Pentagon Plans $6 Billion in Ukraine Aid Ahead of Presidential Change

Nov. 7, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

President Joe Biden’s administration plans to commit some $6 billion in aid for Ukraine in the next two months before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed Nov. 7.

Roughly two-thirds of that aid, or $4 billion, will come in the form of Presidential Drawdown Authority packages—weapons and equipment drawn from U.S. stockpiles—while the other one-third, or $2 billion will be procured new as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters.

The rush to get that aid committed comes amid uncertainty as to whether the incoming presidential administration will keep up aid deliveries to Ukraine. On the campaign trail, Trump expressed some criticism over the amount of aid being sent to Ukraine and how it was structured. However, Trump did not publicly oppose a $61 billion aid package passed by Congress in April.

It remains to be seen whether the Pentagon can get most of its remaining authorized aid out the door before the presidential transition. Presidential authority drawdown packages can be delivered faster because they draw from existing stocks, but Singh acknowledged that the process can still take time to get across the Atlantic and into Ukraine.

“Some things can arrive within days and weeks. Some items in those packages take longer,” Singh said. “It does matter what’s available on our stock, on our shelves. You’re going to see us continue to draw that down pretty frequently. Could there be things that go out beyond Jan. 20? I can’t say for certain right now.”

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative packages cane take even longer to deliver as they represent new buys. Yet Singh said the Pentagon would look to at least get contracts for aid signed and done.

“Those could go for longer, but again, those are commitments and contracts that this administration has signed. So we would expect those to be upheld,” she said.

Watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office and DOD’s own Inspector General have voiced concerns about a lack of oversight for some Ukraine aid, but Singh brushed aside a question as to whether the rush to get the remaining aid committed could hurt oversight.

“We are very confident in the processes and procedures and measures that we’ve put into place when it comes to getting aid to Ukraine,” she said.

Singh did not disclose what kinds of weapons the Pentagon will look to send to Ukraine in the coming months, but air defense and aerial munitions are likely to be a continued focus. In September, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged allies to provide more on that front, saying “the world has enough air defense systems to ensure that Russian terror does not have results, and I urge you to be more active in this war with us for the air defense.”

Not long after, the U.S. announced it was sending Ukraine AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), a medium-range, air-to-ground, precision-guided glide bomb with a range of up to 70-plus miles. Previously, the Pentagon provided JDAM Extended Range guided bombs, Small Diameter Bombs, and HARM anti-radiation missiles.

Whatever aid the Pentagon does deliver before the next administration, future packages for Ukraine remain uncertain. Vice President-elect JD Vance has vocally opposed sending more aid, and a faction of Republicans in the House and Senate oppose it as well, though Singh tried to argue the issue is a bipartisan one.

“Republicans and Democrats have made commitments in votes and in money to Ukraine. So look, there’s an incoming team that that is going to have to work with Congress, and there is support in Congress to continue supporting Ukraine,” she said.

To Boost Tech Innovation, NATO Follows Path Blazed by Air Force

Nov. 7, 2024 | By Shaun Waterman

NATO has taken a page from the Air Force’s innovation playbook, setting up a technology accelerator and a venture fund to nurture and financially support small companies working on cutting edge technology development in critical fields.

“The U.S. has been really doing a lot of very important work … and many of the European countries, the U.K. and others, are really trying to learn from that and do that themselves,” Dame Fiona Murray, vice chair of the board of directors for the NATO Innovation Fund (NIF), said during an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Nov. 7.

In a later email to Air & Spaces Forces Magazine, Murray specifically cited the work done by the U.S. Air Force’s AFVentures team, as well as the National Security Strategic Investment Fund in the UK as the inspiration for NIF’s work.” Established in 2020, AFVentures makes small (under $2 million) initial awards in two stages to companies prototyping new technologies that the Air Force can use.

The NATO fund, launched last year, has 1 billion euros, or just over $1.08 billion, contributed by the governments of 24 of the 32 NATO member states, said Murray, who is also professor of entrepreneurship and associate dean of innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management. The fund, which is structured as a standalone entity without formal links to NATO, will make investments by purchasing equity in early stage startups, just like private sector venture capitalists do, but with a couple of important differences, she explained.

