Air Force MAJCOMs, Given New Guidance, Pull Back on Family Days

April 23, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Editor’s Note: This story was originally published April 18 and has been updated with additional information from more major commands.

When acting Air Force Secretary Gary A. Ashworth rescinded service-wide “Family Days” last week, he left it to commanders, directors, and supervisors to decide for themselves if they wanted to grant the extra days off. Ashworth’s guidance urged only that, in accordance with USAF regulations, they “re-evaluate their pass structures to best align with warfighter readiness.”

Multiple Air Force major commands and Space Force field commands have updated their policies or issued new guidance on Family Days, or passes, to preserve some days and cut a few others. Most commands are still reviewing their schedules, promising updates to come.

Family Days are intended to extend holiday weekends for eligible uniformed Airmen, typically by adding a Friday to the three-day weekend. Aircrew, maintainers, and security forces Airmen, among other jobs, are often ineligible due to mission requirements. Federal law prohibits civilian employees from being given extra days off.

The next federal holiday is Memorial Day, making Friday, May 23, the next anticipated Family Day. Here’s where each MAJCOM stands on Family Days so far:

Updates

Air Education and Training Command

AETC issued its new Family Days schedule for 2025 and 2026 in an April 22 memo—it’s now calling them “Resiliency Days.” For the rest of 2025 and for all of 2026, there will be four Resiliency Days, along with one possible “Readiness Day” per quarter if different AETC organizations meet their readiness or mission performance targets.

For 2025, the command removed two Family Days from its previous schedule: Friday, June 20, following the Thursday, June 19 Juneteenth holiday; and Friday, Aug. 29 ahead of Labor Day on Sept. 1. It is keeping the days associated with Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

For 2026, the command has four days authorized, associated with New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa

Unlike most other major commands, USAFE-AFAFRICA has only scheduled Family Days through the end of fiscal 2025 on Sept. 30. According to a memo sent to Airmen and verified by Air & Space Forces Magazine on April 23, the command is keeping the Family Days associated with Memorial Day in May and Independence Day in July, but canceling two: Friday, June 20, following the Thursday, June 19 Juneteenth holiday; and Friday, Aug. 29 ahead of Labor Day on Sept. 1.

The command’s memo also states that the Third Air Force can “adjust, or not observe, these dates based on operational demands.” It can also delegate that authority to the wing level and allow wings to set “Goal Days”—extra days off if the unit hits certain training or mission requirements.

Air Force Materiel Command

AFMC has issued a memo rescinding its previous Family Days schedule and is still working on a new policy, an official confirmed to Air & Space Forces Magazine on April 23. The old schedule included Family Days in conjunction with Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Notably, the command is perhaps the most civilian-heavy in the Air Force at around 80 percent, and the rules regarding leave for civilians are different—civilian employees can only use accrued leave on Family Days.

Space Operations Command

Space Operations Command has “fully implemented the Secretary’s guidance regarding leave and passes,” a spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine on April 23, with no command-wide Family Days on the schedule now. Commanders of units under SpOC can still grant passes to uniformed personnel, and SpOC leadership “will assess opportunities to incorporate military passes in alignment with operational requirements.”

Air Force Global Strike Command

Most previously scheduled Family Days remain in place for the rest of the year, with two exceptions, according to a memo leaked on social media and confirmed by Air & Space Forces Magazine. AFGSC canceled two anticipated Family Days: Friday, June 20, following the Thursday, June 19 Juneteenth holiday, and Friday, Oct. 10, which would have preceded the Monday, Oct. 13 Columbus Day holiday.

Air Mobility Command

Air Mobility Command cancelled four Family Days: Friday, April 18, ahead of Easter Sunday; Friday, Aug. 29 ahead of Labor Day on Sept. 1; Friday, Oct. 10 ahead of Columbus Day; and Monday, Nov. 10 ahead of that Tuesday’s Veterans Day.

Space Systems Command

The Space Force’s main acquisition arm has “rescinded command-wide family days for 2025 beyond Independence Day,” a spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine. Instead, the command is “empowering and encouraging its commanders, directors, and supervisors to focus any future pass days/structures on organizational/unit goals that align with warfighter readiness; execute our mission with excellence; or maintain our competitive advantage.”

SSC had previously scheduled Family Days for Friday, Aug. 29 (Labor Day); Friday, Oct. 10 (Columbus Day); Friday, Nov. 10 (Veterans Day); Friday, Nov. 28 (Thanksgiving); and Thursday, Dec. 26 (Christmas).

Air Force Reserve Command

A memo circulating on social media says that AFRC has rescinded all of its Family Days. The command did not immediately respond to a query from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Still Deciding

Air Force Special Operations Command

AFSOC is still finalizing its updated Family Days schedule, an official told Air & Space Forces Magazine. Some previously scheduled days are likely to be cancelled.

