How to Prioritize DOD’s Budget: Experts Try It—and So Can You

How to Prioritize DOD’s Budget: Experts Try It—and So Can You

March 24, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s instruction for the Pentagon to find 8 percent in budget cuts that could be reallocated to other priorities has challenged the services and left onlookers wondering what will be cut to meet the mandate.  

When defense analysts and experts gathered last week to talk about their experience seeking those cuts in a recent think tank workshop, they came out concluding the Navy will benefit most from the shift, followed by the Space Force, but the Army will be slashed and the Air Force could suffer a smaller loss. 

The American Enterprise Institute led the workshop, in which eight teams or individuals representing four different think tanks were allowed to tinker with the budget while trying to comply with Hegseth’s budget “relook” instructions and exemptions. Once funds were cut, participants could decided where they wanted to reinvest the savings. The caveats: Funds could not be restored to anything already trimmed, and the total of all moves had to be cost-neutral. 

Anyone can try their own hand at reapportioning defense spending using AEI’s new Defense Futures Simulator, an AI-powered software system that allows users to go program by program in the budget and make adjustments.

What the think tankers chose could, of course, be far different from what Defense Department leaders decide, but because the analysts faced the same limitations—they could not cut from 17 categories exempted by Hegseth—and because they knew his stated priorities, their choices offer insight into what could be coming in the administration’s 2026 budget request. 

“We had to make some assumptions here … for this particular administration,” said Melissa Dalton of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who was undersecretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration. “What we have is Secretary Hegseth’s message to the force that emphasizes lethality; homeland defense on the ground, in the sky; the need to work with allies and partners to deter [Chinese] aggression in the Indo-Pacific and to end wars responsibly and reorient to key threats. So I tried to use that as a north star to guide where I went in terms of some of the choices. They were really tough to make.” 

Participants said the cuts were challenging because they had to balance tradeoffs in force structure, readiness, and modernization.

All eight teams wound up cutting the overall budget for the Army and adding to the budget of the Navy. Dalton was the only one to add to the Air Force budget, though most other teams’ cuts were relatively modest. Dalton was also the most aggressive in adding to the Space Force budget, while others were more mixed. 

Several participants focused cuts on non-mission essential accounts, such as commissaries, schools, and medical research. Most added to missiles and munitions accounts for all the services.

Todd Harrison of AEI, who helped lead the workshop, said the 17 exempted categories listed by Hegseth favored the Navy, because the exemptions included high-dollar programs like submarines and surface ships. 

“Frankly, it was a bit of a box that I think we were all trying to navigate … in terms of how much of the Navy was protected,” Dalton said. “It kind of forced us to look to the Army as the next big bill-payer.”

Multiple participants said they would have made cuts to the Navy’s surface ships had they been allowed, because most of those ships would not be survivable in a potential conflict with China. 

“The large surface combatants was definitely our number one [pick to cut from the exemption list],” said Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities. “We kept trying to cut them, and Todd kept sending us back and saying, ‘You can’t cut that.’” 

For similar reasons, some participants wanted to cut Air Force aircraft.  

Dalton noted “legacy platforms,” such as fourth-generation fighter jets and older intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft were on her list; Elaine McCusker of AEI said she “really wanted to cut the old bombers, because I really feel like the Air Force needs to have the money to go towards the new aircraft and the modernization and unmanned systems.” 

Air Force bombers were not explicitly exempted, but Hegseth did prohibit cuts to core readiness and nuclear modernization. The Air Force is upgrading its oldest B-52 bombers to keep flying for decades to come, and the small size of service’s bomber fleet would make any cuts a question of mission readiness. The B-52 and B-2 bombers are the only nuclear-capable bombers in the force.

Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said he viewed the dearth of airfields within the Pacific’s first island chain as a reason for cutting the Air Force in some areas.

“I’m willing to cut back on Air Force fighters and short-range attack in order to have money for longer range strike systems, both Air Force and Navy,” he said. 

The exercise preceded the unveiling of the F-47, the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, which President Trump, Hegseth and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin introduced at the White House on March 21. Harrison noted that the eight teams were mixed in their approaches to NGAD, with some seeking to cancel the program and others delaying or accelerating its development. 

The Space Force, the smallest and least well-known of the military branches, saw mixed results. Dalton proposed a big increase, while at least one team sought a cut. Dalton said her proposed increase was recognition of “the role that the Space Force is playing and the demand signal that the joint force is sending the Space Force.” 

“When you look at the analysis and the threat environment, particularly in confronting the PRC,” Dalton added, “when you think about countering long-range kill chains; when you think about closing long-range kill chains for the United States and its allies, the Space Force functions as those key nodes across the kill chains that can enable the Air Force, the Navy, the entire joint force, to be able to operate in a contested environment. And so the move to space is necessary in order to be able to be survivable and resilient.” 

Both Air Force and Space Force leaders have made the case in recent months that their services need more resources to accomplish its core missions of air and space superiority. Hegseth has endorsed those missions, and the Trump administration has made air and missile defense—which will involve both air and space assets—a top priority.  

How DOD Could Recoup Its Investment in Ukraine’s Long-Range Drones

How DOD Could Recoup Its Investment in Ukraine’s Long-Range Drones

March 24, 2025 | By Matthew Cox

For three years now, the U.S. has dug into its weapons arsenal and shared billions of dollars to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia; now, as peace talks suggest the war could be coming to an end, America could reap a dividend in the form of Ukraine’s battle-tested drone technology.

Ukraine has developed a talent for transforming low-cost, commercially available drones into long-range weapons, which have proven more capable than many more expensive U.S. unmanned aerial systems, said Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, who visited Ukraine late last year.

“They have figured out how to make adaptations and how to make the systems work under most conditions, even pretty extreme ones, and that is something [many] U.S. companies just don’t have because … we are not in the same environment right now,” Pettyjohn told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “Ukraine is facing a real, living, breathing enemy that is constantly adapting.”

The Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) awarded contracts this month to develop low-cost drone prototypes for testing as one-way munitions at extended ranges. Four U.S. companies won contracts, two of which partnered with Ukrainian UAS firms.

The goal of the DIU program, dubbed Artemis, is to have prototypes ready in fiscal 2025—meaning by Sept. 30. According to Artemis program manager Trent Emeneker, the DIU program will create a new category of weapons not currently in the U.S. arsenal. The Artemis program is structured to rapidly produce large quantities of the new drones than conventional defense programs.

“The U.S. does not have cheap, mass-produced, fielded capabilities in this space,” Emeneker wrote in an email to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “There is no reasonable timeline from a program of record to deliver a similar capability in the next four-five years, and almost certainly not at the price points that we will deliver at.”

The deals follow by six six months a Pentagon announcement that it would provide $800 million to support Ukraine’s ability to mass-produce long-range drones, which have demonstrated marked improvement at striking Russian targets hundreds of kilometers away. 

Ukraine is experiencing rapid growth in uncrewed systems and “capabilities in response to constantly emerging and evolving threats, and is where we see the most rapid advances in capabilities, in the constantly evolving battlefield,” Emeneker said. “Because [Ukrainian] firms are so closely tied to the end user, their feedback and iteration loops are incredibly fast.”

For Artemis, DIU partnered with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment to award contracts to:

  • AeroVironment, the U.S. maker of Switchblade loitering munitions
  • Dragoon Technology, five year-old small-drone startup based in Tuscon, Ariz., and Colorado Springs, Colo.
  • Swan, a little-known defense firm focused on autonomy and an unnamed Ukrainian partner
  • Auterion, an autonomy specialist with offices in the U.S. and Switzerland, also partnered with a Ukrainian UAS firm

The Pentagon declined to release the names of the Ukrainian companies for operational security reasons, Emeneker said.

Kateryna Bondar, fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the inclusion of Ukrainian firms is a step toward more effective collaboration between the two country’s defense industries.

The U.S. defense industry strives to make the most advanced unmanned systems, but there has been a “huge misunderstanding of what is needed to make system that actually feed the demand, feed the mission, so when I saw this award, I was like ‘OK, finally we have real collaboration,” Bondar told Air and Space Forces Magazine in an interview.

In the past, U.S. companies mostly preferred to hire Ukrainian engineers or collaborate with drone operators instead of partnering with Ukrainian firms, Bondar said.

Part of the reason is that Ukrainian firms are not creating new technology but instead figuring out how to use existing tech in creative ways that are easy to mass-produce, she said.

“Ukranians are still not very accustomed to doing defense business in Western ways,” Bondar added, citing a second concern for U.S. firms. For example, a U.S. company will offer a deal that pays a license a small amount of money for each use of their software—while Ukrainians want money up front, said Bondar, who is Ukrainian and frequently communicates with the Ukrainian defense industry as well as its military forces.

“These are probably cultural issues; we have to realize that Ukraine is still a post-Soviet country and still has some post-Soviet mentality and the fear of the future,” Bondar said. “They are not ready to make obligations for the next 20 years and wait for the income. They want money right here and right now.”

Pettyjohn said the divide goes beyond culture. “There is also an urgency divide” in that Ukrainian companies don’t care about conducting lengthy testing certifications, she said. “They are fielding capabilities that they want to get on the battlefield today.”

The Artemis program grows out of the 2024 defense budget to quickly provide loitering munitions capable of operating in GPS-denied and electromagnetic-warfare-challenged battlefields. The weapons need to be cheap enough to mass produce. Emeneker would not discuss program costs, however, so it is unclear what the price range for Artemis products could be. But Emeneker said the program could issue as many as four production awards by the end of fiscal 2025.

The final versions of these rapidly updatable, ground-launched systems must have a maximum range of at least 300 kilometers and be capable of launching quickly, navigating at low altitudes, and carrying a variety of payloads, according to the DIU release.

To meet DIU’s aggressive timeline, each of the four companies will submit multiple UAS prototypes for evaluation in time for demonstrations to be completed by the end of May. The prototypes will be in a “relevant environment, which includes Electronic Warfare and full denial of the Global Navigation Satellite System for position keeping,” Emeneker said. “This will also include tactical feedback on ease of launch, mission planning, logistics, and transportability.”

Pettyjohn said she is hopeful that working directly with Ukrainian companies will produce more flexible, modular systems that are capable of performing better in real-world battlefield conditions.

“I think we have seen that the U.S. testing and evaluation process for different systems is not as rigorous as the battlefield in Ukraine,” she said. “That is why a lot of U.S. weapons have failed. … Part of the success of the Ukrainian systems is their adaptability and the fact that they are modified sometimes on a weekly basis in terms of what frequencies they operate on, where the antennas are located. … It runs the gamut from small hardware changes to software changes.”

Some U.S. drone systems have performed effectively in Ukraine. AeroVironment’s Switchblade loitering munitions have seen success there, and the company won a five-year U.S. Army contract in August 2024 worth up to $990 million to field the system to U.S. combat units, according to AeroVironment’s website. Aerovironment did not provide comment for this story before publication.

For Bondar, the strength that Ukraine brings to the table is in its use of plug-and-play software rather than sophisticated hardware.

“This software can be installed on any platform. …  Basically you make it like a Lego,” Bondar said. “The Russians are very good at reverse-engineering any hardware. They do it easily, fast, and it’s obvious, but to reverse-engineer software is way harder because Ukranians encrypt it. They protect it. Even if [the Russians] get a very good piece of equipment that is not damaged; it is almost impossible for them to get the software and reverse-engineer it.”

Caitlin Lee, director of the RAND Corporation’s Acquisition and Technology Policy Program, said that Artemis is an admirable effort but will face challenges as it matures.

