Russian Anti-Satellite Weapon Disclosure Highlights Space Force Warnings

Russian Anti-Satellite Weapon Disclosure Highlights Space Force Warnings

Disclosures about a new Russian anti-satellite weapon have thrust military space capabilities into the international spotlight and created a sensation among lawmakers, media, and the public.

On Feb. 14, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement warning of a “serious national security threat.” A day later, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed media reports that the danger involved an anti-satellite weapon the Russians have been developing. 

While Kirby noted that the system is not yet operational, he also noted that launching it would violate an international treaty that bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. “It would be space-based and it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia,” Kirby said.

Though unclassified details about Russia’s new anti-satellite system have been scarce, the threat to U.S. satellites is not a new one. The Space Force has been warning about the growing danger for years. 

“We’re seeing continual development and operationalizing” of nefarious space capabilities by Russia and China, Chief of Space Operation Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said Feb. 13 at the AFA Warfare Symposium, before the most recent public revelations. “Very concerning. Extremely concerning. Give me another adjective.”

One word Saltzman did not use was “surprise.” The Space Force has increasingly emphasized that space is now a contested domain and that both Russia and China has been working on weapons to threaten America’s satellites. It has often cited Russia’s 2021 anti-satellite (ASAT) test as an example of “counterspace” capabilities. In turn, the U.S. committed in 2022 to not conduct direct-asset kinetic ASAT tests and has pushed for a global ban on such tests—so far, without success. 

The U.S. has taken some important steps to make its space assets harder to target. The Space Development Agency is launching many small satellites into low-Earth orbit (LEO), part of a general philosophy to move away from relying on a relatively small number of satellites in other orbits, such geosynchronous-Earth orbit (GEO), which the USSF considers increasingly risky. The Space Force now views itself as a fighting force, a mission that was underscored with the Department of the Air Force’s re-optimization efforts.

“Previously, in a simpler time, you would put a large, exquisite satellite in space that had lots of capabilities,” Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder said Feb. 15. “That’s a single point of failure versus going to much more numerous smaller satellites that are less expensive, that can be replaced more quickly, thus making it harder to take down a system, you know, in one fell swoop.”

But Russia and China are not standing still either. 

“Russia continues to train its military space elements, and field new anti-satellite weapons to disrupt and degrade U.S. and allied space capabilities,” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in its 2023 threat assessment. “It is developing, testing, and fielding an array of nondestructive and destructive counterspace weapons—including jamming and cyberspace capabilities, directed energy weapons, on-orbit capabilities, and ground-based ASAT capabilities—to try to target U.S. and allied satellites.”

Russia’s new anti-satellite system has become a growing concern within the White House. “Our general knowledge of Russian pursuit of this kind of capability goes back many, many months, if not a few years,” Kirby said. “But only in recent weeks now has the intelligence community been able to assess with a higher sense of confidence exactly how Russia continues to pursue it.”

No arms control talks between the U.S. and Russia are currently underway, and the prospects of negotiating an end to the Russian threat are not good, experts say. Asked about Kremlin charges that disclosures about its anti-satellite weapons are a White House ploy to build Congressional support for aid to Ukraine, Kirby gave a one word answer.

“Bollocks,” he said.

But the situation has highlighted another need: an independent military service focused on space, Ryder said.

“In light of growing threats by strategic competitors in space, U.S. Space Command and the U.S. Space Force were established several years ago to maintain a dedicated focus on this vital domain and to ensure that we have trained and prepared military space professionals whose mission it is to protect and defend America’s interest in space,” Ryder said. “We will take appropriate action in defense of the nation.”

Air Force Says It Is Not Aware of B-21 Quality Problems Linked to Spirit AeroSystems

Air Force Says It Is Not Aware of B-21 Quality Problems Linked to Spirit AeroSystems

The Air Force says it doesn’t know of any problems with the work Spirit AeroSystems has done on the B-21 bomber but won’t say if it has launched any investigations of its own into the subcontractor’s processes.  

“I haven’t heard anything about a problem with the B-21” due to Spirit’s subcontractor work, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told Air & Space Forces Magazine at the AFA Warfare Symposium in Aurora, Colo., this week.

