Contract Red Air Jet Crashes at Nellis, Killing Pilot

May 25, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

Officials are still investigating the cause of the fatal Mirage F1 crash on the south side of Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, around 2:30 p.m. May 24. The Mirage was owned and operated by Florida-based Draken International, which has flown adversarial air against pilots training at Nellis since 2015.

The pilot’s name has not yet been released. No one else was on board at the time of the crash, according to a release.

“Draken has received news of a downed aircraft out of Nellis AFB and the tragic loss of one of our pilots,” the company said in a statement. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people and families affected by this event. We are doing everything in our power to assist them in this time of need, and we are working closely with federal, state, and local authorities. Draken US is also cooperating with investigating agencies to determine what led to this tragic accident.”

It’s not clear whether Draken’s fleet is now grounded. An Air Combat Command spokesperson told Air Force Magazine, “there’s no immediate operational impacts that we’re aware of,” and referred any addition questions to Draken. A company spokesperson said no additional information is available at this time.

Draken originally started flying so-called “Red Air” missions at Nellis in 2015, using L-159 Honey Badgers and A-4 Skyhawks. The company recently started introducing French-built Mirage F1s, acquired from the Spanish air force, and Atlas Cheetahs, acquired from South Africa. The first F1 adversary air flight was just over a year ago, when F1s challenged USAF F-15E Strike Eagles on March 18, 2020.

In June 2018, Draken won a $280 million contract, which runs through December 2023, to continue flying at Nellis. Draken contractors fly from 18 to 24 adversary air sorties a day at the base, “supporting the USAF Weapons School, operational test missions, Red Flag exercises, Formal Training Unit syllabus rides from Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, as well as combat readiness training out of Hill Air Force Base, Utah,” according to a 2018 release.

In addition, the company is under contract to provide adversary air in support of the F-15E FTU at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, and the F-16 FTU at Kelly Field, Texas. The company also supports exercises at locations such as Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; Edwards Air Force Base, California; Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona; MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina; MCAS Miramar, California; and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland

Draken aircraft currently are assigned to provide Red Air support for Air Mobility Command’s Mobility Guardian 2021 exercise in Michigan. They flew on May 24, but did not fly the day after the crash. Air Force Magazine is embedded with USAF forces during the exercise.

The company owns 22 F1s, 12 supersonic Cheetahs, nine Aermacchi MB-339s, 27 MiG-21s, 21 L-159s, 13 A-4s, five L-39s, and one T-33, a company official previously told Air Force Magazine.

The last time a contractor-owned and operated adversary aircraft crashed while supporting USAF operations was in February at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Two Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC) Mirage F1 pilots were treated for non-life threatening injuries at the time. In 2018, the Hawaii Air National Guard also temporarily suspended Exercise Sentry Aloha after an ATAC Hawker Hunter crashed in the waters a few miles off the coast. The pilot safely ejected and was rescued by a civilian sailboat.

Draken and ATAC were among three companies awarded contracts in July 2020 worth up to $433.6 million to provide 5,418 annual sorties of adversary air at five bases. Tactical Air Support also received a contract. The awards are part of a potential $6.4 billion Combat Air Force/Contracted Air Support indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract that could include up to 40,000 hours of adversary air at 12 fighters bases, plus 10,000 hours of close air support at nine bases.

The service has authorized a total of seven companies to bid on contracts, and Nellis is expected to be the next big award. In addition to Draken, ATAC, and Tactical Air Support, other companies include Top Aces Corp., Air USA, Blue Air Training, and Coastal Defense.

“The CAF/CAS contract remains in the base year execution phase, with requirement adaptations ongoing as anticipated,” an ACC spokesperson said. “However, any mishap of this magnitude always has an impact on the flying community. Our thoughts and deepest condolences are with the family, friends, and our partners at Draken during this time.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated at 2:06 p.m. on May 26 with additional information from the Air Force. We also corrected an earlier version, which incorrectly stated when the last contract adversary air crash took place. It was February 2021 at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.

