The GPS Directorate at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) continues to look for someone to build 22 GPS III satellites in the near future.
SMC issued a request for proposals on Jan. 8, with rather complicated terms. The first eight GPS III satellites are already under contract, and two have been built, but delivery and launch schedules have dragged. The Air Force incorporated several other payload requirements for the satellites, beyond those of new GPS signals themselves.
This is the Air Force’s third effort to find a builder.
The RFP is for “11+ Phase 1 Production Readiness Feasibility Assessment. “ It covers GPS III space vehicles 11 and beyond. The process, if followed as the Air Force envisions, will award up to three relatively small fixed-price contracts.
Artist’s concept of a GPS III satellite in orbit, courtesy of Lockheed Martin.
According to an Air Force press release, “The scope of this effort includes the current GPS III SV01–08 technical baseline with the addition of redesigned Nuclear Detonation Detection System (NDS), Search and Rescue/GPS (SAR/GPS), and Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA) payloads, Unified S-Band (USB) compliance, Regional Military Protection capability No changes are allowed to the GPS Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX) or Military GPS User Equipment (MGUE) interfaces.”
The first Air Force effort to recompete the contract for future GPS III satellites came in 2014. A 2015 initiative lowered the bar as far as requirements, but also lowered the award very dramatically, from $200 million each for two companies to $6 million each for three companies.
The 2016 announcement appears on the surface to replicate the terms of the 2015 campaign. There has been no official explanation as to why the terms changed between 2014 and 2015, and why they did not between 2015 and 2016.
In late June, I had the honor and privilege of attending and participating in the Institute of Navigation’s Joint Navigation Conference (ION-JNC) in Orlando, Fla. This year attendance was up by 20 percent. The entire event was FOUO (For Official Use Only) with a classified (SECRET) day on Thursday held at, as improbable as it seems, a joint military and Walt Disney location known as Shades of Green. It gives Mickey Mouse and the military a whole new meaning!
The classified day included a remarkable War Fighter Panel, which, full disclosure, I have had the honor along with my colleague Jim Doherty at IDA (Institute For Defense Analyses) of co-chairing for the last several years. It is always heart-warming and invariably enlightening to hear our warfighters discuss capabilities that GPS enables for them in times of peace and war. You could even say this was the theme of the conference: “The capabilities that GPS technology enables.”
You might assume an FOUO- and SECRET-level conference would be slim pickings for a journalist. If that is all that transpired, then you would be correct; however, all the conversations outside the official sessions, especially around the displays and exhibitors’ booths, make it more than worthwhile. Not to mention all the tidbits you pick up at breakfast, lunch, dinner and evening socials. One of the most common phrases I heard all week was, “Now don’t quote me on this, but…” or the one I like to hear, “OK, this is on the record” or “You are recording this, right?” Everyone has a message!
ION-JNC in Dayton, Ohio
For the next two years (2016-17) ION-JNC will be held in beautiful downtown Dayton, Ohio, at the Dayton Convention Center. Dayton is home to the famous Wright Brothers Cycle Shop and the Wright Flyer.
Take-off of the 1903 Wright Flyer, the world’s first powered, sustained and controlled heavier-than-air flight on Dec. 17, 1903.
Dayton also hosts the world-famous National Museum of the USAF (United States Air Force) located on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB). The classified day will be held at the prestigious USAF Institute of Technology (AFIT), also on WPAFB, where many an Air Force officer has earned a master’s and or Ph.D. The papers and sessions should be outstanding in view of the venue and the presence of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at WPAFB, which is known as the Air Force’s only organization wholly dedicated to leading the discovery, development and integration of warfighting technologies for air, space and cyberspace forces.
Register early and send your clearance if you have one; it just gets better every year.
SpaceX and Falcon 9
Elon Musk,CEO Space Exploration Technology Corp. (Photo Courtesy of Tesla Motors)
I arrived in Orlando on Sunday, June 21 (yes, I traveled on Father’s Day) because events start bright and early Monday morning, to hear about the Falcon 9 launch failure, the first for that family of launchers. Even though it occurred 130+ seconds into the launch segment, if the rocket fails to deliver the payload or supplies to orbit or their destination, it is generally referred to as a launch failure. Technicians and subject-matter experts will be debating for some time exactly what caused the failure, but there can be no doubt this is a big blow to the Space Exploration Technology Corporation — better known as SpaceX.
I have known Elon Musk and experienced his outsize ego casually for more than 20 years, and I am constantly amazed at his accomplishments and would never bet against him. I do not mean the ego remark in a negative way, because history proves that if Elon says he will accomplish the seemingly impossible, then he will do just that. Can you say Tesla Motors? Setbacks just make him and his team more determined.
“It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.” — Dr. Robert Goddard
Gwynne Shotwell, COO Space Exploration Technology Corp. (Photo Courtesy of SpaceX)
However, launch setbacks are played out on a national stage where lives may well be at stake. SpaceX President and COO (Chief Operating Officer) Gwynne Shotwell, the brains of the outfit, who is as alluring as she is brilliant, said following the launch failure, “I’m sure we will find the cause rapidly and resume normal launch operations within a year.”
Reportedly, SpaceX is already a bit tardy in scheduled launches with an enviable backlog totaling approximately $7B, many of which are government payloads. In the end, this merely highlights that the launch business is a tough nut to crack, and attention to detail is paramount. Every little detail must be scrutinized numerous times.
BAR
In the mid 1990s, Dr. John Darrah and I (then AFSPC Chief Scientist and Deputy respectively) under the auspices of Air Force Space Command and the Institute For Defense Analyses (IDA) formed a high-level group of subject matter experts (SMEs) to review why the U.S. government, in the matter of a few months, put several billion dollars worth of space hardware into saltwater instead of the vacuum of space. The group was labeled the BAR, or Broad Area Review, and its task was to euphemistically “bar” this type of abnormal launch activity from ever happening again. I can honestly say the BAR has been wildly successful.
There have been five separate BARs to date, and there has not been a military or national security space launch failure since the BAR’s inception. There have begen more than 120 successful launches by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the combined organization known as ULA or United Launch Alliance. I am not at liberty to reveal the findings of the various BARs, but obviously attention to detail is key to any successful endeavor.
SpaceX vaulted from an upstart small company with a few employees to a certified government space launch contractor with more than $7 billion in contracts and 3,000+ personnel on the payroll in only 13 years. SpaceX previously successfully launched two cargo resupply missions to the space station. To date, it is the only predominantly commercial space company to accomplish that task.
Therefore, I am sanguine without a doubt (now I sound like Elon) that SpaceX will quickly discover the malfunction that caused the launch failure and correct it immediately. This is not to say that anyone at SpaceX has been intentionally careless, but the successful space launch business today is by necessity an OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) culture of attention to detail where items are checked not once or twice but 20 times to make sure nothing has been overlooked or assumed. However, for SpaceX the critical task, for the success of the company and future astronauts’ lives, depends on SpaceX’s assurance there will be no more failures for any reason. The U.S. military has proven for the last 16 years — 16 years without a single national security space launch failure — that it is an achievable goal. Note: Currently SpaceX launches do not fall under the purview of the BAR, a situation easily rectified.
Assured Access to Space
General (USAF, Ret) Thomas S. Moorman Jr. (Photo Courtesy of the USAF)
Lest we forget, behind all the technological arguments and/or failures is the crux of the matter, which is nothing less than assured access to space and all that capability enables, which of course includes GPS. In 2006, General (USAF Retired) Thomas S. Moorman Jr., former AFSPC commander and VCSAF, wrote in the highly esteemed AFSPC publication High Frontier regarding a Senior Leader’s Perspective on Assured Access to Space. He stated clearly that
“Assured access [to space] is a requirement for critical national security, homeland security and civil missions, and is defined as a sufficiently robust, responsive and resilient capability to allow continued space operations, consistent with risk management and affordability.”
In referring to his now famous and eponymous study, he stated that,
“The study found that most people wanted to describe assured access in terms of reliability. As the study team progressed in our analysis, it became apparent that often what people were describing was the need for resiliency rather than reliability. Reliability describes the dependability of a specific booster while resiliency considers the collective ability of all available launch systems to meet national security need.
“While our recent launch record…is indeed impressive, we should not rest on our laurels. Assured access is not a destination, but rather a journey. As a nation, we need to continue to adequately fund space launch operations and develop the next-generation technologies that will increase responsiveness, improve reliability, and reduce costs. Through these actions, we can ensure the nation will have continuous, uninterrupted access to space for decades to come.”
In that light it is possible — even probable — that SpaceX will help us strive, reach and continue with that vaunted goal; contrarily, you may remember a few months ago SpaceX sued the U.S. government because the government was not moving quickly enough for Space X with certifications and validations for SpaceX launch vehicles. The U.S. government knows first hand how difficult the space launch business can be, and it wanted to ensure that not only was SpaceX ready but that their family of vehicles were reliable. The government’s caution has unfortunately been validated, as this was the second SpaceX launch failure, although the first and hopefully the last in the Falcon 9 family of vehicles. All is not lost, and the future actually looks bright for SpaceX if it will just put egos aside, listen to the launch subject matter experts and pay attention to every little detail.