“Developing more modular systems that accept different software and subsystems is much harder than it sounds, or DOD would have started doing it a long time ago,” Lee told Air & Space Forces Magazine in an email.  “One major challenge that still lies ahead is figuring out how to allow for modularity—and meaningful size, weight, and power—at a low price point.”

Space Force Will Add 100-Plus Satellites in 2025 to Boost Resilient Networks

Space Force Will Add 100-Plus Satellites in 2025 to Boost Resilient Networks

March 21, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The Space Force is poised to launch 100 or more satellites into orbit in 2025, the service’s top intelligence officer said this week—nearly doubling the previously known number of USSF spacecraft.

“The Space Force will add over 100 satellites just in 2025,” Maj. Gen. Gregory Gagnon said at an event held by Center for Strategic and International Studies on March 20. “That is to add resilient capabilities for our winning capabilities, missile warning and missile track, secure communications for the force, and, of course, reconnaissance and sensing that allows us to close long-range fires on a on a scale that no other country can really do.”

At the end of fiscal 2023, the Space Force disclosed that it had 83 satellites in service. Another 27 have since gone up for the Space Development Agency’s Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture, as well as a few others.

The rapid expansion in 2025 is set to include more SDA satellites, as well as GPS satellites, Next-Gen OPIR missile warning satellites, Wideband Global SATCOM spacecraft, and more.

The massive increase is needed to create resilient networks, Gagnon said—something the Space Force wants to deter kinetic attacks but also cyber and electronic ones too. Space and cyber dominance often go hand-in-hand, he said. citing the example of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Gaining cyber and space superiority over your adversaries is an early objective in ground campaigns, and I think that will play out as we move forward later into the 21st century with additional conflict,” Gagnon said.

A key example of this was Russia’s cyberattack on a major supplier of Ukraine’s satellite network, ViaSat, just before the invasion. While the hacking effort did hinder the nation’s military network, it also unintentionally knocked out tens of thousands of modems across Europe and the Middle East. Kyiv then turned to Starlink, which kept communications flowing for the government and military.

“They were attempting to do command and control warfare, but their impacts were not the impacts they expected,” said Gagnon. “They were unable to disrupt the Ukrainian military command and control.” Experts suggest that the failed attempt may have been due to the Russians underestimating the rapid restoration of cyber services.

Gagnon described the ViaSat attack as a Soviet-era tactic called “information confrontation,” encompassing both electronic warfare to disrupt or control information flow and messaging, such as propaganda and narratives used to shape perceptions. The ViaSat attack blended both, making it a key component of Russia’s information warfare strategy.

Modern cyberattacks, such as information confrontation, aim to disrupt or control the electromagnetic spectrum through jamming or hacking to damage communications, data, and weapons systems. Gagnon highlighted that spectrum dominance is “absolutely critical to long-range fires,” especially if the target is mobile and requires tracking.

“In order to do that, you’re usually dealing with a satellite or UAV, and a ground or air firing unit; you have to network that force together,” said Gagnon. “That type of network happens through the electromagnetic spectrum. If you do not have access to it, to use it uninhibited, or to work through it when disrupted, you cannot bring your network to bear.”

Spectrum dominance includes cybersecurity, anti-jamming, and anti-spoofing technologies along with developing electronic warfare tools to disrupt enemy operations and strengthening command and control systems across all domains—something that wasn’t prioritized in the past, Gagnon said.

“One of our challenges in the Department of Defense is that we started to undervalue how important it was to have spectrum superiority, and that’s because we had 20 years of fighting in the Middle East against adversaries who are not challenging our spectrum,” explained Gagnon. Other experts have also pointed out that the Pentagon’s electromagnetic warfare efforts in space are hindered by poor coordination and a lack of communication between stakeholders. “Those core skills, which will be resident in some select officers, and really our NCO core are the special sauce that allow us to project power in a unified manner against both fixed and mobile targets.”

Air Force Chief: How the New F-47 Will Improve on the F-22

Air Force Chief: How the New F-47 Will Improve on the F-22

March 21, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is promising upgrades in range, stealth, schedule, cost, and number of airframes for its Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter—newly christened the F-47—compared to the F-22 aircraft it is succeeding.

Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin, who joined President Donald Trump at the White House on March 21 to unveil the new air superiority fighter, released a statement after the announcement that offered many new details on NGAD, which has been shrouded in secrecy for years.

“Despite what our adversaries claim, the F-47 is truly the world’s first crewed sixth-generation fighter,” Allvin said—an apparent dig at China, which recently revealed several new stealthy-looking combat aircraft types.

The F-47 will join the B-21 bomber in the Air Force’s sixth-gen fleet—Allvin said this new generation of aircraft will have “next-generation stealth, sensor fusion, and long-range strike capabilities to counter the most sophisticated adversaries in contested environments.”

Renderings of the F-47 supplied by the Air Force—which intentionally conceal many of its features—show distinct differences from fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. While the images show a conventionally stealthy nose and bubble canopy with a chiseled chine and a flattened overall fuselage shape, they also reveal both canards and wings with a distinctive upward angle, features that aren’t typical of previous stealth designs.  

The F-47 will also have ”significantly longer range” than the F-22, Allvin claimed. The F-22 has a range of more than 1,850 miles with two external wing fuel tanks before it needs to be refueled. Air Force leaders have discussed the possibility that the NGAD would be built in two variants—a larger one with greater range to cope with the great distances of the Pacific theater—and a smaller aircraft more suited to the shorter flying distances between military targets in the European theater.

All told, the Air Force said in a release that the F-47 “represents a significant advancement over the F-22,” and has a modular design that will allow it to be “a dominant platform for decades to come.”

