How Stealthy F-22 Raptors Learned to Take on Elusive Iranian Threats in the Middle East

Jan. 2, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

When Lt. Col. Dustin Johnson was ordered to deploy to the Middle East last year, he and his fellow F-22 Raptor pilots prepared for an unusual challenge.

As the U.S.’s premier air superiority fighter, the F-22 was designed to take on advanced enemy aircraft, capable of maneuvering stealthily and cruising at supersonic speeds. But the dangers that most concerned Johnson and his Airmen included Iranian-designed drones and cruise missiles that Tehran and its proxies have employed during the most recent stretch of unrest in the Middle East.

“We were not necessarily worried about shooting down anybody else’s airplanes,” Johnson said in an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We were primarily there to defend our ground forces against the threats that were being posed by the UAVs in the AOR, as well as the cruise missiles that we’ve seen become more prevalent, both from the Houthis as well as militia groups in the region.”

Given the changing character of war, the episode shows that even a high-end fighter needs to be prepared for low-end threats.

The challenge began when F-22s from the 90th Fighter Squadron, which Johnson commands, were rushed to the Middle East in early August from their home base at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, after Israel killed Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Iran threatened to retaliate.

The F-22s reached the Middle East on short notice and were flying combat missions within a day of arriving at an air base in the region that U.S. military officials have declined to identify.

U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors arrived in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility Aug. 8, 2024, as part of the U.S. force posture changes in the region to address threats posed by Iran and Iranian-backed groups. U.S. Air Force photo

The drone threat they faced was not a hypothetical one. Iran had launched over 80 drones when it attacked Israel in April 2024, which were shot down by American F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16s, as well as some allied jets.

Drones and cruise missiles were also in the hands of Iran-backed groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, which meant there were several geographically disparate air threats in the region.

“It was a very fluid situation,” Johnson said. “… Knowing exactly where threats were coming from and when is becoming exponentially more difficult to discern because the threat has just proliferated to the point that it can literally be one person from anywhere with a single UAV.”

Though the drones posed less of a threat to the F-22s than a high-end Chinese fighter, downing them presented some challenges. Like the F-16s and F-15Es, the F-22s that have been deployed to the region in recent months have Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars, which makes detecting drones easier, a senior U.S. defense official noted to Air & Space Forces Magazine. But it is still not an easy task. Not only were the drones very small, but their slow speed always made them hard to detect.

“It’s air-to-air [combat], but it is a different type of air-to-air than we’ve ever really trained to before,” Johnson said. “Even the difference between a cruise missile and a UAV is significant in terms of your tactics, how you find it, how you kill it. They pose very significant identification problems.”

Two U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors fly in formation over the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, Oct. 10, 2024. U.S. Air Force photo

The F-22s had some lessons to draw on. Maj. Benjamin Coffey of the 494th Fighter Squadron, who was awarded the Silver Star for downing some of the drones in his F-15E in April, had written a paper on the subject.

“He wrote a paper, essentially, reviewing everybody’s tapes through those first couple shoot-downs … like, ‘here’s how you will execute if you find a drone out there,’” Capt. Brian Tesch of the 494th Fighter Squadron said. “This isn’t something you can just go out there and randomly practice.”

U.S. Air Forces in Europe boss Gen. James B. Hecker said in November that he had ensured that the paper was distributed to units deploying to the Middle East. Johnson said he and his pilots were able to draw on the previous lessons learned by the Air Force while refining the tactics to deal with potential drone threats.

“Even though this specific mission is not taught in any of our syllabi, part of what the Weapons School teaches is that community of connectivity and problem-solving that is flexible enough that it can apply to problem sets that we haven’t even thought of yet,” Johnson said.

Given the reputation of the F-22 and the success U.S. and allied Airmen enjoyed against the drones in April, Iran elected not to use UAVs when it attacked Israel in October. Instead, it relied exclusively on ballistic missiles, which Israeli and U.S. air defense systems countered.

The F-22 “is both a strategic and tactical asset,” notes Johnson. “That gives anybody pause to think about how capable their defenses are when that platform is in theater.”

Still, preparations the F-22 crews have made to deal with the Iranian drone threats could prove useful in the years ahead.

“That’s 100 percent applicable” to other scenarios, Johnson said. “I think pretty much anybody can look at the current environment and know that if a global conflict breaks out between superpowers, that this is 100 percent going to be a part of the problem that we have.”

News Editor Greg Hadley contributed reporting.

Experts: New Chinese Combat Aircraft Likely a Medium-Range Bomber

Jan. 2, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Imagery of two new, tailless Chinese military aircraft disseminated on social media last week likely reveals a prototype stealth medium bomber and a new lambda-winged technology demonstrator, aerospace experts and former Air Force officials told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The larger aircraft could be analogous to the FB-22 medium stealth bomber considered but not adopted by the U.S. Air Force in the early 2000s.

The larger aircraft, speculatively dubbed JH-36 by the aviation press for the “bort” number seen in some images, is likely the “medium bomber” referenced in the most recent edition of the Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military power, released in mid-December. Since 2019, the annual report has mentioned a “JH-XX” medium bomber under development.

“The [People’s Liberation Army Air Force] is developing new medium- and long-range bombers to strike regional and global targets,” the most recent report stated, adding only that these aircraft are likely to have extremely low observable characteristics.

The PLAAF is known to be developing a flying-wing large bomber, called the H-20, similar to the American B-2, but the aircraft seen in December differs substantially from what that aircraft is expected to be.

“The Air Force has been closely monitoring China’s ongoing military modernization efforts,” a service official said on background. “This development is consistent with our understanding of China’s strategic objectives and long-term force planning. Their new weapons systems introduce additional complexity in the PLA, which requires highly skilled personnel to actually employ them to the max extent of their capability.”

