B-1s, B-2s Wrap Up European Bomber Task Force Deployment

B-1s, B-2s Wrap Up European Bomber Task Force Deployment

B-1s and B-2s wrapped up a bomber task force deployment on March 25, which included several firsts in the Arctic and across Europe.

B-2s from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., flew the final sortie of the task force deployment out of Lajes Field, Portugal. While the B-2s were in the Azores, B-1Bs from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, were deployed to Orland Air Base, Norway, for the first time.

During the deployment, the B-1s flew nine sorties, including training with Norwegian F-35s, Swedish JAS-39 Gripens, Danish and Polish F-16s, and German and Italian Eurofighter Typhoons, according to a U.S. Air Forces in Europe release

The Lancers conducted a hot-pit refueling in Europe for the first time, and trained with U.S. special operations forces along with Norwegian and Swedish joint terminal attack controllers.

The B-2s deployed to Lajes Field on March 16, and flew four missions, including flights with the B-1s and Norwegian F-35s in Iceland, according to USAFE.

“Looking back at everything our Airmen have accomplished in the past month is pretty incredible,” USAFE boss Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian said in the release. “This iteration of BTF demonstrated our unwavering commitment to the security and stability of Europe, provided vital opportunities to strengthen our bonds with allies and partners, and allowed our Airmen to develop and refine skills that are necessary for the future success of our air operations.”

Army, Calling Itself an ‘All-Domain’ Force, Prioritizes Long-Range Strike

Army, Calling Itself an ‘All-Domain’ Force, Prioritizes Long-Range Strike

The Army’s new vision dubs it an “All-Domain” Army and envisions “expanding … into the maritime, air, space, and cyber domains” while seizing new roles in long-range strike and suppressing enemy air defense.

A new white paper released March 16 declares that, while part of the Joint force, the Army holds a pre-eminent role in combat by virtue of its size, and surmises that the other services should adopt its methodologies.

Titled, “Army Multi-Domain Transformation: Ready to Win in Competition and Conflict,” and released by Army Chief of Staff Gen. James C. McConville, the paper envisions a “bold transformation” of Army organizations, weapons, and strategy, to “provide the Joint Force with the range, speed, and convergence of cutting-edge technologies that will be needed to provide future decision dominance and overmatch required to win the next fight.”

The paper asserts a multi-domain Army “will set the conditions for the Joint Force to fight and win integrated campaigns necessary to defeat state actors.”

Speaking in a Brookings Institution webinar March 25, McConville expanded on the vision laid out in the paper. He said the Army has a “need to penetrate” enemy airspace, and must therefore have its own long-range precision fires, such as hypersonic missiles, to deter attack and respond when needed. In his vision, such missiles would make the Army the key instrument for negating “what some of our competitors have done with anti-access/area denial” by means of air and missile defenses.

The concept turns on its head the conventional air-land arrangement, where air power clears the way for ground maneuver; McConville said land-based hypersonic missiles could enable the Army to “certainly suppress air defense, which could open up a gap if we needed to put aerial maneuver into place.”

The talking points built on recent comments in which McConville claimed that Army’s Apache helicopters opened corridors for fixed-wing aircraft to attack Iraq at the outset of the 1991 Gulf war. His exaggeration ignored the Air Force stealth aircraft that had already penetrated Iraqi airspace and were destroying its command and control apparatus. McConville cited the same example at Brookings, describing the Apache mission as “illustrative” of what the Army has in mind for future long-range fires.

“Long Range Precision Fires is very important,” he said. “We feel we need to have that. … We’re going to have the … anti-ship capability, the capability to suppress air defense systems at very, very long range…the ability to do strategic counter-fire, the ability to do anti-access/area denial.”

Asked about the roles-and-missions implications of his concpet, McConville declined to answer. He promised a fuller doctrine document next year.

“We need speed in the future,” McConville said. This is “the big idea” for the Army. “We know we need range. … But it’s really about convergence and how we bring all these systems together to get decision dominance.”

