Report: Military Suicides Since 9/11 Far Exceed Combat Deaths

June 21, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The number of U.S. military service members and veterans who have killed themselves since Sept. 11, 2001, is more than four times the number of service members who have been killed in war operations, according to a report released June 21.

Data compiled by the Costs of War Project, founded by researchers at Brown and Boston universities, showed that an estimated 30,177 Active-duty personnel and veterans of the Global War on Terrorism have taken their own lives, compared to 7,057 deaths in combat.

The massive discrepancy “marks a failure by the military and U.S. society to manage the mental health cost of our current conflicts,” writes researcher Thomas Howard Suitt of Boston University.

The increases in both veteran and Active-duty suicides are outpacing those among the general population, Suitt writes. In particular, data from 2018 showed the adjusted rate of suicides among Active-duty members going above that rate for civilians despite historically being “comparable to U.S. population rates after accounting for age and sex.”

“As we come closer to the twentieth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we must reflect on the mental health cost of the Global War on Terror,” Suitt writes. “The human cost for our veterans and service members far outweighs even the most crippling financial costs we have endured to send them to war.”

The rate of suicide in the military, among Active-duty members, National Guard and Reserve personnel, and veterans, has become an increasingly urgent concern among Department of Defense leaders.

In 2019, the Air Force ordered a one-day stand down to address the rise of suicides among Airmen—109 killed themselves that year, including 82 on Active duty. Both of those numbers were the highest the service had seen since at least 2014. The Pentagon’s annual report for 2020 has not been completed, but the quarterly reports indicated another 109 suicides for the year, 81 among active-duty Airmen.

Through early 2021, though, those numbers have come down, Lt. Gen. Brian T. Kelly, the deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services, told the Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee May 12. The DOD has not released any quarterly reports for 2021.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255.

Maintain and Modernize: Ensuring the Nuclear Deterrent Remains Ready and Able

June 21, 2021

As the Air Force transitions its nuclear missile force from the Minuteman III to the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) in the coming decade, the Air Force will have to manage a delicate balancing act: simultaneously sustain the legacy force while developing and deploying its replacement.

“The handoff between Minuteman III and GBSD is the most complex [replacement operation] ever undertaken between two nuclear weapon systems,” said Col. Luke Cropsey, ICBM Systems director, in a recent Air Force release.

Darrell Graddy, president of Integrated ICBM Support Services (i2S2), a joint venture of three major defense contractors—Leidos, Amentum, and Apex—has spent years managing the complexity surrounding sensitive nuclear programs, so he sees both sides of the challenge: sustaining aging equipment as the supply chain begins to break down and working out the kinks and faults of new systems and cutting-edge technologies.

Minuteman III isn’t just old, it’s getting harder and harder to sustain because critical components are reaching the end of their useful lives. “We’ve got components for which we’re trying to get replacement parts that aren’t in design any longer,” he said. “We’re trying to do the work in some facilities that haven’t been sustained for 60 years.”

The promise of modernization includes the ability to implement digital engineering design and predictive maintenance supported by artificial intelligence (AI), using machine learning (ML) to proactively anticipate when repairs need to be made rather than relying solely on old-school preventative maintenance schedules.

“How are you going to do that?” Graddy asks. Not by patching in piecemeal solutions, but rather by approaching the task holistically in a system of systems approach. “You have to have an integrated sustainment and modernization plan that actually captures all that.”

Modernized tools

Graddy described a vision in which modern tools help assure sustainment for Minuteman III more cost-effectively than today, while at the same time establishing the digital engineering tools and processes that GBSD will require going forward.

Minuteman III was engineered with legacy paper blueprints. GBSD will be engineered digitally, enabling digital models that can be simulated and tested and stressed in a computer environment. The result will be computer models that can predict performance, maintenance requirements, and provide insights into what components and sub-systems to focus system monitors on and gauge the overall operational readiness health of key systems—and how best to do that. AI-enabled sensors will likewise support maintenance, supporting the predictive upkeep that will optimize the use of labor and parts and holds down costs.

