Air Force Munitions Gets Big Boost from Reconciliation

Air Force Munitions Gets Big Boost from Reconciliation

The Air Force’s weapons procurement accounts—often used as a “bill-payer” for other priorities and to fill budget gaps—is poised for a major boost from the reconciliation package currently being debated by Congress. But without detailed budgetary information beyond fiscal 2026, it’s unclear whether the growth in stockpiles will be sustained.

The fiscal 2026 budget request released June 26 also saw the first-ever information on spending for the secret air-to-air AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, as well as on a new family of cruise missiles intended to be built at scale and at relatively low cost.

The Air Force spent $4.8 billion on munitions in fiscal 2024, a figure that fell to $2.57 billion in the ’25 budget. The ’26 request includes a modest rise in the base budget, to $2.85 billion, but with the reconciliation add of $1.94 billion, it rises all the way to $4.78 billion.

Budget documents released thus far by the Pentagon don’t include the traditional five-year spending plans, often called the Future Years Defense Plan or FYDP. Such plans are usually what weapons manufacturers use to help gauge their production capacity investments. It remains to be seen if the weapons spending surge will be the start of sustained growth, or a one-time, catch-up investment before a return to old habits of raiding the weapons accounts to cover other needs.

Weapons manufacturers have unanimously called on the Pentagon and Congress in the last three years to set a clear “demand signal” for routine and surge production capacity. Without such a transparent roadmap, manufacturers have said they can’t justify to stockholders the expense of adding space, tooling, and workforce if they’re not sure orders will appear.

JATM

Making its premiere in the Air Force’s unclassified budget this year is the AIM-260 JATM, built by Lockheed Martin, which is expected to vastly increase the range at which Air Force and Navy fighters can engage enemy aircraft. The Air Force is asking $376.9 million for 112 missiles, all from reconciliation, but revealed that it bought 104 missiles in fiscal 2024 and 40 in 2025, for $373.5 million and $165.6 million, respectively. Roughly speaking, that puts the cost of the latest missiles cost at about $3.36 million each, down from $4.14 million in ‘24, not including long-lead spending. The Navy is also requesting $301 million for JATM procurement.

Development of the missile is still far from over, though, with the Air Force asking for $425.1 million for JATM research, development, test and evaluation, while the Navy is asking $222.8 million for JATM RDT&E; a combined $647.9 million investment.

AMRAAM

By contrast, the Air Force is planning $665.1 million for 483 of its AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles, the service’s primary rsuch weapon for the last 35 years, giving it a price of roughly $1.38 million apiece.

The AMRAAM buy was also significantly increased by reconciliation. While the Air Force requested $365.1 million for 226 AMRAAMs, reconciliation added $300 million for 257 more. USAF wants $51.7 million to continue AMRAAM research and development,

Air Force officials have said that AMRAAM will be the primary weapon of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which will escort crewed fighters in future air combat, although they have said that JATM will also be in the CCA’s weapons mix at some point.

amraam ukraine rtx
U.S. Air Force Airmen assigned to the 77th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, prepare to load an AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) during an integrated combat turn (ICT) training, Nov. 21, 2022, at Prince Sultan Air Base Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Shannon Bowman

FAMM

Another new item in the munitions portfolio is the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, about which the Air Force did not offer any background. The program is set to include 3,010 weapons for $656.3 million, all provided by reconciliation. That translates to a per-unit cost of $218,000 per cruise missile. Anduril Industries has been promoting its “Barracuda” low-cost cruise missile, as has Lockheed Martin, which last fall rolled out its “Common Multi-Mission Truck” cruise vehicle which could carry a variety of payloads.

Two of the largest buys in the Air Force weapons category are the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and the externally similar AGM-158C Long Range Air-to-Surface Missile, both made by Lockheed Martin. The Air Force is buying 389 JASSMS and 118 LRASMS, at a cost of $1 billion and $431.6 million, respectively. The JASSM will cost about $2.6 million apiece if the budget is approved, while LRASM will cost $3.6 million each. The Air Force is also continuing development of JASSM, with $232.3 million requested for the effort.

