Air Force, Navy, Marines Order V-22 Osprey Standdowns after Deadly Crash

Dec. 6, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

The U.S. military announced Dec. 6 that it is standing down its entire fleet of Ospreys after eight Airmen were killed in a crash.

The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are all standing down Osprey operations after an Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22 crashed off the coast of Japan on Nov. 29—a fleet of hundreds of aircraft.

The Air Force said initial findings suggested there was a “material failure” with the Osprey, indicating pilot error was likely not the primary cause and there was an issue with the aircraft itself.

“The underlying cause of the failure is unknown at this time,” AFSOC added in a statement.

AFSOC’s commander Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind directed the standdown to “mitigate risk while the investigation continues,” the statement added. “The standdown will provide time and space for a thorough investigation to determine causal factors and recommendations to ensure the Air Force CV-22 fleet returns to flight operations.”

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which is in charge of both the Navy and Marine Osprey fleet, released a nearly identical statement.

“While the mishap remains under investigation, we are implementing additional risk mitigation controls to ensure the safety of our service members,” NAVAIR added.

The aircraft that crashed Nov. 29 caught fire and fell into the ocean near Yakushima, Japan. The U.S. military and the Japanese military, coast guard, law enforcement, and civilian volunteers, including local fishermen, conducted a massive search and rescue effort. The bulk of the wreckage was discovered by surface ships and dive teams on Dec. 4. Six Airmen’s remains have been recovered. The bodies of two Airmen have yet to be recovered.

Japan grounded its fleet of 14 Ospreys soon after the crash. The Air Force has around 50 Ospreys. The Department of Navy, which includes the Marine Corps and the Navy, operates more than 300 Ospreys, the bulk of which belong to the Marines.

The Osprey is a tilt-rotor aircraft, which allows it to take off and land like a helicopter, then move its rotors and fly like an airplane.

The U.S. military services coordinate together on the Osprey through a joint program.

“The Joint Program Office continues to communicate and collaborate with all V-22 stakeholders and customers, including allied partners,” NAVAIR said.

Shortly before the standdowns were announced, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for the aircraft to be grounded during a congressional hearing.

“While we all accept that there are risks that come with fighting the enemy on the battlefield, I am concerned that too many service members are receiving lasting injuries or losing their lives due to accidents,” said Warren. “In fact, accidents have been one of the leading causes of death for active duty service members.”

Warren said she still wanted to see the Osprey fly again, but only after “we can be confident that we won’t lose any more lives in what appears to be a preventable tragedy.”

The crash was the deadliest Air Force aviation mishap since 2018, when nine Air Guardsmen were killed in a WC-130 crash in Georgia. It is also the deadliest ever Air Force CV-22 accident and the first since 2010. In August, three Marines were killed when their Osprey crashed in Australia. In 2022, nine Marines were killed in two separate crashes. The latest incident raised fresh questions about the fleet.

This is the second time in a little over a year the Air Force has grounded its Osprey fleet. A series of hard clutch engagements—in which the clutch slips and reengages, which caused USAF Ospreys to make emergency landings—led then-AFSOC commander Lt. Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife to order a temporary standdown in 2022.

“We continue to gather information on this tragic incident, and we will conduct a rigorous and thorough investigation,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a Dec. 5 statement.

Experts: New Disruptive, Asymmetric Approaches Needed to Rebuild US Advantages

Dec. 6, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

While history can teach some lessons illuminating how America should shape its military for current and future threats, the new security landscape requires fresh thinking and a willingness to be disruptive, asymmetric and deploy constant innovation, defense experts told the House Armed Services Committee. And, urgent work is needed to reconstitute the “Arsenal of Democracy,” given the likelihood that there will be little warning of the next great war.

In a hearing titled “Back to the Future,” meant to plumb historical lessons learned to inform today’s defense priorities, witnesses said the U.S. military needs to be willing to discard old doctrines—even if they worked before—and embrace new ones, as history shows that militaries that don’t do this lose.

The witnesses were Andrew Krepinevich, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and Center for a New American Security; Arthur Herman, also a senior fellow at Hudson, and Mark Gunzinger, director of future concept and capability assessments at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Krepinevich noted that the British Royal Navy in the early 20th century succeeded by introducing dreadnought ships and submarines; the German army developed Blitzkrieg; the American Navy shifted from battleships to aircraft carriers to win World War II, and the U.S. Air Force transformed “between the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, where they introduced what the Russians call the ‘reconnaissance-strike complex.’”

It’s not clear what will characterize the next great revolution in military affairs, although uncrewed aircraft, artificial intelligence, and technologies like additive manufacturing could be key, witnesses said.

New operational concepts have to recognize and confront new challenges, Krepinevich said. What worked before “we may not value as much” in the next conflict, he warned.

“If we ever go to war with China, how quickly can we adapt in order to be able to sustain not only the operations but also adapt” flawed concepts and less-useful hardware, Krepinevich said.

