Heather “Lucky” Penney: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Aerospace Advantage
Podcast brought to you by PenFed. I’m your host, Heather “Lucky” Penney.
Here on the Aerospace Advantage, we speak with leaders in the DoD, industry,
and other subject matter experts to explore the intersection of strategy,
operational concepts, technology, and policy when it comes to air and space
power.
And this week, it’s time again for the Rendezvous. And we’re here to continue
our discussion about the impact of the 2024 elections. Plus, we’ll look at key
airpower and spacepower developments. And we’re also going to talk about
China. And so with that, I’d like to introduce Mitchell Institute Dean, Lieutenant
General Dave Deptula.
Sir, it’s great to have you back.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, great to be here. I hope everyone
had a great Thanksgiving.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Same. And we’ve also got Anthony “Lazer”
Lazarski.
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Well, so great to be back and it was a great
Thanksgiving. Thanks.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: How many folks did you have at your house?
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: It was quiet. We only had four.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: We were up to 11. And we’ve got, Jen “Boots”
Reeves, one of our senior fellows for space power.
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: 14 for us.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: All right. You are [00:01:00] winning so far
though.
General Deptula. How many folks did you have at your house?
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Uh, five.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Okay. All right. So Jen is still, high. JDAM, our
China expert. How many did you have?
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: We had 12, but three were under five.
So they had very small plates.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: I don’t know, three under five. It’s like double,
right?
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Well, there you go.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Twice the work.
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Twice the work. Maybe I’ve got Jen beat.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: All right, Lazer. So, uh, let’s get started, with you,
President Elect Trump, he’s been making headlines on almost a daily basis with
his cabinet picks and some initial policy announcements.
What’s been the reaction on the Hill and other centers of gravity around town?
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, nice easy question to start off with.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: You know, just those softballs.
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: As you would expect, overall reaction around
town on the hill has been and will continue to be mixed. Democrats generally
opposing most of the nominees, Republicans generally is supporting them.
Typical reactions, we’ve seen this before in a new administration. Many of them
have been called [00:02:00] unconventional. And as you just stated, made
headlines by several of his cabinet, nominations as well as others. We have also
one nominee, Matt Gaetz, Representative Matt Gaetz from Florida, who already
withdrew his nomination to be attorney general.
So overall, there’s around about 1300 political appointee positions that require
Senate confirmations. I expect Senate Democrats to focus on attempting to stop
the confirmation of only the most concerning nominees. Instead of going after
everything they’re going to just focus on a few. I’m not sure exactly which ones,
but they can include Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense.
Tulsi Gabbard Director of National Intelligence, Kennedy Jr., Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Lee’s Zeldin, administration of the Environment
Protection Agency, and some others. But as a way ahead, I expect the Senate
will confirm most of the nominations. Traditionally, they usually in the past
have required 60 of the 100 senators, but in [00:03:00] 2013, Senator Harry
Reid changed the rules using the nuclear option.
So, they only need 51. So, Republicans have a 53 seat majority. And so, he can
afford to lose 3 Republicans with the vice president breaking the tie. So, two
quick comments. He’s been planning for this for 4 years. And if you’ve watched
how quickly he’s filled out all his nominations, it shows that number one, he
wants to get them all, announced.
He wants to get them up to start hearing, start the process, and then try to get
them quickly confirmed. Unlike when you saw in his first administration, and it
typically takes about 25 days for cabinet secretaries. You can take up to 112
days or more for all the other positions. And then the last thing you’ve been
hearing is recess appointments.
And I don’t want to get into all the details, but the bottom line is the President
has the power to, recess appointment vacancies and they stay until the end of
this congressional term. So they would be there till 2027. And he’s, as President
Trump [00:04:00] has voiced his desire to do recess appointments immediately
to fill key positions.
So, with the Republican controlled House and Senate, they could vote to recess
together. However, I believe that Senate institutionalists will rule because they
feel that overall, if they did this, even though there’s been recess appointments
in the past, but it would weaken the Senate confirmation process.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Interesting. Well, you mentioned that Pete Hegseth
as the SECDEF nominee has been generating headlines, because it caught a lot
of people by surprise. Any thoughts on what that would mean for airpower and
spacepower, presuming that his nomination is approved?
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, so he’s just beginning the confirmation
process, and that starts with closed door hearings with senators on both sides,
then getting vetted by White House Counsel Office, Office of Presidential
Personnel.
FBI and then Office of Government Ethics, as well as other ethics
organizations, and then there’ll be a hearing in front of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Then he has to be reported out of that committee, and then
needs [00:05:00] to get a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. So, as you just
brought up, if he gets through the nomination process, it could get held up along
anywhere along the way that what we were just talking about.
To include being held on the floor by a single senator. So, I’ve heard mixed
feedback on Pete Hegseth’s confirmation getting through and I believe that
we’re really not going to know what’s going to happen to him until he gets
through the meetings, the vetting, and then get the hearing complete. And the
hearing will be a contentious hearing and I think there’ll be tough questions
asked on both sides as they’ve already started to get asked behind closed doors.
As for impact on airpower and spacepower, Pete’s a veteran. He served in Army
National Guard from 2002 to 21. He’s deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, two
bronze stars. He understands the military and its use of force, and he has a love
for our nation and its military and its families. That’s all positive. And while he’s
not an expert, in airpower and spacepower, [00:06:00] his operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan were supported by the use of air and spacepower. And that’s a great
start. So, if confirmed our Air and Space Force’s leadership need to ensure that
he’s aware of our capabilities, our shortfalls, and our requirements.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Heather, let me jump in there and say,
it’s not just our Air and Space Force leadership.