Marking a return to the Air Force’s weapons portfolio is the AGM-183 Air Launched Rapid-Response Weapon, or ARRW, a rapid-prototype boost-glide hypersonic missile that the service seemingly lost interest in two years ago, when the large weapon completed initial testing off B-52 bombers. The Air Force wants $387.1 million for ARRW procurement in 2026, without specifying a number of units. The other Air Force-acknowledged hypersonic program—the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile—is requested at $802.8 million for RDT&E, none of which was added by the reconciliation. Unlike the ARRW, the HACM is an air-breathing missile with longer range, while small enough to be carried by fighter-sized aircraft.

The Air Force expects that the new Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) will be, broadly, a replacement for the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), by virtue of being faster and better able to skirt enemy air defenses. The SiAW, based on Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile, was requested at $185.9 million for 99 units, with an additional $255.3 million for continuing development.

The Air Force is sticking with 1,500 JDAMs a year, though, asking $126.4 million for that number of units in 2026.

The AGM-181 Long Range Stand-Off, the nuclear-armed cruise missile that will succeed the AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile, would get $442.7 million in procurement, to cover missile production and advanced procurement. A further $606.9 million would fund continuing development; overall, a $1.05 billion investment in the Raytheon program. The LRSO is largely classified but Gen. Thomas Bussiere, head of Global Strike Command, recently said LRSO is doing well and he anticipates no program delays. The Air Force published the first image of the missile in June. While the Air Force waits for LRSO, it’s requesting $175.4 million in RDT&E to keep the missile credible down the line.

The Air Force wants to buy 806 of the Small Diameter Bomb II Stormbreaker, also made by Raytheon, for $307.7 million. Production of Stormbreaker has been fairly consistent in recent years, reaching its recent high water mark of 868 units in fiscal 2025. The Air Force is asking another $24.8 million for ongoing development of the weapon.

The Air Force is asking $6.8 million to buy more GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, 14 of which were used to attack Iranian nuclear development facilities in June. The service did not specify how many bombs that amount would buy.    

Lonely Days, Restless Nights: New Study Looks at How Military Spouses Are Holding Up

Lonely Days, Restless Nights: New Study Looks at How Military Spouses Are Holding Up

A new survey found that military and veteran spouses experience depression and anxiety at two to three times the rate of the general population, with many also reporting difficulty finding community, peer support, and suitable employment.

Released June 27, the Military and Veteran Spouse Wellness Survey is the first to focus on wellness, “a positive state of being that involves more than just the absence of illness,” wrote the study authors, who included researchers from The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Military and Veteran Family Wellness (IMVFW), and InDependent, a nonprofit promoting wellness among military and veteran spouses.

The survey broke wellness into eight related categories as defined by the U.S. government: emotional, physical, intellectual, social, occupational, financial, spiritual, and environmental, which involves factors such as home and neighborhood quality. 

Previous studies conducted by the Defense Department and groups such as Blue Star Families and the Military Family Advisory Network studied spouse satisfaction with military life, the impact of frequent moves, and other challenges military families face, but this was the first to use a holistic wellness framework.

“Behind our service members is a backbone of strength, sacrifice, and fortitude, the force behind the forces,” Lyndsey Akers, senior consultant for AFA’s United Forces & Families program, said at an AFA event promoting the study. “And yet the comprehensive wellness that we’re going to dig into today has been underrepresented in the conversations that shape outcomes. That’s why today matters.”

Screenshot via the Military and Veteran Spouse Wellness Survey.

Between September 2024 and January 2025, the study received 1,150 complete responses, split about evenly between veteran and military spouses. Most respondents’ partners served in the Army (38.2 percent) and Air Force (25.8 percent), while the most frequently reported partner ranks were mid-level officers (O4–O6; 26.2 percent) and senior enlisted (E7–E9; 23.6 percent).

About 76 percent of respondents had children, and the vast majority of respondents were women (90 percent), White (79.3 percent), and living within the United States (89.2 percent). More than half of respondents had a bachelor’s or more advanced degree, and 37.6 percent were employed full-time.

Among the key findings, respondents reported moderate overall wellness satisfaction, with an average rating of 6.58 out of 10. Respondents rated their environmental, spiritual, and intellectual wellness highest, while they rated their physical and emotional wellness satisfaction the lowest.

