John Breitenbach, Director Aerospace & Defense Markets, RTI, talks about data networks at AFA’s 2024 Air, Space & Cyber Conference at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.
CAE on Training and Simulation – Live at ASC24
Dr. Jennifer McArdle, Senior Director for Futures, CAE Defense & Security discusses Training and Simulation at AFA’s 2024 Air, Space & Cyber Conference at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.
Brig. Gen. Chris Amrhein Says Space Force is Exceeding Recruiting Goals
Brig. Gen. Chris “Bammer” Amrhein, commander of Air Force Recruiting Command, says the U.S. Air Force and Space Force exceeded recruiting goals for fiscal 2027, but have greatly increased the goal for fiscal 2025, which starts Oct. 1. More recruiters, and a larger pool in the delayed entry program will help, but the goal for 2025 will rise by almost 20 percent.
Amrhein spoke with Air & Space Forces Magazine’s Editor in Chief, Tobias Naegele, at AFA’s 2024 Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Md.
Mitchell Institute’s Chilton on Protecting U.S. Access to Space
Retired Gen. Kevin Chilton, Explorer Chair at the Mitchell Institute’s Space Center of Excellence (MI-SPACE), says the U.S. Space Force needs offensive counterspace capabilities to hold adversaries’ space assets at risk and to ensure U.S. access to space-based communications, precision navigation and timing, missile warning, and targeting when and where its needed by U.S. and allied forces in every domain. Chilton spoke with Air & Space Forces Magazine’s Editor-in-Chief, Tobias Naegele, at AFA’s 2024 Air, Space & Cyber Conference at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.
USAF Leaders: Pilot Shortage Requires ‘Holistic,’ Analytical Solution
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Air Force leaders said Sept. 17 they plan to take a ‘holistic” and “system of systems” approach to close the service’s chronic, seemingly intractable pilot shortage, rather than the patchwork of individual good ideas tried over the last several decades.
Dating back to the 1990s, the service has consistently dealt with pilot shortage problems. In that time, officials have trotted out a wide variety of potential fixes—bonuses, an air mobility track, fighter fundamentals, simulators, a civilian path to wings, an accelerated path to wings.
They’ve also gone deep trying to understand the “second- and third- order effects from a pilot production and absorption [and] retention perspective,” retired Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian said during a panel discussion at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.
Yet despite all that effort to produce more pilots, the end result has generally been the same, said Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, deputy chief of staff for operations: around 1,300 new pilots per year, well short of the service’s long-term goal of 1,500.
“We’ve tried many, many ways to go above that. … We’ve really stretched ourselves and gotten to over 1,400 but we haven’t really gotten to 1,500 ever,” said Spain.
“The expectation was that we would gain 200 to 250 additional pilots per year using those initiatives. The problem is, they were offset” by the unforeseen.
Those unanticipated problems included freak weather events, supply constraints, and problems keeping aging training aircraft going. There were self-inflicted wounds as well, Spain said, when the Air Force deliberately “took risk” in funding some accounts, like spares, to maintain combat readiness elsewhere.
“The effect of that was, we didn’t get better,” Spain said. “We stayed at exactly about the same level: 1,300 plus or minus. So those initiatives worked; they just kept [the shortage] from getting worse.‘”
Moving forward, Spain and Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, commander of Air Education and Training Command said the Air Force cannot expect standalone initiatives to close the gap.
“Solving one element of it doesn’t solve the problem,” Spain said. “You have to actually tackle all of the things that contribute to it to get to a holistic solution, and that’s what we’re really trying to work on now: how do we look at this problem from all of the angles…and ensure that the solutions that we’re implementing are actually holistic.”
Robinson described the process as thinking about pilot production as a “system of systems.”
“We’re working really hard, as a foundational aspect, to be able to understand the system of systems digitally, and we can work with the myriad of variables that exist,’ Robinson said. “And by the way, inside each one of those segments is another set of systems of systems: logistics, supply, manpower decisions, airspace access, air traffic controllers at some of our bases.”
Applying artificial intelligence and digital methods to wring more efficiency out of each element will collectively nudge the numbers higher, Robinson said.
“Some might call it a ‘digital twin,’” Robinson said, comparing the system to a digital model of an aircraft where designers can tweak variables and get instant feedback.
“But it’s got to be sustainable,” he added. “I don’t want Airmen working 70 or 80 hours a week trying to achieve” the aircraft readiness rates needed to smooth out pilot flow, he said.
As an example, Robinson described an initiative to increase the T-6 part of pilot training, which leads to better results down the line.
