Space Force Went Fast for Its Last GPS Launch. Now It Plans to Go Even Faster

April 8, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force is switching up rockets for its next GPS mission—and trying to go faster than ever in preparing the satellite for launch.

Space Systems Command announced April 7 that GPS III Space Vehicle-08 will now launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Base, Fla., on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket no earlier than the end of May. The satellite had previously been assigned to a rocket from United Launch Alliance.

The goal is to take the satellite bus from storage to orbit in around three months, well ahead of the 24 months it can sometimes take the military to pull a satellite from storage, integrate it with the launch vehicle, and go through readiness checks and processing.

“This mission represents an outstanding collaboration across multiple teams and agencies,” Space Force Col. Andrew Menschner, commander of Mission Delta 31, said in a statement. “It highlights our ability to rapidly deploy an additional M-Code-capable satellite and continues to push the boundaries of traditional launch timelines.”

That aggressive timeline—which started in late February or early March—builds on what the Space Force did in December, switching its previous GPS mission from ULA to SpaceX and taking just five months to prep the satellite for launch.

In both cases, the GPS satellites have been ready to go for a few years now but ULA’s new Vulcan Centaur vehicle, assigned for the launches, wasn’t yet certified. Space Force officials, concerned about the satellite constellation’s resilience, decided to fly the missions with SpaceX rockets, which are certified. To do so, they have swapped later GPS missions to fly on ULA rockets.

Vulcan Centaur was certified in late March and is now preparing to conduct multiple launches in 2025. ULA has a backlog to get through, however, and Space Force officials are eager to get more GPS satellites in orbit.

“We have been harping on getting more GPS III satellites on orbit to be able to give us more M-code,” Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess, commander of Space Forces-Space, said in December.

M-code is the jam-resistant GPS signal for military use. While other GPS satellites can transmit M-code, the GPS III spacecraft can take advantage of the full capability, including the ability to beam the signal at target areas.

In addition to more M-code, the Space Force’s push to go fast on these last few GPS satellites fits with its broader goal of “Tactically Responsive Space”—having the ability to put a new satellite in orbit on rapid timelines to respond to crises or contingencies.

The signature part of that effort is a series of “Victus” missions in which the service challenged contractors to build satellites quickly, take it from storage to the launch pad in just a few days, then be prepared to launch on a moment’s notice.

But those missions involve smaller payloads and are not part of the National Security Space Launch program, which requires lower risk and higher assurance that the mission will succeed. The GPS launches are.

Ukraine Flying Its F-16s ‘Every Day’ Against Russia, with More Coming: EUCOM Boss

April 8, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Ukrainian Air Force pilots are operating F-16 fighters “every day,” targeting missile threats and striking Russia’s eastern region, the top U.S. general in Europe told lawmakers..

“They fly every day; they’ve defeated large number of cruise missile threats, and they’ve delivered an awful lot of offensive attacks as well, specifically bombing attacks in the east,” Army Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, dual-hatted commander of Supreme Allied Commander Europe and U.S. European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week.

Cavoli’s testimony comes as the war rages on into its fourth year. The U.S. helped mediate a partial ceasefire last month, in which Russia and Ukraine agreed to halt strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure, but both sides have since accused each other of breaking the deal. Last week, Moscow launched ballistic missile strikes that claimed the lives of more than 20 Ukrainians in the central city of Kryvyi Rih.

Without divulging exact numbers, Cavoli mentioned that the current F-16s operating in Ukraine are “mainly from northern European countries, Netherlands and Denmark.”

The U.S. government greenlit the transfer of the American-made fighters in 2023, and the Netherlands and Denmark began sending the jets last summer, with plans to deliver a total dozens of F-16s between the two of them.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, second from left, and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte inspect an F-16 on August 20, 2023, at Eindhoven Air Base in the Netherlands. The Netherlands will supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, as will Denmark. Office of the President of Ukraine

Belgium and Norway also had initially planned to begin sending their jets last year; Norway is donating six aircraft. Last month, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy mentioned that Kyiv had recently received more F-16 fighter aircraft, though he didn’t specify how many or which country sent them. U.S. European Command did not immediately respond to confirm whether any of the Norwegian F-16s have touched down in Ukraine yet.

