18 septembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial
By: Valerie Insinna
WASHINGTON — Over the course of her 40-year career with the U.S. Air Force, Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski has worn many hats, going from the manager of the service's airborne laser program to its chief buyer of space technology to — finally — the head of Air Force Materiel Command.
Through it all she was a proud and self-described nerd: an avid science and technology proponent happy to talk about anything from trends in military satellites to how the Air Force was tackling the problem of hypoxia.
Pawlikowski officially retired from the Air Force in early September and is now transitioning to a career in the private sector, having already accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors. She spoke with Defense News on Sept. 10 about some of AFMC's biggest prospective challenges.
As you look at Air Force Materiel Command now, what advice would you give your successor?
The first thing is to just remember — and I know everybody says this — but there are just amazing airmen at AFMC, and you have to really trust them to get the job done. They care so much about what we do that that makes the job easy.
But I think my advice is you have to recognize just how massive the responsibility is. There's really nothing that goes on in the Air Force that Air Force Materiel Command isn't involved with in some way. And I know I did not have an appreciation for that when I first took command. I was obviously very much aware of the technology side of things and the acquisition side of things, but everything from the Civil Engineering Center that's responsible for all of the milcon projects in the Air Force to the services agency which runs things like all of the dining facilities.
It's a huge job with a wide breadth of impact. All of us come into these jobs with our background in one particular area, and that's our area where you have a tendency to migrate to, but you have to recognize that AFMC has such vast responsibilities that you have to really make sure that you don't get yourself involved in one area that you don't have the time to really take on and cover everything that needs to be done.
When I look at where the Air Force is and the future of the Air Force, there's just tremendous opportunities for AFMC to be helping the Air Force, and in many cases leading the Air Force in these transformations that we're trying to do. The whole focus on multidomain for Air Force, for example: AFMC has to play a critical role in that as we cut across all of the different aspects of what the Air Force does.
The drive to promote and encourage more innovation and what I consider creativity among our airmen — that is something that AFMC has got to help to facilitate. Because there is such opportunities to make sure that we're successful in doing that, but also doing no harm.
What role do you see AFMC having in multidomain?
I think the place that really hits the most is in the Life Cycle Management Center. The Life Cycle Management Center is really structured to be aligned under the program executive officers, and the program executive officers are all aligned by platforms. We've got fighter, bomber, mobility, tanker. So within the Life Cycle Management Center, those things don't come together until you're above the PEO.
So the challenge and opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center is to be able to still deliver on all those individual products, but [also] to be able to provide the connectivity between those different programs so that we get the interoperability, the connectiveness between the different platforms while they are in development, not after it happens and then we try to figure out how we're going to put them together.
But we have neither really thought about and structured ourselves to do it that way. We've always been structured as the platform as the center of attention. So I think there is a huge opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center to be the key facilitator for establishing that connectivity, but that's going to take a lot of work, and to a degree some cultural change — and maybe even some change in the way the Air Force programs and budgets [its] dollars.
What specifically could the Life Cycle Management Center do to become that connective tissue between programs?
They're going to have to be the ones that — using, maybe some oldspeak — establish the standards, establish the interfaces, establish the architecture, establish the data structure that is going to enable us to connect things. They have to, to a degree, be the Microsoft and the Apple when it comes to things being able to just connect and work.
The Air Force recently started doing some of the depot maintenance work on its legacy E-8C JSTARS fleet after a couple of problems with the Northrop Grumman depot, which has been struggling with quality control issues. How is the work currently divided?
Right now we're in the crawl phase when it comes to the organic side of things. We have inducted, as you know, one airplane down at Warner Robins [Air Force Base]. That happened just before I left. My last day on active duty was the 9th of August, so I haven't had an update on the progress ... but what we're trying to do is to make sure that we have other options other than just the one facility to be able to maintain these aircraft.
Based on the latest defense authorization for 2019, there's a requirement in there that we keep these, so we need to be able to have the capacity to bring them in. And what we've found through the work with Northrop was that, as hard they were trying, we just couldn't seem to get over the hump of being able to consistently deliver them in a timely manner. And we just needed to have some other options. So what we've done at Robins is to bring in one that doesn't require a lot of the major work, but is something we believe that the Robins workforce can do.
We were kind of pleasantly surprised when we first started to look at this, in the fact that — we kind of looked across the workforce to see how much experience we have on JSTARS, and not an insignificant number of our civilian workforce down there whose part-time job is the Air National Guard on the other side of the runway. So we actually have a fair amount of knowledge of the airplane right down there on the Air Force base.
