Aerospace Corp. Sees Need for Tools to Test Black Box Software in Spacecraft

Aug. 9, 2021 | By Shaun Waterman

“In space,” read a T-shirt worn by one attendee at the DEF CON hacker conference in Las Vegas last week, “no one can hear you get hacked.” And, increasingly, no one can independently test your software to root out vulnerabilities, according to a presentation there by The Aerospace Corp.’s top cybersecurity expert Brandon Bailey.

With the growing commercialization of space, Bailey pointed out, more and more space systems are running commercial, proprietary, closed-source computer programs, which he characterized as “black box software” because no one outside the company that produces it can get access to the source code.

“Go and ask SpaceX if you can analyze the source code for the Falcon 9—they’re probably not going to let you,” Bailey told Air Force Magazine in an interview.

He contrasted this with more traditional space systems, often using government- or contractor-designed custom software to which engineers and researchers had much greater access.

“In the past, we were operating with more of a white box mentality. And we had full source code access at times,” he told the audience in his presentation. “So we’re trying to figure out, how do we tackle this problem moving forward as we are getting more and more black box software to perform mission-critical activities” in space.

The issue will grow more urgent as more commercial, off-the-shelf technology is deployed in both government and private-sector space systems, he said.

Black box software is a cybersecurity issue, experts say, because one of the main ways to root out vulnerabilities in software—the flaws in a program that let hackers break into and take over computer systems—is to analyze the source code. This is known as static analysis.

When the source code is installed, it is compiled into what’s called a binary—a file of machine language, the 1s and 0s that actually run the computer. Because they’re compiled into machine language, binaries are not amenable to traditional static analysis.

With proprietary software for conventional computers, such as the Windows or Mac operating systems, Bailey explained, cybersecurity researchers can get around this problem quite simply. They just load the software onto a PC with any associated peripherals, such as printers, and switch it on. They can then analyze the binary as it is running—a process known as dynamic analysis.

But in space systems, the software programs generally don’t run on conventional computers such as PCs. Instead, they tend to be embedded in exotic hardware such as the nozzles that control fuel flow or the motors that move an antenna. “When that black box mentality extends itself to spacecraft, and embedded systems, that can be a problem because … with embedded systems, you need the targeted hardware to run it on,” explained Bailey.

He described to the audience at DEF CON a number of different workarounds for this problem—tools that could perform static analysis on binaries, for example.

Bailey said he had been researching the topic, on and off, for “the last few years” but had found only a handful of tools. “For embedded processors and spacecraft, it’s such a niche market. There’s not a whole lot of capabilities out there that can really unpack all these niche architectures that we would see on a spacecraft,” he said.

The issue was that there wasn’t a mass market. “From a commercial perspective, you have got to have a lot of users to make it beneficial from a cost benefit point of view to produce some sort of products or tools to do things.”

Bailey said the automotive industry provided a possible model. “More and more software is being executed on your car, … and the car manufacturers are accepting risk from all [this software] that they don’t know about.” Driven by concerns about their liability for software flaws, automotive manufacturers were seeking to develop tools for, among other things, static analysis of binaries, Bailey said.

“So I see that very interesting parallel with space as we move into this commercialization and start pulling products off the shelf,” he said.

News about Chinese Silos Highlights Need for USAF to Accelerate Change, Brown Says

Aug. 6, 2021 | By Abraham Mahshie

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. highlighted the “catastrophic” implications if the Air Force does not change fast enough to keep up with China but added that recent public information about the buildup of Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile silos will help generate the public support he needs.

“It’s kind of good that it’s out there so folks see the pace of change from our adversary,” Brown said in a gaggle after he spoke at the National Press Club on Aug. 6. “It actually helps to validate what we’ve been talking about, why we need this capability.”

In recent weeks, research groups studying satellite imagery of a desert in western China have spotted more than 100 new silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles, The Economist reported.

Brown said China could overcome U.S. air superiority by 2035, noting how change has largely stalled in the Air Force. When he commissioned in 1984, the United States was developing a new fighter jet every two-and-a-half years. Only four fighter jets have been developed since, he said.

That reality stares at him every day that he walks into the Pentagon.

