PACAF Boss: As China Expands Reach of Missiles and Warplanes, US Needs ‘Inside Force’

Dec. 8, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

As China extends the reach of its missiles and aircraft farther and farther beyond its shores, the Air Force must ensure two keys to effectively counter that threat: first, to build out the underlying capability to make USAF’s agile combat employment strategy, and second, to ensure the Air Force has the “inside force” to penetrate China’s defenses, a top Air Force leader said Dec. 6.

PACAF commander Gen. Kevin B. Schneider, speaking at an event with AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said the People’s Republic of China is continuing to build out its anti-access/area denial strategy with its growing ballistic missile force. “And every day, that missile capability from the PLA grows in number, capability, and range,” Schneider said.

The PLA Navy and Air Force are growing bolder, more routinely operating far from China’s shores, he said. “In the air domain, we typically see them first and second island chain only. But as they continue to build out air refueling capability, I expect that we’ll see air operations farther and farther through the first and second island chain, and perhaps even farther.”

As recently as 2021, USAF academics derided China’s aerial refueling fleet as “another limitation in the quest for power projection.” Not anymore. The PLAAF has a new refueler, the YY-20, analysts say, and it is also flexing its muscles in new parts of the world, leveraging access to Russian bases to operate in the Arctic and Western Pacific. Earlier this year, the two conducted their first-ever joint bomber patrol near Alaska, and in late November, they conducted a joint patrol over the Sea of Japan.

That last mission was notable, Schneider said, because it “involved an H-6N,” explaining that the “N” designator means the aircraft is a “nuclear-capable bomber.”

“China is continuing to do more and more with [the H-6N] and using that to project power,” he added. By flying near both Japan and South Korea, the H-6N operation was “clearly an effort to get after the fabric of the alliances and partnerships that give us strength,” Schneider said.

Asked by dean of the Mitchell Institute retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula about the need for penetrating strike and air dominance aircraft, Schneider argued that the U.S. Air Force must “always be in a position where we can get into the hardest targets, that we can turn the vertical flank, and that we can deliver mass fires on a center of gravity.” This, he said, requires a so-called “inside force.”

Debate about whether the Air Force must field both “inside” and “outside” forces has increased in recent months as the service has wavered in its commitment to the Penetrating Combat Aircraft, the manned portion of the Next-Generation Air Dominance family of systems. USAF was scheduled to select a winning design for that program by September, but paused the program for an additional review. Now, with a coming change of presidential administration, the Air Force has delayed the determination so that the next Pentagon leadership can make the decision.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin wants to cast aside the inside-outside force arguments as he works to press his case for a new “force design” intended to help reset future warfighting requirements. “The design is … more conceptual, but we’re designing the force to be able to account for the environment,” he said in a recent interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. “That environment is one that has varying levels of and varying densities of threat.”

Schneider, for his part, said “we the Air Force have, I’ll call it a moral obligation, one to the joint force, because wherever they are, we are going to be with them. And it is our job to be an integral part of the joint force to deliver fires, and the other is a moral obligation to our allies and partners that Gen. Allvin alluded to.” To achieve that, he said, the Air Force must have air superiority and global precision strike capabilities.

Deptula has argued that delaying NGAD or diminishing the Air Force’s ability to fight inside enemy territory cedes U.S. combat advantages, and are driven not by strategic insight, but by a lack of will to fight for more funds to buy the combat forces necessary to deter China.

ACE and Logistics

In the face of China’s growing reach, PACAF is building out its agile combat employment strategy, in which forces would scatter from large “hubs” to remote bases as a means to counter China’s A2/AD strategy. ACE was developed in PACAF when Schneider was the command’s chief of staff, and he credited lower-level units and Airmen for their hard work fleshing out the concept.

“We have really advanced, and we have really evolved, and I am really pleased,” he said.

But Schneider also said some of that evolution has caused PACAF leaders to reconsider the underlying assumptions behind ACE.

“The one thing that … we’ve recognized we need to get after—and I give [Gen. Mike Minahan], the former AMC commander, tremendous credit—was there’s a large-scale logistics and sustainment piece of this that wasn’t necessarily connected,” Schneider said. “That’s because a lot of our agile combat employment evolutions have been done within wing training budgets, within wing training cycles.”

When Minihan staged AMC’s massive Mobility Guardian exercise in the Pacific in 2023, those issues came to light, and now the Air Force is planning an even larger exercise for 2025, dubbed “Resolute Force Pacific” with the specific objective of better understanding the implications of peer war on the full logistics chain.

