‘Interchangeable Almost:’ NATO Air Deputy Pushes Even Deeper Integration

April 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

NATO Allied Air Command is making moves now for its member nations’ air forces to be able to service each others’ fighters, fly them with each others’ weapons, and integrate more closely than they have in decades, a top official said April 24—ahead of an influx of F-35s and a coming wave of sixth-generation fighters.

Interoperability has long been a cornerstone of NATO. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has charged the effort with a new urgency unseen since the end of the Cold War, NATO Allied Air Command’s Deputy boss, RAF Air Marshal Johnny Stringer, said at an event hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Royal Air Force’s Air Marshal Johnny Stringer, Deputy Commander, NATO Allied Air Command on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, at the Air & Space Forces Association headquarters in Arlington, VA., April 24, 2024. **Photo by Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine**

The F-35 is perhaps the most obvious example, with the U.S. and a dozen European NATO countries having either purchased the fifth-generation fighter or planning to do so.

United Kingdom

Belgium

Netherlands

Italy

Denmark

Norway

Sweden

Poland

Germany (planned)

Czech Republic (planned)

Greece (planned)

Romania (planned)

“If you look at the number of nations who are operating or are buying F-35, that’s over 700 fifth-gen platforms in the European theater in 10 years time,” Stringer said. “Of interest, only 50 or so of them will be U.S.”

Defense and industry officials have previously suggested more than 500 of those fighters could be in place by 2030. The ever-growing number of the same kind of aircraft is likely to ease interoperability, but Stringer noted that the F-35 alone won’t define NATO’s efforts.

“You’ve got a load of capable fourth-gen platforms out there as well. Integrating fifth- and fourth-gen, maximizing what both bring to the fight is really, really important as well,” he said.

On top of that are the various sixth-generation fighter programs different member nations are pursuing. The U.S. Air Force is working on its Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter; Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom are collaborating on the Global Combat Air Programme; and France, Germany, and Spain are pursuing a Future Combat Air System program. Sweden is still exploring whether it might pursue a program of its own.

All the different efforts are the natural result of countries wanting to bolster their own technological and industrial bases, Stringer said. But with the “changed context” of Russia’s invasion, NATO and its members have to consider how to make sure these future fighters can work together.

“I think at some point, will there be coalescence in fighter programs? Well, there might be,” Stringer said. “ … I think one of the things which I would really strive for is, no matter what, make sure that the programs that are there are interoperable, interchangeable almost, with each other from the outset, and make sure that the weapons we are buying are applicable and employable across the force. This, by the way, poses some really interesting challenges, where proprietary software and the old school way of doing stuff makes weapons integration incredibly expensive. We have to break that paradigm.”

Beyond just buying similar aircraft and munitions, though, Stringer emphasized that NATO Allied Air Command wants to get members more comfortable working with each other’s equipment.

“One of the things NATO was really good at and then kind of fell away with that long shadow of 30 years was STANAGs, standardization agreements, that allowed you to go and put your Jaguar [fighter] into a base in Denmark where Danish technicians would turn the jet for you,” Stringer said. “And you’d then sign them off as being competent at aircraft cross-servicing. All understood, all documented. We’re reinvigorating that. There’s a lot of STANAGs still there, so let’s go back and test them and update them where necessary. Let’s make sure that our digital STANAGs are also fit.”

Cross-nation aircraft servicing in particular is an area where “we have just about every NATO air force signed up for this now,” Stringer added. “And we’re actually going, I think, quite nicely through the gears of getting nations signed off to go and service other people’s jets as we did before.”

Maintainers won’t be the only ones getting a taste. Stringer later said that NATO has conducted studies that point to the importance of training aircrews with weapons that might not even be in that nation’s inventory.

“That sense of training people and giving them the experience and the capability to employ more broadly is going to be really important,” he said.

Command and control, or ensuring different nations can come together to fight when needed, is also an emphasis.

“A lot of it is actually making sure that the digital structures you’ve got allow you to bring the different forces together,” Stringer said. “If I’m being really blunt, it’s an area actually where we know we need to be better than we are at the moment. But equally, there is a ton of technology now that we can get off-the-shelf and apply to this problem.”

Want to Be a Warrant Officer? Air Force Opens Up Applications Until May 31

April 25, 2024 | By David Roza

Airmen can apply to become warrant officers in cybersecurity or information technology starting today, April 25, through May 31, the Air Force announced. From June 24-28, a selection board will pick up to 60 candidates for the eight-week Warrant Officer Training School (WOTS) at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. Selectees will be notified in late July, with an initial class scheduled to start in the fall of 2024 and a second class in early 2025.

