INDOPACOM: Deterrence Fund Increase Needed for ISR, Missile Defense in the Pacific

March 9, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

A sharp increase in deterrence funding in the Pacific, at a time when defense budgets are expected to shrink, is needed to prove that the region is the Pentagon’s top priority and to address growing needs in surveillance and missile defense, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command told lawmakers March 9.

INDOPACOM Commander Adm. Philip S. Davidson recently announced he is seeking $4.7 billion in fiscal 2022 for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, almost double the $2.5 billion allocated in fiscal 2021. While the Pentagon’s budget request is still in the works, Davidson told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9 he is “encouraged” by the draft’s emphasis on the fund.

The $4.7 billion request, just under the $5.5 billion cap Congress put in place when the PDI was created in the fiscal 2021 defense policy bill, includes a large shopping list for INDOPACOM. This includes an Aegis Ashore missile defense system for Guam, ground-based precision strike capabilities in the Western Pacific, over-the-horizon radars, and an increase in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities for the theater.

Davidson, in his 2019 confirmation hearing, told the committee that INDOPACOM is only getting about one-quarter of its total ISR need. He told Senators on March 9 that this has “improved slightly,” including with an undisclosed action “taken in the last few months to resource ISR capability.”

However, Davidson said the military is not putting money where its mouth is with regard to ISR in the region.

“If INDOPACOM is indeed the priority theater, we need to continue to look at our intel apparatus … to make sure that we have the warning that is required to get our forces to respond, alert our allies and partners, and prevent any kind of Chinese external attack in the region,” Davidson said.

INDOPACOM broadly shares its intelligence with allies and “many, many partners” in the region. “They benefit from the information that we generate,” he said.

In areas such as the East China Sea and the South China Sea, “we, the United States, benefit from much of what our allies and partners do there as well,” he said. Increased sales of ISR assets would help “add capacity to the picture” in these regions, he said.

Dyess B-1 Supports JTAC Training in Norway, Sweden

March 9, 2021 | By Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory

A B-1 Lancer assigned to the Air Force’s 7th Bomb Wing supported training for foreign joint terminal attack controllers and integrated with Swedish Gripen fighters during a Bomber Task Force mission in Norway and Sweden on March 8, according to a U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa release.

American Special Operations Forces also backed up the training for JTACs from the two countries.

“It’s not every day that our bomber has the chance to play such a prominent role in training ally and partner JTACs,” said USAFE-AFAFRICA Commander Air Force Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian in the release. “Opportunities to train alongside our allies, partners, and U.S. Special Operations Forces in forward locations makes us the rapid, resilient, and ready force we need to be.”

The Lancer, which is deployed from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, also underwent a “warm pit refuel” at Norway’s Bodo Air Force Station. The B-1’s crew remained in the cockpit during the process so the plane could get back to the mission faster, the release stated.

In contrast with hot-pit refueling, during which an aircraft gets fuel while its engines “are turned on or running,” warm-pit refueling occurs “with the aircraft engines operating off the auxiliary power unit,” a 2018 Army publication about refueling techniques explains.

Dyess B-1s recently deployed to Norway to train with its troops and other partner forces in the Arctic, Air Force Magazine previously reported. The Bomber Task Force marks the Lancer’s first deployment to the Nordic nation.

Austin Slashes Hundreds of Volunteer Advisory Positions

March 9, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

The Pentagon could know within about a week how many volunteer civilian advisers had their terms abruptly concluded by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III effective Feb. 16, including a list of names.

Austin cleared out an “several hundred” volunteer seats on the Pentagon’s 42-plus civilian advisory boards—every seat he has the power to appoint, according to spokespeople. He blamed the unprecedented purge on “the scale of recent changes” to board seats made in the final weeks of the Trump administration, according to Department of Defense spokesperson Susan Gough. She said Austin’s office won’t be able to provide a total count or full list of names until after March 15.

Austin “was concerned by the scale of recent changes to department advisory committees,” Gough explained in an email to Air Force Magazine. “For example, recent nominations affected half the membership of each the Defense Policy Board and Defense Business Board.” She did not specify what problems Austin thought the changes might present, nor did she detail how many last-minute appointments the Trump administration tried to make in its final days or weeks.

Instead, Gough said Austin instructed Pentagon officials to review each board so he can “get his arms around the breadth and quality of advice provided … and make department senior leaders [are] comfortable about why we have the advisory committees and the expertise they provide.”

