are picking up the majority of bomber taskings in the Air Force as the B-1 struggles with readiness. Air Force Global Strike Command ordered a fleet-wide safety standdown last month to inspect fuel problems. Some of the Lancers have since returned to flight, but the command has not said how many.

The day before the bombers touched down in Spain, six Barksdale B-52s from both the U.S. and deployed bases conducted a “global power projection event” called Apex Charger, flying simultaneously in the Arctic, North America, western Europe, and the Indo-Pacific, according to U.S. Strategic Command.

The command did not specify the scenario that the exercise focused on, saying “this mission demonstrates the Department of Defense’s ability to command and control its bomber forces for any assigned mission anywhere in the world at any time.”

“The speed, flexibility, and readiness of our strategic bombers play a critical role in our ability to deter potential adversaries and signal our unwavering support to our allies and partners,” STRATCOM boss Adm. Charles “Chas” A. Richard said in a release. “Missions like this provide invaluable training opportunities with our allies and partners to improve our interoperability and demonstrate that our forces are capable of operating anywhere, anytime, to meet any challenge decisively.”

USAF Picks Candidates for the Next Round of Active, Reserve KC-46 Bases

May 17, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force is considering two bases for the next Active-duty KC-46 component and six bases for the next Pegasus Reserve unit, with a decision expected this fall.

The service announced May 13 it is looking at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, and MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, as candidate locations. One of the bases will be selected to host 24 KC-46s. The USAF is also looking at Beale Air Force Base, California; Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; March Air Reserve Base, California; Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, New York; and Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, as candidate bases. One of the six will be chosen to host 12 KC-46s.

All the bases currently fly the KC-135 Stratotanker, which the KC-46 is slated to replace. The Air Force will now conduct site surveys at each location over the summer, which “will be assessed against operational requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, housing, infrastructure, and manpower,” the Air Force said in a release.

The Air Force already bases Active-duty KC-46s at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas; Reserve tankers at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, South Carolina; and Air National Guard aircraft at Pease Air National Guard Base, New Hampshire. Air Education and Training Command hosts KC-46 training at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Construction for future operations is underway at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, and Travis Air Force Base, California. Tinker will also host maintenance for the aircraft.

Fairchild recently became a “super” tanker wing as it received 12 more KC-135s in 2019 and reactivated the 97th Air Refueling Squadron. “Super” tanker wings include four squadrons, and the base was expected to operate a total of 60 of the tankers. MacDill’s 6th Air Refueling Wing and Reserve 927th Air Refueling Wing operate 24 KC-135s.

The Air Force recently received its 45th KC-46, as deliveries have slowed in recent months.

Air Mobility Command and U.S. Transportation Command are working to free up KC-46s to fly some limited operational missions, in a step to alleviate stress on the legacy KC-135 and KC-10 fleets.

USAF to Cut F-35 Buy in Future Years Defense Plan

May 14, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force will propose about a 10 percent cut in its planned F-35 purchases in the upcoming future years defense plan, citing sustainment costs for the jet well above what was expectd, and because the service prefers to wait for the more advanced Block 4 model. Budget talking points obtained by Air Force Magazine appear to show the USAF giving the F-35 program an ultimatum: Get costs under control over the next six to eight years or the overall buy will be sharply reduced.

According to the talking points, which were prepared for Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown. Jr., the Air Force plans to request 48 F-35s in fiscal year 2022, but only 43 aircraft a year from fiscal 2023 to 2026. The effect over the five years would be to buy 220 jets versus 240 under the previous plan.

Whether Brown has signed off on the new plan is unclear. “The information outlined in the talking points regarding future Air Force fighter force structure is pre-decisional,” said Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the Air Force public affairs chief, who declined further comment about pending budget or resourcing decisions.

In the last three budget years, the Air Force requested 48 F-35s and Congress added another 12. That 25 percent increase on USAF’s depot and spares capacity has hurt mission capable rates and prompted some members of Congress to declare they will fight any further such “plus-ups,” to let the sustainment enterprise catch up.

