F-15EX Named the Eagle II

April 7, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force unveiled the name of its newest fighter jet—the F-15EX Eagle II—during an April 7 ceremony at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

ANG Director Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh said during the ceremony the F-15EX’s improvements will be key to its mission of homeland defense. The Air National Guard will be the first to receive the new jet operationally.

“The Air National Guard flies 93 percent of homeland defense missions, and along with the F-35A, the F-15EX will help ensure that legacy for many decades to come,” he said. “These brand-new aircraft represent a significant upgrade over the legacy F-15C. A significant upgrade in weapons capacity, including the ability to carry outsize weapons, for these missions and for stand-off roles in the high-end fight.”

The Air Force accepted the first F-15EX on March 10, and it was delivered to the 96th Test Wing at Eglin one day later. The second F-15EX is expected to be delivered to Eglin in the coming weeks, according to Air Combat Command.

Air Force Materiel Command owns the first jet, which is being used for developmental testing, while ACC will own the second F-15EX and use it for operational testing.

“The EX provides a unique opportunity for our test enterprise, as well as the first Air Force aircraft to be completely tested and fielded through combined developmental and operational test,” said Brig. Gen. Scott A. Cain, 96th Test Wing commander, during the ceremony. “This cooperative effort will ensure a rigorous test process that accomplishes rapid delivery to the warfighter.”

USAF plans to buy 144 F-15EXs over 10 to 12 years as its older F-15C/D ages out. The first production lot includes six aircraft, to be delivered in fiscal 2023. Subsequent lots will be delivered to the F-15 schoolhouse at Kingsley Field, Ore., and the first operational base at Portland International Airport, Ore.

Lt. Gen. Duke Z. Richardson, the military deputy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, said during the ceremony that the F-15EX is designed to take advantage of recent advancements in F-15 development funded by foreign partners, and new approaches in digital engineering to speed up the acquisition timeline. The two F-15EXs will be delivered within nine months of the contract award, as opposed to the normal 39 months, Richardson said.

Recent F-15 FMS sales produced digital engineering models for the EX’s nose barrel and wings, with USAF also funding the digital engineering of the jet’s fuselage. The jet is designed with an open mission systems architecture, along with a high speed fiber optics avionics service bus to allow for new, advanced avionics systems to be installed quickly, Richardson said.

“With its large weapons capacity, digital backbone, and open architecture, the F-15EX will be a key element of our tactical fighter fleet and complement fifth-generation assets for decades to come.”

Since the F-15EX is so similar to the existing F-15 fleet, the Air Force is able to use existing infrastructure to “rapidly transition to F-15EX operations and maintenance” and reduce overall schedule risk, Richardson said.

Quick adoption of the F-15EX is needed because of the state of the current F-15C/D fleet, Richardson said. Ten percent of the fleet is grounded due to structural issues, with 75 percent flying beyond their certified service life, he said. The fleet has an average age of 37 years, and a life extension is “cost prohibitive,” he said.

“Undefeated in aerial combat, the F-15 Eagle epitomized air superiority in the minds of our adversaries, allies, and the American people for over 45 years,” he said. “But it was not meant to fly forever. The F-15C and D fleets, in their current state, places us at great risk.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated with more information from the ceremony at 8:53 p.m. on April 7.

Investigators Cite Lack of Seatbelts, Inexperience as Key Factors in Fatal 2020 Kuwait Crash

April 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Three Security Forces Airmen were not wearing seatbelts and were inexperienced in driving the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected All Terrain Vehicle when it crashed on Sept. 12, 2020, at Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, killing one, according to an Air Force investigation.

The crash killed Senior Airman Jason Khai Phan, 26, of Anaheim, Calif. Phan was assigned to the 66th Security Forces Squadron at Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., and was deployed to the 386th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron. It was one of two fatal crashes within days at the Kuwait base.

An Air Force Ground Investigation Board report, released April 5, outlined a culture of lackadaisical seatbelt use reported by some in the squadron, and a lack of oversight for training on the M-ATVs, which saw increased use just before the incident due to “local threats” at the base.

Late Sept. 11, the team of three Airmen loaded into the M-ATV for a 12-hour shift patrolling the area outside the sprawling Kuwait base. Phan was a passenger in the vehicle, which was driven by an Airman who completed local training on the M-ATV the same day the group set out for the patrol.

