Air Force Orders Halt to Some Work on Sentinel ICBM

Feb. 11, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

The Air Force is suspending work on a significant part of its new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, ordering a pause on the design and construction of launch facilities being developed by Northrop Grumman.

The suspension comes as the service is working on a plan to restructure the program following significant cost and schedule overruns that triggered a review and required certification from the Secretary of Defense to continue.

“Due to evolving launch facility (LF) requirements in the Command & Launch segment, the Air Force directed the Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) to suspend the design, testing, and construction work related to the Command & Launch Segment” of Sentinel, an Air Force spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The order to halt work covers the “LF Standard Design,” which is the baseline design for all planned operational Sentinel launch facilities. The directive also covers work on several sites used for testing, evaluation, and training, the spokesperson said.

The Air Force gave no hint on when the suspension might be lifted.

“The Air Force’s ICBM Systems Directorate is assessing aspects of the current development effort that may be paused, or halted, as the Air Force restructures the program and updates the acquisition strategy,” the spokesperson added.

The sites covered by the order include Launch Facility-26 at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., a test and training facility. Work was also suspended at a former Peacekeeper launch facility at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and at the Physical Security Systems Test Facility (PSSTF) at Dugway, Utah, a military test site. Also paused is work on launch facility “derivative training devices,” which include maintenance and security forces training facilities at each of the Air Force’s missile wings.

The ICBM Systems Directorate officially stood up last year to help manage the mammoth task of fielding Sentinel as a one-for-one replacement for the 400 currently deployed Minuteman III missiles, which still must be sustained, maintained, and tested. The Air Force has ICBM wings at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.; Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.; and Minot Air Force Base, N.D. Missile fields are spread out over five states—Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden first indicated there would be a pause on a Jan. 30 earnings call. The Air Force directive was first reported by Defense One.

“We are working with the government on the restructure, but in the meantime, we are performing and meeting important milestones on the [engineering and manufacturing development] contract,” Warden said last month. “The government has said that they project the restructure to take 18 to 24 months, and we’re still very much in that window—though they have paused work on some small infrastructure efforts in the command and launch segment.”

Sentinel, which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, like his predecessors, has said is a priority for the Department of Defense, is now estimated to cost nearly $141 billion, according to the Pentagon. That triggered a review of the program under the Nunn-McCurdy Act, as the cost was some 81 percent higher than estimated in 2020. That cost overrun also led the DOD to rescind Sentinel’s “Milestone B” approval to enter the engineering and manufacturing development phase, and officials said last year the program could be delayed by several years.

Full operational capability for Sentinel had been set for 2036, and the Pentagon has long argued that the program is vital to maintain the land-based leg of the nuclear triad.

The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center conducts a full-scale static test fire of the LGM-35A Sentinel stage-one solid rocket motor at the Northrop Grumman test facility in Promontory, Utah, March 2, 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by R. Nial Bradshaw

The cost and schedule growth of Sentinel stems mainly from the infrastructure to command and launch the new ICBM and not the missile itself.

“It’s not pulling the plug, but they’re certainly recognizing here that the entire core infrastructure of this system isn’t going to work. It’s going to be assessed,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Air Force and defense officials have said the missile is on track, but the infrastructure would be a significant civil engineering effort.

“I think the part that’s probably missed or lost is the scope and scale,” deputy commander of Air Force Global Strike Command Lt. Gen. Michael J. Lutton told Air & Space Forces Magazine during a visit to an unarmed Minuteman III test at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., last November. “When you look at modernizing that infrastructure … it’s close to 500 facilities across an area of about 33,000 square miles, about the size of the state of South Carolina, and that’s going to be intra-netted. There’s an underground command and control network that connects all that across five states. So, when one looks at that, that’s highly complex.”

Air Force officials have said Minuteman III could be in service until 2050. The missile was originally expected to be decommissioned in the 2030s. Pentagon officials have argued the U.S. needs to embark on a costly but overdue modernization of all three legs of its nuclear triad, which also includes fielding the B-21 Raider bomber and Columbia-class submarine.

“You’ll push the program well into the 2030s,” Kristensen said of the latest pause. “They were pushing this single source contract, forging ahead with this, rushing the program. … Now the whole system, ironically, will face exactly that delay.”

The Air Force has hinted changes could be coming to the ground infrastructure before the recent move. In September, then-Air Force acquisition chief Andrew Hunter said the service could “change our design for the ground infrastructure to be simpler, more affordable.” Those comments added to ones made last July, in which Hunter indicated that there were “elements of the ground infrastructure where there may be opportunities for competition”—which could strip work away from Northrop Grumman.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Feb. 12 with additional details.

