Lohmeier, Nominee for Under SECAF, Defends Record in Confirmation Hearing

Lohmeier, Nominee for Under SECAF, Defends Record in Confirmation Hearing

Matthew Lohmeier, who was fired from a Space Force squadron command just two years ago, took another step in his unlikely journey to the Department of the Air Force’s No. 2 job May 1, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee that his background as an Air Force F-15C pilot and space operations officer have prepared him well for the post.

“I speak the language of both the Air Force and Space Force,” he said. “I am air-minded and space-minded. I understand the necessity of United States superiority in both of those warfighting domains.” 

Lohmeier graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2006 and flew the T-38 as an instructor pilot and the F-15C operationally. By 2015, he was in his first space-focused assignment, and in 2020, he transferred to the Space Force, commanding the 11th Space Warning Squadron and providing missile warning and tracking worldwide. 

In 2021, he self-published a book alleging that Marxist ideology had become widespread in the military and criticizing the Pentagon’s focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion under President Joe Biden. After he expanded on those thoughts during a civilian podcast interview, he was removed from his command.

Lohmeier promised his focus as undersecretary of the Air Force would be on challenges like nuclear modernization and ensuring a resilient space architecture while Democrats on the Armed Services Committee challenged his past record with questions about his political views.

Lohmeier said in written testimony that “the modernization of the nuclear portfolio and ensuring the resilience of our space-based architecture will be [his] most pressing challenges.” As undersecretary, he wrote, his job would be “communicating that nuclear modernization is not an option; it is the very foundation of our national security strategy—and we must get it right.” 

Lohmeier defended his rapid rise from an obscure fired squadron commander to being on the verge of becoming one of the Pentagon’s senior civilians. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) pressed him on whether his experience is sufficient for overseeing programs such as Sentinel, the next intercontinental ballistic missile program, which is projected to cost $140 billion—among the most costly defense programs ever.

“This is a question of scale or scope, and I’ll say that I’ve always been faithful to the trust that’s been committed to me, even though the scale has been much smaller,” Lohmeier said. “I’ll say humbly that I believe I’m up to this challenge. I’m well qualified for this job. I’m air-minded and space-minded and I understand very well the threats especially that we face from our peer competitor in China.” 

Calling himself a “fast learner,” Lohmeier said he would rely on expert advice as he backs up Air Force Secretary nominee Troy Meink, also a former Air Force officer, but one who has held senior positions for a decade. (Meink already cleared his confirmation hearing, but the Senate has yet to vote on his nomination.)

Lohmeier echoed many of the same points Meink made in his confirmation hearing, calling for the Space Force to develop “both offensive and defensive space control” systems and to exploit commercial technology as much as possible. 

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a retired Army officer, challenged Lohmeier on taking his criticism of the military public rather than working within his chain of command. He replied that he had exhausted every official avenue for expressing his concerns about the politicization of the military before writing his book, but said he could not recall if he ever considered filing an official complaint under Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

“You were relieved of command not for your beliefs,” Duckworth admonished, “but for how you chose to express them on Active-Duty while holding a position of authority.”

But Lohmeier pushed back. “I will reject the idea that I did anything unlawful or unethical,” Lohmeier responded. “I never publicly criticized my chain of command. I never publicly was politically partisan while acting in an official capacity. And both of those allegations were the reasons I was relieved of my command and I wasn’t found guilty of either of those things.” 

Lohmeier was relieved by now-U.S. Space Command boss Gen. Stephen N. Whiting and Maj. Gen. Devin R. Pepper. Asked by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) if he would recuse himself from any personnel decisions relating to them, the nominee said he was “focused on moving forward in the future.”

He pledged: “I will treat all people fairly according to the law and I’ll try and do my job to the best of my duty if I’m confirmed.”

Democrats on the committee questioned whether Lohmeier could lead Airmen and Guardians who possess different viewpoints, but Lohmeier committed to maintaining an apolitical military.

“I’ve been out of uniform for the past four years nearly and have rather enjoyed my ability to speak freely and express a full range of the expression of my ideas on platforms such as X,” Lohmeier said. “However, I’m very committed … to making sure that we eliminate political distractions from the military workplace.”

Air Force Exercises in Pacific Could Expand with $622 Million Extra from Congress

Air Force Exercises in Pacific Could Expand with $622 Million Extra from Congress

Air Force exercises in the Indo-Pacific may soon get even bigger and more robust, as lawmakers move to invest more than $620 million in such efforts.

The bulk of that money, contained in a $150 billion reconciliation package currently making its way through Congress, is $532.6 million for earmarked for “the Pacific Air Force biennial large-scale exercise.”

PACAF has been planning Resolute Force Pacific, or REFORPAC, for summer 2025 as one of the largest Air Force exercises in recent history by aircraft count.

It will involve up to 300 aircraft across 25 locations with partner nations. The service will “flood Airmen and aircraft” into the region this summer for two weeks to better prepare the Air Force for the “galvanizing threat” of war against China, according to the Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin. The event will also dovetail with other major exercises like Bamboo Eagle and Talisman Sabre.

The Air Force declined to comment on the pending legislation’s impact on REFORPAC, but officials had previously said the scale of the exercise could be impacted by whether Congress passed a new budget for fiscal 2025. Lawmakers wound up passing a continuing resolution instead of a new budget, but the reconciliation package would add money in 2025 and allow it to be spent through fiscal 2029—meaning the funds could also pay for future editions of REFORPAC.

