Air Force Did Not Effectively Oversee Development of KC-46 Refueling Boom, DOD IG Says

May 27, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force didn’t effectively oversee the development of the KC-46’s refueling boom, leading to additional delays and costs and a lingering deficiency that prevents the tanker from refueling some USAF aircraft, according to a new Pentagon watchdog report.

The Defense Department Inspector General, in a report released May 27, said the Air Force’s KC-46 Program Office didn’t effectively manage the development of the refueling boom, specifically following a redesign of the system in 2012. That year, Boeing presented a system design during the preliminary design review that “differed significantly” from the initial design from the 2011 contract award.

Despite the new design, the Air Force did not “ensure that critical technologies for the refueling boom were demonstrated in a relevant testing environment,” and it “did not verify full functionality” of the boom in accordance with the program’s own plan when performing flight tests, the IG found.

The Program Office didn’t revalidate changes to critical technologies “at any point during the engineering and manufacturing development phase, since revalidations were not required by DOD policy,” the report states. The office decided, with approval from the Pentagon, in 2014 that reduced flight testing was fine to evaluate the performance of the tanker in support of a 2016 Milestone C decision. Officials believed, since the KC-46’s boom is based on the proven system on the KC-10, further assessment of boom technologies was not necessary.

“Despite encountering flight test failures in January 2016 that required Boeing engineers to redesign the refueling boom, the KC-46 Program Office officials did not change their decision to perform reduced flight testing prior to the Milestone C decision. This reduced flight testing did not include the stressing conditions under which the refueling boom problem could potentially occur.

Because of this, in 2018 when the company tried to test full functionality of the boom system, test results showed the boom was problematic during refueling of A-10, C-17, and F-16 receivers. The KC-46 still can’t refuel the A-10 and some variants of the C-130, with operational limits on several other airframes, according to the DOD IG.

These problems led to August 2019 and March 2020 contract modifications at a cost of $100 million to redesign the KC-46’s refueling boom, with a retrofit not estimated to begin until January 2024.

“Had KC-46 Program Office officials effectively managed the development and testing of the refueling boom for the KC-46A tanker, the Air Force would not have had to spend an additional $100 million for the redesign of the refueling boom to achieve its required performance,” the IG’s report states.

Going forward, the IG recommended that the Pentagon’s acquisition officials conduct “knowledge-building technology readiness assessments” throughout the buying process, including at preliminary design review, critical design review, and Milestone C “at a minimum.” The Defense Department also should develop and execute technology maturation plans “for critical technologies that have not been demonstrated in a relevant testing environment.” The Pentagon’s director of Development, Test, Evaluation, and Assessments agreed with these recommendations.

Trainer Aircraft Mission Capable Rates Rose in Fiscal 2020 With Investments

May 27, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Investment in parts and facilities, proactive maintenance, and reorganization helped Air Education and Training Command drive a 17 percent improvement in the overall mission capable rates of its trainer aircraft—substantially better than USAF’s overall performance, according to figures provided by the Air Force and AETC.

Three of AETC’s four main trainer aircraft improved more than most other Air Force aircraft in mission capability rates in fiscal 2020; outscored only by the F-35 strike fighter, the MC rate for which increased 16 percentage points.

Overall, the Air Force saw about a 2.5 percent improvement in its MC rates across all fleets, from 70.27 percent in fiscal 2019 to 72.74 percent in FY ’20. The Air Force provided the MC rate data to Air Force Magazine, and AETC commented on the results through a spokeswoman.

“Mission capable” refers to aircraft available and ready to do at least one of their assigned missions.

AETC scored increases with the T-1A Jayhawk, used for advanced training for pilots on the tanker/transport track; the T-6A Texan II turboprop basic undergraduate trainer; and the T-38C advanced supersonic jet trainer. Only the T-38A saw a mission capable rate decline in AETC’s stable.

Mission Capable Rates for Air Education and Training Command Trainers

Trainer	2019 Mission Capable Rate	2020 Mission Capable Rate
T-1A	60.51 percent	68.43 percent
T-6A	63.29 percent	73.57 percent
T-38A	74.48 percent	71.29 percent
T-38C	63.05 percent	65.44 percent

Source: USAF

An AETC spokeswoman said the improvements were due to several factors. The command increased investment in sustainment—“the parts, supplies, and maintenance capabilities we needed,” and it restructured “some known problems” by rewriting aircraft maintenance contracts to improve MC rates, she said. There was also “sustained leadership emphasis and a reorganization,” about which AETC didn’t elaborate.

