Air Force to Conduct Deportation Flights for Thousands of People

Air Force to Conduct Deportation Flights for Thousands of People

The Pentagon plans to use U.S. Air Force C-17s and C-130s to deport 5,400 people currently detained by Customs and Border Protection, officials announced Jan. 22, the first act in President Donald Trump’s sweeping promise to crack down on immigrants in the country illegally and increase border security.

And that may not be the end of the Air Force’s role in implementing the new administration’s policy to more tightly control the border. 

“Right now, we also anticipate that there could be some additional airborne intelligence surveillance support assets that would move down to the border to increase situational awareness,” a senior military official told reporters. 

Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses said in a statement that 1,500 Active-Duty troops are being sent to the southern border to take “complete operational control of the southern border of the United States.” Ultimately, as many as 10,000 could be deployed, the senior military official added.

“This is just the beginning,” Salesses’ statement noted.

The deportation flights will be carried out using two USAF C-17s and two C-130s, according to the Pentagon. Those aircraft, along with their aircrew and a handful of other personnel, will deploy to San Diego, Calif., and El Paso, Texas. C-17s from Travis Air Force Base, Calif. have already landed in El Paso and San Diego, people familiar with the matter told Air & Space Forces Magazine, a development confirmed by open source flight tracking data. Officials are still unclear where the thousands of people will be deported to, the Pentagon said.

“The State Department has the decision-making and has the relationships that they’re working with those countries that will ultimately be the source … to where these flights are going,” a senior defense official said.

The Pentagon said that the Department of Homeland Security would provide “inflight law enforcement,” not military personnel.

If additional airborne assets are deployed for surveillance along the border, they will be drawn from a variety of services and not just the Air Force, U.S. officials said. “This will be multi-service,” the senior military official said.  

“Tactical UAS” could be used to “provide localized intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in their particular area” and Army MQ-1 and Air Force MQ-9 drones could be deployed as well. Crewed surveillance aircraft are also an option under consideration.

“You have manned platforms that could fly in support as well—so that is still not fully decided yet,” the senior military official said.

The 1,500 troops that are being sent include 1,000 Soldiers and 500 Marines. They are joining some 2,500 service members already deployed to the southern border.

“These forces will work on the emplacement of physical barriers and other border missions,” the senior military official said of the new deployments. “First operations for them should commence within the next 24 to 48 hours. They’re moving right now as we sit here.” 

UH-72 Lakota helicopters, in fact, have already started flying missions.

The operation will be led by U.S. Northern Command, which Trump charged to “seal the borders” by “repelling forms of invasion” in a Jan. 20 executive order.

U.S. troops are prohibited from performing law enforcement duties under the Posse Comitatus Act. But Trump said in his executive order that their use is justified because he has declared a border emergency to stop “forms of invasion including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities.”

Trump has directed that the heads of the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security report back within 90 days on whether they think the 1807 Insurrection Act should be invoked, under which U.S. troops could be used to put down domestic violence.

Money-Saving Microvanes Inch Closer to Fleetwide C-17 Use

Money-Saving Microvanes Inch Closer to Fleetwide C-17 Use

Small new devices meant to save money spent on gas by reducing aerodynamic drag are inching closer to fleetwide adoption for the Air Force’s 222 C-17 transport jets.

Microvanes are 3D-printed out of composite materials into thin blades about 16 inches long. When attached to the rear exterior of the C-17 fuselage, microvanes reduce drag, and thereby fuel consumption, by 1 percent compared to unmodified C-17s. 

Though 1 percent may not sound like much, the Air Force said it will save up to $14 million annually over the frequent flights C-17s take around the world.

“Every gallon of fuel saved strengthens our readiness and operational effectiveness,” Roberto Guerrero, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for operational energy, safety, and occupational health, said in a Jan. 14 press release. “By adding modern technology like microvanes to our legacy aircraft, we’re saving millions in fuel costs and building capability critical for maintaining our competitive edge in the era of great power competition.”

microvanes
The drag reduction devices known as microvanes are shown on the aft-end of a C-17 Globemaster III at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. U.S. Air Force photo.

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has been working on the technology as far back as 2014. In 2021, the Department of Defense awarded a contract to Metro Aerospace, which holds the license to Lockheed Martin’s patent on the technology, to explore putting microvanes on Air Force C-130s and “help validate drag-reduction concepts that can be developed and applied to commercial aircraft, other aircraft such as the C-17, KC-135, and future vertical lift.” An official said at the time that the microvanes had cost about $5 million to develop.

Cargo planes often have high drag where the fuselage sweeps upward to accommodate a rear cargo door. Reducing that drag means transports can carry troops, equipment, and supplies to farther flung operations.

