Realities

Reporting from ORANGE CITY, Iowa — They met decades ago, when they were first married, and the three sisters-in-law still gather each week at the Dutch Bakery to catch up amid the sweet smell of flour and sugar floating through the air.

Despite the cozy setting here on the state’s western edge, they can feel the country beneath their feet slipping away, eroding under the threats of immorality and terrorism.

“I never thought we would live in so much fear,” said Joanne Niezen, as her coffee sat cooling before her in a Styrofoam cup.

There’s fear on the other side of the state as well, though for different reasons.

In the college town of Iowa City, with its hip music scene and pita restaurant advertising “fresh thinking and healthy eating,” Veronica Tessler worries about the harsh rhetoric directed at immigrants and the economic inequality that lingers years after the Great Recession.

“I really fear for our country,” said Tessler, who left her job at a foreign policy foundation to open a frozen yogurt shop near the University of Iowa campus.

A sense of dread is about the only thing that unites Orange City, a bastion of religious conservatism, and Iowa City, known for its blue-sky liberalism. Together they bookend not only the state’s geography but its political spectrum as Iowa prepares to kick off the presidential selection process Monday night with its closely watched caucuses.

The two communities, located in the most lopsidedly partisan counties in the state, reflect the vast political chasm here and across the country, a divide that President Obama was unable to heal and which may prove insurmountable for whomever takes his place.

“Republicans see an America where the government is too big at home and too feeble abroad. Democrats see an America where the economy is out of whack,” said David Nagle, a Democratic attorney who used to represent Iowa City and surrounding Johnson County in Congress. “It’s like two trains in the night, passing in opposite directions.”

But the division goes far beyond a profound disagreement on issues. While partisan tensions are nothing new, they have deepened and intensified during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the parties have splintered along the lines of age, race and culture. The result is a separation of America into mutually estranged and suspicious tribes.

Today, as conversations at opposite poles of Iowa show, voters on each side often get their news from different sources, worry about different problems and view political adversaries with mistrust and even contempt. One voter’s vision for America is nothing less than another’s nightmare; it’s common to hear candidates of the opposing party described as “concerning” or “scary” or “crazy.”

In 2014, a major study released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that more than one-third of Republicans and just over a quarter of Democrats — especially those most engaged in politics — go as far seeing the other party as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.”

In Johnson County, known both affectionately and derisively as the “People’s Republic,” life in Iowa City revolves around the university, with young people constantly hustling between classes or hunkered down in coffee shops with headphones and homework.

Obama is largely viewed with gratitude or, at worst, disappointment for failing to deliver an even more liberal agenda.

The city’s leanings are evident at the Hamburg Inn, where jars labeled with the names of presidential candidates are lined up in the window. Diners drop in coffee beans to show their preferences; some of the Republican jars are nearly empty, while a second container was added for Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, because the first overflowed.

Tessler, 30, is volunteering with the Sanders campaign, and she’s been alarmed by what she hears coming from the mouths of Republican contenders.

In response to Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., she helped make T-shirts to protest his Iowa City visit last Wednesday. “I stand with my Muslim neighbors,” they read.

She doesn’t dismiss the threat of terrorism — in fact, she was visiting family near San Bernardino on the day of the attack there that killed 14 people in December. But she’s also the daughter of a Soviet Jew who escaped to Los Angeles in 1973, and she thinks Republicans are scapegoating immigrants and refugees.

“They are not American ideals,” she said.

For many in Iowa City, issues like economic inequality and student debt feel most urgent, not fears of terrorist attack.

“ISIS could do something terrible anywhere,” said Chuck Michaelson, 61, a piano instructor who lives in nearby Coralville, using an acronym for the militant group Islamic State. He paused while flipping through a biography of writer Joan Didion at a bookstore near campus. “But the likelihood of it being personally affecting is slim. It’s like being struck by lightning.”

About 300 miles away in Orange City, across a vast expanse of fertile farmland, the fears of terrorism seem more immediate despite the area’s isolation and outward serenity.

“The whole thing of ISIS scares me,” said Bob Hulstein, 64, who publishes the Orange City newspaper and owns a printing business with his brother-in-law, Dave Pluim, 51.

After attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Hulstein said, “I’m afraid we’re going to see that closer and closer. I guess I want that stopped before it comes to my front door.”

Pluim agreed. “In fact, it would be real easy to do something horrible in Orange City,” he said. “Come to a high school basketball game.”

Settled largely by Dutch immigrants, this region proudly promotes its heritage; Orange City, the seat of Sioux County, was named after a Dutch prince, and decorative windmills, wooden shoes and tulip-themed businesses abound.

The area was hardly touched by the Great Recession — strong commodity prices and a boom in farm values helped see to that — and now there is something close to full employment. “Help wanted” signs are everywhere: at the florist, the bakery, restaurants, the post office.

So it is not economics that drives the anxiety here so much as concerns about the country’s place in the world.

“Are we willing to back our allies?” said Tony Vande Brake, 25, a financial advisor and newly elected member of the Orange City Council. “Are we willing to stand behind our military prowess, show strength if we had to?”

