The 31 MXG’s Preparation for the Future Fight Published Aug. 8, 2025 By 1Lt Kenneth L. Davison III “Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur.” Italian Air Marshall Giulio Douhet Great Power Competition: The Future Fight Civilian and military leaders emphasize that we are in an era of Great Power Competition unseen since the Cold War. The National Defense Strategy clearly lays out who the current adversaries are: The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs).[1] These countries and VEOs have grown closer in recent years through trade, sharing of technological innovations, defense treaties, war game exercises, and weapons supply.[2] The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have forced them to become even more dependent upon one another, especially Russia, North Korea, and Iran, due to their increased economic and geo-political isolation.[3] Each of these countries and organizations exhibits territorial ambitions beyond its borders, evident in Russia's actions in Ukraine, Iran's proxy wars with Israel, North Korea's threats toward South Korea, and the PRC's claims on Taiwan and the 10-dash line.[4] This new Axis is widely different in their specific goals and are more adversarial than traditional alliances, but they are united in that they want to overthrow the U.S.-led world order and will work together for that end. As experienced in both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war between Iran and its proxies versus Israel, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and VEOs are changing, innovating, and adapting through necessity.[5] The PRC is changing by design to meet its goals in gaining control of the South China Sea and Taiwan.[6] If the U.S. does not change to meet the threats of the current GPC environment, it will continue to lose the ability to promote American influence and defend our national interests. The U.S. Air Force’s Response to the GPC Environment To effectively navigate the current Great Power Competition (GPC), the U.S. must heed General Patton’s advice: “Do not try to make circumstances meet your plans. Make plans that fit your circumstances.” The U.S. must keep pace with the current GPC, or in the words of former Air Force Chief of Staff General Brown: “Accelerate Change or Lose.” The current Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Allvin, has adapted a strategy of follow through on the “Accelerate Change or Lose” initiative the key part of which is Mission Command. “Mission Command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based on Mission Type Orders.”[7] The new Axis is geographically spread out in multiple theaters of operation and the PRC has developed weapons technology that can be disruptive to communications. Both factors will increase the fog of war and challenge U.S. Command and Control. Mission Command gives the American military the ability to continue the fight regardless of how spread out the force is and if communications are limited. General Dempsey in his paper Mission Command argued that Mission Command is not a new concept but that the “the conduct of mission command requires adaptable leaders at every echelon.”[8] This adaptability must be developed and trained over time. For this reason, using Commander’s Intent, the 31st Maintenance Group executed on the Air Force Chief of Staff’s vision by transforming the group’s culture from a strictly compliance-focused unit to a mission focused organization through the use of Mission Command. Mission Command Components for the 31 MXG The 31 MXG has developed five key components of Mission command to ensure its effective implementation: Clear Commander’s Intent, clear communication of Intent, delegation of authority to the appropriate level, mindset embodiment at all levels, and operational discipline/integrated risk management. Clear Commander’s Intent Clear Commander’s Intent, while conceptually simple, is the single most crucial component of Mission Command. If there is no clarity on the desired end-state for a particular mission, there is no way for Airman to execute effectively. Commander's Intent should be focused, avoiding both ambiguity and excessive specificity that risks becoming micromanagement. It should provide clarity while offering enough detail regarding appropriate actions, depending on whether the MTO originates from the Group or the Squadron. One way the 31 MXG has made intent clearer is with the inclusion of Objectives and End-States in MTOs. An example of said objective end-state set-up is the following from an MTO for January 2025: Objective: Maintain safe, secure, and reliable munitions stockpiles. End-State: Munitions stockpile ready for any theater/NATO tasking.[9] This organization style gives the “why” as well as clear intent for what mission accomplished looks like for the Munitions Squadrons of the 31 MXG. These MTOs, which are drafted every month, include objectives and end states for every squadron within the group. This gives each squadron the ability to see how everyone’s mission set fits into the bigger picture and allows for more crosstalk and understanding within the organization which results in further clarity on commander’s intent. Clear Communication of Intent The MTOs format enables streamlined communication, cascading from squadrons to flights and sections. The format allows for the squadrons to easily pick out what pertains to them and quickly and effectively translate an intent to subordinates. Also, there are weekly steady state meetings where squadron representatives can communicate whether intent is unclear or ask for clarification on certain points. Ultimately, clear commander’s intent and clear communication of said intent go hand in hand. Effective communication of Commander's Intent is therefore paramount, as any ambiguity can thwart mission success and potentially jeopardize operational effectiveness. Delegation of Authority to the Lowest Competent Level The 31 MXG has taken several actions to push authorities down to the lowest competent level. In day-to-day operations the Group has pushed a series of authorities, some of which are impoundment release and approval to take parts off the cannibalized aircraft.