REFORPAC, as the exercise has been nicknamed, will include some 300 aircraft spread across 25 locations, PACAF deputy Lt. Gen. Laura Lenderman previously said. But with Congress having punted so far in approving a 2025 budget, Schneider said the Air Force may have to scale back that plan.

“Through the course of our planning, we have options,” he said. “So we take a look at what we would like to do at the high end, if we get all the funding that we are asking for, through to a lower end of the funding, where we’ll still be able to make this happen at a pretty large size and scale.”

For ACE to work, Schneider said, USAF has to accept that it can’t depend on just-in-time delivery in the midst of combat. More gear must be prepositioned forward to limit the distances it must travel to the end user, Schneider said. Because “there’s never enough lift to go around” when it’s needed most, he said, the Air Force must look “at our ability to pre-position as much forward across the spectrum” as possible in order to “take some of that burden off of [U.S. Transportation Command] in time of crisis.”

As Space Gets More Crowded, Space Force Needs New AI Tools to Keep Up: Experts

Dec. 6, 2024 | By Shaun Waterman

Think tanks typically just write reports, but when it came to studying the use of artificial intelligence to help the Space Force track objects in orbit and warn about possible collisions, the RAND Corp. went one step beyond that.

A team of information scientists at RAND actually built AI tools which Space Force analysts could use to “fight tonight,” team leader Li Ang Zhang told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“Having this kind of AI solution can really benefit the mission today,” he said, alleviating technology bottlenecks and providing a bridge capability until a delayed modernization program for space domain awareness (SDA) kicks in. Space Force officials seem to agree.

Machine learning AI (AI/ML) is quite different from the generative AI large language models that have captured headlines and public imagination in the last two years, but it is vital to help human analysts sift through and make sense of the huge amount of data coming off of and about the rapidly proliferating number of satellites, especially in low-earth orbit, or LEO, said Rudolph “Reb” Butler, a senior advisor to the Space Force’s Chief Technology and Innovation Officer.

The Space Force is working with its partners to ease the cognitive burden on humans dealing with SDA data through automation, he said at a recent CyberSat event: “There’s a lot of work to be done.”

To help with that work, the RAND team went deep on a single use-case for AI/ML called conjunction assessment: the process of identifying and tracking objects in orbit to predict possible collisions.

Conjunction assessment, or CA, is a good way to demonstrate the value of AI/ML right now, because it’s become so much harder in the years since the Space Force was stood up in 2019, Zhang said. More satellites had been launched in the last five years than in the previous 60, he noted.

“We’re having almost weekly launches around the globe, but the number of people doing this mission and the number of computers are relatively static,” he said.

Space Force analysts in Space Defense Squadrons 18 and 19, charged with the CA mission, were in danger of becoming overwhelmed by the growing scale and complexity of their task, Zhang warned.

The Space Force tracks nearly 45,000 objects in orbit, he said. “If you think about the number of possible pairwise comparisons it quickly gets quite staggering,” he said. Add in complexities like atmospheric conditions and solar weather, variations in the Earth’s gravitational field, and the calculations required to predict orbits and warn about possible collisions quickly outpace the available computational power.

That’s especially true, he added, because of the aging legacy technology upon which the Space Force relies. The computers that carry out the orbital calculations are “very old and at capacity, and have been for at least 10 years now,” he said, calling it “a well-known problem, and … one of the main bottlenecks that we have today” in SDA capabilities.

Almost three years ago, Space Systems Command, the part of Space Force responsible for most of its acquisition programs, announced a $49.7 million modernization effort dubbed the Advanced Tracking and Launch Analysis System (ATLAS.) But in a report earlier this year, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester said the effort is two years behind schedule.

Until the modernization effort is complete, Zhang said, the AI tools his team developed could provide a bridging function—allowing the legacy computers to keep handling the growing volume of data and calculations needed to keep up with the expanding and increasingly dynamic orbital environment.

“We want AI to try to bridge that gap in resources for now,” he said. While the legacy computers could keep doing the demanding orbital calculations “in the background,” AI tools which provide a “much, much faster, but a little less accurate” predictions could be used for a “first cut,” to triage analysts’ work, and let them focus their attention and computing power on the most urgent tasks, Zhang said.

Although the legacy computers operate within the classified domain and the RAND team was not able to test their AI/ML tools on them, Zhang said they had been designed and tested on “relatively old machines,” and he was confident they would work on the legacy technology being used for SDA.

To the Space Force’s credit, he said, “they have the infrastructure to bring new algorithms, new cool stuff, especially from small businesses, into their processes. So a lot of the architecture [to import and use these AI/ML tools] does exist. I think it just is a matter of pulling the trigger.”

He said his team was engaging with Space Force to figure out next steps, but declined to comment further. Space Systems Command didn’t respond to requests for an interview or comment.

