Space Force Adds 2 New Launch Providers

Space Force Adds 2 New Launch Providers

March 28, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force is adding two new competitors to its National Security Space Launch program, even though neither has so far launched their listed rocket into space.

Rocket Lab and Stoke Space were accepted into “Phase 3 Lane 1” of the launch program, a new option created for commercial-like, lower-risk missions. Rocket Lab is planning the first launch of its new Neutron rocket from Wallops Island, Va., in the second half of this year; Stoke Space is projecting first launch for its Nova rocket sometime before 2026. 

“With today’s award, the Space Force expanded our portfolio of launch systems able to deliver critical space capability,” said Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, USSF program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, in a statement. “These new partners bring innovative approaches and increased competition to our mission area. Our Lane 1 goal is to bring in new partners to increase capacity, resiliency, and speed.” 

The new entries must complete at least one successful launch before they can receive task orders for NSSL launches, but their inclusion marks a major milestone, said Todd Harrison, a budget and space analyst for the American Enterprise Institute.

“The Space Force is doing the right thing and trying to keep their options open, but it’s ultimately going to be up to the companies to compete,” Harrison told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “It’s essentially the Space Force giving these companies the opportunity to bring their A-game.”

United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, dominated the launch business in the mid 2000s, until the rise of SpaceX broke that near monopoly. Now, however, SpaceX accounts for most orbital launches, including more in 2024 than the rest of the world combined. That’s given it a near stranglehold on the U.S. market. 

Space Force acquisition officials are set on developing a more robust set of options, and want to ensure they aren’t reliant on a single company to get into orbit. That, plus SpaceX’s success, has helped spur a host of startups to try to break into the launch segment in today’s booming space economy.

Whether any can catch up to SpaceX remains to be seen, Harrison said. For now, they represent “the potential for competition, but not yet real competition, if we’re honest,” Harrison said. “SpaceX has such a huge lead in just the volume of launch. That inherently puts them further down the learning curve, gives them a really big price advantage.”

Space Systems Command is trying to foster space startups with its Orbital Services Program-4 for fast-turnaround launches and small payloads, and the “two-lane” concept for NSSL, with a primary lane for its most critical, risk-averse missions and a secondary lane where more risk can be tolerated.

SpaceX, ULA, and newcomer Blue Origin won entry for the initial Lane 1 award in 2024. Blue Origin, founded by billionaire Jeff Bezos, has since successfully launched its New Glenn vehicle. Of the two new players in Lane 1, Rocket Lab is the more established. Founded in 2006, it has completed about 60 launches with its small-lift Electron rocket, including some for the Space Force. Its medium-lift Neutron rocket is still under development. 

Stoke Space, meanwhile, is just five years old and has never put a rocket into space. It has raised hundreds of millions of dollars, however, to develop a new fully reusable, medium-lift rocket called Nova, which has cleared several test milestones en route to a future launch.

To be eligible for the Space Force NSSL program, offering companies must demonstrate a “credible plan to achieve first launch capability” by Dec. 15, 2025. Harrison had called for continuous assessments instead of yearly on-ramps, but he said that if the Space Force is committed to that approach, it’s the right choice to accept companies that are progressing toward launch even if they haven’t demonstrated a launch yet.

“There’s no real risk to the government, because if these companies fall behind, if they have a launch failure, they’re not qualified to bid on anything yet,” Harrison said. “The government isn’t giving them a lot of money or anything. They’re just letting them put their foot in the door, is all.”

Lt. Col. Douglas Downs, SSC’s materiel leader for Space Launch Procurement, said in a statement that the command will compete more launch orders in fiscal 2026, which could be Rocket Lab and Stoke Space’s first chance to snag their piece of the $5.6 billion available as part of NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1. 

Another “on-ramp” for still more providers is also coming in fiscal 2026, Downs said. 

While Harrison said he hopes more companies are added in fiscal 2026, he also said he does not believe the Space Force should favor startups over better performance from SpaceX just to encourage diversity in its supply base.

“When you start trying to spread around the money in order to support less performing sectors of the industrial base, that is the definition of not being competitive,” Harrison warned. “You are skewing the market.”

It was a busy week for SSC—on March 26, the command announced it had certified ULA’s new Vulcan Centaur rocket to fulfill its assigned NSSL missions under Phase 2 of the program. The launch vehicle’s certification means ULA is likely to be included in Phase 3 Lane 2, which comprises the most critical national security launch missions. 