[10] Moreover, the 31 MXG has executed multiple exercises simulating realistic ACE movement scenarios where logistics and maintenance capabilities were constrained, and authority was delegated to the lowest possible level. A feature of exercises Purple Reign, Starved Wyvern, and Agile Giant was that maintainers would use their aircraft system knowledge to make calls to determine whether they should employ smart risk to fix or not fix a discrepancy on an aircraft while communicating the risk to the pilot. The pilot then determines whether they want to accept the risk or not. In a wartime scenario, there may be few officers and senior enlisted to oversee and manage the fog of war. The Air Force will have to trust its subject matter experts to make the right call and execute the mission. The transferring of appropriate authorities allows Airmen to exercise smart risk while demonstrating leadership trusts them. Mindset Embodiment To prepare Airmen for Mission Command, the 31 MXG/CC issued a "Letter to Airmen" on February 29, 2023. This letter outlined how the 31 MXG is adapting for future operational challenges. “To address these challenges, we will delegate authorities to the lowest competent level, embrace smart risk, and REMOVE LAYERS OF SUPERVISION through implementation of Mission Type Orders (MTOs).[11] Exercising these elements requires cultivating critical thinking skills and empowering maintainers. They need the freedom to practice informed risk-taking and develop innovative solutions without being stifled by bureaucracy. One of the ways the 31 MXG has tried and reinforced this mindset is through Advanced Personnel Evaluations (PEs). In these PEs, QA gives specific scenarios to technicians to allow them the opportunity to use experience and knowledge of their system to critically think through a problem and come to a solution. These scenarios are often through the lens of a wartime situation with limited availability of parts and equipment. For example, one of the Advanced PE’s had Crew Chiefs must find a way to get a jet back to Fully Mission Capable status within 72 hours. The F-16 had to do a post-phase engine run but there would not be a necessary Digital Flight Control Computer (DFLCC) available for 36 hours, which would not give the technicians enough time to get the jet ready within the 72-hour window. To solve this issue the technicians applied system knowledge and experience to design a solution for all the tasks that didn’t require the DFLCC in the interim. While this scenario was simple, advanced PEs are simple way to allow technicians the opportunity to think critically by presenting smaller tactical obstacles. Exercises Purple Reign, Starved Wyvern, and Agile Giant presented larger tactical problems that tested the squadrons’ ability to execute partial ACE movements and were opportunities for Airmen to adopt this problem solving, adaptive, and risk-aware mindset. In exercise Agile Giant the scenario was set up as a reactive ACE movement with 3 HH-60s, 9 personnel, and only as much equipment as could be fit in the helicopter’s cargo area and a 6 PAX truck. The exercise lasted for an alert period of 96 hours.[12] The scenario is based on real missions the 56 Rescue Generation Squadron may be called on to perform as well as challenging everyone involved, forcing cargo and personnel prioritization as well assessing the RGS’s capabilities in an austere situation. Advanced PEs and the exercises provide practical ways to get Airmen to embody Mission Command at both the individual and team levels, but the likelihood of Airmen taking that mindset outside of these environments is limited to buy-in from leadership. A large part of this mindset shift falls on leaders giving their SMEs outlets and opportunities to execute without layers of approval. Maintenance leaders also must ensure their people understand that no disciplinary action will be taken for properly communicated smart risk. The necessary risk averse culture that currently exists within maintenance is due in large part to the fear of repercussions from leadership. Therefore, achieving a genuine mindset shift within the organization necessitates full and visible leadership commitment to this new approach. Operational Discipline/Integrated Risk Management When pushing authorities down to the lowest competent level and utilizing smart risk, it is important to not forget risk management and operational discipline. The Air Force Chief of Staff has emphasized this component of Mission Command stating, “Combat operations and training are inherently risky…We must train Airmen at all levels how to approach those actions smartly with risk management skills.”