The Air Force set an operating cost goal of $4.1 million per airplane per year—in fiscal 2012 dollars—early in the program, expecting the cost would be in line with that of the F-16. It has failed to hit those marks, however, and Air Force leaders have recently expressed hard skepticism that the goal can ever be achieved. Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mark D. Kelly said in February he was not “brimming with confidence” about reaching F-35 support cost goals, and he reiterated that sentiment after a late March tour of F-35 sustainment facilities.

In fact, according to the USAF talking points, the service expects sustainment cost per tail per year to be $7.8 million in 2036 (again, in 2012 base year dollars).

“This is an unaffordable sustainability model, if the F-35 were to become the majority of [the Air Force’s] fighter fleet,” the document said. “The Air Force needs the F-35’s advanced capabilities, [but] in affordable capacity.”

The service expects to retain the F-16 into the 2030s and needs to backfill it with something to perform “missions short of high-end warfare,” the document said. If the F-35’s operating and support costs could be “brought significantly lower,” the USAF would prefer to buy it for this mission, reducing the number of logistics tails and expanding operational flexibility. “Otherwise, the Air Force will have to look for an alternative platform,” according to the talking points. It added that this “decision point is at least six to eight years away.”

The service further noted that the Marine Corps and Navy—which have more complex versions of the F-35—set a cost per tail per year of $6.8 million and $7.5 million, respectively, “which are more realistic but likely still unachievable.”

The Air Force noted that the F-35’s procurement price has come down steadily over the last decade, now below $80 million a copy, but that sustainment “will be the overall cost driver.”

Air Force Lt. Gen. Eric T. Fick, program executive officer for the F-35 Joint Program Office, acknowledged the numbers in the McAleese and Associates defense conference May 13. “I see cost as the program’s greatest enemy. I see high cost as an existential threat to the F-35,” he said.

Sustainment is “where we really have the biggest mandate and the biggest challenge,” Fick said.

The cost per flying hour has come down 10 percent in the last year, from $37,000 in base year dollars to $33,000, Fick said; calling it a sign of progress.

He also put the sustainment metrics in context, noting that numbers can be confusing.

“I can reduce my cost per flying hour by flying more hours,” he said. “You increase the denominator [and] the overall cost per flying hour dips down. On the other side, that actually increases the cost per tail per year that the services have to pay,” because they’re flying more hours.

“Alternatively,” he continued, “I can fly less—maybe offload some of that work to simulators, … and that would increase the cost per flying hour, because I’m now amortizing all my fixed cost to a lower number of flight hours.” Only by looking at both numbers together, he said, “can you get a really clear view of the work that you’re doing.”

Fick said the JPO is “laser focused” on reducing sustainment costs by standing up more organic depot support, building better quality into parts so they spend more time on the aircraft and require less repair, and looking to economize on the Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney “polo-wearing folks” who are “doing great work, but they’re very expensive.”

Those areas are “what we’re targeting” for cost improvement, he said, and are “at the heart” of discussions about a potential long-term Performance-Based Logistics contract with Lockheed that may get started with a request for proposals this summer.

Also ongoing are negotiations for the Lot 15-17 contract with Lockheed Martin, Fick said. He called the Lot 14-16 agreement an “awesome deal for the taxpayer” and said he is expecting a contract on the next lot by the end of this fiscal year.

The Air Force talking points continue to describe the F-35 as the “cornerstone of the high-end fight.” It was originally supposed to replace all the F-16s and the A-10s, but “whether the Air Force is able to afford to replace the majority of the fighter fleet with F-35s is a decision point that is still a few years off. In the near term, we must concentrate on achieving the F-35 capability needed for advanced threats (high-end fight).”

For the near future, and through the decade, the talking points say the Air Force will concentrate on “prioritizing” the Block 4 fleet and building it “to desired capacity; finaliz[ing] basing laydown; [and] continu[ing] advanced weapon integration.” Block 4 “must be affordably realized,” the Air Force said.

Fick said that the Block 4 improvements, previously planned to come at a rate of two per year, will now be annual only, due to the complexity of software integration.

The service will also explore manned/unmanned teaming arrangements between the F-35 and autonomous escort aircraft.