Mobility Aircraft, Airmen Practice For New Ways of War

May 24, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

ALPENA COMBAT READINESS TRAINING CENTER, Michigan—Air Mobility Command wants to overhaul how it operates so it serves as more than the “bus drivers” for combat forces, and it’s practicing how to do that right now across the upper Midwest.

Exercise Mobility Guardian 2021 is underway at multiple locations in Michigan and Wisconsin, with about 1,800 personnel across all of AMC’s mission sets. This includes 18 mobility aircraft and 57 aircrews, contingency response Airmen, aeromedical evacuation Airmen, and others, plus combat aircraft support from A-10s and F-16s. The blue force is going against adversary aircraft, cyber teams, and ground opposition forces in a three-phase “war” bringing new tactics, operational structures, and technologies as they test out a potential new type of mobility air force.

“We’re looking 10 or 15 years in the future when, ‘OK, what are we going to need in that future fight?’” said Lt. Col. Brian Thomasson, MG21’s exercise director. “The U.S. military is really good, obviously, at the skills we’ve been practicing in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past few decades, but our potential adversaries have watched us operate. They know how we act … and so we need to make sure we’re ready for the future fight, whatever that could look like, and that we’re preparing new technologies, new ways of organizing our force, etc., so that we’re ready for that.”

This is the third Mobility Guardian, which first started in 2017 as the command looked to move away from the previous “mobility rodeo” competition toward a large-scale exercise in which mobility forces were the focal point instead of the supporting force. The 2019 event was much larger than the current iteration and included dozens of partner nations in an exercise that focused on the global mobility mission. The 2021 exercise is U.S.-only and is focused on future tactics and emerging technologies.

For about two weeks, ending May 27, the mobility and combat crews are operating from three separate locations—airlifters at Alpena; fighters at Volk Field, Wisconsin; and tankers at Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, Michigan—plus five other operating locations across the region.

The “war” is playing out over four phases, designed to practice key mobility mission areas along with tasking them in some roles not typically handled by airlifters and refuelers.

The groundwork for the exercise, dubbed “Phase 0,” started with contingency response Airmen arriving and evaluating the airfields for operations, offloading of equipment, and setting up the basic infrastructure at the “bare bases.” In Phase 1, mobility aircraft took off in radio silence, and fighter aircraft flew against threat emitters in the region. Mobility aircraft contributed to offensive operations by evolving two new capabilities, both of which came from the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System demonstrations and are continuing to evolve.

Airlifters carried an Army High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and used its capabilities onboard to retarget the system after rolling it off.
A C-17 carried palletized munitions in another step toward firing the systems from the back of the airlifter.

The second phase focused on sustainment operations, with aircraft flying “dynamic taskings,” including on-call airdrops and close air support. A special operations force infiltrated using an expeditionary airlift package. During this phase, the exercise simulated a mid-air collision of aircraft and a downed pilot, forcing tankers to stay on station and help coordinate with A-10s for a rescue operation.

The third phase included aircraft and Airmen at the different locations practicing “agile combat employment” tactics to continue operations. This included a C-130 carrying a fuel bladder and munitions to reload and refuel A-10s quickly. Another C-17 offloaded fuel from its wings into a truck, which then quickly refueled F-16s.

Throughout the operations, adversary cyber teams targeted communications systems. Exercise participants were forced to operate with unreliable connections to higher ups, with a major goal of Mobility Guardian to practice “mission-type orders.” This means an aircrew would have a commander’s intent of what to accomplish, but they would not have a typical air tasking order or regular communication with an air operations center for direction. Instead, they would have to make operational decisions on the fly.

“You may not be the person expected to make those decisions currently, but maybe in the future you might be, so we’re training those people under mission-type orders to take and leverage some of the authority that they’ve been given and then, with agile combat employment, they’re going to actually move their forces and maneuver their forces,” said Capt. Alexander Hutcheson, the lead air planner for the exercise.

