New Report: China Cuts Pilot Training Time, Aims to Modernize by 2030

Nov. 26, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

China is cutting down on the time it takes to train raw students to be fighter pilots and transitioning to a full fleet of fourth-generation training aircraft—but won’t have a fully modernized pilot training system until 2030, according to a new paper from Air University’s China Aerospace Studies Institute.

In the paper, analyst Derek Solen cited “new developments” in pilot training divulged by China in the last few months. The Shijiazhuang Flight Academy, one of three training centers for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, has “completely replaced an older training program and the aircraft used in it,” referring to third-generation fighters equivalent to Russia’s Mig-21. This change has cut about year from the four-year training program.

“Meanwhile, the Xi’an and Harbin Flight Academies are establishing new units to train recent graduates to transition to fighter aircraft, shifting the burden of that training from combat units to the academies,” Solen wrote. “Both these developments indicate that the [People’s Liberation Army Air Force] is steadily making progress in long-standing efforts to streamline and centralize its initial fighter pilot training program, efforts that should be complete by the beginning of the next decade.”

Solen told Air & Space Forces Magazine that China’s pilot training academies have been consolidated from six to three over the last decade, and that a further year could be cut from the curriculum because of the success of the Hongdu JL-10 trainer, a derivative of the Russian/Italian Yak-130. The fly-by-wire, glass cockpit trainer is the aircraft around which the People’s Liberation Army Air Forces seems to be building most of its flight instruction, he said. No other advanced trainer appears to be in the works.

Solen offered an educated estimate that China is producing about 400 pilots a year—and that number is increasing slowly. By comparison, the U.S. Air Force is producing about 1,350 pilots per year, though that figure is short of its goal between 1,800 and 2,000.

PLAAF pilot production “kind of bottlenecks at the university,” Solen said, and this limits the flow of students through the system. To substantially increase production, “it’s going to require more aircraft and more instructors,” he added.

China’s flight instruction program from basic aviation/officer student training to frontline service takes about four years, about twice as long as the Air Force’s program, in which students go from primary instruction to operational squadrons in about two years.

Solen said China is not yet mimicking USAF’s new plan of using simulation and individualized instruction to accelerate the time it takes for a flyer to go from undergraduate student to flight lead, with students progressing at their own pace. However, China is increasing its use of simulators, and they are becoming more advanced, with a high-fidelity cockpit surrounded by a video dome, used primarily at operational units.

Pilots chosen for transports and bombers are usually those who don’t succeed in the fighter track, Solen said. The PLAAF’s concept is to maximize the investment already made in those students, he noted. Each of the flying academies have separate programs within them for large, multiengine aircraft.

Solen noted in his analysis that China doesn’t have service academies or generic officer training schools. Rather, after three years of officer training and education at PLAAF’s aviation university, students begin primary flight training. They complete that school after a fourth year, after which they do a year of intermediate training, followed by a year of advanced training. Those that graduate go on to a year of specific instruction with the combat unit to which they’re assigned.

Shijiazhaung seems to be eliminating that intermediate year of instruction.

“The Shijiazhuang Flight Academy’s elimination of intermediate flight training and its retirement of the JL-8 indicates that almost all the academy’s training brigades now operate the JL-10,” Solen wrote in the paper. “The academy is almost certain to have one last training brigade operating the JL-9, but it is likely to retire the JL-9 next year after the last group of pilot candidates to have undergone intermediate flight training in the JL-8 complete their advanced flight training in mid-2025.” He expects the Harbin academy to transition fully to JL-10 instruction in 2026.

The J-10 is China’s equivalent of the F-16, and two-seat versions are used for advanced fighter and strike training.

“Although only flight instructors have been mentioned training in the J-10 at the Xi’an Flight Academy, it is likely that the academy will begin conducting transition training for new pilots in the autumn of 2024 if it has not already done so,” according to the paper.

“This would conform with past practice: the Shijiazhuang Flight Academy received the J-10 one year before it began conducting transition training. The Harbin Flight Academy is likely to have begun transition training with the J-11 by late 2023 because flight training commences in September of each year, so the air-to-ground attack training indicates the existence of a training program that began in the previous year.”

The PLAAF has not more radically accelerated or reformed its pilot training program because it’s largely locked into the traditional tempo of the instruction, Solen said.

