Heather “Lucky” Penney: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Aerospace Advantage Podcast, brought to you by PenFed. I’m your host, Heather “Lucky” Penney. Here on the Aerospace Advantage. We speak with leaders in the DOD industry and other subject matter experts to explore the intersection of strategy, operational concepts, technology and policy when it comes to air and space power.

This week, it’s time for the Rendezvous. Our monthly look at what’s happening in Washington DC when it comes to air and space power, plus important national security trends we should be watching around the globe. We’re recording this on Monday the 27th, so if world events have developed since then, we’ll catch that on the next episode.

So we hope everyone had a good Halloween, but it’s time to get back in gear.

We’ve got a big group today and I’d like to welcome Sledge Harmer. Sledge.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Go Air Force. Beat Army.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Lazer Lazarski.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I will be at the game on Saturday.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: And as our listeners know, Sledge and Lazer are some of our Washington insiders. And we’ve also got our Dean, Lieutenant General Dave Deptula. Sir.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Hey, looking forward to our discussion.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Charles Galbreath.

Charles Galbreath: Great to be with you.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Great to have you Socks. [00:01:00] And our newest hire colonel, retired Kyle “Puma” Pumroy, of our Mitchell team.

Kyle Pumroy: Hi Heather, happy to be here.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So, Lazer and Sledge, we’re gonna start with you on the congressional update as we typically do. Where did this defense bill stand and what should we be tracking? Because the government is shut down and as we were talking before, it’s sort of the strangest shutdown we’ve ever seen. But does the legislative process still advance?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: It is the strangest shutdown I’ve ever seen. I think Sledge will probably agree. Offices are still open. Staff in the House and Senate are working, but except for the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, while work on the other bills to include the 26 appropriations bills are stalled. So the good news is the House and the Senate both passed their FY 26 NDAAs.

And the HASC and the SASC are informally conferencing, which is resolving differences between the House and the Senate, passed versions and informally, what we mean by that is A, the House and the Senate have an [00:02:00] officially appointed conferees to resolve, you know, so they can resolve the differences to have a formal conference.

And I don’t think they will, given the timeframe, I don’t think that they’re going to appoint conferees, but that’s okay. ‘Cause it can happen without that occurring. One of the items that the HASC and SASC are working on to resolve is the $32 billion difference between the two bills. Final conference is expected to increase defense authorization funding, uh, about I would say somewhere around 20 billion. And the reason why I’m saying that is ’cause Senate appropriators increased the the defense spending by 20 billion in their bill. A couple things that the HASC and SASC are wrestling with right now. As you guys know, we have acquisition legislation in there. Speed Act and Forged Act. And it, it’s not resolved, but they’re still working.

Some non-traditional defense contractor definitions and opportunities, uh, OTAs other transactional authority modification. Some commercial buying practices and then of course, [00:03:00] additional congressional oversight. They’ve also got some right to repair. And then it’s called the Gain Act, selling US chips to US companies first, and those are being actively worked.

And then there was, if you look at the Senate side, there was a whole bunch of additional legislation that was outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and they were cleared by the Senate, but they haven’t been cleared by the House, so they still need to get resolved. And the timing for the get all that resolved, there’s around, it’ll be around the first week of November. And their hope is so they can complete the NDAA sometime before the Thanksgiving recess with the current plan to try to get to the bill to the floor first week of December.

However, they’re gonna try to plan to get done early, so in case they need to call this bill to the floor before the Thanksgiving recess they’re gonna be ready. And on the approps side, like I said, everything’s stalled. And everything just remains in limbo due to the shutdown. And, you know, as we were discussing earlier, there’s really no end in sight.

The [00:04:00] house isn’t expected to return this week again. They’re on a 48 hour recall the House Appropriations Committee finished all their bills and actually had three to the floor, the Senate Appropriations Committee. So they still have four bills to complete, but each year, you know, we’re working toward a schedule to complete these bills by the end of the calendar year and with the shutdown I’m, I’ve lost optimism on that one.

I’ll stay optimistic. Maybe we can get these bills done by January, 2026. So, and then on the Senate side, if everyone watched the Senate tried to advance the Defense Appropriations bill on the Senate floor, but that failed. So the bottom line is we really don’t expect any movement on appropriations bill until the government opens up again.

I think once we open up, there are about six bills, six appropriations bills that I think we can get done. That’s not gonna be the defense appropriations bill. I think that’s gonna somehow get tied to healthcare, which is the reason why we’re not opening the government, and then most likely home, [00:05:00] homeland.

But it’s gonna be difficult. I’m gonna stay hopeful for some bills by the end of the calendar year, but I think we get kicked in the next year.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, the only thing I would add to that is there’s no pressure on members of Congress to open the government. Both sides are dug in until the dynamic changes the government’s gonna stay shut down.

That may come when the air traffic controllers no longer get paid and that snarls air traffic, the public’s gonna then I think, start contacting their members of Congress to do something. But really it’s a matter of what the leadership in both the House and Senate are gonna agree to, to move forward.