Meanwhile, Belgium, which plans to send 30 jets, announced in March that deliveries would be delayed until next year, according to the Prime Minister Bart De Wever.

“There are more F-16s prepared to be deployed there,” Cavoli added. “There are more pilots in the training pipeline.”

Last month, the Ukrainian Air Force released an interview with one of its F-16 pilots. The pilot, whose identity was kept confidential for security reasons, disclosed that over 80 percent of the missiles fired by these jets successfully hit their targets, eliminating Russia’s Shahed drones and cruise missiles launched from the air, sea, and land.

The pilot added that the multirole fighters carry out offensive counter-air missions, in addition to conducting multiple ground attack operations “each day” over Russia, and its occupied territories in Ukraine.

That’s a marked progression from last fall, when U.S. Air Forces in Europe commander Gen. James B. Hecker told reporters that Ukraine, still new to the F-16, was taking a cautious approach toward employing its new jets and not putting them towards the riskiest missions.

After gaining nearly 4,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory in 2024—seven times the amount gained in 2023—Russian forces now occupies approximately 20 percent of Ukraine. The majority of these advances are concentrated in eastern Donetsk.

However, Cavoli noted that Ukrainian troops have also taken control of the Russian region near the border, pushing back in key areas.

“There is a Ukrainian force that is holding on inside Kursk Oblast, they’ve got quite a bit of terrain,” noted Cavoli, adding that Kyiv is also holding defensive terrain in the Belgorod region, about 90 miles south of Kursk along the border. “The Ukrainians, a couple of weeks ago, pushed a smaller counteroffensive back into Russia [in Belgorod]. We still have a back-and-forth going up in that area.”

According to Cavoli, the Patriot air and missile defense system the U.S. provided Ukraine has been a “success story,” despite his initial apprehension regarding the complex system. The $1 billion defense platform, which includes interceptors, radar, command and control, and other support elements, requires about 90 personnel to operate.

“We train guys for a long time to be able to operate it, and the Ukrainians put their really their best people against it, and took to it like a fish to water,” Cavoli said.

In response to Zelenskyy’s request for additional Patriot systems, Washington agreed to work with Kyiv to explore available options, particularly in Europe.

Cavoli also said that Russia has lost more than 4,000 tanks so far in the war, with an estimated 3,000 tanks, 9,000 armored vehicles, 13,000 artillery systems, and over 400 air defense systems lost in the past year alone. However, Moscow is “on pace to replace them all.”

“They have expanded their capability to produce some things—artillery shells, cruise missiles—tremendously,” warned Cavoli.

Could the Air Force Add More EA-37 Electronic Attack Jets to Its ‘Wish List’?

April 8, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force may need more EA-37B electronic attack aircraft than the 10 it is currently planning to buy, industry officials said April 7, suggesting the service is re-looking at its requirements.

Should the service decide it wants more planes but can’t afford them within its near-term budget, executives from contractors L3Harris and BAE Systems pointed to the Air Force’s annual “wish list” of unfunded priorities as a way to keep production going.

The EA-37 is based on a Gulfstream G550 jet and outfitted with electronic warfare equipment from BAE, while L3Harris is the integrator. The Air Force is buying the jet to replace its aging fleet of 15 EC-130H Compass Call aircraft by reconfiguring the equipment removed from the EC-130s and installing it in the new aircraft.

Originally, the Air Force set a requirement of 12 EA-37s. That figure was later trimmed to 10 because of budget pressures, but a team of L3Harris and BAE officials said studies have shown a need for as many as 20 EA-37Bs. The jet will perform jamming, electronic attack, suppression of enemy air defense and, potentially, management of Collaborative Combat Aircraft.

Doubling the size of the fleet might be ambitious, but officials said “what we have been hearing” from the Air Force and operators “is that 10 is not enough,” said David Harrold, BAE’s vice president and general manager for countermeasures and electromagnetic attack solutions.

There appears to be at least some appetite on Capitol Hill for more of the aircraft. In 2019, lawmakers accelerated the program by providing extra funds to buy two aircraft, and in 2022, some members of Congress supported language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would have included four extra EA-37 jets.

