AFSOC Knows What Failed in Deadly CV-22 Crash, Still Investigating Why

Feb. 20, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Air Force Special Operations Command has determined what part failed in the CV-22 Osprey crash that killed eight Airmen in November—but is still determining why that failure occurred.

AFSOC announced the update to its review process on Feb. 20 after NBC News reported that investigators were looking into the possibility of a mishap with its propeller rotor gearbox that caused the deadly crash off the coast of Japan.

“At this time, the material failure that occurred is known but the cause of the failure has not been determined,” AFSOC’s statement read. “Engineering testing and analysis is ongoing to understand the cause of the material failure, a critical part of the investigation. Any disclosure of findings prior to investigations being finalized is premature and presumptive.”

AFSOC has previously said initial findings suggested a material failure, indicating pilot error was likely not the primary cause and there was an issue with the aircraft itself.

An AFSOC spokesperson declined to identify the material failure to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

AFSOC and Pentagon officials explained past incidents of “hard clutch engagement” with the Osprey, when the clutch slips and causes a fail-safe feature in the system to transfer power from one engine to the other, only for the clutch to then re-engage, generating enormous spikes in torque. The Air Force briefly grounded its fleet in 2022 because of such incidents, and the V-22 Joint Program Office said in February 2023 that it was imposing flight-hour limits on V-22 input quill assemblies.

The V-22 has been grounded across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps for more than two months as numerous safety reviews and investigations play out. AFSOC alone is amid three different reviews related to the CV-22, commander Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind said last week at the AFA Warfare Symposium:

A Safety Investigation Board that will investigate the crash and provide findings to prevent future mishaps

An Accident Investigation Board that will determine the causes of the crash and be released publicly

A broader review centered on the question, “Is the CV-22 force appropriately organized, trained, and equipped for safe, effective, and efficient special operations?” Bauernfeind said.

Lt. Gen. Tony D. Bauernfeind, Commander, Air Force Special Operations Command at the Air, Space & Cyber Conference on Sept. 13, 2023, at National Harbor, Maryland. **Photo by Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine**

NBC News reported that military officials expect the V-22 to possibly return to flight operations within the next few weeks. Still, while Bauernfeind acknowledged that “there is a strong desire to return to fly because this is a capability we want to have,” he also said the Air Force will be deliberate in its approach.

“When we make that decision to return to fly, it will be with me having full confidence not only in our training but our crews, as well as the platform and new mitigation measures that we have in place to ensure that we can react appropriately if another situation develops,” he said.

Referencing weekly discussions with top Navy and Marine aviation leaders, Bauernfeind indicated that the necessary mitigation measures are still being developed.

“What is the information we need to now put the appropriate risk mitigations in place as we go forward?” he said. “But just because we’re having those conversations does not mean that you have the information you need yet.”

In the meantime, “we have conversations with the operational commanders about the way forward and they have leveraged other joint force capabilities to meet their requirements,” Bauernfeind said. However, he declined to identify what platforms those were.

Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever acknowledged at least one aircraft that has been used to cover the operational gap left by the V-22: “Lucky for the Navy, the C-2 Greyhound is still available,” he said Feb. 13 at the WEST 2024 conference, according to USNI News. The Marine Corps Times reported in December that the service was using UH-1Y Venom and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters, as well as KC-130J Hercules transport planes.

The Air Force has HH-60 helicopters, as well as multiple types of C-130 aircraft used for different special operations missions.

The CV-22 offers unique capabilities—with its distinctive tiltrotor, it can take off and land vertically like a helicopter but pivot and fly faster like an airplane once in the air. But Bauernfeind said through the course of the recent safety reviews, “there is an acknowledgment that the V-22 is 1980s technology.”

“There’s been upgrades to this technology that was basically developed in the 1980s,” he added. “And as we move forward, what are the future capabilities that will eventually provide the next generation of capability?”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and U.S. Special Operations Command are working on a project called Speed and Runway Independent Technologies, meant to design, build, and fly an X-plane that would refine the next generation of technology needed for a V-22 successor. Bauernfeind noted, though, that it can take years for a DARPA project to transition into meaningful production.

The Army is also developing a tiltrotor aircraft for its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft program. Service leaders selected Bell’s V-280 Valor design in late 2022. Bell also produces the V-22.

First USAF Warrant Officers to Include Air National Guardsmen

Feb. 20, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

AURORA, Colo.—The Air National Guard will play a vital role in the Air Force’s new warrant officer track, the ANG’s boss said at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

“In the first class of warrant officers, we are going to bring National Guard professionals into that warrant officer corps,” director of the Air National Guard Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh said in an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine.

With its warrant officer program, the Air Force hopes to retain cyber and IT talent that would otherwise leave the service.