Rather than wait for the results of the review, two Pentagon officials, speaking anonymously, announced the conclusion of the board members’ terms to the press Feb. 2. Board members had not been notified. A DOD news story posted online by the Pentagon that same day said board members were “directed … to resign,” but Gough clarified: “We did not ask for resignations, nor did we terminate the members. … We concluded their service as we stood down the boards until further notice.” A letter thanking them for their service was to have been sent by Feb. 26.

Ending all terms at once was “equitable, fair, and uniformly consistent,” an official said in the Feb. 2 briefing.

A tradition that dates all the way back to the beginning of the federal government, the boards provide expertise from the civilian world. By holding public meetings, they also provide a forum for public input, according to the General Services Administration, which monitors advisory committees such as the DOD boards and others across the federal government. The boards don’t have any decision-making powers.

If Austin’s Jan. 30 memo announcing the review is any indication, many of those 42-plus boards might not come back.

Board members on DOD-appointed advisory boards serve one-year terms and may be reappointed for three more one-year terms, serving a maximum of four years, Gough said. Because of potential conflicts of interest, board members’ activities may be restricted, and those restrictions may extend past the end of their service, according to the GSA.

It is unclear what it costs to maintain and operate the boards. An official at the briefing estimated costs are “in the several millions of dollars.”

Austin’s move followed “frenetic” last-minute changes by the Trump administration that involved “removing people who had been on some of these boards and then replacing them, or just simply adding them in a quite unprecedented fashion,” an unnamed official said Feb. 2.

Who’s Doing the Review

Principal Deputy General Counsel Beth George and Interim Director of Administration and Management Tom Muir are chairing the review process.

The boards report to 12 executive sponsors, all political appointees. Only two of the 12 had been appointed as of Feb. 22. Each of the 12 will review the boards for which they are responsible and pass their recommendation to George and Muir, including recommendations to retain, realign, terminate, or otherwise change the boards, Gough said. The sponsors may also recommend ideas for changing the governance of boards required in an act of Congress or executive order of the President. Muir and George will present recommendations to Austin in June.

A review of the Defense Business Board was due from Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks on Feb. 16, along with a review of the Defense Policy Board from Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Amanda J. Dory.

Asked about the appropriateness of starting the reviews without 10 of the 12 sponsors in place, Gough said, “In most instances, the current incumbent is an official [who] has been in the department for some time and, as such, has knowledge of the advisory committee, its mission, and value.”

Sponsor submissions on the Defense Health Board, Defense Innovation Board, and Defense Science Board are due March 12.

Past and Future

The tradition of consulting nongovernment civilians dates back to George Washington’s appointing a commission to investigate Pennsylvania’s “Whiskey Rebellion” of distillers opposing a federal tax, according to the Congressional Research Service’s 2016 report, Federal Advisory Committees: An Introduction and Overview. By the 1900s, advisory committees were common, and the public had grown suspicious of many of the committees’ closed-door activities. In the 1950s, “private sector industries” began to set up committees to try to influence the government, including committees set up “under official auspices,” according to the CRS. By 1972, the proliferation of more than 2,600 committees across the federal government led Congress to pass the Federal Advisory Committee Act. About 1,000 advisory committees with 60,000 members advise the executive branch today, according to the General Services Administration.

Austin’s Jan. 30 memo offered a hint at what he may want in the future: “A single cross-functional advisory committee,” for which Austin or Hicks would approve all members.

“Secretary of Defense Austin suspended committee activity to quickly get a sense of these boards’ purpose and composition, and to make department senior leaders comfortable about why we have the advisory committees and the quality of expertise they provide,” Gough said. “The rapid timeline for the full-scale review shows that Secretary Austin takes seriously the work of these boards and wants to quickly set that work in a direction that most benefits department priorities.”

Civilian Advisory Boards in the Department of Defense

A dozen sponsors supervise the activities of at least 42 civilian advisory boards, not including the boards’ subcommittees, and there may be more boards. During the review, the boards’ executive sponsors will report on any new boards that may have formed recently. The boards, their sponsors, and the dates by which sponsors must recommend whether to retain, change, or terminate the boards:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark A. Milley

Board of Visitors, National Defense University (March 26)
U.S. Strategic Command Advisory Group (April 30)

Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks

Defense Business Board (Feb. 16)

Thomas Muir, Interim Director of Administration and Management

Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory Council (April 30)

Beth George, Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (March 26)

John P. Roth, Acting Secretary of the Air Force

Air University Board of Visitors (March 26)
*Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy (April 30)
U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (April 30)