Should that happen, however, the Air Force has little time to waste—any delays in procurement might force a gap in production, adding cost and time to deliveries, said Jason Lambert, L3Harris’ president of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

“We’ve looked at a model that said, ‘what would it look like if we had four…ordered in [fiscal year 2027]?’ And that would actually create a bit of a gap for the line,” he said. No new aircraft were requested in the fiscal 2025 budget, and the 2026 request has not been revealed.

“Obviously, we want to keep the line activated and hot,” Lambert added, “so we had an alternate proposal that actually looks at two aircraft going under the Unfunded Priority List, if that were to happen, in ‘26 and then another two in ’27,” he said.

The Air Force Unfunded Priorities List has included new aircraft in the past, though not in the last two years. Budget caps limited the service’s request in 2025, and the funding level for 2026 is unclear, but the Air Force has a host of modernization programs competing for limited resources.

“We’re very cognizant of the priorities and budget challenges that our customers going through,” Lambert said. “So what we’re trying to do is understand their pressure points and offer up … the art of the possible, based on a funding line at this time frame versus another time frame. So we’re trying to give options that don’t cause pain to industry or cause additional challenges for our customers.”

The EA-37B Compass Call II. Image courtesy of BAE Systems

The proposed additional buy takes into account potential foreign interest, including a request from Italy for “a number of these platforms,” Harrold said. The team sees worldwide interest for about 20 additional airplanes beyond the Air Force’s current requirement for 10; many of these potential customers are in the Indo-Pacific region, the executives said.

The G550 is out of production. The Air Force got the last few that were built new; the rest are used aircraft that have been zero-timed through inspections and refurbishment by Gulfstream, in a process that takes about 18 months. The companies could not immediately provide the exact number of new versus used in the Air Force buy.

There are plenty of G550s available for conversion, Lambert said.

“At any point in time, there’s typically 20 to 25” G550 aircraft “that would be potential donor candidates” to host an EA-37B’s systems, mostly from among private owners who are looking to trade up to something larger. Those to be used for the EA-37B are “hand picked” for the program, he said; then have their interiors removed and aperture windows cut in by Gulfstream at its Savannah, Ga., facilities.

Gulfstream will “bring that back to the identical configuration, as if it came off the production line,” he said.

It then reconfigures the airplane with the outer mold line of the EA-37B, with its oversized, bulbous nose and “cheek” arrays and then sends it on to BAE and L3Harris, which install the electronic warfare equipment.

“One thing we have looked at is, the Air Force itself owns other G550s,” Harrold said, “so they could…make a corporate decision to reallocate those aircraft” to become Compass Call IIs.

Given that the EC-130 Compass Call equipment was supposed to be ported to the EA-37B, the team was asked how it could expand production beyond the number of EC-130s available as mission systems donor aircraft.

“We call it the cross-tech program,” Harrold said, and in the process of moving from the EC-130 to the EA-37B, which is a smaller aircraft, “we have gone to a different size, weight and power [and] form factor for this platform.” It has a software-defined radio and an open architecture, and “we’re doing all the kinds of things to reduce LRU [Line Replaceable Units] where possible, and to streamline and maximize COTS [Commercial, Off-the Shelf] where it makes sense, with that swap in mind.” He added that they will “find ways to maximize the hardware and software from a domestic versus an FMS variant where possible, so that we can drive that efficiency.”

The first EA-37B is in test and four more have been delivered, performing training and other preparatory functions, but not yet flying operational missions. The remaining five are to be delivered by 2027. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., is the operating location for the EA-37B.

Air Force Accepts Long-Awaited First New Radar for Ground Battle Management

April 7, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force accepted its first new TPY-4 radar from Lockheed Martin and will start government-led testing of the system, the contractor announced April 7. It’s the latest in a series of milestones for the service’s ground-based command-and-control enterprise.

The TPY-4, sometimes called the Tippy 4, will replace the AN/TPS-75 radar in the Air Force’s Control and Reporting Centers—a collection of systems it uses for battle management from the ground.

