October 15, 2024 | International, Aerospace
Sending THAAD to Israel adds to strain on US Army, leaders say
The top two Army leaders said the THAAD deployment also adds potential delays in modernizing the service’s missile defense systems.
August 20, 2020 | International, Aerospace
To get more female pilots, the Air Force is changing the way it designs weapons
WASHINGTON — In 2022, the U.S. Air Force will take delivery of the F-15EX, a new and improved version of the nearly 40-year-old F-15E Strike Eagle.
But for all of the modern advances of the new jet, only 9 percent of women in the Air Force currently meet the body-size standards for piloting the legacy F-15 and possibly also the new EX variant, potentially blocking highly qualified pilots from flying a platform that will be in operation for decades to come.
Like the vast majority of the Air Force's aircraft and aircrew equipment, the F-15 was designed to meet the anthropometric specifications of a male pilot in 1967. But in an Aug. 4 memo, the Air Force mandated that future weapons programs use current body size data that reflects the central 95 percent of the U.S. recruitment population — a move meant to make pilot and aircrew jobs more accessible to women and people of color.
Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper, who signed off on the changes, said there is a strategic imperative for opening the door to a more diverse pool of pilots and aircrew.
During a war with a near-peer, technologically advanced nation like China, the U.S. military will have to contend with a well-trained, highly educated force that might outnumber its own, he said. By fielding weapon systems that can only be used by a smaller portion of the U.S. population, the Air Force could be shutting out some of its most promising potential pilots or aircrew.
“The human factor is a delineator and it likely will be against an adversary like China, where I believe we will have a greater propensity to trust the operator in the seat, to delegate more, to empower more and take greater risk in that delegation,” Roper told Defense News in an exclusive Aug. 6 interview.
“All well and good when you're a country that's going to face a country with a population that's four times your own by the end of this decade,” he said. “But if we begin with a recruitment population that we've artificially halved because of how we design our cockpits and workstations, we've just doubled our work, and now we make every operator in the seat have to be eight times better than the counterpart they will face in a nation like China.”
The new guidance directs the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center to conduct a study that will solidify a more inclusive anthropometric standard that would include 95 percent of the U.S. population eligible for recruitment in the U.S. Air Force.
But until that wraps up, all new-start Air Force programs must be designed with cockpits, aircrew operating stations and aircrew equipment that accommodates eight anthropometric data sets. These eight cases use measurement data from the Centers for Disease Control and represent a range of body types including individuals who are short in stature, have short limbs or have a long torso.
AFLCMC's Airman's Accommodations Laboratory will also run a three-year study that will develop separate anthropometric standards for career enlisted aviators, who perform specialized jobs onboard military aircraft including flight engineers, flight attendants and loadmasters. Currently, career enlisted aviators also must meet the 1967 anthropometric standards.
‘A hidden barrier'
The legacy design parameters — which stem from a 1967 survey of male pilots and measure everything from a pilot's standing height, eye height while sitting, and reach — have effectively barred 44 percent of women from being able to fly aircraft unless they receive a waiver, with women of color disproportionately affected, the Air Force stated.
Even after a waiver is granted, the pilot will remain disqualified from certain platforms regardless of his or her aptitude. Then, when future requirements are defined for new platforms or equipment, the systems are usually designed to meet the existing pool of pilots, creating a self-perpetuating problem.
“It is a hidden barrier with multiple layers,” said Lt. Col. Jessica Ruttenber, an Air Force mobility planner and a leader of the Women's Initiative Team that advocated for the change in anthropometric standards. “People are trying to do the right thing, but the barriers are baked into legacy policy. And without even knowing it, they're kind of cut and pasting the same standard.”
Ruttenber said the new guidance addresses the root of the problem by establishing new design specifications — ensuring platforms are engineered to accommodate a wide range of body sizes from the start of the development process, rather than papering over the problem with waivers after the fact.
“[For] the next inter-theater airlift that is going to replace the C-130 or C-17, we can't get the anthropometric data wrong or women are still going to be eliminated 30 years from now. The C-130 and C-17 still eliminate one out of three women from flying it,” she said.
For more than a year, the Women's Initiative Group worked with Chief Master Sgt. Chris Dawson, the career field manager for the Air National Guard's career enlisted aviators, on trying to garner funding for an anthropometric study for CEAs.
“There were so many communities we had to coordinate with that we realized really quickly that this has to come from the top down or we're not going to be as successful,” Ruttenber said. After meeting with Roper, the Women's Initiative group was granted $4 million for the study.
Ruttenber, a KC-135 pilot, remembers being pulled out of her first pilot training class in 2005 because her physical examination indicated that she didn't meet the standing height requirement of 5-foot-4 by a fraction of an inch. She then sought a waiver that would allow her to fly.
