After many years of counting on major military hubs from Hawaii to South Korea, the Pentagon is laying the groundwork for more dispersed operations across the Pacific region.
Brig. Gen. Mike Zuhlsdorf is a key player in those discussions. He serves because the deputy director for resource integration under the Air Force’s logistics, engineering and force protection branch.
As other defense officials negotiate with foreign leaders for access to bare-bones airfields and more established bases overseas, it’s Zuhlsdorf’s team that is determining the best way to turn those sites into useful Air Force lily pads in a maritime-dominant region for the many years ahead.
Zuhlsdorf spoke to Air Force Times on the Pentagon on Dec. 15. This interview was edited for length and clarity.
Is the Air Force talking to other countries about using foreign bases that exist already, or are you considering constructing recent sites?
We are usually not putting in recent bases. These are bases and airfields that we’ve had since World War II, where we were in a position to hopscotch across the Pacific to ultimately get close enough to Japan. There are lots of airfields like that, whether it’s in the primary island chain — Japan down through the Philippines — or the second island chain, near Guam and Tinian.
We’re talking about renovating, rejuvenating and rehabilitating. We’ll ensure that the pavement remains to be viable, trim back the vegetation where the jungle has encroached on the runway, and arrange the fundamental essentials that we want within the event that we want to flush aircraft from a hub into these spokes, keep them secure after which turn them.
What do we want? Things like fuel; major aircraft parts that six to 12 airmen might have the ability to repair there; perhaps some munitions [and airfield repair resources]; the essential lighting or navigational systems for nighttime operations. A bit of little bit of base air defense may be a part of that, or camouflage, concealment and deception. Just about all the hubs may have a command, control and communication system that can fly in with them in order that we will maintain connectivity to the mothership in any respect times.
We’re working with allies and partners. Pacific Air Forces has identified airfields that we would like to take a position in, and so they’re going to work with the Philippines and Australia to do this. We’re teaming with them on some projects that can allow us to get fuel on the market, some munitions capability and other long-range transport aircraft that might are available and have the ability to resupply.
Which existing airfields are currently on the list?
There are more within the second island chain that we’re identifying. There are additional airfields which can be in Guam and a number of in the primary island chain that we’ll eventually get to.
What we’re attempting to do is nail down access and overflight stuff before a proper announcement would come out. Those which were within the press are those where we’ve already teamed with those countries. We’re working with other allies and partners in the world to secure that very critical access, overflight and basing.
[Editor’s note: A spokesperson for the Air Force’s international affairs branch declined to provide specifics about which countries the U.S. is in talks with to host air operations abroad.]
Will the Air Force expand Andersen Air Force Base on Guam or other areas on the island?
We now have projects for some hangars which can be entering into at Andersen, and at a few of the chosen hubs we would like to operate out of, perhaps a spoke or two — wherever we determine is perfect. We’re seeking to perhaps throw up a shelter system that permits us to safeguard critical equipment. We want to bear in mind the sustainment of all that equipment we pre-position, and so we’ll wish to put those right into a controlled-environment facility in order that when we want it, it’ll operate as advertised.
We’re also excited about protecting those hubs and spokes in order that the airmen, soldiers, sailors, Marines and guardians that we’re going to send on the market might be as secure as possible. There’s a giant threat from ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. We’re attempting to ensure that those airmen can turn those aircraft as advertised.
None of us who wear this uniform are on the lookout for war. Our job is to be prudent with taxpayer dollars, and what the American people want from us is to plan.
What’s the timeline to open these sites? How are you phasing them in?
Two to a few fiscal yr defense plans. We’re working through [which sites should be prioritized].
Is 10-15 years too long?
We’re going to see concrete stuff inside a [five-year] Future Years Defense Program and it should proceed to manifest through that point period. We’ve got some weapon systems within the queue — Next Generation Air Dominance, collaborative combat aircraft. It’ll occur in that window.
What are you learning from Air Force spokes across Europe that you simply’ve utilized in partner countries since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022? How are you applying those lessons to the Pacific?
It is a unique opportunity for us. We’ve been in U.S. Central Command, and with the ability to move pieces, parts, munitions, aircraft, personnel and every thing like that has been relatively uncontested. Yes, the Army has had some challenges there while you talk concerning the important supply routes, but generally it was not a contested environment. Ukraine is a contested environment, and logistics lessons that we learn are invaluable.