An engine test cell facility was returned to service, which eliminated “long wait times to return out-of-service aircraft” to flying status.

There was also a shift to “removing and replacing items prior to the established mean-time” between failure, so the aircraft avoided predictable breaks.

With the exception of the T-1, the break rates on the four fixed-wing trainers stayed about the same from fiscal 2019 to 2020. The T-1’s break rate improved from 10.54 percent to 8.85 percent. The T-6’s break rates stayed the same, at 5.29 percent, and the T-38A and C saw marginal improvements of less than half a percentage point each, from 6.78 percent and 7.38 percent, respectively in fiscal 2019, to 6.67 percent and 7.12 percent, respectively, in FY ‘20.

The aircraft are neither the youngest nor oldest in USAF’s inventory. The T-1A averages 25.9 years; the T-6 averages 14.9 years; and the T-38A and T-38C average 52.91 and 52.17 years, respectively, although the T-38C has undergone more extensive service life extension and modification to include new wings, intakes, and cockpit upgrades.

Among specific investments, AETC put $34 million into T-6A spare parts in fiscal 2020 and boosted T-38 spares and repairables in Fiscal ’19, the spokeswoman said.

AETC is in the midst of a drastic overhaul of its fixed- and rotary-wing pilot training programs, shifting a greater amount of the syllabus to simulation, with a corresponding decrease in overall flying hours, both per-aircraft and per-pilot. The objective of the overhaul is to turn out better pilots more quickly, according to 19th Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Craig D. Wills. Aircraft utilization rates were not immediately available.

AETC is evaluating whether to phase out the T-1, which is nearing the end of its planned service life, or to continue to use it for specialized accession of commercial pilots into the Air Force. The T-38A and C will be phased out over the next decade as the T-7A Red Hawk supplants it for advanced pilot training. Both the T-38A and C models have received upgrades and service life extension, but both also will need additional improvements to serve until the full complement of T-7As comes online.

Senator Who Flew Space Shuttle Shocked that China, Russia Hardly Engage on Space Debris

May 27, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

A first-year senator may perceive the perils of space debris multiplying in low-Earth orbit from a more visceral vantage point than the Space Force or Defense Department officials who testified May 26 on threats to U.S. military activities in space.

“With regards to LEO [low-Earth orbit], in particular, do you—as we’re tracking relatively small objects [debris], there’s thousands of them—when you get a state vector on one of those and you can see that’s it’s going to approach not only our ally’s, but sometimes our adversary’s, satellites in orbit, … do you always share that information? Because there’s also benefit for us,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona), a retired Navy pilot who flew or commanded four space shuttle missions and is a member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces. Kelly said sharing such information gives any satellite operator, even an adversary, a chance to maneuver out of the way and not contribute more debris from a crash.

Space Force Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. David D. Thompson said the USSF’s 18th Space Control Squadron does “that deconfliction” anytime it’s aware of such a close approach. Then John Hill, who is performing the duties of assistant secretary of defense for space policy, added that while most space operators “are very glad to engage with us … there are two countries that often don’t pick up the phone or answer the email.” He later specified that he meant China and Russia.

Kelly had assumed the DOD would have a “direct line” to a Russian agency, for example, in such an event. “So, they don’t respond when there’s a conjunction?” Kelly asked incredulously.

“We have established communications in some circumstances—it’s not 100 percent” radio silence, Hill said, not specifying whether he meant China, Russia, or both. “We end up having to use diplomatic channels, and it’s a much more complicated process.”

Referring to an earlier remark on counterspace threats, Kelly said a Chinese anti-satellite weapon test in 2007 that created a debris field had “presented an interesting problem” for him.

“I was the commander of the space shuttle on the very next shuttle mission to launch, and it became an issue. I had to maneuver the space shuttle out of the way of some of that debris. And it presents an increasingly complex hazard,” Kelly said.

The officials briefed members on counterspace threats including anti-satellite missiles and directed-energy weapons, as well as the lack of accepted norms of behavior in space. Thompson characterized China’s and Russia’s pursuits of counterspace technology as “attempting to take … away from us” existing abilities to conduct communications and surveillance, for example, from space.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) wanted to know how the Space Force plans to defend against cyberattacks on space systems. Thompson said the service is assessing “bolt-on” cyber defenses for existing platforms “when and where and how we can.” And unlike in the past, when cybersecurity in space wasn’t necessary, the USSF will “absolutely design our systems” with “a cyber threat in mind,” he said.

