US Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIS in Syria as Militants Attempt Comeback

Oct. 30, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The U.S. conducted a series of airstrikes against Islamic State camps in Syria on Oct. 28, as the Pentagon continues its efforts to thwart the militant group from making a comeback.

The latest wave of airstrikes, which targeted multiple senior Islamic State leaders, was announced in a Oct. 30 statement by the U.S. Central Command.

The command said that several camps were targeted in the “Syria desert,” an apparent reference to the Badiya desert in central and southern Syria, and that as many as 35 members of the group were killed. There were no indications of civilian casualties, CENTCOM added.

“The airstrikes will disrupt the ability of ISIS to plan, organize, and conduct attacks against civilians, as well as U.S., allies, and partners throughout the region and beyond,” the command said in its Oct. 30 statement. “CENTCOM, alongside allies and partners in the region, will continue to aggressively degrade ISIS operational capabilities to ensure its enduring defeat.”

The U.S. conducted similar airstrikes on Oct. 11 and Sept. 26 in Syria and has also conducted multiple raids with Iraqi forces in recent weeks.

The Islamic State group’s self-declared caliphate was defeated in 2019 by the U.S. and its regional allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces. The U.S. military has been working with the SDF and Iraqi forces ever since to try to preclude the group from regaining strength in Syria and in Iraq.

The group’s operations in Syria remain a major concern, especially since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian allies have been more focused on suppressing opponents of the Syrian regime than battling the militant group in the Badiya desert, U.S. officials say.

“There’s a reason that we’re not talking about moving capability out of Syria,” a senior defense official said earlier this month. “It’s really ISIS in Syria that is the kind of the core area where ISIS still has combat power, and a lot of the leadership continues to persist. … What you’ve seen out of this administration is a lot of continuity on keeping capability in Syria even after [Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023], because we do see the ISIS threat is being something that warrants that.”

The U.S.-led coalition that has been helping Iraqi forces fight ISIS is being phased out by September 2025. Iraq’s prime minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani is under political pressure domestically to wind down the presence of American and other Western forces.

But the U.S. hopes to transition to a “bilateral security partnership” after that point, which Pentagon officials have yet to define in detail. The agreement with Iraq will also enable the U.S. to sustain its presence in neighboring Syria by providing logistical support from northern Iraq until at least September 2026.

The U.S. currently has some 2,500 troops in Iraq and around 900 in Syria. U.S. officials have not provided details on how the end of Operation Inherent Resolve, as the coalition’s counter-ISIS mission is dubbed, will affect American troop levels. But they have acknowledged the U.S. will likely have fewer troops in Iraq.

Bipartisan Buy-In Could Help New Defense Industrial Base Plan Survive Election

Oct. 30, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

The Pentagon’s new plan to implement its defense industrial base strategy—coming in the 11th hour of the Biden administration—could survive the upcoming election because extra time was taken to get buy-in from all involved agencies and from both sides of the congressional aisle, according to the official who led its development.

The National Defense Industrial Strategy was unveiled at the beginning of the year, but its implementation plan, expected in March, wasn’t released until Oct. 29.

Laura Taylor-Kale, the assistant secretary of defense for industrial base policy, said during an Oct. 30 event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the lengthy delay was due to her team ensuring that the plan “really reflects” the needs of the entire Department of Defense, Congress, industry, and foreign partners.

“We spent the last six to nine months really engaging closely with industry, getting feedback on this strategy, as well as iteratively on the six implementation priorities; what they should be and also what should go in them,” she said.

Concerns about the long-term health of the defense industrial base grew after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the U.S. and its allies delved into their stockpiles to donate weapons and demand for all kinds of munitions and equipment outstripped the base’s ability to surge production.

At a Pentagon press conference to release the plan, Taylor-Kale noted that “today’s geopolitical undercurrents have impacted every part of the defense industrial base. We have seen how quickly we need to ramp up capacity in response to conflict. World events have forced us to prepare for the long-term and plan differently and we have experienced technological advancements that require a fundamental shift in our thinking.”

In order to succeed, the strategy “must be enduring,” Taylor-Kale added at CSIS.

