Trump Touts ‘F-55’ Fighter: Is There a Twin-Engined F-35 in the Air Force’s Future?

May 15, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

President Donald Trump is interested in developing a twin-engined, upgraded version of the F-35 fighter, he said during a press event May 15 in Qatar marking the sale of Boeing airliners and GE Aerospace engines to Qatar Airways. He said he would name the improved aircraft the “F-55” and also referred to a freshly improved F-22 as the “F-22 Super.”

Trump said he’s asked the U.S. military “to look into the F-35.”

“We’re doing an upgrade, a simple upgrade, but we’re also doing … I’m going to call it an F-55, and that’s going to be a substantial upgrade,” Trump said in a surprise announcement.

The future aircraft will have “two engines, because the F-35 has a single engine. … I don’t like single engines,” the president said, citing the possibility that one engine “goes out.”

“We’re going to do an F-55, and I think, if we get the right price—we have to get the right price—that’ll be two engines and a super upgrade on the F-35,” Trump concluded.

Development of the F-35 Block 4 upgrade is underway, and its foundational element, the Tech Refresh 3, is in flight test. The program does not call for adding a second engine, however, which would require a radical redesign of the F-35 and make it a much heavier—and likely less maneuverable and shorter-ranged—fighter aircraft. It would effectively be an all-new aircraft requiring extensive design and development, likely at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. The result would be a direct competitor to Boeing’s F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, but probably without the F-47’s extremely low observable characteristics.

Boeing won the competition to build the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, dubbed the F-47. The Air Force obscured details of the aircraft’s design. The first-ever sixth-generation fighter promises new advances in low-observability, speed, and reliability. USAF graphic

Trump was seated at the event next to Larry Culp, head of GE Aerospace, which will provide the engines for the Qatar Airways jets, and appeared to direct his engine comments at Culp. GE manufactures military as well as commercial engines.

GE pushed hard to be brought on as a second certified engine supplier for the F-35 early in the program and developed, at government expense, an F136 powerplant to compete with Pratt & Whitney’s F135, which is now the sole engine for the F-35. The idea was for the two engine makers to compete for annual buys of F-35 engines, but former defense secretary Robert Gates and Congress killed the F136 in 2011, arguing it was an unnecessary expense.

adaptive engines — GE Aviation’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program entrant, the XA100 engine. Photo courtesy of GE.

GE and Pratt also developed the XA-100 and X-101 Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) powerplants as a planned mid-life upgrade for the F-35. But in 2023, senior Pentagon leaders opted not to pursue the more powerful and fuel-efficient engines as a cost-cutting measure. Instead, they opted to go with Pratt’s Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) of the F-35, which is now in development. The rationale for not pursuing the adaptive engines after a decade of work and a $12 billion investment was that powerplants could not be used in all variants of the F-35. The Air Force would have had to fund further refinement and production on its own and couldn’t afford to do so.

An F-35A Lightning II arrives at Edwards Air Force Base, California, Aug. 1, 2022. Air Force photo by Chase Kohler

Asked if Culp planned to speak with Trump about military engines, a GE Aerospace spokesperson said only that Culp was there to sign and celebrate “the $97 billion contract with Qatar Airways” and could not comment further.

The AETP engine would have increased the F-35’s range by 30 percent, reducing its dependence on aerial tanking, and its acceleration by nearly 20 percent. The adaptive technology would also have helped with the F-35’s heat signature, now becoming a much more important consideration in stealth.

GE and Pratt are now developing competing versions of the Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion engine, which will build on the previous, unused AETP engine technology and apply it to the F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter. They are working under matching $3.5 billion contracts. Air Force officials have said that the NGAP will be a smaller engine than the XA-100 or -101, and neither of those can be ported directly to the F-47.

Trump also said he considers the F-22 “the most beautiful fighter jet in the world,” and “we’re going to do an F-22 Super, and it’ll be a very modern version of the F-22 fighter jet.” He remarked that China has “copied it” in that country’s advanced fifth-generation fighter designs, but “they won’t be able to copy our engines too quickly, or anything else.” He added that the F-22 Super is something “I want to do.”

The F-22 is being fitted with advanced missiles, infrared targeting pods, stealthy fuel tanks and pylons, advanced electronics, and other improvements to keep it credible and capable while the F-47 is developed. The upgrade program has no specific name.

Air Force aviation program watchers are unfamiliar with the F-55 and F-22 Super nomenclature. When asked about the F-55 and F-22 Super, the Air Force deferred all inquiries to the White House. The White House National Security Council did not respond to a request for comment when asked to clarify Trump’s remarks. The F-35 Joint Program Office also did not immediately respond to repeated requests for comment.

