Raymond: Expect the Space Force to Provide Tactical ISR

May 12, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Space Force will move more into the role of providing space-based tactical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—a role typically filled by the Intelligence Community—with a new ground moving target indicator capability possibly coming soon.

USSF Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond said that since small satellites have become more operationally relevant and the cost of launches has dropped, “there’s a role here for the Space Force and tactical-level ISR.” U.S. Space Command and the Space Force’s predecessor Air Force Space Command have not typically participated in this role, but now is the time to provide the service in a role that is “complementary” to what already exists, he said.

“I really believe this is an area that we will begin to migrate to, because we can do it and we can do it in a way that doesn’t break the bank and is focused on our joint and coalition partners,” Raymond said May 12 at the McAleese FY2022 Defense Programs Conference.

One specific mission area is GMTI. Space-based tracking of ground targeting is possible through leveraging commercial capabilities. Raymond said to be on the lookout for more on this, though he did not provide specifics.

Space and Missile Systems Center boss Lt. Gen. John F. Thompson, speaking during a May 12 Mitchell Institute Space Power Forum, said, “We look forward to sharing details” on what this will include. There are “many” small and medium businesses, startups, and other organizations that have relevant capabilities already and “we are confident that we can procure … that data in a commercial way.”

Space and Missile Systems Center commander Lt. Gen. John F. Thompson speaks with retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies virtual Space Power Forum on May 12.

The service is also expanding its missions by absorbing systems from the Army and Navy. The services recently reached an agreement on what can move into the Space Force, and Raymond said officials are now finalizing plans.

The Space Force is not “breaking into the other services.” Instead, its roles need to be “value added, not subtracted.” In the service’s first year, it determined which USAF capabilities would transfer, and over the past several months, that work has focused on the Army and Navy.

“It’s those areas where it will increase readiness of both services and the joint force, it will save some costs, and will allow us to develop our people in a way that is more effective,” Raymond said.

Rep. Brown Explains Support for Full F-35 Buy

May 12, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The F-35’s operational success outweighs its readiness and sustainment challenges, it is making progress against those issues, and it is too strategically important not to keep funding, House Armed Services committee member Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Maryland) said at a defense conference.

Speaking at the McAleese FY2022 Defense Programs Conference on May 12, Brown explained that he signed a letter from 132 House lawmakers to the body’s leadership urging full F-35 support because “it’s performing well” in “executing … real-world missions.”

The April 28 letter by the leaders of the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus urged the House leadership to support whatever request the services submit for buying F-35s in fiscal 2022 as well as any that appear on their “unfunded requirements” lists. The letter was prompted by recent comments from House subcommittee leaders Reps. John Garamendi (D-California) and Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) that they would oppose adding any F-35s to service requests this year in order to let the sustainment system catch up to the aircraft already in service. Sustainment rates on the F-35 have been the biggest of several sticking points in the program.

The F-35 is “the most expensive procurement, and likely the most expensive sustainment program in the history of the department, there’s no doubt about it,” Brown said. He has concerns about delays to full-rate production and whether this will call into question “whether the technology is still leading and ahead of our adversaries.”

He also noted “challenges” with software, simulators, and integrating the F-35 in the Joint Simulation Environment, as well as chronic issues relating to the Autonomic Logistics Information System and “setting up the government-operated and maintained depots.”

However, the F-35 is “a capability that we dramatically need, certainly as we’re pivoting to the Indo-Pacific,” and it is complementary to other needs in that theater, notably “other fighters, and the bomber fleet, [and] the refueling fleet.” He called it “integral to air dominance” and urged that Congress “continue the investment. We are making progress. There is frustration around the pace of progress, but we are going to get there.”

Brown is a Harvard-educated, 25-year veteran of the Army, in which he served as an aviator and a lawyer. His 4th district in Maryland is adjacent to the 8th district, home to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35.

In an April 22 hearing on the F-35, Garamendi said he would put up “one hell of a fight” if fellow lawmakers urged adding unrequested F-35s to the fiscal 2022 budget. Garamendi said that the sustainment enterprise for the fighter was built around an expectation of a certain number of aircraft, and that steady congressional adds have contributed to sustainment woes by making it impossible for the enterprise to meet the demand imposed by the greater number of aircraft.

The letter also urged the leadership to support increases in F-35 sustainment accounts, saying that current predictions indicate the depots “may only be able to meet 42 percent of the required repair capacity.”