“They’ve … retained that cyclical induction process,” he noted. “I suppose they could go more quickly, but if they do that actually kind of screws everything up,” because officer instruction paces flight training. The tempo calls for a September-to-July instruction period, followed by graduation, for each phase of instruction.

“They’ve worked to kind of separate some of the officer training and some of the aviation education, but it’s still kind of mixed together. It’s all at the same pace,” he noted. “And so every year, they’re inducting new potential pilots, but they do it at the very same time each year … because they can’t bring anybody on [at] a different schedule.” The idea is not necessarily to take more time to produce more seasoned pilots, but throughout their training, students get substantially more flying hours than their American counterparts, and the Chinese seem comfortable with that.

“The schedule dictates everything,” Solen said.

“It’s a very deliberate process,” he added. “It hasn’t been fast, but I can see steady progress.” Since the arrival of the JL-10, “that was really the final piece needed to really get this process moving. Until then they were … hindered by lack of an appropriate trainer. While they were trying to reform the curriculum, it wasn’t well matched with the aircraft that they had.”

That was problematic because the PLAAF’s trainers were preparing students for third-generation fighters as it was introducing fourth- and fifth-generation fighters like the J-10, J-15, and J-20. That extra year may have been necessary to help students make the transition.

“It didn’t really match,” he said. Even the JL-10 may be insufficiently advanced to prepare students for the J-20, China’s premier stealth fighter, Solen noted.

While the PLAAF will likely “retain some old trainers and the old training program for almost as long as it continues to operate some third-generation fighters given the progress of the PLAAF’s effort to replace such fighters, it is safe to predict that [they] will all be retired around 2030,” Solen said. The older fighter trainers “will probably be left to a shrinking group of experienced pilots whose retirements may coincide with the retirement of their aircraft,” Solen wrote.

“It is likely that the PLAAF will need until at least 2030 to establish enough new training brigades to completely shift transition training away from combat units,” he concluded. The pace of this effort “could increase as each flight academy acquires more experience and personnel to accomplish it.”

New Drone Sightings Spark Mystery at USAF’s UK Bases

Nov. 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

A collection of small drones was spotted flying over three U.S. Air Force bases in England last week—the latest in a worrying series of incursions that previously had been reported in Virginia.

U.S. Air Forces in Europe disclosed in a release that unidentified drones flew over and around RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell from Nov. 20 to 24.

“The number of systems fluctuated, and they ranged in sizes and configurations,” the release stated. “The sUASs were actively monitored and installation leaders determined that none of the incursions impacted base residents, facilities, or assets.”

The command declined to say if any action was taken against the drones, saying only that “we retain the right to protect our installations.”

Drones were previously reported flying over Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., where the Air Force’s F-22 Raptors are based, and officials have yet to determine who was behind them.

Other instances have also been noted. A senior defense official told reporters in May that the Pentagon was recording roughly two to three cases a week of drones flying into the airspace around domestic U.S. military bases, and in October, the Wall Street Journal reported that DOD was still investigating the drones at Langley.

Inexpensive, commercial drones are now widely available worldwide, ramping up concerns about how they could be used to spy on or disrupt military activities during peacetime and at war. The war in Ukraine has seen huge numbers of drones in combat. The Air Force has been seeking low-cost solutions for defending against drones and drone swarms for years, especially means that don’t involve firing high-end missiles.

The appearance of drones over UK bases hosting F-35 and F-15E fighters, KC-135 tankers, RC-135 surveillance aircraft, adds a new wrinkle to the matter. Whether this is a similar pattern repeating itself in a new location, or local hobbyists making a nuisance of themselves remains to be seen.

Report: Instructor’s ‘Overconfidence’ Blamed for 2023 Wyoming UH-1 Crash

Nov. 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force blamed the loss of a $5 million UH-1N helicopter on a civilian flight instructor and the Air Force pilot whose actions precipitated the August 2023 crash at Cheyenne Regional Airport, Wyo., according to a new Accident Investigation Board report.

The pilot, an experienced member of the 37th Helicopter Squadron at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., with 1,500 flying hours—almost all in the Huey—was practicing an emergency landing procedure following a three-month break from flying for medical reasons at the time of the crash. The civilian instructor had 4,000 hours of experience.