So what I see happening in the future, as the Air Force works through what we're going to do to maintain those planes as we move forward on Air Battle Management, is going to be probably a split between the two. I don't think you're ever going to see the Air Force completely — well, never say never — but I would be surprised if, in the near future, that the Air Force would completely walk away from the Northrop facility because there is tooling and things like that that the Air Force just doesn't have, at least right now, at Robins.
You recently said in another interview that the light-attack aircraft program of record could be as small as 20 planes. Could you explain why the Air Force is considering such a small buy?
I would see a model there where we would buy 20 or so per year, and then when they got to the point where they were not sustainable anymore — just like your telephone or microwave (who gets a microwave repaired these days?) — we would not invest in a huge organic [maintenance] capability. I don't want to be in the position with light attack that I am with JSTARS.
And so what my point was is that we wouldn't buy massive numbers of these in a big chunk. We would buy them on a regular basis and then when they became unsupportable because of their age, we wouldn't try to maintain them. We would either sell them or put them in the boneyard — probably sell them since there will probably be a good market for them. But that was my point. The number of 20, when I was talking about it, had more to do with how many we might buy in a given year as opposed to the total number.
The discussion is still out there as to how many light-attack versus high-performance aircraft [you need] because there's only so much money, right? The money we spend on light attack may buy more airplanes, but you have to look at capability and what capability we need. So how many we totally actually buy.
I leave that up to folks like [Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [Dave] Goldfein and [Air Combat Command head] Gen. [Mike] Holmes, who are the ones who need to make that assessment of what airplanes they need to perform the mission. My point only was that we shouldn't go out and buy 300 of these in one year and then spend 25, 30 years trying to maintain old airplanes.
The Air Force recently has been using 3D printing to solve a lot of problems it's been having with spare parts for older airframes, like printing a toilet seat cover for the C-5 Galaxy, which would have taken more than $10,000 to otherwise replicate. But are there still barriers to using 3D printing for certain applications where you think it would be useful?
I do believe that you will see more and more 3D printing done, particularly for some of these older airplanes, as we have to figure out how to reverse engineer parts in order to keep them flying. The challenges that we've found as we've gone forward on this is, first of all, we have to make sure that we don't get wrapped up in what I call the hype of 3D printing. 3D printing can be a tremendous tool, but it's not for everything.
Certain materials are harder to 3D print than others, and so we're going to need some more science to figure out how to 3D print certain kinds of metals, but what I think we have found and the tremendous work that both the Air Force Research Lab and the Life Cycle Management Center have been doing is, first, the Air Force Research Lab is making sure that we understand the science behind it.
Because in 3D printing in some cases you're using these powders that are created from metals. And those powders have certain characteristics. And it's just like when we order a part, we have to make sure we know how to order the materials for 3D printing and, if you will, the specs, the standards for 3D printing that will enable us to consistently get the same thing.
So there's a lot of hard work that needs to be done to make 3D printing something that we do on a daily basis. And that's what Air Force Materiel Command has focused on.
So what's next for you? I see you've accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors.
My objective is to first and foremost to be able to spend more time with my family, which has been a challenge for me over the years, as these jobs are not easy. As my dad used to say: “You have a 24/7 job.” I don't know if he realized how true that is, especially as you get more senior in rank.
I plan to probably get involved in a couple other boards and do some advising and consulting. I still consider myself part of what I call the American Geek Squad. I'm a member of the National Academy of Engineering. So I will hopefully get an opportunity to continue to contribute in different forms where I can advise as opposed to the person that's doing everything.
8 mai 2023 | International, Autre défense
The United States plans as soon as Tuesday to announce a new $1.2 billion military aid package for Ukraine that will include air defense systems, ammunition and funds for training, a U.S. official said.