In fiscal 2021, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps requested 79 F-35s, collectively, but Congress added an additional 17 aircraft to the overall buy. The Air Force has indicated it would like to buy just 48 F-35s a year and buy the bulk of its fleet of the Block 4 configuration, which will be more capable, particularly in the kinds of weapons it carries and in its electronic warfare suite.

House NDAA Vote Not Expected Until After August as Infrastructure Takes Priority

May 12, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The 2022 defense policy bill won’t get out of committee until July, as the Biden administration has not yet released its proposed budget and is making a major infrastructure bill its main priority, a key lawmaker said May 12.

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Maryland), a House Armed Services Committee member who serves on both the tactical air and land forces and emerging threats subcommittees, said during the McAleese FY2022 Defense Programs Conference that lawmakers have called for the administration to “expedite” the delivery of the budget to start the process.

However, the Democratic leadership has said the proposed American Rescue Plan should be up for a final vote before the August recess, and “if that happens, it will clearly happen before the defense authorization act,” Brown said.

This means the bill won’t get out of committee until June and “maybe as late as July,” with a full House vote after the August recess.

Because of this timeline, and recent Congressional history, Brown said while he is “not inviting” a continuing resolution, “Certainly we should all anticipate it” and hope that any such resolution “will not be for an extended period of time.”

Air Force officials warned last year that yet another continuing resolution would harm national security and prevent the department from acquiring the technology needed to compete in great power competition.

While the full budget proposal has not been released, the Biden administration announced last month it would propose $715 billion in funding for the Pentagon, and $753 billion in total for national security. The proposal would do away with the overseas contingency operations funding account and is a drop from the previous Trump administration’s projected $722 billion proposal for fiscal 2022. Republicans already are gearing up for a budget battle, saying the Defense Department should receive $753 billion in its topline budget.

Wittman Calls for 3- to 5-Percent Increase in Defense Budget As Some Dems Seek Cuts

May 12, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak and Amy Hudson

The fiscal 2022 Pentagon budget should be three to five percent over last year’s enacted budget to ensure the U.S. military is properly trained and equipped to respond to today’s threats, said Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Virginia), ranking member of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee.

The 2021 defense policy bill authorized $740.5 billion in spending for the Pentagon and other national security programs. President Joe Biden’s budget is expected to include a total of $753 billion for national security, but Wittman’s office said that number really should be at least $762.7 billion to show real growth.

At a separate event, House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Maryland) said many in his party want cuts in defense, with some Democrats calling for cuts of up to 10 percent.

“That would be devastating, I think, to both readiness and future readiness or modernization,” Brown said during a Center for Strategic and International Studies budget event. “On the other hand, you have Republicans calling for 3- to 5-percent growth above the inflation rate. That’s not going to happen, either. I think where the administration has come in—and what they’re proposing at 1.7 percent” over Trump’s 2021 request of $705 billion for the base defense budget—that increase, he said, is “to address inflation over last year’s level. I think that’s where we’re going to be.”

Brown said he would support increased spending as long as the U.S. is also investing in non-defense programs that also support national security. “If we’re making major investments in defense, traditional defense, and we’re not investing in our workforce, then we may not have the skilled workers to deliver the systems, the programs, the platforms, the facilities, that the Department of Defense needs,” he said. “So I really do think that you’ve got to invest in the workforce, you’ve got to invest in research and development, beyond just the aerospace and defense industries.”

The ’22 request is the first not affected by the 2011 Budget Control Act, which led to sequestration in 2013, the effects of which are still being felt. Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Eric Fanning, speaking during the same CSIS event, cautioned against another “budget drill,” saying DOD already has seen what happens when you cut too much, too quickly.

“But second of all, it’s decoupled from strategy. Show me a strategy that we can meet with 90 percent of the current budget, and that’s a more interesting conversation,” said Fanning, a Pentagon veteran who has been Secretary of the Army, Acting Air Force Secretary, Undersecretary of the Air Force, and Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy. “You can’t rob Peter to pay Paul. We can’t pay for even a noticeable fraction of what we’re talking about this year, in all of the bills, with a budget exercise with the Department of Defense, [especially when the] department is facing new threats and is participating in all of the crises that we’re going through right now,” including COVID-19 relief support.

Absent the higher topline, “You’re going to have to take out resources, and that’s absolutely unacceptable,” Wittman said. He also expects the services to offer savings and “places where we can avoid duplication” in the defense budget.