First, the fund was structured to make investments that would mature in about 15 years, as opposed to the 7-10 year timeline commercial VC funds tend to operate on. “That allows us to be, let me call it, impatiently patient,” Murray said, explaining that NIF wants to make sure businesses have time to mature, but they also want to deploy the technologies they were developing “as rapidly as possible.”

Second, the fund trains and helps equip the startups it funds to protect their intellectual property from cyber theft. “We really pay attention to protecting our companies, to making sure that they protect the ideas that they’re developing from adversaries and that they are security minded right at the get go,” she said.

Third, just like the Air Force innovation accelerator AFWERX, NIF offers its companies training, support, and mentorship to help navigate the complex and difficult process of bidding for and winning military contracts. “We support our portfolio companies in … making their way through the labyrinth of different institutional structures and mechanisms that can allow them to be successful,” she said.

That process is especially complicated by the absence of a common framework or even language for technology assessment among the different member states, Murray added. “One of the things that would help us tremendously is if we could develop a better shared language,” she said. Reciprocity between NATO militaries would help speed the best ideas to the widest possible adoption.

“We need a way for saying, ‘OK, we have evidence that something worked,’” and for that to be acceptable in another country; or for a mechanism by which competition winners in one nation could get credit for that in another nation’s acquisition process. “That’s when we begin to really smooth the path for some of the best companies,” she said.

Many of the companies getting NIF investments will have been originally developed and nurtured by the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic, or DIANA, added Barabar McQuiston, chair of the DIANA governing board. Unlike NIF, DIANA is a formal NATO organization, covering all 32 NATO member-states, with hubs in Estonia, the U.K., and Canada. DIANA also works with a network of more than 20 affiliated accelerator sites and around 180 test centers in innovation clusters all over the alliance, she said.

DIANA will gives grants and in-kind assistance to startups in nine technology areas (next-gen communication networks; AI; autonomy; quantum-enabled technologies; biotechnology and human enhancement; energy and propulsion; novel materials and manufacturing; and aerospace), and launched challenges in three of them last year, McQuiston said. Out of 1,300 proposals, 44 were selected for as the first cohort for phase one—winning the companies a six-month stint in a local accelerator to start work turning their ideas into businesses. Ten of those have progressed through a competition to phase two, test and experimentation, she said.

Four of the phase two participants had taken part in a recent NATO exercise in Italy, McQuiston said.

“That’s important, because then we can really see how the technology is doing,” she said. The companies “can engage with the end user and … can really get a good feeling for what’s needed in the security market to meet the demands and the needs [of the warfighter], or even think of whole new solutions and capabilities that could be an advantage for us.”

Five more challenges will be launched this year, and DIANA aims to get 75 companies on contract for the next phase one cohort, McQuiston said, adding that the aim of DIANA and NIF together is to create an ecosystem that can take an idea and develop it through early stage prototyping and development, all the way through military contracting to full-blown commercialization.

What Could the Air Force Look Like Under a New Trump Administration?

Nov. 7, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

What direction the Department of the Air Force will take in the second administration of President Donald Trump remains unclear, but observers expect a shift away from long-term, leap-ahead programs to “here and now” resourcing for readiness and platforms now in production like the F-35 and B-21. They also said a small bump in funding will not heal the Air Force’s long-term resourcing problems.

On the campaign trail, President-elect Trump and his team offered few details about its plans for the Air Force and Space Force. But analysts at several think tanks told Air & Space Forces Magazine they expect Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall’s “Operational Imperatives” blueprint for new hardware and programs meant for long-term conventional deterrence will be all but discarded.

Defense sources also said the Trump transition team is at this early point leaning toward Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) as a possible Defense Secretary. Waltz served in the Army as a Green Beret and chairs the House Armed Services Readiness subcommittee. He has been especially critical of Kendall’s emphasis on long-term programs at the expense of readiness, telling Kendall during a hearing in April that he views that choice as a “strategic failing,” and that the Air Force is opting for “bespoke Ferraris” when it needs “a fleet of pickup trucks.”

Some elements of Kendall’s work may live on, said John Venable, senior resident fellow at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies—he specifically cited Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the loyal wingman drone program, and said he expects the Next-Generation Air Dominance program to go forward in some form.

Another analyst at a Washington think tank said “they may drop the [Operational Imperatives], but if they do, they’ll have to come up with something organized in a somewhat similar way to deal with China.”