The graduates will be the first batch of new Air Force warrant officers since 1958, when the service dissolved those ranks in favor of creating senior master sergeants and chief master sergeants. The Air Force and Space Force are the only military services currently without warrant officers, who fill technical rather than leadership functions in the other military branches. Now the Air Force wants to bring them back to maintain expertise in fast-moving technical fields such as IT and cybersecurity.

“With perishable skills, like cyber, like IT, where the technology is moving so rapidly, folks who are experts in that can’t afford to be sent off to a leadership course for eight or nine months,” Alex Wagner, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs, said April 9.

Time spent in mandatory leadership roles can also hurt retention; Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in February that about 100 Airmen joined other branches in recent years so that they could become warrant officers in IT and cyber. Airmen have been enthusiastic about the new program since it was announced in February.

“Everything we’ve discussed about warrant officers in our shop so far has been positive,” one anonymous cyber Airman told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The April 25 announcement laid out new details for what kinds of candidates could apply. The program is open to members of the Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve, but candidates must hold the rank of at least staff sergeant and have one year of active federal service. While Airmen from any specialty code can apply, they “must meet specific functional technical experience,” the release noted.

For IT, that includes at least “24 months of documented operational experience with enterprise IT or warfighter communications systems in areas such as voice and data internetworking, local and wide area networks, including terrestrial, satellite, and aerial systems, as well as network planning,” the release said. Applicants must also hold a Defense Department-approved industry certification commensurate with the requirements for the Information Assurance Technical Level II certification or higher.

On the cyber side, candidates “must hold senior level proficiency in one or more U.S. Cyber Command work roles as defined in the Commands Job Qualification System, or National Security Agency equivalent,” the release said. Candidates interested in a cyber capability developer work role must also “be a certified U.S. Cyber Command Senior Cyberspace Capability Developer or a Computer Network Operations Development Program graduate or have three years of experience in system level programming, i.e. C, Assembly.”

An Air Force graphic breaks down requirements for warrant officer candidates. (U.S. Air Force graphic)

Candidates can apply through the personnel management website myFSS, where they must submit evaluations and letters of recommendation. An Air Force official told reporters on background that a key component of the application will be a technical letter, which explains to the board “why is this member a no-kidding technical subject matter expert?”

“This board is going to be highly competitive,” the official said. “These have to be the right 60.”

There are five warrant officer ranks on the Defense Department pay scale, and the exact breakdown of what graduates’ ranks is still under consideration, officials said, but they are all supposed to be authoritative in their field.

“Having personally worked with warrant officers in the past, they’re usually the guys or the gals that we go to for the ‘no kidding’ answer on what’s happening, because they have that level of expertise,” an official said.

Indeed, documents shared on Reddit on April 24 break down the exact roles and responsibilities for the two new Air Force specialty codes: 17W for warfighter communications and IT systems operations; and 17Y, for cyber effects and warfare operations. 17Ws are experts and advisors for planning, deploying, using, and securing communications systems, while 17Ys perform the same role for offensive and defensive cyber operations, assets, and personnel.

Air Force spokesperson Master Sgt. Deana Heitzman confirmed the documents were from the Air Force Officer Classification Directory, which contains the official specialty descriptions for all military classification codes and identifiers.

The rank insignias for the new warrant officers will look similar to those used by their Army counterparts, and the pay will be the same indicated on the Defense Department pay scale. But where the warrant officers are assigned after graduating could vary depending on operational requirements, the Air Force said in its announcement.

Officials said they “definitely” will stand up additional cohorts after this one, but when those cohorts happen and how many warrant officers will be trained is still under consideration. Likewise, the exact breakdown of IT and cyber warrant officers in this upcoming class is also to be determined based on the applications the selection board receives.

No matter how it breaks down, the reintroduction of warrant officers is a major change to the way the Air Force has done business over the past 60 years. Officials told reporters that once the graduates’ assignments are determined, there will be training and webinars with the command teams at those units to make sure leaders know how to work with warrant officers and know their authority and responsibility. Officials are also taking lessons learned from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps’ warrant officer experience.

“I’m excited to see what comes out of it,” an official said. “We’ll have to adapt a lot, I’m sure, but the overall goal, what we need to hit right, is that culture.”

Whether the Air Force might expand warrant officers beyond cyber and IT is yet to be seen, as the service first wants to see how these initial experiments go. But Kendall has expressed interest in expanding the scope.

“I expect ultimately, assuming that we’re successful with these initial steps, that we’ll probably expand it,” he said March 5. “I don’t think it’s going to happen immediately, so you shouldn’t hold your breath about this. But my sense is, my own intuition about this, is that we’re going to want to expand it after we see how effective it is for cyber and IT.”