An artist’s rendering of the new F-47 fighter, top, compared to an F-22, below. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Lauren Cobin/USAF graphic

Allvin said X-planes have been testing NGAD technologies for the last five years, “flying hundreds of hours, testing cutting-edge concepts, and proving that we can push the edge of technology with confidence.” The flying campaign has been “accelerating the technology, refining our operational concepts, and proving that we can field this capability faster than ever before. Because of this, this fighter will fly during President Trump’s administration,” he said.

The Trump administration will last until January 2029, less than four years from now. By comparison, the F-22 went from being selected the winner of the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest in 1991 to first flight of a production model in six years.

Air Force officials first made reference to flying NGAD prototypes in 2020, and former Secretary Frank Kendall later revealed that X-plane prototypes flew even earlier than that, in the mid-2010s.

Allvin also promised that the F-47 “will cost less and be more adaptable to future threats—and we will have more of the F-47s in our inventory.”

The flyaway cost of the F-22—which only includes the cost of materials to build one aircraft, and does not include research and development, military construction, or any other non-recurring engineering—was about $140 million. Including those other elements raises the F-22’s cost to about $350 million; higher than expected because the Air Force had structured the program to produce more than 400 airframes, which would have spread out development and nonrecurring expenses.

The F-22 program was terminated at 186 production aircraft. Air Force officials have privately discussed an NGAD force numbering between 220 and 250 aircraft.

At the White House, Trump said “we can’t tell you the price, because it would give away some of the technology and some of the size of the plane; [it’s a] good-sized plane.”

Allvin said the F-47 will also be “more sustainable, supportable, and have higher availability than our fifth-generation fighters.” These are likely references to the hardiness of the jet’s low-observable surface treatments; in the early days of stealth, such treatments—including tape and caulk—had to be laboriously applied by hand to aircraft seams, and this process consumed many hours of maintenance time between flights.

In contrast, the sixth-gen B-21 has been described by the company as a “daily flyer,” with the explanation that this is due to more resilient and contiguous stealth surfaces and the inclusion of Air Force maintainers in many design choices regarding how that aircraft is serviced. The same principles were likely applied in the design of the F-47.

The F-47 was also designed with a “built to adapt” mindset, Allvin said, a likely reference to digital design and an open-systems architecture that will allow frequent changeouts of software, sensors and other mission gear. He also said the fighter will “take significantly less manpower and infrastructure to deploy,” suggesting a reduced dependence on ground equipment and more maintenance-friendly components.

The contract awarded to Boeing today “funds the engineering and manufacturing development phase, which includes maturing, integrating, and testing all aspects of the NGAD platform,” the Air Force said in a release. “This phase will produce a small number of test aircraft for evaluation. The contract also includes competitively priced options for low-rate initial production,” an approach similar to that taken with the B-21 bomber.  

“Future basing decisions and additional program elements will be determined in the coming years as the Air Force advances the F-47 toward operational deployment,” the service said.

Steve Parker, interim president and chief executive officer of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, said “we recognize the importance of designing, building, and delivering a sixth-generation fighter capability for the United States Air Force. In preparation for this mission, we made the most significant investment in the history of our defense business, and we are ready to provide the most advanced and innovative NGAD aircraft needed to support the mission.”

Boeing said that the F-47 will build on “Boeing’s fighter legacy” which includes the P-51 Mustang, F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, and EA-18 Growler.

The Air Force did not immediate offer reasons as to why Boeing was selected over Lockheed. Boeing has dealt with a string of programmatic missteps with its KC-46 tanker, T-7 trainer, and VC-25B presidential transport, collectively costing the company nearly $10 billion in overrun costs, due to the fixed-price structure of those contracts. The contractor has also had a series of accidents and serious quality escapes on its commercial airliners.

Lockheed, meanwhile, has faced a yearlong delivery hold on F-35 fighters due to delays with testing the jet’s Technology Refresh 3 upgrade, as well as chronic issues with sustainment costs of that fighter. However, it has been advancing the capabilities of the F-22 to maintain its combat capability as the NGAD is developed.

Boeing said that “technical and programmatic details [on the F-47] remain classified under United States national security and export laws.” In a statement, Lockheed said it is “disappointed with this outcome” and “we will await further discussions with the U.S. Air Force.”

Allvin offered a striking description of the jet’s overall capability.

“With the F-47, we will strengthen our global position, keeping our enemies off-balance and at bay,” he said. “And when they look up, they will see nothing but the certain defeat that awaits those who dare to challenge us.”

Air Force Reserve Aims to Make It Easier for Active Pilots to Switch Over

Air Force Reserve Aims to Make It Easier for Active Pilots to Switch Over

March 21, 2025 | By David Roza

The head of Air Force Reserve Command likes to recruit Active-Duty Airmen, because if they switch over to the Reserve at the end of their Active-Duty service commitment, it means AFRC doesn’t have to pay to train them.

“Our business model for the entire Air Force Reserve Command is a 70/30 mix, so 70 percent of all [Air Force Specialty Codes], we prefer to take from Active-Duty, and thank you very much for training them,” Lt. Gen. John P. Healy said March 5 at the AFA Warfare Symposium.  “It’s a dollar issue: if I’m 30 percent non-prior service, that’s a much more manageable bill on our behalf.”

That’s especially true for pilots, who cost tens of millions of dollars to train. If they come over to the Reserves at the end of their 10-year Active service commitment, chances are the Air Force will get much more bang for its buck: Healy said 91 percent of Active pilots who switch to the Reserves stay in uniform for 20 years, and 86 percent stay in 30 years.

“So now we’re really talking about a return on investment for the money spent, the training and the experience that was involved in those pilots,” the general said.

Making the switch, however, is no sure thing when airlines are awarding conditional job offers two years before pilots’ Active-Duty commitment expires, and when the process for joining the Reserves takes a lot of time and red tape. 

That is taking a toll: Healy said about 67 percent of Reserve pilots are prior service, shy of that 70 percent goal.

“We need to boost those numbers up,” he said.

