Long-Range Airpower: Lessons from Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury

Watch the Video

---

Read the Transcript

---

Mark Gunzinger:

So good morning, ladies and gentlemen. A lot of people, this is great. Thanks for showing up. We really appreciate it. So I’m the director for future concepts and capability assessments at the Mitchell Institute and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. So I have the privilege of joining three distinguished panelists to discuss long-range air power. Lessons learned from Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury.

So I’m a former bomber pilot and practicing force development planner. So this is a topic that’s near and dear to me. Our Air Force’s ability to take the fight to the enemy and deny them safe havens to launch missile and drone attacks against our forces on air bases has a deterrent value that cannot be matched by any other service. Epic Fury and Midnight Hammer, once again, as the chief said, as the second half said, proven that if you want to win, you must have a credible long-range air power force.

So our panelists are eminently qualified to address this topic starting with Major General Ty Neuman, Commander of the Eighth Air Force and Joint Global Strike Operations Center. Now the accomplishments of the men and women under his command are a key reason for why we are here today talking about Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury. And because the Air Force’s long-range strike family systems depends on air refueling and other air mobility forces, we are fortunate that Major General Gerald Donohue, Air Mobility’s deputy commander could also join us today.

Now we all know that developing combat-effective long-range air forces depends on the knowledge and the skills of America’s industrial base, which is why I’m pleased to introduce Jamie Burgess, Vice President and General Manager for Mobility, Surveillance and Bombers at Boeing. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us today.

So I’ll begin by directing a few questions at the panelists and they’re all welcome to join in on any question, even though I might direct one question or two at specific panelists. So let’s kick it off with a broad question for Ty and Gerald. Would you please share your perspectives on how Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury have underscored the critical role of long-range air power in modern military operations?

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

Yeah. Well, good morning, Mark. First and foremost, thank you so much for the Mitchell Institute and your team for putting this fantastic event together once again. And it’s always an honor to come up here and tell the rest of the audience all that’s going on in Air Force Global Strike Command. Today I sit here as the 58th Mighty Air Force commander along with my command chief, Brandon Wolfgang. We’re responsible for nearly 24,000 Airmen that provide an incredible combat capability, long-range strike to strike deep in the heart of our adversaries anytime, anywhere. It’s an incredible opportunity to be here, particularly in this moment. Today’s panel is specifically looking at the lessons learned from really the last 12 to 18 months of activities within Air Force Global Strike Command and across the entire Air Force.

But the relationship between Air Force Global Strike Command and AMC could not be stronger than it is today. And I think that’s a message that we want to make sure that we carry away from this today. The chief and the secretary talked about having ready Airmen. We demonstrated that time and again. We are built for endurance. We have endured 18 months of conflict and crisis and every bomber wing that I have, I have five bomb wings, three bombers, I have a command and control wing and an AOC. Every one of those have been all in participating day in and day out. So I look forward to today’s conversation, sharing some of the information and knowledge and stuff that we have and looking forward to more of your questions, Mark, as we get into this. Thanks.

Mark Gunzinger:

Excellent.

Maj. Gen. Gerald Donohue:

I’d like to add my thanks to Ty, certainly to AFA for hosting the forum and Mark for chairing the panel, really to celebrate the men and women of the total force that makes up the Mobility Air Force and Air Mobility Command and what they’ve been able to do and support a global strike and really the Combat Air Forces over the last 18 months.

When we think about the way we’ve been able to project power, whether it be from continental United States or from other locations where it’s forward postured, Air Mobility Command, the Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command, who are undergoing the biggest mobilization, certainly in a generation or two for that portion of our force, have been committed all in and extraordinarily effective.

The chief highlighted it yesterday in his remarks. He mentioned that throughout Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury, we have not missed a single ARCT. So a tanker fleet that is largely defined by 70-year-old aircraft, sustained by extraordinary maintainers, supported by global in-route structure to ensure it is ready to meet the challenge has delivered. We’re certainly going through modernization and that remains a priority, bringing on a new weapon system. But between the two, to be able to talk to the force and celebrate the accomplishments of our Airmen is extraordinary.