Air Combat Command

“In accordance with the Secretary’s guidance regarding family days, ACC is reviewing our policy and updates are forthcoming,” an official told Air & Space Forces Magazine. Individual commanders still have the authority to issues passes in the meantime.

Pacific Air Forces

“Pacific Air Forces is reviewing its own policy on leave and passes, balancing the resiliency and personal readiness of our Airmen, and their families, with our collective warfighting readiness,” an official told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Space Training and Readiness Command

STARCOM officials did not immediately respond to a query.

Air Force Still Planning a Nuclear Microreactor in Alaska—and More After That

April 23, 2025 | By Matthew Cox

By the end of this decade, the Air Force could begin equipping up to nine bases with self-sufficient nuclear microreactors as part of an effort to unplug from local commercial power grids and satisfy a growing demand for secure, reliable power sources that are more protected from cyberattacks and natural disasters.

One is set to be at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, as part of a project that was delayed 18 months from bid protests of the service’s selection process. Despite the setback, the Air Force hopes to announce a commercial firm to build the microreactor this year.

The rest of the microreactors will come from the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, known as ANPI, a Defense Innovation Unit effort launched last year with the Air Force and the Army. The DIU program recently selected eight commercial firms that will be eligible for contracts to build microreactors on select installations to meet the need for independent power sources.

“We have growing critical-mission need areas in both the Air Force and on the Space Force … we have our own data centers, so think about [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] feed, downlink stations from satellites– so we need to make sure that we’re able to support artificial intelligence for doing our own intelligence review,” Nancy Balkus, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Infrastructure, Energy and Environment, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Balkus added that nuclear power will allow these installations to “operate independently from the commercial grid. … So when there is some type of an impact, whether it’s a natural disaster, just a severe weather event, or cyber attack–which we’ve already seen multiple times in control systems for utility systems–we want to make sure that we have a resilient energy solution that offers security from all of those things.”

If all goes well, the Air Force will build a 5-megawatt microreactor at Eielson that will supplement its 15-megawatt coal plant before 2030, Balkus said, explaining that after a series of protests, Defense Logistics Agency Energy—the agency overseeing the Air Force project—has been able to remediate the acquisition strategy.

“I’m anticipating that we will be able to make an announcement, perhaps as early as this summer, but maybe later this year,” said Balkus, who is unsure whether the project can recover from the 18-month delay and still meet the 2027 completion deadline outlined in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

“I’m hoping that our Eielson reactor will be [completed] before 2030,” she said.

DIU’s Director of Energy Andrew Higier had a slightly longer timeline, saying he is confident that the commercial microreactor industry has matured enough to begin delivering safe, government licensed microreactor prototypes for the ANPI project by “the early 2030s.”

“If you would have asked me three years ago, I probably would have said, we won’t do a nuclear project, but now here we are, and that’s because that commercial sector has grown,” he said.

Commercial companies have recognized that the surge in demand for artificial intelligence will require power generated by microreactor technology, Higier said.

“There are now private sector companies, some of the big name ones … the Googles and Metas of the world that are looking to leverage micro and small reactors for their data centers,” he said. “The reality is now there’s a large private sector capital investment being poured into this technology. There’s no longer just a defense need for this.”

Higier added that commercial microreactors of the scale and size needed for DIU’s program do not yet exist, “so I think in this particular instance, we are actually looking to help catalyze the industry, as opposed to just directly leveraging the industry.”

In early April, DIU selected the following eight firms to be eligible for prototyping contracts under the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations effort:

Antares Nuclear Inc.

BWXT Advanced Technologies LLC

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems

Kairos Power LLC

Oklo Inc.

Radiant Industries Incorporated

Westinghouse Government Services

X-Energy LLC

The Air Force and DLA Energy originally intended to award the Eielson contract to Oklo, before rescinding that notice of intent after a protest. Radiant and Westinghouse also presented briefings on their designs, according to a project update in January 2024.

Higier said the next step will involve sending request for prototype proposals to these firms, most likely before fiscal 2025 ends in September.

While he would not discuss specifics of source selection, Higier then said the effort will go into a “crawl, walk, run” approach.

“We will approach this carefully and deliberately with milestones in the contracts that get us our best chance of success,” he said.

Part of that approach will be reducing the risks associated with this type of nuclear power as much as possible, Balkus said.

“There are risks with any new technology. … However, I think the benefits outweigh any risks that there are. And let’s be clear up front, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process looks at every single angle of every risk area that there is with the safety of the reactor portion, as well as the environmental impact of putting a microreactor” on a base,” Balkus said.

The reactor designs for this effort come from proven reactor technology that is “intrinsically safe,” said Kirk Phillips, director of the Air Force Office of Energy Assurance.

“One of the things we also really like is that they do have a significant amount of shielding and protection that is part of the design,” Phillips said. “It’s greatly dependent on the specific vendor and their designs, but those things make them easily hardenable from an external attack, so more than just risk or contamination, we also need it to survive and do its job.”

