Robot Tug Could Save MQ-9 Reaper Maintainers Time, Money, and Risk

Robot Tug Could Save MQ-9 Reaper Maintainers Time, Money, and Risk

A prototype aircraft tug being tested out at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., could save MQ-9 Reaper maintainers time and money and cut down on safety risks on the flightline.

The TowFLEXX is a remote-controlled, electric tug that has a smaller logistical footprint and takes up less space than old-school aircraft towing systems, which often involved specialized tractors or a gas-powered truck and a towbar. A smaller footprint would help with Agile Combat Employment, the Air Force strategy of dispersing teams of Airmen to smaller or austere air bases to complicate targeting for near-peer adversaries such as Russia and China.

“Typically you would take up two or three pallet positions with the older version of a tow vehicle,” Tech. Sgt. Dwane Parmelee, with the Holloman-based 49th Component Maintenance Squadron, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “This would take up one pallet position at most, and you can still stack bags and stuff on top of it, so you’re really getting a dual-purpose pallet position there.”

While other Air Force bases also use TowFLEXX, the prototype at Holloman are special. Unlike their counterparts, the TF3 variant is equipped with a Light and Detection Range (LiDAR) collision avoidance system which spots obstacles and automatically stops the tug. That means fewer Airmen have to be on hand to supervise a towing operation.

Under the old system, towing a Reaper might take five to six Airmen, Parmelee explained: one to operate the towing vehicle, three or more wing and tail walkers to make sure the 66-foot-wide, 36-foot-long aircraft doesn’t hit anything, and a supervisor overseeing the operation. With the TF3, that number falls to just the vehicle operator and two wing walkers, which frees up maintainers to do other tasks.

“Every hour we save an Airman from doing a job that technology can do, that’s saving us time and it’s saving us money,” said Senior Master Sgt. Joseph Anger, quality assurance superintendent for the 49th Maintenance Group. “We’re looking at saving over 3,000 hours per year just towing the MQ-9 alone at Holloman.”

That would more than make up for the TowFLEXX’s price tag—between $50,000 and $90,000, depending on the variant—at a time when many Air Force bases have too few maintainers to sustain an aging fleet of aircraft. Besides cost-savings, the LiDAR-equipped TF3s could also increase flightline safety by preventing collisions.

“Humans, we’re really good, but we could be working an eight-hour shift in the rain or something like that and something happens,” Anger said.

At a recent demonstration, the TF3 avoided engineers from Evitado Technologies, the company that built the LiDAR anti-collision system, who served as obstacles in the tug’s path. Some maintainers “were shocked by the LiDAR system’s ability to identify obstacles inches away from the aircraft and then shut down,” Anger said.

“Everyone was amazed,” he said. “They were coming up like ‘hey, what else can we put this on?’”

mq-9 reaper
Members of Holloman, TowFLEXX Miltech and Evitado conduct an MQ-9 Reaper towing demonstration at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, Feb. 27, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Isaiah Pedrazzini)

Also impressive was the tug’s maneuverability: without a towbar expanding its turning radius, the TowFLEXX spun the Reaper in circles in place, which could help Airmen store more aircraft and equipment in tighter spaces. And while the older TowFLEXX models had just one motor, the TF3 has two, which means it can tow heavier aircraft. 

In 2023, there was “an upward trend” in ground mishaps involving maintenance, aircraft towing, and other flight line work, Maj. Gen. Sean M. Choquette, the Air Force Chief of Safety, said in October. TF3 may be able to help with that.

“You have a 360-degree view of the aircraft and any obstructions,” said Parmelee. “Therefore your mishap prevention is going to improve astronomically.”

Anger sees a future where the LiDAR-equipped TowFLEXX can tow an aircraft completely autonomously.

“My overall goal is to have these TowFLEXXes just pull up to the aircraft, connect to the aircraft, and then tows without anyone being there,” he said.

Grassroots Innovation

Perhaps just as helpful as the TowFLEXX is the story of how the TF3 prototype got to Holloman. Anger has a history of liaising between flightlines and tech companies to make Airmen’s jobs easier. A key tool for doing that is AFWERX, an Air Force program that provides funding and technical expertise to support grassroots solutions to Air Force and Space Force challenges.

Through AFWERX, Anger learned how to access small business innovation research contracts, which helped him “push a lot more ‘outside-the-box’ thinking,” and he encouraged other Airmen to do the same.

AFWERX is there “to help the innovator at the wing level, or even at the squadron level or below, come up with grassroots innovations,” he said.

Anger had worked with Evitado in the past, which helped spark the idea to partner with TowFLEXX. Now he wants to move fast to get the project through the “Valley of Death,” the transition period between prototype and scaled-up production where many ideas fizzle out. 

More cash from the Strategic Funding and Tactical Funding programs should help with that; Anger said those funding buckets and support from leadership has helped more projects get out of the valley.

“Hopefully in the near future we could be replacing the older systems with this new autonomous system,” Anger said.

“The more Airmen have a voice in innovation, the better,” the senior master sergeant said. “We have a lot of great technology that we’re working on, and we’re going to be able to save money, save time, and improve quality of life for Airmen.”

Tech Sgt. Jason Norris, 476th Maintenance Squadron crew chief, receives hands-on training from Uli Nielen, Aviate Enterprises executive sales representative, on the TowFLEXX Aircraft Tug, Dec. 5, 2022, at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.(U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. John Crampton)
Air Force and Space Force Look to Expand JSE, Pair It with Other Training Tools

Air Force and Space Force Look to Expand JSE, Pair It with Other Training Tools

AURORA, Colo.—As the Air Force and Navy prepare to spend billions of dollars expanding the Joint Simulation Environment, military and industry experts said last week they are already thinking about ways they can pair the high-end virtual environment with training for other services and allies. 

The JSE—described by Col. Robert S. “Slip” Smith, commander of the 505th Combat Training Group, during an AFA Warfare Symposium panel as a “high-fidelity, fifth-gen-plus, physics-based environment”—started as a way to complete operational testing for the F-35 because some of the fighter’s capabilities were too sensitive to turn on during live flight.  

It evolved, however, when the Air Force Weapons School realized it could be used for pilot training, said Col. C. Matt Ryan, senior materiel leader for the simulators division at the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, in another panel discussion

Now, the Air Force is planning to establish more JSE facilities starting in 2025 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The goal is to eventually expand that even further to every F-35 base, including overseas. 

Along the way, the Air Force decided to mandate that all new weapons systems be able to plug into the JSE, Ryan noted. 

Yet as JSE grows, officials say they still see it as one component in the live, virtual, and constructive world of test and training—one they will need to make compatible with other systems. 