At about 9 a.m. on Sept. 12, the team was driving on a hard-packed rock and sand road about 2 kilometers from the base when the driver felt the M-ATV pull to the right, like it was getting stuck in sand. To compensate, the driver pulled to the left, and the vehicle then veered left, and the driver lost control.

The M-ATV moved in a serpentine fashion for 100-200 yards, then began to skid at about 43 mph before flipping over and rolling 1.25 rotations before coming to rest on the driver’s side with the back door ripped open. Phan was tossed from the vehicle through the back door, and the other Airman in the vehicle—the truck commander—rushed to him and concluded he had suffered fatal injuries.

The Airman used her personal cell phone to call other Security Forces Airmen to come help, using coordinates from an app to direct them. The other teams in pickup trucks reported the incident to the base’s defense operations center, which dispatched medical support. An ambulance had to follow a SF pickup truck to the incident site, and en route it got stuck on a sand dune. Medical personnel then took the gear they needed from the ambulance and rode in the guide vehicle to the scene, where they pronounced Phan dead.

Investigators, in interviews with members of the squadron, reported a relaxed approach to personal safety and training in the vehicles.

Airmen provided a “wide range of responses” to questions about the culture of safety leading up to the incident, with some saying they would usually buckle the five-point harnesses behind them in the M-ATVs to turn off the seat belt alarm and make it easier to get out.

Additionally, the Airmen in the mishap did not wear their helmets and most of the doors to the vehicle were not locked.

Most of the patrols at Ali Al Salem were conducted using conventional Toyota Hilux pickup trucks, but in the weeks before the incident, leadership directed the use of more M-ATVs per shift because of local threats. However, squadron leadership provided “little involvement or oversight” for local training on the vehicles, according to the investigation. Trainers, who were qualified to instruct, were not appointed by a commander, and did not follow the 47-hour training plan. At least one witness said they expected more experienced drivers to take the first-time operators out, but the flight chief who made the schedule reported not having access to experience levels when making the schedule, the report states.

Valkyrie Successfully Releases UAS in Test

April 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force demonstrated the successful launch of a drone by a larger remotely piloted aircraft on March 26, with the XQ-58A Valkyrie releasing a small UAS from its own internal weapons bay.

The flight test, the sixth for the Valkyrie, marked the first time the aircraft opened its payload bays. Valkyrie also flew both higher and faster than its previous tests, according to an Air Force release.

The Air Force Research Laboratory program, developed with manufacturer Kratos Defense, is designed to be an “attritable” wingman for other aircraft, and can carry additional munitions or more drones. During this test, the Valkyrie released an ALTIUS-600 small UAS, a system designed and fabricated by AFRL, Kratos, and Area-I for the mission.

The Valkyrie conducted its first test flight in March 2019, and was damaged after its third flight in October 2019.

USAF officials have said the service hopes to buy 20 to 30 of the aircraft, which are “lower-end tech” that could be quickly produced.

USAF Retiring its Two OC-135 Open Skies Aircraft

April 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force is sending its two OC-135B Open Skies aircraft to the boneyard after the U.S. withdrew from the treaty late last year, even though it’s not clear whether the new Biden administration will rejoin the monitoring agreement with Russia.

Because there is no longer “a mission requirement for the OC-135B, the Department of the Air Force has moved to initiate standard equipment disposition actions in accordance with regulations,” an Air Force spokesperson said in a statement. This includes sending the two aircraft from Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group—also known as the boneyard—at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., “in the next couple of months.”

The announcement comes the week after the Air Force sent Congress a report on the viability of the aircraft, as required by the 2021 defense policy bill. Neither the Air Force nor Capitol Hill officials would release the report on April 6.

The Air Force is considering what to do with the legacy wet-film cameras and the Digital Visual Imaging System off the aircraft. “This could include making the items available to allies and partners through the Foreign Military Sales program as appropriate,” an Air Force spokesperson said in a statement.

The two aircraft, modified WC-135Bs, began flying in 1993 and include specialized mission equipment such as side-looking synthetic aperture radar, infrared line scanning devices, video camera, and framing and panoramic optical cameras. The Air Force in recent years worked to update the aircraft’s cameras, and in 2020 canceled plans to recapitalize the fleet.

In 2018, the State Department declared Russia was in violation of the treaty for preventing access to Kaliningrad and the border with Georgia. The Air Force did not fly any sorties at the time, but resumed flights in 2019 and now continues to fly at a low pace.

