DOD’s $715 Billion Budget Request Focuses on Research and Development to Counter China

May 28, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Pentagon’s $715 billion budget request for the fiscal year 2022 aims to increase research and development, with a key focus on what is needed in the Indo-Pacific, and it will chop old aircraft to do it.

The Biden administration’s first budget request, released May 28, includes the biggest total of research funding in Defense Department history—$112 billion, a 5.1 percent jump from its request last year. The research in new weapons systems and emerging technology is required to “meet the array of security challenges that we face today and in the future,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks said.

“To deter aggression, the U.S. military will need to be ready,” Hicks said in a budget roll-out briefing. “The FY 2022 request provides the resources necessary to ensure that DOD maintains that credible deterrent by sustaining readiness and protecting investments in critical capabilities. The budget also documents some of the tough choices we had to make. We lessen our reliance on vulnerable systems that are no longer suited for today’s advanced threat environment or are too costly to sustain.”

As previewed in the “skinny budget” announcement last month, the 2022 request does away with the Overseas Contingency Operations fund. Instead, funding for enduring operations is moved into the base budget. This request includes $42.1 billion for these operations, down 22 percent from 2021 as the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and draws down its presence in Iraq and Syria.

The budget proposal includes a total of $245.6 billion for investment, $52.4 billion of which is for aircraft and related systems—down from $56.9 billion in the 2021 budget request. Major buys include a total 85 F-35s, 12 F-15EXs, 115 helicopters, six drones, and 73 logistics and support aircraft. Major cuts include 42 A-10s, 18 KC-135s, and 14 KC-10s.

Countering China’s growth is the key driver of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, which includes the creation of a $5.1 billion Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) for buying more long-range fires, ships, and funding for more exercises to grow the U.S. influence in the region. The PDI is based on the similar European Deterrence Initiative, which gets a $3.7 billion request.

“To defend the nation, the department in this budget takes a clear-eyed approach to Beijing and provides the investments to prioritize China as our pacing challenge,” Hicks said. “The [People’s Republic of China] has become increasingly competitive in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world. It has the economic, military, and technological capability to change the international system and American interests within it.”

Nuclear modernization is another big-ticket item. The request calls for $27.7 billion for nuclear enterprise modernization, to include fiscal 2022 spending totals of $3 billion on the B-21 Raider and $2.6 billion on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Additionally, the budget requests $20.4 billion for missile defeat and defense.

On the personnel side, the budget proposes a 2.7 percent pay raise for service members and calls for a total end strength for the Air Force of 506,900, down from 507,755, with 328,300 in the Active duty. The Space Force will grow under the request, to a total end strength of 8,400 and a budget of $17.4 billion.

The request includes $617 million for climate-related spending, largely for strengthening installation resilience in the aftermath of major damage to bases such as Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, from natural disasters. The spending also includes science and technology investments aimed at reducing the department’s energy demand and research to improve energy efficiency of current platforms.

The Pentagon wants to increase support for DOD families, with $8.6 billion for family support initiatives, including child care, morale, and recreation programs, and non-medical counseling support.

Air Force Asks to Retire 201 Aircraft in 2022 and Will Buy 91 New Ones

May 28, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force will ask Congress to let it retire 201 aircraft in its 2022 budget request, though it plans to buy just 91 new airplanes, as it looks to free up cash from legacy systems for new technologies needed to keep pace with peer adversaries such as Russia and China in a high-end fight.

“As Secretary of Defense [Lloyd J.] Austin has emphasized, the DOD will evaluate and divest legacy systems and programs that no longer meet mission and/or security needs, while investing smartly for the future,” the Air Force said through a spokesperson. Divesting old iron frees up manpower and resources “to field more capable systems to address emerging threats” and will save $1.4 billion, presumably through operational cost avoidance.