Competition may well be viewed as a “good thing” in the space launch business. However, it is always trumped by assured access to space, which is a critical national security requirement. Competition and national security needs must be balanced with the emphasis on what is gained by assured access to the high ground of space. Elon Musk, Gwynne Shotwell and the SpaceX team may well be capable of showing the rest of us “how it is done,” but first they must demonstrate unerring dependability, reliability and resiliency. I wish SpaceX the best of luck and every success.
Nascent Leadership Paradigm — People on the Move
For some unfathomable reason, at least intellectually, all the USAF Leadership Schools, or at least the majority, are located in Montgomery, Ala. Now personally I happen to like Montgomery and its laid-back southern charm. It was also once the capitol of the Confederacy, which is apropos nothing except it seems to be a hot topic or trigger word these days. Be that as it may, Montgomery and Air University are not exactly Oxford, Cambridge or Eton, and yet the university in its many incarnations has produced outstanding military leaders in its 95-year history. And yet in my numerous tenures at this prestigious institution, it has been made clear by the staff that this is an institution with bipolar tendencies.
On the one hand, it is made clear to every officer and student that the national military establishment thrives on rules and regulations, and those wishing to abuse or ignore them can readily and rapidly be replaced. Some instructors I encountered (not all certainly, and probably not the cream of the crop) would have you believe that individualism has its place — just not in the U.S. military. Then, in the next class or session, you hear stories about visionaries such as Claire Chennault, Jimmy Doolittle and William “Billy” Mitchell, who never colored within the lines. Not to disparage Air University, but I have always had a problem with this school tenet, as it tends to disregard personality, relationships and leadership. I often think of General Dwight Eisenhower’s comments concerning his rebellious, unorthodox and rule-breaking friend U.S. Army General George Patton. Eisenhower made numerous famous comments about Patton’s rebellious nature, his inability to follow orders and his swashbuckling uniforms that once paraded 24 general’s stars at one time on one non-standard uniform, and yet in official comments written after Patton’s untimely death Eisenhower wrote:
“He [Patton] was one of those men born to be a soldier, an ideal combat leader whose gallantry and dramatic personality inspired all he commanded to great deeds of valor. His presence gave me the certainty that the boldest plan would be even more daringly executed. It is no exaggeration to say that Patton’s name struck terror at the heart of the enemy.”
In other words personality, individualism, reputation and leadership do make a difference, and in times of war, leaders bearing those qualities are difficult if not impossible to replace. But in times of peace, those qualities still matter, and we should never take those leaders for granted. I mention this because in the past several months, several Air Force leaders considered key to the GPS program have either retired, been promoted or left government service for personal reasons.
USAF General Ellen Pawlikowski is only the third female four-star general in USAF history, and she recently left SMC (Space and Missile Systems Center) for a job at the Pentagon, where she worked space and GPS acquisition and policy issues. From there she was promoted to four stars and now sits as just the ninth commander of Air Force Materiel Command. Gen. Pawlikowski was replaced at SMC by Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves (USAF).
Brigadier General William Cooley (USAF) recently pinned on his first star while serving as the director of the GPS Directorate at SMC. He was recently selected for reassignment as program executive, Programs and Integration, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama —an organization where Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves once served as the deputy commander. Can you say career broadening? Brig. Gen. “Wild Bill” Cooley is being replaced by USAF Colonel Steve Whitney, who has distinguished himself with yeoman service at the directorate as the GPS Military User Equipment (MUE) guru.
David W. Madden serves as a member of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and functions as the executive director, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif. He is the senior civilian executive and the deputy program executive officer for Space. His responsibilities include managing the research, design, development, acquisition and sustainment of satellites and the associated ground command and control systems and user terminals. In his military career, Dave served as the GPS Wing Commander at SMC. For personal and professional reasons, Dave has decided to leave government service soon, and my sources tell me he will take up a position in Denver, Colo. Unfortunately, I am not currently at liberty to say where. I have been told the name of Dave’s replacement, but it was in an FOUO session and therefore not currently releasable. Suffice it to say, the individual is eminently qualified.
Each of the individuals mentioned has a very strong personality and a certain way of doing business. I have known them all for years and can honestly say their personalities and personal leadership styles dominated their successful careers to date. Frankly, I don’t see that changing. So, when you hear that military personnel are interchangeable and personalities don’t matter, as I unfortunately heard a very senior official say publicly recently, please take that with a huge grain of salt and skepticism. People, personalities and leadership styles do matter, especially outside-the-box thinkers and leaders. Let’s wish everyone the best in their new endeavors.
Until next time, Happy Navigating, and remember: GPS is brought to you courtesy of the United States Air Force.
Team Vandenberg launches its first SpaceX launch from Space Launch Complex-4 Sept. 29, 2013. 30th Space Wing’s 1st Air and Space Test Squadron was the lead for all launch site certification activities at Vandenberg for SpaceX as an EELV New Entrant. The squadron evaluated SpaceX’s flight and ground systems, processes and procedures for the upgraded Falcon-9 rocket. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman Yvonne Morales)
The U.S. Air Force has certified SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket to launch military satellites, clearing the way for SpaceX to bid on launches of GPS III satellites. The Air Force announced the decision May 26, which completed a nearly two-year process and establishes a competitor to United Launch Alliance.
SpaceX, based in Hawthorne, Calif., is now eligible for award of qualified national security space launch missions as one of two currently certified launch providers. The first upcoming opportunity for SpaceX to compete to provide launch services is projected to be in June when the Air Force releases a Request for Proposal for GPS III launch services.
“This is a very important milestone for the Air Force and the Department of Defense,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “SpaceX’s emergence as a viable commercial launch provider provides the opportunity to compete launch services for the first time in almost a decade. Ultimately, leveraging of the commercial space market drives down cost to the American taxpayer and improves our military’s resiliency.”
This milestone is the culmination of a two-year effort on the part of the Air Force and SpaceX to execute the certification process and reintroduce competition into the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The Air Force invested more than $60 million and 150 people in the certification effort which encompassed 125 certification criteria, including more than 2,800 discrete tasks, three certification flight demonstrations, verifying 160 payload interface requirements, 21 major subsystem reviews and 700 audits in order to establish the technical baseline from which the Air Force will make future flight worthiness determinations for launch.
“The SpaceX and SMC teams have worked hard to achieve certification, said Lieutenant General Samuel Greaves, commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. “And we’re also maintaining our spaceflight worthiness process supporting the National Security Space missions. Our intent is to promote the viability of multiple EELV-class launch providers as soon as feasible.”
“This is an important step toward bringing competition to National Security Space launch. We thank the Air Force for its confidence in us and look forward to serving it well,” said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and lead designer.
The certification process provides a path for launch-service providers to demonstrate the capability to design, produce, qualify and deliver a new launch system and provide the mission assurance support required to deliver national security space satellites to orbit. This gives the Air Force confidence that the national security satellites being delivered to orbit will safely achieve the intended orbits with full mission capability.
The SMC, located at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the U.S. Air Force’s center for acquiring and developing military space systems. Its portfolio includes GPS, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks, space based infrared systems and space situational awareness capabilities.
CBS’s 60 Minutes will air a special two-part segment on Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) this coming Sunday, April 26, reflecting a broad array of AFSPC missions — launch, satellite operations, missile warning, acquisition, and the Joint Space Operations Center.
The GPS Directorate is a joint service effort directed by the United States Air Force and managed at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Air Force Space Command, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif.
“The show seldom uses two-part segments, and the producers expressed that the visually interesting nature of the mission and intellectual heft of the interviews was the deciding factor in expanding the segment beyond the normal 12 minutes,” reads an email from the Retiree Activities Office of Los Angeles Air Force Base.
Included in the segment is an interview with Brigadier General Bill Cooley, director of the GPS Directorate. Cooley was interviewed at the Boeing facility in front of a GPS IIF satellite, and will discuss the foundational nature of space to the military and economy, as well as emerging threats and how the Air Force is responding.
60 Minutes airs on CBS at 7 p.m. ET/PT. Check local listings for specific times and channels.
As I write this, the 31st Space Symposium (SS) will kickoff in just 5 days, on April 13 at the incomparable Broadmoor Resort in Colorado Springs, Colo., at the foothills of the beautiful Rocky Mountains.
Neil deGrasse Tyson (courtesy of PBS)
If you haven’t figured it out already, the 31st SS is not a WWII German unit designation, but the 31st Space Symposium, which Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, famed astrophysicist, bestselling author, director of the Hayden Planetarium and host of the hugely successful television series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, simply calls “the most awesome symposium in the world.” Very high praise indeed, and a sentiment with which I totally agree.
Breaking Records
This year’s Space Symposium, which is sponsored by the Space Foundation, will be the largest ever held in terms of venue, size (number of exhibitors and speakers) and attendance. Approximately 10,000 space enthusiasts are expected to attend, and I hope you are one of them. My sources tell me the classified sessions (Cyber 1.5 and classified space sessions) are filled to overflowing — no new registrations allowed there. The exhibitor space at the Ball Aerospace Exhibit Center and Pavilion is bursting at the seams. The organizers are turning exhibitors away, so better luck next year. But if you just want to attend the greatest space symposium in the world, bar none, there is still time to register.