“In the last few years, we’ve had about 100 people leave the Air Force to go be warrant officers in another service in those areas,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall explained Feb. 14. “The things that warrant officers can provide you with is people who are very technically proficient and stay current all the time. That’s all they’re going to do.”

That leaves the Air National Guard naturally positioned to take on the warrant officers, as cyber operations are one of the ANG’s primary missions, Loh said.

“The folks that bring the predominant force structure from a cyber, IT perspective is the National Guard; over two-thirds of the Air Force capability resides in the National Guard,” Loh said.

The Air Force is starting small with a “cautious” effort, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin. Previously, the Air Force and the Space Force were the only services not to have warrant officers, who fill technical rather than leadership functions. Forty-five years after the last Air Force warrant officer retired in 1980, the Air Force will now reintroduce warrant officers for technical tracks in IT and cyber. Due to its small size, the Space Force is putting off the change.

The Air Force, on the other hand, has a sizable corps of cyber and IT specialists to draw upon for warrant officers—the Air Force Specialty Code for Defensive Cyber Operations alone boasts over 30,000 Airmen, according to 2022 figures.

“We need continuity in some of these people,” Kendall said of the cyber and IT fields.

Continuity is already a selling point for the Air National Guard, with units primarily deployed in place, especially in cyber and IT, allowing them to become experts at their particular mission.

“We have that talent base in the Guard,” Loh said. “When we look at technical expertise, long term, we need some technical expertise in the Active component that we tend to lose.”

Last year, the Air Force Reserve launched a program to directly commission cyber professionals to bolster its ranks. The Air National Guard set up its first dedicated Cyberspace Wing last September.

The Guard and Reserve also have “some unique attributes because of the civilian skill sets that you bring to the fight” that helped shape the broader Department of the Air Force re-optimization efforts, such as moves to reform training, Loh said.

Loh said he was able to help inform Kendall, Allvin, and Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman about warrant officers because of his previous role as Adjutant General of Colorado, in which he oversaw warrant officers in his role managing Colorado’s Total Force across the services.

“Being from the Guard, and especially in my former job as an Adjutant General, I actually managed warrant officers,” Loh said. “I was in the Secretary’s ear, ‘Hey, if you’re going to bring warrant officers back, just realize, here’s what that means.’ He took a deliberate approach.”

Now that the Air Force, including the Air National Guard, will have warrant officers, Loh’s next task is identifying those Airmen.

“I’m going out to the states right now to look at our big cyber states and go out there and look at that,” Loh said. “We were actually integrated from the start, like any other major change. This is a major shift and a major change in our Department of the Air Force. It was good to be at that ground level.”

Ohio, California, Washington, Kansas, Virginia, Michigan, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Maryland all have Guard cyber units.

Air Task Forces, Combat Wings, and You: The Future of Deployments Starts Now

Feb. 17, 2024 | By Tobias Naegele

AURORA, Colo.—When three Air Task Force elements begin taking shape this summer, they will be laying the groundwork for the new Combat Wings now seen as the Air Force’s deployable “units of action” for future operations—a multi-year process to realign the way the service presents forces to the Department of Defense’s 11 combatant commands.

The aim is to create predictable workup schedules and unit cohesion for Airmen while enhancing the service’s ability to define risk and resourcing requirements to the Joint Staff and Secretary of Defense.

The three Air Task Forces forming this summer are the first of at least six planned task forces that will form, go through workups together, and eventually deploy as units in fiscal 2026. Each task force will consist of a Command Element and staff, an Expeditionary Air Base Squadron for base operating support, a Mission Generation Force Element to project air power, and a Mission Sustainment Team to enable remote operations under the Agile Combat Employment concept of operations.

“The Air Task Forces that we put together really spoke to an evolution of rotational forces,” deputy chief of staff for operations Lt. Gen. Adrian Spain said at the AFA Warfare Symposium Feb. 14. “But it is also applicable to standing forces and theater forces. Combat Air Wings speak to the remainder of the force. … What we’re trying to do is build warfighting effectiveness over time with coherent teams.”

Like the ATFs, the Combat Wings will be led by a command element with an air staff to execute command and control; a mission element, such as a fighter, bomber, or airlift squadron, for example; and a combat service support element to run the air base and air field and care for the needs of wing personnel.

Brig. Gen. David Epperson, director of current operations at Headquarters U.S. Air Force, said the task force command elements will stand up this summer, while sustaining elements will come together in teams of 100-150 personnel at two to three base locations. These will come together for exercises and when it’s time to deploy. That way, when the task forces deploy as a unit, personnel will already have experience working together during the work-up phase.

In the longer term, combat wings will come in three variants:

Deployable Combat Wings (DCW): Complete units that can deploy together, with their own native command-and-control, mission, and support elements. Citing the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, as one potential example, Spain said such units must be able “pick up and go in their entirety as a unit of action” and would be resourced to do so, leaving behind only those capabilities necessary to maintain the base in their absence.