Lockheed Martin, which is the prime contractor for both the F-35 and the F-22, said in a statement that it wanted to “thank President Trump for his support of the F-35 and F-22 and will continue to work closely with the Administration to realize its vision for air dominance.” The company declined to comment further and referred all further questions about his remarks to the White House.

New sensors and stealthy fuel tanks dominate F-22 spending across the future years defense plan. — Former Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mark Kelly posted this conceptual image of an F-22 firing the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile on Instagram in 2022, offering the first official glimpse of the new weapon. USAF illustration

Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet recently proposed an uprated F-35 as a possible alternative or powerful complement to the new Boeing F-47 on the company’s April 22 quarterly results call. Boeing was selected over Lockheed for the NGAD contract, and Lockheed was eliminated from the Navy’s counterpart program, the F/A-XX, leaving it with the F-35 as its sole major tactical aviation program, which is already 25 years old.

Taiclet said the uprated aircraft would be a “Ferrari” version of the F-35, and achieve 80 percent of the NGAD’s capability at 50 percent of its $300 million-per-copy cost. He did not, however, suggest fundamental changes that would alter the F-35’s mold line or add a new or second engine. A Lockheed Martin spokesperson said the company declined to elaborate on Taiclet’s proposal “at this time.”

The F-35 JPO said it had no comment on Taiclet’s proposed upgrade as “this discussion remains entirely notional at this stage.”

Many airpower advocates want the Air Force to improve its fighter fleet in some form.

“Whatever path the Air Force takes on fighter modernization, it is crucial that it secures modern capabilities in sufficient capacity,” said Douglas Birkey, Executive Director of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “The current fighter inventory is too old, too small, and has been worn hard in constant combat use for decades.”

How Golden Dome Will Help Create Space Superiority

May 15, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

The projected “Golden Dome” missile defense system could push the U.S. military to broaden its thinking on how to support space operations, the Space Force’s top planner said May 15.

“We need to think about terrestrial fires and demand signal,” Lt. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton, the deputy Chief of Space Operations for strategy, plans, programs, and requirements, said during an event hosted by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “If a B-21 can drop a bomb on a space target that the adversary has in the terrestrial realm, I think planners should account for that.”

He said the requirements for the Golden Dome, which calls for space-based missile interceptors, as opposed to relying entirely on ground-based systems that intercept missiles in space, should make the U.S. military think more holistically about how it accomplishes objectives.

“Golden Dome does open a new area as we think about this boost-phase intercept from space,” Bratton said. “I don’t think we’re going further than that at this time on thinking about any specific capabilities, but it really is just to remind planners, don’t lock yourself into just the space domain. Sometimes the best way to solve that threat or defeat the threat that you’re facing within the space domain is to solve that problem in the terrestrial domain.”

The service last month rolled out its Space Warfighting guide, which it calls a “framwork for planners” that Bratton said was aimed at ensuring current Guardians understand their service’s military mission as the Space Force increasingly moves towards more blunt rhetoric that acknowledges warfare may occur in space, and warns of more aggressive actions taken by adversaries such as China or Russia.

“We must be prepared to employ capabilities for offensive and defensive purposes,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman wrote in the forward of the document. The Space Force has now made clear its primary mission is “space superiority” to allow the U.S. military to operate in space, much like the Air Force relies on air superiority to take out targets or allow other forces to accomplish a mission.

“This is the normalization of the language and showing the joint force that, hey, really warfare in space isn’t that different than warfare in other domains,” Bratton said. “There’s not a big mystery behind all this. We’re a warfighting organization, just like the other services are, and here’s how we do our business.”

Golden Dome calls for interceptors to shoot down missiles from space. While Bratton did not suggest that the Space Force plans to develop an ability to attack ground targets directly with interceptors, he left open the possibility that the technology required to field a space-based interception capability could be used in other ways.

“We were directed to look exactly at that: ‘Boost-phase intercept from space.’ By definition of those words, is, ‘Hey, I am on orbit, and I’m going to re-enter and impact during the boost phase, which is suborbital,” Bratton said. “Some of the work that we’ve done in the space superiority area, Golden Dome will benefit from, and I think space superiority will benefit from the future work on Golden Dome.”

Space-based interceptors are perhaps Golden Dome’s most vexing requirement, as the technology currently does not exist. But for the Space Force, it “puts us front and center,” Bratton said, and opens the door for the service to have the Golden Dome become complementary to its broader mission.

The Space Force is committed to “develop that capability and go field it,” he said of space-based interceptors.