To accomplish that, “we’ve really worked across political spectrums. We’ve gotten feedback and engaged with Republicans and Democrats both,” Taylor-Kale said. She said the plan made its way through both chambers of congress, including more than a dozen committees. The plan similarly made its way through affected departments in the Commerce and State Department, the Pentagon’s cost analysis shop, and the services.

Because national defense is a “bipartisan issue” and has traditionally been less controversial than other areas of political disagreement, Taylor-Kale said she is hopeful the implementation plan will continue even after a new administration—under either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris—starts in January 2025.

The next administration “will have an analytical framework” for how to invest in the defense industrial base as a result of the work, she said, and need not start from scratch.

She also said the plan has been coordinated with—and will be managed taking account of—export controls, the Foreign Military Sales System, and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

The implementation plan should be “a living document,” she said. It’s slated for an annual update, with both a classified and public version to be released.

At the heart of the plan are six implementation priorities requiring the most urgent action to secure the U.S.’s ability to prevent war or prevail if drawn into war. The military services must “align the plan to the budget review process” and have already had to integrate the priorities with their fiscal 2026 budget plans, Tylor-Kale told CSIS. Every program will now have to explain how it buys down risk in the industrial base.

The priorities are:

Indo-Pacific Deterrence: Invest in the increased production of interchangeable munitions, missiles and, most recently with Australia, the submarine industrial base, strengthening partnerships with traditional and new allies.

Production and Supply Chains: Invest to make the supply chain more resilient—especially for key items like microprocessor chips and rare earth elements. The plan also calls for bigger weapon stockpiles and re-establishing or invigorating domestic production of critical materials and items.

Allied and Partner Collaboration: Co-produce commonly-used weapons, such as 155 mm mortar shells, with partners and allies worldwide. Taylor-Kale also said the U.S. must learn to rely on the technical sophistication of allies if they have a superior approach to certain capabilities.

Capabilities and Infrastructure Modernization: Upgrade and overhaul military depots and nuclear weapons production and maintenance facilities to ensure “scalability” to larger-scale production.

New Capabilities Using Flexible Pathways: Use rapid prototyping to develop and field new weapons at scale, like the Pentagon’s “Replicator” initiative, Mid-Tier Acquisitions and “Other Transactional Authorities” authorized by Congress to speed the fielding of new systems.

Intellectual Property and Data Analysis: Recognize that protecting intellectual property rights and investments fosters competition.

“At the end of the day, we need to really think about what’s the risk of not doing something, as opposed to what’s the risk of doing something,” Taylor-Kale said.

The third priority recognizes that “working with our allies and partners must be a priority for global defense production and capabilities,” she added. “We now talk about ‘co-“ everything. So, co-development, co-production, co-sustainment. We also recognize that certain allies have capabilities that are particularly useful in the region, or it can supplement or really complement the work that that our forces are doing.”

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante, under whose signature the plan was released, “meets regularly with his counterparts” in other countries, Taylor-Kale said, and the plan provides better tools to determine when to share classified information with allies by analyzing the pros and cons of doing so.

“The time is now” to “build the defense industrial ecosystem that we need,” she said.

According to the 80-page plan, more than $37 billion of the fiscal 2025 defense budget request would go toward fulfilling the priorities, most of it earmarked for munitions.

Taylor-Kale told reporters at the Pentagon that the implementation plan will “foster transparency by providing industry and other partners insights into our plans and investments,” so they can align those plans with their own.

“Our approach has generated strong interest from industry and common goals have built closer ties between allied partners. We have greater support from internal and interagency stakeholders and Congress,” she said.

10,000 More Recruits in 18 Months: How Easing Rules Made the Difference

Oct. 30, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Easing the rules that barred some recruits from joining the Air Force helped bring in 10,000 Airmen and Guardians over the past 18 months, said the head of Air Force Recruiting, Brig. Gen. Christopher Amrhein on Oct. 30.

The rule changes that enabled those recruits to join the force came out of work by a cross-functional team organized to identify and eliminate “barriers to service” that were driving otherwise qualified recruits to seek out other options, including joining the Army and Navy.

But one thing the Air Force is not doing is dropping standards, Amrhein said. That includes putting potential recruits through preparatory classes to help them pass the Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery of tests.