An additional $90 million is designated more generally for Air Force exercises in the Western Pacific region, which could support the service’s extensive, regular drills with regional allies like Australia, Japan, and the Philippines.  

Airmen with the 317th Airlift Wing prepare for a Max Endurance Operation outside a C-130J Super Hercules equipped with external fuel tanks enroute to support Exercise Balikatan 25 at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, April 17, 2025. Balikatan is a longstanding annual exercise between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and U.S. military. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman Caleb Schellenberg

The extra money for exercises are part of a section in the reconciliation package that includes $11 billion for activities focused on the Indo-Pacific. The proposal comes amid steadily rising tensions between the U.S. and China; the Pentagon identified the People’s Republic of China as the U.S.’s “pacing threat’ in its latest National Defense Strategy, and President Donald Trump’s new tariff measures have ignited a trade war.

In addition to more money for Air Force exercises, the package sets aside $20 million for “exercises with Taiwan.” It also includes $850 million dedicated for activities aimed at “protecting U.S. interests and deterring Chinese Communist Party aggression through military support and assistance to Taiwan’s military and security forces.”

Last year, U.S. and Taiwanese naval forces conducted joint drills in the South China Sea, though officials tried to keep it under wraps, according to Reuters.

China has ramped up military activities in the waters and air defense zone near Taiwan as it seeks to reinforce its territorial claims over the island. Washington and Taipei have been strengthening their military ties in response to include weapons sales, with the U.S. approving a $385 million arms package for Taiwan primarily focused on upgrading its fleet of F-16 fighters.

The reconciliation package also has funds for military construction projects in the Indo-Pacific region; $450 million toward airfield development and $200 million to accelerate the Guam Defense System. The Pentagon will receive an additional $1.1 billion for infrastructure development across the region.

These additional funds could support several defense projects already underway; the Guam Defense System is a $1.7 billion initiative to enhance Guam’s air and missile defense aims to provide 360-degree protection against ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic threats. The plan involves integrating land-based Aegis systems with the existing Patriot and THAAD systems, which protect against intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The integrated defense systems, comprising radars, sensors, launchers, and command-and-control systems will be deployed across 16 locations on the island.

The Air Force also planned $400 million for upgraded runways and expanded facilities on the small island of Yap, located between Guam and Palau, as part of its 2025 budget request. Additionally, the Pentagon is planning $128 million in infrastructure projects across seven military installations in the Philippines.

The largest single allocation within the $11 billion, however, is a mystery—$4 billion set aside for classified space superiority programs, a sum that could significantly augment the Space Force’s $30 billion budget.

Meeting the Software Challenge: How the New Acquisition Pathway Came to Be

Meeting the Software Challenge: How the New Acquisition Pathway Came to Be

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series exploring the opportunities and challenges facing the Trump administration’s changes to how the Pentagon buys software. Part 1 is available here.

The new rule book for buying software that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently made mandatory has its origins in problems with an aircraft. 

“The F-35 was always talked about as a computer wrapped in a jet,” said Bess Dopkeen, who served until January as a senior advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu. “And there were lots of wonderful people working on it. But the way it was purchased and developed, in reality, was that they built a jet, thinking, ‘Someday we’ll plug in that computer and it’ll all work fine.’ And of course it didn’t work fine, because you made the software an afterthought.” 

The F-35 was only one of many major Pentagon programs that had problems with software, but the yearslong delays and budget overruns made it the poster child for widespread dissatisfaction in Congress and elsewhere with the way the Defense Department acquired software.

“There was a lot of frustration on the Hill,” said Dopkeen.

It was apparent, even in 2017-18, that the Pentagon was a generation behind in its thinking. “Software was definitely thought about as a secondary backroom thing in DOD. We buy a jet. We buy hardware. We put software in it later. Even seven, eight years ago, no serious commercial concern thought like that. They were all ‘Software First’” she said. 

To drag DOD into the 21st century, Congress mandated the Defense Innovation Board, an advisory council of industry executives, venture capital founders, and academic luminaries, “to undertake a study on streamlining software development and acquisition regulations” for DOD and the military services. 

The Software Acquisition and Practices (SWAP) Study was helmed by innovation board members CalTech scientist Richard Murray and former United Technologies executive J. Michael McQuade, and Dopkeen was the initial director. It published its final report in March 2019. 

But, in the fashion of modern software development, it had already released several advance features— including an October 2018 concept paper titled “Detecting Agile BS” that skewered the practice of using contemporary agile terminology about traditional legacy programs in order to make them seem more modern and relevant.  

The paper went viral on Reddit, revealing that the practice of dressing legacy mutton up as agile lamb was not restricted to the DOD. 

“It turns out everyone was doing it,” said Dopkeen. “We were really on to something and speaking to people who were frustrated, even in the commercial sector, by people pretending to be doing agile, but really holding on to the old ways of doing things.” 

Along with the report, the board also published a set of six two-or-three page case studies, based on visits and interviews with ongoing acquisition programs, where they dissected the ways current programs of record were succeeding or failing at buying software. 

“We really wanted to avoid ‘Innovation Tourism,’” said Dopkeen, which she defined as just telling the Pentagon, “‘You suck at everything, including buying software.’” 