Anduril and General Atomics to Develop New Collaborative Combat Aircraft for Air Force

April 24, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak, Unshin Lee Harpley and Chris Gordon

The Air Force has picked Anduril and General Atomics to continue developing their autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft concepts over designs offered by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, the service announced on April 24. In a non-traditional move, the companies that were not picked will still be able to compete to produce the resulting aircraft.

“The Department of the Air Force made the decision to continue funding Anduril and General Atomics for detailed designs, manufacture, and testing of production-representative test articles under the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program,” the service said in a press release.

“The companies not selected to build these production-representative CCA vehicles … will continue to be part of the broader industry partner vendor pool consisting of more than 20 companies to compete for future efforts, including future production contracts,” the service said.

Since before the CCA program officially started, Air Force officials have discussed the possibility of separating design and production in order to attract companies that could design advanced aircraft but perhaps not manufacture them.

An Air Force spokesperson said the non-selected entrants can compete for production, but must do so “at their own expense.”

Anduril is a recent entry in the uncrewed aircraft field, founded in 2017. The Silicon Valley startup purchased Blue Force Technologies and its “Fury” stealthy aggressor drone program in the fall of 2023. Conversely, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is an industry veteran, having built the MQ-1 Predator and then the MQ-9 Reaper remotely-piloted hunter-killer drones for the Air Force since the 1990s. It has promoted its “Gambit” concept for CCAs, which features five platforms optimized for various missions and built around a common core comprised of an engine, keel, and landing gear.

The selections are for “Increment 1” of the CCA program, and a winner will be chosen in 2026. The Air Force also plans an “Increment 2,” which will get underway next year, but specifics of those platforms have not been publicly defined.

Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall has said the service plans to build at least 1,000 and as many as 2,000 CCAs through the mid-2030s, at a cost of about $30 million per copy. The concept is for CCAs to give the Air Force “affordable mass” to deal with a growing and highly capable threat posed by China, given that the Air Force can’t build enough aircraft or train enough pilots to overwhelm a peer adversary with manned platforms alone.

Though future iterations of the CCA could perform missions such as electronic warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and dogfighting, their initial role will be to carry additional munitions for F-35s, F-22s, and the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, which will succeed the F-22. To be stealthy, those aircraft must carry weapons internally, which limits their combat load.

Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore, Jr., deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, said in an AFA Warfighters in Action event earlier this month that the “role we’re going to focus on first is the ability to augment the shooters and to add additional rails to the formations that we send forward.” The need is to “increase the number of weapons in a formation.” Those other roles are “not our focus” for Increment 1, he said.

While initial plans called for Increment 2 to be a more complex, very stealthy aircraft, wargames over the last year—some of which were run by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies—found that a high-end CCA was not as useful in a Pacific campaign as a greater number of less-sophisticated autonomous drones.

Commenting on the selection, Kendall said the CCA started “just over two years ago” as part of his “Operational Imperatives” slate of new technologies the Department of the Air Force needs to compete with China. He praised the speed of the program and the quality of the entries.

“The progress we’ve made is a testament to the invaluable collaboration with industry, whose investment alongside the Air Force has propelled this initiative forward. It’s truly encouraging to witness the rapid execution of this program,” Kendall said.

The Air Force “executed an acquisition and funding strategy for CCA with early operator, technologist, acquirer, and industry teaming to quickly iterate requirements given our fielding timelines,” he added. “Continuous competition is a cornerstone at every stage of this program. The transparency and teamwork between industry and government really accelerated how quickly we could mature the CCA program.”

Andrew Hunter, Air Force acquisition executive, said continued collaboration “with both current and potential industry partners remains pivotal. Their expertise, innovation, and resources are instrumental in driving this initiative forward, ensuring its success and impact on future operations.”

Kendall said at the AFA Warfare Symposium in February that he hoped to carry three competitors into the next stage of the CCA program, but that budget constraints would make that challenging.

The choice of only two indicates that the service couldn’t afford a broader competition or the industry balked at more cost-sharing in the program. Lockheed Martin chief executive officer Jim Taiclet said on the company’s first-quarter earnings call on April 23 that the government must be prepared to pay a “risk premium” on contracts where new technology is being invented—such as CCAs—as many companies have taken heavy losses bidding aggressively on fixed-price development projects.

The exercise of the Air Force’s option “does not exclude any of the vendors from competing for the future Increment 1 production contract,” the USAF said.

Moreover, the Department of the Air Force is “exploring international partnerships, to include potential Foreign Military Sales, as part of the CCA program. These partnerships will help provide further affordable mass at scale while driving horizontal integration and interoperability across our international partnerships,” the release stated. “All current and potential future industry partners from the CCA vendor pool will compete for this follow-on effort.”