John E. Whitley, Acting Secretary of the Army

Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (Feb. 26)
Army Education Advisory Committee (March 26)
*Board of Visitors for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (March 26)
Board on Coastal Engineering Research (April 30)
Inland Waterways Users Board (April 30)
Table Rock Lake Oversight Committee (mission concluded, not subject to review)
U.S. Army Science Board (April 30)
*United States Military Academy Board of Visitors (April 30)

Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary of the Navy

Board of Visitors, Marine Corps University (March 26)
Education for Seapower Advisory Board (April 30)
Ocean Research Advisory Panel (no current members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, not subject to review)
*United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors (April 30)

Stacy A. Cummings, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

*Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory Board (April 30)

David M. Taylor, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security

Advisory Committee on Industrial Security and Industrial Base Policy (April 30, not currently populated)
National Intelligence University Board of Visitors (April 30)
National Reconnaissance Advisory Board (April 30)
National Security Agency Emerging Technologies Board (April 30)

Virginia S. Penrod, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Advisory Panel on Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs (April 30)
*Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (April 30)
Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct (April 30, not currently populated)
Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (April 30, not currently populated)
Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing (April 30)
Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (April 30)
Defense Health Board (March 12)
*Department of Defense Board of Actuaries (April 30)
*Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries
*Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (April 30)
Department of Defense Wage Committee (April 30)
*National Security Education Board (April 30)
*Reserve Forces Policy Board (Feb. 26)
Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (April 30)

Amanda J. Dory, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Defense Policy Board (Feb.16)

Terence G. Emmert, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

Defense Innovation Board (March 12)
Defense Science Board (March 12)

*Some or all members of the boards preceded by an asterisk remain in their positions because the Secretary of Defense does not have authority to appoint or remove them.

AETC Rolls Out Interim Height Standards For Career Enlisted Aviators

March 8, 2021 | By Amy Hudson

The Air Force unveiled new, interim height standards for Career Enlisted Aviators that will open many of these jobs to more people, in particular women. The temporary standards will remain in place until the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center finishes updating the 1967 anthropometric study on which USAF flight requirements were based for more than half a century.

Nearly 35 percent of the Total Force aviator community are enlisted flight crew, and for decades Airmen had to be between 64 inches and 77 inches tall, or 5’4” to 6’5”. Under the new standards, some jobs are open to individuals as short as 58 inches, or 4’10, and most jobs are open to individuals as tall as 80 inches, or 6’8.

AFSC	Career Field	Min. Height	Max Height
1AOXX	Inflight refueling specialist	60”	80”
1A1XX	Flight Engineers	62”	80”
1A2XX	Aircraft Loadmasters	63”	80”
1A3XX	Airborne Mission Systems Specialists	59”	80”
1A6XX	Flight Attendant	60”	80”
1A8X1	Airborne Cryptologic Language Analyst	59”	80”
1A8X2	Airborne ISR Operator	59”	80”
1A9XX	Special Mission Aviator	62”	80”
1U0XX	Sensor Operator	58”	80”
1U1XX	Enlisted RPA Pilot	58”	80”

Source: Air Education and Training Command

Enlisted air crew have jobs like in-flight refueling, flight engineers, flight attendants, aircraft loadmasters, airborne mission systems operators, and cryptologic language analysts.

“The CEA career field, like every Air Force specialty, needs a diverse team of multi-capable Airmen to be able to complete our missions,” said Chief Master Sgt. Erik Thompson, Air Education and Training Command command chief, in a release. “These new height requirements will be instrumental in helping us build that.”

The old Career Enlisted Aviator standard was based on a 1967 study of white males, so it lacked ethnic, racial, and gender diversity. Under those standards, the Air Force says, the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics shows that 43.5 percent of U.S. women aged 20-29 stand 64 inches tall or less. That figure is even higher for minorities: 74 percent of African Americans, 72 percent of Latino Americans, and 61 percent of Asian Americans. By contrast, only 3.7 percent of U.S. men are under 64 inches tall. The result: Most Career Enlisted Aviators are male.

**Graphic: Air Education and Training Command**

Chief Master Sgt. Philip Leonard, the Air Force’s CEA career field manager, said the former policy doesn’t even make sense, given that most enlisted aviators move about the aircraft during missions and don’t need to worry about whether they can reach controls in the cockpit.

To determine final standards, the AFLCMC study must study all 32 aircraft that CEAs work with, studying roughly one aircraft per month until the fleet-wide evaluation is complete in 2022, according to the release.