By the way, if you haven’t figured it out already, this is a truly international event. My sources at the Space Foundation stated that the 31st Space Symposium will have more international participation than ever, including more than 150 exhibits of the world’s latest space technology, products and services. The Ball Aerospace Exhibit Center will host more than 30 first-time exhibitors with more than a dozen countries represented, including: Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Turkey, the UK and the U.S. The symposium is expected to attract space leaders from more than 25 countries, representing all sectors of the global space community.
Everyone who is anyone in the space world will probably be there or be represented. Consequently, the networking capabilities are unparalleled. Not to mention just being able to avail yourself of the world-famous Broadmoor Resort hospitality, plus the crisp, clean and cool mountain air at 6,000 feet.
Event Preparation
For many years, the event was known as the National Space Symposium. It outgrew that moniker many years ago, and is now simply known as the Space Symposium.
Every year before I attend the Space Symposium, I make a “ToDoToDay” list of topics I want to explore, both as a journalist and in my senior space analyst profession. Plus, of course, I make a list of people I definitely want to talk with or interview. This year, I thought I would share some of those to-dos with you, because you may indeed have some of the same interests.
GPS III
Mark Stewart, Lockheed Martin GPS III program manager (courtesy of Lockheed Martin)
Wearing my subject matter expert (SME) hat, so to speak, I recently had the honor of touring the Lockheed Martin (LMCO) Space Systems facility in Waterton Canyon (far West Denver), Colorado, where the GPS III satellites are built, integrated and otherwise readied for launch. I took the opportunity to chat with Mark Stewart and his crew. Mark is vice president for manufacturing and space systems and program manager for GPS III.
I learned that the first GPS III space vehicles (SVs) is much farther along than most everyone thinks. The problematic MDU (Mission Data Unit — the heart of the system) from Exelis has been fully tested and integrated into the payload. GPS III SV1 was only three days from being totally integrated or mated, as they say, with the on-orbit propulsion portion of the payload (the remainder of the LMCO A2100 bus) and beginning its months-long testing, certification and verification process. According to Mark, GPS III SV-01 — which powered on initially in February 2013 — now is in integration and test flow leading up to final delivery to the Air Force.
While it was thrilling to see everything finally coming together, I will also tell you candidly that the next milestone everyone is asking about, the first GPS III launch date, is probably as fluid as the Snake River in Spring. So, while I do not feel comfortable quoting a first launch date, and LMCO would not give me a firm date for delivery of the first GPS III SV, I do feel comfortable making this prediction: Barring any unforeseen major issues during testing, LMCO will be ready to deliver to the U.S. government the first ready-to-launch GPS III satellite by the end of this calendar year. That’s right, in my humble opinion the first GPS III SV will be ready to deliver to the Air Force by December 2015. When it will actually be launched is anybody’s guess; obviously, the sooner the better. Apropos of the Boeing IIF initial launches and critical on-orbit anomalies, the sooner the LMCO GPS III is put into orbit for full-scale operational and mission analysis tests the better.
LADO and OCX
The critical question of course is: Will the U.S. Air Force (USAF) have a ground control system that can successfully and reliably launch and support a full-up GPS III SV by the end of 2015? Certainly not if they stay the course with OCX, but there are alternatives, and you know who you are! Can you say LADO, Launch/Early Orbit, Anomaly Resolution, Disposal and Operations System?
Consider that LADO has been utilized to launch GPS satellites as far back as the GPS IIR-M family of satellites, also produced by LMCO, one of which was successfully launched on October 17, 2007, using the then-new LADO system. That milestone ensured the GPS program continued to provide superior space-based navigation for billions of users, military, civilian and commercial, around the globe using industry-leading highly modified (Aces Premier) commercial launch technology. This significant achievement was the culmination of outstanding teamwork between the USAF, Braxton Technologies, the engineering firm and the prime contractor.
The LADO system formed and is still the backbone of the new GPS Command and Control (C2) functionality implemented by the prime contractor. It known today as the Advanced Architecture Evolution Plan (AEP). Subsequently, LADO is now the primary launch system for all current and future (IIR-M, IIF and possibly GPS III) satellites, which should allow the U.S. Air Force to retire some outdated legacy GPS ground support and command and control systems.
The first successful 2007 LADO launch and control of an operational GPS IIR-M satellite, and the 1SOPS and 2SOPS operators’ acceptance of the GPS LADO system, was proof that commercial software can be deployed effectively even in a militarily critical mission system, saving the government both cost and schedule without sacrificing mission-unique capabilities.
In my humble opinion, that is where we need to go today. Let’s return to the tried-and-true LADO and prime contractor partnership and launch the first GPS III SV by the end of this year, or certainly by early 2016. Please notice I have not made any statements concerning scrapping the hugely expensive, 100-percent-over-budget-and-schedule (years behind) OCX program of record. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USDATL) Frank Kendall recently announced the controversial decision that OCX as the program of record would go forward under strict scrutiny with definite milestones that must be met. Scrutiny is a fickle mistress, and historically on the OCX program, milestones are there to be missed. Meanwhile, the USAF requires a tried, proven and utterly reliable capability to launch GPS III SVs as soon as the first few become available. The USAF must place several GPS IIIs on orbit for a full checkout to ensure there are no major anomalies. Currently, LADO had an eight-year proven track record with no failures, and it remains the only program that can initiate, control and dispose of residual GPS satellites — including the IIAs, which are the longest lived GPS satellites on orbit today.
Beware, there will be many naysayers in government circles, and you may meet some of them at the symposium, that will tell you it is just not possible. But just stop by and talk candidly with LMCO Space Systems and Braxton Technologies personnel, and see what they have to say. You may be surprised by what you hear.
Then stop by the Raytheon booth and check on the status of OCX.
Lynn Dugle (courtesy of Raytheon)
Female Executives in the News
Speaking of OCX and Raytheon, Lynn Dugle retired from Raytheon on March 2, 2015. Historically, Lynn has been a very capable executive. She is the former president of Raytheon’s Intelligence, Information and Services (IIS) business, which handles several key U.S. Air Force space contracts, including OCX, the current program of record for the next-generation ground system for GPS III. Dugle served as president of the division beginning in 2009.
David Wajsgras (your guess is as good as mine), Raytheon’s former senior vice president (SVP) and chief financial officer (CFO), has replaced Dugle. Wajsgras served as SVP and CFO of Raytheon Company from March 2006 to March 2015.
David Wajsgras (courtesy of Raytheon)
As a member of Raytheon’s senior leadership team, he directed Raytheon’s overall financial strategy. In my humble opinion, he has his work cut out for him. He will need all of his financial expertise and acumen to make OCX a success — financially and, hopefully, operationally. The program is grossly over budget, several years behind schedule, and reportedly, my sources tell me, far less capable than originally planned. Good luck, David.
As long as we are still speaking primarily of female executives with great track records, USAF Lieutenant General Ellen Pawlikowski, who I have had the honor of knowing and working with for the past 25 years, was recently nominated for her fourth star. General Pawlikowski successfully commanded the SMC (Space and Missile Systems Center) and served as Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Space for three years at Los Angeles Air Force Base in California. Among her many successful space acquisition programs, she was responsible for GPS procurement during her tenure.
Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, USAF (courtesy of the USAF)
Currently, General Pawlikowski serves on the East Coast in the Pentagon as the military deputy to William LaPlante, Ph.D., the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition. In other words, LaPlante is the Air Force’s Service Acquisition Executive, responsible for all Air Force research, development and acquisition activities. Previously, just to add to her mystique, General Pawlikowski spent more than one tour at the super secret National Reconnaissance Office.
When confirmed, General Pawlikowski will be only the third female four-star general in U.S. Air Force history. A well-deserved honor and one that certainly merits acknowledgement. General Pawlikowski is scheduled to speak several times at the Space Symposium, so when you see her, congratulate her on a job well done and on being nominated for her fourth star, and wish her luck in her new assignment as the head (four-star commander) of Air Force Materiel Command.
Before we leave the female leader category, my sources tell me that USAF Colonel DeAnna Burt, commander of the 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2 SOPS, the GPS squadron) from 2008 to 2010, will in June 2015 become only the third female commander of the 50th Space Wing at Schriever AFB, Colorado — home to 2 SOPS. She follows in the very capable footsteps of then-Colonel Suzanne (Zan) Vautrinot, who was the first female wing commander at the50th Space Wing followed by then-Colonel Teresa (Terry) Djuric. Note that both Suzanne and Terry, who are now retired from active duty, went on to become general officers in the USAF.
Commander AFSPC – Gen. John Hyten (courtesy of the USAF)
Currently, Colonel Burt serves as director of the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Commander’s Action Group for General John Hyten. General Hyten, the current commander of AFSPC, is himself a former 50th Space Wing commander, and he will also be speaking several times at the space symposium. Here’s a big hint: As a four-star general, General Hyten has morphed into quite a forceful, informative, entertaining and engaging speaker. You won’t want to miss any of his presentations.