That capability the United States possesses is unique onto us. We can hold adversaries at risk globally when necessary, and we’ve been able to demonstrate that. We’ve been able to do it with extraordinary operational security when merited and in other times being able to do it at pace consistently day after day after day. Again, a total force of Airmen bringing it together for air mobility command in support of Global Strike and others, just extraordinary. So thanks for the opportunity to talk about what our Airmen are doing today.

Mark Gunzinger:

Yeah, I found that comment by the chief on the airy feeling is just incredible, a real testament to men and women of our air force. So thanks for those insights. Let’s focus a moment on some fundamentals of air power. Our Navy, Marine Corps, and Army are also developing new longer-range strike systems, including service launch, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and hypersonic weapons. But I contend that long-range air forces still have the unique ability to strike at range at our adversaries, to deny them operational sanctuaries in the Pacific and Europe and the Middle East that they would use to launch strikes against our forces.

So for General Neuman, General Donahue, what are your thoughts on the need to deny sanctuaries and the kinds of capabilities that could do so most effectively over long ranges in today’s threat environments?

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

Well, great, Mark. We can talk for quite a while on this subject as a matter of fact. And when it comes to denying sanctuary, there’s a lot of different things that play into that. First and foremost, we have to have a combat-capable force that we are willing and ready to use at any given time so that our adversary never feels like they have sanctuary. That’s the first and fundamental point that goes into that. So what that drives is in the short term or our near term, we have to have a combat bomber force that has the long-range strike capability supported by our AMC brethren to get to the fight with the appropriate capabilities to inflict the necessary pain and suffering on the adversary.

So that starts with modernizing each of our aircraft, of which the B-1 is under extensive modernization program to expand weapon capabilities as well as communications and beyond-line-of-sight type capabilities. Our B-52 is going through a fundamental change through the commercial engine replacement program, thanks to Jamie and his team. We are doing a radar enhancement program as well to increase its survivability in contested environments as well as provide the long-range strike and the strategic assets and stuff that we need to be ready each and every day.

When it comes to what the future actually looks, and let me actually stop there for a second and just touch on the B-2 as well. B-2 is also going through a fundamental change when it comes to the modernization of it. We are expanding payloads on the B-2 as well as looking at different types of weapons that we can carry with the B-2. What I have found very unique, and I’m not a B-2 person by trade other than the fact that I’m the commander of 8th Air Force, but the technology and stuff that the B-2 and combined with some of the work from both Boeing and some of the other contractors that are here today, we’ve actually improved the capability of the B-2 more so now than it ever has been. And so the B-2 with its penetrating capability will be viable for long into the future.

And so that leads me to the next point of your question there, Mark, and that’s what does the force need to look like in the future? We absolutely have to have a long-range standoff force, period dot. We have to have complementary weapons designed for the platforms that we have in today’s Air Force as well as the ones we field in the future to include the B-21. We also have to have a stand-in force. One, we have a strategic mission that is absolutely essential that we need to maintain within Air Force Global Strike Command and the Mighty Eighth. That in itself drives us to a penetrating force. So how do you do that and make it survivable? All-aspect LO, period dot. There’s not a fight in the future where you will not have to have some LO capabilities in your force, and it needs to be all-aspect.

The ability for us to penetrate and hit the adversary where it hurts is going to require a flexible platform that can be re-targeted, communicate beyond line of sight and deliver effective weapons at the exact right location. When we talk about lessons learned from our past conflicts, we saw in Operation Epic Fury that you cannot hit every target with long-range strike weapons. The terrain and the atmosphere which they have to fly into do not allow weapons of that choice to be done. It has to be delivered by penetrating force. We are delivering that in our bomber roadmap. You will see fundamental changes in war fighting when we deliver to the B-21 and continue to extend our legacy platforms in the interim.

So I’m looking forward to the future. I am very, very happy that we are moving down this track and I want to continue to make that a reality. Thanks.

Maj. Gen. Gerald Donohue:

The thing I like to emphasize to folks is optionality. The President of the United States needs options that are made available to him so he can in fact hold that risk if it’s necessary at any target. And Ty did a great job articulating some of the differences and why that’s so important. So fundamentally it’s my job to get him and his forces where they need to be. And so similarly, as he’s going through modernization of the bomber force to be able to provide that option to the president, similarly, we are modernizing our tankers. We’re going through recapitalization right now as we bring on the KC-46, an extraordinary capability that we continue to welcome and employ and have seen great success with.

