Pratt Gets $1.5B to Sustain F-22 Engine—and Is Working on Upgrades

Pratt Gets $1.5B to Sustain F-22 Engine—and Is Working on Upgrades

Feb. 20, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force has awarded RTX’s Pratt & Whitney a $1.5 billion contract to sustain the F-22 Raptor fleet’s F119 engines for three years, the company announced Feb. 20.

A Pratt official said the contract covers “integrated logistics support, which means engineering, forecasting, manufacturing, purchasing and part order” for around 400 engines. The F-22 fleet numbers about 180 aircraft, each using two F119 engines, plus spares.

Pratt officials said they are also working on an “incremental modernization” of the F119, and have made a software update to increase thrust, which could be useful in case the Air Force needs to extend the F-22’s service life given uncertainties about the Next-Generation Air Dominance program.

“We’re currently in discussions with the Air Force and Lockheed [Martin] about initiating another update,” said Caroline Cooper, Pratt’s executive director for the F119, in a Feb. 19 call with reporters. Lockheed Martin is the airframe builder for the F-22.

Cooper noted that the F-22 “is undergoing modernization efforts, and as new capabilities are fitted in the airframe … the engine will play a critical role in supporting them.”

Pratt is trying to get ahead of any increase in engine requirements given “the uncertainty surrounding NGAD,” she noted.

As recently as three years ago, the Air Force planned to start retiring the F-22 in 2030 in favor of the sixth-generation NGAD, with officials saying they needed a new air dominance platform to stay ahead of adversary fifth-gen fighters like China’s J-20. Last year, however, the Air Force paused work on NGAD amid concerns about its cost and requirements. It will be up to the new Trump administration’s incoming Air Force leaders to decide NGAD’s fate.

In the interim, the Air Force has been preparing capability improvements for the Raptor, suggesting it will likely keep flying well Into the 2030s. These include infrared search and track systems, other improved sensors, reduced radar cross section and stealthy, low-drag fuel tanks to increase its range. The F-22 is also getting a new long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, reportedly in flight test.   

To those improvements, Pratt is adding its own proactive effort to improve the F119. That push “leverages learnings from a number of ongoing trade studies and internal investment,” Cooper said.

One approach, which also plays a key role in the new F119 sustainment contract, is the Usage-Based Lifing data tracking system, a Pratt spokesperson said.

The UBL system “leverages real-time data to enhance maintenance efficiency and extend engine life, while also improving the engine’s kinematic performance with an engine control schedule update,” the company said. “This latest contract will continue these readiness and cost savings efforts with a focus on safety, availability, simplicity of maintenance, and modernization initiatives.”

Cooper rolled out the F119 UBL effort in September 2024, saying the database is now the “single source of truth” about the health and performance of the F119.   

“Through UBL, we leverage real-time flight data tracking; the actual wear-and-tear on engine parts,” Cooper said Feb. 19. “We get to see how the engine is reacting to the pilots’ needs versus simulator scenario planning. We use this data strategically to support sustainment needs, providing maintenance when it’s actually needed, versus when it’s forecast to be needed.”

The UBL system also uses digital tools and modeling to advise the Air Force when F119 parts need to be overhauled and how to efficiently buy spare parts, Cooper said.

“The program is deployed across our entire engine [fleet] and is helping to keep engines on-wing longer,” she reported, adding that “we expect UBL to save the U.S. government nearly $800 million over the life cycle of the program.”

The estimated savings would come by applying UBL data instead of the typical method of sustainment budgeting based on “historical data and average mission usage metrics,” the company said. Assumptions about spares usage couldn’t be tailored to a specific engine’s needs, and maintenance “might be performed earlier or later than necessary, leading to inefficiencies over the long run.”

With UBL, actual usage data “is continuously re-analyzed and allows the customer to take advantage of the full life of the engine parts while reducing risk to the fleet. By capturing full flight data, UBL allows the operator to assess exactly how the aircraft was flown and apply the appropriate level of lifing capacity that was used—saving time and money while improving readiness,” Pratt said. 

Cooper added that the company is now looking to expand UBL to the F135 engine, which powers the F-35 fighter and was based on the F119.

The data collected has also revealed ways to “uncover improved engine performance for our customer,” Cooper said.

“From thorough flight data analysis and pilot interviews, we identified a desire to increase thrust. So, thanks to a software update that we delivered to Lockheed Martin in under a year, we were we were able to unlock enhanced performance for our engine,” she said.

The software change was made to the Full-Authority Digital Engine Control [FADEC], which shifted the automatic limits on what the engine would do “to enable greater kinematic performance,” a Pratt spokesperson said.

Cooper also said Pratt is pursuing additive manufacturing— 3-D printing—for F119 parts.

“We see real value in additive, not only to help simplify the supply chain, but also reduce production time and cost while leading to increased readiness,” she said. Pratt has already explored using additive production for F135 parts and is now expanding that to the F119, she said.

Asked if the Air Force has asked Pratt to start producing a stockpile of parts or take other measures in anticipation of retiring the F119, Cooper said such moves aren’t part of the three-year sustainment contract.