“Being able to bring that down and incorporate that type of training into fourth- and third-gen networks, coalition networks, and being able to really incorporate that into the unit of action [concept of operations], to be able to execute ACE operations in the Indo-Pacific theater, that’s what we need,” Smith said. “We need to be able to share that information, to go from the high-fidelity to the low-fidelity, and have a full immersive battlespace, synthetic and blended experience.” 

Iain Ferguson, an executive with SAIC’s Air Force and combatant commands business group, described that effort as “the larger JSE program of record” and said the Air Force and Navy “have already made really great strides … to include a lot of this understanding of different fidelities.” 

One of those strides, he noted, was deploying some of SAIC’s non-JSE simulators, called FENIX, to U.S. Air Forces in Europe’s Warfare Center.  

“It’s really exciting to see what we’re able to do at a lower fidelity, but very much focused on, how do you do integration, eight-ship integration with other components, joint, and coalition partners, training together, large-force exercises, much of it simulated or constructive, but also with pilots,” Ferguson said. 

While high-fidelity training is important, both Smith and Ferguson cited the need for less sophisticated simulators and virtual environments that can be deployed on a wider scale than JSE right now. Those training tools are important for large-scale exercises, an area of particular interest for the Air Force as it prepares for a potential conflict with the likes of China.  

Tying the JSE into the lower-end environments, however, is still important so that F-35 pilots can learn to operate alongside allies and forces outside of the “day one fight” as Smith put it—an inevitable scenario in any potential large-scale conflict. 

“It’s important that we can train with our coalition partners without losing the fidelity of the training for our forces,” Ferguson said. 

A Canadian coalition tactical air control party member operates within a simultaneously live, virtual, and constructive environment allowing warfighters to prepare to wage war, and then practice doing so in a realistic simulation so that they can learn how to be combat effective during Coalition VIRTUAL FLAG 22-1 at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, Oct. 24 – Nov. 5, 2021. This photo has been altered for security purposes by removing monitor screens and paperwork on the floor. U.S. Air Force photo by Deb Henley

One way to ensure that is to bring allies into the JSE—something Ryan said the Air Force is working on at Nellis. 

“Before the month is over, that’s our expectation, is that we will have that as a schedulable training asset for the [Combat Air Force], and hopefully for them to also bring in coalition partners,” he said. “That’s obviously a big emphasis area for our senior leaders, is to be able to do those reps and sets in a combined fashion with those coalition partners as well.” 

To bring the JSE to allies instead of vice versa will require solving latency and security issues, Ferguson said. 

It seems likely that officials will tackle those problems as JSE becomes more and more integral to test and training across the entire Pentagon. Col. Corey Klopstein, program executive officer for Operational Test and Training Infrastructure (OTTI) at Space Systems Command, said the Space Force has joined the JSE user group and is looking to upgrade its OTTI. 

“The Space Force needs to provide space effects to the joint warfighter to ensure the joint warfighter can validate in their training events and their exercises, whether or not they’re going to be effective,” Klopstein said. “The Space Force also needs a high-fidelity environment to be able to validate not just our system performance in the threat environment that we anticipate, but also our tactics, and validate our tactics.” 

Just like the Air Force, though, Klopstein said the Space Force wants JSE to fit into a larger infrastructure that has more scalable systems. 

“What we’re trying to do is establish multiple synthetic environments, one for distributed training and one for the high-end,” he said. “The distributed training environment that we’re working on right now is called SWARM. We use that for our Space Flag [exercises.] And we’re working … to try to get that as realistic as possible, and we want to make sure that that’s the training system that we use to have cross-mission area training. Going forward, though, we won’t just need the high-fidelity training. We also need the test capabilities.” 

‘Peace Through Strength’ Starts with Rebuilding the US Air Force 

‘Peace Through Strength’ Starts with Rebuilding the US Air Force 

“Airpower, anytime” is, as Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David Allvin recently declared, a promise the Air Force must uphold for the nation. “We have to sustain and maintain the ability to go anytime, anywhere in the densest threat environment and put ‘warheads on foreheads’ anywhere the President might want.” He is right.  

The roles and missions executed by Air Force warriors are essential to the nation’s security. Yet after three decades of constant demand and minimal replenishment, our Air Force is too small and too old. It needs to be rebuilt. The Trump administration and Congress must fund that modernization to ensure that the Air Force is sufficiently equipped, sized, and ready to fight and win when necessary. The nation’s security depends on it.  

Air Force Underfunded for Decades 

The challenges facing the Air Force stem from executing non-stop combat operations since 1990—longer than any other service. Operations Desert Storm, Northern and Southern Watch, Deliberate Force, Allied Force, Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, Unified Protector, Inherent Resolve, and additional engagements demanded much from the Air Force. Other services participated in some of these, but only the Air Force engaged in all of them. Post-Cold War budgets failed to keep pace with the demands on the Service. In the wake of the Berlin Wall falling, Department of the Air Force procurement funding plunged 52 percent, deeper than cuts to the Navy, at 32 percent or the Army at 40 percent.

Later, the Air Force became the bill-payer for U.S. counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: In the 20 years after the 9/11 attacks, national investment in the Army outstripped spending on the Air Force by $1.3 trillion; spending on the Navy was over $900 billion greater than the Air Force. Further spending reductions spurred by the 2011 Budget Control Act cut billions more from the Air Force, undermining readiness, reducing capacity, and slowing modernization. 

Virtually every Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force for the past several decades has identified the risks of the consistent underfunding of the Department of the Air Force.  

“Budget pressures are forcing us to be a smaller Air Force,” said Secretary Michael W. Wynne in 2007.  

“We can’t continue to cut force structure to pay the cost of readiness and modernization, or we risk being too small to succeed,” said Chief of Staff Mark Welsh in 2015.  

“The Air Force is too small for the missions demanded of it,” said Secretary Heather Wilson in 2017. 

Doing more with less for too long will break any military service. The Air Force is on that precipice. It is now the smallest, oldest, and least prepared in its entire history—a dangerous reality given the scale and scope of the threat environment. Worse, Biden’s last budget plans—still in effect—have the Air Force scheduled to get even smaller by 2030. Now Gen. Allvin has made it clear that “America needs more Air Force.”  

At the end of the Cold War in 1989, the Air Force had more than 4,300 fighters; today it has just over 2,000—less than half as many. The Air Force had 410 bombers in 1989, but just 140 today—over 65 percent less. Airlifters, aerial refuelers, command and control types, plus intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are also down substantially. 