We are modernizing the 135s, which once we complete the acquisition of the KC-46, we will still have in the hundreds of 135, right? It makes recapitalization moving forward, it will be a priority for the command for some time, as will modernization of what we have. And that really comes in three categories. The first one is connectivity. Largely today, some of our forces still operate the way they did 20 years ago and they don’t have the connectivity that you have when you get on your flights to head home. We have to improve upon that. Epic Fury, Midnight Hammer underscore the importance that that connectivity plays, not only to our own survivability, but importantly, more importantly, to the success of the joint force and the mission at hand, whether it’s passing information to the bomber force as they’re executing their in-route refueling or to the combat air forces forward. We’ve got to have the connectivity to add that value.

Beyond the connectivity, survivability. We know that future conflict, future operating areas are getting more and more contested. And so getting the bomber force or the fighter force to their last ARCT puts us at risk. And so we need survival platforms built on a foundation of connectivity then with additional advanced tanker systems which make both legacy tankers and future tankers more survivable.

And then we can never walk away from the idea that our young Airmen out there on the line today and for decades still will have to sustain 70-year-old-plus airframes. As I mentioned in the beginning, even at the end of the current acquisition of the 46, we’ll have measured in hundreds the number of KC-135s. That represents a challenge for us, that represents a challenge for industry to ensure that the parts are available at the pace we need them to sustain those fleets. But in order to get Ty where his forces need to be to be effective, we need to connect it to survivable and certainly a viable tanker fleet.

Mark Gunzinger:

I’ll add an editorial comment here. When I was in the department and out, I’ve been asked frequently about, well, should you think we should ever strike mainland China in an event of a conflict in the Southwest Pacific? My answer is we must build the options to do that. We must have the capabilities and capacity to do that. The question itself, that’s a policy issue, but if we don’t have the options, the Air Force cannot provide those options to future presidents, then it limits the air maneuver space.

So let’s talk about stealth for a minute. We continue to hear questions occasionally from some skeptics on the value of stealth in a world where sophisticated air defenses are proliferating globally. So for Jamie and Ty, would you please share your thoughts on why stealth remains a foundational capability for US power projection?

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

Well, Mark, I alluded to that a little bit in my previous comments. Bottom line, we are watching where the adversary is going. They’ve been watching us. They know how we fight. They are changing their way of business, so we need to therefore change our way of business. In doing so, we recognize that the cost of entry is all-aspect LO, period dot. You cannot penetrate deep inside the heart of an adversary without having that capability today, and it will be a demand in the future. It is the hardest thing in the world to detect, that is going to drive their costs through the roof. And oh, by the way, if they can detect it, we’ll be able to effectively counter that effect throughout the foreseeable future.

So bottom line, we’re going to continue to push for LO assets to include weapons and/or a bomber force. And then the next question I know, Mark, in your mind, is going to be how many? And I’m not here to talk how many. I will just tell you the Air Force has to go down the path of having a penetrating force that uses LO technology.

Jamie Burgess:

I 100% agree, sir. Let me start by just saying thank you for the opportunity for industry to participate in this panel. By and large, industry sat in awe as the United States military executed Epic Fury and prior to that Midnight Hammer. And what an honor it is to be up here with you gentlemen to be able to reflect on lessons learned from those exercises and applying those lessons learned to the future. So thanks again for the opportunity. It’s a real privilege.

100% agree on low observability. It’s critical today. It’s going to remain critical in the future. It is one of the only technologies that allows for deep penetration in highly contested environments. I know there’s sort of talk about the viability of stealth in the future. I don’t think there’s any question about the need for it and continued technology development in the area of low observability.

Mark Gunzinger:

So before General Goldfein retired as chief of staff, he testified to Congress and he was asked by a senator, “What about the future viability of stealth? Isn’t that a wasting asset? It’s costing too much money, et cetera, et cetera.” He had the perfect answer. I’d like just to share that with you. He said, “Stealth is about our ability to break an adversary’s kill chains, and I see nothing in the future that’s going to prevent us from doing that.” And I think it’s just as true now and as true in your future as it was six years ago when he said it.