But, you know, as everyone remembers the clean continuing resolution that passed the House kept the government open to the 21st of November. That date is getting pretty close in the windscreen here. So, they’re either gonna do a short term or they’re gonna reopen and we’re gonna be right back at it again. Or we’ll probably see something that kicks a continuing resolution into early 2026 to give them time to work the approps bills that Lazer laid out so nicely.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Now, I understood that air traffic controllers are just like other [00:06:00] federal workers that are not getting paid. So they’re, they’re showing up to work, they’re not getting paid. So that’s already happening and those impacts are already being felt.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: They’ll miss another paycheck at the end of this pay period. Um, you know, the.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Tomorrow.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah. The Department of Defense jumped through hoops to reprogram RDTE funds to pay military payroll at the middle of the month. Whether they have the funds available or the questionable authority to do so. I mean, if at, at the end of the week if DOD misses a paycheck, that’s really gonna turn the heat up on Congress to do something.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. And that’s Title 10 members that are getting paid. It’s, there’s a lot of guardsmen that are not getting paid, a lot of reservists that are not getting paid. And the defense civilians are also not getting paid. So there’s really only a small subset. So I think it’s important for folks to understand how deeply this is affecting the federal workforce across the entire government. Being shut down, it’s in the headlines every day. We’ve talked a lot about it. What else are we seeing in reality?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah, I mean, I just picking up where both of you were discussing. So, you know, missing paychecks, getting furloughed, government offices [00:07:00] being closed, and I’m not gonna say who, but there is a Air Force second lieutenant that is really doing an awesome job, sort of running an entire organization right now because nobody else is in there, and they’re gonna be big kudos for that individual in the future.

And I’m, and I’m serious, I’m not joking about that.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. Put that bullet on your OPR.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yes. We will try. I’ve had the individual’s name. So because of Minimal Manning, so that impacts contracts, permitting, approvals, funding the contracts. And we’ve discussed this, travel cancellations meeting and conferences. You got one coming up in November. And hopefully that doesn’t get canceled, but some haven’t. We did AUSA, but no Department of the Army civilians had shown up. It still is a well attended conference. We were talking a little earlier about parks. I mean, some parks you get into some museums, but it’s been sort of odd, I guess, as we said at the very beginning but, public events. Here’s another one I, which I was really, you know, there are communities that support military installations. I know one that lost [00:08:00] tens of thousands of dollars on an event they planned supporting the military, which would’ve cost the military nothing, but they weren’t allowed to attend.

And that communities out money. So, and then Sledge, you know, talked about members aren’t hearing much from constituents on the shutdown. Each side truly feels emboldened by their constituents to hold their position, but the pressure, I believe, is gonna start mounting. This week we talked about our air traffic controllers, and if you look back at 2019 after the 35 day shutdown, they didn’t get paid and they didn’t show up for work.

There’s also SNAP programs. It’s a nutrition program and there’s WIC for Women, infants and Children, another supplemental nutrition program. Those are gonna run outta money. So, the only good news out there is behind the scenes as we always expect, there are small groups of Democrat and Republican members, working together to try to resolve this impasse.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. So I mean, I think one of the things that we saw in the headlines here from the military perspective was that JATM, the joint advance [00:09:00] tactical missile, has that development has been delayed. Is that because the RDT and E has been reprogrammed into, into personnel to be able to make those paychecks flow?

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I wouldn’t know if it’s a financial or if it’s just personnel. I mean, because that’s really the obvious is do they have the people that to execute the contracts, to do the tests scheduled. I mean, there’s a lot of moving parts there, but it’s probably all of the above.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. So I think we’re, we can probably anticipate that we’ll begin to see these kinds of impacts hitting other RDT and E programs, as well as defense procurement and so forth. So, ’cause there’s only so much that companies can do. On risk and at risk.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah. And the other thing I would add, you know, I think Lazer hit the high points there, but the US government currently does not have a SIBR program. That was a, that was an authority that expired at the end of FY 25. There was, there are, there’s some standalone legislation to reauthorized it. It was gonna be reauthorized either in the approps bill or as a rider to the NDAA. But if you’re a small business working through SIBRs right now there’s [00:10:00] no program. And it, uh, remains to be seen how that’s gonna ripple out over the course of the next few months.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. And Sledge, just for our folks that are out there that might not be familiar with SIBRs.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah. It’s a small business, innovative research. It’s a incredible program to get innovative technology from small companies at least in the pipeline and hopefully across the valley of death into a program or record.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, and it’s an important piece because it, it allows these small businesses and then partner up and have basically a mentor with one of the more established defense contractors. And so there’s a lot of goodness that goes on here. So if we’re looking at trying to grow the defense industrial base and be able to support some of these non-traditionals and new entrants, losing the SIBRs program has a, has a huge impact.

Switching topics, General Deptula we’ve spent a lot of time with Ukrainian officials as of late, and this has been a relationship that you’ve had for years now that you’ve cultivated for a long time and you’ve had a number of different trips over to Ukraine and we were proud to host one of their F 16 pilots here in the office, and it was an incredible discussion.

What are they doing with their F 16s. [00:11:00] They’re 40-year-old vipers and anyone who thinks that you’ll turn into a ball of flame the minute you launch it within proximity of an S 400 Ukrainians are proving us wrong. What were your main takeaways from all the conversations that we’ve had?

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Thanks, Heather for the question. My main takeaways from current discussions with Ukrainian pilots and their leadership center really on three main elements: innovation, adaptability, and strategic impact. First, I think the Ukrainians are demonstrating a level of innovation under fire that very few air forces have been forced to achieve. They’ve taken 40-year-old F 16s, initially built as Block 15s, which were then upgraded to the Block 20 midlife upgrade standard, and turn them into highly effective frontline capability.