‘New’ F-35 Assembled from Two Wrecked Jets Makes Its First Flight

Feb. 11, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley and David Roza

The Air Force’s first-ever effort to stitch two damaged F-35s into a single stealth fighter is nearing its final stages, with successful functional check flights now complete.

Dubbed the “Franken-bird,” the aircraft made its inaugural flight Jan. 16, a spokesperson for the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The fighter is now at Lockheed Martin’s assembly plant at Fort Worth, Texas, for additional tests before it returns to combat status.

There, the aircraft will also undergo final work on the section just behind its nose, which currently has only anti-corrosion primer, to apply low-observable materials.

“According to Lockheed Martin estimates, the aircraft is expected to be completed within an eight-week timeframe, with a projected return date of late March at the earliest,” the spokesperson said. Once the jet receives its final certifications, it will return to Hill and be operated by the 4th Fighter Squadron.

The project is estimated to have cost less than $6 million, a fraction of the typical $80 million for a brand-new F-35A. Dave Myers, lead engineer at the F-35 Joint Program Office, explained in a release that by combining the best parts of both aircraft, the result will be a fully capable jet with no loss in performance. The “new” fighter, designated as tail number -5269, was created from the wrecks of two earlier F-35s:

AF-27, which suffered a severe engine fire in 2014 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

AF-211, which survived a landing gear collapse in 2020 at Hill

“When we received the aircraft, it was pretty much a shell,” Senior Airman Jaguar Arnold, the aircraft’s dedicated crew chief, said in a release. “There were a lot of tasks to complete that we hadn’t done before at the unit level.”

The “Franken-bird” team included the F-35 JPO, Airmen and civilians from the 388th Fighter Wing and Ogden Air Logistics Complex, and Lockheed Martin technicians. The team created custom tools and equipment to join the aircraft sections at Ogden before the jet returned to Hill in November 2023. Since then, maintainers have worked on the final restoration stages.

Merging the two wrecked planes involved a list of first-time tasks that hadn’t been tackled before. The work included reinstalling landing gear, rewiring the aircraft, rebuilding the cockpit and avionics, and installing a variety of components. The team also procured and installed “belly bands” between and just forward of the air intakes. These bands, made of composite material, provide extra structural support, and reinforced the aircraft’s body after the new nose was installed.

A new Mobil Maintenance System supports the donated nose section from a salvaged F-35 airframe used as an Aircraft Battle Damage Repair trainer at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, in October 2023. U.S Air Force courtesy photo

The groundwork for the project was laid back in January 2020, when the JPO turned to Lockheed Martin for insights on repairing F-22s. At that point, the JPO had already started salvaging damaged F-35 components, improving maintenance, and getting creative with parts, including turning the AF-27 into a trainer jet for Aircraft Deployed Battle Repair.

“When we took responsibility for this project, we were taking on something unprecedented at the field level and it wasn’t easy,” said 1st Lt. Ryan Bare, Sortie Generation Flight commander for the 4th Fighter Generation Squadron. “But we were also taking on an opportunity for our maintainers to gain proficiency in this type of work and build experience at the unit level. As a program, and as a unit, we’ve benefited greatly from this.”

The JPO has collected Insights and feedback from the process to update data and procedures for all F-35 maintainers. The service also anticipates this project paving the way for future reclamation tasks with the equipment, techniques, and expertise developed throughout the effort.

Airmen from the 388th Fighter Wing completed a lengthy project to restore a single F-35A Lightning II from two separate, damaged aircraft, and begin its return to combat status. The project was an interagency effort between the F-35 Joint Program Office, Ogden Air Logistics Complex, 388th Fighter Wing and Lockheed Martin. Seen here before its functional check flight. (U.S. Air Force photo by Todd Cromar)

Brig. Gen. L. Boyd Anderson, Former Vice Chairman of AFA, Dies at 89

Feb. 11, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Retired Brig. Gen. Lawrence Boyd Anderson, who served as vice chairman of the board of the Air Force Association—now the Air & Space Forces Association—and the last chairman of the board of the Aerospace Education Foundation, died Feb. 6. He was 89.

Anderson served in the Department of Defense for 33 years, retiring in 1995 as a Brigadier General in the Air Force Reserve, where his last duty station was as the mobilization assistant to the commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah. He retired from the civil service at Ogden in 1994, where his last assignment was as chief of the manpower and organization office.