“It’s about ensuring that we remain agile and capable in a rapidly evolving global environment,” Guerrero said. “What’s more, through recent legislation, we can use the savings realized by this technology to fund other initiatives that increase combat capability.”

In 2022, AFRL and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center were in the process of certifying the microvanes for airworthiness. The next year saw the start of final flight-testing, including air refueling and assault strip operations, where C-17s land on shorter, narrower runways to simulate combat landings.

Now, Air Force Operational Energy and Air Mobility Command “are entering the final phase of evaluation” according to the release. The C-17 used in testing is assigned to Stewart Air National Guard Base, N.Y. Lt. Col. Eric Durkins, commander of the 105th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Stewart, said the aircraft “has supported our worldwide missions now for over a year without an issue[.]”

c-17 microvanes
A C-17 Globemaster III with microvanes successfully installed waits on the flight line at Stewart Air National Guard Base. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Six C-17s are modified with microvanes, with two more expected to receive them at Joint Base Charleston, S.C., this month. That will kick off a six-month logistics service assessment, which the release said is the final step before fleetwide fielding.

Microvanes complement a wider Air Force effort to make its energy use more efficient. The branch’s 2023 Climate Campaign Plan called for using drag reduction, enhanced engine sustainment practices, and other tools to boost its “lethality per gallon,” i.e., the number of test events, weapons released, or other objectives accomplished per gallon of gas or other energy metric. 

The plan aims to make operational energy usage for Air Force flying missions 5 percent more efficient by fiscal year 2027 and 7.5 percent by 2032. The service is also testing out a more efficient blended wing body prototype for possible future air lifters and looking into microgrids and small nuclear reactors to make its bases less reliant on nearby grids in times of crisis.

First Warning: How Guardians Sparked Fight to Defeat Iran’s Missiles

First Warning: How Guardians Sparked Fight to Defeat Iran’s Missiles

This is the first in a two-part series on the role of the Space Force in responding to Iran’s attacks on Israel in 2024. Part 2 will run later this week.

When missiles are detected putting U.S. or allies at risk, alarms ring out, sending Space Force Guardians scrambling to calculate trajectories and potential impact areas and to determine if any U.S. or allied assets are at risk. Within minutes, if not seconds, they share those alerts.  

Those alert tones rang out fast and furious on April 13, 2024, when Iran launched some 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and one-way attack drones toward Israel, more than 1,000 miles to its west. 

To Mission Delta 4 commander Col. Ernest “Bobby” Schmitt, the picture of what they were seeing that night is as clear as day: “‘Bing, bing, bing, bing,’ just constant missiles populating on their screens,” he said. 

Schmitt wasn’t on the ops floor that night, but he was among the Guardians made available to Air & Space Forces Magazine to discuss their missile detection and warning operations in April and October, when Iran launched missile barrages at Israel. Their work helped nullify both attacks, and their names and some details are being withheld here to protect security and classification concerns. 

“It’s three dings,” the division chief for current operations for Space Delta 5 said. “So you hear ‘Ding, ding, ding’ and then it tells you what’s going on. But it’s the kind of thing that once you’ve heard it 300 times, it’ll give you nightmares for the rest of your life. It just keeps playing.” 

Each set of “dings” starts a process of calculations, data validation, and passing information along. Crews of a half-dozen or so Guardians work together on each track—and they have to work fast. 

“It gets loud, but you know who you’re listening for,” a sergeant with the 2nd Space Warning Squadron said. “So we have two crew chiefs … and then we have two junior enlisted who are like the data processors, and so they’re communicating to us what they’re seeing, and then the crew chiefs are shouting out, like, for example, ‘I agree with that, we’re good to go.’ And then we have one person who’s kind of bouncing around between the crew chiefs who is making sure that everyone’s on the same page.” 

Thousands of miles away, their work was being translated for U.S., Israeli, and allied interceptors and aircraft that intercepted most of the incoming missiles and drones, minimizing casualties and damage.

The military response was widely reported at the time, and later, focusing largely on the heroics of air crew who flew into the teeth of the attack. But the Space Force’s role was largely shrouded in secrecy—until now. 

“The scale of missile attacks we have been seeing over the past couple of years is rapidly changing,” Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess, commander of Space Forces-Space, said in an October statement. “We are no longer experiencing missile defense as a singular engagement but need to be prepared to provide tracking and warning of multiple missiles being shot simultaneously, as was made evident during Iran’s recent missile strike. Our Guardians, joint and coalition operators have demonstrated their expertise in this, and are able to send missile warning notifications in a matter of minutes to help protect our Allies and Partners in times of crisis.” 