Over half of respondents experienced some level of anxiety or depression. Respondents cited mild (31 percent), moderate (18 percent), and severe depression (14 percent) at two to three times the rate of the general population (13.9 percent, 4.6 percent, and 2.9 percent, respectively), with similar results for anxiety.

Almost a quarter of respondents (24 percent) said accessing mental health care for themselves was a challenge, as did 25 percent about physical health care. 

Sleep is also hard to come by: 62 percent of respondents indicated sub-threshold clinical insomnia, which refers to sleep difficulties that don’t meet the full diagnostic criteria for insomnia. On top of that, 19 percent and 5 percent of respondents reported moderate and severe clinical insomnia. Fully 34 percent said they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the quality of their sleep. About half of respondents met the criteria for sub-threshold nightmare disorder, where nightmares regularly disrupt quality of life.

Screenshot via the Military and Veteran Spouse Wellness Survey.

About 65 percent of respondents showed moderate or high levels of loneliness, with 53 percent reporting challenges finding community, 38 percent citing challenges finding support, and 23 percent reporting frequent feelings of isolation.

About 33 percent of respondents reported struggling to find meaningful employment. Most spouses reported moderate financial well-being, but 10 percent cited affording meals as a challenge, and only about 37 percent said they usually had a good life-work balance. 

Most respondents cited moderate to strong spiritual wellness, meaning they felt their lives have meaning and clear purpose. 

About 81 percent of respondents scored highly on a perceived neighborhood quality scale, but only 32 percent felt they could call on a neighbor for help if they needed it.

Not all was doom and gloom, though. The study found “many spouses demonstrated resilience and positive behaviors, such as moderate-to-high engagement in intellectual and spiritual wellness practices and generally health-conscious nutrition habits.”

Screenshot via the Military and Veteran Spouse Wellness Survey

The researchers behind the survey suspect social isolation contributes to many of the reported problems.

“About 50 percent of participants felt that finding community or friends was the number one challenge that they are currently facing,” said Evie King, president of InDependent. “You can probably start sewing a line through so many areas of wellness where this trend seemed to resonate.”

Recent research shows that many military spouses are dissatisfied with the process and tempo of permanent change of station moves, which for Active-Duty families usually occur every two to three years. Indeed, a Defense Department report in May found record rates of Active-duty military spouses want to leave the military community, with a large number of them frustrated by the difficulty of finding employment, child care, and reimbursement for moving costs after a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move.

The new survey did not ask for respondents’ number of PCS moves, so it couldn’t track whether spouses with more moves under their belts had higher loneliness scores.

“But I think anecdotally we’ve heard so much in our community that that is likely a contributor,” said IMVFW director Elisa Borah. “It’s really hard to connect with new support systems, new friends, and then knowing you’re moving again in two years … you’re hesitant to form strong bonds.”

The survey isn’t the first to detect the challenge of social isolation. A core takeaway of a 2024 conference at the U.S. Air Force Expeditionary Center was that unit leaders can improve morale and cohesiveness by doing more to bring Airmen and families together, especially in the middle of what top U.S. health officials have called a “loneliness epidemic.”

“We know that this lifestyle is isolating, lonely, it leads to mental health concerns if you’re not supported or even know how to pay attention to your mental health,” Borah said. “I think that’s where we can make the most impact and improve our programming.”

The study was light on specific policy recommendations, but authors said it underscored the importance of holistic wellness for spouses. They encouraged community leaders and military officials to address gaps in support—”particularly in areas such as mental health, employment, and social connection.” The authors also hope to conduct future surveys every two years, if not annually.

“Insights alone do not shift culture,” Akers said. “Intentional and informed action does.”

‘Excess’ Nuclear Missile Funds Used to Modify Trump’s New Air Force One

‘Excess’ Nuclear Missile Funds Used to Modify Trump’s New Air Force One

The Air Force diverted what it says was excess funding from its delayed new nuclear missile program to modify a former Qatari royal jet for use as President Donald Trump’s Air Force One, the service’s top civilian said June 26.

But Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink insisted the move will “absolutely not” delay Sentinel’s progress, saying that money was “early-to-need” funding the high-priority missile modernization project didn’t use last year.

“We will ensure that those resources are there,” Meink said at a June 26 Senate hearing on the Air Force’s 2026 budget request. “The Sentinel program is fully funded . . . to execute as quickly as possible.”