SECAF Nominee Meink Pledges Support for Sentinel ICBM

SECAF Nominee Meink Pledges Support for Sentinel ICBM

March 27, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Troy Meink, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Air Force Secretary, endorsed nuclear modernization at his confirmation hearing March 27. 

“Upon confirmation, I intend to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department of the Air Force’s existing nuclear weapon systems and modernization initiatives to identify the best ways to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent, which is essential for our national security,” Meink said in written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

Meink committed to producing the Air Force’s new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, which is over budget and behind schedule. Sentinel’s cost and schedule lapses exceeded statutory limits, triggering a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach and mandatory review. While the Pentagon declared the program critical to national security in July 2024, allowing it to continue, costs continue to climb and now are estimated at nearly $141 billion. Air Force officials are working to restructure the program, having instituted a pause on design and construction of launch facilities pending further study. 

Sentinel’s schedule is now approaching the September 2030 “no-fail” date set by U.S. Strategic Command as its estimated target to transition from Minuteman III ICBM to Sentinel. 

“The ground leg of the nuclear triad—Minuteman III and, over time, Sentinel—are foundational to strategic deterrence and defense of the homeland,” Meink’s written testimony states. 

An artist’s concept of the LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM. Northrop Grumman courtesy image.

Asked by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) if he would commit to “utilizing all available tools to accelerate Sentinel,” Meink said he would—but after “diving into the results of the Nunn-McCurdy [breach].” 

Meink’s written testimony said he wants to find “ways in which the program may be able to regain schedule and reduce cost. Ultimately, the success of this program will be a coordinated effort among the whole of government, … industry, and our civil communities, all working together to complete the most massive national-defense modernization effort in this century.” 

Air Force officials have said many of Sentinel’s problems stem not from the missile itself but from the extensive civil engineering and military construction costs involved with updating infrastructure built decades ago. Meink said his review would focus on making sure programs have enough funding, not cutting anything back. 

“One of the first things I plan to do is take a holistic look at all the modernization and all the readiness bills that we have coming, and then I will put together and advocate for what resources I think are necessary to execute all of those missions, … working both within the administration and with Congress,” Meink said. 

Meink shared the witness stand and confirmation hearing with Michael P. Duffey, nominated to be undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment, who also endorsed complete nuclear modernization. 

“Nuclear modernization is the backbone of our of our strategic deterrent, and ensuring that we have a modern, capable nuclear enterprise that not only includes the B 21 which is a successful acquisition program by all accounts, but the Columbia class submarine and the Sentinel nuclear ICBM, are critical,” Duffey told Fischer. 

New SECAF Nominee Endorses ‘Space Control’ and Counter-Space Weapons

New SECAF Nominee Endorses ‘Space Control’ and Counter-Space Weapons

March 27, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Troy Meink, nominee to be Secretary of the Air Force, appeared closely aligned to the Space Force’s vision of “space control” and the need for counter-space weapons to ensure U.S. space superiority in future conflicts. 

In written and verbal testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 27, Meink echoed the language of Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, who has increasingly emphasized the need for space control in recent weeks. 

Asked by Sen. Deb Fischer what systems he thinks the Space Force needs most, Meink answered: “Some of the space control and counter-space systems are critical.” Though he declined to go into detail because much of space work is classified, he added, “That is probably the area we are being most stressed in from a threat perspective.”

Likewise, in written testimony he also aligned with Saltzman, saying: “USSF investment priorities focus on achieving space superiority through space control.”

Meink is uniquely equipped to understand the issues facing the Space Force, having spent much of his career in the space acquisition world, most recently as principal deputy director at the National Reconnaissance Office. That means he has perhaps the deepest space background of any prior Air Force Secretary nominee. 

In written testimony, he said “the Space Force must prioritize space domain awareness, resilience, and capabilities that ‘hold at risk’ adversary spaces assets to protect the Joint Force.” He also argued the Space Force “must reinforce the warrior ethos within our Guardians, providing them with the equipment, the tactics, and the training required to use military force to control the space domain.” 

Saltzman uses similar language. In a March 26 visit with AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, Saltzman said space control is now “a critical function” for the U.S. 

“It used to be OK to take advantage of the benign domain and do ISR and PNT and focus on doing those missions very well, delivering those services to the warfighters,” he said. “It’s just no longer sufficient. Now we have to be able to control the domain.” 

Earlier in March, Saltzman opened the 2025 AFA Warfare Symposium pledging that the Space Force “will do whatever it takes” to control the space domain, including destroying adversaries’ satellites when and if necessary.