“Then the third piece is, we’re building out what we call mission defense teams,” Thompson said. “Those are cyber defense teams for every system, for every operational organization, who understand the cyber capabilities, are highly trained in defense, and [are] hunting and finding threats and addressing them and providing that first line of defense.”

Thompson went over some of the DOD’s and Department of the Air Force’s organizational plans for the Space Force, saying that as of the hearing, the USSF had about 6,400 uniformed members. About 6,000 of those transferred in from the Air Force plus there are interservice transfers now underway and another 218 officers entering from the Air Force Academy’s 2021 graduating class. About 6,000 civilian employees are also assigned to the Space Force.

Meanwhile, the USSF has activated its first of three field commands, the Space Operations Command, and plans to stand up both the Space Systems Command and Space Training and Readiness Command in 2021, Thompson said.

Here Are the Scoring Charts for the Air Force’s New Fitness Test

May 27, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

As Airmen prepare for the return of physical fitness tests July 1, the Air Force released updated scoring charts May 26 to reflect the changes to those tests.

As previously announced, PT tests will no longer include the controversial waist measurement as a scored component, though Airmen will still be tape-tested once a year. Without the waist measurement, the maximum point value of the sit-up and push-up components will increase from 10 each to 20. The 1.5-mile run will remain at 60 points.

Airmen will now be scored in five-year age groups, instead of 10-year cohorts like the previous test. The new age ranges start with all Airmen younger than 25 and then increase every five years until reaching 60 years or older. In order to pass, Airmen need to accumulate 75 total points and meet the minimum requirements for their age and sex in each individual component.

The minimum requirements in the new scoring charts are lower across every age category for both men and women, while the standards for a maximum score were lowered for those who now are in the 25-29, 35-39, 45-49 and 55-59 age ranges.

“Physical fitness is an important part of our everyday lives. It’s more than just a test—it’s a way of life, our readiness, and ultimately our future success,” Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass said in a press release. “July 1st is a chance to refocus on building a lifestyle of fitness and health, and I know our Airmen will be ready.”

The Space Force will continue to follow these new guidelines until service-specific fitness policies are developed and fielded.

The Air Force also has developed alternative “strength and cardiovascular testing exercise options” and plans to release them in the coming weeks, with the aim of Airmen being able to select which testing option is best for them, according to the release.

Those new testing options, however, won’t be available until January 2022. While the May 26 announcement didn’t detail what new exercises would be included, some of the options explored by the Air Force Fitness Working Group included a 20-meter shuttle run, row ergometry, planks, and burpees.

Small Diameter Bombs Collaborate in Golden Horde Test

May 26, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Six GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs dropped from two F-16s set up their own network, changed their targets in flight and synchronized their strikes in a multifaceted final flight test of the current phase of the Golden Horde collaborative weapon technology, the Air Force Research Laboratory said.

Two F-16s from the 96th Test Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, flying over White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, dropped a total of six Boeing-made Small Diameter Bombs—four from one of the fighters and two from the other—in the May 25 test. The munitions established communications with each other and a ground station using the L3Harris Banshee 2 radio network and then reacted to a new high-priority target.

The In-Flight Target Update demonstrated “the ability of Golden Horde weapons to interface with the larger joint all-domain command and control network,” AFRL said. This capability is key to developing future “networked, collaborative, and autonomous,” or NCA weapons, according to a press release.

The new mission called for two of the weapons to make a synchronized time-on-target attack on a single location, while two other munitions made synchronized attacks on two targets, something that had previously been tested.

The synchronized time on target algorithm, supplied by Georgia Tech Research Institute, “was able to flexibly support the new target requirement without any software changes,” the AFRL said.

AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Heather L. Pringle said the test is a technological leap not unlike the advent of laser-guided bombs in the 1960s.

“These technologies are completely changing the way we think about weapon capabilities,” she said in a press release.

Golden Horde is one of the Air Force’s Vanguard programs—technology demonstrations that will pave the way for new applications of weapons technology and manned/unmanned teaming.

The successful test will lead into “Colosseum,” the next phase of Golden Horde development, which will implement “digital engineering, hardware-in-the-loop, and surrogate [unmanned aerial vehicle] testing to rapidly integrate, develop, and test transformational NCA weapon technologies,” AFRL said.