The CCA is budgeted as part of the NGAD program; one element of the “family of systems” that make up the NGAD concept. The Air Force asked for $577.1 million for the CCA in its fiscal 2025 budget request and plans to spend $8.9 billion on it across the future-years defense plan that runs through FY29.

Brian Schimpf, Anduril’s chief executive officer and co-founder, said in a release that the company was “honored to be selected for this unprecedented opportunity, which signals a demand for continued expansion of the defense industrial base.

“Anduril is proud to pave the way for other non-traditional defense companies to compete and deliver on large-scale programs,” Schimpf said. The company plans to work to put CCAs into the hands of Airmen “as quickly as possible,” he added.

General Atomics noted that the selection follows a successful preliminary design review of its offering earlier this year.

The CCA program “aims to be a force multiplier, developing a low-cost, modular, unmanned aircraft equipped with advanced sensors or weapons and operating in collaborative teams with the next generation of manned combat aircraft,” the company said.

It also noted that its XQ-67A Off-Board Sensing Station, built for the Air Force Research Laboratory to explore autonomous drones as communications nodes, has recently completed two test flights. GA-ASI called the aircraft a “CCA prototype.”

“The CCA program redefines the future of aviation and will shape the USAF acquisition model to deliver affordable combat mass to the warfighter at the speed of relevancy,” said Mike Atwood, vice president of advanced programs for GA-ASI.

The company also said it will continue to test CCA technologies on its stealthy MQ-20 Avenger uncrewed aircraft “to accelerate the readiness of operational autonomy.”

Slife: Air Superiority, Base Defense Must Adapt to Modern War

April 24, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Small one-way attack drones widely used on the frontlines of Ukraine and against U.S. outposts in the Middle East have fundamentally altered the definition of air superiority, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife said April 24.

“Our traditional conception of what things like air superiority means have changed,” Slife said at a panel discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“One thing that you can look at in Ukraine is the return of firepower—the reason that it has become so bloody is because of the lack of ability to maneuver,” he said. “One component of that is the inability of both sides to achieve air superiority in the face of a proliferated air threat and formidable air defenses. I think there’s some lessons that we can be learning.”

Slife cited the defense of Israel against Iranian drone attacks earlier this month as an example of an effective layered air defense, where the U.S. and its partners intercepted missiles and drones launched from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. On April 13, U.S. Air Force F-15E and F-16 fighters shot down more than 70 drones during the attack, which involved over 100 ballistic missiles, 30 land-attack cruise missiles, and 150 drones. U.S. and Israeli officials claimed to intercept “99 percent” of the drones and missiles, with Israel taking out the majority of the threats, in part by intercepting ballistic missiles in space.

“Our coalition forces had a pretty successful weekend a couple of weekends ago against a really concerted Iranian attack on Israel,” said Slife. “Some of what was shot down was shot down with bullets. It was 20-millimeter shells coming out of the front end of a fighter. That’s a pretty favorable cost exchange right there.”

However, Slife cautioned against relying on individual platforms. U.S. fighters were already staged and ready for the attack, and Israel has an extensive network of detection methods and interceptors.

Slife noted that historically, each service focused on the set of requirements for each platform. In the case of the Air Force, that would entail things such as an aircraft’s speed or a missile’s range.

“We’re really, really good at it,” said Slife. But the U.S. must shift from a platform-centric approach to better integration among different systems to respond to a myriad of threats.

“There’s a shift underway to system-level integration where the sensor is in a different place than the shooter, [which] is in a different place from the electromagnetic spectrum effects that we’re going to generate,” said Slife. “All of these things have to be integrated at a system-level and it becomes a much less service by service, platform by platform approach to how we’re going to fight.”

This is crucial for future warfare, Slife said. In recent years, tensions in the Pacific have escalated due to China’s stance on unifying Taiwan with Beijing, which also protests American and allied operations in the South China Sea.

For regional defense, such as protecting Guam, Slife said the U.S. military’s ability to fight as one force, rather than as individual branches, is an advantage over its adversaries. He said the Army and the Air Force are working particularly closely on how to defend air bases from air attack.

“We’re not trying to build the best services on the planet, we’re trying to build the best joint force on the planet because we don’t fight as services we fight as a joint force,” he said.

Boeing Takes $222 Million Loss on T-7, KC-46

April 24, 2024 | By David Roza

Boeing lost $222 million on two key Air Force programs in the first quarter of fiscal 2024: $128 million on the KC-46 aerial refueling tanker and $94 million on the T-7A Red Hawk trainer, where the total losses already exceed more than $7 billion and $1 billion, respectively.