He also urged keeping in place some leaders who are involved in developing new concepts and technologies for up to 10 years, since “typically, disruptive innovation takes a decade or more.”

Transformation usually does not happen quickly and needs a knowledgeable hand guiding it. The military can’t assign an officer “for two years to do a 10-year job,” he said.

Industrial Base

Herman argued flatly that “our defense industrial base is in crisis.” Quoting from the recent National Defense Industrial Strategy Report, he contended the DIB “‘does not possess the capacity, capability, responsiveness, or resilience required to satisfy the full range of military production needs at speed and scale.” The war in the Ukraine has made the DIB’s deficiencies “obvious and urgent,” he added.

The Pentagon must figure out how to “incorporate innovation” in fields like hypersonics, drones, and cybersecurity,” Herman said, as part of an overall national security strategy.

Key to that development will be incorporating innovation as “an integral part of the production and productivity process,” rather than “a standalone category,” Herman argued, noting that the most productive companies tend to be the most innovative.

That was why Washington turned to commercial automobile and electronics companies to build the “Arsenal of Democracy” in WWII, he said: “They had the most engineers and therefore could be counted on to do things and make things better, even if they had never made them before.”

That “Arsenal” was also driven by the knowledge that Germany and Japan had technological advantage in some areas, whereas today there is complacency that the U.S. is mostly ahead, with the exception of a few areas, like hypersonics.

“By focusing on the threat first and foremost, we make for a better and more innovative industrial base,” Herman said.

Reconstituting the “Arsenal” and bolstering the DIB will require building be reconstituted “a global industrial network with trusted allies: the U.K. and the Five Eyes, NATO members, Japan and South Korea, especially in the advanced technologies like AI, quantum and space, but also in the traditional conventional technologies like shipbuilding and … energetics. In other words, the next generation munitions, in which the Chinese are already surging ahead,” Herman said.

Of the top 20 most technologically advanced countries, 18 are democracies, he noted.

“China, by contrast, ranks 32nd on the list, while Russia and Iran don’t even score. All this indicates that if the U.S. and democracies band together, they can overpower China and the new Axis with a kind of high tech focus. That’s the core of a winning and innovative Arsenal of Democracies,” he said.

Lessons from the Past

Gunzinger warned that “action is needed to ensure our armed forces will have the technological advantage over the pacing threat,” and he agreed that “history should inform this effort.” He offered six lessons to maintaining a technology edge over China and other potential adversaries.

First, holding a technology advantage “is a marathon, not a destination.” History, Gunzinger said, shows that it is a mistake to think that “technological breakthroughs will give our military an enduring advantage. … Technological inferiority is a very real possibility, if our military does not continuously modernize, and we cannot treat innovation as episodic and driven by crisis,” he argued.

Second, the U.S. needs asymmetric advantages “rather than parity.” In a war over Taiwan, China will have advantages in “time, distance, and combat mass,” so the U.S. needs to find “breakthrough technologies that will finally change the rules of the game.” The U.S. shouldn’t try to match China ship for ship and plane for plane, he said.

Third, no matter how good new technologies are, they need operational concepts that will make the most of them. The U.S. military needs to exploit Collaborative Combat Aircraft “in ways that will disrupt and degrade the operations of opposing forces, instead of simply improving how we plan to operate today.”

For his fourth and fifth point, Gunzinger asserted that “capacity matters,” and innovative technologies will only make a difference if they are built at scale. As U.S. aircraft became capable of hitting multiple targets per sortie in the 1990s—instead of requiring multiple aircraft per target—defense leaders saw that as an excuse to “slash force structure,” Gunzinger said. That’s why “our forces are now too small to meet the global requirement.” The solution is to buy new technologies at scale, which will require “sustained, predictable budget growth.”

Sixth, having enough “highly experienced and well-trained” troops will make the difference. “History has taught us that when two opposing forces have relatively equal technologies, the side with the best trained personnel often has the advantage,” Gunzinger said.

With Hold Lifted, What Happens Next for New Air Force, Space Force Generals?

Dec. 6, 2023 | By Greg Hadley and David Roza

The Senate confirmed senior military nominations for 105 Air Force and Space Force officers late Dec. 5, a massive bloc that built up over months during the standoff between Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and the Pentagon over its reproductive health policies, which provide funds to service members to travel out of state to seek services, including abortions.

Some of the officers had been awaiting confirmation since January, others only joined the queue in November. And a select few are still waiting—Tuberville is keeping his hold on four-star nominees, preventing their quick confirmation and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced he has placed holds of his own on six nominees, including three Air Force one- and two-star nominees, over concerns “regarding those nominees’ stances or actions relating to divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the military,” according to his office.