On Active-Duty, Boyd served in Air Force Systems Command at Hanscom Field, Mass., as well as in an airlift group, fighter group, and fighter wing. He assisted in the transition from the F-105 to the first F-16s in the Air Force Reserve. As a member of the Ogden command section, he was involved in managing support of the F-4 and F-16 fighters and the Minuteman and Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as materiel support for reconnaissance, training devices and conventional munitions. As the manpower director for AFMC at Ogden, he justified and allocated some 21,000 manpower authorizations.

Boyd “served as the last chairman of the board of the Aerospace Education Foundation (AEF) and led the evolution of the foundation to the current AFA Education Council (AEC),” said retired Brig. Gen. Bernie Skoch, chairman of the board of AFA. AEF and AFA were parallel organizations until they were consolidated in the mid-2000s.

“His tenure as Chairman of the AEF was marked with expansion of programs and an increase in scholarships. He served for a number of years as a National Director on the AFA Board of Directors. Prior to his AEF leadership position, he served for many years as an AEF Trustee, Rocky Mountain Region President, Utah State President, and UTE-Rocky Mountain Chapter President,” Skoch said, adding that Boyd’s leadership and vision “impacted all levels of AFA.”

Outside of AFA, Boyd chaired the Utah Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve; was the Utah State President of the Reserve Officers Association; a member of the Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce and the Utah Defense Alliance Board of Directors. He served as an advisor to the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce’s Military Affairs Committee and was a member of the Board of the Dee Shaw Stewart Museum at the Ogden Eccles Dinosaur Park.

Boyd received the Department of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service in 2002.

New Report: Instructor, Student Pilot Both at Fault in $10 Million Helicopter Crash

Feb. 10, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

A helicopter instructor pilot failed to take sufficient corrective action in time to fix the mistakes of a student pilot taking off from a slope, resulting in a rollover that caused nearly $11 million in damages to a TH-1H chopper last spring.

A new Air Force Accident Investigation Board report released Feb. 6 faulted pilot error on the part of both the teacher and the trainee.

The mishap took place April 3, 2024, at Skelly Stagefield Army Heliport, Ala., during a training flight for the 23rd Flying Training Squadron—the Air Force’s main unit for training helicopter pilots.

During the flight, the instructor pilot was evaluating three student pilots after they each had flown three sorties in the TH-1H, a trainer version of the UH-1H Huey.

Nearly an hour and a half into the flight, one of the student pilots was working on taking off and landing on slopes. After one successful landing and takeoff on an incline, the helicopter was on a grassy 5-degree slope, with the right skid higher than the left.

When it came time to take off again, the student pilot used the “cyclic”—a stick used to control directional thrust—and the “collective”—a lever to control overall vertical lift—to raise the lower left skid off the ground.

However, the trainee went too far. While he thought the aircraft was level, it wound up in a slight right bank of a few degrees. Then, the student became disoriented and thought the right skid was slipping and sending the aircraft sliding left.

Using the cyclic to push the aircraft further right, the student had the helicopter in a 6-to-10 degree bank. Combined with the upward lift from the collective, the bank caused the chopper to roll onto its right side and the main rotor blade hit the ground.

The whole incident took only a few seconds, but the report noted “significant damage” to the helicopter’s nose, cabin, mast, and main rotor head and tail rotor assemblies. The costs were estimated at $10.8 million.

Image from Air Force Accident Investigation Board report

Investigators noted that during the mishap, the instructor pilot only verbalized that there was a problem once, when the student was applying “right cyclic.” As the aircraft passed beyond a level attitude, the instructor said “no, no, no,” while attempting to apply “left cyclic.”

The corrective maneuver wasn’t enough to counter the student’s mistake, however, and the instructor never attempted to lower the collective—a costly error.

“Reduction of collective is most effective in controlling rolling motions and is the recommended procedure to prevent a dynamic rollover event,” the report states.

The student, meanwhile, was faulted in the report for misjudging the aircraft as level and becoming disoriented, thinking that the helicopter was sliding when it was “actually stationary over the surface of the ground.”

Both pilots’ mistakes caused the crash, and no other factors contributed to it, the investigation found.

The instructor was a highly experienced helicopter pilot, with more than 1,800 flight hours in a TH-1H and 5,200 hours of flight time overall. In the 30 days preceding the accident, he had flown more than 12 hours over the course of 9 sorties.