It is not just that the Air Force is smaller. It is also less ready. On any given day, only 54 percent of all of its aircraft are available due to maintenance issues and parts shortages worsened by ever increasing age. Apply that reality and those 2,000 fighters and 140 bombers drop to just 1,093 and 76, respectively. The fact is, when needed, 46 percent of all USAF aircraft cannot do what combatant commanders need them to do. On top of this, concurrent demands in multiple theaters—including homeland defense, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific—take a small Air Force inventory and spread it thinner. Not only do combatant commanders not have enough in their Air Force components to meet peacetime missions, but in a time of war, the capacity gaps could prove catastrophic.  

Risk of War Dramatically Increasing  

Yet today, the risk of major war is greater than at any time since the Berlin Wall fell. The U.S. and China are increasingly locked in a rivalry that spans economic, technological, and military spheres. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to the most significant war in Europe since World War II, and Moscow’s rhetoric around nuclear weapons makes the situation even more precarious. The combination of heightened geopolitical tensions between the U.S., China, and Russia, regional flashpoints, and new threats like cyber warfare, all contribute to an intensely dangerous international environment. The risk of miscalculation, aggressive posturing, and the breakdown of diplomatic channels all increase the potential for conflict. 

Since the end of the Cold War, Air Force leaders across multiple decades received insufficient funding to buy enough new aircraft. Divestments of aging airframes outpaced new aircraft procurement for too long. The service now finds itself in a force structure nosedive. In the Biden administration’s 2025 budget request, the Air Force sought to divest 250 aircraft, while buying just 91. That math becomes terminal at some point, which is how the nation risks losing the next war.  

Rebuild the Air Force America Requires 

Among the Air Force’s 140 bombers, just 19 are stealthy B-2s that can rapidly strike targets anywhere on the planet with virtually no fear of detection. The largest USAF bomber fleet is comprised of 76 B-52s—jets that average 63 years old. Only 28 percent of the Air Force fighters are fifth-generation aircraft, which possess the stealth, sensors, processing power, electronic warfare capabilities, and connectivity necessary to survive in the modern battlespace. The mobility and training fleets are also long in the tooth: T-38 trainers and KC-135 tankers predate the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, and airlifters are on average a quarter century old.

Getting healthy will involve accelerating acquisition rates for aircraft like the F-35, F-15EX, Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), KC-46, T-7, and others. The Air Force must also continue to modernize types like the MQ-9, F-22, F-16, B-52, C-5, C-130, C-17, and KC-135. On top of this, the Air Force needs to recapitalize two legs of the nuclear triad with the Sentential intercontinental ballistic missile and the B-21 bomber.

Rebuilding the Air Force involves more than new equipment. Underfunding is also causing dangerous risk when it comes to the readiness of pilots and other crew members. At the recent AFA Warfare Symposium, Gen. Allvin shared a chart showing that the Air Force has been unable to meet its total “required flying hours” since 2017—gradually degrading overall pilot proficiency. With fewer aircraft available, pilots cannot fly the training sorties needed to maintain mission qualifications.  

Current Air Force leaders, like so many of their predecessors, are committed to fixing these deficiencies, but they cannot do so without additional resources. President Trump’s goal of peace through strength demands an Air Force with the capacity, capability, and readiness to meet our collective combatant command requirements for America’s defense. This is not just for the Air Force’s sake—it’s about ensuring the U.S. does not lose the next war. No form of U.S. joint power projection is possible without some element of the Department of the Air Force. 

Gen. Allvin sums up what is at stake: “I think we need more options for the President. And that’s what more Air Force provides. It means everything from rapid response all the way to decisive victory.”  

It is time to heed this call for action before it is too late. It is time to rebuild the Air Force the nation requires.  

David A. Deptula is a retired Air Force lieutenant general and dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, and Douglas A. Birkey is the Mitchell Institute’s Executive Director.

Space Force Asks for ‘Flexibility’ to Manage Effects of Yearlong CR

Space Force Asks for ‘Flexibility’ to Manage Effects of Yearlong CR

With Congress considering another continuing resolution to cover the rest of fiscal 2025, the Space Force’s No. 2 officer asked lawmakers to give the service “flexibility” to deal with budget uncertainty.

The Pentagon has never operated under a continuing resolution—which for the most part keeps spending levels frozen at the previous year’s levels—for an entire year. But that appears likely to change as lawmakers consider their options ahead of a March 14 funding deadline.

At a Senate Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing on March 12, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) asked Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael A. Guetlein about the impact of a yearlong CR.

“It’s a huge challenge. It’s very, very inefficient,” Guetlein said. “We are the smallest force with the smallest budget, so any churn in our budget is a huge hit to us.”

Yet if Congress does pass a yearlong CR, Guetlein echoed other services in asking for flexibility. The CR passed by the House and being considered by the Senate has “anomalies”—special permissions to permit the services to undertake new programs, which are typically prohibited under a CR.

Those would be crucial for the Space Force, Guetlein said.

“On new starts, we are seeing an enormous amount every single year, and it is very hard … when you have to wait two to four years to get the budget to get after those threats,” Guetlein said. “So anything you can do—budget flexibility for new starts, authorities [for program element] consolidation, the ability to move money between programs—would be hugely beneficial.”

Guetlein, who previously led Space Systems Command, the Space Force’s main acquisition arm, said USSF would also also benefit from authority to undertake multiyear procurements, which can save money over time. Congress and the Pentagon have worked on multiyear procurements for munitions, but the Space Force has not previously been deeply involved in discussions around those authorities.

While budget uncertainty swirls, Guetlein did say the Space Force is doing well with recruiting. “We are seeing two volunteers for every recruit that we take in,” he said. “So we’re able to be very, very, very selective for high quality.”

Some 15 percent of recruits join with some college education, and some even have PhDs, he said. The Space Force has met its recruiting goals in each of the past four years, and this year it is already at 104 percent of goal for enlisted and 101 percent for officers.

Better still, Guetlein said the Space Force is keeping its people, retaining them at a 98 percent rate, a level unprecedented in comparison to other military branches.

New Budget Deal Could Cost USAF Up to $14 Billion

New Budget Deal Could Cost USAF Up to $14 Billion

A full-year continuing resolution in place of an authorized and appropriated fiscal 2025 budget would cost the Air Force at least $4 billion and potentially up to $14 billion, said Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, deputy chief of staff for operations, in congressional testimony.

“The CR … has impact on our readiness up to the tune of about $4 billion,” Spain said at a Senate Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing March 12. “Without anomalies, and with the Fiscal Responsibility Act kicking in,” he added, the real impact is “closer to $14 billion, which we cannot afford.”

The flexibility and anomalies he referenced have to do with special permissions proposed to permit the services to undertake new programs, which are typically prohibited under a CR.

“We expect and look forward to the final version of this CR, if it were to pass, with flexibility and agility and anomalies, to spend as required, to retain readiness to the maximum possible level,” Spain told the committee.