Schmitt placed holds on:

Brig. Gen. Scott A. Cain to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Paul D. Moga to be Major General

Col. Benjamin R. Jonsson to be Brigadier General

Col. David J. Berkland, nominated to be Brigadier General, was also not confirmed in the Dec. 5 bloc for unknown reasons. The four-star nominees still awaiting confirmation include:

Lt. Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife to be Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

Lt. Gen. Michael A. Guetlein to be Vice Chief of Space Operations

Lt. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot to lead U.S. Northern Command and NORAD

Lt. Gen. Timothy D. Haugh to lead U.S. Cyber Command

Lt. Gen. Stephen N. Whiting to lead U.S. Space Command

Lt. Gen. Kevin B. Schneider to be commander of Pacific Air Forces

Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, the current leader of PACAF and a four-star general, to be head of Air Combat Command

An Air Force spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the individuals awaiting confirmation “will remain in their current position and their successors will do the same until the position they were nominated for becomes vacant.”

As a result, there is a domino effect at several important commands. Guillot cannot leave his post as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command until he is confirmed to lead U.S. Northern Command, so his replacement, Navy Vice Adm. Charles B. Cooper II, cannot take over at CENTCOM. Similarly, Lt. Gen. Haugh’s replacement for deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command, new Army Lt. Gen. William J. Hartman, can’t move up until Haugh takes over CYBERCOM.

The effect is even more pronounced inside the service. As long as Wilsbach can’t move over to Air Combat Command, he remains at PACAF, blocking Lt. Gen. Kevin B. Schneider. Schneider, Director of Staff at Headquarters Air Force, is blocking Lt. Gen. Scott L. Pleus. Pleus remains as deputy commander of U.S. Forces Korea and commanders of the 7th Air Force, blocking newly promoted Lt. Gen. David R. Iverson.

Iverson is blocking newly promoted Maj. Gen. Brandon D. Parker from taking on his job as director of air and cyberspace operations at PACAF, and Parker is blocking Col. David J. Berkland as PACAF chief of staff. Ironically, Berkland is one of the officers whose promotion was held.

Elsewhere, Slife is due to be replaced as deputy chief for operations by Maj. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, who is director of training and readiness under the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations. His replacement was not immediately clear.

In the Space Force, Guetlein is blocking Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant from becoming head of Space Systems Command, and Garrant is blocking Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton as deputy chief of space operations, strategy, plans, programs, and requirements.

In the cases of Moga, Jonsson, and Cain, there are no second-order effects in terms of jobs blocked.

For those general officers who can move up, an Air Force spokesperson said that transition timelines are being coordinated to determine effective dates of promotion and report dates to their new position. These actions will take some time to deconflict, the spokesperson said.

Even so, many of the nominees who were on the CY22 Maj. Gen Line of the Air Force list, the CY22 Maj. Gen Health Professions list, and the CY21 Brig. Gen Line of the Air Force list will pin on their new rank immediately with an effective promotion date of Dec. 5.

Here’s who has been confirmed by the Senate:

Air Force

Lt. Gen. Scott L. Pleus to be lieutenant general and Director of Staff

Lt. Gen. Donna D. Shipton to be lieutenant general and commander of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

Lt. Gen. Jeffrey A. Kruse to be lieutenant general and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

Maj. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration

Maj. Gen. David A. Harris Jr. to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements

Maj. Gen. Adrian L. Spain to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for operations

Maj. Gen. Sean M. Farrell to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of SOCOM

Maj. Gen. Laura L. Lenderman to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of PACAF

Maj. Gen. David R. Iverson to be lieutenant general and commander of the 7th Air Force

Maj. Gen. Michael J. Lutton to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of AFGSC

Maj. Gen. Linda S. Hurry to lieutenant general and deputy commander of AFMC

Maj. Gen. Heath A. Collins to be lieutenant general and director of the Missile Defense Agency

Maj. Gen. Michael G. Koscheski to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of ACC

Brig. Gen. Dale R. White to be lieutenant general and military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition technology, and logistics

Brig. Gen. Thomas P. Sherman to be major general

Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Harrell to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Jeannine M. Ryder to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Curtis R. Bass to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Kenyon K. Bell to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Charles D. Bolton to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Larry R. Broadwell Jr. to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Sean M. Choquette to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Roy W. Collins to be Major General

Brig. Gen. John R. Edwards to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Jason T. Hinds to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Justin R. Hoffman to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Stacy J. Huser to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Matteo G. Martemucci to be Major General

Brig. Gen. David A. Mineau to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Ty W. Neuman to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Christopher J. Niemi to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Brandon D. Parker to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Michael T. Rawls to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder to be Major General

Brig. Gen. David G. Shoemaker to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Rebecca J. Sonkiss to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Claude K. Tudor Jr. to be Major General