The situation is complicated by the bureaucratic context, said retired Space Force Col. Charles Galbreath. The part of the SDA mission concerned with CA—the orbital tracking and cataloging of space objects, which he called the “traffic management role”—is being shifted to the Department of Commerce.

The Space Force wants to pass that mission over because it is seen as more suited to a civilian agency given the growing prevalence of commercial activity in orbit. Galbreath also noted that the Space Force wants to focus on newer capabilities it will need as the space domain becomes not just more crowded, but more dynamic, with more satellites able to maneuver themselves in orbit.

To meet those new challenges and prepare to fight a shooting war in orbit if needed, USSF is leaning forward on incorporating new technologies like AI and cannot afford to be gun shy about them, Galbreath said. His last active duty assignment was as the Space Force’s deputy chief technology and innovation officer, and he is now a senior fellow for space studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“The number of objects in space has just been going off the charts,” he said, and would continue to grow as new megaconstellations like Starlink and future competitors such as Amazon’s Kuiper continue to be fielded. “So the risk of not using AI/ML is an outdated system increasingly incapable of producing conjunction warnings that are accurate in a timely fashion. And therefore the risk of an unforeseen or undetected collision increases,” he said.

Retired Maj. Gen. Kim Crider, the Space Force’s former Chief Technology and Innovation Officer, said that while the SDA mission is one of the most urgent use-cases for AI/ML in the service, it is far from the only one.

“It’s an urgent challenge because understanding the domain is foundational to everything else that we’re going to do there,” said Crider, who left the service in 2021 and last year helped found Elara Nova, a strategic consultancy focused on space. Without accurate and constantly updated information about objects in space, “we’re going to have a very hard time making decisions about what to do in the domain and where to apply our defensive effects, or where to engage if we need to engage,” she said.

But the Space Force shouldn’t stop with the SDA mission, Crider said. “There are so many opportunities for this [AI] technology to augment what we do in space and from space,” she pointed out. “We need AI/ML to help us, not only with the space domain awareness mission, but to help us with decision-making that we need to be able to do, with the optimization of services that we need to be able to provide,” she said. AI/ML tools could also help “optimize the use of imagery and sensing to get the best imagery that we need, when and where we need it. … So there’s a lot of use cases across the board.”

Meet Two of the Air Force’s Newest Warrant Officers

Dec. 6, 2024 | By David Roza

The Air Force’s first new warrant officers in 66 years graduated Dec. 6 at a ceremony at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.—the inaugural class of the new Warrant Officer Training School (WOTS).

The 30 Airmen spent the past eight weeks in an intense mix of classroom study and physical training to prepare for their new roles, which Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin hopes will help keep the Air Force ahead of rivals such as China and Russia.

“We are in a competition for talent, and we understand that technical talent is going to be so critical to our success as an Air Force in the future,” he said when he announced the return of warrant officers in February.

The Air Force’s career paths for enlisted and commissioned Airmen are geared to put them in leadership roles, but the cybersecurity and information technology career fields move so fast that they require experts who can stay hands-on throughout their careers. Warrant officers already play that role in the other branches except the Space Force.

air force warrant officer — Canidates at Warrant Officer Training School listen to U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Chad Bickley, Air Education and Training Command command chief, speak at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Nov. 20, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Billy Blankenship)

Staying hands-on sounded perfect to Chief Warrant Officer 2 Richard Barragan, previously a senior master sergeant with 19 years in the Air Force. An information technology expert, Barragan was set on retiring at 20 years, but he enjoyed his most recent role as senior enlisted advisor at Enterprise IT as a Service (EITaaS), an Air Force effort to revamp IT across the branch. Becoming a warrant officer seemed the perfect route to keep doing what he loved.

“It’s been eye-opening to see the effect you can have in that role where you’re asked ‘what do you think?’ and ‘how should we do this?’” Barragan said. “I just love being in that environment, so it makes perfect sense to go the warrant officer route.”

The possibility has Barragan thinking about serving another five or even 10 years beyond what he originally planned. His classmate, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Tajh Smith, made a similar calculation. Previously a master sergeant with 10 years of service, Smith said he had considered getting out because his career path would soon take him out of operational work.

“A lot of folks within the class feel the same way: we kind of need the chaos of the operations world,” he said. “That’s kind of our cup of coffee that keeps us going.”

Becoming a warrant officer offered a third path and a chance to pay forward the mentorship that warrant officers from other services had given Smith throughout his career.

“When I heard about it, I was like ‘you know what, I’ll throw a Hail Mary and see what happens,’” he said. “It’s definitely been a dream come true to be able to have this opportunity.”