Predictive tools will likewise inform the supply chain, tackling a problem that plagues systems like these that must remain operable for 30-50 years, spanning generations of technology refresh. This is why “sustainment costs are consistently becoming a greater challenge,” Graddy said. With predictive analysis, “we allow ourselves opportunities to get in front of that end-of-life situation, to develop new design solutions with vendors, and develop new sources of supply when needed.”

All these advances would require an ongoing investment on the human side.

By training professionals for career-long engagements in ICBM support, “that allows us to have the right people at the right place all of the time,” he said. “That is one of the biggest opportunities for us: To ensure we’re always ready to provide the mission with an agile, flexible and responsive workforce.”

Walking hand in hand

Supporting Minuteman III while simultaneously migrating toward GBSD must be seen as interrelated efforts proceeding hand in hand, Graddy said, because by practical necessity, both must leverage a common approach to modernized technologies.

“They’re going to be using the same critical infrastructures all upgraded and modernized,” Graddy said. “They’re going to be using the same facilities, only upgraded and modernized. They’re going to be using the same workforce—only re-trained in the new technologies.”

With that in mind, “it’s so important to ensure there’s an understanding, where any decision that’s made on Minuteman III is compared to its impact and risk to GBSD acquisition,” he said. By the same token, GBSD technology insertion should be evaluated in terms of how it could impact Minuteman III.

“The two are linked together,” he said. “By integrating all of our planning, and all of our actions, we allow ourselves to sustain with the highest efficiency of operational readiness, and achieve the lowest cost in terms of operational support.”

Highest stakes

All these efforts are unfolding in a high-stakes context. On the one hand, GBSD promises to bring a powerful new capability to the table.

“The GBSD weapon system will have increased accuracy, extended range, and enhanced security, which will ensure that it is responsive to the emerging threat environment and unforeseen contingencies,” said Col. Jason Bartolome, who heads the GBSD Systems Directorate, in a May 2020 news release.

At the same time, the military faces a fast-changing threat landscape. “The Minuteman III was developed and deployed against threats that were known at the time,” Graddy said. Today, “there are new adversaries out there … and new threats are being developed.”

That’s why sustaining and modernizing this nuclear capability is so important.

“The ICBM is a critical asset of the overall nuclear triad for this nation,” Graddy said. “It is the one that’s ready at all times—400 missiles, ready on alert, 24-by-7,” Graddy said. Going forward, our nation is looking to the Air Force and its support community to ensure that capability remains at the highest state of readiness.

“Our opportunity as a systems-engineering and integration support function is to fully support and enable the Air Force and the industry OEMs that are building these new products, these new platforms, these new weapon systems achieving Mission Success,” he said.

Ultimately the success of that effort will depend on the people involved. That means there’s a need for ongoing professional training among those already doing the work, as well as a need to introduce students as early as high school to this critical career field.

“Those students are the potential employees of the future,” Graddy said.

“We’re giving them science, technology, engineering, and math availability and awareness to allow them to expand their knowledge and skills as individuals,” he said. “Why not allow them to have awareness of this vital mission … and allow them to have the opportunity to decide if they want to be a part of it? That’s how we can expand the next-generation workforce.”

With a new generation of digital tools, updated processes, and a trained workforce, it will be possible “to accomplish it all in a manner that ensures the Ground Based Deterrent is sustained and fully operational at all times, to provide the safety and security of this nation and, quite frankly, the globe,” he said. “We do that through collaboration. We do that through integration. We do that through modernization.”

Juneteenth Holiday

June 17, 2021

President Joe Biden on June 17 signed into law Juneteenth National Independence Day, designating June 19 a national holiday to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States 156 years ago. With June 19 falling on a Saturday this year, the federal government will observe the holiday June 18, the Office of Personnel Management announced. In observance of the new federal holiday, the Air Force Association will also close. The Air Force Magazine Daily Report will resume publishing Monday, June 21.

DOD Leaders Want More Arctic Funding, But Not Right Now

June 17, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Pentagon’s 2022 budget is light on funding for defending the Arctic, but Defense Department officials expect future funding requests to rise with the region’s growing importance.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, testifying before the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee June 17, said the current fiscal 2022 request provides only “some capability” for the Arctic, adding, “We have to better resource our Arctic efforts in the future.”

The Pentagon is hashing out a new National Defense Strategy, he said, and “my goal is to make sure that our efforts in the Arctic, our requirements in the Arctic, are reflected in the new National Defense Strategy.”

