Press Conference to Announce “Pros for Vets”

Sen. Steve Russell will be joining with a group of professionals including military heroes, world-class athletes and entertainers, and representatives of various organizations Sunday to announce the creation of "Pros for Vets", an effort to raise awareness and address the staggering needs of America's veterans and their families.

Participants include such leaders as newly-appointed Secretary of Veterans Affairs retired Maj. Gen. Rita Aragon; State Sen. Steve Russell, retired Lt. Col. and Founder of Vets for Victory; retired Major Ed Pulido, wounded Iraqi war veteran and spokesperson for Folds of Honor.

OU and NFL greats Roy Williams of the Cincinnati Bengals and Tommie Harris of the Chicago Bears will be involved in the effort, although they won't be able to attend Sunday's event.

Internationally-acclaimed motorcycle designer and Gulf War veteran Dar Holdsworth will also be involved.

U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command officials assume B-52, B-2 mission

The U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command assumes responsibility for the U.S. Air Force's nuclear-capable bomber force today.

This action completes the step-by-step transfer of all Air Force long-range, nuclear-capable assets to the Air Force's newest major command.

The nation's intercontinental ballistic missile force became part of Global Strike Command on Dec. 1, 2009. The command will gain the 8th Air Force and its three bomb wings, one each at Barksdale AFB, La.; Whiteman AFB, Mo.; and Minot AFB, N.D.

Those organizations control all of the United States' B-52 and B-2 bombers and are transitioning from Air Combat Command as a key component of the Air Force's "Nuclear Roadmap."

"We've worked very closely with Gen. Will Fraser and his ACC team every step of the way," said Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, AFGSC commander. "They have been truly magnificent partners in this endeavor. Even after Feb. 1, we'll still have strong and long-standing ties to ACC as we work closely with them in their special role as lead command for the Combat Air Forces."

The transfer once again places all Air Force assets with a strategic nuclear deterrence and global strike mission--missiles and bombers--under one command.

According to General Klotz, this action will provide for "more focused and effective oversight of this important and enduring mission." General Klotz also noted that the bombers of 8th Air Force "remain critically important to our nation, as well as to our friends and allies around the world."

The B-52 provides "unique, unmatched stand-off capabilities," and the B-2 has the ability to attack heavily defended targets, the general added.

"Both bombers also offer combatant commanders important non-nuclear, or conventional, capabilities as they so convincingly demonstrated in both Operation Enduring Freedom and in Operation Iraqi Freedom."

To mark the transfer of the bomber mission to Global Strike Command, General Klotz is scheduled to visit all three bomber bases on Feb. 1. He will be accompanied by the commander of 8th Air Force, Maj. Gen. Floyd Carpenter, and the AFGSC Command Chief, Chief Master Sgt. Jack Johnson Jr.

At each of the bases, the leadership team will conduct a base-wide commander's call to formally welcome the Airmen into the command. They will also meet separately with unit commanders and their first sergeants, civic leaders and local media representatives.

The addition of the bomber units brings Air Force Global Strike Command's force to more than 23,000 people, with about 900 full-time staff expected at the Barksdale headquarters by the end of summer.

Air Force Global Strike Command stood up in August to provide combat-ready forces to conduct nuclear deterrence and global strike operations in support of the president and combatant commanders.

When the command took over the ICBM mission Dec. 1, it gained the 20th Air Force mission, with missile wings at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., and Minot AFB, N.D.

The command also gained the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., and the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Neb.

Replacing Worn Out C-17s

The U.S. Air Force has ordered another fifteen C-17 transports, paying $194 million for each of them. This purchase was prompted by the fact that the current C-17 fleet is being worked to death.

The problem is that the C-17 is more in demand during the war on terror than are air force combat aircraft.

Only the two dozen AC-130 gunships, and a hundred or so A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter-bombers are getting steady work these days. But their workload is nothing compared to the C-17s, which are in constant demand to deliver personnel and material to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places where the war on terror is being fought.

The C-17 entered service 14 years ago, and those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s will be worn out within 5-10 years. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage, on early models, was insufficiently strong for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours.

Adding to this problem is the fact that many C-17s are landing on rough fields with heavy loads and are taking life time shortening structural damage. We have flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life.

It's always been an uphill fight getting new air transports built. There were so many delays in the C-17 program that, when the 1991 Gulf War came along, the C-17 was not available and the C-141 transports, that was supposed to keep flying until 2010, were basically worn out by heavy use, and had to be retired early.

Now the C-17s are doing more work, to make up for the missing C-141. Originally, there were to be 120 C-17s (at $135 million each), with production ending in 2004. After September 11, 2001, it was realized that more air transports would be needed, and the production run of the C-17 was increased to 180. It was then proposed to increase it again to 222 aircraft. But logistics planners insist that 300 will be needed, if wartime needs are to be met. Moreover, the rapid deterioration of the early model C-17s means that eventually 350, or more, will have to be built to maintain a fleet of 300 transports. So far, 190 have been ordered, including 14 sold to foreign customers.

The major problem is that the air force is run by combat pilots. Although they recognize the importance of the C-17, they tend to focus on getting warplanes built. Additional C-17 construction comes at the expense of building new combat aircraft, and that's a hard sell inside the air force. Usually, it lobbying by the army, and other branches of the government, that compels Congress to strong arm the air force generals to build the needed C-17s. It's an ugly, messy and time consuming way to get aircraft built, but it works.