He later said the Space Force needs offensive weapons to be able to disrupt China’s ability to use space to target U.S. troops and to ensure U.S. access to the domain in order to support the joint force on the ground, at sea, and in the air. Operating “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,” he said. “In other words, it requires a Space Force.”

The Space Force is military in nature, Saltzman said. “The mix of weapons based on the targets is always a military consideration, and when I look at the space-enabled targeting architecture that [China] has built, it’s pretty impressive,” he said. “It’s in all orbital regimes. It’s in the hundreds of satellites. And to give the president options requires a mix of systems to be able to go across the full spectrum of operations to all orbital regimes. There are some things that are purpose-built for low-Earth orbit effects, others in GEO. And so the more weapons in the mix we have, the more options we can offer.”  

Meink echoed those ideas in his testimony, writing that the Space Force “needs to continue developing offensive and defensive space control capabilities to successfully prosecute a war in space and to conduct operations at a time and place of our choosing.” 

Talented people is what makes that possible, Meink said. “I think the key to both acquisition and operations is making sure you have the best talented workforce,” he said during the hearing. “These are some of the most complicated systems, and if the U.S. is going to maintain our advantage, which we need to do in space, we need to make sure we have the right workforce.”

Saltzman has argued increasingly strongly that the Space Force is too small, and that it needs both more funding and more people.

Meink agreed. “The Space Force is in the process of growing. I will support that activity, to make sure we have the right numbers and the right skill set, and then make sure that the acquisitions themselves are delivering and that they’re getting into operations.” 

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) questioned Meink about uncertainty surrounding the Space Development Agency since its leader, Derek Tournear was suspended in January. Cramer suggested the agency might be considering canceling plans for more low-Earth orbit satellites in favor of leveraging commercial products from SpaceX—which the senator said would harm industry competition.  

“One of the things that I have pushed for, particularly over the last 10 years, is expanded competition and expand the industry base,” Meink replied. “That ends up almost always with the best result, both from a capability and cost to the government. I’m not familiar with those discussions going on within the Pentagon. If confirmed, I look forward to diving into that and assessing where they’re going.” 

Air Force Child Care Staff Shortage Getting Worse at Some Bases

Air Force Child Care Staff Shortage Getting Worse at Some Bases

March 27, 2025 | By David Roza

Two Air Force Child Development Centers began to turn away some families this month, a move that one military child care expert fears could be a sign of things to come for CDCs across the country.

“What we’re seeing is kind of a perfect storm right now of things not coming together,” Kayla Corbitt, a leading advocate for military child care programs, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

On March 12, Hill Air Force Base in Utah notified 31 families that their children would be disenrolled from the CDCs there starting March 21 and that Hill’s CDC East facility will close. Base officials tied the news in part to a military civilian hiring freeze that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed to take effect on March 2.  

“CDCs traditionally face high turnover, and several recent departures in conjunction with the hiring freeze have reduced the number of supervisors and trainers available,” base officials said in a statement. “Maintaining two open CDCs at current personnel levels would pose an unacceptable risk to the 200 children who remain in care at Hill AFB.”

A follow-up memo from the Pentagon on March 18 exempted schools and child care centers from the freeze, but Hill officials said it will take a while to close its staff shortage.

“The Air Force now has an exemption to hire new CDC staff members. However, the hiring, on-boarding, and training process will take time, and there is no set date for when the CDC East will reopen,” the officials said.

Peterson Space Force Base, Colo., faces a similar issue. On March 24, the CDC there sent a memo asking for eight families to volunteer to enroll their infant children at a civilian partner daycare, since the infant classroom at the Peterson Main CDC had to close due to a staff shortage. 

The memo was shared on the popular unofficial Facebook page Air Force amn/nco/snco, and a Space Base Delta 1 spokesperson confirmed its authenticity. The families who volunteer to leave will pay the same rates as the on-base CDC.

“The DOD hiring freeze has slowed caregiver backfill efforts for our Child Development Centers,” the spokesperson said. “The 21st Force Support Squadron will reopen the Peterson SFB infant classroom when staffing levels increase.”

In both cases, the 16-day hiring freeze is just one piece of the puzzle, Corbitt said. The inability to hire staff, however brief, exacerbated a pre-existing staff shortage that CDCs have struggled with for years.

Last May, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), then the chair of the Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee, blamed a 12,000-children waitlist at worldwide CDCs in part on a 3,900-caregiver shortage.