“There are smart people working very hard on this stuff. It’s not bad because they suck, it’s bad because it’s an extremely complex, difficult problem with multiple underlying causes,” she added. 

The vignettes were designed “to make sure everyone understood there aren’t any easy answers,” and to help come up with recommendations that could address real problems in a detailed way. “We wanted to move beyond simply: ‘Don’t buy software the way you used to,’” she said. 

By the time the final report was published in March 2019, Dopkeen was working on the House Armed Services Committee and helped staff a bipartisan effort to put the recommendations of the study into law in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, including:

  • Directing a new policy on talent management for digital and software professionals.
  • Directing a Department-wide strategy for software science and technology
  • Granting authorities for continuous integration and delivery of software applications and upgrades
  • Directing software development and acquisition training and management programs

The Color of Money 

It took one more year to get a legislative fix to a different but very much related problem: The color of money. 

“We had to get the appropriators on board to deal with that,” said Dopkeen, referencing the congressional committees that actually allocate funding, as opposed to those that authorize policy. The NDAA is drafted by the Armed Services Committees in each chamber. But the appropriations bills that allocate spending are written by the appropriations committees.  

DOD has several different “colors” of funding, Dopkeen explained, representing the different purposes for which money is appropriated by those committees. Research, development, test, and evaluation, or RDT&E, dollars can be used for prototyping and testing new capabilities, but buying them needs procurement dollars. Once they’ve been purchased, money that’s spent on sustaining them has to come from operations and maintenance (O&M) dollars. 

That might work for buying a tank, said Dopkeen, but software is different. And the budget planning process means program managers have to predict two years out what proportion of their activities will be dedicated to which color of money. “Every time I push an update, I am fixing bugs, which is probably O&M, but I am also introducing new capabilities, which should count as procurement, and I might be beta testing the next round of new capabilities, which is arguably RDT&E. It just doesn’t make sense for software,” she said. 

Worse, the problem meant that even software projects which were funded by a big program of record like F-35 might find themselves unfunded if they needed the wrong kind of money in the wrong year.  

“If you’ve decided or been told that you are O&M, and the program manager only has RTD&E dollars that year, then you are out of luck,” she said. “It is literally paralyzing to the point where it slows things down for years. Because the manager might be, ‘OK, I can request O&M funds next year,’ but in the meantime all the work on software has just ground to halt.”  

To get around the problem, reformers created a new funding stream under RTD&E. The seven existing budget activities under that color, Dopkeen explained, spanned the full developmental lifecycle from basic research to deployment. BA8 was a special activity for software which could be used at any stage of its development, she said, “because software is never done.”  

Part 1 looked at how the Air Force is embracing the new Software Acquisition Pathway. Part 3 will look at questions about the pathway and the flexible acquisition tools that accompany it. 

CCA Fighter Drones Start Ground Testing Ahead of First Flights; New Organization Unveiled

CCA Fighter Drones Start Ground Testing Ahead of First Flights; New Organization Unveiled

The two prototypes for the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program have started ground testing, Air Force Chief Staff Gen. David W. Allvin announced May 1, ahead of a planned first flight this summer. The service also announced it has created a new kind of organization to operate the new aircraft.

The developments are another sign that the Air Force’s plans to move fast on the initial “Increment 1” of the program are on track.

“This is a huge milestone and another step toward first flight and rapid delivery to our warfighters,” Allvin wrote in a post on X. He had recently teased there was “big news” coming on the CCA program following a meeting with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth this week.

The two CCAs are the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems YFQ-42A and Anduril Industries’ YFQ-44A—the first unmanned aircraft in the Air Force inventory to receive a fighter designation. A winner for the Increment 1 competition is supposed to be announced sometime after October. Production of as many as 200 of the autonomous aircraft is supposed to be underway by 2028.

“We’re moving fast because the warfighter needs this capability,” Allvin said in a press release. “CCA is about delivering decisive advantage in highly contested environments. The program is accelerating fielding through innovative design and acquisition strategies—and both vendors are meeting or exceeding key milestones. These aircraft will help us turn readiness into operational dominance.”

General Atomics president David Alexander said “we remain on schedule to test and fly YFQ-42 in the coming months.” He also touted GA’s experience in unmanned systems, having “pioneered more than two dozen different unmanned aircraft types for the U.S. and its allies, including multiple unmanned combat jets flying today, and logged nearly nine million total flight hours.” Work on the YFQ-42 “will further expand the field of unmanned aviation, and we remain excited for the future.”

Jason Levin, Anduril’s senior vice president for air dominance and strike, noted that readiness for ground testing of the prototype aircraft came “just one year” after Anduril was chosen as a finalist for the CCA program. The milestone “highlights the program’s aggressive commitment to schedule,” he said. The YFQ-44A passed its critical design review in November 2024 and received its nomenclature in March.

“We are on schedule to fly YFQ-44A this summer,” he said.

Anduril and the Air Force are “pioneering a new generation of semi-autonomous fighter aircraft that will fundamentally transform air combat,” Levin said. “The YQ-44A delivers highly capable, mass-producible, and more affordable fighter capability at the speed and scale required to stay ahead of the threat.”