In-Place Combat Wings (ICW): Complete units with command, mission, and support elements that fight from home station, such as the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. Missileers fight from their home station and while some elements of a wing might deploy elsewhere, the unit must be able to conduct its mission activities around the clock, regardless.

Combat-Generation Wings (CGW): The third wing element are units that provide force elements to others, whether those elements entail command and control; mission elements, such as fighter, mobility, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance squadrons; or service support elements that could be “bolted on” to a deployable combat wing. “A combat-generation wing is a little different,” Spain said. “You have elements that would deploy, but the whole wing isn’t going to deploy and it won’t be resourced to do that.”

Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Headquarters Air Force and Brig. Gen. David C. Epperson, Director of Current Operations, speak with Tobias Naegele, Editor-in-Chief, Air & Space Forces Magazine **Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine**

Building to the New Model

All this will take time to build. The expeditionary air base now in CENTCOM and the new Air Task Forces are just the beginning.

“This is a kind of spiral development,” Epperson said.

The first phase began in October, when the Air Force deployed its first Expeditionary Air Base (EAB) team to the Middle East—the first deployment rotation under the new Air Force Force Generation model, known as AFFORGEN. That unit arrived in the region about a week after Iran-backed Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, setting off an Israeli invasion of Gaza. That air base element, drawn largely from the South Carolina Air National Guard, included a core nucleus that trained together beforehand, plus additional personnel that joined in theater.

“They were able to operate at the speed of trust from the second they got on the ground,” Epperson said. “And that’s really what we’re trying to do with Air Task Forces.”

ATFs will go a step further, with teams of 100-250 Airmen coming together during the “prepare” phase of the AFFORGEN cycle, a full year before they’re available to deploy. “They will train together at that unit,” Epperson said. “They’ll develop those Mission Ready Airmen skills, they’ll learn the different tasks that their entire team is working on. And they will be—instead of functionally aligned—they’ll start to become mission-aligned and mission-focused.”

U.S. Airmen assigned to the 4th Fighter Wing stand in line to board a C-130H Hercules, assigned to the 152nd Airlift Wing, on the flight line at March Air Reserve Base, California, Jan. 30, 2024, during exercise AGILE FLAG 24-1. By providing the Expeditionary Air Base, or XAB, Force Elements, the 4 FW has been tailored to integrate with the existing Combatant Command command and control structures to support Joint Force Air Component Commander mission priorities. **U.S. Air National Guard photo by Mass Communication Specialist Tech. Sgt. Mary McKnight**

Deployable Combat Wings

The goal for Deployable Combat Wings is to take that Air Task Force concept one step further. DCWs will position the entire deployable team in a single location; living, working, and training together throughout the AFFORGEN cycle. “So they know how to work together, the command and control [element] knows and understands all the elements, and they really can hit the ground running” when they land in theater, whether that’s in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, Epperson said.

DCWs will hone their skills, including developing those needed for agile combat employment. “The intent is to fully resource that deployable combat wing to enable all of its warfighting missions and functions and responsibilities, to include agile combat employment,” Spain said.

“It’s designed to fit into any C2 structure and fall in on the prevailing command and control apparatus of the combatant commander, and … it has the elements required to both take orders and to give orders and operate off of mission command and commander’s intent if disconnected.”

Finding Gaps, Defining Risk

By design, each DCW and ICW must be sufficiently manned to deploy without leaving a dysfunctional base in its wake that can’t maintain security or keep up facilities needed by those left behind. Each operational wing will be evaluated and identified as one of the three types, with manning requirements adjusted to support those requirements.

Epperson said this will take time. “We’ll try to do things as efficiently as we can, but realize that it’s not going to be perfect from from the get go,” he said. “It’s going to take some evolution as we move through this process to make sure we know where all the right resources are, and how much they need.”

Spain said that process will expose areas in need of growth and potentially areas that could be overmanned. A generation ago, wings were constructed to be able to pick up and go fight; over the past 30 years or so, however, wing and base operations were consolidated for efficiency, which was considered prudent given global threats. Now, as the Air Force re-postures and re-optimizes for great power competition with China, Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin says a different kind of structure is necessary.

“We need to ensure that our combat wings are coherent units of action that have everything they need to be able to execute their wartime tasks,” Allvin said.

At the same time, Air Force fighters, bombers, C4ISR, mobility, and cyber forces have been in continuous high demand. And while crowd-sourcing to fulfill that demand has worked, it’s left the Air Force unable to explain to the Joint Force how fulfilling demand today could impact readiness tomorrow. Unlike the Army’s Brigade Combat Teams, the Navy’s Carrier Strike Groups, and the Marine Corps’ Marine Expeditionary Units, the Air Force hasn’t been able to define operational units of action in such a way as to explain that deploying this unit now will make it impossible to deploy some other unit later.

