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.

This week, it’s time again for The Rendezvous, our monthly look at what’s happening in Washington, D. C. when it comes to air and space power. Plus, important national security trends we should be watching around the globe. And over the last two weeks, members of the Mitchell team have been talking about key space power and air power factors that the incoming Trump defense team should be considering.

This week, we want to focus on Congress. Given that charge, there’s no one better than our team of Washington experts, Lazer Lazarski, Sledge Harmer, and Jeff Rowlison. And we’ve also got General Deptula and Charles Galbreath here to bring in some key air and space perspectives as well. Gentlemen, welcome.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Thanks [00:01:00] Heather, always good to be here on the rendezvous.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: May I hope everybody had a great holiday, great to be back and hear everybody’s voice.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Thanks Lazer.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, happy new year, great to be here.

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Hey, wrapping up with another happy new year and great to be part of the scene.

Charles Galbreath: Heather, it’s great to be back.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Okay, so Lazer, Sledge and Rowli. The last rendezvous we recorded was way back in December, and that feels like it was ages ago. Aside from the standard confirmation hearings, what are the biggest national security developments on the Hill when it comes to defense? I’m guessing it ties back to the budget, as we’re still in a continuing resolution.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, Lucky. I’ll open the can of worms on this and then I’ll toss it to my esteemed colleagues. I’ll start with not much going on. So, we got confirmation and new civilian leaders to include all the defense secretaries, deputies, and unders and then they need to still complete the fiscal year 2025 appropriations bills, which will probably require passing another short term continuum resolution. I don’t think they’re going to get it done by the middle of March. Then they need to pass a [00:02:00] budget resolution for this Congress, and that’s going to include what we think top line numbers are as we’re going forward with 26 as well as rules for reconciliation bills, which everybody’s been talking about.

They need to raise the debt limit before we run out of cash. And there’s this X date that looks like it’s going to happen around June. And then they need to build and pass this reconciliation bill, which is basically revenue spending legislation that just requires a simple majority. And the Republicans are working that right now.

Uh, and then finally, we’re going to receive an FY 26 president’s budget request, which is due by law on the first Monday of February, which is three Feb. And that’s not gonna happen. And what we’re hearing is probably not going to come over to May. And then we can finally get onto the real businesses FY 26 authorization appropriations bills, which will be hearings and markups and then passing the bills.

And they’re gonna try to get back on schedule. But why do I bring all that up? All that impacts defense. We have to have civilian [00:03:00] leaders in place. We have to have funding in place so we can execute the national strategy. Of course, we have to understand, you know, okay, with this new administration, what’s that strategy look like?

The force structure, the personnel, and the assets.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, the only thing I would add to that, Lucky, is, you know, somewhere in there there’s probably going to be an emergency supplemental for disaster relief. To do some cleanup in western North Carolina, and then obviously the fires out in California.

So, that’ll, that’ll offer another legislative vehicle to put some of the other appropriations on. I think though the biggest development or maybe it’s a challenge rather than a development is the calendar. There is so much to do and there’s so little time and we need to get the service secretaries and the senior acquisition executives from the department, confirmed and there’s a finite number of legislative days to do that and a lot of stuff to do.

So, time is going to be, uh, of the essence.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Thanks for that Sledge. Rowli anything to add?

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Yeah, just to echo the [00:04:00] urgency of what Sledge and Lazer we’re talking about, you know, the further we push 25, the decision on closing 25, the more stress it creates for our service, particularly the Space Force to go out and execute the programs that they’ve been appropriated funds for.

And so I think this accordion becomes more and more critical as we, we wait for confirmations of senior leaders. Get their redirection on how Congress is going to deal with 25 and then whatever the implications are for growth for 26 is just absolutely critical. Over.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Thanks. So, Lazer, you had touched on this briefly, but how do we finally get an FY 25 budget passed?

And what do you think that looks like? We’ve, you know, we’ve heard the term reconciliation used as a means to passing the budget. Could you describe that a little bit more, what that means and what are the implications for defense spending?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Okay, just quickly on reconciliation. I know it confuses a lot of people.

It’s just a special piece of legislation [00:05:00] and it’s called reconciliation, and it allows one party or the other that controls the White House, the Senate and the House to go ahead and advance high priority, fiscal legislation. So and typically you only see one bill a year and the provisions in the bill must be directly related to the budget.

We call it the bird rule. And the other key thing is it cannot increase the deficit outside the budget window. So, that’s what the Republicans are trying to do right now. It’s probably going to take them all year to get it done. But that in a nutshell is what reconciliation is. But getting back to, um, you know, the budget.

So, while there’s again, it’s a slim majority, 53-47 in the Senate, 218 to 215 in the House with two vacancies. It takes 60 votes to pass the appropriations bills, which means you have to work with the Democrats. So they need at least 7 over on the Senate side. And then if there’s some issues [00:06:00] over on the House side where the Freedom Caucus doesn’t like what’s going on, they will need some Democrats to get the budget passed over on the House side.

The continuing resolution expires on the 14th. The good news is what we call the four corners of the House and Senate appropriators on the House appropriations and the Senate appropriations committee. So, you had Cole, DeLauro, Collins, and Murray. They met last week. They’re working on an agreement and we hear that it’s going to be finalized here very shortly, which will allow the subcommittees to go ahead and start working their respective bills.

And then, as with everything else, the devil’s in the details. There’s a difference between what the House had been working on and what the Senate had been working on. There’s about an 88 billion difference and Ranking Member DeLauro said that we need to stick to the agreement that was set during the debt limit negotiations, which is a 1 percent increase for defense.