Back to School

The two new warrant officers and their fellow graduates faced intense competition to get into the program: nearly 500 Airmen applied for just 60 slots when applications opened in April. Of those, 433 applications were deemed eligible, but the caliber of the applicants was so high that officials decided to bump the first cohort to 78 slots.

The candidates were experienced Airmen at the rank of staff sergeant and above, so some were surprised to find that WOTS spent a lot of time on marching, drill, room inspections, workouts, memorizing standard operating procedures, and other entry-level activities. But there was a plus side to working out six days a week.

“It definitely got everybody a lot more fit,” Barragan said.

On top of the physical workouts was a demanding academic schedule that included wargaming, discussing case studies from actual Air Force missions, and honing communication skills, a huge part of a warrant officer’s job. Throughout his career, Smith saw warrant officers bring clarity to chaotic situations where the stakeholders disagreed on how to solve a problem.

“When the dust settles, the commander looks back at that warrant officer and is like ‘OK so what do you think?’” he said. “Or the warrant officer will bring everybody back to a level playing field and put things in perspective.”

Besides the lessons learned, Smith said it was also helpful just working with his classmates, who he described as “top-tier individuals.” Many were strangers before WOTS, but now they have a professional network.

“That has been probably one of the most beneficial things about this course,” he said. “When you reflect on issues back at your old units, it’s like ‘man, I know somebody now within the cohort who could have helped me figure this out.’”

A U.S. Air Force warrant officer candidate discusses navigating leadership dynamics during class at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Oct. 23, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Evan Porter)

‘Ease Some of that Burden’

Barragan and Smith will return to familiar places after graduating. Barragan will work at a different office but still help with EITaaS, while Smith will return to serving as a technical director for cyber operations at U.S. Cyber Command. Now it’s up to them and their fellow graduates to prove warrant officers bring something special to the Air Force.

“I’m hoping it’s not an experiment, like enlisted pilots or other initiatives that never panned out,” Barragan said.

Feedback from commanders will play a large role in that decision, he explained, but each commander may have different expectations based on their mission, job specialty, or personal preference. To address that, officials from Air Force headquarters are visiting bases across the service to explain how warrant officers are best utilized.

The niche the 30 new warrant officers will step into is currently occupied by senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and company grade officers. But those leaders also have to deal with administrative details such as filling out upgrade training forms and writing enlisted performance briefs, while warrant officers do not.

“We might not be writing EPBs, but we are still there to teach, coach, and mentor those Airmen from the mission standpoint, in conjunction with the NCOs,” Smith said. “Right now, they have to find some way to give 100 percent on both the operational side and the administrative side. But you only have one 100 percent, and you still have to give some percentage back to your family. We’re there to help ease some of that burden … in order to ultimately accomplish the mission.”

U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Andrea Tullos, Air University commander and president, speaks to Warrant Officer School Class 25-01 at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Oct. 23, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Evan Porter)

Smith and Barragan just hope Air Force leaders have the patience to see the initiative bear fruit.

“My concern is that at the end they just say ‘OK, this has been fun, we’re done, everybody go back to regular life,’ without actually giving the program and the warrant officers that have been produced by it a chance to really have an impact,” Smith said.

But if it works, the warrant officer project could be expanded to other career fields. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in March that he expects the program will eventually include other specialties, pending its success in cyber and IT. Smith said he’s spoken with Airmen from security forces, medical, intelligence, and other fields who also want warrant officers.

For now, the next batch of Air Force warrant officers are due to graduate in March 2025, with applications for the next cohort of warrant officer candidates opening up the same month.

Lt. Col. Justin Ellsworth, a cyber operations career field manager at Air Force headquarters who helped bring the warrant officer program to life, had a tip for future applicants: submit a strong technical letter, where an expert highlights the applicant’s technical skill and leadership.

“That’s what the board is looking for: are you that technical expert, are you that go-to person in your organization?” he said. “Those are the folks that we’re really looking for.”

Lockheed’s Skunk Works Gets New Boss

Dec. 5, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

O.J. Sanchez, a former Air Force F-22 pilot and currently the vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin’s Integrated Fighter Group, will take over as head of the company’s Skunk Works advanced products unit in January. He succeeds John Clark, who is taking on a new position as the company’s senior vice president for technology and strategic innovation.

Skunk Works, located at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif., is Lockheed’s premier aerospace innovation organization, which over more than 70 years has provided landmark systems for the Air Force, including the U-2 and SR-71 spyplanes, the F-117 stealth attack jet, and the RQ-170 stealth spyplane. It also contributed heavily to the design and development of the F-22 and F-35, the Air Force’s two fifth-generation fighters, an undisclosed number of the Air Force’s hypersonic programs, and a large number of experimental and classified operational platforms.