The “JH-36” seen in the video and still imagery—which was not censored or commented on by the Chinese government—is a large aircraft, about 30 percent larger than the 70-foot J-20S two-seat “Mighty Dragon” apparently flying chase in the images. The new flying wing delta airplane has no vertical control surfaces but has five flaperons on each side of the trailing edge of the wing, heavily deflected to near-vertical in some of the images, and moving independently. A tailless aircraft is inherently stealthier than one with vertical control surfaces, offering less of a target for radar, and would typically be lighter, allowing for extended range.

JH-36? Hard to see the cockpit – but also the bumps along the trailing edge is kind of interesting – are those covering actuators for the elevens or antennas? pic.twitter.com/YNk1lvFs2z
— Kitsch Liao (@KitschQuixote) December 26, 2024

The quirky, many-element flaperon system may also mean “they haven’t mastered thrust vectoring and control,” an industry expert said, adding “they’re not 10 feet tall.”

The aircraft is likely a Chengdu product, as it was chased by Chengdu’s J-20S.

The aircraft has three inlets: one dorsal inlet at mid-fuselage, and two ventral inlets near the nose, in a parallelogram-shape reminiscent of the F-22, and three apparent above-wing exhausts, suggesting three engines. The exhausts are similar to those on the B-2 and Northrop Grumman’s YF-23 competitor in the Advanced Tactical Fighter program, which was won by Lockheed with the F-22. The dorsal inlet is different from the other two, but seems shaped for stealth, as it is reminiscent of that in Northrop Grumman’s unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Have Blue stealth demonstrator program won by Lockheed.

Zhuhai Air Show 🇨🇳
6th Gen Fighter Aircraft Concept
PLAAF Loves Tailless Jet Design pic.twitter.com/hyTPqZlHGT
— David Wang (@Nickatgreat1220) November 6, 2022

Three engines would make the aircraft very heavy—or at least reduce its range and payload—and experts speculated that the reason for three may have to do with generating power for intense electronic warfare applications or to mix bypass air with the exhaust air to cool it and reduce the aircraft’s heat signature.

According to the Pentagon report, China’s indigenous engine industry is unlikely to have matched the technology in the American Adaptive Engine Technology Program (AETP), which produced prototype engines using bypass technology that could be optimized for specific thrust or loitering, with additional stealthiness as a byproduct. An expected competition between those engines—one built by GE Aerospace and one by Pratt & Whitney—was meant to upgrade the F-35 but was abandoned because they could not fit all variants of that fighter.

One aerospace technologist said the third engine is “either a brilliant solution to have both power and stealthiness” or “dumb, flying around with the dead weight of unused propulsion mass.”

He speculated that the ventral engine inlets may be used for takeoff and landing, while the ventrally-fed engine might be used for cruise, thus extending range.

Topside views of the JH-36 aircraft were more limited, grainy and indistinct, and it could not be ascertained if the cockpit is for one or two crew, in tandem or side-by-side. The opaqueness of the canopy in the available images could even suggest it is an uncrewed airplane and that the canopy is merely painted on. The use of a two-seat J-20S as chase plane could lend support to this speculation, as the backseater might have been controlling the JH-36 or standing by to take control in an emergency.

The jet has an internal weapons bay, and tandem wheels, typically used on heavy aircraft. The bays were not opened while cameras were rolling. The aircraft also seems to have large apertures adjacent to the nose, reminiscent of the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) on the F-35, but significantly larger.

One industry expert said the JH-36 reminds him of the Lockheed FB-22 because of its size, and because some of its forward-fuselage features reflect the heritage of the J-20. He noted that the FB-22—an adaptation of the stealth fighter to hold more weapons and fuel—was offered when the Air Force’s Next-Generation Bomber was canceled, creating a potential gap in penetrating bomber capacity. The Chinese medium bomber may have had a similar genesis, if their developers have run into problems delaying the H-20’s introduction.

“The FB-22 would have been a pretty straightforward stopgap,” he said, “re-using the fuselage and systems of the F-22 with an extension and bigger wings to hold more weapons and fuel.” The Air Force considered the concept but dropped it when it was approved to undertake a new long-range bomber program.

“Given the likely first steps in a Taiwan scenario, a medium-range bomber makes sense for the PLAAF,” an industry technologist said. However, the aircraft could also be “a technology demonstrator, or even a fighter. We just can’t tell at this point,” an industry expert said.

The other aircraft revealed, in images with diminished detail, is also a tailless aircraft with a lambda-style wing planform and an overall arrowhead-like design.

Clearest view of China's second 6th gen fighter design, this one is designed by SAC.

It's smaller with a 2 engine set up, it's also a tailless flying wing design, albeit more conventional compared to the CAC's 3 engine design.

From the looks of it, this SAC design is more… pic.twitter.com/tqUQYRD01s
— Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳 (@zhao_dashuai) December 26, 2024

It has a two-engine exhaust system similar to that of the F-22, potentially suggesting that China is exploring a number of ways to reduce the heat signature and possible thrust vectoring of combat aircraft engines. Apparently smaller than the JH-36, the second, fighter-size aircraft had tricycle landing gear. It was chased by a J-16, an Su-27 variant made by the Shenyang Aircraft Corp., so it may be a Shenyang product. It seems unlikely the two new aircraft are competitors, given the apparent difference in their size.

Imagery of the second aircraft did not offer a clear view of the upper nose area, so it’s unclear if there is a cockpit or if it is potentially an uncrewed vehicle in the same class as the first increment of the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program.

The date of the imagery’s release, Dec. 26, is significant in that it is the birthday of Mao Zedong, the PRC’s founder and longtime leader, and the date on which the J-20 was similarly unveiled on the internet in 2010. Uncoincidentally, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on a visit to China at the time, and Gates had previously predicted that China would not have a fifth-generation stealth fighter for another decade. In his memoir, Gates called that unveiling “about as big a ‘f— you’ as you can get.”