Kendall Hints At Weapons Dual-Sourcing for Air Force

May 26, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Frank Kendall, nominee to be Air Force Secretary, told Congress he may support dual-sourcing munitions in order to ensure a surge production capability.

Among 58 pages of written answers to SASC committee member questions prior to his May 25 confirmation hearing, Kendall said he will revisit the munitions requirements process if he is confirmed, such that it involves allies who use similar munitions. He will take a look at “the cost and benefits of creating additional industrial capacity to meet surge requirements to support contingencies.”

Kendall also said he’d oppose any new jointly run acquisition programs, particularly command and control systems, and hinted that he doesn’t think the Air Force’s mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft will be “optimum” for the next decade or more. Such answers for the record must be carefully worded such that the nominee does not seem to be presuming confirmation.

The Air Force suffered several bouts of munitions shortages in the 2000s and 2010s, driven both by its underfunding munitions accounts and because allies drew upon U.S. stocks during conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. It was later revealed that some allies expected to draw on U.S. stockpiles in any coalition conflict, with the plan to reimburse the U.S. for those weapons expended. The Air Force has since urged allies to restock, warning that the USAF may be able to fund only its own munitions needs in the future.

Kendall said he would “assess the requirements system to ensure our partners remain combat relevant in support of combatant commander regional objectives.” He also said he would see to it that “ally capability and capacity requirements are understood and integrated” into Department of the Air Force processes.

He would further explore “consolidation of program elements to generate flexibility to meet changes in replenishment rates,” as well as more efficient business practices, including multi-year procurements “based on design maturity.”

During the Cold War, the military services often maintained dual-source industrial capacity on radars, engines, munitions, and other critical defense goods to ensure sufficient surge capability in wartime. Frequently, a competition was held for a system, and the winner’s design was developed and produced, with a second source—often the loser of the competition—later brought in to offer a similar product that met the same form, fit, and function. Annually thereafter, the two sources competed for the larger share of production orders. The inherent inefficiencies of dual-sourcing were often overcome by aggressive competitive pricing between bidders. A noteworthy example of this approach included the “great engine war” between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric on the F100 and F110 fighter engines.

Kendall also discouraged pursuit of jointly managed acquisition programs, saying they have an “abysmal record” and that acquisition success is far more likely if one service runs a program that the other services then simply buy.

Joint acquisition programs, “especially [command, control, and communications] programs, have an abysmal record,” he said. The most successful joint programs have “a single-service lead and are purchased by other services once they get into serial production.” Directly answering whether he would encourage such efforts, Kendall said he would suggest joint programs only “where there was a clear lead service, strong commitments by all participants, and strong economic incentives.”

Kendall, whose last job at the Pentagon was as undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, has previously criticized joint programs for poor performance; notably the structure of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

If confirmed as Air Force Secretary, Kendall would likely have to argue against an overall joint multi-domain command and control system, potentially pushing for the other services to simply adopt the standards and architecture of the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System.

He further hinted at this in other answers, where he said there are “challenges in making the Air and Space Forces more effective contributors to joint and combined operations.” Some of these, in which the Department of the Air Force “will play a critical role,” include, “the operational resilience and support to operations provided by the Space Force, and the achievement of integrated command and control between both the Space Force and the Air Force and with our other services and allies.”

Asked about the right mix of fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, Kendall answered that “some mix” of the two kinds of aircraft “will be a reality for over a decade.” Based on his previous experience as the USD/AT&L, “it will still be some time before we can purchase enough fifth-generation fighters to have an optimal mix,” suggesting he thinks the Air Force won’t have enough of the more advanced aircraft. He said he understands that the Air Force has recently wargamed the ideal mix of fourth- and fifth-gen fighters alongside the developmental Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. Once he’s able to review those results, he can “apply appropriate budget constraints and choices that balance near- and longer-term risk.”

Kendall also said he endorses the 2018 National Defense Strategy, but said it fell short in that it “underemphasized the importance of our allies and partners.” He also said that as the Biden administration conducts its Global Posture Review, USAF will have to explore new operational concepts.

It will require “an understanding for the need to make some global presence tradeoffs as we reprioritize for near-peer competition.”

Inside a KC-46 Refueling Flight

May 26, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

ABOARD A KC-46 FLYING ABOVE LAKE HURON—As the flight of four F-16s approaches the Air Force’s next-generation tanker, the boom operator presses a few buttons on a digital display in front of her and the jet’s boom system springs to life.

