Pentagon Reviewing Base Defense as Experts Warn of Pacific Threats

June 15, 2025 | By Matthew Cox

The recent Ukrainian drone strike on Russian bomber bases is raising alarm among U.S. officials, who worry that American military installations worldwide are increasingly vulnerable to attack.

The daring June 1 mission, nicknamed “Operation Spiderweb,” has prompted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine to review the U.S. military’s base defense systems and identify counter-drone technology they could speed to installations at home and abroad.

“Cheaper, attritable, commercially available drones with small explosives represent a new threat, as was exemplified in that operation,” Hegseth told Senate lawmakers June 11. “It’s a critical reality of the modern battlefield that we have a responsibility to address.”

Defense experts say the drone threat represents only part of a larger, looming problem: U.S. air bases in the Pacific are increasingly vulnerable to air attacks.

For the past year, defense experts have warned that the Air Force has underfunded investments in air base defense for its fixed installations in the Pacific while China’s arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles, along with its offensive drone capability, continues to grow.

To address the issue, the Air Force should explore fielding its own missile defense interceptors and invest heavily in rapid runway repair, blast-resistant shelters, and other passive measures to ensure it can launch fighter sorties even while under repeated bombardment, researchers at RAND Corp., a federally funded think tank, recommended in a recent study.

A Jan. 7 Hudson Institute report and a paper published last summer by the Air and Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies echoed similar warnings that American air base defenses inadequately protect against missiles and drones, especially in the Pacific.

Air base defense has long been a complex problem for Air Force leaders. Most of its missile interceptor protection, such as Patriot and other active defense systems, come from the Army, which must protect its own force as well. The Air Force has more control over its own investments to harden air bases against attack, but passive defenses often rank low on the budget priority list when competing against the F-47 and other expensive aircraft modernization programs.

In March, former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said he had favored cutting the F-47 fighter program—one of the service’s highest acquisition priorities—to afford other initiatives like air base defense. The Army’s limited number of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, systems won’t be enough to defend fixed air bases and support the Air Force’s agile combat employment strategy of spreading forces across temporary, austere air bases, he said.

Dispersing forces can decrease vulnerability to attack, but ACE locations won’t be invisible to China’s space-based targeting systems. China has placed hundreds of satellites in orbit to form a network designed to track U.S. and allied forces in the Pacific.

“If we leave our bases vulnerable to attack, the F-22s, the F-35s, and the F-47s will never get off the ground,” Kendall said on the Defense & Aerospace Report podcast.

Tracking Foreign Stockpiles

While the U.S. and its allies should not discount the threat of Russian military strikes on European bases, it may take Moscow years to reconstitute its long-range strike capability after three years of war against Ukraine, experts say.

On the other hand, China over the last several decades has poured funding into long-range cruise and ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. air bases throughout the Pacific, RAND argues. It has also demonstrated drone swarms and aims to be the “preeminent producer and user of such systems,” the report said..

“China is capable of attacking all U.S. bases in the Indo-Pacific region,” researchers wrote. “Although such vulnerabilities are well-known, air base defense has not kept pace with the continued technological threats to air bases and other military installations.”

While China does not have an unlimited supply of missiles, since 2012 it has increased its inventory “more than fivefold for launchers and nearly fourfold for total missile numbers,” RAND said.

For instance, China’s stockpile of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which can travel up to 3,500 miles, has increased from just 20 missiles in 2012 to 500 missiles in 2023—a 2,400 percent increase, according to RAND. Researchers also noted similar upticks in medium-range ballistic missile launchers and missiles, which can travel up to 2,100 miles. Those ranges may have grown, thanks to technological advances, RAND added.

In comparison, Kunsan Air Base in South Korea, the closest U.S. Air Force installation to China, sits less than 250 miles away from the Chinese coast across the Yellow Sea. Andersen Air Force Base, a strategic outpost on Guam that is expected to be a key staging area in a future Pacific conflict, is fewer than 2,000 miles away.

Limits of Army Air Defenses

While Pentagon investments in missile defense systems remained steady between 2019 and 2024, experts maintain that the Army’s force-protection capabilities and capacity may not be aligned with the needs of air bases.

“It appears that the Army has prioritized ground-based air defense for Army units, first and foremost,” said J. Michael Dahm, who researches aerospace and China at the Mitchell Institute. Dahm authored the July 2024 policy paper that discusses how a lack of resources and funding has caused Air Force base protection, especially in the western Pacific, to atrophy over the last 30 years.

Agile combat employment means Air Force units will “move around theater to find places that they can operate from, probably for a short period of time, pick up and move somewhere else.” said Dahm, a retired Navy captain.

“There could be greater investment in short-range air defenses,” said Dahm, adding that the Army should invest in systems that can be loaded onto a Humvee.

Daniel Karbler, a retired Army lieutenant general, sees things differently.

“I would challenge somebody in the Air Force to tell me what air base doesn’t have coverage,” said Karbler, a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Missile Defense Project.

Karbler, who commanded the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command in 2019 as well as the Pacific-focused 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command from 2012-2014, said Army air defense leaders are recovering from the service’s decision in the late 1990s to get rid of short-range air defense battalions.

Over the past several years, the Army has funneled resources toward air defense to rebuild a huge gap in short-range defenses,” Karbler said.

“Yes, we protect our Army forces, but not every infantry platoon or armored platoon, or even company, is going to have an air defense branch element,” Karbler said. “We have really pushed down counter-drone technology and capabilities, and we train these maneuver guys on using these systems, because we can’t do it all. . . . That’s part of what the Air Force needs to look at, too.”

Cheaper, Air Force-Controlled Missile Interceptors

RAND recommends that the Air Force “conduct a serious cost-benefit analysis of fielding its own active defense capabilities, ones that are tailored for air base defense in Pacific and European threat environments,” the report states.