Col. Matthew S. Allen to be brigadier general

Col. Trent C. Davis to be brigadier general

Col. Lawrence T. Sullivan to be brigadier general

Col. Amy S. Bumgarner to be Brigadier General

Col. Ivory D. Carter to be Brigadier General

Col. Raja J. Chari to be Brigadier General

Col. Jason E. Corrothers to be Brigadier General

Col. John B. Creel to be Brigadier General

Col. Nicholas B. Evans to be Brigadier General

Col. Bridget V. Gigliotti to be Brigadier General

Col. Christopher B. Hammond, to be Brigadier General

Col. Leslie F. Hauck III to be Brigadier General

Col. Kurt C. Helphinstine to be Brigadier General

Col. Abraham L. Jackson to be Brigadier General

Col. Joy M. Kaczor to be Brigadier General

Col. Christopher J. Leonard, to be Brigadier General

Col. Christopher E. Menuey to be Brigadier General

Col. David S. Miller to be Brigadier General

Col. Jeffrey A. Philips to be Brigadier General

Col. Erik N. Quigley to be Brigadier General

Col. Michael S. Rowe to be Brigadier General

Col. Derek M. Salmi to be Brigadier General

Col. Kayle M. Stevens to be Brigadier General

Col. Jose E. Sumangil to be Brigadier General

Col. Terence G. Taylor to be Brigadier General

Col. Jason D. Voorheis to be Brigadier General

Col. Michael O. Walters to be Brigadier General

Col. Adrienne L. Williams to be Brigadier General

Col. Leigh A. Swanson to be Brigadier General

Col. Corey A. Simmons to be Brigadier General

Col. Brian R. Moore to be Brigadier General

Space Force

Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant to be lieutenant general and commander of SSC

Maj. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess to be lieutenant general and commander of the Combined Force Space Component Command

Maj. Gen. David N. Miller Jr. to be lieutenant general and commander of SpOC

Maj. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton to be lieutenant general and deputy chief of space operations for plans, programs, and requirements

Brig. Gen. Troy L. Endicott to be major general

Brig. Gen. Timothy A. Sejba to be major general

Brig. Gen. David J. Cothern to be major general

Air National Guard

Brig. Gen. Steven J. Butow to be major general

Col. Patti L. Fries to be brigadier general

Col. Tommy F. Tillman Jr. to be brigadier general

Air Force Reserve

Brig. Gen. Elizabeth E. Arledge to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Vanessa J. Dornhoefer to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Christopher A. Freeman to be Major General

Brig. Gen. David P. Garfield, to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Mitchell A. Hanson to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Jody A. Merritt to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Adrian K. White to be Major General

Brig. Gen. William W. Whittenberger Jr. to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Christopher F. Yancy to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Derin S. Durham to be Major General

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Regan Jr. to be Major General

Col. Harold W. Linnean III to be brigadier general

Col. Sean M. Carpenter to be Brigadier General

Col. Mary K. Haddad, to be Brigadier General

Col. James L. Hartle to be Brigadier General

Col. Aaron J. Heick to be Brigadier General

Col. Joseph D. Janik to be Brigadier General

Col. Michael T. McGinley to be Brigadier General

Col. Kevin J. Merrill to be Brigadier General

Col. Tara E. Nolan to be Brigadier General

Col. Roderick C. Owens to be Brigadier General

Col. Mark D. Richey to be Brigadier General

Col. Norman B. Shaw Jr. to be Brigadier General

Col. Kristin A. Hillery to be Brigadier General

Col. Michelle L. Wagner to be Brigadier General

Col. David M. Castaneda to be Brigadier General

X-37’s Next—and 7th—Launch Could Be Its Last

Dec. 6, 2023 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force will send its X-37B space place back into orbit this weekend. But no one is saying when it’s due back.

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket is slated to lift off Dec. 10 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, powering the X-37B into space for the seventh time, but its first aboard SpaceX’s more powerful Falcon Heavy. The launch, part of the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, will involve tests for “operating in new orbital regimes,” Space Systems Command disclosed in a release.

The X-37 has operated in low-Earth orbit in the past, some 110-500 miles above the ground, but Falcon Heavy can deliver payloads of 58,860 pounds—far more than the X-37B—to geosynchronous orbit, more than 22,000 miles up.

The secretive, uncrewed orbital test vehicle, built by Boeing, can carry multiple payloads to demonstrate new technologies. This mission will focus on “space domain awareness technologies,” according to the Space Force. It will also help NASA investigate the effects of long-term radiation on plant seeds, “paving the way for future crewed space missions.”

“The X-37B continues to equip the United States with the knowledge to enhance current and future space operations,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said in a statement. “X-37B Mission 7 demonstrates the USSF’s commitment to innovation and defining the art-of-the-possible in the space domain.”