[13] The 31 MXG/CC’s “Letter to Airmen” clearly emphasizes what these changes are not intended to be. The letter cautions against confusing this cultural and mindset shift with lawlessness, stressing that smart risk prioritizes Airman safety. Furthermore, it emphasizes that smart risk is grounded in technical data and operates within a culture of professionalism and accountability.[14] The exercises mentioned previously were opportunities for Airmen to practice risk management and communication of risk in a controlled environment. There were also pre-established rules for communication, risk acceptance, and discipline maintenance. In Purple Reign, a switch for the flight controls was flickering intermittently. Using system knowledge and technical data, the technician was able to show the pilots that the flight controls were working correctly and that it was only an indication issue. The operators accepted the risk and flew the aircraft several more times in what would have usually been a grounding condition.[15] In exercise Starved Wyvern an F-16 landed with an instrument landing system glideslope inoperative. Avionics technicians using system knowledge were able to save valuable time and pinpoint the problem without having to dig through the Fault Isolation Tree, a process that can be quite lengthy, allowing it to be fixed.[16] Both these examples were the norm throughout these exercises and proved that accepting smart risk does not need to come at the cost of disciplined quality maintenance. Conclusion One of the most decisive advantages the U.S. has always had over its adversaries in any conflict is the ability of members at every level to critically determine the best way to execute the mission without having to be told how. General Patton famously said, “Never tell people how to do something. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” Mission Command allows the subject matter experts closest to the fight to come up with the most effective solutions to accomplish the mission. Eisenhower articulated in his book Crusade in Europe what he thought was an advantage the American soldier had over the enemy. “The trained American possesses qualities that are almost unique because of his initiative and resourcefulness, his adaptability to change and his readiness to resort to expedient, he becomes, when he has attained a proficiency in all normal techniques of battle, a most formidable soldier.”[17] Knowing this about his soldiers, General Eisenhower trusted them to execute on his intent of eliminating, “Nazi tyranny over [the] oppressed peoples of Europe,” on D-Day.[18] In a future conflict the U.S. may not have the innovative weapons of the PRC, the manpower of Russia, or the fanatical conviction of members of VEOs, but our advantage has always been the military member’s ability to step up and accomplish the mission without being told how to do it. This can be accomplished if clear commander’s intent is given and there is continued development and encouragement at every level to engage in critical thought, a bias for action, and the ability to take the initiative to meet said intent. The 31 MXG, through its dedicated implementation of Mission Command, is transforming USAF aircraft maintenance. The Group is moving beyond mere compliance to cultivate a proactive, mission-focused team built on training and rapid response. 1Lt Kenneth Davison III is the Sortie Support Flight Commander at the 510 FGS Aviano Air Base, Italy. 1Lt Davison leads 275 personnel and commands maintenance for 24 F-16 C/D aircraft valued at $988M. He manages equipment and facilities which cost approximately $95M in support of HHQ taskings, Presidential support missions, exercises, global contingency operations and NATO taskings. First Lieutenant Kenneth L. Davison III attended the United States Air Force Academy and was commissioned as an officer in June of 2023 from Cramerton, North Carolina. Prior to his current position 1st Lt Davison was the Fabrication Flight Commander and Accessories Flight Commander, 31st Maintenance Squadron, Aviano Air Base, Italy. [1] Joseph R. Biden, “National Security Strategy,” The White House, October 2022. [2] Christopher S Chives and Jack Keating, “Cooperation Between China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia: Current and Potential Future Threats to America,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 8, 2024. [3] Ibid. [4] Marvie Basilan, “China Upgrades Its Infamous 9-Dash Line to a 10-Dash Line: Here’s What It Means,” International Business Times, September 7, 2023. [5]Chives, “Cooperation”. [6] Jamie Gaida et al., “ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker: The Global Race For ...,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, March 1, 2023. [7] Martin E. Dempsey, “Mission Command,” White Paper, 3 April 2012, 1. [8] Ibid, 3. [9] Jospeh M. Stangl, “Letter to Airmen of the 31 MXG,” 29 Feb 2024. [10] Joseph M. Stangl, “31 MXG home station and off-station delegated authorities,” 28 Aug 2024. [11] Stangl, “Letter to Airmen”. [12] Austin R. Shumate, “Exercise Agile Giant Executive Outbrief,” 12 September 2024. [13] Air Force Safety Center, “CSAF’s Integrating Risk and Readiness Campaign Kicks Off,” Air Force, August 1, 2024. [14] Ibid. [15] Wayne S. Shaw, “After Action Report (AAR) – Exercise PURPLE REIGN”, 30 October 2023. [16] Korey R. Cornelis, “After-Action Report, Exercise STARVED WYVERN”, 18 June 2024. [17] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe, (New York: Doubleday, 1948), 481. [18] Dwight D Eisenhower, “General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Order of the Day (1944),” National Archives and Records Administration, December 9, 2022.