Delivering the first aircraft “at unprecedented speed” will ensure that the pilots developing tactics for the new aircraft “have ample opportunity to experiment and build the trust required to support operational fielding of CCAs before the end of the decade,” Levin said.

New Unit

The Air Force also announced May 1 that it has created a new organization to operate CCAs, and it has selected Beale Air Force Base, Calif., as the preferred location to host the new unit.

This “CCA Aircraft Readiness Unit” will “provide combat aircraft ready to deploy worldwide at a moment’s notice,” the service said.

“CCA are semi-autonomous in nature, so the ARU will not have to fly a significant number of daily sorties to maintain readiness,” according to USAF. “The aircraft will be maintained in a fly-ready status and flown minimally so the number of airmen required to support the fleet will be substantially lower than other weapons systems.”

The establishment of this new organization demonstrates “further progress toward operationalizing CCA capabilities.”

Beale is home to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, which operates the crewed U-2 Dragon Lady and uncrewed RQ-4 Global Hawk reconnaissance aircraft. The base developed facilities and procedures for the RQ-4 series, until now the Air Force’s only semi-autonomous aircraft.

“The pace of innovation must outmatch the pace of the threat,” Allvin said. “CCA is how we do that.”

These first CCA aircraft are intended for a purely air-to-air mission: to carry additional missiles for the F-22 and F-35, which have a limited number of shots because they must carry missiles internally to remain stealthy. Pilots of the two frontline fighters have for years asked the Air Force to find a way to expand the number of weapons they can shoot per sortie. The CCA has emerged as at least one solution.

The CCA program is intended to provide the Air Force with “affordable mass,” dramatically expanding the number of aircraft and missiles the combat fleet can put in the air, and compelling an adversary to treat each one as a fully-capable threat aircraft. The idea is to overwhelm and confuse a defender as aircraft approach on multiple axes of attack.

Both the Anduril “Fury” and the as-yet unnamed General Atomics CCA take off and land conventionally on a runway. The Air Force has experimented with other autonomous craft, however, that launch from a vehicle on the ground and are either recovered vertically or are caught in a net.       

While future iterations of the CCA are expected to carry out missions such as electronic warfare and ground attack, the Air Force has not yet released a roadmap explaining its plans for those aircraft.

In fact, the characteristics of Increment 2, which is set to get underway next year, remain undecided, according to Maj. Gen. Joseph D. Kunkel, head of Air Force Futures, who nevertheless has suggested it will be less, not more sophisticated than Increment 1.

Speaking on an AFA Warfighters in Action discussion April 24, Kunkel said that while there remain options for Increment 2 to be a “more exquisite” aircraft, “it’s probably going to closer to this low-end thing.”

Though Air Force leaders in the Biden administration suggested that Increment 2 would need more capabilities than Increment 1, Kunkel said extensive wargaming has shown that “there’s going to be room … for other capabilities that aren’t as exquisite … that are cheaper, that provide mass.”

He also said that in the quest for operational flexibility and low cost, CCAs might be launched in “other ways” than from a runway, “that don’t rely on bases,” suggesting they could be air-launched.

It’s unclear, though, where the Air Force sees the cost and capability boundaries between Increment 1—with an estimated price of $27-$30 million apiece—Increment 2, and expendable cruise missiles. The service has in recent years conducted “Rapid Dragon” experiments in which pallets of cruise missiles are dropped out of the back of cargo aircraft. Those experiments did not involve a recovery mechanism, though.

The CCA program parallels the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and is funded through the same budget line. The “family of systems” that comprise NGAD include CCAs and the crewed centerpiece of the formation, now known as the F-47. Service and industry leaders have recently said that tests have shown that F-22 and F-35 pilots can manage as many as six CCAs concurrently with their other flying demands.

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed to this report.

Why Disaster Insurance Is Essential—No Matter Where You Live

Why Disaster Insurance Is Essential—No Matter Where You Live

Disasters strike without warning, leaving destruction in their wake. Many assume disaster insurance is only necessary for those living in high-risk areas, but the truth is, 97% of the U.S. population lives in a county covered by a federal disaster declaration since 2020. That means nearly everyone faces some level of risk.

Traditional homeowners and renters insurance often have coverage gaps that could leave you financially vulnerable. That’s where disaster insurance steps in—it provides supplemental coverage to help you recover quickly, whether it’s paying for temporary housing, repairs, or replacing essential belongings.

The Misconception About Risk

One of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming disaster insurance is only for those in disaster-prone areas. But natural catastrophes have grown more unpredictable due to variety of reasons, including urban expansion and shifting environmental patterns. 

Even if your area has never been affected by a disaster before, future risks are impossible to predict. Preparing ahead with disaster insurance ensures financial stability—no matter where you live.

What Is Disaster Insurance and How Does It Work?

Disaster insurance is a supplemental policy designed to fill the gaps in traditional homeowners or renters insurance. Unlike standard policies, which often limit payouts and exclude certain disasters, disaster insurance provides a lump sum payout after a state or federally declared natural disaster.

This money can be used however you need—whether for securing temporary housing, making urgent repairs, or replacing lost essentials. Unlike traditional policies that have high deductibles and exclusions, disaster insurance offers flexibility and peace of mind when recovering from a catastrophe.

The Financial Risks of Being Underinsured

Even if you have homeowners or renters insurance, your policy might not provide the full protection you need. Studies show that most homes are underinsured by as much as 20% of their value, meaning homeowners could be left paying thousands out of pocket to rebuild.