The large black-and-white screen, the focal point of years of frustration inside the Air Force and negotiations with Boeing, sharpens to a clear image. It shows the refueling boom lowering from the rear of the plane and beginning to move side to side and up and down, testing to ensure it is ready to offload about 5,000 pounds of fuel to each Viper. A familiar “fasten seatbelt” ding plays to passengers to announce the start of the refueling—a reminder that the KC-46, at its heart, is an airliner.

The KC-46 is the sole Pegasus playing in Air Mobility Command’s large-scale Mobility Guardian 2021 exercise, AMC’s premiere training event held every two years. This year’s iteration is focused on new ways of fighting and the development of new technology. Air Force Magazine attended the waning days of the exercise and is the first independent news organization to fly on a KC-46.

The tanker’s envelope has expanded to fuel more aircraft, and the May 25 morning is perfect for the RVS to show what capability it has.

“Got ’em in sight,” the boom operator says over the radio.

Buzz 21, the first of the four F-16s from the Ohio National Guard, pulls up behind the KC-46, call sign Fred 11. When the black-and-white view of the F-16 is clear through the jet’s 3D view, you can make out the hoses extending from pilot’s oxygen mask, as well as the patches on uniform sleeves, from the end of the boom.

However, even with the 3D goggles, depth perception is difficult. Moving the refueling boom around the F-16’s canopy to then line up with the receptacle, flying at 290 knots, is a delicate process. While wearing the goggles, the center of the screen is sharp, but when you look to the edge of the screen, it gets blurry and disorienting.

The camera feed does not accurately show the end of the boom—there’s about another foot and a half beyond what is visible on the screen, so boom operators use the shadows to gauge where the tip is before connecting to the receptacle. If there’s no shadow, on a cloudy day, for example, the operator has to rely on experience, rather than technology, to make the connection.

These photographs, shown during a presentation during the 2020 Airlift Tanker Association conference, shows problems with the KC-46’s troubled remote vision system in both shadows and direct sunlight and examples of “adequate” images during ideal settings. Photos from Air Mobility Command Powerpoint slide.

The weather above Lake Huron, after taking off from Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport—a former USAF base that closed in 1993 and has become a depot and maintenance facility for Kalitta Air—is ideal for showcasing the existing RVS capability that day. A high cloud ceiling prevents the direct-sunlight washout that has plagued the system—during an earlier sortie in the exercise, the screen washed out while a gigantic C-5 attempted to refuel. The only shadow darkening part of the screen comes when the KC-46 lines up directly between the sun and the receiver. That only happens a couple times as the tanker runs its tracks, but when it does, it makes depth perception a little more difficult.

A set of three screens above the main one shows a blurry, wide-angle view of the rear and side of the KC-46, highlighting the heat signature of the F-16 engines.

The first connection with Buzz 21 takes a couple tries, as the operator pulls the boom back several feet to avoid scraping the F-16. “Money,” the instructor says as the connection is made. Buzz 21 takes on its fuel and moves to the right side of the jet. Buzz 22 moves in from the left to take its turn for fuel.

With the ideal day-time conditions, the refueling was “pretty by the book,” said Staff Sgt. Ryan Edsall, a boom operator with the 344th Air Refueling Squadron, who was the instructor on the flight. While the daytime can bring the issues with glare and shadows, the RVS system is best at night, he said.

Scenario of the Day

The F-16s are providing defensive counter air coverage to protect bases in the region from an advancing force, which for the exercise had contracted “Red Air” simulating Su-35s and Su-30s. It’s “Day 30” of the war, and the enemy is at about 75 percent capability, with simulated Sa-8 short-range air defense systems protecting its key locations across the border. Earlier in the exercise, aircrews focused on tactics for a high-end fight, including takeoffs in radio silence and the first KC-46 night vision landing. Even the jet’s call-sign, Fred 11, is a diversion during the exercise since Fred is a nickname for the C-5. KC-135s are going by Herk, KC-10s are going by Moose, in a small attempt to deceive a would-be enemy.

The tanker is flying a track over Lake Huron to refuel the F-16s, and a nearby KC-10 is refueling two A-10s as part of the exercise. Because of the “stiff boom” Category One deficiency on the KC-46, one of several remaining with the program, it can’t refuel the Warthogs because lighter and slower aircraft such as the A-10 have a difficult time disconnecting after refueling. During a pre-mission brief, planners said KC-135s and KC-10s would have to be on standby if A-10s needed fuel, because the KC-46 couldn’t help.