As you mentioned, I mean, there are folks running around here that I think the S 400 and the Chinese are 20 feet tall and “oh my God, we’re never gonna be able to do anything, so therefore [00:12:00] we ought to revert to a totally standoff force.” Ukrainians are proving them wrong, and that’s nonsense anyway. We’ve never had to do that in the past, and we’ve always faced dramatic threats that we’ve overcome. But back to the Ukrainians. Without US contractors support, for example, without any formal training pipelines or any established tactics, techniques, and procedures that have been shared with them, Ukrainian pilots and maintainers have essentially written the playbook themselves. They’ve developed new tactics for survivability against systems like the S 400. I mean, I just got a note from someone the other day that they wiped out another one in Crimea. And they found ways to employ precision attack and defensive counter air operations with remarkable success.

Second particularly applicable to the United States Air Force, Ukraine’s defining what agile combat employment looks like in real combat. And yeah, [00:13:00] the US and our allies have discussed and exercise these concepts, but Ukraine’s living them every day. They’re operating from dispersed airfields frequently relocating and sustaining sortie rates under continuous missile and drone attacks. We ought to take a lesson from that. Look, despite Russia’s persistent strikes, using hypersonic missiles, that everyone over here seems to be petrified of, not a single Ukrainian air base has been destroyed or put out of action in nearly four years of war. That fact alone speaks volumes about the resilience and adaptability of Ukrainian airmen as well as the validity of properly executed a principles in real world conditions.

Third I think collectively, these efforts are having a strategic impact that extends beyond Ukraine’s borders. You just look at their success in [00:14:00] intercepting tens of thousands of Shaheed type cruise missiles. The Ukrainians are showing that with determination, innovation in the right tools, even a smaller air force can blunt the aggression of a numerically superior adversary. Finally the last thing I’d like to throw in there while you’ve given me the chance to talk is their experience is a living laboratory for modern air warfare.

Integrating air defense, electronic warfare, and dispersed operations in one of the most challenging threat environments imaginable. Unfortunately, US policy restrictions continue to prevent our personnel from directly observing or assisting in their operations, and that’s a huge self-inflicted missed opportunities.

The Ukrainians have proven they can effectively fight with limited resources and what I’d share with our audience is it’s way past [00:15:00] time to give them what they need to win. And part of that as evidence to us or brought to us. Of course, you’d expect this from the Ukrainian Air Force pilots is sufficient numbers of Block 70 F 16s.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Not the old ones and a commensurate supply of missiles. As well as sustainment for what they actually have and what they’re operating today. So giving ’em the tools and sustainment they need is not just an investment in Ukraine survival. It’s an investment in critical US security objectives as well as the future of Allied Air power.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. Critical US security objectives when it comes to Europe and NATO security objectives. But you know, when it comes to those Block 70, F 16s, it’s crucial that gets a approved now and that the, those contracts go out now because the F 16 line is scheduled to close here within about 18 months since Turkey canceled their F 16 by that line is at risk of closure. And so if [00:16:00] there’s gonna be any potential for FMS sales of new build F-16s, that needs to begin happening now.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah. The other point to make is, you know what, we might just end up buying some ourselves. If you look at the fight or flight plan for the future. Right now we’re planning on keeping the F-16s we have into the 2050s. That’s gotta change.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. And when you take a look at the F 16As that the Ukraines are flying, it’s a workhorse, right? They’ve got 20 aircraft, they’re flying five times a day. So I think it’s really important to understand that with the right sustainment, that those aircraft can be exceptionally operationally relevant and credible, especially against those advanced threats. What they’ve been doing with that smaller force against Russia, we can’t necessarily learn the wrong lessons, though we still need to have numbers when it comes to our security commitments and our security interests across the globe.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): And capabilities. That’s the other point to make. People, I’m it’s very frustrating to see the negative and the [00:17:00] incorrect lessons that are coming out of this conflict. Imagine what the Ukrainians could do if they had a wing’s worth of F 35s in with fully MR Capable pilots.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, no.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): This war would be over like in a week.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: And I did just jump in. I mean, I remember reading the article, one of the F 16, Ukrainian F 16s actually shot down five missiles, so four forward missiles and one with a gun on one sortie. December 6th, if I remember the date last year.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. Yeah.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): And you got pilots over there with over a hundred kills. Think about that. Of course, getting involved in an existential fight will drive your motivation to really high levels.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. TRS training rules, what’s that? I mean, these guys are do, are taking gunshots on Shaheds at night, right?

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yep.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Pretty sporty. Okay. So, Charles media’s reported that China’s, continuing their space investment and they’re doing it. They’re all in. Yeah. And we’ve contended that, uh, we’re in a new space race. [00:18:00] So it is kinda like back to the future, but this time with even more aggressive security implications.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, absolutely. So we, we talked about Russia and Ukraine fighting for its life. We talked about the United States still being in a government shutdown. China is pressing forward. With the delivery of their space capabilities, they’re not shut down. So there was a recent article in the National Defense Magazine that indicated that in 2025, they have in China has increased their launches by 30% over the previous year.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Wow.