New Air Force Career Fields Getting Reenlistment Bonuses in 2025—Here They Are

Jan. 2, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

From pararescuemen to paralegals, the Air Force is expanding bonus opportunities for Active-Duty Airmen in certain career fields who reenlist in 2025.

The service expanded its Selective Retention Bonus to 89 Air Force Specialty Codes on Dec. 16, a few months after the start of the fiscal year. That’s up from 73 a year ago and 51 the year before that.

The full list of career fields leaked on social media, and a service spokesperson confirmed its authenticity to Air & Space Forces Magazine. In recent years, the Air Force has declined to release public lists of career fields eligible for retention bonuses and special duty assignment pay, instead making them available on myFSS, accessible only to those on Active-Duty.

A records request by Air & Space Forces Magazine for some of those lists remains unfulfilled.

The reenlistment bonus program regularly expands and contracts based on broader retention trends in the Air Force—if retention dips, Airmen in more career fields may be included to entice them to stay. When retention soared during the depths of the COVID pandemic, the program cut back to just 37 career fields, but as recently as 2019 it included more than 100.

The new career fields for 2025 include:

Aviators for some of the Air Force’s newest platforms, such as boom operator for the KC-46, loadmaster for the C-130J, and airborne maintenance technician for the EA-37B.

Cyber operations specialists and technicians

Human intelligence analysts

Special investigations

The inclusion of more cyber career fields is particularly noteworthy given that the Air Force is reintroducing warrant officers in the cyber and IT fields. While the program is small to start, the extra bonuses could be a sign that the Air Force is wary of losing too much experience from the enlisted force.

Most of last year’s career fields carried over, including jobs that service officials consistently say they have trouble staffing, such as special operations commandos, explosive ordnance disposal, and military working dog handlers.

A few did drop off the list, however, including nuclear weapons maintenance. Airmen whose career fields were removed or reduced have until Feb. 15 to take advantage of last year’s standards.

The exact amount of bonus funds awarded varies based on several factors, including Airmen’s monthly basic pay, the length of the reenlistment, and experience level. The leaked list includes four “zones” ranging from just 17 months of service up to 20 years.

Just last year, the Air Force upped the maximum allowable reenlistment bonus to $180,000, with a career cap set at $360,000. Those figures remain in 2025.