McConville also asserted that the Army is the right entity to develop a Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control system (CJADC2), not the Air Force, which pioneered the concept. The difference is that the Army is bigger, he said.

“We’ve had this discussion with the Air Force,” McConville said. “Bringing together thousands of airplanes that can talk to each other is a different task from what the Army has to do, with over a million systems on the ground that have to pass information.” The sheer scale of the Army challenge means that what “works fine” for thousands of airplanes “may not work fine” for that larger Army force. However, McConville acknowledged that his forces “may not need as much information.”

McConville’s goal is to transform the Army by 2035, with 2028 as a “waypoint” to re-assess and adjust. The paper lays out the “big six” Army modernization priorities:

  1. Long Range Precision Fires to “penetrate and neutralize” enemy A2AD capabilities and “ensuring overmatch at every echelon”
  2. Next-Generation Combat Vehicles to increase firepower speed and survivability while allowing them to team with robotic vehicles
  3. Future Vertical Lift programs to enhance speed, range and lethality
  4. Army Network Modernization to command and control forces “across vast terrain” and converge effects from multiple domains
  5. Air and Missile Defenses to defend the Joint Force, Allies, and partners against manned and unmanned air and missile threats
  6. Soldier Lethality systems to help individual soldiers quickly understand and react to emerging situations while making them more precise, survivable, and lethal

The new vision paper insists that “winning the first battle or prevent a fait accompli in crisis will be necessary to prevent prolonged conflict and escalation.” It sees “ground forces [seizing the role to] decisively shape the first battle by leveraging positional and capability advantage.” The Army sees itself as operating and persisting “inside” enemy air defense zones, and creating “corridors for air, maritime and all-domain forces to exploit.” The Army will also establish “robust, resilient webs of communication, protection and sustainment that enable to the Joint Force to prosecute conflict.”

Using long-range fires from the ground, it says, the Army would be uniquely suited to “protect strategic deployments,” provide rapid availability of the Joint Force, facilitate deployments “from the contested homeland to the point of employment,” establish lines of communication, and maximize inter- and intra-theater transition capabilities.

That vision is duplicative, said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

The Army, he said, is “putting on a full-court press to duplicate long-range strike, air- and space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and command and control capabilities that already exist in the other services.”

Jointness, Deptula continued, requires “each of the services to dominate in their respective domains—not encroach into the domains of the other services.” Just because a service depends on another for its core competencies—long-range strike being an example—that doesn’t mean the others “should rush to replicate what already exists.”

If more long-range strike is required, Deptula said, “then the additional investment should be made in the service with the most competency in that function; in this case, the Air Force.” If surface-to-surface missiles “are deemed appropriate to enhance air-delivered strikes,” then that capability should be assigned to the Air Force, he argued.

“It would be much more cost-effective since the Air Force already has the command and control and ISR architecture to operate weapon systems across an entire theater of operations, as well as globally,” he said.

The new Army hypersonic missiles are, “unfortunately …. prohibitively expensive, non-reusable and require extensive deployment logistics support,” he asserted. “The bottom line is that our nation can ill afford to proceed with programs that replicate effective, proven weapon systems and C2ISR architectures, merely to bolster a single service’s ‘footprint’ in the battlespace.”

The new Army hypersonic missiles will cost millions of dollars per shot, versus thousands of dollars per shot for weapons released from stealth aircraft, which can be re-used, Deptula said.

“The next few years will see hard choices in the defense budget,” Deptula said. “Finite dollars must be directed toward programs that optimize combat options and capability across all the services. Not just one.”

SOCOM: ‘Stretched Thin’ Forces Need New Armed Overwatch Solution

SOCOM: ‘Stretched Thin’ Forces Need New Armed Overwatch Solution

U.S. special operations forces need a new armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to fully support all its missions, Army Gen. Richard D. Clarke, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 25.

“In many remote areas, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and close air support assets are stretched thin and come at high cost,” he said. “We continue to work with DOD to address this issue.”