U.S. Northern Command boss Gen. Glen D. VanHerck testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee June 9 that the Arctic region is not getting the funding it needs. “Senator, I think when I look at the FY22 budget, I see an inching along in all of the services, he said. “I’m encouraged: They all have strategies now, and the department has a strategy, and my strategy heavily relies on the Arctic,” the Air Force four-star said. “But we didn’t move the ball very far down the field this year in the budget.”

The DOD budget proposal does not aggregate funding that applies to the Arctic, but the budget overview does articulate the need to prepare for “contingencies associated with a changing climate, including investments to prepare for an opening Arctic and increased peer competition in that region.”

The Department of the Air Force’s request includes $127 million for the Polar MILSATCOM system and $14 million for radio equipment to support command and control in the Arctic. The department released its first Arctic Strategy last year.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, appearing alongside Austin, said the 2022 budget request provides adequate investment “for right now.” But he said the region will become “increasingly important geostrategically” and that DOD has little choice but to “increase resourcing in the Arctic.”

B-52 Re-engining Cost Up 9% Due to Fresh Data, ‘Industrial Realities’

June 17, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The total program cost of re-engining the B-52H fleet of 76 airplanes will be about $11 billion, a 9 percent jump over a previous estimate because of more up-to-date data, Acting Air Force Secretary John P. Roth told lawmakers June 17.

Roth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that recent press reports of a 50 percent increase are incorrect. This new number reflects information obtained from virtual prototyping of the system, along with “a reassessment of the requirement” and the inherent complexity of integrating a modern, commercial engine onto the “aging platform that the B-52 is,” he said.

The cost increase also takes into account the “realities of buying from the current industrial base,” Roth said.

The Air Force was not immediately able to provide precise numbers, or whether the 9 percent is a base year or then-year cost.

Roth also said the B-52 Commercial Re-Engining Program is one of USAF’s “Pathfinder” programs for using new congressional authorities to conduct “mid-tier” acquisitions, meaning the programs skip time-consuming steps that add little or no value. Using this approach will shave “about three years” off the B-52 CERP, he said. However, he said the approach requires “rigorous metrics” to determine if the approach is working and the willingness to change course if it’s not.

The CERP is also employing a paperless, digital, side-by-side comparison to evaluate various engine candidates for the program. A request for proposals on the CERP is expected to be released this summer.

The B-52 program was initially estimated to cost about $10 billion, but Air Force Global Strike Command and Air Force Materiel Command have said the program will likely “pay for itself” through an expected 30 percent gain in fuel efficiency and sharply reduced maintenance requirements. The engines likely will never be removed from their wings because the aircraft are expected to retire before the engines need an overhaul.

AFGSC boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray said last week the CERP could produce a disproportionate reduction in the need for tanker support of the B-52, as much as a 50 percent drop “depending on the scenario.”

The CERP is part of a number of B-52 improvements, including a replacement of its radar, connectivity upgrades, and a new digital backbone for the aircraft. The FY22 budget request includes $804 million for B-52 improvements, including CERP, the radar modernization program, adding Link 16 support, and mission data gear.

In the June 17 hearing, USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said the CERP is one of the ways the Air Force is answering the Biden administration’s directive for the Pentagon to do its part to address climate change, given the sharp reduction in its fuel consumption if the program is successful.

Pentagon Reviewing Deceptive Air Force ‘Pass-through’ Budget Account

June 17, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The idiosyncrasy that makes the Air Force’s budget appear to be nearly 20 percent larger than its true size is getting a review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, acting Air Force Secretary John P. Roth told the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 17.

“We are actually working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to see if there are some things that could be done” about the situation, Roth said in response to a question from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).

Cramer said the Air Force’s stated budget is $212.8 billion, but the service actually controls only $174 billion of that amount, including the Space Force budget. The remaining $39 billion is the “pass -through” account.

“Can’t we do something about this budgeting system that gives this view that the Air Force is getting a whole bunch of money that they don’t control?” Cramer said.

Roth responded that “There’s classified reasons why that exists” and that in fixing the issue, “we need to make sure that we don’t uncover things that ought not be uncovered.” But he said the Air Force is working with the OSD “to see if there’s some ways to do that. … We are discussing what is in the art of the ‘doable’ with the Secretary of Defense.”