“That’s more than 12,000 parents struggling to find out how to meet their military obligations when they have small children at home that need care,” she said at a hearing.

Lt. Gen. Caroline Miller, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services, said the Air Force has a 20 percent deficit of child care providers, which affects Airmen’s ability to do their jobs.

“The first thing you do when you get a [permanent change of station] assignment is you look at, if you have children, where are my children going to go? What is the access to child care? How do I get on the list as soon as possible,” she said at the hearing. “I mean, it is mission readiness.”

An Airman and their child attend the ARC Athena event at the Tech. Sgt. Vernon McGarity U.S. Army Reserve Center in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. James Fritz

But solving that staff shortage has proven difficult; military parents work odd hours to meet training requirements, pay is not competitive enough to entice caregivers, and the onboarding process for new child care employees can take months.

Once they’re on staff, caregivers may not stay for long: both Hill and Peterson acknowledged high turnover among CDC staff. Part of that is because many CDC staff are military spouses who have their own children to take care of and who have to move every few years.

“When we talk to spouses or others who have worked at CDCs, they say that it is just too much work, and they’re burning out,” Corbitt said.

Indeed, most CDC, school, and other military youth program directors told the RAND Corporation in a March 20 report that minimal staff support was driving burnout. 

The staff shortage may be particularly acute at Peterson and Hill. Thousands of troops and civilians drive high demand at Peterson, which hosts North American Aerospace Command, U.S. Northern Command, Space Base Delta 1, Space Operations Command, and other crucial units.

Hill also hosts a large population as the second-largest Air Force base by population and geographical size, but an abuse scandal at the Hill CDC that first emerged in 2023 has had a chilling effect on hiring, Corbitt said.

CDC hiring freezes are not new, and they often crop up during government shutdowns. But Corbitt pointed to two factors that make hiring CDC staff more difficult this time around. The first is that PCS season, which generally stretches from May to August, is around the corner, which makes it more difficult for spouses to commit to a CDC job. 

The second factor is a general lack of confidence in the stability of federal government jobs. The two months since President Donald Trump was inaugurated in January saw thousands of federal employees fired, and while a federal judge ordered 17,000 reinstated, other departments plan to lay off thousands more.

“Nobody really knows what direction we’re going when every day you wake up and there’s a headline about 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 people being laid off,” Corbitt said.

Corbitt believes other military CDCs will have to let families go too, since many CDCs have barely enough staff to keep the doors open.

The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act passed in December promised full funding for child care assistance for off-base child care; 180 days of child care for spouses seeking employment (up from 90 days); better pay and benefits for caregivers; and other improvements.

Each of those efforts takes money, though, and a 2025 defense appropriations bill never passed. Corbitt says that hurts lower-income military families first, because they are less likely to be able to afford the off-base child care that they could have utilized through the fee assistance program, for example. They have even fewer options when the CDCs themselves can barely stay open. Meanwhile, higher-income families have less incentive to keep using CDCs if they are so short-staffed.

The CDCs themselves are funded in part by parent fees, which vary based on household income and installation needs. Fewer parents mean less funding, which accelerates a downward spiral, Corbitt explained.

Meink: Air Force ‘Probably’ Too Small, F-15Es Still Have Value

Meink: Air Force ‘Probably’ Too Small, F-15Es Still Have Value

March 27, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force needs more fighters and bombers across the entire fleet, Air Force Secretary-nominee Troy Meink told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing March 27. 

Advanced aircraft are needed to operate in the most contested airspace, he said, but existing F-15E Strike Eagle and other fourth-generation fighters still have value for operations in less-dense threat areas.

Asked by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) about the recent selection of Boeing to build the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter and the importance of air superiority in general, Meink was supportive of the new jet.

“I think it’s very, very important,” he said. “The sixth-generation capability that NGAD will bring—as well as the B-21 and other systems, the long-range munitions that that we’re developing—all those are going to be extremely important, and probably more so almost than probably since World War II.”

Schmitt’s state is home to Boeing’s military headquarters, where the F-47 will be built.

Meink, currently the principal deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, got into a detailed discussion on fighters with Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), who represents Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., where F-15Es are stationed. He asked Meink if the F-15E will still have value in the years to come.

“Is it going to be able to operate in the highest environments? No. Does it have value? Yes,” Meink replied. “I think the question going forward will be, how long do we continue, and how do we best utilize the value from fourth-generation fighters?”