AMC on May 26 said the KC-46 can refuel F/A-18A-F and E/A-18Gs using its drogue without restrictions. The Pegasus can pass fuel, with varying restrictions, to B-52s, C-17s, F-15s, F-16s, F-35As, HC/MC-130Js, other KC-46s, E-3Gs, C-5Ms, RC/TC-135s, F-22s, and B-1Bs. In the coming months, the aircraft is projected to be able to receive limited aerial refueling certifications and clearances for CV/MV-22s, E-8s, B-2s, and P-8s.

The boom operator makes the connection with Buzz 22, Buzz 23, and Buzz 24 on the first try. Then with the operational refueling requirements of the day’s mission complete, the nearby KC-10 swings over and practices making connections with the KC-46. Each time the massive KC-10 connects, it feels like the smaller KC-46 is in a minor fender bender as passengers feel a slight push forward.

Boom operators Airman 1st Class Crissy Hall and Staff Sgt. Ryan Edsall, both with the 344th Air Refueling Squadron, operate a KC-46's refueling system during a May 25 flight. — Boom operators Airman 1st Class Crissy Hall and Staff Sgt. Ryan Edsall, both with the 344th Air Refueling Squadron, operate a KC-46’s refueling system during a May 25 flight. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Karla Parra.

Flying the KC-46

In the cockpit, the KC-46’s avionics and situational awareness show how advanced it is compared to the older KC-10s and KC-135s. The pilots have plugged the flight path into the jet’s navigation system, and it flies itself on a refueling track. Aside from the better air conditioning, this is one of the biggest upgrades after coming from a KC-135, said mission pilot Capt. Daniel Dixon, with the 344th Air Refueling Squadron at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas.

“It’s a lot smoother to fly,” Dixon said. “It flies itself a lot more. That allows us to focus on tactical data link and the bigger picture—the other threats to the aircraft—and pay attention to the flight at large rather than maintaining our air speed and bank angle and making sure that we stay within our airspace.”

The co-pilot on the mission changes one of the screens in front of her to a camera view of behind, showing the KC-10 connecting to the boom.

Another screen in front of the pilots displays the jet’s Tactical Situational Awareness System, bringing in information collected through line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight links displaying nearby jets and threats into an easily viewable display for the aircrew to know what’s around them. This is built in to the KC-46, while the KC-135 relies on a roll-on system for a similar capability, but those are only available in small numbers, are owned by Air Combat Command, and sit in the back of that plane instead of in front of the pilots. A key focus of Mobility Guardian was integrating the KC-46’s system with other Tactical Datalink Systems across the mobility fleet.

KC-46 Fixes

USAF officials have long said the situational awareness upgrade is a major focus of the KC-46 program, and pilots who have flown the jet told Air Force Magazine it is a huge upgrade, though they are taking small steps to move toward full capability.

The jet’s biggest and most famous issue is the set of cameras, screens, and sensors connecting the boom operators to the receiving aircraft. Boeing and the Air Force announced in 2020 that they had reached an agreement to overhaul the whole system with new cameras, displays, and sensors. The current black-and-white video feed will be replaced by a color 4K view. The boom will be affixed with a new actuator to alleviate the stiffness issue, which will allow the A-10s to be able to connect with the KC-46.

Included in the new “RVS 2.0” package will be a laser ranger for aircraft distance measurement and augmented reality to assist with the boom operations, which should address the problems of depth perception and accurately show the length of the boom itself.

New screens will replace the current ones in the boom operator position, which is reminiscent of a remotely piloted aircraft operator’s cockpit. The new screens and systems will actually move the entire position a few inches, causing a third seat used by instructors and guests to be shifted from the middle to the side.

Boeing will cover the cost of the new RVS system, which is in addition to the more than $5 billion in cost overruns that the company is responsible for.

RVS 2.0 is currently undergoing its preliminary design review, and AMC boss Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost told Air Force Magazine in an interview she has seen some of that work, and “our boom operators have seen that work, and they are pretty happy with what they see. So, I’m cautiously optimistic.”