Back to the Future

Hat Tip to Katherine McIntire Peters
Any day now, senior Air Force leaders will announce the details of their plan to establish a major command to manage nuclear and deterrence missions. The far-reaching restructuring is aimed at restoring global confidence in U.S. nuclear stewardship following a string of security lapses and unacceptable mistakes that led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to sack the service's senior civilian and military leaders in June.

As service leaders iron out the critical details inherent in establishing a new command structure, it's worth remembering that the Air Force used to have an organization that did exactly what it now needs to do. The Strategic Air Command was once the pride of Cold War airmen, for whom the nuclear mission was synonymous with national preservation. The service's decision to dismantle the command in 1991 following Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, the first major post-Cold War military engagement, is a cautionary tale in the unintended consequences that can result from a major reorganization.

There's no question that the nuclear mission today and its deterrence role have evolved considerably from Cold War days. But as James Schlesinger, chairman of the Task Force for Nuclear Weapons Management, said during a September briefing at the Pentagon, the mission remains vital to national security.

When it reorganized its command structure in the 1990s, Air Force leaders allowed the mission to atrophy through inattention and budget cuts. Bomber forces lost their focus on nuclear expertise, concentrating on conventional operations instead. It was an understandable shift -- those forces had not been prepared intellectually or logistically for the first Gulf War. But it proved to be an overreaction, as seen through the service's mistakes over the last few years.

Today in the nuclear arena, "There is a shortage of security personnel. There is a shortage of maintenance people. There is a shortage of those who supervise the nuclear establishment and there has been a noticeable lack of nuclear expertise," Schlesinger said.

How did the pride of the Air Force turn into a cause for alarm in less than two decades? The Schlesinger task force issued a report in September citing several causes. Among them, "The makeup of senior Air Force leadership gradually began to shift: the nuclear weapons-focused, bomber-experienced officers who had previously monopolized senior positions became a minority, and those remaining had to adapt to the ascendant group drawn from conventional weapons-focused fighter pilots. As a result, the special culture that had surrounded the nuclear enterprise dissipated."

That dissipation had concrete results. The service scaled back, consolidated and eventually eliminated training programs focused on the nuclear mission. By 2006, bomber crews commonly reported for duty with only conventional combat certification. The Air Force slashed nuclear deterrence resources by 65 percent between 1990 and 2005 -- cutting them far more sharply than other areas of the budget. Where general officers and members of the Senior Executive Service previously held oversight positions, now colonels and mid-level civilians hold sway. Not surprisingly for an institution that no longer valued its nuclear mission, promotion rates for those with nuclear expertise were as much as 14 percent lower than for those with conventional expertise.

"This decline took place gradually as changes were made to organizations, personnel, policies, procedures and processes. Many of these changes were done as independent actions and seemed unremarkable at the time. The overall impact on the nuclear mission, however, has been more pronounced than realized and is too extreme to be acceptable," the task force found.

As Schlesinger observed and Air Force leaders now seem to understand, the nuclear mission is no less important today than it was during the Cold War.

More than 30 nations stake their security on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, Schlesinger said. "The confidence that they have in that umbrella will determine whether or not they themselves may seek to acquire nuclear weapons," he noted. "Some have expressed increasing misgivings about whether or not they feel comfortable under the umbrella. Part of the task of the Air Force and the Department of Defense will be to resuscitate their confidence in the credibility of the nuclear mission."

Cyber-Battlespace: Navy vs Air Force

Battlespace
By Bob Brewin

The Navy, according to an internal document that came my way thanks to an Air Force reader, plans to rebrand its Naval Network Warfare Command as the Naval Cyber Forces Command, reflecting the fact that "cyberspace is increasingly important and inseparable from our national defense interests," the internal document stated.

That document, The Naval Network Warfare Command, Command Renaming Communications Plan, said, "Cyberspace has become the global battlespace. According to Adm. Gary Roughhead, the chief of naval operations, the next battle is the information domain and the first shots have already been fired."

The Navy seems to have taken a page from the original Air Force Cyber Command playbook by viewing cyberspace as "a domain like land, sea, air and space and it must be defended," according to the brief.

Just like the Air Force, the Navy views the best defense is a good offense, with offensive cyberspace operations as part of the Cyber Forces Command's portfolio. "The effects we can produce in and through cyberspace range from simple deterrence to destruction and defeat of any adversary -- the full range of operational effects," the brief said.

Cyber Forces Command and Fleet Intelligence

The Cyber Forces Command will be built around the existing Naval Network Warfare Command, which was formed in 2002 from 23 organizations, including the former Naval Space Command, the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Command, the Fleet Information Warfare Center, and the Navy Component Task Force-Computer Network Defense. In 2005, the Naval Network Warfare Command absorbed the Naval Security Group, which handled signals intelligence and cryptography.

These organizations already provide the Naval Network Warfare Command with building blocks for a cyber command, including network operations, but the Navy also plans to add fleet intelligence to the Cyber Forces Command mix, along with surveillance and reconnaissance.
These additional missions will give the Cyber Forces Command a lot more clout than the Air Force ever imagined for its Cyber Command.

The fleet intelligence part of the Cyber Forces Command will do just what its name implies: focus on providing intelligence to commanders at the operational fleet or aircraft squadron level. The Office of Naval Intelligence, which deals with global maritime intelligence, will not come under the Cyber Forces Command, according to the internal paper.

The internal paper said this change needed to be made because "the current fleet organizational structure process for gathering intelligence and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is less than optimal and lacks coherence across all naval warfare areas." The current, somewhat disjointed structure for fleet intelligence and ISR "lacks coherence" and impedes the Navy's ability to deal with increasingly complex threat environments in the future, the paper added.