Spain didn’t elaborate on the specific cuts or reductions necessary to live within the CR’s spending limits. Instead, he discussed the “four primary pillars” of Air Force readiness that could be affected by spending reductions: “parts and supply, people, flying and training, and current infrastructure.”

Other programs impacting future readiness will also be affected, he said, including “rebuilding acquisitions, long-term sustainment, and recruiting and retention at a relevant pace and scale.”

Spain said the Air Force would also benefit from flexibility on quality-of-life accounts “to mitigate those risks” should funding be insufficient in some areas.

While Airmen will always “get the job done,” he said, “they do so at an elevated risk” when budgets are squeezed. “It is … a fact that today’s Airmen [operates] with the oldest airplanes, the smallest force, and with fewer monthly flying hours than at any point in our history.”

He noted that while the U.S. Air Force is being cut, China’s military forces, by contrast, “are expanding and modernizing their nuclear modernization, [and] long-range missile proliferation.” Recent Chinese test flights “of two sixth-gen aircraft is simply further evidence of the elevated threat in the strategic environment,” Spain said.

While the Air Force has traditionally focused on individual elements of readiness, like flying hours for pilots, the service is now trying to look holistically at how those elements “must be synchronized to create a warfighting capability over time.” The Air Force can no longer afford “the luxury of segmented attention,” he said.

“We’ve specifically prioritized parts and supply in the flying hour program,” he said. “We’ve also reconnected our manpower and infrastructure priorities directly to our core readiness outcomes in both our processes and our data. It’s our intent to maintain focus and priority on these pillars to strengthen our readiness and improve our lethality, and we’re moving out.”

SASC Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) joined the readiness subcommittee for the hearing, and noted that the yearlong CR would leave the defense budget underfunded.

“The real flaw in the CR that we’ll be voting on later this week is that it doesn’t provide enough money, regardless of the anomalies and the tiny plus-ups here and there,” Wicker said. The Senate version of the CR has “$150 billion in the reconciliation bill” which he said “may not be enough.”

Wicker said he has heard “some comforting words from the administration that they realize that, too.” The House version of the measure, already passed, contains $100 billion extra for defense.

Wicker ticked off new and increasing threats from China, Russia, and North Korea and said additional funds would be necessary to counter those.

Readiness subcommittee chair Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) focused his questioning on how a yearlong CR would affect each service branch. One by one, each service representative offered a variation on how other accounts would have to be raided to pay for cuts imposed by the CR. Sullivan observed that the only thing worse than a yearlong CR would be “a government shutdown.”  

A shutdown looms if Congress does not pass the CR or some other measure this week.

Sullivan indicated military end strength should be increased, noting that doing so would reverse reductions approved when the services couldn’t achieve their recruiting goals in 2023. All the witnesses said their services were above 100 percent of recruiting targets in fiscal 2024, but those goals were smaller than in prior years.

“From a recruiting standpoint,” Spain said, “the Air Force was above glide slope on our recruiting goals for the year. We increased the [goal] by 20 percent and in fact, we’re still above the 20 percent increase. And we have the largest delayed-entry pool that we’ve had in 10 years,” he said.

USAF is further along “at this point in the year [than it has been] in the last 15 years,” Spain added. “So we’re in a good position.” Spain credited the improvement to additional recruiters and increased training.

Pentagon Deploys Air Force Intel Analysts for Border Mission

Pentagon Deploys Air Force Intel Analysts for Border Mission

The U.S. military is sending approximately 40 Air Force intelligence analysts to beef up its surveillance of the southern border, U.S. Northern Command announced March 11. 

Those Airmen, along with approximately 590 engineers from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Army 18th Airborne Corps, will bring the total number of troops deployed for the border mission to 9,600.

The Trump administration has made securing the border a high-priority military mission, and the Air Force, Navy, and other U.S. government assets have been conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions along the southern border and off the coast of Mexico, with some flights occurring as early as January.

Those operations are being carried out by U.S. Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft from Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., and U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft based in the continental United States, U.S. officials said.

“We are America’s eyes in the skies watching our southern border to protect the homeland in support of [U.S. Northern Command] and our interagency partners within [the Department of Homeland Security] and [Customs and Border Protection],” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin posted on the social media site X on March 12 to acknowledge the latest deployment. “Our ISR pros never blink!”

NORTHCOM has established the Joint Intelligence Task Force-Southern Border to oversee the joint service effort. Its intelligence analysts work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. There have previously been at least 140 U.S. military intelligence personnel from multiple services assigned to the command as part of the southern border mission.

“These intelligence personnel will provide full motion video analysis, counter network analysis, and Spanish language translation to the U.S. Border Patrol Office of Intelligence,” NORTHCOM stated on Feb. 4.

A P-8A Poseidon flies near the southwest border of the United States, Feb. 18, 2025. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jacquelin Frost

Allvin said in a Feb. 27 interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine that Airmen “have been doing everything asked for them, most recently, in support of southwest border and the president’s priority of restoring sovereignty and protecting protecting our borders—absolutely part and parcel of that, from the rapid global mobility to be able to transport the illegal aliens to their destination, to surveillance and reconnaissance support, to anything that’s being asked of us.” 

Some of the approximately 40 new Airmen assigned to the mission will serve at the headquarters of Joint Intelligence Task Force-Southern Border, which is located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., a defense official told Air & Space Forces Magazine. 

Other locations where the intelligence analysts are expected to serve include Joint Reserve Intelligence Centers, which are located in San Diego, Calif.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Fort Worth, Texas; and Jacksonville, Fla., the official said.

U.S. Air Force RC-135 intelligence-gathering flights have taken place along the border and off the coast of Mexico throughout February and March, according to U.S. officials and flight tracking data. 

Navy P-8 flights, which begin conducting operations around the southern border in January, have been particularly common. At least one Navy P-8 near the border is equipped with the highly-capable AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor radar—a long pod visible on the centerline under the aircraft. That P-8 was based in Europe but was recently moved to Texas. As of March 12, it was located at Fort Carswell at Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, open-source flight tracking data shows. In addition to operations from the Navy air bases, the Department of Defense has acknowledged it has conducted P-8 flights from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, the border intelligence headquarters.

U.S. military officials have said other airborne intelligence gathering assets are also being used to provide data, which must then be analyzed and coordinated within the U.S. government. 

In addition to intelligence operations, Air Force C-17s and C-130s have been used to deport detainees from the U.S. 

“While I cannot get into specifics regarding each Airman, I can confirm that intelligence analysts supporting Joint Intelligence Task Force-Southern Border will be located both throughout the southern border area at various intelligence centers in the continental United States,” a NORTHCOM spokesperson said.