“We’re now scaling that approach out to Columbus Air Force Base now and … after that, we’ll take a look at applicability at Vance Air Force Base. But year over year, with what we’ve done—and this is where it comes back to the system of systems—by increasing the T-6 phase across AETC” will result in about 111 [additional] pilots getting their wings,” he said.
The problem is also not consistent between weapon systems. Spain said an F-35 pilot recently asked him “what pilot shortage?” because at his location, the recent long pause in F-35 deliveries had created a surplus of pilots to fly the number of jets available.
“That [unit] was overmanned because we had delayed deliveries, and so they had 130%” of the pilots needed,” Spain said.
The differences between systems has also come up because the Air Force recently had to divert top flight school graduates—who usually get their assignment choice—away from fighters to other aircraft, such as C-130s, because fighter Flying Training Units couldn’t absorb them without causing other problems.
The action is meant to “smooth out bulges in the system,” Spain said.
As things stood, Robinson added, pilots were waiting a year to advance to the next phase of training, instead of three to five months.
While the move has met with some complaints from graduates who expected to go to fighters and were either redirected to “heavies” or as instructors, Spain said that pilots need to remember that the needs of the service come first.
The Air Force also needs to “de-stigmatize” pilots going into the Guard and Reserve, said Maj. Gen. Randal K. Efferson, acting commander of the Air National Guard Readiness Center.
“You can have a really good career” in the Air National Guard, he said, but panelists agreed that even discussing leaving Active Duty to pursue flying in the reserve components drew frequent criticism from commanders and fellow pilots, a cultural problem that needs to be fixed.
NORAD Boss ‘Intrigued’ by New High-Altitude Drones Amid Increase in Russian Approaches
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Russian aircraft have encroached on the Alaska air defense indication zone (ADIZ) four times in the last week, the head of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command noted Sept. 17, as he said he wants to ramp up his command’s training and monitoring capabilities.
“We’ve had four straight nights of intercepting Russian aircraft that have penetrated inside the Alaska ADIZ,” Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot said at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. “NORAD fighters, AWACS (Airborne early warning and control aircraft), and tankers intercepted them all, everything safely and professionally. But it shows an increased presence.”
The steady stream of incursions included:
NORAD posted on social media that it scrambled U.S. fighters to intercept the aircraft on Sept. 11 but didn’t specify the type of the Air Force jets or the Russian aircraft involved that day.
Incursions into the air defense identification zone are not the same as entering U.S. or Canadian airspace. Russian activity in this buffer zone occurs regularly and NORAD is “accustomed” to the activity, it says. But the frequency is notable—it’s the most consecutive days with an announced detection in years.
It also builds on another notable incident in July, when NORAD tracked two Chinese Xian H-6s and two Russian Tu-95s, escorted by Russian fighter jets, flying near Alaska, the first appearance of Beijing’s bombers in a combined patrol through the area.
“It was just coordinated, not integrated like how two NORAD countries … are very well integrated,” Guillot noted.
While not yet a display of interoperability, the incident marked the eighth coordinated bomber flight between Beijing and Moscow since 2019, reflecting a growing level of cooperation.
“China spends a lot more time up there,” Guillot cautioned. “It shows, on a daily basis, that the Arctic is an area where a number of nations are showing interest, not only for military purposes, but also for scientific purposes.”
Since branding itself a “near-Arctic State” in 2018, China has showed increased interest in the Arctic for economic and strategic reasons. Although not a major Arctic player yet, experts noted that Beijing views melting ice caps as a gateway to new trade routes, and it may seek to leverage Russia’s Arctic activities to bolster its own presence in the region.
“We are pursuing sensors that go from sea floor all the way up to space in multiple layers and domains, to make sure that we can detect all of those adversaries,” said Guillot, highlighting that this capability must surpass the ranges covered five or 10 years ago and needs to reach “much further away,” given the advanced capability of adversaries’ weapons.
Specifically for better monitoring aircraft, cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons, Guillot’s predecessor, Gen. Glen VanHerck successfully championed new over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) capabilities. However, in June, the Air Force told lawmakers that it would no longer fund the program in fiscal 2024 as planned, postponing the decision to 2026.
In order to get continuous surveillance, Guillot said he is now eyeing unmanned aerial vehicles as an interim solution. U.S. Central Command is also eyeing low-cost, long-endurance drones through the Air Force’s Task Force 99 program.
“As we look to see which capabilities can be fielded, first, having a gap filler, such as a high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs, could help us utilize the platform’s flexibility and agility to go where we need in that vast landscape,” said Guillot. “I’m very intrigued by what Gen. Kurilla and CENTCOM are doing in the UAV realm. Of course, they need a different sensor suite than we do, so we’ll have to make sure that the type of payloads we need will work. … But I certainly think it’s something that we could look at.”