It’s also the Mitchell Institute. So, we’re going to be doing a lot of our best, to
provide information that will increase the awareness of the military related
nominees about the virtues and values of air and space power. That’s why we
exist. And you’ll see more and more publications, coming out, shortly, that some
of these nominees, should view as useful.
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: And it’s across the board. You’re exactly right.
You know, if he gets confirmed, we need to, um, get with him and brace him
and show him what we can do across the board.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: And it also sounds like whoever will be nominated
for the Secretary of the Air Force to play a very important role in educating and,
and advocating for the Department of the Air [00:07:00] Force across the DOD.
So, what about this idea of the DOGE? The cost cutting group headed Elon
Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy? Is this hype or is it real? I mean, everyone
agrees government can be more efficient and we all have our personal lists of
what we’d cut, but doing it is a very different deal. What are the implications for
defense?
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: And you know, waste when you see it, right? So I
think the, I think the intent is real, but the question is, does the intent become
reality? And I think you hit on a lot of key points. So, President Elect Trump
said, DOGE would work with the White House office of Management and
Budget to dismantle bureaucracy.
That’s a good thing, right? Slash regulations, cut wasteful spending. It depends
what wasteful spending is and then restructure federal agencies. And again,
what does that restructure do? So, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s
going to lead the co-lead the DOGE said they’ll focus on driving change through
executive action, which there’s some concerns about that because they
[00:08:00] don’t want to rely on existing regulation or passing new laws.
So, how much can they really get done by executive action? And then what is
Congress going to do to stop what they’re trying to do? Because it needs to be a
collaborative process. They also want to inject themselves into the budget
process, immediately searching for cuts as not only in FY 26, but it could
potentially happen in FY 25.
If we kick the budget into the next Congress and the next administration. And
then their support, okay, great. There’s support for reducing regulation,
streamlining the government, reducing weight. But there’s concern that neither
of them understand how to accomplish their goals and the potential second and
third degree effects of implementing some of those executive order and some of
their goals.
So, there’s concern. And I also think that they’re going to run and I, and I use the
bureaucracy word, but they’re going to run into bureaucracy of government and
they got to learn also that Congress gets a say.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Now, it’ll be interesting, especially because a lot
[00:09:00] of the consequences of dollars, you don’t see that impact for another
year or two years.
So, you could see unintended consequences downstream significantly that you
didn’t necessarily anticipate. And so it won’t be able to provide, uh, near term
redirection and re-vectoring. Gen Deptula, if the DOGE asked you to speak
about gaining efficiency and defense, what would you offer as advice?
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, um, you all have already raised
some interesting points, but let me take the discussion up to the strategic level.
Uh, first of all, what I would share is that the focus of the Department of
Defense should be on war fighting effectiveness, not business efficiencies. For
far too long, most Department of Defense analysis and procurement decisions
have been focused on cost.
When the more appropriate measure of effectiveness should be cost
effectiveness with the penultimate measure of effectiveness being cost per
[00:10:00] effect. I’ll talk a little bit more on that later. But I think right up front,
it’s vitally important for the Department of Government Effectiveness
(Efficiency), that’s what DOGE stands for, their leadership to understand that
war is the most inefficient endeavor that human beings have ever devised.
The Department of Defense does not exist to make a profit. It exists to provide
for America’s defense. To win our nation’s wars. Therefore, it’s incredibly
dangerous to think that applying efficiencies that serve business well will do the
same in achieving the goals of the Department of Defense. In fact, the Defense
Department has been plagued for decades now by well meaning business people
coming into senior Department of Defense positions applying commercial
principles to the [00:11:00] defense enterprise.
And that’s exactly why in many cases the current U. S. military is woefully
unprepared for major regional conflicts. And because of their focus on
efficiency, instead of effectiveness, we may just lose our next major war. Let
me give you an example. The notion of just in time delivery might work really
well for FedEx. But it’s a curse to a warfighter.
As a warfighter, I don’t want just in time delivery. I want mountains of
munitions stockpiled throughout all the major combatant commands around the
world. Now, I don’t often do this, but I live this for real in fighting two conflicts
separated by 10 years and the differences that I observed during each.
During Operation Desert Storm in 1991 as the air campaign planner, I was
expending about 5,200 [00:12:00] bombs a day. Back then, we still had
sufficient stockpiles of munitions and no one called me up to tell me to ease up
on the attacks because we were running low. But 10 years later, as the
commander of the Combined Air and Space Operations Center at the beginning
of Operation Enduring Freedom, the response to the 9/11 attacks of Al Qaeda,
and their supporters in Afghanistan, we were expending about 250 bombs per
day.
And after about four weeks, I got a call from the Pentagon telling me to slow
down expenditures of GPS guided weapons because the inventory was getting
low. If I fast forward another 10 years during Operation Inherent Resolve, the
average expenditure of bombs was only about 74 per day. The bottom line is
that today we don’t have sufficient stores of munitions to conduct a high
intensity conflict for even weeks or months on end, much less years, as we’re
seeing in Ukraine. [00:13:00]
Worse, because there was a major consolidation of defense contractors in the
1990s and ever since, driven by seeking defense efficiencies. Our defense
industrial base today is simply incapable of rapidly producing necessary
quantities of warfighting materiel, even if we wanted it to.