The delivery of the first system comes more than a decade after the Air Force first started work on its Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar program to replace the TPS-75—a contract award to Raytheon in 2014 sparked protests and added years to the project’s development.

More recently, the Air Force selected the Lockheed radar in March 2022. Thus far, the service has announced contracts for 9 radars, but in the long term, it wants to buy 35.

Government and industry officials say the new radar will provide major upgrades over the TPS-75, which has been in service since the 1970s. While the legacy radar is a passive electronically scanned array, the TPY-4 is an active electronically scanned array. It provides 360-degree coverage with the ability to discern smaller, more stealthy objects at distances of up to 300 nautical miles, even in areas with electromagnetic jamming.

Lockheed has also touted the new radar’s portability, a key feature given the Air Force’s plans to disperse teams of Airmen to operate from remote or austere bases as part of its Agile Combat Employment concept. In order for ACE to work, Air Force leaders say they will need theater-level battle management capabilities at the cutting edge, and Lockheed says TPY-4 can be transported by C-130, C-17, rail, truck, or even helicopter.

That will be significant, given that a full Control and Reporting Center unit—which a TPY-4 radar will be part of—currently includes roughly 350 personnel, 170 vehicles, 22 power generators, and can sometimes require up to six C-17s to move.

TPY-4 development has encountered some hiccups, however. The Pentagon inspector general released a report in 2023 finding that the Air Force had not properly used an acquisition pathway meant to rapidly test and field new systems. Then the office of the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation found in its 2024 annual report that delays obtaining Federal Aviation Administration approvals impacted testing, along with “system deficiencies” and production delays causing slips in schedule.

In addition to the TPY-4, the Air Force has moved to beef up its ground-based battle management by procuring Tactical Operations Center-Light kits—extremely mobile battle management systems that can pack up in a single C-130. The service already has more than a dozen TOC-L prototypes for its battle managers to experiment with.

TOC-L and TPY-4 will be all the more crucial as the Air Force faces a transition moment for its airborne battle management fleet—its E-3 AWACS fleet is shrinking, and the new E-7 Wedgetail jet is still several years away.

Col. James Combs, deputy commander of the 552nd Air Control Wing, told Air & Space Forces Magazine last summer that air- and ground-based battle management are meant to complement each other, each providing its own benefits. But he acknowledged that “we’re naturally just going to lean on whatever tools we can to get the mission done.”

Space Force’s New Core Doctrine Emphasizes Warfighting

April 7, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force’s new “capstone doctrine” released April 3 prioritizes space superiority and warfighting. It is the first major update of USSF’s five-year-old foundational doctrine.

“Space Force Doctrine Document 1 – The Space Force” manifests Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman’s push for a Space Force that goes beyond enabling other military branches through navigation, timing, intelligence, and communications, to a fighting force capable of defending its assets in space and of putting those of rivals at risk.

“In conflict, space will be a contested environment” Saltzman wrote in a foreword to the document, which reiterates the six “core truths” about spacepower he first outlined last December. “We are the military service dedicated to fighting in [space]. We do not merely provide support functions—we also employ military force to achieve space superiority in order to ensure our freedom of maneuver.”

“Space superiority” has become a watchword for Saltzman’s, who employed the term repeatedly at last month’s AFA Warfare Symposium. The new doctrine document cites the term at least a dozen times. At the conference, he urged his audience to leave with one message: “The Space Force will do whatever it takes to achieve space superiority; and if you take away one request from my remarks, let it be to read Space Force Document 1 as soon as it’s available.”

The new doctrine introduces “space control” as a core function of the Space Force, a concept not mentioned USSF’s 2020 “Space Capstone Publication,” but one Saltzman used repeatedly at the Warfare Symposium. The doctrine defines “space control” as “the activities required to contest and control the space domain.”

“The desired outcome of space control activities is space superiority, a degree of control that allows forces 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. Space control consists of offensive and defensive actions, referred to as counter-space operations.”

Counter-space operations include offensive actions taken against an adversary, something that U.S. space operators have long held as a taboo topic in open discussions. Saltzman and his Space Force leadership team have increasingly opened the aperture in speaking more openly on such topics and the new publication makes frequent reference to both offensive-space and counter-space capabilities.