As head of the Integrated Fighter Group, Sanchez oversees the development, production and, sustainment of the F-16 and F-22 programs, and presided over the launch of F-16 production at Greenville, S.C., after the company moved that enterprise from its Fort Worth, Texas, plant, where F-35s are built. In his three years in that position, he also directed the T-50 K-FX, J-FX, and other international partnerships. He previously was the vice president and general manager of the F-22 program, and worked on the F-35 program. Collectively, Sanchez has more than 10 years of experience with Lockheed.

On active duty, Sanchez was an F-15 and F-22 pilot, amassing more than 2,100 hours flight hours. His last active duty assignment was as Deputy Director of Operations for the Joint Staff.

Whereas most of Sanchez’ predecessors at Skunk Works were technologists and engineers, Sanchez’s experience with the company has been in the manufacture, refinement, and sustainment of established programs, possibly indicating that more of Skunk Works’ business will be in production and sustainment of classified platforms and systems, rather than just in development of exotic new technologies. Skunk Works continues to maintain and develop the U-2 spyplane.

In a posting on X, Clark noted Sanchez’s “more than 30 years of combined military and industry expertise,” saying he has “demonstrated exceptional leadership in driving advanced program execution aligned with the Department of Defense’s deterrence vision.”

Clark is leaving Skunk Works after three years and taking on a new position as senior vice president for Technology and Strategic Innovation. He will be a direct report to CEO Jim Taiclet and will also oversee Lockheed Martin Ventures.

A successor for Sanchez at the Integrated Fighter Group has not been named.

Global Strike Boss: CCAs May Escort Bombers After Concept Matures in Fighter Force

Dec. 5, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

Air Force Global Strike Command is considering long-range, autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft as partners for its bombers but is waiting to see how they prove out with the fighter force first, the head of the command said Dec. 5.

Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere also discussed the appropriate size of the B-21 bomber program, the possibility of a mobile land-based strategic missile force, and the outlook for the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile during an event hosted by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Bussiere said the service is “looking at” how it could use CCAs in partnership with bombers, but “we’re going to let the fighter force kind of mature that concept with [Increment] 1 … and then we’ll be prepared to integrate that into the Long Range Strike Family of Systems, probably at a later date,” if directed.

“I won’t get ahead of the Chief or the Secretary, but it’s a logical question to ask, whether long-range strike would benefit from the CCA concept,” Bussiere added. ” … Right now, we don’t actually have that in the plan.”

Bussiere’s comments come a day after 8th Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Jason R. Armagost said that “a large aircraft, like a bomber, has many apertures and many radios, and in many cases, more crew members to be able to manage things like” CCAs, adding that the service has kept its options open in how it has developed and procured the B-21.

The “obvious limitation,” Bussiere noted, would be the range of such aircraft. The Increment 1 CCAs being developed by Anduril Industries and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems are optimized for an air-to-air function and not necessarily for long-haul missions that would allow them to escort bombers.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall raised the possibility of CCAs to complement the bomber fleet in 2021, and for a time, they shared mention on his Operational Imperatives list of critical new capabilities. But a year later, he backed off the concept, saying “the idea of similar-range collaborative combat aircraft is not turning out to be cost-effective.”

Analysts argued there was still a way for the drones to help the long-range strike mission, though.

B-21 Fleet

Bussiere also said it would be a good idea to “reevaluate” either the total number of B-21 bombers or the rate at which they are procured, saying that the changing security environment weighs in favor of more of the “exquisite” capabilities on the new aircraft.

“Who would not want more?” he asked.

“There are several examples in the in the last five or 10 years where we’ve evaluated what the proper fleet size should be,” he said. And while the program of record calls for “at least” 100 B-21s, Bussiere said there is analytical justification for a bomber fleet of 220 aircraft, of which 75 will be B-52Js, suggesting a fleet size of 145 B-21s.

The figure of 100 “probably needs to be reevaluated, based on the world as we see it today,” he said. “It’s a force mix discussion within the Department of the Air Force, and it’s a resource and priority [question] within the Department of Defense [and] the nation.”

The Air Force could accelerate the program to deliver more than the small handful of B-21s planned each year, Bussiere said.

“If the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or Congress directs an accelerated ramp … for the B-21 program, there’s some capability growth within the current complex,” he said.

Asked if production capacity could be expanded by adding another company to produce the jet, Bussiere said he was not convinced that would be “the most efficient way” of expanding production. More likely, he said, “it would require opening up another production complex” with the prime contractor, Northrop Grumman.

Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, in April testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, brushed aside the idea of going beyond the planned 100 B-21s, saying he thinks that by the time they are all built, technology will have advanced to offer an even better option.

“I think we’re not going to reach that number until probably the mid-2030s and beyond,” Allvin said, adding that “there are other technological advancements” likely to arise before the service commits to the B-21 as the backbone of its bomber fleet.

But Bussiere said the number and speed of delivery of the B-21 is a “valid discussion” to have “based on the age of the B-1 and B-2” and the advancing strategic capabilities of Russia and China.

If indeed B-21 deliveries will not conclude until the late 2030s, as Allvin said, that suggests a production rate of only seven or eight airframes a year. The actual rate is classified.

Land-Based Leg

When it comes to the land-based leg of the nuclear triad, Bussiere said the Air Force has “looked at” the idea of making the next land-based ICBM mobile—an idea to improve its survivability that went to prototype stage with the Peacekeeper missile in the 1980s, and which has been suggested by a number of think tanks since.

“There’s been debate and discussion over the decades on whether or not we should have a mobile aspect or component of the land leg of the triad. It’s been studied,” he said. “The nation has determined that … we’re not there yet. So that is a policy decision. If the nation decides that we are going to implement some sort” of ICBM mobility, “then we will develop concepts and go through that process. But right now, that’s been looked at.”

DOD: Russian Weakness Fuels China’s Rise in the Arctic

Dec. 5, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

China is leveraging its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine to increase its access to the Arctic, where the two are now engaged in “unprecedented styles of collaboration,” a top Pentagon official said Dec. 5.

Iris A. Ferguson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Arctic and Global Resilience, said China and Russia have conducted joint patrols with warships, bombers, and their coast guards in the past year or two.

“The increasing levels of collaboration between Russia and the PRC, and unprecedented styles of collaboration, especially in the military domain, give us pause,” Ferguson said during an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

China has no Arctic territory, but claims to be a “near-Arctic state” and has sought for years to increase its presence there, which it sees as strategically advantageous for shipping and military activity. The war in Ukraine, which left Russia isolated on the world stage, played into China’s strategy.

“A couple of years ago, I think the broad assumption was that the Arctic is too important for Russia to let the PRC in—this is one of the crown jewels for Russia,” Ferguson said. “But we’re seeing an increasing amount of access, not only economically, but diplomatically, scientifically…. The military angle is an interesting new addition to access.”

Beyond signaling its growing presence in the Arctic, China has benefited from its cooperation with Russia by gaining “access to remote places in the Arctic, to give them experience and exposure, from a military perspective, that’s new and unique,” Ferguson said.

While some of China’s interest in the Arctic may be scientific or economic, its lack of transparency, general aggressiveness, and focus on dual-use efforts are cause for concern, said Matthew P. Funaiole, senior fellow of the China Power Project at CSIS.

“It doesn’t want to have demarcation between [economic and military development],” Funaiole said. “It’s like, ‘How can we get both at the same time?’”

In July, the Pentagon released an updated Arctic Strategy that pledged to keep a “watchful eye” on Russia and China’s collaboration in the Arctic, and Ferguson reiterated the core tenets of that strategy: upgraded domain awareness and regular exercises.

Indeed, Ferguson said the department is looking at how it can better use its Arctic exercises “as a deterrent effect, working alongside our allies and partners.” Just this week, U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers conducted live-fire exercises alongside Norway and the U.K.

Following through on those, however, will require increased investment, something that DOD has shied away from in recent history.

“The Arctic is one of those places that, if you look at a map, it is really strategic. It’s also a place that has been [overlooked], I think, quite a bit over the past several decades,” Ferguson said. “And I think one reason for that was because we were really heavily focused on operations in the Middle East for so long. We invested really heavily in the Arctic region during the Cold War era, and we thought things were safe and fine, and climate change wasn’t necessarily a thing. And it was a strategic buffer, and we could focus elsewhere. And we consolidated a lot of our infrastructure. We got rid of a lot of our infrastructure, actually, and we kind of took it as like a little bit of a luxury, quite frankly, to be able to focus our sights elsewhere.”

But the risks of overlooking the Arctic today could be dire. The Arctic, she suggested, may seem unimportant when looked at on a flat map. But looked at on a glob, or in a polar-centric map, it’s importance and proximity to key parts of the world becomes clear.

China’s growing influence on Russia and its increasing military presence in the Arctic, she said, presents a clear and imminent threat.

Air Force Defers Decision on NGAD to New Trump Administration

Dec. 5, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is deferring decisions on the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter to the incoming Trump administration, opting to continue both its review of the program and the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction contracts during the transition period, the service announced Dec. 5.