Now, Heather, you’ve talked about this in the past, but I’ll remind our audience
by the end of the 1990s, the number of aerospace and defense prime contractors
shrunk from 51 to 5. And the number of suppliers for key defense capabilities,
such as tactical missiles, fixed wing aircraft, and satellites also declined
dramatically.
Just as an example, 90 percent of U. S. missiles now come from just three
sources. And fighters and submarines are only built by two. So, [00:14:00] the
Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE should be concerned with this
excessive defense industry consolidation and the negative impact it’s had on
innovation, competition in the supply base. The trend toward fewer and larger
prime contractors could in fact result in even higher prices for the American
taxpayer.
But most importantly and this is what I really want to get across. The current
situation does not bode well for the defense of our nation. Furthermore, it
undercuts President elect Trump’s philosophy of peace through strength. So,
that’s what I’d tell the people running DOGE. They need to explore options for
how to best invest to rebuild our defense industrial base if the new president is
serious about deterring China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea from a hot war.
And winning if they’re not deterred.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: I fully agree. If we don’t have a strong industrial
[00:15:00] base we won’t have the ability to deter and shape. So we need to
have the volume, the resiliency, the surge capacity, the elasticity, and the
diversity across the industrial base.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, the world’s an incredibly
dangerous place. We’ve said it before on these podcasts and in our publications
and editorials. Um, that the United States has never faced the array of threats
that it’s facing today. And here’s one more that I’d tell the DOGE leadership, and
that’s that unfortunately, due to decades of underfunding and neglect in
recapitalization of its now geriatric combat aircraft, the Air Force is now the
oldest, the smallest, and the least ready it’s ever been in its history.
And I’d repeat that because while of you, all of you have heard me say that
before, I dare say the DOGE leadership has not. So, the number one
recommendation coming out of the DOGE should be to rebuild the Department
of the Air Force because it is the nation’s indispensable military department.
Because [00:16:00] no joint force operation can be conducted without some
element of the Department of the Air Force.
So, they’ve also got to watch time. It’s one of the most important attributes. We
have to generate a modern capable force ASAP, given that the Air Force is
literally in a death spiral, losing force structure every year in the future with no
end in sight and the Space Force. Is woefully undersized given the
responsibilities assigned to it.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Couldn’t agree more, you know, I’m just sort of
taken by your example of munitions and how you had the Pentagon saying,
“hey, slow down, you know, don’t use up so many munitions.” At a measly 250
bombs per day? It’s just, it’s ridiculous to me. Let’s give the bad guys a break.
You know, when it comes to efficiencies with being the oldest and the smallest
and the least ready, the mission capable rates of our jets are in the toilet and
they’re super expensive to operate.
And the reason why is because they’re so [00:17:00] old. So, if you want to be
more effective and cost efficient, responsible, you need to be able to recapitalize
and get those newer jets on the line so that they’re, you know, more effective,
more cost effective to, to operate with higher mission capable rates.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, one other thing I’d like to add,
Heather, is that we also need to look at how we’re generating combat
capabilities and capacities.
Um, there needs to be agreement on what sort of combat options we want, given
the world we face. So, what do the combatant commands really need to meet the
demands of our defense strategy? Not just some arbitrary budget level that a
group in Congress, um, or in the DOGE says that’s affordable. So, with that in
mind, I’d tell the DOGE leadership to learn about and employ cost per effect
analysis rather than unit cost to optimize our defense expenditures.
In other words, what does it take to actually create the efforts [00:18:00] desired
against a particular target? Then, I’d encourage them to learn about the severe
encroachment that the Army is accomplishing by going after air and space force
missions as they seek relevancy in a fight against China. They need to clean up
the roles and missions and kill sub optimal expensive solutions. There’s no
clearer example on the table than the Army’s long range hypersonic weapon and
its corresponding high accuracy detection and exploitation aircraft, to discover
targets for these missiles that cost 50 million a shot. That’s a one way, one shot
missile. Looking at driving further consolidation under the space force is also
key.
Why is the Secretary of Defense allowing the Army to generate its own internal
space capabilities? Look, the reason that President Trump stood up the Space
Force was to [00:19:00] consolidate space functions. Not keeping them
distributed among all the other services and multiple duplicative agencies out
there.
Why does some of the major DoD intelligence agencies still have vast space
capabilities and capacity separate from the Space Force? We can’t afford this
continued subversion of the purpose of setting up the Space Force as it fosters
duplication of effort and lack of unity of effort. Both elements that undercut not
just efficiency, but effectiveness as well.
So, what we cannot do is further erode Air Force and Space Force capabilities
by kicking the can on modernization and betting on postulated but unproven
solutions. Secretary Kendall had it right when he said, quote, “we’re out of time”
unquote, and that reality will not change even though the administration will.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, if you take a look at 2027, the Davidson
window, that [00:20:00] is within the FYDP. So, Boots, thoughts to add from
the space perspective?
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Well, I’m really going to pile on to what the boss
said, right? The bottom line is we need to focus on how to optimize war fighting
capability for the space domain. And I mean, honestly, it’s a really good time to
do that because we’re just a couple of weeks away of the 5th anniversary of the
stand up of the Space Force.
And we just celebrated the 5th anniversary of the stand up of US Space
Command. And so, you know, in my leadership management, organizational
kind of brain, this is a great time. To look back and make sure that we’re doing
what we intended to do with the stand up of these organizations. Um, and and
not just that, not just looking at how the organizations are faring and what
they’re doing, but how does that fit in the context of the greater enterprise?
Right? It’s about roles and responsibilities. I [00:21:00] agree with General
Deptula that there are too many organizations with overlapping capabilities.