Before the Trump administration formally withdrew from the treaty in November 2020, U.S. officials repeatedly complained that Moscow violated the agreement, claiming also that satellite systems could provide better surveillance than the aging aircraft.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 1:23 p.m. April 7 to correct a reference to the aircraft in the photo caption.

Hypersonic ARRW Booster Flight Test Fails

April 6, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The first booster flight test of the Air Force’s AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon failed April 5. In a release issued April 6, the service acknowledged the failure is a “setback” for hypersonic progress, but said the test still provided “valuable information” for the program’s development.

The test, which was conducted at Point Mugu Sea Range, Calif., was supposed to be the first time ARRW fired its booster vehicle and flew on its own, but the missile did not “complete its launch sequence” and remained on the B-52H Stratofortress. The bomber then returned to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

“The ARRW program has been pushing boundaries since its inception and taking calculated risks to move this important capability forward,” said Brig. Gen. Heath A. Collins, Armament Directorate Program executive officer, in a release. “While not launching was disappointing, the recent test provided invaluable information to learn from and continue ahead. This is why we test.”

The long-anticipated test would have been the eighth flight test for the ARRW program, following seven captive carry flights. During the mission, the Air Force intended to demonstrate a safe release from the bomber, assess booster performance, booster-shroud separation, and simulated glider separation, according to the release.

Because the vehicle was able to safely land, the 419th Flight Test Squadron at Global Power Bomber Combined Test Force at Edwards will “explore the defect and return the vehicle back to test,” according to the Air Force. However, no timeline for this process was provided.

The ARRW arrived to Edwards via truck on March 1, and immediately went into ground test and checks. USAF officials originally said the booster flight test would happen in December 2020, a date that was pushed to March 1 and then to early April.

The Air Force wants to deploy the ARRW as its first hypersonic weapon in the early 2020s.

John T. Correll, Former Air Force Magazine Editor-in-Chief, Dies at 81

April 5, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

John T. Correll, editor-in-chief of Air Force Magazine from 1986 to 2002, a principal contributor for years afterward, and a recipient of the Air Force Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, died April 5 at age 81.

Correll used the bully pulpit of the Air Force Magazine to argue forcefully for Air Force issues and fair treatment of the service in modern and historical context. He was senior staff advisor to AFA’s executive committee and board of directors on national defense issues, and wrote many of AFA’s white papers, special reports, and the annual Statement of Policy. He was also an unofficial advisor to several Chiefs of Staff and senior USAF leaders.

His reporting in 1994-1995 about the Smithsonian’s plans to display the newly restored B-29 “Enola Gay”—in a way that would paint the U.S. as a vengeful aggressor in WWII—rallied veteran’s groups and Congress to oppose the exhibition. As a result, the Smithsonian dropped its plan and ultimately presented the aircraft without an editorial message. For this work and his other advocacy, AFA recognized Correll with its 1995 Gill Robb Wilson Award for arts and letters.

Correll served 20 years in the Air Force, retiring in 1982 as a lieutenant colonel. He served in Vietnam and Thailand, and was a Distinguished Graduate of Air Command and Staff College. Correll was the editor of Airman, the official magazine of the Air Force, and in his last assignment, was chief of editorial services for the American Forces Information Service in Washington.

During his Air Force career, he undertook a one-year “Education with Industry” tour with Air Force Magazine, during which he proposed overhauling the annual Almanac issue, implementing a plan very close to the format that has been used ever since.

He officially joined Air Force Magazine in 1984, rising in just two years from senior editor to editor in chief. He launched a popular department—“Valor”—which ran for nearly 20 years, highlighting the stories of heroic Airmen. In 2021, he helped launch a new series, Leaders and Heroes, modeled on the Valor articles from years before.

After his retirement from the Air Force Association in 2002, Correll continued to contribute historical features to Air Force Magazine, frequently debunking myths about the Air Force, its notable personalities, and milestone events. His byline appeared in the magazine for more than 35 years.

Correll also played a central role in the creation of AFA’s Eaker Institute, forerunner of today’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, which he conceived as an intellectual advocacy arm of the Air Force Association.

He received AFA’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2016, for his contributions to “the advancement of aerospace power.”

“John Correll was a terrific wingman, in more ways than he may have known,” said retired Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, president of the Air Force Association. He maintained “the highest standards of professional writing and mission-focused content,” and “his words about airpower flew with me throughout my career.” Correll’s articles, and his advocacy on behalf of airpower “provide a lasting legacy to our Airmen and Guardians of their rich heritage.”