So Epic Fury demonstrated the ways and means that modern warfare continues to evolve. Iran attempted to flood the zone with inexpensive drones carrying sensors and kinetic payloads, in addition to launching missile salvos. The need for persistent battle space awareness has never been more evident and important.

So as the threat environment continues to evolve and continues to become more contested across the spectrum of conflict, low end as well as high end, our war fighters are going to need improved tools for battle space awareness and dynamic command and control. Where do you see these core Air Force functions going with respect to air and space capabilities? Let’s start with you.

Jamie Burgess:

Yeah. I’ve recently heard the modern battle space described as drowning in data and starved for information. And I think that Epic Fury was a great example of where the United States military, the United States Air Force won in the space of battle space awareness and the continuum of taking incredible amounts of data and turning that into useful information and battle space awareness that battle managers can use to make decisions. Yesterday, the chief said that the US Air Force flew on average 250 flights a day. You think about just the battle space command and control capability required to do that, clearly the United States military was dominant, and I think that was a major factor in success of both of those exercises.

But as we think about the future of battle space awareness, we think about potential future adversaries, potential future conflicts, I’m sure that there were gaps and lessons learned that came out of Epic Fury that we’re going to be applying in the future as we think about sort of multi-domain integration of sense and then command and control. And by multi-domain, I mean space all the way to the very forward edge of the battle space and being able to do that across domains effectively, fuse that data and get the information to the battle managers to make decisions.

Our ability to continue to rapidly develop capabilities and technology in that area, I think a lot about the use of artificial intelligence to bring all of that massive amounts of data together and make it useful information for battle managers to command and control airspaces and do what they need to do with all of the information from the sensing network that’s out there.

And then we also have to think about future adversaries and their ability to attack and degrade those networks, both the sensing networks and the communication networks and our ability to protect those and create redundancy throughout those networks so that we can continue to operate in degraded environments and get the information that we need to battle managers.

So I think those are the challenges that face us in the future. It’s an exciting space to be working in because there’s tons and tons of opportunity.

Maj. Gen. Gerald Donohue:

Certainly well said, your discussion about they’re drowning in data, but starved for information. As the Air Force and the joint force work on solving that battle space awareness piece for Air Mobility Command, critically important is bringing it to our aircraft as we alluded to on the connectivity piece. It remains our top priority.

And Epic Fury simply underscored what we already understood. We have to solve that problem and we have to do it quickly. In those instances that our aircraft were connected in Epic Fury, it proved absolutely decisive, countless examples of where that connectivity provided a very decisive edge to the joint force to ensure specific operations under the broader context were successful. And where we didn’t have it, it was just simply more challenging. We were successful, yes, but the things that we had to do to be successful in the absence of that connectivity, we can’t afford to have to do again in the future.

So as we solve battle space awareness challenges, and there’ll always be challenges, we’ve got to bring it to the mobility forces, to our airlifters, to our tankers in order for the joint force to be successful.

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

Yeah, great words. And I would echo that. This boils down to information, operations and the ability to have information, and we need to have the information and the data in the right places for the decision-makers to make sound decisions. And so I’ll put my J-GSOC hat on from a commander perspective in our air operation centers, for instance. The air operation centers need to be the nerve center of where the data is collected. We can then build in, bring in the AI, bring in all the new tools and stuff that are out there to help get us the right information as long as we have the data.

The next part of that is how do you actually get the [inaudible] on line of sight and how do you get the connectivity to the capability that needs to deliver the effect? Those are the two most important things that you have. You have to have the data and then you have to be able to get it to the effector. We saw that time and time again in Epic Fury. We were flying CONUS-to-CONUS missions. Between my three bombers, we average roughly 38-hour missions round trip.

In 38 hours in the dynamic battle space, information changes, the battle space changes, that information has to be… Well, once it has to be sensed, it has to be then brought back to a command center so decisions can be made and information pumped back into the cockpit. We cannot expect the cockpit operators that are flying each one of these airplanes to be able to sift through all that data. They just need to get the data so that they can employ effectively and come home, bring the aircraft back.