And here’s the thing, if we had all the money in the world, well, you know,
maybe we could consider letting more organizations do duplicative things.
However, we don’t have all the money in the world.
We have to be, to some extent, efficient. And then on top of that, when you
have these duplicative efforts and fuzziness in the roles and responsibilities of
what organizations are doing. Then we further have operational problems and
that’s the most important thing as General Deptula mentioned. The bottom line
is let’s look at efficiency, let’s look at roles and responsibilities, and then let’s
make sure that the Space Force is getting the resources it needs to execute on
the mission that it has so recently been stood up to execute.
I think we’re right there and it’s a perfect time to do it. We’ve got a new
[00:22:00] administration. They’re standing up this exact office to do this exact
thing. So, let’s do it and reevaluate, uh, what we’ve done and evaluate, um, how
far we’ve come and what has to happen in the future.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, I mean, as you said, we need to be able to
consolidate all of those space capabilities underneath the Space Force, rather
than have, you know, the redundant capabilities that are really driven by
bureaucratic fiefdoms.
So, General Deptula, Elon Musk took some pretty direct shots at the F 35 on X
the other day, basically saying the era of manned combat aviation is done. What
do you think about that?
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, Heather, um, Elon Musk has
been making these sort of comments for years. Given his new influence with the
president elect, uh, perhaps now he’ll take some time to get up to speed on the
realities of force structure optimization.
That’s actually required to fight and win. Elon [00:23:00] envisions artificial
intelligence enabled drones is the future of air combat because of his vision that
they should be cheaper and more versatile than inhabited aircraft. However,
national security cannot rely on prophecies alone. There’s no doubt about it that
drones are affecting the character of war.
But futurists like Elon often overlook the pragmatic realities of the profession of
arms, threaten foreign force design, along with the doctrine, principles,
strategies, tactics, and technologies that lead to winning in an actual fight. Now,
with respect to uninhabited aerial vehicles, uninhabited vehicles, all around,
whether they operate in the air, in space, on the ground, or at sea, no one will
find bigger advocates than all of us here at the Mitchell Institute.
Our publications over [00:24:00] the years, our work fostering the development
of collaborative combat aircraft, or CCAs, MQ 9, and beyond, is proof of that.
It’s not just a, you know, an arbitrary statement. Um, from my own personal
perspective, as the first Chief of Air Force Intelligence Surveillance and
Reconnaissance, I created the key initiatives and took action to get drones
recognized, funded, and normalized as crucial elements of the Air Force.
I increased the capacity of MQ 1 and MQ 9 remotely piloted aircraft orbits by
over 400%. And I created the first Air Force remotely piloted aircraft flight plan
that outlined initiatives from 2009 to 2047, the 100th anniversary of the air
force, from doctrine to materiel the policy. That balances early air force drone
lessons learned with emerging drone technology, and I could go on, but the
point I want to make is at the end of the day, it’s not an [00:25:00] either or
question.
The real answer is that today and for the foreseeable future, we’ll need both. The
reality is that humans bring a fundamental set of qualities to the battle space,
especially when it comes to complex decision making that artificial intelligence
and drones cannot yet achieve. And even when artificial intelligence is further
advanced, there will still be limitations, especially when it comes to the
predictability, not just the predictability, but also if the algorithms are
discovered. They can then be changed and turned around on us.
So, Elon should know this given that Tesla’s still hit parked cars, despite his
engineers working really hard to avoid that. Air combat is far more challenging.
Added to that, if you take a look at long range kill chains, they’re very fragile.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): If we want uninhabited [00:26:00]
systems to meet a cost point that allows high numbers, which is a key tenant of
collaborative combat aircraft, then we need to off board many of the high end
processing functions that requires data links.
And long range data links are fundamentally, able to be, interfered with. So, this
is another key reason why the Next Generation Air Dominance penetrating
combat aircraft, the F 35 and the B 21 are so important. They’re the necessary
high end processing nodes within the battle space and their proximity to
uninhabited systems will provide for shorter, more resilient linkages.
Now, where we’re really strong is when we combine the positive attributes of
inhabited and uninhabited aircraft. We can adjust the attributes of that construct
as circumstances warrant. Because right now, it’s not [00:27:00] possible with
killer robots that are wholly autonomous. And I’d share with you, and I think
that a lot of people out there would tell you, it’s doubtful that policy is even
going to allow wholly autonomous systems.
At least anytime soon. Let me wrap this up with your question on F 35.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): I would hope that Elon will spend
some time talking to the people that have actually employed the F 35 already in
combat. The aircraft is incredibly capable. It’s a bit perplexing. Did he forget
how Israel, um, just a few weeks ago executed a major strike with their F 35s
flying into the heart of Iran? Flying nearly a thousand miles without a loss!
That operation saw Israel’s F 35s evade and dismantle Iran’s Russian supplied
air defenses, some of the most capable in the world, marking a major [00:28:00]
achievement. That was far from easy. The success not only underscores the F
35’s operational value, but it also raises questions about the efficacy of Russian’s
advanced air defense systems which failed against the F 35’s low observable
capabilities. So, the F 35 scored a huge touchdown in real combat.
I’d also remind our audience that the current fighter force was largely procured
in the seventies and the eighties, and it’s well past time for replacement. And
today, the F 35 is the most effective, affordable option, to get to both capability
and capacity.