As more boom operators have worked with the current system, they have become more confident in working around RVS issues. AMC now wants to open its envelope to more training sorties with combat aircraft. Air Combat Command leaders have flown on KC-46s and seen how it operates and have said “’OK, let’s do this with fourth-generation airplanes,’” Van Ovost said

The new system will start to be installed on delivered KC-46s in 2023, and it will be incorporated on the production line the following year. In the meantime, Boeing has also developed an interim RVS “1.5” using software upgrades to improve the system’s image quality. While the interim step is welcomed by the Air Force, service leaders have said the priority is the full 2.0 overhaul and 1.5 can’t change that timeline.

The tanker during the May 25 mission, tail number 76026 from McConnell, has the original RVS system. McConnell is the biggest operating base for the KC-46, with more than 100 aircrews trained and flying the jet. The base has sent their KC-46s on an around-the-world mission including a stop at the Dubai Air Show, and on training events in the Pacific and in Europe. Air Mobility Command will offer the KC-46 to U.S. Transportation Command for limited operations as soon as July.

KC-46 crews used the exercise’s operations tempo, and the small, towerless airfield, to practice flying in a combat environment. During the May 25 flight, the KC-46 did a “tactical arrival,” or a “teardrop” landing. This involved approaching the runway from the wrong direction and doing a sharp turn and climb to turn around and land quickly.

“Traditionally, tankers [fly] very wide patterns, come in and fly [a] very smooth, precise approach to land. We’re used to taking off and landing from the same field at Al Udeid [Air Base, Qatar] or Al Dhafra [Air Base, United Arab Emirates], which is very safe, controlled. And so there’s not a lot of threats nearby,” said Maj. Thomas Gorry, the chief of group training with the 22nd Operations Group at McConnell.

The KC-46 program brings together aircrew from different backgrounds. Gorry comes from a C-130, which regularly flies tactical approaches to austere airfields, so he wanted to bring that approach to the KC-46.

“When you’re thinking about that next fight, the airfield you’re landing and taking off from might not be as secure, so the tactical arrival is another piece to that puzzle that we’re not just good at yet,” he said, adding, “We just don’t know where we’re going to be landing next. It’s not going to be [Al Udeid], and it’s not going to be Dhafra.”

Brown or Raymond? Milley Hints One Will Replace Him as ‘Next Chairman’ of Joint Chiefs

May 26, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could well be an Airman or Guardian, hinted Gen. Mark A. Milley, the current CJCS, while speaking at the graduation ceremony for the U.S. Air Force Academy on May 26.

Milley pointed toward Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and Space Force Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond as the obvious candidates.

“I want to thank the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—it’s going to be either Brown or Raymond. Take your pick, Space or Air Force,” Milley said in a half-joking tone after thanking Acting Air Force Secretary John P. Roth for his attendance.

Milley then playfully polled the crowd of graduates and family members in attendance, asking them to cheer if they wanted Brown, then Raymond. He proceeded to acknowledge others in attendance, including senior enlisted adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Ramon “CZ” Colon-Lopez.

Milley began a four-year term as Chairman in October 2019 as the 10th member of the U.S. Army to hold the position. In contrast, Gen. Richard Myers was the last Airman to serve as CJCS, holding the job from 2001 to 2005. Since the founding of the Air Force as a separate branch in 1947, only four Airmen have ever ascended to the role.

The Space Force, founded in 2019, has never had a Chairman come from its ranks. In fact, Raymond is the first leader of the nascent service, which falls under the Department of the Air Force.

Getting Airmen into higher level joint roles was a top priority for the last Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. David L. Goldfein.

The importance of joint cooperation between branches was a common theme in Milley’s commencement speech, as he noted early on that “the reason I am alive today, it is you.”

“The reason so many other United States Army infantry, Special Forces are alive today, it’s because we had pilots of enormous courage, who went through thick or thin, when we called in close air support, and we said, ‘Mark my boss, purple smoke, 200 meters due north,’ and you rolled in, and all we cared about was steel on target,” Milley said. “We didn’t care about the color of your uniform. We’re a joint force—one team, one fight, every day, all day, day and night, and the enemy should never forget it.”

Milley also stressed the importance of deterrence, noting increasing tensions with other global superpowers and the need to maintain “real capability” to ensure peace.

“We are now in the 76th year of the great power peace following World War II, and the structure is under stress. We can see it fraying at the edge. With history as our guide, we would be wise to lift our gaze from the never-ending urgency of the present and set the conditions for a future that prevents great power war. Right now, we’re in a great power competition with China and Russia. And we need to keep it at competition and avoid great power conflict.”