As part of the push for more agility, the exercise built a different structure for its operating locations. Forces are under the umbrella of an air expeditionary wing overall, with individual exercise groups at the three main bases. There, forces are organized as “mission generation squadrons” with all the Air Force Specialty Codes needed for operations. For example, instead of individual squadrons for maintenance, intelligence, logistics, operations, etc., Airmen from those specialties are assigned together into one “MGS” to build and sustain aircraft ops.

“What we’re challenging for the next echelon of command below the wing level is for that squadron commander to present, in almost an autonomous capability: ‘Hey, if I need to move this capability around the theater, I can do that in a package type of way and still produce rapid global mobility,” said Col. Scott M. Wiederholt, commander of the 305th Air Mobility Wing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, who is serving as the commander of the exercise’s 443rd Air Expeditionary Wing.

Most of the Airmen involved in the exercise haven’t worked under the ACE construct or used some of the new technologies involved, which is why the exercise is designed so that failing is OK. Individual scenarios are run through multiple times, so if it doesn’t go well the first time, Airmen can iterate and fine-tune until it works.

After the exercise wraps later this month, AMC will work through the lessons learned to shape new training and eventually new guidance for how to operate.

“Airmen are going to leave this exercise with a deeper understanding of where we are going as a Mobility Air Force and some of the … critical thinking skills that we are asking Airmen to think about and challenge,” Wiederholt said. “’Why do I do this this way? Is there a better way for us to do that?’ This will energize those thought processes when they’re back in their home station and they’re going through their own evolutions of training and exercises.”

Kendall Facing Senate In Quest To Become Air Force Secretary

May 24, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

Frank Kendall III will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 25 in a hearing that will likely lead to his confirmation and eventual swearing in as the 26th Secretary of the Air Force.

If confirmed, Kendall would succeed Barbara M. Barrett as the Secretary of a department that includes both the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force, where he would be responsible for organizing, training, and equipping some 697,000 Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian Airmen and Guardians. John P. Roth has been the acting Secretary since Jan. 20, when President Joe Biden was sworn in as Commander in Chief.

Kendall, 71, was undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, a position Congress split into two jobs four years ago. Serving under the Obama administration, he oversaw research and engineering, sustainment, testing, contract administration, and logistics.

Now he hopes to bring that defense-wide experience to the Department of the Air Force. His confirmation hearing, coming just three days before the White House releases its fiscal 2022 budget request, will be marked by Senators’ probing questions about the Air Force’s commitment to major acquisition programs ranging from the F-35A stealth fighter to the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent—a replacement for the force’s 400 aging Minuteman III nuclear missiles. He will also be asked about Air Force plans to trade near-term fighter capacity for long-term modernization, which could have major implications for bases and manufacturers spread across the country.

If confirmed, Kendall will get the tough job of selling Congress on those plans while fighting for a bigger share of overall defense spending at a time when budgets are projected to be relatively flat but modernization needs are getting squeezed and peer adversaries such as Russia and China are ramping up their military investments.

Air Force Magazine reported on “pre-decisional” Air Force plans calling for retiring 421 older fighters from 2022 to 2026 while acquiring just 304 new ones, a net reduction of 117. That plan seeks to phase out the F-15C/D fleet, reduce the size of the F-16 fleet by 124 aircraft, and retain the A-10 attack jet until the 2030s while building up the F-15EX and F-35A fleets. By then, the plan suggests, it will be time to retire the F-22 fighter and introduce the Next-Generation Air Dominance platform.

Another area of questioning Kendall will face is nuclear modernization. The Air Force operates two of the three legs of the nation’s nuclear triad: nuclear-capable bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing to “pause” the Ground Base Strategic Deterrent program rather than move forward with tens of billions in investment to replace the Minuteman III.

Questions will likewise focus on the nascent U.S. Space Force and what its requirements will be over the coming years. Space Force Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. David D. Thompson told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces May 24 that the service has made significant progress creating a blueprint as it works to establish a “truly digital service.” In its second year, Thompson said, the Space Force is working on building partnerships with the Joint Force as well as with allies and partners.

Kendall’s acquisition experience will be put to the test as some lawmakers question the pace of space acquisition reform. “Progress in addressing longstanding acquisition issues has been disappointing so far,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) during the Department of the Air Force posture hearing earlier this month. Similar questions are likely to come up during the confirmation hearing.