Charles Galbreath: And doubled the number of satellites that they’re deploying in that same time. These satellites are a mix of remote sensing, so imaging or SIGINT collection, but also, communications capabilities. And as our own, Mike Dahm, was quoted in this article that China intends to have two, not just one, but two mega constellations. Think starlink. As a rival to Starlink, but also as a potential weapon system. I was at a workshop earlier in October and one of the China experts there commented on how [00:19:00] concerned China is about starlink and they think it’s an incredible weapon system. And so they are trying to replicate that and build it for themselves because they want to use it for offensive capabilities.

So the combination of remote sensing, communications, this really expands China’s ability to create this space enabled kill web. To extend their anti access area denial capabilities. And that’s something we absolutely have to be cognizant of.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So, you know, building on that, how is defense, impacting advancing the space economy, both here in the US or in in China?

Charles Galbreath: Yeah, it’s interesting. So defense launches make up a small portion of our total launches, but the amount of dollars coming from the defense industry going into the space sector is disproportionately large. Like 50% as opposed to the 9% of the launches that DOD makes up. So it’s an incredible impact that the defense sector has in our space economy. And I think it’s a key indicator for our leadership to make sure [00:20:00] that they’re tracking that and the influence that they can have on where the commercial sector develops capabilities and the types of systems that are fielded.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: I think especially as we look at China’s approach towards their national capabilities, civil military fusion, we have to keep that in mind as we move forward with our own space capabilities.

So Puma, welcome to the podcast. Good to have you here.

Kyle Pumroy: Thanks. Lucky. Happy to be here.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Alright, so Space Force is looking for orbital aggressors and you used to be in that business. So, talk to us about why that’s important and where the space force appears to be heading.

Kyle Pumroy: Yeah, and one of the aggressor mottos is once an aggressor, always an aggressor. So I can say as an aggressor, it’s incredibly exciting to hear the Chief of Space Operations General Saltzman talking about aggressor satellites in the future of Space Force training. And this is directly tied to the Chinese threat that Charles just talked about with the increase in launches. Some of those capabilities will also be space superiority satellites for China that can collect on our assets or put them potentially at risk.

So, to understand the importance here, I think the history and the [00:21:00] historical context is pretty relevant that the Space Force aggressors can trace their heritage and their lineage back to the Air Force aggressors. Which were created in the seventies as one of the responses to the abysmal rust fleet, two to one air to air kill ratio during the first half of Vietnam War.

So the famous Red Baron Report attributed those failures, in part to a lack of realistic, dissimilar air combat training, or DACT as we’ve heard about for our pilots. And then those findings led to the Air Force creating professional aggressors with dedicated aggressor squadrons and aircraft, which are then credited as an important contributing factor to our air dominance, ranging from Desert Storm to Operation Midnight Hammer.

So meanwhile, we’ve never had a war in space, and we don’t know with certainty what one will look like, but we do know that unlike the Vietnam War, our nation may never recover from a two to one kill ratio on orbit as that would lead to cascading effects that leave our kill chains broken and our terrestrial forces and homeland vulnerable to destruction.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, I mean, it would, it would utterly change [00:22:00] life as we know it because a kinetic operation in space would make that orbit unusable for decades.

Kyle Pumroy: Exactly. Potentially that could be the impact. So the Space Force has to learn these lessons before the fight. And just like the Air Force, they’ll do that with realistic training utilizing professional aggressors, which includes training in the live environment.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. So let me ask you about that, because one of the things that really surprised me, sort of, you know, not living in the space world is that basically everything a Guardian does. Is the JOB, it is the real life job. There’s very little training that they have access to because they’re operating space, constellations and capabilities all the time that we’re relying on. So without simulation, without the aggressors, how do they do this?

Kyle Pumroy: It’d be very limited without the aggressors and day to day, you’re not under threat and you’re not having those experiences. So we want to put them into those scenarios where they are going to fight a realistic adversary. And traditionally we’ve done that in [00:23:00] simulation and making virtual, but if we’re not operating in the live environment where the unforeseen happens, where the fog and friction set in, then we’re not really.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: You mean live, fly.

Kyle Pumroy: Exactly. We’re not learning those lessons that truly give us that, that combat edge. And so what General Saltzman has said is that just like the Air Force maintains some degree of air power for its aggressor forces, we need to do the same with satellites and make them available to our aggressor squadrons and not strictly rely on those simulations or white cards or whiteboards to learn our lessons so that we learn them before the fight.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So Charles and Puma, Space Forces is moving on from the proposed futures command, uh, walk us through their new vector and what Futures command was supposed to do and how they’ll reapportion those functions.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah. So I was sad to hear that futures command was no longer ’cause I was a big advocate for that because I’m always leaning forward to what’s coming next. Now the fact that they’re not gonna have a command focused on future aspects is does not mean that they’re not [00:24:00] looking ahead. Right? That function and those functions will still have to be done. So let’s talk a little bit about what some of those are. They have the Space War Fighting Analysis Center that’s looking out ahead to what’s the architecture we need, what’s the capabilities we need for the future in each of the mission areas. So that activity will still be done. Is that an acquisition activity to go under Space Systems Command? Well, not exactly. It’s not an operational capability. Maybe STARCOM, maybe it becomes a direct report to the headquarters staff.

We don’t know. Another aspect that was possibly going to Futures command is the S9. The analytic function. So that’s a staff analysis that will probably just stay on the staff, work very closely with the 5/8 community, as will the science and technology piece. So the 5/8, the resources and requirements.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Charles Galbreath: Right. The science and technology piece which when we stood up the Space Force, it was part of the CTIO, the Chief Technology and Innovation Office. That was gonna go to futures command. That will probably get rolled into the 5/8 community as well. And of course, the acquisition world has a huge [00:25:00] piece of coordinating with that technology side, both in the Air Force research labs and other labs, uh, as well as the universities and academia.