A Navy source told me that the intel folks appear less than pleased with this realignment and "may have to be dragged kicking and screaming" into the Cyber Forces Command future.

Three-Star Clout

When the Air Force kicked off its grand Cyber Command plan, it was a three-star job, but now that it will come under the Air Force Space Command, as I reported last week, it most likely will be a two-star job.

But the Cyber Forces Command will have three-star clout, with the head of the Naval Network Warfare Command, Vice Adm. H. Denby Starling II, tapped to run the new command.

Rear Adm. Sam Cox, who currently serves as fleet intelligence director and director for plans and policy for the Naval Network Warfare Command, will take on the same jobs in the Cyber Forces Command.

You Can Keep Your Rating

While the Air Force will continue to rebrand its computer and communications technicians with a new cyber moniker, the Navy has no similar plans to merge computer, communications or electronic technicians into one career field, according to the internal paper. The Navy does not plan to merge its intelligence or information and warfare communities either, the paper said.

The Cyber Forces Command will not result in any reduction in the number of personnel in the Navy intelligence community or in officer or enlisted ranks in the network, gadget or gizmo fields.

No Blaze of Publicity

The Navy has worked quietly on the formation of the Cyber Forces Command for about a year, an approach that stands in stark contrast to the Air Force, which ran TV and Web advertisements for the Cyber Command.

Maybe that's why the Cyber Forces Command will emerge unscathed from bureaucratic battles over the cyber domain thing inside the Pentagon.

The Gordon England Decision

The Navy planned to announce the stand-up of the Cyber Forces Command at the start of October, but now awaits a decision from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England on how the cyber mission will be sliced and diced among the three service branches, a source told me.

That Navy source added that the Omaha, Neb.-based U.S. Strategic Command will have overall responsibility for the cyber units, with an announcement planned for the end of this month.

Air Force pursues Cyber Command again

Top Air Force leadership has decided to pursue forming Cyber Command to defend Defense Department networks and to launch cyberattacks against foes after putting the project on hold in August.

The service's leadership, including Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, made the decision last week at the Corona senior leadership conference in Colorado Springs, Colo., to continue its effort to stand up the command, said Capt. Michael Andrews, an Air Force spokesman.

The service put Cyber Command on hold in August, saying it wanted to delay the program until new senior Air Force leaders, including Schwartz, had time to make a final decision on the scope and mission of the command. Last month, sources said the Pentagon decided that the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, Neb., should create and run a joint Cyber Command, a move that seemingly dashed any hopes the Air Force had to own Defense's cyber responsibilities.

In May, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England wrote in a memo, "Because all the combatant commands, military departments and other defense components need the ability to work unhindered in cyberspace, the domain does not fall within the purview of any particular department or component."

The service originally had decided to establish the Cyber Command as a separate unit within Air Force Space Command, and during the Corona conference, leadership "discussed how the Air Force will continue to develop capabilities in this new domain and train personnel to execute this new mission." "The conduct of cyber operations is a complex issue, as [Defense] and other interagency partners have substantial equity in the cyber arena," Donley said. "We will continue to do our part to increase Air Force cyber capabilities and institutionalize our cyber mission."

Andrews said the Air Force will provide more details on the Cyber Command later in October after discussions with Pentagon and congressional leadership.

Air Force disciplines 15 officers in nuclear mishap

Air Force leaders on Thursday announced they had taken administrative action against 15 officers for their role in the shipment of four intercontinental ballistic missile nose-cone fuse assemblies to Taiwan in August 2006.

The mistaken shipment, which was only discovered earlier this year, was sent in response to an order for helicopter batteries, raising serious questions about how well the military is tracking and handling sensitive nuclear-related materiel.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates initiated an investigation into the matter, which led him to fire the top civilian and military Air Force leaders. He later named Michael Donley as acting secretary and Gen. Norton Schwartz as chief of staff, and in July ordered the two leaders to review the investigation to determine appropriate disciplinary actions against officers implicated in the report.

At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday afternoon, Donley and Schwartz said the punishments were necessary to restore accountability to the service's nuclear mission. Some officers have been removed from command or reassigned to other duties, essentially ending their careers. Air Force leaders asked other officers to remain in service to "be part of the solution," Donley said.

"These actions are administrative in nature but can carry with them substantial consequences for the careers of these officers, including their potential to command, to be promoted, or to retire in their current grade," he said. "We recognize the years of dedicated service that these officers have given, but we cannot ignore the breaches of trust that have occurred on their watch."

Among the generals sanctioned, Lt. Gen. Kevin Sullivan, deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations and mission support, received the most serious punishment -- a letter of reprimand. The letter said he failed to adequately address logistics policy deficiencies and take action to correct previously identified systemic problems in ICBM logistics. Sullivan also was cited for poor oversight while serving as commander of Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

Letters of reprimand are typically career-ending events. According to the Air Force, Sullivan has requested retirement.

Five other generals received letters of admonishment:

Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel, for failing to effectively exercise responsibility for ICBM system sustainment and for not correcting recurring deficiencies in engineering support of ICBM components while serving as commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center. Hamel had previously requested retirement.

Maj. Gen. Roger Burg, commander of 20th Air Force, for failing to exercise effective oversight of ICBM sustainment-related activities and for not identifying and correcting deficiencies in shipping and receiving sensitive components. Burg will remain in command to continue corrective actions he started.

Maj. Gen. Kathleen Close, commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center, for not exercising effective command oversight of depot maintenance, engineering activities and materiel control of sensitive components; for not recognizing systemic weaknesses in supply chain management; and for failing to correct previously identified deficiencies. She also will remain in command.