“There’s a very stark print that I get to look at every day when I come into the Pentagon,” Brown said of the graphic “Wings Through Time” by Robert Emerson Bell that depicts every aircraft ever used in the Air Force as if seen from above. Dozens of planes fly in a chronological transition and color scheme from deep brown to Air Force blue.

Brown specifically described two aircraft on that spectrum: the B-52 and the KC-135. “You look at them on that print—they are closer to the Wright flyer than they are to today. That tells you something about our United States Air Force and how we can change,” he said.

But it’s not about the wow factor of modern weapons or the size of the force—USAF must have the “right mix” of capabilities to defeat China, he said.

There is an urgency to finding that balance, he argued, and the politics of keeping legacy systems or a sizable fleet of older aircraft must be abandoned. That is something China has already done, Brown added.

“They cut the less relevant parts of their force to invest in the part of the force they need to gain an advantage,” he said.

The result is a strategic growth now challenging the U.S. in the Pacific.

“The People’s Liberation Army has the largest aviation forces in the Pacific, the largest conventional missile capability in the Pacific. They are building hypersonic missiles, and they’ve established bases and military strategic points,” he said.

Brown said China has done it all “underneath our nose,” including the “slow and insidious” construction of landing strips and capabilities on South China Sea islands that will allow them to project forward a defense of the mainland.

The U.S. Air Force, meanwhile, must rely on partners and allies in the region who are increasingly bullied by Chinese economic might. U.S. aviators must also learn to operate in a more “austere” environment with simple landing strips and prepositioned capabilities.

The Air Force is the oldest and smallest it’s ever been, yet Brown acknowledged the service might have to get even smaller in order to bring the new technologies that will enable it to compete against peer adversaries such as China.

“I’d rather have a smaller capable force than a larger, hollow force,” he said. “The United States Air Force has some tough decisions as we go forward to make sure we have the capabilities that will be competitive against the threat.”

Part of developing that capability will be to retire single-mission platforms such as the A-10 to invest in multi-mission aircraft capable of operating in a denied environment.

Brown also called for continued investment in the service’s Advanced Battle Management System, which connects sensors and shooters, and to modernize the nuclear triad, though some liberal lawmakers are pushing to scale back the latter due to its high price tag.

In May, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee and a member of the strategic forces subcommittee, argued USAF should “pause” any major recapitalization of its ICBM fleet, insisting the Minuteman III could be life-extended and still be viable through the 2030s. However, senior military leaders argue time is up: The U.S. must modernize its nuclear forces now or risk losing credibility.

One rationale for cutting or delaying the Air Force’s Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), the replacement for the 50-year-old Minuteman III ICBM system, is that China possesses a small number of ICBMs. The new satellite imagery reveals an ambition to vastly expand that capability.

“My concern is that China continues to increase their capabilities at a [fast] rate of change, as far as numbers of particularly aircraft and missiles and ranges of missiles,” Brown said. “We need to get moving at the same pace, if not faster.”

USAF-Related Foreign Military Sales to Surpass Last Year Despite Pandemic

Aug. 6, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Foreign Military Sales of Air Force-developed equipment in fiscal 2021 will likely surpass 2020 levels, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Brig. Gen. Brian R. Bruckbauer, director of the Air Force’s Security Assistance and Cooperation Directorate, told reporters Aug. 5.

Air Force FMS sales were $17 billion in 2019 and increased to $24.8 billion in 2020. Bruckbauer said FMS sales as of June 30 were $7.9 billion, and the directorate is expecting to eclipse last year’s figure, he said during the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s Life Cycle Industry Days virtual seminar.

“Even with a global pandemic, Foreign Military Sales continues to be somewhat brisk,” he said. Slowdowns are related mostly to countries where “national budgets are driven by tourism,” so they are more affected by the travel downturn. But with “a lot of the larger partners we deal with, [there was] not much of a change, even during COVID,” he added. The directorate has a backlog of “$226 billion in active FMS casework,” and some $41 billion of FMS cases are “on offer,” meaning they are ready to execute but the customer has yet to “sign on the dotted line.”

The directorate has seen about an 11 percent annual growth in work, and its workforce has been able to “flex” with that changing demand, Bruckbauer said.

