DOD Formalizes Program Giving Companies More Access to Classified Info

Jan. 4, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Pentagon has formally created a group of defense companies that can get broader access to classified initiatives known as special-access programs, hoping that more insight will make contractors more efficient and cost-conscious.

In a Dec. 15 memo to the defense industrial base, Pentagon acquisition boss Ellen M. Lord formalized the SAP Contractor Portfolio Program, which ran as a pilot initiative for several years. The effort will help companies balance the need to understand technology development with the need to protect that information.

“As the world sees a return to great power competition, the Department of Defense must strengthen its engagement with the defense industrial base in order to respond to the national security challenges facing the United States in a more responsive and cost efficient manner,” Lord wrote.

“However, the new phenomenon of rapid technology proliferation has also increased the level of technology protection necessary to maintain the United States’ competitive edge. This increased protection, resulting in many activities being secured in special access programs, challenges the DOD’s ability to share critical information and to collaborate with the DIB to deliver capability to the warfighter,” she said.

The memo did not say how many or which companies are part of the group, but noted corporations must be on contract for at least 15 special-access programs to participate.

Specifically, the program aims to meet four goals:

Provide companies with more transparency into the special access programs they work on, so they can integrate other tools and capabilities “with the goal of increasing technology development and cost efficiency”
Give the industrial base insight into defense networks that include classified programs so companies can better target their research and development to complement DOD’s systems
Give contractors’ security staff the access they need to protect classified information
Give corporate officers access to special-access programs they are involved with so they can “fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.”

Meeting those objectives will “better posture the DIB to support the department and our nation to meet the challenges of this new era,” Lord wrote.

USAF Begins Basing MQ-9s in Romania

Jan. 4, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Air Force MQ-9s have a new permanent home in Romania.

U.S. Air Forces in Europe announced Jan. 4 that Reapers and about 90 Airmen are now based at Romanian Air Force Base 71 at Campia Turzii. The surveillance and attack drones are assigned to the 31st Expeditionary Operations Group, Detachment 1, under the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base, Italy.

“The forward and ready positioning of our MQ-9s at this key strategic location reassures our allies and partners, while also sending a message to our adversaries that we can quickly respond to any emergent threat,” Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, the United States Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa commander, said in a release.

USAFE did not disclose the number of Reapers that will be assigned to the base, which houses a unit of Romanian Air Force MiG-21 fighter jets and helicopters. The Transylvanian base has long been the site for theater security package deployments of USAF fighters. Contractor-owned and contractor-operated MQ-9s from the 52nd Expeditionary Operations Group, Detachment 2, based at Miroslawiec Air Base, Poland, have repeatedly deployed to the base as well.

Air Force Magazine visited the base as it was preparing to bring in Reapers for the first time in 2019, and construction of new facilities for aircraft launch, recovery, and maintenance was underway. Under previous deployments to Campia Turzii, troops at the base would launch and retrieve the Reapers, while personnel at the Polish base controlled them in flight.

In January 2020, MQ-9s and Airmen deployed to the base to fly as part of exercise Dacian Reaper. During the exercise, Romanian Chief of Defense Lt. Gen. Daniel Petrescu said the deployment is “for the benefit of both our countries. The U.S. presence in Romania complements the allied forward presence in this part of the globe,” according to a release.

From Romania, the MQ-9s have a shorter flight to watch operations in the Balkans and the Black Sea in support of NATO operations. USAFE said the unit will also support agile combat employment concepts—the Air Force’s term for rapid deployment to areas without established military resources—and fly freedom-of-maneuver sorties.

B-1s Can Make it to Finish Line, But Big Repairs Will Be Common Along the Way

Jan. 3, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force expects to have enough resources—money, spare parts, and maintainers—to keep the B-1B bomber flying safely at least until it can be replaced by the B-21, service officials said, now that Congress will let USAF retire 17 of the most problem-prone Lancers in the inventory. But the Air Force is well behind on a structural fatigue test meant to find life-limiting cracks and stress in B-1 airframes, meaning there could be some surprises ahead.

Congress overrode President Donald J. Trump’s veto of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act on Jan. 1, clearing the way for the Air Force to reduce the B-1 fleet from 62 aircraft to 45. The B-21 is expected to be delivered in sufficient numbers by 2031 to permit the rest of the B-1s to retire.

Since September 2019, the Air Force has pushed to reduce the B-1 fleet in order to keep a smaller number of the bombers fully potent and ready for action. In recent years, lack of spare parts and a long list of structural and systematic gripes have driven the fleet’s mission capable numbers to as low as just six aircraft ready for combat.

There will now be enough resources for B-1 repairs and structural modifications to “get us as long as we need for the B-1 to fly,” bomber Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. John P. Newberry told Air Force Magazine in a December interview.

The B-1 was designed to fly between 8,000-10,000 hours, or about 30 years, depending on the rate of usage, but the fleet is 35 years old. To help predict where physical failures are likely to occur, the Air Force has, since 2012, run a structural fatigue test on a B-1 carcass and wing taken out of the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The test apparatus applies forces on the wing and fuselage with a series of bars and pulleys, simulating the effects of multiple flights. The idea is to “age” the test article ahead of the fleet to discover structural problems before they’re encountered in operational aircraft.

