Former SECAF Sees More Opportunity for Military Reform

Former SECAF Sees More Opportunity for Military Reform

Oct. 22, 2020 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Nearly 18 months out of office, former Air Force Secretary Heather A. Wilson indicated the service has more work to do on the reforms she championed over the course of two years.

Wilson, now president of the University of Texas at El Paso, pursued multiple pet projects in the top civilian post. Three of those initiatives can go further, she said Oct. 22 during a conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The former Secretary was known as an advocate for improving the military science and technology enterprise. She launched the “Science and Technology 2030” effort in September 2017 to speed the pursuit of tools like artificial intelligence and hypersonic weapons, and to boost the Air Force’s ties to academia, small businesses, and other underutilized parts of the research world. That project produced a new strategy in April 2019 that the Air Force Research Laboratory is trying to make real.

“I worry that there are still not enough scientifically and technically literate people at the senior levels in the service to understand what an enabler that is,” Wilson said.

Acquisition reform, a perennial concern for the Defense Department, also requires more scrutiny. Wilson advocated for a greater focus on software, and endorsed the “try before you buy” approach that is starkly different than traditional military procurement. She began releasing annual acquisition reports that the Air Force has not continued after her tenure.

In trying to speed the process of buying combat assets, Wilson wanted to give defense contractors more leeway in designing systems instead of levying prescriptive requirements.

“It’s the requirements system that really needs reform, and nobody ever thinks about that part,” Wilson said.

That effort is connected to the service’s attempt to make daily Pentagon bureaucracy less burdensome for Airmen. Wilson and staff rescinded 340 regulations and rewrote others that Airmen felt only made their lives harder, like one specifying how to build an obstacle course. A copy of each trashed regulation ended up in a pile next to her door.

“If Grand Forks Air Force Base needs an obstacle course, I bet they can figure it out. They don’t need to be told how to do everything,” Wilson said. “Particularly in the warfare of the 21st century, communications are going to be degraded. We’re going to have to depend on people making decisions using command intent to accomplish the mission. … We needed to treat people that way in peacetime.”

She indicated that similar concerns around military permissions will play out as the Pentagon and intelligence community’s space operations mature.

“Until recently, you needed the permission of the President of the United States to come close to another satellite. But given the right guidance, an 18-year-old can kill someone on his own authority in the middle of a war zone,” Wilson said. “Those are interesting, centralized controls for some things, and very decentralized in other circumstances. Getting that balance right will be difficult.”

One major initiative that Wilson worked on has gotten across the finish line since she left: a new promotion system. The Air Force is now judging people for promotion based on performance in their career field, and comparing them to others in similar professions. Until recently, the service lumped employees together regardless of career, which favored pilots with combat experience but led to underrepresentation in leadership of scientists and engineers.

“[Then-Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein] made a personal commitment to me that he would keep stewarding this, and in the end, it was signed and done,” Wilson said. “Of all the things we changed in the service for the long term, that’s probably the one that’s going to have the most important impact. … We weren’t stewarding the whole pipeline well. That’ll make a huge difference.”

In her new job, she continues to push for improved access to education, modernization of the nuclear triad, and a military force that can connect any shooter to any sensor to move faster in combat.

“Today in America, about 62 percent of boys and 69 percent of girls go on from high school to some form of college or technical training or community college,” Wilson said. “If we are going to maintain our preeminence and leadership in the world, we have to commit to educating more of the next generation in meaningful ways. … It is a national security issue.”

Citing Wildfires, Western Senators Lobby for Nevada C-130 Upgrades

Citing Wildfires, Western Senators Lobby for Nevada C-130 Upgrades

Oct. 22, 2020 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Four Democratic senators are pushing the Air Force to send eight C-130J aircraft to the Nevada Air National Guard to bolster firefighting missions as the American West continues to suffer from devastating wildfires.

Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris of California—the Democratic candidate for vice president—argue that upgrading the Reno, Nev., base’s C-130H fleet with newer C-130Js will help the Guard extinguish fires in Western states.

Air National Guard officials want to replace 1970s-era H-model planes with 24 newer C-130Js across three locations. ANG flies about 150 C-130s in total, the vast majority of which are C-130Hs.

