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.”

Trump Appoints 5 New Members to USAFA Board of Visitors

Trump Appoints 5 New Members to USAFA Board of Visitors

March 20, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The U.S. Air Force Academy is getting a new slate of members for its Board of Visitors, a Congressionally directed oversight committee that monitors issues ranging from morale and discipline to curriculum financial matters.

President Trump has replaced the five members of the board appointed by President Biden with five selections of his own: Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Doug Nikolai, Dan Clark, Charlie Kirk, and Dina Powell. Trump revealed his picks March 17, a month after ordering the “immediate dismissal” of presidential appointees on each of the military academy’s Board of Visitors.

The Air Force Academy has 17 board positions, of which six are appointed by the president and 11 by leaders in Congress—new members picked from Congress include Reps. Don Davis (D-N.C.), Jeff Crank (R-Colo.), and Gabe Vasquez (D-Texas). Positions are unpaid, but board members can be compensated for travel and per diem costs. At least two of the Presidential board appointments must be for USAFA graduates.

Appointments are nominally for three-year terms, but recent practice has seen new administrations move quickly to remove holdovers nominated by their successors. President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III dismissed dozens of defense advisory boards in 2021, including the USAFA Board of Visitors. Hundreds of civilian advisors were dismissed before boards were reset with new members. The Air Force Academhy’s Board of Visitors did not meet for about two and a half years, from November 2020 to April 2022. 

The board’s most recent meeting was in October 2024, with 14 members attending. The next meeting will have a substantially new look, as Biden’s six appointees—including retired Maj. Gen. James Johnson; former Air Force Undersecretary Eric Fanning; and Col. Wesley Spurlock—will be replaced by Trump’s five appointees.  

The board’s website currently lists Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) as members; as chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, they can each designate one appointee to take their place and have done so in the past, but have yet to announce their new picks. 

Of Trump’s appointees: 

  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville represents Maxwell Air Force Base, home of Air University and a host of other Air Force educational institutes. He’s also shown a key interest in Space Force issues, as the service has ties to Alabama through the Redstone Arsenal base. 
  • Doug Nikolai is a retired Air Force colonel and F-16 pilot who now works as a subject matter expert and simulator instructor for an aviation training company. He has also given speeches to several Christian groups. 
  • Dan Clark is a motivational speaker with ties to the Air Force dating back decades. He has served on the service’s National Civic Leaders Board, giving speeches to Airmen deployed to the Middle East, and even took a course at Air University. 
  • Charlie Kirk is the founder of Turning Point USA, a conservative nonprofit that focuses on student issues 
  • Dina Powell served as Deputy National Security Advisor for strategy during Trump’s first term 

The Board of Visitors offers nonbinding advice and input on USAFA operations. In announcing the dismissal of earlier picks a month ago, Trump charged on social media that the academy boards had been “infiltrated by Woke Leftist Ideologues over the last four years.” His appointees can be expected to focus on social and cultural issues, such as curbing programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

DARPA Eyes Quantum Sensors That Are Easier to Buy, Tougher in the Field

DARPA Eyes Quantum Sensors That Are Easier to Buy, Tougher in the Field

March 20, 2025 | By Shaun Waterman

The Pentagon’s scientists are adding funding heft and focus to the growing research effort on how quantum sensors can provide localized position, navigation, and timing (PNT) data to supplement or even replace hackable and jammable space-based GPS and other radio receivers. 

Earlier this year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, launched its new Robust Quantum Sensors program. It seeks to solve fundamental engineering challenges that have hampered the transition of quantum sensing from the laboratory to the battlefield, program manager Jonathan Hoffman told Air & Space Forces Magazine.  

But the program also aims to address a more esoteric problem: how to get innovative new technology like quantum sensors funded by the Defense Department’s massive and sometimes byzantine acquisition system. 

Phase one invites companies and research institutions to offer proposals to prove out engineering solutions for quantum sensors that detect tiny changes in “electric fields, magnetic fields, acceleration, rotation, [and] gravity,” said Hoffman.  