“We’re taking into consideration, again, that there is an NGAD pause, and obviously that was meant to replace the F-22. … As long as the Air Force keeps the F-22 flying, we’re committed to making sure that the F119 is optimal to employ all capabilities,” she said.

A company spokesperson later said that “follow-on contracts will be discussed with the customer as we collaboratively assess evolving needs.”

Pratt also received a $186 million Navy contract on Feb. 19 for material and support equipment for F135 depots and sustainment activities across all users.

The F119 generates more than 35,000 pounds of thrust, and allows the F-22 to operate above 65,000 feet. It was the first jet engine designed to “supercruise”: achieve and maintain supersonic speed without using afterburners.

Hegseth Seeks $50B in Cuts to Pay for New Priorities

Hegseth Seeks $50B in Cuts to Pay for New Priorities

Feb. 19, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered a swift and sweeping review of the Pentagon budget, seeking cuts worth 8 percent of total spending over the next five years that he intends to shift to fund higher priority defense projects, according to a memorandum obtained by Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Hegseth directed the military services, defense agencies, and combatant commands to propose cuts totaling 8 percent of their budgets over the next five years, starting with the fiscal 2026 budget, he wrote in the memo dated Feb. 18. Hegseth said he was conducting a “relook” of the budget.

Some programs and offices will be exempt from the budget-cutting exercise, which is understood to provide defense organizations a means to prioritize their program and spending choices, a person familiar with the matter said. There are 17 specific areas that will be exempt from cuts, including the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, nuclear modernization, one-way attack drones, and munitions.

Hegseth “has directed a review to identify offsets” from the Biden administration’s draft fiscal 2026 budget to fund priorities including “securing our borders” and building an “Iron Dome for America” missile defense system, said a Pentagon statement attributed to Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert G. Salesses on Feb. 19.

“The Department will develop a list of potential offsets that could be used to fund [Trump administration] priorities, as well as to refocus the Department on its core mission of deterring and winning wars,” Salesses said. “The offsets are targeted at 8 percent of the Biden administration’s FY26 budget, totaling around $50 billion, which will then be spent on programs aligned with President Trump’s priorities.”

The current Pentagon budget is roughly $850 billion.

Hegseth wrote he wanted to “resource the capabilities and readiness necessary for a wartime tempo and offset those requirements with low-impact items.” Proposed cuts are due to be submitted by DOD organizations and services by Feb. 24.

Bloomberg was the first to report Hegseth’s spending shift.

Hegseth’s directive comes as representatives from DOGE—President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency commission, directed by Elon Musk—have begun to work at the Pentagon, seeking to slash government spending, staffing, and waste. DOGE has already directed cuts at other agencies, and the Washington Post reports that the Pentagon could soon begin laying off thousands of probationary civilian employees as part of that effort. DOGE actions are understood to be distinct from any reallocation of funding ordered by Hegseth, who has cited spending on climate change initiatives and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as examples of programs deserving to be cut.

“The time for preparation is over—we must act urgently to revive the warrior ethos, rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence,” Hegseth wrote in the memo. “Our budget request will resource the fighting force we need, cease unnecessary spending, reject excessive bureaucracy, and drive actionable reform, including progress on the audit.”

SDA, Its Boss Still in Limbo, Cancels a Disputed Contract

SDA, Its Boss Still in Limbo, Cancels a Disputed Contract

Feb. 19, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

The Space Development Agency will rescind a contract for 10 satellites awarded to Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems last summer and reopen the competition, Air & Space Forces Magazine has confirmed—but uncertainty continues to swirl around the organization whose director was abruptly suspended in January. 

SDA awarded Tyvak a $254 million contract in August 2024 to build advanced communications satellites for its proliferated constellation in low-Earth orbit. At the time, it also awarded a $170 million deal to York Space Systems. But Viasat protested the award in federal court, alleging SDA had violated federal acquisition regulations by providing Tyvak additional information—prompting Pentagon leaders to place SDA director Derek M. Tournear on administrative leave.

In a status report filed in court on Feb. 14, government lawyers said an SDA employee violated regulations by telling Tyvak its bid was second highest in price. Air & Space Forces Magazine has learned that employee was Tournear, who the filing says directed Tyvak to team with an unnamed contractor and conveying to Tyvak and two other contractors his “own expectations regarding their proposal pricing.”

The agency has since agreed to a corrective action plan, including canceling Tyvak’s contract and reopening the competition for 10 satellites with a new source selection official, according to court documents.

SDA reopened another competition following a protest in 2021, when it released an updated request for proposals for satellites after Maxar Intelligence protested a competition. But in that instance, no contract had been awarded.

An SDA spokesperson confirmed the corrective action plan to Air & Space Forces Magazine and said a new solicitation would be issued “soon.”

With the case resolved, the next question for SDA is what happens to Tournear, who is seen by many as a transformational visionary for his work in driving SDA activities since its inception during the first Trump administration. The SDA spokesperson declined to speculate on his fate. 