A wing of F 35s properly used against Russia today without any of the self
defeating constraints the Biden administration’s put on U. S. weapons provided
to Ukraine could crush the Russians current [00:29:00] operations and
completely change the outcome of the conflict. One more piece, the allied
interoperability element is an enormous strategic advantage of the F 35 program
that’s often overlooked.
Partners operating the F 35, they don’t just bring our air forces closer together,
they bring our nations closer together and makes our alliances even stronger. A
little bit of a factoid that General Hecker uses in his speeches. When all the
European nations get all their F 35s, they’ll be equipped with over 600.
In Europe, the U. S. will only possess about 50. That’s hugely stabilizing for
NATO and of enormous deterrent value. So, I hope these are some of the facts
that Elon will take some time to absorb, question, and I think that’s and think
about.[00:30:00]
Heather “Lucky” Penney: I couldn’t agree more. I’d like to pile on a little bit
here. I mean, because it could be you can make sense if you think, oh, is Elon
thinking that’s hey, SpaceX is pretty amazing. Take a look at all the things that
they’re doing with recovery and Tesla, you know, they’ve got all sorts of driving
capabilities. But people need to remember that the autonomy and the algorithms
that Tesla is using is based off of billions and billions of data points that they’re
collecting on every single vehicle, every single Tesla that’s out there driving
today, and we simply don’t have that same level of data collection in today’s
combat aircraft, right?
So, that’s not getting fed into CCAs and also SpaceX again very impressive
what they’re doing. But that’s a very different thing from flying into a contested
threat environment that’s highly capable and very advanced.
So, in a dynamic battle space, human cognition, will always provide better
resiliency and ability to operate and make decisions and take action through the
fog and friction of war, through ambiguity in ways that algorithms won’t be able
to handle.
[00:31:00] So, JDAM, in the context of all of this, China just held one of their
major airshows and unveiled a lot of new technology.
So, could you walk us through those highlights?
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Yeah, yeah. Let’s shift gear from the spectacle in
Washington to the spectacle in Zhuhai, China. So, the China airshow is held
every two years. It’s opposite the Paris airshow, and it’s really much more than
an airshow. It’s more of an international defense expo.
Showcases everything from grenade launchers to bombers, right? There’s
something for every autocrat on your Christmas shopping list. The Russians
showed up, in force at the China air show. They’d been at the show before, but
this year they brought, an SU 57 to show off for the first time outside of Russia.
SU 57 is something of a poor man’s fifth generation fighter, maybe, maybe
more of a 4.5 gen fighter, but it does some really cool maneuvers like the,
falling leaf maneuver, uh, in these low altitude flight demonstrations. So, it’s a
real crowd pleaser. I got [00:32:00] to attend the China air show a few years ago
to see this event firsthand.
And I think it’s important to keep in mind that what’s at the show is a lot of
prototype aircraft and concepts on display. Not, not everything is going to end
up in the Chinese military. You know, for example, there was a model of what
the Chinese are calling a sixth generation fighter aircraft, called the White
Emperor. It’s stealthy, it’s AI driven, supposed to have hypersonic speed and
near space flight capabilities, but this Chinese mock up, I mean, that’s all it was,
was a mock up, it’s not flyable.
It’s really, it’s even less real than, uh.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: No engines.
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Yeah. I mean, it was like what was the aircraft in
the last Top Gun movie flown by Tom Cruise, the Dark Star, which was based
on real Lockheed Martin technology, but this is basically Chinese aircraft
designers poking at us and saying, look at how far ahead we are.
But, there are a lot of headlines over the past few weeks about this new
technology on display at the air show. But I think we should probably talk
about. These things as [00:33:00] technology that’s new to China, not
technology that’s necessarily new in the world. For example, the big news was
the public debut of the J 35A, which appears to be a twin engine copy of the US
F 35 that we were just talking about.
So, you know, if these two aircraft are comparable and that’s a big if. Okay, the
Chinese might be 15, 20 years behind the U. S. in terms of developing that, uh,
that aircraft. Other examples include the debut of the HQ 19 surface to air
ballistic missile system. Basically a copy of the U. S. Army Terminal High
Altitude Air Defense System, or THAAD.
Which again has been in the U.S. Inventory for over 15 years. So, I could keep
going down the list with examples from the rest of the show, but the bottom line
is the Chinese are still about 15 years behind the US in terms of advanced
technology, but the rate at which they’re catching up is concerning.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Okay, so what are your thoughts on how the U. S.
should respond to these [00:34:00] Chinese investments?
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Well, I can just echo a lot of what General
Deptula and Boots have been saying. We need to keep making technology
investments. We need to recapitalize our force with the latest technology. But
more than anything, we, we need to turn research and development, production
and fielding of new capabilities and platforms faster, right? We just need to
increase the cycle speed. The Chinese have been stealing a lot of technology
that has allowed them, frankly, to out cycle us in terms of R&D and production.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Second mover. Yeah.
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: But I stand by my assertion. The U. S. Is still
ahead in terms of advanced technology. But if the Chinese keep cycling R&D
faster and faster and faster, and we don’t bring our weapon and production, you
know, uh, numbers up and increase the efficiency of our system, like General
Deptula was saying, then the Chinese are simply going to overtake us in the
next 10 to 15 years.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, if we’re just making all these R&D
investments, but we’re not turning it into fielded capabilities through [00:35:00]
production and procurement, then it doesn’t make a difference. We’re just
basically funding Chinese development because they’re stealing all of our
secrets.