What are the critical pieces and parts that they need? How did they get these parts from location X to location Y? Did they use this method or that system? How did they pull the information? We’re rapidly getting to a knowledge analytics framework that’s going to permit us to visibly see what supplies and equipment we want. We’re going to have the ability to throw that up right into a basing and logistics data analytics environment that’s going to permit us to, as logisticians, work out where we want to place the subsequent aircraft part or the subsequent load of fuel.
Russia and Ukraine have lots of small unmanned aerial systems which can be impeding one another’s progress. How are they tracking those systems? How are they taking those systems down? How are they doing air defense for air bases? Those lessons are being gathered up.
What’s the proposed cost for Pacific basing projects in fiscal 2025?
We’re working through FY25. That’s a part of the resourcing our senior leaders are churning through at once.
There hasn’t been a profound change in counter-drone technology over the past several years. Where does that capability stand and what would you wish to see?
We’re probably still nascent. We literally just had conversations about this — throughout the last 4 or five months — about expanding and investing more in that very essential battlespace. There’s lots of research and lots of dollars which can be being applied to that problem set. You see that coming into play not only within the Ukrainian-Russian war, but in addition now with Hamas and Israel.
Are small drones a threat within the Pacific, despite the region’s significant size?
These are all islands, and so they all have an indigenous population. You may rest assured that there’s probably individuals who don’t like the US on those islands. A few of these smaller systems could absolutely impact an air tasking order. To guard the integrity of that air tasking order, we want to think through how we will get at that small threat, while other individuals are considering through those ballistic missiles and people hypersonic missiles.
It’s a full-spectrum air defense platform for an air base that we’re , together with the camouflage, concealment and deception program, electronic warfare, and all these bits and pieces.
What are the important hurdles to achieving this vision?
Certainly one of the massive problems will not be having a budget. When you concentrate on procurement lines that we want to arise and spend money on, we absolutely need Congress’ assist in getting a budget passed so we will get the capabilities that we all know we want.
There’s at all times the joint interoperability piece that we’re craving for, and the power to share information with our allies and partners. We’re attempting to work somewhat bit more aggressively on what information we will share with them, and what tactics, techniques and procedures we would have the ability to share. We’ve had success in Australia recently on some refueling efforts with the F-35 fighter jet. That’s a giant success.
We’re breaking down barriers where we will to ensure that that we’ve got the mandatory capability and that everyone understands what that’s. We’re sending people over to Japan at once to work with them even closer on exercises and on different weapons systems. Those are big barriers, but we’re overcoming them.
The threat that’s been posed to us during the last three or 4 years from the People’s Republic of China has galvanized lots of allies and partners of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. There’s an impetus for us to work even closer together moving forward.
What near-term spending is on the horizon?
We’re investing in pre-positioned assets. That features the kits with the tools and equipment which can be mandatory to do the upkeep on those aircraft. We’re investing in fuel bladders, within the renovation of the airfields, and within the airfield damage and repair equipment.
Take into consideration heavy equipment — mobile aircraft arresting systems. A few of that stuff we have now not placed on a production line in a protracted time. We’re investing in production lines to get that built and put in place inside this Future Years Defense Program. We’re investing in communication equipment that can allow us to do command and control.
We’re investing in our airmen with multi-capable airman training. The Air Force Expeditionary Center at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Recent Jersey, is putting together the curriculum that’s mandatory for us to coach our airmen and get them able to have a civil engineer do not only civil engineering work, but perhaps change a tire or load a bomb or refuel a jet or protect the bottom. It’s about investing in all those things which can be mandatory for us to get at a threat that, frankly, we just haven’t needed to take into consideration as much within the last 30 years.
Once I got here in, it was the Soviet Union, it was protecting the Fulda Gap in Germany. We learned lots of skills that were multi-capable back within the late Nineteen Eighties that we at the moment are dusting off. We’re going to use that to this near-peer fight.
Rachel Cohen is the editor of Air Force Times. She joined the publication as its senior reporter in March 2021. Her work has appeared within the Washington Post, the Frederick News-Post (Md.), Air and Space Forces Magazine, Inside Defense, Inside Health Policy and elsewhere.