So, that’s where we’re going to have the problems. So, and then, of course, when it’s passed, it’s got to get signed by President Trump. So, I think the process, as I said [00:07:00] earlier, is going to take longer than the 14th. I think there’s going to be another short term CR until probably April. The real deadline is the 30th of April.

That’s the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which sequestration comes into effect, and that could be up to a 7 percent cut across all federal agencies starting 1 May. So that’s the real cliff that Congress is looking at. And so I expect them to come to agreement before then. But I don’t think it’s gonna be, it’ll be at least a 1%. But I’m not sure where defense is going to be.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: And to be clear, that’s just FY25.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: 25.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, because we’re still looking at 26.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I actually, Lucky, if I can just back up a little bit and kind of map this out, for all the fighter pilots out there in the audience. Under regular order or I guess in theory, the way it’s supposed to work.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Hasn’t been regular for a long time.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: No, well, actually 1996 was the last time all the appropriations bills were passed before the end of the fiscal year. So, I guess it’s irregular [00:08:00] order. As Lazer mentioned, the first Monday of February is the deadline for the President to submit his annual budget request, the President budget request.

And once that goes over to Capitol Hill, Congress will start pulling it apart and reviewing it. the next legislative action that is supposed to happen is the Congress will pass a budget resolution, and that’s required by the 15th of April. And the budget resolution is a non binding resolution, so it doesn’t go to the President for signature, and it’s used to establish the funding top lines.

And if you go back to the Budget Control Act of 1974, Section 302A and 302B basically say, these are the top.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Wait a minute, let me write that down. What were those sections again?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: When you hear someone say 302B, that means that the Defense Appropriations Committees have X amount to mark to, that’s what their budget for their, their budget authority, for that year is.

And then part of that budget resolution, will be what are called reconciliation instructions. Because there’s going to be [00:09:00] difference between the House resolution and the Senate resolution. And what Lazer mentioned in his comments is extremely important. The budget resolution needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate.

But once you get into reconciliation, when you’re amending the already approved budget resolution for the year, you only need a simple majority. So that vehicle, the budget resolution with reconciliation instructions, will be used to implement changes to tax policy. Anything that, would be covered under the, the budget resolution.

Once those numbers are established, then the authorizers, so the armed services committee start their markup of the National Defense Authorization Act and the appropriators do the same for their defense appropriations bill. So, in theory, that’s the way it’s supposed to work, but again, theory meeting reality is not always, they’re usually intervening variables as our friend Clausewitz would say.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So, thank you, I appreciate that, Sledge. So, as we look at the FY26 defense spending levels, what’s your [00:10:00] prediction on the top line? Senator Wicker, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has obviously been pushing for a higher top line for FY25, and he’s spoken about that goal since then. Do you think that the Trump administration will try to submit a bigger defense budget for 26 and do you see the rest of Congress supporting that?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I’ll go out a limb and I’m interested in what Sledge has to say, but I think there’ll be an increased top line. And again, it’s listening to everything that President Trump said while he was campaigning and what he stood for on his on his first presidency. But I expect it to start with his submission of the FY 26 president budget request whenever we get it. We’re hoping in May. The great news is Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Wicker, which you just talked about, he’s focusing on increasing defense spending along with reforming our acquisition process. And I know we’ve been trying to do that for decades forever but he’s already had his first hearing yesterday. But he is very focused on [00:11:00] it and he has the support of the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Mike Rogers. So.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: That’s huge.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: So, Chairman Wicker believes that President Trump will follow through on his pledge to restore and then using peace through strength, right? And then he wants and Wicker wants to see the defense spending grow to 5 percent of our gross domestic product. That was something my former boss, Senator Inhofe, also was for and tried to do. And and this has really been a big, big focus.

Senator Wicker believes that defense department and defense procurement needs to be more efficient and modern. And if you read, he’s got, uh, it’s called FORGE, the Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency and Defence Act and that explains how he plans to implement all those changes. So, again, the final bills that ultimately and this gets back to what we just said before, and what Sledge said. But it’s going to be compromised, right? I need 60 votes. So I don’t know where it ultimately comes in, but I expect higher to come over. I expect the SASC to [00:12:00] push and the, and the HASC to push for, uh, higher budgets for the defense, but we’re going to need to pass appropriations bills with Democrats. And that’s, you know, that’s where the deals have to come in.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, a couple of things there, and I don’t mean to be a contrarian here, but I mean, I don’t see a higher top line for FY 25. There may be some gamesmanship and, you know, if we do use reconciliation to amend the FY 26 budget resolution, then you may be able to add some of the money there. But it’s also important to note that Chairman Rogers and Chairman Wicker are authorizers.

And you can’t spend an authorization. So, they’ve got to get support from the appropriators to make this happen back to what the president has said. Obviously, his campaign promises and the fact that he’s making a lot of public proclamations. I mean, the Iron Dome for America. I think we ought to call it Eagle Dome.

The Eagle Dome project alone is going to break the bank. So, [00:13:00] there’s no way that under the current top lines envisioned by Congress, we can do the thir things the president wants. He’s going to have to add more resources to national security to make that and other things happen. It also could be, you know, the, the 100 to 200 billion number that, Wicker and, and Wicker and Rogers are throwing out could be a negotiating tactic. I don’t think so. I think Congress sees that there’s a real need to rebuild our military and it’s going to cost money.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: I hope they, follow through on that because it is the resourcing is definitely needed for the Air and Space Forces. So, you know, in recent months and over the past few weeks, many Biden officials were pretty direct about the need for a budget increase for both the Air Force and the Space Force. Finally grateful to hear them say that former Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall came out on record to that effect.