Spirit is under scrutiny after a Jan. 5 accident involving a door plug the company installed on an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 fuselage blew out mid-flight, which led to a grounding of the 737-MAX 9 fleet until individual aircraft could be inspected for similar flaws. Spirit was already fighting a shareholder class-action lawsuit, lodged in December, alleging an “excessive” amount of work defects at the company, based on whistleblower reports.

Spirit is one of only a handful of B-21 subcontractors the Air Force has permitted Northrop Grumman, the B-21 prime, to name. The others are RTX’s Pratt & Whitney, Janicki Industries, Collins Aerospace, GKN Aerospace, and BAE Systems. The specific work Spirit does on the B-21 has not been identified, as a matter of general secrecy about the program.

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating production processes at Spirit and Boeing in the wake of the Jan. 5 accident.

“Spirit AeroSystems has been working closely with our customer since the event with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Jan. 5,” according to a company statement. “A Spirit team is now supporting the NTSB’s investigation directly. As a company, we remain focused on the quality of each aircraft structure that leaves our facilities.”

An Air Force spokesperson said the service continues to “monitor safety issues.”

The Air Force “relies on the Defense Contract Management Agency to ensure all aircraft meet the DOD’s stringent quality standards before it accepts aircraft from any industry partner,” the spokesperson said.

“DCMA supports the B-21 program through their on-site quality specialists at Spirit facilities, as at many other B-21 suppliers,” the spokesperson added. “The DCMA’s specialists have direct access to Spirit quality management systems and data, as mandated via the B-21 contract and in accordance with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation. Suppliers must also submit to regular DCMA inspections throughout the manufacturing process and before acceptance of products, ensuring quality escapes and process issues are caught early.”

The spokesperson did not offer a response when asked if any Air Force-specific scrutiny of Spirit is underway as a result of the recent quality escapes.

Spirit is also a subcontractor to Boeing on the Air Force’s KC-46 tanker, for which it provides the forward fuselage, strut and nacelle components, and the fixed leading edge of the wings. On its website, Spirit says it “assisted in the design of the next-generation tanker,” which is replacing the KC-135.

The shareholder lawsuit against Spirit alleges that a veteran quality manager at the company was asked to hide quality problems, and that the company retaliated against him when he refused.

The suit charges Spirit with having a corporate culture that emphasizes “pushing out product over quality.”

The first B-21 made its inaugural flight in November 2023, and the Air Force has acknowledged that it has made at least one test flight since then. Northrop received a low-rate initial production contract for the B-21 shortly after first flight, Pentagon acquisition chief William LaPlante announced in late January.

Air Force Field-Testing New Tactical Command & Control Modules

Air Force Field-Testing New Tactical Command & Control Modules

AURORA, Colo.—The Air Force has acquired, fielded, and started experimenting with an advanced new command-and-control node, seeking feedback from Airmen before acquiring hundreds more, the service’s leading C2 officials said at the AFA Warfare Symposium. 

The Tactical Operations Center-Light (TOC-L) is a computer system that does “wicked good fusion data integration … across 800 different feeds that are specific to air battle managers and the air picture,” said Brig. Gen. Luke C.G. Cropsey, the Air Force’s command, control, communications, and battle management czar. 

The Air Force has 16 TOC-L prototypes in field testing today.

“I’ll call it the basic building block for where we’re going for infrastructure for C2,” Cropsey said. The systems “are being integrated in a number of joint COCOM-level exercises as well as service-sponsored exercises, so that we’re giving the operator an opportunity to go muck around with it and figure out what works, what doesn’t work, what we need to modify… And then we’re going to move into a phase two of that program very quickly, where we’ll actually start scaling that capability out.” 

How many TOC-L kits the Air Force will need is not yet clear, Cropsey said, but the numbers will be in the hundreds, not thousands. 

Brig. Gen. Daniel C. Clayton, director of the Advanced Battle Management System Cross-Functional Team, said the Air Force is sending a TOC-L system to the Army’s Project Convergence “Capstone 4” exercise, which runs Feb. 23-March 20 . Project Convergence exercises focus on the Pentagon’s wider Joint All-Domain Command and Control efforts to accelerate sensors-to-shooter decision making. 