Most of the contracts have to do with F-35s, A-29s, F-16s, F-15s, and MQ-9s, as well as assorted munitions, he said. The directorate also works with the Defense Logistics Agency on spare parts, logistics, and sustainment of systems sold through FMS, he added.

It also manages the “Worldwide Warehouse Redistribution Service,” or WWRS, which Bruckbauer described as a kind of “eBay” for spare parts and equipment. When a nation is looking to divest spare parts for aircraft or systems it no longer operates or if it has downsized, that country can offer the items for sale through the WWRS, and the directorate can “facilitate that,” he said.

The program “has been a success,” and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which funds the U.S. Air Force’s FMS activities, “is looking to do even more with that,” added Bruckbauer.

The Air Force wants to help the customers any way it can. “The last thing we want to see is for these very significant capabilities [to] become static displays,” he added.

Bruckbauer said there is $1.53 billion on offer in munitions, but his team said that did not mark a substantive uptick from previous years. Heidi Grant, when she took over as head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in 2018, said she would urge FMS customers to take advantage of high production rates and low unit costs to restock their munitions inventories. This year, the Air Force sharply reduced its budget request for direct-attack munitions, saying it reached its own restocking objectives.

He also said the Air Force has recently transferred some ex-USAF C-130s to partners under what’s called the “ramp for ramp” program.

“We are going to take a stronger look at how we’re advertising to partners what the third-party transfer menu looks like,” he said, referring to U.S.-type aircraft that may be in the boneyard or with countries seeking to divest.

“So, in the coming months, I think we’ll be working on a better way to share that with our partners so they know what’s available.”

The recent purchases of F-16s for the Adversary Air role don’t go through Bruckbauer’s organization, he said, but are “direct commercial sales” by the countries selling the jets.

On the recent sale of the F-35 to the United Arab Emirates, a letter of acceptance has been signed by the UAE, but it has not provided the deposit money, Bruckbauer’s staff said. The Biden administration is reviewing the sale.

Lack of JADC2 Coordination Across Services is ‘Recipe for Disaster,’ Analyst Warns

Aug. 6, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Defense Department is setting up a “recipe for disaster” if it does not establish a joint program executive office to coordinate joint all-domain command and control efforts across services, a top defense analyst is warning.

In a brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Aug. 5, Todd Harrison, director of the center’s Aerospace Security Project, argued that DOD’s current approach risks individual services, combatant commands, and agencies all developing “multiple stove-piped networks that do not allow the kind of interoperability and resilience that would be possible with a more coordinated approach.”

A prime example of that risk, Harrison told Air Force Magazine in an interview, is the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System. While Air Force leaders envision ABMS as a whole new approach to command and control that will be central to larger JADC2 efforts, Army leaders have expressed skepticism that it will be able to scale widely enough to meet their needs.

“In ABMS, the Air Force is developing a system that may work well for connecting a few thousand aircraft, but the same system may not work well for connecting hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and their equipment) on the ground,” Harrison wrote in his brief. “And if the Army and Navy develop their own independent battle networks, connecting them to ABMS may end up being an afterthought or, worse, an unfunded requirement.”

The Army’s doubts about ABMS come even after the Air Force and Army reached a two-year agreement in October 2020 to work more closely together on their respective JADC2 efforts—the Army has dubbed its venture “Project Convergence.”

Those concerns, Harrison said, speak less to potential flaws in ABMS and more to the broader problem of coordination.

“I think the fact that the Army is publicly voicing its concerns that ABMS is not going to meet their needs just reflects the fact that the Air Force doesn’t really have a mandate to build a system that will meet the needs of the Army and the Navy and the other services,” Harrison said.

“The Air Force’s mandate is to build its own system, and so I think that that is a role and a mission that is an organizational problem that needs to be addressed right away.”

Establishing a joint program office, Harrison added, would ensure efforts are properly funded and synchronized. And as part of that office, one service would have to take the lead.

“I think the Air Force [or the] Space Force could lead this, because a lot of this is going to happen in or through space,” Harrison said. “But they’ve got to pick someone and put them in charge of that, [and] have representatives from all the other services so that they can advocate for their work environment, but if you don’t have a single belly button in charge … then it’s a recipe for disaster.”