The senators prodded the Air Force in February to consider the 152nd Airlift Wing as a candidate, but the Nevada ANG ultimately was dropped from consideration for C-130 replacements. Then, peak annual wildfire season struck.

Nevada Guardsmen deployed to quash blazes in their home state as well as California and Oregon. Two of their aircraft, outfitted with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS), handled more than 40 fires in northern and southern California as firefighter forces surged across the state, the senators wrote in a letter dated Oct. 16.

MAFFS is a portable fire-retardant delivery system carried by C-130s. Each of the eight systems holds up to 3,000 gallons of fire retardant.

“Transfer of this aircraft would provide a necessary upgrade to the 152nd AW’s C-130H fleet and provide support to the Nevada Air National Guard’s vital firefighting mission, which was used most recently as part of the coordinated federal and state response to California’s wildfires,” the senators wrote.

Air Force Magazine recently reported that this year marks the Nevada unit’s largest activation ever. The 152nd Airlift Wing’s C-130s had poured 300,000 gallons of fire retardant over the course of nearly 110 airdrops as of Oct. 1.

California is still battling 12 major wildfires as of Oct. 22, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). More than 4 million acres across the state have burned so far this year.

The four senators believe the Air Force should look at MAFFS, which is used by four airlift wings, as part of the criteria fleets should meet to be replaced. ANG considered mission, capacity, cost, and environmental factors in its search.

“The MAFFS unit is a key part of the 152nd AW’s mission, and an upgrade to new C-130J aircraft would greatly increase its performance flying MAFFS to fight similar deadly fires in the region,” they wrote. “It would also improve interoperability and support for [the U.S. Forest Service], the Bureau of Land Management, [CAL FIRE], and the 146th Airlift Wing in the Channel Islands, which is currently the only MAFFS unit flying the C-130J aircraft.”

The Air Force appears to be moving forward with its selection of other units. Earlier this year, the National Guard Association of the United States said ANG had narrowed the list of airlift wings that could get new aircraft to eight sites in Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The Great Falls Tribune recently reported that the Air Force has pushed its decision on when to deliver the new planes until after the Nov. 3 election, angering other senators who are lobbying for their own home states.

Eielson F-35s Get Arctic Survival Kits

Eielson F-35s Get Arctic Survival Kits

Oct. 22, 2020 | By Amy Hudson

Arctic survival kits are the newest feature on the Air Force’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighters at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

The F-35 was not designed to carry sleeping bags and other equipment to protect pilots if they need to eject into the brutal Arctic temperatures, which regularly dip to -40 degrees Fahrenheit or colder. Alaska-based Airmen had to figure out how to fit roughly 10 pounds of survival gear into a 5-pound sack attached to the F-35’s ejection seat.

After months of research and testing, the 354th Operations Group commander approved the final kit, which includes survival tools such as a knife for gathering food, a poncho to stay dry, and flares to alert rescue crews to a downed pilot’s location. 

Arctic Survival Kit Contents
Staff Sgt. Ross Dugger, a 354th Operations Support Squadron Aircrew Flight Equipment craftsman, lays out the contents of the new arctic survival seat kit for the F-35A Lighting II on Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, on Sept. 25, 2020. Some of the contents include a knife for gathering food, a poncho to stay dry, and flares to signal rescue teams. Photo: Senior Airman Beaux Hebert

“Due to the smaller size of the seat, we are limited on how many items we can pack in here,” Staff Sgt. Ross Dugger, a 354th Operations Support Squadron aircrew flight equipment craftsman, said in a release. “Over the years, we’ve worked with [survival, evasion, resistance, and escape specialists] to develop this kit and decided what is the most essential equipment needed to survive.” 

Former 354th Fighter Wing Commander Col. Shawn E. Anger recently told Air Force Magazine the team took advantage of the local community’s Arctic simulation chamber to test equipment like sleeping bags. Their goal was to outfit the wing’s two F-35 squadrons with the survival kits before winter hit. 

Airmen from the 356th Fighter Squadron, the F-35 Program Integration Office, the 66th Training Squadron’s Detachment 1, and the 354th Operations Support Squadron’s aircrew flight equipment team tried out the subzero chamber in November 2019. Once inside, the team timed how long it took to get the gear on and then stayed in the chamber for about five hours to see how the equipment fared in extreme cold.