That kit will be running another of Cropsey and Clayton’s major projects: Cloud-Based Command and Control (CBC2), which fuses data from 750 radar feeds into a single interface and uses artificial intelligence to help battle managers choose and execute a path of action. 

Cropsey touted the rollout of CBC2 to U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command last fall at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. The this week, five months later, he revealed that the system is now operational for NORAD’s eastern air defense sector and Canadian air defense sector, “with more on the way,” he added. 

Three members of the Western Air Defense Sector’s 225th Air Defense Squadron tested the ability to execute Cloud-Based Command and Control (CBC2) for the first time in a geographically separated location at Camp Rilea, Ore., last April. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Tech. Sgt. Anthony Milton

CBC2 and TOC-L are relatively low-profile programs when compared to billion-dollar aircraft buys, but Cropsey and Clayton said that’s by design.

“You’re not going to see what I’ll call big, splashy, major awards for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, as much as you’re going to see lots of very targeted, specific kinds of works that are coming out to do a thing over here, a thing over there, do some integration, present another capability, and then work it back into the operational scene as quickly as we can,” Cropsey said. 

Cropsey cited the Distributed Battle Management Node, “an element that goes out and grabs these individual pieces and integrates them into a single capability offering,” as an example. He said the Air Force is soliciting industry for Phase II of that program, even as Phase I prototypes are about to start arriving at air control squadrons, Cropsey said. 

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall made fielding operationally relevant C2 capabilities one of his seven Operational Imperatives for the department two years ago, and Cropsey and Clayton have emphasized for months that they are not simply conceptualizing future capabilities, but rolling out real solutions. 

“Seven years ago, it was a lot of lightning bolts on charts,” Clayton said. “Those days are behind us. We have actual stuff in the field that is allowing the warfighters to test and experiment with it and have that decision advantage today.” 

Adapt or Die: Big Air Force Changes Demand Buy-In from Within 

Adapt or Die: Big Air Force Changes Demand Buy-In from Within 

At the AFA Warfare Symposium this week, the Department of the Air Force announced 24 decisions stemming from its “Re-optimization for Great Power Competition” review. Now, as the department starts the process of implementing these major changes, former Air Force Futures boss retired Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote offers his perspective in this commentary.

When a successful organization faces disruptive change, it must adapt or decline. That is the choice facing our Air Force today. Others have been here and failed. Remember Kodak? Pan Am? Blockbuster? All these companies led their respective industries, but instead of adapting to disruption in their operating environment, they doubled down on existing ways of doing business. Today, they are memories.  

The Air Force has been disrupted. The years of assumed air dominance are over. Our country’s focus has shifted. Key technologies have proliferated. The competition has caught up. A worthy adversary has studied our vulnerabilities and threatens to expose them. The force is not ready for this environment. If we double down on the old ways, we will decline. As Secretary Kendall made clear repeatedly this week at the AFA Warfare Symposium, “We are out of time.” 

The good news is that senior leaders—including the Secretary, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, and Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman—have identified what needs to change and are moving out. There are plans in place to address each of seven operational imperatives defined over the past two years. Budgets have been reworked and submitted—though Congress has been slow to enact. And now, a pivotal set of organizational reforms has been announced.  

We should not underestimate the moral courage and dogged determination required to lead the force to this point. Leading change is exhausting if you do it right. These senior leaders—and the staffs that support them—have paid the price to get here. 

These changes outlined this week to “re-optimize” the Air Force and Space Force for great power competition are absolutely necessary. Many come straight from extensive wargaming and analysis. The focus on preparing wings for combat is correct. The plan to reinstitute large-scale exercises, especially in the Pacific, will help these wings get ready and enhance deterrence. The stand-up of an Integrated Capabilities Command has been needed for years to give tomorrow’s Airmen what they need to win.  

These are the most significant changes since the aftermath of the Cold War. The key now is implementation. This is where Gen. Allvin has nailed the theme: “Follow through.“  

Looking back years from now, we will see many of these changes as milestones along a journey. The Airmen Development Command and the Integrated Capabilities Command will expand in mission to be critical catalysts for an adapting force. I believe both will eventually be led by four-star officers to reflect their critical portfolios. The re-introduction of warrant officers combined with an independent Air Forces Cyber Command may portend the eventual stand-up of a cyber service, which I believe is likely. The definition of wings as the “unit of action” along with the accompanying focus will lead to a new—and much more accurate—measurement of how much force we have vs. what is needed. 