The goal, Newberry said, is to achieve 28,000 simulated flight hours on the representative wing, and 27,000 hours on the fuselage; what’s called the “durable life” of the airplane. So far, the service has accumulated 15,875 hours on the wing, but just 7,154 hours on the fuselage. Those hours are actually half of the real numbers, though, because fatigue tests are meant to create a “Certified Structural Life.” The service is only comfortable flying the fleet to half the number of simulated hours applied to the fatigue test article, to leave a generous margin for the unexpected. Consequently, while the wing taken from the boneyard had 3,085 hours already on it, the structural fatigue test could only be credited 1,547 hours at the outset.

“Unfortunately, we’re behind,” Newberry allowed. “The [actual] fleet average is a little over 12,000” hours. The wing test article is ahead of the fleet average, but the fuselage is lagging.

The reason the test is behind has to do with the way structural fatigue tests are run. If a structural failure occurs on the test article, the test must be stopped while the problem is analyzed and a repair is then developed, prototyped, and installed. In this way, a repair is ready to go when actual flying aircraft encounter the problem. The fatigue test then continues with a modification like the one that will be installed on the fleet, so as to be representative of their continued service.

Major problems encountered that required stopping the test included “on the wing … leading and trailing tabs, upper wing splice bolts and drain holes,” Newberry said. On the fuselage, it was “cracks in the longerons, on the dorsal and shoulder longerons.” A repair is now being prototyped on the forward intermediate fuselage. There are also rib cracks, “shearing bolts, and tension clips. So there are various items,” he said.

“We want to get ahead of the fleet,” Newberry said, but he couldn’t predict when that will happen, because it’s impossible to know when the next failure will occur, forcing another halt to the test. Even now, the test is on hold while a fix to a longeron—a main structural piece that carries heavy loads in the structure—is being prototyped.

The B-1 has been used hard, and not in the way intended. Former Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein explained in September 2019 that the B-1 was used in Afghanistan and Iraq as a high-speed close air support platform, loitering for long periods at high altitudes with its swing wings swept forward, until getting a call to dash to support troops needing air support. However, the aircraft was designed as a strategic penetrator, flying low and fast, with wings swept back. Flying with the wings extended for long periods, while carrying heavy loads, put years of heavy extra stress on the swing mechanism and attach points.

“Now we’re having to pay the piper,” Goldfein said.

To stop rapidly grinding down the B-1’s remaining service life, the Air Force has decided to take it out of the close air support mission. Throughout 2020, the Lancer—or “Bone” as crews refer to it—has been limited to bomber task force missions, conducting short-notice, short-duration deployments to Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East.

Air Force Materiel Command has moved quickly to restore the B-1’s mission capable rates to percentages above 60 percent; still below goal, but far better than the single-digit performance of just a few years ago.

At the B-1 depot maintenance center at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., a separate “speed line” was set up to repair specific problems crushing the B-1’s readiness, such as the ejection system, cracks in the forward intermediate fuselage, and wing problems. Spare parts also received extra funding.

The reasons the B-1 fell into such low availability rates had to do with the abusive operation of the aircraft coupled by a perfect storm of structural problems that overwhelmed maintainers, according to USAF B-1 program manager William Barnes.

“When we were at very low mission capability rates, … we were behind in analyzing some of the data we were seeing in the full scale fatigue test,” Barnes said. As the data were analyzed, it raised concerns about various areas that needed inspections, which can be invasive and time consuming.

“A lot of that work fell on the backs of the maintainers out in the field,” he said. But, there wasn’t enough capacity at the depot, “nor did we have all the supplies we needed to perform that repair work.”

At the same time—around May 2018—a B-1’s ejection system failed during an inflight emergency. While the crew made a harrowing landing, the incident prompted yet another new wave of fleetwide B-1 inspections, Barnes said, further pressuring the maintainer force.

“Since that time, we got the ejection system all fixed, and got that work off the field maintainers. We brought a lot of the repair work into the depot, …and then in 2019 … [we] stood up the dedicated repair line at Tinker …where we bring in aircraft for nothing but structural repairs. To my knowledge, it’s the only dedicated structural repair line in the Air Force,” Barnes said. Doing it that way allowed the Air Force to hire extra workers to do the surge repairs “and let the maintainers get back to their day-to-day job of launching aircraft and meeting mission needs.”

Doing all that “significatly improved the availability of the fleet,” Barnes said. “It’s put the fleet in a very healthy position as we bring aircraft through depot, perform the structural repairs, and get a healthier aircraft back out to the field.” The fact that the aircraft are “healthier” also reduces the load of necessary inspections, allowing maintainers to focus on daily readiness.

But some big repairs remain undone. A longeron replacement in the forward intermediate fuselage that will require substantial disassembly of the airplane will be an intensive process.

“We are going to bring an aircraft into Boeing’s Palmdale, [Calif.], facility in April to perform a prototype of that repair,” Barnes said, “Where we will replace the forward intermediate fuselage, and we will repair the ‘shoulder’ longeron,” and this will be the prototype for a fleet-wide fix. The repair apparatus will be brought to the depot to be performed, “but that’s not going to happen until the ’23-’24 timeframe,” he said. “So, we’re still a few years away from where we have to be.”

Lt. Col. Joseph Lay, Barnes’ uniformed counterpart, said the longeron is “a huge section of the backbone of the aircraft.” Doing the forward fuselage and the longeron at the same time “facilitate each other” because they require access to the same areas.