The doctrine highlights the Space Force’s other two core functions, as did the 2020 publication : “Global Mission Operations” and “Space Access”—that is, the ability to support operations on Earth using space-based assets and the ability to access and move through space, respectively.

In addition, the new doctrine identifies core competencies—the skills the Space Force needs to perform its core functions—including intelligence, cyber operations, command and control, and space domain awareness.

Saltzman’s theory of “Competitive Endurance,” unveiled a year ago, is also embodied in the new doctrine. It states the Space Force will seek to prevent conflict in space with the likes of China or Russia.

The Space Force’s first doctrine was published in the summer of 2020, soon after the new service was founded and while many details of how it would look and work within the Pentagon were still unsettled.

Five years later, the new doctrine shows just how far the service has come, with an overview of its structures and responsibilities for different members, relationship with other government agencies, and details on how it integrates with other military services and the joint force.

Space Force Awards Up to $13.7 Billion in Launch Contracts

April 5, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Force awarded three contracts April 4 for rocket launches worth up to $13.68 billion combined—and this time, Blue Origin is in the mix for the business along with longtime incumbents SpaceX and United Launch Alliance.

The National Security Space Launch contracts include 54 critical missions for the military and intelligence community between 2027 and 2032. Under the contracts:

SpaceX wins 28 missions for up to $5.9 billion

ULA wins 19 missions for up to $5.4 billion

Blue Origin wins 7 missions for up to $2.4 billion

The disparity reflects each company’s progress and stature in the launch market at this point: SpaceX is the dominant provider, accounting for the vast majority of U.S. launches in recent years, while ULA, long a leading provider, only recently won certification for its new Vulcan Centaur rocket to provide NSSL launches. Newcomer Blue Origin has so far only executed one launch of its New Glenn rocket, which is not yet certified.

For Blue Origin, winning any launches is a major win. Founded even before SpaceX, being included is a landmark, but Blue Origin must get New Glenn certified before it can actually execute those launches.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn launch vehicle prepared for testing in February 2024. (Blue Origin photo)

Space Force leaders see the contracts as a major milestone approaching their vision to ensure more competition in the launch market and to avoid becoming overly reliant on a single vendor or vehicle. Until ULA’s Vulcan Centaur was certified last week, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets were the only active launch vehicles cleared for NSSL missions.

“A robust and resilient space launch architecture is the foundation of both our economic prosperity and our national security,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said in a statement. “National Security Space Launch isn’t just a program; it’s a strategic necessity that delivers the critical space capabilities our warfighters depend on to fight and win.”

To encourage competition, the Space Force took a “dual lane” approach for this most recent round of NSSL launches, dubbed Phase 3. In Lane 1 are missions that can tolerate more risk, allowing less proven launch companies to compete for them. In Lane 2 are the most critical, the ones awarded April 5.

Blue Origin, ULA, and SpaceX are all in Lane 1, but they have more competition in the form of newly approved companies Rocket Lab and Stoke Space, both of which have yet to actually launch their rockets for the program.

Lane 2 remains the bigger and more valuable prize for contractors—in addition to having more companies competing, Lane 1 has approximately 30 missions worth up to $5.6 billion.

A United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket lifts off at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla., in October, marking the second certification mission required for certification by the Space Force. (U.S. Space Force photo by Airman 1st Class Collin Wesson)

The government’s launch appetite continues to grow. NSSL phase 2 contracts from 2020 to 2024 encompassed about 34 launches, but as the Space Force and National Reconnaissance Office increase their satellite systems on orbit, the rate of launches and the number of satellites per launch will continue to multiply.

USAF F-35 Squadrons at Lakenheath Near Full Readiness

April 5, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The U.S. Air Force is poised to fill out its full complement of F-35 fighters and reach full operational capability with two squadrons at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom this year, according to the head of the U.S. European Command.

“USEUCOM established one F-35 squadron at Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, which is now fully operational,” Army Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, commander of EUCOM wrote in his statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 3. “A second squadron of F-35s will be complete this summer and will achieve full operational capability this fall.”