Trump has voiced general wariness about the People’s Republic of China but has stopped short of pledging to help Taiwan if it is invaded by the Chinese. Officially, the U.S. has since the 1970s maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” about whether it will come to Tawain’s aid in the event of an invasion from the mainland.

“If you don’t have Taiwan as the rationale underlying your Indo-Pacific posture, that frees up a lot of resources for other things,” said one longtime strategy analyst. “But that would be a big departure from what [the previous Trump Administration] said when they were in.”

The 2018 National Defense Strategy, prepared during Trump’s previous term by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, called for keeping ahead of Chinese technological advances and continuing to deter Russia. President Joe Biden’s administration continued that theme and pegged China as the U.S. military’s “pacing threat” while Russia was branded an “acute” adversary but less of a long-term concern.

In an October paper about the strategic views of the two presidential candidates, Richard C. Bush and Ryan Hass from the Brookings Institute wrote that “Trump has consistently registered skepticism about the benefits of supporting Taiwan, whereas members of his administration during his first term were forward leaning in support for Taiwan.” They said he typically pursues a “transactional approach” with regard to defense partnerships.

“He regularly seeks sources of leverage for negotiations,” the Brookings analysts wrote. “He focuses on measurable factors such as the trade balance, a partner country’s level of defense spending, or inbound investment” from that country.

Given that the Air Force’s portfolio of new programs is directly aimed at deterring China, any shift in focus away from Taiwan could mean a less robust Air Force research, development, test and evaluation program.

Trump has also indicated that he would not sustain high levels of assistance to Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion and has previously threatened to either abandon NATO or sharply reduce American commitments and forces to the Alliance.

Venable, an Air Force combat veteran who previously worked as an analyst for the Heritage Foundation, said the proportion of the Air Force’s budget devoted to RDT&E is “way out of whack. And if they take $8 billion out of RDT&E, you can do a lot, and probably as much as you possibly could … to revitalize the procurement, the readiness, and the weapon system sustainment accounts required to actually bring a ready force back to bear.”

Various think tank sources said Congress will not back any Trump effort to either disengage from NATO or abandon Taiwan. However, one said Trump would “happily” supply partners like Taiwan with any U.S.-made weapon they want to buy, regardless of what response that would engender from Beijing.

The Trump campaign has officially disavowed “Project 2025,” a blueprint for overhauling government put together by conservative thinkers at Heritage, but much of the document was penned by members of his first administration. The defense section, written by former acting defense secretary Christopher Miller, called for a five percent increase in overall defense spending. It also pushed for a minimum of 60-80 F-35s a year and increasing the rate of B-21 bomber procurement as high as 18 per year. The actual pace of B-21 construction is classified, but is believed to be closer to seven a year, headed toward an inventory of “at least 100” airplanes, according to the Air Force.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin has said, however, that by the time USAF nears 100 B-21s, an improved technological approach may be ready to buy, and he has declined to push for going beyond 100 of the bombers.

Project 2025 also called for completing NGAD development, a more robust electronic warfare capability, and eliminating the “pass through” idiosyncrasy by which the Air Force’s actual budget is made to seem larger than it actually is by including in it Defense-wide special programs through an add-on account the Air Force does not control.

A boost of five percent wouldn’t go very far in fixing the Air Force’s problems, however, said Mackenzie Eaglen, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“Everything the current Air Force leadership is saying” about the threat need for modernization “was completely knowable, foreseeable and avoidable,” and the “modernization crunch…has been a long time coming,” she said.

“Now the ‘terrible 20s’ are here. It hits the Air Force fast and hard, right away … and there’s no way out of it without lots more money; not marginal, not a little bit above inflation either,” she said.

Readiness, she said, “is expensive and perishable. So you pour gobs of money into readiness, and you have nothing to show for it, unless you go to war. It’s important to do it, and it’s a worthy cause, but there’s just not” a lasting effect from sustained high levels of readiness, she said.

Conventional forces have to be modernized at the same time as the strategic forces, putting the Air Force in “a vise grip,” she added.

“We’ve never, as a country, taken risk in both our conventional and nuclear deterrents at the same time, and both are at a nadir,” she said. “That’s why this is a vise grip. It’s not just a problem. It’s a danger. If it’s not addressed, we’re taking risk in both strategic and conventional forces when both need to be modernized.”