One valid concern, however, is the increase in bureaucratic complexity due to the proliferation of organizations and commands. Many new organizations are being created. Eventually, the Air Force will need to balance this by consolidating or decommissioning existing organizations. Otherwise, the service risks paralysis by diffusion of responsibility and accountability. In the past, this has stifled change by encouraging extreme tribalism, resource guarding, soft vetoes, and weak consensus. An Air Force focused on China needs a more focused organizational structure. 

Congress is also focused on China, and they will likely endorse most of these changes because they don’t involve significant movements of people. But Congress may balk at standing up a new Program Assessment and Evaluation office in the Secretariat. In recent months, members of Congress have expressed concern that the Pentagon’s existing Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office is hindering DOD modernization. They will likely question the need for adding an equivalent at the service level. 

The main impediment to implementing change will not be Congress, however. It will be institutional resistance, driven by service members and civilians who are uncomfortable with change and allow their discomfort to descend into cynicism. 

Some will employ bureaucratic resistance. They will say this is too much and too fast. They will warn against breaking the service to fix it. They will question why the dominant air force of the last 70 years must change so radically. They may even try to imply that those leading change are betraying our legacy. If you don’t believe me, look at the recent experience of the Marine Corps, where the drive to modernize the force for Indo-Pacific conflict has been met with a public revolt among retired Marine leaders.  

The antidote to such resistance is consistent and near-continuous communication. Leaders at all levels must understand the “why” and the “what,” think through the “how,” and communicate clear expectations to their teams. If this happens, the Air Force can adapt to the changing environment and win the fight that looms just over the horizon. If not … well, we know how that story ends. 

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, USAF (Ret.) was Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements from 2020-2023. He now serves as an advisor to the Special Competitive Studies Project, Dcode, Pallas Advisors, and the Atlantic Council’s Software-Defined Warfare Commission. 

Space Force Combat Squadrons Aim for New Way to Deploy in Place

Space Force Combat Squadrons Aim for New Way to Deploy in Place

AURORA, Colo.—Just as the Air Force is switching up how it packages troops for deployments, the Space Force will implementing “combat squadrons,” establishing a means for divvying up operations and readiness functions for space units that usually deploy in place, leaders said the AFA Warfare Symposium. 

Today, Space Operations Command presents forces to combatant commands, typically U.S. Space Command, as full squadrons and deltas, through its newly established Space Forces-Space component, commanded by Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess. That means unit commanders must juggle operations—flying satellites, gathering intelligence, conducting cyber work—with day-to-day readiness issues. 

“If I need this number of elements to do the mission 24/7 and I force present them, well, then you need a number of elements over here to get ready to do that,” Schiess told reporters. “What we’ve done in the past is they’re both doing that all the time. And so that gets to … exhaustion—‘I just came off a shift and now I’ve got to go to training. And I’ve got a new person coming in and I’ve got to get them ready.’” 

The combat squadrons concept will break down units into smaller crews and rotate them through phases under the Space Force Generation Model, which designates phases that units must cycle through.  

Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess, Commander, United States Space Forces-Space | Air & Space Forces photo

Once presented to SPACECOM, a squadron no longer works for Space Operations Command, Schiess said. “They work for the Space Forces-Space and they’re doing the mission for that. Also during that time, they don’t have to worry about bringing on new capabilities ,they don’t have to worry about training new folks to get ready to feed into the mission to be able to do that. They have their crew that is ready to do their mission.” 

Brig. Gen. Devin Pepper, vice commander of Space Operations Command, said SpOC intends to follow an “eight-crew model.” 

“So five of the crews, whatever system they’re operating, will be in what’s called the combat period, and the other three crews will be in what we call the Prepare and Ready phase,” Pepper told reporters. “Those are all the phases you need to take leave, go to school, do life, so to speak, and then also do the training that you need to get ready to prepare for the combat period.” 

The Space Force already follows a similar system for its electronic warfare teams, and it’s similar to the Air Force’s four-phased approach to operational readiness under the Air Force Force Generation model, or AFFORGEN.  