In his brief, Harrison noted five “layers” to JADC2—sensors, communications, processing, decision, and effects. As part of that process, he wrote, many sensors will be air- or space-based, and much of the communication will likely involve space as services turn to free-space laser communication, also called lasercom.

“One of the key challenges we face is adversaries using electromagnetic warfare to disrupt our communication systems, and lasercom is much more resilient to interference, just because of the nature of it, … so I think that makes it very important,” Harrison said.The Air Force explored the possibility of lasercom communication with its Transformational Satellite Communications System started in 2003, but the program was eventually cut in 2009. Harrison noted, however, that the technology has been utilized in several recent projects from various private and public agencies.

AMC Frees Up KC-46 for More Refueling Operations

Aug. 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Air Mobility Command on Aug. 6 announced it is freeing up the KC-46 for more operations, allowing the tanker to refuel C-17s, B-52s, and other KC-46s in some circumstances.

It is the second “interim capability release” for the troubled tanker. AMC last month cleared it to refuel aircraft with its centerline drogue. In February, AMC said allowing KC-46s to pick up some of the tanker load in non-combat tasks can free up legacy KC-135s and KC-10s to fill more of those responsibilities.

AMC boss Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost, in announcing the plan in February, said, “under this new approach, if AMC is tasked to provide [aerial refueling] support for an operational coronet mission to move F-18s overseas or an operational B-52 mission, the KC-46 is on the table, which frees up KC-135s and KC-10s to execute other combatant command deployments that the KC-46A is presently unable to support with its existing deficiencies.”

As of July, KC-46s have flown more than 5,000 sorties, with 2,700 of those this year. The command reviewed the tanker’s operational criteria in recent months and determined it was ready for more taskings from U.S. Transportation Command, said Brig. Gen. Ryan R. Samuelson, AMC’s deputy director of strategy, plans, requirements, and programs and the KC-46 cross-functional team lead, in a release.

“Though a fully-mission capable aircraft is a few years away, releasing capability our KC-46 bases have demonstrated they can safely and effectively support and employ is a large part of how AMC is accelerating the KC-46 on the path to becoming fully operational and combat-ready,” Samuelson said.

There’s no timeline for the next announcement, according to AMC. The capability releases come as the command and other leaders determine the tanker can conduct more operations, based on the abilities of the crews and data from recent operations.

Since October 2020, KC-46s have conducted more than 4,700 refueling contacts with C-17s, B-52s, and other KC-46s, according to AMC.

The command, in announcing the ICR plan, said it aimed to pick up the refueling load in taskings for training, exercises, and some “coronet” deployments—carrying fighters or other aircraft on their deployments outside of the U.S. The KC-46s will not deploy for combat operations until fully operational.

There are still several Category 1 deficiencies on the tanker, defined as those that may affect pact the safety of flight. The most notable ones are with the tanker’s troubled Remote Vision System, which is being overhauled with a 2.0 version expected to become operational in 2023, and with the tanker’s “stiff” refueling boom, which is blocking it from refueling A-10s.

The Air Force in June announced two more Category 1 deficiencies, which are being fixed at Boeing’s expense. These center on instability with the aircraft’s Flight Management System software and its receptacle drain tubes. Boeing has a design fix in place and is “working through the process to get that finalized and then get it through the system,” said Paul Waugh, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s executive officer for mobility and training aircraft, during an Aug. 3 virtual event. “I think those two latest fixes … are well on track to be in resolve.”

RQ-4 Global Hawk Drone Crashes in North Dakota

Aug. 6, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

An RQ-4 Global Hawk crashed several miles away from Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D., on Aug. 6, the Air Force announced.

The unmanned aircraft went down in a rural field near Gilby, N.D., and no injuries were reported. According to the Grand Forks Herald, a fire was extinguished at the scene.

The cause of the crash or the current status of the drone have not yet been released, but the 319th Reconnaissance Wing is on site for recovery operations and an investigation, which could take several weeks, Vice Commander Col. Jeremy Fields said in a statement.