Air Force officials said it is too early to discuss which bases will be selected as sites for future microreactors. Under a process dubbed Department of Defense Advanced Reactor Criteria Baseline Understanding for Enterprise Scaling, or DARC BlUES, Air Force officials will examine the needs of both the Air Force and Space Force to make its selections.

“We want to have a data-driven, decision-making method to be able to identify what are the best installations that have the most critical mission areas that would benefit most from the benefits of advanced nuclear energy,” Balkus said “What is the mission criticality? How can we get it to [be] cost-effective, because while there are many benefits to nuclear, we wouldn’t want to pursue a nuclear solution if there was a more cost-effective energy solution other than nuclear.”

There are states such as Alaska and Texas that have “passed nuclear-friendly laws” that will influence the selection process, Balkus siad.

“That’s a really important factor too, because if the state and local regulatory laws are not supportive, then that’s a factor we also want to consider,” she said.

The Air Force is also in the process of determining how many bases will be involved in the effort, a decision that will also depend on available funding sources, Balkus said.

“We are developing a [list] so that depending on site-specific criteria and funding to be able to implement them–whether it’s DOD funding or whether it’s private capital funding–will determine how many locations we would implement,” she said.

While these will be prototyping contracts and not production ones, Higier said he is confident the effort could yield multiple microreactor prototypes for the Air Force as well as the Army.

“Within the bounds of the prototype contract, we are not really very limited. In other words, there’s quite a bit of room here for the Army to get what they want, the Air Force to get what they want,” he said, explaining that it’s possible that each vendor could do “at least one or two sites.”

“If the Army wants those eight vendors … and the Air Force wants those eight vendors, and they want different sites, that’s going to be OK.”

Airmen Confused and Understaffed for Elements of ACE, Report Says

April 22, 2025 | By David Roza

The Air Force must better explain Agile Combat Employment concepts, align training standards, and address staff shortages to be ready to implement the strategy, according to a new report by the federally funded RAND Corporation.

ACE involves Airmen working in small teams and rapidly moving between expeditionary airfields to avoid being targeted by enemy missiles and other long-range weapons. Service officials bill ACE as the key to success in a conflict against Russia or China, but it marks a shift from the past quarter-century of the Global War on Terror, where Airmen generally operated in large groups from permanent bases with steady supply streams and communications.

ACE requires mission-ready Airmen, the Air Force’s term for troops who can operate in small, multifunctional teams in contested and austere locations.

“However, the road to implementation of MRA has been anything but straightforward, particularly for Airmen in combat support communities, such as maintenance, logistics, engineering, and force protection,” RAND wrote in its April 18 report.

Combat support Airmen fix aircraft, maintain runways, move cargo around base, and defend the flightline, but they don’t typically organize and train as multifunctional teams, RAND noted. The Air Force asked RAND to help chart a path for preparing these Airmen for ACE, and the think tank grouped its findings into three focus areas: organizing, training, and cross-cutting issues.

Organizing

Within organization, RAND found two key themes: there is still confusion about how Air Force units are organized for ACE, and finding enough combat support Airmen to support those units will be a challenge.

Alongside ACE, the Air Force is introducing Air Task Forces, then Combat Wings, as the units of action that will present operational capability to joint force commanders. ATFs and Combat Wings are meant to provide more stability for Airmen and enhance effectiveness by allowing them to train together for longer.

Among the formations are Mission Generation Force Elements and Mission Sustainment Teams. The MGFEs include aircraft and the maintenance Airmen who fix them, while the MSTs include engineers, security forces, and other roles who help the MGFE work from austere locations.

But RAND found confusion about the operational relationship between the two kinds of groups. A representative from Air Mobility Command told RAND that MSTs are expected to attach to mobility MGFEs, but an Air Combat Command said combat MGFEs would include some combat support Airmen that would make attaching an MST unnecessary.

“The main implication of this confusion is that it could result in redundancies of [combat support] training … and manning if MSTs do not deploy” to contingency locations, RAND wrote. It also could lead to some Airmen being unqualified to deploy to a contingency location if they have to work in an MST or MGFE with a different understanding of the concept.

The Air Force ought to clarify the relationship between MSTs and MGFEs, RAND wrote, but another challenge is finding enough Airmen to staff those units.

“Indeed, our interview participants indicated that not having enough [combat support] Airmen to send to ATF elements is one of the top impediments for organizing Airmen in the ATF elements,” RAND said.

Multiple factors contribute to the shortage, including the fact that such Airmen provide both in-garrison support and operational mission support, making it difficult to put experienced Airmen on an ATF without hurting in-garrison work.

RAND recommended adjusting ATF requirements to accommodate a broader range of skill levels or specialties, reducing stovepipes that limit how Airmen are assigned and employed, and shifting some base support functions to civilians to free up Airmen for operational mission support.