Wittman said he’s pushing hard to grow the Navy from 305 ships to “over 400.” He rejected the Navy’s plan to retire some legacy platforms early in order to rebuild capacity later.

“The Navy is looking at things we ought to question,” he said. The number of cruisers the Navy plans to retire would result in a reduction of 1,200 missile tubes, he said.

“How does that get replaced? They say, ‘Wait four or five years, and we’ll get that capacity back.’ … Not acceptable,” he said. He wants a better “transition plan” explaining how the Navy will retain existing capabilities until it has new ones in hand.

Wittman touted the need to expand the Navy’s long-range precision strike capability because it will “create greater degrees of uncertainty for our adversaries, especially the Chinese.” A larger number of ships equipped with such weapons will “create a larger number of scenarios for our adversaries, so they can’t quite predict what we are going to do, or what we can do. We want to elevate the level of uncertainty for our adversaries.” This will “level the playing field” and aid deterrence, he said.

His comments come as the Army also is prioritizing long-range strike, calling itself an “all-domain” force. When asked if now is the time for a new roles and missions review, Fanning suggested that should be an ongoing thing for the Department of Defense.

“Sometimes you want duplication—sometimes competition is good among the services. There probably should be some more, actually. Put the target set in front of them, let them experiment and come back with solution sets, and see where you’re going to invest,” Fanning said. “But, I think a regular review of roles and missions is always a good idea, especially as the strategy has pivoted to great power competition from what we’ve been doing the last couple of decades. I think it’s important to take a look at where we are.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated at 6:18 p.m. on May 13 to clarify the topline number.

U.S. Military Needs an EMS Warfare Czar

May 11, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The U.S. military has fallen behind China and Russia in electromagnetic spectrum warfare, and one of the key ways to start pulling even again is to create a position in the Office of the Secretary of Defense with the clout to manage the joint electronic warfare enterprise, experts said on a Hudson Institute webinar.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska), co-chair of the House electromagnetic spectrum operations caucus, said Congress has “tried to fix” the problem of oversight but has gotten pushback from the Pentagon.

“One of the problems [was] … no one was in charge of EW. Everybody felt like they owned a piece of it,” said Bacon, who previously had an Air Force career specializing in electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

“Somebody in the Pentagon needs to know they own it,” he said. The services have told him that oversight rests with their Chief or Vice Chief, but he insisted that won’t work because those officers have too much on their plate already to devote the attention to EMSO that it deserves.

“You need someone at the one- or two- star level that says, ‘This is my problem. I own it,’” Bacon asserted. There was recently a two-star officer in charge of EW, but it was a temporary position, and “we need to fix that … We need to make that permanent,” he said, promising the caucus will “push” this initiative. There needs to be an EMSO czar with “an enterprise view,” he added.

In the Air Force, electronic warfare lost status in the 1990s as the service downgraded the electronic warfare chief from a two-star position to a colonel with other duties as well, Bacon said. Meanwhile, on the Joint Staff, there was “nobody in charge.”

Bacon also said there should be “a hardwired funding process” for electronic warfare, and this, too, needs an enterprise perspective to counter measures being taken by China and Russia in the EMS. Today, there are “tons of funding lines” for projects that may or may not work well together.

Rep. James Langevin (D-Rhode Island), Bacon’s EMSO caucus co-chair, said Congress needs to “undo the damage that’s been done” in EMSO oversight.

What is needed is “a policy person in charge, like a deputy assistant secretary in charge of the strategy and implementation” across the services, Langevin said. “We don’t have that right now.” The services need to accept that, “We are … operating in environments that are contested and congested, whether we like it or not.”

If Congress doesn’t force the issue, “the strategy will end up like the 2013 and 2017 [EMS and EW] strategies,” which didn’t lead to decisive action. “I’m determined that’s not going to happen this time. We’re going to get it right.”

He noted that Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said in January that the Air Force is “embarrassed” that it has neglected the EMS battle for so long. Brown called for an Air Staff EMS warfare strategy to be unveiled this spring.

Langevin also said the EMS enterprise needs to shift away from hardware-centric to software-centric systems “that are flexible and networked. And that’s not the way it is right now.”

Bacon noted that EMS has gotten attention in the Pentagon recently only because Congress has demanded it, and said Congress would keep up the pressure.

Bryan Clark and Timothy A. Walton presented a synopsis of their recent paper on EMS for the Hudson Institute, titled “The Invisible Battlefield: A Technology Strategy for U.S. Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority.”