Space-based missile warning dates back to the Defense Support Program in the 1970s, but capabilities continue to advance as the Space Force expands its capability with new satellites in all orbits

Space Operations Command’s Mission Delta 4 uses DSP and Space-Based Infrared System satellites for missile warning, along with the ground-based Upgraded Early Warning Radar and the Long-Range Discrimination Radar. With crews scattered across the country and overseas, in the United Kingdom and Greenland, the Delta combines the feeds from those systems to identify and track threats.  

Radomes provide strategic and theater missile warning for the United States and its international allies, at Buckley Space Force Base, Colo., March 14, 2023. Space Delta 4, the missile warning Delta, contributes to missile defense, space domain awareness, battlespace awareness and technical intelligence missions in support of combatant commanders. U.S. Space Force photo by Senior Airman Danielle McBride

Delta 4 operates 24/7/365 to ensure no missile launch ever catches the U.S. by surprise. Yet tedious as such a constant watch might seem, Guardians never relax, said a first lieutenant with the 11th Space Warning Squadron. 

“You’d think that would be the case, where you’re worried about people losing their focus and whatnot,” said the lieutenant, who was part of the crew that responded to the October attack. “But I think we realize as a unit how big of an impact we have and how important we are to the mission, that in a way, it’s hard to lose focus.” 

Missile launches are most typically singular events. But since January 2020, when Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. forces at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, the Space Force has faced increasing numbers of missile traces at once.

At the time of the April 13 attack, it was “unprecedented as far as the volume and scope and time constraints,” Schmidt said—some 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles, in addition to 170 drones. 

On the floor, operators knew something was coming. Iran had promised retaliation after an Israeli airstrike in Syria, but its timing was not clear. 

“It kind of came on gradually,” said the sergeant from the 2nd SWS. “We saw what was happening from the first launch. It was just like, ‘All right, focus up everyone! Let’s get it done!’ And then, as it just kept growing and growing, we just had to really revert back to the basics of our training and just really focus in.” 

The duty crew that day was newly formed for a new force-generation cycle, so they were still getting to know each other. 

“There’s a lot more communication when you’re trying to find that chemistry, you’re pretty much saying every single thing you’re doing,” the sergeant said. “On a crew that I work with for a year, I already know, without them saying, what my counterpart is doing. Whereas now, with the new crew, it’s like, I’m going to voice what I would normally do, they’ll voice what they normally do, and then we can kind of get into the flow of things.” 

Time raced by. The process for tracking missiles is the same no matter what the volume of incoming looks like, said Mission Delta 4’s senior enlisted leader, Chief Master Sgt. Kyle Mullen. 

“They will be monitoring, and then they will get alerted with an audible [sound] that something is happening or that something looks like a missile,” Mullen said. “And so what they’ll do is, … check its trajectory, check to see what profile it’s building out. We have a two-person verification [team] so you’ve got somebody right there beside them, another experienced operator who’s like, ‘Yes, I see it. It’s going to this area.’” 

Then they notify the Combined Space Operations Center. 

“The first thing we’re looking at is, which sites are in the risk area,” said the Delta 5 division chief, a major. “Next thing is, do we have any personnel, naval vessels, anything else out there we need to do as a secondary, immediate communication. And then the third piece is looking at the overall status of data coming out.” 

Because the CSpOC is responsible for notifying U.S. and allied assets if they are in harm’s way, phone calls and notifications flew—“sheer chaos,” the major recalled. While the missiles were meant for Israel, U.S. assets in the region were in their path, so troops were scrambling to safety. 

The danger wasn’t a direct threat to the Guardians, but to air and ground crew half-way around the world. The Guardians just knew the quality and speed of their warnings was making a difference.  

“As you’ve worked it more and more, the concern [is] for what’s happening for people in the region, right?” the Delta 5 major said. “Because every missile has the potential for a loss of life.” 

But operators thousands of miles away were picking up their cues, heading into the fight, and in the end, 98 percent of the weapons hurled toward Israel were shot down, intercepted, or landed without effect.

Back in their operations centers, the crews came off their shifts and started to realize the enormity of what they’d just experienced. That night and in the days following, they saw news reports about the attacks, and took satisfaction in the fact that there were no U.S. casualties and minimal damage in Israel. 

“Sometimes you don’t see the effect that you have when you’re sitting in the chair, but seeing the impact afterwards is surreal,” said the 2nd SWS sergeant. “I had a friend that was deployed in the CENTCOM [area of responsibility] at the time, and just talking to him the next day, ‘You good? Everything good?  How are you doing?’ Stuff like that…” 

Meanwhile, Space Force leaders were already drawing lessons from the fight. Looking at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, officials knew missile barrages were becoming more and more common. With their newfound firsthand experience, Guardians set to work training for what Schmitt called the “new normal.”

Six months later, in April 2024, they would get another chance to put that training to the test.

Part 2 of this series will publish later this week.