“We can articulate it more effectively and advocate for a particular method or means” to answer a requirement with this structure, Spain said, and to lay out how that could impact the ability for a given unit to be able to deploy for some other contingency in the future.

But explaining risk and resourcing more effectively are ancillary benefits, not the primary focus of the changing deployment model.

“This is about warfighting effectiveness,” Spain said. “The next fight is not going to be the same fight as the one that we’ve executed for the past 30 years.”

US Planning to Train 12 Ukrainian F-16 Pilots This Fiscal Year, as ANG Provides New Details

Feb. 16, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

The U.S. plans to train 12 Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s this fiscal year, said a National Guard official, providing new details about the high-profile program.

Eight of those pilots are currently undergoing training, Air National Guard officials say. Four more are also set to be trained before the end of fiscal 2024, Capt. Erin Hannigan of the Arizona National Guard added.

Ukraine has long appealed for F-16s to augment its small fleet of Soviet-era planes as it strives to hold the line against Russian forces in what has become a bloody war of attrition. The U.S.-made planes would be superior to the aircraft the Ukrainians have been flying and would also enable Ukraine’s air force to employ Western-supplied munitions more efficiently, U.S. officials say.

Last year, the U.S. and western European nations began parallel programs to train pilots and maintainers, which is being coordinated by an air force capability coalition that Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States are co-chairing.

“It is very much a standardized training program that multiple countries are participating in to include the United States with training here in the United States, and English language training that precedes the tactical training,” a senior defense official said Feb. 16.

The U.S. and its European allies have yet to spell out when all of the planes would be deployed in Ukraine and the total number of pilots that will be trained. The U.S. and its allies also have not provided plans on what munitions the F-16s would employ.

The 162nd Wing of the Arizona Air National Guard is providing the pilot training in the U.S.

“The training is going great,” Air National Guard Director Lt. Gen. Michael A. Loh told Air & Space Forces Magazine in an interview at the AFA Warfare Symposium. “They’re flying F-16s solo every day.”

At first, four Ukrainian pilots were being trained. But then a new batch of four pilots arrived in late January. Funding to train up to 12 pilots remains despite a $95 billion defense supplemental bill with funds for military aid to Ukraine that remains stalled in Congress, Hannigan said, as the money for the tuition-based F-16 training was already allocated.

The pilot training is expected to be completed between May and August, Hannigan said. That is longer timeframe than the Pentagon and the Air National Guard initially suggested in the fall when the first pilots began training in October.

“We have to provide a fully capable combat operator,” Loh explained in a media roundtable. “We’re thinking more long term, so some of the requirements on them has shifted, and so that has necessitated a little bit longer [timeframe]. They’re all going through right now, and everything’s good on that point.”

The U.S. is also training dozens of maintainers, but they are still going through English language training in San Antonio, Texas. “Maintenance training location is still being determined but will not occur at the 162nd Wing,” Hannigan said.

The U.S. has the potential to train still more pilots and trainers if the Biden administration decides to expand the effort.

“Obviously, if that’s going to grow, or we’re going to continue that we’ll need to make sure that we have the resources to support that,” Chief of the National Guard Bureau Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson told Air & Space Forces Magazine in a Feb. 15 interview.

Space Force’s Long-Awaited Commercial Strategy May Finally Be Coming

Feb. 16, 2024 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

AURORA, Colo.—The Space Force’s long-awaited commercial space strategy is inching closer to being finalized, Chief of Space Operation Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said Feb. 13, as the service takes a deliberate approach to the crucial plan for collaboration.

“We’ve really come almost to closing on the commercial space strategy,” said Saltzman during the AFA Warfare Symposium, noting that he was loath to say it was imminent after delays and months of anticipation.

Saltzman attributed the current delay to two factors: aligning it with the Pentagon’s overall space strategy and the ongoing process of incorporating feedback into the document.

“We want to be synchronized with the Secretary of Defense’s staff that’s working on a commercial strategy,” Saltzman said, referring to the Department of Defense’s separate space strategy.

“In all of my interactions with industry, one of the things I talk about are some of the tenets that I’m employing in this strategy, and I get a lot of feedback,” Saltzman added, detailing that other senior leaders are also adding feedback to the document.

The Space Force has been leveraging commercial space capabilities for years now. Its facilities at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla., host dozens of commercial launches, and the new service stood up a Commercial Services Office last June.

However, industry officials have raised concerns about hurdles when working with the government, urging the department to address them moving forward.