The student, by comparison, had just 4.5 hours in three sorties in the TH-1H and was “not qualified to accomplish anything unsupervised,” the report noted.

The incident marks a rare mishap for the Air Force’s helicopter fleet, particularly the venerable but aging H-1. According to service statistics, the H-1 had just one “Class A” mishap in the prior decade. Class A mishaps involve either a death or more than $2.5 million in damage.

Air Force Doesn’t Have Enough Desks for Everyone to Return to In-Person Work

Feb. 10, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

A week after ordering thousands of civilians and service members back to full-time in-person work, the Department of the Air Force has issued a new directive exempting some employees due to a shortage of workspace.

In a memo released Feb. 6, acting Air Force Secretary Gary A. Ashworth noted that the department has a lack of workstations in the Washington D.C. region and across Air Force and Space Force bases both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the current space crunch, some of the department’s civilian employees and service members will continue working remotely until additional capacity becomes available. The memo, however, did not specify how employees or units will be selected for telework eligibility at this time.

The Air Force previously instructed all commanders, directors of major commands, and field leaders to cancel telework and remote work agreements and require employees within 50 miles of their official worksite to return to in-person duties by Feb 7. The guidance was part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s push to end all remote work across the Department of Defense.

To address the shortages hampering that push, Ashworth wrote in his memo that the DAF Infrastructure Council “will review significant facility requirements,” including large-scale facility sustainment, building maintenance, repairs, and leases.

However, that process could both protracted and costly. In testimony to Congress last year, then-Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment Ravi Chaudhury said the department had $46.8 billion in deferred maintenance and repairs. That backlog was on top of some $5.4 billion the department requested in 2025 for Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization.

The Air Force has projected that rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, and a shortage of skilled labor will exacerbate the repair backlog moving forward. Meanwhile, around $3.45 billion in new construction is slated for 2025.

The effort to bring Air Force employees back to on-site work faces other challenges as well, including the renegotiation of union contracts with civilian employees, as telework provisions within these agreements may need to be adjusted.

According to a 2024 report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, approximately 74,000 of the 155,000 civilian employees who worked for the Air Force in fiscal year 2023 teleworked, though the report noted that some employees may have been counted twice. This represents about 48 percent of the workforce, out of the 95 percent of employees across the department deemed eligible for telework.

An Air Force spokesperson could not provide the current number or percentage of teleworking employees as of Feb. 10, despite the fact that the service had to provide the Pentagon with data on its number of remote work arrangements by Feb. 7.

More Test T-7 Aircraft Could Help Air Force Make Up for Data It Can’t Use

Feb. 10, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Hundreds of test flight hours Boeing flew in prototype T-7A trainer aircraft cannot be used to assess the system’s operational effectiveness or suitability because the design has changed so much, the Pentagon’s top test official said recently.

Instead, the Air Force’s recently announced plans to buy extra T-7s for testing will allow the service to gather data more quickly and make up for the lost flight hours.

“Boeing flew a total of 548.5 hours in two contractor-owned and -operated prototype aircraft,” according to the recently released 2024 annual report from the office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. “DOT&E will not include test data from these prototype aircraft in its final evaluation of system performance as the prototypes are substantially different from the [Engineering and Manufacturing Development] aircraft contracted.”

As it stands, there is not enough data on the T-7 yet for DOT&E to make a call on its effectiveness or suitability, the report noted.

In January, the Air Force said it will buy four aircraft to increase the T-7A test fleet from five to nine airframes. Officials said the decision will let them move faster on the flight test program and develop curriculum for the T-7A pilot training course, but they also said they were delaying the first production buy of T-7s from fiscal 2025 to 2026.

Part of Boeing’s strategy in its T-7A proposal—it received the contract for the T-X program in 2018—was that its initial design would effectively be “production representative,” and that while the production line was taking shape, testing could be largely accomplished with the prototypes, a label Boeing refused to use at the time.

By compressing the normal developmental timetable, Boeing and the Air Force hoped to reach initial operational capability by the end of 2024. Boeing was confident of this timeline because of the speed it achieved in designing and fabricating the first two T-7As using digital methods, and it bid the program under a fixed-price proposal. Saab is Boeing’s partner on the T-7.

Yet the DOT&E office noted that the T-7 has undergone—and is undergoing—design changes to address “issues including the escape system, flight control software, high angle-of-attack portion of the flight envelope, propulsion, noise and vibration, and departure resistance.”