If you see Colonel Burt at the Space Symposium, please congratulate her on her new assignment, and you might offer her your prayers for the incredible amount of responsibility she is about to assume. I’m betting she can handle it.
GPS Directorate
Another USAF general officer you are sure to run into at the Space Symposium is a newly minted brigadier general known by some as Wild Bill Cooley. General Cooley, who is currently the director of the GPS Directorate at SMC, was pinned on just a few weeks ago and will be speaking several times at the symposium. Wild Bill also deserves your congratulations. By all accounts, he is doing a great job and has more stars in his future.
The Place to Be
So, while there are several points to be made, a key one appears to be that if you are heavily involved with the GPS program inside and outside the USAF and you do a good job, it can work wonders for your career. If you want to hear from those who have been successful, the 31st Space Symposium is the place to be.
I hope to see you at the Broadmoor April 13-16. Come early and wear your walking shoes. Please stop by the GPS World booth and say hello to everyone. I will be there for sure.
As I wind up this to-do list, I will tell you about another Space Symposium event where it is important, even critical, to be seen. Everyone who is anyone will be attending the Connecting Colorado private function on Wednesday evening, April 15. The event is hosted by the Braxton Science and Technology Group; this is the third year for the coveted event. As I have stated before, I have attended 26 of the 31 Space Symposiums, and I have never been to an after-hours function during that time that even approaches the quality and class that Connecting Colorado exudes. It is a first-class event in a visually stunning venue, where private access passes are required to enter and guards are serious about keeping out gatecrashers. If history is any guide, it promises to be an amazing evening of fine wines, sumptuous food, quality cigars, roaring fireplaces and professional camaraderie that can’t be beat. Plus, the networking opportunities are endless. In other words, the Connecting Colorado event is what all the other after-hours Space Symposium events long to be or wish they could emulate. I can’t wait. I hope to see you there, and at the 31st Space Symposium. By the way, April in the Rocky Mountains means dress appropriately — warmly works for me.
Until next time, Happy Navigating, and remember: GPS is brought to you courtesy of the United States Air Force.
Editor’s Note: Don Jewell, GPS World’s Defense PNT newsletter editor, served 30 years in the United States Air Force as an aviator and a space subject-matter expert. The views expressed are his own.
It was a dark and stormy night, followed by an even more challenging predawn in the far North. Clouds and blowing snow mixed with stinging ice crystals scudded over the ocean and the hills of southwest Iceland. I knew from personal experience that the crew inside the Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft (AWAC) E3, especially the cockpit crew, were watching the weather closely as they listened to tiny ice pellets pinging off the aircraft. The winds gusted at 20-30 knots from the east, and the Keflavik tower was in the midst of turning the airport around, which meant that all aircraft would depart to the east over land, versus the normal departure SID (Standard Instrument Departure) to the west over water.
(I must interrupt my tale briefly to tell you that GPS plays no role in the 1978 drama that is about to unfold. At its conclusion, I will describe the differences GPS has made in the operation of strategic military aircraft, and why a recent book is one of the best arguments for GPS/PNT systems I have ever read.)
I was stationed as a permanent party USAF officer in Iceland assigned to Detachment One of the 552d Airborne Warning and Control Wing which flew the latest AWACs out of Iceland to help defend the GI-UK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) gap. Russian TU-95 four-engine turbo-prop Bear bombers flew non-stop over the GI-UK gap, at jet speeds (550-575 mph) from Murmansk in what was then the Soviet Union, on a regular basis, en route to visually and electronically surveilling and reconnoitering — spying on — the East Coast of the United States, and then landing in communist-controlled Cuba.
Russian TU-95 “Bear” Bomber (courtesy of Wikipedia and RAF).
That memorable morning just before Christmas in 1978, I was the Supervisor of Flying (SOF) for all USAF military aircraft at Keflavik AB, which was both an Icelandic commercial airport and U.S. military installation. As SOF, I double-checked all the flight information for the AWACS aircraft, visually checked that the aircraft were ready for take off and flight, and surveyed the airport and runway environment to make sure there were no hazards to the aircraft or crew. Because the weather was rapidly deteriorating that morning, I also checked all the alternates for the AWACS in England and Scotland.
Supervisor of Flying (SOF)
AWACS (Photo courtesy of the USAF).
I was comfortable in my Command Vehicle, a new British Range Rover, vintage 1978, equipped with a plethora of radios that connected me to everyone on the airfield, including the control tower and the U.S. military Command Post. Externally, the vehicle had a constantly flashing yellow light so that I could be easily seen and identified by the tower and the aircraft I inspected. There were external blue and red lights and sirens, which came into play when we launched the alert E3 aircraft or there was an emergency. All in all it was a very comfortable and functional mobile airfield office. But this morning I had a welcome addition. My boss, Major General-selectee John L. (Pete) Piotrowski, the 552nd Wing Commander, had stopped by on his way from Japan, en route the long way home to the AWACS base, Tinker AFB in Oklahoma.
For many officers (I was just a major at the time), having your General Officer boss onboard might have been intimidating, but not for me. General Piotrowski was a valued mentor and friend as well as a true gentleman and professional USAF officer of the highest caliber, and frankly, I welcomed his presence and experience. I was happy he had come to personally check out the very first AWACS detachment. Little did I know how pivotal his presence would be that cold, dark and blustery Icelandic morning.
There were two full crews aboard the AWACS aircraft I had just checked and cleared for departure, a senior crew in the cockpit and two mission crews that would get some much needed training on the way back to Tinker, so they would not go “non-current” over the Christmas holidays. Crews typically deployed to Iceland from Tinker AFB for a 10-day tour and then rotated back to CONUS and then to other disparate operation locations around the globe.
(Courtesy of the USAF).
Weather and planning-wise, Iceland was the most challenging for the E3 aircrews because of the annual snowfall of 311 inches and the siren call of suitable and weather-wise more hospitable alternates, with proper facilities and security arrangements, which were more than a hour away in England and Scotland, so planning was key. However, that morning all the crew was thinking about was getting home and enjoying the holidays (we called it “gethomeitis”) and, unfortunately, it played a key role in that mornings near catastrophe. I, of course, wanted to impress my boss with my thoroughness and professionalism, so I was double- and triple-checking every little detail.
Remember, 1978 was the same year the first fully operational, non-test, GPS satellite was launched into MEO orbit, so there were no GPS receivers on the AWACS aircraft. Instead, at that time the prevailing technology called for precisely surveyed aircraft parking spots on the ramp. The coordinates of these spots were typically entered into the E3’s INSs (inertial navigation systems) before they taxied for takeoff. Because the departing AWACs were nominally always parked in the same spots near the prevailing runway for a quick reaction or alert takeoff, the procedure quickly became routine for the AWACs flight crews. This routine also contributed to the nearly catastrophic incident that blustery and memorable morning.
Even with the deteriorating weather and the gusty winds, there appeared to be no reason why the E3 should not depart on schedule. Then, just five minutes before scheduled take off, the wind shifted dramatically and suddenly to an easterly direction. The tower immediately “turned the airfield around” and cleared the E3 for a takeoff to the east – the only problem was the aircraft was already lined up on the prevailing runway ready for a routine westerly departure. So the Icelandic controllers in the Keflavik tower promptly cleared the E3 for a rapid taxi down the active runway, so they could turn around (180 degrees) on the other end and still make an on-time takeoff. This was actually rather a common occurrence for those of us who were permanent party, so no one was concerned.
The E3 Aircraft Commander (AC) was a senior 06 — an USAF full Colonel. (Note: The subsequent safety investigation proved the AC’s rank and seniority, plus the crew’s reluctance to question his decisions, were a contributing factor in the incident.) The colonel responded to the tower, “Roger, understand, cleared for takeoff” and the aircraft began to roll down the runway in what General Pete, the tower personnel and I all initially assumed would be a fast taxi to the other end of the runway. At the time, I remember thinking, “I wonder why he did not respond correctly with the complete clearance, which was to taxi to the other end of the runway and then be cleared for takeoff to the East?” However, since it was 0500 and no other aircraft were in the area, no one was too concerned — until we saw that the E3 aircraft was continuing to accelerate to the point that the spray caused by the tires and the blowing snow thrown up by the four big jet engines nearly obliterated the aircraft from our vantage point.
General Piotrowski (Photo Courtesy of the USAF).
I think General Pete and I realized at the same moment that the EA was making a dangerous downwind departure. However, we realized it too late, as did the tower. General Pete and I simultaneously reached for the radio microphone, connecting us to the departing E3 aircraft at the same moment, but then neither of us made the radio call to the aircraft because we realized the pilot in command would have his hands full. At this point, the aircraft was going much too fast to stop on the wet and icy runway available, plus the AC did not need the distraction of a radio call in the middle of what was rapidly becoming a possible emergency situation. I do vaguely remember turning on my red and blue lights and my siren and accelerating down the active runway, in pursuit of the E3, and making the radio call “SOF on the Active” to the tower, as I wanted to be as close to the aircraft as possible if it stopped with hot brakes, or crashed into the barrier or the water. E3 (707 320B) aircraft are notoriously susceptible to control and start issues with tailwinds, and I must admit that I did not think for a moment the aircraft stood a chance of actually getting airborne. Miraculously, the E3 managed to lift off in the overrun at the far end of the runway and grudgingly managed what appeared to be about a five to ten feet per minute positive climb rate out over the water, before it rapidly disappeared into the lowering cloud deck.