“‘Free’ defenses provided by the Army are understandably difficult to turn down but may simply be too limited in number and face too many compromises in capability to provide much real-world utility to a dispersed basing posture,” RAND wrote.

The reality is that long-range systems are extremely expensive. A single Patriot missile costs $3.8 million, and THAAD missiles cost about $8.4 million each, Dahm wrote in his policy paper. The Air Force has evaluated comparatively cheap air defenses since 2022 and has concluded that the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System could be a more cost-effective option. The NASAMS, which features repurposed AIM-9X and Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles, can deploy on C-130 cargo planes and consists of just three components: a radar, a fire control center, and a canister launcher.

Ultimately, the Air Force would need to invest in technology with a much cheaper cost per shot such as laser and microwave systems or even cannon-fired, maneuverable 30mm to 155mm projectiles, Dahm said. The service has researched directed energy weapons for years but has not widely deployed them.

“There is great promise in maneuvering projectiles,” he said. “The threat is coming from a particular direction, you fire the maneuvering projectile in that direction, and it can maneuver within certain parameters as the inbound cruise missile or threat maneuvers in front of it.”

An Army spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the service’s integrated air and missile defense is “undergoing the most significant modernization in its history” by adding troops and fielding the Integrated Battle Command System. IBCS is designed to improve the way sensors and shooters are integrated across the battlefield to increase capacity and depth.

Over the next several years, the Army is planning significant fieldings of THAAD and IBCS-adapted Patriot batteries, the Mobile Short Range Air Defense System, counter-drone weapons and other air defense systems, the spokesperson said without elaborating.

Experts say the Air Force should also prioritize funding so-called passive defenses that make installations harder to destroy. The service has redirected hundreds of millions of dollars from passive defenses to higher-priority initiatives in recent years. It changed course to secure about $1.4 billion in fiscal 2024, researchers said.

While the uptick in funding is a good start, experts say it must continue. Air Force leaders should be taking advantage of the “significant momentum in Congress for increases and improvements to air base defense,” RAND recommended, adding that the service “should not be seen as dithering in air base defense investments, especially passive defenses.”

The RAND report was requested by Pacific Air Forces and the recommendations were presented to the Air Force last fall. The Air Force did not provide comment to Air & Space Forces Magazine by press time.

Hardened Aircraft Shelters Needed

In 2004, Pacific Air Forces did begin to recognize the growing threat from China and advocated for hardened shelters at Andersen to protect stealthy B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters at a projected cost of $1.8 billion. But Air Force officials canceled the proposal due to a lack of funding, Dahm wrote in his policy paper.

Two decades later, China’s military has built hundreds of hardened aircraft shelters while the U.S. has built a handful, the Hudson Institute said in its own report earlier this year.

Hardened aircraft shelters cannot survive a direct missile strike, but they are capable of protecting against cluster munitions tucked into ballistic and cruise missiles, Dahm said.

“If I can build a really substantial, hardened concrete shelter with ventilation and plumbing and the whole nine yards for $4 million, that hardened aircraft shelter can sit there in the Pacific for decades,” he said. “But if I fire … two Patriots at every inbound ballistic missile, that is $8 million in engagement, and there is no guarantee that I am actually going to hit that.”

Keeping Runways Operational

Even if every aircraft survives an attack, cratered runways can still shut a base down, Dahm said.

Refurbishing runways is also vital to tanker aircraft that need more space to take off and land. And without tankers, combat forces can only fly so far.

The Air Force has been developing its Expeditionary Airfield Damage Repair program since 2021. Initial requirements called for the capability to deploy the equipment on four C-130s so a 16-member crew could resurface up to 18 craters in 24 to 36 hours, according to the Mitchell Institute paper, which added that the service should try to slash repair times.

That creates its own cost tradeoffs, Dahm said.

“I could probably guess that a rapid runway repair kit for a rapid runway repair team, and then the personnel that go with it would probably cost [roughly $6 million] … to enable that $80 million aircraft,” he said. “What is it worth to keep those aircraft flying and effective, to protect them and then enable them to generate those combat sorties, so that they can deliver effects?”

To Dahm, air base readiness has declined because recent Air Force leaders have only experienced war in countries where the U.S. enjoyed air superiority.

“The danger is something that they can understand intellectually, but it is beyond their operational experience,” he said. “Regrettably, I think it will take an attack where dozens of aircraft are destroyed on the ground, and God help us, hundreds of young men and women are killed.”

“And someone will say, ‘Why didn’t we invest more in air base defense?’” he said.

Military Families to See Relief as Air Force Adjusts PCS Procedures

June 15, 2025 | By David Roza

The Department of the Air Force is reverting to its old relocation system for some Airmen and Guardians who face problems with the new system’s rocky rollout.

The switch, which took effect June 1, affects troops who organize their own permanent changes of station, known as “do-it-yourself” or “personally procured” moves. Service members may see greater reimbursement and lower out-of-pocket expenses under the legacy defense personal property system, the office overseeing Air Force moves wrote in an email that was posted on the advocate-run “PCS Like a Pro” Facebook page June 10.

But the change comes amid other complications at the start of the busy summer PCS season. Some Air Force and Space Force families have seen their moves delayed until mid-July or later because moving companies don’t have the capacity to take them earlier under the old system, PCS reform advocate Megan Harless told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Still, “a lot of people are excited” about reverting to the old system, said Harless, the military spouse and Army veteran who runs PCS Like a Pro. The update may help some people break even on their moving expenses, she added.

The problem stems from a 2021 contract worth $6.2 billion that put a single contractor, HomeSafe Alliance, in charge of the hundreds of movers in the PCS enterprise. The new contract sought to fix longstanding problems with military relocations by giving troops a single point of contact during their move, as well as the ability to manage and track their shipments online.