Victory Lap

Amrhein and the other services’ recruiting chiefs spoke to reporters in the Pentagon briefing room to celebrate meeting recruiting goals for 2024 after falling far short in 2023.

Amrhein credited the reduction in barriers and the team that worked on the problem in the spring of 2023, led by now-Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin. That team advocated to allow recruits in who have small hand and neck tattoos; allowing some qualified applicants a chance to retest after testing positive marijuana use; and enabling accelerated naturalization for non-citizens, among other changes.

All told, the changes enabled “more than 10,000 total force Airmen and Guardians to join the Air Force or space force” over the past 18 months or so, Amrhein said. That’s equivalent to about 22 percent of the 44,318 recruits his command brought into the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, and Space Force in fiscal 2024.

As he did at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference last month, Amrhein credited the success not to one particular change but to “a broader shift in how we approach recruitment.”

“Multiple levers such as barrier removal, incentive adjustment, increasing medical review support, and a honed focus on recruiter development all played a critical role to our total force recruiting successes,” he said.

The single biggest factor, however, was change the Air Force’s rules on body fat. Last year, the Air Force dropped its service-unique requirements and aligned USAF body composition standards with the minimum requirements set by DOD policy.

“Since then, we’ve brought in over 5,800 Airmen [thanks to that change],” Amrhein said. “And under that DOD standard, we’ve had one washout of BMT for physical fitness reasons.” ”

Amrhein said he’s frequently asked if the standards have declined. He says no: “The [physical fitness test] standards have not changed for our basic training and that policy adjustment offered 5,800 very high-quality folks to come into our service, and we lost one person for it.”

Higher Goals Ahead

Now the Air Force Recruiting Service is one month into a new fiscal year with a substantially higher goal: 49,579 total force recruits, up 11 percent from fiscal 2024. The goals break out this way:

32,500 recruits for the Active-Duty Air Force

7,600 for the Air Force Reserve

8,679 for the Air National Guard

800 for the Space Force

Amrhein said those goals will be achieved with the help of 370 new recruiters and support personnel, but the emphasis will remain on individual recruits who can do the job—not recruits who need a crash course for to meet physical fitness or academic standards.

“There’s not the overarching, compelling requirement that we’ve seen” to create such programs, he said.

The Army and Navy, which have higher recruiting goals and, for many jobs, lower academic standards, have benefited greatly from their prep courses. The Army has graduated nearly 25,000 recruits from its course over the past two years and the Navy put more than 5,000 recruits through its program in the past year.

Students at the U.S. Army’s Future Soldier Preparatory Course work on math skills during a class at Fort Jackson, S.C. The Air Force does not provide a comparable course and has no plans to do so. (U.S. Army photo by Jason Norris)

Like the Air Force, the Marine Corps also has refrained from adding prep classes.

But the Air Force does provide some assistance to prepare incoming recruits for the intensely rigorous special warfare program, among its toughest-to-fill jobs.

“For our Special Warfare accession pipeline, we do have a very deliberate development program for them,” he said. “So as folks identify or are interested in the Special Warfare Air Force Specialty Codes, there is a very deliberate development program, both from a mental resiliency standpoint, but also a very in-depth physical training regimen to prepare them for that pipeline.”

Those preparations are not the same, however, as a special course, he said.

Space Force Wants Your Help Naming All Its Satellites

Oct. 30, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force has the F-22 Raptor. The Navy has its Nimitz-class (CVN-68) aircraft carriers. The Army has the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Now the Space Force wants in on the name game, and is planning to start naming its satellites, radars, and other weapons recognizable names.

Guardians can help. Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman’s latest “C-Note” memo to Guardians went out Oct. 25, inviting Guardians to put their heads together to come up with the best ways to identify USSF spacecraft.

“How do we talk about our equipment in the Space Force?” Saltzman asked. “How do we name the systems we operate? Do those names accurately reflect the Guardian spirit—the space warfighting culture that we are working to build? I am not convinced that they do. But we are making strides to rectify that.”