Turning the former Qatari jet, a Boeing 747-8, into the presidential transport is slated to take “just short of a year,” he added.

It’s unclear how much money the Air Force shifted from Sentinel to retrofit the Qatari jetliner. Lawmakers have said the service reduced the Sentinel budget in 2025 by nearly $1.2 billion, with the service’s 2026 budget documents citing the yearlong continuing resolution, under-execution because of a review related to cost and schedule overruns, and “service-assumed termination liability.”

Procurement budget documents, which could shed some light on the spending plans for the new Air Force One, have yet to be released. An Air Force spokesperson declined to elaborate on the secretary’s remarks.

A previous tentative design of the next Air Force One is depicted in an artist rendering. Boeing illustration.

Earlier this month, Meink estimated it will cost less than $400 million to modify the former Qatari jet with the security and communications equipment it needs to serve as Air Force One. That’s far lower than reported estimates from the Air Force that it could take $1.5 billion to bring the plane up to the safety and security standards set for presidential transport. 

It’s also unclear whether the House and Senate armed services and appropriations committees would have to sign off on the transfer, as they often do when federal dollars change accounts. 

Concerns about accepting a foreign jet to ferry Trump—after his administration inked a $3.9 billion contract for two new Air Force One planes in 2018—have become a common refrain among Democratic lawmakers at recent budget hearings.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), at the June 26 Senate defense appropriations subcommittee hearing, raised news reports that the Qatari plane will be limited to domestic travel and will require a fighter escort if it lacks the security measures that are built into the main Air Force One program.

“This looks like one of the bigger wastes of money inside your budget,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Air Force leaders at the hearing. “It also presents some real ethical and moral problems, I think, for this committee.”

Meink declined to answer a question from Murphy on whether the 747-8 would enter Trump’s personal possession once he leaves office. Multiple media outlets reported in May that White House Counsel David Warrington wrote a memo in March stating that the government could send the plane to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation at the end of his term.

“I can just speak [to] what I’ve been asked to do, and what we’ve signed up to do,” Meink said. “The current [VC-25] is challenged from a readiness perspective, very challenged. It’s a very old aircraft.” 

The secretary said he wasn’t sure whether the government has officially tapped a contractor to handle the retrofit, but that the Air Force can move forward with that contract once it takes possession of the jet.

Meanwhile, if the Air Force can agree on a way to accelerate the previously planned replacement, Boeing could deliver the pair of 747s, dubbed VC-25B in military parlance, in October 2027 at the earliest. That means Trump could use the Qatari plane for at least a year.

“The VC-25Bs are going to show up later than we’d initially hoped for, and I’ve been asked to modify this aircraft as soon as we get possession of it, and we are positioned to do that,” Meink said.

The Air Force is asking Congress for $602 million for the VC-25B in 2026, according to budget documents released June 27. The program’s total acquisition cost is now estimated at $6.2 billion for the two planes, according to the Government Accountability Office’s annual weapons report.

The service is also seeking $4.2 billion for Sentinel development next year. That funding would be split between $2.6 billion in the base budget and $1.5 billion as part of the reconciliation megabill under consideration on Capitol Hill. Congress may offer up to $2.5 billion in the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” to develop the new land-based nuclear missiles, which can be spent over the course of several years.

Northrop Grumman is building a new generation of land-based nuclear weapons to sit on alert in underground silos across the northern United States. Meink indicated the initiative now requires less money than expected in 2025 after its ballooning cost and slowing schedule forced Air Force officials to overhaul the program. That made some of the money Sentinel had received from Congress this year too early for the work it was intended to fund.

GAO recently noted that a “reasonably modified Sentinel program with redesigned launch facilities” could cost $170.6 billion.

Meink told senators the military is still reconsidering its requirements for the new missiles in a bid to rein in spending and speed their delivery.

New Report: Loose Safety Pin, Straps Led to Ejection Mishap that Killed T-6 Pilot

New Report: Loose Safety Pin, Straps Led to Ejection Mishap that Killed T-6 Pilot

An instructor pilot didn’t fully insert a safety pin into his T-6 ejection seat when taxiing after a flight last spring, then inadvertently pulled the handle while not fully buckled into his seat, leading to his death when the ejection system sent him 100 feet into the air at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. 