U.S. Soldiers assigned to Task Force Sentinel survey the southern border wall in a UH-72A Lakota at Dona Ana, New Mexico, on Feb. 22, 2025. U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Dominic Atlas
Space Force Component Bosses: More Guardians Needed

Space Force Component Bosses: More Guardians Needed

AURORA, Colo.—Leaders in charge of Space Force components embedded with combatant commands say their organizations are too small to engage with joint force as they need to. In a panel discussion at the AFA Warfare Symposium, the commanders highlighted the manpower and resource crunch they face as the Space Force’s mission and presence grows around the globe. 

The Space Force established Space Forces Indo-Pacific in 2022, and has since added subordinate commands—Space Forces Korea and Space Forces Japan. Other component commands are Space Forces Europe and Africa and Space Forces Central. In each case, the component launched with just a small team: 21 in the Indo-Pacific, about 30 in Europe and Africa, and 30 or so for U.S. Central Command in the Middle East. 

By comparison, Pacific Air Forces has more than 30,000 Airmen; U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa more than 23,000; and Air Forces Central more than 13,000. 

Space Force officials noted from the start that their component commanders would be outranked by other component commanders in each region, a challenge when they have to speak up to advocate for resources and strategic decision making. But at the symposium, the component commanders said the compact size of their commands is also having an ill effect. 

“My number one priority, as soon as I can get a few extra folks, is to have a [liaison officer] embedded at [Army Central], AFCENT, etc., across all the components,” said SPACECENT commander Col. Christopher Putman. “Just with everything else we have to do, I just don’t have the bandwidth to do that right now.” 

spacecent
SPACECENT Commander Col. Christopher Putman speaking in 2023. Photo by Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine

Without liaison officers, Putman noted, space’s contributions to the joint force can be limited. 

“We had a carrier come in from the Pacific. I got on the phone, talked to the skipper, and before they got into the AOR, we flew a team of Guardians and soldiers, because I’ve got soldiers on my team, out to the carrier,” Putman said. “They spent a few days planning the operation and just building that knowledge of what the carrier strike group could bring, and what SPACECENT can bring, and the operations thereafter were just, I don’t want to call them flawless, but much better than I’ve ever seen before, and that’s a relationship you have to nurture and continue to work at. We had another carrier come in later on that we just for a whole host of reasons, we didn’t have the opportunity to fly out there and sit on the boat with them, and it didn’t go as well.” 

Space Forces Europe and Africa commander Brig. Gen. Jacob Middleton Jr. cited a similar disconnect with other service components, saying he didn’t have the resources or staff to work out with them the specifics of what the Space Force can do for them. That issue was highlighted recently, he said, when another component gave only a cursory nod to space capabilities, saying they could cover whatever the Space Force could not do. 

“We’re not resourced to do it, you don’t understand space,” Middleton said. 

Exercises under the combatant commands need more Guardians to inject “realism,” Middleton added. By showing exactly what his component can and can’t do, he hopes to gain support for more resources. 

“What I’ve been doing is going to the other components, and I say, ‘Hey, here’s your space dependency. What do you want throughout the span of this conflict, what do you want us to invest in? … And then what do you want and are willing to pay for, not just money and bodies and research? Do you have some empty space I can use? Do you have some desk space and computers?” Middleton said. “And so it’s not just an understanding piece, but it gets them vested in getting after the campaign objectives.” 

Brig. Gen. Jacob Middleton, commander of U.S. Space Forces Europe and Space Forces Africa, speaks during the Space Force Association’s 2024 Spacepower Conference in Orlando, Fla., Dec. 11, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Eric Dietrich)

Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Mastalir, commander of Space Forces Indo-Pacific, also cited the need to educate other service components on their “space dependencies.” If an attack in space limits the accuracy and effectiveness of a missile, for example, targeting becomes all the more difficult in the critical Pacific region. 

Different organizations are working on models to quantify those effects, Mastalir said, but it is critical “to get them into theater so that the warfighters have access to that data.” 

By highlighting the need for space in their theaters, the commanders hope to build their case for more resources and manpower. Their components already have grown—SPACEFOR-INDOPAC now has almost 100 personnel, SPACECENT has more than 60—but none are near where they need to be to fulfill all their anticipated obligations.  

“When we’ve done all the mission analysis … that went methodically through the battle rhythm of INDOPACOM, looking at all the touch points we have built, baseball cards for every single position that we need on the staff, to understand what are the inputs, what are the outputs, where is this Guardian contributing to the joint force in this particular environment?” Mastalir said. “You roll that up into a programming plan across Space Forces Indo-Pacific and across Space Forces Japan and Korea, which are also under my flag, you’re looking at a headquarter size of somewhere between 400 and 500.”

That’s four to five times the current command’s manning.

Competition for resources will only increase as additional component commands stand up. Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman told reporters at the symposium that Space Forces South will soon launch as a component to U.S. Southern Command. Its headquarters has already begun to take shape.

Retired Missileer Nominated to Be Air Force Manpower Secretary

Retired Missileer Nominated to Be Air Force Manpower Secretary

A former missileer with 30 years of service has been nominated for the position of assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs.

Retired Col. Richard L. Anderson was one of several dozen nominations the White House sent to the Senate on March 10, though it is not clear yet when the Senate Armed Services Committee will weigh the nomination.

Originally from Roanoke, Va., Anderson commissioned into the Air Force after graduating from Virginia Tech in 1979. He served as a Titan II ICBM combat crew combat crew commander at Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark., and as a Minuteman II squadron operations officer at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., according to his biography at George Mason University. 

He also served at the headquarters of Strategic Air Command, U.S. Atlantic Command, U.S. Pacific Command, Headquarters Air Force at the Pentagon, and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense before retiring in 2009.

Anderson served in the Civil Air Patrol even longer, joining in 1969 and receiving the highest CAP cadet honor, the Gen. Carl A. Spaatz Award, in 1972. He served as national commander from 1993 to 1996, then sat on the Air Force auxiliary’s board of governors from 2009 to 2014, including two years as chairman, according to the Civil Air Patrol. 

The retired colonel became involved in Virginia politics, representing the 51st House District in the Virginia General Assembly from 2010 to 2018. Anderson told the American Legion in 2015 that serving in the military prepared him for work in the General Assembly. 

“In doing international affairs work, I learned to connect and collaborate and reach consensus with people across national boundaries, across cultures, and learn to respect what other people think and to maybe recalibrate what I’m thinking,” he said.

Anderson lost his reelection bid in 2019, then was elected to his current seat as chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia in August 2020.

“I am grateful to the President for his trust and confidence,” Anderson said in a written statement, according to The Washington Post. “President Trump’s nomination is also a reflection of the amazing electoral successes that our party has had in Virginia over the last four years.”