The commander of a combat squadron “may be a captain or a lieutenant now who’s responsible for that crew that’s in the combat period,” Pepper said. Meanwhile, regular squadron and delta commanders can focus completely on readiness and training. 

When troops aren’t physically deploying, the change is partially just about a mindset shift said Schiess, who compared it to his first job in the Air Force, when he was as a missileer. 

“I was part of the squadron, I got prepared, I would do training,” Schiess said. “But when I went to the alert facility, I didn’t work for the Air Force anymore, I worked for Strategic Command.” 

The Department of the Air Force push to designate deployable or mission-focused “units of action” for both the Air Force and Space Force is part of its larger effort to re-optimize for great power competition. But there are still details that need to be worked out—Schiess noted that the USSF is still working on the naming conventions for combat squadrons. 

“We’re still working through, does that become the 2nd Combat Squadron or 2nd Space Operation?” he said.  

Kendall: ‘Unthinkable’ That Congress Could Fail to Pass Budget, Ukraine Aid

Kendall: ‘Unthinkable’ That Congress Could Fail to Pass Budget, Ukraine Aid

AURORA, Colo.—Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall said Feb. 14 that Congress’s inability to enact critical government funding and national security legislation is “unthinkable” because it will delay military modernization at a pivotal time. 

“These are historic times with a lot at stake on the table, both for our military and our continuous strategic competition as well as for the conflicts that are currently happening,” Kendall said. “It’s impossible to overstate the importance of doing these things.”

In the absence of a fiscal 2024 budget, the Pentagon has been operating under continuing resolutions, which largely keep spending frozen at the previous year’s levels and preclude new starts, though there have been carveouts for investments in America’s chronically delayed submarine construction. 

CRs are designed as a short-term mechanism to prevent government shutdowns but have become commonplace amid Washington’s increased political infighting over the past decade or so.

The stopgap measure the government is operating under is “truly devastating” Kendall said in the closing session of the AFA Warfare Symposium.

According to a Department of the Air Force briefing document, a yearlong CR would represent an estimated eight percent cut in its budget absent inflation, reducing the Department of the Air Force’s buying power by nearly $13 billion. The DOD has already been operating under continuing resolutions since the start of fiscal 2024 on Oct. 1, four and a half months ago.

Meanwhile, a national security supplemental bill is also stalled on Capitol Hill. It contains $95 billion to fund military aid to Ukraine and Israel as well as funds to pay for U.S. military operations in the Middle East after an uptick in attacks by Iranian-backed groups since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel.  The bill passed the Senate, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is balking at bringing the measure to the floor as lawmakers wrangle over budget priorities. 

“The idea that we could fail in preventing Russian aggression from succeeding, I think is really almost unthinkable to me,” Kendall said. “That we could not be as prepared as we possibly can be to meet our pacing challenge is equally unthinkable. We’ve got to get these resources. Most of my life, we were united politically about our threats and what we needed to do about them.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III also underscored his concern in a Feb. 13 statement on the two bills.

“Top Ukrainian defense officials have already warned us that their units no longer have the stores of ammunition that they need to hold off Putin’s invading forces,” Austin said in a statement. “I also call upon Congress to pass a full-year appropriation. Failure to fund the Defense Department in line with the annual defense bill would have serious consequences for America’s security, economy, global standing, and democracy.”

But perhaps the starkest warning came from the outgoing head of Air Combat Command, Gen. Mark Kelly.

Kelly said during a panel session on global threats Feb. 13 that China is serious about building up its military to pursue its foreign policy objectives, while Russia is too—without delay.

“If you look at Russia, they’re pretty serious about their war fight,” Kelly said. “If you look at Ukraine, they’re pretty serious about their war fight for existential purposes. If you look at what Iran is doing, they’re pretty serious about their war fight. And zero of those nations operate under a continuing resolution.”

Lockheed Anticipates Stable F-35 Production for Next Five Years

Lockheed Anticipates Stable F-35 Production for Next Five Years

AURORA, Colo.—Lockheed Martin expects that F-35 production will remain at about 156 aircraft per year through 2028, based on U.S. military services plans and the expected international market, according to company aeronautics executive vice president Greg Ulmer.