As we saw, even simple things like weather changes, weather pattern changes, we are flying bombers around the globe. The weather happens to change and it changes very, very frequently. In conjunction with Gyro’s team, a lot of times we were getting relays from the tankers on what the weather is because why? We don’t have the ability to pass those weather updates sometimes, that’s just with some of our aircraft.

Fortunately, we were able to actually bring in some urgent operational needs statements and we were able to acquire some capability within our bomber fleet that allowed us to use like a Starshield and Starlink type capabilities to pump that data into the aircraft and that made a huge difference. So when you start talking about the information space, Mark, this is where there are going to be career fields for decades that are going to live in this space and I applaud all of you that are working in that space because the operators absolutely need that information.

Mark Gunzinger:

Yes. And obtaining information dominance is a primary goal of China’s war fighting strategy and we have to think about that. And our ability to maintain our situation awareness and command and control of our forces over a very broad area is going to really depend on the resiliency of our systems of systems, which must be layered. We cannot depend on a single domain for AMTI, GMTI. We need airborne and service sensors as well.

So here’s another important question for the panel. We know our B-2 air crews completed incredibly challenging mission during Midnight Hammer. No other aircraft could have flown that mission, but I still think there are a lot of Americans that do not understand the B-2 bomber is now a 30-year-old aircraft, at least in terms of years, but not in terms of its capabilities. And so that’s a testament, the kinds of upgrades that B-2 has received over the years.

So panelists, what are your perspectives on the kinds of upgrades that will ensure our current generation of combat aircraft, non-stealthy as well as stealthy, will need to remain viable in future air campaigns? How much is continuous modernization important to maintaining a viable air force?

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

All right. Well, I guess I’ll start. That seems like it’s kind of my lane other than the fact that I’m not the A58 anymore, but from a requirements, where I derive requirements is right where this question really relies. And as I alluded to a little bit earlier in the modernization piece, we have a legacy bomber force. As you mentioned, our youngest bomber right now is over 30 years old. Our oldest bomber is over 70 years old. Our bomber fleet is aging, but that is not new to anybody in here because all of our aircraft are aging. But we are quickly modernizing and we’re doing the right things at the right place and time. So first and foremost, the platforms themselves. I touched on we want to make sure the connectivity is there so we can actually pass the data back and forth, to and from the aircraft.

The second part of it is, and I still challenge the community writ large on, we have to make sure that we’re designing weapons that fit some of these platforms. Instead of adapting weapons that are maybe in our inventory to these platforms, we actually have to design and utilize the features of each one of these aircraft. Like I mentioned earlier, the B-2 is incredibly capable today. Even at 30 years old, the way we maintain it, the way we fly it, the way it’s connected is still very, very viable. And we need to start looking at the right weapon apportionment and connectivity for that particular platform in order to maintain its penetration capability and still be able to hold the adversaries targets at risk.

And like Gyro mentioned earlier, providing options to the president. In a lot of these panels and a lot of the discussions, we don’t talk about our strategic mission area. The bomber force has to maintain a strategic mission, a nuclear mission that says we have to operate and be able to provide the necessary combat capability to the president anytime, anywhere. Whether it’s contested environment, whether it’s deep inside the adversary’s territory or not, we have to be able to have that capability available. And so we must continue to evolve and modernize that force.

We lean heavily on the defense industrial base in order to do that. Between Jerry and Jamie’s team at Boeing, we are doing that both on the B-1 and the B-52. Northrop has taken on a huge modernization side on the B-2 itself. And then of course we are really watching carefully how the B-21 comes on because we want to make sure that the capabilities that’s going to be able to demonstrate are optimized for the platform itself. So we’re huge into the modernization, so I appreciate the question mark and I’ll turn it over to Jamie.

Jamie Burgess:

Yeah. When I think about sort of long-term viability of legacy platforms, I think about the work we’re doing on B-52 and just the radar modernization program for one, but we call it the commercial engine replacement program. It sounds easy. You put eight new engines on a 65-year-old platform. That is a monumental challenge when you think about flying characteristics of that airplane, integrating that kind of new technology. It’s not just new engines, it’s new electrical power generation distribution, that’s a modernized cockpit in many ways.