Brig. Gen. Francis Bruno, for failure to identify and correct weaknesses in logistics management and maintenance support for ICBM components and for not correcting previously identified problems at the service's air logistics centers when he served as director of logistics for Air Force Materiel Command. He will retire Oct. 1.

Brig. Gen. Arthur Cameron III was admonished for not identifying and correcting problems in depot maintenance operations involving sensitive components, and for failing to correct previously identified discrepancies in materiel control and maintenance when he served as commander of the 309th Maintenance Wing at Ogden Air Logistics Center. He received a routine reassignment before any personnel actions were initiated.

In addition, five colonels received letters of reprimand for poor command oversight. All were commanders of units that contributed to the improper shipment to Taiwan, or units with deficient performance. Two have been removed from command, one of whom is retiring. The three other officers, who left their commands earlier, will remain in their current positions.

Three colonels, all commanders, received letters of admonishment. One was removed from command. Another was allowed to continue in command. The third was reassigned in a normal tour rotation and will remain in his new assignment.

The final colonel to be disciplined received a letter of counseling for failing to exercise effective command oversight in a unit not involved in the Taiwan incident.

"In holding these officers accountable we considered the needs of the Air Force," said Donley. Because some had vital knowledge and because "their ability to serve has not been compromised," they were asked to stay on and help restore accountability in the nuclear mission, he said.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "The disciplinary actions announced today are regrettable, but are necessary to address recent leadership failures. The Air Force must now focus on improving its security culture to ensure that such incidents do not happen again."

USAF to strengthen inspections and expand training for nuclear mission

USAF say thank,
But, NO WAY !

USAF goofing up again !

For background see:
Five Generals To Be Disciplined Over Nukes

Air Force leaders have delayed making commitments to far-reaching organizational changes recommended by a task force on nuclear weapons management, but have agreed to a number of narrower reforms.

During a Sept. 18 summit at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, key leaders from the Air Force, other Defense Department agencies, the National Security Council, the Energy Department and RAND Corp., discussed ways to improve stewardship of nuclear weapons. Air Force officials agreed to consider a proposal for a significant reorganization at a meeting of senior service leaders in early October.

In a report earlier this month, the Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, urged the Air Force to replace its Space Command with a Strategic Command, vested with authority and accountability for the nuclear mission. In addition, the report recommended all bomber aircraft be consolidated into a single force assigned to the Strategic Command.

As the single major command responsible for the nuclear mission, Strategic Command would advocate for resources, provide clear lines of authority and accountability, and ensure appropriate staffing and expertise at all levels of the nuclear mission, Schlesinger said at a Pentagon briefing earlier this month. The bomber force assigned to the command would provide trained forces for conventional missions as well as manage the nuclear deterrent mission.

USAF Capt. Michael Andrews said service leaders would talk about those changes during a three-day October conference at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio that will include the service's four-star generals and acting secretary Michael Donley.

But, in a statement released over the weekend, the Air Force outlined four reforms agreed upon at last week's summit:

The Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., will be expanded and given responsibility for all nuclear sustainment activities, including those at weapons storage areas in the continental United States. This change is intended to clarify ambiguity in the chain of command.

The nuclear inspection process will be strengthened and centralized, built upon common policies and procedures integrated with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Service leaders will consolidate and expand training within the Air Education and Training Command for security personnel assigned to nuclear duties.

A new headquarters office will provide singular focus on nuclear matters within the service.

The Schlesinger task force was highly critical of the Air Force nuclear inspection program. "Processes are not standardized across major commands, inspectors are not appropriately trained, and inspections are not sufficiently comprehensive and frequent," the report noted.

The task force was especially critical of the fact that inspections were pre-announced, creating little incentive for personnel to remain vigilant around the clock.

As a result of that criticism, the Air Force inspector general now is rewriting regulations to require all commands to conduct no-notice nuclear inspections," Andrews said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates created the Schlesinger task force in June to review Air Force lapses in nuclear weapons management, as well as the other military services' nuclear inventory control procedures.

The review was sparked by the discovery earlier this year that forward-section assemblies used on Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles were erroneously shipped to Taiwan in October and November 2006. That discovery followed another serious incident in which an Air Force bomber crew mistakenly flew nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in August 2007.

The Schlesinger task force found, "There has been an unambiguous, dramatic and unacceptable decline in the Air Force's commitment to perform the nuclear mission and, until very recently, little has been done to reverse it."

That erosion of capability and apparent disinterest in addressing it led Gates to fire the Air Force chief of staff and secretary in June. Current Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and acting Secretary Michael Donley have repeatedly said their top priority is to rebuild the service's nuclear expertise and accountability.

In July, the Air Force established its own nuclear task force, made up of about 30 subject matter specialists from across the service's nuclear enterprise. That task force is currently tracking more than 180 corrective actions and analyzing causes of the problems.

USAF goofing up again ! Five Generals To Be Disciplined Over Nukes

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will announce a range of punishments for at least five general officers and possibly several colonels for lapses connected with the nation’s nuclear weapons.

Several senior Air Force generals declined to comment about the disciplinary actions this afternoon at the Air Force Association’s annual conference. All the officers are reported to be from the Air Force.

A congressional aide confirmed the Defense Department told lawmakers yesterday about the impending disciplinary actions. The aide did not know the names of those to be punished. Sources declined to identify them until the punishments were officially announced.

A report by Navy Adm. Kirkland H. Donald, director of naval nuclear propulsion, into the nuclear enterprise detailed a loss of oversight from senior Air Force leaders and lowered performance related to the nuclear mission.