Officials faulted the instructor pilot for failing to properly assess the risk and clearly order recovery steps, determining the instructor was overconfident in the pilot, fixated on specific cues, and task saturated at the time. The investigation also faulted the pilot for not having control of the helicopter and failing to perform a power recovery as instructed. Also on the flight was a current and qualified flight engineer.

After taking off from F.E. Warren, the crew performed a series of maneuvers without incident and then made the short flight to Cheyenne Regional Airport to finish the sortie by executing a 180-degree autorotation landing. This emergency procedure is used to land safely in the event of an engine failure, and requires the pilot to make a 180-degree turn, then descend, using the resulting air flow to keep the helicopter’s rotors moving. To practice the maneuver, crews put the engine into idle.

When the pilot executed the turn, however, it was with “excessive right bank, excessive nose low attitude, and uncoordinated flight (being out of trim),” the report stated.

Instead of descending at no more than 3,000-feet per minute, as called for, the helicopter descended rapidly, averaging 4,185 feet per minute; at one point, it was falling at 5,200 feet per minute. Even so, the instructor “relied on an overconfident assessment of [the pilot’s] ability to fix the attitude despite the rapidly decreasing timeframe,” investigators wrote.

While the instructor told the pilot to “watch your nose down”—and the pilot told investigators he brought the nose up—flight recorder data indicated he did not. The instructor did not realize the extent of the risk until, at only about 200 feet, calling for the pilot to “go around.”

It was too late. With the engine still in idle, the aircraft could not generate power, and continued to sink; the instructor tried to execute a flare, but the bank, lack of power, rotor speed, and forward airspeed left the aircraft unrecoverable.

The last-ditch effort to flare caused the helicopter’s tail to hit the ground first, and the aircraft bounced back and forth between its tail boom and its skids until both broke off. Freed of the tail boom, the helicopter spun and rolled, its rotor pounded the ground and broke off, and the main fuselage spun several more times before coming to rest upside down.

Miraculously, the military crew members escaped with minor injuries (so did the civilian instructor, but that individual’s medical records were not released to investigators.)

Investigators said the instructor “was ultimately responsible for the [aircraft] and the mission” and determined the instructor failed in not explicitly calling for a power recovery. But they also faulted the pilot for poor flight control and causing the excessive sink rate in the first place, and cited the entire crew for failing to properly execute a power recovery once the instructor called for a “go around.”

The aircraft was a total loss.

The Air Force has flown the UH-1N since the Vietnam War, but plans to phase out the aging choppers in favor of the new MH-139 Grey Wolf. F.E. Warren has yet to receive its first of the new aircraft.

341st Security Forces Group tactical response force Airmen get dropped off by a 40th Helicopter Squadron UH-1N Huey while participating in Advanced Recapture Recovery Operational Warfighter at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming, Aug. 15, 2024. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Sarah Post

How the Air Force Can Evaluate Officers Better

Nov. 25, 2024 | By David Roza

A recent watchdog report found that the Air Force has one of the best officer performance evaluation systems among the services, but it falls short in two key areas: aligning performance expectations with organizational goals, and reviewing officer evaluation systems for bias and accuracy.

“By revising policy or guidance to direct raters to explicitly align individual officer performance expectations with organizational goals, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force can better ensure that officers’ daily activities and performance are cascading upwards to meet the goals of the organization,” the Government Accountability Office wrote in a Nov. 13 report.

GAO developed 11 key practices after reviewing publications on performance evaluation in the private and public sectors. The Air Force had fully incorporated eight out of the 11 practices, more than any other service. But only the Army had aligned its officer performance expectations with organizational goals, while the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps had not.

air force officer evaluation — The Government Accountability Office scored the military services based on 11 key practices for performance evaluation. (Screenshot via GAO)

Every year, Air Force officers receive an officer performance brief (OPB), where superior officers assess them in four performance areas: executing the mission, leading people, managing resources, and improving the unit. Between those four areas are divided 10 Airman Leadership Qualities. Raters write their assessment of the officer’s performance in each area in just a few sentences.

While “executing the mission” and “managing resources” sound like goals, GAO classified the four areas as organizational values—the moral code of an organization—not organizational goals, which are end results expected to be achieved within a specific period.