14 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial
Aaron Mehta and Mike Gruss Update 4/11/20 12:00 PM EST — After publication of this story, the NTIA published a letter to the FCC that included the notes Norquist, Deasy and Griffin, and the memo from Luu. In addition, the NTIA associate administrator said it is his belief that the FCC cannot “reasonably reach” the conclusion that the Pentagon's concerns have been resolved. The original story is below. The Federal Communications Commission is poised to approve a draft order as soon as today that would reallocate a specific portion of the radio spectrum for broadband communications, overruling a decade of strong objections from the Department of Defense. Senior Pentagon leaders warn that such a move will lead to “unacceptable” harm to the GPS system by creating new interference that could disrupt satellites critical to national security. The decision, described by multiple sources to C4ISRNET, would allow the privately held Ligado Networks, formerly known as LightSquared, to operate in L-band frequency range despite years of government resistance, largely led by the DoD. The emphasis comes amid renewed focus on 5G technology from key White House administration officials. Sources say the drive to approve Ligado is coming from the White House National Economic Council. That office is led by Larry Kudlow, who has expressed interest in the economic benefits of expanding the nation's 5G capabilities. In addition, Attorney General William Barr announced April 7 he will lead a new national security group known as “Team Telecom.” Barr, a former telecom executive, has also talked about expanding the United States' 5G capabilities — or next-generation mobile communications technology — as a way to fend off China's dominance in the sector. A source familiar with the proceedings said “the approach being considered provides protection to government GPS orders of magnitude above the point at which there would be harmful interference, while advancing America's economic and national security interests and leading the world in 5G.” If approved, the Ligado draft order would appear to override concerns from the DoD that Ligado would cause “unacceptable operational impacts to the warfighter” while promising a solution that is “not feasible, affordable or technically executable,” according to the Pentagon. Other experts, who see Ligado as a way to help boost the economy and to help compete with China, claim that the Defense Department's analysis does not show that interference is a certainty. The DoD, the White House, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration — which is part of the Commerce Department — declined to comment for this story. The FCC did not return a request for comment by press time. A yearslong fight For roughly 10 years, officials from Ligado, and its predecessor LightSquared, have tried to get approval from the Federal Communications Commission to use part of the L-band spectrum for communications. L-band is described as the range of frequencies between 1 to 2 GHz. GPS, and other international navigation systems, rely on L-band because it can easily penetrate clouds, fog, rain and vegetation. Ligado owns a license to operate the spectrum near GPS to build what the firm describes as a 5G network that would boost connectivity for the industrial “internet of things” market. The company uses the SkyTerra-1 satellite, which launched in 2010 and is in geostationary orbit, and it has planned to deploy thousands of terminals to provide connectivity in the continental United States. Many federal government leaders, including those from NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, worry about the proximity of that spectrum to the radio frequency used by GPS satellites. In an op-ed for The Hill newspaper in 2017, former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said the decision would be akin to “allowing a frat house (LightSquared) to move into the lot next to an already established library (existing satellite licensees), which needs a quiet neighborhood to operate.” Some satellite operators, including Iridium, whose services are used by the DoD, are also worried about potential interference from Ligado. But perhaps nowhere has the opposition been greater than at the Pentagon. The Air Force's GPS satellites underpin the Pentagon's information advantage in position, navigation and timing. GPS is used for targeting, weapons guidance and reconnaissance. In addition, the department has spent tens of billions of dollars on the satellites and associated ground systems in the last several decades. Discussion about LightSquared's impacts appeared during congressional hearings as far back as 2011, but the most recent public concern within defense committees about the issue came during a March 15, 2016, hearing. During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Gen. John Hyten, then the head of Air Force Space Command and now the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, worried about Ligado's impact on GPS, saying: “We cannot do something that will infringe on our national security, period.” In December 2018, the National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing recommended against approving Ligado Networks' request to use the spectrum. In April 2019, then-acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan sent a letter to the FCC recommending it reject the company's proposal, while now-Defense Secretary Mark Esper sent a similar rejection request in November 2019. The most recent push by the DoD began with a Feb. 14 memo, written by Thu Luu, the Air Force's executive agent for GPS. The memo was co-signed by representatives from 12 other agencies, including NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the departments of the Interior, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Homeland Security. Officials sent the memo from the DoD to the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, an office inside the Commerce Department that oversees the spectrum that enables America's GPS capabilities. On March 12, Michael Griffin, the DoD's head of research and engineering, and Dana Deasy, the department's chief information officer, sent another letter, with the memo attached, this time addressing an office inside the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA. The two officials reiterated the concerns in the memo and twice asked that it be entered into the public record, as the information would be “critical” to any decision made on Ligado. Then, on March 24, the Pentagon escalated its concern to a higher level, through a letter from David Norquist, the department's No. 2 official, to Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce. Once again, Norquist asked that the information be sent to the Federal Communications Commission's panel in charge of making a decision on the Ligado case. But weeks later, there is no sign of the department memos in the FCC's public