Space Development Agency Director Derek M. Tournear, delivers a keynote address at the Mitchell Institute Spacepower Security Forum. Mike Tsukamoto/staff

SDA faces other questions, as well. A recent Pentagon memo called for an “independent review team” to determine the “health” of SDA and its programs, and consider whether it should remain a semi-independent acquisition arm within the Space Force or be absorbed into other structures. Defense One reported recently that the Air Force inspector general’s office has alerted SDA to its intent to review the agency.  

Air & Space Forces Magazine confirmed these memos exist, but has not reviewed their contents. 

SDA made waves and earned plaudits for its fast-paced approach to acquisition, awarding contracts for hundreds of small satellites to go in low-Earth orbit on timelines previously unseen in military space. But its rapid-fire approach has has put the small agency at odds with traditional acquisition insiders and some prime contractors, leading to moments of tension. In October 2023, for example, Tournear took to social media to claim he had faced internal resistance to SDA and pledged to be the “bad cop” as he pushed for change in Pentagon acquisition processes.

Originally established as a “constructive disruptor” within the office of the Secretary of Defense, rather than in the Department of the Air Force, SDA transitioned into the Space Force in 2022.

New Report Critiques Space Force’s Theory for Countering China

New Report Critiques Space Force’s Theory for Countering China

Feb. 19, 2025 | By Greg Hadley

A workshop designed to test the Space Force’s theory of “Competitive Endurance” against the likes of Russia and China validated the concept’s core tenets but exposed “unintended consequences” that could harm the service in the long run, said experts from AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. 

In a new paper by senior resident fellows and retired Cols. Charles Galbreath and Jennifer Reeves, released Feb. 18, the authors acknowledge the limitations of budgets but still question some of the Space Force’s choices in the face of growing threats in orbit and continued skepticism about military space within the Pentagon and the public at large. 

“By focusing on solely surviving the competition instead of winning [and] putting the sanctity of the domain above all other objectives—despite our adversaries absolutely not doing the same—we are eroding the warfighting mindset that is necessary for a military service,” Reeves said.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman first unveiled his “Competitive Endurance” theory in March 2023, offering it as a framework for how the service can protect U.S. interests in space while managing growing competition with other great powers. But he noted then that the theory was intended not as an answer, but as “a starting point for a dialogue I believe is critical.” 

The Mitchell Institute moved to jump-start that dialogue in October 2024, hosting a workshop for 55 participants from the Space Force, combatant commands, other Pentagon offices, Congress, industry, academia, and more. 

A participant captures notes during the Mitchell Institute’s Space Endurance in Competition workshop last October, at Air & Space Forces Association headquarters in Arlington, Va. Photo by Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine

Participants were tasked with finding ways to resolve a series of hypothetical crises in space over the next 25 years, from Russia deploying a nuclear anti-satellite weapon in orbit to China requesting help for a lunar rescue mission. 

The results validated some existing Space Force efforts, workshop leaders said, such as the push for greater space domain awareness, the need for high-end training, and the desire to cooperate more closely among the U.S. military services and with allies and partners. 

“Understanding through domain awareness was absolutely critical to formulating response options, and this required awareness, but it also required awareness that we could share with our allies and partners, as well as with the American people, so they [too could] understood the consequences,” Galbreath said during a rollout event for the paper.

But analysts identified persistent issues with the way participants treated the space domain and the Space Force—issues they say “Competitive Endurance” isn’t helping. 

Space Force leaders have not defined how they could “win” a competition or conflict with China, Galbreath noted, citing the Space Force white paper defining the “Competitive Endurance” theory. The theory seems to emphasize avoiding conflict, not creating orbital debris, and thus “surviving” competition, potentially hamstringing the Space Force against unconstrained adversaries. 

Given limited resources and long-standing policies to not militarize space, Reeves said the theory is “as good as it can be.” But after analyzing the workshop results, in which participants were not constrained by policy or budget, Galbreath and Reeves concluded that the theory’s focus on preserving the “sanctity of the domain” and its lack of focus on winning risk not using space as a true warfighting domain. 

Reeves and Galbreath cited examples in which Guardian participants in the workshop deferred to commercial capabilities or to other services putting personnel in space years in future operations. 

“When that question was brought up during the workshop, and Guardians were like, ‘I don’t know if that’s really ours or not,’ then you had a former Marine stand up and said, ‘If there’s soil underneath the feet, that’s going to be a Soldier or it’s going to be a Marine,’” Galbreath said. “Nobody stood up and said, ‘That’s not right. It’s space. We need to have space experts doing that activity.’” 

At other times, participants stuck to longstanding policy rather than risk more aggressive actions. “Many of the participants still thought of space as a sanctuary where only strategic actions could take place,” Reeves said. “Many treated it like the old days, where any offensive actions in space must be considered on par with the use of nuclear weapons.” 

Failing to normalize space as a warfighting domain, where victory can be achieved by imposing costs on an adversary, could backfire, Galbreath and Reeves warned. The risk is that the public will not understand the need for a Space Force—and fail to invest appropriately.  

“We believe that popular support, and by extension, congressional support, will wane for a military service not focused on winning,” Reeves argued. “And this is a cycle. With less national support and will, funding dries up. Questions about the need for a military service exclusively for space become more prevalent, and it ultimately undermines our ability to create that spacepower advantage that underpins all military operations.” 