Space Force systems are typically known by clunky, unpronouncable acronyms—SBIRS for Space-Based Infrared System, or GSSAP for Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program, or SCN for Satellite Control Network. Naming them could make them more memorable and recognizable to the public.

Last October, the Space Force established a new designation system for future platforms with Space Force Instruction 16-403, but that move did nothing to change existing naming conventions. “It is a tremendous step to move from where we are today,” Saltzman wrote in his C-Note, “to a world in which all our systems are named to reflect the culture of their operators.”

The CSO asked Guardians to share ideas for satellite naming “themes” by Nov. 30. To prime the pump, he offered ideas of his own: “For example, should we name the systems within our Missile Warning and Tracking activities after birds of prey? Or systems within SATCOM activities after canines? Should we leverage mythology? Natural phenomena?”

Saltzman listed 10 activities of interest:

Cyber warfare

Electromagnetic warfare

Missile Warning and Tracking

Navigation Warfare

Orbital Warfare

Reconnaissance

Satellite Communications

Space-Based Sensing and Targeting

Surveillance

Theater Electromagnetic Warfare

The service is not looking for names of specific platforms at this stage, but themes for these specific categories, an official told Air & Space Forces Magazine. Names could come later, once themes are selected.

Saltzman directed Guardians to read Space Force Instruction 16-403 before submitting suggestions. That document, released with little fanfare last fall and updated in July, sets requirements: Names should be “no more than two short words,” must not infringe on any copyrights (take note, Sci-Fi fans), and must not sound like the names of some existing weapons system; names should also be “within scope of DOD values and morals.”

The designation system for Space Force weapons is similar to the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System. The first component describes the mission and environment of the system, while the second component signifies “the design number and the design series.” The system also includes optional prefixes if the system is experimental, a prototype, or has an otherwise modified mission.

For instance, a communications satellite constellation located in low-Earth orbit, like the one being developed by the Space Development Agency, could be designated CL-1 or some other design number. GPS, a navigation warfare system in medium-Earth orbit, could be designated NM-3 or some other number.

The instruction notes that the designation system will only be required for new systems developed after October 2023, to include systems currently in development. Each system will require a designation no later than preliminary design review, and a designation and popular name prior to System Fielding Decision.

However, Guardians can request that today’s fielded systems also receive a designation and name, the instruction notes.

Space Force Weapons System Designations

Modified Mission (optional)	Basic Mission	Environment
T – Test/Training/Range	A – Attack	C – Cyberspace
Y – Prototype	B – Battle Management	D – Deep Space
X – Experimental	C – Communications	G – Geosynchronous Orbit
Z – Scientific/Calibration	D – Defend	M – Medium-Earth Orbit
	E – Electromagnetic Warfare	H – Highly Elliptical Orbit
	K – Support	L – Low-Earth Orbit
	M – Meterological	T – Terrestrial
	N – Navigation Warfare	V – Various
	P – Pursuit
	R – Reconnaissance
	S – Surveillance
	W – Warning & Tracking

Kendall: In US-China ‘Race for Technological Superiority,’ AI May Be the Key

Oct. 29, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

China thinks it will be able to invade Taiwan by 2027 and has developed a technology edge in many key areas—but it is artificial intelligence that may be the decisive factor should conflict erupt, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Oct. 29.

In a panel discussion at the Microelectronics Commons Annual Meeting and National Semiconductor Technology Center Symposium, Kendall reiterated what has been the defining message of his tenure: China has grown in capability, erasing U.S. military advantages, and represents an imminent threat.

Chinese president Xi Jinping “has told his military to be ready by 2027 to take Taiwan and defeat the United States if we intervene,” Kendall said. “They’re working very hard to meet that goal. I have no idea what Xi Jinping will do in 2027, but I am pretty sure that his military will tell him they’re ready, and we’ll be in a period of much greater risk.”

That risk, Kendall said, is heightened by the fact that China has designed its forces to blunt American “high value assets”—satellites, large military bases, aircraft carriers and capital ships, air bases, command and control nodes and logistical nodes—and abandoned its “large, relatively primitive” force structure centered on a large standing army.

On top of that, the Chinese invested in advanced tech—and stole U.S. intellectual property. As a result, Kendall said, they now have an advantage in cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons and are working to build one with targeting satellites and advanced, automated battle management systems.