U.S. Transportation Command aimed to use the new system for all moves within the continental U.S. this spring. But advocates and lawmakers reported delays, missed pickups, and higher out-of-pocket costs as bases around the country phased in the new option.

Part of the problem is that the pay rates HomeSafe set were too low to incentivize moving companies to participate, Harless explained.

“A lot of moving companies said, ‘We can’t make those numbers work. We either barely break even or we lose money on a shipment,’” she said. “That’s where we started seeing delays, shipments not being picked up on time or delivered on time, because HomeSafe was waiting to find companies that would agree to do the work for what they were paying.”

That’s forced some families to make new plans at the last minute, said Shannon Razsadin, chief executive officer of the Military Family Advisory Network.

“We’re hearing about movers cancelling on families just a few days before they were scheduled to arrive for the pack-out,” she said. “Families are left scrambling to figure out, ‘OK, I now have to get a vehicle, the boxes, the packing paper, and figure out how to pack all these things, and meanwhile, I might not have child care and my spouse might be trying to close out a job.’”

The situation has challenged families who opt to set up their own move, rather than rely on a contractor chosen by the government. Those families still have to work with the government’s processing system, but hire their own moving company or pack and transport their goods themselves. In some cases, families move some possessions themselves and ship other belongings through the government-run process.

The government reimburses families for DIY moves based on the weight of their belongings and the distance traveled. However, the rates under the new global household goods contract were 40 to 50 percent lower than what families received for the same move last year, Harless said.

“People were spending beyond what the reimbursement rates were, and going into their savings or going into debt to move themselves,” Razsadin explained.

On May 20, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed U.S. Transportation Command to review the GHC transition and boost the reimbursement rate to 130 percent of the estimated cost of a person’s DIY move. Industry applauded the decision, but the announcement led to confusion about whether troops needed to use the old or new management system to recoup costs at the higher rate.

Pentagon regulations implied that the rate would stay at 100 percent for the old system, a defense official told Air & Space Forces Magazine. But base-level transportation management offices interpreted the guidance differently, Harless said.

On June 5, the Defense Department clarified that DIY moves organized under the new system could be reimbursed at 130 percent, but those using the old system would be paid back at 100 percent.

While Harless appreciates the higher reimbursement rate, she cautioned that it still fell short of the actual cost of moving, which can be higher than the government’s estimate.

“We saw that those rates were lowered by 40 to 50 percent, so even adding back that 30 percent, those rates are still going to be lower,” she said.

HomeSafe Alliance promised to raise its rates starting June 15. Moving companies have also flagged unclear contracts and bureaucratic hurdles as additional challenges of the new system.

PCS moves are already one of the most difficult aspects of military life. Results of the biennial Active-duty Spouse Survey, released this month, found about one-third of spouses want to leave the military—a record high. Many of them reported frustrations with the difficulties of finding employment, child care, and reimbursement for moving costs after relocating.

Military families should soon have more opportunities to leave feedback: The Government Accountability Office is surveying troops and spouses for a review of the Defense Department’s transition to the new contract, and the Military Family Advisory Network will conduct a survey on military family life, including the PCS process, this fall.

“We’re really interested to hear from families about their experience as it relates to moves,” Razsadin said.

Preparing for a Fight

June 15, 2025 | By Tobias Naegele

It’s time to return to disciplined budget preparation and careful strategic investment.

It is a law of survival, if not physics: In war, any advantage wielded by one side will be countered with an opposite, if not equal force, in a continuous back-and-forth until one or the other capitulates. The resultant innovation can be fleeting or enduring, limited to the conflict’s particular attributes or universal in their application. As a result, wars rarely go exactly as expected.

Russia promised to crush Ukraine in days or weeks; three years later, Ukraine continues to flummox their larger rival with innovative drones and audacious tactics and planning. The United States must not mimic Russia’s complacency and must adopt Ukraine’s creative spirit. Discipline is required for both.

Germany and Japan went into World War II with superior forces, training, and technology. Yet Britain fended off the Luftwaffe with radar and a small number of air defenders. American resistance bought time, and the world’s first nuclear bombs could induce surrender.

Our present age can be defined both by rapid technological change and rising tension, a combination that poses substantial risk to our long-term national security. How America responds will determine the future world order: whether it is the United States whose economic, political, and military might deters others from unwarranted aggression or, alternatively, if an unprepared United States must instead be deterred from defending our interests and allies.

Today there are many challenges to U.S. national security and they are growing in number and complexity. China is a peer threat, possessing a larger navy, comparable air forces, and growing nuclear and space capabilities. Russia is a disruptive force capable of expanding its war into other countries and always rattling its nuclear sword. North Korea and Iran are each technologically adept and dangerous. Proxy forces add additional threat complexity.

America owned unparalleled technological advantage for most of the past half-century: Space-based navigation and intelligence, precision munitions, radar-evading stealth. But superior technology alone will not deter every adversary, nor can it assure victory in war. Preparedness is crucial but victory demands more: national will, persistence, and clear objectives.

Arrogance is the Achilles’ heel of every great power. It helped bring down Germany and Japan and was among the causes that led to America’s misadventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is also on display in Congress, where leaders willfully ignore the waste and damage caused by chronic reliance on continuing resolutions.

In Vietnam, the United States had superior technology but neither the will, persistence, nor objectives to win. The Army embraced agility with then-newfangled helicopters, but bet wrongly that it could win a war of attrition. The Air Force, shaped by nearly two decades of Cold War competition, was built for nuclear war with the Soviet Union, not a civil war in Southeast Asia. America’s fighters were faster and its bombers superior, but U.S. tactics proved predictable and training inadequate. Politicians imposed illogical limits on targeting, and Russian-built MiGs and surface-to-air missiles proved more formidable than anticipated. Only gradually, and late, did a relative few innovative Airmen regain the upper hand against an inferior foe.