AIR FORCE DIVESTMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET

AIRCRAFT TYPE	FY 2022 DIVESTMENTS	FY 2022 SAVINGS (in millions)
A-10 Thunderbolt	(42)	($343.9)
F-15C/D	(48)	($248.9)
F-16C/D	(47)	($30.9)
KC-135	(18)	($112.7)
KC-10	(14)	($174.0)
C-130H	(8)	($83.1)
E-8 (JSTARS)	(4)	($106.5)
RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk	(20)	($273.3)
TOTAL	(201)	($1,373.3)

Source: USAF budget documents

AIR FORCE PROCUREMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET

AIRCRAFT TYPE	FY21 ENACTED	FY22 BUDGETED
F-35A Lightning II	60	48
HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopter	19	14
KC-46A Pegasus	15	14
F-15EX	12	12
MC-130J Commando II	4	3
TOTAL	110	91

Source: USAF budget documents

The largest hit would be to the fighter inventory, which would see a net reduction of 77 aircraft. The Air Force would retire 48 F-15C/Ds, 47 F-16C/Ds, and 42 A-10s for a total of 137 fighters retired. The service will buy 48 new F-35s in 2022 and 12 new F-15EX Eagle IIs.

Air Force Magazine has previously reported that USAF plans to reduce its fighter inventory by 421 jets over the future years defense program ending in 2026, while bringing on just 304 new fighters. The fiscal 2022 budget documents released May 28 do not show FYDP plans. Officials say those numbers are still being worked out.

The tanker fleet would decline by 18 KC-135s and 14 KC-10s, for a total of 32 airplanes, and USAF plans to buy 14 new KC-46s in 2022.

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft would decline by 26 airframes, the bulk of which would be Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks, reduced by 20 aircraft. The E-8C Joint STARS fleet would be reduced by four airplanes, and the two OC-135 Open Skies treaty verification aircraft would be deleted, now that the U.S. has withdrawn from the Open Skies treaty.

A large number of puts and takes would affect the fleet of C-130s in its various configurations for both mobility and special missions. USAF would retire 13 C-130Hs, but will bring on five new C-130Js, for a net decrease of eight Hercules in the tactical transport role. It also plans to procure three new MC-130J Commando IIs, one less than the 2021 enacted budget.

The Air Force will buy 14 new HH-60W combat rescue helicopters. Budget documents do not show a reduction in its HH-60G fleet, which the W models are to replace.

The bomber fleet shows no further reductions in 2022 after divesting 17 B-1s in 2021; the first Lancer retired to the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, on Feb. 17. The bomber fleet holds at 44 B-1s, 20 B-2s, and 76 B-52s, for a total of 142 airframes.

Notable inventories remaining unchanged also include the C-17 transport fleet, holding at 222 airlifters; the F-15E fleet, at 218 fighters; the U-2 ISR fleet, steady at 31 airplanes; and the T-38A and C trainers, flat at 59 and 445 aircraft, respectively.

Although the Air Force is already planning a replacement to the MQ-9 fleet of hunter-killer drones, it would increase their numbers by 21 aircraft in 2022, to 351 airframes. A service spokesman said the increase is due to aircraft being delivered that were added by Congress in fiscal 2020, though the service is not buying any new ones. Even so, USAF said it is “maintaining 56 government-owned, government-operated MQ-9 combat lines,” which include several aircraft each, in fiscal ’22, having reduced those GOGO lines by four.

The Air Force believes it has “sufficient quantities of MQ-9s in the inventory” to support combat requirements while it asses a “follow-on capability that better aligns” with the National Defense Strategy. There’s money in fiscal 2022 to pursue a so-called “MQ-X,” but “that line of funding remains classified,” the spokesman said.

News Editor Amy McCullough contributed to this report.

Budget to Include ‘Largest Ever’ Research and Development Request, Aims to Deter China

May 27, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The first budget request of the Biden administration, to be released May 28, will trade off aircraft and other capabilities not relevant in future fights in exchange for the “largest-ever” request for research and development, with a particular focus on what is needed to compete against China, top Pentagon leaders told lawmakers May 27.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee the budget will “create the right mix of capabilities to defend the nation and deter any aggressors.” Austin would not provide specifics until the budget rolls out but said the Pentagon needs to work with individual services to retire equipment that might be relevant now but won’t be in the future.