General Pete and I sat there in shock and disbelief for a full five minutes before we heard the tower give the aircraft a new departure heading and frequency. We waited to be sure the aircraft replied, and since no emergency was declared, we knew they were finally safely on their way home.
Needless to say, incident and safety reports were filed, audiotapes from the tower were copied and forwarded to the 552nd Wing Safety Office, and I filed my SOF report. Normally, I would have called the 552d Wing Commander as well, but of course he was seated right there beside me. Long story short, the rest of the flight went without a hitch, and the crew landed safely at Tinker AFB 14 hours later after a successful mission that included two aerial refuelings. The flight crew was immediately suspended pending an investigation and the aircraft was impounded and inspected.
AWACS refueling (Photo courtesy of the USAF).
Two months later, I attended the safety inquiry at Tinker AFB into the incident in question. At the time of the incident, only the Keflavik tower, General Pete, myself and the cockpit crew knew what had happened. The 20+ mission crew members had no idea their lives had been in peril. There were reportedly comments among the mission crew about an extremely long takeoff run, but beyond that, there were no crew concerns.
During the hearing, the AC admitted that once he realized his mistake and calculated he could not stop the aircraft on the wet and slippery runway, he asked for full military power (military-rated thrust) on all four engines, which means the throttles were pushed to the stops and every ounce of power the engines had was engaged. It was a matter of life and death, and yet at the inquiry, when General Piotrowski fired most of the flight crew and told them to find jobs elsewhere, there were no raised voices or angry words, no shouting or swearing. General Piotrowski handled it like the true gentlemen he still is today. Later that same day over lunch, I asked him how he could remain so calm. He replied, “Don, always remember, when you are in the right and you have the power to make the right decision, there is never a need for shouting or cursing or loud voices. Do what is right and do it quickly and firmly but calmly. Emotions have no place in these types of decisions.”
This was merely one of the leadership lessons I learned from this great man, wonderful leader, mentor and friend. I have known General “P” for over 38 years now, and have never seen him lose his cool. He is the consummate professional and, frankly, I could tell General Pete stories all day long, but fortunately I don’t have to because he wrote a wonderful can’t-put-it-down book — The Secret War and Other Conflicts — about his life and the lessons he learned during his almost 40-year career in the USAF. There are many more stories like the one you just read, and at the end of each chapter in his book are the lessons he learned and that he hopes we all learn as well.
GPS Connection
There is, of course, a definite GPS/PNT connection, even though I am reasonably sanguine General Piotrowski did not have that in mind when he penned this 715-page tome of military life and knowledge. Every scenario in this very educational book that relates to military operations and/or training has the same theme for aviators everywhere.
There I was trying to figure out where I was, where the target or destination was, and how I could get there, and once there how I could deliver my ordnance, my passenger(s) and/or just get the aircraft safely back on terra firma.
In this regard, and so many others, General Pete is right on the money, and he should know. Like many of us, including General Curtis LeMay, he trained as a navigator and an aviator.
Take the AWAC E3 aircraft and the whole support system that surrounds it. How did the introduction and integration of GPS change those operations and procedures? To say the least, the changes GPS enabled were drastic — revolutionary versus evolutionary — to those of us who have experienced pre- and post-GPS AWAC flights.
The most obvious change both to the AWAC organization and to the USAF, as it pertains to the rated career field, is that the navigator position was eliminated on the E3 and several other large flight-crew-type aircraft. The navigator planned all the missions for the aircrew, including the flight route (on the ground and inflight), planned and ran the rendezvous for the air refuelings (typical AWAC sorties average 14 hours), and trained with and used a sextant (sun, moon and stars) for navigation in case in war time the electronic navigation aids were unavailable. The navigation system supplied the position, time and velocity references to the mission end of the operation. That crew position and all the manual functions associated with it were eliminated when GPS was installed on the aircraft. The operations still had to be performed and the mission successfully completed, but GPS proved to be so accurate and provided such reliable information that the navigator position was no longer necessary. The position and timing accuracy sent from the navigation hardware and software to the mission computers improved to the point it was accurate to the centimeter level — versus thousands of feet with the old system.
In the old, pre-GPS days, the navigator or pilot would initialize a time hack for all crew members and members of a flight so that everyone had the same time reference as the lead pilot or aircraft. That timing was — five, four, three, two, one hack! — accurate to a whole second and no more. Today, GPS provides continuous atomic-clock-level global timing for everyone. All systems onboard the aircraft, as well as the ground interfaces and communications systems, are accurate to over a millionth of a second and no time hacks are necessary.
Additionally, in the pre-GPS days, aircraft — even the versatile E3, which is capable of and has historically fulfilled the functions of an FAA Control facility for aircraft — mostly flew airways over CONUS and used Federal Aviation Administration radio-based navigation aides such as TACAN (Tactical Air Navigation), VORs (VHF-Very High Frequency Omni Directional Radio Range systems), VORTACS and DMEs (Distance Measuring Equipment) to determine their position while the navigator practiced his craft. However, go feet wet — that is, strike out over water where none of those navigation aides exist, en route to Hickam AFB, Hawaii, for instance — and all of a sudden the navigator became the most important member of the crew. Today’s AWAC aircraft and most modern GPS-equipped military aircraft are able to fly direct to any point in CONUS or anywhere on the globe, saving thousands of hours of flying time, wear and tear on the aircraft and crew, and of course fuel and money. The savings are practically incalculable, but certainly run into the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a year. Plus, from a military point of view, the safety factor of putting bombs on target the very first time, day or night, from any location on the Earth cannot be accurately calculated, especially when you consider the number of lives saved.
In WW II, in Vietnam and even in Korea the U.S. Army Air Corps and USAF would fly hundreds and then tens of sorties, endangering thousands of lives, just to take out a single bridge that a single JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or any GPS-guided weapon today can take out from such a distance that the aircrew may never actually see the bridge, but be certain to a high degree that it was destroyed with a single weapon and a single sortie.
Ask any pre-GPS navigator or aviator, and they will tell you that the biggest error in any bombing mission was always target error. This error extended to exactly where the target was located, how it was defended and how it could be destroyed. With modern GPS weapons, all those variable target errors are greatly minimized. Human lives may not be involved as GPS is capable of providing the PNT information necessary for a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to perform the mission, sans any threat to the pilot or weapons systems officer, who may well be thousands of miles away from the fight.
So, back to General Pete’s book. As you read this wonderful compendium of Air Force lore and knowledge and become involved in the scenarios of just getting to and from the targets in war time, to airfields in bad weather and home again through the clouds, think from time to time about how GPS has greatly simplified all those tasks and made them infinitely doable. Indeed, this 715-page aeronautical volume is one of the best arguments for GPS/PNT systems I have ever read.
Basic Airman to General: The Secret War and Other Conflicts – Lessons in Leadership and Life
This remarkable manuscript is so much more than the biography of a two-striper airman that retired as a four-star general. Amazing as that accomplishment is, the true value of the book is in the journey it took to get there — the life lived and lessons learned.
True to form, General Pete pulls no punches in his biography – in print as in life what you see with General Pete is what you get. He is honest to a fault, and is as critical of himself as he is the United States Air Force he loves and served in uniform for almost 40 years. I recommend this book as an Air Force primer to anyone thinking of joining the military and to members of Congress who never served in the military, and unfortunately that number stands at 80% today, because truly they (Congress) don’t have a clue what putting your life on the line to defend your country means. They have no idea what flying, fighting and dying for your country means. They have no idea of the sacrifices made by USAF military forces on a daily basis.
Treachery
Unfortunately, during the Vietnam War there was a very revealing event that highlights a major failing of civilian leadership that cannot be reconciled or apologized for but is still a major lesson that must be learned by everyone in the U.S. military and in the U.S. government. General Piotrowski reveals treacherous acts by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that literally took my breath away. It made me physically ill. I have to admit I was gasping for breath after I read it and I had to sit down. I was so shocked that I read it several times and still had trouble believing what was revealed. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly never doubted General Piotrowski’s veracity concerning the politician’s confession; I was and am still just amazed that anyone in the U.S. government in any position of power could be so ignorant and criminally naive. General Piotrowski reveals stunning facts about the Vietnam War on pages 246-247 of his 715 page-turner of a book that shook me to my core. General Piotrowski writes:
“Nearly twenty years later, [ed. after the Vietnam War ended] I saw former Secretary of State Dean Rusk being interviewed by Peter Arnett on a CBS [ed. CBC] documentary called “The Ten Thousand Day War.” Mr. Arnett asked, “It has been rumored that the United States provided the North Vietnamese government the names of the targets that would be bombed the following day. Is there any truth to that allegation?”