SOCOM wants an armed overwatch system to provide “sustainable support” to activities fighting violent extremist organizations. SOCOM is seeking 75 armed overwatch aircraft that could deploy to remote areas and provide both ISR and attack capabilities to special operators. These aircraft would replace the Air Force’s U-28 Draco, an unarmed ISR platform.

“This program will provide cost-effective, multipurpose aircraft to support operations in remote, austere areas for the foreseeable future,” Clarke said.

Lt. Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife, who heads Air Force Special Operations Command, said Feb. 25 that remotely piloted aircraft could compete, though the current MQ-9 might not meet requirements.

SOCOM must sell Congress on the idea, which was not funded in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. Neither SOCOM nor USAF have disclosed how much they propose to spend on the program. The Pentagon’s 2022 defense budget request is not anticipated on Capitol Hill until May. The command hopes to have a demonstration this year, but no date has been set, Slife said.

About 5,000 SOCOM personnel are deployed today in 62 countries, down about 15 percent from last year and the smallest number since 2001, Clarke said. Increasingly, however, those deployed forces are shifting from counter-terrorism to “great power competition requirements,” Clarke said, with 40 percent of SOCOM’s deployed forces focusing on those efforts.

Clarke said SOCOM’s modernization priorities now reflect this change, and increasingly focus on next-generation ISR, mobility, and data networks “to ensure we have precision strikes in the future.”

This story was updated at 10:45 am on March 26 to correct the date of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Biden: Afghanistan Withdrawal Deadline ‘Hard to Meet,’ but Troops Will Leave Soon

Biden: Afghanistan Withdrawal Deadline ‘Hard to Meet,’ but Troops Will Leave Soon

President Joe Biden on March 25 reiterated that it will be difficult for U.S. forces to leave Afghanistan by the May 1 deadline, but said American troops will come home soon.

“It’s hard to meet the May 1st withdrawal deadline,” Biden said during his first press conference in office. “We are working with our allies. We are not staying a long time. We will leave, the question is when we leave.”

When asked if U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan next year, Biden was definitive, saying, “I can’t picture that being the case.” U.S. forces already have drawn down to 2,500 in the country.

Defense Department officials have repeatedly said Taliban violence is too high, and withdrawing too soon will limit Afghan forces’ ability to defend themselves. Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week visited NATO to discuss the way ahead in the country, and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III visited Kabul to meet with senior Afghan officials.

“We’ve been meeting with our allies, those other nations that have troops in Afghanistan as well, and if we leave we’re going to do so in a safe and orderly way,” Biden said.

Earlier on March 25, Army Gen. Richard D. Clarke, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the Taliban has “not upheld what they said they would do. It is clear they took a deliberate approach and increased violence since the peace accords were signed.”

While Afghan forces have made progress, U.S. and other international support is still “critical to their success,” Clarke said.

US Prepared to Respond If North Korea Escalates After Ballistic Missile Test

US Prepared to Respond If North Korea Escalates After Ballistic Missile Test

President Joe Biden said the U.S. will “respond accordingly” if North Korea continues to escalate following the March 25 test launch of two short-range ballistic missiles, which he said violated a United Nations resolution.

During his first press conference in office, Biden said the test launches show that North Korea is the top foreign policy crisis the U.S. faces. His administration is consulting with allies, and he is “prepared for some form of diplomacy, but it has to be conditioned upon the end result of denuclearization,” he said.

The two missiles were fired at 7:06 a.m. and 7:25 a.m. on North Korea’s eastern coast, and flew about 450 kilometers before landing in the sea, the Associated Press reported.

“This activity highlights the threat that North Korea’s illicit weapons program poses to its neighbors and the international community,” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command spokesperson Capt. Mike Kafka told the AP.

The test comes just one day after North Korea launched two presumed cruise missiles into the sea to its west. 