Gates had to intervene personally and ordered Donald’s review after sensitive nuclear parts were sent mistakenly to Taiwan and a B-52 bomber flew across the country carrying six armed nuclear cruise missiles.

Last week, a panel of august experts led by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger said they had been surprised by the erosion of controls over nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War and recommended that Air Force Space Command be folded into a new Air Force Strategic Command and urged a range of other measures to ensure airmen dealing with nukes “feel they are part of an important mission.”

Bringing back something like Strategic Air Command is the biggest organizational and functional change recommended by the Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons management, which was created by Defense Secretary Gates after several high profile cock-ups involving nuclear weapons or their components.

The creation of Space Command has meant that space had attracted “some of the glamour” and left missileers feeling like second tier players. Schlesinger noted that most officers, if they wanted promotions and a decent career path, had to become space qualified and stay in that slot. “Some of the glamour will now move back to the nuclear mission,” he said.

The panel also recommended adding about 2,000 people to the ranks of those Air Force personnel who deal with nuclear matters, Schlesinger told reporters. They also want a single bomber numbered air force created that is responsible for the traditional service responsibilities of organizing, training and equipping. It would be assigned to the new Air Force Strategic Command.

One of the panel’s main goals, aside from the primary goal of restoring a special sense of mission to those in the Air Force who deal with nuclear matters, is to restore confidence among America’s allies that the US nuclear deterrence means something and is reliable. Schlesinger said he thought restoring this confidence would take six months to a year.

Hoo-ah: USAF Making Combat Experience Count

The U.S. Air Force has been using combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to get as many of their combat pilots some combat experience as they can. This ensures that the air force will end up with the largest number of combat experienced pilots for over a decade after the fighting ends. It's a big deal, for a pilot, to earn combat wings. And the large number of these pilots has changed the way the air force fights, and trains new pilots to fight.

Pilots who have been in combat know, from experience, exactly how all those standard procedures, drummed into new pilots, or practiced endlessly by peacetime pilots, should really be carried out. Combat clears away a lot of administrative deadwood and dangerous busywork. This knowledge, once passed on to a new pilot, or one who has not been in combat, makes that pilot much better once they do get into a combat zone. All this is nothing new. Back in World War II, it was discovered that training new pilots for combat, went much better if the instructors were combat veterans.

The World War II experience made a lot of how much more effective new pilots were, the more hours they had spent in the air during training. That was because it was so easy just count the hours of air time, and combat performance, and do a regression analysis. It was harder to quantify the combat experience of the instructors, but starting in the 1960s, after the unexpectedly dismal showing of U.S. pilots early in the Vietnam war, the combat pilot community learned how to quantify combat experience, and how to use it when available.

USAF Drops Downsizing

The United States Air Force is not only halting its downsizing program, but is planning to increase its strength from 324,191, to 330,000 over the next two years. Most of the new troops, and more besides, will be assigned to reconnaissance and intelligence work, as well as UAV and nuclear weapons units.

Since 2005, the air force had been reorganizing and downsizing, and that included the junior officers who are usually immune to such cuts. In the last two years, 2,000 lieutenants were dismissed The air force had planned to cut their strength by 5,400 personnel this fiscal year (which began last October). This downsizing was halted as of this Summer.

The air force has long been accused (by members of the other services) of operating more like a corporation than a military organization. That's a little harsh, because the air force is the most tech minded of the services, and has always taken the lead in adapting commercial innovations to military use. But both the air force and navy decided on downsizing in response to the impact of technology, outsourcing and automation, in a process similar to that faced by many civilian firms. Unlike previous downsizing efforts, where many troops were fired, most of the reduction this time around is from retirement and people not re-enlisting. Higher standards for re-enlisting were used to make cuts. This had a side benefit of improving the overall quality of the force.

The air force is still going to lose jobs that are no longer needed. Most of the personnel in surplus jobs will be retrained. The original impetus for the cuts was money. Each active duty airman costs over $100,000 a year. The money saved was to go towards purchasing more technology. A year ago that means more F-22s, but now it's more likely to be more UAVs and transports.

After three years of cuts, the U.S. Air Force has fewer people on active duty than at any other time in its history. However, if you add in reservists (181,000), strength is a bit higher than it was when the air force was formed (from the U.S. Army Air Force) in 1948. The air force also has slightly more officers on active duty today (65,000) than it did in 1948, but that's a reflection of the growing importance of technology. Air Force personnel today have much more education than they did sixty years ago, and that is reflected in higher pay and, on average, higher rank.

Air Force suspends Cyber Command program

The Air Force on Monday suspended all efforts related to development of a program to become the dominant service in cyberspace, according to knowledgeable sources. Top Air Force officials put a halt to all activities related to the establishment of the Cyber Command, a provisional unit that is currently part of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

An internal Air Force e-mail said, “Transfers of manpower and resources, including activation and reassignment of units, shall be halted.”

Establishment of the Cyber Command will be delayed until new senior Air Force leaders, including Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, sworn in today, have time to make a final decision on the scope and mission of the command.

The Cyber Command, headed by Maj. Gen. William Lord, touted on its Web site its capabilities to “secure our nation by employing world-class cyberspace capabilities” and had ambitious plans to have a cyber command presence in all 50 states.

The Cyber Command hyped its capabilities on TV, in Web video advertisements and in a series of high-profile presentations conducted by Lord.

The hard sell may have been the undoing of the Cyber Command, which seemed to be a grab by the Air Force to take the lead role in cyberspace. Both the Army and Navy have similar expertise in cyber operations, service sources said.