Despite the hits, Boeing’s Defense Space & Security (BDS) sector reported a 6 percent bump in revenue from about $6.5 billion in the first quarter of 2023 to nearly $7 billion in the first quarter of 2024, thanks in part to orders for P-8 maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force and German Navy, a final contract for 17 F/A-18 fighter jets for the U.S. Navy, and a cost-type contract modification from the Navy for two more test examples of the MQ-25 aerial refueling drone.

“Our game plan to get BDS back to high single-digit margins by the 2025, 2026 time frame remains intact,” Boeing Chief Financial Officer Brian West said April 24 during the company’s 2024 first quarter earnings call, echoing a statement he made at the last quarter’s earning call.

“Overall, the defense portfolio is well-positioned,” he added. “As seen in the initial FY25 presidential budget, there’s strong demand across the customer base. The products are performing in the field, and we’re confident that our efforts to drive stability will return this business to performance levels that our investors recognize.”

Much of the losses in those programs trace back to Boeing’s zeal to win defense competitions in the last decade, which made it “accept too much risk” on fixed-price programs, Chief Executive Officer David Calhoun has previously said. But West said progress is being made.

“Despite the relatively modest updates in the quarter, we continue to retire risks and remain focused on maturing these programs quarter in and quarter out,” he said. A Lot award for the KC-46 expected later in the year should also help with cash flow.

Retiring risk is the name of the game: West looked forward to delivering two VC-25Bs, better known as “Air Force One.” That program has cost Boeing more than $1.3 billion, and delivery will not take place until at least 2027.

“We’re retiring risk every day, particularly on a program like VC-25B,” West said. “We will deliver two airplanes, and then that will be over as a program.”

The executive expected more de-risking as the T-7 moves through flight testing and the KC-46 program receives more orders later this year.

Meanwhile, Boeing is still hammering out the specifics for possibly acquiring Spirit AeroSystems, the aerospace subcontractor being investigated after a Jan. 5 accident involving a door plug the company installed on an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 fuselage blew out mid-flight. Spirit was already fighting a shareholder class-action lawsuit, lodged in December, alleging an “excessive” amount of work defects at the company, based on whistleblower reports.

Spirit makes components for a range of military aircraft including the KC-46 tanker, the P-8, and the B-21 Raider stealth bomber. The discussions between Boeing and Spirit are ongoing, West said.

“As with any large and complex deal, there are a number of terms and issues we need to work through, including price, financing and other key items. And the best approach to handling and potentially divesting certain work that Spirit does for other customers,” he added. “We believe in the strategic logic of a deal, but we’ll take the time needed to get this right before we decide to enter into agreement.”

‘More EW Than We Have Ever Seen Before’ in Ukraine, Space Force Official Says

April 24, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The Space Force must invest in high-level training based on the lessons learned from an unprecedented level of electronic warfare (EW) used by both Russia and Ukraine in the conflict there, one of the service’s top EW leaders said on April 24.

“What we have seen in the Ukraine-Russia conflict is more EW than we have ever seen before,” Col. Nicole Petrucci, the commander of the USSF’s combat-ready forces as head of Space Delta 3, said during an AFA Warfighters in Action event. “We’ve actually been studying this very carefully to see what’s going on to see how we can help or not help—and that is unofficially, just because we’re trying to see what was the environment like.”

Ukraine and Russia have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game to jam each other’s systems. Ukraine has tried to use electronic warfare to help its air defenses confront Russian drones and missiles. Russia has interfered with signals in an attempt to disrupt global positioning system satellites that help Ukraine employ guided aerial and artillery munitions, many of which have been provided by the U.S.

The Space Force’s assessment of the Russia-Ukraine conflict may mean “we need to exercise some different tactics, some different techniques to get after what the environment looks like now,” said Petrucci, who commands roughly 600 personnel in Delta 3.

U.S. officials have acknowledged even the high level of electronic warfare in Ukraine could dwarf what the U.S. could face in a conflict with China, which would likely attempt to interfere with the satellites the U.S. military relies on for basic functions such as navigation and timing—perhaps kinetically.

China is “really looking at how has the U.S. military been able to successfully execute combat operations, what are its key enablers, and how do I as an adversary go out and break those key enablers,” a DOD intelligence official told reporters earlier this week. “The PRC has also deployed and continues to develop an expansive electronic warfare suite that is really designed to disrupt our ability to effectively use our C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance]. C4ISR, they’ve identified as being a key node within the U.S. way of war, that, if they are able to disrupt it, we can’t effectively execute operations in their mind.”