Learn to Accelerate Software Delivery at Prodacity 2025

Learn to Accelerate Software Delivery at Prodacity 2025

In a modern, connected military, software is crucial to every step of every operation, from planning to coordination and logistics to target engagement. But as threats and requirements change, software needs to change too. If requirements change faster than developers can deploy new code, the entire system can break down. 

Rise8, a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), was founded to change that paradigm.

Founder and CEO Bryon Kroger, a U.S. Air Force Veteran, is spearheading initiatives to deliver software solutions up to 25 times faster than traditional methods. Rise8’s approach aims to overcome the bureaucratic delays and cumbersome process hurdles that hamper conventional software development contracts. 

“We’re really focused on the mission first,” said Kroger at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September. “What are these Airmen and Guardians actually trying to do? Then we work backwards from that.” 

Continuously delivering software updates enables Airmen and Guardians to provide real-time feedback to developers, allowing a continuous conversation that Kroger says is key to creating software that genuinely serves the needs of the Service Members employing those tools in the field.

Rise8 achieves faster delivery by establishing a continuous path between the developers and the production environment—regardless of classification levels. Software is developed, tested, and deployed into operational use continuously and without delay, achieving Continuous Authority to Operate (cATO) after obtaining the initial Authorization to Operate (ATO). As an output of the Risk Management Framework, an ATO is a formal declaration that a system meets the necessary security and privacy standards for deployment on a network.

Under legacy approaches, the exercise repeats for major updates or when the authorization expires, adding weeks, months, or even years between the time a requirement is established, and a software solution obtains an ATO to deploy. By integrating development, security, testing, and operations, however, Rise8 can “ship” new code into production in hours or even minutes, enabling continuous, rapid improvement through a direct feedback loop with users. 

“That gives you the feedback that you need to create beautifully designed software for Airmen and Guardians,” Kroger said.

Modernizing software is only part of the solution. To make rapid modernization possible, Kroger said, one must take the time to understand the bureaucracy and processes that slow software development. 

“Just like computer systems, you can’t hack a system you don’t understand,” Kroger explained. “Take the time to understand the bureaucracy … It’s really figuring out how to navigate that.” 

Just as an “ethical hacker” must understand a system’s flaws to identify and eliminate them, Kroger has found that learning the software acquisition system inside and out has proven invaluable in seeing how to use it to deliver effective software more quickly. 

David Anderson, author of The Flywheel Effect, speaks about a “serverless-first” mindset and its flywheel effect on modernization at Rise8’s Prodacity event at the Hamilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. in November 2023. CREDIT: Alyssa Schukar for Rise8

Rise8’s agile software development approach is like the processes used by modern commercial software developers but adapted to provide the assurance needed for secure, sensitive government applications. Yet overcoming entrenched approaches is never easy, especially for users who have been told in the past that rapid development is not possible in the government context. 

To help potential customers understand how that can be achieved, Kroger created Prodacity for the GovTech community where air, space, and other military and government professionals can learn from tested playbooks, real-world solutions, and a relentless commitment to action inside cautious, slow-moving organizations—without sales pitches and related theatrics.

Prodacity will bring together program managers, contracting specialists, CTOs, and CIOs from the Air Force, Space Force, and other Federal agencies, along with established systems integrators, to learn the modern alternative techniques to accelerating software development—without compromising security, reliability, or anything else. 

Prodacity will expose participants to the secrets of rapid and continuous software development, deployment, and improvement in high-stakes environments, according to Rise8. 

“Our purpose is to make the world work better,” Kroger said. “We envision a future where fewer bad things happen because of bad software.” And where good things happen continuously because users who know their field best are tightly integrated into the process of making software more efficient, useful, and effective every day.

New Report: To Fix Deterrence, Rethink Goldwater-Nichols and Boost the Budget

New Report: To Fix Deterrence, Rethink Goldwater-Nichols and Boost the Budget

“Unintended consequences” from the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act and lagging defense spending have weakened America’s ability to deter its adversaries and need to be addressed, researchers with AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argue in a new paper.

“U.S. deterrence is wavering,” Mitchell Institute Dean retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula warned in a Jan. 21 event rolling out the paper.

China’s military growth, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, North Korea’s and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and Iran’s support of terrorism “reflect critical gaps in America’s military to deter assaults on U.S. vital interests,” Deptula added.

Retired Gen. T. Michael Moseley, former Air Force chief of staff; retired Maj. Gen. Larry Stutzreim, Mitchell’s director of research; and Richard B. Andres, a non-resident senior fellow at Mitchell, co-authored the new report, which recommends significant growth in defense spending better matched to the threat, and reforms to restore “competition” between the services and in industry, the authors said.