An Air Force Accident Investigation Board reached that conclusion in a report issued June 23 into the mishap that killed Capt. John Robertson of the 80th Operations Support Squadron more than a year ago.

The accident occurred May 13, 2024, after an uneventful training flight for Robertson and an international student pilot, a member of the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program. It was Robertson’s second flight of the day. Upon landing, the two pilots ran through the standard checklist, which included verifying that both had re-inserted safety pins for their ejection seats and set the system so that each ejection seat functioned independently of each other. 

Based on physical evidence recovered from the scene, investigators determined Robertson partially inserted his safety pin but failed to push it all the way through. 

“The elongation of the seat safety pin hole on both the leading surface of the housing and the front edge of the ejection handle indicates the seat safety pin was at least partially installed during the ejection sequence,” the report states, before noting that it likely popped out and struck an airspeed indicator in the cockpit during the ejection sequence. 

Another instructor pilot told investigators they had seen several pilots fail to fully insert their pins after flights. 

After that, the student pilot started taxiing to the ramp, while Robertson started unbuckling from his seat. He disconnected from five of 11 connection points to the ejection seat—including straps connecting him to the parachute—when the handle was inadvertently pulled. 

Investigators noted that instructor pilots often started to unbuckle while taxiing, and that there is no information in various training documents and checklists on when T-6 instructors should disconnect. 

Using simulators and noting where different straps and pieces landed, investigators concluded that Robertson likely pulled the handle by accident when he was leaning forward to unbuckle a strap on his left leg and one of the previously disconnected straps became entangled with the handle. 

“When the pilot sits back upright after bending over to disconnect the left leg restraint garter, the pilot can inadvertently actuate the ejection seat control handle if the V-ring from the pilot’s harness chest strap is caught in the ejection seat control handle and the seat safety pin is not fully installed into the seat,” the report states. 

The ejection system shot Robertson and his seat into the air, at which point the pilot and seat are meant to separate and the pilot’s parachute deploys. But because Robertson had disconnected from his parachute, he instead fell around 100 feet through an aircraft shelter.

He was transported to a local hospital, where he died in the early hours of May 14. 

The Accident Investigation Board report noted that Robertson “was respected by leadership, fellow instructors, and students” and had been “recognized as the Instructor Pilot of the Year for 2023.” His colleagues described him as “a very caring instructor who would proactively reach out to students to strike up a conversation and would spend extra time explaining a concept to a student who did not understand the topic.” 

The mishap was the first fatal T-6 accident for the Air Force since fiscal 2004. 

Air Force Set to Cancel E-7 Wedgetail Buy

Air Force Set to Cancel E-7 Wedgetail Buy

The Air Force plans to cancel its program to purchase a fleet of E-7 Wedgetail airborne target-tracking jets as part of the fiscal 2026 budget, a senior defense official confirmed June 26.

The decision was driven by “significant delays with cost increases” and concerns about the fleet’s ability to weather attacks by the advanced anti-aircraft weapons the U.S. military expects to face in future wars, the defense official told reporters at a briefing on the Defense Department’s 2026 spending request.

Instead, the Pentagon now hope to buy five more Navy E-2D Hawkeye planes to fill the airborne early warning role before relying on satellites to share data on enemy aircraft and missile movement—a move critics say would hinder the U.S. military’s ability to wage air combat in the years ahead. 

“We wanted to be able to span the globe,” a second senior military official said. “We are bullish on space, and we think that that’s a capability that can be achieved, actually, faster than the E-7 will deliver at this point.” 

The proposal marks a major shift away from one of the Air Force’s top-priority acquisition programs and leaves the service’s battle management community in limbo as it retires decades-old workhorse jets without a concrete replacement.

Though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth foreshadowed the move in budget hearings on Capitol Hill over the past few weeks, this is the first time Pentagon officials have directly acknowledged the E-7 program’s impending demise.

The Air Force declined to answer questions about the decision. A Boeing spokesperson declined to comment.

Last year, the service inked a $2.6 billion contract with Boeing to deliver two Wedgetail prototypes in fiscal 2028. It had wanted to buy 26 E-7s in total to replace the 1970s-era E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System jets, about half of which have already retired. 