“They prioritize this idea of electromagnetic spectrum control,” the intelligence official added of China’s People’s Liberation Army. “Electronic warfare capabilities as well have also been deployed that are designed to target space.”

But the U.S. is not resigned to sitting idly by, Petrucci noted.

“We’re always looking to the future: ‘What does the EW look like?’” she said. “We’ve been doing it in the Space Force for four years now, but through the Air Force for at least the last 20 years in space.”

The issue is a lack of real-world experience, a primary concern of service leaders, including Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman.

“The biggest thing is getting people the right training,” Petrucci said. “You need the right simulators, you need those right ranges to do that, and you need to be able to adequately look like a high-end threat … and it means that you have to have instructors that are good enough and understand the environment.”

The need for better training is not just about spending money on a new kit, however. The service’s new force generation model, SPAFORGEN, is built upon a need to take Guardians off the front line of day-to-day work and allow them time to build up their expertise through a readiness phase devoted to training. Saltzman and other service leaders have said the threat the military imagines in the future is the primary driver of that need. The Space Force has also has Space Delta 11’s space aggressor squadrons, which Petrucci said could provide valuable insights across the service.

While space has been normalized as a warfighting domain, America still has yet to fight a war in space. Unlike the pilots in the Air Force, which has continuously provided airpower for decades, the Space Force has been built around professionals who hope never to have to use all the tools in America’s arsenal in a possible future conflagration.

“Really, what we’re looking for is how can we push this in the future?” Petrucci said. “You’re going have to have a better system. You’re going to have to have better tactics and techniques. And you need to have those operators trained well enough to be able to recognize it and then make changes while they’re in that conflict.”

Classified Lockheed Program to Lose $1 Billion Before Becoming a ‘Franchise’

April 23, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

Lockheed Missiles and Fire Control took a $100 million loss on a classified program in the first quarter of 2024, company officials said April 23. That program will incur another $225 million loss across the rest of the year and over $1 billion in losses cumulatively, they said, but they’re convinced the mysterious program will be a “franchise” for all the military services and be highly profitable starting in 2028.

“We did have the $100 million dollar loss provision” in MFC for the classified program in the first quarter, Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Jay Malave said on the company’s April 23 first quarter results call. “There’s in the range of another $225 million in the back half of the year…Depending on other factors as the year goes on.” Those factors include a “technical milestone achievement.”

He said that Lockheed is prepared for losses in “excess of a billion dollars” but added that the timing of that “is still to be determined.”

Jim Taiclet, Lockheed Martin’s president and chief executive officer, said the classified program “will have very, very, long legs. There’s going to be many, many years, we believe, of orders to follow. … But I think if you look [at] the curve for the life cycle, it’s going to be significantly positive. And so we want to get there as efficiently as we can.

“This is a long-run franchise program that I think the U.S. government is going to support for a very long time,” Taiclet asserted.

Taiclet said “it’d be about 2028” when the program “flips positive” for cashflow.

The program in question isn’t likely to be the same one referenced in mid-2021, when Taiclet also announced a $225 million charge against a classified program. That project was characterized as a Lockheed Aeronautics project, while the April 23 announcement was associated with the Missiles and Fire Control sector. In the 2021 statement, though, Taiclet used similar phrasing, saying that project “will be a good program for Lockheed Martin” in the long run.

Taiclet also reiterated that Lockheed is taking a harder look at how it bids programs, is avoiding being too aggressive, and thinks government needs to acknowledge that companies aren’t going to do loss-leaders anymore.

The “highest risk” in contracting is “fixed price production on something that’s not been designed yet,” he said.

South Korea’s F-4 Phantoms Fire AGM-142 Popeye Missiles One Last Time Before Retirement

April 23, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

South Korea conducted the final live-fire drill with its F-4 Phantoms amid the largest U.S.-ROK air exercise of the year.

The Republic of Korea Air Force’s F-4 Phantoms fired the precision-guided AGM-142 Popeye air-to-surface missiles on a range near the Yellow Sea on April 18, according to a service release.

These last training sessions marked the nation’s farewell to its remaining Phantoms before the fleet is phased-out on June 8, as well as a goodbye to its AGM-142 Popeyes, as the F-4 jets were the country’s sole aircraft capable of carrying the missiles.

ROK Air Force F-4 Phantom fighters equipped with AGM-142 missiles conducted their last live-fire exercise on April 18, 2024, near the Yellow Sea. Courtesy photo/ROK Air Force

The F-4 Phantom took its inaugural flight in 1958. The highly versatile jet concurrently served as the front-line tactical aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps from the Vietnam War to the Gulf War of the 1990s. Nearly four decades after its inception, the fleet was retired in 1996 from the U.S. Air Force—the last American branch to operate the jets.