The 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath has four squadrons, two with F-15E Strike Eagles, and two with F-35s: the 495th Fighter Squadron, known as the “Valkyries,” and the 493rd Fighter Squadron, nicknamed the “Grim Reapers.”

The 495th reactivated in October 2021, becoming the first U.S. Air Force squadron to operate the F-35A overseas, with its first stealth fighters arriving in December of that year. In total, the two squadrons are expected to have a combined 52 F-35s, Gen. James B. Hecker, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, previously told Air & Space Forces Magazine. EUCOM did not immediately respond to how many F-35s are currently at Lakenheath.

The stealth fighters’ presence in Europe gives USAF fifth-generation airpower in close proximity to the threat of Russia. Just last year, several F-35s from Lakenheath deployed to Poland.

F-35s defense spending bill — U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II aircraft assigned to the 495th Fighter Squadron from Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, sit static after landing for Tactical Leadership Programme 22-3 at Los Llanos Air Base, Spain, Sept. 15, 2022. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Charles Welty

Cavoli’s comments about the F-35 reaching full operational capability come amid growing speculation that Lakenheath may house nuclear weapons to equip them.

The F-35s are currently the only fifth-generation fighters certified to carry nuclear weapons, the B61-12 gravity bomb, with a blast yield of about 50 kilotons. The certification is exclusive to the Air Force’s A models. For now, only select units are known to have the capability to carry the weapon, but all USAF F-35As are expected to eventually be equipped with the necessary wiring and software to deploy the B61-12.

Last year, British media reported that U.S. government contracting notices referenced the need for “imminent surety support” at Lakenheath, with “surety” being the Pentagon’s term for securing nuclear weapons. Following widespread attention, the website revised its description to remove the term.

In February, the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists published a report compiling open-source information suggesting the Air Force may be planning to reintroduce nuclear weapons to a U.K. base. The think tank had previously raised this possibility in 2023, citing the Air Force’s 2024 budget request, which mentioned the construction of a “surety dormitory” at the base.

The organization noted that its findings is that the service “intended primarily as a backup rather than to deploy weapons now.” There has been no official confirmation regarding a nuclear mission at the base.

As part of NATO’s nuclear sharing policy, Washington is estimated to vault around 100 B-61 bombs across six air bases in five nations: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

Lakenheath has previously been associated with nuclear missions; during the Cold War, in response to the Soviet Union, the U.S. deployed nuclear-capable B-29 bombers to bases across the U.K., including Lakenheath. The base also housed B-47 bombers in the 1950s. In 1954, the first American nuclear weapons in Europe were deployed to the base along with other military sites in the U.K. In 2008, the U.S. withdrew its final nuclear weapons from the base as part of a post-Cold War drawdown.

NSA Director, an Air Force General, Fired with No Cause Stated

April 4, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Pentagon abruptly relieved Air Force Gen. Timothy D. Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, and his NSA civilian deputy, Wendy Noble, on April 3.

“The Defense Department thanks Gen. Timothy Haugh for his decades of service to our nation, culminating as U.S. Cyber Command Commander and National Security Agency Director,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a brief statement. “We wish him and his family well.”

Parnell offered no reason for the firings.

In addition to leading NSA and CYBERCOM, Haugh served as chief of the Central Security Service at Fort Meade, Md. He had led the organizations since February 2024.

A Pentagon official reported that said Noble would be “reassigned.”

Haugh’s Air Force career spanned more than 30 years, almost exclusively in the intelligence and cyber operations field. He had served as head of intelligence for Air Force Special Operations forces, head of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance at U.S. Central Command’s Air Operations Center, commanded the 480th ISR wing, commanded 16th Air Force—which oversee USAF efforts in cyber warfare—and was the deputy commander at CYBERCOM before his previous assignment.

Haugh helped lead cybersecurity operations against Russia for the last four years, and in 2018 ran Cyber Command’s joint effort with the NSA to thwart Russia’s attempted interference in the 2018 midterm elections.

Haugh is the latest in a series of high-ranking military officers to be fired—Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and Air Force Vice Chief Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife were all relieved in February, as were The Judge Advocates General for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

More recently, the National Security Council has also reportedly had four high-level firings, including intelligence director Brian Walsh; senior director of technology and national security David Feith; senior director for international organizations Maggie Dougherty; and senior director for legislative affairs Thomas Boodry.