Moreover, ‘they’re reaching out to ever-longer ranges to try to attack assets such as our tankers, for example, or our command-and-control aircraft that traditionally have operated out of range of the threats and been able to operate pretty much with impunity,” the secretary said.

Now, the U.S. and China are in “a race for technological superiority” rather than a “classic arms race … where we’re trying to build more battleships than they are.”

Addressing the topic of the conference, Kendall said microelectronics is “the enabling technology for all sorts of advances that we’re making. There are people who have said that … the AI competition is essentially going to determine who’s the winner in the next battlefield. I don’t think that’s all that far off.”

But rather than use AI as a catch-all buzzword, Kendall said he thinks of it in terms of the “specific applications” to which it can be applied, such as pattern recognition, automation, decision-making, and support functions. “On the battlefields of Europe … and to some degree, in the Middle East” are proving that these applications are “changing the character of warfare,” he said.

Perhaps the most high profile AI application for the Air Force is in its Collaborative Combat Aircraft program.

In May, Kendall flew in the X-62 VISTA F-16, which is equipped to test out “AI agents” for dogfighting. The computer on board was given a situation and flew against live-crew adversaries.

“We … did that with multiple different contractors [and] versions of the software, and it worked very well,” he said. The CCA program is “moving forward pretty quickly” and will require billions of dollars that depends on microelectronics, Kendall said.

Arati Prabhakar, of the White House Office of Science and Technology, shared the stage with Kendall and likened the AI revolution to former Defense Secretary William Perry’s push for stealth, the Global Positioning System, and other “transformational capabilities” in the 1970s.

“At the time, [Perry] testified before Congress, and he said, ‘if we do this, it will give us a 40-year advantage, because no one else has access to these technologies.’ Well, 40 years have come and gone and he was right, but we’re not going to get 40 years from any one next step in capability, because as hard as and fast as we are all running, we’re not the only country that gets to play in advanced technology anymore,” Prabhakar said.

Because of that, Prabhakar said, breakthrough research is important, but even more vital is the ability “to get it into production and use.”

Kendall said he views technology development as relying first on “exquisite, deep knowledge to make breakthroughs and move move forward. But “once that that breakthrough has been accomplished by very specialized people, generalists can do applications of that technology to a wide range of wide range of things. So we need both … you need ways to translate those ideas into reality as quickly as possible, to demonstrate they can actually be [put into] things you can really build.”

Air Force Chief: Small Drones Are Both ‘Threat and Opportunity’

Oct. 29, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The proliferation of drones in the war in Ukraine has changed how many experts see the future of warfare. But the Air Force’s top general is cautioning against overstating those lessons as the U.S. seeks to deter China and Russia and prepare for other major threats.

“I think the appearance of drones and the appearance of rapidly replicable, low-cost, mass airborne platforms offers both a threat and an opportunity,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said Oct. 25 at the Military Reporters and Editors Conference in Washington, D.C.

There is no question that drones provide the military with a way to strike targets with precision in a cost-effective way. That offers the opportunity, Allvin said, “to deliver combat airpower, sensing, communications in a different way.”

But what works well in Ukraine, he added, may have less utility in the western Pacific as the U.S. seeks to counter China’s growing military.

“The question that we need to address as we look at how it might impact and find its way into our Air Force writ large is the utility across the geography,” Allvin added. “I would not want us to take what’s going on in Ukraine and … transport that immediately to the Indo-Pacific because of the nature of the tyranny of distance.”

Pentagon officials have noted the utility of drones for both Russian and Ukrainian forces. Russia has used Iranian-made drones to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Russian forces have also employed small quadcopter-style and first-person view drones for reconnaissance and aerial strikes.

Ukraine, in turn, has developed long-range drones that can strike targets in Russia from over 400 kilometers away, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said last week.

DOD recently gave Ukraine’s drone industry $800 million to keep working on long-range aircraft. And drone technology has utility for the U.S. as well, as the Air Force pursues its future force design.

“Those three words don’t often belong in the same text: inexpensive, precise, and long-range,” said Allvin. “But we’re looking at it from both that opportunity and threat perspective on how we might integrate those into the force.”