“While the F-35 is a formidable platform today, it has some significant challenges to ensure it stays capable against an evolving future threat,” the Air Force document said. Operating costs and sustainment “are areas of concern that need continued focus and work to address affordability.”

Making the Air Force’s Case for Big Fighter Cuts

May 14, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

To ensure it can compete—and win—against peer adversaries such as China and Russia in the future, the Air Force must divest its aging equipment and instead invest in more capable and advanced aircraft, said Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements.

The challenge is convincing Congress to give up aircraft today for something else later on, something lawmakers have consistently resisted in the past. Hinote said during a May 13 interview with Air Force Magazine editors that the idea of “swapping iron for iron” comes up in every discussion the USAF has on Capitol Hill, but that this time the argument will be more convincing.

“We think we see a change in the debate, in the conversation, when it comes to the willingness of Congress as a whole,” he said. “I’m not talking about Congress as the individual [advocate for] a district or a base or a platform—but we think we see movement in Congress, as a whole, to contemplate getting rid of some things we really like so that we can get to the new tools that our Airmen need.”

Hinote cited two recent examples:

An April 5 letter from 14 members of the House of Representatives to Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III that called out combatant commanders’ insatiable request for forces, saying, “We have serious concerns that these near limitless [requests for forces] are driving readiness costs to unsustainable levels, servicemembers and platforms are getting burned through at breakneck paces, and much-needed modernization efforts are getting delayed as restricted funds are directed to addressing short-term requirements and risks.”
The congressmen praised the service Chiefs’ “plans to modernize and revolutionize their respective services,” but added, “We fear, however, our ability to modernize the services for future great powers competition and conflict will be undermined by the COCOM’s failure, unwillingness, or inability to make do with their approved [Global Force Management Plan].”
The 2020 final report from the Future of Defense Task Force. “If you look at it, it clearly has this message of, ‘Let’s get to the new so that we can buy down the future risk,’” Hinote said. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen H. Hicks has acknowledged the need to balance short-term and long-term risk.

Still, it’s not going to be an easy road.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. caught many by surprise May 13 when he announced the service’s intent to reduce its seven-fighter fleet over the coming 15 years to “four plus one,” with the one being the A-10. Under the plan, the Air Force would begin to retire its fifth-generation F-22 in the 2030s, by which time it could begin to acquire the Next-Generation Air Dominance aircraft. In the meantime, Hinote said, the Air Force will continue to maintain and upgrade the F-22 as a bridge to NGAD but not invest in overhauls that would extend its life beyond 25-30 years.

MacKenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Air Force Magazine Brown’s plan “makes tremendous sense.”

For “the past two decades, the operations and support costs tail has outpaced new equipment purchases by two to one,” she said. But the plan “also is a big bet on NGAD and the future of autonomous, semi-crewed and uncrewed systems.”

Eaglen said the Air Force has for decades retired fighter aircraft “far faster” than it could replace them, a track record that’s likely to give Congress pause. “Congress will not accept the promise of two birds in the bush over one in the hand,” she said. “NGAD simply must deliver on time and in sufficient quantity for this goal to become a reality.”

Hinote believes it will. He said he can’t wait for classification levels to ease so he can brag about the highly secretive program. The Air Force has brought several leading lawmakers and Department of Defense officials to see the aircraft and to talk to the Airmen who are flying it. “It’s made a big difference,” he said. “Seeing is believing.”

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Maryland), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and an Army veteran, said at a May 13 Center for Strategic and International Studies event that the Air Force must clearly explain its reasoning and provide the analysis that backs it up.

Many lawmakers were caught off guard and “confused” by the service’s decision to acquire up to 144 F-15EX fighters, he said, a plane the Air Force says it needs to replace rapidly deteriorating F-15Cs. As a “big believer in the F-35,” Brown said he can see a role for the Eagle II, but “they’ve got to be as open and transparent [as possible] to make their case to Congress, whether they want to retire a system or whether they want to, you know, modernize and move to another platform.”

Eric Fanning, the former Pentagon official who now leads the Aerospace Industries Association, said the cut-now-to-buy-later strategy is always hard to execute.