Philip Coyle, senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information, a security policy research group in Washington, said he believes the Navy’s Network Warfare Command and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center have led the way in cyberspace. The Army engages in cyberspace operations daily in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Coyle, who served as assistant secretary of Defense and director of its operational test and evaluation office from 1994 to 2001.

The decision to ratchet back the Cyber Command may have come from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wants to see a greater role for the Navy in cyberspace, said an Air Force source. Coyle speculated that the Air Force may have been too public in pushing the Cyber Command and is now suffering from its own hubris.

The decision to pull the plug on the Cyber Command – even temporarily – is just the latest in a string of bad news for the service, Coyle said. This includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates' request in June for the resignations of Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne because of the service’s poor management of nuclear weapons. Also in June, the Government Accountability Office questioned the Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman over Boeing for a multibillion-dollar aerial refueling contract and recommended that the service reopen the competition. It did so in July.

Hoo-ah: KWTV: Portrait of a Soldier

Ken Younkin of Norman was looking for something to do when he came across an article, "Portrait Freedom Underway" in one of his woodcutting magazines.

"Portrait Freedom Underway" is made up of members of the MSN Scroll Saw Portraits group who are creating custom wooden portraits of every U.S. service member that has died during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The portraits are donated to their families.

There is no charge to the family requesting a portrait.

The Scroll Saw Portrait Freedom Project group includes scroll saw artists and hobbyists from across the U.S.

The finished portrait is posted on the Internet and once it is approved by a moderator, the cutter is notified that the portrait can be sent to the family. Several quality control measures ensure the family receiveshttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif a quality product.

All labor, materials and shipping are donated.

Their biggest challenge right now is contacting family members and getting photographs to work with, he said.

Younkin was able to do one of Oklahoma Marine Scott Vincent. He has wanted to cut a portrait of an Oklahoman since he began the project. More than 750 portraits have been cut, but only 10 of the 62 deceased Oklahoma troops have been memorialized so far.

"This has been one of the most satisfying endeavors I have ever had the opportunity to do," Younkin said. "I believe that all the members of Portrait Freedom have a common interest in wanting to honor the memory our fallen military service members and recognize the sacrifice each soldier's family has made."

For more information, send an e-mail to PortraitFreedom@hotmail.com

http://groups.msn.com/PortraitFreedom/homepage

Analysis: USAF's cyber offense capability

Procurement documents from the U.S. Air Force give a rare glimpse into the Pentagon's plans for developing an offensive cyberwar capacity that can infiltrate, steal data from and if necessary take down enemy information technology networks.

The Broad Area Announcement, posted Monday by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Information Directorate in Rome, N.Y., outlines a two-year, $11 million effort to develop "access to any remotely located open or closed computer information systems," lurk on them "completely undetected," "stealthily exfiltrate information" from them and ultimately "be able to affect computer information systems through Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Destroy (D5) effects."

"Of interest," continues the announcement, "are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access to both fixed (and) mobile computing platforms ¿¿ (and) methodologies to enable access to any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware."

The announcement "reflects the fact that the Department of Defense views information operations as critical to success in modern warfare," Air Force spokeswoman Larine Barr told United Press International, and is designed to "ensure that Air Force Cyber Command stands up on the leading edge of technology and expertise."

The announcement is the latest stage in the Air Force's effort to develop a cyberwar capability and establish itself as the service that delivers U.S. military power in cyberspace. Last year the Air Force announced it was setting up a Cyber Command, alongside its Space and Air Commands, and was developing military doctrine for the prosecution of cyberwar operations.

The United States is not alone in thinking along these lines, and NATO announced Wednesday that seven European nations had signed up to participate in a cyberdefense Center of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia, which suffered a cyberattack last year that many officials believe was orchestrated by Russia.

The center will conduct research and training on cyberwarfare and include a staff of 30 persons, half of them specialists from the sponsoring countries of Estonia, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain, according to a statement from NATO.

The developments highlight the murky legal territory on which the cyberwars of the future will be fought: terrain on which attackers can cloak their identity and use as weapons the home computers of unsuspecting Web surfers that have been recruited to so-called botnets -- networks of PCs that unbeknownst to their owners have been compromised by hackers.

The cyberattack on Estonia last year, for instance, was carried out by botnets, and Russian officials have denied any involvement.

In a recent article for the Armed Forces Journal, Col. Charles Williamson, a staff judge advocate for the USAF Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, argued that computer users whose equipment was recruited to botnets because they failed to patch their systems could not properly be considered innocent bystanders.

"If the United States is defending itself against an attack that originates from a computer which was co-opted by an attacker, then there are real questions about whether the owner of that computer is truly innocent. At the least, the owner may be culpably negligent, and that does not, in fairness or law, prevent America from defending itself if the harm (from an attack) is sufficiently grave," wrote Williamson in the article, which officials were keen to stress does not represent U.S. policy.

More importantly, because of the difficulties in identifying attackers and immediately quantifying damage from a cyberattack, it can be hard to determine when such attacks constitute an act of war -- as opposed to crime or even vandalism.

"The speed and anonymity of cyberattacks makes it very hard to distinguish what actions would be those of terrorists, criminals, nation states or just some lone prankster," said Gen. William Lord, who heads up the new Cyber Command.

The legal minefield that U.S. cyberwarriors must negotiate was spelled out in an analysis prepared by the Defense Department general counsel.

"It would be useful to create a process for determining when the response to a computer intrusion should shift from the customary law enforcement and counterintelligence modes to a national defense mode," reads the analysis.