AFRC is rolling out two programs meant to do just that. The Pilot Concierge Cell (PCC) helps guide Active pilots through the affiliation process, while Total Force Shared Service (TFS2) helps pilots serve the tail end of their Active commitment in the Reserves, giving them the flexibility to start an airline career without impacting the readiness of their Active unit.

Pilot Concierge Cell

Healy compared the PCC to VIP treatment at a hotel.

“As you’re walking into the Gaylord, you see a line of 26 people to check in to the hotel,” Healy said, referring to the resort where the symposium took place. “But on the right you see Platinum Elite, ‘please come this way.’ And I walk over there, and they’re like ‘General Healy, can I get you a Prosecco, and upgrade you and maybe give you 1,000 points?’ Yes to all.’”

Likewise, the PCC aims to put pilots at ease while transitioning to the Reserves, where the biggest challenge is finding a Reserve squadron to fly with, explained PCC program manager Gordon Olde.

“The AFR doesn’t typically assign pilots to squadrons the way Active-Duty does,” Olde said. “Reserve squadrons ‘hire’ their pilots through a process called ‘sponsorship.’ Every Reserve squadron manages its own sponsorship requirements on different timelines, which creates a challenge for pilots trying to secure unit sponsorship.”

Just finding the right contact information for each squadron can be a challenge, but PCC should help with that. Located at AFRC headquarters on Robins Air Force Base, Ga., the cell will soon have four members, each of whom specializes in a certain area such as mobility (tanker and transport aircraft), or fighters, bombers, and other combat aircraft. 

“We are going to hold the hand of the pilot who is looking to affiliate and we’re going to introduce them to units directly,” Olde explained. “We give them a warm hand-off so that the biggest burden of trying to figure out who to talk to in our units is overcome.”

Finding a sponsor isn’t the only step. Pilots also must decide between full-time and part-time service, brush up on benefit and bonus programs, and decide between Palace Front, where Active members switch to the Reserve or Guard after completing their Active commitment; or Palace Chase, where they do so before completing their Active commitment, which requires special permission. The PCC can help pilots make those decisions.

Officers also have to be “scrolled,” where the President formally nominates them for confirmation by the U.S. Senate and adds them to the Reserve scroll, a process which can take six months or more. That’s why the sooner pilots get started, the better, so they don’t get caught flat-footed by a fast-approaching separation date or any administrative hurdles.

The PCC augments, but does not replace, the in-service recruiter, who is still the expert for handling the administrative details of affiliation, Olde said. But since PCC is at AFRC headquarters, it can usually help find a solution to administrative issues.

“Our goal is to make our customers happy, if you will, and have them want to affiliate and spread the word that ‘hey, this is not as difficult a process as I thought, and the PCC really did make a difference,’” which will hopefully bring in more pilots, he explained. 

The PCC acts as an information hub, so other Active rated aviators with questions about the sponsorship process can reach out with questions about the Reserves, Olde said. Aviators looking to move to the Air National Guard should contact an ANG recruiter.

“Even if they just want information on what life might be like in the Reserve, they can contact us at any point in their career,” said Lt. Col. Michael Holden, a senior member of the PCC.

TFS2

Toward the end of their Active-Duty service commitment, pilots may want to switch to the Reserves or the Air National Guard early. Maybe their spouse has a good job nearby and the pilot doesn’t want to move to a new assignment, or maybe they want to start working at an airline, where seniority is critical, as soon as possible.

Pilots in that position can pursue Palace Chase, which lets them affiliate early. But Active squadron commanders may be reluctant to sign off because of the Air Force’s ongoing pilot shortage, said Lt. Col. Brian McGinnis, project manager for the Total Force Shared Service (TFS2) program.

TFS2 is a form of Palace Chase meant to give Active pilots more flexibility to switch to the Reserves or the Guard without short-changing the Regular Air Force. For now, the beta test is limited to five bases where a local Active unit flies the same aircraft as the co-located Reserve or Guard unit:

  • Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.
  • Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
  • Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas
  • Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.
  • Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

So-called associate units “are already working closely together in most cases,” McGinnis said. “There’s not a separate flying schedule for the Reserve or the RegAF: there’s just one set of airplanes and they all schedule and fly together.”

There are two TFS2 options, both of which allow Active pilots to separate with one year left on their Active-Duty service commitment in exchange for a three-year Guard or Reserve commitment. So as to not short-change the Active unit, those three years include a 12-month tour on Active-Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) orders, meaning the newly affiliated pilot works full-time for the Active unit they just left for a year.

In the first option, the newly affiliated pilot immediately serves the 12-month ADOS tour. Once that tour is over, they become traditional Reservists or Guardsmen working for the Reserve or Guard unit.

Under the second option, the pilot can put off their ADOS year for up to 12 months while they serve as traditional Reservists or Guardsmen so they get their line number and start training with an airline, for example. That option “is designed for members seeking to get started in an airline career who want to remain in the Reserve as an insurance policy for economic downturns,” AFRC wrote in a press release.

“It’s kind of a career intermission almost,” McGinnis said. “You can go take a year off, get your line number and do your airline training, but then hop back in and finish your commitment while you’re building seniority.”

That option should help address an ongoing struggle between pilot retention and airline hiring. At the symposium, Healy said that when airlines are on a hiring spree, AFRC sees a dip in its full-time force and a surge in its part-time force, and the opposite for when airlines furlough pilots.

The PCC and TFS2 programs work together to try to increase affiliations into the Reserve. For example, pilots who reach out to McGinnis may not be eligible for TFS2 because they’re not at one of its five starting bases, but McGinnis can forward them to the PCC, who can still help set them up for a Reserve career. 

Many aspects of the transition process, such as scrolling and administrative hurdles, are outside of TFS2 and PCC’s control, which is why the managers of both programs encourage pilots who are interested to get in touch with them sooner rather than later. 