Multiple news outlets said the firings were recommended by conservative media personality and advisor to President Trump, Laura Loomer, who has courted controversy and promoted conspiracy theories.

Loomer seemed to confirm the report in posts to social media on April 4, saying Haugh and Noble “have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired.” She thanked Trump for “being receptive to the vetting materials provided to you,” and for “firing these Biden holdovers.”

Asked by reporters on Air Force One if Loomer had made the recommendations, Trump replied that “sometimes I listen to those recommendations, like I do with everybody.” He called Loomer “usually very constructive. She recommended certain people for jobs.” He also called her “a very good patriot and a very strong person.”

Democratic lawmakers across Congress roundly condemned the move.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement criticizing the firings as “a priceless gift to China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, by purging competence from our national security leadership.” In particular, he said he was “angered” that Trump “dismissed one of the most skilled, accomplished officers in the U.S. military. As the commander of Cyber Command, General Haugh led the most formidable cyber warfighting force in the world and kept our enemies up at night.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that he has known Gen. Haugh “to be an honest and forthright leader who followed the law and put national security first. I fear those are precisely the qualities that could lead to his firing in this administration.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a retired Air Force brigadier general who represents Offutt Air Force Base, also critiqued the firings, writing on social media that Haugh “is an outstanding leader and was doing a superb job at Cyber Command and National Security Agency. He was fired with no public explanation. This action sets back our Cyber and Signals Intelligence operations.”

In March, Elon Musk, presidential advisor and then-chair of the Department of Government Efficiency comission, posted on X that “The NSA needs an overhaul,” and met with Haugh a week later.

Also in March, multiple media outlets reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt its offensive cyber efforts against Russia. The Pentagon later disputed those reports.

In a March 3 statement, Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the new Trump administration “is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations,” and that “this largely aligns with our vision.”

Air Force Changes Rules for Pregnant Aircrew—Again

April 3, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Air Force is changing its policy for pregnant aircrew, generally reverting to rules set in 2019 that barred female aviators from flying during the first trimester—or from flying in aircraft with ejection seats at all—due to potential risks to the pilot and her unborn fetus.

The changes come in response to commanders and medical experts concerned about “accepting unknown risk as well as potential damage or loss of multi-million-dollar aircraft if something unexpected where to tragically occur,” a spokesperson for Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

But advocates in favor of a more lenient policy put in place in 2022 charge that the revision is based not on data but on personal feelings toward pregnancy.

Changing Policy Objectives

In 2019, the Air Force eased its policies for some pregnant aircrew, but retained restrictions for most aviators once they had a confirmed positive pregnancy test. At that point, pregnant fliers were grounded until 12 weeks, and fighter and bomber pilots remained grounded for the entire pregnancy because of concerns about the potential impact of G-forces and ejection seats on pregnant women and the unborn.

Aviators in non-ejection seat aircraft with a “normal” pregnancy could be cleared to fly with approval from local commanders, flight surgeons, and obstetrics providers up to 28 weeks, at which point all pregnant aircrew were grounded for the duration of the pregnancy.

In 2022, however, the Biden administration changed the policy again, allowing pregnant aviators to seek a waiver to fly any aircraft during any trimester, and allowing non-ejection seat aircrew to fly with just base-level clearance from 12 to 28 weeks. At no point were pregnant aircrew members ever required to fly.

Now the Air Force is revising the rules again, reinstating the first trimester and aircraft restrictions barring all pregnant aircrew from flight until 12 weeks, and barring pregnant aviators from flying “high performance aircraft or aircraft with ejection seats at any time,” according to an Air Force release. Officials cited the increased risk of miscarriage during the first trimester and the lack of “definitive medical research on G-force impact” as reasons for reverting to earlier policy.

But the new policy also increases the window when aircrew can fly, from 12-28 weeks under the 2022 policy to 12-32 weeks under the new rules. The waiver authority for allowing those members to fly during that period is now at the major command level, however, ensuring a more consistent approach across an entire community. An Air Force spokesperson said this will result in better decisions because major commands will see more cases “in the aggregate.”