Paying for a more robust Air Force will be a challenge, because it’s likely the Trump administration will endorse increases to troop pay. Combined with an overfull modernization to-do list and a desire for more here-and-now readiness, there’s little left to cut, Eaglen said, and munitions will likely wind up being the bill-payer.

“There’s nothing to squeeze but the weapons,” she said.

Many Republican members of Congress besides Waltz have criticized USAF’s emphasis on long-term deterrence at the expense of near-term readiness and have consistently blocked or pushed back on the Biden administration’s desire to retire older “legacy” systems and use the savings to fund new gear. Think-tankers agreed that the Trump administration—likely backed by a Republican Senate and House—will halt the retirements in order to keep more iron on the ramp.

Air Force Promotes Just Over 500 New Chief Master Sergeants

Nov. 7, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Just over 500 senior master sergeants are getting a promotion to chief master sergeant this year, the Air Force Personnel Center announced Nov. 7, as the promotion rate held relatively steady.

Out of 2,275 eligible Airmen, 503 were tapped to move up to E-9, for a selection rate of 22.1 percent.

That’s just a little down from last year, when 506 were selected with a rate of 22.5 percent—which was the highest rate in seven years.

The full list of selectees is available now on AFPC’s website.

Selectees’ average time in grade was 3.16 years, equal to the past two years and up slightly from the previous three years.

Average time in service was 20.86 years, roughly in line with the past several years.

Promotion rates for Air Force senior noncommissioned officers have held steady or climbed in recent years, while mid-grade NCOs saw plunging rates in 2022 and 2023 followed by modest recoveries in 2024. Chief master sergeant was the final enlisted rank to have its promotion stats announced.

Officials say they are trying to rebalance the enlisted force structure after determining they were promoting too many Airmen to senior NCO ranks without the necessary experience, leaving a gap in leadership. Lower promotion rates in the middle tier are meant to give NCOs more time in grade to develop.

The service is also revamping its professional military education enterprise by introducing “Foundations” courses—base-level PME classes for enlisted personnel to attend between established schools such as the Airman Leadership School, the Noncommissioned Officer Academy, and the Senior NCO Academy.

Finally, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force David A. Flosi said in September that he is exploring the idea of consolidating some of the branch’s more than 130 Air Force Specialty Codes, which could impact promotions as officials try to balance the needs of different career fields.

Chief Master Sergeant Promotion Statistics

YEAR	SELECTED	ELIGIBLE	SELECTION RATE
2024	503	2,275	22.1
2023	506	2,249	22.50
2022	514	2,526	20.34
2021	505	2,775	18.19
2020	518	2,763	18.75
2019	530	2,529	20.96
2018	479	2,241	21.37
2017	472	2,142	22.04
2016	531	2,229	23.82
2015	525	2,521	20.83
2014	479	2,525	18.97

Data compiled by Air & Space Forces Magazine

Space Force General: We Need More Guardians in Joint Roles

Nov. 6, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force needs more Guardians in joint roles, and U.S. Space Command needs more non-Guardians in its ranks to make sure the U.S. military is making full use of its space capabilities, a top general said Nov. 6.

As head of Space Forces-Space, USSF’s component within SPACECOM, Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess works at the nexus where space-focused operators meet the needs of the joint force. Speaking with AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, he said the latter has not always fully utilized the former.

“A decade ago, if you had talked to another joint service general officer, they’d say, ‘Yeah, space is important, I need that satellite communications, I need that GPS,’” Schiess said. “I think we’ve turned the corner so that they’re not only saying I need those delivery things, but [also] ‘Oh my goodness, I need you to help me make sure I don’t get targeted by space. The Space Force and Space Command, I need you to make sure that I can get through what I need to do without being attacked.’”

Despite making “headway,” though, Schiess acknowledged that more progress can be made in making sure space is fully integrated into the joint fight.

One part of that is putting Space Force personnel in so-called “purple” jobs like combatant commands and the Joint Staff. The service has established components within U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, European Command, Africa Command, and Central Command. More are coming in the future, Schiess said, and their leaders can act as subject matter experts to explain space for commanders.