North Korea has traditionally ramped up its missile activity in the early stages of a new White House administration. The Biden administration is undergoing a review of the North Korea policy, which could include the resumption of exercises with South Korea.

A senior administration official said March 23 these exercises are “necessary” and that stopping them was “antithetical to our position as the keeper and the maintenance of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia.”

The U.S. Is Playing Catch-Up on Hypersonics. Here’s How.

The U.S. Is Playing Catch-Up on Hypersonics. Here’s How.

Flight-testing U.S. hypersonic missiles is about to take off—perhaps as often as once every six weeks over the next four years—but the Pentagon still has a long way to go to create the “ecosystem” of skilled people, test facilities, and industrial capacity needed to build such weapons at scale.

The urgency is great, because China and Russia have already fielded their first hypersonic weapons, and it’s expected it will take the U.S. several years to catch up. For that reason, the U.S. is on a crash program to field weaponized prototypes in the next two or three years, followed a few years later by more elaborate and mature systems built in larger numbers. However, that won’t happen without building the infrastructure to produce the still-experimental vehicles. 

“There are two major drivers to our hypersonic investment strategy,” said Michael E. White, the assistant director for hypersonics in the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. One is that “the adversary has aggressively pursued their hypersonics capabilities and they’re fielding them today.” The other is that those missiles challenge the U.S. in nearly every fighting domain, and to get back in the game, the U.S. has to be able to match them, he said.

On a battlefield of the near future, White observed, “the adversary is launching long-range weapons that travel 500 miles in 10 minutes, and our weapons take an hour to fly 500 miles.” The U.S. “can’t allow” that asymmetry to continue, he asserted. 

The Pentagon and Congress are serious and in agreement about the need to make hypersonics happen, White said.

Budgetwise, “I think we’re in a really good spot,” he said. “We went back and looked at the 2016 budget, and in that budget, we were spending about $340 million. And now we’re spending about $3.5 billion, so we’ve increased, in four years … by a factor of 10.” Congress has been “very supportive,” he said.

China displayed DF-21 “carrier killer” and DF-26 “Guam killer” missiles in a 2019 military parade, and Pentagon officials later judged these were operational, and not just mock-ups. Russia announced operational capability with the Avangard—a maneuvering, nuclear hypersonic glide vehicle carried on an intercontinental ballistic missile—and the Kinzhal, an air-launched tactical hypersonic missile with a range of 1,200 miles. Officials said both China and Russia are working on improved versions of those weapons, while developing numerous variants and other hypersonic munitions.

“They recognized the significance of hypersonics and made the decision to transition into system development before we did, quite frankly,” White said. 

Taking the Lead

The U.S. has developed a portfolio for air, land, and sea launch platforms to “challenge, and if necessary, defeat” other adversary high-end capabilities, according to White. Once the forces that “hold our traditional forces at bay” have been beaten back by hypersonic weapons, “it really opens the floodgates to what we can bring … with our conventional forces.” Hypersonics has become the key enabler, he noted.

“The things that hold you at risk, you’d like to defeat with a weapon you know will get through … and do it quickly.”

But the industrial base to build hypersonic vehicles in numbers doesn’t exist yet.

“If, tomorrow … you said, ‘I want to start building a thousand hypersonic missiles a year,’ we wouldn’t have the capacity to do that,” White said. He’s developed roadmaps that spell out “what … we need to do to ensure that, as we get into the mid-2020s,” the industrial base will be churning out hypersonic rounds.  

White set up a “war room” last year to create the enabling infrastructure and intellectual horsepower to master hypersonics, and “the results … are expected over the next couple of months,” he said. “Program by program, we’ve identified key needs,” and the work done will point industry toward the investments necessary.

Hypersonic missiles will be expensive for the foreseeable future, White said, and “you don’t get to a point where everything becomes a hypersonic weapon.” They will instead be pathfinders.

“Hypersonics … will be the ‘break down the door’ weapon,” said Mark J. Lewis, Executive Director of the National Defense Industrial Association’s Emerging Technologies Institute. Lewis was the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Modernization, and White’s boss at the Pentagon, until mid-January.