What Does the Data Say?

Around 20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage—the numbers are lower for women in their 20s—and about 80 percent of miscarriages happen in the first trimester, according to medical data.

A briefing prepared by the Air Force Medical Service produced after the 2019 policy was implemented but before the 2022 change, said it is “unknown if aviation will increase risk of first trimester miscarriage but should be assumed that they will occur at least as frequent as in ground setting.”

Factors like acceleration, strong vibrations, and high Gs encountered in flight or in case of ejection from a high-performance aircraft were all cited as potential risk factors for pregnancy loss in the briefing. But the briefing also noted a lack of medical studies directly measuring the impacts of vibration and acceleration on pregnancy loss. Indeed, civilian researchers have noted that pregnant women are often excluded from most medical studies, leading to a lack of data on pregnancy.

That lack of detailed data is impacting Air Force decisions, advocates for female fliers say. The policy “is being pulled back, not because of science, not because it’s a data-driven decision,” said Lt. Col. Sharon Arana, a former member of Air Combat Command’s now-disbanded Sword Athena team. “It’s being pulled back out of fear.”

Air Force officials could not immediately say if the service has tracked data on the impacts of the 2022 policy on pregnancy outcomes, and the Air Force Surgeon General’s office did not reply to a query. The service release did cite “medical data indicating that there is no significant risk increase between weeks 28-32″ as the reason it expanded that window.

The CSAF’s spokesperson also could not say if an aircrew member’s pregnancy has ever contributed to a mishap resulting in damage or loss of an aircraft. Though cited by the Air Force as a concern among commanders, no recent Accident Investigation Board results released by the Air Force have cited an aviator’s pregnancy. Not all such reports are made public, however. Advocates likewise said they have heard of no such instances.

Advocates argue that, in the absence of clear medical evidence, medical providers are defaulting to over-caution. “The medical community, in my experience, in the Air Force, tends to be very, very risk-averse,” said a former volunteer with the Women’s Initiatives Team, which pushed for the 2022 policy revisions. “So would they ever want to put themselves in a situation where they have cleared somebody to fly and then something bad happens? … Even if that’s not a conscious bias, it’s definitely an unconscious one.”

The former volunteer said she saw that happen in 2022 when presenting their arguments to commanders. “It was, ‘Well, I wouldn’t want my wife to fly pregnant,’ or ‘Well, I wouldn’t be comfortable with my sister or my daughter [flying],'” she recalled. “It was very much personal beliefs and opinions versus, ‘Hey, the data shows this is unsafe for you and your fetus, therefore I’m not comfortable assuming the risk.’”

The Federal Aviation Administration states that for civilian pilots, “pregnancy under normal circumstances is not disqualifying” from any flying.

Air Force officials noted, however, that the new policy is in line with the other military services.

Readiness Concerns

Arguments on both sides of the issue also turn to military readiness. The CSAF’s spokesperson cited “insignificant impacts to readiness” stemming from the 2022 policy change, which did not result in a “significant jump in the number of waivers” helping fill cockpits, he said.

Advocates acknowledge that, among thousands of aviator positions across the Air Force, only a small number of female aircrew experiencing a normal pregnancy want to keep flying combat aircraft or fly at all in the first trimester. Therefore, they reason, the impact on overall Air Force readiness is low. But they also say more flexibility to fly can be crucial to keep an aviator qualified and proficient—key factors in advancing their military careers.

“Ask those female aviators if the effect is minimal to them and their career advancement,” said Arana.

While data is hard to come by, anecdotal evidence is that time away from flying hurts officers’ competitiveness for promotion. That contributes to the frustration among female aviators who pushed for the 2022 policy changes.

“I’ve heard aviators say, it’s very insulting to a woman to assume that she can’t make decisions for herself and for her fetus that are reasonable, and just assuming that she’s going to try to do something reckless. … All of that just further makes female aviators feel like they are not a value-added part of the team. It makes them feel like they are not seen on the same level playing field as their male counterparts.”

The Air Force, for its part, says that pregnant aircrew can maintain their currencies through “simulator training, academic instruction, leadership positions and many other training opportunities and duties.”