Training and Proficiency

ACE preparations for combat support Airmen are further clouded by unclear training and proficiency standards, which interviewees feared would lead to different levels of preparedness between units and lead to wings not prioritizing mission-ready training for support Airmen.

“USAF would need to ensure that the tasks for which Airmen are to be trained to the proficient level occur with regularity,” RAND wrote.

The think tank recommended the Air Force set cross-utilization training standards, as well as a qualification program to certify that combat support Airmen are meeting mission-ready standards. The Air Force should also assign proficiency targets for ACE training events so that units can ensure they’re ready for deployment, RAND said.

Cross-Cutting Issues

Like the relationship between MSTs and MGFEs, RAND also noted confusion at the wing level and below about what qualifies as a mission-ready combat support Airmen.

“Although this lack of clarity on the definition might not affect much in the short term, some interviewees and workshop participants cited long-term challenges, such as variation in … training standards across wings,” RAND wrote. “This can create redundancies and gaps in Airman capabilities if what counts as MRA does not translate across assignments and missions.”

A consistent understanding is even more important as the Air Force switches to a new force generation model that hinges on reaching certain proficiency levels by predetermined points in a rotation cycle, RAND wrote. Still, it’s difficult to know who is proficient when the Air Force lacks a comprehensive proficiency tracking mechanism for mission-ready Airman skills, the think tank said.

A separate RAND report released on April 16 noted the same problem. Subject matter experts told RAND that Air Force Specialty Codes “as currently structured, do not accurately reflect Airmen’s existing skills and abilities; moreover, existing personnel databases and management systems do not comprehensively trackAairmen’s skills.”

RAND’s recommendation for improving how combat support Airmen prepare for ACE include:

Clarify the relationship between MSTs and MGFEs

Make the assignment requirements for ATFs and combat wings more flexible

Consider civilianizing base support functions to address CS manning challenges

Set cross-utilization training standards for CS Airmen

Establish a qualification program to certify MRA training

Assign proficiency targets for training events

Further hone CS ACE capabilities, including capabilities after battlefield attrition, through exercises such as Bamboo Eagle

Develop and disseminate a more detailed definition(s) of MRA for MAJCOMs and wings to communicate expectations to Airmen

Establish a way to track CS MRA skills in personnel systems, such as a through a prefix to an AFSC or a special experience identifier

Northrop Takes $477 Million Charge to Allow for Faster B-21 Production

April 22, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Northrop Grumman took a $477 million loss on the B-21 bomber program in the first quarter; executives said the expense will both cover unexpected materials costs and make it possible to accelerate production of the aircraft, if that’s something the Air Force wants to do.

The charge was attributed to a “change in the manufacturing process” and gives the Air Force “some optionality,” Northrop President and CEO Kathy Warden said on an earnings call. The “process change” will “enable a higher production rate,” she added.

The charge brings Northrop’s losses on the B-21—some elements of which are fixed-price—up to $2 billion, Warden said.

Executives cited higher-than-expected “rework” costs and economic effects like inflation as partial causes for the costs, but the process change costs are greater than the materials costs, Warden said, constrained in her comments because of heavy classification of the B-21 program. The Air Force concurred on the changes being made, she said, adding that the charge “is not something we will need to do again.”

Northrop Chief Financial Officer Ken Crews said the costs will be spread out across 2026, 2027, and 2028.

The company is already working under a second low-rate initial production lot contract and finishing up the engineering, manufacturing, and development phase of the program, Warden reported. She did not comment much on the progress of test flights, but did say that preliminary work has begun on B-21 improvements.

“We have … started some work on modernization, and we are building out the capability to train and sustain on the aircraft as well. So those will be gradually phased in over these next several years, and there isn’t change based on what we’re recording this quarter in that profile for the program,” she said.

Warden said Northrop is “demonstrating performance objectives through tests, and we are progressing through the first two lots of production with significant learning behind us.” The aircraft “is performing in line with the model performance and the test objective.”

The change to the manufacturing process “positions us to ramp to the quantities needed in full-rate production,” Warden said. This will also include being able to “ramp beyond the quantities in the program of record.”

The Air Force’s current plan, sometimes called the program of record, is to buy 100 B-21s. But as Warden noted, some combatant commanders and Air Force leaders have suggested more than 100 bombers are needed for the “dynamic” world situation. Those comments “reflect that increased demand signal that we’ve been talking about,” Warden said.

Warden also suggested the Air Force was looking at “scenarios” and considering the possibility “to increase the build rate” of the B-21.

NGAD

She also strongly suggested that Northrop is on Boeing’s F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance team. Though secrecy prevented her from disclosing specifics, “you know that we are a merchant supplier of mission systems … and we remain fully committed to supplying those advanced capabilities for government customers and primes,” she said. Northrop has expertise in sensors that are “easily scaled and reconfigurable for a wide application across a variety of platforms,” she added.

Northrop is also still a contender for a future fighter of its own, the Navy’s F/A-XX. Northrop and Boeing are the two finalists in the competition, but Warden had no news to report on that front.