Following the U.K. and Iran—which was a major buyer of U.S. weapons before the pro-American Shah was overthrown in 1979—South Korea became the third country to acquire the Phantoms in 1969. Among its variants, the F-4D was hailed as one of the world’s most powerful fighters at the time, far ahead of North Korean fighter jets. Until the introduction of the KF-16—the license-built South Korean version of the F-16—in 1994, the nation employed the Phantom as its primary fighter jet.

South Korea has operated approximately 220 Phantoms and their variants to date, including upgraded versions such as the F-4E and the reconnaissance aircraft RF-4C. Currently, there are only about 10 operational F-4s, all due to be retired in the coming months.

ROK Air Force F-4 Phantom fighters equipped with AGM-142 missiles conducted their last live-fire exercise on April 18 near the Yellow Sea. Courtesy photo/ROK Air Force

The AGM-142 “Popeye” missiles fired by the F-4 jets in simulated attacks last week were originally developed in the early 1980s by the defense technology firm Rafael. Later, they were redesignated as the AGM-142, known as “Have Nap” in the U.S. In 1987, the U.S. assessed the munition for equipping its B-52G/H bombers with a standoff precision strike capability, initiating procurement in 1989.

The U.S. initially imported the missiles from Israel but later began co-production of the AGM-142B-F commencing several derivatives of the Popeye, buying 294 AGM-142 missiles before their withdrawal from service in 2003.

Between 1997 and 1999, South Korea ordered over 216 of these air-to-surface missiles and their variants, including Popeye 1 and AGM-142C/D, from the U.S., with the country’s Air Force integrating the missiles in 2002. The missile is capable of striking targets over 60 miles away and can deliver a payload of 770 pounds. ROK Air Force explained that its range was crucial as it was the only missile capable of precisely targeting Pyongyang for years. The closest air base in South Korea from North Korea’s capital is Osan Air Base, located about 50 miles away.

The farewell ceremonies took place amid the largest annual U.S.-ROK Air Exercise of the year, KFT (Korea Flying Training) exercise, which aims to improve interoperability between the allies. This year’s edition saw more than 25 different types of aircraft totaling 100 from both nations.

U.S. fighters, tankers, reconnaissance and transport aircraft, including F-16s, F-35Bs, A-10s, E-3s, U-2s, MQ-9s, KC-135s, C-17s, C-130J and the Army’s MQ-1C drone, arrived from locations both on and off the Korean Peninsula for the exercise. The ROK contingent included F-35As, F-15Ks, F-16s, FA-50s, C-130s, CN-235s, and KC-330s.

“KFT is a critical training event due to the sheer size of the exercise, the amount of aircraft and people involved from across the joint and allied forces, and the complexity of the training,” Col. Charles G. Cameron, the 7th Air Force’s director of operations and plans said in a release. Cameron highlighted that the exercise provides “the most realistic opportunity” for the joint forces to rehearse tactics through challenging scenarios while bolstering defensive posture in the region.

The U.S. and South Korea are “ready to respond to any threat or adversary,” said Col. Matthew C. Gaetke, the commander of 8th Fighter Wing commander at Kunsan Air Base.

F-35 Tech Upgrade Slips to 2025; ‘Truncated’ Version in the Fall

April 23, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

Deliveries of full-up Tech Refresh Three-equipped F-35s, previously expected in the middle of this year, now won’t come until 2025, Lockheed Martin officials reported on their April 23 first-quarter earnings call. In the meantime, they hope to deliver a so-called “truncated” version of the hardware/software package this fall.

Chief Executive Officer Jim Taiclet said there will be two releases of TR-3: a “combat training-capable” version that should be delivered in the third quarter of this and a “fully combat-capable” version in 2025. Lockheed has been storing newly-built F-35s with the TR-3 pending completion of testing and integration. Some 70 aircraft are in storage at an undisclosed location, awaiting a green light for delivery.

The Joint Program Office has said for several months that it has been discussing release of a “truncated” TR-3 package in order to get deliveries moving again and prevent further disruption to the units in a number of countries that have been waiting for their F-35s.

The delays are due to supply chain issues with TR-3 components as well as ongoing testing of the configuration, which comprises a processor and software package, along with other new gear that underwrites the F-35 Block 4 upgrade of the international fighter.

“We are wringing out all of the software through all of the new hardware and integrating it into all the aircraft,” which has “taken longer than our team predicted,” Taiclet said.

Meanwhile, the F-35 program office says the Block 4 program will be “reimagined,” with many of the planned capabilities now deferred to the 2030s.