docket, which sources say is due in part to pressure from Kudlow's office, the White House National Economic Council. Technical concerns Over the years, Ligado officials have argued their system would use less spectrum, have lower power levels and reduce out-of-channel emissions. In the face of complaints from major commercial GPS companies such as Garmin and John Deere, Ligado has also offered to reduce the amount of spectrum it had initially planned. The company has also said it will work with government agencies to repair and replace equipment if necessary. At the same time, proponents have argued that the NTIA, not the Pentagon, oversees spectrum use for the executive branch. However, in a Dec. 6 letter, Douglas Kinkoph, the acting deputy assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, said the NTIA is “unable to recommend the Commission's approval of the Ligado applications.” He cited the DoD's opposition as well as other 5G efforts in the letter. Concerns among the DoD and other government agencies have not calmed since then. Luu, the Air Force's executive agent for GPS, wrote in the Feb. 14 memo that it would be “practically impossible” for the DoD to identify the impacted receivers and replace them without investing “significant time and resources to effect software modifications, trial and testing, and validation.” She specifically cited a 2016 test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the results of which are classified. Part of the problem stems from the fact that some older GPS receivers “listen in” on signals next door, meaning those in the Ligado spectrum, according to 2012 testimony. As a result, DoD officials want a small margin of error when it comes to interference. But Ligardo's supporters argue the Pentagon's standard is unnecessarily stringent. The FCC proposal will suggest a wider margin of error for interference outside of the GPS spectrum — a win for L-band proponents. Luu argued that any mitigation plan put forward by Ligado will be “impractical and un-executable in that they would shift the risk of interference to, and place enormous burdens on, agencies and other GPS users to monitor and report the interference. ... Ligado's proposal to replace government GPS receivers that are affected by its proposed network is a tacit admission that there would be interference. “Additionally, the mitigation proposal by Ligado, even if technically feasible, only covers those receivers owned by the government and would leave many high-value federal uses of civil GPS receivers not owned by the government, such as high precision receivers, vulnerable to interference, as Ligado has admitted in its filings.” Even if such a solution was shown to work, it could take “on the order of billions of dollars and delay fielding of modified equipment needed to respond to rapidly evolving threats by decades,” Luu said. ‘Free market' principles Now, despite the DoD's national security concerns, it appears Ligado is on track to receive its authorization, perhaps as soon as April 10. What changed, according to the sources who spoke to C4ISRNET, is both a growing interest from the White House in the economic and political benefits of expanding 5G capabilities, as well as an increased sense in parts of the government that the GPS concerns may be overblown. “Fortunately, it has been proven time and time again that Federal users can reduce their spectrum holdings without putting at risk their vital missions. Nonetheless, these same entities, especially the Department of Defense (DoD), which is the largest holder of the most ideal mid-band spectrum, are exceptionally reluctant to part with one single megahertz,” FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said in an April 8 letter to President Donald Trump. “Simply put, every excuse, delay tactic, and political chit is used to prevent the repurposing of any spectrum.” Ligado has repeatedly pushed the FCC to make a decision on its approval, saying it is integral to the advancement of 5G services in the United States. That argument has gained traction with those concerned about China's growing 5G capabilities, which Beijing has used to gain political leverage across the globe. Some, such as Attorney General Barr, have argued it's long past time for the FCC to decide the issue. In a Feb. 6 speech, he said that “by using the L-band for uplink, we could dramatically reduce the number of base stations required to complete national coverage. It has been suggested that this could cut the time for U.S. 5G deployment from a decade to 18 months, and save approximately $80 million. While some technical issues about using the L-band are being debated, it is imperative that the FCC resolves this question.” The new “Team Telecom,” stood up by an executive order from Trump, is tasked with reviewing and assessing “applications to determine whether granting a license or the transfer of a license poses a risk to national security or law enforcement interests of the United States.” While Barr is chair of the new group, it does include a seat for the secretaries of defense and homeland security, among others. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in January, former NASA Administrator Dan Goldin said “more than 5,000 hours of testing has shown there is no harmful interference to GPS. This isn't a technology problem; it's a bureaucracy problem. ... [I]f we do not accelerate the deployment of U.S. 5G now, we risk the very economic, national security and technological leadership we endeavor to protect. Doug Smith, the chief executive of Ligado, asked the FCC in February for approval, saying it had waited four years for the commission to vote on a proposed spectrum plan that would help Ligado build the network it needs. “The FCC already has all of the information it needs to make an informed decision that is in the public interest. The FCC should decide the matter promptly so that we do not miss this opportunity to advance the future of 5G in America,” a Feb. 20 letter read. That argument may be behind the interest in the company from Kudlow's office, the sources said. Kudlow, in his role as economic adviser to Trump, is hoping for an economic turnaround following the new coronavirus pandemic, and has expressed a desire to grow America's native 5G capability. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, Kudlow was planning a major 5G summit at the White House, tentatively for sometime in April, which was planned to include a mix of major telecom players and a handful of smaller firms — another sign of the administration's interest in 5G. Speaking at an April 2019 event, Kudlow indicated it was the White House's preference to apply “free market, free enterprise principles” to building 5G capabilities. https://www.c4isrnet.com/breaking-news/2020/04/10/fcc-to-approve-spectrum-plan-that-pentagon-claims-will-harm-gps
2 octobre 2023 | International, Aérospatial
The jets have amassed more than 141,000 hours in combat since Operation Desert Storm in 1991.