Retired Gen. Michael Dugan, the 13th Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said, “The nation has lost a patriot today. John Correll was a writer, scholar, and historian. He was all things air and space; a meticulous researcher and a precise practitioner of English communications. He started and ended his long writing career as an Airman and was, at the close, still telling the remarkable story of American men and women serving and protecting their country at home and abroad in the air and space. He was my friend.”

Born Dec. 14, 1939, in Conover, N.C., Correll was a reporter for the Hickory, N.C., Daily Record before entering the Air Force in 1962. He earned an M.A. in communications from Michigan State University and an A.B. in history from Lenoir Rhyne College.

He is survived by his wife of 49 years, Gina; a daughter, Donna, and a granddaughter, Rae.

A High-Tech Fix for the Air Force’s Training Crisis?

April 2, 2021 | By Shaun Waterman

The Air Force has long faced a silent crisis: It can’t train and retain enough pilots. And now, challenged to confront peer adversaries, rather than the insurgents it’s been engaging for the last 20 years, even the pilots the service can train aren’t getting the quantity or quality of hours in mock combat they need to hone their skills, according to former USAF leaders.

A transformative new technology, which combines live training with virtual simulation, can help address that problem, its proponents say. Augmented reality training is “a game changer,” promised Will Roper, who previously served as the Air Force’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics.

The pilot shortfall has been a persistent problem for the Air Force, despite a $1.7 billion annual training budget. But it’s been highlighted anew as the U.S. military has pivoted from the “endless wars” of counter insurgency to confront peer adversaries, especially China, which has its own fifth-generation fighters to match the U.S. F-22 and F-35.

“The gap between how we train our combat aviators and how they’ll need to fight against modern adversaries has continued to grow wider,” said retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “We’re essentially still training our pilots the same way we did 60 years ago.”

Combat training for fighter pilots, with a red team playing the role of adversaries like China’s fifth generation J-20, is expensive and time consuming. Above all, it’s “limited by the availability of air and ground training assets that accurately replicate those peer threat systems,” explained retired Gen. James M. Holmes, former head of Air Combat Command who now serves as Chairman of the Red 6 board. He added that the red teams at major Air Force exercises like Red Flag “resemble 1980s Warsaw Pact threats more than they resemble the capabilities of 2020’s China and Russia.”

Forty years ago, Holmes said, as a young lieutenant, he flew more than 225 training sorties a year, or about 350 hours a year. Now, his son Capt. Wade Holmes, who flies F-16s in the Air National Guard, is “lucky to fly 120 of those [training sorties] a year and almost half of those are flown as red air, providing training support for someone else.”

The Air Force has used simulation technology to try to close that gap, and is investing heavily in its new approach to training: Live, virtual, and constructive. “LVC is widely recognized as the only way, the only cost-effective way, for us to train against fifth-generation adversaries,” said long-time Senate Armed Services Committee staffer and USAF veteran Robert “Otis” Winkler. “We spent a ton of money and a ton of time developing the virtual and constructive portion of it.”

He spoke alongside Holmes and Deptula at a Mitchell Institute virtual seminar March 16.

SASC staffer Robert “Otis” Winkler and Red 6’s retired Gen. Mike Holmes and Dan Robinson participate in a virtual Aerospace Nation event with retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Simulators and other virtual training tools allow geographically dispersed forces—including foreign allies—to train together, Winkler noted. Simulators also let pilots push the envelope in ways that would be too risky in real-life training, noted Holmes. “You can practice things in a sim that aren’t safe to practice in an aircraft.”

But, Holmes added, “There’s no substitute for live training.”

That’s because simulators can’t accurately reproduce the physical and intellectual stress of actual flight, noted Dan Robinson, a retired Royal Air Force pilot who became a USAF flight training instructor and was the first foreigner to fly an F-22. “It’s one thing to perform a maneuver in a sim, it’s another thing to perform it when you’re pulling 9Gs,” Robinson told Air Force Magazine. “The physics matters … The cognitive load is completely different when the pilot is actually in flight.”

Robinson is the founder and CEO of Red 6, a tech start-up offering augmented and virtual reality solutions as a way to allow pilots to train live against virtual adversaries.