“The technology to do that, we’ll be able to use that in other areas. … That’s a tough problem to solve, but we’re going to figure it out,” he continued. “There is some overlap, and I think we’ll benefit from Golden Dome.”

But the future of the Space Force doesn’t all rely on new space-based cutting-edge technology to take out objects, he said.

“We don’t always have to use space to solve a space problem,” Bratton said. “Just like we help the joint force solve their problems as part of them, we need to rely on them, and that’s okay. … Here’s what we need from the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, and the Marine Corps. We get a lot of demands from them, and so I think that’s a two-way street. And they are on board with that.”

Airmen Have Just Days Left To Apply For Select Retention Bonus

May 15, 2025 | By David Roza

Airmen interested in and eligible for selective retention bonuses (SRBs) have just a few days left to apply, as retention runs high and as the Air Force reaches the end of the funding provided by Congress for the program. The program closes on May 20, so officials encouraged Airmen to submit applications by May 19 to avoid any cross-timezone deadline issues.

SRBs are meant to incentivize reenlisting in high-demand career fields such as special warfare, cybersecurity, aircraft maintenance, and intelligence. The size of the bonus depends on the field and the Airman’s time in service, but they can be substantial: in 2024 the Air Force upped the maximum allowable reenlistment bonus to $180,000, with a career cap set at $360,000.

In December, the service expanded the number of eligible career fields to 89, up from 73 the year before and 51 the year before that. The Air Force has nearly depleted the $172 million Congress allotted for SRBs, a service official told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Had the Pentagon not been operating under a year-long continuing resolution, the Air Force may have had the flexibility to shuffle funding from other areas into the SRB to fuel it the rest of fiscal year 2025, but that’s not the case this year.

SRBs are often split between up-front payments and anniversary payments for each year after the reenlistment. Airmen already in the SRB program will still receive their anniversary payments, but the Air Force will no longer be able to accept new applicants after May 20. Ordinarily, the program would have run until Sept. 30, the last day of FY25.

“We realize there are Airmen who will be disappointed by this,” a service official said. “While we obviously prefer to run an FY25 program to the end of FY25, what I really appreciate is that we have used our entire budget that Congress appropriated for enlisted retention, and we’ve spent it on enlisted retention.”

That’s not always a guarantee: in 2023, for example, the Air Force had to pause bonus programs, permanent change of station moves, and some other incentive pay for nearly three weeks when the service ran out of personnel funds. Higher-than-expected PCS costs, a result of inflation, and higher retention and recruiting bonuses all contributed to the shortfall, officials said at the time.

The Air Force under-executed the FY24 SRB budget by about $50 million, FY23 by about $70 million, and FY22 by about $109 million—the budget for that year was $200 million.

Human behavior is difficult to predict amid a range of external economic factors, so while it is difficult to pin down exactly what made this year different, several changes may have helped. One is that last year the Air Force expanded the reenlistment window from 90 days prior to date of separation to a full 12 months prior to separation, giving troops more time to sign up.

The Air Force also opened the SRB FY25 window in December rather than in May as it did for the FY24 SRB. The number of career fields was also higher than usual, as were the multipliers that decide how large a bonus Airmen receive.

“I think all of those factors combined to drive very high take rates,” said the official, who anticipates a similar level of SRB funding in FY26, though that budget is yet to be finalized.

Retention in FY25 is right in line with Air Force targets, with 89.3 percent of enlisted Airmen staying on and 90.1 percent of Airmen overall doing so. To what extent large SRBs drive retention is unclear: a military personnel budget expert told Air & Space Forces Magazine last year that the Air Force often lacks information on the impact of past bonuses or incentive pays on accessions and retention.

“I can’t tell if a really big bonus offered 10 years ago to people working with computers was effective, because I can’t go back and see if the person who was offered the bonus got out or stayed,” said RAND senior operations researcher and retired Air Force veteran Lisa Harrington, who also called for better integration between personnel budget policy stakeholders to avoid or mitigate shortfalls such as the one that occurred in 2023.

The Air Force official thanked military personnel flights across the service, many of whom who will likely be busy processing last-minute applications over the next few days.

Golden Dome’s Price Tag Will Likely Exceed Half a Trillion Dollars, Space Force Chief Says

May 15, 2025 | By Matthew Cox

The “Golden Dome” homeland missile defense system proposed by President Donald Trump will likely cost more than half a trillion dollars, Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said.

Saltzman’s prediction came during a May 15 POLITICO event when he was asked if he thought the Congressional Budget Office’s $542 billion estimate for the largely space-based air and missile defense system was too high. He said he believed it was not.