TFS2 aims to take initial applications in fiscal year 2025 for the first pilot transfers to the Air Reserve Component in fiscal 2026. 

To reach the Pilot Concierge Cell, email hqafrc.a3rb.pilotconciergecell@us.af.mil. To reach the TFS2 program, email brian.mcginnis.2@us.af.mil, aaron.husk.3@us.af.mil, or matthew.russell.1@us.af.mil.

Trump Announces F-47, the Air Force’s New Sixth-Gen Fighter Built by Boeing

Trump Announces F-47, the Air Force’s New Sixth-Gen Fighter Built by Boeing

March 21, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

President Donald Trump announced March 21 that Boeing has been selected to build the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, which will be called the F-47.

Trump made the announcement from the White House, flanked by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin, and Lt. Gen. Dale R. White, military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

Boeing beat out Lockheed Martin to build the world’s first sixth-generation fighter, which the Air Force said will be faster, more maneuverable, and more stealthy than anything built to date. Trump said the plane has been flying for “five years” in tests leading up to this announcement.

“It’s something the likes of which nobody has seen before,” Trump said. “In terms of all of the attributes of a fighter jet, there’s never been anything even close to it, from speed to maneuverability to what it can have, to payload.”

The Air Force said the F-47 will fly during the Trump administration, which ends in January 2029.

NGAD’s future had been in question after former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall paused the program last summer to review its costs and requirements. Hegseth claimed that Kendall and former President Joe Biden’s administration was “prepared to potentially scrap it.”

During the program pause, the Air Force conducted an analysis of whether the program, in which the manned fighter would operate with semi-autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), was still required. The Air Force’s internal review and a blue-ribbon outside panel of former senior officials concluded a manned NGAD fighter was necessary to achieve air superiority in 2030 and beyond.

Allvin pitched Trump on the program earlier this year and briefed Hegseth this month. Allvin had hinted at his recommendation to Trump on March 3 at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

“I want to give the President as many options as we possibly can. So that means, yes, keep on the modernization. Yes, NGAD. Yes, CCA. Yes, survivable bases,” Allvin said then.

NGAD is seen as the successor to the fifth-generation air-to-air F-22, built by Lockheed Martin, but will be produced in greater numbers, Trump and Allvin said.

“Compared to the F-22, the F-47 will cost less and be more adaptable to future threats—and we will have more of the F-47s in our inventory,” Allvin said in a statement. “The F-47 will have significantly longer range, more advanced stealth, be more sustainable, supportable, and have higher availability than our fifth-generation fighters. This platform is designed with a ‘built to adapt’ mindset, and will take significantly less manpower and infrastructure to deploy.”

A major feature of the F-47 will be its ability to coordinate and control CCAs. Trump made reference to the CCA program in his Oval Office remarks, saying the F-47 will be able to fly with “many, many drones,” and Allvin also reiterated their importance.

“We believe that this [F-47] provides more lethality,” he said. “It provides more modernized capability in a way that is built to adapt. This, along with our Collaborative Combat Aircraft the President talked about with drones, this is allowing us to look into the future and unlock the magic that is human-machine teaming. And as we do that, we’re going to write the next generation of modern aerial warfare. This enables us to do this. The manner in which we put this program together puts more control in the hands of the government, so we can update and adapt at the speed of relevance, at the speed of technology.”

The service’s first CAAs—General Atomics’ YFQ-42A and Andruil Industries’ YFQ-44A—will fly this summer and are designed to carry missiles, but the role of future versions of drones will likely be expanded to expand to a variety of missions, such as electronic warfare, sensing, and more.

The Air Force has planned billions of dollars in NGAD’s research and development in the coming years. It is expected to be the most advanced fighter jet in history and America’s first sixth-generation fighter.

The aircraft will likely pair with the F-35 as the backbone of the Air Force fighter fleet for decades to come. The F-35 is a multirole, fifth-generation plane designed primarily for air-to-ground and sensing, while NGAD has been described as an air-to-air fighter that can operate in contested environments, such as the airspace near China.

The engines competing to power the NGAD—GE’s XA102 and Pratt & Whitney’s XA103—have passed design reviews for the Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion program. Those power plants have new technology that allows increased thrust and range.

The Navy intends to award a contract for its sixth-generation fighter, the F/A-XX, in the coming months, though the programs are separate.

“A cost-plus incentive-fee contract was awarded for engineering and manufacturing development, which will mature, integrate, and test all aspects of the NGAD Platform,” an Air Force official said of the deal. “The contract will produce a small number of test aircraft, which will be used to perform testing. The contract also includes competitively priced options for low-rate initial production aircraft.” The official said further details were not being disclosed for security reasons.

Boeing’s selection is a major coup for the firm at a time when it is struggling mightily. The company has faced cost overruns, delays, and issues on the VC-25B presidential aircraft, KC-46 Pegasus tanker, the T-7A Red Hawk trainer, as well as its space and commercial aircraft programs.

The delays on the VC-25B—better known as the new “Air Force One”—have prompted ire from Trump, who renegotiated the price of the aircraft with Boeing during his first term and has complained about the delay, which may result in the aircraft not being fielded during his current term. Trump has suggested the military should look at alternative options.

Boeing’s NGAD win is also big for its fighters division, after its X-32 demonstrator lost out to what became the F-35. The company is also building new F-15EX fighters for the Air Force.

Shown is a graphical artist rendering of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Platform. The rendering highlights the Air Force’s sixth generation fighter, the F-47. U.S. Air Force graphic.
Air Force May Need to Extend the KC-135 Service Life: AMC Boss

Air Force May Need to Extend the KC-135 Service Life: AMC Boss

March 20, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

At the Air Force’s current rate of 15 new aerial tankers a year, the service have to launch a service life extension program for its Eisenhower-era KC-135s, the head of Air Mobility Command said.