As a result of the testing and supply delays, Taiclet said only 75 to 110 F-35s will be delivered in calendar 2024, versus a goal of 156. He noted that even a more modest schedule assumes “timely receipt” of components.

Taiclet said the F-35 program is highly concurrent, with “development, production, and sustainment” all happening simultaneously, which can lead to bottlenecks.

“We are bringing all relevant resources across our company and collaborating closely with our customers and suppliers to fully implement the TR-3 capabilities that everybody’s looking forward to getting,” he said.

System stability is improving from prior software versions into “the combat training capable configuration” and flight testing of this configuration is now underway, he said. Lockheed was “maturing the system with approximately 95 percent of TR-3 capabilities in this flight test program,” Taiclet added, with “continual software updates to support capability insertions over the Block 4 program and beyond.”

The truncated capability means Lockheed Martin “can get these jets in the hands of squadron, wing and regional commanders so that they can start training their pilots on them and training their maintenance organizations, and also get their base infrastructure, spare parts, tools, everything else.” The final software load for this release will be available “sometime in the next few months.” However, he insisted those jets “could be deployed into actual combat operations” if necessary.

The JPO said Release 1 is called 40P01 and will go out “when the code is stable, capable, and maintainable to deliver TR-3 configured aircraft for use in combat training,” but only with Release 2—40P02—will full combat capability be realized.

The F-35 partners and other “stakeholders” have approved TR-3 truncation acceptance criteria,” the JPO said.

When TR-3 is fully delivered, users will already be well-versed in “the operational patterns and procedures on how to actually fly the jet in combat,” Taiclet said.

He noted that, despite the TR-3 delays, the F-35 remains a good seller. The Czech Republic recently became the 18th country to buy the jet, and the U.S. agreed to sell additional jets to Singapore.

The Lockheed estimates jibe with that of F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt, who told the House Armed Services Committee tactical air panel on April 16 that the whole Block 4 program must be “re-imagined” due to supply and testing delays and shifting requirements.

In a 25-page prepared testimony for the hearing, which closed shortly after it began, Schmidt said that a “Technical Baseline Review” of the F-35 “assessed that numerous Block 4 capabilities will not deliver until the 2030s due to technical complexity, software efficiency, human and financial resourcing, flight test capacity, lab quality and capacity, and a lack of defined requirements.”

The Government Accountability Office has urged on several occasions that Congress separate Block 4 from the overall F-35 program and make it a Major Acquisition Program in its own right; due to its cost and complexity, and the better to highlight troubles. Schmidt said the JPO plans to create that “subprogram” next year.

Schmidt acknowledged to the House panel that “TR-3 has taken far too long to deliver.”

He explained that the TR-3 hardware design is not yet fully mature, and this is a “significant complicating factor in software integration.” The result is “low manufacturing yields of parts necessary for aircraft production.” That in turn has led to “using software to overcome hardware design maturity challenges.” An independent review of the software architecture found “we have a solid software architecture, but until the underlying hardware is fully mature, the F-35 program will continue to struggle with software integration efficiency.”

Taiclet said there’s a silver lining to the situation and that the company is adapting to imposed program changes, so there will be incremental “step function increases in capability every few years.” He noted the DOD recently extended the expected service life of the aircraft

Lockheed chief financial officer Jay Malave said the two-stage TR-3 release “really keep our production on track here in 2024″ by decreasing the aircraft Lockheed has to keep in storage.

Malave also acknowledged that the extension of TR-3 into two releases could hurt profitability on Lots 15-17, given that the timing of deliveries affects progress payments and incentive fees.

Lockheed is pursuing “anti-fragility” efforts with the F-35 supplier base to ensure multiple vendors of parts and components, Taiclet said.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored that “we need to have second and maybe third sources and geographic diversity … having single sources outside the U.S. is probably not the best idea,” even if more supplies drive up prices, he said.

For example, the supply of F-35 canopies is “one of the big degraders we have,” Taiclet said, suggesting that the company relies on only one supplier for that element.

In his prepared HASC testimony, Schmidt said the JPO has been working on reducing concurrency in the program, and that the “reimagined” Block 4 has “established Capability Decision Points (CDPs) to rigorously assess the technical maturity of hardware and software and the readiness for introduction into F-35 aircraft production lots.”

The re-imagined upgrade now includes 88 “must-have” capability improvements, he said, and these include “common capabilities for electronic warfare; communication, navigation and identification; sustainment,” new weapons for the partners as well as U.S. service-unique weapons, and “partner-unique capabilities.”

Block 4 will have to consist of “what industry can actually deliver,” Schmidt said.