“This sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way,” he said. “The longer you go with that gap … the worse it becomes, year after year after year, because the existing fleet can become increasingly expensive to maintain, to modernize, [until you get] to a point where you can’t SLEP it anymore.” (A SLEP is a service-life extension program.)

The Air Force can’t continually “kick a bigger problem down the road,” he said. “You know, modernization is future readiness, and what’s our readiness posture going to be in the future if we don’t figure out how to bridge these gaps?”

AFCENT Can Now Generate Air Tasking Orders in the Cloud

May 14, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The 609th Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, in early May became the Air Force’s first AOC to operationally use the Kessel Run All Domain Operations Suite to build an air tasking order. The new cloud-based system allows planners to build an air tasking order from anywhere and uses automation and advanced software to accomplish what usually takes dozens of personnel using stove-piped systems.

KRADOS, developed by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s Detachment 12, also known as Kessel Run, uses the same principles behind the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System push to bring in new technology to improve the air war planning and execution process.

“This is an extremely important moment for the command and Air Force,” said Lt. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of 9th Air Force (Air Forces Central), in a release. “Improving the Air Tasking Order process makes AFCENT and our distributed command and control capabilities more efficient, and this innovation will also help improve AOC operations across the Air Force and in other combatant commands.”

The AOC has been using the Theater Battle Management Core System to build the air tasking order—the daily battle rhythm for fighters, bombers, and tankers in the area—for decades. The TBMCS needs large numbers of personnel and different computer systems, with walls of screens and dozens of workstations packing the large CAOC at Al Udeid.

This old system “was at the end of its lifespan,” 609th AOC Commander Col. Frederick “Trey” Coleman II said in an interview. Its systems were localized to the computers in the CAOC and based on old coding. “You put a comma in a wrong place, it would crash the entire system when you’re entering data,” he said.

Kessel Run began working on new systems to improve the ATO process, including developing Jigsaw, a software package that streamlines refueling tanker planning, and Slapshot, which is used for fighter and bomber operations.

KRADOS is the overall system that links Jigsaw, Slapshot, and others into a cloud-based system that can be accessed from anywhere like a website. “They’re all very intuitive. They’re all very simple. It’s like something you see on an iPad. They’re all connected,” Coleman said.

For example, by being able to access Slapshot and Jigsaw, KRADOS can link the range and armament of F-15s with the availability of KC-135s to quickly plan operations and build the ATO from anywhere with less people.

“[Kessel Run] took a 20-year-old software application that existed only on the computers at the facility at Al Udeid, and they gave us an operating system that is state of the art, is highly automated, and it is cloud based,” Coleman said. “And that’s the biggest thing about KRADOS for us is, it resides in the cloud. … So when we are planning F-15 sorties, or when we’re planning tanker sorties, or when we’re building airspace, all that is done as you’re working those systems. It’s all done on a website … and it’s saved automatically, and anybody can access it.”

The 609th AOC developed a close working relationship with Kessel Run and “asked them to accelerate” because of the operational need in the AFCENT area of operations.

“We took some risk in AFCENT because it’s not the system of record yet, not programmed as a system of record,” he said. “We’re taking a little risk or a little trial and error to get there, but it’s really effective, and it’s working.”

KRADOS was implemented in the 609th AOC in a beta version in December, with Kessel Run coders and software engineers on site to work with personnel to fix issues and brainstorm improvements. In May, the 609th AOC used it for the first time to do operational planning. It has not yet produced a specific ATO, though that will come in the near future. Coleman expects it to be fully operational in about a year.

Because the CAOC has several partner nations involved in planning, Kessel Run is “engaged in delivering a coalition solution via the mission partner environment,” though there isn’t a timeline for that development, spokesman Richard Blumenstein said in a statement.

While the 609th AOC is in the lead, other AOCs across the Air Force are also going to adopt the system. Kessel Run is focused on the CAOC and expanding access to the rest of the AOC enterprise. “There are a number of foundational steps we need to accomplish in order to make enterprise-wide delivery effective, and we are currently working through those steps,” Blumenstein said.

KRADOS comes as the CAOC and AFCENT are looking at more ways to disperse operations. For example, the 727th Expeditionary Air Control Squadron began full operations at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, after 10 years at Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates. The 727th EACS, known as “Kingpin,” provides a real-time picture of air operations in the region.