Central to preventing tensions from flaring into war, Milley said, will be Airmen and Guardians making “hard choices with imperfect information,” a similar message to one Brown has sounded.

With the growth of technology, “revolutionary change is going to occur” while this year’s graduates are still in service, Milley warned, and it will occur at such a pace that the next generation of USAF leadership will “likely have very little time to correct the mistakes that my generation has made.”

To that end, Milley urged the new graduates to be aggressive in trying to confront and solve future problems now, hoping to give the U.S. a competitive advantage in the future that will either deter or win wars.

“You, the members of the Air Force, the members of the Space Force, are going to be key to our nation’s deterrence. In addition to your innovation, your skill, your readiness, your competence, the real military capability that you’re going to develop, you’re also going to need something else. You’re going to need an incredible character in order to deter, and if deterrence fails, in order to win.”

Brown on Future Combat: ‘I Can’t Predict the Future, But I Can Shape It’

May 25, 2021 | By Tobias Naegele

The defense budget coming out May 28 will contain few big surprises. Plans to retire some older planes have already been reported, and the longer-range plans typically surfacing at budget time—known as the Future Years Defense Program, or FYDP—are still being debated. But inklings of the service’s direction will be sprinkled throughout, all of them designed to maximize options going forward.

“I can’t predict the future,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. in a virtual conversation hosted by the Center for New American Security on May 25. “But I can help shape it.”

Shaping the future means ensuring U.S. forces can’t be stymied in the face of opposition or by failed programs that don’t deliver. “I want to make sure we have options that we’ve actually taken a look at,” Brown said. Streamlining today’s fighter aircraft inventory and investing in future fighter and bomber capabilities now will help set up those options in the future.

Experimenting with and fielding capabilities as they become available is also part of that plan. The USAF announced days earlier that it will begin fielding the first fruits of the Advanced Battle Management System this year, creating a pod that will fly on the KC-46 that will leverage the aerial refueler to help F-22s and F-35s communicate.

This is the concept behind JADC2, connecting “the right sensor to the right shooter,” Brown said. “It’s really about the movement of information and data to help drive decision advantage” and will ultimately involve sharing data and situational awareness across every domain—air, land, sea, and space. “We don’t do any one of these in isolation,” Brown said. “We’ve got to be able to work together,” so data must be shareable. “I don’t need to use every piece of data from every other service,” he added. “I want to make sure it’s available in case I need it, and vice versa. I want my data available and usable [by joint partners]. That’s where JADC2 comes together: when we have a shared understanding to sense, make sense, and then act and execute.”

The resulting “sensing grid” will provide multiple pathways for channeling information from platform to platform across the battle space, forming and reforming connections in the face of jamming and interference.

Training Airmen to operate under those conditions will be as critical to enabling JADC2 as developing new technology, Brown said.

“The Air Force just released our newest doctrine document, where we talk about, you know, centralized command, distributed control, and decentralization execution,” he said. “For our Airmen … to employ that new doctrine in mission-type orders, [they need] to understand that communication will be contested. And you will not have perfect information, and you’re going to have to be able to make decisions at a lower level. We’re not going all the way back up to the highest level of command to make those decisions.”

That’s a theme Brown has pounded on for his entire nine months as Chief, a theme that is closely tied to his bumper-sticker objective to “accelerate change or lose.” He applies it not just to warfare and new technology development, but also to the way systems are developed and acquired. The Air Force is going through a “cultural shift,” moving away from fully integrated hardware and software solutions in favor of acquiring hardware that might be able to do different things in the future as new software solutions emerge. Such an open architecture would be more flexible and allow for new capabilities to roll out over time, much as new apps and operating system enhancements are rolled out on phones and other devices.

“It is a different mindset,” he said. “It’s a different approach. And as we’ve worked with our industry partners, I’m seeing that we are moving in that direction. And we’ve got to continue moving in that direction.” Software development works that way, he acknowledged, but acquisition rules don’t, and that’s one of the challenges the services have to overcome.

New programs and innovations can help fuel that, from the Air Force’s software factories to collaborations with non-traditional and even traditional contractors. Airmen need to be willing to take chances, he said.

“You can’t be innovative and risk averse at the same time,” Brown added. “We’ve got to be able to take a little bit of risk, and some things are not going to work. But as long as we’re failing forward, that’s [what] we need to be, so we can accelerate change. So we don’t lose.”