I want to dive into Russian IADS for Iran. And how Israel was able to defeat
that and connect that to where China is today, because I know that there’s a lot
of hand wringing over our ability to be able to counter Chinese, air missile
threats, surface to air defenses.
Can you speak a little bit more to that?
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Well, I was going to address this a little bit later,
but just to get to it now, I, think there, is something to be said for the threat
density. In China versus the threat density, in Iran. But a lot of the technologies
at play are similar.
So while, you know, while Israel was clearly able to leverage some of its fifth
gen technology, some of its fifth gen capabilities to circumvent, the Russian
IADs that were in place in Iran and find those gaps and seams in coverage.
Those same types of [00:36:00] techniques should probably be applied to China.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: That’s what I was curious about. So Boots, sticking
with the China theme, the Chief of Space Operations, General Saltzman, has
been highlighting their capabilities in recent speeches. What are your key
takeaways regarding that?
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Mind boggling pace. So that’s his exact quote, is that
they are, that the speed at which China is building up their capabilities, is at a
quote, “mind boggling pace.” And it’s exactly what JDAM was just talking
about, right?
They are cycling much faster than we are, and are taking advantage of that. So,
their buildup is happening at a much faster pace than we are from a military
perspective. And we are actually going at this point. And so, I think that what
we’re talking about is not just their ability, you know, it’s a Chinese GPS.
It’s not just that. It’s also more, offensive types of capabilities that [00:37:00]
we’re not really, um, diving into so much, right? Ours are all one-offs and tests
and things that we’ve done years, decades ago, really. So, what’s happened
though, is that China has recognized our reliance on space based assets for the
effects that they create both in our everyday life and certainly for the advantages
they create on a modern day battlefield.
And, um, and I think they want to put this at risk. And I think that’s what, the
Chief of Space Operations is, is talking about that, we have a bit of it, I mean,
what could be considered an Achilles heel that we really have to shore up and
we have to go faster at shoring this up because the Chinese have recognized it
as well.
And they’re going after it. So, you know, one of the interesting things if I could
offer this is that it’s really hard for regular folks. I mean, people who are not in
the day to day business of space operations to recognize this, right? Because
you can’t, [00:38:00] you don’t see what’s happening in space. Certainly not
with these tiny assets that are that are satellites, right?
You’re seeing twinkling stars forever away, but not what’s happening right here,
because you simply can’t see them. There’s no visceral experience like you
would see with reporters or photographers on a battlefield, right? And so what
has to happen is that we there has to be some level of trust that what the Space
Force is telling us is happening is actually happening because right there, there
are no reporters in space who are there to take, you know, real time photographs
of what’s going on. So, we’ve got to believe what’s going on. I certainly do. And
we are seeing that China is coming at the United States, essentially with this
mind boggling pace, burning up their ability to do more and more things.
And I’m with JDAM. I don’t think that they are ahead of us yet, but they are
certainly on that trajectory. So, we’ve got to [00:39:00] give this some attention.
It’s just hard for people to see this and you don’t feel it or see it. And so we’ve
got to believe the Chief of Space Operations. He’s saying that it’s coming at us
at a mind boggling pace and there you go, we need to react.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: So, Boots, there have also been other space
developments here in the U. S. For example, Anduril, a company we normally
associate with air systems, has gotten a major space contract and there are
developments with ULA. So, could you walk us these and, what are we
missing?
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Yeah, sure. So there’s a couple of big things that
have happened this month.
Uh, Anduril has, uh, received a contract to modernize, parts of our space
surveillance network, which is very exciting, right? With a modern and machine
to machine communications network that will link the sensors that observe the
space domain. As I mentioned, it’s hard to see, and so we have a network of
sensors out there that, that actually take in data about what’s happening out
there, what we see in space.
It’s replacing, um, a 40 year old [00:40:00] system, uh, with data speeds that are
so slow that we can’t even comprehend anymore how slow they are. This is
going to be called the Space Domain Awareness.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Like dial up space.
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Oh, oh yes, it’s actually one tenth the time, one tenth
the speed of dial up telephone.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Wow.
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: So, think about that. I mean, youngsters don’t even
know what a dial up telephone is, so, uh, and it’s a tenth of that.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Thank goodness Anduril is coming in to accelerate
the pace of that machine to machine data transfer.
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Absolutely. New system, dramatically increased
connectivity between sensors, C2 systems, and data platforms. So, it’s going to
be great. Now, ULA, um, it looks like there may be a slip in Vulcan
certification into next year. The bottom line is, I mean, we have to understand
how brutal the launch schedule is, right?
So many things we’re trying to get up into space and it takes 2 nominal launches
to certify for national security space launches, right? To get certified in their
class. and while it’s happening, they [00:41:00] need another launch to happen.
And because of the continuing resolution, the contract to do this is actually in
limbo.
So, a plug there that we’ve got to get the budget approved as soon as possible so
that we can actually get some of these things going. It’s actually affecting our
ability to get payloads to space. Also, Raytheon was just awarded a contract for
the next software upgrade to OCX. Right? And OCX is the modernization of
our GPS ground control infrastructure.
So, I mean, this is tremendous news that we’re going to keep that modernizing
and it will enhance the navigation signal accuracy and cyber security for
everybody, not just the military, uh, applications. So, some, you know, really
the big news, right, was the election in November, but a couple other big things
in the space world are happening and I’m glad to get to talk about them.
Oh, fantastic. So, General Deptula, just before Thanksgiving, Mitchell hosted
our first Air Power Futures Forum, and we had the Chief of Staff speak, as well
as a lot of other key [00:42:00] leaders. What were your main takeaways?