Col. Richard A. Kniseley, Senior Materiel Leader, Commercial Space Office, Space Systems Command – Dan Jablonsky, Board of Directors, Maxar Technologies, and John Springmann, Senior VP, tomorrow.io – Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine photo

During a panel discussion, industry leaders addressed the challenges of policy transparency and market dynamics in the space industry. Dan Jablonsky, a member of the board of directors at Maxar Technologies, emphasized the need for clear guidelines regarding attacks on commercial assets in space and the government’s commitment to their protection, drawing from his experience in the ISR business with the military.

“It’s very important that the U.S. sets the policy guidelines about how it thinks about its industries, its commercial opportunities,” Jablonsky said, adding that a hypothetical scenario involving an attack on Lockheed Martin factories in Texas would be considered “an act of war”, highlighting the absence of guidelines regarding incidents in space.

Echoing the sentiment, Becky Cudzilo, a senior fellow at Astroscale, underscored the importance of transparency when utilizing commercial assets in scenarios like wargames. She also highlighted concerns regarding liability.

“That is something that has to be discussed, and at least made very clear to each commercial provider,” said Cudzilo. “What actually would happen in a crisis versus, you know, something maybe regional. The clear lines of responsibility and delineation of what you’re expected to do as a commercial provider, versus what you’re not expected to do.”

With the increasing dependence on commercial satellites from government agencies, the line between military and civilian targets in space is becoming blurred. Experts have expressed concerns about commercial operators becoming targets in conflicts.

Jablonsky also addressed the challenges of establishing a market for commercial satellite services to enhance defense capabilities. He cautioned against predicting economic incentives and capacity fluctuations, urging the government to consider pricing strategies and market dynamics.

The lack of incentives for space exploration investments is another challenge. John Springmann, senior vice president of Tomorrow.io, said there is a need to balance government requirements with commercial interests.

“One of the keys is understanding what the commercial incentives are, which is ultimately revenue, and that commercial companies are accountable to their board and to their investors,” said Springmann. “I think it’s a win-win to enable this innovative industry and to acknowledge that many of the commercial outlooks on these huge markets for the observation, really haven’t come to fruition, commercially.”

Overclassification also remains an ongoing challenge, despite Pentagon efforts to ensure information and technology are classified appropriately for cooperation with allies and private sector partners. Col. Richard A. Kniseley, senior materiel leader for the Commercial Space Office said this can still be a hurdle when working with private companies.

“We need to really crack the nut and figure out the best model to get these companies more clearances, or at least have visibility into the requirements,” said Kniseley, giving an example of companies not being able to obtain a clearance without a contract, yet lacking the knowledge of the government’s requirements to secure a contract.

This issue also ties in with trust between the military and the commercial sector.

“You could write hundreds and hundreds of pages of contracts and clauses, what you really need is to get to the nub of the issue,” said Jablonsky. “You have to have a high degree of trust between the industry participants and the government officials about what that’s eventually going to look like.”

There has been progress on that front. Industry officials talked about the increased opportunities for private firms to collaborate with the government in recent years, as well as eased regulations. As the Space Force prepares for the great power competition with China, its commercial strategy is anticipated to refine the guidelines addressing some of these issues and serve as a clear catalyst.

“We absolutely are going to leverage industry in the future,” Saltzman said. “We know we don’t have the best ideas inside the military on what technologies maybe an adversary would use against us, or which ones might be a true force multiplier for us to use. I expect industry to maybe have some ideas about that.”

Five Months In, Guardians Give Integrated Mission Deltas Rave Reviews

Feb. 16, 2024 | By David Roza

AURORA, Colo.—About five months after the Space Force stood up two Integrated Mission Deltas (IMDs) to bridge the gap between operations, development, and sustainment specialists, the commanders of those Deltas say the shift has been a success, allowing their troops to keep much closer pace with technological changes, a decisive factor in the space domain.

“The ability to combine those units under a single umbrella, to be able to focus on unified mission readiness, has paid some tremendous benefits to this point,” Col. Andrew Menschner, commander of the Position, Navigation, and Timing Delta (Provisional) said Feb. 13 at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

“Now as the single commander responsible for near-term acquisition and operations, I can set the team’s priorities so that they have a focus on delivering the next generation of capabilities.”

The initial experiments have gone so well that the Space Force is evaluating which of its Deltas to try integrating next.