The report noted that the the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) provided perspective and feedback to Boeing throughout design and developmental testing

“AFOTEC published five periodic reports assessing progress towards operational effectiveness and suitability, with a total of 41 recommendations, 37 of which remain open,” the DOT&E report stated.

Test aircraft different from the prototypes can still be used for government-led developmental and operational testing, the DOT&E report states.

Those aircraft started arriving at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., in November 2023, and developmental testing began soon thereafter. Boeing delivered the last of the initially planned five test airplanes to Edwards in December 2024. In the past year, those aircraft’s test flights “focused on resolving safety-of-flight issues required for airworthiness certification,” the report states.

The report is not up to date, however, having been written when only three of the five initial EMD airplanes had been delivered. By the end of September 2024, Pentagon testers stated, the Air Force had flown “46.9 hours over 46 missions in EMD aircraft, testing wing flutter, flying qualities, and radionavigation test points” with the majority of developmental testing still to go.

“These events include structural loads, subsystems, tanker formation, crew systems, On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS), mission systems, and high-angle-of-attack testing, which have the potential to drive further software and flight control changes,” the report states.

The DOT&E report noted that developmental testing would not be complete until the end of 2026, a yearlong delay from previous estimates. That estimate did not include the additional aircraft the Air Force is adding to the test fleet.

More recently, the Air Force said it hopes to reach a production decision on the T-7 by fiscal 2026, and initial operational capability by 2027.

While the program continues to suffer delays, it did meet some milestones in 2024, testers noted. That included “initial cold and hot weather testing at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory” at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. However, the report notes that “this initial round of testing revealed several problems that require a second test event at the McKinley Laboratory” in the third quarter of fiscal 2025.

Testers also noted that Air Force student pilots “are highly likely to exceed Mach 1.0 during T-7A designated missions, particularly during the advanced fighter fundamentals course,” but the contract only requires flight to Mach .95. “The program office is … working with Boeing to contract testing in the aircraft’s transonic region prior to IOT&E,” the report says.

Testers also reiterated concerns from previous reports that the T-7A escape system “does not meet minimum safety requirements for the Air Force’s airworthiness certification and is currently operating with high-risk acceptance for airworthiness.”

While a February 2024 sled test “showed improvement at medium-speed ejections for the ejection seat sequencing,” a June 2024 test showed interference from a hose, and the “redesigned canopy fracturing system pattern did not function properly.”

The program “must successfully complete seven more sled tests before the escape system can be certified for airworthiness and IOT&E,” the report said.

The test organization is also keeping an eye on the on-board oxygen generating system. The test plan calls for 46 data points on the OBOGS collected over 10 ground and 100 hours of flight test, including high and sustained-G maneuvering. The system will soon reach the point where, in operational use, the OBOGS would be serviced or replaced, and what is seen then will help DOT&E determine if the system is performing as required. This will be measured against “lessons learned from several fighter aircraft mishaps” in the past related to OBOGS.

The Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System is another known issue. Fighter aircraft employ AGCAS to prevent loss of life during sustained high-G maneuvers, which can cause the pilot to lose consciousness. While formal requirements for the T-X program didn’t include AGCAS, the program office is working on a strategy to start integrating it by 2026.

Boeing has lost nearly $1 billion on the T-7 program as a result of its delays and issues. The company reported a $500 million loss just this past quarter.

Defense Secretary Orders Air Force to Pause All Reorg Planning

Feb. 10, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Editor’s Note: This story was updated Feb. 11 with additional comment from the Air Force on Exercise Resolute Force Pacific.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Department of the Air Force to pause all planning related to its “Re-Optimization for Great Power Competition” effort—a move that leaves a sweeping plan to transform the Air Force and Space Force in limbo.

Perhaps most prominently, the Air Force has paused work on Integrated Capabilities Command, the new organization meant to oversee the planning and requirements process for developing the service’s future systems.

A department spokesperson confirmed the order to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“On Feb. 6, the Secretary of Defense directed the Department of the Air Force to pause all planning actions connected to its Re-Optimizing for Great Power Competition efforts,” the spokesperson said. “The planning pause remains in effect until a Senate-confirmed Secretary and Undersecretary of the Air Force are in place and have the opportunity to review the initiatives. The Department of the Air Force welcomes the opportunity for our new leaders to assess all ongoing actions and ensure compliance with DOD directives. We will issue clarifying guidance, as necessary.”

Air & Space Forces Magazine understands there was no memorandum directing the pause.