“It’s the best of both worlds,” Robinson said. Pilots can train in real flight—flying with a special helmet and heads-up display that allows them to see their virtual enemies. The enemies, being online creations, can be modeled to mimic the capabilities and profile of any adversary weapons platform—and can be powered by artificial intelligence. “You can create the adversary, define his capabilities, and train against weapons systems that would be too expensive for live training, such as hypersonic missiles,” Robinson said.

But the technology is challenging, he explained. Virtual reality creates an entirely synthetic environment, which is a relatively straightforward challenge. “In augmented reality we are introducing virtual entities, virtual objects into the real world, and making them interact dynamically with us, with our surroundings, as if they were really there and that’s a much more complex set of technical problems to solve.”

The key breakthrough technologies that enable Red 6’s Airborne Tactical Augmented Reality System (ATARS), Robinson said, were in vision tracking—ascertaining where the pilot is looking and shifting the perspective of the virtual objects accordingly—and in the display. “Most VR doesn’t work outside … The environment is too dynamic and the display isn’t visible enough. It’s like trying to look at your cellphone screen in bright sunlight.” VR technology is generally limited to a 60-degree field of vision, about a third of the 180-degree field of vision humans have in the real world. “We are at about 120 degrees right now, and we are working on expanding that,” Robinson said.

AR is a transformational technology, with applications way beyond pilot training, Roper said. “This will disrupt not just Air Force training, but all-domain training … Augmented reality provides a paradigm-shifting opportunity for the military to train at much lower costs and against threats and in environments that cannot be recreated in the real world,” added Roper, who was appointed last month to the Red 6 Advisory Board. “AR technology has major commercial applications as well.”

Red 6 has completed a SBIR II contract from AFWERX and is expecting a SBIR III soon. The Red 6 team is working to integrate its ATARS technology into a T-38 training aircraft at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.

“That is the next step for us,” Robinson said, “to demonstrate how this will work in an Air Force trainer jet.”

Army’s Long-Range Strike Vision is ‘Stupid,’ AFGSC Chief Says

April 2, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Army’s plan to take over some of the long-range strike mission is “stupid” and a waste of resources that are urgently needed elsewhere, said Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Timothy M. Ray.

“I genuinely struggle with the credibility of that plan,” Ray said on an AFA Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies podcast posted April 1. “I just think it’s a stupid idea to go invest that kind of money to recreate something that [the Air Force] has mastered.”

Ray was referring to the Army’s new vision, which calls for it to operate in all domains, taking over some missions from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force in long-range strike, maritime warfare, amphibious warfare, and space operations.

Under the new vision, the Army plans to field hypersonic weapons that can rapidly target enemy missile launchers and airfields.

“I kind of get it in Europe, but I completely don’t get it in the Pacific,” Ray said.

In order to work, allies and partners must allow the Army to put the long-range missiles on their soil, and while “I can see some of them probably agreeing in the European theater, maybe the Central Asian theater, … I don’t see it coming together with any credibility in the Pacific anytime soon,” Ray said. The Army also won’t have such a capability for at least five years, and it would take “a month or two” to physically deploy, while Air Force bombers will have the capability sooner, and can react almost instantly.

“I can prove … this to you in a matter of months, with real capability, versus theoretical capability,” Ray said. The Air Force has said it would test the hypersonic AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon before the third week in April, and officials said the test could come as soon as April 5. The missile will be carried initially on the B-52 bomber, and later on the B-1 and potentially the F-15.

“There are a few hypersonic events coming up, but … let’s let the facts play out,” Ray said.

The Army will also be shooting from a fixed, ground-based location, however briefly, while bombers are always moving.

The Army plan is “far more expensive, and it’s going to take a fundamentally different approach to basing,” Ray said. It’s trying to “skate right past that brutal reality to check that some of those countries are never going to let you put … stuff like that in their theater … Just go ask your allies.”

Meanwhile, bombers have been doing Bomber Task Force missions worldwide, including new places like India. “We … have the ability to be there in hours; not days, months, or weeks,” and “for more extended periods of time, and the ability to keep up the operational pace,” Ray added. “Why would we entertain a brutally expensive idea, when we don’t, as a department, have the money?”

Ray said he’s been asked about this by members of Congress, and replied, “Honestly, I think it’s stupid … Give me a break.”

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute, said the pursuit of hypersonic missiles by the Army is an attempt “to prove their relevance in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq.” Expected tighter defense budgets have spurred the Army to “aggressively try … to grab missions that they think will help them become more relevant in our new National Security Strategy, … and long-range strike is at the top of that list.” Because the Army lacks bombers, it’s seeking missiles.