The prototype will be done on a B-1 already headed into depot, and it will have “an extended stay” in that status, Newberry noted.

“It’ll go to Tinker for a little bit, and then it’ll go to Palmdale with Boeing, …and then go back to depot and finish out its normal depot. It was picked because it was ready for the depot and it was … needing a forward intermediate fuselage replace as well.”

He added, “It is extensive. This is not a minor repair.”

With a fleet of 45 B-1s, the aircraft will flow through the depot at about nine per year, or the whole fleet every five years, Newberry said, meaning there are likely two more depot cycles for every airplane before the B-1’s putative wholesale retirement. Alongside that, Barnes said, there will typically be “two to four” B-1s in the structural repair line, meaning “five to eight” B-1s at Tinker “at any given time.”

“As we continue with the full scale fatigue test article, we learn more about the fleet, we find other, very small or very significant, structural repairs that need to happen across the fleet,” Barnes said. “So there will be some structures [repair] happening on this fleet, … my guess, probably for the remaining life of the aircraft.”

The Air Force does not expect to initiate a Service Life Extension Program on the B-1 fleet, Newberry said.

Editor’s Note: An expanded version of this story will appear in the January-February 2020 edition of Air Force Magazine.

Communicating on the Fly

Jan. 3, 2021 | By Jennifer Hlad

As the Air Force leans in to the Agile Combat Employment concept—in which smaller groups of Airmen can deploy rapidly to locations with varying degrees of austerity—communications and cyber Airmen must find ways to be lighter and leaner as well.

Enter “communication flyaway kits”: light packages that can “fit into a few transit cases” and be “called upon at a moment’s notice to provide DOD networks and voice services to environments ranging from something extremely expeditionary to something more modern and built up,” Lt. Col. Daniel Waid, commander of the 18th Communications Squadron, told Air Force Magazine in a phone interview.

The kits are a “scalable solution that allow you to go down from anywhere between two to upwards of 50 people, … providing them secure, cyber-secure communications,” Waid continued.

It’s not a new concept, but the 18th Wing is modifying it to meet their needs in the Pacific.

Maj. Tyler Studeman, director of ACE for the Kadena Air Base, Japan-based 18th Wing, explained that the “tyranny of distance in the Pacific theater,” coupled with the threats around the world, underscore the need for Agile Combat Employment. Projecting combat capability requires the ability to communicate, he said, “whether it’s to say, ‘Hey, we need help,’ or ‘Hey, we’re established and doing well,’ all the way to, as we go out and fly combat missions, we need to know who else is out there with us, in order to make sure that we’re coordinating our efforts… to get the most optimized airpower that we can possibly generate.”

Senior Master Sgt. Johnathan Butler, the 18th Wing’s superintendent for ACE, noted that any time Airmen go forward, “Priority No. 1” is to set up communications, “reach back to higher headquarters, wherever that may be, and establish a good line of communication so that we can receive orders on how to proceed.” The kits—150 pounds in two Pelican cases—allow Airmen to set up secure communications within 30 minutes, “which is pretty amazing,” Butler said.

Staff Sgt Patrick Tobias, client systems supervisor with the 18th Communications Squadron, said the unit also is experimenting with solar panels and “different ways to connect,” because “you never know what’s going to be on site” as far as infrastructure.

“I’m looking at things just to make our lives easier and then just to provide better support for the customers so that they have everything they need,” Butler said.

There is a “huge opportunity” in the Pacific to exploit newer technologies in order to get capability and support “to that austere edge,” Waid said. “What we’re looking at is … solar panels, everything from that to like self-healing networks to different types of newer satellite services,” as well as how to use the different types of bandwidth provided by those satellites.

The squadron has been practicing these concepts in local and regional training exercises throughout the year, including a December exercise in which Airmen operated from four different locations in and around Okinawa with different types of aircraft.

The eventual goal is to provide “operators the flexibility on where they operate from and how they communicate,” Waid said. “We need to be flexible, not just as Airmen, but as cyber professionals. So whatever the 18th Wing and the operations folks need, we can provide that on the fly.”

Butler said that gets to the heart of ACE “as a whole and a concept”: “to give our civilian leadership more response options [as] tensions rise and fall in the geopolitical climate”

It also makes it harder for adversaries to target them. “If you have one target, it’s pretty easy. If you suddenly have two dozen targets, it’s a lot more difficult … We’re trying to get inside their decision-making circle in that decision process, their OODA loop, so that they reconsider their actions,” he added.

Congress Overturns Trump’s NDAA Veto to Start New Year

Jan. 3, 2021 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Congress has voted to enact a $741 billion defense policy bill over the objections of President Donald J. Trump, who vetoed the long-running annual legislation on Dec. 23.

The Senate overrode Trump’s veto 81-13 on New Year’s Day, following the House’s 322-87 vote on Dec. 28. Their rare bipartisan move greenlighted billions of dollars for troop pay, weapons programs, and military construction, plus hundreds of provisions directing how the military should spend that money and detailing reports due to Congress.

It’s the first time lawmakers have amassed the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber to overturn a Trump veto. Six senators—including Republicans David Perdue and and Kelly Loeffler, who both face runoff elections on Jan. 5 to keep their seats in Georgia—and 21 congressmen did not participate.