When the end results are not spelled out, it leaves raters to decide whether the officer actually achieved them, explained Dr. Bradley Podliska, an associate professor at Air University who co-wrote an article for War On The Rocks in March about improving the Air Force commander selection process.

“‘Executing the mission’ can or possibly cannot be related to organizational goals. It’s up to the individual rater whether to make that determination,” Podliska told Air & Space Forces Magazine, adding that his views do not necessarily represent those of the Air Force or the Department of Defense.

“The GAO is saying that these reports have to make it explicitly clear what the organizational goals are, so therefore that officer is going to be rated based on that standard,” he said.

For example, at Air University, teachers are expected to teach a certain number of courses and achieve a minimum positive student evaluation score, among other distinct goals, Podliska said. At an aircraft maintenance squadron, the organizational goal might be to reach a certain aircraft mission-capable rate. But under the current system, when an officer achieves those metrics, it might not necessarily factor into their rater’s assessment of them, Podliska said.

“You would assume that that’s how they’re being evaluated, but because it’s not explicitly clear with the organizational goals, it’s dependent on that individual rater how well they are actually doing in the evaluation,” he said. “I would think, if you talk to any officer, they are going to have stories about how what their rater wrote down about them had almost absolutely nothing to do with what they did. Anecdotally, everybody has stories like that.”

OPBs also require stratification, where officers of the same grade are ranked one through five, for example. The ranking makes it easy for promotion boards to select a winning officer, but without concrete performance metrics, they may be based on “basically useless data,” Podliska said.

The GAO made a similar argument and pointed out that organizational goals can help align officer training and provide concrete starting points for evaluating the effectiveness of a squadron, group, wing, or other organization.

Replace the Abstract

GAO is not the first to call for changes to the Air Force officer evaluation system. Col. Jason Lamb, then using the pseudonym Col. Ned Stark, sparked renewed interest in the topic from 2018 to 2020 when he wrote a series of essays on improving Air Force officer promotion and leadership development.

“We have some great leaders in our Air Force, but we need to do a better job of finding and developing more of them while weeding out toxic leaders before they have a chance to do significant harm to our Airmen and missions,” Lamb wrote in one essay.

The Air Force is not alone in its soul-searching: in 2020, the Army launched a Battalion Commander Assessment Program, where candidates are evaluated based on a five-day series of cognitive tests, interviews with a psychologist, communication assessments, reports from peers and subordinates, and other tests.

So far, the results are promising: under the first BCAP, 34 percent fewer officers were chosen for command than under the old system, which was just a board reviewing personnel files. Many Soldiers rejected under the first BCAP came back the next year after learning from their mistakes. Ninety-four percent of the participants said BCAP was a better way to select battalion commanders than the old system, and 97 percent said the Army should continue BCAP.

In their March article, Podliska and his co-author, Air Force Maj. Maria Patterson, pointed out that BCAP is part of a larger Army effort to identify specific command leadership attributes in its doctrine, then use objective data to assess how close Soldiers are to the mark. The Air Force needs to spell out its own command leadership attributes to guide development, they said.

“Within the Air Force, a plethora of doctrine, regulations, instructions, manuals, and technical orders exist, ranging from how to properly use a chair to developing a strategy for modern international warfare with near-peer threats,” wrote Podliska and Patterson. “Still, one of the most critical aspects of the military foundation is neglected—leadership in command.”

A complementary effort would be to align individual performance expectations with organizational goals, so that the Air Force could better identify high-performing officers with objective data, Podliska said.

“Let’s replace the abstract with actual metrics,” he said. “What does it mean to lead people? How do you actually define that in terms of quantifiable variables? Let’s look at some of the research.”

Numbers may not account for everything, Podliska cautioned, which is why more abstract values could still play a role, particularly for taking care of subordinates. But if the Air Force does decide to change its system, it needs a way of checking to see if it works; the GAO reported that none of the services had fully incorporated such a mechanism.

“[T]he Air Force makes incremental changes—such as policy updates—to the performance evaluation system as needed and has a process for ensuring completeness of performance evaluation reports,” the report said. “However, it has not regularly evaluated the system’s processes and tools to help ensure the effectiveness, accuracy, and quality of the system, and it does not review ratings or related trends to ensure fairness or accuracy of individual ratings.”

For its part, the Air Force partially concurred with GAO’s recommendation to explicitly align officer expectations with officer goals.