A strategy aimed at “winning,” paired with a bigger budget and policy changes, are crucial to deterring conflict in space, the experts concluded.

Still, Galbreath and Reeves praised the three core tenets of “competitive endurance”—avoid operational surprise, deny first-move advantage, and conduct responsible counter-space campaigning—saying that all six scenarios workshop scenarios validated the need for better domain awareness to avoid operational surprise.  

Commanders across the globe universally want more intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and Saltzman has called for more “actionable” space domain awareness—suggesting space will be no different in that way than the land, air, and sea domains.  

More than 60 experts gathered for the Mitchell Institute Space Endurance in Competition workshop on October 29, 2024, at Air & Space Forces Association headquarters in Arlington, Va.
Photo by Mike Tsukamoto/Air & Space Forces Magazine

The workshop also validated the need for sharing domain awareness information between allies and partners, a move that would require classification reforms that have been ongoing. 

In scenarios where Russia or China deployed new weapons in space, such as a nuclear ASAT or hunter-killer satellites, participants found that proliferating U.S. and allied assets and having the ability to replenish them quickly were critical—essentially denying the first-mover advantage. 

When it came to counter-space campaigning, participants found that having kinetic and nonkinetic offensive and defensive options were key to resolving many of the crises—even as longstanding sensitivities about putting weapons in space persisted, said Robert “Otis” Winkler, an executive at Kratos Defense and a workshop participant. 

“One of my big takeaways in the group I was leading was this paradigm of space as a sanctuary, and this idea of a peaceful space,” said Winkler, a retired Air Force colonel and former DARPA executive. “Some of them had a hard time contemplating it, moving into a warfighting domain. And so there was a real paradigm shift that I saw as they worked through some of these problems in counter-space campaigning.” 

Indeed, concerns about creating orbital debris are an oft-repeated concern when the topic of space weapons comes up. But self-censoring doesn’t help deterrence, said Arnie Streland, an executive with Northrop Grumman who also participated in the workshop. Streland praised space leaders like U.S. Space Command boss Gen. Stephen N. Whiting have gradually become more comfortable speaking up. 

“You need to be able to openly say, ‘Here’s our capabilities and limitations to integrate space into the fight,’” Streland said. “[Gen. Whiting] has talked about space fires because that’s a way of integrating with the other services, speaking in terms like the Army uses, direct and indirect fires. Using terms that make sense and make integration sense in a joint fight, those are all essential if space is going to be integrated and effective in future conflicts.” 

Concerns about debris in space resulting from military action are not the central concern of the Space Force, but rather are factors that must be taken into account by political leaders and policymakers, not the military. 

“We need to be able to provide a range of options to our decision-makers, and some of those might include the potential creation of debris,” Galbreath said. “They need to understand that that is an option, these are the consequences of taking that action. But if we only have do nothing or create debris, we’re not giving our leaders a good enough set of options to choose from.” 

Can Troops Be Paid More Efficiently? New Report Explores How

Can Troops Be Paid More Efficiently? New Report Explores How

Feb. 19, 2025 | By David Roza

About a month after the Defense Department issued a sweeping analysis of military compensation, a new report offers recommendations for making base pay, allowances, special pays, and performance incentives more efficient.

Written by a researcher from the federally funded RAND Corporation, the report focused on how the Army can meet its personnel readiness goals at lower costs, but many of its recommendations apply to the entire military, since most elements of compensation are set by Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Military personnel costs, including health care, totaled $226 billion in fiscal 2023, about 30 percent of the overall defense budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is set to be the Pentagon’s second biggest account in 2025.

The RAND report predates recent efforts by President Donald Trump to improve government efficiency, and several of its recommendations are similar to those made by the recent 14th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC). In fact, the report author, RAND senior principal economist Beth Asch, and her colleagues provided much of the analysis on which the QRMC is based. But some recommendations diverge, particularly regarding how the military sets troops’ base pay.

Pay and Pay Raises

The QRMC found that military compensation is “strongly competitive” with the civilian labor market. On average, enlisted troops make more money than 82 percent of their civilian counterparts with similar education and experience, while officers make more than 75 percent. 

Asch questioned in her report whether military compensation is too competitive. Military pay substantially exceeds the Defense Department’s historical benchmark of the 70th percentile of civilian pay, while recruiting, retention, and recruit quality in terms of education levels and aptitude has also exceeded Pentagon targets, RAND wrote.

“Pay is an emotional issue: this is how people feed their families,” Asch told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “My role in this, and I acknowledge it’s a limited role, is to ask the question: ‘do we have a compensation system that supports the readiness requirements of the military at least cost, and do we have an efficient system?’ 

“If we’re meeting those key personnel readiness objectives and even exceeding them,” she added, “it’s a fair question: is it possible we’re paying too much?” 

enlisted pay
A Naval Support Activity Mid-South Sailor takes a moment to decide which credit card to use to complete his purchase at the local commissary. (U.S. Navy photo)

The report cautioned that recent shifts in the labor market and high inflation mean it’s unclear if military compensation continues to be too high, especially after multiple branches missed their recruiting goals in recent years. But recruiting problems alone are not often solved by higher pay, Asch said.