But the Government Accountability Office recently estimated the price of developing the two E-7s had grown to $3.6 billion—a 33 percent increase—and said the U.S. Wedgetail’s first flight had slipped by nine months to May 2027. The first set of combat-ready jets was slated to be in place by 2032.

The Air Force is requesting nearly $200 million for Wedgetail development next year, about one-third of the development money it received in fiscal 2025 and two-thirds of what  the service had planned to ask for in 2026, according to official budget documents. It also wants another $200 million for Wedgetail-related procurement. It’s unclear what will happen to the funds already promised to Boeing if the program ends.

Congress has the final say over whether the cancellation can move forward. Lawmakers have pressed defense officials for more information on the new path ahead, airing concerns that ending the E-7 program in favor of yet-unproven tools in space could hurt military readiness and their local communities.

House appropriators included $500 million in development funds for the Wedgetail in their proposed 2026 defense budget bill, arguing that a “combination of air and space assets for mission sets such as early warning are necessary today and will be required well into the future.”

At a Senate defense appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Air Force budget earlier in the day, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) challenged Air Force leaders to justify the cancellation and questioned the about-face from their previous support for the E-7. 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin characterized the move as a difficult decision made by the Department of Defense as it considered operations across air, land, sea, and space. The Air Force will consider how to stitch together the remaining air battle management assets to ensure potential threats don’t slip through, he said.

Murkowski wasn’t sold: “We don’t want to be operating off of a wing and a prayer here,” she said.

Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top officer, said potential vendors have already presented “promising” data on a space-based airborne target-tracking network. New equipment could start sharing data by the end of the decade, he said.

Space Force Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein’s previous estimate that satellites designed to track airborne targets should enter operations in the early 2030s is “not too far off,” Saltzman added.

Spokespeople for members of Oklahoma and Alaska’s congressional delegations, who represent the two domestic AWACS bases, did not immediately respond to questions about whether the lawmakers would seek to block the cancellation as part of the annual defense spending and policy bills.

But Doug Birkey, executive director of the Air and Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, hopes lawmakers step in.

“Effective combat airpower requires air battle management,” he said. “It comes down to empowering fighters, bombers, refuelers, electronic attack aircraft, and more to better understand the battlespace so they can maximize opportunities, while seeking to minimize zones of undue vulnerability.”

It’s a “make-or-break moment” for the mission after decades of deferred modernization, he said. The AWACS fleet has struggled to remain viable as more are decommissioned; about half of the E-3s could execute at least one of their core missions in fiscal 2024.

“Space-based [airborne moving target indication] represents a terrific potential capability, but it’s not an operational capability today,” Birkey said. 

He worries about the potential impacts on the pilots who would fly the E-7 and the air battle managers who work alongside them.

“We should not repeat mistakes made in the 1990s, when the Air Force divested too much electronic warfare capability,” he said. “That career field has yet to recover.”

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Michigan-based consulting firm AeroDynamic Advisory, said in an email that dropping the buy sends a message about the Trump administration’s skepticism of America’s foreign military alliances and interoperability with other nation. Part of the Wedgetail’s appeal was that Australia already flies the E-7, the United Kingdom has ordered its own fleet, and the NATO alliance plans to begin replacing its own AWACS jets with Wedgetails within the next decade.

‘15 Years of Incredible Work’: The Inside Story of the Mission to Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Sites

‘15 Years of Incredible Work’: The Inside Story of the Mission to Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Sites

The 36-hour operation by the U.S. military to fly deep into Iranian airspace and drop massive bunker-buster bombs on a heavily fortified nuclear complex traces its roots to the work of intelligence analysts over 15 years ago, according to a new account from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine. 

On June 22, seven U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropped 12 30,000-pound bombs on the Fordow enrichment complex, which is built inside of a mountain. But this was no hasty operation. Rather, the U.S. began grappling with the challenge of how to destroy Fordow soon after Iranians began building it.

Iran began working on Fordow in 2006, experts on the Iranian program say. In 2009, an analyst at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency was shown photographs of a major construction project in the mountains of Iran. 

The DTRA is a little-known part of the Department of Defense that is charged with countering weapons of mass destruction and which is headquartered in Fort Belvoir, Va., a short distance from Washington, D.C.