USAF also shared what it learned with Norway. The Arctic nation also owns the F-35 and is “interested in keying in on our advances,” Anger said. 

As maintainers with the 354th Maintenance Squadron perform the complex swap of summer survival kits for the Arctic version, they will also inspect each ejection seat to ensure pilots are safe if they need to escape.

“Hopefully they never have to use these items, but I take a lot of pride in my work, which could potentially save a pilot’s life,” Dugger said.

USAF Asks Airmen for Input on Women’s Hair Regulations

USAF Asks Airmen for Input on Women’s Hair Regulations

Oct. 22, 2020 | By Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory

The Air Force Women’s Initiative Team has launched a survey to get female Airmen’s feedback on whether and how USAF should change its rules for how women can wear their hair while in uniform.

“The Women’s Initiative Team (WIT), in coordination with the Warrior Braids volunteer group, is proposing changes to the current United States Air Force hair policy for female Airmen,” the survey page states. “Please help this team gain a deeper understanding into what members of the Air Force would prefer to see through this informal survey.”

The survey asks Airmen if they think any change to the policy is necessary, whether the service’s current hair-related rules have ever been an obstacle for them (or made them have second thoughts about reenlisting), and if they ever felt like their hair length might hinder their career trajectory. 

It also asks if they’d like to see more style options than buns or short hair cuts, whether they’d think ponytails and/or certain types of braids might be professional-looking options, and whether either of those potential options might create a safety hazard within their Air Force Specialty Code.

Further, it queries Airmen about the climate surrounding “hair standard corrections”—namely, about whether they feel that female Airmen get corrected for such infractions more often than their male colleagues, and whether they feel comfortable approaching women Airmen (of both higher and lower ranks) when they spot something that breaks USAF’s rules.

The Women’s Initiative Team will use the data “to educate Air Force General Officers on what female Airmen desire for hair standards” during the service’s next uniform board, which is slated for Nov. 2-5, the page states.

Only female Active duty, Guard, and Reserve Airmen serving within the Air Force may take part, and the team will use respondents’ USAF email addresses to check their statuses, the page noted, adding that responses will be kept anonymous.

The page instructed Airmen to email team lead Maj. Alea Nadeem, Capt. Sarah Berheide, 1st Lt. Montana Pellegrini, or Master Sgt, Johnathon Lind with any questions or concerns.

Russia, China Push STRATCOM to Reconsider Strategic Deterrence

Russia, China Push STRATCOM to Reconsider Strategic Deterrence

Oct. 21, 2020 | By Amy Hudson

U.S. Strategic Command is conducting an “exhaustive assessment” of current global threats, as adversaries like Russia and China force the U.S. to rethink the way it approaches strategic deterrence.

“I’ve challenged my command to revise our 21st-century strategic deterrence theory that considers our adversaries’ decision calculus and behaviors, and identifies threat indicators or conditions that could indicate potential actions,” U.S. Strategic Command boss Adm. Charles “Chas” A. Richard said in a pre-recorded speech for the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ two-day, virtual nuclear security conference, which began Oct. 21.

The analysis will include a look at emerging capabilities, changing norms, and potentially unintended consequences of conflict, as Pentagon officials argue other world powers have “blurred the lines” when it comes to conventional and nuclear conflict. That could be a challenge for the U.S. military, which tends to organize, train, and equip its forces based on whether their mission is nuclear-related or not.

That shift in thinking is driven by a push toward so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons, which Russia and the U.S. are both deploying as tools in a regional conflict that would complicate an adversary’s decisions without escalating into all-out nuclear war. Opponents say that view is misguided.

In August, then-Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration Lt. Gen. Richard M. Clark said the service has started to shape policy around the concept of “conventional and nuclear integration,” viewing them as two points on a spectrum instead of as separate concepts.

“We have to be able to reconstitute our capability. We have to be able to plan and execute integrated operations, multidomain, whether conventional or nuclear, and most importantly, we have to be able to fight in, around, and through that environment to achieve our objectives,” Clark said.

Richard argues the ultimate goal—ensuring that the benefit of restraint outweighs the benefit of possible action—has not changed. However, “we have to account for the possibility of conflict leading to conditions that could seemingly very rapidly drive an adversary to consider nuclear use as their least-bad option,” he said.