“I’m 34 years in this business; I’ve never seen an early estimate that was too high,” Saltzman said. “My gut tells me there’s going to be some additional funding that’s necessary.”

The Space Force is sure to play a key role in the initiative. The massive undertaking involves developing an architecture of satellites in low- and medium-Earth orbit designed to detect, track, and defeat hypersonic missiles and other sophisticated threats from adversaries such as China and Russia.

Golden Dome has been compared to President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which was intended to protect the United States from nuclear attack. Dubbed by some as “Star Wars,” the missile defense program ultimately failed because of high costs and technology constraints.

Critics of the effort maintain that the billions of dollars already earmarked for it would be better spent on weapons capable of penetrating China’s formidable defenses.

“To build a system over the entire country would be incredibly hard, and we’re not sure it’s going to work,” said retired NASA astronaut Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who also spoke at POLITICO’s event, adding that the reconciliation package in the White House’s proposed defense spending plan has about “$26 billion in there for Golden Dome that could go toward things like [F-47] or the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which we really need if we want to be competitive in the western Pacific against China.”

Some of Kelly’s Democratic colleagues agree.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) criticized the money proposed for the Golden Dome as “essentially a slush fund at this point” during a Defense Writers Group event May 14.

“They have to identify the technologies,” Reed added. “They have to go ahead and design an integrated plan. From what I’ve heard, it’s more of a warning system than it is a firing system, although they will develop firing units to complement it. But the key now is to identify hypersonics as soon as they launch, so that we can engage them. That’s still a work in progress.”

Saltzman acknowledged that Golden Dome is still in the early stages of planning and will involve overseeing many advanced elements “that you have to stitch together in very technical ways.”

“You don’t buy Golden Dome; you orchestrate a program that includes a lot of programs … it’s a system of systems,” Saltzman said. The U.S military will need to decide “which systems are critical … which ones are affordable, which ones are practical in terms of the technology we can rapidly bring to bear.”

Once a basic plan is drafted, it will be submitted to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to present to the White House, Saltzman said.

“That’s where we are—it’s in that basic planning to say, ‘given the threat scenarios that we think you’re trying to defend against, here are the systems that we think are appropriate, here’s the technology that’s available; here’s our plan how we would proceed,’” he said.

Space-based interceptors—an explicit part of the initiative—are perhaps Golden Dome’s trickiest requirement, and for the Space Force, it “puts us front and center,” Lt. Gen. Shawn N. Bratton, the deputy Chief of Space Operations for strategy, plans, programs, and requirements, said during a May 15 event hosted by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He added there was “a lot of overlap” in some elements of Golden Dome with “space superiority” missions that the Space Force was already seeking to pursue.

“The technology to do that, we’ll be able to use that in other areas,” Bratton said. “That’s a tough problem to solve, but we’re going to figure it out.”

As the Space Force works out its role in Golden Dome, Saltzman noted it’s “the nature of the business” to see cost estimates increase in the early stages of complex strategic defense programs as programs move toward real-world fielded systems.

“I think that we don’t always understand the full level of complexity until you’re actually in execution, doing the detailed planning,” Saltzman said. “Space and these kinds of capabilities are exquisite. They are unique in the sense that there’s not a lot of market that would drive the cost down. And so yes, there is sticker shock—but it doesn’t surprise me.”

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed reporting.

Lawmakers Frustrated by Lack of Details for Trump’s Defense Budget

May 14, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

Senior U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed frustration that they are being cut out of some of the Trump administration’s most central decisions on military policy and spending, namely the budget reconciliation process and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plans to slash the number of generals.

“We’re into a new, very complicated situation, which we’re trying to understand frankly,” Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters during a Defense Writers Group event May 14. “We haven’t got yet a very clear plan of what they’re doing.”

One immediate concern involves efforts to boost defense spending through a process known as budget reconciliation. Congressional leaders of the Senate and House committees that authorize military spending have legislated $150 billion in add-on spending.

Republican Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants assurance that the money will be used as Congress intends. During a hearing May 13, he asked nominees for senior Defense Department posts if they were committed to following Congressional intent for using the extra money. The nominees said they would.

But Reed, a West Point graduate who served in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, said he and his colleagues are worried that some of the “arcane rules” of how the reconciliation funds would be used were not entirely clear to lawmakers and there was a risk that the Pentagon would not follow their guidance and intent.

“I think it’s an extraordinary mistake,” Reed said when asked about the reconciliation budget by Air & Space Forces Magazine. “It surrenders congressional leverage and authority over the budget. Is it just a slush fund for the DOD to do what they want to do, or is it something that we can say, ‘No, these are the priorities?’”