"No one's come out and defined that yet," Cyber Command spokeswoman Karen Petitt told UPI, adding that the Air Force saw its role as developing capabilities for cyberwar, but that the decision about when and how to use those capabilities would be one for the national leadership.

Hoo-ah: Painting of “Tinker Field” Dedicated at Capitol

The state Senate dedicated another original painting Tuesday morning. “Tinker Field”, by Midwest City artist R.T. Foster, is sponsored by Senator Cliff and DeeAnn Aldridge and commissioned by the Oklahoma State Senate Historical Preservation Fund.

“DeeAnn and I are so honored to sponsor this beautiful piece of art,” said Aldridge, R-Midwest City. “Tinker has played a tremendous role not only in our state’s economy being the largest employer, but over the years and even today it continues to be a strong link in our country’s military system.”

The history of Tinker Air Force Base began in 1940 when a group of Oklahoma City businessmen learned that the War Department was considering the central United States as a location for a maintenance and supply depot. City leaders offered a 480 acre site with an option of 960 additional acres of land. On April 8, 1941, the order was officially signed awarding the depot to Oklahoma City.

“I love this painting because it memorializes an incredible American, Major Tinker and at the same time honors all of those Oklahomans who work or have worked at Tinker and helped make it the outstanding Air Force Base that it is today,” said Ford, President of the Senate Art Fund.
During World War II, Tinker’s industrial plant repaired B-24 and B-17 bombers and fitted B-29s for combat. In 1946, Tinker was expanded to include the Douglas Aircraft plant, which produced approximately half of the C-47 Skytrains used in WWII. The site also produced a number of A-20 Havocs.

Throughout the Korean conflict, Tinker continued with aircraft and supply support to the Far East. During Vietnam, Tinker supplied logistics and communications aid to Air Force units in Southeast Asia. In the 1990’s, Tinker provided front-line support to the forces engaged in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Today, the base has more than 26,000 military and civilian employees and is the largest single-site employer in Oklahoma. It is the home of the Air Force Materiel Command, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, which is the worldwide manager for a wide range of aircraft, engines, missiles, software and avionics components.

Among its distinctions, Tinker Air Force Base was the site of the first successful tornado forecast in history, which was issued on March 25, 1948 about three hours before a tornado hit the southeast corner of the base. A granite marker in the Heritage Airpark on the base commemorates the event.

Tinker Air Force Base was named in honor of Major General Clarence L. Tinker, a native of Pawhuska, Oklahoma. General Tinker lost his life while leading a flight of LB-30 Liberators on a long-range strike against Japanese forces on Wake Island during the early months of World War II.

The base lies within Senate District 42, Senator Aldridge’s district. His wife and he married in 1984 and bought a home in Midwest City. There he began his career as an agent with Farmers Insurance Agency where he has been for 23 years. The Aldridge’s have three daughters, Cara, Courtney and Chloe. Cliff is an active member in the Choctaw Kiwanis, Midwest City Rotary and the Midwest City Chamber of Commerce. The family attends Del City Church of Christ.

Hoo-ah: Labor of Love: Portrait Freedom Underway part 3

With the Iraq War still raging and more and more U.S. troops not returning, some people at home are finding ways to show support for the troops.

Ken Younkin of Norman was looking for something to do when he came across an article, "Portrait Freedom Underway" in one of his woodcutting magazines.

"Portrait Freedom Underway" is made up of members of the MSN Scroll Saw Portraits group who are creating custom wooden portraits of every U.S. service member that has died during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The portraits are donated to their families.

There is no charge to the family requesting a portrait.

The Scroll Saw Portrait Freedom Project group includes scroll saw artists and hobbyists from across the U.S.

The finished portrait is posted on the Internet and once it is approved by a moderator, the cutter is notified that the portrait can be sent to the family. Several quality control measures ensure the family receiveshttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif a quality product.

All labor, materials and shipping are donated.

Their biggest challenge right now is contacting family members and getting photographs to work with, he said.

Younkin was able to do one of Oklahoma Marine Scott Vincent. He has wanted to cut a portrait of an Oklahoman since he began the project. More than 750 portraits have been cut, but only 10 of the 62 deceased Oklahoma troops have been memorialized so far.

"This has been one of the most satisfying endeavors I have ever had the opportunity to do," Younkin said. "I believe that all the members of Portrait Freedom have a common interest in wanting to honor the memory our fallen military service members and recognize the sacrifice each soldier's family has made."

For more information, send an e-mail to PortraitFreedom@hotmail.com

http://groups.msn.com/PortraitFreedom/homepage

Hoo-ah: Labor of Love, Portrait Freedom Underway

http://groups.msn.com/PortraitFreedom/homepage
For more information, send an e-mail to PortraitFreedom@hotmail.com

Hoo-ah: Scroll saw cutter honoring fallen heroes

Hoo-ah: Norman woodcutter helps remember fallen

Don't Take Away the B-52s

The U.S. Air Force wants to maintain its current fleet of B-52s at 76 aircraft, despite a Congressional mandate to reduce that number to 56. That's because the B-52 has become the cheapest way to make war these days. With the development of GPS guided bombs (JDAM), heavy bombers have become the most cost-effective way to deliver support to ground forces. The B-52 is the cheapest American heavy bomber to operate.

In the last fifty years, the air force has developed six heavy bombers (the 240 ton B-52 in 1955, the 74 ton B-58 in 1960, the 47 ton FB-111 in 1969, the 260 ton B-70 in the 1960s, the 236 ton B-1 in 1985, and the 181 ton B-2 in 1992.) All of these were developed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons (bombs or missiles), but have proved more useful dropping non-nuclear bombs. Only the B-70 was cancelled before being deployed.