Common coverage gaps include:

  • High deductibles—forcing homeowners to pay large amounts before insurance coverage kicks in.
  • Exclusions for certain disasters—such as earthquakes or storm surges, which are often not covered.
  • Limits on claims—some policies cap the amount paid, regardless of damage extent.
  • Depreciation on repairs—your roof, appliances, and belongings may only be covered at their depreciated value, rather than full replacement cost.

Disaster insurance helps bridge these gaps, ensuring you have financial support when the unexpected happens.

Who Needs Disaster Insurance? (Hint: Nearly Everyone)

Regardless of where you live, disaster insurance is a smart investment. If you rent or own a home, have valuables to protect, or simply want financial security in the face of unexpected disasters, this coverage can be a game-changer.

Since nearly every county in the U.S. has faced federally declared disasters in recent years, disaster insurance is relevant to everyone—not just those in high-risk regions. It’s proactive protection against financial hardship, ensuring you can recover without draining your savings or struggling with the limitations of traditional insurance policies.

Preparing for the Unexpected

The future is unpredictable, but your financial security doesn’t have to be. Disaster insurance offers protection and peace of mind, ensuring that when catastrophe strikes, you have the resources to recover quickly.

Don’t wait for disaster to teach you a costly lesson—prepare today. As an AFA member, you have exclusive access to the first and only multi-peril disaster coverage. Learn more about Recoop Disaster Insurance and safeguard your home, belongings, and financial future now.

NORAD Boss: Fighters Will ‘Certainly’ Play Role in Golden Dome

NORAD Boss: Fighters Will ‘Certainly’ Play Role in Golden Dome

Since President Donald Trump first unveiled his “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative in late January, much of the focus has been on space—how the Pentagon may deploy dozens, if not hundreds, of sensors and interceptors into orbit to protect the continental U.S. from missile barrages. 

But the Air Force general in charge of homeland defense reminded lawmakers April 30 that fighter jets will play a major role too.

Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, head of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, emphasized the importance of a “layered” approach to missile defense during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

And when Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), himself a retired Air Force brigadier general, pointed out that “aircraft play a role too” in Golden Dome, Guillot readily agreed. 

“I think you’re exactly right,” Guillot told Bacon. “As we envision the entire network, it would include space-based AMTI—airborne moving target indication—which would detect and track aircraft and cruise missiles; a land-based capability such as Over-the-Horizon Radar; and certainly fighter aircraft with capable interceptor missiles to defeat cruise missiles.” 

Bacon noted that Guillot’s predecessor, Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, had expressed concern about having enough aircraft on alert. And Guillot himself has said he is working to find the right balance of “just-in-time” and “just-in-case” forces. 

NORAD and NORTHCOM regularly scramble fighters to intercept Russian aircraft that come near North America, as well as other threats or concerns that pop up around the U.S. Fighters also played a key role in tracking and downing a Chinese spy balloon that transited the continental U.S. in 2023. 

But perhaps the most prominent example of how fighters and other aircraft can contribute to the Golden Dome initiative took place over the Middle East last year, when F-15s and F-16s helped shoot down Iranian missiles and drones being launched at Israel. 

Bacon noted that success in his questioning, saying that he “would never have thought that we could shoot down 99 percent of 110 ballistic missiles and then later 180 ballistic missiles at a 99 percent [kill rate].” 

Fighters engaged and downed many of those missiles and drones in a “first wave” of defense, and ground-based systems took out others later. That combined approach is critical, said Guillot and Lt. Gen. Sean A. Gainey, head of Army Space and Missile Defense Command. 

“If there’s anything that we’ve learned over the last year or two years in Israel, the eastern Mediterranean, and Ukraine, it’s that a layered missile defense approach and design is paramount to the large-rate sizes that we’ve seen,” said Gainey.

Space-based interceptors would be a new layer in that defense, albeit a technically difficult one. Lawmakers are planning to pump billions of dollars into the effort, and Missile Defense Agency director Lt. Gen. Heath A. Collins said he hopes to use those funds to start “agile prototyping construct as quickly as possible, whether that be directed energy, nonkinetics, or space-based interceptors.” 

“I think we look to do a very heavy cyclical prototyping phase to get after that and mature that capability as quickly as possible,” he added. 

US Has Struck Over 1,000 Houthi Targets in Renewed Campaign

US Has Struck Over 1,000 Houthi Targets in Renewed Campaign

U.S. forces have struck more than 1,000 Houthi targets in Yemen since March 15, U.S. officials said, as the Trump administration’s campaign against the militants reached the 45-day mark.

Dubbed Operation Rough Rider, the campaign has drawn on U.S. Navy and Air Force warplanes and drones and shows no sign of slowing down. The Pentagon has devoted considerable resources to the effort under U.S. Central Command, including six B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers, two aircraft carriers and their accompanying strike groups, and other aerial assets.

“CENTCOM strikes have hit over 1,000 targets, killing Houthi fighters and leaders, including senior Houthi missile and UAV officials, and degrading their capabilities,” Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Sean Parnell said in an April 29 statement, a total reiterated by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on April 30. That assessment marked a significant increase from an April 27 estimate of over 800 targets hit provided by CENTCOM.