Air Force Specialty Code	Special Experience Identifier	Career Field	Zone A	Zone B	Zone C	Zone E
1A1X2G		Mobility Force Aviatior (KC-46 Boom Operator)	0	2	2	2
1A1X2D		Mobility Force Aviatior (C-130J Loadmaster)	2	2	1	2
1A1X3E		Special Mission Aviator (MC-130)	2	2	0	2
1A1X4D		Multi-Domain Operations Aviator (E-11 Mission Coordinator/Payload Operator)	2	2	3	0
1A1X4E		Multi-Domain Operations Aviator (EC-130H/EA-37B Airborne Maintenance Technician)	2	2	0	0
1A1X8A		Executive Mission Assistant (C-32/C-40 Flight Attendant)	2	2	2	2
1A8X1G		Airborne Cryptologic Language Analyst – Chinese	4.5	3.5	3	2
1A8X1H		Airborne Cryptologic Language Analyst – Korean	1	1	1	0
1A8X1I		Airborne Cryptologic Language Analyst – Russian	4.5	3.5	2.5	1
1A8X1K		Airborne Cryptologic Language Analyst – Persian	4	3	0	0
1B4X1		Cyber Warfare Operations	7	7	5	3
1C1X1		Air Traffic Control	3	3	2	0
1C3X1		All-Domain Command and Control Operations	2	3	2	1
1C5X1D		Battle Management Ops (Weapons Director)	4	4	4	3.5
1C7X1		Airfield Management	3	0	0	0
1D7X1A		Cyber Systems Operations (Network Operations Specialist)	2	2	1	0
1D7X1B		Cyber Systems Operations (System Administration Specialist)	2	2	1	0
1D7X1D		Cyber Systems Operations (Cyber Security Technician)	0	1	1	0
1D7X1E		Cyber Systems Operations (Technical Support Specialist)	1	1	0	0
1D7X1M	1AM	Cyber Systems Operations (Cybersecurity)	0	1	1	0
1D7X1P	1AN	Cyber Systems Operations (Data Operations)	7	7	5	3
1D7X1Q	1AO	Cyber Systems Operations (Enterprise Operations)	1	1	0	0
1D7X1Q	1AL, 1AP	Cyber Systems Operations (Enterprise Operations)	2	2	1	0
1D7X1W	1AL, 1AP	Cyber Systems Operations (Expeditionary Communications)	2	2	2	0
1D7X1W	1AO	Cyber Systems Operations (Expeditionary Communications)	1	1	0	0
1D7X1Z		Cyberspace Operations (Software Development Specialist)	7	7	5	3
1D7X3C		Cable and Antenna Defense Operations – Cable and Antenna Operations	3	0	0	0
1H0X1		Aerospace Physiology	0	0	2	2
1N2X1A		Signals Intelligence (Electronic Non-Communications Analyst)	2	0	0	0
1N3X1G		Cryptologic Language Analyst (Chinese)	3.5	3	2	0
1N3X1I		Cryptologic Language Analyst (Russian)	3.5	3	2	0
1N3X1K		Cryptologic Language Analyst (Persian)	3	2	0	0
1N4X1A		Cyber Intelligence (Analysis)	2	2	2	0
1N7X1		Human Intelligence Specialist	0	1	1	0
1N8X1		Targeting Analyst	3	4	2	0
1P0X1A		Aircrew Flight Equipment (Ejection Seat Aircraft)	2	0	0	0
1P0X1B		Aircrew Flight Equipment (Non-Ejection Seat Aircraft)	2	0	0	0
1T0X1		Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape	7	7	5	3
1Z1X1		Pararescue	7	7	5	3
1Z2X1		Combat control	7	7	5	3
1Z3X1		TACP	7	7	5	3
1Z4X1		Special Reconaissance	7	7	5	3
2A373		Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman	0	3	0	3
2A375		Advanced Fighter Aircraft Integrated Avionics Craftsman	0	2	2	2
2A377		Tactical Aircraft Maintenance (5th Generation) Craftsman	0	1	2	0
2A3X5B		Advanced Fighter Aircraft Integrated Avionics (F-35)	2	5	0	0
2A5X1A		Airlift/Special Mission Aircraft Maintenance (C-20/C-21/C-22/C-37/C-40/E-4/VC-25)	4	0	0	0
2A531M		Airlift/Special Mission Aircraft Maintenance (MQ-1/9)	1	2	0	0
2A531R		Airlift/Special Mission Aircraft Maintenance (RQ-4)	1	2	0	0
2A551		Airlift/Special Mission Aircraft Maintenance	1	2	0	0
2A571		Airlift/Special Mission Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman	0	3	3	0
2A574		Refuel/Bomber Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman	0	1	1	2
2A5X4C		Refuel/Bomber Aircraft Maintenance – KC-46	3	3	0	0
2A5X4D		Refuel/Bomber Aircraft Maintenance – B-52	0.5	0	0	0
2A5X4E		Refuel/Bomber Aircraft Maintenance – B-1	0	5	0	0
2A5X4F		Refuel/Bomber Aircraft Maintenance – B-2	2	1	0	0
2A934B		Heavy Aircraft Integrated Avionics – Remotely Piloted Aircraft	2	3.5	0	0
2A954		Heavy Aircraft Integrated Avionics	2	3.5	0	0
2G0X1		Logistics Plans	0	2.5	2	1
2M0X0		Missile and Space System Maintenance	0	0	0	4
2M0X1		Missile and Space System Electronic Maintenance	2	1	2	4
2M0X2		Missile and Space System Maintenance	3	2	1	4
2M0X3		Missile and Space Facilities	3	2	1	4.5
3E5X1		Engineering	1	1	0	0
3E8X1		Explosive Ordnance Disposal	5	4.5	4	3
3F371		Manpower	0	0	3	0
3P0X1A		Security Forces (Military Working Dog Handler)	2	1	1	0
3P0X1B		Security Forces (Combat Arms)	1	1	1	0
4C0X1		Mental Health Service	2	1	1	0
4H0X1		Respiratory Care Practitioner	2	1	1	0
4J0X2		Physical Medicine	0	2	0	0
4J0X2A		Physical Medicine (Orthotic)	0	2	5	0
4N0X1C		Aerospace Medical Service (Independent Duty Medical Technician)	2.5	2.5	2	0
4N0X1D		Aerospace Medical Service (Allergy/Immunization Technician)	1	1	1	0
4N0X1F		Aerospace Medical Service (Flight and Operational Medicine)	2	2	1	0
4N0X1G		Aerospace Medical Service (Aeromedical Evacuation)	1.5	2	1	0
4N0X1H		Aerospace Medical Service (National Registry Paramedic)	3	2	1	0
4N1X1B		Surgical Technologist (Urology)	1	2	0	0
4N1X1C		Surgical Technologist (Orthopedics)	1	1.5	0	0
4N1X1D		Surgical Technologist (Otorhinolaryngology)	1	0	0	0
4P0X1		Pharmacy	3	0	0	0
4R0X1A		Diagnostic Imaging (Nuclear medicine)	0	2	0	0
4R0X1B		Diagnostic Imaging (Diagnostic Medical Sonography)	1	2.5	2.5	0
4R0X1C		Diagnostic Imaging – MRI	0	2	0	0
4V0X1S		Ophthalmology	0	3	3	0
4Y0X0		Dental superintendent	0	0	0	3
4Y0X1H		Dental hygienist	0	1	1	1
5J0X1		Paralegal	0	0	0	3
5R0X1		Religious Affairs	0	0	2	2
7S0X1		Special Investigations	0	2	0	2.5

SECAF, B-21, Budgets: The Top Stories We’re Tracking for 2025

Dec. 30, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

Air & Space Forces Magazine traveled the the globe in 2024 to cover the biggest stories involving the U.S. Air Force and Space Force, from Ukraine to the Middle East, from Florida to California. Between regional conflicts in Europe and the Middle East and tensions with China in the Indo-Pacific, not to mention budget battles and a major “re-organization” effort, there have been no shortage of storylines to follow.

Now, as we head into 2025, here are some of the stories that we’ll be keeping a close eye on.

Who’s the Boss?

It’s not just a beloved 1980s sitcom—it’s also the biggest unknown facing the Department of the Air Force as it heads into the new year. President-elect Donald Trump has announced his picks for virtually every other major Pentagon post, including the other service secretaries. But his choice for the Air Force remains unknown.

The pick could reverse course from outgoing Secretary Frank Kendall, who emphasized the need for modernization with his Operational Imperatives and pushed for a sweeping re-organization. They could try to shepherd those initiatives to completion. They could focus on Trump’s stated desire to “purge” the military of diversity initiatives, or place a greater emphasis on readiness. Until there’s a person tapped to take over as 27th Secretary of the Air Force, we just don’t know.

What Happens to NGAD and CCA?

Perhaps the most pressing decision facing whomever Trump picks is what to do about the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter

NGAD was long seen as the successor to the F-22 as the Air Force’s top air-to-air platform. That was all throw up in the air when Kendall announced a “pause” on the program in July 2024, citing the price of the fighter amid a constrained budget and the emergence of new technologies like Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones.