“The Air Force recognized that there can be confusion between the core values and organizational goals as they relate to the evaluation system and noted that the service would examine how to incorporate the requirement most effectively into its policy,” GAO noted. “[W]e are encouraged by the Air Force’s stated commitment to examine how to clarify its organizational goals and align those goals with officer expectations in policy.”

Competition Gets Tougher for Space Force Senior NCO Promotions

Nov. 25, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

While promotion rates took off for the Space Force’s junior noncommissioned officer corps in 2024, their senior NCO counterparts weren’t as lucky, as the service released statistics and a list of those selected on Nov. 21.

All told, the Space Force is minting:

14 new chief master sergeants out of 68 eligible Guardians, for a rate of 20.6 percent

25 new senior master sergeants out of 435 eligible Guardians, for a rate of 5.75 percent

A list of those selected is available on the Air Force Personnel Center website.

The total number of promotions to chief master sergeant has held steady for the last three years at 14-15 Guardians, after a few cycles ramping up following the service’s founding in 2019. But the pool of those eligible has been on a continued upward trajectory—the 68 Guardians in this cycle was the most ever.

Accordingly, the promotion rate was the lowest since the Space Force’s first ever cycle in 2020, when two of eight senior master sergeants were selected.

Another notable point released in AFPC’s statistics is the time in service of those promoted was 19.42 years, the first time that has dipped below 20 years.

The competition to become a senior master sergeant is also getting tougher. The pool of 435 eligible was the biggest ever and a third more than as recently as 2022. At the same time, the service is also selecting fewer people for promotion, even accounting for the small sample size, going from 35 promotions in 2022 to 30 in 2023 and 25 this year.

Unsurprisingly, the 5.75 percent promotion rate was the lowest ever for the grade.

These promotion rates stand in marked contrast to the middle tier of NCO ranks in the Space Force. Back in June, the service announced it was promoting 95.66 percent of those eligible to sergeant, and 63.87 percent of those eligible to technical sergeant. Both were the highest marks ever for those ranks in the Space Force’s short history.

The service did announce at the time that it was promoting just 21.34 percent of those eligible to master sergeant, a decline from last year and a harbinger of the lower rates for senior NCOs.

With its small size and young history, the Space Force has spent much of the past few years building out its ranks and developing its structure. In September, though, Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force John F. Bentivegna unveiled an ambitious project to transform the career paths for the 4,900 enlisted Guardians. The project could include changes to everything from recruiting to tech school to career advancement, a phrase Bentivegna prefers over promotion, which he believes has a more competitive connotation.

Making things even more complex is the Space Force’s plan to fold Air Force Reservists into its ranks as part on a single component in which Guardians can work part-time or full-time. The service is still working on the HR systems for that change—and on how it will handle promotions.

Air Force, Boeing Agree on $2.4B Deal for 15 New KC-46 Tankers

Nov. 22, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force and Boeing agreed to a nearly $2.4 billion contract for a new lot of KC-46 aerial refueling tankers on Nov. 21.

The deal, announced by the Pentagon, is for 15 new aircraft in Lot 11 at a cost of $2.389 billion—some $159 million per tail.

All told, USAF has awarded contracts for 158 of 179 planned tankers. The service may still buy a more upgraded Pegasus as part of its KC-135 recapitalization program. In a release, Boeing said it has delivered 89 aircraft to the U.S. Air Force, plus four to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

The new deal is good news for Boeing, which has suffered $7 billion in losses on the program and faced issues with both its defense and commercial divisions in recent months. The lot cost is up $64 million from last November, when the Air Force and Boeing struck a deal for Lot 10.

The KC-46 program as a whole is making gradual progress after years of problems and multiple deficiencies related to the aircraft’s refueling system. Deliveries resumed in May after a two-month hold related to the tanker’s boom, and the first KC-46 operational deployment started in October when tankers from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., landed in the Middle East.

In its release, Boeing noted that the KC-46 has “flown more than 100,000 flight hours and offloaded more than 200 million pounds of fuel.”

The Air Force, meanwhile, is contemplating its future tanker plans as part of a broader look at how it approaches the air superiority mission—the service had envisioned a somewhat stealthy Next-Generation Aerial Refueling System (NGAS) to accompany the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter into contested airspace, extending the fighter’s range.