While UAVs such as RQ-4 Global Hawk drones could offer more flexibility and broad coverage of the area, Guillot added that their sensors and payloads will likely have to be tailored for Arctic conditions to ensure smooth operation without compromising endurance or altitude.
It’s not just the aircraft that have to be prepped for the Arctic. Guillot also hinted at a plan to boost Arctic training—toughening up warfighters for the harsh cold and rugged terrain.
“We’re also trying to increase the number and complexity of exercises that we conduct up there,” said Guillot. “Our fighter squadrons… they’re not necessarily used to working in that environment, and that’s something that takes specific training and, in cases, specific equipment.”
TT Electronics on Aircraft Power Advances – Live at ASC24
Julian Thomas, Engineering Director, TT Electronics discusses aircraft power advances at AFA’s 2024 Air, Space & Cyber Conference at the Gaylord Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.
Flosi: What ‘Breaking Down Stovepipes’ Means for Airmen
As the Air Force leans into the idea of mission-ready Airmen, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force David Flosi floated the idea of consolidating some of the branch’s more than 130 Air Force Specialty Codes while increasing training opportunities for Airmen to gain skills working in smaller teams.
Many Air Force enlisted job specialties involve similar work, Flosi told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. He cited a recent analysis by Air Force headquarters, which identified 54 aircraft maintenance AFSCs, and noted that of the many tasks they train for, only 20 percent of them make up the vast majority of the work they do—80 percent, in fact.
Air Force headquarters sees “an opportunity to drastically reduce the total amount of AFSCs and build really good aircraft maintainers on that first 20 percent, which will provide us more agility on the flight line,” the chief said. “We’ll have more people that are qualified on the tasks that are most frequently done, and then bolt-on capability capacity.”
The Air Force has not made a decision to cut or combine similar AFSCs, but officials are analyzing career fields to see if reducing the number of specialties could make sense. Leaders say Airmen must be ready to handle multiple tasks when operating in an agile combat employment scenario, which involves working in smaller, disaggregated groups on a battlefield where enemy missiles are a constant threat.
“We’ll be contested in the air, on the ground, in the information environment. Supply chains are far more difficult in the INDOPACOM theater,” Flosi said. “So we need to put the smallest number of Airmen into harm’s way and achieve the maximum capacity out of each one of them.”
Each AFSC has its own pipeline and career path, which is great for technical specialization but not necessarily helpful in a contested environment, he explained. The Air Force plans to analyze the similarities between specialties within a career field such as aircraft maintenance, as well as the similarities between specialties in different career fields. Combining pipelines would eliminate stovepipes and increase flexibility, Flosi said.
“I’d be able to take this Airman that’s now qualified on more than one type of job, and I could employ her to do both, potentially, in an operational environment,” he explained. “So I’ve just now reduced our burden by 50 percent because we’re getting more capacity out of her.”
Many Airmen and units are already doing this. In his keynote address, Flosi pointed out Senior Airman Marlene Guerrero, a fuels technician with the 353rd Special Operations Wing who is also trained on hydraulics and is an assistant dedicated crew chief. Guerrero put those skills to work when she joined a repair team to fix a forward aircraft with a hydraulic problem. That’s not the kind of thing one would see at a large air base in the Middle East 10 or 15 years ago, Flosi said.
“You wouldn’t find somebody that was a crew chief and a fuels technician—ever,” he told reporters. “And so the fact that we’re not only training to that standard, but then employing that Airman with those multiple capabilities is game-changing, and that’s the type of thing we need to be able to do in a contested environment.”
Another example Flosi offered was the 1st Special Operations Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, which developed a 12-member team capable of supporting multiple forward-deployed aircraft “for days on end,” Flosi said. The Airmen not only launched and recovered aircraft, but also supplied their own food, ammunition, water, security, and communications, a task that conventional planning would have required 40 or 50 people, he added. Cross-training Airmen made the smaller team possible.
“Even the air crew that lands can be qualified on a lot of those tasks to help with the mission while they’re on the ground,” Flosi said.
The Air Force is working on an “institutional backbone” to build out that kind of capability across the service, the chief said.
Flosi said Airmen should not see this effort to combine specialties and promote mission-ready skillsets as an attempt to do more with less. “We’re not trying to, like, squeeze 10 people’s worth of work into five people,” he said. “We want to have the capability for an Airman to do as much as they have capacity for.”
Judging that capacity is part of each commander’s risk calculations.
The Air Force will hold a two-day conference with wing commanders and command chiefs from across the service later this week. One of the major topics will be “taking risk in a smart and disciplined way,” Flosi said.