In an interview at the AFA Warfare Symposium, Ulmer said he foresees the 156 rate continuing “five-plus years into the future,” taking into account the recent international sales and interest, and U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps plans, which don’t call for a major increase in purchases.

Lockheed has done studies to assess what it would take to boost the rate—which would require more tooling, facilities and workforce—and provided that information to the F-35 Joint Program Office, but there’s been “no demand signal” to produce the jets faster, Ulmer said. The company has discouraged the Pentagon from fluctuating the rate of its requests, which would require a cycle of adding and laying off workforce or disrupting the regular flow of parts and materiel.  

Deliveries of F-35s are on hold while testing continues with the Tech Refresh-3 hardware and software package, on which the Block 4 upgrade depends.

“Over the last few months, we began testing on the next software release for TR-3 both at [Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md.] and Edwards Air Force Base,” Ulmer said. “We’re seeing improved performance with the TR-3,” with improved stability and “significant” new weapons capability, he said.

“We’re actually flying, now, the TR-3 software for production aircraft in Fort Worth,” he noted. “We’ve got 20 production flights under our belt, as we begin the acceptance process in Fort Worth, with the new software version entering production … this month.”

“I can’t tell you when we will close on the testing and … certification of TR-3. My belief is, it’ll be sometime this summer,” he added.

While testing is underway, jets produced with the TR-3 package are being stored until testing is complete, but Ulmer declined to say how many F-35s are being stored or where they are for security reasons. Government officials have pegged the number at about 60 airplanes.

Ulmer acknowledged that discussions are underway with the JPO that could allow the fighters to be delivered with something short of the fully-vetted hardware and software package, but he would not forecast a result.

“We’re working with the Joint Program Office to define what the deliverable key release will be, but I’m not going to get into specifics,” he said. “That’s for the JPO to decide and we’ll align to that requirement.”

He also declined to forecast when a deal will be struck on the next two production lots of F-35s. Lockheed submitted its proposal last fall, but discussions continue, he said. Ulmer has previously said the long streak of F-35 price decreases will likely end with the next lots, due to inflation and the greater complexity and capability in the new aircraft.

In the last few months, the Czech Republic ordered 24 F-35s; South Korea ordered an additional 20, and Israel has said it will add a third squadron of 25 jets.

CMSAF Bass Pushes For First Targeted Pay Raise In 17 Years

CMSAF Bass Pushes For First Targeted Pay Raise In 17 Years

AURORA, Colo.—The top enlisted leaders of the Air Force and Space Force reiterated calls for a broader reform of the military pay tables which lay out compensation for service members. While basic pay increases each calendar year, the charts that help guide those bumps are in need of an update, the senior leaders agreed.

“We haven’t had a targeted pay raise to our pay chart since 2007,” Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne Bass said Feb. 14 at the AFA Warfare Symposium. “We have the most educated, talented enlisted force in history. It is about time for a targeted pay raise.”

Bass’ counterpart, Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force John Bentivegna, held a similar view.

“When you’re looking at the pay and compensation model and you do the analysis, the measuring stick we’re using … has to be reevaluated based on where we are today,” he said. 

The senior enlisted advisors (SEAs) made their remarks in a panel discussion on the enlisted force about two weeks after they testified before a House Armed Services Committee hearing on quality of life for service members, where their counterparts across the military joined in the call for pay reform.

“I think all the SEAs are pretty much right in lockstep about pay and compensation,” Bentivegna said Feb. 14. “The talent that we’re recruiting today on the enlisted side across all the services far exceeds what we’ve seen in history. But beyond that, what we’re asking them to do far exceeds anything we’ve asked them to do before.”

Targeted pay raises focus on pay increases for personnel in specific ranks. Experts say a pay raise focused on junior enlisted troops would help them keep pace with the economy.

“Cost of living has been rising steadily in recent years, and many troops are finding it increasingly difficult to afford housing, food, and other basic necessities,” wrote the Military Officers Association of America in June. 

Pay and compensation has been a key issue for Bass heading into her last few weeks as CMSAF. In a Jan. 4 discussion with the Air & Space Forces Association, she said the military pay chart “really hasn’t evolved since 1949.”