The directive raises dozens of questions about many of 24 “key decisions” the Department of the Air Force announced in February 2024, with then-Secretary Frank Kendall saying at the time that senior leadership had determined the department was not structured properly for “Great Power Competition”—a term coined under President Donald Trump’s first administration to describe how the Pentagon would seek to deter and counter China.

To “re-optimize,” the Air Force and Space Force embarked on a massive re-organization effort. The 24 key decisions included everything from the creation of Integrated Capabilities Command for the Air Force and Space Futures Command for the Space Force to a renewed emphasis on large-scale exercises starting with a massive one in the Pacific in summer 2025.

A defense official familiar with the pause order told Air & Space Forces Magazine that “readiness and lethality are at the core of both the Department of the Air Force’s efforts to realign to the threat environment and the new administration’s priorities. That is why everyone in the Department of the Air Force is fully onboard and welcomes the incoming civilian leadership team, once confirmed, reviewing not only the ‘why’ behind the warfighters and readiness initiatives, but also the considerable progress made to date. To be clear, the department is already actively moving out to implement the temporary planning pause.”

Some of the key decisions have already been put into action. The Air Force, for example, established a Warrant Officer Training School and has graduated its first new class of warrant officers in decades. The Space Force redesigned its career paths by creating an Officer Training Course that teaches every new officer the fundamentals of space, intelligence, and cyber operations instead of having them specialize right away. And the Secretariat of the Air Force established new organizations like an Integrated Capabilities Office and a secretive Office of Competitive Activities.

The Air Force spokesperson said that while planning has been paused, actions already taken do not have to be reversed, meaning those programs will continue.

On Feb. 11, a service official clarified that Resolute Force Pacific, the first of the large-scale exercises mentioned in the re-optimization, “is not impacted” by the pause. REFORPAC is meant to include some 300 aircraft, and planning has been ongoing for months, though leaders have suggested the scale may need to be tweaked if Congress does not pass a 2025 budget soon.

“REFORPAC is well-aligned with the Department of Defense’s priorities of enhancing warrior ethos and credible deterrence,” the official said.

There are many other decisions, however, that are now up in the air:

The future of Integrated Capabilities Command is in doubt. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin announced last summer the standup of a provisional Integrated Capabilities Command, with the goal to reach full operational capability sometime in 2025. That work is now paused.

Space Futures Command was announced a year ago as the fourth Space Force field command. As of last September, the Space Force suggested the command could still take a year to stand up. With a mission to focus on long-term needs and capabilities, planning for SFC is now on hold.

Air Force Materiel Command was preparing to re-organize and create new system “centers,” including an Information Dominance Systems Center and a Nuclear Systems Center. Those efforts, which were still in the planning stages, are apparently on hold.

Air Education & Training Command was preparing to become Airman Development Command in 2025, with new centers of excellence starting up and working toward full operational capability. Its future is now in question.

Air Forces Cyber was set to be elevated as a service component commander, out from under Air Combat Command. That has yet to happen and planning is likewise now paused.

How quickly these issues are resolved is uncertain, but realistically, it could take months for the new Department of the Air Force leadership team to get in place and address these questions. President Donald Trump nominated Troy E. Meink for Air Force Secretary and Matthew Lohmeier for Undersecretary, but both must be confirmed, and no hearings have been scheduled so far by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nominees must clear the committee first and then be approved by the full Senate

Of 63 Defense Department positions requiring Senate confirmation, the White House has submitted 14 nominations, and only the Defense Secretary has been confirmed as of Feb. 10, according to the Washington Post’s nomination tracker. Meink and Lohmeier are among 12 nominees who must be screened by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

To date, no hearing has been scheduled. When then-President Joe Biden nominated Frank Kendall for the post four years ago, three months elapsed before his confirmation; four years earlier, in the first Trump administration, it took three and a half months to get former Rep. Heather Wilson through the confirmation process to become Secretary of the Air Force.

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed to this report.

Missile Defense Agency Moves Out Quickly on ‘Iron Dome’

Feb. 7, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Missile Defense Agency is moving quickly to gather ideas for President Donald Trump’s proposed “Iron Dome for America” and hopes to make progress on some within the next two years.

In a Jan. 31 “request for information,” MDA asked contractors to suggest ways to meet the missile defense architecture’s requirements as laid out in Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order. An industry day is planned for Feb. 18—a breakneck pace by typical Pentagon standards.

The new missile defense system is envisioned as a series of “epochs,” or objective timelines for demonstrating capability. “Epoch 1” would extend no later than Dec. 31, 2026; Epochs 2 and 3 would follow at two-year intervals, and Epoch 4 would cover everything from 2031 and beyond.