Back at the Dutch Bakery, Niezen and her sisters-in-law describe the election as a chance to reclaim the moral authority and military strength that, in their opinion, has withered under Obama and fueled a rise in Islamic extremism.

“He’s taken our military way down,” said Niezen, who is in her 70s. “When they were cutting our people’s heads off, he should have gotten in there right then.”

Leona Noteboom, an 83-year-old retiree, agreed. “I don’t trust him for taking care of my country,” she said.

“We’re just losing all our Christian values,” piped in Carol Noteboom, 74, who lives on a nearby farm.

Amid all the anxieties, there were glimmers of optimism.

Morgan Brittain, a political science student, crosses the ideological fault line every time he travels from his family’s home in Winterset, a small town outside Des Moines, to school in Iowa City. When he last got his hair cut back home, the woman holding the shears confided she planned to support Trump.

“I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, Heidi, you’re killing me,’” Brittain said.

At the barbershop close to campus, everyone seems bewildered by Trump’s popularity.

Asked if any candidate could bridge the divide, Brittain laughed and said, “I’m going to say absolutely, anybody can unify us.”

But he’s just 22, Brittain said, and still an idealist.

Twitter: @ChrisMegerian

Twitter: @markzbarabak

Megerian reported from Iowa City and Barabak from Orange City.

Hoy: Léa esta historia en español

For more, go to latimes.com/politics.

ALSO:

Everything you need to know about the Iowa caucus and why it matters

How Martin O’Malley could decide who wins the Democratic caucuses in Iowa

Republican rivals take advantage of Trump’s absence in Iowa presidential debate

Trump makes a big show of skipping GOP debate and staging benefit for veterans

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) says concerns it raised last year about the U.S. Navy’s E-130J Phoenix II program “have morphed into realities.” The timeline for moving from the development of the aircraft to putting it into actual production has already slipped by approximately one year. The E-130Js are set to supplant aging E-6B Mercury jets in support of the Take Charge And Move Out (TACAMO) mission. This involves providing aerial command and control support for nuclear ballistic missile submarines, including the ability to send them orders to launch strikes while they are submerged. Platforms tasked with nuclear support missions like TACAMO are commonly called ‘doomsday planes.’

GAO has provided a new update on the E-130J effort in its latest annual assessment of multiple high-profile U.S. military procurement programs. The Congressional watchdog released this report earlier today.

In last year’s iteration of this report, GAO explicitly called into question the choice of C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft, a four-engine turboprop transport plane, as the basis for the E-130J, warning that it might “not meet operational availability requirements.” The existing 16 E-6B aircraft are based on the larger, jet-engined Boeing 707 airliner, which is now long out of production. It is important to note that the Mercury fleet also supports a U.S. Air Force nuclear mission set called the Airborne Command Post (ABNCP), and more commonly known by the nickname Looking Glass. In that role, the planes provide aerial command and control support to nuclear-capable bombers and silo-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. They are equipped to initiate the launch of Minuteman IIIs while in flight. The forthcoming Phoenix IIs will only be tasked with the TACAMO mission, something we will come back to later on.

“As we reported in last year’s assessment, the Navy awarded its contract despite significant technical risks it acknowledged the E-130J program faced. A September 2024 independent technical risk assessment highlighted the complexity associated with the program’s planned integration effort, which officials acknowledged could increase as they integrate additional technologies,” per GAO’s latest assessment. “Since our 2024 report, the program has delayed its low-rate production decision by approximately a year as these system integration risks have morphed into realities.”

“For example, program officials said that contractors are now focused on modifying already-existing mission systems to reduce their weight, which the independent assessment anticipated would be necessary to accommodate them on the C-130J-30 airframe,” the report released today adds.

“The program office stated that the E-130J program remains on track to recapitalize TACAMO capability through developing an MVP [minimum viable product], iterating system capabilities through software improvements, and establishing digital frameworks,” according to GAO. “The program office also stated that it is aligned with Secretary of Defense guidance through an acquisition approach that allows for tradeoffs and implementation of a modular open systems approach. The program office did not provide any documentation to substantiate any of these claims, which run counter to our own analyses of E-130J program documentation.”

In its annual assessment last year, GAO said the Navy “acknowledges technical risk,” but also that the service had highlighted “risk reduction contracts with subcontractors to address obsolescence and size, weight, and power-cooling risks.”

The Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request provides some additional context about the suite of systems the E-130J will need to perform the TACAMO mission.

“A dedicated communications platform, TACAMO aircraft features the ability to communicate on virtually every radio frequency band from very low frequency (VLF) up through Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) using a variety of modulations, encryptions and networks, maximizing the likelihood an emergency message is received by U.S. strategic forces,” per the Navy’s budget documents. “Included in these efforts are Government and Contractor Systems Integration Laboratories, Contractor System Test Integration Laboratory, Government Furnished Property (National Security Agency approved encryption devices, Ultra High Frequency modems), High Frequency and the Advanced Extremely High Frequency solutions, Top Secret network development and building required infrastructure includes power generation systems, cooling, flight deck avionics, Electric Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, cyber hardening, and structural modifications to support integration of E-130J mission system equipment.”