The paper also calls for a “new NSC-68″—a reference to the then-secret policy paper drawn up by Paul Nitze in 1950, which called for sharply increased defense spending, development of new nuclear weapons, containment of the Soviet Union and preparations for economic and strategic conflict.

“Today, we need an NSC-68 level of reform that guides whole-of-government action to avert a third World War, [and] to present the flight plan necessary for effective defense reform,” Deptula argued.

Goldwater-Nichols was designed to streamline the chain of command, removing the service chiefs and the chairman of the joint chiefs and focusing instead on the regional combatant commanders, with the intention of curbing inter-service rivalry and ensuring unified command of disparate forces. The chairman now has an advisory function, and the COCOMs focus on short-term operations, not long-range readiness. The law was prompted by a lack of service cooperation leading to failure in the 1980 Iran hostage mission and a poorly coordinated invasion of Grenada in 1983.

Yet, based on the written works and testimony of various national security leaders over the last two decades, the Mitchell analysts concluded that Goldwater-Nichols has had “unintended consequences” that are “at the heart of the challenges we face today.”

At the time, Andres said, it was “a necessary and even overdue reform,” because it tackled the problems of “inter-service rivalry and strengthened joint operations.”

But a lack of competition between services for who can best accomplish a mission has led to slow capability development, as has consolidation of the defense industry from a hundred large suppliers to just five, he said. And by removing the service chiefs from the chain of command, “no one … had both the authority and the incentive to focus on long-term defense planning: the kind you need to deter Russia and China.”

The combatant commanders couldn’t perform this role usefully, he said, because they cycle through their jobs in just two years. Moreover, the COCOMs tend to focus on their own theater problems and not on integrated approaches to global deterrence, the authors said.

Worse, while the 2018 National Defense Strategy assumed the military needed to be able to fight just one major war—and that adversaries would not collaborate—the opponents have “exploit” this flawed thinking, Andres said.

This “isn’t just our assessment,” Andres said. “This is what the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy found last year.” War with China is “a real possibility” if “our military no longer possesses the capability or the capacity to uphold our security commitments, and if deterrence collapses.”

Budget

Moseley said the baseline share of gross domestic product for defense is now about three percent, factoring in inflation, but ought to have a floor of five to six percent.

“The beauty of a floor also gets you around the notion of supplementals, [and] of contingency funding, because all that has historically come out of the cuts that each of the services gets,” he said. A level of six percent is needed because “you’ve got to make up for that lost time.”

In the 2000s, the Navy and the Air Force budgets took hits as the Pentagon focused its resources on Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of that, the Air Force was “forced to eat our own seed corn as far as the investment accounts,” Moseley said.

Critical programs like air refueling and the F-22 were gutted, he noted, forcing the Air Force to do things like keep flying the Eisenhower-era KC-135.

Further delay will mean the only solution to replacing obsolete gear is “to buy your way out of it. It’s going to be more expensive. I would suggest that we’re probably there right now in the Air Force,” Moseley said.

The issue is only growing more acute—Moseley noted that while Air Force leaders are still undecided on the future of the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, China has flown several new experimental models in recent weeks.

Reforms

Extra money won’t help, though, without new structure and rules to govern its use, Moseley said, likening it to filing a bucket with holes in the bottom; the “holes” being “bureaucracy and the organizational failures. You need to fix the structure, acquisition, contracting, planning, long range planning, etc., and then address the money. Otherwise you’re just going to waste money.”

The needed change would replicate NSC-68 by approaching U.S. national security with a ‘whole of government’ approach, one that includes the Department of Defense, but also “Commerce, Treasury, Homeland Security, Justice, etc.,” said Moseley. “And then you back that up with a change of the bureaucracy and get at this massive amount of waste and drag.”

Moseley said he is not worried about changes to Goldwater-Nichols resulting in a return of service infighting. The military, he said, has had 40 years of a “joint” culture and professional military training reinforcing it.

Asked what steps the reforms should take, Andres said “you’ve got to get the President to ask Congress to take action,” and for Congress to do that “quickly, because we don’t have a long clock on this.”

The paper, he said, “does not go into the specifics of this, but we need reform … or something completely different. But the first action is going to be the President calling on Congress, and it needs to be bipartisan. This is a bipartisan issue. We’ve seen a lot of the same things coming out of both sides of the political spectrum now in terms of what we need to do.”

Andres said the “window is closing” on America’s deterrence credibility.

“Without action, the U.S. faces ether strategic defeat or a catastrophic war. Reform is not optional; it is essential for national security and global stability.”