“When you have only a recruiting problem, there are more effective, targeted policy tools such as advertising, more recruiters, bonuses, and a more effective recruiting infrastructure,” she said. 

Part of the problem with pay is the metric for civilian pay that the Pentagon uses to guide its annual pay raises. Since at least the 1990s, it has used the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which comes from a vast Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of how much businesses and civilian government entities spend on compensation. 

One issue with the ECI is that it encompasses the entire U.S. civilian workforce, while the military workforce skews young, male, and with different education levels than the broader market. Another issue is that it is based on employer costs rather than worker earnings, which means it can be inaccurate during economic downturns and expansions, RAND researchers wrote. 

Asch proposed a different metric: the Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI), which she argued better reflects military demographics, considers the labor market from the employee perspective, and can be customized to subgroups such as occupational specialties. 

“Such flexibility not only makes the DECI valuable in setting the annual pay raise but also could allow it to contribute to other aspects of military compensation, such as the differential use of enlistment or reenlistment bonuses,” Asch wrote.

The QRMC similarly praised the metric but did not include implementing it in its list of recommendations. Instead, the compensation review panel advised computing the ECI closer to the annual pay raise to reduce the lag between the two events and use DECI as a supplemental or more tailored guide.

Either way, troop pay likely won’t be reduced any time soon. The 14th QRMC recommended keeping enlisted troops in the 75th to 80th percentile of the workforce, and officers around the 75th percentile. Congress is also dedicated to raising troop pay, with a 4.5 percent across-the-board bump for all service members that started Jan. 1—plus an extra 10 percent on top of that for junior enlisted pay grades up to E-4, starting April 1.

Performance Incentives

Asch also analyzed how the Defense Department incentivizes high performance, where part of the difficulty is measuring that performance.

“It’s not like counting the number of T-shirts that seamstresses at a sewing factory produced in one day,” she explained. “They’re producing something that’s difficult to measure, in a team setting, in a difficult environment.”

Promotion speed is the standard, if imperfect, gauge for measuring performance. But while junior ranks promote automatically after a certain amount of time in service, the competition for promotion gets tougher in the higher ranks, especially in recent years as the Air Force restructured the enlisted force. 

Basic pay depends on grade (rank) and years of service, which means higher performers who promote early eventually lose their financial edge as the competition for promotion gets tougher and their peers catch up to their current rank. Asch suggested in her report switching to a time-in-grade model which “confers a permanent financial reward to faster promotion and increases performance incentives.”

RAND simulations showed the time-in-grade metric led to higher performance and retention at a lower cost. But switching would lead to an average pay cut of about six percent for about a third of the Active-Duty force and exacerbate pay differences between troops stuck at different grades for reasons other than performance. Asch suggested creating a demonstration project in a specific community such as the Space Force to better understand the pros and cons of such a system.

A 2017 photo of an Air Force family’s budget planning method. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Sadie Colbert)

Allowances

RAND, the 14th QRMC, and outside experts agree that the military’s methods for calculating allowances for food, housing, and other cost of living expenses need an upgrade. The basic structures for allowances are largely the same as they were in the 1990s, RAND wrote, and they have not kept up with recent inflation and high housing costs.

Specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture food plan that the Basic Allowance for Subsistence is based on was last updated in 2007 and does not meet Defense Department nutrition standards. The fiscal 2022 defense budget started a Basic Needs Allowance to address high rates of reported food insecurity among service members, but it’s not clear if increased income alone will fix the problem.

For example, Asch asked in her report, why do enlisted troops report higher rates of food insecurity than comparable civilians, despite earning more money than 75 percent of them? 

A 2023 RAND report found several acute factors that contribute to food insecurity, include loss of spouse income and other financial disruptions after moving to a new assignment; lack of affordable child care; and low pay for junior troops with large families. Other factors include lack of financial literacy and financial mismanagement; chronic spouse unemployment or underemployment; and financially supporting extended family members who are not considered dependents.

The Defense Department needs to better understand those root factors by creating better surveys that refine its measurements of food insecurity, Asch argued.

“It’s a hard problem, and what would be unfortunate is if they raise pay and there’s still food insecurity,” Asch said. “Ultimately what you want to do is really drill down and fully understand what is going on. Then it might be a myriad of solutions, not just one switch like increasing pay.”

Big Picture

RAND’s report also suggested the efficiency of pays and benefits might be improved by giving troops a “cafeteria plan” that lets them choose between cash and in-kind benefits. The report also called for a review of the Blended Retirement System. Eight years after being implemented, there still is no thorough analysis of whether it improved on the legacy retirement system. 

Gauging the efficiency of the entire military personnel compensation system requires a big picture view, Asch noted. Today, several of those costs, such as family housing, medical care, schools, commissaries, and other in-kind benefits exist outside the military personnel budget account, which limits policy makers’ ability to get that big picture.

The RAND report called for incorporating all military personnel costs into the military personnel budget. The goal is to figure out the best way to compensate members to increase readiness, Asch said, and policymakers can’t chart that without a clear view of all the tools available.