There are “some reasons for concern” about the developing hypersonics ecosystem, Lewis said.  First, “we don’t have the test facilities that we need.” The various hypersonic programs are “kind of climbing over one another to get to get access to wind tunnels,” he observed. 

Propulsion testing is especially problematic. For a combined-cycle engine—one that uses conventional, turbine-like propulsion to get to high velocity, and then transitions to a scramjet for hypersonic speed—“we really don’t have anything that will let us do that adequately on the ground,” Lewis said. For any wind tunnel work in the U.S., “you have very limited choices. … So that’s an area that needs investment.”

Availability of flight-test ranges is another problem. Again, programs are competing for range time, not only with each other but with “all the other things we want to do flight-testing on,” Lewis said. 

“We’ve got some amazing [test] infrastructure, but it’s very old,” said Maj. Gen. Christopher P. Azzano, commander of the Air Force’s Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. “We’ve put sustainment money into it over the last few years, but it needs more.”

Azzano said that last year, at the direction of former Air Force Secretary Barbara M. Barrett, “we … prepared a number of different investment portfolios to try to improve our capacity,” both in tunnels and test ranges. But “right now, there are just too many pressures on the Air Force budget to address all of them.”

He acknowledged that the air test ranges are “under some strain,” given the number of competing efforts, and some programs “think they’re ready to go, and they’re not.” To be a good steward of the range space, though, Edwards is compelled to schedule range time at 100 percent. Anything less is “a wasted opportunity,” Azzano observed.

The test center is experimenting with a concept called SkyRange, which uses unmanned aircraft to clear the test space and relay telemetry, he said, in an effort to do more with the range space already available. But hypersonics testing, with “long fly-outs” will be a challenge, Azzano admitted.  

White’s “war room” should deliver a plan on how to address the paucity of tunnels. Though the results may be classified, the answer will include partnering with NASA and academic institutions.

Computational fluid dynamics—simulation—is part of the “three-legged stool” supporting hypersonics development, along with flight-tests and tunnels, White said, but of the three, flight-testing is the most important. “It’s hard to represent everything in a wind tunnel that you’re going to get in flight.”

For high mach numbers coupled with intense heat, there’s only one tunnel—a NASA asset—that can create the environment. But “we’ve made additional investment” in the Arnold Engineering Center at Tullahoma, Tenn., and “we’re evaluating additional investments in partnership with NASA,” White noted. Tunnel investments amount to about $500 million next year.   

Besides the shortage of tunnels and ranges, Lewis is worried that the U.S. has gotten “rusty” on developmental flight-test. It’s “both a science and an art. It takes practice. I worry about our lack of practice, and so we need to get back into that.” 

To “deliver on the time scales required, I think we need to be testing on the ground and in flight at a pretty high pace,” he said. Stepping up the tempo of testing will also make all the steps involved—range safety, telemetry, checklists, etc.—more routine and reduce errors that can stop a program in its tracks. He said the X-15 hypersonic rocket plane program in the 1950s and ’60s was a good model to follow: It flew, on average, every two weeks for nine years, generating a “phenomenal” knowledge base. Without constant testing, “we’re not building the expertise we need.”

More Testing

Lewis thinks it’s also important that “you … take intelligent risk,” on “the ultimate goal of the program.” When the biggest risks lie elsewhere, “you set yourself up for failure. And we’ve seen some of that.” For example, he said, “if you’re going to test something that flies at hypersonic speeds, for cryin’ out loud, you don’t want the biggest risk to be the rocket motor that gets you up to hypersonic speeds.” He also believes flight-testing has gotten too cumbersome. “It’s amazing how many people can say ‘no’ to a flight-test.” Too many competing programs are fighting over range access, he said, and “if you miss your flight window … your next window is going to be two months later. And silliness like that.” 