“We expect a decision soon,” she said.

Sentinel

Last week’s explosion at Northrop’s Promontory, Utah, solid rocket motor facility won’t affect its work on the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, Warden reported.

The building destroyed in the accident makes an ingredient in SRM propellant, she said, but the company has other suppliers for the material, so “we do not expect any impact to any of our programs.” Northrop told Air & Space Forces Magazine last week that it had received hundreds of calls from Capitol Hill about the potential effect of the explosion on the Sentinel ICBM.

“Promontory is a production site for those solid rocket motors,” Warden said, but Sentinel will be unaffected, she insisted. Promontory makes large SRMs and components, she said, noting that those used in smaller Northrop munitions are made in other facilities.

“On Sentinel, the U.S. Air Force and Northrop Grumman completed a successful static fire test of the stage one solid rocket motor for the missile in March,” she said. “This critical milestone for the weapons system further validates the motor’s design and paved the way for the production and deployment of a safe, secure and reliable strategic deterrent. We are also continuing to work with the customer to identify costs and schedule efficiencies as they evaluate requirements to balance capability, affordability and schedule for the program.”

Warden said the Sentinel design is progressing “in design maturation and even testing of the missile, and so we continue to grow in confidence in the design of the system that we are building.” Northrop is working with the Air Force “to restructure the program, and … on options to reduce the overall cost and schedule.” If ways are found to do so, “what we look at in that restructuring is to ensure that the changes in requirements are adequately reflected in the design, and ultimately in the contract.”

Air Force Stands Up New Squadron to Keep Growing EW Expertise

April 22, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The Air Force has launched yet another new squadron dedicated to electronic warfare as part of its effort to expand expertise in the field.

The 23rd Electronic Warfare Squadron stood up at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., home to the service’s sole wing focused on EW, the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing, on April 18. It is the 12th squadron under the wing, which activated less than four years ago.

The new squadron is responsible for mission data programming in support of command and control, ISR, and Combat Air Force weapon systems like the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). Airmen assigned to the unit will program and update the data that guides these systems, allowing missiles like HARM to track and target enemy radar by locking onto their signals. The group also provides service-wide support for EW systems such as reprogramming, threat testing, and evaluating new or upgraded technologies.

Much of this work began in 2023, when the unit operated as a detachment rather than a full squadron due to staffing shortages at the time, a spokesperson for the 350th SWW told Air & Space Forces Magazine. Lt. Col. Luke Marron, who previously served as detachment commander, now commands the 23rd EWS.

“The 23rd Electronic Warfare Squadron will be the shield that protects our forces, the sword that disrupts our enemies, and the eyes that provide critical intelligence in the electromagnetic spectrum,” Marron said in a release.

U.S. Air Force Col. Candice Sperry, 350th Spectrum Warfare Group commander, gives remarks during the reactivation ceremony for the 23d Electronic Warfare Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, April 18, 2025. The 23 EWS activated initially as a detachment in 2023 and supports mission data file reprogramming efforts for command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, combat rescue platforms and expendables for the Combat Air Force. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Anna Smith

The 23rd EWS is technically a “re-activation” of the former 23rd Fighter Squadron, which has a rich history dating back to 1939 as the 23rd Pursuit Squadron. Redesignated in 1942 as a fighter squadron, it played key roles in World War II, Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait, and the Global War on Terror targeting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The group was inactivated in 2010.

“Service and sacrifice defined the 23rd Fighter Squadron and it’ll continue to define the 23rd Electronic Warfare Squadron,” added Marron.

The Air Force, along with the rest of the Pentagon has upped its focus on the electromagnetic spectrum in recent years. Leaders say that after years of conflict in the Middle East against adversaries without those capabilities, U.S. skills in EW have “atrophied” and need to be rebuilt for a potential high-end conflict against advanced adversaries like China and Russia.

In 2020, DOD released a department-wide electromagnetic spectrum strategy, and in 2021, the Air Force stood up the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing to provide EW proficiency for the Combat Air Force. The wing oversees three groups: the 350th and 850th Spectrum Warfare Groups at Eglin, and the 950th based at Robins Air Force Base, Ga.

Still more upgrades and focus could be coming.

Gen. Dan Caine, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed the significance of the EW during his confirmation hearing earlier this month, and argued the U.S. “has lost some muscle memory defending against electromagnetic attack”—an issue his predecessor, Gen. CQ Brown, has also emphasized.

Experts have highlighted the unprecedented use of electronic warfare in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with both sides employing EW to jam drones and missiles on the front lines.

Leaders have also acknowledged even the high level of electronic warfare in Ukraine could dwarf what the U.S. could face in a conflict with China, which would likely attempt to interfere with the satellites the U.S. military relies on for basic functions such as navigation and timing.

Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, head of Air Combat Command and former Pacific Air Forces commander, said the Air Force’s only EW wing keeps the Combat Air Force ready by assessing spectrum-based combat capabilities.