Some Republicans share Reed’s frustration, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on defense and a former Senate majority leader. In a May 14 appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he complained that Hegseth had vowed to spend $1 trillion in fiscal 2026 on defense, only for the administration to reveal later that the funding actually included the added funding package from Congress. McConnell accused the administration of engaging in “budgetary sleight of hand.”

Other lawmakers say they are also searching for details. House Appropriations Chairman Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told Air & Space Forces Magazine May 12 that he still has not been given “a real clear understanding of what’s going to be in the reconciliation package.”

Part of the problem is the lack of a presidential budget request to add to in the first place. “It’s getting awfully late in the day,” Cole said. “We need more specificity, and then Congress will make some decisions.”

The concerns go beyond spending. While Hegseth has ordered at least a 20 percent cut in generals and admirals, Congressional leaders have not been told which positions will be cut and what analysis led to the decision, Reed said.

Reed said he and Wicker are exploring ways to ensure the funds in the add-on spending follow Congressional intent. He warned that a Pentagon move to ignore the lawmakers and “just consider the money their money” would establish a precedent that Republicans might regret if the Democrats were to win control of Congress and eventually the White House.

“The one rule here is what goes around comes around,” he said.

Air Force Reveals Range and Inventory Goals for F-47, CCAs

May 14, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter will have a combat radius of greater than 1,000 miles—nearly double that of the F-22—and the Air Force plans to acquire more than 185 of them, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin revealed May 13 in a post on the social media site X.

The first Collaborative Combat Aircraft, so-called Increment 1, will have a combat radius of more than 700 miles, which is greater than that of the F-22 or F-35, the service revealed. The Air Force plans to acquire more than 1,000 of them. The Air Force also suggested that it will take longer for the two CCAs to make their first flights than expected.

“Our [Air Force] will continue to be the world’s best example of speed, agility, and lethality,” Allvin wrote in the post. “Modernization means fielding a collection of assets that provide unique dilemmas for adversaries—matching capabilities to threats—while keeping us on the right side of the cost curve.”

The revelations came in a graphic accompanying Allvin’s post. It shows the F-15E/EX, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-47, and the two CCAs—the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A. Each is labeled with the date of their entry into operational service, combat radius, speed, and a very basic description of their stealth capabilities.

The graphic confirmed speculation that the NGAD would have to have far greater range and stealth than the F-22, to fulfill the Air Force’s desire to be a stand-in force at transoceanic ranges. Yet, at a “combat radius” of 1,000+ miles, an F-47 launching from Guam would not be able to reach the mainland of China on internal fuel, or even Taiwan, some 1,700 miles away, and safely return to base. Aerial refueling would be necessary to extend its reach, although fewer tankings would be needed for such a mission.

Unclear is how much “+” sign in the graphic adds to the stated figure. The given numbers are likely to be less than what the aircraft are actually capable of in order to keep adversaries guessing about their real performance.

The range given for the F-47 would seem to exceed that of the Navy’s counterpart of the NGAD, the F/A-XX. Rear Adm. Michael Donnely, the Navy’s Director of Air Warfare, said at a recent Navy League convention that the F/A-XX would have 25 percent more range than the F-35C or F/A-18E/F.

With a combat radius of 700 nautical miles, the CCAs would be able to fly out ahead of the F-22 and F-35.

While former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said at AFA’s 2023 Air Warfare Symposium that 200 F-47s was the acquisition target, the graphic mentioned “185+”, revealing that the Air Force now plans the F-47 to be a virtual one-for-one replacement for the F-22, of which there are also 185. The reduction may have something to do with the F-47’s extremely high cost of an estimated $300 million per copy; so high that Kendall had planned to delete the NGAD from the fiscal 2026 budget request in favor of other priorities.

Both the F-47 and the CCAs were labeled as planned to enter service between 2025 and 2029, although the latter part of that timeframe is more consistent with previous service comments. The F-47 was also labeled as being a “Mach 2+” fighter; less than the F-15, which was labeled a Mach 2.5 aircraft, and consistent with the F-22’s top speed, also labeled as Mach 2+.

The graphic offered a rudimentary assessment of each aircraft’s observability. While the F-35 was described as a “stealth” aircraft, as were the CCAs, the F-22 was described as a “Stealth +” type while the F-47 was described as “Stealth ++,” consistent with service comments that it would have to be substantially stealthier than the F-22 to survive anticipated adversary air defenses.

The F-22’s combat radius was described as 590 nautical miles, higher than typical descriptions, which peg that number at around 470 miles. Combat radius, however, is a fungible figure, and depends largely on the profile flown to get to the target, and whether the aircraft is expected to perform aggressive combat maneuvers along the way. The Air Force’s official F-22 fact sheet doesn’t provide a combat radius, but the figure in Allvin’s graphic suggests a range augmented by external fuel tanks.