The F-15E “definitely has value today; not in all environments, but it definitely has value today,” Meink said. But Meink confessed to be “a little bit conflicted,” recalling that when he was an Air Force navigator on a KC-135 during the 1991 Gulf War, an F-15 “came to my rescue … and ran off a couple of Iraqi fighters.”

Dr. Troy E. Meink testifies during a Senate hearing for his nomination to be secretary of the Air Force in Washington, D.C., March 27, 2025. DOD photo by EJ Hersom

Asked by Budd if Meink thought the Air Force fleet is too small—a point Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin has made in arguing for “more Air Force”—recently, Meink hedged.

First, the nominee focused on the age of the fleet, noting his own history with Eisenhower-era KC-135. These aircraft are “still very capable,” he said, though he conceded, “They are definitely getting old.”

Meink did not commit to fleet size or numbers, however. Instead, Meink said he needed to see “the detailed analysis that went into the projections on NGAD [the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter] and the other systems.”

Eventually, however, he shared his “sense.”

“It’s probably too small, both on the fighter and the bomber side of the house,” Meink said.

Meink said his priorities will be to ensure the Air Force has the “lethality needed to deter all potential aggressors,” to “innovate faster” by increasing competition and accelerate the acquisition process to deliver new capabilities at lower cost “and deliver on the President’s goal of achieving peace through strength.”

Aircraft is only part of the equation in assuring readiness. Meinke promised Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that he will look into Air Force pilot production and progress toward alleviating the service’s chronic pilot shortage.

It’s not just about what pilots are paid, Meink said. “It’s … quality of service, quality of life. Pay only goes so far. We need to make sure, not just with pilots, but across our highly skilled areas within our workforce, that they have the opportunity to do what they’ve been trained to do and what they love to do. I think that could be a bigger impact on maintaining some of these highly technical skill sets, like pilots and others.”

B-2 Bombers Arrive on Diego Garcia in Unusual Show of Force

B-2 Bombers Arrive on Diego Garcia in Unusual Show of Force

March 27, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

B-2 Spirit bombers have landed on Diego Garcia, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean that serves as a strategic hub for operations everywhere from the Middle East to Africa to the Indo-Pacific, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command confirmed to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Confirmation of the bombers’ arrival comes after days of speculation, fueled by aviation enthusiasts and open-source intelligence analysts tracking movements using FAA identifiers, radio transmissions, and flight tracking data.

It’s an unusual deployment for the B-2. While Diego Garcia hosts Air Force bombers on a fairly regular basis, B-2s haven’t spent significant time there since 2020. Last August marked the first time in four years that a B-2 even touched down there when a bomber made a quick “hot pit” stop with its engines running.

A spokesperson for AFGSC said multiple bombers are on the island but could not comment on why they are there. An official previously said that the command “routinely conducts global operations … to deter, detect and, if necessary, defeat strategic attacks against the United States and its allies.”

It is possible the B-2s are deploying as part of regularly scheduled Bomber Task Force rotation—Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia has supported BTFs before. They could also be set to join the U.S.’s recently expanded air campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. B-2s were used to bomb the Houthis last October, though they did not fly to Diego Garcia for that mission.

According to flight tracking data and open-source intelligence, C-17 cargo planes and KC-135 tankers are supporting the bombers.

Diego Garcia is a British Indian Ocean Territory and a vital location for U.S. defense operations across the Middle East, east Africa, and south Asia. While the U.K. retains sovereignty, Washington controls the island’s military base through a 1966 lease agreement.

On March 26, trackers noted KC-135s were refueling multiple B-2s in the air. A snippet of air traffic control audio surfaced March 25, featuring the call sign “ABBA 11 cleared to destination FJDG.” FJDG is the FAA identifier for Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia.

Additionally, an aviation tracker posted footage of a B-2 bomber landing at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. A radio clip posted on social media confirms that the stealth bomber with the call sign PITCH 13 declared “the termination of the emergency” upon landing.

The AFGSC spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that one B-2 “landed safely” at the Hawaiian base, but declined to provide details regarding the cause of the emergency, or the bomber’s intended destination. The B-2 has since departed Hawaii, according to the individual who shared the video clip.

The aircraft movements come only days after the U.S. military told Air & Space Forces Magazine that it is expected to send additional aircraft to the Middle East. The Pentagon has conducted multiple waves of strikes targeting Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, after U.S. Air Force fighters helped fend off a drone attack by the Houthis in retaliation for an earlier round of U.S. strikes.