With each successive mission, X-37B has spent longer and longer in orbit. Its last flight lasted 908 days, from May 17, 2020, to Nov. 12, 2022. Previous missions lasted:

780 days—Sept. 7, 2017, to Oct. 27, 2019

718 days—May 20, 2015, to May 7, 2017

674 days—Dec. 11, 2012, to Oct. 17 2014

468 days—March 5, 2011, to June 16, 2012

224 days—April 22, 2010, to Dec. 3, 2010

Should the trend of extended missions continue, X-37B wouldn’t land until June 2026 or later. It is unclear how many more flights the space plane can endure. In 2020, when Saltzman was still a three-star lieutenant general, he hinted that the spacecraft might be nearing its end. The X-37B, he said then, might exemplify “technology that has served its purpose and [maybe] it’s time to start looking at the next available capability.”

With NATO Membership Looming, Sweden and US Sign New Defense Cooperation Deal

Dec. 5, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Swedish defense minister Pal Jonson signed a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement on Dec. 5 strengthening military ties between the two nations, which will allow bilateral exercises and new joint procurements and further paves a path for Sweden’s integration into NATO.

The agreement “will enable enhanced defense cooperation, such as legal status for U.S. military personnel, access to deployment areas, and pre-positioning of military materiel,” Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder told reporters. “The DCA also creates the conditions necessary for U.S. military support when requested, and is, therefore, an agreement of great importance to both countries.” Further specifics were not immediately provided.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, long-neutral Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO, and while Finland has been admitted to the alliance, Sweden’s membership is waiting on approval from Turkey and Hungary.

Jonson, speaking Dec. 5 with the Atlantic Council, declined to offer a timeline on when he expects the final hurdles to Sweden’s membership to be cleared, only saying that it will be “soon.”

“Turkey has given Swedish invitee status, saying it’s not whether we’re going to become members but when … and we’re hopeful that this is going to be resolved as soon as possible,” Jonson said.

Of the DCA between the U.S. and Sweden, Jonson said, “This is going to put our close partnership even closer. It’s going to create better conditions for U.S. forces both to use Swedish territory as a staging and basing area, and also for exercising, and it’s all about also deterrence. So the DCA is going to be a new cornerstone in our bilateral cooperation.”

He later said a U.S. military presence in Sweden “is important” for NATO integration and the DCA will guide American investment in the region.

Jonson’s remarks focused on how Sweden will integrate its military with NATO and made the case that Stockholm is already highly aligned both operationally and technically with NATO standards.

As an example, he cited last year’s “Silver Arrow” exercise with the U.S., saying it was Sweden’s largest exercise in 25 years and highlighted the need to pay attention to logistics and maintenance, and the ability to “fight for a long time.”

He noted that the Nordic countries of Norway, Finland, and Denmark already work together militarily, and all now have DCAs with the U.S., and this should speed and enhance NATO interoperability in the Scandinavian region.

Sweden was one of the first members of the Partnership For Peace—sometimes called “NATO Light”—set up by during the Clinton Administration to establish a path to NATO membership for other European countries and the former Warsaw Pact nations. The PFP defined a series of steps, from joint exercises to common equipment and training standards, necessary for membership, and Sweden has fully embraced all of those, Jonson said, and has sent its troops to serve alongside NATO forces in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Libya.

“We are plugged into NATO’s regional plans,” he said, and Sweden offers not only state-of-the-art ground, air, and naval forces and basing opportunities but expertise in Russian intelligence matters.

“Intelligence is also an asset I think we can bring to the table, to the alliance,” Jonson said. “Sweden has a lot of Russian expertise. We have strong capabilities in our intelligence communities. We have sensors that can work from our submarines and they can work also from our surface combatants and also from airborne sensors.”

Sweden, despite a population of only 10 million, also has a defense industry capable of building armored vehicles, submarines, corvettes, and fighter and command-and-control aircraft, and is making 155mm ammunition for Ukraine alongside Denmark and Norway. The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen is a frequent competitor to the U.S. F-16 and F-35 in international competitions, and its Global Eye airborne warning and control system often goes up against Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail. SAAB is Boeing’s partner on the T-7A Red Hawk advanced USAF trainer, and Sweden’s Gripen fighters carry U.S.-made AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and are powered by GE Aerospace F414 engines.

Sweden is “fully behind” NATO’s goals that every member devote two percent of its gross domestic product on defense and 20 percent of that amount on new equipment and research and development, Jonson said.

“Sweden has doubled its defense budgets by 2024 compared to how we were in in 2020,” he said. “In five years, we have doubled [spending] … and next year we will reach 2.1 percent of GDP and we have a trajectory upwards as well. We get it.”

On top of that, Jonson said Sweden spends “actually, 56 percent, when it comes to acquisition. So we score quite well in reqard to investments and also on innovation.”

Joining NATO will given Sweden added security in deterring possible aggression by Russia, which continues to wage war on Ukraine, and Jonson said Sweden also wants to do its part to prevent Russia from a series of further attacks.

“If Russia would be successful in this war, I fear that other countries neighboring Russia, such as Moldova and Georgia, would feel an increased pressure and there will also be an increased pressure on the Alliance. So rest assured that the United States has a partner in Sweden that shares a unity of purpose of supporting Ukraine as long as it takes,” he said.