The budget has “substantial investments in the modernization of the nuclear enterprise, missile defeat and defense, Navy forces, long-range fires, and the largest-ever request for [research, development, test, and evaluation] for the development of technologies,” Austin said. “So our effort, again, is to make sure that we have the ability to leverage quantum computing, to begin to leverage [artificial intelligence], space-based platforms. Not only begin to leverage them, but to network them in ways that they’ve never been networked.”

The White House announced in April that the budget would include $715 billion for the Pentagon, with a total of $753 billion for national defense.

Austin said the Pentagon has “taken a hard look” at White House guidance and will use its funding request to ensure it is “focused on acquiring the right kinds of capabilities that we need to be relevant in the future fight.”

This tradeoff for the Air Force is expected to mean cuts to legacy planes such as KC-135s and MQ-9s—cuts that some lawmakers have already come out against because combatant commanders regularly call for more intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

Air Force Magazine previously reported that the Air Force plans to ask Congress to retire 421 legacy aircraft through 2026, replacing them with just 304 new fighters, so it can shift savings toward acquiring new systems such as the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter later this decade and a new Multi-Role fighter, called MR-X, in the 2030s. However, many of those changes are likely to be implemented in 2023, following the completion of USAF’s tactical aircraft study, which will determine the right mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has said.

Austin said future investment “puts us in a good place, and what it requires us to do is work with the services and take a hard look at those capabilities that will not be relevant in the future fight, and really begin to no longer invest in those capabilities … and focus on those things that we know we’ll need.”

The driving force behind the shift is China’s increased capabilities and intent to compete with the U.S. The budget will include funding for a proposed Pacific Deterrence Initiative, along with money for technologies relevant in the Asia-Pacific.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, testifying with Austin, said China has shown it is advancing rapidly, though it is not more capable in the region.

“They are a very, very significant competitor to the United States,” Milley said. “They are not yet our equal, but their intent is to be our equal.”

Air Force Did Not Effectively Oversee Development of KC-46 Refueling Boom, DOD IG Says

May 27, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force didn’t effectively oversee the development of the KC-46’s refueling boom, leading to additional delays and costs and a lingering deficiency that prevents the tanker from refueling some USAF aircraft, according to a new Pentagon watchdog report.

The Defense Department Inspector General, in a report released May 27, said the Air Force’s KC-46 Program Office didn’t effectively manage the development of the refueling boom, specifically following a redesign of the system in 2012. That year, Boeing presented a system design during the preliminary design review that “differed significantly” from the initial design from the 2011 contract award.

Despite the new design, the Air Force did not “ensure that critical technologies for the refueling boom were demonstrated in a relevant testing environment,” and it “did not verify full functionality” of the boom in accordance with the program’s own plan when performing flight tests, the IG found.

The Program Office didn’t revalidate changes to critical technologies “at any point during the engineering and manufacturing development phase, since revalidations were not required by DOD policy,” the report states. The office decided, with approval from the Pentagon, in 2014 that reduced flight testing was fine to evaluate the performance of the tanker in support of a 2016 Milestone C decision. Officials believed, since the KC-46’s boom is based on the proven system on the KC-10, further assessment of boom technologies was not necessary.

“Despite encountering flight test failures in January 2016 that required Boeing engineers to redesign the refueling boom, the KC-46 Program Office officials did not change their decision to perform reduced flight testing prior to the Milestone C decision. This reduced flight testing did not include the stressing conditions under which the refueling boom problem could potentially occur.

Because of this, in 2018 when the company tried to test full functionality of the boom system, test results showed the boom was problematic during refueling of A-10, C-17, and F-16 receivers. The KC-46 still can’t refuel the A-10 and some variants of the C-130, with operational limits on several other airframes, according to the DOD IG.