The paper recommends:

  1. An NSC-68-style review which realigns defense strategy with modern threats, taking into account an “all-of-government” approach.
  2. Reform or replace Goldwater-Nichols, restoring the service Chiefs to the chain of  command and reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies.
  3. Raise the defense budget to between five and six percent of GDP to rapidly fund modernization—both capability and capacity—and restore a force-sizing construct that the U.S. military be able to handle two major theater wars. Space and cyber forces also need strengthening.
  4. Invest according to “cost effective warfighting capabilities,” using the “cost per effect” methodology. Conduct a roles and missions review to “determine the most cost-effective service investments.” Shift counterinsurgency investments to high-end warfare capabilities.
Acquisition Official Tapped as Acting Air Force Secretary

Acquisition Official Tapped as Acting Air Force Secretary

Gary A. Ashworth, a career Department of Defense civil servant and former Air Force officer, has been tapped by President Donald Trump to be Acting Secretary of the Air Force, the White House announced Jan. 20.

If past cases are any guide, Trump’s permanent pick for Secretary of the Air Force, Troy Meink, may be waiting weeks before he can be confirmed by the Senate. While Trump has named his picks for a myriad of high-level posts, only one, Secretary of State and former Senator Marco Rubio, has been confirmed so far as Trump’s second term gets underway.

Meink must have a nomination hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will vote on whether to forward his nomination to the full Senate. Meink, the principal deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, is unlikely to face resistance based on his qualifications for the role, as he has served in a variety of national security, space, and intelligence posts throughout his career—both at the NRO and the Department of the Air Force.

Trump’s pick for Undersecretary of the Air Force, Matthew Lohmeier, is a former Space Force lieutenant colonel who was relieved of command in 2021 over a book and subsequent comments that criticized the Space Force and the military for what Lohmeier claimed were widespread Marxist views and an overemphasis on promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is possible some senators may seek to hold up Meink’s nomination over Lohmeier’s views.

Regardless, given the large number of pending cabinet-level and sub-cabinet-level selections, such as Meink and Lohmeier, it will take weeks, if not months, for Meink to be confirmed. Ashworth is set to be the acting civilian head of the Air Force and Space Force until then.

Frank Kendall, the previous Air Force Secretary, had to wait nearly three months from his nomination to confirmation. During Trump’s first term, Barbara Barrett waited four and a half months, and Heather Wilson waited three and a half months.

Acting Secretary of the Air Force Gary A. Ashworth/DOD photo

Ashworth previously served in the Office of Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment as the acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. He first joined the DOD as a civilian in 1992 and also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic, Space, and Intelligence Portfolio Management—a post which oversaw “nuclear weapons systems; nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3); space; missile defense; and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) domains,” according to Ashworth’s official biography. Ashworth served more than 20 years in uniform in the Air Force, starting his career as a missileer on the Minuteman ICBM.

It is unclear how Ashworth was chosen as Acting Air Force Secretary, as he comes to the role from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, not the Department of the Air Force.

Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is awaiting what is likely to be a close vote for his nomination, following a narrow party-line vote to advance his nomination by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Robert Salesses, the Deputy Director of Washington Headquarters Services, is the Acting Secretary of Defense until there is a Senate-confirmed choice to lead the Pentagon.

Placeholder frames for portraits of senior civilian leaders are displayed at the Pentagon on Jan. 21, 2025. Photo by Chris Gordon/Air & Space Forces Magazine

On Jan. 21, the Defense Department announced that dozens of officials who do not require Senate confirmation were sworn in on inauguration day.

On Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order assigning U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), led by Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, responsibility to “seal the borders” by “repelling forms of invasion.” Trump has promised to enhance border security, though it is unclear what role the military will play in those plans in practice.

“The Department of Defense is fully committed to carrying out the orders from our Commander-In-Chief, and is doing so immediately under his leadership,” a defense official said.

B-1 Bombers Arrive in Guam for First Task Force of 2025

B-1 Bombers Arrive in Guam for First Task Force of 2025

Four U.S. B-1 bombers landed in Guam on Jan. 15 for a Bomber Task Force deployment, the first of the new year.

Two of the bombers also conducted a trilateral flight alongside Japanese and South Korean fighters on their way to Andersen Air Force Base.

Photos posted by the 28th Bomb Wing show four B-1s assigned to the 34th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., arriving on the western Pacific island. Bomber Task Forces involve small batches of B-1s, B-2s, or B-52s deploying overseas, often visiting far-flung countries to reassure allies and partners and discourage adversaries such as Russia and China.

B-1B Lancers assigned to the 34th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., taxi to be parked at Andersen AFB, Guam, Jan. 17, 2025, in support of Bomber Task Force 25-1. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo

This latest deployment started just a few days before the U.S. presidential inauguration, a key moment of transition.

That same day, B-1s flew with two Japanese Air Self-Defense Force F-2s and two Republic of Korea Air Force F-15Ks somewhere in the airspace between Japan and South Korea. The U.S. had previously flown bilateral bomber-fighter flights with either Japan or South Korea, but the trilateral flight reflects growing ties between the three countries in response to tensions with China and North Korea.