Anderson is the latest Air Force nominee awaiting confirmation by the Senate, and he could be waiting months, given the large number of pending cabinet-level and sub-cabinet-level selections.

On Jan. 16, then-President-elect Donald Trump picked Troy E. Meink to become the next Secretary of the Air Force. Meink is currently the principal deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, a Department of Defense intelligence agency that works closely with the Space Force. Trump’s pick for Undersecretary of the Air Force, Matthew Lohmeier, is a former Space Force lieutenant colonel who was relieved of command in 2021.

Two Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), sent a letter to Meink late last month after a Reuters report that he showed favoritism to SpaceX—the space technology company owned by Elon Musk, who also advises Trump—in a 2021 government contract solicitation.

“These reports raise concerns about your ability, if confirmed as Secretary, to treat contractors fairly and prioritize the Air Force’s mission over Elon Musk’s business interests,” the senators wrote. Air & Space Forces Magazine could not immediately determine if either has placed a legislative hold on Meink’s nomination.

Gary A. Ashworth, a career Department of Defense civil servant and former Air Force officer, has been serving as acting secretary of the Air Force since Jan. 20. 

Watch, Read: CSO on the Need for Space Superiority, Control

Watch, Read: CSO on the Need for Space Superiority, Control

Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations for the U.S. Space Force, delivered the opening keynote of the 2025 AFA Warfare Symposium. Emphasizing the need for the U.S. to maintain space superiority, Saltzman made the case that the Space Force needs to develop capabilities to control the domain, perhaps the most direct message yet from a senior leader on offensive capability in space. Watch the video or read the transcript below.

Gen. B. Chance Saltzman:

Thank you. How’s everybody doing? Excited? Excited to be here for the AFA Symposium. This is great. I got to tell you just to put things in perspective, about 56 years ago, March 3rd, 1969, Apollo 9 launched into orbit, low-Earth orbit. This was the first crewed test flight of a lunar module and it laid the groundwork for the first lunar landing that occurred just a few months later on Apollo 11. Now laying the groundwork, building the foundation, these are critical to achieving bigger goals, more enduring achievements. If the hard work, dedicated effort that made Apollo 9 successful doesn’t happen, there’s no way Apollo 11 lands on the Moon, certainly not in the way we recall it today. So I’m inspired by this. People committed to their part of the achievement, particularly those committed to the building of the foundation for future achievements. So it’s a real pleasure to be with you here today, and I mean that more seriously than you might think.

Doing my part of building the foundation for the Space Force means I spend most of my time advocating in Washington, inside the Department of Defense with the joint staff, the other services across the interagency, working with Congress. This is good. This is important. These conversations need to happen. They turn ideas into policy, they turn them into resources and legislation, but there’s no audience I appreciate speaking to more than the one assembled here. You see, you are the “doers of the deeds,” as Teddy Roosevelt said. To those who spend themselves in a worthy cause, to people who take all the policies, all the resources, all those laws and turn ideas into outcomes, into concrete capabilities that secure our nation’s interests in, from and to space. They deter our adversaries and they defeat anyone who might threaten us, our allies, our partners. You’re a special group of people because when the time for talk is over, the responsibility to act falls squarely on your shoulders.

Inside the Space Force, you have a lot of diverse jobs. Intelligence analyst, cyber defender, program manager, contracting officer, satellite operator, ground terminal technician, network administrator, engineer, personnelist, knowledge manager, range operator, I could keep going. They’re all different jobs, but they require a wide range of expertise. But all these jobs are done by Guardians, officers, enlisted civilians. All these jobs contribute directly to our mission to secure our nation’s interests. So let’s take a moment and reflect on what it means to be a Guardian, especially in the context of a conflict in space. Because each and every one of you, regardless of the job you do, is directly responsible for the success of our mission.

And I’ve spoken recently about what I consider to be six foundational truths of the Space Force. I’ve told you that our capabilities are vital for the security and prosperity of the American way of life, that we are therefore obligated both to protect those capabilities as well as to defend the joint and combined force against space-enabled attack. As a result, I’ve said that we must think of space as a war-fighting domain rather than just a collection of support activities, that the Space Force must organize, train, equip, and conduct war-fighting operations as an integral part of the joint and combined force. And for this reason, Guardians are the warfighters with the unique education, training and experience required to achieve space superiority.

Now, whenever I speak to folks outside the Space Force, and this is a wide spectrum of people from an interested student at dinner in Chicago just the last weekend to the President of the United States, I refer back to these truths because I think they encapsulate our identity in just a few simple ideas. But just among ourselves from one Guardian to another, let’s take a moment to focus on only a few of these truths, to consider them in greater detail, the practical level rather than the philosophical one.

Specifically I want to call your attention to two truths, truths numbers two and three, to the idea that we must simultaneously be ready to defend American space power as well as to protect our forces against hostile space power because that is the true essence of space superiority, which is the formative purpose of the U.S. Space Force. Space superiority is the fundamental difference between a civil space agency and a war-fighting space service. It is the distinction between a company’s employees operating commercial satellites and Guardians conducting combat operations to achieve joint objectives. If you want to understand the evolution from Air Force Space Command into Space Force, it all comes down to this fundamental shift. It is now our job to contest and control the space domain, to fight and win so that we assure freedom of access for our forces while denying the same to our adversaries.

And doing so under stressing conditions of crisis and conflict requires a purpose-built organization, tailor-made with the institutions, the equipment, the tactics, the training, the warrior ethos required to use military force to control the space domain. In other words, it requires a space force. Without this mission, we might not be so different from any other space agency, a collection of talented individuals doing good work for the government. Admittedly, we’d have snazzier uniforms than them and a deep love of acronyms. But that’s really the difference between the Space Force and others. With this mission, everything changes. The way we think, decide and act, our doctrine, our organizing principles, our equipment, our processes, everything. Because it’s not enough to just deliver services from orbit anymore, it’s not enough to monitor health and status in a benign environment, to design satellites to last in the harsh environment of space. While this is still necessary, it’s no longer sufficient. We must be ready to contest and control our domain to overcome threats and outwit a thinking opponent, to build our systems to withstand a determined adversary. In short, to be space-minded warfighters.

Space superiority is the reason that we exist as a service and the vagaries of warfighting must inform everything we do if we’re going to succeed. So if you want to understand why the Space Force has been making so many changes since its establishment, well with new responsibility comes new requirements. And believe me, I hear it all the time. Other senior leaders will say, “Hey, the Space Force has so many things going on. We need to catch our breath. Why can’t we just slow down, wait a while, consolidate some of our gains?” And I really do wish it was that easy. I get it, I do.