At an even higher level, “we need to get some Guardians on the Joint Staff,” Schiess said. “We have [Maj. Gen. James E. Smith] now; Jim Smith is the deputy director of the J7. We need to continue that. We need to have Space Force-smart people in the joint community, so that when the discussions come up about these things, there’s someone that can really talk about that.”

Schiess’ call for Guardians to get more joint experience echoes what the Air Force went through several years ago under Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein, who emphasized the need for Airmen to get more joint jobs and better articulate the advantages of airpower.

The other side of the coin is making sure other services and combatant commands have personnel with a deep understanding of how space can help them.

“We have to have joint personnel that understand space,” Schiess said.

The general cited Chief Master Sgt. Jacob C. Simmons, the senior enlisted leader of Space Command, as saying that “we have to have space-smart people in other combatant commands and have other joint people in Space Command to make sure that we have those joint connections.”

On that front, Schiess can make an impact as head of the Combined Joint Force Space Component, a position that gives him “authority over all space forces presented by the services to the combatant command.”

In that role, Schiess had to develop a joint space operations plan. In doing so, he said, he consulted with Navy, Army, and Marine Corps leaders, gaining insight into their needs and sharing what SPACECOM can do for them.

“We need to know how they use space: what SATCOM signals do they use on a regular basis? How are they getting their information? What transponders are they on? What commercial are they using? And so, I think it is a joint fight, and we have to be a part of the joint fight,” he said.

Allies and Commercial

Schiess also spoke of upping Space Forces-Space’s work with international and industry partners.

On the commercial side, that includes an expansion of the Commercial Integration Cell, an information-sharing partnership between SPACECOM and industry. Schiess announced five new companies have joined 10 existing ones in the CIC, and two more are coming around the start of 2025.

“We have the connections so that we can provide them with threat information back and forth of ‘Hey, at the top secret level, here’s what’s going on,’” Schiess said. “They can also provide us information.”

On the allied side, SPACECOM is expanding its partnerships through Operation Olympic Defender, a yearslong multinational effort to operate together in space. Within the past two months, New Zealand, France, and Germany all joined Olympic Defender.

“We have connections with the Canadian [Space Operations Center], the UK SpOC, and the Australia SpOC,” Schiess said. “We’re working our connections with France and Germany now. And then we’ve actually added we’re working our connections with NATO, because they have a space center as well.”

F-35s Deploy to Kadena, with No Set Timeline for F-15EX Arrival

Nov. 6, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

F-35 fighters from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, have deployed to Kadena Air Base, Japan, giving the strategically located base more fifth-generation airpower.

A spokesperson for Kadena’s 18th Wing confirmed the deployment to Air & Space Forces Magazine on Nov. 5 but declined to say how many F-35s are at the base or when they arrived, citing operational security concerns. Local media reported that the fighters arrived Nov. 1.

The Hill F-35s join F-16s from Shaw Air Force Base, S.C., and F-22s from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, that arrived in October, in addition to an undisclosed number of F-15s still at the base.

The Air Force announced plans in 2022 to rotate out the F-15C/D models that have been stationed at Kadena for years. The Pentagon has set a plan to replace them with new F-15EX fighters, but the 18th Wing spokesperson noted that “the governments of the U.S. and Japan have not yet agreed on a timeline for when the F-15EX is expected to arrive.”

In the interim, the service has kept up a steady rotation of fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, including F-15C/Ds, F-15Es, F-16s, F-22s, and F-35s. Those rotations have typically lasted around six months.

Hill F-35s deployed to Kadena last November and returned home in April. Kadena also hosted F-35s from Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, last spring and summer.

The new jets arrive in the Indo-Pacific at a moment of uncertainty in the region. On Oct. 31, North Korea test launched an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time in months, prompting the U.S. to fly a B-1 bomber with American, Japanese, and South Korean fighters in response. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump’s victory on Nov. 5 may deepen the competition between the U.S. and China.

Kadena is the closest USAF airbase to Taiwan, a potential flashpoint in the U.S.-China competition. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has told his military to be prepared to seize Taiwan by force if necessary by 2027.

While it is unclear when new F-15EXs may arrive at Kadena, the Air Force has ramped up the program in recent months, delivering the first operational jets to Portland Air National Guard Base, Ore., in June, and declaring initial operational capability shortly thereafter. Other Guard units in California and Florida have also been tapped to receive the Eagle II, though the service has offered no timeline for when they will arrive.