Russia has outlined plans to regroup from its losses in Ukraine and “be back with a bigger force” in 2026, Jonson added, which will require vigilance and no let-up in support for Kyiv from NATO and the European Union. There is a “window of opportunity” for NATO to keep up the pressure to secure a desirable outcome in the war, he added.

Most of the Swedish electorate—65-70 percent—supports joining NATO, Jonson said, and 88 percent of seats in parliament were won “by those who want to join,” Jonson said. They recognize that Russia’s aggression is an immediate danger and requires an “evolution” in thinking.

“Sweden Is no longer being defended inside Sweden,” he said.

Senate Confirms Hundreds of Generals, But 7 Top USAF, USSF Leaders Still Wait

Dec. 5, 2023 | By Chris Gordon

The Senate confirmed over 400 senior military promotions Dec. 5, after Sen. Tommy Tuberville mostly lifted his monthslong hold on military nominations.

“I’m not going to hold the promotions of these people any longer,” Tuberville (R-Ala.) told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We fought hard.”

Specifically, Tuberville lifted his hold on all nominations below four-star generals and admirals. Out of 455 pending general and flag officer nominations, affecting 451 people, the Senate confirmed 425 on Dec. 5. Of the 30 nominations still pending, at least 11 are for four-star officers.

Tuberville had come under increasing pressure from members of his own party to lift the hold. He initially placed it in March to protest the Pentagon’s reproductive health policies, which provide funds to service members to travel out of state to seek services, including abortions.

Senators regularly place legislative holds on individual nominations to raise certain issues. Tuberville’s hold on all general and flag officers, however, was unprecedented in scope and length.

“Today, hundreds—hundreds—of military families across the country can breathe a sigh of relief,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “The Senate has now unanimously confirmed hundreds of military confirmations that were held up for 10 months by a single person, the senator from Alabama. Thank God, these military officers will now get the military promotions that they so rightfully earned.”

The Pentagon has said the policy has harmed military readiness amid an increasingly precarious international security situation with a war between Israel and Hamas as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine approaches its second anniversary—all while U.S. troops in the Middle East have come under attack from Iranian-aligned groups and tensions with China have risen.

“Certainly, we’re encouraged by the news,” Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder said. It is unclear exactly when the Senate will confirm more nominees.

“I thank the Senate for quickly confirming these appointments and urge them to confirm the remaining appointees swiftly,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.

The newly freed one-star, two-star, and three-star nominations include 111 Department of the Air Force nominations affecting 109 people: four in the Air National Guard, 26 in the Air Force Reserve, 70 in the Air Force, and nine in the Space Force, according to a defense official. It was not immediately clear if all of those officers were confirmed en masse.

However, it will take time for all the newly confirmed generals to reach their new jobs.

“It’s not just flipping a switch, and suddenly everyone moves into these new positions,” Ryder said. “You have to consider things like when people can move, where the people that are moving out of the positions are going. So all that has to be carefully orchestrated and done in a way that enables us to continue to conduct the operations without having a significant impact not only on the mission but also on the individual family members.”

The Air Force and Space Force have a disproportionate number of the 11 pending four-star positions, which can still be voted on individually on the Senate floor—Seven USAF and USSF generals nominated for four-star positions remain under blockade and are unable to take up their new jobs, U.S. defense officials said.

The holds include new vice chiefs for both services: Lt. Gen. James C. Slife for the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Michael A. Guetlein for the Space Force.

Three others are to lead combatant commands:

Lt. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot to lead U.S. Northern Command and NORAD

Lt. Gen. Timothy D. Haugh to lead U.S. Cyber Command

Lt. Gen. Stephen N. Whiting to lead U.S. Space Command

And two are to lead Air Force major commands:

Lt. Gen. Kevin B. Schneider to be commander of Pacific Air Forces

Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, the current leader of PACAF and a four-star general, to be head of Air Combat Command

“These holds have already dragged on needlessly for months,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a statement.

The four-star positions are still likely to be confirmed via individual votes.

“We have a mission to do,” Ryder said. “We require senior leaders in key positions to help lead and conduct the operations of the Department of Defense.”

Commercial Tankers Refuel USAF F-15, F-16, and F-22 Fighters For First Time Ever

Dec. 5, 2023 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Three types of U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft participated in air-to-air refueling with commercial tankers for the first time last month, coinciding with a bilateral exercise between the U.S. and Singapore that concluded Nov. 24.

‘Commando Sling’ began Nov. 6 and featured six F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 51st Fighter Wing at Osan Air Base, South Korea. On Nov. 9, Pacific Air Forces announced a commercial KDC-10 tanker refueled the F-16s en route to Singapore, with plans to also refuel F-15s and F-22s before the end of the exercise.

A PACAF spokesperson later confirmed to Air & Space Forces Magazine that commercial tankers refueled F-15C and F-22 fighters, though they declined to reveal the exact dates and locations.