But the answer is right there. The Space Force we have is still not the Space Force we need. We’ve come a long way, but I think we can all acknowledge that there’s still work to be done. We’ve been called up to the major league. We can’t get away with using minor league gear or little league tactics. And to complicate matters, we need to play a game tonight while keeping one eye on the World Series down the line. In other words, we need to conduct day-to-day operations while we prepare for the high-end fight. Everything we’re doing, every new initiative, every project, every task is designed to get us where we need to go while threading that needle. And I’ve spoken on many of these things before, but let me highlight it just a few examples through the lens of space superiority.

If we’re going to be agile enough to outthink and outsmart our opponents, then we’ve got to maximize unity of command within our mission areas. So we created integrated mission deltas, which combine operations, capabilities development and sustainment to enhance the delivery of combat effects. They empower mission owners with the authority and resources they need to gain and sustain readiness. We started small with just two IMDs, but we just activated two more and we’ll be standing up more right behind those. Likewise, we’re working hard to formalize systems deltas which focus acquisition activities within mission areas to further enhance delivery and collaboration. Paired together, IMDs and system deltas will create a more effective responsive feedback loop between capability delivery, employment and sustainment. But if those IMDs are going to create and generate combat-credible forces, then they need to carve out the time to allow for advanced threat-based training. So we designed a force generation process to account for reconstitution of our force elements to deliberately create space for the training needed for the high-end fight.

Likewise, we consolidated the efforts to build our operational test and training infrastructure, providing an O-6 level focus and expertise to the acquisition of a modern space test and training capability. But if our combat-credible forces are going to effectively employ the mission command required for complex and variable operations, then we need leaders with a broad awareness of all the disciplines of space power. So we created the officer training course which provides 12-month initial skills training for new officers just to lay these foundations so that once they graduate, junior officers will have the baseline understanding of all disciplines needed for effective mission operations. In the future, regardless of their career path, all officers will have the training and experience to speak fluently and engage collaboratively across all essential functions of U.S. Space Force missions.

The future vision is that Guardian leaders in acquisition roles will have operations credibility and Guardian leaders in operations roles will have the credibility to deliver combat capability. But if Guardians are going to integrate Space Force capability into the joint force by design, then we need to expand and normalize our touch points with the combatant commands. So we created component field commands to align service forces under each combatant commander. We have already established six components in Space Command, Indo-Pacific Command, Europe and Africa, Central Command, Korea and Japan. The remainder of these critical units are deep into the planning phase and will be coming soon.

Finally, if the integrated capability we provide to the joint force is going to remain relevant, then we need a long-term institutional mechanism to ensure our technical advantage. So we’re proposing Space Force’s Futures Command to take responsibility for the design of the objective force to envision, validate, and describe in detail the force we need to win wars and maintain our space advantage into the future. Our idea is for this command to bring together the best and brightest among our cyber, intel, space, acquisition experts. It will ensure that we are identifying and investing in innovation, leveraging the tremendous technological advancements we’re seeing in the commercial sector. Taken together, all of these initiatives lay the groundwork for a space force with a capacity to win space superiority and secure our nation’s interests in, from, and to space.

And now like the blocks in an arch, each of these efforts builds upon one another distributing the load of transformation as we bridge from the Space Force we have to the one we need for tomorrow. And the keystone in that arch, the thing that holds it all together are the Guardians. It’s you. But that means that our efforts are putting a particularly heavy strain on you. So I want to speak very honestly with you here. We’re building an incredibly complex system and it takes time to get everything just right. I’m not going to stand here and pretend we have all the details of these initiatives perfectly planned prior to implementation. My experience is that if you wait until you have it perfectly planned, you never get to execution and when you do, the plan is somewhat obsolete.

So going fast means finding a minimum viable product. It means sketching out a vision and then adding details as you learn. It means adapting the plan to make it better through experience. Change is never easy, but I promise you it’s vital and we need it. This is the challenge we face. It’s a generational challenge. Transform into a warfighting service now. The nation needs us. The enemy’s not waiting. We must succeed. We will succeed because so much is riding on our success. As an ancient proverb goes, “Time isn’t free, but it is priceless. You can’t own it, but you can use it. You can’t keep it, but you can spend it. And once it’s lost, you can never get it back.”

For that reason, at the headquarters level, we’ve leaned forward, we’ve accepted risk by rolling many of these initiatives out as soon as possible. Our plan is to go fast, iterate, improve, because we think that’s the quickest way to learn. And that can be particularly challenging for those who are holding it all together, folks down in the trenches doing the day-to-day operations and activities who don’t have all the context or even the time to understand the entire service-level picture. And without that understanding, all these things we’re doing seem like change for change’s sake. I get it. But please fight the urge to judge the effort by the amount of work it requires, the degree of change necessary or even short-term results. Nothing of consequence is built without these kinds of sacrifices and we are truly building something of consequence.

My hope is that by sharing all of this with you, by explaining that space superiority is our prime imperative, that we do not yet have the service we need, that you might understand a little better while we are asking you to do so much so quickly. It will get better and it will be worth it. These are the growing pains, but the alternative is so much worse. Fighting against a near-peer threat that has unfettered access to space, while we do not is a recipe for death and destruction. Even in a stalemate where both we and our adversary retain space power, there will be an unacceptable cost in American blood and treasure. It is our job to make sure that doesn’t happen.

So our only way forward is to change and keep changing, but rebuilding ourselves from the ground up was never going to be easy. For now, all I can do is say thank you for what you’ve done to get us where we are today and to tell you that our nation needs us to keep going, but where are we going? How are we going to get there? Precisely. We talk about space superiority, about the initiatives designed to help us achieve space superiority, but how exactly are we going to achieve it? The answer to that lies in our newest core function: space control. Domain control is the special province of warfighters, a unique responsibility that only military services hold. It is the thing that distinguishes the Navy from the Merchant Marine and the Air Force from Southwest Airlines. It is the purpose of the Space Force to achieve space superiority, then space control is the tool by which we do so.

Admittedly compared to our other core functions of global space operations and assured access to space, space control is a new function for our fledgling service. And it’s my number one priority whenever I speak to executive and legislative leaders because we currently don’t have the resources to perform it as effectively as the joint force requires. Put simply, space control encapsulates the mission areas required to contest and control the space domain, employing kinetic and non-kinetic means to affect adversary capabilities by disruptions and degradation, even destruction if necessary. It includes things like orbital warfare, electromagnetic warfare, its counter space operations can be employed for both offensive and defensive purposes at the direction of combatant commands.