To be “stealth ++” though, it’s likely that the F-47’s range does not count any external fuel tanks, which would increase its radar signature.

The graphic also confirmed that the two CCAs have a primary mission of “air superiority,” meaning they will largely serve as missile carriers for the fifth-generation crewed fighters they will escort into battle, expanding the number of shots each crewed fighter can take per sortie.

The Air Force declined to say whether the “operational” descriptor on the F-47 and CCAs meant that those types will declare Initial Operational Capability in those timeframes. An Air Force official would say only that the F-47 “will fly during this administration,” a comment the service has made before, and which indicates the F-47’s first flight will happen before January 2029. A declaration of IOC requires a certain number of production-representative assets, but a USAF spokesperson declined to say how many F-47s or CCAs will constitute IOC, or when the service plans to declare that status.

The Air Force and its CCA contractors Anduril Industries and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, have been promoting speed in the CCA program, and have said the two aircraft will fly “this summer.” However, the Air Force said in response to a query that Anduril and General Atomics “will fly their production-representative test aircraft by the end of the calendar year,” indicating a possible delay of three to five months.

It’s not clear if the inventory objective of 1,000 CCAs in the graphic refers to the Increment 1 aircraft now in ground test, or CCAs of all increments. The Air Force has said it will launch Increment 2 next year, and service leaders have suggested that it could be less sophisticated and less costly aircraft than Increment 1. Senior Air Force officials have referred to future iterations known as Increment 3 and 4 without providing further details.

The Air Force declined to say what prompted Allvin to make the revelations, but a service official said the release of the graphic was an Air Force initiative and not made in response to a Capitol Hill or White House request.

Our @usairforce will continue to be the world’s best example of speed, agility, and lethality. Modernization means fielding a collection of assets that provide unique dilemmas for adversaries—matching capabilities to threats—while keeping us on the right side of the cost curve. pic.twitter.com/vqjxCdBYid
— General David Allvin (@OfficialCSAF) May 13, 2025

Pentagon to Deploy Discriminating Space Sensor for Ballistic Threat as Part of Golden Dome

May 14, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

The Pentagon is developing space-based sensors that can distinguish missile threats from clutter as a key part of the Trump administration’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative.

“We’re working on prototyping space sensor capabilities, in particular, Discriminating Space Sensor(DSS) to help improve ballistic missile defense in the future,” said Lt. Gen. Heath Collins, who heads the Missile Defense Agency, at a May 13 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “We will prototype it, and the Space Force will operationalize it.”

Cold War-era systems like the Defense Support Program and the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) have existed for decades, but these launch-detection systems sometimes struggle to discriminate between real targets, decoys, and debris. The new DSS aims to distinguish real warheads from everything else to enable interceptors to defeat missiles in mid-flight.

An MDA spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine the agency wants to launch a prototype satellite by 2029.

The DSS will complement the Hypersonic Ballistic Tracking Space Sensors (HBTSS) constellation. A Joint effort between MDA and the Space Force, the first two of these satellites were launched last February. HBTSS is designed to spot and track hypersonic threats, while DSS will zero in on the more predictable ballistic threats.

HBTSS satellites completed a demonstration test in March, in which the Navy destroyer USS Pinckney tracked a hypersonic-like target and simulated an intercept with an SM-6 missile; during the test, HBTSS satellites tracked the target accurately and relayed data quickly for interceptor operations.

“So far we have proven out the timeliness, latency, that of the fire control loop with those systems, as well as the sensitivity of those systems to close the loop,” said Collins, adding that the agency plans to continue to make “algorithm updates” to improve performance.

“All along, we’ve worked in parallel with the Space Force and Space Development Agency,” said Collins. “They now have our HBTSS-like requirements as part of their proliferated warfighting space architecture. In the tranches to come in the following years, they will solely be building up an operational hypersonic tracking layer for us.”

The Defense Intelligence Agency released an analysis May 13, warning that China, which already “may have deployed a conventional Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV) with sufficient range to strike Alaska,” is building a stockpile of hypersonic weapons that could number 4,000 by 2035.

A Defense Intelligence Agency’s assessment, titled “Golden Dome for America: Current and Future Missile Threats to the U.S. Homeland,” projects advanced threats and a modern, sophisticated and integrated defense.

Yet as steerable hypersonic weapons arrive, conventional ballistic missiles will remain the primary threat to the United States from both China and Russia. Both possess missiles that can strike the U.S. homeland. Moscow can also reach much of the continental United States with cruise missiles, and China is fielding similar capabilities in range of Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. West Coast. DIA predicts that both Beijing and Moscow will each have some 5,000 cruise missiles in 10 years.