Meanwhile, leaders stressed the importance of more connectivity and survivability for AMC’s tanker fleet, even as they suggested they may be prepared to delay a new, stealthy refueling aircraft.

The Air Force “may need to look at service life extension, potentially, of the KC-135,” Gen. John D. Lamontagne said in a prerecorded interview with Defense One streamed March 20.

“Recapitalization of the tanker fleet is absolutely a priority,” he said, but “it’s going to take a really long time” to acquire replacements for the youngest KC-135s, all of which are more than 60 years old.

“We have continued to upgrade the KC-135, and we need to keep doing that,” Lamontagne said. “If we recapitalize the KC-135 to the tune of a squadron a year—which is typically how we acquire platforms—we’ll be flying the KC-135 into the 2050s. … I think that’s where we’re headed.”

That timeline would put the KC-135’s service life near 100 years. Already, the fleet has been re-engined, re-skinned, and received numerous structural and avionics upgrades since it was built. But the last major refresh of the fleet was in the 2010s, when the Block 45 upgrade gave the refueler additional capability and life to last into the 2040s.  

The KC-135 is “not the same airplane it was when it came into the inventory,” and no longer needs a navigator due to avionics improvements, Lamontagne said.

The general did not comment on how extensive a SLEP might be needed on the Stratotanker, but such programs are generally not undertaken unless the Air Force believes the cost can be recouped within 10-20 years through reduced maintenance and spare parts consumption, fuel efficiency, or other metrics.

For the mobility fleet writ large, “the next couple of upgrades need to be that beyond-line-of-sight connectivity; tactical data links, so we have good [situational awareness] on our environment,” Lamontagne said.

NGAS

A yearlong analysis of alternatives (AOA) on the Air Force’s future aerial tanking fleet is receiving “finishing touches,” Lamontagne said, and should be concluded by around the end of March.

The Air Force has dubbed its next planned tanker the Next-Generation Aerial refueling System, or NGAS.

“No decisions have been made” about NGAS, Lamontagne said, but he acknowledged that the way ahead will be affected by how the Trump administration chooses to proceed with the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter.

Whether the NGAS moves ahead will be a budget-driven decision, Lamontagne said. If it is deferred, “I’ll just say there’s a variety of ways” for the KC-135 “to survive,” he added.

“We can continue to upgrade the fleet and put defensive systems on it, just like we’ve upgraded the navigation, the engines and more over the past decades,” he said. “We can also team up with other partners in the joint force and have them defend us. And so, a variety of ways to do it, even if we don’t pursue NGAS.”

In a separate interview with Defense One also streamed March 20, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said NGAS is not necessarily an aircraft, but a system of aerial refueling, and if it is postponed, “there are other ways that you can enhance survivability of a refueling aircraft,” he said.

“You can do it through electronic warfare. You can do it through…escort support. So this is all part of the entire NGAS evaluation,” he said. “It just means a new way to ensure survivability in a denser threat environment. I think that that analysis will be ongoing.”

He also said a “baseline” approach to survivability “is connectivity. So, ensuring that we can have connectivity between our aerial refueling platforms and our airlift platforms and our fighter platform, that’s what that’s something we’re pursuing.”

The Air Force’s top force designer, Maj. Gen. Joseph D. Kunkel, recently said that NGAD, NGAS, and Collaborative Combat Aircraft are “a package deal,” and decisions made about any of the three affect the other two.

KC-46

Before NGAS, Lamontagne said the Air Force wants to keep tankers in production “without a break.” That’s led to descriptions of a “bridge” buy of 75 tankers; Boeing is considered the main contender with an upgraded version KC-46, but the AMC boss said the firm does not have a lock on the program. Other suppliers have credible tanker offerings, he said, some of which don’t require a human crew.

In the meantime, deliveries of the KC-46 are currently suspended as Boeing investigates the root cause of a series of cracks in an outboard wing trailing edge. Once that is accomplished, “it’s a pretty quick fix” with the appropriate spare parts, he said, and deliveries can resume. Eleven of 50 KC-46s inspected so far have had cracks in the structure, and another 39 are to be inspected within the next two weeks, he noted. He left it to Air Force Materiel Command to say when deliveries would resume, but “repair should flow pretty quickly” after the root cause is determined.

Most of the other, more chronic deficiencies with the KC-46 are still being worked on, Lamontagne reported.

“We have made a lot of progress,” he said. “Some number of those [Category 1] deficiencies have been taken off the board and resolved. A couple of others are in the works and will deliver within the next year or two.”

Future Tech

Lamontagne also speculated on the requirements for a future airlifter to succeed the C-5 and C-17—the Next-Generation Airlift aircraft, or NGAL—saying it will not only have to be stealthy, but will have more missions than simply hauling people and cargo.

“We’re doing the capabilities-based assessment right now,” he reported. “That will take a couple of months to deliver, and it is basically evaluating, ‘hey, what kind of capabilities do we need in the future?’”

Lamontagne said key factors will include cargo capacity, range, survivability, and connectivity.

“I’d also say, we shouldn’t just look at it as an airlifter. … We should be doing more than one thing on an airplane, and I think the CBA will eventually lead to an [analysis of alternatives] and hopefully tease out some of the capabilities and the right things to make our Air Force and the joint force stronger,” he said.

The Air Force has in recent years conducted “Rapid Dragon” experiments that involved dropping whole pallets of cruise missiles out the backs of airlifters.

Lamontagne also said AMC is watching progress with Collaborative Combat Aircraft closely. He believes “the sky’s the limit” on how the technology of autonomous aircraft could be applied to the mobility mission.

“I could see a future where we are delivering [CCAs] maybe through the air,” he said, though for now AMC will just support the drones logistically.

Looking further down the road, though, the general said he could envision “unmanned airlifters, unmanned tankers.” CCA technology is moving “very, very rapidly,” he said, “And I think there’s a lot of opportunity in front of us in that space. … I think this is all very much in the realm of possible.”