“This scientific study will create a true safety standard and open up 10 AFSCs to a larger recruit population,” Leonard said. “Our CEA enterprise will be able to grow more lethal and ready through innovation sponsored by a diverse force.”

The move is one of many that USAF is taking to diversify aircrew.

The department also is re-evaluating “the decades-old Air Force Officer Qualifying Test and the Test of Basic Aviation Skills” to “determine if there are barriers that affect under-represented youth when preparing for and taking the test that could negatively impact them during the pilot candidate selection process.”

This move follows up on a decision last May, when the Air Force removed initial height requirements for pilot applicants. Officials cited that “key change” as essential to improving diversity among rated officers. The standards for pilots previously had been the same as CEAs: between 5’4 and 6’6. They also had to have a sitting height of 34 to 40 inches. Studies showed that those physical requirements disqualified about 44 percent of the U.S. females between the ages of 20 to 29. While the former policy allowed Airmen to apply for waivers—and 87 percent of those were approved from 2015 to 2019—it’s impossible to know how many never even tried.

“Studies have shown that women’s perceptions about being fully qualified for a job makes them less likely to apply, even though there is a waiver option,” said Lt. Col. Jessica Ruttenber, Air Force mobility planner and programmer. Ruttenber is the team leader on the Women’s Initiative Team who led the height standards adjustment effort for pilots. “Modifying the height standard allows the Air Force to accommodate a larger and more diverse rated applicant pool within existing aircraft constraints.”

The Air Force is also trying to reach out to underrepresented portions of the population to give them early exposure to aviation.

Since Air Force Recruiting Service activated its Detachment 1 in October 2018, the unit has met with more than 355,000 attendees, directly monitored 39,000 youth, and is building partnerships with affinity organizations such as the Latino Pilot Association, Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals, and the Women in Aviation International. The department also launched a new initiative in January that encourages general officers to team up with Airmen and Guardians to “inform, influence, and inspire” young people from underrepresented groups.

“We recognize it’s a challenge when some Airmen can’t see themselves in positions of leadership,” AETC boss Lt. Gen. Marshall B. “Brad” Webb said in a different release. “If you can’t see yourself, or someone that looks like you in a leadership position, it’s hard to strive for those positions, and that limits our diversity and effectiveness as leaders.”

National Guard Takes on Vaccine Stigma

March 8, 2021 | By Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory

While the Guard can’t force troops to get a COVID-19 vaccine, it is engaged in educational initiatives to keep personnel informed about what’s available, National Guard Bureau Chief Army Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson said.

NGB doesn’t track how many of its troops decline COVID-19 vaccines at the national level, but Washington Adjutant General Army Maj. Gen. Bret D. Daugherty said about 39 percent of the state’s overall Guard troops have opted to get a shot.

“We just try to educate people on the potential benefits of getting the vaccine and we’re doing the best we can to let people know that we’ve got vaccine available, and that there are some good points for opting in, but I can’t go beyond that to the point where I would appear to be having undue command influence in telling people to get vaccinated because it’s not a requirement yet,” he said during a March 5 press briefing with Hokanson and other states adjutant generals.

Nebraska Adjutant General USAF Maj. Gen. Daryl L. Bohac said his state’s Air National Guard is seeing a 42 percent “take rate”—12 percent higher than the rate being seen for the state’s overall Guard force. Nebraska Guard leaders are streaming events on YouTube and Facebook to help “get the word out” to troops about vaccination.

This month, the Nebraska Guard is also undertaking “a fairly aggressive campaign” to ensure that all troops who want a COVID-19 shot can get one, he said.

“One of the great things for us here in Nebraska is my senior Army National Guard surgeon general is a critical care pulmonologist … , and so he’s a ideal expert to talk about the impacts of the disease, but also to make an assessment of the vaccine and to provide people information. So, we’ve actually done some myth-busting kinds of outreach,” Bohac told reporters on the call. “And then we also put medical teams … out to the formations and make them available to do Q&A, which I think is the most important strategy that we have right now.”

The National Guard Bureau also has distributed fill-in-the-blank-style placards for people to take selfies with while or after they get vaccinated to help encourage others to do the same, NGB spokesperson Tracy O’Grady-Walsh said during the Zoom call.

“We’ve found that that has really gained a lot of community support ‘cause they want to be there for each other, they wanna be in this together,” she said.