The pass-through account is large—more than twice the size of the Space Force’s spending request of $17.4 billion and about five percent of DOD’s whole budget. When Space Force was created in 2018, many expected the “pass-through” would shift to that service because it’s believed that much of the spending in it is for space and space-related classified programs. But Pentagon leaders have subsequently said it’s not all space-oriented, adding further weight to USAF’s argument that it be discontinued in the interest of budget transparency.

A US Space Force Academy? Raymond Weighs In

June 17, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

Go Space Force, beat Air Force?

At least one U.S. Senator has expressed interest establishing a new service academy dedicated to the fledgling service branch. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) floated the idea June 17 during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, pressing Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond on the topic.

“I’ve spoken in every Academy in our country, leadership, and organization. I’m very proud of them,” Tuberville said. “And I just hope that … we’ve got great institutions in this country, but I think we need something maybe where just we specialize with space.”

Raymond, however, said he didn’t think such an institution was necessary at this point.

“I think one of the things is, as an independent service, you have to develop your own people,” Raymond said. On the officer side, we only bring in about 300 or so folks a year. I’m very comfortable that the Air Force Academy is developing those people for us.

“In fact, you know, two years ago, before the Space Force stood up, we only got 30 cadets out of the Academy. The first year, last year, out of the Academy, we received 86. This year, 118. So we’re coming up on a little less than half of our total population coming from the Academy. And the talent that we’re getting is really top-tier talent, including a Rhodes Scholar. And so the Academy has a strong astro program—they’ve got a strong space program. I’m very comfortable that they are producing the the officers that we need to cover the Space Force, and they’re doing really good work.”

The Space Force has only existed as an independent service branch since December 2019, and no plans for a service academy were included in the service’s initial proposal. Tuberville, however, represents a state with a strong Space Force connection, as the city of Huntsville, Alabama, was selected as the new headquarters for U.S. Space Command. That decision has been protested and is currently under review.

There are five service academies: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Like the Space Force construct, the U.S. Marine Corps commissions officers from the Naval Academy.

While Raymond didn’t sound interested in the idea of a separate Space Force Academy, he did express optimism about the service’s newly launched University Partnership Program, which was initially joined by 10 to 12 schools.

“What we are seeing, and what I am seeing as you go around to the schools, is that there is an increased amount of folks that are applying for space-related STEM degrees, which is important,” Raymond said. “I think it’s going to pay great dividends for our nation. What we’re trying to do with our University Partnership Program is partner with those folks and then attract them to come into the Space program. I’ve talked to [NASA administrator] Nelson—I’d really like to partner with them as well. I think there’s great opportunity here for the youth of America.

USAF, Boeing Resolving Two More KC-46 Deficiencies

June 17, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force and Boeing are addressing two previously unannounced Category 1 deficiencies on the KC-46. The issues, affecting the aircraft’s receptacle drain line tubes and Flight Management System, will be fixed at Boeing’s expense.

“There are no operational restrictions on fielded KC-46s due to either of these deficiencies, nor do they affect [Air Mobility Command’s] plan for KC-46 Interim Capability Release,” said USAF spokesman Capt. Joshua D. Benedetti in a statement. “The [System Program Office] and Boeing have established operational processes and maintenance procedures to mitigate impacts and ensure the issues do not add extra risk to personnel, aircraft or operations.”

The air refueling receptacle drain line developed cracks in low-temperature conditions, according to the Air Force, and Boeing is redesigning the drain tube to address the issue.

The aircraft have also suffered isolated incidents of Flight Management System instability during operations. Boeing and subcontractor GE Aviation identified the need for a long-term software fix, and for the short term, Boeing is developing updated procedures to ensure the system’s stability in flight. The system became an issue in a March 3 flight over the Pacific, causing the crew to use other navigation systems to safely land in Hawaii, according to Defense News, which first reported the deficiencies.

While the fixes have been identified, they are still classified as Category 1 deficiencies. Four others relate to the aircraft’s Remote Vision System, fuel leaks, and a “stiff” refueling boom that requires an actuator redesign. An improved Remote Vision System 2.0 is now in preliminary design review, and the Air Force expects installations to begin in 2023.