“Electromagnetic spectrum operations are a significant part of how we operate,” Wilsbach said last year. “The operations that are happening today in the Pacific will inform the data and what will happen here at the 350th. That data will in turn be used by those same operators for an advantage against China.”

Caine also called the Pentagon’s current EW ranges “inadequate.”

“Despite some investments, these ranges have not kept pace with current technology or the threat environments in which we expect to fight,” Caine said during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on April 1. “Against the most advanced adversaries, the joint force would likely face challenges protecting itself from electromagnetic attack.”

The Air Force has EW training ranges at Eglin, as well as one in Idaho, three in Nevada, two in South Carolina, one in Texas and one in Utah. Snyder Electronic Warfare Range, near Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, is used by all the services. The Nevada Test and Training Range is used during large-scale Red Flag exercises.

Lockheed Will Not Protest NGAD Award to Boeing, Looks to ‘Supercharge’ F-35 Instead

April 22, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Lockheed Martin will not protest the Air Force’s selection of Boeing for the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter contract, company president and CEO Jim Taiclet said April 22, explaining that the company now hopes to insert the technology it developed for NGAD into its fifth-generation F-35 and F-22 fighters.

“We are not going to protest the NGAD decision of the U.S. government,” Taiclet said on a company earnings call.

“We did get a classified debrief” from the Air Force on the decision, “and we are taking that feedback internally,” he added, saying that “we are moving forward and moving out on applying all the technologies that we developed for our NGAD bid” into the technology base for the F-35 and F-22.

“I feel that we can have 80 percent of the capability” of an NGAD fighter “potentially, at 50 percent of the cost per unit aircraft, by taking the F-35 chassis and applying numerous advanced technologies, some of which are already in process” in the F-35 Block 4 upgrade, Taiclet said, adding that Lockheed hoped to offer those upgrades “fairly quickly.”

The resulting “supercharged” F-35 will be “kind of a fifth-generation-plus concept for the F-35,” he said, also describing it as transforming the “F-35 chassis … into a Ferrari.”

Taiclet said that the F-35 fleet worldwide numbers about 1,100 aircraft and is expected to reach 3,500 eventually. Company chief financial officer Evan Scott said that Lockheed will deliver between 170 and 190 F-35s in 2025, and that there is a backlog of 350 of the jets.

“There will be 3,500 of those chassis out there, at various stages of technology and capability. We think we can get most of the way to sixth-gen at half the cost,” Scott said.

The cost of the F-35 for the last negotiated lots was about $90 million per aircraft for the F-35A version used by the Air Force, but the Joint Program Office has not yet disclosed the unit cost under Lots 18 and 19. The two sides have reached a “handshake agreement” on the lots but not finalized a contract. Both the JPO and Lockheed have warned that unit costs will be higher because of inflation and the greater capabilities inherent to the coming lots of airplanes.

The exact cost of NGAD is still unclear, but officials have previously suggested it could be “hundreds of millions of dollars” per airplane. If so, that would mean future “Ferrari” versions of the F-35 could cost $150 million per copy or so.

Taiclet said he would expect the resulting airplane to be exportable, but that, for now, the government may choose to export those additional capabilities on a case-by-case basis. The design work going into the upgrades is being done with an eye toward exportability, he added.

Taiclet singled out work Lockheed has done to provide long-range passive infrared target detection and tracking to the F-22 and NGAD—as well as long-range missile work—as among the prime technologies that could be ported to the F-35.

Taiclet did not elaborate on the internal decision not to protest the NGAD award, which had a potential value of $20 billion over the next five years and potentially another $40 billion in production. However, he emphasized that Lockheed’s missile capabilities for the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defense program are uniquely suited to the effort and in production now, suggesting a large infusion of business in that area to compensate for not receiving the NGAD nod.

Had Lockheed protested the award, the Government Accountability Office would have had 100 calendar days to review the competition and determine whether the Air Force had fairly selected Boeing over Lockheed. That effort can now go forward without further delay.

With the loss of NGAD, and having already been eliminated from the Navy’s F/A-XX effort and the first increment of the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, Lockheed is—for now—locked out of all publicly acknowledged advanced aircraft programs.

However, former Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter said on a recent podcast that NGAD is not structured to give one company a monopoly on advanced fighter work.

Hunter said the award to Boeing was for “‘Increment 1’ of NGAD, right? With the concept being that there will be future increments. And so it was designed not to be this ‘all or nothing,’ ‘hey, if you don’t win this, you’re out for the next three decades’ competition. It was designed to be something that … if you win, you have an order for 100, roughly, aircraft, but there’ll be other orders coming down the pike, and so you stay in the game.”

The concept for the CCA program is similar; companies not selected for Increment 1 are competing for Increment 2, though the Air Force has not said yet what exactly it’s looking for in that increment.