The challenges of doing that on some of these legacy platforms are areas where industry, we are needing to lean more forward in terms of preparation for that type of modernization work. We spend a lot of time talking about things like digital engineering, new bomber platforms. The B-21 is going to be born digital. The B-52 is not at all. And the ability to sort of reverse that and back into a digital twin of some of these legacy platforms so that we can expedite the development and the integration of new capabilities, this is something that I think there’s a huge opportunity there.

Some of the challenges, just spatial integration, things like that, that we run into when we’re modernizing some of these more legacy platforms are areas where we can go out and get ahead of that so that we can speed up those efforts and get that capability into the fight much, much faster. So those are some of the things that we’re thinking about.

Maj. Gen. Gerald Donohue:

From my perspective, when we talk about Midnight Hammer in particular, most of the public attention focuses rightly on the seven extraordinary B-2 aircraft and air crew who penetrated and executed the mission. What most Americans, I don’t think, fully understand is the dozens and dozens of tankers that were necessary to make that happen, and the airlift which positioned those forces and others ahead of time. Really, when you think about bringing on new capability in the B-21, modernizing the B-52, modernizing the B-2 itself, that is for naught if we don’t keep pace with the tanker force and then ultimately the airlift force as well. We are going to face a future where we have a B-21 and an F-47 refueled by 70-year-old tankers. That’s an inevitability at the rate those systems are coming on, but we can’t stand for that. We can’t allow that to be the end game. We have got to modernize our tanker fleet.

And one of the reasons why we have mobilized the entirety of the Guard and Reserve in the tanker space is because of our planning assumptions based upon our aircraft and mission capability rates and what we have to do to ensure that we can meet every single ARCT and never leave the bombers or the fighters wanting. We have to have airborne spares, ground spares, all the things that are necessary when we have mission capability rates that decline over time as a consequence of aging platforms.

And the unsung heroes to me in many ways, certainly we’ve celebrated our maintainers, but also shout out to Air Force Material Command and the work that they’re doing through the program offices to sustain these systems. Ty and I get to tell you what we need, but they’re the ones who actually bring that to fruition with the defense industrial base.

So sizing is important for the size of the tanker force to meet the demands that the strike platforms will require, modernization with the connectivity we talked about, and then ultimately survivability that’s necessary at the last ARCT in an increasingly dynamic and challenged and contested operating environment. We’ve got to solve those.

And then fundamentally, regardless of the platform, we have got to be able to hit the objective mission capability rates, right? We need the spare parts, we need the defense industrial base to support those efforts in order to provide the president those options that Ty and I have talked about.

Mark Gunzinger:

Thank you, gentlemen. So we all know the aerospace systems continue to grow in complexity and in cost. So for Ty and Gyro, could you say a few short words about what you believe the Air Force needs industry today? And Jamie, could you follow up to talk a little bit about how industry is changing and is transforming to meet those needs?

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

Yeah, absolutely. First and foremost, it is about partnerships. We have to be in lockstep on each and everything we do. We have to be clear and concise on what the requirements are and industry needs to take and run with that and bring us the most combat capability that they have in their arsenal today. I mean, that’s really what it boils down to. We spend a lot of time with our industry partners, bringing them out on the flight line, sitting down at the tables, doing war games. This is a team sport. The primes, the subs, and all the new smaller companies and stuff that are out there that are interested in the defense industrial base, we need them to be partners with us in order to stay ahead.

Jamie Burgess:

Yeah, I would add 100% agree that the partnership is what absolutely matters most and it is the biggest enabler to getting capability in the hands of the war fighter faster. I think of some of the work, sir, that we’ve done on the KC-46 and some of the upgrades to the vision system for refueling, sort of changed the way we think about that development work, gotten teams together, operators, subject matter expert engineers, come to agreement on design upfront so we can get after the detailed design work and get it built and tested and out to the operators. Those are the types of partnership opportunities that we have going forward. I think there’s lots more opportunities out there to sort of rethink how we do some of that upfront work and get it out to the operator much sooner, much quicker and at much lower cost.