Soon after the first analyst started, another intelligence official was brought in.

“For more than 15 years, this officer and his teammate lived and breathed this single target: Fordow, a critical element of Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Caine said. “He watched the Iranians dig it out. He watched the construction, the weather, the discard material, the geology, the construction materials, where the materials came from. He looked at the vent shaft, the exhaust shaft, the electrical systems, the environmental control systems—every nook, every crater, every piece of equipment going in, and every piece of equipment going out.”

The Fordow site is believed to have begun enriching uranium in late 2011. While the Iranians say their program is entirely peaceful, Western officials say the enrichment was part of a complex set of steps that Iran was taking to position itself to make nuclear weapons. In March, the U.S. intelligence community told Congress that Iran’s Supreme Leader had not yet given the go-ahead to make a bomb.

“In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decadeslong taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus,” U.S. intelligence officials warned in a report to Congress. 

The U.S. analysts had already determined that Fordow was part of Iran’s option for becoming a nuclear weapons state. 

“You do not build a multilayered underground bunker complex with centrifuges and other equipment in a mountain for any peaceful purpose,” Caine said. 

The analysts faced a challenge: how would they approach blowing up a facility inside a mountain? 

“They began a journey to work with industry and other tacticians to develop the GBU-57,” Caine said. The bomb has a warhead encased in steel and is fused to blow up an estimated 200 feet underground.

The weapon has been under development since 2004 by the Air Force and DTRA, but is known to have been refined since then. During Caine’s press conference, officials showed video of a December 2020 test of the weapon—the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, or MOP.

“In the beginning of its development, we had so many PhDs working on the MOP program doing modeling and simulation that we were quietly and in a secret way the biggest users of supercomputer hours within the United States of America,” Caine claimed.

“They tested it over and over again, tried different options, tried more after that. They accomplished hundreds of test shots and dropped many full-scale weapons against extremely realistic targets for a single purpose: kill this target at the time and place of our nation’s choosing,” the chairman continued.

Days into Israel’s air war on Iran launched on June 12, Iran began to cover the ventilation shafts—two of which would become the bombs’ entry points—with concrete, Caine said. 

“The planners had to account for this. They accounted for everything,” he said.

On June 21, the seven B-2s piloted by 14 Airmen, from the Active-Duty Air Force and the Missouri Air National Guard, and ranging in rank from captain to colonel, took off from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. They headed east over the Atlantic and onward to the Middle East, where they met up with fighters. Caine said a crew member told him afterwards by video conference, that it “felt like the Super Bowl—the thousands of scientists, Airmen, and maintainers all coming together.”

A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit takes off to support Operation Midnight Hammer at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., June 2025. Air Force photo.

“We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we test, we evaluate every single day—and when the call comes to deliver, we do so,” Caine said.

“There’s a lot of success to go around here,” added Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin during a Senate hearing June 26, referring to the Airmen involved in the operation. “They may not have fully understood the geostrategic impact it had, but they knew that was their job to do, and they knew that the mission depended on them. … The Air Force makes the ridiculously complex look routine, but that doesn’t come without effort.”

The fighters led the strike package, officials have said, and launched some 30 munitions at Iranian surface-to-air systems, though none engaged U.S. forces.

The B-2s attacked Fordow, where six bombs were dropped on each of the two main ventilation shafts, first to destroy the concrete covers and then the next four to penetrate the facility. The sixth was a “flex” weapon in case of a weapons failure. Two MOPs were also dropped on the Natanz complex.

The GBU-57s operate through an “overpressure” effect, a shockwave generated by the bomb’s explosion when it is deep underground. The bomb’s fuses are calibrated so that it does not explode until it has penetrated the rock and entered a subterranean facility. 

Caine pointed to satellite imagery of the attack and the test video of the weapon’s previous performance as evidence of the strike’s success.

The families of the pilots were informed of their secret mission on the evening of June 21—around the same time the world found out the United States bombed the Fordow and Natanz sites, and launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Isfahan facility.

“The Joint Force does not do [battle damage assessment] by design,” Caine said. “We don’t grade our own homework. The intelligence community does.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the weapons had a “devastating effect,” as the Trump administration has tried to distance itself from a Defense Intelligence Agency report that indicated the attack may only have set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months. 