The Global Hawk that crashed was a Block 40 variant, one of just 10 in the Air Force fleet, all of which are stationed at Grand Forks. The Block 40 variant achieved initial operational capability in August 2016 and can fly up to 60,000 feet. It is used for high-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

RQ-4s have been at the center of some of the Air Force’s recent budget disputes with Congress—on several occasions, the legislature has blocked or placed limits on the service’s attempts to retire some of the ISR drones. In its most recent budget request, the service asked to retire 20 Global Hawks. Air Force leaders have said the drone cannot survive in contested environments and projected that its successor will be available by the end of the 2020s.

The Aug. 6 crash marks the third time in the past 18 months that an Air Force drone has gone down. Pilots deliberately crashed an MQ-9A Reaper in June 2020 after the aircraft suffered a major fuel leak while flying over Africa, and another MQ-9 crashed that same month in Syracuse, N.Y., when its pilot mixed up the controls.

As Air Force Ramps Up JASSM, Work Begins on its Replacement

Aug. 5, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

“Preliminary” discussions and “early development work” about how to pursue the next long-range conventional stealth missile are underway, even as the Air Force ramps up production of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, said Brig. Gen. Heath A. Collins, head of the service’s armament directorate.

“We’re in initial conversations on what happens after JASSM,” Collins told reporters Aug. 4, calling the discussions “very preliminary” and giving no timetable as to when the Air Force would want a JASSM successor. It will be looked at “in the years to come,” he said. Lockheed Martin, which makes JASSM, recently built a new production facility in Troy, Ala., to increase capacity. It could open for work as soon as October. Collins said the new facility will “increase our production rate.”

In the meantime, the Air Force is “still in the midst of getting as many JASSMs as we can into our inventory, to meet our objective,” Collins said during a media roundtable during the online Air Force Life Cycle Industry Days.

The Air Force got 400 of the missiles in its enacted fiscal 2021 budget after buying 390 in 2020. The service requested 525 in its 2022 budget proposal.

The Air Force only has a “small ramp-up” planned for the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) variant of JASSM, Collins said. He declined to say why the service is only buying a small handful of LRASMs, saying only that requirements are determined by the Air Staff. Not as many Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles will be needed as Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles because “of the target set we’re going after.”

The JASSM-ER (extended range) is the preferred version, and the Air Force is “transitioning” to the B2 version of the missile while doing “initial … tech insertion” to create a “D” version of the missile, Collins reported, saying the directorate will “continue to evolve” the weapon. The D model provides “more flexibility.”

A Lockheed Martin spokesperson said the Air Force executed a modification to its 2018 JASSM contract Aug. 3, “giving the program the go-ahead for several missile enhancements and capability upgrades that will be cut-in in upcoming production lots.” These will be “formally recognized” with the designation AGM-158B-2, she said. Future variants are being planned, but LMCO left it to the Air Force to discuss their designations. Neither the Air Force nor Lockheed Martin could immediately comment on what new capabilities the updates provide.

Collins said the JASSM also is the preferred munition for Air Force Research Laboratory’s “palletized munition” program, in which an airlift aircraft could launch salvos of missiles, but he could not elaborate on it. “We are supporting [it] from a weapons expertise perspective,” he said.

“We have not started any conversations” with Air Force Global Strike Command about pursuing a conventional version of the in-development Raytheon Technologies AGM-181 Long-Range Stand Off missile, the nuclear successor to the AGM-86B with a range reportedly in excess of 1,800 miles, he said. AFGSC boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray said earlier this year that a conventional version of LRSO would be worth pursuing, just as a conventional version of the air-launched cruise missile was developed and used in conflicts since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. But he said he had not issued a requirement for such a weapon.

Collins could not give any new details about the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM), revealed at the same conference two years ago, when then-program executive officer Maj. Gen. Anthony W. Genatempo, said it would be ready for tests from the F-22 in 2022. Collins said the Air Force is “pushing forward and executing” the program, but he is restricted from further comment due to its sensitivity. The missile is set to replace the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile sometime this decade and is purported to have a range to compete with China’s new long-range air-to-air missiles such as the PL-15.

Genatempo forecast production lots of JATMs in the hundreds of units and said AMRAAM production will start tailing off as the JATM ramps up. The Air Force’s 2022 budget request included a reduction in AMRAAM production from previous years.