“I suspect that there is stovepiping, that the people who are making decisions about those in-kind benefits are not necessarily coordinating with the people making those personnel and pay decisions,” Asch said, echoing the concerns of other experts. “The budget reflects the organization, and I don’t know whether those people are talking to one another.” 

Air Force Launches Unarmed ICBM for First Test of 2025

Air Force Launches Unarmed ICBM for First Test of 2025

Feb. 19, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The Air Force launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., early Feb. 19, marking its first test of the year.

Launched at around 1 a.m. Pacific Time, the missile traveled roughly 4,200 miles at speeds exceeding 15,000 miles per hour, eventually reaching a test range near the Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean. The missile carried a single re-entry vehicle—a telemetered joint test assembly that was designed to collect data.

“During this test, we collected and analyzed performance and other key data points to evaluate current missile system competencies,” Col. Dustin Harmon, 377th Test and Evaluation Group commander said in a release. The group, based at Vandenberg, oversees periodic test launches as the sole organization focused on testing and analyzing the U.S.’s current ICBM fleet.

Air Force Global Strike Command said the test launch aims to “demonstrate the readiness of U.S. nuclear forces.” The service routinely conducts these ICBM tests, scheduling them months ahead and stressing that they are not tied to current world events.

The Reagan Test Site, located at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, gathers information about the missile’s performance to evaluate its capabilities as it nears its target. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Casey Rumfelt, Reagan Test Site range director, said the site offers “a unique suite of instrumentation and an ideal geographic location to meet many of the U.S. testing needs that cannot be accomplished anywhere else in the world.”

Over the past few decades, the service has launched more than 300 missiles, with the latest test happening in November. Air & Space Forces Magazine was granted exclusive access to observe that test, which involved the Air Force launching an unarmed ICBM with three test reentry vehicles—one high-fidelity Joint Test Assembly, which carries non-nuclear explosives, and two telemetry Joint Test Assembly objects—which reached the Reagan Test Site roughly 30 minutes after the launch.

Airmen from all three missile wings under Air Force Global Strike Command helped support this latest test launch, as did Space Force Guardians. The missile used in the launch was randomly selected from F.E. Warren, then transported and reassembled at Vandenberg. Currently, the Air Force has about 400 Minuteman III missiles stationed across fields in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

“Today’s Minuteman III test launch is just one of the ways the Department of the Air Force demonstrates the readiness, precision, and professionalism of U.S. nuclear forces,” acting Air Force Secretary Gary A, Ashworth said in a statement. “It also provides confidence in the lethality and effectiveness of the nation’s nuclear deterrence mission.”

An unarmed Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launches during an operational test at 1:00 a.m. Pacific Time 19 Feb., 2025, at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif. U.S. Space Force photo by Staff Sgt. Joshua LeRoi

The aging Minuteman III has been in service since 1970 and is well past its expected service life. The Air Force plans to replace it with the new Sentinel ICBM, but that program has faced major delays and cost overruns. Most recently, officials last month ordered contractor Northrop Grumman to halt work on designing and building Sentinel launch facilities at Vandenberg and Hill Air Force Base and Dugway, Utah.

The halt comes as the service reworks its strategy to get the program back on track. At the same time, Minuteman III is expected to serve for years to come.

PHOTOS: More Than 175 Aircraft Fan Out for Huge Agile Combat Exercise

PHOTOS: More Than 175 Aircraft Fan Out for Huge Agile Combat Exercise

Feb. 18, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

“Bamboo Eagle,” the Air Force’s new advanced combat-readiness exercise, returned for its second year in recent weeks, featuring more than 175 aircraft and 10,000 personnel from four countries for the service’s latest large-scale exercise.

Like the three iterations in 2024, this edition of Bamboo Eagle took place following the conclusion of a Red Flag exercise, adding elements of multi-domain warfare and Agile Combat Employment on top of the service’s premier air dominance exercise.

The eight-day event, led by the Air Force Warfare Center, wrapped up Feb. 15, focusing on re-arming and refueling combat aircraft across austere, high-threat environments.

The aircraft involved included bombers, fighters, tankers, command and control platforms, and ISR drones, with participation from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marines, Royal Air Force (RAF), and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) also joined for the first time to provide command and control support.

Multiple B-2 Spirit bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., and a B-52 Stratofortress from Barksdale Air Force Base, La., tested their integration with fighters and other aircraft in a coordinated operational environment, a spokesperson from Nellis Air Force Base told Air & Space Forces Magazine. The B-2s from the 393rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron practiced long-range deep strike missions.

“From the perspective of the B-2, this exercise was a real test,” Lt. Col. Joseph Manglitz, 393rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron commander, said in a release. “It’s one thing to train at home—and we train hard at home—but it’s even better to bring a subset of our base on the road here and work together to generate airpower alongside the rest of the combat air force and our allies.”