The Trump administration has intensified its campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthis, who have been waging war on shipping in the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and Bab El-Mandeb Strait for over a year, launching hundreds of attacks. The administration has indicated plans to continue using U.S. military force against the Houthis until they halt their assaults on commercial shipping and U.S. Navy vessels in the region.

Saltzman Wants ‘Fundamental Shift’ in Space Force Budget

Saltzman Wants ‘Fundamental Shift’ in Space Force Budget

March 26, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force budget needs a budget increase that could approach 20 percent, a “step function shift” necessary to fulfill USSF’s growing mission profile, Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said March 26.

Saltzman made the pitch during a visit with AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, in response to a recently published report that recommended President Donald Trump’s administration increase spending on the Space Force by 13 to 18 percent annually. Asked if that would be enough, Saltzman replied, “maybe not.” 

The Space Force needs to “a fundamental shift, a step function shift” to build new capabilities and respond to Chinese and Russian investment in order to hold their space assets at risk while protecting U.S. satellites in space. 

“Just doing 3 or 4 percent inflation increases doesn’t buy us new capability,” Saltzman said. “We’re just treading water. And so I think that’s really been our pitch … new missions require new resources, and that’s going to be a step function for the Space Force.”

The Biden administration sought a $30 billion budget for the Space Force in fiscal 2024, but Congress approved a little less; then in fiscal 2025, the Pentagon cut the Space Force budget, requesting $29.4 billion—the first proposed budget cut in the service’s five-year history. But Congress failed to pass a 2025 budget, passing instead a continuing resolution that will fund the government through September, that effectively cut Space Force investment to only about $28.8 billion. 

Cutting the force when it’s being asked to do more and take on new missions is untenable, he said.

USSF needs “$10 billion in the near term, plussing up our current resources,” Saltzman said. “We can spend that.” 

While the first budget of the new Trump administration is still being formulated, Saltzman’s comments suggest a growing confidence among Department of the Air Force leaders that years of short budgets could be coming to an end. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently directed Defense Department organizations to identify options to cut 8 percent of their budgets so that money can be reallocated to other priorities. Saltzman said he expects the Space Force to benefit from that reallocation.

“I’m very hopeful that the case that the Space Force makes means that a lot of that money will come back into our budget,” Saltzman said.

Like other military branches and DOD agencies, the Space Force had to identify things it could cut. The CSO did not detail those proposed cuts, believing they will ultimately be funded. And he cited initiatives, like the Golden Dome missile defense shield, as factors likely to increase the topline. 

Adding to Saltzman’s confidence were comments Hegseth made at a gathering of senior Department of the Air Force leaders. Saltzman said Hegseth called space “the next and the most important domain of warfare” and pledged “far more investment” in both offensive and defensive capabilities. 

“If you don’t have space superiority, you can’t enable all the other functions,” Saltzman said. “Secretary Hegseth understands that. So that’s why I’m not uncomfortable with this reprioritization drill in the FY ’26 budget.”  

Offensive space, or the ability to control the space domain, has emerged as one of Saltzman’s major priorities, one that will require significant investment. 

Meanwhile, with more than six months remaining in fiscal 2025, Saltzman still has work to do this year. The year-long continuing resolution does enable Space Force leaders to change some investment plans and to start new programs, but overall it left the Space Force underfunded compared to prior years.  

“The bottom line is our appropriated money is less than we had in ’24, so we are literally shrinking in resources as a Space Force,” Saltzman lamented. “We have less to do more with. That’s a concern, and it’s starting to be a trend. We’re starting to be able to connect some dots that over the last few years, even if you don’t account for inflationary adjustments, we’re still shrinking in real dollars. We’re trying to work hard on resolving that as we go forward on ’26.” 

The ponderous Pentagon budget process means that today’s funding levels date back to planning that took place in the fall of 2022, when the fiscal 2024 budget request was set. And because the fiscal 2026 budget request has not yet been submitted, the entire process for that budget is well behind schedule, making another CR to start fiscal 2026 likely. If that happens, the Space Force will have gone nearly three without being resourced against a threat that is rapidly changing and growing simultaneously.  

“That is stagnant,” Saltzman said. “In the face of an adversary who is not stagnant, I’m worried that we’re not going to be able to keep pace, certainly the way we want to.” 

Space Force Clears ULA’s New Rocket to Compete with SpaceX

Space Force Clears ULA’s New Rocket to Compete with SpaceX

March 26, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force certified United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur rocket to carry its most important national security missions into space—clearing the way for a series of new launch missions this year and giving SpaceX a little competition. 