China and Russia, Clark said, have “centralized” organizations for EW and EMS that drive doctrine and technology priorities across their joint forces, something the U.S. should emulate.

“They’ve got strong leadership at the top,” Clark said. “They’ve got strategic-level organizations that manage their national-level electronic warfare missions” while the U.S. “is much more diffuse.” Many organizations in the U.S. military oversee electronic warfare, “and our systems are not pushed down to lower echelons as they are in the Chinese and Russian militaries,” he said.

“Our field forces don’t necessarily have the ability to distribute” information, and American EW systems are not numerous enough “to get sent out with every small unit that might get deployed.”

Walton said China has, since 2006, “organized so that all military units have capabilities and training to reduce their signatures, employ camouflage, employ active and passive decoys of various types.” The Chinese have also “continued to reorganize the force.” In 2015, the People’s Liberation Army stood up an EW czar on its joint staff with “an overview of EW and cyber missions throughout the force.”

China has set up a strategic EW support force, and within each service an EW, space, and cyber division, with “their own dedicated organizations for sensing [and] reconnaissance, focused on offensive and defensive electronic attack.” These specific capabilities include “low- and high-powered jammers and directed energy weapons.” Their multi-static sensors mean they can detect intruding platforms “even if they’re not emitting,” making it “very challenging for U.S. forces to know when they’re being detected or targeted. “

Meanwhile, Walton said, Russia has invested in “more mobile, integrated forces; more agile static capabilities; and more automated capabilities,” leveraging artificial intelligence and cognitive systems “to coordinate options throughout the EMS spectrum.” Russia tried out equipment and techniques in Syria and Ukraine, using lessons learned to refine their “concepts and capabilities,” he said.

David Tremper, director of electromagnetic warfare in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said he sees opportunities for the U.S. in EMS efficiencies. Multiple services can create EW capabilities, which can port directly to the other services, he said, creating an investment multiplier effect.

“EW is unique in that I can transfer capabilities between services and I don’t need redundant systems,” he asserted. “I can spend a dollar and get five dollars’ worth of capability.” This will allow the U.S. military to “achieve efficiency that lets me absorb a flat or declining budget.” There are many opportunities for “cross-pollination” among the services, and the Army and Marine Corps are already making strides in this area, he said.

Connecting EW systems with common standards would also create “a pretty good network without any new sensors” for “consumption outside the box,” he said. This would allow U.S. forces to crowdsource awareness and achieve massive operations … and increase our survivability.”

Tremper said there are opportunities to be found without “big dollar investments” but instead through “changes in the paradigm.”

“We do have to realize we have a problem,” Bacon said. “We’ve had lots of studies … at some point, we have stop studying and start … executing … I want to start seeing some action and close this gap with a plan.”

Hill F-35s Deploy to France for ‘Atlantic Trident’

May 11, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

F-35s and Airmen from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, deployed to Europe this week to take part in multiple exercises, including a major France-led air exercise focused on integrating fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft.

The F-35s from the 4th Fighter Squadron touched down at Mont-de-Marsan Air Base, France, on May 10. The squadron is made up of Active-duty Airmen from the 388th Fighter Wing and Reservists from the 419th Fighter Wing. The base is hosting Atlantic Trident 21, which runs May 17-28, with participants from the U.S., France, and the United Kingdom.

This is the third iteration of the exercise, which will include “complex air operations in a contested multinational joint force environment,” according to a U.S. Air Forces in Europe release.

The last Atlantic Trident exercise took place in May 2017 and was hosted at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. That event included U.S. F-22s and F-35s along with Eurofighter Typhoons from the United Kingdom and French Rafales. The first exercise took place in 2015, also at Langley.

This is the 388th Fighter Wing’s third deployment to Europe. The 34th Fighter Squadron deployed to RAF Lakenheath, England, in April 2017, and the 421st Fighter Squadron deployed to Aviano Air Base, Italy, in May 2019, according to USAFE.

Eglin Testers Load Five JASSMs onto an F-15E

May 11, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, loaded five AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles onto an F-15E, more than doubling the Strike Eagle’s normal JASSM load.

The May 11 test, part of the Project Strike Rodeo at the base, originated from a discussion during a January 2021 conference working group, which focused on a scenario where the standoff missiles would be employed by a bomber escorted by fighters into a contested environment, according to a 53rd Wing release.

Participants in the group “hypothesized that a formation of fighters” could be used to fire the JASSM salvo, reducing the risk to bombers, according to the release. This would require increasing the capability of fighters to carry the large missiles, since the current maximum payload is two JASSMs.