U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Gunnar Luna, 34th Fighter Generation Squadron crew chief, refuels an F-35A Lightning IIs at Kadena Air Base, Japan, Nov. 4, 2024. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Amy Kelley

Behind the Scenes of a Minuteman ICBM Launch with Three Test Warheads

Nov. 6, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

VANDENBERG SPACE FORCE BASE, Calif.—The U.S. launched a Minuteman III missile here at 11:01 p.m. Pacific Time on Nov. 5., in an important test of the weapon’s ability to strike its targets with multiple warheads.

The Minuteman III missiles that form a critical leg of the U.S. nuclear triad each carry one nuclear-armed reentry vehicle. But the missile that was tested carried three test warheads.

The ICBM test was controlled by an airborne command post in a test of the U.S. ability to launch its nuclear deterrent from a survivable platform.

“These tests are demonstrative of what Striker Airmen bring to the fight if called by the president,” Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said in a release. “An airborne launch validates the survivability of our ICBMs, which serve as the strategic backstop of our nation’s defense and defense of allies and partners.”

After the launch command was transmitted by a U.S. Navy E-6B Mercury, the Minuteman III blasted out of a silo at the launch facility on the north side of this base on the California coast. Airmen from the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron of Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., were aboard the E-6 along with Navy aircrew.

The three test reentry vehicles—one high-fidelity Joint Test Assembly, which carries non-nuclear explosives, and two telemetry Joint Test Assembly objects—struck the Reagan Test Site near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands roughly 30 minutes later after launch, a flight of about 4,200 miles.

“They make up essentially a mock warhead,” Col. Dustin Harmon, the commander of the 377th Test and Evaluation Group, the nation’s operational ICBM test unit, said in an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. “There’s two different types. One is telemetered, so it’s got a radio transmitter in it, it’s got antennas, gyroscopes, accelerometers—all the things that can sense motion and movement. And we fly those or we can put one in there that’s called a high-fidelity. That is assembled much like an actual weapon would be, except we use surrogate materials, and so we want it to fly similarly to an actual weapon. … It has the explosives in it that a normal warhead would to drive a detonation, but there’s nothing to drive.”

The Nov. 5 launch was a noteworthy test in several respects.

“This one is actually a unique launch,” Harmon said. “We’re flying three warheads, which, up north, the fielded missiles only have one. But we want to verify the ability of the weapon system to fly three because it’s a requirement for the missile to be able to do that … and we’re launching it from the airborne platform.”

The missiles themselves that are flight tested are randomly selected from one of the nation’s three ICBM bases—Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.; F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.; and Minot Air Force Base, N.D. The ICBM launched in this test was brought from Minot Air Force Base.

“We report to U.S. Strategic Command and ultimately to the White House on the reliability of the fleet,” Harmon said. “Launching the missiles from here is data collection.”

Harmon’s test group will analyze the data from the flight and submit a report in about a year. The team at Vandenberg sifts through around 4,000 parameters and several gigabytes of data. Lt. Gen. Michael J. Lutton, the deputy commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said the report will be a comprehensive account of all the missile’s systems.

“You’ll see assessments of all the different stages of the missile, the subsystems of the missiles, so you’re collecting data on all those items, and then you’re collecting data on the payload, the reentry vehicles,” Lutton said. “There’s mission partnership with the folks downrange and our national labs that are helping us with those assessments.”

There are 400 Minuteman III missiles currently in service across Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

“We use an operational missile from up north because we wanted to test the reliability and the accuracy of the weapon system,” Harmon said.

Minuteman III test launches are regularly scheduled events that occur roughly three times per year. They are planned well in advance—the missile for the next test launch scheduled for February recently arrived here—though the Pentagon has delayed tests in the past to manage tensions with Russia over Ukraine and with China over Taiwan.

The U.S. government formally notified Russia in advance of the launch in accordance with a 1988 bilateral agreement. More than 145 countries were also provided with advance notice of the launch under the Hague Code of Conduct (HCOC)—an international understanding on launch notifications.