American forces today may not be as ready as necessary to deter or prevail over these threats. Our Air Force pilots fly too infrequently. Its combat aircraft are mission-ready only half the time. Weapons stockpiles are inadequate for a prolonged fight. While the U.S. has key advantages in stealth, electronic warfare, space capabilities, and experience, those assets are all in short supply; rivals are catching up.

There are no simple solutions. The public debt is ballooning. Defense spending, approaching $1 trillion annually, is substantial. Critics rightfully question whether we aren’t getting enough for our money and whether the nation can afford its growing bills.

Our government processes and discipline, meanwhile, are broken. It’s no longer just that Congress can’t pass a budget on time—it can’t pass a budget at all. The nation is operating on a modified full-year continuing resolution. Clarity and transparency are disappearing. Lawmakers argue and vote but don’t pass legislation by traditional means, instead relying on a budget reconciliation process that limits debate and forces votes on legislation no one can read in its entirety.

Congress’ central effort right now is a measure that is, no kidding, officially named the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” containing more than 1,000 pages. The House passed the bill on partisan lines; not surprisingly, some Republicans who supported it expressed regrets over language they had not read. Now in the Senate, the measure includes some $150 to $155 billion for defense, including $25 billion for the Golden Dome missile defense project.

About half the additional defense spending in the House version of the bill would go to the Navy and defense agencies; the Air Force portion, $18.9 billion, is less than half of what the House wants to spend on the Navy. The Space Force portion, though substantial—more than $20 billion mostly for classified programs, equal to nearly 70 percent of the overall Space Force budget. The Senate version has less for shipbuilding investments, more for airpower, nuclear modernization, technological innovation, and industrial base investment. Combined with the 2025 CR, it would push this year’s total defense spending over $1 trillion for the first time ever.

If you’re confused, that’s no surprise. This Big Beautiful Bill has so completely overshadowed and obscured the annual budget process that even lawmakers are concerned they’re being bamboozled. By law, the President’s budget plan should reach Congress in February. Delays to April or May are now common. This year, however, the next budget won’t materialize until the end of June.

What we do know is concerning. The 2026 budget plan appears to be roughly flat compared to 2024 and 2025, and while the Air Force would eek out a 1 percent increase, that amounts to less spending power in an era of 3 percent inflation. Worse, the Space Force would face it’s second cut in a row, suggesting a surprising lack of commitment to a new military branch that was created to ensure space got the focus and funding necessary to ensure American space superiority.

Golden Dome will, of course, also include substantial investment in space-based systems. The concept is worthy because, though much of the project will require substantial development, it may be the best, if not only, recourse in a world with three nuclear peer powers, especially because the other two powers—China and Russia—are aligned together. Note that it is Russia and China that see Golden Dome as destabilizing, precisely because it has the potential to radically decrease the deterrent power of their nuclear arsenals.

The United States needs to return to disciplined budget preparation and careful strategic investment. We need legislators to step up to the job, which requires debate, teamwork, and compromise. It is right to invest more now for a national defense that can stand up to the tests of the future. But without some thoughtful spending and process control in the face of an uncertain future, the only certainty we can be sure of is that a fiscal reckoning is inevitable. It’s just a matter of when.

Israel Launched an Attack With 200 Fighters. Could the US?

June 14, 2025

The U.S. Air Force could match the massive air attack that Israeli made against Iran’s nuclear weapons enterprise, leadership and air defenses, but it would be challenging and involve some risk, due to USAF’s readiness shortfalls, airpower experts said.

Israel attacked Iran on June 13 using a reported 200 fighters, inflicting major damage on Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, as well as decapitating its military leadership and destroying many of its air defense radars and missiles. It also covertly infiltrated attack drones into Iran ahead of the broader fighter attack, using them to carry out crippling strikes on Iranian air defense and ballistic missiles.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Israelis to prepare for “extended” conflict.

With mission capable rates for fighters around 60 percent, the U.S. Air Force could pull off a similar attack“—only with “global sourcing and a willingness to accept a significant amount of risk,” said John Venable, senior resident fellow for airpower studies at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. A retired Air Force colonel, Venable flew F-16s combat missions in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, commanded units in U.S. Central Command and is a former commander of the Air Force Thunderbirds flight demonstration team.

The Air Force would only have 40 of its 52 operational fighter squadrons to draw from “in a crisis,” because 12 would have to be held back: six for stateside air defense commitments and six to be held in reserve “to keep China or Russia in check.” Each of the remaining 40 would only be expected to field 12 fighters, for a total 480 deployable fighters.

“Our fighters have a [mission capable] rate of just over 60 percent, which means, after landing in theater, just 288 of those 480 jets would be mission capable for a first ‘go,’” Venable said. Given the availability of spare parts, “the second ‘go’ would be reduced to just over 200 jets,” he said.

For some aircraft, the ability to generate sorties would be even lower. The F-22, the Air Force’s top frontline fighter, managed only a 40 percent mission capable rate in fiscal 2024; F-15Cs, which are nearing retirement—were even less ready, at only 33 percent.

Pilot readiness is also a concern, Venable said. Fighter pilot flying hours have plunged o an average of 10-12 per month per pilot—about what Soviet pilots did in the Cold War era. In the 1980s and 90s, USAF pilots flew roughly twice as many. ridiculed by Air Force leaders at the time as woefully inadequate.

“Due to a drought in training sorties, there isn’t a single squadron in the Air Force that is mission ready,” Venable asserted. “Pushing them into a threat environment without those ‘reps and sets’ of confidence would likely mean we would suffer much more attrition than whatever the Israelis suffered, and much of that would be caused by mishaps refueling or even recovering back at home base.”