Coleman said this ability to distribute is key as large-scale bases and systems in the region could be under threat.

“The need for distribution is incredibly clear today,” he said. “As adversary capabilities grow, as the operational environment changes, we cannot have all of our operational C2 housed in the same vulnerable facility.”

While KRADOS will make building an ATO faster, and require fewer people, there will still be a need for a team of experts in the loop, he said.

“There’s this notion that one day, a single person can sit in a Starbucks and make an ATO on their own. You still need people, you still need facilities, you still need a team of experts who can come together and advise the commander … who’s going to make the operational decision,” Coleman said. “You still need all those things. But, the ability to pick up and plan, produce, and execute your ATO … one day at Al Udeid and the next day at Shaw Air Force Base, or even between 8 a.m. and 3 o’clock in the afternoon from Al Udeid, then from 3 o’clock in the afternoon until 10 p.m. at Shaw, and then maybe you do it at Langley Air Force Base (Virginia) for the next shift. To be able to distribute those functions using similar systems with cloud-based data brings the Air Force an incredible degree of resilience that we’ve never had before.”

Air Force Wants to Cut 421 Old Fighters, Buy 304 New Ones

May 14, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force will ask Congress to retire 421 legacy aircraft through 2026, replacing them with just 304 new fighters, according to fiscal 2022 budget talking points obtained by Air Force Magazine. The savings derived from operating a smaller fleet will be put toward acquiring new systems such as the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter later this decade, and a new Multi-Role fighter, called MR-X, in the 2030s.

“The information outlined in the talking points regarding future Air Force fighter force structure is pre-decisional,” said Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, an Air Force spokesperson. The document was not labeled as such, however. He declined further comment about potential future budget or resourcing decisions.

The 421 aircraft described in the talking points include a total phase-out of the aged F-15C/D fleet, numbering about 234 aircraft, by the end of fiscal 2026. The F-16 fleet would be reduced by 124 aircraft, mostly from what are called the “pre-block,” or oldest models, leaving a force of 812, also by the end of 2026. The A-10 attack plane would be reduced from 281 total aircraft to 218, for a reduction of 63 tails, but on a more aggressive timeline ending in fiscal 2023.

Over the future-years defense plan ending in fiscal ’26, the Air Force would also bring on 84 new F-15EX and 220 F-35A fighters, resulting in a net reduction of 117 jets over the five-year period. The downsizing would be the largest since the “CAF Redux,” or Combat Air Forces Reduction of the early 2010s, in which the USAF trimmed its fleet by about 250 airplanes.

Air Force leaders have been pushing for several years to be allowed to retire legacy systems in order to pay for new ones that will be more relevant to the future fight, particularly in the Indo-Pacific theater. Service officials in recent days have said they plan to start phasing out the fifth-generation F-22 in 2030, to be replaced by the classified NGAD family of systems, known to be at least one manned fighter and potentially several unmanned variants. Like the NGAD, the new MR-X would also be designed using new digital methodology to drastically reduce design, development and fielding timelines, while sharply reducing sustainment costs by baking in a short service life, with the expectation that successor aircraft will follow swiftly.

“To just keep pace with the threat would require an additional $6- to $7 billion per year to modernize our current force projected into the future,” the USAF talking points say. “Even if affordable, this force falls well short of the capability required to counter a future peer threat.” The document goes on to argue that no technology can transform “our fourth-generation fighters into fifth-generation fighters, or fifth-generation fighters into NGAD.”

The paper also points out that legacy systems are becoming “significantly more expensive to sustain” and that the USAF fields one of the oldest fleets serving worldwide. The Air Force’s fleet averages 28.6 years, the document points out; by comparison, the Navy’s fleet averages 14.4 years; the Army’s aviation arm averages 15.3 years; the Royal Australian Air Force, 8.9 years, and the U.K. Royal Air Force, 16.5 years.

Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, said this week that the USAF’s operating and sustainment costs are “skyrocketing,” and increasing at double the rate of inflation, due to the age of the aircraft. He said 44 percent of the USAF’s fleet is operating beyond its planned service life. The F-16 was initially expected to serve until only about 2005.