The NGAD award to Boeing was announced by President Donald Trump at the White House on March 21. The dollar value of the engineering and manufacturing development contract was not disclosed due to secrecy concerns, but the service later said Boeing had offered the “best overall value” on the project.

Hunter and former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, also on the podcast, said that Lockheed and Boeing’s proposals for NGAD were technically “close,” which might have given Lockheed grounds for a protest on other considerations, such as cost and prior performance. While Hunter said Boeing’s approach was “more creative,” Kendall said that “Lockheed could have won this.”

Air Force Plans to Start Building New Over-the-Horizon Radars in Oregon in 2028

April 21, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The Air Force has tapped sites in Oregon to build its first two new Over-the-Horizon Radars, capable of detecting inbound missile threats from up to 4,000 nautical miles away.

In a notice published in the Federal Register last week, the service announced it was initiating an environmental review expected to last two years across two regions in the state.

Compared to other conventional radars, the OTHR enables long-range detection by bouncing radio waves off the ionosphere—starting roughly 50 miles above Earth—and beyond the planet’s curvature, allowing it to detect a wide range of threats like bombers, cruise missiles, and surface ships. Once a threat is detected, the radar system passes target location onto other manned or unmanned aircraft, or land-based radars that can reconfirm the type and number of threats.

The radar consists of two main components: the transmitter, which sends out the high-frequency radio waves, and the receiver that captures the reflected signals.

*Homeland Defense Over-the-Horizon Radar Systems 1 and 2*, source: Department of Air Force, https://othrnweis.com/project-overview/

“The proposal is for two transmitters to be in Christmas Valley, Ore., and two receivers in Whitehorse Ranch, Ore.,” a spokesperson for the 366th Fighter Wing, host wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Ida., told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The two sites are approximately 200 miles apart to minimize signal interference between the transmitter and receiver, and Mountain Home would “manage” the systems.

Both locations are unincorporated areas of the state without active government structures. The Christmas Valley area is currently owned and managed by the Oregon Military Department, where the Air Force plans to acquire approximately 2,622 acres to construct the transmitters side by side. The Whitehorse Ranch area, a federally managed region under the Bureau of Land Management, will provide nearly 5,000 acres for the two receivers to be built. Additional infrastructure, including communication cabling and maintenance buildings, will also be built.

The Air Force expects the final environmental statement to wrap up by September 2027, and if the review is favorable, construction on the two radars will begin “at the end of 2028,” the spokesperson added.

If, however, the initiative were not to move forward, the project’s official website states that “threats could approach North America without early detection, resulting in reduced decision time for military and national leaders to deter, de-escalate, or defeat threats, placing North American homeland security at risk.”

The Air Force has been eyeing OTHR radars for years; Gen. Glen VanHerck, the former head of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, has said they will give the U.S. military “better eyes around the world.” After a Chinese spy balloon transited the continental U.S. in early 2023, VanHerck reiterated his call to lawmakers, saying he had a gap in domain awareness technologies and needed OTHR fielded in a few years, not the better part of a decade.

In the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the service to procure up to six OTHRs. However, in June 2024 the Air Force told Congress that it would no longer fund the program in FY24 as planned, postponing the decision to 2026.

VanHerck’s successor, Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, has reiterated the calls for OTHR and a better domain awareness network to detect threats. Earlier this month, Guillot told lawmakers that these radars are “critical to continental defense,” forming, alongside other systems, the “foundation for the Golden Dome construct”—President Trump’s initiative for the nation’s comprehensive missile defense.

“We can’t defeat what we can’t see,” Guillot, told lawmakers April 1. “To that end, I appreciate the department and congressional support for fielding all domain capabilities, such as Airborne Moving Target Indicator satellites, Over the Horizon Radars, the E-7 Wedgetail, and Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS)… Looking forward, NORAD and NORTHCOM modernization is crucial to outpacing our competitors.”

Lockheed Gets $180 Million to Convert Three F-35 Jets to Test Aircraft

April 21, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Lockheed Martin received a $180 million contract modification April 21 to convert three F-35s to flight sciences aircraft, the Pentagon announced. The work is needed “to prevent any increase in the test capability gap,” per the contract announcement.

The F-35 Joint Program Office has urged Congress for several years to expand its test fleet, so as to supplement aircraft that are becoming structurally fatigued and maintain a high tempo of testing as the program moves from the Technology Refresh 3 program to Block 4 improvements.

The contract modification “adds scope to procure materials, parts, and components in support of the conversion,” the Pentagon said. Conversion of production-representative aircraft to flight sciences test aircraft typically involves adding equipment such as spin chutes, cameras, load-sensing instrumentation, telemetry gear, and other equipment, while removing some hardware not needed for the test function.

The converted aircraft will also “allow for future, holistic flight science testing of Block 4 capabilities for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, non-U.S. Department of Defense program partners, and Foreign Military Sales customers,” the Pentagon said. The work is to be completed by December 2028.