As acquisition chief in the Obama years, Kendall’s signature “Better Buying Power” initiative sought to streamline defense acquisition. That experience could be valuable in a service that is historically on the cutting edge of technology where existing acquisition processes often aren’t flexible enough for emerging solutions.

Former Air Force Undersecretary Matthew P. Donovan, now director of AFA’s Mitchell Institute Space Power Advantage Research Center, said Kendall will have his work cut out for him. If confirmed, Kendall will face “a familiar challenge of declining defense budgets at a critical time for the Department of the Air Force and its fledgling U.S. Space Force,” Donovan said. “He would need to strongly support all Airmen and Guardians, staunchly advocate for the crucial importance of air and space power in support of the joint warfighter and great power competition, and set clear visions for the future” of both the Air Force and Space Force.

Most USAF Fighter Mission Capable Rates Rise in Fiscal 2020, Led by F-35

May 24, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force’s fighter fleet, led by the F-35A, turned in a better overall mission capable rate in 2020, even with limitations imposed by the pandemic, than it did in 2019, according to figures provided to Air Force Magazine. The F-35’s MC rates soared, and rates even improved for the F-15C, which the Air Force is anxious to divest because of its age. The F-15E’s MC rate declined, however.

“Mission capable” rates describe the percentage of jets in the inventory that are ready and available to do at least one of their assigned missions over a period of time. “Full mission capable” is a measure of how many aircraft in a fleet are ready to do their full complement of missions over that period.

The F-35A’s mission capable rate leaped from 61.6 percent in fiscal ’19 to 76.07 percent in FY ’20, according to Air Force figures. The program was helped largely by additional funding toward spare parts, a greater percentage of the fleet being of a more recent and less problem-prone vintage, and a greater number of depots being opened, Joint Program Office director Lt. Gen. Eric Fick told the House Armed Services Committee in April.

“Many of our earlier-lot aircraft require modifications, and we are working through retrofits with fleet customers to optimize the timing of these modifications to minimize operational impacts,” Fick said. “Government and industry teams are working to accelerate an affordable long-term solution” to F-35 readiness “while maximizing near-term F-35 availability for training and operations. These changes are driving a steady increase in aircraft full-mission capable rates, and we anticipate fleet availability will continue to climb as F-35 maintenance systems and best practices mature,” he said in testimony.

At the McAleese and Associates defense conference in mid-May, Fick said the sustainment cost of the F-35 is an “existential threat” to the program and that the effort to reduce it is his highest priority.

AIR FORCE FIGHTERS’ MISSION CAPABLE RATES

Fighters	2019 Mission Capable Rate	2020 Mission Capable Rate
F-15C	70.05%	71.93%
F-15D	72.45%	70.52%
F-15E	71.29%	69.21%
F-16C	72.97%	73.90%
F-16D	70.37%	72.11%
F-22A	50.57%	51.98%
F-35A	61.6%	76.07%

Source: USAF

The F-15C and D fleets, which the USAF has described as urgently in need of replacement because they are flying beyond their planned service lives, turned in mixed results—MC rates of 71.93 percent and 70.52 percent, respectively. That was better than last year for the F-15C, when it achieved a 70.05 percent mission capable rate; and worse for the F-15D after achieving a 72.45 percent mission capable rate in fiscal 2019. The Air Force is buying the F-15EX to replace the F-15C/D, as the most expeditious way to replace capacity in its fighter fleet. The bulk of the F-15C/D fleet dates back to the 1980s and early 1990s.

The F-15E’s MC rate also fell, from 71.29 percent to 69.21 percent.

The F-16C and D fleets averaged MC rates of 73.90 percent and 72.11 percent, respectively; improving on the fiscal ’19 rates of 72.97 and 70.37 percent, respectively.

The F-22A scored only a slight improvement in fiscal 2020 over the previous year, with a rate of 51.98 percent versus 50.57 percent in FY’19. The Air Force recently signaled that it will begin phasing out the F-22 circa 2030 due to the small size of the fleet and its labor-intensive low observable systems.