“The Secretary of the Air Force will defer the Next Generation Air Dominance way ahead decision to the next administration, while the Department of the Air Force continues its analysis and executes the necessary actions to ensure decision space remains intact for the NGAD program,” the service said in a press release.

The Air Force further said it is extending the current contracts for NGAD to “further mature designs/systems while ensuring the industry teams remain intact.” The service is also asking the industry competitors “to update their proposals to account for the delays resulting from the current pause (schedule/milestone update only).”

Boeing and Lockheed, each of which build fighters for the Air Force today, are the presumed competitors for NGAD. Northrop Grumman chief executive Kathy Warden previously revealed her company had declined to bid on the program, but would likely pursue the Navy’s next-gen fighter. Northrop is among those with contracts to develop engine/vehicle interfaces for NGAD, under the Next-Generation Aerospace Propulsion program, along with Boeing, Lockheed, GE Aerospace and RTX’s Pratt & Whitney.

Officials had previously said they planned to award an engineering and manufacturing development contract or contracts for NGAD—it’s not clear if there would be one or two—this fall. However, over the summer, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall ordered a “pause” on the program, saying the Air Force was no longer certain that the requirements set for it matched the evolving threat. He also acknowledged the price tag for NGAD—Kendall has said it would be “multiple hundreds of millions” of dollars per tail—was prohibitively high without more resources.

Kendall ordered an internal review of the program and formed a blue-ribbon panel of former Air Force leaders with unique knowledge of stealth projects to provide advice. No end date for the review was set, although senior service leaders suggested it would be finished before the Air Force’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal went to the Office of Management and Budget.

The NGAD is the centerpiece of the Air Force’s plans for achieving air superiority in the future and is one of Kendall’s seven “operational imperatives”; the capability development efforts considered most crucial to the service’s ability to credibly deter or defeat a peer adversary.

At AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber conference in September, Kendall said he thought the central, crewed platform in the NGAD family of systems could—with new technologies and a revised operating concept—be acquired for the same cost as an F-35, the last price for which was around $80 million a copy for the Air Force variant.

An Air Force spokesperson said that in updating their proposals, the contractors will not be amending their technical concepts, but simply adjusting their cost estimates, taking into account delays accruing from the “pause,” which was ordered in July. She also said there is sufficient money in the program to accommodate the extension without further budgetary action.

The spokesperson said she could not reveal the number of participating contractors, the value of the TMRR contracts, or the expected duration of the extension. The program remains largely classified.

The spokesperson also said the Air Force is not planning to separate the budgets for the NGAD fighter and Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which are in the same developmental program element. Both have their own discrete line items within the program element and separating them is not necessary, she said. The CCA represents much of the “family of systems” that comprise the overall NGAD program.

The Air Force’s fiscal 2025 budget request for NGAD was $2.75 billion, and its forecast called for spending nearly $28.5 billion on it through the end of the decade, a figure including the CCA effort. For NGAD alone, the five-year plan calls for $19.6 billion in funding. The Air Force said in the ’25 budget that its ’26 request would be around $3.2 billion for NGAD alone.

8th Air Force Commander: B-1 and B-2 Fleet Retirements Will Be ‘Conditions Based’

Dec. 4, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

There is no set timeline for retiring the B-1 and B-2 bomber fleets, but when one is established it will be based on strategic conditions and when the B-21 is available to succeed them, the commander of 8th Air Force said Dec. 4.

In the meantime, putting bombers back on short-notice nuclear alert would be costly and likely require more airplanes, and such plans should be assessed for their need and duration, Maj. Gen. Jason R. Armagost said.

Speaking with the Advanced Nuclear Weapons Alliance Deterrence Center, Armagost said that Air Force Global Strike Command’s Bomber Roadmap—which has not been shared publicly for several years—“will change based on the needs at the time” and has no hard calendar date for the last B-1s and B-2s to leave service.

A previous iteration of the roadmap said the two bombers will phase out in 2031-2032, but this was always dependent on the success of the B-21 program. Global Strike Command has said it expects to have neither the money nor manpower to support four bomber fleets: the B-1, B-2, B-52 and B-21.

“[With] the resourcing decisions that have been made, we know we’re aiming at a two-bomber fleet,” Armagost said. “But bombers aren’t just about” numbers of airplanes, but “about targets and target requirements and deterrents. And so that being said, that’s part of the ongoing discussion about what the bomber roadmap actually means.”

The infrastructure to support the bomber fleet is crucial as well, based on a “very well-planned-out and well thought-through plan“ for how to integrate new B-21s and send older bombers to the Boneyard. The key, Armagost said, is to ensure “no gaps in deterrence.“

Asked if the rise of China’s strategic nuclear arsenal suggests the Air Force will need a larger bomber fleet, Armagost said such decisions are for “people [at a] high level.”