White said, “We’re going to fly a lot more than we ever did.  … We’ve got between 40 and 50 flight-tests planned for the next four years,” and the Pentagon’s Test Resource Management Center is “investing in ways that will allow us to increase the flexibility and availability of flight-test ranges.” 

However, he doesn’t want to substitute speed for “engineering rigor” in planning and executing tests. Typically, he said, in the interest of speed, “little things … bite you,” and when tests fail, it’s usually not because of some problem with a hypersonic design, but “failing the systems engineering rigor test … over the last decade or so.”

He said he’s “pulled together a team to do a best systems engineering practices for flight-testing,” and the lessons learned will be passed along to the entire flight-test community.

“I will never be satisfied until we’re flying routinely,” White said. “And we’re not flying routinely, yet.” Key contractors have “heard me give them the systems engineering rigor speech more than once,” he added. 

The first test flights of the ARRW, designated AGM-183, were scheduled for March 2021. Captive-carry tests were completed last summer and fall. Giancarlo Casem/USAF

While details are classified, two hypersonic missiles that were to make their first air-launched, free flight late last year didn’t do so. Sources said the snafus were due to amateurish mistakes rather than a failure of the hypersonics technologies.

Contractors are stepping up their investments in hypersonic development, test, and production capabilities, Lewis noted. This includes not only major primes, like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon Technologies, but “even if you drop a tier,” there are lots of companies elbowing for position. “Look at companies like Leidos,” which was until recently mainly a consultancy and services outfit. “They purchased Dynetics,” which does high-speed aerodynamic hardware, “so they’re all-in on hypersonics.”

But the U.S. shouldn’t depend solely on the primes and top sub-primes, Lewis said.

“I worry about the diversity of the industrial base,” he asserted. “We’ve got a lot concentrated in a few companies,” and if they are all working on a large number of projects, “it’s hard to see how they could put their ‘A’ team on everything.”

Consequently, the Pentagon has worked hard to encourage and help finance some small businesses that can contribute to the knowledge base. While these smaller companies may not be able to manufacture thousands of weapons, they may have innovative solutions on materials and thermal management; two areas critical to the success of the hypersonics push.

“The current glide bodies leverage high-temperature carbon composite materials that take a long time to build,” White explained. “If we can leverage innovation in the small companies that allow us to do … development … and the buildup process much more rapidly,” it will have “dramatic impact on the ability to reach our capacity goals.”

Thermal management is essential because of the extreme temperatures on the nose and leading edges. 

“We have to have a vehicle skin … that can handle excessive temperatures and stay intact, and not only [that] but maintain its geometric integrity,” so that complex shapes and inlets will function as designed across a flight of hundreds to thousands of miles. 

Making the Grade

White noted that one feared problem—that a layer of plasma around hypersonic missiles would block communications—has not materialized. Plasma layers also seem not to “affect subsystems.”

Lewis would give the materials ecosystem a “B,” when “a couple of years ago, it was a ‘C,’” he said. “Especially in high-temperature materials, … we really took our foot off the gas pedal” in the 2000s and 2010s. The research done was “not nearly enough for a robust ecosystem.” Over the last few years, “we’ve really stepped up in the high-temperature materials, not only in the basic research level, but in development, manufacturing.” He added, “I think we’re doing well, but we should always be doing better.”

To ensure there’s enough talent to go around, the Pentagon has helped create an Applied Hypersonics University Consortium. Under the Joint Hypersonic Transition Office (JHTO), its goal is to attract and grow experts in rocket and air-breathing propulsion, materials, heat management, and systems engineering to meet the demand that will come as hypersonics balloons into a major sector of the aerospace industry. The university lead is Texas A&M, “and they’ve got something like 50 universities now,” Lewis noted. The participants aren’t just the “traditional” aerospace schools, either, but some who are making their entrée into aerospace materials and “people working in controls and system design,” he noted.

The availability of talent is not a crisis, Lewis said. Although industry leaders express concern to him about the hypersonic workforce, they haven’t told him they’re having trouble hiring. 