The well maintained B-52s are quite sturdy and have, on average, only 16,000 flying hours. The air force estimates that the B-52s won't become un-maintainable until they reach 28,000 flight hours. The B-1 and B-2 were meant to provide a high tech replacement for the B-52, but the end of the Cold War made that impractical. The kinds of anti-aircraft threats the B-1 and B-2 were designed to deal with never materialized. This left the B-52 as the most cost effective way to deliver bombs. The B-1s and B-2s are getting some of the same weapons carrying and communications upgrades as the B-52, if only because these more modern aircraft provide a more expensive backup for the B-52.

Of the 744 B-52s built, only 94 are still fit for service. Nearly fifty have already been donated to museums (including one in Australia and one in South Korea.) Because of the Russia-U.S. START treaty, hundreds of B-52s in the "bone yard" were stripped of any useful equipment in the 1990s, and, since then, chopped up for scrap. This was all done out in the open, so that Russian spy satellites could confirm it.

F-117 Nighthawk Retires

The U.S. Air Force is retiring the last of its F-117 light bombers. Long called the "stealth fighter," the F-117 was designed from the start as a bomber. But the aircraft is now 27 years old. It's really 1970s technology that, after years of effort, was made to work in the 1980s. But better stuff is out there, and the stealth technology of the F-117 is obsolete when it comes to some of the more recent sensor developments. The new F-22 will be a direct, and more effective, replacement for the F-117 as a light bomber. Plus, the F-22 is also a superior fighter.

Earlier attempts to take the F-117 out of service ran up against political opposition. Bases would have to be closed, which means lost jobs. The air force worked out deals to take care of that angle, and the last active duty F-117 will be retired in April, 2008. The last class of F-117 pilots graduated two years ago. A total of 558 pilots were trained to operate the one seater aircraft. Ten aircraft were retired in late 2006, and another 27 in the last 15 months.

The first F-117 flew in 1981, and 59 were eventually built. Six crashed due to non-combat causes, and one was brought down due to the efforts of a clever Serb air defense officer, who exploited the chinks in the F-117s stealth technology. But starting in 1989, when an F-117 participated in the invasion of Panama, the aircraft proved its worth. The usual bomb load for the 24 ton aircraft, was two one-ton laser guided bombs, in an internal bomb bay. The F-117 almost always attacked at night, and took out a disproportionate number of targets compared to non-stealth bombers.

The stealth technology used was such that no two F-117s were the same. As the aircraft were produced, new techniques for applying the RAM (Radar Absorbent Materials) were developed. The first planes had sheets of RAM glued onto the airframe. More than halfway through the run, a new spray-on technique was developed. This technique was changed several times before the 59th F-117 was manufactured. Several different treatments have been used for the wing edges, cockpit rim, access panels, and other areas. As the material degraded or was damaged over time, several different repair techniques were used. Access panels were another variable, as some aircraft had to have the RAM scraped off to open them while others had treatments that provided easier (and less destructive) access. Stealth works in various ways, and stealth aircraft use a combination of techniques. The basic concept, however, is to make the stealth RAM coating one-fourth of a radar wavelength thick. In this way, some of the enemy radar beam is reflected by the surface of the RAM and more by the metal under the RAM later. Because this second element travels a half of a wavelength farther than the first element, it exactly cancels out the radar wave.

The retired F-117s are being put into storage (the "boneyard"). There, for the next decade or so, the bombers can be recalled to service.

USAF Details Cyber Command Organization

The U.S. Air Force plans to anoint its new Cyber Command the 24th Air Force and attach to it four wings, including new ones for electronic warfare and cyberspace.

The service on March 14 announced it will create the 450th Electronic Warfare at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and Scott Air Force Base, Ill., the latest developments in the Air Force's plan to create a new command focused on expanding its activities in the cyber and electronic spectrums.

The 450th will handle "various electronic attack and protection units," while also supporting EC-130J and EA-6B aircraft missions, according to a March 14 service statement. The EC-130J flies above-ground units and gives them an electronic shield that prohibits enemy forces from using EW tools.

The 689th will be composed mostly of communications and information functions, as well as "deployable communications capabilities," according to the service.

Both homes for those new wings are interim ones, with the service continuing efforts to meet the Air Force Cyber Command's initial operational milestone by Oct. 1.

"We are aggressively moving forward with plans for having initial operating capability by the Oct. 1 deadline mandated for us by the Secretary of the Air Force," Maj. Gen. William Lord, the provisional commander of the 24th Air Force, said in the statement. "That means we will have a portion of the staffing we need and the organizational structure in place to continue to build the command until we reach full operational status."

The service has established a list of criteria the 24th must meet before initial operating capability will be declared, including "establishing a budget, articulating details of organizational realignments, developing and assigning manpower requirements, and establishing policies and procedures for daily operations," the statement said.

Along with the two new wings, the 24th will feature the Air Force Information Operations Center at Lackland, which will be renamed the 688th Information Operations Wing, and the Lackland-based 67th Network Warfare Wing.

While Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne has directed the command's headquarters be established at Barksdale Air Force Base, La., the service is planning a "distributed headquarters." That means because many of the functions and jobs the headquarters staff will carry out are spread across the nation, its 541 employees will be scattered at bases across the U.S.

"We've asked [the command] to become virtual. In other words, we've said, we don't want you to be a standard … command as you might see from the Napoleonic era," Wynne said. "We asked them to look [into commercial] companies [to] see how they operate and minimize the headquarters. [Many of our units are] already located in the various states around the country, so our first inclination is to leave those in place."