Ground crews also get a “very, very limited” number of training events to practice integrated combat turns, he said, in which an airplane lands and is rapidly re-fueled and re-armed for battle. There’s “a belief that those turns wouldn’t be required in a fight with China,” he said.

Israel wsd able to mount such a large operation with a vastly smaller overall force than the U.S. Air Force by maintaining their jets at peak levels and flying regularly.

In 1987, U.S. fighters sported mission capable rates around 80 percent. “Our maintainers were able to refuel and rearm our jets in 45 minutes,” Venable recalled. “Even with a 1,800 nautical mile round trip—roughly four hours, including ground ops in a fighter—the same crew could fly two sorties in a single day and the same jet could fly four [missions].”

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, who retired from the Air Force as head of intelligence, and who ran the targeting function in 1991’s Operation Desert Storm, said the Air Force could boost its readiness level if it needed. “The 120 F-15C/Ds deployed to Desert Storm…maintained a 94 percent mission capable rate – eight percentage points higher than peacetime,” he said.

Similar results have been achieved with F-35s in recent years by prioritizing parts for overseas units.

While there’s been a push in recent years to bolster weapons production and increase stockpiles, munitions “would likely not be a limiting factor in our targeting of a threat like Iran,” Venable said. That’s due to “the likely short duration of the conflict.” After initial sorties—using the Air Force’s longest-range, most effective and most expensive weapons–took down the most lethal air defenses, subsequent missions could be flown with less-costly and more numerous Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bombs, Venable said.

“We have decent inventories of each,” he said. The major “limfacs”—limiting factors—would be weapon system sustainment, or spare parts, and aircrew readiness, he said.

Though the White House said the U.S. did not participate in the strikes on Iran, the Air Force could well be called on in the coming days and week.

Air Force fighter crews “did an absolutely magnificent job in defending Israel from Iran’s assault last year, and I fully expect that they are prepared to do the same if asked,” Deptula said. “Of course, our B-2 [stealth bomber] aircraft and crews also should be in top shape to provide options for the President to assist Israel if necessary, to impose even greater effects on Iran.”

Leon Panetta, who served as Secretary of Defense under President Barack Obama, told CNN on June 13 that Israel probably does not have the munitions necessary to strike at Iran’s most deeply-buried nuclear development targets—but the U.S. does. The American GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and GBU-72 Advanced Penetrator Weapon Systems were both expressly designed for striking hardened, deeply-buried targets hidden under many layers of concrete, rock and steel.

Venable said the Air Force will likely be on high alert because, while Israel is “taking on most, if not all of the air campaign against Iran, our commitment to the region” is such that U.S. forces could be called on to counter Iranian proxy forces in otfactions that may be calleher countries should they try to respond. The risk there, he added, is that “when the world turns its interests to one part of the globe, it gives bad actors like Russia, China and North Korea cover to potentially move on their objectives.”

Pentagon May Abandon Wedgetail Buy in Favor of Navy’s Hawkeye, Satellites

June 12, 2025 | By Rachel S. Cohen

The Pentagon is considering ditching the Air Force’s plan to buy the E-7 Wedgetail as it looks to outsource the airborne target-tracking mission to space, defense officials indicated this week.

Ending the E-7 buy is among the difficult choices facing the Pentagon as it charts the 2026 defense budget and beyond, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told House and Senate appropriators.

“If we have systems and platforms that are not survivable in the modern battlefield or they don’t give us an advantage in a future fight, we have to make the tough decisions right now,” Hegseth said at a June 10 House defense appropriations hearing. “The E-7 is an example of that.”

The Air Force in 2022 tapped Boeing’s Wedgetail jet to replace the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System that has tracked enemy aircraft and missiles in flight since the 1970s. Wedgetails, also flown by the Australian and British militaries, are more effective at watching multiple targets at once and more resistant to electronic jamming, among other improvements over the E-3.

Senior Air Force leaders have publicly maintained that the E-7 would offer a boost over the E-3’s capabilities while the service migrates the mission to space. Last year, the Air Force finalized a contract with Boeing to build two Wedgetail prototypes for $2.6 billion, to be delivered in fiscal 2028. The service planned to purchase 26 E-7s overall.

But worries about the airliner-based E-7’s vulnerability to attack, plus prototype design delays and cost concerns, have prompted defense officials to look at other options.

The Wedgetail “was sort of late, more expensive and ‘gold-plated,’” Hegseth told Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski at a June 11 Senate defense appropriations hearing. “Filling the gap and then shifting to space-based [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges.”

A Boeing spokesperson declined to publicly comment on Hegseth’s remarks.

As an interim solution, the U.S. military wants to grow the Navy’s E-2D Hawkeye fleet to perform that mission while it builds a network of space-based sensors that can warn troops of enemy aircraft and missiles and help direct the movement of forces. Hawkeyes would supplement a diminished AWACS fleet, about half of which have already retired with no alternative in place.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2026 budget request calls for $1.4 billion to buy more E-2s, said Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, the department’s acting budget chief. It would also spend $150 million to create a joint expeditionary Hawkeye unit with five planes.

Hawkeyes are propeller-powered planes that perform a similar mission for the Navy. Unlike the E-7, Hawkeyes can operate from aircraft carriers and from more austere outposts that can’t support an airliner.

But handing off the airborne warning and control role to the Hawkeye would be a “reckless gamble,” argues Dave Deptula, a retired lieutenant general who runs the Air and Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“It would threaten America’s future ability to achieve air superiority, and therefore its ability to succeed in any future peer conflict,” he said. “The planned 26-aircraft E-7 force delivers a multi-theater warfighting capacity that is simply impossible with five E-2Ds.”

Space assets won’t be ready to pick up the load for decades, he added. And even when they are, he said, satellites can’t replace the real-time force management, surveillance, and combat orchestration that troops aboard a jet offer.