And most recently we heard from Ravi Chaudhry, former Air Force Assistant Secretary for Energy Installations and Environment. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Allvin, also released an op ed making the case for more resources. [00:14:00] And the Chief of Space Operation, General Saltzman, has been consistent throughout his testimony last year about the need for more Space Force funding.

And as you know, we have supported, uh, all of that need for more resource across the department. So, bottom line, are these appeals for more funding, do they work, do they resonate with Congress? I think our, as I, our main critique here at Mitchell, we would have liked to have heard them earlier, but we’re glad folks finally came on the record.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I love your last statement. Truly. Why didn’t we hear about this sooner? And it’s very telling. You know, why didn’t. I’m trying not to be overly critical, but if this was that important, we should have been doing it from the very beginning and trying to push it. And, you know, it comes a time where maybe you need to fall on your sword.

Some guy named Billy Mitchell, uh, you know, fell on a sword. And so again, I think it Air and Space Force leaders, I think the Mitchell Institute, Air and Space Force Association have been sending the right message to Congress about funding and impacts. And we obviously [00:15:00] always can improve. We’ve discussed this on past podcasts. But we all know that we’re operating in a fiscally constrained environment. And Sledge has brought this up and over and over again. And that’s not going to change. If you look at the current debt. 36 trillion interest on debt over a trillion, which is more than our defense budget. So, while it resonates while we’re telling everybody what’s going on, they’re gonna have to figure out how they prioritize which weapon systems, which force structure, and what we feel than operate, which is not going to be 100 percent in our favor.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I would say on the better late than never comment. I would say take your wins when you can get them. I’m glad they’re finally saying it. Yeah, it would have been great if they said it sooner. But, just glad they said it. I think there are going to be mixed reviews on how it resonates in Capitol Hill.

But I think, we, let’s not, see the near term tree for the long term forest. And we, I think now that they’ve [00:16:00] said these things, they need to advocate for some structural changes in the way resources are allocated. I think the must pay bills in the Air Force, especially nuclear modernization, needs to be pulled out of the base budget and funded centrally.

So, the Air Force can pay for the things that it needs to provide air and space power to the joint force. We need to end the blue pass through.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yep.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: So, that comes off the books and it doesn’t give the false impression that the Air Force is, fully, resourced. And then, I guess a reference to the Forbes article that General Deptula just published there. Resources need to be allocated based on a contribution to the national security strategy. If you’re providing air and space power, you enable every other joint activity. That needs to be properly resourced.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Absolutely. If you don’t have air and space power, you cannot do any other joint force application.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: The days of a one third slice of the pie should be over.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: And for our listeners, we’ll include a link to General Deptula’s Forbes article so you can find it here in our show notes. General Deptula, what are [00:17:00] your thoughts on these appeals for more resources and in particular, General Allvin’s op ed?

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, I concur with everything that’s been said previously and, frankly, I really applaud, General Allvin’s, op ed and commend it to all if you haven’t read it yet. And here’s why. After decades in decline, President Trump’s now inheriting an Air Force older, smaller, and less ready than it’s ever been in its history.

And unfortunately, planned to get even smaller over the next five years if action is not immediately taken to reverse this course. Let me put that in context. For some of our listeners who may have be first tuning in or haven’t heard this before, but, you know, our youngest B 52 bomber, which makes up the majority of the U. S. bomber force is 63 years old.

Our tankers are about the same age. The Air Force’s advanced trainer, the T 38, first flew in 1959. After 10 years in development, we’re still [00:18:00] waiting, for a new trainer. The average age of the Air Force’s fighter force is near 30. And here’s one to consider, 10 of the Air Force’s aircraft types first flew over 50 years ago. Now those 10 aircraft types account for about 2,600 Air Force aircraft, which is about two thirds of the entire force. So, the Air Force is literally a geriatric force today. In comparison, and while our Navy friends have some force structure issues themselves, the Navy has only one ship on active duty over 50 years old, and it’s a non combatant.

I mentioned earlier where the Air Force is headed over the next five years. It’s on track to lose nearly a thousand planes during that time frame while acquiring just a fraction of that number. You want an example? You were talking about the FY 2025 budget. In that budget alone, the Air [00:19:00] Force plans on divesting 250 aircraft while buying just 91.

So, continuing to remove more aircraft than it buys is going to collapse the Air Force. And currently, there’s no plan to stop that from happening. Now, if you think that’s the good news, the situation is worse than only declining force structure. At any given time, up to 500 of the Air Force’s flyable aircraft are grounded due to a chronic lack of spare parts. So, as the Air Force gets older, readiness just gets worse. And now, added to this critical situation of a declining force structure and insufficient spares, is the Air Force’s chronic 2000 pilot shortfall. Which I commend everyone to read Heather’s paper on the topic that we just released here.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: We’ll put that in the show notes too.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah. In the past 10 days or so. So, the oldest and [00:20:00] smallest aircraft inventory in its history, combined with a lack of spare parts and an enduring pilot shortage with falling pilot experience levels is a precarious condition that’s a recipe for a national security disaster. So, I don’t know how to say this any stronger with respect to the attention that the Department of the Air Force needs to recover from this nosedive. And in the interest of time, I won’t go into my litany on, while the Space Force, is small and it requires more resources and more people. So, that’s a whole nother issue that needs to be addressed as well.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, absolutely. Lazer and Sledge, so if you were to advise General Allvin on how to best manifest these goals with Congress of growing the Department of the Air Force, what would your top strategy recommendations be?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, let me jump on this one first here, Lazer. I mean [00:21:00] this, in deference to the Space Force, this is not rocket science. It’s, it’s really, it’s all about relationships. So, you can’t have a relationship unless you’re, unless you’re engaged, you’re available and people trust you.