The Air Force is finalizing its acquisition strategy on the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) and will “move out on that later this year,” Collins said. Although the program started out as a variant of the Northrop Grumman AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile, Collins said the plan will be to open the program up to “a competitive contract.” The AGM-88G is the Navy’s successor to the High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).

Although SiAW will be a stand-in weapon, Collins explained that the “extended range” means it can go farther than the initial Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile, but that he could not discuss ranges. “ER on AARGM means something different than ER on JASSM,” he offered.

Collins said the Air Force is aware of various papers published in recent years suggesting the Air Force could get more punch out of its direct-attack munitions by putting range-extending motors on them, noting the service is moving in that direction.

“We have a program [called]… GPAW, the Global Precision Attack Weapon, which is in its early phases, looking at concepts of what the future direct attack weapon looks like,” he said. “And in that study space, there are certainly a number of options [that include] … putting a motor on existing weapons.” The armaments directorate is also looking at the Army/Navy/Marine Corps Joint Air-to-Ground Missile-Fighter, which is a project to replace the Hellfire and Maverick missiles.

Collins said he’s heard the term “fifth-generation weapons for fifth-generation aircraft” but could not bound the term, saying he thinks of hypersonic missiles as the next generation of weapons. Practically all other munitions in USAF’s inventory are being fitted to, or designed to fit in, the F-35, he said, so they all could, technically, be considered “fifth-generation weapons.”

Pratt & Whitney Outlines Vision for Renewing the B-52

Aug. 5, 2021

The Air Force has set an ambitious goal for the B-52 Stratofortress: Update the aircraft for the modern battlefield so the legendary bomber can continue flying combat missions at least 100 years after its first flight. Central to the Air Force’s plan are new engines, which should slash maintenance and fuel costs while delivering significantly improved mission performance and reliability.

“There’s never been a better time to upgrade the B-52 with a modern commercial engine that will provide huge benefits to both the warfighter and the taxpayer,” said former B-52 pilot, retired Lt. Gen. Michael R. Moeller, who is now Vice President for military engines and integrated customer solutions at Pratt & Whitney.

Emerging weapons systems and technologies, evolving mission requirements, and budgetary necessity make the case for engines that deliver better fuel burn, more electrical power generation, and lower life-cycle costs while reducing environmental impacts such as carbon and noise emissions.

Today’s B-52 is a lot like the one Air Force Maj. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara, the director of strategic plans at the Air Force Global Strike Command, piloted early in his career. But once new engines are on board it will be “a very different B-52 than what I flew as a lieutenant.”

With nearly 70 years of experience in the B-52 world, Pratt & Whitney could yet again have the best solution for powering this aircraft. It’s offering the award-winning PW800, which Moeller said is the right fit, offering best in class fuel burn, maintainability, and will be the most sustainable option on the table. Additionally, the size and weight savings of the PW800 avoids the significant integration risks of larger, heavier engines.

A B-52 powered by eight PW800s would meet the Air Force’s goal to extend the jet’s range by up to 40 percent and increase time on station—or loiter time—in the bargain Moeller said.

The Air Force’s request for proposals (RFP) for the engine replacement program, issued in May 2020, stated a requirement for 608 new engines, which would equip all 76 of the B-52 bombers still in its inventory. The service wants a modern, reliable commercial engine in the growth phase of its life cycle and intends to mount them—as in the past—in pairs, with four engines on each wing. To hold down development costs, Air Force leaders ruled out changing the engine configuration or making any significant change in size. The intent is that these engines will essentially be one-for-one replacements with minimal integration work, and no impact to the aircraft structure.

“The replacement engine must have good physical and performance fit,” said Moeller. “It should provide affordability with low integration risk. It should have life-cycle cost benefits, significant savings in fuel-burn, and operate without scheduled overhauls over the life of the program. Overall, maintenance should be significantly less than the current engine. And the PW800 demonstrated all these capabilities through data-based digital engineering during the Air Force’s integration study.”

One unstated benefit of the PW800 is that it’s in the “sweet spot of its life cycle,” Moeller said. The Air Force will want an engine that is sustained by commercial market volume today and decades into the future. The Service doesn’t want an engine that is nearing its commercial sunset and is unsustainable in the future because the commercial market disappeared. The “sweet spot” is that period when a product is in its growth phase with an active commercial market for decades to come. This ensures spare parts availability with a pool of experienced maintainers working with a global sustainment support structure for the life of the program.