An unsuccessful attempt to tie passage of $2,000 pandemic aid checks to Americans also slowed the NDAA’s progress, but did not derail it entirely.

“Not only does this bill give our service members and their families the resources they need, but it also makes our nation more secure—pushing back against China and Russia, strengthening our cyber defenses, and accelerating innovation into the technologies that will keep our children’s children safe,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a Jan. 1 release.

The Fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act allows $740.5 billion in spending for the Pentagon and other national security programs through Sept. 30, 2021. Negotiations encountered hurdles due to the coronavirus, which prevented lawmakers from gathering in close quarters to discuss ideas like usual, as well as election-year politicking.

It hit last-minute challenges as Trump demanded Congress include an unrelated provision to end legal protections for social media companies. He also opposed the bill over its language to start the process of renaming military installations that honor Confederate icons, like Fort Bragg, N.C.

Enactment is a late win for the legislation that has now become law for 60 years running, and is touted as one of the most important bills Congress works on each year.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) called its support “a testament to the merits of this year’s bill.” That contrasts with the previous year’s NDAA that garnered unusually partisan votes because of disagreements over issues like nuclear weapons.

Trump’s 11th-hour opposition to the broadly popular bill threw a wrench into what is typically a smooth, if delayed, approval process. The President vetoed the NDAA hours before it would have automatically taken effect at midnight Dec. 24 without further action from the White House. That prompted a holiday scramble to nullify his decision, while also trying to lock in a $1.4 trillion appropriations bill for fiscal 2021 and $900 billion in coronavirus pandemic aid.

Trump signed the spending package into law Dec. 27 as a government shutdown loomed. The authorization and appropriations bills come three months into the fiscal year they enable.

Congress granted most of the Department of the Air Force’s $169 billion wish list. The omnibus appropriations language provides $32.8 billion for Active-duty Airmen, $33.5 billion for Active-duty operations and maintenance, $45.3 billion for procurement, and $36.4 billion for research and development in the base budget. The Space Force’s base budget includes $2.5 billion for O&M, $2.3 billion for procurement, and $10.5 billion for R&D.

The Overseas Contingency Operations budget provides millions more dollars for counterterrorism and other missions outside of the base account as well.

Getting both sets of legislation across the finish line dispels concerns about how lawmakers would move forward with unfinished business after the new Congress began Jan. 3. Work is already underway on the same bills for fiscal 2022, to be tackled by a Democratic White House and a House and Senate that are both narrowly split.

Lockheed Aeronautics VP Michele Evans Dies

Jan. 2, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Michele A. Evans, Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president for aeronautics, died Jan. 1, the company announced Jan. 2. Evans went on medical leave Nov. 17 due to an unnamed illness, which the company said was a “non-COVID related medical issue.” Gregory M. Ulmer, Lockheed F-35 vice president and program manager, had been adding Evans’ duties to his own since Dec. 1, and will continue in that capacity until a permanent successor is named.

Evans, 54, succeeded Orlando P. Carvalho as VP of aeronautics in 2018, having been his deputy. The Aero business is a $20 billion enterprise with about 25,000 employees, and includes the C-5, C-130, F-16, F-22, F-35, and U-2 product lines, as well as unmanned aerial systems and other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. She also oversaw the company’s Skunk Works advanced development company.

On her watch, the company successfully transitioned its F-16 production work from Fort Worth, Texas, to Greenville, S.C.; negotiated lower unit costs with the government for the F-35 fighter and oversaw additional F-35 foreign sales. She also presided over Lockheed’s offer of an F-35 performance-based logistics contract with the government—which so far has not been accepted—and led Aero to winning several hypersonics contracts. Evans also built stronger ties with Airbus to offer that company’s Multi-Role Tanker Transport for U.S Air Force service.

Evans had a 34-year career in the aerospace and defense industry. At Lockheed she was VP and general manager of integrated warfare systems and sensors, as well as VP for C4ISR and undersea systems businesses, and VP for business development in mission systems and training. She had been responsible for Lockheed’s A-10 business, and for avionics on the C-130 and F-35 programs, and the Littoral Combat Ship. The company said she was the executive manager “on multiple domestic and international campaign wins.” She also served as the Chairman of the Board of a Lockheed-Sikorsky joint venture providing logistics support for maritime H-60 helicopters.

Former Lockheed CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, upon Evans’ appointment to the Aero job in 2018, noted Evans’ record of leadership and said her appointment “demonstrates the importance of our talent development and succession planning.”

Evans held a Bachelors of Science in mechanical engineering, cum laude, from Clarkson University, and served on the board of the Smithsonian’s National Air & Space Museum. She was also “actively involved in Lockheed Martin’s diversity and inclusion initiatives, serving as the executive sponsor for the Women’s Impact Network and Leadership Forum,” the company said in a press release.

Evans also served on the board of Cheniere Energy.

Congress Prepares to Enact NDAA After Trump’s Veto

Dec. 23, 2020 | By Rachel S. Cohen

President Donald J. Trump vetoed the $741 billion defense policy bill on Dec. 23 after threatening to derail the bipartisan annual legislation. Congress has pledged to override the veto in votes next week.

“I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 6395 … My administration recognizes the importance of the act to our national security. Unfortunately, the act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions. It is a ‘gift’ to China and Russia,” the President wrote.