Space Systems Command announced the decision March 26, clearing the rocket for the National Security Space Launch program, which represents space missions that can tolerate the lowest possible risk.  

ULA endured a comprehensive certification process for Vulcan Centaur, SSC said in a release, covering “52 certification criteria, including more than 180 discrete tasks, 2 certification flight demonstrations, 60 payload interface requirement verifications, 18 subsystem design and test reviews, and 114 hardware and software audits.” 

Vulcan Centaur replaces ULA’s Delta IV rocket, which had been certified for NSSL missions, but completed its final launch in April 2024. Since then, SpaceX’s Falcon rockets have been the only option for NSSL missions, making SpaceX a dominant force in the launch market.

“We definitely want to make sure that the industrial base is as broad as possible,” declared Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman at this month’s AFA Warfare Symposium. “That gives us more assurances that we will have ready access to the kinds of capabilities we need across all of the different orbital regimes and weight classes that we have to put capabilities in space.” 

The Space Force had assigned more than a dozen missions to ULA which could not be flown until Vulcan was certified. Among them: small satellites for the Space Development Agency, new GPS satellites, classified payloads for the Space Force and National Reconnaissance Office, and experimental payloads for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. One launch was redirected to SpaceX during this time.

Space Systems Command said Vulcan’s first NSSL launch will be this summer, likely to include some of the 100 satellite launches the Space Force hopes to deploy in 2025. 

In a statement, ULA president Tory Bruno thanked his government customers for their partnership. “Thank you to all our customer partners who have worked hand-in-hand with us throughout this comprehensive certification process,” he said. “We are grateful for the collaboration and excited to reach this critical milestone in Vulcan development.” 

Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for assured access to space, said completing the certification locked in “a critical element of national security,” promising that “Vulcan certification adds launch capacity, resiliency, and flexibility needed by our nation’s most critical space-based systems.” 

More competition could be coming soon. Blue Origin launched its New Glenn rocket for the first time last year and is gearing up for another launch in the next few months, in the hopes of also earning NSSL certification. Blue Origin has already been accepted into NSSL’s new “Lane 1” program, which is for commercial-like missions where risk tolerance is greater.

More new launch providers are also trying to get Space Force approval.  

“It was only about 10 years ago when we had like one provider and just a few rocket systems,” Saltzman said earlier this month. “So if you take a long look at this, over the last 10 or 15 years, we’ve really expanded the industrial base in support of launch services. I think we’re on the right trajectory.” 

Air Force Picked Boeing for NGAD Based on ‘Best Overall Value.’ Here’s What It Means

Air Force Picked Boeing for NGAD Based on ‘Best Overall Value.’ Here’s What It Means

March 26, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force made the final choice of Boeing over Lockheed Martin in the Next-Generation Air Dominance competition, and it was based on “best overall value,” a service spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The winners of some previous competitions for major programs have been decided by higher-level Pentagon officials, such as the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. But the spokesperson said the Air Force’s acting senior acquisition executive, Darlene J. Costello, approved the NGAD pick, made by an unnamed leader of the evaluation team. There had been speculation that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth or even President Donald Trump would personally select the NGAD winner.

“The Milestone Decision Authority for the NGAD program is the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive [Costello], who made the decision to proceed with Milestone B,” the spokesperson said. “As a matter of course, we do not reveal the identity of the source selection authority (SSA) in order to protect the integrity of the source selection process. This allows the SSA to operate free of any influence by outside parties and to provide an unbiased decision on the evaluation of the offerors solely based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation.”

Boeing’s proposal, now called the F-47, won because it “represents the best overall value to the government and is best suited to fulfill the Air Force’s requirements,” the spokesperson said. That stands in contrast to other contracts that have been awarded based on “lowest price/technically acceptable,” which is the criteria used when proposals are so evenly matched that cost becomes the key discriminator. A “best overall value” offeror may sometimes have quoted a higher price and was chosen because the source selection authority deemed the proposal more realistic, or if more value was added in the form of far better technical performance, lower-cost maintainability, or other factors.

The Air Force has not revealed the criteria used to judge the two entrants, and the spokesperson said the service “will not release additional details relative to the proposal.”

Industry sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine that past performance was not heavily weighted in the selection and counted for less than 10 percent of the scoring.

Boeing has struggled on current Air Force programs for the KC-46 tanker, T-7 trainer, and Air Force One presidential transport, incurring years of delays and about $10 billion of losses. Lockheed has had issues with delayed F-35 deliveries and stubbornly high operating costs.