“I think if I were to ask all the Delta commanders in the room who wants to go next, probably all the hands would go up,” said Col. Carl Bottolfson, director of the Futures & Integration Directorate at Space Force headquarters. “This is something that the community is fully embracing.”

integrated mission delta — Col. Carl Bottolfson, Director, Futures & Integration Directorate, Headquarters U.S. Space Force, speaks on a panel with moderator Maj. Gen. Kimberly Crider, USAF (Ret.), Col. Nicole M. Petrucci, Commander, Space Delta 3, and Col. Andrew S. Menschner, Commander, Position, Navigation, and Timing Delta (Provisional), at the AFA Warfare Symposium in Aurora, Colo. Feb. 13, 2024. (Jud McCrehin/Staff)

Unity of Command

When Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman first unveiled the IMD concept in September, he sold it as a way to cut down on organizational seams. Operators in the space, cyber, and intelligence fields typically fall under Space Operations Command (SpOC), while engineers and program managers fall under Space Systems Command (SSC). That separation can slow the rate at which operators provide feedback to developers and vice versa in order to maintain and improve systems, but IMDs bring those career fields together under one command team.

“The point is giving the commander or the command team in particular all of the levers of readiness that he or she or that team needs to prepare their forces for combat,” Bottolfson explained. “The big goal here of course is to be able to better achieve space superiority and provide those effects to the joint warfighter.”

Speed is everything in the space domain, said Col. Nicole Petrucci, commander of Space Delta 3.

“The nation that can cycle technology into military advantage faster will win,” she said at the AFA Warfare Symposium. “That’s period dot, that’s how it goes.”

The two integrated mission deltas cover electromagnetic warfare (EW) and position, navigation, and timing (PNT). The EW integrated mission delta is not a new unit. Instead, the EW sustainment offices that currently reside in SSC were realigned to Space Delta 3, the current operational EW Space Delta overseen by SpOC.

Petrucci said the day-to-day of life at Space Delta 3 was largely unchanged save for the addition of a sustainment team for one weapons system and the official adoption of an intelligence detachment. More sustainment support is on its way, but it’s already made an impact.

“It allows us to take those minor advantages and turn them into major advantages,” she said. “Because we own sustainment, we can say ‘hey, these are things we want to do with the system, these are the things we need to stay relevant, this is how we’re going to keep that military advantage.’”

Meanwhile, the PNT integrated mission delta is entirely new. Those operators used to share Space Delta 8 with satellite communications operators, but under the new system, PNT operators have their own Delta and work alongside PNT sustainers. At a major test readiness event for a next-generation operational control system, the PNT Delta could for the first time have operators come in to give feedback on whether the system was ready for the next round of testing, Menschner said.

An acquisitions officer for most of his career, the colonel used to hear plenty of references to “the operator perspective” in meetings, but rarely was there an actual operator in the room. The IMDs fix that problem and shave months off the process for testing new systems and training operators on them.

“The fact that we’re able to get operators hands on a system before it formally comes to them has paid tremendous benefits,” he told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The Delta’s new scope of responsibilities—from launching GPS III satellites to testing, operating, and sustaining them and the ground systems—seems to have energized its members, Menscher noted.

“It’s been great for our [company grade officers] and young enlisted to see a broad spectrum of opportunities out there that they might be able to see themselves working long-term in,” he said. “I predict it’ll be a great thing for retention.”

SpaceX Space Force GPS III launch — Silhouetted against the rising sun, a Falcon-9 rocket carrying the GPS III-6 satellite aboard lifts off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Lift-off occurred at 7:24 a.m. EST, Jan. 18, 2023. Photo courtesy of SpaceX

Future Moves

Though the Space Force is considering integrating future Deltas, the exact nature of that integration may vary.

“I hear, ‘That worked for PNT and EW, but that’s never going to work for my mission area,’” Menscher said. “It’s going to look different in your mission area, but that’s the flexibility built into the IMD construct … you can make the right decision for your mission area.”

Even at the PNT and EW deltas, there are still kinks to work out. One challenge is nailing down exactly when a new system transfers from the “system deltas,” which Saltzman announced a month after revealing the IMDs.

Like the IMDs, the new system deltas combine personnel from different areas and are paired to mission areas such as PNT and EW. The system deltas fall under Space Systems Command, where they focus more on the early side of the acquisition cycle before transferring a new system to the IMDs, where the focus is on “we have metal being bent and we’re trying to get it to the field faster,” Bottolfson explained. But the exact time when the transfer occurs is uncertain.

“Instead of a hand-off, it’s more of a handshake,” the colonel said.

Still, the first two IMDs prove “this is a worthwhile concept and that we want to scale this to the rest of the force,” he added.

When will that scaling up occur? “Soon,” he said.

What Does the Future Look Like for Battle Managers?

Feb. 16, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

AURORA, Colo.—As the Air Force’s command and control enterprise starts a massive transformation, the generals leading the charge say they have no doubt the service will always need battle managers. But how those battle managers will transition from today’s C2 platforms to tomorrow’s technology remains an open question.

“I think there will be an even higher demand signal for battle managers, not necessarily air battle managers, but just battle managers in general,” said Brig. Gen. Daniel C. Clayton, director of the Advanced Battle Management System Cross-Functional Team during the AFA Warfare Symposium. “That skill set and that transition, I think, will be hugely important going forward.”