A Boeing artist’s concept of a Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. **Mike Tsukamoto/staff; Boeing**

Kendall formed a blue-ribbon panel of former Air Chiefs and other experts to review NGAD but after additional study, preliminary media reports indicate minimal changes to the project. Kendall took the input, but deferred a decisions on the program to the new administration, arguing that he wants the new leadership team to “own” the choice and offer a clear path forward to industry.

The corollary to the NGAD question is CCA—the program to develop autonomous drones that can fly alongside manned platforms. Kendall has said his work pushing forward CCA is likely to be his biggest legacy as secretary, and there seems to be a common consensus on the importance of the program. But just how fast it can move forward remains to be seen. Officials have said they want several hundred drones flying by the end of the decade.

What’s Next for B-21?

The B-21 Raider, the Air Force’s stealthy, secretive new bomber, entered flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., at the very beginning of 2024, and little has been said since.

The service has released a few pictures and a video, aviation enthusiasts have snapped a few photos of their own, and officials have said that generally everything is going well with the new aircraft, which has been described as the world’s first “sixth-generation” aircraft and will eventually comprise one-half of the Air Force bomber fleet alongside the B-52.

But there are precious few details on its flight testing program besides the fact that it has been flying up to twice a week, and there are no hard timelines set for when the Raider might enter service.

Of note, B-1 bombers have been relocated from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., to allow for construction on the base’s runway in advance of the first B-21’s arrival. The base has said that is expected in the “mid-2020s.”

Curious observers will be hungry for more details, however few or vague, in 2025.

Integrated Capabilities Command

One of the biggest changes from the re-organization the Air Force announced earlier this year was the creation of a new command to coordinate the service’s requirements process. ICC, as envisioned, would centralize and streamline how the Air Force sets requirements for its future force, while freeing other commands to focus more on current needs.

In September, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin announced the standup of a provisional ICC, with the goal of achieving full operational capability in 2025. But he has noted that of all the reorg plans the service announced, this command may be the toughest to drive to completion.

Part of that challenge is because the new command will require moving personnel and establishing a headquarters, which means it will receive special attention from lawmakers and will need Congressional approval. But there is also the question of how the ICC commander, expected to be a three-star general, will be able to juggle the desires of all the other commands, some led by four-stars, who will likely be advocating for their future needs. A four-star commander might be needed to ensure ICC can take the leadership role it needs.

REFORPAC

Another initiative announced was a major exercise in the Indo-Pacific in summer 2025. Officials later debuted the name “Resolute Force Pacific,” or REFORPAC, to evoke the annual REFORGER (“Return of Forces to Germany”) exercises the U.S. conducted for years during the Cold War.

The scale of the exercise is meant to be vast—nearly 300 aircraft spread across 25 locations in the Pacific, outstripping all other major exercises the service has held in recent years.

U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft line up on the runway during an elephant walk at Kadena Air Base, Japan, Apr. 10, 2024. Directly after, the aircrew launched into a large force exercise to strengthen their readiness to defend Japan. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Alexis Redin)

But leaders have warned that the scale of the exercise may have to be pared back if Congress does not pass a new budget in time. The Pentagon is currently operating on a continuing resolution that freezes funding levels at last year’s levels until March 2025.

Pacific Air Forces boss Gen. Kevin B. Schneider told Air & Space Forces Magazine in December that planning for REFORPAC is underway, with options in place depending on the funds available. Either way, large-scale exercises are seen as crucial to work out joint operating concepts and command and control kinds for future combat against a peer like China.

Warrant Officers

One of the most popular changes the Air Force announced in 2024 was the reintroduction of warrant officers inthe cyber and IT career fields. Warrant officers fill technical rather than leadership functions, and Air Force officials say the cyber and IT fields are so fast-moving, they need experts who are more interested in staying up to date on the latest technical knowledge than climbing a leadership career ladder.

The first class of warrant officers graduated in December, and another cohort isn’t far behind. But there are still lots of unknowns—how the Air Force will employ these new warrant officers, what the feedback will be on their value to commands, and which other career fields might be added next.

Space Force Growth

After explosive growth in its early years, the Space Force faced its first proposed budget cut for 2025, though a final defense spending bill has still yet to be approved.

Meanwhile, leaders have grown increasingly vocal about the need for more manpower and resources to fulfill all the Space Force’s growing missions, particularly counter-space efforts.

The service got its start under President Donald Trump, and his return to office could boost its efforts to expand. If the new administration does support a bigger Space Force, the rate at which it grows will be watched closely. It will also be interesting to note if new leaders place more emphasis on the mission of offensive space or discuss it more openly—it has long been considered a taboo topic but has been a key discussion point in Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman’s push for more resources.

Air Force Growth

The Air Force has been squeezed by rising costs for nuclear modernization and the need to modernize other parts of the force. That’s driven controversial decisions to retire equipment, particularly fighter aircraft, to free funding to pay for future modernization.

Congress has resisted those cuts, but also shown skepticism about the F-35 fighter and the Air Force’s overall strategy. The only real way to solve the problem is to increase overall spending on the Air Force and to “buy more Air Force,” in the words of Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin. The incoming administration will face major decisions about how to pay for more Air Force and what it might be willing to give up to acquire more jets faster.

Airdrops, Port Dawgs, and More: 10 of Our Best Stories from 2024

Dec. 26, 2024 | By David Roza

It’s been another busy year at Air & Space Forces Magazine reporting on the United States Air Force and Space Force, and we could not have done it without you, the readers.

We looked back on the past 12 months to find the stories that resonated the most with you, our audience, and these 10 topped the list. Maybe you missed one the first time around, or perhaps you’d like to revisit a favorite under a warm blanket after a long day of holiday cheer. Either way, enjoy the highlights below. We can’t wait to share more stories with you in 2025. Until then, happy holidays!