“The process was different back then. I had to drive from base to base and get measured in each cockpit in an attempt to get an exception to policy. I went to Charleston and I got measured in a C-17, and then I went to Little Rock and got measured in a C-130,” she said. “I got measured in the KC-135 and so on and so on and so on.”
Since then, the Air Force has made the process to obtain a waiver less arduous, and it recently removed the initial height requirement — although some platforms still require pilots to meet the 5-foot-4 standard. Newer aircraft such as the F-35 joint strike fighter and the T-7 trainer currently under development will also accommodate a wider height and weight range.
However, Ruttenber pointed out that the specifications for legacy aircraft will remain a hurdle for the progression of female pilots.
“Even if the F-35 is 97 percent accommodating for women, I still can't get there because the T-38,” which is used for fighter pilot training, “has a 41 percent accommodation envelope for women,” she said.
Roper said he is working with defense contractors to see whether there can be modifications made to legacy platforms — or upgraded versions like the F-15EX — that will accommodate operators with a wider range of body sizes.
But whether those changes are ultimately made will depend on if they are technically feasible and funding is available for design changes.
At the time of the Aug. 6 interview, Roper had already spoken to some defense industry executives — including those from Lockheed Martin — about the new guidance and planned similar phone calls with Boeing and Northrop Grumman officials over the coming days. The reaction from industry so far has been “very positive” but “very surprised” that such bias still exists, he said.
However, Roper acknowledged that more work has yet to be done.
“Changing the policy is one thing. Changing the platforms is another. And that's going to require cost to do. My next job, aside from designing future systems differently — which we'll do — is to find options to bring systems into greater compliance with the new policy and then to advocate tooth and nail for the funding needed to do it,” he said. “The litmus test for the Air Force long term has got to be balancing accommodation with the technology for future platforms.”
On the same subject
-
-
January 10, 2019 | International, Land
The US Army’s three focus areas to avoid protracted combat
By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Army's Multi-Domain Operations concept continues to evolve and be tested, the service is finding three key areas to focus on ahead of any major conflict. Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley, the head of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, told reporters Dec. 9 that as his office continues to experiment with the MDO concept and war game it out, a focus on the “competition space” — the time before a conflict breaks out between two sides — will put the Army in a strong position to dictate the flow of how a conflict will play out. “Leveraging the competition space, we found, is the most important aspect of getting the conflict portion right. That's something that we have to expand our capabilities in, and we're not completely postured to do right now,” Wesley said. The first focus area is on countering information warfare and unconventional warfare, Wesley said, in what will not come as a surprise to those who have paid attention to what Russia has done in recent years. The second area of focus Wesley calls “conducting the intelligence preparation of the battlefield.” At its core, this involves studying the enemy order of battle and understanding how a conflict may flow. And if that seems like a classic tenet of combat to you, Wesley wouldn't disagree. “That's something we used to do all the time in western Europe in the 1980s, and since we've withdrawn from the continent, we don't do that to the degree we used to,” he said. “Plus, there are aspects to doing that, which are virtual, that we didn't do in the ‘80s that we have to do now.” The third aspect is about posturing your forces to be agile enough to quickly enter a conflict if needed. Doing so, Wesley believes, “precludes protracted conflict. If you can transition rapidly and force your opponent to recalculate, that can preclude the need for protracted conflict.” Wesley's team has had a busy year, developing and testing their ideas while publishing MDO 1.5 and switching from being under Training and Doctrine Command to the Army's new Futures Command. Despite that move on the organizational chart, ARCIC has stayed at Fort Eustis, Virginia, and remains geolocated with TRADOC, which has helped mitigate unnecessary duplication of overhead. By having TRADOC continue to manage basic administrative issues such as personnel, travel and orders assistance, ARCIC is able to focus on using its limited staffing where it's most needed. As part of the move to Futures Command, ARCIC is in the process of standing up three new groups: an internal Red Team, an Operational Environment section, and a 3/5/7 office modeled on the service's operations and planning general staff position. “We're not just moving deck chairs,” Wesley said. “Instead, we're also having to evolve our culture and change our organization so that its sufficiently nested” within Futures Command. Asked if he was worried about people in ARCIC having too many bosses, Wesley waved those concerns away as unrealistic. Sometimes “having one boss is a luxury that is impractical. And particularly when you're talking about [the need to] modernize across the entire enterprise — not just material modernization but doctrine, organization, training, leader development, policy, facilities, personnel,” he said. “So those dotted lines are healthy because they force integration, which is indispensable to do this concept.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/01/09/the-armys-three-focus-areas-to-avoid-protracted-combat/
-
May 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
A $17 Billion Pot of National-Security Stimulus Aid Goes Begging