Aircraft Involved in Bamboo Eagle 25-1

  • Bombers: B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress
  • Fighters: F/A-18 Super Hornet, F-35 Lighting II A & B variants, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15E Strike Eagle, and the Typhoon FGR4.
  • Mobility Aircraft: C-17 Globemaster III, C-130 Hercules, KC-46 Pegasus, KC-135 Stratotanker, and RAF Voyager
  • Command and Control: E-3 Sentry and RAAF E-7 Wedgetail
  • Search and Rescue: HH-60W Jolly Green II and HC-130J Combat King II
  • ISR: MQ-9 Reaper and RC-135  Rivet Joint
  • Electronic Warfare: EC-130H Compass Call and E/A-18 Growler

The spokesperson added that four different F-35 units took part in the exercise, including the Air Force’s 356th Fighter Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; the 421st Fighter Squadron from Hill Air Force Base, Utah; U.S. Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz.; and the RAAF’s 77 Squadron from RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales in Australia.

The exercise tested each unit’s integration with other platforms and provided F-35 pilots with a platform to sharpen their offensive and defensive counter-air skills, execute long-range Pacific flights, and escort assets while neutralizing surface-to-air threats.

“We’ve got pilots taking off, tasked with missions they weren’t expecting, for much longer than they were expecting, and landing somewhere they weren’t expecting,” said Lt. Col. Bryan Mussler, 421st Fighter Squadron commander, in a release. “The unpredictability built into this exercise gives us a realistic look at what the fight will be like.”

The RAAF deployed around 430 personnel and 18 aircraft for Red Flag and Bamboo Eagle. The contingent included F-35As, F/A-18F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers, and an E-7A Wedgetail. According to Group Captain Stewart Seeney, who led the RAAF contingent, this year marked the largest and most capable RAAF deployment to date.

“Exercise Bamboo Eagle … replicated the challenges of conducting long-range missions in the Indo-Pacific, including how we integrate aircraft and other systems across all domains,” said Seeney, highlighting that the exercise provided aviators with a “highly complex and realistic training opportunity.”

As part of the Agile Combat Employment concept, teams operated from hub-and-spoke locations across California, Hawaii, Guam, and more. Key resources were centralized at a hub, while smaller teams were deployed to spoke locations to operate with limited personnel and resources.

“Bamboo Eagle tested our ability to integrate the tactical effects we trained to in Red Flag from dispersed forces and under distributed command and control,” said RAF Gp. Capt. Guy Lefroy, U.K. detachment commander, in a release.  “Throughout the exercise we developed our people’s ability to dynamically deliver airpower through empowerment, effective risk management and innovation, ultimately sharpening our individual, service and collective international capabilities to deliver battle-winning effects.

Air Force Mission Capability Rates Reach Lowest Levels in Years

Air Force Mission Capability Rates Reach Lowest Levels in Years

Feb. 18, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Aircraft readiness declined across the Air Force fleet in 2024, dropping to its lowest level in at least a decade and perhaps 20 years, according to data provided to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The average mission capable rate for all USAF fleets was 67.15 percent in fiscal 2024, down from 69.92 percent in fiscal 2023 and 71.24 percent in fiscal 2022. Compared to 2004-2006 and 2012-2024, years for which data was available, the 2024 rates were the lowest.

These rates represent a non-weighted average of all the fleets. A weighted average could be somewhat better, as the most challenged fleets are among the smallest in USAF’s inventory.

An aircraft is “mission capable” when it is able to perform at least one of its several core missions. For example, the F-35A’s missions include counter-air, electronic warfare, ground attack, and data collection, so to be mission capable, an aircraft must be able to execute at least one of those missions. The Air Force does not disclose full-mission capable rates, which measure aircraft types’ readiness to conduct all assigned missions.

The Air Force changed its metrics of mission capability in recent years, saying that it employs a formula that also includes the availability of trained aircrew and maintenance personnel, spares and other factors. Those metrics vary from platform to platform. The Air Force also gives spares and support priority to aircraft deploying to forward locations versus those remaining at home station. Deployed aircraft typically have much higher MC rates.

Among 65 aircraft types in fiscal 2024, rates ranged from a low of 30.45 for the CV-22 to 100 percent for, among others, the C-21 and MC-12. Historically, rates of 75 to 80 percent have been deemed acceptable.

Rates declined for 29 aircraft types and improved for 26 others. The rest saw no change. In all, four fleets were at 100 percent: C-12, C-21, MC-12, and UV-18.

Bombers

All three Air Force bomber fleets were mission capable less than half the time. The B-1B’s rate improved slightly, but the B-2 and B-52 rates declined slightly, all within 1.5 percent of last year’s values.

Fighters

Rates for the aging F-15C and D fleets rose from 33 and 55 percent, respectively, to 52.9 and 63.7 percent as the oldest, worst-performing aircraft were retired. The new F-15EX, with just eight aircraft, managed an 83.13 percent rate.

F-22 readiness fell from 52 percent to just 40.19 percent; it had been at 57.4 percent two years ago. The Air Force sought to divest its 32 least-capable F-22s in recent years, but Congress has blocked that move until at least 2028.

The mission capable rate for the F-35A held steady, inching up a half percentage point to 51.5 percent., possibly benefitting from increased spare parts availability as delivery was held up for scores of new aircraft throughout fiscal 2024.