Among the core capabilities MDA wants in the new missile umbrella defense are:

A Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor layer

Proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost phase intercept

Underlayer and terminal-phase intercept capabilities postured to defeat a countervalue attack

A Custody Layer of the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture

Capabilities to defeat missile attacks prior to launch and in the boost phase

Nonkinetic capabilities to augment kinetic methods

Patrycja Bazylczyk, a research associate with the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the timelines are “exceedingly short” for some of those capabilities, but noted that MDA’s caveat that they only need to be demonstrated offers a path forward.

“There might be an opportunity for industry to demonstrate these capabilities, and to really have those capabilities shine over the next four years or so,” she said.

But some of the capabilities MDA envisions may already be available or under development in other programs and agencies, said Bazylczyk.

Charles Galbreath, a retired Space Force colonel and fellow with AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, agreed.

Bazylczyk cited two Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor prototype satellites—one built by L3Harris and one by Northrop Grumman—launched in February 2024 under a collaborative arrangement between MDA and the Space Force, according to budget documents. The program is scheduled to conduct testing through fiscal 2027, then would be transferred to the service for “operational fielding.” But with additional funding the effort could accelerate to 2026.

The Space Development Agency is also developing a missile warning system. Galbraith said SDA plans to have enough missile warning and tracking satellites in various orbits to provide global coverage for its Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture by April 2027. With extra funding, those timelines could move up to meet “Epoch 1.”

SDA has already awarded contracts for satellites that do even more than detect and track launches, but that could also provide fire control—the ability to target and cue interceptors to take down missile threats.

Boeing’s Millennium Space Systems, under an April 2024 contract, is to build eight fire control satellites. The ground systems to support those satellites is to be built by Kratos under a separate November 2024 deal. In theory, these elements could be key parts of the custody layer envisioned in Trump’s order. The spacecraft are expected to launch in late 2026 and could demonstrate capabilities in time to be included in Epoch 1.

Taken together, Bazylczyk said, “we’ve already demonstrated a space sensor capability, and so I’m excited to see that acceleration of a lot of these space sensor capabilities.”

There are also interceptors in use receiving upgrades that could be included in early Epochs of the “Iron Dome”: MDA was already planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, operated by the Army; and the Aegis system and its SM-3 interceptors, operated by the Navy.

Other capabilities, however, are still in early development, and experts are unsure how quickly they could be tested and fielded.

Ideas for space-based interceptors or nonkinetic weapons in orbit date back decades, said Galbreath and others. Most agree that recent developments make those concepts more feasible today, but actually demonstrating them in the next five years will be a tall order.

“I’m not entirely sure about whether or not these timelines are necessarily feasible,” Bazylczyk said of space-based interceptors and MDA’s Epochs. “I would be interested in seeing what industry presents, especially in response to this RFI. It’s showing a demand signal for space-based capabilities, and hopefully industry response to that signal.”

Bazylczyk’s colleagues at CSIS, Tom Karako and Clayton Swope, offered a similar take in an op-ed for SpaceNews.

“The significant level of technological change, the unalterable fact that space has shifted from a sanctuary to a warfighting domain today, and evolving missile and nuclear threat landscape calls for a reevaluation of the feasibility and desirability of a space-based missile defense layer,” they wrote, adding that the Pentagon needs to gather ideas from industry to understand “what’s within the realm of the possible.”

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, noted in her own analysis that the Iron Dome concept will require “initiating and accelerating technologies that will take time to mature,” though “space-located sensors and interceptors are the most effective means of neutralizing potential threats.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Todd Harrison of the American Enterprise Institute estimated the cost and scale needed to make space-based interceptors work, concluding his analysis by saying “while the costs have come down and the technology has matured, the physics of space-based interceptors has not changed.” Bottom line: Providing global coverage against even just a few missiles could require thousands of interceptors in low-Earth orbit.

Not surprisingly, industry is enthusiastic about the opportunity to show what it can do. In quarterly earnings calls in recent weeks, executives from L3Harris, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin all touted their companies’ missile defense work when asked about the potential competition for work to deliver a U.S. Iron Dome system.

‘Blind Spot’ in F-16 Engine Led to Its Failure and Fiery Crash Last Year

Feb. 7, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

A known “blind spot” in F-16 engines meant maintainers couldn’t see one turned vane inside an aircraft at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.—damage that resulted in engine failure and a crash that destroyed the $21 million fighter in April 2024, according to a new Air Force report.