Still, many of the cutting-edge systems the Air Force is pursuing for great power competition are more sophisticated and costly than the UAVs that have proliferated in Ukraine’s airspace.

The Air Force is betting big on Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), envisioned as wingman drones that cost $25 million each and fly alongside the service’s manned fighters and bombers. The first series of designs has been unveiled, and Allvin said 150 CCAs will be in service within the next five years. The capability and mass that could be provided by those platforms have led the service to reevaluate its future manned fighter needs.

“Collaborative Combat Aircraft, I don’t want people to think of those as a quadcopter-style drone,” said Allvin. “They are certainly of a different class, and the idea is for them to be autonomous and collaborative with current systems.”

Yet another challenge is figuring out how to counter cheap drones that are used by adversaries. In the past year, U.S. troops in the Middle East have been targeted by Iranian-backed groups armed with one-way drone attack drones, including one drone strike that killed three Soldiers in Jordan in February.

Iran has also deployed one-way attack drones against Israel, which Air Force F-15E and F-16 fighters helped shoot down in April, and Iranian-backed Houthis have attacked shipping in the Red Sea, Gulf Aden, and Bab el-Mandeb strait in part with one-way attack drones by air and sea.

“The counter small-UAS threat is something that is certainly growing at a concerning pace,” Allvin said. “The barrier entry to that is low, the ability to attribute [the attack] is low. … We plan on really working on that and developing the counter small UAS to be able to counter the threats, not only here, but also the ones that we are facing overseas.”

IG Spanks Boeing and USAF Over Wasteful Spare Parts

Oct. 29, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

A whistleblower complaint about overpriced lavatory soap dispensers for the C-17 Globemaster III triggered a Pentagon investigation that uncovered about $1 million in overpayments for spare parts and a lack of oversight by the Air Force over its contractor, Boeing.

The Department of Defense Inspector General investigation reviewed 46 different parts and found “the Air Force did not pay a fair and reasonable prices” for 12 of them. Pricing data for 25 other parts was unavailable because the Air Force lacked historical records for past orders. And in some instances the purchase price paid by Boeing did not match the listed unit price for some parts.

The Air Force has awarded multiple C-17 sustainment contracts to Boeing, which built the C-17, including $23.8 billion performance-based logistics deal for 2021 to 2031. Under that contract, Boeing purchases spare parts for the C-17, and the Air Force reimburses it for the expense.

Among the 46 parts examined, the IG found the Air Force “paid reasonable prices for nine,” overpaid for 12, and that no clear answer could be found for the remaining 25. The IG defined “unreasonable” as 25 percent or more above list price.

“Boeing is responsible for being an effective agent of the Government when purchasing the spare parts, which includes obtaining fair and reasonable prices,” the DOD IG said. “The Air Force is responsible for providing surveillance during performance of the contracts to ensure Boeing uses effective cost control.”

The inspector general found fault with both parties. A tipster calling the IG’s whistleblower hotline reported the cost of the soap dispensers, leading to the review that examined 46 parts purchased during the five years from 2018 to 2022.

The IG redacted details of prices and quantities in the public release, but it noted that the soap dispensers are equivalent to those used in a residential or commercial restaurant bathrooms and that the markup was 80 times over the commercially available cost. In all, the Air Force paid Boeing back nearly $151,000 for soap dispensers worth just over $2,000, a difference of $149,072, according to the report.

Other examples the report cited included a Pressure Transmitters, billed at 36 times the commercially available cost; a Protective Dust and Moisture Plug, billed at 55 times commercial cost, and Vaneaxial Fans, billed at 14 times the commercial rate.

The IG faulted Air Force acquisition officials for failing to exercise to exercise their oversight role and for not catching the wasteful spending.

Up until 2022, Boeing used a system called the BSRAM to generate an “estimate of the types and quantities of parts that Boeing believes will be required to meet contractual requirements based on stock levels, maintenance schedules, models that predict which parts will need replacement, and parts that will require repair in the next few years,” the report notes. Yet Air Force officials never validated the accuracy of the system. The IG found that a majority of the spare parts purchased were not included in the initial estimates.