The 10-person JHTO was set up in April 2020, and has a $100 million annual budget. It moves money around among hypersonics-enabling projects to get “more bang for the buck” and “make sure we’re focusing on the things that will get us … the capabilities we really need,” its director, Gillian Bussey, said in a November 2020 speech at the Technology and Training Corporation. 

Among her tasks, Bussey said, is to help bridge the so-called “valley of death” that stands between promising research and programs of record. University professors were finding that “when their work starts to get somewhere that’s relevant” to the Pentagon’s hypersonics enterprise, “the funding kind of stops” because the research category shifts from the basic research to the applied research accounts, and “it’s a lot harder for them to get funding.” She’s working to alleviate that problem.

The JHTO also facilitates knowledge- and resource-sharing among the services. “We’re reducing waste,” she asserted. “We’re coordinating and collaborating,” getting experts from NASA, the services, and academia working together to solve problems.

Lewis said he’s been struck at the sharing of knowledge among the services. Usually, “they only pay lip service to coordinating, but … I saw absolutely no limits on knowledge sharing. … It’s a really good news story.” The Army and Navy especially are “joined at the hip” in solving their surface-launched problems, he said.

The JHTO is reaching out to other countries as well—notably Australia—and seeks to “tap into nontraditional performers … to help them advance, to help us,” Bussey said.

Besides a long history of “very substantial” contributions to the field of hypersonics, Australia has a “national enthusiasm” for it, Lewis said. Australia also has the Woomera Range Complex, “where you can test early and often and crash on a desert floor and pick it up and look at what happened.” Australia also flies the F/A-18. “That means, anything the U.S. Air Force does with Australia automatically builds in a path for connectivity to the U.S. Navy. So they can … help us with connectivity between our services.”

Further out—perhaps in the early 2030s—White sees reusable hypersonic systems. They could be used for penetrating intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance work—a successor to the SR-71 of the 1960s to 1990s—or possibly as the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit craft.  Will those systems be manned? White’s unsure, but “the Air Force has got point on putting together a strategy to get us a reusable, long-range hypersonic capability.” 

Lewis said he’s concerned that after all the effort to create the hypersonics ecosystem, a new administration offers an opportunity for opponents of the technology to derail the effort, and put the U.S. at a serious future disadvantage. 

“You still have folks coming out of the woodwork, mischaracterizing how hypersonics would be used,  mischaracterizing their capabilities,” and drawing the wrong conclusions. “That worries me,” Lewis said. 

“The debate is over. Every time we war-gamed the peer competitor scenarios, the difference between having hypersonic capability and not was the difference between winning and losing. It was that simple.”                                                           

Military Sexual Assault Review Aims to Change Culture

Military Sexual Assault Review Aims to Change Culture

The Pentagon’s independent commission to review sexual assault in its ranks has established its members and is looking at “big picture” items to change the military’s culture and prevent sexual assault.

The Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military includes 14 members, the majority of whom are women and former military members, though none are currently serving, to ensure the independence of their discussions, the commission’s chair Lynn Rosenthal said in a March 24 briefing.

The commission met with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, and now has 90 days to review the history of sexual assault cases in the ranks to recommend large changes to address the problem, which Austin has established as a top priority.

Rosenthal said the goal of the commission is to drive “major shifts” in the Defense Department, as opposed to a long series of minor recommendations. The commission was first announced last month, and since then leadership has focused on finding the best members and structuring itself for independent discussions, while providing enough flexibility to include input from the Pentagon and across the military services.

The direction from Pentagon leadership is to look at every possible change, to include possibly removing cases from the chain of command, Rosenthal said.

“This is not a closed door,” she said. “The Secretary and the President have said all options should be on the table.”

The military needs to address deep cultural issues related to sexual assault, including myths about the extent of the problem, unhealthy views of women, and deliberate misunderstandings of the issues. This includes the prevalence of male sexual assault victims, and an over emphasis on how often there are false accusations, Rosenthal said.