The Air Force has grappled for years with the question of whether to replace its aging command-and-control planes with modern jets or to find a way of collecting and sharing the same data that is less vulnerable to attack. Its solution—a vision of a sprawling network of sensors, aircraft, and other equipment that can share information in real time known as the Advanced Battle Management System—is still a work in progress.

Murkowski, who represents an AWACS squadron at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson that keeps an eye on Russia and the Pacific, questioned how the piecemeal transition to a new capability might affect military readiness.

“We’re kind of limping along up north,” she said. “The E-3 fleet is barely operational now.”

The AWACS fleet’s mission-capable rate fell to 55 percent in 2024, according to Air Force data. That statistic gauges how much of a fleet can perform at least one of its core missions, plus other metrics like spare parts availability and whether maintainers are trained.

“You’re not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place,” Murkowski said.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who represents the E-3 fleet at Tinker Air Force Base, told Hegseth to carefully consider moving away from a more familiar, proven aerial solution in favor of untested technology that risks wasting billions of dollars.

Congress may force the military to pursue the E-7 if lawmakers disagree that the E-2 and, ultimately, equipment on orbit will suffice.

Air Force officials included $200 million for the Wedgetail in the draft budget, according to news reports, down from $297 million in development funding that last year’s request projected for 2026. The Air Force plans to release its budget request later this month.

In contrast, House appropriators are offering the program $500 million, arguing in draft legislation that missions like early warning require a mix of air and space assets “today and … well into the future.”

“I’m hearing more and more that space offers an answer to every problem,” Cole said June 10. “While I’m optimistic about space-based capabilities, I certainly think platforms like the E-7 offer tremendous capabilities until and, frankly, beyond when space is fully online.”

The Pentagon is willing to continue to review the E-7 program, Hegseth replied.

Air Force Moves Ahead with Military’s First Microreactor

June 12, 2025 | By David Roza

The military’s first commercial microreactor moved a step closer to reality on June 11, when the Air Force announced it plans to award a contract for the technology to Oklo, a nuclear-energy company.

Under the forthcoming contract, Oklo would build and operate a 5-megawatt microreactor at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, home of the 354th Fighter Wing. Oklo will own the reactor while the Air Force buys the power it generates. The service will hash out the price of the contract and the rate it will pay for power during contract negotiations.

Service officials say the new technology could help make bases more efficient and resilient, particularly at isolated locations such as Eielson, where winter temperatures colder than -50 degrees drive hefty fuel bills for heating and power. The microreactor is part of a larger push by the Air Force to make installation power more reliable and secure from cyberattacks and natural disasters.

“The United States faces a critical national security imperative to ensure four things: safe, secure, resilient and reliable energy supply, and we need to do that for all of our critical defense capabilities,” Nancy Balkus, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for infrastructure, energy, and environment, told reporters on a June 11 media call. “Advanced nuclear energy technologies such as microreactors offer on-site electrical and thermal energy generation that’s really unparalleled for our operational benefits, and that’s why we’re trying to pursue it here at Eielson.”

A graphic from a 2020 Government Accountability Office report on microreactors showing their relative size and modes of transport.

The Department of Energy defines microreactors as having three features: They can be fully assembled in a factory; transported in their fully assembled form via rail, ship, truck, or another common shipping method; and use passive safety systems to avoid overheating or a meltdown, to avoid needing a large number of workers with specialized training to operate them. The fuel source—in this case, low enriched uranium—means the Oklo microreactor can operate about 10 years between refueling, said Oklo Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder Jacob DeWitte.

Balkus did not have an estimate for when the microreactor will be up and running. The project must check off several remaining steps, including an environmental analysis, the contract negotiating and licensing process, approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and construction. Balkus told Air & Space Forces Magazine in April she hoped the reactor would be complete before 2030. The project is running 18 months late due to formal protests of the service’s selection process.

Should it be built, the microreactor would supplement Eielson’s existing coal-fired power plant, which has a max capacity of 23 megawatts. The normal demand is around 10 to 12 megawatts in the summer, but it jumps to between 18 and 19 megawatts during the winter, explained Col. Paul Townsend, commander of the 354th Fighter Wing. The demand has grown since F-35s began arriving in 2020.

“Just like how you don’t run your car at full throttle all the time, even though you have this theoretical max capacity, you operate at a lower level for the longevity of the system,” Townsend said.

In the future, the Air Force may explore upping the share of base power generated by microreactors, Balkus said. But for now, the focus is on proving the concept in the Arctic, where permafrost degradation, seismic activity, short construction seasons, and expensive logistics make building a challenge. But DeWitte is confident in the reactor, noting the success of similar projects in Washington state and Idaho.

An F-35A Lightning II taxis on the flightline for routine training on Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, Dec. 18, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Carson Jeney)

The Eielson reactor could be the first of many. In April, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported that the Air Force could equip up to nine bases with microreactors, though which bases remain to be seen. The other microreactors will come from the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, known as ANPI, a Defense Innovation Unit effort launched last year with the Air Force and the Army. DIU selected eight firms to be eligible for contracts to build at those installations.

Air Force officials have flagged energy infrastructure as a key vulnerability in a conflict, as supply chains providing fuel to generators can be disrupted and electric grids hacked. A base dependent on fossil fuels to power its backup generators may be paralyzed by a fuel shortage, but a base that uses solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, nuclear microreactors, or fossil fuel-powered generators could keep running even if one source was offline.

Those sources can be linked through a microgrid, which would reduce the base’s independence on nearby civilian grids. Smaller, more mobile microreactors may even help supply power to temporary airfields as part of the Air Force’s agile combat employment strategy.

The effort dovetails with tech companies’ growing appetite for microreactors to fuel the power-hungry data centers used to develop artificial intelligence.