Airdrops to Gaza: The Art and Science of One of the Largest Aid Missions Since the Berlin Airlift

The U.S. Air Force and its partners dropped hundreds of thousands of meals to famished Gazans this spring as efforts to bring in humanitarian aid by land and sea were stymied. Airmen try to calculate all the variables, from the altitude, to weight, to the effect of the wind, but it’s obvious looking out the back of this massive jet aircraft that airdrops are as much art as science. 

How the Air Force Flew a 1,000-Mile Open Ocean Rescue

The 129th Rescue Wing is one of few organizations on Earth that can rescue patients hundreds of miles offshore, thanks to its fleet of HC-130J planes and HH-60G helicopters. Aircrews, PJs, and a translator who volunteered at the last minute for a long-range rescue recounted how they made one high-risk, life-saving mission look easy.

‘Masters of the Air’ Nails Many Details, Misses Context

The new nine-part TV series, “Masters of the Air,” masterfully captures the grueling reality of life in the U.S. Army Air Force’s 100th Bomb Group during the daylight bombing campaign over Europe in World War II. But viewers watching the series on Apple TV+ might miss the larger historical context, according to one expert.

Mobility Pilots Prepare to Fight Fatigue in All-Out Pacific Conflict

Fatigue is a common safety hazard in aviation, especially over the vast distances that define the Indo-Pacific theater. Tanker and transport air crews and flight medicine experts shared how they’re using science, hot food, and wearables to prepare for non-stop flying in a war with China.

David Flosi’s Journey From Broke College Student to New CMSAF

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force David Flosi shared how mentorship and opportunities transformed him from a junior Airman set on serving four years to pay for college into the service’s senior enlisted leader with the Legion of Merit and 28 years of service.

Sun, Spades, and Forklifts: ‘Port Dawgs’ Run the Show at Bamboo Eagle

While it sounds simple, aerial porting is a delicate balance of math, physics, technique, and elbow grease which, if improperly mixed, can endanger aircrews and slow the movement of war-winning equipment or life-saving supplies by days when every minute counts. This article shows how ‘Port Dawgs’ played a vital role in a massive exercise preparing for a near-peer fight.

Silver Star Airpower: Inside an F-15 Mission to Block an Attack on Israel

In April, Air Force fighters shot down 80 Iranian drones in one of the largest displays of combat airpower in decades. F-15E Strike Eagle crews who received the Distinguished Flying Cross for their efforts shared what it was like flying into the dark, chaotic airspace over the Middle East that night.

Behind the Scenes of a Minuteman ICBM Launch with Three Test Warheads

What does it take to send an aging missile 4,200 miles across an ocean in 30 minutes? Months of preparation, teams of service members across the country, gigabytes of data, diplomatic coordination, and a long night in California, all unpacked play-by-play in this article.

New Report: Wargames Show CCA Could Have Huge Influence in a Pacific War

A series of wargames run by the Mitchell Institute showed that when used by the U.S. Air Force in large numbers, CCAs—autonomous drones meant to supplement the manned fleet—compelled China to expend large numbers of missiles, created beneficial chaos in the battlespace, and overall were a cost-imposing factor on the adversary,

At This Air Force Depot, Advanced Manufacturing Is Cutting Edge No Longer

Air Force leaders have long promised a future where maintainers use 3D-printing technology to manufacture replacement parts faster than they can be shipped across the world. Now, a small group of engineers, technicians, and machinists are moving that additive manufacturing technology out of the future and into the present.

DOD to Track Suicide Deaths By Job Specialty Under New Law

Dec. 23, 2024 | By David Roza

A provision in the fiscal 2025 defense policy bill will require the Defense Department to include the military occupational specialty of service members who die by suicide in its annual report on suicide deaths, though it remains to be seen how much data the department will actually disclose.

Section 736 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2025 calls for “the number of suicides … disaggregated by the military occupational specialty (or other similar classification, rating, or specialty code) of the member,” as well as a compilation of such data to determine which career fields have a higher per capita suicide rates compared to other career fields, the overall suicide rate for each service, the Department of Defense, and the national rate.

Congress passed the provision and the rest of the NDAA on Dec. 18, and it is currently awaiting President Joe Biden’s final signature. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) backed the provision, which comes four months after the Defense Department delivered a report breaking down suicide deaths by job specialty since 2011.

That report was mandated by the 2023 NDAA, which tasked the Pentagon with providing a breakdown of military suicides since 2001 by year, military job code, and status (Active-Duty, Reserve, or National Guard).

Advocates hope releasing that data will help officials better understand the stressors affecting specific military jobs, retired Air Force Master Sgt. Chris McGhee told Air & Space Forces Magazine in April.

“Anecdotally we know [suicide rates are] really bad in certain career fields,” said the former F-16 maintainer, who helped champion the NDAA measure to King’s office. “I consider this to be a starting point to investigate what is going on within those career fields that is driving these suicide rates.”

The Pentagon delivered “Report on Incidence of Military Suicides by Military Job Code” several months late in July. The report identified groups of military jobs with the highest rates of suicide, but it did not break the data down by individual career fields. Fields as disparate as special forces, conventional infantry, and military training instructors were lumped together into one category, as were aircraft maintainers from a wide range of types of aircraft and maintenance specialties.

The Pentagon said it lumped fields together because calculating rates when the number of deaths totaled less than 20 would invite statistical instability. The report also did not include data going back to 2001 as directed by the NDAA—the Pentagon said it did not have a system for reliably tracking suicide deaths before 2011. But a 2010 DOD study of military suicides from 2001 to 2009 suggests otherwise, and also lists suicide deaths even when they were fewer than 20.

In September, King told Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III that the data fell short of what was required by law.