As an indication of the fact that these functions will still get done. The Space Force will be releasing in the near future, their 15 year plan. Looking at what the objective architecture is supposed to be. This is something that General Saltzman talked about at Air, Space, and Cyber conference. So we’re really looking forward to seeing what that objective architecture is gonna be. The real trick though, is making sure that whatever that objective architecture is and however it’s developed, that there’s a pathway to move that into technology development, into programs of record and into capabilities in the hands of war fighters. There’s multiple valleys of death that have to be overcome. If we had a futures command, they might be able to shepherd some of those activities, but now that’s gonna rest in the hands of multiple offices across the Space Force.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Interesting. So, Puma talking about future capabilities next generation of GSSAP. So G-S-S-A-P, first of all, what is it and what’s [00:26:00] shaping the new vector?

Kyle Pumroy: Yeah, so the GSSAP is the Geosynchronous Space situational Awareness Program, and its purpose is to observe other satellites in the geosynchronous belt to provide that watchful eye we need 22,236 miles away from Earth where we operate our high value assets ranging from missile warning, communications, protected communications, ISR among other missions. Prior to those first GSSAPs came on coming online about 10 years ago. The only way to observe other objects at GEO was either with different kinds of telescopes on earth or maybe with a low earth orbiting satellites, which we had very small numbers of, but none of that gives the persistence or the fidelity needed to understand the capability and intent of other nations satellites when they show up at GEO which left us incredibly vulnerable.

So GSSAP was a game changer, allowing us to conduct rendezvous in proximity operations or what we call RPOs with other satellites that allow us to approach another satellite gain observations and then maneuver off into another orbital slot. Allowing us to gain information on the [00:27:00] capabilities and limitations of an asset at GEO.

So GSSAP close some of that information gap, allowing us to know what is or isn’t might be a threat at GEO. And the key enabler to those RPOs. And to do that is fuel, right? ’cause we have to use gas to make those maneuvers at GEO. And that’s really the biggest planning consideration for GSSAP. We have to think through is the observation that we need with the fuel expenditure, because once the fuel is gone, then that mission essentially over for that satellite. And now the Space Force is talking about follow-on to GSSAP, what we’re calling the RG XX, which is.

Charles Galbreath: Reconnaissance, GEO right?

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So talking about the GSSAP, I mean maneuver with regret, right? Without any kind of refueling capability. Once you use it, you lose it.

Kyle Pumroy: So the truly remarkable thing about RGXX is that in the request for proposal RFP, these satellites are to be equipped with the ability to be refueled on orbit. And so, I know the space community has talked about this for years, about a future where we’ll have refuelable satellites, but this is the first time in my [00:28:00] knowledge, we expect to see that requirement in an RFP. And so that’s really a game changer and a result of the changing character of the war fighting domain impacting our acquisitions and our requirements on our assets. Because if we gain that, then one, we have less regrets in those maneuvers and have it life extensions, and then we can build upon what we learn with RGXX to other capabilities that then add to our resilience and our flexibility on orbit in a very contested, domain at GEO, which becomes, key terrain during a fight in space.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Okay. So back to Army. Fomo, right? I mean, they’ve, they’ve tried to get RPAs, long range strike. I mean, they want their own mobility aircraft and, uh, but now they wanna build their own mini space force. So, gentlemen, uh, what are the latest developments on this front and pros and cons?

Charles Galbreath: So, as our listeners might remember, Jen Reeves and I did a couple of op-eds last year that created a debate with the army.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: It was a little bit of a stir. Yeah.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): They were magnificently [00:29:00] well done. I might add.

Charles Galbreath: Well, thank you, sir. But here we go again. The army. Well, so first of all, during government shutdown, they were able to successfully hold their

Heather “Lucky” Penney: industry days?

Charles Galbreath: Their industry, well, their Army.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Oh, oh. AUSA.

Charles Galbreath: AUSA, they were able to do that. So, let’s make sure that, uh, the Air Force and Space Force can do the same thing. That’s number one. Number two, so what did they say? They said that, for the first time, counterspace capabilities are making it into the top priorities of the Army. Why do they need this? They believe, rightfully so, that it will be important to interdict and stop an adversary from utilizing space to target their soldiers. They stop there, but it’s also our airmen, our sailors, our marines, any fielded forces, and our allied partners as well. So how do we stop the adversary from using space? Well, the Army wants their own space capabilities ’cause they don’t trust other services to be able to work in a joint environment.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Wait a second. What does that say about [00:30:00] accepting the notion of jointness?

Charles Galbreath: Not a lot.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah. Well, I know actually I think it does say a lot. It says that the army doesn’t really believe in it. They pay lip service to it because where they’re putting their money, crosses service roles and missions lines, and they’ve not been held accountable. So when’s the leadership of the Department of Defense going to hold them accountable?

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, it’s not only the land grab that they’re making. Pun intended. they’re going after core rules and missions of the Department of the Air Force, which, you know, now incorporates the Space Force. But also they’re not holding their end of the bargain of what they provide to the rest of the services.

Charles Galbreath: The, so what what it tells me is the Army believes that all of the other missions that they have are so well taken care of, that they can now start to do other people’s missions as well.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Nice point.