Boosting energy resilience is one priority of the installation infrastructure action plan the Air Force unveiled in November. Among other steps, the plan called for installing microgrids at two Space Force bases and 14 Air Force bases by fiscal 2030. One microgrid kept the lights on at Kadena Air Base, Japan, after a typhoon hit the base in 2023.

Ravi Chaudhary, a former Air Force installations boss who architected the action plan and backs the Eielson project, applauded the June 11 announcement.

”Burgeoning demands in the Indo-Pacific, to include the rising threat of China, when coupled with our furious pace of modernization requires a novel approach to energy,” he told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “That’s why we pushed so hard for both the [microreactor] and an accelerated timeline. Our installations can’t wait on this any longer.”

Concept art for the Eielson microreactor powerhouse may look familiar to U.S. Air Force Academy graduates: DeWitte said the design was inspired in part by the academy chapel.

“We love that architecture style, so it’s kind of neat that we get to be able to tie all these things together,” he said.

Air Force Reveals First Image of LRSO Nuclear Cruise Missile

June 12, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force shared its first-ever concept illustration of the secretive AGM-181 Long-Range Stand-Off missile (LRSO). The missile, being developed by Raytheon, will succeed the AGM-86B ALCM as the B-52’s primary nuclear weapon beginning around 2030.

The image was released on the Pentagon’s media service, Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS), without comment on June 2. Little accompanying information was shared, other than to say that it’s an artist’s rendering provided by the Air Force Nuclear Weapon Center.

This first image shows the weapon has a conventional but inverted planform, with anhedral (downward-pointing) wings and elevators and a ventral (bottom-mounted) stabilizer. The wings, elevators and stabilizer edges appear to be designed for stealth, but the nose appears blunt, rather than pointed. The configuration of the tail suggests an exhaust on the upper side of the missile, above the stabilizer, like that on the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM).

Although known to be an air-breathing weapon, no air intake is visible on the bottom-view image, indicating the intake is either on top or its shape has been deliberately obscured for operational security. The Air Force provided images of the JASSM for years that either shielded its bottom air intake from view or showed the missile at such a distance that resolution of the intake’s geometry was impossible. Former service officials called this tactic “hiding in plain sight.”

The LRSO’s size can’t be determined from the image.

The Air Force didn’t provide an immediate answer about the timing of the release. As with most highly classified, low-observable platforms—such as the B-21 bomber—the service withholds imagery until a platform has reached a stage of its development where outside engine runs, captive-carry or powered flights will be visible to non-cleared photographers.

RTX’s Raytheon, which is developing the missile, referred queries about the image to the Air Force.

Raytheon received a $2 billion development contract for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the LRSO in July, 2021. A decision to move to low-rate production is scheduled for February 2027.

Air Force budget documents for fiscal 2025 show LRSO’s funding set to balloon from $295.5 million in fiscal 2026 to $1.22 billion in fiscal 2027, indicating a planned start to production of a future total of 1,087 units. The most recent unit cost estimate is $14 million per LRSO missile.

The missile passed its critical design review in 2023. It will carry the W80-4 warhead with a selectable yield of up to 150 kilotons. The Air Force has said the LRSO is not a hypersonic weapon, and service officials have suggested its top speed is in the high subsonic range.

The LRSO is the second attempt to replace the ALCM, which entered service in the mid-1980s. The Air Force bought 460 of a planned 1,500 stealthy AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles from Lockheed starting in 1990, but retired the type due to budget cuts and arms control agreements in 2012. The stealthy missile was reportedly difficult and expensive to maintain, explaining why the Air Force retained the older ALCM instead. Since then, the inventory of ALCMs has been reduced several times.

Gen. Thomas Bussiere, head of Global Strike Command, said in early June that the LRSO program is doing well and that he anticipates no delay in its entry into service.

Bussiere said the LRSO has utility even if the Air Force retired its B-52s. “We will always have a…capacity to carry the LRSO,” he said. “My guess is when the B-52J model is retired, there’s going to be another long- range strike platform to do standoff weapons carriage.”

JetZero to Build Blended Wing-Body Aircraft in North Carolina

June 12, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

JetZero will invest $4.7 billion in a factory to build its Z4 Blended Wing-Body aircraft in Greensboro, N.C. The company announced June 12 that its investment will create 14,500 jobs in the region, perhaps the largest job announcement in the states history.

Calling it “the factory of the future, “the new facility will be located at the Piedmont Triad Airport. To enhance its hiring pool, JetZero will invest $30 million in the North Carolina Community College system to develop a “customized workforce” pipeline to supply the plant with staff over the next decade, according to a state government press release.

Developed in part with $235 million in Air Force funding, JetZero’s initial BWB demonstrator is supposed to begin test flights in 2027. The objective Z4 aircraft aims to fulfill both commercial passenger and cargo roles, as well as become a potential airlift and tanker aircraft for the Air Force.

The Air Force is trying to diversify its supplier base and invested in the startup because of the potential advantages of its design for both military and civilian use. But the Z4 does not have an inside track to win any future airlift or tanker competition, Air Force officials have said.

The factory is planned to be “fully-digital and AI-driven to outpace legacy original equipment manufacturers by ramping up faster, cutting unit costs, boosting quality and hardening the supply chain,” the company said. The airliner version of the Z4, which the company hopes to begin delivering in in 2030, would carry about 230 passengers.

JetZero said it has “secured investments and conditional purchase agreements from Alaska Airlines and United Airlines.” About 14 airlines “have joined JetZero’s Airline Working Group to provide input on their needs, including the requirement for the Z4 to readily fit into today’s airport infrastructure.”