The IG also faulted Air Force officials for failing in their “surveillance” role when Boeing paid significantly more than it said it would. Officials never reviewed spare parts invoices, they told investigators.

“Until the Air Force establishes controls to require contracting officials to review spare parts purchases throughout the execution of the contract, the Air Force will continue to overpay for spare parts for the remainder of the … contract,” the office warned. “Furthermore, if the Air Force continues to overpay for spare parts, it will result in less funding for spare parts, which may reduce the number of spare parts that Boeing can purchase on the contract.”

The IG recommended that the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and the C-17 program office develop controls for reviewing Boeing’s reports on material costs, require the contractor to notify the office if spare parts costs rise 25 percent or more above expected pricing, and regularly review invoices and spare part prices.

AFLCMC agreed with the recommendations. But the IG said AFLCMC officials did not not address its specific concerns, so its recommendations remain unresolved.

The DOD IG has previously criticized Air Force’s processes for buying spare parts. In August, the agency released a report faulting USAF for lacking proper guidance and controls for instances where contractors must pay it back for spare parts deemed defective. That report, which focused on C-130 aircraft, said the Air Force is frequently left with millions of dollars’ worth of parts that can’t be used, sometimes resulting in additional spending to get aircraft fixed and flying again.

AI ‘Will Enhance’ Nuclear Command and Control, Says STRATCOM Boss

Oct. 28, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Pentagon nuclear command, control, and communications enterprise is decades old and desperate for an upgrade, says the head of U.S. Strategic Command, and artificial intelligence could help fortify nuclear C3 for its no-fail mission.

STRATCOM is “exploring all possible technologies, techniques, and methods to assist with the modernization of our NC3 capabilities,” said Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, who has led the command since December 2022.

“AI will enhance our decision-making capabilities,” Cotton said at the 2024 Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Conference. “But we must never allow artificial intelligence to make those decisions for us.”

Growing threats, an overwhelming flow of sensor data, and increasing cybersecurity concerns are driving the need for AI to keep American forces a step ahead of those seeking to challenge the U.S., Cotton said. “Advanced systems can inform us faster and more efficiently,” he explained. “But we must always maintain a human decision in the loop to maximize the adoption of these capabilities and maintain our edge over our adversaries.”

Cotton said AI can help give leaders more “decision space” to ensure the entire nuclear enterprise stays secure. “Our adversaries must know that our nuclear command and control and other capabilities that provide decision advantage are at the ready, 24/7, 365 and cannot be compromised or defeated,” Cotton said.

Cotton’s predecessors at STRATCOM, Adm. Charles Richard and Gen. John E. Hyten, also addressed NC3 modernization. But at a time when the Air Force is also trying to modernize its strategic bomber force with the B-21 Raider bomber, the ICBM force with the Sentinel missile, and its ballistic missile submarine force with the Columbia class submarines, NC3 gets little attention—even though none of those systems can be effective without it.

“Despite warnings from top national security officials, important improvements to NC3 have been fragmented,” wrote Peter L. Hays of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and consultant Sarah Mineiro in an Oct. 28 blog post for the Atlantic Council.

Heather Penney, senior resident fellow at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, noted in a recent podcast that NC3 is often taken for granted, “because it’s largely invisible … underground cables, computers, communications links, and a very few specialized aircraft and satellites are the backbone of this mission function,” she said. “But it’s not like we see those things at air shows or on promotional posters.”

Chris Adams, general manager of Northrop Grumman’s Strategic Space Systems Division, said the real challenge with NC3 is that it’s comprised of so many pieces. “It’s not a single system that was deployed at one point in time,” he said on the Mitchell Institute podcast. “It’s a system of systems. Itreally encompasses hundreds of individual systems that are modernized and sustained over a long period of time in response to an ever-changing threat.”

Injecting AI into some of those systems offers the possibility of more speed and the ability to make sense of huge amounts of information drawn in by that system of systems. There are risks with AI, as researchers have noted. including misplaced trust in AI, “poisoned” data ingested into systems, inaccurate algorithms, and more.