So, I would say, make yourself available, have a consistent message, a message that is linked to the National Defense Strategy and the Air Force’s contribution to that. And it’s quite that simple. Just be consistent. Be available.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: And responsive, right? I mean.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, Lazer?

Yeah. Yeah. Sledge is right. I mean, we’ve been up on the hill together. That’s what we’ve always wanted. I mean, stay on point, stay on target, let Air Force and Space Force personnel speak for themselves. In essence, not the leadership, right? Because we have people, installations, around the world in constituencies. They tell the story too. It’s not just told in the halls of Congress and they give Congress options. Okay, here’s what we can do. And here were the impacts and be open and honest as as Sledge just said and [00:22:00] transparent. And again, we’re gonna get the job done. That’s what we do. That’s what Guardians and Airmen do.

We get the job down, done no matter what the risks, but we have to make sure that Congress is aware of those risks. I’m just going to throw, there’s one thing I didn’t like, and it’s probably, that was in the article, but it’s about BRAC, right? And if, if we sit there and we all know that our force is too small, we got a growing threat environment and we need to grow. But if you close an installation, you’re never going to get an installation back and you’re unlikely to ever get a new one because we’re not going to be able to afford it.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Here here!

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: So, I’m all for being efficient and effective, but we have, excess capacity is a good thing. It’s a good thing to be able to grow. Now I will tell you that what needs to happen is all the other federal agencies need to be BRAC’d and because we’ve been through it five times, right? And zero for everybody else.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Man, Lazer. I just, let me just put an exclamation point behind what you just said and let me take us back to the 2018 [00:23:00] timeframe. When the Congress directed the Air Force to tell them budget unconstrained. What do you really need to execute the national defense strategy? And the response in a nutshell was well we’re about 25 percent smaller than we need to be. Well, exactly right! If you get rid of that 25 percent excess and for some miracle someone recognizes that, hey, we do need a strong military to deter our adversaries. Where are you going to put them all if you don’t have that infrastructure?

Heather “Lucky” Penney: No, I’ve, I’ve for a long time been against BRAC for this very reason. You never get it back when you give it up. I mean, just take a look at the pilot training shortfall, right? We need to have more capacity to train pilots. We are well below just standard, sustainment pipeline throughput that we need right now at the smallest that we’ve ever been. But there’s no place to put that, right? I mean, you can’t reopen Williams Air Force Base. Willie’s never coming back.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Here’s a little Navy example. I go down to Key West all the time. [00:24:00] Been going there for 50 years.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, we love the lobster.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Used to be a, I mean, they got an air station down there, which is wonderful. But they also had a surface ship base. They sold it all many years ago, I think in the 80s. For a mere 300 plus million dollars. And about a decade or two later, the Navy wanted to see if they could get it back because they realized it was a mistake to give up that port. Not a chance. You know, because it’s already sold. It’s worth billions of dollars now and spread among hundreds of different. Contractors and developers.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, no, we need to keep those bases. Lazer, thanks for bringing that up. So, Charles, um, speaking of funding, where do you think the Space Force needs to invest additional funds if they’re, if they’re to get them?

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, I think General Saltzman has been very clear and consistent about this message, and that is that the Space Force needs the capabilities to secure space superiority. We can no longer assume that we will have the capabilities in space available to the joint [00:25:00] warfighters that rely on them. And we also know that the adversaries are developing their own space capabilities to hold us at risk.

And so if we don’t gain and maintain space superiority and have the resources to do so, everything else is in question. Can’t rely on it. So, that has got to be the number one priority for any additional funding the Space Force gets. Advancements in the delivery of effects and capabilities that the joint community has relied on for so many years, that’s going to need to continue as well.

Because those benefits will erode over time if we don’t continue to invest in sustaining and upgrading those capabilities. So it’s a one two punch, if you will. But it all starts with space superiority. Because as you said, without space superiority, without air superiority, nothing else matters.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. So, Rowli, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Lazer and Sledge. What strategies should General Saltzman consider to help achieve these growth objectives?

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Well, like Charles was talking about, if we want to get after space [00:26:00] superiority we need to get really, really, comfortable in establishing our Guardian led discussions with our partners on the Hill and elsewhere.

And I love what Lazer was saying, you know, the operators that are outside of the capital region need to be engaged with their local leadership. We need to be able to communicate at every level and be empowered to do that, right? We’ve got a great team that can tell the story. Lazer, Sledge, and I came from liaison roles when we were in the military.

We’ve got to empower that effort to build some champions because right now, you know, we’ve got a couple emerging champions on the Senate side, in the House side. But we need that advocacy and we need to define the threat to make sure that we’re justifying and everybody understands. We’re not scaling for scale sake. We’re scaling to meet and defeat a threat in our warfighting domain. So, I think, you know, General [00:27:00] Saltzman and General Guetlein have been really adamant about the need for smart, increased investment. And I think their strategies are sound, but just continue to hammer that home with advocacy. And it’s not dissimilar to what General Allvin did with this op ed. We’ve got to sustain that message.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Hey, yeah, Lucky if I could, I have one quick reattack here and I kind of want to, pick at what, Jeff and Lazer said about, lower ranks or the people out in the field, engaging on this. I think the leadership inside the headquarters Air Force needs to be a little bit more risk tolerant.