The fiscal 2021 legislation authorizes $740.5 billion in spending for the Pentagon and other national security programs through Sept. 30, 2021. It hit last-minute hurdles as Trump demanded Congress include an unrelated provision to end legal protections for social media companies. He also opposes the bill over its language to start the process of renaming military installations that honor Confederate icons, like Fort Bragg, N.C.

The National Defense Authorization Act was set to become law at midnight Dec. 24 if President Donald J. Trump did not act on it sooner. Both chambers of Congress passed the bill earlier this month, starting a 10-day countdown during which the President needed to sign or reject the measure before it was automatically enacted.

The NDAA is seen as must-pass legislation because it enables specialty combat pay that affects thousands of military families, among other key provisions. It has been signed into law every year for nearly six decades with bipartisan support and the backing of the President.

The House and Senate are respectively set to return to Washington and hold override votes on Dec. 28 and 29, a House aide confirmed. Another congressional staffer said a “pocket veto”— in which a presidential rejection kills a bill because Congress is out of session and cannot override the decision—is not in play because lawmakers can accept a veto during pro forma sessions.

There’s no hard deadline to hold those override votes, the congressional staffer said Dec. 23, though the arrival of a new Congress on Jan. 3, 2021, does complicate matters. If the NDAA has not wrapped up by then, lawmakers could briefly delay gaveling in the new session until the bill is finalized. If still not done once the 117th Congress takes office, the staffer believes that a new group of lawmakers would have to retrace the steps of the legislative process to again send it to Trump’s desk.

If the NDAA is not in place by New Year’s Day, the lapse could derail funding for the Navy’s Columbia-class nuclear submarines, civilian employee pay, military construction projects, and more, the congressional staffer said. It may also halt operations at Armed Forces Retirement Homes.

“The late decision to veto the NDAA puts our service members at a disadvantage in an environment of unprecedented peer threats to our security,” said AFA President and retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “Our Airmen and Guardians—and also Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines—volunteered to die, if necessary, in defense of our country. That’s their jobs. It’s the jobs of our elected leaders to fund their activities. We thank those leaders and their staffs for their hard work and leadership so far. They now owe our our warfighters and the American people an NDAA that ensures our nation’s security. They are collectively responsible for the unprecedented situation we now find ourselves in—and they are therefore collectively responsible for resolving it.”

Trump’s decision has frustrated Republican allies who tried to convince him to follow through on signing the bill.

“The NDAA has become law every year for 59 years straight because it’s absolutely vital to our national security and our troops. This year must not be an exception. Our men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform shouldn’t be denied what they need—ever,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a Dec. 23 release.

Inhofe urged lawmakers to find another legislative vehicle to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as Trump wanted to do in the NDAA.

“Trump has made it clear that he does not care about the needs of our military personnel and their families,” said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), head of the House Armed Services Committee. “If the FY21 NDAA does not become law, more than 100,000 federal employees will be deprived of the paid parental leave benefits they deserve, necessary military construction projects will not move forward on schedule, and our service members who are in harm’s way defending our country’s principles will not have access to the hazard pay they are owed.”

Defense industry players also quickly began to decry the move.

“There is no more essential duty for the American government than to ensure the safety and security of its people. The President’s veto undermines our national security preparedness and jeopardizes the jobs of Americans who make up our defense industrial base at a time when the country is in crisis,” Aerospace Industries Association President and Chief Executive Officer Eric Fanning said in a release. “We urge Congress to prioritize national security and override this veto.”

First enacting defense funds—part of the massive omnibus spending bill also awaiting Trump’s signature—would stave off some of the problems prompted by a lack of NDAA, the staffer said. The omnibus appropriations bill could continue paying for programs whose authorization under previous legislation has not yet expired, but spending for other items must stop without a new policy bill in place to allow it.

The future of that $1.4 trillion omnibus, together with the nearly $900 billion coronavirus pandemic relief legislation, was thrown into question Dec. 22 when Trump released a video criticizing pieces of the package. The Republican President called for $2,000 economic stimulus checks to support Americans instead of the agreed-upon $600 payments, which reportedly surprised even his own legislative team spearheading the effort. Democrats also back the larger sum.

pic.twitter.com/v9Rdjz6DNu
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2020

It’s unclear what the timeline is for Trump to approve or veto the so-called “coronabus” package, passed by the House and Senate Dec. 21. A 10-day clock for automatic enactment, not including Sundays, starts once Congress sends the paperwork to the White House for Trump’s consideration. That process could also stretch into the next Congress, which typically does not have to juggle these issues with both a new set of lawmakers and a new President in town.

The federal government remains open through Dec. 28 under another continuing resolution while the omnibus is in limbo—three months after the fiscal year began Oct. 1. Lawmakers will need to pass another CR to avoid a shutdown unless the spending package is enacted in time.

“President Trump should sign the bill and get [House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell] to agree to the $2,000,” Henry Connelly, communications director for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Dec. 23 when asked about potential next steps for the omnibus-pandemic relief legislation.

The Department of the Air Force’s $169 billion wish list was largely granted in the 2021 authorization and appropriations bills. Lawmakers green-lit many Air Force and Space Force priorities but did reverse plans to phase out production of key aircraft like the MQ-9 Reaper drone and to ditch the A-10 attack plane.