The transition will be difficult, said Heather Penney, senior resident fellow at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. The Air Force has already completely retired its fleet of E-8C JSTARS aircraft and is steadily winnowing its E-3 Sentry AWACS fleet, as well. Those platforms will be replaced with space-based assets and the E-7 Wedgetail, but the first Wedgetail will not join the fleet until 2027. Multiple officials noted during the symposium that negotiations with manufacturer Boeing have been “hard” and “challenging,” suggesting delays are possible.

What happens between now and then, therefore, is critical for officers trained to do C2 on those specific platforms.

U.S. Airmen with the 116th Air Control Wing, Georgia Air National Guard, sign an engine of an E-8C Joint STARS for its last mission at Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany, Sept. 21, 2023. The JSTARS have been in service since 2002. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Jeff Rice)

“In the Air Force, our manpower billets are tied to our platforms,” Penney said during a panel discussion. “And there’s a serious gap before we field E-7, which may lead key bands of battle managers with no option except to get out.”

Last April, Col. Joshua Koslov, commander of the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing, voiced similar concerns about EW talent: “We build electronic warfare officers based on platforms, and that’s not the best way to do that,” Koslov said then. “As we divest platforms or divest crew members off of platforms, your pool of electronic warfare officers gets a lot smaller.”

According to the Air Force’s latest data, more than 2,400 enlisted Airmen and 1,800 officers are employed in the C2/BM career fields—a highly specialized skill that experts have often described as an “art.”

Clayton and Brig. Gen. Luke Cropsey, the Integrating Program Executive Officer for command, control, communications, and battle management (C3BM), say they are trying to introduce a more scientific approach, crafting a model that breaks down battle management into 13 specific “sub-functions.”

Clayton said that model will be domain and level agnostic.

That is a key shift, Cropsey said: “This distinction between strategic, tactical, and operational C2 is becoming increasingly less helpful. At the end of the day, the decisions, the data flows, and who has access to them are becoming increasingly important.”

In the future, they say, battle managers won’t be tied to platforms and the technical solutions will be more common across the enterprise, enabling data to flow more easily. New computer systems and more flexible, robust software is already in the testing and experimenting phase, Cropsey and Clayton said.

“Those 13 sub-functions of battle management are already being taught as part of the syllabus to ensure that going forward, the next generation of air battle managers will be able to have those skill sets,” Clayton said. Among teaching the transformational battle management model is the U.S. Air Force Weapons School, the service’s premier warfighting schoolhouse.

Battle management will become more demanding and complex as the Air Force evolves its Agile Combat Employment concept, in which teams of Airmen disperse to small or austere locations and move quickly.

“The more that we start to experiment and test out ACE across the world, we’re going to have an even higher demand signal for people who have been critical thinking skills to make those battle management decisions in the future,” Clayton said. “And we’re going to have to continue to foster that.”

Russian Anti-Satellite Weapon Disclosure Highlights Space Force Warnings

Feb. 16, 2024 | By Chris Gordon

Disclosures about a new Russian anti-satellite weapon have thrust military space capabilities into the international spotlight and created a sensation among lawmakers, media, and the public.

On Feb. 14, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement warning of a “serious national security threat.” A day later, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed media reports that the danger involved an anti-satellite weapon the Russians have been developing.

While Kirby noted that the system is not yet operational, he also noted that launching it would violate an international treaty that bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. “It would be space-based and it would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia,” Kirby said.

Though unclassified details about Russia’s new anti-satellite system have been scarce, the threat to U.S. satellites is not a new one. The Space Force has been warning about the growing danger for years.

“We’re seeing continual development and operationalizing” of nefarious space capabilities by Russia and China, Chief of Space Operation Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said Feb. 13 at the AFA Warfare Symposium, before the most recent public revelations. “Very concerning. Extremely concerning. Give me another adjective.”

One word Saltzman did not use was “surprise.” The Space Force has increasingly emphasized that space is now a contested domain and that both Russia and China has been working on weapons to threaten America’s satellites. It has often cited Russia’s 2021 anti-satellite (ASAT) test as an example of “counterspace” capabilities. In turn, the U.S. committed in 2022 to not conduct direct-asset kinetic ASAT tests and has pushed for a global ban on such tests—so far, without success.

The U.S. has taken some important steps to make its space assets harder to target. The Space Development Agency is launching many small satellites into low-Earth orbit (LEO), part of a general philosophy to move away from relying on a relatively small number of satellites in other orbits, such geosynchronous-Earth orbit (GEO), which the USSF considers increasingly risky. The Space Force now views itself as a fighting force, a mission that was underscored with the Department of the Air Force’s re-optimization efforts.