Golden Dome aims to block such threats. Proposed in President Trump’s inaugural address, the dome initiative has some bipartisan support, with the House Armed Services Committee last month voting to support a $25 billion investment for the project in a pending fiscal 2025 defense package. Concerns over the development timeline and overall cost, which could run into the trillions of dollars, remain as details at this stage are scant.

Pentagon Rushing to Find ‘Low-Collateral’ Tech to Counter Hostile Drones

May 14, 2025 | By Matthew Cox

The Pentagon is seeking ways to down hostile drones to defend military bases without endangering nearby civilians or infrastructure—and it wants solutions soon.

In the wake of increased drone activity near U.S. and overseas bases, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit recently invited industry to present low-collateral defeat (LCD) capabilities that can engage hostile drones like the ones that hovered unchecked over Langley Air Force Base, Va., for two weeks in December 2023.

Engaging drones near civilian areas will always present challenges, however, experts say, either in the form of disrupted radio frequency signals, collateral damage from downed drones, or other disruptions.

The solicitation is part of Replicator 2, an effort to produce a myriad of counter-drone systems for every domain. It teams DIU, the Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, and U.S. Northern Command and, if successful, would offer a range of counter-drone systems that could go into pre-production testing by next year.

The Defense Department has already developed counter-drone weapons ranging from high-explosive missiles to soft-kill technologies designed to jam GPS signals and destroy onboard electronics. But battlefield systems can’t be used in the populated areas around U.S. installations.

“You’ve got the missiles, which will just simply explode either at or nearby the incoming drone, you’ve got guns … and then you’ve also got all the non-kinetic options too—there are high-energy lasers, high-powered microwaves, radio frequency soft kill mechanisms for dealing with this,” said Shaan Shaikh, a defense analyst at RAND. “There are pros and cons to all of these methods. If you’re using a missile system … that is going to cause some debris. There are pieces of the drone, as well as of the missile system itself, that will come back to Earth. If you’re using high-power microwaves, that could potentially fry other electronics in the area.”

Members of Congress have questioned how more than 350 were able to fly over about 100 U.S. bases last year, and defense officials have acknowledged that the commercial drone industry has outpaced the tools to counter them.

“What we are seeing is kind of the rapid advancement of the threats,” said David Payne, director of the Defense Innovation Unit’s Replicator 2 program. “Drones, to put it simply, are getting better and better, driven by commercial technology, and that presents a significant challenge. They’re hard to aim at, hard to hit, and … whatever form of shot you’re taking at it, you do not want that to impact something behind it.”

Northern Command’s short-term fix is to acquire mobile “flyaway kits,” which include countermeasures such as jammers, lasers, or kinetic systems that can be rapidly deployed to bases at a commander’s request.

Payne said the goal now is to expand the options available to defeat drones without posing a threat to civilians nearby.

“There are numerous low-collateral defeat approaches that are out there today,” Payne said. “One of the common ways right now … is an electronic attack. So that’s commonly done by having a library or database of existing drones that are out there with what protocols they use. The system is able to pick up and see what drone is out there, what protocol it’s using, and is able to intercept that signal, replace the signal with what you [need] to be able to take over the drone … to fly it to wherever you would like it to be.”

On the kinetic side, Payne said one solution could be hardened intercept drones designed to ram hostile unmanned aerial systems.

Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security, said collision drones would probably be safer than bullets or missiles.

“You’re trying to have it crash in a way that doesn’t crash on somebody’s house or somebody’s car or some kid that’s walking home from school,” Pettyjohn said. “And since spaces are very much nested in American communities, except for some of the nuclear sites that are in more remote locations, you still have those collateral damage concerns.”

Shaikh suggested those concerns point the way forward. “I think you’re gonna probably have a preference for the no- kinetic options—that is the lasers, the microwaves, the potentially radio frequency options as well,” he said. “But now the question is, under what circumstances can these be used, and in what areas can they be used?” The rules of engagement will have to be worked out.

Pettyjohn agreed that the services need more low-collateral options, but said its only part of a solution to a “really thorny problem that is largely a policy and regulatory” issue that will require better coordination between multiple government agencies.

“You have a bunch of different agencies that have responsibility for different parts of the issue. … It involves [the Department of Homeland Security], state agencies, local government agencies, police forces, as well as the [Federal Aviation Administration], which has set up most of the rules that really limit what can be done in terms of intercepting drones that might be hostile,” Pettyjohn said. “It is not a matter of legality; it is a matter of process and coordinating with the other agencies, like you’re going to need to. You want to tell the FAA before you go shoot something down because you want to clear the rest of the airspace, and you want them to understand what’s going on. You want to coordinate with DHS and others, and that sort of interagency process doesn’t exist.”