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, Heather, let me start and remind
folks, actually, I don’t think they need reminding, but some do.
We’re still in the middle of a historic era of change. For many years now, we’ve
been transitioning from the industrial age of warfare to an information age.
Now, our goal in setting up this Air Power Forum was to allow the Air Force
leadership, industry and science and technology leadership, talk about this
change, explain why it’s occurring, and then discuss challenges and
opportunities.
I’m very pleased to report that the proof of its value was that the event was very
well received by the Air Force Chief of Staff, by Lieutenant General Dave
Harris, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, Requirements, and
perhaps most importantly, the audience. As a result, we intend to make this an
annual event to provide [00:43:00] this venue for the Air Force leadership, to
articulate what’s on its mind and what it’s planning on doing. In that regard, it
was the first time that the Chief of Staff spoke about the Air Force’s New Force
design concept. Now, we’ve all heard a lot about the Air Force’s reorganization.
Um, or what the Chief prefers to call re optimization.
And that’s about the way in which the Air Force enterprise is constructed. Force
design sets the stage for how the Air Force envisions fighting. The primary Air
Force, force design documents are classified, so the Air Force leadership did
their best describing its general characteristics. The bottom line is that there’s a
lot of focus on the Air Force’s core missions.
Air superiority, global precision strike, mobility, ISR, and command and
control, and how to best secure these effects. The one force design [00:44:00]
document, which General Allvin signed on October 4th, is a framework for the
Air Force to build its force structure tailored to the complex threats of Great
Power Competition.
So, it capitalizes on trends and analysis to develop the right mixture of
capabilities to be employed in an integrated manner with the other service
components, in, uh, the combatant commands and our allies and partners.
General Harris addressed how the force design uses an analytic approach based
on three mission areas that are defined by the density of the threat, around the
world.
And then the Chief emphasized that the force design is about taking back the
offensive, reaffirming that airpower is at its best when it’s on the attack. And we
certainly concur with [00:45:00] that. But overall, it was an excellent forum.
And like I said, we’re going to now do this every year.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: You know, sir, you said something at the beginning
regarding, an era historic change, transitioning from an industrial age warfare to
information age warfare.
And I would actually argue that what’s really interesting is how those things are
merging because the industrial capacity still matters. We still need widgets and
airplanes and missiles and bombs and things like that, which is fundamentally
industrial. But what’s different is in how we’re merging information through
autonomy, advanced processing, data links, et cetera, to really make those far
more effective.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah. This goes back to some of the
comments I made in response to an earlier question, uh, you know, numbers
matter, capacity matters, but there’s a difference between capacity, sufficient
capacity and mass.
And so we need to be careful that we don’t confuse those two because, yeah,
efficiency is [00:46:00] important, but only when it comes to assuring the
effectiveness of the U. S. Department of Defense. And that’s what we have to
really carefully balance. It goes back to the fact that we’ve eliminated much of
our defense industrial base, so we no longer have the capacity to build the
capabilities and the quantities that we need.
So, this is not an easy thing where you come in and you do a 90 day assessment
of a particular store and then come up with some new efficiencies.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah and I want our listeners to understand that,
uh, you know, it’s software matters, but software alone is not going to make the
difference. We need to ensure that we’ve got the industrial base, uh, and the
industrial capacity to make a difference as well.
So, JDAM, what were your thoughts from a China’s lens regarding what you
heard and saw at the futures forum?
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Yeah. So, when it comes to talking about the
threat, you know, you get the same answer to the questions that you get when
you ask about force design. It’s [00:47:00] classified. So, Air Force leadership is
clearly concerned about, you know, these increasingly sophisticated and dense
threats.
And I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be concerned. They should absolutely be
concerned. But, you know, it’s like Secretary Mattis used to say, the enemy gets
a vote. So, this goes back to the question that you asked about how the Israelis
defeated the Russian IADs in Iran, in that strike, uh, several weeks ago.
So the Chief of Staff, uh, in his presentation had these two slides with maps of
China, right? The first map represented the surface to air threats in China about
20 years ago. Lots of scary range rings, but you know, there were also a lot of
apparent gaps in coverage and the threats weren’t, that widely dispersed.
So, then he shows this map of the surface to air threat today. This incredibly
dense set of range rings.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: All of them overlapping red.
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Right. Long range threats, virtually no gaps in
coverage. The problem here is that each one of those rings [00:48:00] represents
the maximum range of those Chinese missiles against a target with the radar
cross section of a jumbo jet.
So, I’m sorry to report you heard it here first on our podcast. If it comes to war
with China, we will not be attacking with jumbo jets. The point is that these,
you know, just like in the Israeli strikes, right? Our low observable or stealth
technology and advanced electronic warfare capabilities ultimately make all of
those range rings smaller, potentially revealing gaps in coverage.
So, we need to leverage our technology. We need to leverage those advantage in
our, in our tactics to work through the challenges the adversary is presenting.
We can’t just curl up in a ball because there are more scary range rings in front
of us. And we think that as soon as we fly across that line, you know, the
aircraft are going to catch on fire and fall into the water, instantly vaporize,
right?
But I go back to what I said before, there should be some real concerns in the
Pentagon and in Congress about [00:49:00] how China may be out cycling us in
terms of capability and countermeasure development.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: You know, it goes back to what I’ve said for a long
time, is that the third offset is really about time.
Having those, accelerating those cycles is what’s going to provide the better
advantage. And whoever’s able to achieve that is gonna win. So, Lazer you were
there at the futures forum. What were your thoughts? And how’s the Hill
responding to all of this?