The F-22 fleet of about 180 aircraft would remain intact through the FYDP, receiving continuing funds for sensor upgrades and to remain fully viable until it begins transitioning out of the force in 2030. According to the talking points, though, the F-22 “cannot be made competitive against the threat two decades from today.”

The NGAD “family of systems” represents “our ability to fight and win in the highly contested environment in the future,” the document says. The new methodology of developing the NGAD “at a pace future threats cannot match” will allow the Air Force to maintain its advantage.

Even so, however, the Air Force seems to have accepted that broad control of the air in a high-end conflict is no longer achievable. It is aiming, rather, for “temporary windows of superiority” in “highly-contested threat environments,” with “complementary capabilities” for the Joint force and U.S. allies. To achieve this, the USAF needs “full-spectrum survivability, high speed, advanced weapons, and extended ranges.”

To perform the “global strike” mission, the USAF adds to those characteristics “sufficient payload” and resilience achieved through “the use of human-machine teaming and a mix of manned and unmanned systems.”

The F-16 and A-10 fleets would also continue to receive funding for structural modifications and capability enhancements to keep them relevant until they fully retire.

The plan reflects the results of “extensive gaming and analysis using the most difficult problem (China) and the most difficult scenario (Taiwan) at the most difficult time (2035),” according to the document. “It is clear that the Air Force must change the future fighter force structure mix by changing investment priorities to provide the capability, capacity, and affordability required to meet a peer threat,” they said.

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said May 12 the service must neck down from seven fighter types to “four plus-one,” the “one” being the A-10, in order to reduce the costs of maintaining so many logistics trains.

The A-10 is “very effective in current conflicts, but it is not viable in the long term,” according to the talking points. “Its lack of survivability in the evolving global threat environment and its singular capability set renders it ineffective in the needed role of affordable capacity.” The A-10 cannot perform the defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defense, or homeland defense missions, the documents said. The service has tried to retire the A-10, unsuccessfully, several times, thwarted by enthusiasts who say it is an unmatched close air support machine.

However, the Air Force plans to prosecute the CAS mission in a different way, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, told Air Force Magazine on May 13. Hinote did not describe the new CAS concept but suggested it would involve unmanned aircraft.

Beyond the FYDP, and potentially into the 2030s, the Air Force expects about 600 “post block” F-16s—C/D models from Block 40 on—to remain in the force with with some upgrades, useful in both permissive and some competitive environments. The transition to the MR-X is expected “in the mid-30s.” This new airplane will be a “clean sheet” design, created by digital methods, and the “decision point” to launch the program is now expected to be “six to eight years away,” according to the document. The MR-X “must be able to affordably perform missions short of high-end warfare.” The F-35 could potentially fill this role, but only if its operating costs could be “brought significantly lower.”

The F-15E/X is described in the papers as “an outsized weapons truck,” useful for carrying standoff weapons in a contested theater or performing air superiority in less-contested airspace. Interestingly, while the Air Force has mentioned that the F-15EX could launch the hypersonic, air-to-surface AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, the talking points say it can also carry an “outsize … air-to-air” weapon, as well. Presumably, this is a long-range weapon meant to counter China’s long-range PL-15 air-to-air missile, but the documents don’t say whether the weapon referenced is the AIM-260, a classified developmental air-to-air missile revealed two years ago.

The Air Force plans to buy 11 F-15EXs in 2022, followed by 14 in 2023 and 19 annually thereafter through the FYDP. If that ramp rate extends through the decade, the USAF would buy its 144th F-15EX in 2030. Contractual documents released last year show that the USAF has options to buy up to 200 F-15EXs.

Brown told a defense symposium this week that his tactical aircraft study, announced in February, is not meant to be a product delivered to Congress, but is an internal assessment of the right future fighter force mix, which will inform the fiscal 2022 budget request but would be implemented in the fiscal ’23 budget and Program Objective Memoranda.

The White House is expected to release its full budget May 27. The Biden administration released a “skinny” budget last month, which calls for $753 billion for national security programs, including $715 billion for the Department of Defense.