Legal and policy constraints must be addresssed. For situations where drone flights create an imminent threat, the Defense Department proposes to relax its requirements under section 130i or Title 10, which limits which installations in the U.S. can engage hostile drones without prior approval from other federal authorities, said Mark Ditlevson, acting assistant Secretary of Defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs, in testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform April 29.

“We also want to expand the locations and missions covered under 130i,” Ditlevson said. “We’d like to expand that to cover all installations.”

Drone technology companies seeking to compete in DIU’s counter-drone program have until May 19 to submit proposals. Those selected would compete in an initial test event in the fall or winter of 2025. Follow-on testing and development would lead to pre-production assessments in just over a year.

“This specific opportunity is to expand the menu of options so each of the services have existing low-collateral defeat mechanisms, have sensor packages, have a whole system-of-systems approach,” Payne said. “We’re really going out there to find the best technology and approaches [available] today” and to identify entirely new approaches that may not have been available or possible in the past.

USAF’s Planned E-7 Fleet on Trump’s Chopping Block

May 13, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

The future of the Air Force’s acquisition of 26 Boeing E-7 Wedgetail aircraft is in doubt under spending plans that are being weighed by the Trump administration, people familiar with the matter said.

The E-7s are to be the Air Force’s new battle management platform, providing airborne moving target indication (AMTI) as successors to the decades-old E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft.

Those in favor of cutting the buy argue that space-based assets can do the job. But the Air Force leadership has argued for years that E-7 is needed, including testimony as recent as this month.

“We have to do more than just sense,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense May 6. “We have to sense, make sense, and act. And right now, the E-7 is the platform that delivers what the E-3 can with greater capability. But I think we just need to ensure that we’re adequately covering all parts of that as we do that migration, before we just go from one domain to another specifically.”

An Air Force spokesperson declined to comment on the fate of the E-7 in the yet-to-be-released 2026 budget. In most years, the budget would have been released months ago. But with a change in administrations and the Trump administration trying to make major changes in a hurry, the proposed budget is still weeks away.

The E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are pricey. Although the basic system has been in use by the British and Australian air forces for years, the Air Force wanted additional capability. The first two prototypes, which won’t be delivered until fiscal 2028, are being developed under a $2.56 billion contract.

Boeing expects first flights of the prototype aircraft “in the coming months,” a Boeing spokesperson said. “We look forward to supporting the U.S. Air Force on the long-term evolution of the platform capabilities and fleet mission.”

Lawmakers are watching closely for signals from meetings between the Pentagon and White House Office of Management and Budget.

“We know there’s a discussion going on between OMB and the Air Force about these things,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in an interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. “At the end of the day, I tend to have more faith in the Air Force that has to go fight and win the war than I do in another bureaucracy.”

Cole toured an Australian E-7 at Joint Base Andrews, Md., on May 12 and discussed the platform with senior Air Force officials, including then-Acting Air Force Secretary Gary Ashworth and Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and programs Lt. Gen. David Tabor, and other senior service officials, according to a person familiar with the meeting.

A Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail soars over Southern California as aircrews from the USAF, RAAF, and Royal Air Force worked together to certify the aircraft to refuel with a USAF KC-46A. Air Force photo by Richard Gonzales

“This is a capability that our Air Force tells us we need, particularly given how rapidly the E-3s are leaving the fleet,” said Cole, whose district includes Tinker Air Force Base, home to the E-3 fleet. “Nobody tells me we’re ready to transfer this capability into space. Eventually, we get it in space, we think, but you’ve got to worry about the here and now.”

President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vowed in April to spend $1 trillion on the U.S. military in 2026. But since then, it has become clear that the budget spending request will actually be far less, about $893 billion, and that the White House is counting on Congressional add-ons to make up the balance.

“I’m concerned about everything until I see a full budget,” Cole said. “We’re going to take very seriously whatever the administration proposes, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatic. We’re not going to lose this ability.”

The Space Force is working toward a future space-based moving-target indication capability, but officials say it will not be able to absorb the E-7’s missions in the near future.

“Space offers a lot of advantages, particularly in a contested environment, but it isn’t necessarily optimized for the full spectrum of operations that your military is going to be asked to do,” said Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman during the hearing. “No one system is going to be perfectly optimized to take care of the full spectrum of ops. And so that’s where I think you need a mix of systems.”