But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has admitted that with its current budget, the service cannot afford to buy NGAS, NGAD, and its planned Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Without more resources, leaders will have to decide what to prioritize.

KC-46s Take a While to Start. These Airmen Want to Fix It

Nov. 22, 2024 | By David Roza

Airmen at McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., are working on a device that will start up the KC-46 refueling tanker faster and cut down the time it takes for crews to take off and gas up aircraft in need.

First delivered in 2019, the KC-46 is the Air Force’s newest tanker. But despite its youth, the two-engine aircraft takes much longer to start up than its four-engine cousin, the KC-135, which is about 61 years old on average.

The difference is the auxiliary power unit (APU), a smaller engine that helps start up the main engines. APUs also get the aircraft’s climate control and other systems running, and they can be used as an emergency power source to restart the engines in flight. The APU on the KC-46 has “a substantially slower start/initialization time” than the one on the KC-135, John Van Winkle, chief of public affairs at McConnell’s 22nd Air Refueling Wing, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“This means that the crews have to start the APU when arriving at the aircraft and wait for it to run its initialization and diagnostics prior to applying battery power or attempting to start the aircraft engines,” he said.

kc-46 apu — U.S. Air Force Staff Sgts. Tamlin Soucy and Alexander Desmarais, both engine mechanics with the 157th Air Refueling Wing, use fish pole lifting equipment to lower an auxiliary power unit from a KC-46A Pegasus at Pease Air National Guard Base, New Hampshire, Sept. 27, 2022. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Victoria Nelson)

Winkle could not share exact times due to security concerns, but the wait was long enough that two Airmen at McConnell wanted to do something about it. Staff Sgt. Hunter Diedrich and Senior Airman Douglas Vargas are part of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing’s Innovation Lab, a space for Airmen to whip up fixes and inventions.

Diedrich and Vargas invented the APU Remote Start System (APURSS), a device that physically presses the APU start button remotely before the crews get aboard the KC-46. Vargas worked out the device’s software while Diedrich handled its physical design.

“We were relieved when the APURSS worked the first time because we had a few unknowns if the actuator would be strong enough to press the button and if the unit was going to be able to stay on the aircraft,” Diedrich said in a Nov. 19 press release.

The prototype is already making an impact, Capt. Timothy Schwanke, chief of the Innovation Lab, said in the release.

“This has already proven to significantly reduce the alert time for the KC-46 crews as they are conducting routine training,” he said. “Prior to this, the KC-46 had a severe disadvantage to alert timing in comparison to its KC-135 Stratotanker counterpart, and the APURSS device has effectively reversed those statistics.”

Senior Airman Douglas Vargas, 22nd Air Refueling Wing Innovation Lab intern, works on the KC-46A Pegasus Auxiliary Power Unit Start System (APURSS) at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, Nov. 14, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Paula Arce)

The signal is so strong that crews can trigger the APURSS from several states away, Diedrich said, though Van Winkle clarified that the intent is for the control module to stay at the same base as the APURSS. McConnell continues to use APURSS in operational exercises, “but it is anticipated that all KC-46 units will want this device once it is developed at a larger scale,” Schwanke said.

For now, the device is still the early stages of prototyping and creating proof of concept for the Air Force, but the Innovation Lab has already partnered with a few organizations to develop the idea.

Those partners include FirePoint Innovations Center, a defense technology hub at nearby Wichita State University, and the Defense Innovation Unit, which secured $250,000 to research and develop APURSS. FirePoint and Innovation Lab are also working with a Wichita company called PWI, which will take the lead on research and development, prototyping and commercialization of APURSS for the entire KC-46 fleet. How long that will take is not yet clear.

“It really will depend on when the funding officially comes in from DIU and how fast PWI can design and build a product for us to use on a larger, more robust scale,” Van Winkle explained. “Higher headquarters will be the ultimate authority on if and when the APURSS will actually be utilized real world.”

In the meantime, the partnerships are a promising start.

“We hope that with this funding from DIU, and business partnership with PWI, we can build a suitable product that the Air Force will want to purchase for fleet-wide implementation,” Van Winkle said.