The campaign against the Houthis has also been broadened to include Britain, which on April 29 participated in airstrikes for the first time since Trump took office. In a nighttime strike, Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4 fighters used Paveway IV guided bombs to attack a “cluster of buildings” used to manufacture drones that the Houthis have used to attack ships in the busy waterways near Yemen, according to the U.K. Ministry of Defense. That attack, which was carried out in a joint operation with the U.S., was supported by Voyager aerial refueler tankers.

“This action was taken in response to a persistent threat from the Houthis to freedom of navigation,” British Defense Secretary John Healey said in a statement.

The Houthis have been attacking international shipping in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait since late 2023 in response to Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. The Houthi attacks have hit commercial ships, leading to a large drop-off in shipping in the Red Sea, which connects to the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal, forcing commercial traffic to reroute around Africa.

The U.S. military engaged in a long military campaign against the Houthis under the Biden administration, and Trump stepped it up even more, including attacks against Houthi leaders. 

“These strikes have killed hundreds of Houthi fighters,” CENTCOM said in a rare update on the operation April 27. “The strikes have destroyed multiple command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities, and advanced weapons storage locations. These storage facilities housed advanced conventional weapons, including anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles, unmanned aerial systems, and uncrewed surface vessels, which were employed in Houthi terrorist attacks on international shipping lanes.”

On social media, CENTCOM, commanded by Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, often shares imagery of fighter jets launching, referring to “24/7 operations” and using the hashtag #HouthisAreTerrorists in its posts.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin struck a similar tone in an April 30 post on social media, saying the service has participated in “continuous strikes against Iran-backed Houthis.”

But in contrast to previous campaigns, the Trump administration and the military have withheld many details about the operations.

“To preserve operational security, we have intentionally limited disclosing details of our ongoing or future operations. We are very deliberate in our operational approach, but will not reveal specifics about what we’ve done or what we will do,” CENTCOM said.

CENTCOM says that Houthi ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69 percent and attacks from one-way attack drones have decreased by 55 percent since the start of the operation.

The missions have involved a sizable commitment of resources. The B-2s have been deployed to the military outpost of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for the last month, an unusually long deployment for the high-maintenance stealth bomber, and have carried out airstrikes on the Houthis. The aircraft carriers USS Harry S. Truman and USS Carl Vinson are both operating in the waters near Yemen. It is extremely rare for two carriers to be operating in the Middle East together for an extended period of time. Pricey munitions, including cruise missiles and guided bombs, have also been employed by U.S. forces.

The Houthis have alleged that the U.S. military has caused hundreds of civilian casualties, particularly in strikes against Ras Isa fuel port earlier this month—one of the few specific targets CENTCOM has publicly disclosed, which the Houthis say caused around 70 deaths—and a strike on April 28 that is alleged to have killed nearly 70 African migrants.

The April 28 strike resulted in “a high number of casualties, many of whom were migrants,” the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a statement. Before that strike, there were over 500 civilian casualties—158 killed, 342 injured—reported as the result of apparent U.S. strikes between the beginning of Operation Rough Rider on March 15 and April 22, according to the Yemen Data Project, a nonprofit group.

Asked about the claims of civilian casualties, a U.S. defense official said, “CENTCOM is aware of the reports and is taking them seriously.”

“We are currently conducting our battle-damage assessment and inquiry into those claims,” the official told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The U.S. campaign has come at the cost of at least seven MQ-9 Reapers that have been lost over Yemen since the beginning of March—six since the current campaign began on March 15—according to U.S. officials. The Houthis have claimed credit for shooting down the drones. The roughly $30 million MQ-9s are employed as both strike assets and to surveil targets, and the current U.S. campaign differs from operations under the Biden administration in its focus on Houthi leaders, as well as its scope.

On April 28, one of Truman’s F/A-18E Super Hornets, along with a tow tractor, fell off the carrier and sank, according to the Navy, and an F/A-18F off the Truman was shot down in a friendly fire incident by the USS Gettysburg cruiser in December before the current, more intense operation began. The Sailors involved in both incidents managed to escape relatively unharmed.

“We will continue to ratchet up the pressure until the objective is met, which remains the restoration of freedom of navigation and American deterrence in the region,” CENTCOM said in its April 27 statement.

A U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II returns to combat patrol after being refueled over the Red Sea, April 15, 2025. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Christopher Lyons
Pentagon Poised to Replenish Munitions Stockpiles with Billions from Congress

Pentagon Poised to Replenish Munitions Stockpiles with Billions from Congress

After years of serving as the bill-payer for other Pentagon priorities, munitions stockpiles are poised to get a major boost from the $150 billion reconciliation package unveiled by lawmakers in Congress this week, along with the defense industrial base to produce them.

The package, approved by the House Armed Services Committee on April 29, includes sections with $20.4 billion for munitions and their supply chain and $13.5 billion for low-cost weapons. That covers money for everything from long-range missiles used by multiple services—particularly anti-ship missiles—to hypersonic missiles to low-cost cruise missiles to one-way attack drones.

The reconciliation bill effectively supplements the 2025 budget being funded by continuing resolution. The Trump administration is projecting a 2026 defense budget of $1 trillion, but the reconciliation adds are not part of that figure.