These problems led to August 2019 and March 2020 contract modifications at a cost of $100 million to redesign the KC-46’s refueling boom, with a retrofit not estimated to begin until January 2024.

“Had KC-46 Program Office officials effectively managed the development and testing of the refueling boom for the KC-46A tanker, the Air Force would not have had to spend an additional $100 million for the redesign of the refueling boom to achieve its required performance,” the IG’s report states.

Going forward, the IG recommended that the Pentagon’s acquisition officials conduct “knowledge-building technology readiness assessments” throughout the buying process, including at preliminary design review, critical design review, and Milestone C “at a minimum.” The Defense Department also should develop and execute technology maturation plans “for critical technologies that have not been demonstrated in a relevant testing environment.” The Pentagon’s director of Development, Test, Evaluation, and Assessments agreed with these recommendations.

Trainer Aircraft Mission Capable Rates Rose in Fiscal 2020 With Investments

May 27, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Investment in parts and facilities, proactive maintenance, and reorganization helped Air Education and Training Command drive a 17 percent improvement in the overall mission capable rates of its trainer aircraft—substantially better than USAF’s overall performance, according to figures provided by the Air Force and AETC.

Three of AETC’s four main trainer aircraft improved more than most other Air Force aircraft in mission capability rates in fiscal 2020; outscored only by the F-35 strike fighter, the MC rate for which increased 16 percentage points.

Overall, the Air Force saw about a 2.5 percent improvement in its MC rates across all fleets, from 70.27 percent in fiscal 2019 to 72.74 percent in FY ’20. The Air Force provided the MC rate data to Air Force Magazine, and AETC commented on the results through a spokeswoman.

“Mission capable” refers to aircraft available and ready to do at least one of their assigned missions.

AETC scored increases with the T-1A Jayhawk, used for advanced training for pilots on the tanker/transport track; the T-6A Texan II turboprop basic undergraduate trainer; and the T-38C advanced supersonic jet trainer. Only the T-38A saw a mission capable rate decline in AETC’s stable.

Mission Capable Rates for Air Education and Training Command Trainers

Trainer	2019 Mission Capable Rate	2020 Mission Capable Rate
T-1A	60.51 percent	68.43 percent
T-6A	63.29 percent	73.57 percent
T-38A	74.48 percent	71.29 percent
T-38C	63.05 percent	65.44 percent

Source: USAF

An AETC spokeswoman said the improvements were due to several factors. The command increased investment in sustainment—“the parts, supplies, and maintenance capabilities we needed,” and it restructured “some known problems” by rewriting aircraft maintenance contracts to improve MC rates, she said. There was also “sustained leadership emphasis and a reorganization,” about which AETC didn’t elaborate.

An engine test cell facility was returned to service, which eliminated “long wait times to return out-of-service aircraft” to flying status.

There was also a shift to “removing and replacing items prior to the established mean-time” between failure, so the aircraft avoided predictable breaks.

With the exception of the T-1, the break rates on the four fixed-wing trainers stayed about the same from fiscal 2019 to 2020. The T-1’s break rate improved from 10.54 percent to 8.85 percent. The T-6’s break rates stayed the same, at 5.29 percent, and the T-38A and C saw marginal improvements of less than half a percentage point each, from 6.78 percent and 7.38 percent, respectively in fiscal 2019, to 6.67 percent and 7.12 percent, respectively, in FY ‘20.

The aircraft are neither the youngest nor oldest in USAF’s inventory. The T-1A averages 25.9 years; the T-6 averages 14.9 years; and the T-38A and T-38C average 52.91 and 52.17 years, respectively, although the T-38C has undergone more extensive service life extension and modification to include new wings, intakes, and cockpit upgrades.

Among specific investments, AETC put $34 million into T-6A spare parts in fiscal 2020 and boosted T-38 spares and repairables in Fiscal ’19, the spokeswoman said.