“We’re going to be talking more about that: how to ensure our commanders know we’ve got their back and we want them to execute and take risk when necessary, [but] to not overburden any particular Airmen,” he said.
Space Futures Command Could Still Be a Year Away
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—The Space Force has established a task force to envision its forthcoming Space Futures Command, but plans are still murky and the new command is still months from standing up.
A day after the Air Force announced a provisional Integrated Capabilities Command at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference, Space Force leaders said they are still in the midst of their analysis on how to structure its forward-looking Space Futures Command, which in many ways will be a counterpart to ICC.
Department leaders announced their intent to create a Space Futures Command in February, a fourth field-level command that would combine its Concepts and Technology Center, a Wargaming Center, and the the Space Warfighting Analysis Center, and tasked with tackling fundamental questions about the long-term needs and capabilities required of the U.S. Space Force.
But while that basic vision hasn’t changed, Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said Sept. 17 that the definitions and structure underlying that vision are still in the formative stages in the hands of a small team he called “Task Force Futures.”
“We pulled people that were taking on some of the activities around the force—whether they were doing wargaming, whether they were doing force design, there’s some personnel from SWAC that do data analytics, and we tried to pull a smattering of a cross-functional team together, and they perform mission analysis,” Saltzman told reporters. “So it’s a very small team, less than a dozen people at this point. They’re just trying to ask the right questions, frame the discussion so they can see what resources are going to be necessary.”
Led by Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, the Space Force’s chief planning officer, the task force recently held a tabletop exercise to examine how best to organize the command.
“The tabletop exercise was just almost an opportunity to see OK, how does the flow of data go through Futures Command?” he said. “How do you go from key questions into how it might be documented as a contributing element to our objective force. Who has to do what? How do we use wargames? How do we use experimentation? Are there demos? Do we need acquisition authorities? Do we need capabilities developers? Is this all about strategy? How do we infuse intelligence, the intelligence apparatus of the service, into those efforts?”
From exercises like that, Saltzman added, the task force will craft requirements for Space Futures Command—authorities, manning, and processes it needs. But while other Space Force leaders previously said Space Futures Command could reach an initial operational capability before the end of 2024, Saltzman indicate a more deliberate pace.
“We’ve identified a team to get us to initial operating capability, and they’re going to make it happen, if not by the end of this year, I guarantee you within a year,” he said during his keynote address. Asked about it later during a press conference, he told reporters that “what we want to focus on is putting things in place based on key milestones for effectiveness … [rather than] a time trigger.”
The new Space Futures Command has the advantage of pulling exisiting elements and personnel together, rather than building everything from scratch, as Bratton has noted in the past. The SWAC exists, as does Space Delta 10, which handles doctrine and wargaming. Yet that is still no small feat, said RAF Air Marshal Paul Godfrey, the first assistant chief of space operations for future concepts and partnerships. Godfrey has firsthand experience—he was the first commander of the U.K. Space Command when it started in 2021.
“We’re kind of building the plane as we’re flying it already, because the SWAC is already out there,” Godfrey said. “The Wargaming Center is already out there. So actually from my own experience of standing up a command in the United Kingdom, which brought together a couple of extant areas … I think the priority will be trying to get the mechanism up and running.”
Godfrey suggested the new command may be “undermanned” to start, even if the total manpower required is relatively small.
“There aren’t that many new people required,” he said. The Concepts and Technology Center is new, but the Space Warfighting Analysis Center already exists and “when you talk about the Wargaming Center, that’s currently there with Delta 10,” Godfrey added. “So actually, the personnel budget is reasonable. There’s a headquarters element, as well, so all those elements will be about 600 or so personnel.”
Futures Command will have to work closely with other field commands and military space organizations to be effective, but those dependencies mean it should also be be a powerful connector—and money-saver—for the Space Force.
“It does become the front door, I think, for allies and partners to go and understand where they can contribute, where they can add value to the United States, where we can ultimately build what’s termed an objective force … that actually has allied capabilities integrated into it,” said Godfrey, whose assignment on Saltzman’s staff itself symbolizes the kind of close international partnerships the Space Force envisions with allies.
“When we do our force design … it’s one thing to say we’re going to need this much SATCOM in our objective force,” Saltzman said. “But if you say, ‘Well, hold on, what can the UK bring? What can the French bring? What can the Germans bring, or the Australians and Canadians bring?’ And if we understand—knowing that if we’re going to be in a large-scale conflict with our coalition of partners that then we’ll have access to these capabilities—we can produce a more insightful force design that maybe doesn’t [need to] buy resources that we can get from other nations.”