To my astonishment and absolute disgust, the former Secretary responded, “Yes. We didn’t want to harm the North Vietnamese people, so we passed the targets to the Swiss embassy in Washington with instructions to pass them to the NVN government through their embassy in Hanoi.” As I watched in horror, Secretary Rusk went on to say, “All we wanted to do is demonstrate to the North Vietnamese leadership that we could strike targets at will, but we didn’t want to kill innocent people. By giving the North Vietnamese advanced warning of the targets to be attacked, we thought they would tell the workers to stay home.”
No wonder all the targets were so heavily defended day after day! The NVN obviously moved as many guns as they could overnight to better defend each target they knew was going to be attacked. Clearly, many brave American Air Force and Navy fliers died or spent years in NVN prison camps as a direct result of being intentionally betrayed by Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara, and perhaps, President Johnson himself. I cannot think of a more duplicitous and treacherous act of American government officials. Dean Rusk served as Secretary of State from January 21, 1961, through to January 20, 1969, under President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Perhaps Senator John McCain, POW for five years and presidential candidate in 2008, was one of the many victims of this utter stupidity and flawed policy flowing from President Lyndon B. Johnson. Mr. Peter Arnett opined that this would be a treasonous act by anyone else.”
After reading this horrendous revelation, I was so shocked I couldn’t function properly for the rest of the day. I am still aghast and incredulous that government officials could be so deceitful. I lost so many friends, aviator comrades and loved ones in that terrible war, including my father who was literally eaten from the inside out by parasites and the drugs and alcohol he used to try and dull the physical and mental pain and anguish. There are still tens of thousands of veterans suffering today from the effects (such as PTSD – post traumatic stress disorder) of that war, and to think that our government leaders at the highest levels told our enemy what our targets would be on a daily basis because they cared about Vietnamese civilian casualties. Seriously, we were at war. Obviously the administrations, especially the SECDEFs and Secretary’s of State, did not care about American lives, especially American fliers. You can never hope to win a war when all of your targeting information is being treacherously given to the enemy on a daily basis. I am still incredulous they could be so treacherous.
Lessons Learned
Yes, this is sensational and revealing, and there are obviously lessons to be learned — indeed, lessons that the current administration could, should and indeed must learn — such as allowing military professionals to do what they do best and stop micromanaging the Defense Department. But this represents merely a handful of lessons, and this book, this wonderful tome concerning life and leadership at all levels from basic airman to four-star general, is such an educational tool for today’s leaders that it needs to be required reading at all the service academies, certainly the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). But you don’t have to be in the government or the military to enjoy and learn from the life lessons presented here. General Piotrowski is incredibly honest about his triumphs, his failures, his family life, and his service. He is brutally honest and self-effacing concerning the effects of time spent away from his family defending his nation. Not only in wartime, but during the Cold War as well. For example, remember AWAC aircraft at the time had no CONUS (Contiguous United States) mission, so all the missions were flown overseas. I flew AWAC missions for nine years, average sortie length 12-14 hours, including four years flying NATO AWAC aircraft from Geilenkirchen, Germany, and one year in Iceland. The other four years I was TDY (temporary duty) overseas an average of 220 days per year. General Piotrowski did the same and more, and believe me, it is a huge sacrifice for the service member and their families.
So, there is a lot of good fatherly advice in this book, and I only wish someone like General Pete could have written this book 40 years ago when I was a young lieutenant.
The bottom line is the title says it all: Basic Airman to General; The Secret War and Other Conflicts — Lessons in Leadership and Life. Get a copy today, you won’t be disappointed.
Until next time, happy navigating, and remember: GPS is brought to you courtesy of the United States Air Force.
The long-anticipated 2016 President’s Budget (PB) was submitted to Congress in early February. The PB is the spark that ignites the lengthy and often contentious congressional budget process, including: adopting a budget resolution framework, developing numerous discretionary spending bills, reconciling legislation between the House and Senate, approving continuing resolution stop-gap measures and finally, hopefully, appropriating funds for various programs — including the Global Positioning System (GPS) as part of the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) U.S. Air Force (USAF) budget request.
For FY (Fiscal Year 1 Oct – 30 Sep) 2016, the U.S. Air Force requested a topline budget of $122.2 billion in Air Force controlled funding that exceeds funding levels recommended by the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and laid out in the Budget Control Act by almost $10 billion. Several well-meaning friends still in high places in the government immediately sent me copies of the USAF budget while it was still warm, so to speak, and thought that I would be “properly incensed” — proffered one old friend — over the so-called $10B overdraft. I hate to disappoint my friends, but in the spirit of the USAF policy of putting the Bottom Line Up Front, I applaud the Air Force action and personally think it may be too little, too late. The supplemental request or overdraft should probably have been more on the order of $20B, not $10B.
Hollow Force
This is not an emotional reaction, but a reasoned statement by a seasoned veteran airman of 30 years in the USAF, yours truly, who served through at least two periods of a “hollow force” that were devastating not only to the USAF as an institution, but to the DoD as a whole and to all the personnel who served during these austere and dangerous times. And, yes, I am equating a hollow force with a dangerous force. Indeed, the term “hollow force” officially refers to military and government forces that certainly, on the surface, appear to be “mission ready,” but upon close examination suffer from moderate to severe shortages of personnel and equipment as well as deficiencies, to varying degrees, in training.
Gen Mark A Welsh III, Chief of Staff, USAF, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee 201 (Photo courtesy of USAF – SSG Sean K. Harp).
In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, along with his fellow service chiefs, General Mark A. Welsh III, chief of staff of the United States Air Force, laid out the dangers inherent in the hollow force when he stated:
“Last year, our readiness levels reached an all-time low. As we struggle to recover, we don’t have enough units ready to respond immediately to a major contingency, and we’re not always able to provide fully mission-ready units to meet our combatant commanders’ routine rotational requirements.
“The Air Force’s modernization forecasts also are bleak. About 20 percent of [our] aircraft flying today were built in the 1950s and 1960s, and more than half of the rest are 25 years old or older.
“And now, due to sequestration, we’ve cut about 50 percent of our currently planned modernization programs.”
To someone who lived through the hollow force in the past, this is a scary description and prospect for our airmen. In describing the results of budget cuts and difficult decisions regarding program terminations that result in a hollow force, General Welsh put it this way:
“Without these tough calls, the Air Force ‘will be neither ready to fight today, nor viable against the threats of tomorrow’.”
Indeed, a hollow force puts every ones lives in danger. During the post-Vietnam hollow force created by the peanut farmer, there were times when there were B52 aircraft sitting alert just for the spy satellite photo ops that did not have engines in the nacelles nor certified crews to fly them. Aircrews were lucky if they were able to fly four hours per month, and believe me, that made us all less than proficient. I remember one incident specifically. My oxygen (O2) mask had failed on a previous flight and I needed a new one. In the high-performance aircraft in which we flew, regulations required an O2 mask be attached to our helmet and actually in place with crewmembers in the cockpit breathing pure (100%) O2 above a certain altitude. Because of budget cuts, I was issued a waiver, a piece of paper that said I was legal to fly without a fully functioning O2 mask. Fortunately I never was forced to fly without a fully functioning O2 mask, but what if I had been? What if I had passed out from O2 deprivation? What about the other members of the crew? What purpose did the piece of paper serve, other than mollifying a paper pusher’s conscience? Would the Air Force crash investigators have found it in the wreckage and said, “Oh, it’s OK, he had a waiver!” These are the types of things that can happen with a “hollow force.” We don’t need to go there again, and if nothing else, the extra $10B may be just the ticket to keep the aircrews proficient and equipment maintained.
The Color of Money
I know that budgeting and spending other people’s money seems like a simple issue, but with the government, nothing is ever simple. Consequently, the DoD has established an entire university system, known as the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), to train acquisition, program and financial officials in handling government acquisition funds, along with other procurement activities. Under the Budget Control Act guidelines and the Congressional cost-cutting exercise known as Seques-castration, 2016 is another cost-cutting year. That is significant when you understand that the USAF and all of DoD are still reeling from more than ten years of war, on more than one front, along with previously mandated significant budget and manpower cuts that seriously impacted the ability of the USAF to accomplish its multitude of missions.
Consider that budget cuts have a lingering, insidious and costly effect in equipment not maintained or replaced, training not accomplished, R&D not conducted, new technologies not developed, and inevitably the inability to accomplish the mission. A lot of the complexity in these budget-cutting moves relates to what the government refers to as the color of money. For example budgetary funds are appropriated and obligated for the USAF, and most other services, according to the following formula:
O&M – Operations and Maintenance – Obligated for 1 year
MILPERS – Military Personnel – Obligated for 1 year
RDT&E – Res Dev Test & Eval – Obligated for 2 years
PROC – Procurement – Obligated for 3 years
MILCON – Military Construction – Obligated for 5 years
As you can see, all funds are not obligated for just one year and then the money expires. Indeed, there are several colors of money, and failing to fund an RDT&E effort can have catastrophic results on the future of that program and associated programs that might benefit from the technology not developed. At any one time, the USAF is juggling budgets stretching across years and programs and moving money or robbing Peter to pay Paul.