A McConnell Airman marshals a KC-46A Pegasus at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, July 1, 2024 after the KC-46 circumnavigated the globe. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman Paula Arce)

Seeking New Options for GPS, Space Force Eyes Multiple Orbits

Nov. 22, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force’s best-known mission is often spelled out with just three letters: GPS. The world relies on U.S. military satellites for precise navigation and timing, and the Space Force delivers with its Global Positioning Satellite constellation.

But increasing use of jamming to block GPS signals and the risk that an adversary could seek to take out some or all of its 30 GPS satellites or distort signals in future conflict has Space Force leaders seeking back up alternatives.

The Department of the Air Force selected in April an alt-PNT project as one of two new “quick start” programs it would pursue using new authority that allows it to progress without waiting for congressional approval. By September, Space Systems Command had selected four companies to compete to develop Resilient GPS solutions. USSF intends to launch eight small satellites by 2028.

Congress members have faulted the program for focusing solely on new satellites while overlooking the need for jam-resistant encrypted M-code signals for military operations. But SSC Commander Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant pushed back on that criticism in Washington, Nov. 21.

“It’s focus is really to bolster the civil code for added resiliency, but also it’s a different orbital regime,” he said. Because the new satellites “won’t be in the same planes as GPS,” Garrant added, the PNT enterprise will gain “orbital diversity.”

Just as the Space Force has constellations operating in multiple orbits to bolster resilience, having PNT systems in low-Earth or geosynchronous orbits in addition to medium-Earth orbits, offers advantages: LEO satellites are far closer to the surface of the Earth, enabling a strong signal, and GEO satellites offer the benefit of a constant, steady presence overhead.

The Space Development Agency, which is fielding a resilient space architecture of low-Earth orbit satellites, has already begun “embedding” PNT signals into its first data transport satellites. These nodes include information about position and timing while transmitting communications—not unlike a clock in the background of a video call.

Looking ahead to future tranches of satellites, SDA will go a step further, providing a separate PNT signal from low-Earth orbit, said SDA Director Derek S. Tournear at an AFA Mitchell Instititue event on Nov. 19.

“We’re going to provide a lightweight signal service, PNT service,” Tournear said. “We’re working with the Army on exactly what that looks like. It will either be an L-band or S-band signal that goes out for things like munitions and things like that.” He defined “lightweight” as requiring “very low processing to receive the signal.”

The Air Force Research Laboratory is also poised to launch its NTS-3 demonstrator satellite, but is waiting for the launch vehicle, ULA’s Vulcan Centaur, to be certified. NTS-3 will go to geosynchronous orbit and test new technologies like reprogrammable signals and a phased array antenna that can direct signals without physically moving the satellite.

These developments point to a new-look GPS approach in the future, Garrant said: “I think it will in the future be a multiorbit phenomenology. We are very interested in alternate means of PNT.”

A Space Force official, speaking on background Nov. 21, said commercial interests are also looking to develop their own PNT alternatives.

“There are a couple companies that are going and actually building out an exquisite alt-PNT constellation,” the official said. “They have found a commercial base, especially when you’re looking at potentially autonomous vehicles coming into play, so they definitely want to capitalize on that. Also, our airline companies are looking to potentially make sure that they have an alternate PNT signal.”

Airline operators have had challenges with GPS in contested areas near Ukraine and the Middle East over the past year, as signal jamming increased.

Another potential way for commercial industry to tap into the market isby adding PNT signals to satellite communications networks, the official said. “Don’t offer it as an a la carte service, just make it kind of fundamental into the capability you’re providing, and then just amortize the cost or something like that.”

Such an approach would have value to the Pentagon, the offficial said. “We would pay a little bit more for that.”

SpaceX, which operates the massive Starlink constellation, is already looking in that direction. The official said SpaceX’s presentation is “very logical.”

All told, the Space Force may ultimately gain as many as a half-dozen or more GPS alternatives to choose from. Yet Garrant made clear that the existing GPS constellation remains “healthy.”

“We’re not moving away from the traditional GPS constellation,” he said.

Indeed, USSF has several new GPS III satellites stuck on the ground awaiting launch and is eager to get them into orbit. Garrant said Space Systems Command is looking “at options to go faster.” Though he did not say so directly, that could mean moving some satellites assigned to launch on ULA’s rocket to launch instead on SpaceX rockets so they get into orbit faster.