Cotton accounted for such pitfalls, but sees greater promise overall. “Advanced AI and robust data analytics capabilities provide decision advantage and improve our deterrence posture,” he said. “IT and AI superiority allows for more effective integration of conventional and nuclear capabilities, strengthening deterrence.”

AI could be used to automate data collection and accelerate data sharing and integration with allies, he suggested. But he also said “we need to direct research efforts to understand the risks of cascading effects of AI models, emergent and unexpected behaviors, and indirect integration of AI into nuclear decision-making processes.”

Implementing new NC3 systems—with and without artificial intelligence—will need to be a deliberate process said, Adams said.

“We have to consider when, where, and how we want to deploy the next generation of systems incrementally and carefully, so we don’t leave any vulnerabilities,” Adams said. “A good analogy is grabbing the next ring on the playground before letting go of the last one.”

NGAD Review to Finish Before End of Year, Allvin Says

Oct. 28, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The future of the Air Force’s next-generation combat jet will be decided by the end of the year, the service’s top officer said Oct. 25.

“We intend to have that by December,” Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said at the Military Reporters and Editors Conference in Washington, D.C. “We also want to be able to influence the Department’s Presidential Budget Submission in February.”

As currently conceived, the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) combat aircraft is a “very expensive, very capable crewed platform,” Allvin said. The Air Force paused the project this summer as it was reaching a decision point for choosing between competing designs to replace the F-22 Raptor. Rather than commit, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall wanted to make sure the Air Force wasn’t betting its future on a capability that might be had at lower cost if requirements were changed.

The NGAD design precedes the progress USAF has made with semi-autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). Allvin said the Air Force plans to have more than 150 CCAs in service within the next five years.

CCAs don’t require life-support systems and could be developed at a fraction of the cost of manned fighters. That’s raising questions about what the mix of unmanned and manned aircraft should be.

“NGAD is a family of systems,” Allvin said. “One piece of the system is the NGAD penetrating counterair crewed platform. Some would say it’s the follow-on to the F-22. … It is part of a family of systems. That family of systems includes Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which are uncrewed. But those are already underway.”

The Air Force is studying its future force design at the same time, driven by China’s growing military and its anti-access/area denial strategy in the South China Sea. The manned NGAD platform was supposed to be able to penetrate those defenses, but the threat today is greater than it was just a few years ago.

“The ability to say, ‘We know that when this platform delivers, it is going to meet the threat’—I think we’re less certain about that than we were when we designed it,” Allvin said.

“We are now in the point where … if we go down this path, this will be a very, very costly program,” Alvin added. “The question is, with the cost, the capability, and where the threat is, is it the right [choice]?”

Pausing to consider all the options is not “slow rolling or stalling,” Allvin said. “I would call it something that’s prudent because once we go through this one-way door, it’s hard to pivot.”

The Air Force has pegged the cost of NGAD at “hundreds of millions of dollars,” but Kendall said in September that he wants NGAD capability in a far less costly platform: no more than the cost of today’s F-35—less than half the cost of the projected NGAD crewed aircraft.

CCAs are what changed Kendall’s thinking. Designed to work in close collaboration with F-35s and B-21 Raider bombers, they could reduce the requirement for a penetrating combat jet and make additional B-21s more attractive to Air Force planners. The Air Force has never said NGAD would resemble the F-22 or other fighter-type platforms, designed to outmaneuver rival fighters. Its mission is to penetrate and suppress enemy air defenses, which might make it more like a smaller, faster stealth bomber.

Would the Air Force consider buying more than the 100 B-21s now planned? Allvin answered: “We have not taken that off the table.”

Yet developing and fielding crewed NGAD aircraft remains a possibility, Allvin said. “I don’t like people having the presupposition that because we’re pausing and analyzing, we’re walking away from it,” he said. “That decision has not been made.”

A blue-ribbon panel, including three former Air Force Chiefs of Staff, one former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two leading civilian experts is reviewing the evidence now and will recommend a way forward in December.

“As we are analyzing this, we need to understand, ‘Is this the best for the cost of what we think the threat is going to be?’ and ‘Is this the best way to be able to achieve air superiority?’” Allvin said. “And if it turns out that this platform design, as currently instantiated, is the best … we have to figure out how to pay for it.”