By the end of the decade, the U.S. will for the first time face two nuclear-capable competitors, each of whom must be deterred differently.

He estimated Russia is “close to 75 percent complete” with its aggressive nuclear modernization efforts, as well as conventional advancements, ensuring it is still very much a “pacing threat.”

“Russia has expanded the number of circumstances under which they would consider the employment of a nuclear weapon, or at least they’re now willing to say it publicly,” Richard said. “Although this circumstance is distressing, it should not come as a surprise.”

China also is a growing threat, Richard said, cautioning the audience not to undermine its capabilities or nuclear ambition. He believes they will match America’s nuclear strength by 2030.

“They always go faster than we think they will, and we must pay attention to what they do and not necessarily what they say,” he said.

China’s investment in “sophisticated” command and control capabilities and ongoing efforts to build up its own nuclear triad seem to contradict its claim that deterrence should require as small of an arsenal as possible, Richard said.

The United States is pointing to those countries and others like North Korea and Iran to argue for the continued modernization of America’s nuclear missiles, bombers, and submarines, slated to cost more than $1 trillion.

“I recognize that great power competition doesn’t equal conflict, or that we’re on a path to war, but as the commander in charge of employing strategic deterrence capabilities for the nation, and our allies, I simply don’t have the luxury of assuming a crisis, conflict, or war won’t happen,” Richard said.

Space Force Launches New Operations Branch

Space Force Launches New Operations Branch

Oct. 21, 2020 | By Rachel S. Cohen

The Space Force on Oct. 21 formally stood up its Space Operations Command, the main organization running satellites, radars, and other combat assets for regional military commanders around the world.

Lt. Gen. Stephen N. Whiting will run SpOC at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. He has held similar positions in the Space Force and its predecessor, Air Force Space Command, for the last three years.

During a ceremony in Colorado Springs, Colo., Whiting laid out his three top priorities:

  • Preparing combat-ready, cybersecure space forces driven by intelligence data, and building a diverse and healthy workforce culture
  • Partnering with other parts of the Space Force, U.S. Space Command, the U.S. government, and private companies
  • Providing tech-savvy military power in, from, and to space.

SpOC, one of three field commands created by the Space Force, complements the two other field groups built for acquisition and training. It can be thought of as parallel to the Air Force’s Air Combat Command. 



Video: DVIDS

Whiting told reporters the organization will oversee the launch ranges at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and Patrick Air Force Base, Fla., until those move to Space Systems Command, the Space Force acquisition branch.

The service will continue to assess how many people SpOC needs as Army and Navy personnel transfer into the Space Force, and as combat requirements grow.

The plethora of space operations entities can get confusing. The Space Force’s Space Operations Command manages the personnel, hardware, and software that U.S. Space Command, the warfighting organization run by Army Gen. James H. Dickinson, wields through units at home and overseas. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., also hosts a Space Operations Command, a subordinate group that carries out daily missions and will be renamed as “SpOC West.” The Space Force is not planning any other regional SpOCs, Whiting said.

SpOC West functions as SPACECOM’s Combined Force Space Component Command at Vandenberg as well. In that role, it is in charge of supporting other combatant commanders and the joint force through the Combined Space Operations Center at Vandenberg, which works with other countries and commercial companies on missions like tracking missile launches and resolving interference with communications satellite signals.

Whiting replaces Maj. Gen. John E. Shaw, who was recently nominated to become U.S. Space Command’s three-star deputy commander. The Senate has not yet confirmed Shaw to that post.

Russia Intercepts USAF B-1 Bombers Over Bering Sea

Russia Intercepts USAF B-1 Bombers Over Bering Sea

Oct. 21, 2020 | By Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory

Russian aircraft intercepted two B-1 bombers over the Bering Sea on Oct. 20, the Russian Defense Ministry announced on Twitter.

“MiG-31 interceptors and Su-35 fighters from the Air Defense Forces on duty in the Eastern Military District escorted two U.S. Air Force B-1B strategic bombers over the Bering Sea,” the ministry wrote in a Russian-language caption that accompanied footage of the intercept on YouTube.