AETC is in the midst of a drastic overhaul of its fixed- and rotary-wing pilot training programs, shifting a greater amount of the syllabus to simulation, with a corresponding decrease in overall flying hours, both per-aircraft and per-pilot. The objective of the overhaul is to turn out better pilots more quickly, according to 19th Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Craig D. Wills. Aircraft utilization rates were not immediately available.

AETC is evaluating whether to phase out the T-1, which is nearing the end of its planned service life, or to continue to use it for specialized accession of commercial pilots into the Air Force. The T-38A and C will be phased out over the next decade as the T-7A Red Hawk supplants it for advanced pilot training. Both the T-38A and C models have received upgrades and service life extension, but both also will need additional improvements to serve until the full complement of T-7As comes online.

Senator Who Flew Space Shuttle Shocked that China, Russia Hardly Engage on Space Debris

May 27, 2021 | By Amanda Miller

A first-year senator may perceive the perils of space debris multiplying in low-Earth orbit from a more visceral vantage point than the Space Force or Defense Department officials who testified May 26 on threats to U.S. military activities in space.

“With regards to LEO [low-Earth orbit], in particular, do you—as we’re tracking relatively small objects [debris], there’s thousands of them—when you get a state vector on one of those and you can see that’s it’s going to approach not only our ally’s, but sometimes our adversary’s, satellites in orbit, … do you always share that information? Because there’s also benefit for us,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona), a retired Navy pilot who flew or commanded four space shuttle missions and is a member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces. Kelly said sharing such information gives any satellite operator, even an adversary, a chance to maneuver out of the way and not contribute more debris from a crash.

Space Force Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. David D. Thompson said the USSF’s 18th Space Control Squadron does “that deconfliction” anytime it’s aware of such a close approach. Then John Hill, who is performing the duties of assistant secretary of defense for space policy, added that while most space operators “are very glad to engage with us … there are two countries that often don’t pick up the phone or answer the email.” He later specified that he meant China and Russia.

Kelly had assumed the DOD would have a “direct line” to a Russian agency, for example, in such an event. “So, they don’t respond when there’s a conjunction?” Kelly asked incredulously.

“We have established communications in some circumstances—it’s not 100 percent” radio silence, Hill said, not specifying whether he meant China, Russia, or both. “We end up having to use diplomatic channels, and it’s a much more complicated process.”

Referring to an earlier remark on counterspace threats, Kelly said a Chinese anti-satellite weapon test in 2007 that created a debris field had “presented an interesting problem” for him.

“I was the commander of the space shuttle on the very next shuttle mission to launch, and it became an issue. I had to maneuver the space shuttle out of the way of some of that debris. And it presents an increasingly complex hazard,” Kelly said.

The officials briefed members on counterspace threats including anti-satellite missiles and directed-energy weapons, as well as the lack of accepted norms of behavior in space. Thompson characterized China’s and Russia’s pursuits of counterspace technology as “attempting to take … away from us” existing abilities to conduct communications and surveillance, for example, from space.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) wanted to know how the Space Force plans to defend against cyberattacks on space systems. Thompson said the service is assessing “bolt-on” cyber defenses for existing platforms “when and where and how we can.” And unlike in the past, when cybersecurity in space wasn’t necessary, the USSF will “absolutely design our systems” with “a cyber threat in mind,” he said.

“Then the third piece is, we’re building out what we call mission defense teams,” Thompson said. “Those are cyber defense teams for every system, for every operational organization, who understand the cyber capabilities, are highly trained in defense, and [are] hunting and finding threats and addressing them and providing that first line of defense.”

Thompson went over some of the DOD’s and Department of the Air Force’s organizational plans for the Space Force, saying that as of the hearing, the USSF had about 6,400 uniformed members. About 6,000 of those transferred in from the Air Force plus there are interservice transfers now underway and another 218 officers entering from the Air Force Academy’s 2021 graduating class. About 6,000 civilian employees are also assigned to the Space Force.