The A-10, which is undergoing a re-winging program, scored an MC rate of 72.04 percent, a slight uptick from fiscal 2019’s 71.20 percent.

The Air Force was not immediately able to provide specifics as to why its MC rates had shifted.

Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis directed the Air Force to reach an 80 percent MC rate on its F-15, F-16, and F-35 fleets by 2016, but the service did not achieve that goal, and has since assessed mission capability in broader terms pertaining to unit readiness.

Guard Prepares to Quit Capitol, 5 Months After January Riot

May 24, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The National Guard’s mission in Washington, D.C., is coming to an end, the Pentagon announced.

“These Airmen and Soldiers protected not only the grounds, but the lawmakers working on those grounds, ensuring the people’s business could continue unabated,” Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement. “They lived out in very tangible ways the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution.”

More than 25,000 Guard members from all 54 states and territories deployed to the nation’s capital following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, which left five people dead and delayed the counting of electoral votes, the final step to ratifying the 2020 presidential election. Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said on May 24 there are still about 1,000 Guard members in the Capital but could not say how soon they would all go home.

Although the Pentagon has extended the deployment several times at the request of various agencies—the U.S. Park Police, U.S. Secret Service, Capitol Police, and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police—the number of troops deployed to the region has steadily declined. With no additional requests to extend, the dwindling number will gradually drop to zero.

House leaders released a $1.9 billion security supplemental earlier this month that would give the District of Columbia Air National Guard $200,000 to set up a quick-reaction force that would stand ready to respond to threats to Capitol Hill. The QRF was one of the recommendations made during a security review of the Capitol, led by retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, earlier this year.

But the Pentagon has no plan to put in place a quick reaction force right now, Kirby said, explaining that the Pentagon is still reviewing recommendations made by Honoré and his team.

“It’s been a trying but telling year for the National Guard,” Austin said. “Between natural disasters, civil unrest, and an ongoing pandemic, our Guardsmen and women have been tested time and time again. And each time, they have performed magnificently. So magnificently, in fact, that it would be all too easy to take their service— and that of their incredible families—for granted,” he continued. “We won’t do that, of course, because we know we will continue to call on them in times of need. As these troops depart for home and a much-deserved reunion with loved ones, I hope they do so knowing how much the nation appreciates their service and sacrifice—and that of their families and employers. I hope they know how very proud we are of them.”

F-16s Could Still be Flying Into the 2070s

May 23, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Based on Lockheed Martin’s backlog of F-16 orders, planned upgrades, and the recent revelation that the Air Force plans to depend on the fighter into the late 2030s, the F-16’s sunset years now could come in the 2070s, or later.

Lockheed Martin’s backlog of 128 F-16s—all for foreign military sales—won’t all be delivered until 2026, and the company anticipates more orders may be coming. With a potential service life of 40 years or more, those jets could be flying into the late 2060s or later. The type first entered service in the 1970s.

“There are 25 nations operating F-16s today,” said Col. Brian Pearson, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center lead for F-16 FMS, in a May 17 press release. Lockheed’s Greenville, S.C., F-16 manufacturing and upgrade facility, which will start turning out new F-16s in 2022, “helps us meet the global demand” for F-16 aircraft, he said. Lockheed moved its F-16 work from Fort Worth, Texas, in 2019 to make room there for expanded F-35 production.

Since the new line opened, AFLCMC’s security assistance and cooperation directorate “has seen an uptick of our partner nations requesting detailed information and requests for U.S. government sales,” said Col. Anthony Walker, senior materiel leader in the international division.

The 128 jets are for Bahrain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Taiwan, and another country the company declined to name, although Croatia and the Philippines have been mentioned as customers. These aircraft will be in the Block 70/72 configuration, which includes new radar, displays, conformal fuel tanks, and other improvements over the Block 50/52 version, the most recent flown by USAF. Lockheed is building F-16s at a rate of about four per month at Greenville.