Saltzman: US Can Overcome Hurdles to Develop Space-Based Interceptors

Saltzman: US Can Overcome Hurdles to Develop Space-Based Interceptors

March 20, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman is confident the U.S. defense industry can develop space-based missile interceptors, he said in a prerecorded interview that streamed March 20.

Asked during the Defense One interview about America’s ability to solve perhaps the most complex, ambitious part of President Donald Trump’s “Golden Dome” air and missile defense system, Saltzman said he believed it would happen. ”I am so impressed by the innovative spirit of the American space industry,” Saltzman said. “I’m pretty convinced that we will be able to technically solve those challenges.”

Acknowledging the complexity of what Space Force Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton has called “no joke of a physics problem,” Saltzman said the challenge will be immense.

“There are a lot of technical challenges,” Saltzman said. “Because it’s not just that we want space-based interceptors. We want them in boost phase. We want them to achieve their effects as far from the homeland as possible. So they’ve got to be fast, they’ve got to be accurate.”

From the time a missile is launched, operators will have just a minute or two—perhaps only seconds—to launch a space-based interceptor. Interceptors in low-Earth orbit will reach the target faster because they’re closer; the downside is that the closer the interceptors are to Earth, the more of them will be needed to defend against attack.

The cost of a large constellation will be high, but worthwhile, Saltzman argued.

“I’m pretty sure they’re going to solve most of those technical problems,” Saltzman said. “So from that standpoint, I think it’s just about how fast can we leverage the technology and put it in place and test it, get a demo out there so we can see what’s possible.”

“To say it’s the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect its citizens from emerging threats makes perfect sense to me,” he said. “You clearly see countries like [China] investing heavily in these kinds of threats, whether it’s hypersonic, whether it’s threats from space. And so now it’s time for the U.S. government to step up to the responsibilities to protect American citizens from those threats.”

Saltzman has previously said he the Space Force will play a “central” role in Golden Dome, and on March 20, he argued that integrating multiple agencies’ efforts will be crucial. 

“That’s a lot of things coming together,” he said. “So the biggest hurdle is integration. How does it all fit together? Can we make such a large effort come together seamlessly? … Because things are going to be happening at supersonic speeds. We’ve got to be able to make the right decisions and put the right data in the right hands of the right shooters.”

Saltzman did not say which agency should have the lead in that integration, however.

Commercial Strength

Saltzman’s confidence in industry was again apparent as he discussed the Space Force’s willingness to cancel or abandon large, legacy programs in favor of smaller, commercial solutions. Referring to USSF’s Commercial Space Strategy, he emphasized the service’s commitment to standardization open systems.

“We’ve really committed to open architectures. We’ve really committed to industry standards,” he said. “We’ve committed to using commercial products wherever we can: commercial busses and satellites, etc. What that’s allowed is a level of interaction between companies to support each other to develop mission capabilities.”

Now, in a bid to control costs and encourage competition, he said the service is eyeing new acquisition strategies.

“If you break the requirements up, it allows those entities to compete better,” he said. “It doesn’t have to be one big, integrated program that’s delivered. [It can be] a series of programs that work together. Smaller programs seem to go a little faster, because you can control the requirements. You control the dollars that are spent. The bigger programs start to get a little more unwieldy. So every chance we get to disaggregate the requirements as an opportunity to go a little faster, be a little better stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

Hegseth Endorses Air Force and Space Force Missions During Meeting with Senior Leaders

Hegseth Endorses Air Force and Space Force Missions During Meeting with Senior Leaders

March 20, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

As the Pentagon weighs shifting billions of dollars in funding, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the Trump administration plans to step up spending on offensive and defense space operations.

“I feel like there’s no way to ignore the fact that the next and the most important domain of warfare will be the space domain,” Hegseth told senior leaders from the Air Force and Space Force on March 19.

“So, you’re going to see far more investment from this administration into that domain, both offensively and defensively … because that’s where we can continue to maintain an advantage,” Hegseth added.

Hegseth has ordered the services to identify 8 percent in budget “offsets” so funds can be reallocated to the new administration’s priorities. One of those priorities is the Golden Dome missile defense initiative, which could very well lead to more money being invested in the Space Force.

Air Force leaders have also touted the service’s importance, including its role in homeland defense. That message appeared to resonate with the new defense chief.

Hegseth said that the Air Force and Space Force will determine whether the American people live in a century “dominated by the U.S. or dominated by the Chinese.”

“It’s our airpower, the next generation of it, and our ability to project it that will be the decisive factor in whether or not we truly deter our peer [adversaries] of the 21st century,” said Hegseth, who stressed that the “Air Force will be a huge part” of the Trump administration’s military spending plans.

The event was first disclosed in a post by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin on the social media site X.

Hegeth’s remarks were reported in an article distributed by the Department of Defense. No reporters were present, and a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of Defense declined to offer additional details.

Hegseth said wargames have proved that spacepower is decisive, if sometimes underappreciated.

“There are strategic things that can be done that change the entire [warfighting] calculus that no one else is paying attention to, and I would anticipate that [the space domain] is one of those for us,” he said.

Speaking during a recent Defense One event, both Allvin and Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman endorsed the administration’s priorities, including reducing bureaucracy within the Pentagon.

“If you have multiple parts of your Air Force doing the same thing, that’s bureaucracy,” said Allvin. “And when we extract that part out of it to have this Integrated Capability Command that lets them focus on warfighting, now we can sort of revive the warrior ethos and reestablish deterrence by having clear responsibilities for each of the major commands.”

Added Saltzman: “I think in the end, what you’ll see is that because our priorities were so focused on warfighting, so focused on the new emerging threats that everybody is kind of coming to the realization that we have to address, that we were pretty well aligned. We were pretty well aligned with the new administration’s priorities. And so I think the Space Force is going to be in a good spot.”