Air Force Historical Foundation Reveals Winners of Prestigious Awards

Nov. 22, 2024 | By Patrick Reardon

The Air Force Historical Foundation (AFHF) announced the 2023-2024 winners of its prestigious annual awards honoring individuals and units “dedicated to the making and documentation of Air Force and Space Force history.” In addition to the standard collection of awards, this year’s honors include the first-ever Lifetime Achievement for Space Award.

The AFHF will present the awards on May 22, 2025, at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center in the Space Hangar.

Unit Awards

Gen. James H. “Jimmy” Doolittle Award

AFHF’s Doolittle Award recognizes an active Air Force or Space Force unit for accomplishing its mission with aplomb while under difficult and hazardous conditions in multiple conflicts. This year’s winner is Space Delta 4, the first Space Force unit ever to win the accolade. DEL 4 is headquartered at Buckley Space Force Base, Colo., and is responsible for providing strategic and theater missile warning to the United States and its international partners.

Outstanding Training Unit Award

In recognition of a unit whose primary mission is training, the 2024 Outstanding Training Unit Award goes to the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. Part of Air Education and Training Command (AETC), the 56th graduates more than 400 pilots and 300 air control professionals every year. It is the largest fighter wing in the world, serving as the home to 24 squadrons with both F-35 and F-16 aircraft.

Lifetime Service Awards

Gen. Carl “Tooey” Spaatz Award

AFHF’s Spaatz Award recognizes an individual’s lifetime contributions to Air Force or Space Force history. This year’s winner is Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.), dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. Among a litany of achievements noted by AFHF was Deptula’s authorship of the seminal Air Force White Paper, “Global Reach—Global Power,” and his instrumental role in developing the concept of “effects-based operations,” which he successfully applied in planning Operation Desert Storm’s air campaign.

“For decades I’ve held the Air Force Historical Foundation in the highest regard for keeping aerospace history alive and relevant, so to receive their Spaatz Award is an honor of my lifetime,” Deptula said.

**Left**: Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.); **Right**: Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.)

Lifetime Achievement for Space Award

This is the AFHF’s first-ever lifetime achievement award focused exclusively on contributions to space. The inaugural winner is Gen. Kevin Chilton, USAF (Ret.), the Explorer Chair for the Mitchell Institute’s Spacepower Advantage Center of Excellence (MI-SPACE). Chilton spent 11 years as a NASA astronaut advancing space exploration and technology, including the deployment of satellites crucial to national defense. He later commanded Air Force Space Command and U.S. Strategic Command.

“I was both surprised and humbled by the announcement, especially for an inaugural award focused on space,” Chilton said. “By creating this award, the Air Force Historical Foundation underscores space’s pivotal role in our military history. It is an incredible honor to receive the award on behalf of all the giant pioneers of Space on whose shoulders I stand.”

Maj. Gen. I.B. Holley Award

The I.B. Holley Award recognizes an individual for “sustained, significant contributions to the documentation of Air Force and Space Force history during a lifetime of service.” The 2024 winner is Roger Launius, a civilian historian who has authored more than 20 books and 100 articles on the history of aerospace. Launius is the former chief historian for NASA and most recently served as the Associate Director for Collections and Curatorial Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum.

Launius’ latest publication, “NACA to NASA to Now: The Frontiers of Air and Space in the American Century” is available for free to read online.

Literary Awards

Air Power History Book Prize

Dr. Sean Maloney, Emergency War Plan: The American Doomsday Machine, 1945-1960 (2021). Purchase the title from University of Nebraska Press.

Space History Book Prize

Aaron Bateman, Weapons in Space: Technology, Politics, and the Rise and Fall of the Strategic Defense Initiative (2024). Purchase the title from Amazon, or read online for free courtesy of MIT Press.

Book Prize for Space (Series)

Dr. John Klein, Understanding Space Strategy: The Art of War in Space (2019) and Fight for the Final Frontier: Irregular Warfare in Space (2023). View and purchase his works on Amazon.

Best Article Award

John Schell, “The SA-2 and U-2: The Rest of the Story” (2023). Read the story from the Journal of the Air Force Historical Foundation.

Special Medal for “Old School” Technical Research

David K. Stumpf, Ph.D., “Ballistic Missile Shock Isolation Systems” (Winter 2022) and “Operation Button Up: Security at Minuteman Launch Facilities” (Fall 2023), both from the Journal of the Air Force Historical Foundation.