Once the American bombers were detected, the Russian tails took flight to meet them, the caption explained. The aircraft headed back to their “home airfield” after the B-1s turned away from the Russian border.

The USAF aircraft never entered Russia’s sovereign airspace, and the Russian planes followed “international airspace rules,” the ministry added.

Pacific Air Forces on Oct. 21 confirmed that two of its B-1s were tasked in the area at the time of the alleged interaction.

“Four B-1 Lancers are currently deployed to Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, for a rotational Bomber Task Force to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command,” PACAF public affairs wrote in an Oct. 21 email to Air Force Magazine. “We can confirm that the intercept … was deemed as safe and professional.”

The Russian intercept came a day after F-22s assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command intercepted a Russian air package consisting of two Tu-95 Bear bombers, a pair of Su-35 flankers, and an A-50 Mainstay AWACS aircraft off the coast of Alaska.

The Oct. 20 intercept is at least the second time this year that Russia intercepted U.S. military aircraft within a day of their own tails crossing into the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated at 12:56 a.m. Oct. 22, 2020, to include new information from PACAF.

Contentious Corona Debates Push Budget Decisions

Contentious Corona Debates Push Budget Decisions

Oct. 21, 2020 | By John A. Tirpak

A meeting among the Air Force’s top leaders earlier this month, billed as the venue where tough decisions for the fiscal 2022 budget would be made, saw intense debate requiring further discussion, Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said Oct. 21.

In an AFA Mitchell Institute virtual event, Brown said he expected to be asked, “What did you decide?” after the Corona meeting. But, “this is a process,” and he is now following up with “more engagement” with combatant commanders and major command chiefs, as well as the Air Staff. Circumstances change “every day,” he said, and the Corona meeting wound up being “the first steps on this journey, as we keep knocking … down” action items.

Video: Mitchell Institute on YouTube

The current draft of the service’s 2022 budget request doesn’t allow for each MAJCOM to get its “No. 1” request, Brown said. “We’ve got to look at the entire Air Force.” Some MAJCOMS have already been told, “You’re going to get less, or your No. 1 is not going to get as much as you’d like.” He did not specify any of the systems or capabilities the service may have to give up to afford new investments.

Air Force leaders at AFA’s virtual Air, Space & Cyber conference in September deferred discussions on the service’s budget priorities, saying the major decisions would be hashed out at Corona. Broadly, Brown said, the budget discussions were of a “design implementation” character.  

Brown wants his commanders to take more of an enterprise approach to budget requests and expectations, and to “see the future a bit better.” Although he acknowledged that, “No one likes to lose anything. The first response will be ‘no;’ that’s why they teach ‘sharing’ in kindergarten,” he said. But COCOMs need to understand they have to balance the demands of now with the future.

It remains to be decided which “silos of excellence” are most important, and “where we take risk.” Commanders have to “talk to each other, at least in front of me,” so they aren’t working toward conflicting unfunded mandates where they are fighting “among themselves because ‘the Chief said.’ I want to get them all in one room, as much as I can, to have these deeper discussions, so we can make choices” together, Brown said.

Brown’s frustrated with the Air Force culture of decision-making “from the bottom up,” saying, “It’s amazing, at this level, how many things come to you, and it’s already been decided … I’m not even sure why I’m signing off on the piece of paper, because they’ve already come up with the answer. But is it the right answer?”

This “culture of consensus” slows the service down, he said, because “you can’t get everybody to agree, so you don’t agree, and you keep working it until you beat down your dissenters,” at which point it’s put before a boss “to approve it.”

Brown said he insists there has to be a dialog and high-level debate.

“Sometimes I want to hear what the other side has to say,” he said, repeating his frequent observation of Air Force staffs having a “meeting after the meeting,” in which dissenters hold their objections until they’re “out in the hallway,” after decisions are made. Brown said he wants dissenters to speak up, because “the train is leaving the station,” and decisions may be made without all the necessary inputs.

“What I’m trying to do is drive these conversations, deeper dives, earlier in the process, where I’m included in the conversations, so … I don’t get it at the very end [where] I have very little wiggle room.”  

He cautioned, though, that he doesn’t want dissent for its own sake. While some objections to plans may be based on “judgement, … and I get that,” there also has to be “some data to back it up.”