“But again, it’s conditions-based on how we retire platforms. And so those conditions can change day-to-day, moment-to-moment, but I think there’s a very good plan for how we on-board the new, and we will not off-board the old just on a specific date. It will be conditions-based.”

Armagost said another consideration is that the B-21 has capabilities well beyond those of current bombers.

“We’re really trying to figure out … how to employ this differently, because it’s a different kind of airplane,” he said. “It’s sixth-generation stealth, and we can do some very, very interesting things with it that allow us to contest airspace [and] gain access for the penetrating force.

The B-21 is meant to fly in coordination with uncrewed air vehicles like Collaborative Combat Aircraft, Armagost also said.

“Our penetrating force clearly needs to interact with CCAs,” he said.

While CCAs have largely been associated with manned fighters, the Air Force bomber enterprise is staying involved too, Armagost said, “and structurally, I think we’ve preserved that option as far as the communications and the sensors available.”

Indeed, Armagost noted that “a large aircraft, like a bomber, has many apertures and many radios, and in many cases, more crew members to be able to manage things like that,” suggesting bombers may have a CCA management mission.

Asked if the heightened tensions with Russia and China mean the bomber force should go back on short-notice alert, Armagost said a broad statement about returning to alert would be “unhelpful.”

The question, he said, “always becomes about how long, and to what purpose, right? And so I think we understand pretty clearly how we would do it, and probably about how long we could do it with the current force construct we have.” But since the last time bombers were on alert, crew ratios have changed and the bomber force has decreased in size by a third.

The practical question becomes, “what would our force have to be constituted like to do that in the same way? And it’s a different answer than just putting them back on alert for a predetermined amount of time or in response to some kind of crisis. And so I think we understand that pretty well, and those are part of the discussions about how we configure the future force,” he said.

In concert with a number of think-tanks, Armagost said the 8th Air Force is “having richer discussions about what the future force construct looks like.”

Armagost also noted that Bomber Task Forces have been highly successful, expanding the number of overseas bomber bases from three to airfields in “23 percent of the countries in the world.” With each BTF, the Air Force is interacting with “four or five” countries’ air forces and learning a lot about operating in different areas, he said.

There is a “hunger” for partners worldwide to host a BTF, Armagost said, but “they do ask for more bombers than we can give.”” The interactions with other air forces “have been fantastic, and they’re seeming to continue to grow.”

2 Air Force Generals Picked to Lead New Acquisition Centers

Dec. 4, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force nominated two rising stars to lead its new Air Force Information Dominance Systems Center and its new Nuclear Systems Center. If confirmed, both will also become lieutenant generals.

The Air Force picked Maj. Gen. Luke C.G. Cropsey, who has been leading development of the Air Force’s next generation battle management solution, to lead the Information Dominance center, and Maj. Gen. Mark B. Pye to command the Air Force Nuclear Systems Center.

The new centers will both report to Air Force Materiel Command, which is being reorganized as as part of a servicewide “re-optimization” for great power competition.

The Information Dominance Systems Center will be responsible for developing and acquiring systems used in command, control, communications, battle management, cyber technology, electronic warfare, and digital infrastructure. Cropsey is a natural choice, having served the past two years as the Department of the Air Force’s integrating program executive officer for C3/BM. In that role, he is responsible for building out the Air Force’s contributions to Joint All-Domain Command and Control, a warfighting concept intended to connect sensors and shooters all around the globe.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has called Cropsey’s current job “one of the hardest” in acquisition. Since his appointment, Cropsey has become a leading figure shaping the service’s battle management modernization plans. He earned his second star only recently, pinning it on less than six months ago.

The Nuclear Systems Center will expand the existing Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, taking on the additional responsibility for a new program office for intercontinental ballistic missiles. Currently led by a two-star, the expansion includes upgrading the command to three-star level. The center will oversee the Air Force’s extensive nuclear modernization programs, including the the over-budget and behind-schedule Sentinel ICBM and the secretive Long-Range Stand-Off nuclear missile.

Pye, a B-2 pilot and weapons officer by trade, would, if confirmed, lead that center and also serve as the Department of the Air Force’s program executive officer for Nuclear Air Delivered Systems and the Nuclear Materiel Manager. Currently in his third-straight Pentagon staff assignment, he is director of programs under the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs.

In prior assignments, Pye commanded a B-2 squadron, served as vice commander of the 53rd Test wing, and led the Air Force Inspection Agency.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated Dec. 6 to clarify that the B-21 bomber program will not be under the Nuclear Systems Center.