“This first trilateral flight of 2025 builds upon a history of strong trilateral cooperation, enabling an immediate coordinated response to regional security challenges,” Pacific Air Forces said in a release at the time.

b-1 bombers
A pair of B-1B Lancers assigned to the 34th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., arrive at Andersen AFB, Guam, Jan. 15, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)

The first Bomber Task Force of 2025 comes after a series of milestones in 2024—for the first time, U.S. bombers operated out of Romania, flew over and dropped simulated weapons on Finland in a training mission, and conducted a multi-day deployment to Sweden.

“On any given day, we’re actively engaged through Bomber Task Force missions,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Jason Armagost, 8th Air Force and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center commander, said in a Jan. 21 press release

“In fact, about 60 percent of the year we are deployed to a theater or providing continental U.S. (CONUS)-to-CONUS flights in support of theaters or in support of U.S. Strategic Command and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” he said.

Besides solidifying foreign partnerships, the deployments also test the crew’s endurance over 30-plus hour flights, Lt. Col. Vanessa Wilcox, commander of the 96th Bomb Squadron, said in an April press release after her B-52 detachment returned from Diego Garcia, a remote island in the Indian Ocean.

“Flying for over 24 hours, pushing into the 30-hour range, is a challenge,” she said. “It builds on our readiness, training to the capabilities we need to reach different parts of the globe, specifically across the Pacific.”

‘Same Threats’ Drive Air Force, Marines to Different Visions of Future War. How Will They Work Together?

‘Same Threats’ Drive Air Force, Marines to Different Visions of Future War. How Will They Work Together?

The Air Force became the latest service to roll out a new operating concept for the future when Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin unveiled the service’s Force Design last fall. But the Air Force is hardly the only service with a Force Design, and a pressing question for military and civilian leadership is how to stitch them all together.

“We’re all seeing the same threats from the PRC as the pacing threat, and we’re all attempting to modernize to meet that threat,” Commandant of the Marines Corps Gen. Eric Smith said Jan. 15 when he was asked about the Marines’ future efforts to counter the People’s Republic of China.

“We’re all doing it slightly different ways, but the theme is the same—that we have to have longer range, we have to have lower signature, we have to have more lethality, we have to be more distributed and more dispersed,” Smith told reporters at Defense Writers Group event.

Allvin’s Force Design envisions a future in which the Air Force can no longer operate with impunity and must tailor its capabilities to China’s growing capability to target U.S. bases and command centers throughout the Pacific. The service says that its Force Design will be upgraded based on “a continuous cycle of wargaming, modeling and simulation, and strategic assessments.”

“The PRC’s ever-growing capacity of increasingly capable long-range fires—such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and attack unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)—continues to expand the range and density with which they can threaten friendly forces,” the Air Force’s unclassified summary of its Force Design states. “The character of war has changed—the combination of network-enabled long-range fires, and mass quantities of agile short-range systems, challenges our preferred way of war. The Air Force must transform from what it is today to what it needs to be to compete.”

The Marines’ Force Design, which was made public by their former commandant four years ago, also makes the case for overhauling the military. But it is far more detailed than the one put forward by the Air Force and spells out which weapons the Corps plans to add and which ones leaders contend they no longer need.

Under the Marines’ concept, small units equipped with anti-ship missiles and drones would move from island to island to try to bottle up China’s naval fleet. The Marine plan to fund the transformation with offsetting cuts, which entailed getting rid of all the tanks, eliminating bridging companies, and upping missile batteries. The Marine plan is well underway, though Smith said it has been hindered by delays in acquiring the amphibious warfare ships the Marines need.

“We are going to be in the first island chain,” said Smith, referring to the stretch of territory from Japan to Taiwan, the northern Philippines, and the South China Sea. “What Force Design was all about was creative thinking about the way forward, about the next war, not fighting the last one, because the next war with the PRC is not going to be, if it goes there, is not going to be like any war we fought before.”

The Army, which has touted its new “multi-domain” task forces, and the Navy, which has developed its “Navigation Plan,” have also developed future war plans with China in mind. But while the services seem to agree about the threat, it is less clear how the various visions will work in practice, though the military leaders acknowledge this is vital. “Our success depends on purposeful integration of the Air Force with the Joint Force, Allies, and partners,” the Air Force Force Design summary notes.

To harmonize the disparate service initiatives, the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a classified Joint Warfighting Concept. It also has a Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which is led by the Vice Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Christopher Grady, and is supposed to establish future requirements for the entire military. 