“Previously, in a simpler time, you would put a large, exquisite satellite in space that had lots of capabilities,” Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder said Feb. 15. “That’s a single point of failure versus going to much more numerous smaller satellites that are less expensive, that can be replaced more quickly, thus making it harder to take down a system, you know, in one fell swoop.”

But Russia and China are not standing still either.

“Russia continues to train its military space elements, and field new anti-satellite weapons to disrupt and degrade U.S. and allied space capabilities,” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in its 2023 threat assessment. “It is developing, testing, and fielding an array of nondestructive and destructive counterspace weapons—including jamming and cyberspace capabilities, directed energy weapons, on-orbit capabilities, and ground-based ASAT capabilities—to try to target U.S. and allied satellites.”

Russia’s new anti-satellite system has become a growing concern within the White House. “Our general knowledge of Russian pursuit of this kind of capability goes back many, many months, if not a few years,” Kirby said. “But only in recent weeks now has the intelligence community been able to assess with a higher sense of confidence exactly how Russia continues to pursue it.”

No arms control talks between the U.S. and Russia are currently underway, and the prospects of negotiating an end to the Russian threat are not good, experts say. Asked about Kremlin charges that disclosures about its anti-satellite weapons are a White House ploy to build Congressional support for aid to Ukraine, Kirby gave a one word answer.

“Bollocks,” he said.

But the situation has highlighted another need: an independent military service focused on space, Ryder said.

“In light of growing threats by strategic competitors in space, U.S. Space Command and the U.S. Space Force were established several years ago to maintain a dedicated focus on this vital domain and to ensure that we have trained and prepared military space professionals whose mission it is to protect and defend America’s interest in space,” Ryder said. “We will take appropriate action in defense of the nation.”

Air Force Says It Is Not Aware of B-21 Quality Problems Linked to Spirit AeroSystems

Feb. 15, 2024 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force says it doesn’t know of any problems with the work Spirit AeroSystems has done on the B-21 bomber but won’t say if it has launched any investigations of its own into the subcontractor’s processes.

“I haven’t heard anything about a problem with the B-21” due to Spirit’s subcontractor work, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told Air & Space Forces Magazine at the AFA Warfare Symposium in Aurora, Colo., this week.

Spirit is under scrutiny after a Jan. 5 accident involving a door plug the company installed on an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 fuselage blew out mid-flight, which led to a grounding of the 737-MAX 9 fleet until individual aircraft could be inspected for similar flaws. Spirit was already fighting a shareholder class-action lawsuit, lodged in December, alleging an “excessive” amount of work defects at the company, based on whistleblower reports.

Spirit is one of only a handful of B-21 subcontractors the Air Force has permitted Northrop Grumman, the B-21 prime, to name. The others are RTX’s Pratt & Whitney, Janicki Industries, Collins Aerospace, GKN Aerospace, and BAE Systems. The specific work Spirit does on the B-21 has not been identified, as a matter of general secrecy about the program.

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating production processes at Spirit and Boeing in the wake of the Jan. 5 accident.

“Spirit AeroSystems has been working closely with our customer since the event with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Jan. 5,” according to a company statement. “A Spirit team is now supporting the NTSB’s investigation directly. As a company, we remain focused on the quality of each aircraft structure that leaves our facilities.”

An Air Force spokesperson said the service continues to “monitor safety issues.”

The Air Force “relies on the Defense Contract Management Agency to ensure all aircraft meet the DOD’s stringent quality standards before it accepts aircraft from any industry partner,” the spokesperson said.

“DCMA supports the B-21 program through their on-site quality specialists at Spirit facilities, as at many other B-21 suppliers,” the spokesperson added. “The DCMA’s specialists have direct access to Spirit quality management systems and data, as mandated via the B-21 contract and in accordance with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation. Suppliers must also submit to regular DCMA inspections throughout the manufacturing process and before acceptance of products, ensuring quality escapes and process issues are caught early.”

The spokesperson did not offer a response when asked if any Air Force-specific scrutiny of Spirit is underway as a result of the recent quality escapes.

Spirit is also a subcontractor to Boeing on the Air Force’s KC-46 tanker, for which it provides the forward fuselage, strut and nacelle components, and the fixed leading edge of the wings. On its website, Spirit says it “assisted in the design of the next-generation tanker,” which is replacing the KC-135.

The shareholder lawsuit against Spirit alleges that a veteran quality manager at the company was asked to hide quality problems, and that the company retaliated against him when he refused.

The suit charges Spirit with having a corporate culture that emphasizes “pushing out product over quality.”

The first B-21 made its inaugural flight in November 2023, and the Air Force has acknowledged that it has made at least one test flight since then. Northrop received a low-rate initial production contract for the B-21 shortly after first flight, Pentagon acquisition chief William LaPlante announced in late January.