If approved, the new spending would see large increases to buy or develop long-range missiles applicable to multiple services–particularly anti-ship missiles–with boosts to hypersonic missile funding and one-way attack drones of the kind that have proven effective in the Ukraine war.

The package also includes money to boost the resiliency of the supply base for materials such as rare Earth metals, and to buy Army land-based munitions, Navy torpedoes and mines, and rockets and motors to support missile defense systems.

Missiles

The emphasis on long-range cruise missiles dovetails with posture testimony offered by regional commanders this spring, who all laid out the need to shoot at enemy targets—at least in the initial stages of a conflict—from outside the reach of air defenses, the range of which continues to expand.  

The package includes $938 million for such multi-service missiles—$688 million to develop and procure them, and $250 million to expand production capacity. Lawmakers didn’t specify which programs they were targeting with these increases, nor did they spell out how much of the money is intended to support specific branches.

Another combined $780 million would go for development, procurement, and expanded production of Navy and Air Force “long-range anti-ship missiles.” Lockheed Martin’s stealthy AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, currently dominates this sector.  

A total of $584 million would go to development, production, and capacity expansion for long-range air-to-surface missiles used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

One program seemingly poised to expand is the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile built by RTX. Lawmakers want to put $250 million to buy “medium range air-to-air-missiles,” $225 million to “expand the production base” for those weapons, and $50 million to mitigate “diminishing manufacturing sources” that support such missiles, for a total of $525 million.

Another individual winner seems to be Northrop Grumman”s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile- Extended Range, or AARGM-ER. The package includes “$325 million for production capacity improvements for air-launched anti-radiation missiles.”

Even short-range air-to-air missiles like the AIM-9X Sidewinder, also built by RTX, got a boost, to the tune of $50 million to boost the production capacity by establishing “second sources” for weapon parts.

As more and more companies like Anduril and Lockheed Martin unveil new low-cost cruise missiles, Congress signaled interest in growing the market with $500 million for development and production of such weapons suitable for export to allied and partner nations.

The Barracuda-500 cruise missile, one of a variety of advanced products Anduril will likely produce at its new facility near Columbus, Ohio.

Drones

One of the largest single boosts in the package was $1 billion for “expansion of the one-way attack unmanned aerial systems industrial base” to produce weapons similar to those used with great effect in the Ukraine war.

As a mission area, counter-unmanned aerial systems capability was tapped for more than $1 billion, collectively, with $500 million for development, production and integration of such systems, $350 million pegged to development, production and integration of “non-kinetic” counter-UAS  and $250 million for “development, production, and integration of land-based counter-unmanned aerial systems programs.” These funds were listed among Army programs, but may not be strictly to support Army efforts.

Industrial Base

The package includes $600 million for “investments in the solid rocket motor industrial base … and emerging solid rocket motor industrial base,” dominated by Northrop Grumman, and $42 million to develop “second sources for large-diameter solid rocket motors for hypersonic missiles.” A possible benefactor of these funds is L3Harris’ Aerojet Rocketdyne unit, which is the next-largest maker of SRMs after Northrop.

Another section included $1 billion “for the creation of next-generation automated munitions production factories,” but it wasn’t specified whether these funds supported relatively simple items like artillery shells or new low-cost cruise missile factories like those recently announced by Anduril.

About $1.5 billion, collectively, was provided for joint prototyping experimentation, acceleration of 5G and 6G technologies, and cross-service networking and kill chain development. Some $3 billion was allotted to the Defense Innovation Unit to pursue dual-use “innovative technologies” applicable to both the commercial world and defense, aimed at lowering costs for defense needs.

The package also includes $2.5 billion in funding to assist mines in gearing up to increase their production of critical materials, such as rare Earth elements, through the National Defense Stockpile program.

Meeting the Software Challenge: How the Air Force Is Embracing New Acquisition Rules

Meeting the Software Challenge: How the Air Force Is Embracing New Acquisition Rules

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a three-part series exploring the opportunities and challenges facing the Trump administration’s changes to how the Pentagon buys software.

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the Army War College last week, he mentioned changes to the way the military buys software alongside Golden Dome and the F-47 as key to his goal of “rebuilding the military.”

In a memo last month, Hegseth doubled-down on a new rule book for the way the U.S. military buys software. The memo mandates the use of the Software Acquisition Pathway, a five-year-old effort to reshape a military procurement process built for industrial age military hardware like tanks and ships, and fit it to buying modern software.

And Maj. Gen. Luke C.G. Cropsey, who heads the Air Force’s most consequential IT acquisition programs, says he’s already using the authorities that Hegseth foot-stomped in the memo to contract directly with commercial startups and bring cutting edge software into the huge, complex programs he manages.

The Software Acquisition Pathway was developed by a blue-ribbon commission and passed by Congress in 2019 to address concerns about huge delays and budget overruns in software-heavy acquisition programs like the F-35. But the pathway was a voluntary option prior to Hegseth’s memo and only a small number of programs are using it so far.

Hegseth’s memo says it should be the “preferred option” for all major software purchases going forward.

And the memo also mandates the use of new, much more flexible acquisition tools, which aim to short-circuit long-established rules about how the government spends taxpayer dollars, to help the military buy cutting edge technological capabilities more quickly.

Almost no one seems to think that the way the U.S. military currently buys software is effective. But while the Software Acquisition Pathway has existed for nearly five years now, government auditors have noted that it is rarely used by major weapons programs because of gaps in training and resources—suggesting Hegseth may face big challenges in his push to make it the default option.