Congress approved a spending bill with $32.8 billion for Active-duty Airmen, $33.5 billion for Active-duty operations and maintenance, $45.3 billion for procurement, and $36.4 billion for research and development in the base budget. The Space Force’s base budget would receive $2.5 billion for O&M, $2.3 billion for procurement, and $10.5 billion for R&D as well.

Millions more dollars were offered under the Overseas Contingency Operations budget intended for counterterrorism missions.

Lawmakers also call for periodic briefings from Air Force officials on the service’s plan to address its pilot shortage, as well as a C-130 fleet management plan, a strategy for the Advanced Battle Management System, and more.

A more unusual provision directs the Air Force Secretary to work with the National Institutes of Health to rehome chimpanzees that live on Air Force property. The Alamogordo Daily News recently reported that two chimps used for experiments at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., have died, leaving 37 more at an NIH-run facility on base.

Nearly 100 chimpanzees have moved to a sanctuary from Holloman’s Alamogordo Primate Facility, the publication said.

How Dover Air Force Base is Accelerating Change

Dec. 23, 2020 | By Brian W. Everstine

DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Del.—When new Air Force and Air Mobility Command leaders called on Airmen to “accelerate change” and expand their capabilities beyond their sole duty, Airmen here were already working on two major efforts to broaden their skill sets.

The 436th Airlift Wing opened two facilities and training programs within six months of each other in 2020—the Tactical and Leadership Nexus (TALN) training facility and the Bedrock innovation hub, aimed at pushing Airmen to improve their combat skills and to innovate in new, high-tech ways.

“I think that the culture has been shifting, and the empowerment is there,” Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Jaqueline D. Van Ovost said during a recent visit here. “And they’re excited when they’re empowered.”

Van Ovost, in outlining her priorities for the command in October, said AMC needs “multi-capable Airmen” who can accomplish tasks outside their core Air Force Specialty Code, such as providing security for aircraft at austere bases. The goal is to develop “digitally adept Airmen” who can fuse data, analytics, and emerging technology to help the command move faster and smarter.

“In general, our Airmen get it,” she told Air Force Magazine in an interview. “They get that things have shifted.”

In July, Dover cut the ribbon on the TALN training facility—a makeshift collection of small buildings serving as classrooms and a “town” of shipping containers serving as a makeshift village for combat training. Airmen from various AFSCs across the base are tapped for a one-day, 10-hour training course that is designed to give them a quick run through of how to act when things go bad at an austere base.

An Airman trains in an opposing force combat scenario as part of the Tactical and Leadership Nexus training program on Dec. 9, 2020, at Dover Air Force Base, Del. The new program is focused on training Airmen in combat skills outside of their regular duties. Staff photo by Brian Everstine.

The day starts with four hours of instruction on self-aid and buddy care; chemical biological, radiological, and nuclear training; weapons; and the ability to think quickly and critically under fire.

“The biggest part of the TALN day is the leadership and critical thinking,” said Master Sgt. Kevin Veneman, TALN flight chief, in a release issued when the facility opened. “They get you thinking outside the box and to think about what your next option is.”

After the classroom instruction ends, the more intense training begins. This includes quickly donning a Mission Oriented Protective Posture suit and mask. They are then exposed to tear gas in a confined space to ensure the suit is fitted correctly, and if it’s not, they will learn what CS gas feels like in the real world. Airmen then move through a “leadership reaction course,” a series of obstacles and puzzles where Airmen must lead each other through.

The final, and biggest, event of the day is when the group is broken up into two opposing sides to “fight” each other as opposing forces in a combat scenario. One team is the attacking force, attempting to move through the simulated village, while providing combat aid to dummies representing casualties. The other team must defend their side. Both are armed with M4s or M16s and sim rounds firing paint.

In this scenario, ranks don’t matter. Leaders emerge when pressure starts, and Airmen have to work together to fight through the scenario.

The goal of TALN, which stems back to a 2019 Jersey Devil exercise in which Dover Airmen’s combat skills were shown to be lacking, is for Airmen to have a basic understanding of combat skills that could be needed if deployed to an Agile Combat Employment-type location and are pressed to fight. For many Airmen, it is the first time they’ve held a weapon or been exposed to other combat skills since basic training.

The class started for the wing’s Active Duty Airmen, and could expand to Guard, Reserve, and other services. The initial plan is for Airmen to go through TALN once every three years. The instructors are volunteers from various career fields who received additional combat and weapons training before running the classes. The program cost about $500,000 in all, with members and volunteers working more than 6,000 hours to complete it before classes began in August, according to a release.

While the 436th Airlift Wing is a busy flying wing, with C-17s and C-5s operating at a high operations tempo, Wing Commander Col. Matthew E. Jones said in an interview there has not been a shortage of Airmen signing up and eager to participate.

“We’re learning through this is [that] if they perceive that what they’re doing is value added, it doesn’t feel like something extra,” Jones said, adding that the signup process has shown interest in not only going through the class early but also trying to become future instructors.

On the other side of Dover, away from the ramshackle village and muddy obstacle course, is a brand-new office space designed to look more like a Silicon Valley startup than the drab USAF base office building it once was.