“I am concerned that the Department did not fully comply,” the senator wrote. He requested the Pentagon redo the report with the “raw data” going back to 2001, and to include caveats where it might lead to inconsistent data.

“I urge you to include as much information as possible rather than rejecting all data for a given year,” King wrote. “Including the ‘raw data’ with the rates will help to address the challenges you identified with invalid or incorrect conclusions based solely by comparing rates.”

After the letter, the Pentagon and King’s office began working through how to provide that data. A defense official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the department was concerned about privacy.

“DOD must ensure that our publicly reported data does not result in the identification of service members who have died by suicide,” the official said. “We have a responsibility to maintain the privacy of decedents and their loved ones. Moreover, releasing data that has been stratified by numerous categories (i.e., job code, age, duty status, year) introduces serious privacy concerns for our service members and their families.”

McGhee pointed out that the 2023 NDAA technically does not require the report be made public, just as long as it is sent to Congress. But with just a month until President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the discussion is on hold until new Pentagon leadership comes in.

“We have long memories: we know that DOD fell short, and we will raise that with the next group of DOD officials,” a staffer tracking the issue closely with King’s office told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We’re focused on the windshield, but we have an eye on the rearview mirror.”

King’s office has been working on the section in the 2025 NDAA requiring job specialty data in future annual suicide death reports since the start of this year, the staffer said. Frustration with the July 31 report drove language in a joint explanatory statement accompanying the NDAA, which closely echoes King’s letter to Austin.

In instances of incomplete data “we urge the Department to include as much information as possible in the report rather than rejecting all data for such years due to incompleteness,” members of Congress wrote in the statement. “We also urge the Department to include raw data in addition to information about rates of suicide as a way to provide some insight on military suicide, even if the full data for a given year is incomplete.”

However, the bill itself allows the Defense Department to exclude “such specialties that the Secretary determines would not provide statistically valid data” in its breakdown of suicide deaths by job specialty. A King spokesperson did not see a contradiction between that clause and the joint statement.

“It actually shifts the pressure on [the department] to provide as much information as they can justify,” he said. “Because if you were to have somebody say, ‘well, I didn’t think that that was significant,’ that would not be a pleasant exchange in a room full of Senators with long memories.”

The bill does not require the Pentagon to explain what it considers statistically valid. Still, the staffer indicated a collaborative relationship between Congress, the Pentagon officials charged with suicide prevention and data collection efforts, and watchdogs such as the Government Accountability Office.

“My assessment is that the department is not trying to hide something. There is no nefarious activity, and Sen. King has never said they’re hiding something from him,” he said, pointing out that the Defense Department proactively met with members of Congress to discuss its annual suicide report before its release this year.

“That is new behavior from the Department of Defense, engaging members ahead of time and not just sending an email to the committee ‘we’re going to release this report tomorrow. Have a nice day,’” he said. “Our approach is, and Sen. King has said this several times: ‘hey, we are working together with you to address this problem,’ and that is our approach.”

McGhee was skeptical, arguing that the department “willfully ignored” the 2023 NDAA’s mandate and may do the same with the 2025 NDAA.

“While I appreciate any progress, the language deeply concerns me,” he said. “Allowing the DOD to determine what is ‘statistically valid’ undermines the intent of the law. Worse, this provision doubles down on passivity. Congress has shifted from mandating action to ‘urging’ the DOD to comply when possible.”

Service members and veterans who are in crisis or having thoughts of suicide, and those who know a service member or veteran in crisis, can call the Veterans/Military Crisis Line for confidential support available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Call 988 and press 1; text 988; or chat online at VeteransCrisisLine.net/Chat.

The Hole in Trump’s Defense Team: Next SECAF Is a Mystery

Dec. 23, 2024 | By Tobias Naegele

President-elect Donald Trump announced his choices to fill out the top positions on his Pentagon team Dec. 22, but the next Secretary of the Air Force remains a notable vacancy.

Trump announced his nominees for a half-dozen key roles in the office of the Secretary of Defense.

Deputy Secretary of Defense

Stephen Feinberg is slated to take on the Pentagon’s No. 2 job, akin to its chief operating officer. Feinberg, 64, is a career financier and the billionaire cofounder of the investment firm Cerberus Capital Management. A donor to all three of Trump’s presidential campaigns, he chaired Trump’s Intelligence Advisory Board from 2018-2020. Like Trump’s nominees for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he is a graduate of Princeton University.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Elbridge “Bridge” Colby has been tapped to lead the Pentagon’s policy shop. Colby authored Trump’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which identified China as the principal threat to U.S. global power and remained largely intact under the Biden administration. A notable China hawk, Colby, 45, was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development from 2017-2019 during the first Trump administration. He is an Ivy Leaguer like Feinberg and Hegseth—Colby graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School—and is a political centrist, having spent eight years as an analyst and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan thank tank with historic ties to the Obama administration, and founded the Marathon Institute, a think tank created to developing “strategic insights and frameworks needed to deal with the deep and difficult problems of great power competition.”

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment

Michael Duffey will be nominated for DOD’s top acquisition job. Duffey held positions in the Pentagon and at the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first administration. He is not an Ivy Leaguer, having graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. A past executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party, he leveraged that role into a series of jobs within the first Trump administration, finishing as program associate director for national security in the Office of Management & Budget. He spent the past few years as a consultant, cofounding Equinox Global Solutions, which describes itself as a market intelligence firm advising businesses with “expertise in defense, energy, the environment, science, technology, intelligence, foreign assistance, and international finance.”

Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

Emil Michael is set to be the Pentagon’s top technologist. Michael, 51, helped lead Uber as its Chief Business Officer from 2013-2017. Prior to that, he was special assistant to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during the Obama administration. Harvard educated as an undergrad, Michael earned a law degree from Stanford.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs

Retired Navy Cmdr. Keith Bass will serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. Bass has led medical departments in the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the White House Medical Unit. Keith will be leading the charge to ensure troops are healthy and receiving the best medical care possible.

Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary remains Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and Army National Guard major whose nomination initially looked troubled due to widely published allegations of sexual impropriety, alcohol abuse, and overspending during his time with a pair of non-profit veterans organizations. But Trump has stuck with Hegseth, and resistance in Congress, while still possible, has become more muted in recent weeks.

Trump also said Joe Kasper will Chief of Staff for the Secretary of Defense. Kasper, a Navy veteran, was special assistant to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Acting Secretary Matt Donovan in 2019-2020. He has a decade of experience as a staff member on Capitol Hill, much of it with former Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter.

Trump previously named John Phelan, a businessman donor with an MBA from Harvard, to be Navy Secretary and Daniel P. Driscoll, an Army veteran and Yale Law School graduate, to lead the Army. Driscoll has been a senior advisor to fellow Yale Law grad Vice President-elect J.D. Vance.

Among the names floated for Air Force Secretary, the most frequently named in media reports has been Andrew McKenna, CEO of investment firm McKenna & Associates and a licensed pilot. He owns and operates a vintage P-51 Mustang and a T-6 Texan, and has flown with the Air Force Heritage Flight Foundation.

DOD, Lockheed Agree on Price for Next 145 F-35s

Dec. 23, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The F-35 Joint Program Office has agreed in principal to pay up to $11.8 billion for the next 145 F-35s from manufacturer Lockheed Martin—but final details on the deal won’t be hammered out until the spring.

The action specifies that the cost will not exceed $11.76 billion for Lot 18 jets, pegging the average price for the three F-35 variants at $81.1 million. Work on the jets is to be completed by June 2027.

The Department of Defense announced the “undefinitized” deal Dec. 20, saying final details will be worked out in the coming months. The Defense Acquisition University defines an undefinitized contract action as one that has “some aspect that is left open, to be determined prior to the start of contract performance.” Lockheed and the Pentagon previously agreed to an undefinitized contract action for F-35s in 2018, saying then that it allowed the company to receive funds to keep up production while final details were being negotiated.

Among the 145 jets included are:

48 F-35As for the Air Force

16 F-35B and 5 F-35C models for the Marine Corps

14 F-35C models for the Navy

15 F-35A and 1 F-35B models for F-35 program partners

39 F-35A and 7 F-35B models for Foreign Military Sales customers

Exact costs per type and service were not disclosed.

Getting the undefinitized action is important for Lockheed; officials said in October that the company was fronting its own money to keep F-35 production up while negotiations dragged on.

It could also be important given the upcoming change in presidential administrations. While President-elect Donald Trump has been highly complimentary of the F-35 and some Republican leaders want to boost defense spending, other administration insiders have been critical of the jet—most prominently Elon Musk, co-chair of the “Department of Government Efficiency.” Musk’s commission is supposed to advise Trump on cost-saving moves, and Musk has criticized both the F-35 program and the purpose of building crewed aircraft, rather than uninhabited drones. Musk’s comments have drawn sharp rebukes from both sides of the political aisle.

Air Force Reopens Competition for New F-16 Ejection Seats

Dec. 23, 2024 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is reopening the competition for its Next-Generation Ejection Seat program, giving vendors the chance to offer their solutions for a new seat for the F-16 while sticking with its choice for the F-15.

The service announced the decision Dec. 20, four months after it first cracked the door with a “sources sought synopsis.” Now officials say they will continue work with Collins Aerospace on its new seat for the F-15 while seeking other options for the F-16. Those options could carry over to the F-22 and B-1.

In October 2019 the Air Force announced its intent to award a sole-source contract to Collins for its new ACES 5 ejection seat, declaring it was the “only company able to meet the Government’s minimum requirements for the NGES program.”

In 2020, USAF and Collins agreed to a $700 million deal covering the F-15 fleet, planning at the time to also put the ACES 5 the all Air Force fighters—except the F-35—as well as on the B-1.

But now, with “new data, updated market research, and evolving operational demands, the Air Force will issue a revised acquisition strategy for the F-16 and F-22,” the service said in its release. The F-16 will be first.

“The decision to re-open the competition underscores our commitment to continually assess our strategies to ensure we meet warfighter needs and timelines,” said Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics Andrew Hunter in the statement. “By reassessing market conditions and fostering competition, we ensure industry delivers the best possible solutions for both current and future Air Force requirements.”

The main competitor for Collins is Martin-Baker, the only other manufacturer of ejection seats for Air Force planes. Its seats are on the F-35, the T-6, the T-38, and the A-29—and most prominently, its newest seat, the US18E, is being installed on new Block 70 F-16 fighters built by Lockheed Martin for foreign partners. As part of that process, the seat was qualified in coordination with the F-16 program office and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center.

A company official confirmed to Air & Space Forces Magazine that Martin-Baker will pursue the new F-16 opportunity on NGES, offering the US18E.

Collins, meanwhile, has a long history on Air Force programs. Its ACES II ejection seat flies on the F-15, F-16, F-22, and B-1, and the ACES 5 was tapped for the new T-7 Red Hawk trainer.

ACES II was first developed in the 1970s. Kevin Coyne, a member of the SAFE Association, an organization focused on safety and life support systems, previously told Air & Space Forces Magazine that while upgrades and modifications have been incorporated since then, new technology has developed that can reduce injuries and help pilots and aircrew survive the hazards of being hurled from their aircraft in flight—events that can cause all sorts of traumatic injuries. Coyne also said maintenance on ACES II seats can be difficult, requiring the removal of the aircraft canopy and extra equipment.

ACES 5 makes improvements in those areas, Coyne said. If selected, it would replace the ACES II seats.