And as long as you provide your folks with guidelines on, you know, left, right, this is what your message is, allow them to make mistakes. Airmen and Guardians are going to say stupid things from time to time. But if their intent is in the right place, and they’re trying to accomplish the mission, good on them.

Let’s get it out there. Let’s move on and tell our story.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: At least it stimulates a conversation, raises awareness, and frankly if you don’t get the reps and sets [00:28:00] early on talking about your mission, and what you need, you’ll never have that really competency when you get to the senior levels.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Amen. And we need to get back to an era where people inside the Air Force, and the military writ large, are not afraid to speak truth to power. Alright? We’ve got to get out of an era of what’s become, unfortunately, a one mistake Air Force.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, how are we ever going to ace if we’re not going to empower our Airmen and Guardians? So, you know, speaking about that, you know, how do we get leaders in D. C. as well, not just, you know, folks in the building or in the field, to be more comfortable talking about offensive and defensive capabilities in space? You know, the last administration was very reluctant to go there. I think they were concerned about, you know, signaling or upsetting our adversaries.

But let’s just be honest, they’re already full head on that vector. I mean, our adversaries are making the choice to go offensive and defensive.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, [00:29:00] Heather, you’re absolutely right that there might’ve been some thought that if we show restraint that other countries will show restraint as well. And that just did not work, right? They’re, they’re pressing forward with weapon systems and they have an advantage in their offensive capability to deny us our space capabilities. Why? Right? That explanation of the “why” we need space superiority has what’s going to come across to, to members of Congress. It can’t just be a discussion of widgets and specific capabilities.

It’s got to be the “why” of space superiority. Why the space force exists in the first place. It was supported with bipartisan support. Five years ago when it was established. That has got to continue. Members of Congress need to understand the story, absolutely, of why the Space Force exists and what is at stake if we lose space superiority.

Because as we’ve talked about multiple times, if you lose that space superiority, everything else is going [00:30:00] to fall apart like a house of cards. It absolutely will. Getting more comfortable with offensive and defensive capabilities in space, you know, Sledge brought up the Iron Dome, Eagle Dome.

I thought it was Strategic Defense Initiative, honestly. But.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Star Wars!

Charles Galbreath: Exactly. So, but the fact that in that proposal or in that executive order, he, President Trump directed a review of space based interceptors for boost phase interceptive missiles. So, there’s weapons in space to defend our national interests. That is a stepping stone to normalizing the discussion of offensive and defensive capabilities in space to protect our interests on the ground, in the air, and in space.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Let me jump in here because it’s important what Charles was talking about and I’ll just remind everyone. That back in April of 2022, Vice President Kamala Harris announced that the Biden [00:31:00] administration set up a self imposed ban on anti satellite testing, because, you know, the idea here was to set an international norm for responsible behavior in space.

Really? Does anybody who studies history, and I guess maybe that’s the problem here, some people don’t, recognize that China and Russia have no interest in responsible behavior when it comes to space. So, I haven’t heard it mentioned yet, but one of the first things the Trump administration under Secretary Hegseth needs to do is reverse that ban on ASAT testing and get on with it ASAP.

Charles Galbreath: So, just to be clear, it wasn’t a ban on ASAT testing. We need to be taking the gloves off, if you will, and taking a hard look at what capabilities we absolutely need to secure our space superiority. In some cases, that might be a kinetic [00:32:00] response. We have to have the set of options available to us.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): The fact of the matter is we need to pursue both offensive and defensive capabilities in space with an emphasis on the offensive.

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: And I think it’s really relevant because Secretary, now Secretary Hegseth, in his advanced policy questions, one of his comments was, if confirmed, I support America embracing a balanced space deterrence force structure that includes offensive and defensive space control capabilities.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, obviously because if you don’t have the capability to take out an adversaries we’re fighting prowess, then there’s no such thing as deterrence. Deterrence will fail.

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Yeah. But I think acknowledging that, right? Get to get back to us back to the question on hey, how do we communicate this better? We’ve got to take that statement and defend it, define it and grow it. And I think if we, like we talked about before, if establishing those relationships, we can’t expect [00:33:00] everybody to understand the threat environment. And I think the commercial industry is a great example of decloaking a really mythical space environment, right? If you look at what our commercial space domain awareness. Data providers are doing, is they’re uncovering really aggressive space maneuvering in a way that we haven’t been able to define in the past because we’ve been scared of you know, this disclosures and everything like that, but I think using commercial to really help understand the space environment and really aggressively define, you know, aggressive maneuvers, actions, capabilities, intent is a way that we’re really going to help defend, you know, budget investments that go back to offensive and defensive space capabilities. And I think, I think we just got to talk about it because commercial sees it and everybody knows it. And so we’ve got a great capability that is now exposing, you know, some really, uncomfortable truths in our space domain.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, Rowli, I [00:34:00] just want to pile on that, you’re absolutely right that if we cannot talk about it, how do we expect members of Congress and the American people to actually understand it? Quick, quick fact for you. Miss Kelly, who’s the, head of human capital for the Space Force, recently said that only about 11 percent of the American people actually know that the Space Force exists, okay? So, 89 percent of the United States doesn’t believe that the Space Force is a real thing. So, how can we expect them to support budget increases, if they don’t know that that’s a real thing?

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, that’s, again.