Former government officials said Lockheed’s issues were a negative, but perhaps not as much as Boeing’s well-publicized management struggles.

The Air Force said it awarded Boeing a “cost-plus incentive fee contract” for NGAD engineering and manufacturing development, but the contract’s value and details are being withheld due to classification. The Air Force said the EMD contract includes “maturing and testing all aspects of the F-47,” and that this phase “will produce a small number of test aircraft for evaluation.” It also includes “competitively priced options for low-rate initial production.”

Boeing had previously won Air Force contracts with fixed-price offerings, only to eat major losses down the line. As a result, corporate leaders have said they will not bid for fixed-price contracts when it pertains to developing new technology.

Under cost-plus agreements, the government will typically cover overages resulting from maturing new technologies, but Boeing will be able to win additional funds if it meets or beats schedule, technical or cost requirements.

Protest?

Neither the Air Force nor Lockheed Martin would divulge when that company will receive a debrief as to why it was not selected for the contract. Once that happens, though, Lockheed may file a protest if it feels the Air Force did not judge the proposals fairly or gave inordinate weight to certain factors. If it files a protest, the Government Accountability Office has 100 days in which to resolve the issues and decide whether the selection was made fairly.

“We expect the GAO to take the amount of time needed to thoroughly evaluate the record and provide an assessment,” the Air Force spokesperson said.

Major aircraft program awards are frequently protested, because the relatively low cost of a protest could result in billions of dollars in recovered work. Boeing and Lockheed, which teamed up in the 2015 Long-Range Strike Bomber competition, protested Northrop Grumman’s selection, but the GAO upheld that award and Northrop went on to develop the B-21.

However, Boeing succeeded in protesting the award of the KC-X tanker to a team of Northrop and Airbus in 2008, arguing the Air Force didn’t follow its own rules in assessing the entrants. The award was thrown out, the competition was re-run, and in 2011, Boeing won and is now building the KC-46.

When former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall held off choosing an NGAD winner late in 2024—handing off the choice to the new administration—the Air Force awarded both Boeing and Lockheed technology maturation and risk reduction contracts of an undisclosed amount to keep their design teams together until the program’s future was resolved, or at least until the end of fiscal 2025. The Air Force declined to provide any details about the value of those contracts or what their deliverables might be.

“Contract timelines, costs, and capability deliveries are protected by enhanced security measures,” the service spokesperson said. “No further details are available.”

Engine

The Air Force said the competition for an engine that will power the NGAD fighter is a separate contest unaffected by the selection of Boeing.

The Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) engine for the sixth-gen fighter “is platform agnostic,” the Air Force said, “and designs can be tailored to an extent for future fighter and other aircraft operating across various mission threads.” It did not specify what other platforms might be able to use the NGAP engine, but the only new designs on the horizon are the Next-Generation Aerial refueling System (NGAS) and later iterations of the autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft.

General Electric, with the XA-102, and RTX’s Pratt & Whitney, with the XA-103, are the competitors for the NGAP program. They both recently received contracts to build and test prototypes.

Designation

The Air Force declined to provide the designations or nomenclature for the X-planes it revealed that Boeing and Lockheed flew in the technology demonstration phase of the NGAD program, saying they remain classified.

However, while Boeing’s aircraft is now called the F-47, its X-plane predecessor wasn’t the X-47 or Y-47—the service said Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin himself chose the designation.

The Air Force has a policy governing the designation and naming of aircraft and weapons, with new systems generally going in numerical order. The policy does, however, grant leaders discretion to skip design numbers.

The F-35 was an out-of-sequence selection. Had the Air Force decided to keep going in order from there, the NGAD fighter would have been the F-36 or F-37. Had the service decided to go back to its original sequence, it wold have been F-24 or F-25, following the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 which competed in the Advanced Tactical Fighter Competition.

The B-21 bomber likewise was supposed to carry the nomenclature B-3, but former Air Force Secretary Deborah James opted to name it the B-21 to emphasize that it is a “21st century bomber.”

The spokesperson said Allvin chose F-47 “in consultation with the Secretary of Defense” and the nomenclature “carries multiple significant meanings. It honors the legacy of the P-47, whose contributions to air superiority during World War II remain historic.” It also “pays tribute to the founding year of the Air Force” and recognizes Trump and “the 47th President’s pivotal support for development of the world’s first sixth-generation fighter.” Honorifics have usually been applied to the nickname for an aircraft, not its nomenclature.