The U.S. also provided advance notice to China, a DOD spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine. China notified the U.S. of an ICBM launch over the Pacific Ocean in September. There is no formal agreement between Washington and Beijing that requires such notifications, but each side provided them to avoid miscalculations.

“The United States provided this ad-hoc advance notification in the spirit of reciprocity in order to encourage the PRC to subscribe to the HCOC and negotiate a U.S.-PRC bilateral pre-launch notification arrangement,” the spokesperson said, referring to the People’s Republic of China by an acronym.

The Minuteman III launch, which was monitored with specialized sensors, is known as a Glory Trip and the Nov. 5 flight was GT-251. The last time the U.S. launched an ICBM with three reentry vehicles was in 2023. The U.S. also conducted an airborne launch that year.

The Minuteman III missile was the first U.S. ICBM deployed with multiple warheads. But two of the three warheads on the deployed Minuteman III missiles were later removed, turning them into single warhead missiles. That step was completed in June 2014 as the U.S. moved to meet arms control limits agreed with Russia and implement the Pentagon’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.

Concern that the U.S.’s strategic modernization program could suffer additional delays prompted a Congressionally-mandated commission last year to recommend that the Pentagon be prepared to upload additional warheads to its existing arsenal of Minuteman missiles to maintain existing force levels.

Operational since 1970, the aging LGM-30 Minuteman III is set to be replaced by the LGM-35A Sentinel, which has faced major budget overruns.

“For example, if Sentinel experiences a delay while a fraction of the Minuteman III force ages out, warheads from the agedout Minuteman III could be uploaded onto the remaining Minuteman III to keep the number of fielded, land-based warheads constant,” stated the 12-member panel, which was made up of former officials and experts chosen by Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders.

Nuclear force buildups by Russia and China could also lead the U.S. to consider uploading its deployed land and sea-based missiles. The U.S. currently has 400 operational Minuteman III missiles under the New Start Treaty with Russia, which expires in February 2026. The Minuteman III is designed to last into the 2030s.

“We’ve deferred modernization for, depending on when you count, almost three decades,” Lutton said. “I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure that the resources that we are given deliver national security for the nation. That’s where we’re at. … Making sure every requirement is nailed down, and every requirement fits the needs of the mission going forward to deter any potential adversaries that are out there and defend the nation.”

New Space Force ‘Mission Deltas’ Handle Missile Warning, Domain Awareness

Nov. 5, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force has officially expanded its concept for combining operations, sustainment, cyber, and intelligence functions all under one roof, dropping the “provisional” tag from units that kicked off the idea last year and transitioning two more Deltas and missions to the structure.

Originally the service called the new units Integrated Mission Deltas, but as part of the transition it has shortened that to Mission Deltas.

In ceremonies at Colorado Springs, Colo., on Oct. 30 and 31, Space Delta 2 and Space Delta 4—responsible for space domain awareness and missile warning and tracking, respectively—became Mission Delta 2 and Mission Delta 4.

A few weeks earlier, the Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Provisional Delta that stood up in October 2023 became Mission Delta 31. Meanwhile Space Delta 3, responsible for electromagnetic warfare, became Mission Delta 3 after a year spent “prototyping” the new arrangement.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman first unveiled the idea for integrated mission deltas in September 2023, saying it would deliver maintenance and software upgrades to important systems much faster than before by integrating program managers and engineers with operators under Space Operations Command.

At the same time, officials insisted the arrangement would not touch acquisition, whose authorities reside under Space Systems Command.

Leaders have also noted the arrangement better aligns cyber and intelligence units and personnel according to the mission area they support, giving them better insight into their needs and capabilities.

In a statement, Col. Marc Brock, Space Operations Command lead for integrated Mission Delta modernization, said “this unity of command for readiness allows a single organization to generate, maintain, and enhance ready forces for an assigned mission area.”

EW and PNT were chosen as the first two mission areas to test the arrangement, and by February 2024, the new units were already getting rave reviews and leaders were talking about expanding the arrangement to other missions.

In April, Space Systems Command boss Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant confirmed that space domain awareness and missile tracking were in line to become the next two Mission Deltas.

In July, Space Operations Command head Lt. Gen. David N. Miller Jr. said not all his command’s deltas would become Mission Deltas, but those that needed to would transition within the next 12 months. Space Delta 6 and Space Delta 7 handle cyber and intelligence, respectively, and are unlikely to transition.