The F-16C lost thrust shortly after takeoff, and when the pilot, a rated instructor, could not regain powe following established procedures, he ejected, suffering only minor injuries as he landed near White Sands National Park, officials determined in an Accident Investigation Board report released Feb. 5.

The F-16 took off from Holloman as part of a four-ship training formation. Seconds after takeoff, the pilot “heard a loud bang and felt a loss of thrust, violent shaking, and engine vibrations,” he told investigators.

A civilian on the ground, and other pilots in the air, told officials they saw fire or a “strange, non-standard, orangish color” coming from the rear of the jet. When recovery procedures failed, the pilot ejected at 1,460 feet, less than two minutes into the flight. The aircraft crashed into a sand dune and exploded and the pilot was quickly recovered by an Army helicopter.

The investigation estimated the total damage at $21.7 million.

The engine was an F100-PW-220, built by Pratt & Whitney. The investigation studied maintenance records; ordered debris examined at the F-16 depot at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., commissioned an analysis by Pratt, and interviewed expert maintainers, instructors, and an aerospace engineer.

Investigators concluded that deep within the engine, in its fifth stage, a small “vane” was turned “about 25 degrees more open than adjacent vanes.” This caused “abnormal aerodynamic forces” to stress one of the fifth stage’s blades, leading to its breakage. Once that happened, airflow was disrupted and the engine failed.

Investigators were inconclusive on what caused the vane to be turned out of position. The engine had experienced a foreign object damage (FOD) event in August 2022 that damaged the first stage of the inlet fan, but no damage was observed on stages 2-4 or 6-13.

Pratt & Whitney’s analysis cited the FOD event as the probable cause of the vane turning. But other expert opinions varied when asked if it was possible for damage to occur to a later stage if no damage was observed in the ones before it.

“A field-level engine maintainer with forty-three years around F100 engines testified, ‘it happens, it’s kind of unexplainable … but it’s frequent enough that we all have seen’ instances,” the report states. “A field-level engine and borescope instructor [,however,] had never seen this occur. An experienced depot maintainer said it could happen but was very rare. Finally, a depot aerospace engineer said it would be surprising if it occurred.”

Investigators also looked at the possibility of the vane being improperly aligned or moved during depot-level maintenance, but maintainers told them it was unlikely as such vanes cause the entire stage to “bind” and not pass quality control checks.

“I find the cause for the turned vane impossible to determine,” the AIB president concluded.

U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Jeremy Alexander, a 48th Component Maintenance Squadron aerospace propulsion journeyman, works on an F100-PW-220 jet engine at RAF Lakenheath, England, Feb. 26, 2024. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Alexander Vasquez

Crucially, field maintainers would not have been able to see the turned vane even if they were looking for it.

“Due to the F100-PW-220 engine’s absence of an access port permitting a fifth stage borescope inspection, the fifth stage is only inspected through engine core teardown and HPC disassembly accomplished during depot-level maintenance,” the report states.

The last time the engine had been in depot maintenance was in 2016 and it “was approaching” its next overhaul at the time of the accident, officials stated without disclosing the precise date.

Maintainers did not send the engine to the depot after the FOD event because they could not see any damage to stages 2-4 or 6-13, and subsequent inspections revealed no issues with those stages. It is possible that stage 5 was damaged, but they could not check as they would for other stages. This was standard operating procedure.

“Field-level maintenance correctly performed all required engine repair and inspection tasks; therefore, the engine was returned to service,” investigators wrote. “No field-level indications would have triggered the removal of the engine for shipping to the depot for unscheduled maintenance of the fifth stage.”

Lack of access to the fifth stage for field-level maintainers is a “known ‘blind spot,’” officials said. The F-16 program office in the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center has already conducted a “deliberate risk assessment” as to whether the engine needs to be sent to the depot for unscheduled maintenance if the stages surrounding the fifth stage show no signs of damage.

“The risk assessment is based on the historical and anticipated probability of damage before scheduled maintenance compared to the severity of possible adverse effects. This deliberate risk assessment is informed by the limited time, manpower, and funding available to pull an engine out of an aircraft in the field, ship it to depot-level maintenance, perform a teardown, inspect it and make repairs (if any), reassemble it, ship it back to the field, and reinstall it into an aircraft,” the report states.

The accident investigation board makes no mention of whether the program office is revisiting that assessment after the mishap, and an AFLCMC spokesperson was not immediately able to provide comment from the program office.