Delays in testing for TR-3 led to the government putting a yearlong hold on accepting F-35 deliveries from 2023-2024. The hold was lifted last summer, when program director Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt determined that the TR-3 software was sufficiently stable to allow safe and productive flight operations.

The JPO has identified a current shortage of test aircraft and looming aircraft retirements as partially to blame for delays in testing TR-3. The JPO has also said the scope of the Block 4 upgrade will require a higher test tempo than has been achieved in recent years in order to get operational capability to the field in a timely manner.

The JPO originally planned to convert six aircraft for flight sciences work but increased that number to nine, which are to be sourced from 18th Lot of F-35s. The additional three aircraft were added to the JPO request by an amendment in the fiscal 2025 Air Force budget sponsored by Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.). Schmidt told Air & Space Forces Magazine in 2024 that the test team has been supplementing its force with production aircraft, but that these are not the optimal solution for flight sciences testing.

The Government Accountability Office has warned that sourcing the jets from Lot 18 means they likely won’t be delivered until 2029.

The Navy awarded the contract, as it currently has acquisition authority over the program.

New Doc Spells Out How USSF Will Use Space Control to Gain Space Superiority

April 21, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Standoff strike. Defensive escorts. Deception and dispersal.

The Space Force spelled out how it plans to fight a war in space in a new document last week, defining and refreshing many terms already familiar to military planners as USSF leaders seek to “normalize” orbital warfare.

“There’s been this undercurrent of ‘Space is special’ for decades—it’s classified,” said retired Air Force Col. Jennifer Reeves, now a fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “And I think this is trying to do the exact opposite. It’s saying, ‘No, no, we are a warfighting service the way everybody else is a warfighting service. There is a joint lexicon here that applies to us as well, and this is what it is.’ And then they go into a deeper dive on some of the things on how it’s specific in space.”

The new “Space Warfighting: A Framework for Planners” lays out Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman’s vision as proclaimed at the AFA Warfare Symposium that the service would do “whatever it takes” to achieve space superiority.

“Space control comprises the activities required to contest and control the space domain,” the framework states. “The desired outcome of space control operations is space superiority. Space control consists of offensive and defensive actions, referred to as counterspace operations.”

The document lists more than a dozen types of counterspace operation:

Orbital pursuit, or maneuvering close to an adversary spacecraft before employing weapons

Standoff strike, or space- or terrestrial-based long-range fires that can attack without needing to get close to the target

Electromagnetic or cyber attacks on the networks that link an adversary on Earth to their satellites in orbit

Strikes on terrestrial facilities an adversary needs to access space or control its assets in space

Escort, or “Dedicated protection for friendly spacecraft using space-to-space capabilities.”

Suppression of adversary targeting

Passive defensive operations like deception, dispersal, and mobility

The Space Force does not yet have the ability to perform all the operations it lists—the framework mentions hitting terrestrial targets with space-based fires, for example—but by taking an expansive approach, the service is preparing Guardians—and the rest of the Pentagon—to think differently about how they use space, said retired Space Force Col. Charles Galbreath, also a fellow with the Mitchell Institute.

“In five years, we’ll look back at this document and say, ‘We have evolved our thinking even further,’” Galbreath said. “So this is a good snapshot and a forward vector, because some of these things are not here today, but they are things that people are thinking about and that might be essential. And they’re also things that our adversaries could do to us.”

The document dives into the functions necessary to perform counterspace operations, such as communication, maneuver, intelligence, command and control, and targeting—all familiar terms in joint doctrine.

“It’s trying to say, ‘OK, Space Force planners, these are the terms you should be using when we’re talking about warfighting in space,’ and to help organize our thinking and our plans and strategies,” Galbreath said.

At the same time, it acknowledges space-specific considerations. Planners have to develop new rules of engagement and measures of effectiveness, and consider the physics of spaceflight and the impact of debris in orbit.

“It’s this balance of trying to use the common lexicon so everyone understands where we are,” Reeves said. “But then on the other side, there are some unique characteristics of the domain, much like there are unique characteristics of every domain … that we have to take into consideration.”

Space Superiority

The new framework defines terms and their importance for the joint force.

“Space superiority allows military forces in all domains to operate at a time and place of their choosing without prohibitive interference from space or counterspace threats, while also denying the same to an adversary,” the document states.

Given the vastness of space, it is unlikely any actor will achieve complete superiority at all times. So the framework calls for “concentrating effects” and doing so at“the time and place of our choosing,” just as Air Force leaders do for air superiority.

Achieving superiority is fundamental to the rest of the U.S. military, Saltzman asserts in the document. “Space superiority is not only a necessary precondition for Joint Force success but also something for which we must be prepared to fight,” Saltzman wrote. “Gained and maintained, it unlocks superiority in other domains, fuels Coalition lethality, and fortifies troop survivability. It is therefore the basis from which the Joint Force projects power, deters aggression, and secures the homeland.”