Earlier this year, the Air Force resolved two other Category 1 deficiencies on the KC-46: a duct clamp that moved excessively and a drain mast on the outside of the tail that could potentially break loose.

Hundreds of less serious Category 2 deficiencies with the aircraft persist, defined as issues that do not impact the safety of flight and have workarounds in place to continue operations. These include a problem with the jet’s Aerial Refueling Software for which the Air Force has developed a workaround, Air Force Magazine reported.

Brown: DOD Needs Up to 5% More Money, Plus Aircraft Cuts, to Compete With China

June 16, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Even with a 3 percent to 5 percent increase in the defense budget, losing a conflict with China still becomes a “distinct possibility” without both aircraft cuts and a fundamental change in how the Air Force structures itself for war, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. warned lawmakers June 16.

Asked by House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) whether Brown agrees with the 2018 National Defense Strategy Commission’s finding that Pentagon spending should be increased 3 percent to 5 percent, Brown replied simply, “I do.”

Brown said he shares the committee’s concerns over the defense budget’s top line, saying that’s “exactly why I wrote ‘Accelerate Change or Lose’—because I do see risk if we do not.”

The fiscal 2022 budget prioritizes modernization, which drove the Air Force to request retiring some systems now “to ensure that we do not have future risk,” Brown said. He declined to say the Air Force needs a bigger share of the budget despite its key role in deterring China in the Indo-Pacific.

In his opening statement, Brown said the Air Force must bring about change faster because if it continues with “incremental” improvements, “losing becomes a distinct possibility.”

Under questioning from Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Brown said he’s confident the budget matches the “vision” of a 10- to 15-year evolution in the fighter force to a more capable fleet able to deal with China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific.

“We are in a position of transition,” Brown said.

The Air Force is replacing the F-15C with the F-15EX because the C model is “really starting to show its age.” Meanwhile, the service is retaining the youngest F-16s, which can serve “another 15-20 years.” The budget calls for cutting 42 A-10s, with the remaining modernized fleet serving “into the middle of the next decade,” he said. The F-35 will remain the “cornerstone” of the force.

The F-22 will receive upgrades to serve for the same timeframe, then the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter will succeed it. Collectively, Brown refers to this scheme as the “four plus one” fighter fleet plan: the NGAD, F-35, F-15EX, F-16, and A-10.

When asked by Rogers if the committee will receive the service’s Future Years Defense Plan, Roth deferred to the Pentagon.

“You have to understand that as we prepared this FY 22 budget with the Office of the Secretary of Defense,” Roth continued, “given the focus on the short timeframe—and we were late to begin with—but given the short timeframe, the focus was entirely on FY 22. There were no decisions made about the out years, so there really isn’t an out-years FYDP to be provided at this time.”

Under questioning from Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), Brown declined to offer an opinion about whether the U.S. would ever invade China by land or why the “AirSea Battle” concept by the Air Force and Navy, according to Luria, “did not survive first contact with the Joint Staff.” She said a spokesman said the land component was missing from the concept.

“Think about that,” she said. “The missing part of an AirSea Battle concept was the land portion. … I guess the spokesman forgot about the Marine Corps.” Brown said that in the Western Pacific, “Air definitely plays a role.”

He added, “To me, I really do see air and sea, but really, across the Joint team and across all domains is where I expect that conflict to occur.” He said it’s hard to predict if a land invasion would be required but that he wants “to make sure we have options in the future.”

Luria asked Brown if the “1/3, 1/3, 1/3” divisions of funds for the services makes sense in the context of conflict with China and whether he believes “the Air Force and Navy require more resources to deal with this current conflict?” Brown responded that “naturally I’d like to have more” but that the services have to parse out “the redundancies we have” in the context of the Joint Warfighting Concept “to ensure we have the right capabilities for the Joint Force.”

Luria said she wanted to underscore “that I really, strongly believe the Air Force and Navy have a larger role to play in the Western Pacific and was hoping you would come here—just as (Chief of Naval Operations) Adm. (Michael M.) Gilday yesterday—and advocate for that because I think this is truly essential to the defense of our nation and what we might face in the Western Pacific in the future.”