North Carolina Governor Josh Stein’s office said the state’s 2.25 percent corporate tax rate and its low cost of living helped attract JetZero, and the company will also partner with Siemens’ Smart Infrastructure, Electrification, and Automation divisions, which are also headquartered in North Carolina, to design its factory with the most efficient technologies possible.

“Siemens also supports JetZero’s design/build/test model for the demonstrator aircraft, a full-scale prototype slated for first flight in 2027,” the governor’s statement said.

JetZero is readying a non-flying ground version of the Z4 for testing and test flights are already underway using a subscale model. Full-scale fuel tanks are undergoing tests and a wing test article is being evaluated. Cockpit tooling is complete, company officials said, and the critical design review for the demonstrator is expected “soon.”

Once the North Carolina facility is completed, the company will move its headquarters to the new site.

The company describes the Z-4 as “a game-changer, slashing fuel burn, emissions and costs with its ultra-efficient all-wing body design. By maximizing lift and minimizing drag, it will deliver up to 50 percent greater fuel efficiency and associated emissions reduction.” The aircraft will also deliver “a cleaner, quieter and improved travel experience” in airliner service, and be able to operate out of airfields with shorter runways, JetZero said.

The aircraft is being designed and developed in California with the help of Northrop Grumman’s Scaled Composites unit, and is expected to enter commercial service “in the early 2030s.”

Northrop and JetZero are expected to offer a “KC-Z4” version of the aircraft for the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Refueling system (NGAS) requirement. The concept aircraft would have a gross operating weight of 362,000 pounds, with a total fuel load of 200,000 pounds; that’s comparable to today’s KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling jets. But the efficiency of the blended wing-body promises greater range and its cargo capacity is anticipated to exceed the KC-46, 21 pallets versus 18, a difference of about 17 percent.

A cargo-only version would also require a rear ramp, which is not part of the prototype effort, and would require a different tail design, company officials said.

Air Force Aid Society Launches New Financial Aid, Child Care Programs

June 11, 2025 | By David Roza

The official charity for the Air Force and Space Force is implementing major changes to help Airmen, Guardians, and their families with child care, health care, permanent change-of-station (PCS) moves, and other stressful or expensive life needs.

The Air Force Aid Society announced earlier this month that it is streamlining the application process for financial aid, expanding the ways in which aid recipients can use the funds, and making it easier to access child care.

“These are some of the most sweeping changes we’ve made in decades to adapt to the needs of Airmen, Guardians, and their families,” AFAS Chief Executive Officer Ed Thomas Jr., a retired major general, told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

New Financial Aid Options

AFAS has merged its loan and non-repayable grant programs to create a single pathway for Airmen, Guardians, family members, or retirees to request financial aid. The aid takes the form of a loan with a 0 percent interest rate, a non-repayable grant, or a combination of the two.

“Instead of taking [out] a loan on your credit card with 18 percent interest, or 39 percent interest on a payday loan, you can get a 0-interest loan paid back within two years,” Thomas explained. “It’s just a way to be able to help more Airmen and Guardians.”

Applicants can receive multiple loans if AFAS believes the need is justified and their budget supports repayment, the organization said on its website. Chief Operating Officer Kris McBride, a retired chief master sergeant, said the size of the loan is decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the service member.

The charity is allowing its beneficiaries to request loans for a broader range of financial needs as well. Those now include adoption expenses, basic furniture costs, overseas car rentals, car seats or booster seats, essential home repairs, immigration expenses, mental health support, and vehicle shipment costs for PCS moves. The aid can still be used to help with basic living expenses (including rent and utility bills), medical or dental care, funeral expenses, vehicle repairs, family members with special needs, PCS costs, or emergency veterinarian visits. AFAS may also be able to help with other issues or direct members to other resources that can.

Child Care

Two AFAS programs aim to provide some relief for military families amid a nationwide child care provider shortage. The first, Give Parents a Break, offers members $40 per dependent child per month for up to three months to spend on any form of child care—even to help fly in a family member. The goal is to offer parents a few hours of respite from the stresses of parenting, AFAS said on its website.

Give Parents a Break requires a referral from a commander; chaplain; medical professional; family advocate; military-and-family readiness center worker; or first sergeant, a senior noncommissioned officer who oversees morale, health and quality-of-life issues within a unit.

“Maybe a family has a service member deployed and the spouse needs extra help, or they’re going through a particularly stressful time with medical issues,” Thomas said. “If the first sergeant says, ‘Hey, this family needs some extra help,’ we’re going to help them.”

The other option is Child Care for PCS, which provides $200 per child up to age 12 for a maximum of $1,000 per household during a permanent move, retirement, separation, or transfer to the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard. The funding is available for any Airman or Guardian, regardless of rank. All they have to do is upload their PCS orders and identification.

“The PCS season can be a stressful time, and this is one of the ways that we can come alongside our force and help,” Thomas said.

Many of these changes were inspired by a listening tour where top AFAS officials heard the concerns of troops across the Air Force and Space Force. A common theme was that the financial aid application process was not straightforward, and that PCS season and a shortage of child care providers continued to be major stressors.

Last year, AFAS provided over $200,000 for child care support and $4.9 million for emergency financial aid. The charity is prepared to meet an even larger need this year, McBride said.

“We have budgeted significant funds for this, and we also understand that we are probably going to need to raise significantly more funds,” Thomas added.

But the listening tour reminded Thomas of those the money helps. A 19-year-old Airman suddenly needed to take custody of his two teenage sisters—a difficult task on a junior enlisted salary. A staff sergeant struggled to pay bills amid a daughter’s long-term hospital stay.

Besides providing financial assistance, AFAS also partners with military-and-family readiness centers and other organizations to help Airmen and Guardians build budgets and work to regain solid footing.

“Often, much of the work we do is when life happens and when the exceptional happens, and helping fill that gap to get that Airman or Guardian to a better place,” Thomas said.