Meanwhile, the USSF has activated its first of three field commands, the Space Operations Command, and plans to stand up both the Space Systems Command and Space Training and Readiness Command in 2021, Thompson said.

Here Are the Scoring Charts for the Air Force’s New Fitness Test

May 27, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

As Airmen prepare for the return of physical fitness tests July 1, the Air Force released updated scoring charts May 26 to reflect the changes to those tests.

As previously announced, PT tests will no longer include the controversial waist measurement as a scored component, though Airmen will still be tape-tested once a year. Without the waist measurement, the maximum point value of the sit-up and push-up components will increase from 10 each to 20. The 1.5-mile run will remain at 60 points.

Airmen will now be scored in five-year age groups, instead of 10-year cohorts like the previous test. The new age ranges start with all Airmen younger than 25 and then increase every five years until reaching 60 years or older. In order to pass, Airmen need to accumulate 75 total points and meet the minimum requirements for their age and sex in each individual component.

The minimum requirements in the new scoring charts are lower across every age category for both men and women, while the standards for a maximum score were lowered for those who now are in the 25-29, 35-39, 45-49 and 55-59 age ranges.

“Physical fitness is an important part of our everyday lives. It’s more than just a test—it’s a way of life, our readiness, and ultimately our future success,” Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass said in a press release. “July 1st is a chance to refocus on building a lifestyle of fitness and health, and I know our Airmen will be ready.”

The Space Force will continue to follow these new guidelines until service-specific fitness policies are developed and fielded.

The Air Force also has developed alternative “strength and cardiovascular testing exercise options” and plans to release them in the coming weeks, with the aim of Airmen being able to select which testing option is best for them, according to the release.

Those new testing options, however, won’t be available until January 2022. While the May 26 announcement didn’t detail what new exercises would be included, some of the options explored by the Air Force Fitness Working Group included a 20-meter shuttle run, row ergometry, planks, and burpees.

Small Diameter Bombs Collaborate in Golden Horde Test

May 26, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Six GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs dropped from two F-16s set up their own network, changed their targets in flight and synchronized their strikes in a multifaceted final flight test of the current phase of the Golden Horde collaborative weapon technology, the Air Force Research Laboratory said.

Two F-16s from the 96th Test Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, flying over White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, dropped a total of six Boeing-made Small Diameter Bombs—four from one of the fighters and two from the other—in the May 25 test. The munitions established communications with each other and a ground station using the L3Harris Banshee 2 radio network and then reacted to a new high-priority target.

The In-Flight Target Update demonstrated “the ability of Golden Horde weapons to interface with the larger joint all-domain command and control network,” AFRL said. This capability is key to developing future “networked, collaborative, and autonomous,” or NCA weapons, according to a press release.

The new mission called for two of the weapons to make a synchronized time-on-target attack on a single location, while two other munitions made synchronized attacks on two targets, something that had previously been tested.

The synchronized time on target algorithm, supplied by Georgia Tech Research Institute, “was able to flexibly support the new target requirement without any software changes,” the AFRL said.

AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Heather L. Pringle said the test is a technological leap not unlike the advent of laser-guided bombs in the 1960s.

“These technologies are completely changing the way we think about weapon capabilities,” she said in a press release.

Golden Horde is one of the Air Force’s Vanguard programs—technology demonstrations that will pave the way for new applications of weapons technology and manned/unmanned teaming.

The successful test will lead into “Colosseum,” the next phase of Golden Horde development, which will implement “digital engineering, hardware-in-the-loop, and surrogate [unmanned aerial vehicle] testing to rapidly integrate, develop, and test transformational NCA weapon technologies,” AFRL said.

Kendall Hints At Weapons Dual-Sourcing for Air Force

May 26, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Frank Kendall, nominee to be Air Force Secretary, told Congress he may support dual-sourcing munitions in order to ensure a surge production capability.