The missions mark a milestone for the Air Force, which typically relies on its own tankers to keep its aircraft flying but has started to dip its toe into the commercial refueling world. In June, a commercial refueler linked up with E-3 Sentry and RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft during during an exercise, the first ever instance for any U.S. Air Force aircraft.

“We’re expanding that aperture in PACAF and identified a proof-of-concept employment to refuel fighter aircraft during exercise Commando Sling 23.” PACAF air mobility operations chief Lt. Col. Curtis Holtman said in a Nov. 9 release.

The advantage of commercial refueling, Holtman said, is that “it frees up our warfighter tanker fleet to be ready to respond for emerging contingency requirements.”

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have used commercial refuelers for almost two decades, and there are several companies that offer the service. Metrea Strategic Mobility conducted the first refueling missions in July, while Omega Air Refueling provided the KDC-10 that refueled the F-16s.

The KDC-10 is designed for dual functionality, capable of refueling in flight and transporting cargo or passengers. During the exercise, the aircraft transported more than 40 personnel and cargo on a single flight. The KDC-10 is a close relative of the USAF’s largest air refueling aircraft, the KC-10 Extender, both derived from the McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

Also during Commando Sling, U.S. pilots engaged in combined tactics and dissimilar dogfighting involving practicing combat maneuvers against different aircraft. The combined forces focused on live flight support operations while covering fighter air-to-air capabilities such as airborne refueling.

“[We] trained with Singaporean F-15s [SG], F-16s [Block 52], and refueled multiple times with their A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport,” said Lt. Col. Cory Ferrer, 36th Fighter Squadron commander, in a release.

Following the completion of the exercise, the six F-16s and around 90 Airmen, including the pilots from the 51st Fighter Wing, returned to Osan from Paya Lebar Air Base in Singapore.

“The training is invaluable in allowing them to learn how to better employ the F-16 against aircraft that have different performance characteristics and methods of fighting,” instructor pilot Capt. Jonathan Lee said about the training.

Since its inception in 1990, Exercise Commando Sling aims to bolster interoperability and joint capability between the two nations by practicing tactical coordination. Ferrer highlighted that exercises like this enable the squadron to refine combat agility, while demonstrating “the strength and necessity of partnerships.”

USAF Identifies All 8 Airmen Killed in Osprey Crash

Dec. 5, 2023 | By Greg Hadley and Chris Gordon

The eight Airmen aboard the CV-22 Osprey that crashed off the coast of Japan were declared dead as the operation transitioned to search and recovery Dec. 5.

“Our entire nation mourns this tragic loss,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.

The aircraft caught fire and crashed Nov. 29 incident off the southern Japanese coast, sparking a massive search and rescue effort involving the U.S. and Japanese military, coast guard, law enforcement, and civilian volunteers. The bulk of the wreckage was discovered by surface ships and dive teams on Dec. 4.

“The transition from a rescue operation to a recovery operation occurs when the determination is made that survivors are unlikely,” read a statement by Air Force Special Operations Command, which noted that the families of the deceased had all been notified.

“We will always honor their devotion to our country, and we will ensure the families of the fallen receive the respect, care, and support they deserve,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said in a statement.

The remains of six Airmen have been recovered so far. Two bodies have not yet been found.

The first of the eight Airmen identified was Staff Sgt. Jacob “Jake” M. Galliher, 24, of Pittsfield, Mass., who was a Direct Support Operator and airborne linguist specializing in Mandarin.

The other seven, all identified Dec. 5, are:

Maj. Jeffrey T. Hoernemann, 32, of Andover, Minn., a CV-22 instructor pilot and officer in charge of training assigned to the 21st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Yokota Air Base, Japan.

Maj. Eric V. Spendlove, 36, of St. George, Utah, a residency-trained flight surgeon and medical operations flight commander assigned to the 1st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Kadena Air Base, Japan.

Maj. Luke A. Unrath, 34, of Riverside, Calif., was a CV-22 pilot and flight commander assigned to the 21st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Yokota Air Base, Japan.

Capt. Terrell K. Brayman, 32, of Pittsford, N.Y., was a CV-22 pilot and flight commander assigned to the 21st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Yokota Air Base, Japan.

Tech. Sgt. Zachary E. Lavoy, 33, of Oviedo, Fla., was a medical operations flight chief assigned to the 1st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Kadena Air Base, Japan.

Staff Sgt. Jake M. Turnage, 25, of Kennesaw, Ga., was a flight engineer assigned to the 21st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Yokota Air Base, Japan.

Senior Airman Brian K. Johnson, 32, of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, was a flight engineer assigned to the 21st Special Operations Squadron, 353rd Special Operations Wing, Yokota Air Base, Japan.

“In times like these, where service to our nation is not just a personal commitment but also a legacy woven into the fabric of our families, the depth of sorrow is immeasurable,” Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind, AFSOC commander, said in a statement. “The honorable service of these eight Airmen to this great Nation will never be forgotten, as they are now among the giants who shape our history.”