India is also considering buying an advanced F-16 version Lockheed has dubbed the “F-21,” which Lockheed touts as having a 12,000-hour service life; roughly 50 percent more than the ones the USAF flies. At normal utilization, 12,000 hours is about 32 years of service. India would produce those jets indigenously. India is looking to buy 114 fighters, and Lockheed is partnered with Tata to build the jets if it wins the competition.

Gregory M. Ulmer, Lockheed’s vice president for aeronautics, told reporters in February the company sees a potential for 300 additional F-16 sales not yet on the books, some of which will be to “repeat” customers.

The increased foreign interest may be related to the USAF’s hints over the last two years that it will continue to fly the F-16 beyond previous plans, thus reassuring customers that the parts and support pipeline for a large number of aircraft will persist.

Those hints turned more concrete in recent days. Talking points drawn up for USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. about the service’s future fighter force plans, obtained by Air Force Magazine, indicate the Air Force expects that “600+ late-block F-16s will provide affordable capacity for the next 15+ years,” in both competitive and permissive combat environments. These aircraft will in fact be the USAF’s “capacity force,” the documents say, and will serve as a “rheostat,” meaning their total number can be adjusted up or down depending on the success of the F-35 program and a separate F-16 replacement now known as the Multi-Role-X.

The Air Force considers “competitive” to mean airspace that is reasonably well defended by aircraft and surface-to-air systems. “Highly competitive” and “denied” airspace would only be penetrable by fifth-gen and sixth-gen aircraft with extremely low observable qualities.

Although the fiscal year 2022 budget request, to be released May 28, will reveal some details of the Air Force’s new force structure plans, Brown said at the recent McAleese and Associates defense conference that the meat of the plan will be spelled out in the fiscal ’23 budget.

In the near-term, the USAF plans the divestiture of all the F-16 “pre-blocks” of aircraft, meaning all those that remain in its inventory of the Block 15-25-30 versions.

Lockheed received an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract in January worth up to $64.3 billion for production of new F-16s for FMS customers, as well as upgrades of 405 jets in foreign hands to the F-16V configuration, which is similar to the F-21 model proposed to India. These modifications will include “new radar and other upgrades to make them similar to the aircraft that will come off the production line,” AFLCMC’s release said.

The large omnibus contract creates a baseline F-16 configuration for all future production, with the Air Force acting as the agent for FMS customers. Each country will sign a separate contract for unique or custom equipment they want on their particular jets. An Air Force official said the arrangement “simplifies and accelerates” the FMS process for countries wanting to buy the F-16, “so we can get it into their hands faster than has been the case in recent years.” The approach is needed because of the increased expected demand for the airplane, he said. It also reduces the cost of the jet by allowing vendors to make larger, more economic quantities of parts and structural components. The work will also integrate the Joint Mission Planning System/Mission Planning Environment software update.

The contract specifically mentioned work for Bahrain, Bulgaria, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Egypt, Greece, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Korea, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

Japan flies an F-16 variant, called the F-2, but it performs all work on that type.

More than 4,550 F-16s have been delivered to the U.S. and allied countries since the 1970s. The late Michele A. Evans, Ulmer’s predecessor as Lockheed VP for aeronautics, said in September 2020, the company sees a possibility “of getting up to 5,000” F-16s built. She also said the company views the F-16 as an entrée to its F-35, for countries that are not yet ready to adopt the fifth-generation fighter, but may wish to later.

Brig. Gen. Dale R. White, the USAF’s program executive officer for fighters and advanced aircraft, called the F-16 an “enduring, highly capable compact fighter that will have a large role in many partner nations’ security for years to come.”

Congress Questions if All Costs Considered in U.S. Space Command Basing Decision

May 21, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

Some members of Congress are questioning whether the Air Force truly took all costs into consideration when making the decision to relocate U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs) asked the commander of U.S. Space Command Army Gen. James H. Dickinson on April 21 whether the cost of building a “secure” or “survivable” communications infrastructure—something already in place in Colorado Springs—had factored into the choice.