By David McLaughlin and Anthony Capaccio There's a $17 billion pot of money in the pandemic aid package for companies vital to national security -- and no one seems to want it. The $2 trillion rescue package Congress adopted in late March includes loans and loan guarantees specifically for companies “critical to maintaining national security.” The funds at first were seen as largely directed at Boeing Co., which at the time had been pleading for a government bailout. But after selling $25 billion in bonds to investors, the aircraft maker turned down the aid, which would have come with strings attached that it didn't like. With the $17 billion up for grabs, the U.S. defense industry is asking the Trump administration to change the criteria for getting some of it, arguing that the terms are too strict. The Treasury Department, which has sole authority over the $17 billion, has limited the companies that qualify to those whose work is designated DX, which means it ranks highest on the military's list of national priorities, or to companies that have facilities with top-secret security clearances. Only about 20 companies applied by the May 1 deadline, according to the Defense Department. There are about 300,000 companies in the Pentagon's contractor supply chain. Earlier: Defense Firms to Vie for Virus Aid With Boeing Weighing Options “What we're hearing across the board is that the restrictions and requirements on the money are pretty onerous, and a majority of companies just can't apply for the money,” said Hawk Carlisle, president of the National Defense Industrial Association, which represents defense contractors. It's another example of the Trump administration's struggle to help businesses that have been decimated by the pandemic. The initial round of $349 billion aimed at small businesses sparked outrage after large restaurant chains, a professional basketball franchise and numerous publicly traded companies were able to get money while mom-and-pop businesses were shut out. Treasury has approved about $25 billion out of the $35 billion that Congress allocated for payroll assistance to airlines and cargo carriers. Earlier: American Gets Most as Biggest Airlines Win Bulk of U.S. Aid On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to broaden the criteria for qualifying for loans and reopen the application process. “Treasury's implementation of the loan program has not adequately addressed the needs of the aerospace supply chain and its workforce, which is fundamental to America's industrial base,” she wrote. It's not just the defense industry raising concerns. Ellen Lord, the Defense Department's top acquisition official, told reporters last month that Treasury's criteria may have prevented companies with the greatest need from qualifying. “We have talked with them several times; they have reached out to us,” Lord said. “I am not sure companies with DX-rated contracts are perhaps the ones that have the most critical needs.” She said suppliers already have been giving DX programs priority, which they are required to do under Pentagon rules. The Treasury Department didn't respond to requests for comment. Congress stipulated that companies receiving the national-security loans must provide the government with warrants, equity or senior debt securities and agree to limits on dividends, stock buybacks and executive pay. But it's Treasury's additional criteria that defense firms say are too narrow. It restricted loans to two groups: those with a contract with the DX rating or those with facilities that have top-secret security clearances. Eric Fanning, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, whose members include Lockheed Martin Corp. and BAE Systems Plc, said the criteria should be broadened to cover more companies. A Pentagon spokesman, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Mike Andrews, said in an email that the Defense Department has determined that only a few programs required a DX rating, but opted to stop releasing their names as of December 2018. Before that, the Pentagon had said there are about a dozen DX programs, including those for the Minuteman III ICBM program, the B-2 bomber, presidential aircraft, missile warning satellites and nuclear-missile submarines. Some of the major companies involved are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. The Pentagon doesn't track the number of companies that possess top-secret clearances, but only the number of facilities cleared at that level, spokeswoman Cynthia McGovern said in an email. Like Boeing, the large companies that might qualify for the Treasury loans are able to tap the capital markets to meet their financing needs, especially now that the Federal Reserve is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into debt markets by buying corporate bonds and bond funds. Earlier: Here's Where $881 Billion in U.S. Aid Went in Month of Spending The Pentagon is helping by increasing progress payments by $3 billion and speeding up those payments to contractors, which range from the biggest makers of weapons systems to the more numerous, lower-tier suppliers of everything from software to uniforms. But many contractors also rely on commercial deals to supplement their government work. With the airline industry facing a sharp and lengthy contraction, aviation suppliers could see a greater need for rescue financing in the near future, said Fanning of the aerospace industry group. Boeing, for example, in late April said it's shrinking its workforce by about 10%, or about 16,000 jobs, to conserve cash. General Electric Co. is cutting about 13,000 jobs in its jet-engine operation. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc., a supplier to Airbus and Boeing, is also cutting jobs. “We don't have a sense yet of where the stress points are in the industrial base,” Fanning said. “The health of supply chains can take a while to sort out and show where there are problems.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-14/a-17-billion-pot-of-national-security-stimulus-aid-goes-begging