Maj. Gen. Gerald Donohue:

Well said. The partnership is extraordinary. The KC-46 win, it has performed marvelously in Epic Fury. We’ve made it a priority for the spare parts that are available and it has done extraordinary things and we’re excited about the future and the partnership that we’ve been able to leverage to bring that to fruition. It takes commitment certainly, right? It takes commitment on the part of the Air Force, on the part of the defense industrial base to see that through entirely.

As we modernize, being able to achieve the mission capability rates that we anticipate, that’s part of the sizing construct. If we aren’t able to, then we’ll never have enough. We could never have enough. So working together to bring that through is critically important.

And then understanding just how long modernization takes. We have to be clear-eyed about that. We are going to be recapitalizing tankers for decades. And in the interim, the same dedication to bringing on new platforms is necessary to sustain those that we have. The last KC-135 pilot has not been born. That is just a statement of fact when you consider the time it takes to modernize. And so we will have to sustain our legacy platform as well as our newest platforms and ensure that the joint force is supported by being able to execute the mission.

Mark Gunzinger:

So I did have a question on sizing the force, but I’d like to give each gentleman a minute to wrap up with their final thoughts. I will say that countless studies I participated in, war games and other analytic activities have pointed to the need to buy at least 200 B-21s in the future and to grow the size of our tanker force as well. Just as we designed our tanker and bomber force in the ’50s as a system of systems, I look at our tanker force, air mobility force and our long-range strike force as a system of systems. So gentlemen, Jamie, let’s start with you. Final thoughts for about a minute.

Jamie Burgess:

Yeah, like I said at the beginning, it’s just been an honor and a privilege from an industrial standpoint to be able to support the United States Air Force with Operation Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury. We talk a lot about developing and executing at the speed of relevance and there is nothing like a war to bring into focus what the speed of relevance really means. And there’s been some real partnership opportunities that I think industry in general has had to support the Air Force with rapid turn, I need this thing certified next week, not three months from now. We need to get parts from a factory out to the battlefield right away. Things like that I think are great lessons learned for how we can carry that forward when we’re not necessarily in wartime and continue the speed of relevancy concept going forward.

So it’s just been an honor to be up here with you two gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity.

Maj. Gen. Gerald Donohue:

I just want to say again, kind of finish where I started, which is the nation should be proud of its mobility Airmen, undeniably proud of what they’ve been able to accomplish, whether it’s in our global AOC, the 618th Air Operation Center, to our continued response or our global air mobility support structure en route system to ensure everything is positioned in time, we have set the theater. And then ultimately to the tanker air crew who made every one of the ARCTs to ensure that Ty’s team can deliver the desired effects.

We should all be proud of what that force is able to accomplish and recognize that fundamentally a total force. Air mobility command, active duty air mobility command simply isn’t sized to do it by itself, right? The partnership with Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard in this mission space is incredible to watch happen every single day. And I couldn’t be more proud than to serve alongside the total force. And so I thank them for their efforts.

Maj. Gen. Ty W. Neuman:

Yeah, I’ll start right there. Gyro, you mentioned it, this is a TFI effort. We did the same thing across my entire command. Every component of the force is TFI and couldn’t do it without the team.

I want to acknowledge the allies and partners that are here at AFA this week. It is always awesome to see you attend this event. And I assure you from the Mighty Eighth Air Force and Air Force Global Strike Command, we have your back. We are your long-range force. We are the free world’s only long-range strike force that can deliver combat capability.

And if you don’t believe me, look what happened over the last two years. The president goes to the bomber force each and every time and he knows he’s going to get the effects that he’s asking for. He has a B-2 that sits on his desk literally every day and he turns to it regardless of what he’s talking about. That means something. It means something to us and it means something to our adversary. And we are ready to start fielding the B-21 next year.

In the meantime, we’re going to work with the industry. We’re going to work with our partners in AMC, AFMC, the centers, our ACC, all of our MAJCOMs and our theater commanders to continue to deliver the world’s greatest long-range strike force anytime, anywhere. Thanks, Mark.

Mark Gunzinger:

Here here. So we’ve reached the end of our panel. I’d like to remind everyone in the audience and listening online today that you can read more about these issues at Mitchell Institute’s website under the publications tab. So thank you again to our distinguished panelists and more importantly, the men and women you lead every day. Let’s offer a final round of applause.