Colorado Springs has long been a hub of DOD’s space operations, and several of the state’s elected officials have objected to the basing decision in which the DOD invited communities to nominate themselves to host the headquarters. Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs was one of the six finalists, and Colorado officials have since said they think the choice was politically motivated and due diligence was lacking in the search.

The DAF led the search process, which is now the subject of two investigations: one by the Defense Department Office of Inspector General and one by the Government Accountability Office.

During an April 21 House Armed Services strategic forces posture hearing Lamborn suggested that building a new communications infrastructure could cost $1 billion, and asked whether that had been accounted for in the Air Force’s decision.

Dickinson acknowledged the current infrastructure at the provisional headquarters at Peterson “is satisfying the mission requirement now” and “if we are directed to move, that that type of infrastructure would be built.” He didn’t address the cost or whether it was taken into account in the search.

Then on May 18, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida), chair of the House Appropriations military construction, veterans affairs, and related agencies subcommittee, asked for a “total cost estimate” for the headquarters relocation, “how many fiscal years that would take, and also did the Air Force take into consideration relocating the required infrastructure and network nodes?”

Air Force Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment, and Energy Jennifer L. Miller described the cost estimates made for each location as “general,” did not address specific infrastructure other than buildings, and did not provide the estimated duration.

She said that in the department’s general estimates, the cost to locate the headquarters at Redstone Arsenal was $100 million less than at Peterson.

“When we narrowed down the six, we sent out a site survey team to each of the six candidate locations to validate each of the data that we pulled in advance against the square footage required,” Miller said. She said members of the Space Force’s Space Operations Command had to move off base at Peterson to make room for the command and described the associated leases as “high cost.”

Wasserman Schultz replied, “I appreciate your response but continue to be concerned about the way the entire process was handled, and I look forward to the IG report.” The DOD’s IG announced in February that it would investigate how well the Air Force “complied with DOD and Air Force policies during the location selection process” and whether it used relevant and fair scoring for costs and other factors.

Meanwhile, at the request of Lamborn, Congress’ Government Accountability Office agreed in March to investigate the decision-making process and “matters related to the methodology and scoring” that led to the selection of Redstone.

The Air Force started the search process in 2019, announced a first round of six finalists, then started over again in 2020 while never explaining why. This has led Colorado’s members of Congress to suspect then-President Donald J. Trump of intervening as a political favor heading into the 2020 presidential election.

The Air Force said at the time of Redstone Arsenal’s selection that Huntsville scored highest in “factors related to mission, infrastructure capacity, community support, and costs to the Department of Defense.”

The DAF did not immediately respond to Air Force Magazine’s query on whether the cost of the communication infrastructure was taken into account.

ABMS, in New Phase, Prepares To Start Fielding

May 21, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The Air Force is ready to start buying some of the technology that will make up the Advanced Battle Management System, moving the program from theory into development.

“Nearly two years of rigorous development and experimentation have shown beyond a doubt the promise of ABMS,” Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said in a May 21 release. “We’ve demonstrated that our ABMS efforts can collect vast amounts of data from air, land, sea, space, and cyber domains; process that information; and share it in a way that allows for faster and better decisions.”

ABMS, which was conceived as a replacement for the canceled E-8 Joint STARS recapitalization program, is envisioned as a network of sensors and connected technologies intended to promote rapid data sharing among a plethora of weapon systems. ABMS is really a new way of fighting that will provide the “backbone of a network-centric approach to battle management.”

Brig. Gen. Jeffery D. Valenzia is director of Joint Force Integration and head of the cross-functional team responsible for establishing the manpower, resources, and doctrinal infrastructure for the ABMS program. “Command and control is as timeless as warfare,” Valenzia said. “As the character of war changes, so, too, does the art and science of C2. In a data-dependent and data-saturated world, victory belongs to the side with decision superiority—the ability to sense, make sense of a complex and adaptive environment, and act smarter, faster, and better.”

Under this next ABMS phase, the Department of the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office will begin to field and install equipment and software on existing military aircraft, beginning with new communications “pods” for the KC-46 Pegasus tanker. In effect, these will become an airborne hotspot connecting USAF’s fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 fighters so they can communicate with each other in real time.