Graphic posted by Air Force Special Operations Command

The Japan Coast Guard, Japan Self-Defense Forces, Pacific Air Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific, Special Operations Command—Pacific, 353rd Special Operations Wing, 18th Wing, and 1st Special Forces Group all participated in search efforts and will continue to support recovery operations.

The incident is the deadliest USAF aviation incident since 2018, when nine Air Guardsmen were killed in a WC-130 crash in Georgia.

“These brave American Airmen were training and honing their skills during the time of this tragic accident,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall said in a statement. “Their dedication to our mission is an inspiration to us all and their loss is felt across the Department of the Air Force.”

It is also the Air Force’s deadliest-ever CV-22 accident. The only other deadly crash was a 2010 incident in Afghanistan that claimed the lives of three service members and one civilian. Famed for its tilt-rotor design, which allows it to take off and land like a helicopter and rotate its rotors to fly like an airplane, the Osprey is also flown by the Marine Corps and Navy, and has a checkered safety history.

In August, three Marines were killed when their Osprey crashed in Australia. In 2022, nine Marines were killed in two separate crashes.

“We continue to gather information on this tragic incident, and we will conduct a rigorous and thorough investigation,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said.

Vice Chairman Says JROC Shifting to Top-Down, Portfolio Requirements Approach

Dec. 4, 2023 | By John A. Tirpak

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which decides which service equipment requests get funding priority, is changing its approach, making joint utility a top consideration rather than simply letting the services chase whatever technology they want, according to Adm. Christopher W. Grady, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and chair of the JROC.

Grady, speaking with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center said Dec. 4 that “we’re … making the JROC more effective” by “taking a top-down approach.”

The JROC is transitioning away from the traditional approach, in which the services bring a new requirement to the council and “we rubber stamp it and then they can go out and buy it,” Grady said, pegging this as a “bottom-up approach.”

“We’re doing a top-down approach which says, these are the requirements, and oh by the way, they devolved from … the Joint Warfighting Concept 3.0, which is now Joint Pub 1,” he said. Requirements are now “instantiated into the [joint] doctrine.”

“So now we write a good requirement and then any stakeholder can come forward and say, ‘OK, we can meet that.’ And so we try to close the gap, that requirement,” he added.

Stovepiped approaches have also been dropped in favor of “looking at [requirements] across portfolios of capability,” Grady said.

“That’s in line with the next thing that we tried to do to improve the efficiency of the JROC, and that is meld our process kind of simultaneously, as opposed to sequentially, with the acquisition side,” Grady said. “They have portfolios review … and so we’re bringing those together,” along with those under the undersecretary for research and engineering team, led by Heidi Shyu.

“So that forms a kind of a three-legged stool: of portfolios in requirement, portfolios in acquisition, and portfolios in technology and in R&D,” Grady said. “We’re trying to bring that all together.”

Such work builds on progress started by Grady’s predecessors, Air Force Gens. Paul Selva and John Hyten, he said.

Grady said he also wants to “put some teeth” into his position, to better enforce a joint approach to the requirements process.

“I can yell pretty loudly. But the services don’t have to do” as Grady directs. “I don’t have that authority to order them to do it.”

By comparison, Grady said his counterparts in countries like the United Kingdom, France, and Australia, do have that authority. Gaining it in the U.S. may require amending Title 10 authorities through legislation, but the vice chairman said he is “not certain that’s where we want to go.”

“At the very least, I can do a scorecard that says, ‘hey, all you JROC members … you signed up to do this. You said yes, we signed it out. Does that match with what we’re seeing in the budget?’ And if not, then we bring that forward to the Secretary and he makes the risk calculus. We can’t do that right now,” Grady said.

By “bringing some teeth” to the JROC process, “we can make it stronger,” he added.

As Grady seeks to empower the JROC, however, he warned that its effectiveness is threatened by the ongoing hold placed on most military promotions by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). The hold has prevented most of the services’ vice chiefs—who all sit on the JROC—from being confirmed.

“One of the real values of the JROC is, you have the vices sitting there, [with] all that depth and breadth of experience,” Grady said. Without them, the council’s meetings have relied on specific subject matter experts.

“They’re really capable officers, but they come based on the specific issue,” Grady said. “That makes sense. That’s what I would do if I were in one of the one of the services, until they get their vice [confirmed]. But that depth and breadth, how it fits across the entire service portfolio, is probably not as strong as it would be if it was a vice sitting at the table.”

More broadly, among certain allies, there is also a new International JROC, Grady said. The group has had two meetings, set a governance process, and “we’re actually establishing requirements that we can work through together,” Grady said. “I can see that we will be able to take the output of the IJROC and be at least one requirements-driven input to AUKUS Pillar 2, which is the new technology space. That’s pretty exciting.”