The Senate Armed Services Committee on March 24 held a hearing on the issue of military sexual assault, with key lawmakers blasting the Pentagon for not making enough progress on the problem. The Pentagon’s most recent survey on the issue estimated that almost 21,000 service members had been sexually assaulted since 2018, said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

“That makes them more likely to be raped by their fellow service member than shot by the enemy in war,” she said. “Since 2013, unrestricted reports of sexual assaults in the military have doubled, yet the rate of prosecution and conviction has halved.”

During the hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Don Christensen, president of advocacy group Protect Our Defenders and a former chief prosecutor for the Air Force, if things had improved since changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice were implemented in 2013 and 2014. Christensen replied that the situation has gotten worse.

“Military commanders have had their chance. They said they would fix it and they haven’t,” Warren said.

The Government Accountability Office, in testimony at the hearing, said that despite Congressional oversight and the Pentagon implementing more than 100 recommendations to address the issue, reports continue to rise.

“With the exception of some more recent initiatives, the department’s efforts have been largely focused on responding to, rather than preventing, incidents of sexual assault,” the GAO said.

Jennifer Hlad contributed to this report.

Eielson to Get Active KC-135 Component, Four More Tankers

Eielson to Get Active KC-135 Component, Four More Tankers

The Air Force’s tanker presence in the Arctic will grow, with four more KC-135s heading to a new Active component at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

The KC-135s and up to 220 Active duty Airmen will head to the 168th Wing at Eielson, with aircraft expected to arrive in 2023, according to an Air Force release. The move will bring Eielson’s total number of Stratotankers to 12, with the additional KC-135s coming from other units across the Air Force.

The Air Force said the move is in concert with the 2019 Defense Department’s Arctic Strategy to address threats in the Asia-Pacific and it comes on the heels of the department’s first-ever Arctic Strategy that outlined the importance of the region to USAF operations.

The 168th Wing is the Air Force’s only Arctic refueling unit, and its current eight KC-135s transfer more fuel than any other Air National Guard tanker wing, according to an Alaska Air National Guard release.

“The Alaska Air National Guard does an incredible job working with our mission partners in an existing association with shared aircraft and Active duty personnel at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, and we will expand that healthy partnership up north at Eielson Air Force Base,” said Maj. Gen. Torrence W. Saxe, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard and commissioner for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, in the release. “The additional KC-135s and personnel underscore the growing importance of the Arctic and our mission to protect and defend our state and nation.”

The announcement comes as Eielson’s fleet is already growing, with more F-35As arriving at the base—the first Pacific Air Forces Joint Strike Fighter unit.

Coalition Aircraft, Iraqi Forces Continue Large Offensive Targeting ISIS

Coalition Aircraft, Iraqi Forces Continue Large Offensive Targeting ISIS

Extensive coalition and Iraqi operations targeting the Islamic State group in northern Iraq continued, with aircraft now conducting at least 312 airstrikes on ISIS remnants in the remote mountainous region.

U.S.-led coalition aircraft and Iraqi forces conducted the airstrikes as part of Operation Ready Lion in the Makhmour Mountains, south of Erbil and Mosul. The strikes hit 120 hideouts, and killed 27 terrorists, said Col. Wayne Marotto, spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.

Iraqi Ministry of Defense spokesman Yehia Rasool said Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service snipers watched ISIS caves, with the airstrikes targeting the cave system and forcing the fighters to flee, according to a translated series of posts on Twitter.

OIR announced the offensive earlier this week, disclosing that U.S.-led coalition aircraft had conducted 133 airstrikes over 10 days in the region.

The pace of strikes so far this month appears to be higher than any other period since March 2019, when ISIS made its last stand in Syria before moving underground to become an insurgency, according to statistics from Air Forces Central Command.

The U.S. estimates that between 8,000 and 16,000 ISIS fighters remain in both Iraq and Syria, according to a February Defense Department Inspector General report.