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark A. Milley thought something more was needed, such as a new “Joint Futures” command, organization, or office that would spur the service’s disparate future war efforts and bring them together. “That organization will help drive these concepts, but also the technologies and describing the operational environment that we’re moving into,” Milley said in June 2023

Smith suggested that the current system is working for now. “The JWC is something that we all have to fit under, something we all have to contribute to,” said Smith. “We do that through joint wargames, and those are run by the Joint Staff run out of the Pentagon, so we do see how they all fit together.” Joint exercises, he said, also plan a role.

The idea, Smith said, is to put “together the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps, and at the end of that, we do a hot wash and we scrub and see, ‘How did we fit together? Where do we overlap? Where do we maybe have a little bit too much, maybe not enough?’”

Blue Origin, SpaceX Test Massive New Rockets; Space Force Watches with Interest

Blue Origin, SpaceX Test Massive New Rockets; Space Force Watches with Interest

With a pair of major launches from competing vendors Jan. 16, the Space Force got a glimpse of how it may access space in the future—along with reminders that it may take a little while to get there. 

First, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket made its maiden launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Base, Fla., in the early morning hours.

Space Launch Delta 45 supported the first flight of the 320-foot rocket, which ended with the upper stage successfully reaching medium-Earth orbit and releasing its payload, a spacecraft called Blue Ring. 

In a release, SLD 45 confirmed that New Glenn’s first launch will count toward its certification process for the National Security Space Launch program. NSSL is responsible for putting the government’s most important military and intelligence satellites into orbit, and rockets must have two successful launches before they can be certified as part of the program. 

Right now, only one company has an NSSL-certified vehicle: SpaceX, which has come to dominate the launch market and sparked some concern about a lack of competition. SpaceX’s CEO Elon Musk is also close to President-elect Donald Trump.

New Glenn’s successful launch and first step toward certification raises hopes of more competition. At last month’s Spacepower Conference in Orlando, Fla., U.S. Space Command boss Gen. Stephen N. Whiting made it clear he wanted to see New Glenn get going, as well as United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur rocket, which is still awaiting certification. 

“That’s an important capability for the nation,” he said. “So we’re eager to see those come online.” 

Both Blue Origin and ULA have been tapped to participate in “Phase 3” of NSSL, but until their rockets are certified, they can’t actually fly those missions. That’s already led to delays for payloads that were tasked to ULA for Phase 2. 

In addition to the rocket, the payload for Blue Origin’s launch also carried implications for the Space Force. Blue Ring is meant to provide “in-space logistics and delivery”—capabilities that will be crucial for the service’s plans to develop satellites that can maneuver in space and be refueled instead of simply “dying” when they run out.

Blue Origin has already reached an agreement with the Defense Innovation Unit to test Blue Ring in a future mission, and the first spacecraft in orbit now could give the Space Force an idea of how the system may be best used in the future. 

An artist rendering shows a Blue Ring spacecraft, developed by Blue Origin, focused on providing in-space logistics and delivery. Blue Ring will serve commercial and government customers and can support a variety of missions in medium-Earth orbit out to the cislunar region and beyond. The platform provides end-to-end services that span hosting, transportation, refueling, data relay, and logistics. Blue Origin

The lone blemish on the successful Blue Origin launch was the failure to land the first-stage booster for reuse later, though company officials and observers have noted that doing so on the first flight was an ambitious goal. 

Reusability is key to driving launch costs down, and SpaceX has made it the company’s calling card after years of trial and error in the early 2010s with its Falcon 9 rocket. 

Just a few hours after the New Glenn launch, SpaceX conducted the seventh test flight of its own massive rocket, Starship. The results were mixed: the booster stage of the rocket successfully returned to Earth and was caught by a giant pair of mechanical “chopsticks,” but the upper stage exploded after separation, never reaching orbit. 

Like New Glenn, Starship figures prominently in the Space Force’s future plans. Standing about 400 feet tall, it is the tallest rocket ever and can hold payloads of 100-150 tons

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman was on hand to watch a previous Starship test, and the Air Force Research Laboratory awarded SpaceX a $102 million contract in 2022 to study how Starship could be used for the Space Force’s “Rocket Cargo” initiative. Rocket Cargo is one of the service’s “Vanguard” initiatives, with the goal of moving a C-17’s worth of supplies or personnel anywhere in the world on rapid timelines without the overflight risk. 

That idea is still being considered, Space Systems Command boss Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant told reporters in November. 

 “We are thinking about how we might use it. We think the first, most logical, given the payload volume … would be some type of rocket cargo delivery mechanism,” Garrant said during a roundtable hosted by the Defense Writers Group. “Absolutely interested in the potential military utility and definitely following their progress.” 

However, the Starship vehicle that would carry that cargo is part of the rocket that exploded during this most recent test—highlighting the work still left to do to make it viable for the Pentagon.