Charles Galbreath: And what we need to do is if the all of the services, the Department of War leadership within the Pentagon says, you know what? We need all of the services to have [00:31:00] some level of Counterspace capabilities. If that is an agreed to position, then great, let’s develop those capabilities in a joint fashion so that we minimize any duplication of effort that isn’t planned. We avoid the possibility of paying for the same weapon system twice.

And then when it comes time to operationally employing these things, they’ve gotta be done in a coordinated fashion through US Space Command. Now, when we did our papers, our articles last year, US Space Command said, “you know what? I need capability. I don’t care where it comes from. I need capability.” And that’s absolutely right.

But we need to make sure that when we develop them and when we field them. And operate them, they’re done in a coordinated fashion so that we not only de-conflict activities and development mm-hmm. But also synchronize our efforts to make the most of our taxpayer dollars and the effects that we can generate with them.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well, and part of what I care about is you have the ability to integrate, right? I mean, so when two services develop the redundant capability, oftentimes not only are they overlapping, so it’s kind of a, it’s wasted resourcing, but they can’t coordinate the can synchronize ’cause they’re not integrated with standards and [00:32:00] pre-planned connectivity.

Charles Galbreath: Right. So there has to be this integrating function that says, here’s what each of the services can do and here’s where those lines in the road are, and so that we can develop our capabilities appropriately.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: So speaking of integration, General Deptula, Air Force’s integrated capabilities command is no more. So this function’s now going to be moved into the A5/7. What was the ICC all about and do you think this development is the right direction?

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): First, Heather, for our audience and those who may not be as familiar with the Integrated Capabilities Command or ICC here’s a bit of background. It was created in provisional form in 2024 is part of the Air Force’s effort to reoptimize for great power competition. A term that’s now on the outs use to meet current threats and growing threats. Its purpose was to unify capability development, force design and modernization [00:33:00] priorities across the service and breaking down the stove pipes that often separate strategy requirements and acquisition along major command areas of responsibility.

If you’ve been around the Air force, a long time, you understand that. What the ICC aimed to do is to deliver integrated solutions across all the various mission areas rather than isolating systems, while at the same time providing a coherent demand signal to industry that they desperately need, as well as accelerating modernization in the face of you know, our increasing set of threats from China and Russia.

Now, recent decision to fold iccs functions into the A5/7 under a chief modernization officer actually reflects a modification, or if you want to call it an evolution, rather than a complete abandonment of that vision. I think the intent remains the same, [00:34:00] and oh, by the way, this has been an issue for decades.

And that’s to align future force design and capability development under an integrated framework. Now what the change does is it eliminates an additional command layer. One could say that adds speed to the decision making process and duplicate, reduces duplication with other major commands and air force futures efforts. But I gotta tell you, the devil’s in the details. But to summarize it I view the move as a positive development with a caveat that it needs to be executed correctly. The Air Force recognized that creating another three star organization might have added bureaucracy when agility is really what’s needed most.

Embedding iccs mission within the A5/7 may streamline the processes and clarify the importance of mission integration. But what [00:35:00] doing this does is it doesn’t negate important major command inputs, and that was a concern of the MAJCOM commanders with the standup of ICC. And you put in doing that, you had put an enormous amount of power in the commander of the iccs hands. So selecting the right person for the job is extraordinarily important, which is true, with life in general, leadership matters. So ultimately I think success is gonna depend on culture more than structure. The Air Force needs to continue to think in terms of integrated a mission effects and rapid decision cycles.

So if A5/7 can deliver on those goals, this shift will strengthen the service’s ability to integrate desired effects. And that’s what the ICCs original purpose was, a more effective set of planning perspectives in an integrated fashion than it’s ever had before.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: I’m glad you brought up the issue of the [00:36:00] MAJCOMs ’cause that was one of the concerns that I think broadly folks had about the ICC was that it was gonna cut the MAJCOMs out of really developing their requirements and saying what they needed. So, I think I agree with you, sir, that moving the ICC to the A5/7 should overall be a positive and help us bridge to the future because it doesn’t negate the MAJCOMs.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): It does put a lot of pressure on whoever the new A5/7 gonna be.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, that’s true ’cause you have to be able to do that wing walking type strategy, have a vision for the future that’s obtainable and meets our requirements and at the same time is able to get there and hedge risk from today’s force to that future force.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): And take a perspective that pays attention to inputs Air Force wide, not just his or hers personal preferences.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. So good news, Sledge and Lazer is that we’ve heard that Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota is going to be transforming into a test range for small UAS defense efforts. The runways being rebuilt right now. So folks are taking advantage of this [00:37:00] period to explore some of these new defense developments. What are your thoughts on this?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I’ll jump in first. Great news. Fully support the effort. I, you know, and everybody on this call, anybody listening to this podcast. The fact that we have very few ranges that we can do any of this stuff and matter of fact, we still have problems anyway for counter UAS, but try to book one of these ranges, try to get on there, and then when there’s slippage and we don’t have time to wait months or a year to get on a range to test the capability.

So this is outstanding and we’ve known, and we’ve discussed this, you know, all it takes is one person putting a, some sort of a small weapon on a UAS and flying it into a stadium is gonna wake everybody up. So North Dakota, great location. Having one range, one service gets into what we’re talking about.