Charles Galbreath: We’ve got to tell the story.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, absolutely. And it’s one of the. Look, that was manifest itself in the last election. National security was not even a, one of the top 10 talking points. And you know, what we’ve been talking about, needs to get out. Otherwise, I’m afraid that we’re going to get ourselves in a situation where the American public and the Congress aren’t going to be aware of the significance of the decline in our military’s capabilities. Until we [00:35:00] get our asses kicked in the next major regional conflict, and that’s not what we want to see happen.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: No, so, to go on to another related topic, roles and missions, right? What about a roles and missions scrub? Especially now that we’ve got the Space Force, we also have a lot of other space agencies within the department. And we’ve talked about this one before and the consensus that we often arrive at is that external pressure from Congress might be necessary to force the department to have this conversation about roles and missions. So who does what? And therefore, how do they get resourced? So why is this important? And I’d like to ask each of you for top areas of consideration. General Deptula, I know this is near and dear to your heart. So we’ll start with you.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, thanks, Heather. I’m going to take a little bit of a different twist. Obviously I think it’s, it is imperative in speaking to that imperative, you already mentioned it.

Hey, we got an entirely new service here. At the same time, we have other services [00:36:00] acting to recreate their own space forces within their own confines. This is duplicative and flies in the face of why President Trump created the Space Force. So I, I think it’s extraordinarily important in addition to make sure we are getting the most out of every defense dollar.

I mean, we all have, are advocates for, and we spoke about this earlier in the podcast, increasing the top line for DOD writ large. But in the event that doesn’t happen, which has a very high likelihood. I think president Trump needs to encourage Secretary Hegseth to direct a defense wide use of what we all have talked about here before and advocate a cost per effect analysis and enforce clear roles and missions discipline among the current armed forces.

In doing that, then you’ll be able to see the [00:37:00] challenges to the Army to justify developing long range hypersonic strike missiles that cost 50 to 60 million dollars a shot. When the Air Force and the Navy can perform that mission effectively at a fraction of the cost. Likewise, um, you see the Army today developing its own surveillance aircraft and its own space constellation of satellites when those capabilities are already resident in the Department of the Air Force.

So, look, mission grabs are not appropriate for a military strapped for resources and I think they’re ripe for a cost perfect analysis by the new Department of Government Efficiency. We haven’t had a Roles and Missions Review since 1995. It’s way past due, particularly with the addition of the Space Force, and it ought to be the centerpiece of the DOGE recommendations for the Department of Defense.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, 95, I mean, that was quite some time ago. We were in the middle of the peace dividend. What was, we were a [00:38:00] unipolar power. And so as we look at the threat environment, the global security challenges that we face, are far more dangerous, far more complex, and really, from a geographical standpoint, far more difficult than anything we could have imagined in 95.

But, we just had a doctrine release from the Air Force. Do you think Air Force senior leaders are equipped to have this roles and missions discussion in a way that would empower the Joint Force?

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, first, there’s no such thing as the Joint Force, okay? I wish people would quit doing that. You know, if there are, I’m waiting for someone to tell me who’s the commander of the joint force.

Do we have any purple uniforms?

So look, there are joint force operations. I get it. And I get the col.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Colloquialism.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): The colloquial use of the term to describe joint force operations, but there’s no such thing as a joint force. But back to your question, I just got off a discussion with some professors at the National War [00:39:00] College and I am happy to report that there are many, Air and Space force leaders that are willing to engage some of the nonsense that is thrown out with respect to all domain operations or little league rules where everybody gets to play.

Uh, listen. Jointness is not using every force, every place all the time, it’s using the right force at the right place at the right time. Yeah, we’re all strong air and space power proponents here, but I think every one of us believes that we need the strongest Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force in the world. It’s what is the proper application of that force. Now, back to the issue of roles and missions. There needs to be with assuming that we’re not going to have a large dose of overall budget authority, how do we do the missions that we’re tasked with the most effective [00:40:00] way amongst all the services? And yeah, I think there are plenty of people inside the Air Force that could make a convincing case.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, if I could just pile on. So, absolutely agree with everything General Deptula said. Bottom line, the Space Force doesn’t have the budget it needs to, to do all of the missions it has on its plate today.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Welcome to our world.

Charles Galbreath: I would love to have some of the problems the Air Force has.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: No, I know you guys have been so underfunded based off of what we’ve asked you to do.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, it is two opposite ends of the spectrum here. As you said, a geriatric Air Force. We are, for lack of a better word, an infantile Space Force trying to develop the capabilities we need, trying to develop the skills, and we just have not been given the resources to grow to what we need to be.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Just to put this in context, right? The Space Force has less budget than the Marine Corps, but the Space Force is an essential force that everybody relies on.

Charles Galbreath: [00:41:00] Absolutely.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Three and a half, just to stabilize, three and a half percent of the total Department of Defense budget.

Charles Galbreath: So, with such a small budget, the Space Force can’t do all the missions that it needs to. We can not afford the, the Department of Defense to allow investment in other space capabilities that are not part of the Space Force’s architecture that it needs to achieve space superiority and continue to deliver the effects and capabilities that everybody else has depended on.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): And again, I want to put a, put an exclamation point on that, Charles. And it’s not about not providing the capabilities, but we have got to get over, because it is completely unjoined, services that are out there that want to develop their own organic space capabilities. This is, this is the antithesis of jointness. And because we’ve developed this go along to get along mentality, since about 2009. We have to [00:42:00] start speaking truth to power at least inside the closed doors of the tank.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: And I would say hold the feet to the fire of the services that are responsible for the role and mission they have. A great example is air base defense for the way the army is approached air base defense is forcing the Air Force to pick that up without the.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Necessary resources.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Resources that go with it. Exactly.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. And I think why the roles and missions for space is really important is not only to clarify how, you know, how space is integrated across all the different services, but it’s to drive the resourcing. These are the roles, these are the missions.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Absolutely.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Here’s how much we need of that. So we have to fund it.