Chris Johnson, Vice President of Fighter and Mobility Programs, said, in addition to being in that “sweet spot,” the PW800 is perfectly matched to the mission. “The PW800 is a combination of the right thrust, the right physical size, and very low weight to provide all the required aircraft performance with exceptionally low fuel consumption,” he said.

Pratt & Whitney’s PW800 engine is a proven commercial product, promising 30 percent less fuel burn and saving some 5,400 pounds of weight per aircraft. **Pratt & Whitney**

The PW800 will stay on wing for decades longer than the RFP requires, Johnson said, and will meet or exceed every capability requirement. While the engine is almost the same dimensional size as the legacy TF33, the combined weight savings over eight engines is 5,000 pounds. That means less wing stress, improved fuel efficiency, and increased capacity for under-wing payloads.

No other option delivers so much weight savings, Johnson said. “The nearest competitor is over 3,000 pounds heavier than the PW800 [for all eight engines],” Johnson said. The other competitors are as much as 6,000 pounds heavier.

As a modern, commercial engine, “the PW800 is fundamentally designed for long life,” said Paraag Borwankar, associate director for PW800 customer programs at Pratt & Whitney. “This design philosophy means the engine won’t require its first overhaul until well beyond the expected life of the B-52 program.”

The PW800 features large access panels to facilitate inspections and a modular design that supports quick access to swap out line-replaceable units (LRU), ensuring rapid intervention capability for Air Force maintenance crews and high mission-readiness rates.

For those rare cases where more extensive maintenance is necessary, Pratt & Whitney has invested $30 million in its Bridgeport, W.Va., maintenance, repair, and overhaul facility, which is dedicated to working on PW800 engines.

“The thing about this program is that the PW800 just works. It really does,” said Johnson. Not that this was easy or without effort, he added. “We’re integrating an electronically controlled entity into what used to be a hydraulically controlled aircraft,” Johnson explained. It’s complex, but a workable challenge. “The system engineering works. It’s all been pretty seamless.”

The Air Force will rely on the B-52 for decades longer as the stand-off element of a multi-level bomber strategy. In hotly contested airspace, the B-2 Spirit and stealthy F-22 and F-35 fighter aircraft will penetrate air defenses and attack as “stand-in” forces, while B-52s and B-1s, without their radar-evading properties, will be used as “stand-off” forces, firing weapons from a safe distance and benefitting from the increased range and loiter times the PW800 will deliver. B-52s can also serve as nuclear-capable bombers and for close air support of ground combat troops, as was frequently the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“We understand the critical role the B-52 plays in defending our country and protecting freedom around the world,” Moeller said. “We’re committed to providing a propulsion solution that keeps the B-52 operationally viable for decades to come. And we look forward to the opportunity to continue this partnership with the USAF to power the B-52 with the PW800.”

Air Force Superintendents to Get New Titles

Aug. 5, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is changing how it refers to the top enlisted Airmen in detachments, squadrons, and groups.

Starting Oct. 1, Superintendents will instead be referred to as Senior Enlisted Leaders, or SELs, according to a memo from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Joanne S. Bass.

The memo, dated Aug. 4, which was posted to the unofficial Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page and independently confirmed by Air Force Magazine, states that the change “better synchronizes us with Joint Force doctrine, practices, and culture.” The Navy and Army both use the title.

“Today’s modern threats call for a new level of teaming and partnerships to defend the security of our nation,” the memo added. “To support this mission imperative, it is important that our duty titles reflect the key leadership roles many of our senior noncommissioned officers serve in.”

Superintendent as a title has usually been given in the Air Force to a chief master sergeant or a senior master sergeant who serves as the top enlisted leader in a division or unit. There are more than 770 group superintendents in the service.

There will be no change in pay as a result of the title change, and no enlisted evaluations closed out prior to Oct. 1 will need to be modified, the memo added.

“We intentionally chose to avoid waiting to make this decision,” Brown and Bass wrote in the memo. “As a service, we will keep accelerating positive change, when and where it’s needed, to align us towards our Air Force goals and priorities.”