Of 53 software-intensive major weapons programs looked at by the Government Accountability Office last year, only one reported it was using the pathway. And GAO Director of Contracting and National Security Acquisitions Shelby Oakley told Air & Space Magazine that program was no longer using the pathway.

“We would like to see more use of that pathway by these programs, but we’re just not seeing that at this point,” she said.

When program managers were asked why they weren’t using the then-optional software pathway, Oakley said, their response varied.

“Some said, ‘Oh, it’s not applicable to us,’ or, ‘The contractor is doing the software, we don’t have any insight,’ all sorts of things like that,” she said.

But one reason that stood out, she said, was resources. “Programs told us, and told [the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment] that they felt like they didn’t have specialized people to do this, that they didn’t have the expertise,” she said. They ended up relying on contractor support. “In order to do these modern, agile developments, you need a program office and a program manager that have the skills to oversee these activities,” Oakley said.

There was a “disconnect” between the policy and the resources, she added. “It is a little bit unrealistic to think that folks will just magically know exactly how to do this and understand what this might look like for what they see as a more traditional weapons program effort.”

Maj. Gen. Luke Cropsey is responsible for developing the overarching architecture that can turn Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) from a concept into an operational reality. Mike Tsukamoto/staff

A New Way of Buying Software

Cropsey, who heads the Air Force Program Executive Office (PEO) for Command, Control, Computers, and Battle Management (C3/BM) told Air & Space Forces Magazine he was already using many of the authorities Hegseth is promoting as part of a drive to embrace software innovation. “What we’re doing with [Cloud-Based Command and Control] is exactly the direction the SecDef’s memo is pushing us,” Cropsey said.

CBC2 is the modern, cloud-based software replacement for the aging Battle Control System–Fixed—the Cold War-era system used to defend North American airspace by NORAD, the joint U.S.-Canadian air defense organization. Ground stations across North America monitor and track possible airspace intrusions, said Cropsey, and feed that data to NORAD HQ. “But the equipment that they’re using has been around for decades and decades and decades,” he said.

In the industrial age model of contracting, Cropsey said, the Air Force would award a contract for a new air defense system or a jet fighter to a single company which would produce it for decades, on the assumption that, with the resources of the United States behind it, it could outpace any technological competitors. But in the new innovation era, the service had to be ready to be a “fast follower,” adopting new technological advances, from wherever they spring, as quickly as possible.

“The paradigm is rapid, incremental, buys of emerging capabilities,” Cropsey said.

The capabilities he hopes to leverage in CBC2, he said, “grew out of a number of prototype collaborations that we have with folks like DIU” and other innovation shops.

The new authorities in the Software Acquisition Pathway and the novel contracting tools mandated in the Hegseth memo “allow us to contract directly with those non-traditional cutting edge software providers in the commercial market for the things that we needed,” Cropsey said.

Industry software teams participate in the Department of the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System Cross-Functional Team first software sprint experiment to examine software solutions for enhanced command and control in conjunction with the Shadow Operations Center – Nellis, at the Howard Hughes Operations, or H2O, facility in Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept. 9-13, 2024. U.S. Air Force photo

From Pathway to OTA

Traditionally, Cropsey explained, the way major weapons systems would seek to leverage a startup with exciting new capabilities would be as a subcontractor to a large defense prime, because the small, new company would not be able to meet the onerous requirements to qualify to bid on government contracts.

But the Hegseth memo directs all software programs use two alternative acquisition tools: Other Transaction Authority (OTAs) and Commercial Solutions Offerings (CSOs), which dispense with many of those requirements.

Cropsey said the CBC2 team used a different alternative acquisition tool, Small Business Innovation Research contracts (SBIRs) Phase III, to directly engage software vendors and bring them onto the program quickly.

“A Phase III basically allows anybody to come get you [the vendor] on contract as a sole source, very, very rapidly,” he said. “So we had a direct contractual relationship with them, not a typical prime to sub relationship that a lot of these different contracts have had historically.”

That meant the CBC2 team could use the startups to deal with issues or bugs as incremental capabilities were rolled out to users, while also developing the next generation of capabilities. “We could go in and very, very rapidly pivot those software providers to the things that were getting curated in that DevSecOps backlog and that pipeline,” he said.

These alternative acquisition tools make it easier to get vendors, especially non-traditional ones like the software startups working CBC2, on contract and working, Cropsey said.

“The drawback,” he said, “is you need contracting officers that understand the authorities associated with these contract vehicles, because they’re outside of the typical Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations that most contracting officers grow up doing. So it’s a different skill set.”

Writing and managing OTA contracts is taxing, and not just because they’re different from conventional procurement tools, said Oakley. They’re also less proscriptive and less structured, meaning it takes more work to create them.

Oakley compared drawing up an OTA contract to “creating it from scratch versus following the formula of a regular, DFAR-based contract.”

They can also be harder to manage, she added, and GAO had “raised some concerns about the ability to effectively oversee these OTAs and really structure them in a way that gets the government what it wants.”

Part 2 will probe the origins of the Software Acquisition Pathway as part of an acquisition reform movement in DOD. Part 3 will look at questions about the pathway and the flexible acquisition tools that accompany it.