Charles Galbreath: Absolutely. And just, this might be too in the weeds for some of our audience, but there is actually a Department of Defense directive that defines the roles and missions of the, of the services 5100.01, okay? When that was updated to reflect the Space Force’s arrival as a new service, they basically cut and paste the directive that was in the NDA, that language and did not expand it [00:43:00] the way the other services have had decades to expand.

And so you’re going to get this very cursory top level definition of what the Space Force mission is, and you’re going to have a litany of detailed descriptions for the other services. That is not what we need. That made it across the finish line, if you will, through the coordination process because the Space Force was so small that they didn’t have the time to go in and do that deep dive. Five years on now, it’s time to relook at that and add the detail to the Space Force missions that it so desperately needs and then advocate for the resources to make that happen.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Which include people. I gotta throw out this example, a nominal service staff in the Pentagon is around 4,500 people.

You know how many people are on the Space Force staff? 600.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: There’s more people in the JPO for the F 35 than there are for the Space Force.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Oh, I see. Yeah, well, we’ve been advocates of getting rid of the JPO for years.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: All right, back to roles and missions. [00:44:00] Going to the Hill team, gentlemen, do you see Congress having any interest or appetite for that?

You know, it’s a, it’s, I mean, as I mentioned in articulated regarding the Space Force, I think it’s essential for stewarding the defense resources and achieving better outcomes. But do the members see a pragmatic return enough to motivate them to sort of wade into this minefield and direct the services to do this?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I think there’s going to be an appetite. Anytime you can stretch a dollar, there’s going to be interest, especially from the, the more fiscally conservative members of Congress. How it plays out, you know, there, have been attempts in the past, but for Congress it really gets down to “not in my district.” They’re all about reductions, efficiencies, and savings until it means there are fewer jobs in their state or their district. And that’s really the challenge you have when you’re talking about this.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, we just came out supporting, you know, maintaining infrastructure, so no BRAC.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I agree with Sledge, but I’ll add a little more on to that. I think the changing nature of warfare, right? [00:45:00] Space, cyber, artificial intelligence, autonomy. Those are the leading end elements of change and Congress is aware of those. They’re asking questions. They’re trying to understand the issues. And I think scrubbing roles and missions is something that Congress could see as a benefit to understanding those, getting their arms around them, and then benefiting our national security.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: I’m sure it’d be helpful to, in terms of not just the authorization but appropriations and you know, looking at what the services are asking for within their budgets and scrubbing them and filtering them like, is this what your role and mission is? And uh, or are you getting distracted with, uh, with want to’s not have to’s?

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Yeah, I think that’s that was the core comment is getting appropriators and the staff to really scrub service level budget requests and ask some hard questions on “hey, is this more appropriately funded through Space Force, Army, Air Force?” We just need to make sure we’ve got clarity [00:46:00] on that. And then, you know, from an industry and advocacy perspective, we need to be able to call it out when we see it, man. General Deptula has been great about highlighting some of the perceived Army investments that are coming. And when we see it as advocates for our Space Force, we need to be able to call it out, bring attention to it, and make some people make some decisions on how they’re going to allow it because it all comes down like Sledge and Lazer were saying. It comes down to efficiencies and roles and missions. but none of that changes if the budget doesn’t follow.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So General Deptula, you were involved with roles and missions review in the 1990s. What prompted that assessment and what sort of lessons learned do you have for that?

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, that’s a, that’s a question I could spend an entire podcast on, but let me try to shorten it. If you recall the timeframe. It’s about the period of time that we were coming out of the Cold War. Now, let’s put that context and overlay it on the fact that there is, in the law, [00:47:00] a requirement that every two years, the Department of Defense conduct a roles and missions review or study. Well, they do that, but it is just, you know, a very pablum treatment of “well, everything’s just fine the way it is.”

In February 1993, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, did conduct his biannual roles and missions report and came out with that kind of an assessment. Well, that created some disappointment in congressional quarters and reportedly, that was a big concern of Congressman Les Aspin, who later became Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, and that led to the Commission on Roles and Missions.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): So, it was an effort to look at how can the services, uh, how should they be looked at in the context of saving money, seeking the peace dividend, and in the light of the [00:48:00] end of the Cold War and reducing duplication of effort. So, the commission started with a mandate to achieve real change. John White, former, Kennedy School of Government professor up at Harvard was the Chairman of the Commission on Roles and Missions.