The space, called Bedrock, is the home of Dover’s innovation hub. Dover chartered its lab in January 2019, following similar efforts at other bases in the Air Force such as the Phoenix Spark Hub at Travis Air Force Base, Calif. The base cut the ribbon on the facility in September, opening it for Airmen from all jobs, along with Key Spouses and other groups, to work together.

The Bedrock facility has a 3D printing hub, a podcast recording studio, several coworking spaces, and a pile of massive beanbags in the middle for Airmen to sit. There’s a small stage reminiscent of TED Talks, and a virtual reality center with devices that allow Airmen to virtually train on C-5s.

The hub has sparked Airmen-developed efforts, such as 3D printing cases for tablets that aircrew use for a fraction of what it would cost to buy specially made commercial versions. Airmen are working on “wicked hard problems that you have out on the flightline, and [they can] bring it here, and keep track, and focus, and make it better,” Van Ovost said. Such facilities have been “popping up around the Air Force … [as] a safe space for them to come and innovate,” she added.

Q&A: USAF’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection

Dec. 23, 2020 | By John A. Tirpak

Lt. Gen. Warren D. Berry is the deputy chief of staff for logistics, engineering, and force protection. His portfolio includes everything from aircraft readiness to base housing. Editorial Director John A. Tirpak spoke with Berry about new logistics concepts, air base defense, and managing the health of the Air Force’s facilities. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You can also read more on Berry’s views on resilient and agile logistics in this December Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies forum paper.

Q. The Air Force has been talking a lot about agile combat logistics and logistics under fire. Are they the same thing?

A. Not quite, but they’re absolutely related. The National Defense Strategy gave us this operational problem, “Logistics Under Attack.” We’ve enjoyed years of being able to do resupply and replenishment with little resistance from an adversary, in a permissive or semi-permissive environment. That probably won’t be the case in the future. We understand that the threat will be both kinetic and nonkinetic.

We’ve coalesced around a concept of “persistent logistics.” It has three major lines of effort: posture, sense, and respond. Posture is how we set the theater, do prepositioned equipment, where we put war readiness materiel, and how we sustain it in advance of a potential fight. It’s about … preparing for that non-kinetic attack, disruptive technologies that can be brought to bear, about hardening some of our critical nodes and training Airmen to be more multi-capable; to do more than just their primary job. And it’s about helping our allies and partners, and recognizing the capabilities that they bring.

Then, sensing. We have a lot of data and a lot of information in the logistics space, but we don’t have the capability to catalog and clean it of spurious inputs and understand gaps in data integrity. There are unit codes that tell us what went wrong with a system, or a part, and we need to be able to collate that and turn it into information we can use.

The data are so voluminous that a person in the loop can’t possibly digest it all. We need to make it actionable, even predictive, so we know when the next failure is going to happen on an airplane and anticipate the parts that will be needed. So I need to sense the environment and use those data to help me know what’s going on, logistically.

We need digital modernization to get data that are far more useful to us. You might hear it called Log COP, which is Logistics Common Operating Picture. The goal is to get these data into a secure, resilient system that I can protect and have it available to senior decision-makers so we know the state of play in logistics at virtually any moment. The goal is actionable logistics intelligence that is both proactive and predictive.

Then, I need to respond. But, that response has to be at the speed of relevance to the warfighter, and respond with the broader logistics enterprise; our air logistics complexes, our organic capability, and our defense industrial base. The response may come from artificial intelligence and machine learning or it might be through a different distribution network, or responding in different ways to protect our assets that are deployed in theater. All of that is the conceptual framework for persistent logistics.

We’re looking at that now, and asking ourselves, where are the capability gaps, so we can go to the corporate Air Force to say, these are the capabilities we need to develop to logistically support the fight.

Q. And what are some of those?

A. Autonomous distribution, Agility Prime. We’re also looking at artificial intelligence to push parts to the field instead of waiting for the demand signal; particularly in a situation where communication is degraded. How do I mitigate that? Maybe I get into block-chain-like capabilities, that help me protect my data and give me more of a predictive capability.

There may also be gaps in personnel, training, and doctrine, that we need to fill.

Some we inherently know; others will come to light as we do more study. We may need new forms of distribution, but it has to be in context. In Europe, there’s a robust infrastructure; in the Pacific, you have that tyranny of distance. But, we’re pretty sure we need to do distribution a bit differently. Our logistics common operating picture isn’t where it needs to be.

I’m sure we’re going to find more gaps, such as in runway repair. Gaps in how we do supply kits and posture units with readiness spares packages, so they have what they think they’ll need for a certain duration of a fight. Those are a few.

Q. When will you have a roadmap for all of this?

A. We will finalize the Logistics Under Attack concept in the spring, and we’ll start the capability gap analysis after that. My goal is, by the end of ’21, have the capability gap analysis done so we can begin getting at the things we need.

Q. Pacific Air Forces said it’s examined every theater airfield for possible operating locations, and they’re thinking about a hub-and-spoke distribution concept as USAF moves toward quick deployments to austere fields. Are you involved with that?

A. The regional theater commanders are what I would call the “thought and experiment leaders,” but we are clearly part of that team. We’ve done some exercises, and learned that we need to rethink the footprint that we’re sending with the unit, in terms of the Airmen, and supplies, and equipment. We need to be a little lighter and leaner. Part of that is rethinking those spares packages, so that when a core unit goes to a hub, and then goes out to the spokes after that, they can be self-contained for a short amount of time.