That leaves just two of SpOC’s eight deltas left: Space Delta 8, which is responsible for satellite communications, and Space Delta 9, which handles orbital warfare.

Kirtland Installs New Sensors to Stop Wildfires Before They Spread

Nov. 5, 2024 | By David Roza

As wildfires threaten Air Force bases across the country, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., is trying out a new system of sensors to detect wildfires and alert first responders before they grow too big to control. Air Force spokesperson Laurel Falls told Air & Space Forces Magazine that Kirtland is the only Air Force installation currently using the technology.

Other wildfire detection systems rely on cameras, satellites, and drones, the base explained in an Oct. 23 press release. But the N5 wildfire sensor “sniffs” the air for a range of fire signs such as particulate matter, temperature changes, and gases including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, according to the Department of Homeland Security, which worked with the Canadian government to deploy about 200 sensors across the U.S. and Canada this year.

Powered by batteries charged by solar panels, the N5 sensors sends their measurements to a data cloud every 18 seconds via a mix of cellular and radio communication. Artificial intelligence and machine learning uses that data to create a baseline for local conditions, then alerts first responders when it detects levels indicating a possible wildfire. The new sensors are about 1,000 times more sensitive than a home smoke alarm, DHS wrote, which means the AI helps avoid false alarms.

“The addition of rapid, geographically targeted alerts, warnings, and notifications could prove the difference between a localized fire response and a large-scale tragedy,” DHS explained.

wildfire sensor — A N5 Wildfire Sensor is mounted onto a pole on Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., Oct. 23. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Ruben Garibay)

During testing in northern California in 2021, sensors produced by N5 and other companies detected prescribed burns up to five miles away. A previous wave of sensors deployed in the U.S. and Canada in 2023 detected “a flare-up from accumulated brush pile, an unauthorized bonfire near a utility pole in Colorado, and lightning tree strikes in California and Canada,” according to DHS.

At Kirtland, the 377th Air Base Wing installed 14 sensors covering more than 1,000 acres. That’s a small slice of the base’s 52,000 acres, but any early detection can help in central New Mexico, which in 2022 was scorched by the Calf Canyon/Hermit’s Peak Fire, the largest and most destructive wildfire in the state’s history and the largest wildfire of the year in the contiguous U.S.

“We are at high risk for wildland fire, with our sagebrush being so close together, the fire can travel faster,” Mark Bean, 377th Air Base Wing Plans and Programs range operations officer, said in the Kirtland press release. “It’s important we have devices like these to give our responders that extra time to come and put out those fires before they become uncontrollable.”

Col. Michael Power, 377th Air Base Wing and Installation Commander at Kirtland AFB, speaks at the dedication opening of USDA Forest Service Cibola National Forest & National Grasslands Air Tanker Base on Kirtland Air Force Base N.M. (U.S. Air force photo by Allen Winston)

The new sensors come about six months after a newly upgraded air tanker base for wildfire fighting became operational at Kirtland. The Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands Air Tanker Base allows larger tankers carrying fire retardant to land and fill up at Kirtland, which helps boost firefighting capability across much of the western U.S.

“The combination of cutting-edge detection and a strategically placed ATB on Kirtland dramatically improves the speed and accuracy of wildfire responses, reducing the potential for devastating wildfires to spread,” Kirtland wrote in its Oct. 23 press release.

Kirtland is not the only Air Force base dealing with wildfires: a 2016 conflagration delayed a satellite launch and threatened launch pads at what is now Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif. Just in 2024, bases from California to New Jersey battled nearby blazes, which can threaten the local infrastructure that bases depend on.

“Even if wildfires do not directly affect areas on a base, they can affect critical infrastructure—such as electric power—on which [Air Force] missions rely,” the RAND Corporation wrote in a 2021 report.

The Air Force Wildland Fire Branch was formed in 2012 in response to rising wildfire threats to Air Force missions. The team installs fire breaks, manages grasses, timber, and other fire fuels, and performs prescribed burns, service spokesperson Laurel Falls explained.

At Kirtland, the base’s fire chief, Jaime Jimenez, said the new sensors can help Airmen and their neighbors in Albuquerque.

“Early detection means our firefighters and other supporting mission partners can come out here quicker to extinguish the fire,” he said.