Her comments came about halfway through the two-year 14th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, where the Department of Defense checks to make sure service members’ pay, benefits, and allowances are keeping up with socioeconomic changes.

“Today’s military family looks different than it did 30 years ago,” Bass said. “You have more dual-working parents, more dual-military parents, more single parents.”

Simultaneously, more civilian organizations offer benefits and better wages, which prompts the services to compete for talent. One key military benefit is basic allowance for housing (BAH), which Bentivegna said is in serious need of a refresh. As housing costs surged in recent years, annual BAH increases and the standards used to set BAH at each pay grade have struggled to keep up.

“Ninety-nine percent of you would not be compensated for a single family home,” he said Feb. 14. “Is that model that we’re looking at just a little outdated?”

Bass acknowledged that service is “by and large a calling” and that military members are for the most part well-compensated, but “we’ve got to figure out a different, more modern model, because civilian organizations are offering great compensation packages where 10 years ago they weren’t.”

Both Bass and Bentivegna said they were encouraged by the enthusiasm that members of Congress showed for helping better compensate service members, but the prospect of a continuing resolution casts a shadow on the prospect of future changes.

“We’re making great strides, but we talked about the need for stability in our funding,” Bentivegna said. “There are things we want to get after, but when we can’t execute what we plan for, then we fall behind.”

SDA Launches Missile Tracking Satellites;  All of ‘Tranche 0’ Now in Orbit

SDA Launches Missile Tracking Satellites; All of ‘Tranche 0’ Now in Orbit

The first batch of the Space Development Agency’s Tranche 0 spacecraft are all in orbit, a total of 27 satellites launched into low-Earth orbit within 42 months after the contract award.

The last four of those missile warning/missile tracking satellites launched successfully into Space, along with two Missile Defense Agency satellites, from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla., on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. 

Of the 27 satellites in Tranche 0, 19 perform data transport and communications, while eight do missile warning. One additional satellite remains on the ground as a testbed. 

SDA and MDA worked together on the launch, because the MDA’s two Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor satellites are closely related to SDA’s “Tracking Layer” for missile warning and tracking.  

“Launching our Tracking satellites into the same orbit with the MDA … satellites is a win for both agencies,” SDA director Derek Tournier said in a statement. “We’ll be able to look at test targets from the same orbit at the same time, so that we can see how the two sensors work together.  

Sensors based on the MDA satellite design will be incorporated into later tranches of the SDA constellation, Tournear added. 

Tranche 0 was designed to be a “warfighter immersion” tranche, giving service members the opportunity to work with the systems, understand their capabilities, and to develop operational concepts for their use.

SDA has already announced it has connected with the satellites using the Link 16 data network, a first in space, and the first missile warning satellites launched in April 2023 have captured initial imagery. 

Now senior SDA officials say they’ll look to get the satellites involved in real-world Pentagon exercises to show off what they can do. 

“We’re looking for opportunities to engage in demonstrations today with the capabilities that we have available,” a senior SDA official said. “It won’t be a firm deadline where we say, now the satellites can be turned over for demonstrations. We’ll participate in any warfighter activities we can at this point moving forward.” 

For the Tracking satellites in particular, “it’s just a matter of the launch windows coinciding with our satellites to be able to image those,” the official said. “So we are actively working with all of our partners to be able to schedule those demos, and you’ll see those over the coming months here.” 

Tranche 0 survived multiple launches en route to its full deployment, and at least one data transport satellite experienced problems due to a defect. But the overall program has been deemed a success, proving the concept for rapidly awarding contracts, acquiring satellites, and launching them on a much faster timeline than traditional space acquisition programs. 

Leaders say the PWSA is also desperately needed to boost the Space Force’s resilience on orbit. By placing hundreds of satellites in low-Earth orbit, the thinking goes, the U.S. can withstand the loss of a few satellites and keep its needed space capabilities—thus discouraging adversaries from trying to destroy any of them in the first place. 

The PWSA’s scale will expand dramatically in Tranche 1, set to start launching in September of this year. SDA has awarded contracts for 126 Transport Layer satellites, 35 Tracking satellites, and 12 tactical demonstration satellites. Tranche 1 will be the first “operational” batch of satellites SDA launches.