Using all those airfields can really complicate the adversary’s targeting calculus; it gives us a lot more agility and unpredictability. But, I have to support that in a way that I’m not necessarily having to resupply, replenish, and support them on a near-continuous basis.

We need to understand what a multiskilled Airman looks like; what are the complementary skill sets we can really capitalize on, and then come up with a training plan so we don’t put a burden on each individual wing to develop that.

Q. As the Air Force develops this shell game concept, how will you defend these far-flung sites? The Army won’t have enough Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense or Patriots to cover everybody. Is the idea to just get in and get out quickly, or will you be taking some kind of organic defense with you?

A. I think it’s going to be both.

There’s no silver bullet—no best methodology—to protect the force once it’s in the fight. I have to assume there will be some theater protection, but some of our adversaries have pretty deep magazines, and maybe there will be leakage.

I look at what I can control, and that means looking at it through the lens of point defense. Moving the force under the Agile Combat Employment concept helps with force protection. Beyond that, there’s a spectrum of opportunities to protect the base.

At the low end, it’s things we’ve done in the past: camouflage, concealment, and deception; being opaque about allowing our adversary to see what we’re doing.

Then, I’ve got to protect the perimeter. In many cases, we can rely on the host nation to do that. It depends on the capability they have, but they’ll be engaged in this conflict as well. Protecting the perimeter also means I have to have situational awareness of the AOR (area of responsibility); sensors and detection capabilities, infrared. I have to give that, in greater volume, to my defenders.

And then I have to look at other capabilities I can put in their hands to counter small unmanned aerial systems.

Q. What’re the key things you need in the next three to five years?

A. I really need to give our defenders that broader battlespace awareness. To see further out, see the threats that are materializing, have command, control, and communications systems, Blue Force tracker, to evolve that capability to make it more robust for them.

Capability against Class 1-3 UAS, working with the Army as executive agent to get that capability in greater volume, that’s near-term.

Further out, it might be directed energy, lasers, that we can use to counter rockets and mortars and things of that nature. But that won’t be available to me in the next year or two.

Q. Do you feel like the Army is giving enough attention and resources to helping you in this regard?

A. Certainly for small counter-UAS, they are. We’ve been working very well with them in the Joint Counter Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office. It’s been pretty collaborative …to get common systems, open architectures so we can all plug in together and share the operating picture. And that feeds into the broader joint all-domain command and control conversation that we’re having. The experience has been pretty positive.

Q. This has been a landmark year for natural disasters: wildfires, hurricanes. What are you doing to harden bases against these calamities?

A. The poster child for air base resiliency efforts would be Tyndall (Air Force Base, Fla.], as a result of Hurricane Michael, and Offutt [Air Force Base, Neb.,] to a smaller degree, with the floods that happened there. We have some milcon projects there to rebuild resiliency to severe weather.

Congress has been very supportive … in our attempt to build Tyndall back to what we need, and not build it back to what we had. We’re taking a different approach to how we’re constructing the base. We’ve modified the design criteria to better account for high-category hurricanes. We’re taking into consideration more stringent design standards in flood plains … to handle 100-year floods.

But we’re also putting sensors on facilities, so I can do predictive maintenance—using the same idea we’re using with airplanes—and putting in smart systems to better control energy consumption.

Across the Air Force, our physical plant value is about $350 billion. I’m not going to be able to make all of it resilient and hurricane- and flood-proof overnight. But all of those design standards go into all our new … renovation and modernization projects.

After Hurricane Michael, Chief of Staff General [David] Goldfein commissioned a Severe Weather Readiness Assessment team to look at that, and treat severe weather as an adversary. They came up with 129 recommendations on how to do a better job, from forecasting to sheltering to evacuation timelines. We completed about 25 percent of that quickly; what I would call the “high reward, low difficulty” ones. We’re working through the rest, but as you said, this was a heck of a year: We had 30 named storms. Based on some of the actions we took, we came out of it relatively unscathed. It’s not all about design standards, it’s about actions we can take in advance of severe weather. I think we’re on a good path.

Q. Are you comfortable with the resources going to upkeep of facilities, or is USAF digging an even deeper hole?

A. My business in the A4 is sustainment of both weapon systems and infrastructure. Would I like more funding in those areas? Absolutely. We have more mission in the Air Force than we have resources to do it all. So there’s some hard choices to be made.

But we do have an investment strategy to get after our infrastructure. It calls for investing in a different way that helps us get out of our maintenance backlog. We used to fix “worst first,” but in doing that, we put a lot of money toward failed facilities. We had little left over for more routine maintenance on facilities that were in good shape but needed attention. It was the equivalent of changing a couple of engines instead of doing a whole bunch of oil changes, and we kept getting behind the power curve.

Now we’re investing in what we call the “sweet spot” of a facility’s life cycle; putting more money into oil changes, if you will. We’re prioritizing funding for those facilities that are still good. Don’t get me wrong, we’re still putting money toward failed facilities, it’s just a shift in the priority and volume of dollars that go to each. And looking at whether I even need to recapitalize a particular building and maybe use that space differently, getting after a better footprint on the installation.

This is about understanding the inventory you have, the condition of each building and system within the building, and targeting dollars against systems that need repair but have not yet failed.