Will Roper, who was then USAF’s assistant secretary of acquisition, predicted in December that the KC-46 pod was the most likely ABMS capability to be deployed soon. And, Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost alluded to a new concept of operations for tankers, now dubbed “Capability Release #1,” during an April virtual event hosted by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “Why wouldn’t we change the calculus by doing different things, moving away from the antiquated view that AMC just brings stuff when they’re called … to be a maneuver force inside the threat ring?” Van Ovost asked.

In addition to outfitting the KC-46 with the communications pod, Randy Walden, program executive officer for the Rapid Capabilities Office, said the department is gearing up a host of other new digital capabilities.

“To build ABMS, you must first build the digital structures and pathways over which critical data is stored, computed, and moved,” he said in the release. “The Department of the Air Force needs a smart, fast, and resilient ‘system of systems’ to establish information and decision superiority, and ABMS will be that solution.”

The Air Force will invest $170 million this fiscal year in ABMS and wants to ramp up funding over the next five years.

But lawmakers remain skeptical. “While the committee continues to support the Air Force’s new approach to command and control, the committee notes that the ABMS requirements and acquisition strategy remain unclear,” wrote members of the Senate Appropriations Committee in November 2020.

The Air Force department’s 2022 budget request, expected out next week, may add clarity to its investment plans. Senate appropriators last year directed the Air Force to “submit [with its 2022 budget request] a report summarizing all related programs in communications, battle management command and control, and sensors that fall within the ABMS umbrella across the future years defense program.”

The Air Force has said the first phase of the ABMS program would last into the early 2020s, but Congress also wants a more specific timeline for when the program will reach initial operational capability.

Program managers emphasized in the May 21 release that “the goal is speed and utility,” falling in line with Brown’s directive to “accelerate change or lose.” As such, whenever possible, components of ABMS will be derived from commercially available technology, requiring a close working relationship with industry. As of late last year, there were nearly 100 companies involved in the program.

“This ability gives us a clear advantage, and it’s time to move ABMS forward so we can realize and ultimately use the power and capability it will provide,” Brown said in the release.

2 Key Defense Studies Focus on Science, Tech, and Diversity

May 21, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The Defense Department must invest in its science and technology enterprise if it hopes to maintain an advantage over peer adversaries, and two reports due out this summer will outline exactly how it plans to accomplish that, DOD’s chief technology officer told House legislators.

The master plan for research, development, test, and evaluation infrastructure is due to Congress by June 30. It will include a summary of science and technology infrastructure across the department and highlight existing and emerging military RDT&E missions and the modernization investments needed for each.

The second report, due Aug. 31, will assess diversity in the department’s research and engineering workforce, said Barbara McQuiston, acting undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, during a May 20 House Armed Services cyber, innovative technologies, and information systems subcommittee.

Both reports were mandated by the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which directed the Defense Secretary to work with the services to compile the scopes of work, cost, priority level, schedule, and plan for each project. Congress also sought answers on what policy barriers could be holding back RDT&E plans.

In assessing the DOD’s research and engineering workforce, Congress wants to understand the proportion of women and minorities currently employed; the effectiveness of existing hiring, recruitment, and retention incentives for women and minorities; and the effectiveness of recruiting and retention programs in DOD labs once those individuals have completed initial DOD-funded “research, programs, grant projects, fellowships, and STEM programs,” according to the legislation.

Great power competition, in particularly with China, is driving Congress’ and the Pentagon’s interest in research and development, covering a range of technologies from energy and microelectronics to hypersonic weapons and digital engineering. One technology of particular interest to all is artificial intelligence, which was the subject of a massive study completed late last year by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. McQuiston said DOD is still reviewing the recommendations, which include creating programs for developing DOD’s own AI specialists, but also enabling those in the private sector to become involved in part-time service, along the lines of the National Guard or Air Force Reserve.

“There is a lot more work that needs to be done, especially in STEM, [and] in science education and in recruitment and diversity of the workforce,” said McQuiston.