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I thought it was outstanding. I thought General
Allvin did an amazing job.
What I really liked was the audience, the table I was at. It was a mix of
everyone. Like you said, industry and international partners. I also like the
discussion that happened in between the different, panels. So, overall success
and General Deptula I was just thinking about this. So we invite Elon Musk and
Vivek Ramaswamy to be on a panel next year. And then they can talk about
everything that we were just talking about and how this fits in. Um, but the Hill,
they were a little [00:50:00] preoccupied. Just came back from an election, just
came back into session, trying to work defense bills and all this other stuff
where the focus really has been on staff.
But the one great thing and General Deptula and Heather you brought this up,
but industrial to information age. I mean, it’s not just the Department of
Defense, it’s the United States. And that’s actually what Congress is trying to get
their arms around right now. I mean, not just on DOD, but looking at everything
else.
And I think that we can help shape this. And I think this forum will help shape it
when we do this next year. And I don’t know when this will be next year, what
the timing is, but we just have to look at it from a congressional point of view to
make sure that we can get more in attendance.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Thank you for that.
So as we wrap this Rendezvous, uh, Lazer what else should we anticipate in the
coming weeks? Congress still needs to fund the government. We talked about
that with Boots. We can’t afford to have another CR and this one is ending soon.
Committee assignments will happen and we’re waiting to see more defense
picks. So what are your thoughts in, uh, in the Crystal Ball?
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, so [00:51:00] 12 days and 14 days of
session left, depending on how you want to look at House and Senate. So, not
enough days to accomplish what they need to get done. What they focus on
number one, there’s going to be disaster relief supplemental funding bill. How
that gets packaged by itself or with the NDAA or with CR or if we’re lucky
Approps bills, but that’s number one. Obviously, President Biden is going to
continue to focus on judicial nominations, getting those confirmed. Congress is
trying to figure out what the heck the top line is for the appropriations bills,
which then would allow us to do appropriations bill.
And then you brought it up. The continuing resolution is the last big piece. If we
take a look at what’s going on there is a path forward to try to get the
appropriations bills done before Christmas this year, but they would have to
agree to a top line at the beginning of this week so that they could start putting
the bills.
Let’s just say this week, but they have to come to an [00:52:00] agreement and
that’s going to take President elect Trump. It’s going to be the Biden
administration and Congress to come to this agreement. Um, most people
believe that we will be kicking, doing another CR and. Pushing off the
appropriations bills until next year.
There’s some discussion about possibly doing it after January 3rd before the
20th, or there is a possibility of getting it done in March. I think everybody is
sort of leaning toward getting this done in March, but I’ll stay hopeful and
maybe we’ll get an early holiday present to try to get something done on the top
line by the end of this week.
The other things that are out there, though. We still, um, have a defense
authorization bill that’s being worked. I know that the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees continue to try to resolve around a dozen issues. They
should be fairly easy to get resolved, but they don’t have a top line either.
They’ve been waiting for [00:53:00] appropriation. So where do they go? Do
they go from an FRA level or do they go plus the $25 billion that the Senate has
done and I’m not really sure where they need to go, because we all know in the
end, I don’t care if it’s done this year or next year, there’s going to be increase in
defense spending.
So, the timing for that bill, it looks like they will do some sort of partial page
turn this week on the defense authorization bill, minus whatever top line
agreement they’re going to get done. And then there’s also some airdrops addins at the end. That usually will come from leadership. The two that have been
talked about most is China, and then some AI.
And what it looks like is that, uh, the AI will not make it in, the bill this year,
but what they are working on is restricting US investments in Chinese
technologies that pose a direct threat to our national security. So that, looks like,
that’ll probably make it in the bill. So if you take a look, they’ll hopefully get it
filed.
Maybe not the first week of December, but they will get it filed by the second
week and then try to [00:54:00] clear the NDAA before they go for the, uh,
holiday recess adjourned for the year. The other things that they’re going to
come into as soon as you get back, you have a debt ceiling limit. I expect that to
get fixed on the continuing resolution and then we’re right into the inauguration
and the budget’s supposed to come out on the 3rd of February next year, which
we know is going to get kicked into March, which may also coincide with us
trying to get appropriations bills done.
So not in a great position right now. A lot to do not a lot of time to get it done.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, that’s a lot of work to do in the remaining,
uh, weeks of December. So, we’ll grade your assessment in January, the next
Rendezvous. But, uh, everyone, thank you so much for making the time.
We appreciate you being here and your insights.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Okay. Thanks Heather. This was a
good session today. Lots of information that was covered.
Jennifer “Boots” Reeves: Thanks Heather. Always glad to be here.
Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Thanks a lot. Great Rendezvous.
J. Michael “JDAM” Dahm: Thanks Heather. Happy holidays and happy New
Year’s to all our listeners.
Heather “Lucky” Penney: With that, I’d like to extend a big thank you to our
[00:55:00] guests for joining in today’s discussion.
I’d also like to extend a big thank you to you, our listeners, for your continued
support and for tuning into today’s show. If you like what you heard today, don’t
forget to hit that like button and follow or subscribe to the Aerospace
Advantage. Thanks. You can also leave a comment to let us know what you
think about our show, or areas you would like us to explore further.
As always, you can join in on the conversation by following the Mitchell
Institute on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn, and you can always find
us at mitchellaerospacepower.org. Thanks again for joining us, And have a great
aerospace power kind of day. See you next time.