FM (Financial Management) or financial and program management gurus at any one time are managing funds that originated as many as five years previously, plus the current year’s budget, while planning on how to use funds that might carry over to next year. They have just submitted the FY16 budget, which also means they are now hard at work on the FY17 budget without knowing what will be obligated for FY16. Across all those budget years, they have to deal with the arcane rules concerning the color of money. Yes, they are professionals (I’ve been married to one of the best for 35+ years), and they do a great job, but face it — sometimes they are just taking a well-educated guess and hoping for supplemental funding just to meet basic requirements.
Seriously, FM’ers live for the fairytale that one day a combatant commander will say, “Hey, your mission is more important than mine, so I will ‘MIPR’ (a one-time financial move) my funding to your budget line for your project.” Let’s see — a pig is not aerodynamically designed to fly…
Space
Funding for all space programs is especially critical, as the entire space arena is known as a force multiplier, in that satellites and space platforms provide and enable capabilities that increase the effectiveness and reach of all military and government personnel. Therefore, when space programs are not funded, delayed or are cut, the impact ripples across the entire DOD. This is especially true of GPS and PNT (Position, Navigation and Timing) systems which have become so ubiquitous, they are considered a must-have utility for billions of users around the globe, not just the U.S. government. In fact, military and government users may be the smallest segment of users for GPS and PNT services today, which is ironic when you consider that, as General John Hyten (USAF), commander of Air Force Space Command, loves to remind us, “GPS is provided to the world, and over three billion plus users, free of charge 24/7, by the United States Air Force.”
OCX – Next-Generation Space Control Segment
Unfortunately, a couple of major GPS-related programs are in trouble. For OCX, the Next-Generation Control Segment for GPS, my sources tell me, and 2016 budget documents clearly show, that current costs attributable to the prime contractor greatly exceed the contract award specification of ~$886M by a factor of 100% ,with a delivery date still far out on the horizon — somewhere around 2020 with a total program costs of $3.6B. That’s the bad news; the good news is there are definitely sound alternatives, and my sources tell me they are being belatedly explored.
Sometimes the behemoth primes are just that: too big and too expensive. Oftentimes the real subject matter experts (SMEs) reside in the smaller, boutique, more agile companies that can do the job in 24 months for $200M, which is a price that was quoted to me recently by a company with skin in the game, since their software products are responsible for launching and controlling all of the GPS satellites launched in the last eight years without a single failure. Plus, sources inside the company tell me that they have already developed a complete launch and initial checkout system for GPS III, which the OCX prime contractor is still struggling to construct.
This is where the USAF and OSD must step back and assess the OCX program for all its merits versus costs. GPS is not that complicated a satellite system, and yet we are on course to spend $3.6B for a ground C2 (Command and Control) system that will still have significant shortcomings. If it were the perfect C2 system in the end, that would be one consideration, but in fact, as the prime has admitted, it will be far from what was initially envisioned, and the total program costs will have grown by almost 400%.
This scenario begs the question: As the GPS acquisition authority, which product would you trust, a known product derived from a proven government and commercial satellite launch and C2 capability in operation today from a reliable company that has a flawless track record of GPS launches for the last eight years? Or a brand-new unproven product costing billions of dollars from a company that is clearly struggling technically and financially and has, at the end of the day, never launched or controlled a single GPS satellite? The answer seems clear to me. Obviously, there are valid alternatives, and in this budget environment the USAF needs to take a look at replacements, alternatives, supplements and backups, however you choose to phrase it, to OCX.
As we were going to press, we learned that Mr. Kendall has given the OCX Program a green light, but with several caveats indicating the program will be closely watched in the future. Mr. Kendall confirmed that while the OCX costs had indeed doubled, he was going to stay the course for now.
Major General Roger Teague, director of space programs for the Air Force acquisition chief, said a review by chief arms buyer Frank Kendall went well, but program officials and the contractor got “tough marching orders” to stick to schedule and cost targets. That is well and good, but history shows us that it has never happened in the past with the OCX program, and so some tough changes are going to have to be made if they are going to stay on track. We wish them well.
GPS III – Next Generation Space Segment
On the satellite or hardware side of the house, the GPS III — or next-generation GPS satellite — is also having problems, but in this case it centers on development and delivery issues with a subcontractor having serious technical issues and who has failed to deliver on cost or schedule. That subcontractor was just last week bought by a bigger prime, so we will have to wait and see what happens. In this case, however, the whole satellite program is not failing just a component, albeit an important one, the Mission Data Unit or MDU. Although again the answer seems simple, there are bigger forces at play, and one of them is wrapped up in a new government initiative known as Better Buying Power 3.0.
Better Buying Power 3.0
The current GPS III+ budget input states: “In an effort to implement Better Buying Power 3.0 (BBP 3.0) to control production costs, the [U.S.] Air Force intends to create a competitive environment. Options for the GPS III competition continue to be explored by USD (AT&L) [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics], Mr. Frank Kendall.
Frank Kendall, under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Under Secretary flag.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, or USD (AT&L), is a senior civilian official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense within the Department of Defense. USD (AT&L) is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense for all matters concerning departmental acquisitions and the general management of the department as a whole, which means he is a significant decision-maker where DoD acquisitions are concerned, and he has something to say about the plans for those acquisitions. Obviously, those plans need to make sense, financially, operationally and hopefully logically. Mr. Kendall, who has been in his current position for almost four years, has brought a much needed common-sense approach to government acquisition, and we can only hope he continues to make judicious, practical and logical decisions.
For GPS III+, the U.S. Air Force’s published notional plan is for a two-phased competition process. Phase one is a Production Readiness competition for up to three firm-fixed price contracts to mature competitors’ production designs for a competition in Phase two. Phase two will be a full and open competition for up to 22 GPS III Production SVs [satellite vehicles] with an expected award in FY17/18. The [U.S.] Air Force GPS Directorate received USD (AT&L) approval to purchase GPS III SV09-10 from the incumbent Lockheed Martin (LMCO) at the December 2014 Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), in order to sustain the GPS constellation while competitive options are pursued.” [Bold added for emphasis.] See the budget document here.
The “government speak” sounds great if you need an entirely new GPS III system, which consists of, at a minimum, a new payload, satellite, launcher and ground C2 system (remember OCX is only designed to work with current and planned GPS SVs, and it doesn’t even do that today). But, in fact, the U.S. government only needs an MDU, which is a critical part of the payload. Indeed, failure to produce the MDU on time has delayed the entire GPS III program by about 18 months to date.
Even more troubling to me is the seemingly innocuous phrases from the government plan that states “create a competitive environment…firm-fixed price contracts to mature [up to three] competitors’ production designs,” which is nothing more than government speak for “We are going to pay competitors to mature their technology so they can compete against the current prime (LMCO), who is currently building the first 10 GPS III satellites.” In effect, the government is saying the competitors on their own cannot compete against LMCO so we, the government, are going to give them contracts and lots of money to help them get to a point where they can compete, and then we are going to have a recompetition. Of course, this is going to take at least three years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and LMCO may well win again in the end, but at least we will have conducted a competition. Does this approach make sense? Does it pass the financial, operational, and logic tests? Does it pass the Washington Post test? I guess we will have to wait and see if Frank Kendall agrees.
BBP 3.0
So, what exactly is the initiative known as Better Buying Power 3.0? It’s DoD’s mandate to “do more with less”:
“DoD’s Mandate To Do More Without More
“Better Buying Power (BBP) is the implementation of best practices to hopefully strengthen the Defense Department’s buying power, improve industry productivity, and provide an affordable, value-added military capability for the warfighter and government user. Launched in 2010, BBP encompasses a set of fundamental acquisition principles to achieve greater efficiencies through affordability, cost control, elimination of unproductive processes and bureaucracy, and promotion of competition. BBP initiatives also incentivize productivity and innovation in industry and Government, and improve tradecraft in the acquisition of services.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Now for the rest of the story.
We can all agree that defense budgets are tight, so it will be interesting to see how BBP 3.0 plays out in the arena for GPS SVs. Will the U.S. Air Force initiate a competition to acquire an entirely new GPS III SV, or fix the problem with the current GPS III program, the MDU? Recall my previous column concerning the GPS III Sources Sought, in which the GPS III MDU was compared to an aircraft engine and the GPS III satellite was compared to an aircraft. In this analogy, the Air Force didn’t ask for companies/competitors to produce a new aircraft just because it needed an alternate engine. It simply contracted for another engine supplier — the most cost-effective competition that adheres to the principles of BBP 3.0. However, from the GPS Directorate budget language quoted earlier, it appears as if the Air Force is looking to pursue an entirely new GPS III system to include SVs, rather than just procure an alternate MDU.