Among 58 pages of written answers to SASC committee member questions prior to his May 25 confirmation hearing, Kendall said he will revisit the munitions requirements process if he is confirmed, such that it involves allies who use similar munitions. He will take a look at “the cost and benefits of creating additional industrial capacity to meet surge requirements to support contingencies.”

Kendall also said he’d oppose any new jointly run acquisition programs, particularly command and control systems, and hinted that he doesn’t think the Air Force’s mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft will be “optimum” for the next decade or more. Such answers for the record must be carefully worded such that the nominee does not seem to be presuming confirmation.

The Air Force suffered several bouts of munitions shortages in the 2000s and 2010s, driven both by its underfunding munitions accounts and because allies drew upon U.S. stocks during conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. It was later revealed that some allies expected to draw on U.S. stockpiles in any coalition conflict, with the plan to reimburse the U.S. for those weapons expended. The Air Force has since urged allies to restock, warning that the USAF may be able to fund only its own munitions needs in the future.

Kendall said he would “assess the requirements system to ensure our partners remain combat relevant in support of combatant commander regional objectives.” He also said he would see to it that “ally capability and capacity requirements are understood and integrated” into Department of the Air Force processes.

He would further explore “consolidation of program elements to generate flexibility to meet changes in replenishment rates,” as well as more efficient business practices, including multi-year procurements “based on design maturity.”

During the Cold War, the military services often maintained dual-source industrial capacity on radars, engines, munitions, and other critical defense goods to ensure sufficient surge capability in wartime. Frequently, a competition was held for a system, and the winner’s design was developed and produced, with a second source—often the loser of the competition—later brought in to offer a similar product that met the same form, fit, and function. Annually thereafter, the two sources competed for the larger share of production orders. The inherent inefficiencies of dual-sourcing were often overcome by aggressive competitive pricing between bidders. A noteworthy example of this approach included the “great engine war” between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric on the F100 and F110 fighter engines.

Kendall also discouraged pursuit of jointly managed acquisition programs, saying they have an “abysmal record” and that acquisition success is far more likely if one service runs a program that the other services then simply buy.

Joint acquisition programs, “especially [command, control, and communications] programs, have an abysmal record,” he said. The most successful joint programs have “a single-service lead and are purchased by other services once they get into serial production.” Directly answering whether he would encourage such efforts, Kendall said he would suggest joint programs only “where there was a clear lead service, strong commitments by all participants, and strong economic incentives.”

Kendall, whose last job at the Pentagon was as undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, has previously criticized joint programs for poor performance; notably the structure of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

If confirmed as Air Force Secretary, Kendall would likely have to argue against an overall joint multi-domain command and control system, potentially pushing for the other services to simply adopt the standards and architecture of the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System.

He further hinted at this in other answers, where he said there are “challenges in making the Air and Space Forces more effective contributors to joint and combined operations.” Some of these, in which the Department of the Air Force “will play a critical role,” include, “the operational resilience and support to operations provided by the Space Force, and the achievement of integrated command and control between both the Space Force and the Air Force and with our other services and allies.”

Asked about the right mix of fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, Kendall answered that “some mix” of the two kinds of aircraft “will be a reality for over a decade.” Based on his previous experience as the USD/AT&L, “it will still be some time before we can purchase enough fifth-generation fighters to have an optimal mix,” suggesting he thinks the Air Force won’t have enough of the more advanced aircraft. He said he understands that the Air Force has recently wargamed the ideal mix of fourth- and fifth-gen fighters alongside the developmental Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. Once he’s able to review those results, he can “apply appropriate budget constraints and choices that balance near- and longer-term risk.”

Kendall also said he endorses the 2018 National Defense Strategy, but said it fell short in that it “underemphasized the importance of our allies and partners.” He also said that as the Biden administration conducts its Global Posture Review, USAF will have to explore new operational concepts.

It will require “an understanding for the need to make some global presence tradeoffs as we reprioritize for near-peer competition.”