A particularly notable and critical capability found on the existing E-6Bs is the ability to extend a five-mile-long antenna to communicate with submerged submarines. The E-130J will have a very similar, if not identical, antenna system to support the TACAMO mission.

As it stands now, the Navy plans to acquire six pre-production E-130Js in Fiscal Year 2027 to support different aspects of the aircraft’s ongoing development. At least one initial example is already being built. Some portion of those test aircraft might eventually take on operational roles. In its latest report, GAO says a critical design review is expected to come at the end of next year. With the aforementioned delay, the decision to then move into low-rate initial production (LRIP) is now projected to occur in April 2029. The initial LRIP lot is expected to be between three and six aircraft, but the total expected size of the E-130J fleet is unclear.

It is worth remembering that the Navy did previously operate modified C-130s in the TACAMO role before the first E-6A arrived in 1989. The Navy subsequently upgraded those aircraft in the late 1990s and early 2000s to the E-6B standard.

TWZ has previously explored the pros and cons of going back to a C-130-based platform for this critical Navy mission set, writing:

“It’s certainly worth pointing out that the E-6Bs, conversions of what were some of the last and most modern 707 airliners built, were larger and higher performance platforms than the EC-130Qs. The C-130J-30 is certainly a more capable aircraft than the C-130H on which the EC-130Q was based, but it won’t have the base speed and altitude capabilities of an airliner-sized multi-engine jet. Compared to the Mercuries, any TACAMO-configured C-130J-30 would not be able to get on station as quickly, or fly as high, limiting its ability to get above bad weather or establish a better line of sight for its communications systems.”

“At the same time, as the Navy itself has noted, the C-130J-30 platform does immediately open up the ability to use a larger number of air bases, airports, and airfields, including austere ones that the E-6B cannot operate from. This could be very useful in a contingency scenario where an opponent may have destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable many well-established bases, as well as larger secondary dispersal sites, which include large commercial airports. Being able to fly from smaller, tertiary locations could help to ensure that the TACAMO mission continues without significant disruption under such circumstances. This is also true during peacetime as targeting the TACAMOs on the ground would be much harder if they could easily operate from and sit alert at a much larger number of airports.”

“A C-130J-30 configured for the TACAMO mission would certainly have a mid-air refueling capability and the Hercules is already a platform that has demonstrated the ability to loiter over particular areas for long periods of time. Unlike the Boeing 707, the C-130J is still in production, as well, meaning that TACAMO aircraft based on this plane would be inherently easier to maintain and support logistically, and may also be easier to convert to this specialized configuration begin with. As time goes on, the J looks set to increasingly become the default base C-130 model across the U.S. military, as well. Compared to the long out of production 707-based E-6, support for the C-130J is already distributed across the U.S., and beyond. Training C-130J crews is even an easier proposition.”

The issue increasingly looming now is the age of the existing E-6Bs, which are becoming increasingly more challenging to operate and sustain. As noted, the Mercury fleet represents some of the very last 707s ever built before Boeing shuttered that line for good in 1991. The Navy’s plans to phase out the E-6Bs as the E-130Js arrive to help avoid any capacity gaps, which means the Mercury fleet will have to soldier on until that happens.

Last year, the Navy confirmed that it had scrapped plans to convert an ex-Royal Air Force E-3D Sentry airborne early warning and control aircraft, another Boeing 707-based type, into a dedicated TE-6B crew trainer, something TWZ was first to report. The TE-6B was explicitly intended to help relieve strain on operational E-6Bs. The Navy is now utilizing a contractor-owned, but government-operated (COGO) Boeing 737NG airliner to help meet pilot training demands.

To reiterate, the current plan is also for the E-130J to only perform the TACAMO mission. The Air Force is now in the very early stages of a separate effort to acquire what it is currently calling Looking Glass-Next (LG-N) to take over that mission from the E-6B fleet.

Part of that solution may entail integrating ABNCP-specific capabilities onto its future Boeing 747-based E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC) jets. The E-4Cs are set to replace the service’s four E-4B Nightwatch aircraft, as you can read more about here. The existing E-4Bs already have a ‘doomsday plane’ role, but do not have the exact same mix of capabilities as the E-6B. The Nightwatch jets notably lack the ability to order launches of Minuteman III IBCMs while in flight.

For the Air Force, the LG-N program is tied to larger nuclear command and control modernization plans, which might see more of these functions move to space-based assets, as well. All of this is also heavily intertwined with the ongoing development of the new LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM. Sentinel suffered huge setbacks, delays, and cost overruns, but primarily with the infrastructure side of the program, not the missile, as you can read more about here.

Enabling Peace Through Deterrence

When it comes to the Navy’s TACAMO modernization plans, challenges in integrating the necessary capabilities onto the C-130J-30 platform have now set back these efforts at least by a year.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com