Measuring gravitational or magnetic fields in one place, and then comparing that to detailed maps of the earth’s fields has been called quantum orienteering, because of its resemblance to map-based location techniques using physical landmarks. 

It can provide localized alternative PNT data if GPS is denied by enemy jamming. The DARPA solicitation also covers quantum devices that receive radio frequency (RF) signals. 

In phase two, Hoffman said, the program will seek to match any successful engineering solutions from phase one with a military platform, like a tank, ship or aircraft, on which engineers can integrate their solutions. If the match is successful, the program office for the tank, ship, or aircraft can start buying the devices right away, providing a robust income stream and carrying the successful teams over the notorious “Valley of Death,” the long and sometimes fatal interval between developing a technology and getting paid to deliver it to warfighters.  

“In phase two, we want to rapidly transition this to acquisition programs of record, and the successful teams in phase one will be invited to propose to actually integrate onto a program of record platform,” Hoffman said, adding that a technical team from the government would look for possible matches.

A key to making that happen is developing tech that can stand up to the harsh conditions of the battlespace. Prototypes for phase one are meant to be inherently robust, Hoffman said.

Current engineering approaches to quantum sensing creates the most sensitive instruments possible—the ones that work best in the laboratory—and then rely on “band aids” to mitigate interference, said Hoffman.

“So I’ll place my really exquisite sensor at the end of a boom on this aircraft to get it far away from all of the electronics on board that cause interference,” he said. “Or I’ll put a giant bunch of cancellation coils in place. … Each of those band aids can maybe work for a specific platform, but it’s not generalizable.” 

“This program is not about band aids,” Hoffman said at a DARPA proposers day. “This program is about overcoming these challenges at the sensor level.” 

He stressed that DARPA doesn’t want to be prescriptive about technical approaches. “We’re open to any idea that achieves the metrics,” he said. 

In phase one, the competing teams spend the first 12 months building a prototype. Then DARPA will spend the next 18 months testing it on a helicopter. 

“The metric [for success] is very simple for phase one,” Hoffman told the audience of industry and academic researchers. “Maintain your state-of-the-art sensitivity throughout a helicopter flight. That’s it.” 

If a quantum sensor can work on a helicopter, it can work pretty much anywhere, he told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“We chose one of the harshest platform environments we could think of, in terms of interference that we’ve seen being problems for quantum sensors, like [electrical] fields, field grids, and vibrations.” 

Successful competitors will emerge from phase one with platform-agnostic technology, Hoffman said. “We want to make sure that everyone’s exposed to these environments to prove that their concept works, and we can integrate it onto any platform in the future.” 

By producing platform agnostic devices, Hoffman said, the program aims to collapse “the technology development chain” making it unnecessary to re-engineer the same technology multiple times for different platforms.  

“If we can close the gap on all of that, we can rapidly go from concept to fielded acquisition device, and that’s one of the really difficult experiments we’re trying to run in this program,” he said, adding “We’re very hopeful and optimistic that it will be successful.” 

The solicitation is open until March 30. 

Air Force, Navy Pitched Trump to Keep Their NGAD Programs Intact

Air Force, Navy Pitched Trump to Keep Their NGAD Programs Intact

March 19, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force and Navy have briefed President Donald Trump on their respective Next-Generation Air Dominance programs, asking that the projects proceed largely as they now stand, government and industry sources told Air & Space Forces Magazine. It’s not clear whether the services came away with firm decisions about the future of the aircraft.

The White House requested the briefings, sources said. Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin presented the Air Force case, while Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby gave the Navy brief.  

In its 2025 budget request, the Air Force outlined $19.6 billion in NGAD spending in the next five years, making it the most expensive program in the service’s research and development budget.

While the Navy intends to award a contract of its version of a sixth-generation fighter—called the F/A-XX—in the coming months, the Air Force NGAD has been on a “pause” since last summer, when former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall ordered a review of the program. He wanted to know if NGAD as structured was still necessary, or whether air superiority can be achieved in a less costly way. Kendall has quoted a figure of “multiple hundreds of millions” per NGAD fighter, which would succeed the F-22 as the Air Force’s most advanced air superiority aircraft.