And we were going along pretty well, in making some pretty substantive recommendations. Until what you witnessed is how an institution like the Department of Defense, a large bureaucratic organization operates. Three months before the Commission on Roles and Missions report was due guess what Chairman White was offered? He was offered the position as the Deputy Secretary of Defense. What better way, and this is again, you talk about how bureaucracies operate, what a better way [00:49:00] to undercut any significant change coming out of the commission on roles and missions. And that’s exactly what happened. Some of the major recommendations that had been cooked, and had been studied, and had been included were eviscerated. And we got down to petty things such as the Navy, the retired Navy Admiral on the commission refused to sign the report unless the Navy was allowed to keep its operational support aircraft. The C9s that it flew, because there was an effort to consolidate all of the support aircraft that provided DV support for all the services into one location. This is, I’m telling you, this is how petty it got. And so, unfortunately it got, it got watered down.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, that’s not, I’m not really sure how we bounce off of that.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, I know, but the fact of the matter is, that’s the last time we had a serious roles and missions review. And unfortunately, [00:50:00] any significant, recommendations were undercut. Because the department didn’t want to see any major recommendations and that’s the strength of the bureaucracy of the Department of Defense.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, the Trump team seems to be intent on breaking up bureaucracy and changing how business is done. So, if the incoming secretary is willing to and, you know, really bites off on the need to do roles and missions, they might have the courage and the commitment to see it all the way through.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, I think all of us in this room would agree with that. Unfortunately, there’s no service other than perhaps the Space Force who would, who would like to see, a roles and missions review because they’re all concerned about resources that they might lose, and rightfully so. I mean, look, if one B 1 can deliver the same amount of ordinance of a carrier strike wing on board an aircraft carrier in one day at distance, maybe they ought to be concerned.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, [00:51:00] pivoting from bureaucracy to personnel, right? we’ve had new committee chairman and subcommittee members named, and as always, people matter, especially at their level. So, for a Hill team, Sledge, Jeff, Lazer, would you gentlemen run us through the new rosters as far as they relate to air and space power and provide us some of your perspectives on how the changing personalities will drive new priorities versus what we saw last year?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I think you’re going to see some changes. I don’t think they’re going to be significant changes and I’ll caveat what I’m going to say there. Obviously over in the Senate with the change of a majority party, you now have the Republicans in charge of, you know, the armed services committee and, defense appropriations committee.

I think what is significant though in the Senate is you have Senator Tester lost re election in Montana. He’s being replaced by Senator Coons from Delaware and now former minority slash majority leader Mitch McConnell was now the chair of the SACD. So, they’re gonna put their own spin on the ball when it comes [00:52:00] to defense priorities and how those are funded. Lazer has better relationships with those folks. He might be able to talk more to that. But I think over on the House side it’s going to continue to be business as usual. We did have a transition in leadership in the HACD last summer when Representative Granger stepped down knowing that, there was going to need to be new leadership in the 119th Congress. And the last thing I’ll say there is defense is largely bipartisan. I think if it’s good policy, it’s good policy regardless of who’s in charge. Lazer?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, I’ll just agree with everything that Sledge said and it’s don’t forget and you sort of said it Lucky. It’s not just the members, it’s the staff, right?

And it’s personal staff as well as committee staff. And what we’ve seen is we’ve got some great members coming in. They’re coming in from district and states that we haven’t been adequately represented before on the defense committee. So, that’s a positive. And it’s just like when you PCS into a, you know, in a new unit, you bring in your [00:53:00] expertise and you improve it.

So, I agree with Sledge. I think it’s going to be improvement across the board, not huge changes. I mean, we got Kramer over on Air-Land. We got, I just I’m looking forward to all the people that are coming in. The one other thing that’s interesting. If you look at appropriators and authorizations specifically in the Senate, we’ve got the most authorizers and appropriators in defense. I mean, they’re not sitting on so much SACD, but they are appropriators. So, if you look at Fisher, Rounds, who’s new to Approps, Mullen new to Approps, and then Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, who’s new to Approps, and Peters. They’re sitting on both appropriations committees and the Senate Armed Services Committee. And that’s very powerful, especially when it comes to defense.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: That’s a very good insight. Gen Deptula you know, Senator Kramer, what are your thoughts on his priorities?

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Well, first of all, I’d tell you, Heather is Senator Cramer is one of the most insightful and knowledgeable senators [00:54:00] in the Congress on military issues. And he has the added virtue of enormous common sense, so I’m sure he’ll be outstanding in this role. Now, with respect to his priorities, at the macro level, it parallels, the President’s theme of peace through strength.

And that means pulling the Air Force out of the nosedive that it’s in and ensuring the proper resourcing of the Space Force. So, I know we’re short on time, but, and I know those are big priorities, but I think that’s the direction he’s going to head.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Hey, sir, if I could, since you mentioned Senator Cramer, you know, one of the aces that he has has up his sleeve, he’s got a great defense staff.

His national security advisor, Colby Coons, a former Airman, U 2 pilot, does great work for him. And there are a lot of other airmen out there, Pat Flood over in Representative Bacon’s office comes to mind. There aren’t as many Airmen or Guardians, up on the Hill, you know, working as staffers as there should be, or I would like to [00:55:00] see.

And you can accuse Lazer and I of being quitters in that regard, but those are also touch points that we need to use. We’ve got advocates, we’ve got great supporters, and we just, we just need to engage.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, I’d also throw in there Congressman August Pfluger as well.

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Cramer’s been a great advocate for space and while he’s taken Air-Land, he’s got, and has motivated a lot of development and coordination with the space development agency, and really brought a lot of that to his state.

And I think he has become a really vocal space champion as well. So, that is somebody we need to absolutely keep communicating with really candidly about how we’re being resourced and the roles and missions that we’re taking on. So, just echo that that sentiment.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, gentlemen, at risk of ending this Rendezvous with a, with a note of hope any final rounds? All right. Crickets all around. Very good. Well, you know, thanks so much, gentlemen. [00:56:00] Appreciate y’all being here and look forward to the next Rendezvous.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.): You bet.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Thanks a lot, Lucky.

Charles Galbreath: Thanks, Heather.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Great conversation. Thanks a lot.

Jeff “Rowli” Rowlison: Thanks, Lucky. Appreciate being part of this group.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: With that, I’d like to extend a big thank you to our 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. 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 Michelin 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.