Historically, we’ve avoided talking too much about space control, but why would you have a military space service if not to execute space control? If we’re going to truly embrace our status as space warfighters, then we need to also embrace our fundamental responsibility for space control. Now shortly, we will publish Space Force Doctrine Document 1. As the name implies, this release articulates the doctrinal concepts that will shape the Space Force moving forward, space control among them. And if you take away one message from my remarks today, then let it be that the Space Force will do whatever it takes to achieve space superiority. And if you take away one request from my remarks, then let it be to read Space Force Doctrine Document 1 as soon as it’s available. Think about what it means to you, your daily activities, discuss it with your fellow Guardians because this is only the step in a much longer journey.

The first war in space has yet to be fought, but doctrine is inherently backwards looking. So our only option is to use logic, reason and training as a substitute for practical combat experience and there are bound to be things that we miss. As we continue to learn and grow, we will publish more doctrine and very likely revise what we’ve already released in Space Force Doctrine Document 1. That will always be our starting point though.

But what about our work today? We can’t lose sight of the fight tonight because we’re preparing for tomorrow’s conflict. So where should we focus in the interim? Hopefully this won’t be a surprise to this audience of warfighters, but my answer to that question is always going to be readiness, understanding it as well as enhancing it. When astronaut Rusty Schweickart came back from space, he said this about getting ready for the Apollo 9 mission. “It involves simulation after simulation, going through launch after launch, memorizing all those millions of procedures.” Millions of procedures. That seems like a lot. “Memorizing all those millions of procedures required to save your life and the life of your fellows if you run into a problem. You spend another 100 hours or more in practicing and thinking about everything that could possibly happen, everything that can break, can malfunction, can go wrong so that when the time comes, you don’t have to go through that debate, but you carry out what you’ve already decided. These are mission rules. They will keep you alive or will kill you if you don’t know what you’re doing.”

Now that’s what readiness looks like. Preparing today for the crisis tomorrow, putting in the work now to make sure that we come out on top in whatever challenge we face. And in the Space Force, that means we need to sharpen every one of the components of readiness. Personnel, training, equipment, and sustainment. If any one of these elements is lacking, then our readiness as a whole is impacted. But let’s get one thing clear. While headquarters supports your readiness, at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, it doesn’t own it. You do, the Guardians in the field. That’s how it has to be. Sure headquarters are responsible for advocating for more people, money, setting policy, enabling your success. But headquarters is not on crew. We’re not living the mission day to day. We are not making sustainment decisions. The space staff simply does not have the same level of understanding, awareness or daily insight to direct the activities for readiness.

We know space superiority is an end goal. It’s the headquarters’ job to provide the means to achieve it, to create the environment, set the conditions for victory, but it’s the job of the warfighters in the field to define the way to connect the two. What do I mean by that? Let’s take training as an example. I told you that advanced threat-based training is critically important, but I also told you that our operational test and training infrastructure effort is still only part way through acquiring modern simulators and training capabilities. So we have a disconnect between the plan and the operational reality, between the end and our means. That’s where I need your help. I would love to wave a wand and give every crew advanced virtual reality trainer that incorporates the latest and greatest threat data, but I can’t.

So does that mean the solution is to shrug, mark it red, move on? Absolutely not. In the field, you’re going to have to figure it out because that’s what you do because that’s what the nation needs you to do. If advanced training is nothing more than a whiteboard, whiteboard sessions talking about tactics and threats, that’s fine. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing. And while something better works its way into the field, we have to do what we can. Now at the headquarters level, we will not be satisfied with that solution and we’ll continue to push hard to develop the systems that enhance our ranges, simulators, training venues. But you cannot afford to wait on the headquarters to deliver the better answer.

So how about equipment? Every squadron has an equipment table that lists the critical tools it needs to accomplish its mission. Are we confident that every table is accurate, complete? Does it include things like infrastructure, the power, the cooling we need to actually employ our weapons systems? If not, why not? I’m willing to bet there are things we should be funding or at least accounting for in our budget that we aren’t. The headquarters can’t fix problems it doesn’t know about. And as much as I would like to, I’m not on the ops floor anymore to find out. And readiness is not just a matter for operators by the way. Acquirers, don’t think I’ve forgotten about you. Equipment and sustainment, half the elements of readiness fall inside your job jar. I need the skills you bring to the table to ensure our systems are up to speed. Are you tracking deficiencies sufficiently to predict equipment failure? Do delivery schedules meet expected timelines? Are systems secured from changes in the cyber threat environment?

Every Guardian is a warfighter regardless of your functional specialty. And every Guardian contributes to Space Force readiness. Whether you built the gun, pointed the gun, pulled the trigger, you are a part of a combat capability. That’s what it means to put on the uniform in a military organization. And we all need to take pride in our roles.

I will continue to spend every chance I get telling our nation’s senior leaders that we need more people, more money, more policy support, and based on every engagement I’ve had, they are committed to helping us. But it won’t be tomorrow. Until that help arrives, I need Guardians in the field to find a way. This is a partnership. The headquarters will drive everything it can from the top down, but I need you to meet us from the bottom up. And I’m confident there will come a day where we finally put the institution’s processes in place to take the heroics out of our daily activities. But until then, I need your ideas, I need your effort. If headquarters can help, let me know. If there’s a Space Force policy we need to change or something we need to do differently, I want to hear about it. The caveat is that whatever we do, it has to move us closer to the end, to our ultimate goal of space superiority and performing our role in the joint force.

So long as that remains true, I’m willing to take risk and try new things because I know that old processes don’t always yield new results. You may not believe me, but I remember what it was like to be a junior officer. No smiling. I saw you down there, Wilsbach. I remember what it was like to be a junior officer trying to get things done in spite of all the stuffy senior leaders who just didn’t get it. Now, I’m one of those senior leaders. You’ll notice I didn’t say stuffy. But I know I’m out of touch with the daily life on the front line. If there’s one thing I hope we can agree on it’s this: space superiority is our core mission. And I need your help to evolve the service so it can deliver.

Thankfully, I’ve got a room full of warfighters listening. They’re listening to me today and they understand the challenge. They’re going to pass it along to their colleagues back at home, and I never get tired of saying this. It’s you, the Guardians that are the Space Force’s single greatest resource. We have so many brilliant minds powered by commitment to service, and I appreciate every day, and I’ll never take that for granted.

Things are probably going to get a lot harder before they get easier, but I choose to believe we have the strength to get through them. That’s what we signed up for. The challenge, the call to duty. That’s what it means to live and work in the greatest military the world has ever seen, to be warfighters regardless of the uniform we wear or the job we hold. So let’s embrace it. Let’s make the most of it. I assure you, when it’s all said and done, when you hang up the OCPs for the last time, you will be proud. You’ll be proud because you did something hard, you did something of consequence, and you built a service that this nation needs. Thank you. Semper Supra.