In my humble opinion, stringently applying BBP 3.0 to GPS III issues means simply to employ competition at the correct level (i.e., for the engine rather than the entire aircraft). An interesting feature and significant added cost to the GPS budget, which I briefly mentioned earlier, concerns the need for a new ground C2 system if the total new systems approach is taken. For, indeed, if preliminary elements of the GPS space segment are developed without cross-checking the impact to the GPS control segment, the technical, operational, budgetary and schedule impacts will be significant. For example, the already troubled next-generation GPS ground control system, OCX, budget likely has not considered the integration costs of a newly developed, yet-to-be-procured “production ready” GPS III+ SV. Indeed, OCX today is geared for the GPS III already contracted for and it is failing to meet that challenge in a spectacular and expensive way. So it is possible, even probable, that OCX integration costs for yet another new model of GPS III family of satellites would increase the OCX budget significantly…unless of course one assumes that the U.S. Air Force acquires a perfectly matched, new GPS III satellite that integrates seamlessly with OCX. In other words, an entirely new GPS III SV would need to be perfectly matched to the current GPS III SV — and what are the chances of that, and why would you spend hundreds of millions of scarce acquisition dollars to procure an exact and more expensive replica?
Budget constraints are tight and getting tighter. BBP 3.0 mandates the Air Force “do more with less” in every context. For GPS III SVs, this means developing an alternate MDU rather than buying a new block of GPS SVs.
Until next time, Happy Navigating, and remember: GPS is brought to you free of charge by the United States Air Force.
GPS Source announced today that GLI-FLO has been granted security approval by the U.S. Air Force Global Positioning Systems Directorate. The GPS Directorate security approval provides GPS Source with the opportunity to supply military end-users and prime contractors with a DAGR Distributed Device (D3) that meets the mandate for reliability and security, GPS Source said.
GLI-FLO is a secure (ICD-GPS-153 compliant) GPS position, navigation, and timing (PNT) distribution device. One GLI-FLO has the same capability as four DAGRs operating in a platform mounted application (eight DAGRs with custom cabling). GLI-FLO serves ICD-GPS-153 PNT data simultaneously to multiple communication or weapon systems that require GPS information. It routes PNT data while secured in the bracket now used by the DAGR, utilizing standard DAGR accessory cables. When GLI-FLO is connected to one DAGR (or as alternative option, interfaces with an internal secure GPS receiver), secure PNT data can be distributed without the integration of GB-GRAM cards to multiple devices.
GLI-FLO meets the stringent requirements for reliability and security by integrating a GPS Directorate-approved SAASM receiver (Selective Availability/Anti-Spoofing Module). SAASM is the security architecture selected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to provide current security functions for GPS-authorized military users.
“We understand the importance of reliable GPS/PNT data for synchronizing military operations and the need to protect against jamming and/or spoofing,” said Robert Horton, CEO of GPS Source. “We further realize the importance of protecting our national assets by designing products that fully comply with all GPS Directorate security requirements. This security approval makes it possible for our GLI-FLO to be deployed by military forces without reservation.”
In addition to the SAASM compliance, other GLI-FLO features include the ability to serve ICD-GPS-153 PNT data simultaneously to multiple communications or weapon systems that require secure GPS information. It is a significant step for GPS Source toward compliance in GPS Signal Distribution (Single PNT Distribution Point). With zero impact to subscriber application software/hardware, it removes the need to rely on multiple, expensive GB-GRAMS found in military platforms.
Locata Corporation has announced that U.S. Air Force (USAF) veteran Paul Benshoof, formerly chief of strategic development at the 746th Test Squadron at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, has joined the company as global business development manager for military and government applications in the U.S. and abroad.
This team expansion primes the company to meet growing global demand for GPS backup for critical government, civilian, and commercial infrastructure, Locata said. Benshoof, who witnessed the success of Locata’s precision positioning in GPS-denied environments during USAF LocataNet development at White Sands Missile Range, will set and execute the company’s worldwide defense sales initiatives.
Near universal reliance on GPS for a broad range of critical positioning and navigation requirements in military, civilian government, and commercial applications — despite the fact that GPS signals are frequently blocked, jammed, spoofed or unavailable — is driving increasing demand for an alternative positioning solution. Locata’s terrestrial technology is the first and only system to locally replicate GPS precise positioning — on the ground. Locata is therefore the only real “backup to GPS” across any area where satellite-based signals aren’t reliable. Many modern applications (such as machine automation, military operations in GPS jammed areas, and all manner of positioning across campuses, ports, downtown “urban canyons,” open-cut mines, warehouses, malls and more) have far outstripped the original design parameters of the GPS satellite constellation. The ability to provide a backup to GPS is therefore now recognized as an essential national requirement for future mobile, industrial, transportation, homeland security and other critical infrastructure applications, as clearly laid out in the 2010 Federal Radionavigation Plan and the U.S. President’s National Space Policy of the USA.
On September 7, the USAF granted Locata a multi-year contract to install a LocataNet over a vast 2,500 square mile (6,500 sq km) area of the famed White Sands Missile Range. The LocataNet has been described in a current USAF technical report as the key component for the realization of the USAF’s new “gold standard” military-grade reference system required to test and evaluate future navigation and guidance systems for the U.S. Department of Defense when GPS signals are jammed or unavailable. Locata has been proven by independent USAF testing to be fully autonomous from GPS, delivering the same or better positioning, navigation and time (PNT) as the GPS satellite constellation. Locata has invented a large portfolio of new technologies to create this new capability. Locata currently has 94 granted patents and over one hundred more in process to protect their innovations.
“It’s an honor to have Mr. Benshoof join our team,” said Nunzio Gambale, CEO and co-founder of Locata. “Paul’s caliber of GPS expertise and firsthand experience with military and government positioning requirements will be instrumental in helping grow our business in this sector. He will help military and government organizations meet next-generation positioning needs using Locata’s world-first backup to GPS. I’ve known and worked with him and his USAF team since 2005, so he’s seen Locata’s groundbreaking technology in action. The fact he has now chosen to join our company is a tribute to the importance of our emerging technology. It also tells you all you need to know about how well our ‘impossible technology’ actually works!”
Benshoof began his 22 years in GPS as the Project Manager responsible for the development and procurement of the PLGR — the DoD’s first secure handheld GPS receiver, manufactured by Rockwell Collins. He then devoted his technical prowess to developing navigation warfare (NAVWAR) test assets to support advanced technology demonstrations in GPS-denied environments, as well as supervising international test programs for NATO and allied forces. As GPS testing became increasingly important, he formed and directed the GPS Test Center of Expertise, a consortium of U.S. test agencies dedicated to GPS test and evaluation, while also chairing an international working group that helped standardize GPS test practices among 11 participating countries. Ultimately, he was selected to implement and lead the 746th Test Squadron’s Strategic Development activity that worked with commercial and military GPS industry to project guidance, navigation and NAVWAR testing shortfalls, and then managed developmental programs to fill technical capability gaps.
“I’m excited to join a company that has done what no one thought was possible,” said Benshoof. “While other companies have attempted to replicate GPS without satellites, Locata is the first to succeed. Just as the early days of GPS were sparked by groundbreaking military applications, Locata has followed this same evolutionary path, yet much more rapidly. I’m honored to be a part of the team bringing essential GPS backup to the countless nations, organizations and partners that need it.”
The U.S. Air Force finally made it official and confirmed the rumor mill: Lockheed Martin has beat out rival satellite contractor Boeing for the contract to build the first eight GPS III satellites.
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Global Positioning Systems Wing, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif. made the announcement regarding the GPS III development and production contract late Thursday, May 15. In retrospect it was not exactly a well-kept secret; rumors had swirled for at least a month if not longer that Lockheed would get the nod, and two days earlier on May 13 the Wall Street Journal reported as fact that Lockheed had won, citing unnamed sources.
Under the $1.4 billion contract, the team of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., ITT Corp., and General Dynamics will produce eight GPS IIIA satellites, with the first launch projected for 2014, Lockheed said. The development contract will result in approximately 500 new jobs for Lockheed Martin.
Eight GPS IIIB and 16 GPS IIIC satellites are planned for later increments, with each increment including additional capabilities based on technical maturity. Taken as a whole, all of the GPS III contracts could be worth more than approximately $3.5 billion. When fully deployed, the GPS III constellation will feature a cross-linked command and control architecture, allowing the entire GPS constellation to be updated simultaneously from a single ground station, according to Lockheed. Additionally, a new spot beam capability for enhanced military (M-Code) coverage and increased resistance to hostile jamming, as well as new civilian signals, will be incorporated.
Lockheed Martin of course isn’t new to the GPS program; it designed and built 21 GPS IIR satellites for the Air Force and subsequently modernized eight of those spacecraft, designated GPS IIR-M. For GPS III, Lockheed Martin’s program management and spacecraft development effort will occur at its facilities in Newtown, Penn., with final assembly, integration and test located in Denver, according to the company. Its Sunnyvale, Calif., operations will provide various spacecraft components and a launch support team will be based at Cape Canaveral, Fla. Lockheed Martin’s flight-proven A2100 bus will serve as the GPS III spacecraft platform.
ITT, based in Clifton, N.J. will provide the navigation payload, and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Gilbert, Ariz., will provide the Network Communications Element (NCE) which includes the UHF Crosslink and Tracking Telemetry & Command (TT&C) subsystems.