Kendall later said another option looked at was a more “multirole” aircraft, along the lines of the F-35, but designed to control many autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft. The CCA effort is on the same budget line as NGAD.

Since then, an internal Air Force review, as well as one from a blue-ribbon commission of stealth experts, has concluded the capabilities of NGAD are still required, despite its high cost, especially in the event of war with China. The NGAD is usually described as a “family of systems,” with a crewed sixth-gen fighter—known as the Penetrating Combat Aircraft—at the center of a formation which includes autonomous escorts and other off-board systems. Service leaders in recent weeks have said it’s important to get right the “mix” of NGAD and CCAs.

Kendall, who was on the verge of announcing a winner in the NGAD competition in December, opted to leave the decision on how to proceed to the incoming Trump administration because, he said, it would have to live with the choice. The Air Force has since given the two remaining NGAD competitors contracts of an undisclosed value for Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR). An industry source said the TMRR contracts, which extend through the end of the fiscal year, will allow refinement of their proposals, but more importantly, keep the two design teams together and “momentum” going until a way forward is decided, he said.   

Allvin, speaking March 18 at the McAleese annual Defense Program Conference, said “the family-of-systems does need a high-end penetrating capability.” As to whether the new administration will greenlight the project, he said “with regard to the overall package” of proposed air superiority solutions, “I think this administration will be making that decision, and we’re going to move out on that. But you do need the ability to maintain air superiority and penetrate contested environments.”

At the AFA Warfare Symposium in Aurora, Colo., earlier this month, Allvin said the U.S. is in a particularly “dangerous and dynamic” period, and he wants to be able to “give the president as many options as we possibly can.” That means “yes, NGAD.”

In the months since Kendall’s pause on the NGAD program, service leaders have emphatically denied they are ceding the stand-in air battle to adversaries and shifting toward a stand-off force.

“The fight looks fundamentally different with NGAD than without NGAD,” Maj. Gen. Joseph D. Kunkel, the Air Force’s director of force design, integration and wargaming, said at the Hudson Institute in February.

The fight “looks much better when NGAD is in it,” he said. It “remains an important part of our force design, and it fundamentally changes the character of the fight in a really, really good way for the Joint Force.” With the NGAD, the fight “is easier,” he said. Without it, “we may not be able to pursue or achieve all of our policy objectives.”

Either way, what the Air Force must have, Kunkel said, is a mixture of stand-in, stand-off, and “asymmetric” capabilities to achieve air superiority where and when the Air Force most needs. He also noted that NGAD is a “package deal” and requires an advanced, stealth tanker and the success of the CCA concept to work.

The Navy and the Air Force are not pursuing a joint NGAD program as they did with the F-35; each NGAD is optimized to the respective services’ needs. However, each branch is observing the other’s effort and the two services have agreed to share, as much as possible, enabling capabilities such as propulsion, avionics, sensors, and weapons.

Industry officials have said that Lockheed Martin recently withdrew from the Navy program, leaving Boeing and Northrop Grumman as the likely contenders; Northrop CEO Kathy Warden has said her company is pursuing the project. She also reported Northrop is not seeking the Air Force contract, which is therefore likely a contest between Boeing and Lockheed.

Lt. Gen. Dale R. White, the Air Force’s senior uniformed acquisition official, said at the McAleese conference that while the NGAD decision was paused, “we did not pause the approach and strategy and the things we’re doing to make sure we have the technology.”

White, who said he was in on the “ground floor” of the NGAD program, said it was created with “an acquisition strategy that allows you to make real-time decisions.”

The strategy requires that “you maximize competition. And you define all off-ramps. You define trades. …As what we call ‘real life happenings’ occur, we can make real-time adjustments.”

He also said the program has proved to be a pathfinder in three areas that will govern all future Air Force programs: “digital engineering, open architectures and modern software practices.” This approach ensures that the “government [has] greater control” in steering upgrades and modernization of the system. He likened the NGAD to a smartphone, with many apps that can be added and deleted as needed without restructuring the platform. This “common architecture that multiple platforms and systems subscribe to … that’s going to drive a level of interoperability that we’ve never seen.”

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed to this report.