Mobility

The mobility fleet had some of the highest rates overall—with most types in the 75-100 percent range. The C-5M Galaxy managed to improve on its ’23 rate of 46 percent, raising it to 48.6 percent, but still lower than 2022. The Galaxy recently completed a 10-year, $10 billion upgrade program for its engine, structures, and avionics, but its mission capable rate has remained stubbornly low. Program managers have said the C-5 suffers from parts shortages owing to “vanishing vendor” syndrome, and they are in a push to improve its readiness to 55 percent, called “Drive to 55.”

The Air Force’s fleet of aerial refueling aircraft all turned in rates in the 60-70 percent range. The rate for the KC-46 declined to 61.05 percent, down from 65 percent the previous year.

The MC-130H registered a zero percent rate, while the trainer TC-130H turned in 13.72 percent, as those aircraft are being divested.

Special Mission and ISR

The CV-22 Osprey, which was grounded for a significant chunk of 2024 after a deadly crash, only managed a 30.45 percent mission capable rate rate.

The new MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopter, still in development, recorded its first ever rate of 40.63 percent.

The worst-performing in the ISR fleet was the EC-130H, but it actually raised its rate from 33 percent in 2023 to 41.97 percent in 2024. It is being replaced by the EA-37.

The RQ-4 Global Hawk drone saw a significant jump in mission capability, from 50 percent last year to 64.59 percent in fiscal 2024.

The E-3G AWACS, slated for replacement later this decade by the E-7 Wedgetail, lost ground, declining to just a 55.68 percent rate, while the E-4B Nightwatch, which has had a series of maintenance issues in the last few years and for which a replacement is also in development, raised its rate slightly from 60 percent from 61.17 percent.

Trainers

While the T-1A saw a modest increase in mission capable rates, most of the rest of the trainer fleet saw declines, including the AT-38 and T-38. The rate on the T-6 Texan II, which most student pilots fly, dropped nearly 10 points to just 53.43 percent. The Air Force has faulted the low mission capable rates of its trainer aircraft among the reasons for lagging pilot production in recent years.

B-52s Fly Across Middle East, Drop Live Munitions

B-52s Fly Across Middle East, Drop Live Munitions

Feb. 18, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

Two U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratrofortress bombers flew over the Middle East in a “force projection” demonstration Feb. 17, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced.

The two B-52s began their mission at RAF Fairford, U.K., before flying across Europe and through the airspace of nine partner nations, according to CENTCOM. The command did not specify which nations those were, a common practice given regional tensions and sensitivities. 

The B-52 mission also included “live munitions drops at ranges in several partner nations,” the command said in a news release. The B-52s flew with American F-15E Strike Eagles, which are based in the Middle East, and “four partner nations provided fighter escorts for the bombers throughout the mission,” CENTCOM said. Again, those partner nations were not publicly identified.

“Bomber Task Force missions demonstrate U.S. power projection capability, commitment to regional security, and ability to respond to any state or non-state actor seeking to broaden or escalate conflict in the CENTCOM region,” Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, CENTCOM’s commander, said in a statement.

The B-52s involved in the Feb. 17 long-range mission over the Middle East are part of a Bomber Task Force deployed to Europe, BTF 25-2, which kicked off last week.

The B-52 mission came after the Navy aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, which had been operating in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden since mid-December, recently left the region. On Feb. 16, the U.S. Sixth Fleet said the Truman is currently in Souda Bay, Greece, for repairs after colliding with a merchant tanker off the coast of Egypt on Feb. 12.

Since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, the U.S. has maintained an increased force presence in the Middle East, primarily to deter Iran and its proxies. U.S. aircraft have defended Israel against direct attacks from Iran, conducted airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen, and attacked Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria.

In November, the U.S. temporarily deployed six B-52 to the Middle East, along with extra F-15Es, following the departure of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to provide additional airpower. Those B-52s conducted combat missions, including participating in airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria in December, before returning home before the end of the year. The deployment was the first time B-52s had been based in CENTCOM since 2019. The Pentagon has also surged additional assets, including more fighters, to the region during acute periods of tension over the past year and a half.

Four B-52s from the 69th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., deployed to RAF Fairford for the task force, and some of the B-52s have already flown missions with European NATO allies in addition to the CENTCOM sortie. The B-52s that conducted the flight over the Middle East were tail number 60-0023 and tail number 60-0044, according to open-source flight tracking data.

Ground crew members conduct post-flight checks on a U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress aircraft at RAF Fairford, England, after completing a Bomber Task Force 25-2 deployment mission, Feb. 18, 2025. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Kristen Heller

In a separate action Feb. 15, the U.S. conducted a “precision airstrike” in northwest Syria, targeting a senior official in Hurras al-Din (HaD), an al-Qaida affiliate, CENTCOM said. The U.S. military has stepped up its airstrikes against that group as well as the fighters and infrastructure from the Islamic State as it tries to prevent militants from taking advantage of instability in Syria following the fall of the regime of Bashar Al Assad in December. The U.S. has also taken advantage of the newly permissive airspace above Syria after the collapse of the Syrian military and the withdrawal of many Russian forces. President Donald Trump praised the recent airstrike in Syria and congratulated CENTCOM in a post on social media.

“We will continue to relentlessly pursue terrorists in order to defend our homeland,” Kurilla said in a Feb. 16 statement.