However, the missiles “cost double-digit millions of dollars per shot” with a “handful costing as much as an F-35,” Deptula added. “…There’s no way that’s affordable given the number of targets at play.” Missiles, he pointed out, “can’t be re-used” and require extensive logistics support to be moved into place.

“The crews operating them also need to know where to aim, which drives the requirement for overhead imagery. Instead of relying on joint capabilities, the Army is looking at developing its own aircraft- and space-based sensors, which duplicates what the Air Force already provides. That flies in the face of what it means to be joint,” Deptula said.

The new mission also diverts money from core Army responsibilities, such as air base defense and missile defense.

There’s “a reason why services have core competencies,” Deptula asserted, “and why roles and missions matter. And it’s time to induce some discipline in the process.” Limited money should be aimed at programs “that optimize combat operations and capabilities across all the services. Not just one.”

Meanwhile, Ray said AFGSC continues to “reinvent what we do with the bomber. It’s classic air power.”

The dynamic force employment missions that replaced the Continuous Bomber Presence construct at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, have proven popular with aircrews. “Morale is through the roof,” Ray said, noting it is also a hit with allies. A recent mission in which a B-52 flew over every NATO country in a single day was extremely reassuring to them, he said.

Ray said USAF Gen. Tod D. Wolters, U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, told him, “‘You have no idea the boost you guys gave this entire command.’” Bombers can “move in” with great speed, Ray said, and start operating “in some places that people didn’t expect us to show up in.”

He noted that Russia’s recent imitation of such deployments is “the highest form of flattery … They’re just not quite as good at it.” Ray has told combatant commanders “throw us in there, because we’re ready for this; go ahead and test us.”

Ray also said the B-21 bomber is progressing well, and thanks to its open mission systems, will be far more upgradeable than any previous airplane.

“We can very rapidly bring new radios, new emitters, new weapons” on the B-21, which he said should not be thought of as the “B-2.1” Where it “took me many years” to get the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, on the B-2, on the B-21, “I’m going to be able to do that in a year.” It will also be a more maintainable jet, and Ray said the Air Force will be able to combine specialty codes in its B-21 maintenance train to reduce the manpower footprint. The B-21, he said, embodies “very mature technology, compared to what you might think,” and it exemplifies all the aspects of Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr’s “accelerate change or lose” philosophy.

He noted that the Rapid Capabilities Office, which has responsibility for managing the B-21, is also in charge of managing the Airborne Battle Management System, so the B-21 will be “part and parcel” of the ABMS from the beginning. “It’s not an add-on or afterthought,” Ray said.

Ray touted the bomber as a critical need for the nuclear triad, saying such aircraft are adept at “messaging” strategic intent in the form of highly visible deployments, in a way that ballistic missile submarines and ICBMs are not.

Ray said he’s briefed Congress on AFGSC’s classified bomber roadmap, and the various aspects and alternatives included in it are “very well endorsed” by the members.

Vandenberg Is USAF’s Choice to Host GBSD Training Unit

April 2, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., is the Air Force’s preferred location for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Formal Training Unit, Acting Air Force Secretary John P. Roth announced on April 1.

A final decision is dependent on an environmental impact study. Vandenberg is already the main training base for the intercontinental ballistic missile force, and GBSD is slated to replace all 400 aging Minuteman IIIs beginning in 2029. Over the next seven years, GBSD missiles would be deployed in silos in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Some 200 additional missiles would be available for testing, replacements, and development.

“The Minuteman III weapon system has been a bedrock of U.S. national security for more than five decades, but if one looks ahead to the next 50 years, the question of investing in nuclear modernization is as relevant as ever,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said in a release. “We are fully committed to the GBSD program of record, which will ensure our nation’s nuclear force is ready to meet the warfighting needs of today and tomorrow.”

GBSD will be developed and built by Northrop Grumman under a $13.3 billion contract awarded in September 2020. Northrop was the sole bidder in the competition to design a new ICBM, after its rival Boeing elected not to bid. GBSD is expected to remain in service until 2075.

Replacing the Minuteman III missiles is just one piece of USAF’s efforts to upgrade its strategic nuclear arsenal. The service is also developing a next-generation stealth bomber—the B-21—new air-launched cruise missiles, a new variant of the B61 gravity bomb, and a modern network to control and communicate with nuclear forces.