Space. One federal agency working with a limited number of contractors isn’t gonna solve the counter UAS problem. I mean, this is a great step, but it’s a national security issue that cuts across services and federal agencies. You have FAA, FCC, Homeland [00:38:00] Security, Department of Defense. So we have airspace safety issues. We have, electronic mag electromagnetic spectrum issues. We have, US, you know, so DOD Homeland here in the conus. And then of course, across the globe. I am interested to see what happens with the joint Interagency Task Force 401. We’ll have to see if they can go ahead.

Their job is supposed to, improve cooperation between DOD federal agencies, but it really is coming down to counter UAS as a policy issue. And, and even up at Grand Forks, did they have the policies they need to go ahead and execute the counter UAS testing that they want to do? Do they have the approvals from the FAA or approvals if they’re gonna be broadcasting either from a high powered microwave or lasers, do they have those authorities to go ahead and do those up there? It’s capability issue. We need different types of systems out there and it’s multi-service, multi federal agency. So how do we all work together? And then [00:39:00] really the bottom line and Sledge brings us up all the time. It’s funding. So, yeah, we need to go do this, but how do we go ahead and get the funding? But this step right here, I think is gonna be outstanding. We gotta help make sure that they have all the things in line with FAA,FCC, DHS, DOD to go ahead and make that range work.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah, I, I agree with Lazer a hundred percent on that. I mean, anyone that’s serious about forest protection cares about this issue. They’re losing sleep. This is a good step in a more comprehensive solution to the problem. They’ve got a lot of great support from the North Dakota Congressional delegation they have for years. The first thing that popped into my mind though, and Lazer hit on this when I read about this, was, okay, how are they gonna get authority to operate, authority to radiate? And that’s really, it’s the bureaucracy that’s slowing us down. And I hope we I hope we can take advantage of the threat to, to go faster.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: And I’ll just say the very end, it, Congress is moving in this direction. FAA is moving it slow, but I think [00:40:00] that they’re waking up.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: I’m jumping on the train here because I do agree that this is absolutely crucial and oftentimes we think about counter UAS lots of folks think about expeditionary operations, but we’ve got to be able to do that within the homeland as well. So this should be part of our layered defense when we think about what Golden Dome and Integrated Air Missile Defense is gonna be in the future. This counter UAS piece is a crucial element. And so, you know, Lazer as you mentioned, we’ve gotta get the policy on board, and then we’ve gotta think through the entire F2T2EA include the battle management.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Well, here’s another thing for you. What’s critical infrastructure?

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yes.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I mean, how do we ident? Because everything can’t be critical, right?

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah. And so you have to be able to choose. And it’s interesting, we also know that in Ukraine, private entities are taking control over their own counter UAS operations. And so if you don’t have that coordination across the federal government and develop those relationships with private entities as well, you could end up with unintended consequences.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah. You know, I just throw in real quick here what the discussion reminds me of how private firms are taking care of [00:41:00] their own cybersecurity.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): I mean, it’s very analogous.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Except that you could have unintended consequences if you are radiating and emitting an open airspace as small aircraft or commercial aircraft fly over. So there does need to be an understanding of the capabilities, and there does need to be a coordination and deconfliction for, in order to be able to allow that to happen because cybersecurity is defensive. Although counter UAS is defensive, it does have that sort of offensive piece to it.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: I’d be more concerned about, somebody sitting out at a long chair with a six pack of beer at a 12 gauge. I think probably.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: A valid UAS defense.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Well, you know that, that’s never happened before.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): It is, it is interesting.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: General Deptula we’ve heard about general officer reductions for about a year, and we’ve seen the first one take shape. USAFE went from a four star to a three star. What are your thoughts on both transforming, Air Forces Europe to a three star and the broader geo reduction?

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Yeah, Heather, it’s a great question and [00:42:00] deserves a little bit of a discussion. I, you know, the intent behind Secretary Hegseth’s decision to reduce the number of four star generals in the US military was to streamline the force. Was to flatten bureaucracy, and it was a focus on improving efficiency. But what I would suggest is the guiding principle in doing that should be war fighting effectiveness, not just administrative efficiency.

It’s important to recognize and, you know, let’s be candidly here that not all four star billets are created equal. Some are largely managerial or institutional. While others are critical war fighting commands that carry not only operational authority, but also global influence. There’s a book written about that. Not, well, it’s been 20 years ago now, but, and forgive me, I’ve forgotten the name of the book, but the position of Commander US Air Force in Europe [00:43:00] and Air Force is Africa is a case in point. That billet also carries responsibility as NATO’s Allied Air Command Commander, meaning that individual leads the air and missile defense for all NATO nations and would command Allied Air operations during wartime.

Downgrading that position from a four star to a three star doesn’t just reduce a star. In fact, it weakens US leadership within NATO and it’s a serious blow to American influence and deterrence. So it doesn’t move or put America first, it starts to move America into the background. Our service component commanders to combatant commands are the leaders responsible for preparing, and if necessary, fighting and winning wars alongside our allies.

So what I’d suggest is strategic leadership isn’t just about competence, [00:44:00] it’s also about credibility. Allies and adversaries alike measure that credibility in part through the rank and authority of the leaders that we place in these positions. So, in a time when the US is facing the greatest threats it’s ever faced before, when deterrence depends on visible and confident leadership, downgrading key command billets sends the wrong message.