We asked our National Guard members why they were getting vaccinated. Their answers might surprise you. #InThisTogether pic.twitter.com/ioeQivlGLv
— National Guard (@USNationalGuard) February 2, 2021

“At the state level,” she added, NGB has noticed that when state National Guards conduct town halls about COVID-19 vaccinations, “they immediately see those numbers jump.” It’s a logical trend, she noted.

“The more informed you are about the vaccine, the more comfortable you’re gonna feel with it.” she said.

During a Feb. 19 interview with Air Force Magazine, Air National Guard Director Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh said approximately one-third of ANG personnel had opted out of getting a shot.

He noted that he’s heard anecdotally that troops aren’t necessarily deciding against it because they’re anti-vaxxers. Rather, many don’t feel comfortable getting access to vaccines before loved ones who are more vulnerable to the virus.

“I don’t know if they actually denied it, or they just said ‘no, I’ll pass,'” Loh said. “And I say that because, when you’re dealing with a young, healthy population, and they’re dealing with parents and grandparents that can’t get the vaccine right now, there’s a lot of members that go, ‘Hey, I know I am not at the biggest risk, and so use it for those that are at the higher risk.’ So, I can’t tell you how many would have actually … said, ‘Hey, … I don’t believe in vaccines, I believe in letting the body do its own thing.’”

NGB still lacks sufficient vaccines for all of its troops, Hokanson noted, projecting that the bureau won’t have that kind of stock “until later in April.”

In the meantime, he said, “the best” thing the bureau can do is to keep holding open forums about the vaccines so Guardsmen can ask questions, and have candid conversations with forces about the upsides of getting vaccinated, as well as “the concerns that we’re seeing with the disease itself.”

B-52s Fly Direct to Middle East in Message to Iran

March 8, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Two B-52s flew direct to the Middle East on March 7 in a mission to “deter aggression” amid high tensions with Iran.

The B-52s from the 69th Bomb Squadron at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., linked up with aircraft from multiple partner nations, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, according to a U.S. Central Command release.

It marked the fourth time bombers have flown to the Middle East this year, according to CENTCOM.

“The U.S. Air Force routinely moves aircraft and personnel into, out of,  and around the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility to meet mission requirements,  and  to train with regional partners, underscoring  the importance of  strategic partnerships,” CENTCOM said in the release.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran continue to rise after Iranian-backed militias conducted multiple rocket attacks on U.S. forces inside Iraq, and two USAF F-15Es in late February struck targets in Syria linked to militias that Tehran supports.

The Air Force no longer bases its bombers at large installations within the Middle East due to increased threats. In January 2020, bombers assigned to the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar, operated from Diego Garcia because of the threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles. Following that squadron’s deployment, the Air Force started flying long-distance task force missions directly from home bases in the U.S.

DOD Deploying More Teams to Help the National Vaccination Effort

March 8, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Pentagon has approved more military teams to deploy to mass COVID-19 vaccination centers as the push to vaccinate the public grows.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III on March 4 approved 10 more teams to deploy to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency run the vaccination sites, bringing the total approval to 35 teams, Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said.

The approval includes 15 “type one” teams with a total of 222 Active-duty personnel capable of administering 6,000 vaccinations per day, and 20 “type two” teams with 139 personnel capable of administering 3,000 vaccinations per day.

Of the approved total, 15 teams have already deployed to state-led, federally supported centers in six states and territories—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Kirby told reporters March 5. Teams are deploying soon to Illinois and North Carolina, with future deployments in the “coming weeks” expected to Ohio and Georgia.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is also increasing the amount of vaccines available to service members. The department recently received an allocation of the newly approved, one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is being worked into distribution. This vaccine “gives us more flexibility” since it ships in bulk and does not require refrigeration, Kirby said.

Van Ovost Tapped to Lead TRANSCOM, New Bosses Named for SOUTHCOM and INDOPACOM

March 8, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

President Joe Biden on March 6 nominated USAF Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost—currently the U.S. military’s only woman with four stars—to command U.S. Transportation Command, and Army Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson for a fourth star and to take over as commander of U.S. Southern Command. If confirmed, Van Ovost and Richardson would become the second and third women to lead combatant commands.

During a March 8 speech at the White House commemorating International Women’s Day, Biden said the two generals “pushed open the doors of opportunity” for female service members, calling them “outstanding and eminently qualified warriors and patriots.”

“Each of these women have led careers demonstrating incomparable skill, integrity, and duty to country,” he said as Van Ovost and Richardson stood by his side. Having both of them lead combatant commands shows little girls and boys that “this is what generals in the United States armed forces look like,” Biden added.