Brown likes “read ahead” reports, but he doesn’t want PowerPoint briefings, because “I’ve already read that. Let’s have a conversation. And that’s helpful, because I can actually get more information from them. We get a better product because of the dialog.” At least, he said, “We’ll learn where the friction points are.”

One of the main topics of discussion at the Corona meeting was how the Air Force will “look in the mirror” and change its bureaucracy to move more swiftly, Brown reported. He wants to know what USAF is doing “that slow[s] down our decision making,” and whether cross-domain engagements are happening early enough in the process to enable meaningful conversations about future decisions.

Brown also wants to engage external stakeholders—Congress, other services, industry, etc.—earlier in the decision-making process. “To say, … this is where we’re going as an Air Force, so we’re not fighting among ourselves or competing among ourselves for dollars and capability all the way to the endgame.”

More discussion and engagement will “cut down on the friction,” Brown asserted, and USAF will be able to “move a little bit faster.”

Top Lawmakers Look to Start Talks on 2021 Defense Policy Bill

Top Lawmakers Look to Start Talks on 2021 Defense Policy Bill

Oct. 21, 2020 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are tentatively scheduling a “Big Four” meeting for Oct. 26 to begin hashing out an agreement on the 2021 defense policy bill, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) told reporters.

The Big Four refers to the top Democrats and Republicans on the two armed services panels: SASC Chairman Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Ranking Member Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and HASC boss Smith and Ranking Member Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas). 

Lawmakers expect negotiations to be relatively smooth this year, despite some high-profile items, from language on U.S. troop levels in Germany and Afghanistan to a provision that would rename Army bases that currently honor Confederate figures. Both chambers passed their respective versions of the annual defense policy legislation in July.

Smith attributed the slow progress so far in part to Inhofe’s reelection campaign for a likely fifth Senate term. Reelection would start the chairman’s first full term in the top SASC post, after he took over following Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s death in 2018.

“We are in discussion, certainly, on the staff level. We haven’t moved forward as aggressively as I would have liked, in terms of having more ‘Big Four’ conversations,” Smith said on an Oct. 21 press call. “Sen. Inhofe has a campaign, he’s focused on that.”

Smith noted that leaving the bulk of those talks until after the Nov. 3 election is risky, possibly because certain provisions may fall prey to partisan politics based on the results. He did not answer written questions by press time about how the election might affect negotiations.

“We’re moving forward and the plan still is to get the bill done by the early part of December,” he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office, which appoints lawmakers to the conference committee, has not announced who will be party to those talks.

A congressional aide told Air Force Magazine in September that committee employees would focus on completing staff-level discussions by the end of the month. “We cannot discuss specific topics subject to the conference negotiations; staff is working on options for members to reconcile the differences in the House and Senate bills,” the aide said.

The final slate of funding authorizations still needs to match up with a compromise spending bill, which has stalled in the Senate, to take effect.

Smith remains optimistic that lawmakers will pass the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act by the end of December, three months after the new fiscal year began. He indicated that it’s plausible, but unlikely, that negotiations could stretch into January or later.

On that timeline, conference talks will wrap up shortly before President Donald J. Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden is inaugurated as President on Jan. 20, 2021.

Defense News recently reported that Smith and Reed, who would likely become the head of SASC if Democrats earn a majority in the Senate, have started discussing what the defense priorities of a unified Democratic government could be if Biden wins the White House.

“From what Vice President Biden has said, I think we are closely aligned on how much to spend on defense and the fact the nuclear enterprise is something we can probably spend less on, and still meet our needs, and thus free up money to do other things. I think there’ll be good synergy there,” Smith told Defense News.

While progressives push for as much as a 20 percent cut to the defense budget, Smith argues any spending overhaul must be justified by a revamped national security policy. He believes total defense spending could hover around $720 billion to $740 billion in the coming years—either flat funding or a slight cut. 

The Trump Administration requested $740.5 billion for national security, including $705.4 billion for the Defense Department, in fiscal 2021.

“You will not hear me say that we need to cut the defense budget because the U.S. military is a malign actor in the world and must be constrained. I do not agree with that position,” Smith told reporters. “I do agree with the idea that we can have a national security policy that has a lower defense budget than we currently have. You’ve got to get there in a rational, responsible way.”