So at the end of the day, we’ve gotta ask, does this change make us more or less capable of fighting and winning our nation’s wars? If the answer is less, then no efficiency gain is worth that cost. Peace comes through strength, not through cutting leadership where it matters most.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Sir, you had a couple mic jock moments in there. I hope folks were listening,

Okay, so gentlemen, final question. JV released a report in September highlighting the need for more investment and procurement and readiness. So he, he [00:45:00] highlighted research and development as a source to offset resources in addition for calling for more top line investment. And CNAS, the Center for New American Security, has now joined this course.

What are your thoughts, because research and development has outpaced procurement for quite some time now, General Deptula, Lazer and Sledge, be particularly interested in your thoughts.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Okay. Well, Heather, these reports underscore a critical and growing imbalance in defense investment priorities. Look, we poured extraordinary resources into research and development at the expense of procurement and readiness, and the result is an undersized, aging, and less capable force.

Don’t get me wrong, innovation is absolutely essential, but it only adds value when it translates into operational capability. Balance is called for, but right now I’d suggest too much of our budget is tied up in R&D while our current combat forces were in a death spiral. The Air Force is smaller today than at any [00:46:00] point in its history, and that trajectory is accelerating as requirements outpace new acquisitions. Look, even during the technological boom of the eighties, when we developed the F1 17, the B 2, the F 15, new ICBM, so on and so forth, R&D never exceeded procurement. Today, the department of the Air Force is spending 28% more on R&D than on buying aircraft. That imbalance is unsustainable. We risk having the world’s most advanced technology still sitting on the drawing board when we need it the most. Simply put, we can’t research our way to deterrence. Deterrence depends on forces that are ready, modern, and available today.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Amen. You’ve got to field what you develop, and you can’t sacrifice procurement for the R&D.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Yeah. I, if I could jump in there. Just one thing on, on the point about having advanced technology, not by, not fielding [00:47:00] anything. I was probably 30, 35 years ago, I read a short story by Arthur C. Clark called Superiority, which is absolutely fantastic. Where the defeated General says, the fact that we lost wasn’t because we had inferior technology, it’s because we spent so much money developing technology that we couldn’t field and we were eventually overwhelmed by the enemy.

I think that’s still a lesson out there. But back to the studies, I thought both of those were very, very well done. JV obviously a little more prescriptive in what the remedy is there. But this is, we’ve been banging our spoon on the high chair over this issue for quite a while in this forum here. And I think the point, the takeaway here is at some point you’ve gotta buy stuff. And if you do that, you do, you address your readiness and moderation problem. But I think you also fill a lot of the holes in the defense industrial base and that’s really what we need to look back to rebalancing this. The way we spend money.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Yeah, I’ll say this again, is that industry doesn’t make money. They can’t survive on research and development. If we want a robust and healthy defense industrial base, we have to be able to buy. That’s [00:48:00] really where they’re able to generate the revenue they need to sustain it and do their own irad. And additionally to, to that, I would say we’ve got to get the pass through out of the Air Force procurement funding. We’ve got to get it outta the Air Force budget writ large, because that is taking up over 40% of the Air Force’s procurement budget. And that’s also part of the problem. Lazer?

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: Yeah. Well, 2022 Sledge, you sent that group of us. I have sent that short story to everybody. I know. I agree with you. I think it’s a must read. You can’t fight a war with a drawing, with a PowerPoint presentation or a promise of new technology. There needs to be a, as you guys said, needs to be a balance between iron on the ramp and the develop of new systems. Deterrence, right? Requires both the capability to engage and the willingness to use that capability of challenge. And our adversaries have to believe that we have the means to inflict costs and are willing to do so. And you can only do that with weapons systems fielded.

Charles Galbreath: Yeah. I absolutely [00:49:00] agree with everything you’ve you’ve all said, and it’s important to know where you are in the story. Right? So for the Air Force, absolutely. You have to do the, that procurement. For the Space Force, the r and d. Percentage is even higher. And why is that important right now? Well, we need to develop new capabilities and we need to broaden the industrial base. That’s, that’s an important way to do that is through R&D.

But I hope Space Force is listening because they have to know that at some point we’ve gotta be able to transition to procurement and develop at scale for the depth and capacity that we’re gonna need for the war fighting systems that we’re developing. It’s gotta get past that other valley of death to a full up system, and it’s just something that we have to be planning for so that we don’t find ourselves in the same position on the Space Force side.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: Well folks, thank you so much for making the time today. It’s all we’ve got for now. We hope to see you next time on The Rendezvous.

Lt Gen Dave Deptula, USAF (Ret.): Hey, thanks Heather. Here’s hoping that for our next rendezvous, our government will be back at work.

Charles Galbreath: Thanks, Heather.

Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski: I will echo General Deptula.

Todd “Sledge” Harmer: Thanks again [00:50:00] and see you next time.

Kyle Pumroy: Thanks Heather. See you next time.

Heather “Lucky” Penney: With that, I’d like to extend a big thank you to our guests for joining in today’s conversation. I’d also like to extend a big thank you to you, our listeners, for your continued support and for tuning into today’s show. If you like what you heard today, don’t forget to hit that like button or follow or subscribe to the Aerospace Advantage.

You can also leave a comment to let us know what you think about our show or areas that you would like us to explore further. As always, you can join in on the conversation by following the Mitchell Institute on X, Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn, and you can always find us@mitchellaerospacepower.org.

Thanks again for joining us and have a great aerospace power kind of day. See you next time.