Van Ovost is currently the commander of Air Mobility Command, and if confirmed, she will become the second USAF woman to lead a combatant command, following retired Gen. Lori J. Robinson, who led U.S. Northern Command from May 2016-May 2018.

She is a former experimental test pilot and command pilot with more than 4,200 hours in more than 30 aircraft. A 1988 Air Force Academy graduate, she’s commanded at the squadron, wing, and major command level. She also served as director of staff for Headquarters Air Force and vice director of the Joint Staff.

Richardson is currently the commander of U.S. Army North.

The promotions of Van Ovost and Richardson were in the works last year, but former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said last month they were delayed based on concerns about how the White House would react to two women being promoted.

“I didn’t want their promotions derailed because someone in the Trump White House saw that I recommended them or thought DOD was playing politics,” Esper told The New York Times, adding, “They were the best qualified. We were doing the right thing.”

When asked about the Times story during a meeting with reporters Feb. 24, Van Ovost said, “I look forward to the day when demonstrated capability and not demographics makes the headlines.”

“When I think about the value of diversity in our Air Force … I’m heartened to see the progress that we’ve made,” she said. “But we have to begin with why, right? Diversity is a warfighting imperative.”

Also March 6, Biden nominated Navy Adm. John C. Aquilino, who currently serves as commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, to become the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. If confirmed, he would replace Adm. Philip S. Davidson, who has led the command since May 2018. Vice Adm. Samuel J. Paparo Jr. has been nominated to become admiral and take over U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Hypersonic ARRW Readied for Booster Flight

March 8, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

A test flight of the AGM-183A hypersonic missile will be made in the next 30 days, the Air Force’s Armament Directorate said March 5, but the flight will only be a test of the missile’s rocket booster, not an all-up round.

The Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) was trucked to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., March 1 and work began straightaway on ground tests and checks prior to a boosted flight sometime in the next month, the directorate said in a press release.

The Booster Test Flight 1 (BTF-1) test vehicle “is complete,” the Air Force said. The test flight will “demonstrate the booster’s ability to reach operational speeds and collect other important data.” The flight will “validate safe separation and controllability of the missile away from the carrier B-52H, through ignition and boost phase, all the way up to separation of a simulated glide vehicle,” the service explained. The dummy glide vehicle “will not sustain flight, and will disintegrate soon after separation.” The test will be carried out over the Point Mugu Sea Range in California. Hypersonic speed is generally considered to be Mach 5 and above.

“Our first BTF will happen in the next 30 days, followed by several additional booster and all-up round test flight by the end of the year,” said Brig. Gen. Heath A. Collins, program executive officer for weapons. Collins had predicted Feb. 26 the flight would take place as early as March 1.

The Air Force said BTF-1 “will be the eighth flight test for the ARRW program, following seven captive-carry carriage flight tests.” Collins said Feb. 26 that the Air Force and industry team had experienced a “recent” test failure but had analyzed and solved the problem within a month.

The BTF-1 test vehicle was assembled on “production-representative manufacturing lines,” USAF said. The Air Force and prime contractor Lockheed Martin “took deliberate steps to achieve a high level of manufacturing readiness,” and assembly of the test ARRW “is a major step toward this production readiness goal.”

The ARRW is a boost-glide type of hypersonic missile. The booster accelerates the payload to hypersonic speed, at which point the clamshell front end opens and releases the hypersonic glide vehicle, which flies the rest of the way to the target with no further propulsion, maneuvering along the way.

The Air Force said the ARRW team dealt with delays from the pandemic and “successfully … resolved technical findings not uncommon in a first-of-a-kind weapon system.” The team said it had “minimized schedule delays while maintaining a laser focus on engineering rigor.”

Mike White, the Pentagon’s top hypersonics director, said at AFA‘s virtual Aerospace Warfare Symposium that engineering rigor is essential in testing hypersonics to avoid minor mistakes that can slow a major program or bring it to a halt. “Contractors have heard me give the engineering rigor speech more than once,” White told Air Force Magazine in a February interview.

The ARRW is a “rapid prototyping project that will leverage cutting-edge technologies to deliver a conventional hypersonic weapons capability to the warfighter in the early 2020s,” the service said. It’s meant to give combatant commanders an ability to destroy “high-value, time-sensitive targets.” The ARRW is meant to be survivable when going against “heavily defended targets.”