“No one told us to do this,” said Lt. Col. Mike Benitez, the 53rd Wing director of staff, in the release. “We saw the need and the opportunity, so we executed. This infectious attitude drove every unit or office we coordinated with. Everyone wanted to see if we could do it, and no one ever pushed back and asked for a requirement or a formal higher headquarters tasking.”

The test required workarounds to the loading process. JASSMs are designed to be loaded from the base of shipping containers, which cannot fit under the F-15E. The 53rd Wing, the 96th Test Wing, and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center used Squadron Innovation Funds to develop a specialized tool to load the missiles and wrote new procedures for the process.

“This is a squadron innovation effort with operational and strategic implications,” Benitez said in the release. “Project Strike Rodeo is all about creating options for combatant commanders, which ultimately can be used to create multiple dilemmas for the adversary.”

With a successful load test, follow-on flight testing would come next to make the increased capacity a reality for the F-15E fleet.

The test comes about two months after the wing also demonstrated another increase to the F-15E’s payload. In early March, the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron flew an F-15E with six Joint Direct Attack Munitions on a single side, increasing the number of bombs the Strike Eagle can carry to 15.

Airlift Continues Out of Afghanistan as Violence Remains

May 11, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

U.S. C-17s have now flown 104 loads of materiel out of Afghanistan as the retrograde continues, and U.S. Central Command plans to destroy more than 1,800 pieces of equipment.

Between six and 12 percent of the entire retrograde process has been completed since President Joe Biden announced the full withdrawal from Afghanistan last month, CENTCOM said in a May 11 statement.

One base has been handed over to the Afghan National Army, according to CENTCOM. The command will provide updates on the progress every week. Biden has ordered the withdrawal to be complete by Sept. 11, 2021.

Violence, however, remains high. A car bombing that targeted a girls’ school in Kabul on May 9 killed at least 85 people and injured 147, CNN reported.

Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said May 10 that there have not been attacks affecting U.S. forces in the area and that nothing has happened that would impede the progress on drawing down.

The U.S. military has deployed six B-52s to the region, along with an aircraft carrier, to conduct strikes in defense of U.S., coalition, and Afghan forces if needed. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III told reporters last week the military has “adequate resources and capabilities to protect themselves.”

The Defense Department is still determining ways to support Afghan forces following the withdrawal, including possible remote ways to help Afghan Air Force maintainers work on aircraft and new basing agreements with nearby nations to host counter-terrorism forces.

CMSAF: No More PT Delays

May 11, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The Air Force is bringing back physical fitness testing on July 1 after multiple delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass said during a virtual coffee talk May 11.

“Read my lips: We are not changing the PT start date,” Bass said. “We have to have a fit culture, and we will resume PT testing on 1 July. So, again, leadership, make sure your folks are ready. Make sure you’re leading by example. That’s just part of our culture. If you are a fit Airman, you’re a more resilient Airman, and you’re a more ready Airman.”

It’s been more than a year since the Air Force last required PT testing, having delayed it at least four times. Bass said she recognizes that some Airman may have longer-term health effects from contracting the COVID-19 virus, and she called on leaders to work through that on a case-by-case basis.

“If you’ve had COVID and you’ve got some health issues that would prohibit you from being able to be your very best, guess what, as a leader, I’m going to take care of that. I’m not going to throw you out there and say, ‘Hey, it’s your turn.’ You know, that’s not leadership, but it’s not going to be codified in an AFI,” she said.

When the test does resume this summer, it’s going to look different. The service announced in December 2020 it would no longer score the controversial waist measurement, though Airmen will still have to get tape tested each year. Airmen will now be graded with a new scoring system based on a 1.5-mile run and one minute each of pushups and sit-ups. They also will be scored in five-year age groups, instead of 10-year cohorts like the previous test. Bass said the new increment charts will be released June 1.

“We’re going to start there,” Bass said. “From there, the exciting pieces you’ve heard me say before, we are at a point where we should be able to have options to be able to determine what somebody’s cardio fitness is or what their strength is, and we will announce what those will be.”

Bass said the new cardio assessment options are likely to start in January, but the service wants to give Airmen enough time to prepare.

USAF Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg said during a previous coffee talk that the service was looking at alternatives to scoring cardiovascular fitness. Some of the options being explored by the Air Force Fitness Working Group include a 20-meter shuttle run, row ergometry, planks, and burpees.