Satellite imagery showed trucks outside the Fordow facility in the days before the attack. That has raised concerns among non-governmental experts that the Iranians might be trying to cart away some of the enriched uranium and perhaps nuclear-related equipment. Hegseth said he had no information that enriched uranium had been moved from Fordow and said he believed the U.S. hit “what we wanted to hit in those locations.”

Neither Hegesth nor Caine addressed whether uranium and equipment might have been diverted away from two other sites that the U.S. targeted at Isfahan and Natanz. 

There is, however, little doubt that the B-2s executed one of the biggest, more important, and most grueling airstrike missions in history. All told, 125 aircraft were involved in the mission, including refueling tankers, fourth-generation fighters, F-35s, and, according to President Donald Trump, F-22s.

“Here’s what we know following the attacks and the strikes on Fordow,” Caine said. “First, that the weapons were built, tested, and loaded properly. Two, the weapons were released on speed and on parameters. Three, the weapons all guided to their intended targets and to their intended aim points. Four, the weapons, they functioned as designed—meaning they exploded.” The chairman quoted the pilot of a trailing jet as saying, “This was the brightest explosion that I’ve ever seen. It literally looks like daylight.”

Three U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirits return from supporting Operation Midnight Hammer at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., June 22, 2025.

Roughly 12 hours later, the B-2 entered the landing pattern at Whiteman—one four-ship, and one three-ship. Unnoticed on the way out of the base, just after midnight on June 21 local time, they returned with local news crews staged in Knob Noster, Mo. On June 25, Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, went to congratulate the B-2 crews and maintainers at Whiteman. 

“Operation Midnight Hammer was the culmination of those 15 years of incredible work—the aircrews, the tanker crews, the weapons crews that built the weapons, the load crews that loaded it,” Caine said. “Our adversaries around the world should know that there are other DTRA team members out there studying targets for the same amount of time, and will continue to do so.”

How the 2026 Budget Shapes the Future Air Force Fighter Fleet: What’s In, What’s Out

How the 2026 Budget Shapes the Future Air Force Fighter Fleet: What’s In, What’s Out

The Air Force is planning on buying only 24 F-35s in fiscal 2026—half the previously planned amount—but acquire 21 more F-15EXs, Pentagon officials revealed in their June 26 budget proposal to Congress, which includes major shifts for the service’s tactical fleet.

In the proposed budget, the Air Force plans to retire all of its A-10 close air support aircraft two years ahead of schedule, while pouring $3.5 billion into the new F-47 fighter. In other aviation moves, the Air Force plans to increase production capacity for the B-21 bomber, while the Navy is putting their next-generation fighter, the F/A-XX, on hold.

The budgetary moves largely mirror the amounts in the reconciliation bill currently being debated in Congress. The fighter numbers, however, come well short of the Air Force’s longstanding goal of acquiring 72 fighters a year.  

“F-35 procurement is reduced from 74 to 47 aircraft,” a senior Pentagon official said in a background briefing for the press. The move maintains “minimum production rates” of the multiservice fighter while adding funds for the Block 4 upgrade, while making a “significant investment in spares, of about $1 billion, to address sustainment and readiness challenges.”

A F-35A Lightning II assigned to the 95th Fighter Squadron soars through the skies during exercise Checkered Flag 25-2 at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., May 14, 2025. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Zeeshan Naeem

Of those 47 fighters, the Air Force’s share is only 24 of the F-35A variants; half of the 48 projected in previous years. The procurement total is set at $3.55 billion.

The F-35 cuts were not driven by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s demand for an eight percent shift in DOD spending, the official said, but was “the fastest way to get our warfighters a jet that they could go flying in” and get the jet to “an up-and-ready status. So a lot of that money got shifted over into sustainment to make sure that we have a strong supply base and that we’re able to do the operations and maintenance that we need to do on those jets.” The official added that “we’re dedicated to Block 4” and want “to make sure that stays on time, and that we wanted to reinvest those resources to keep that effort going.”

The F-15EX program, which in the last budget request was reduced to 98 aircraft (100 with developmental jets), will get a boost of $3.1 billion to buy 21 additional fighters, the official said. This move will preserve “industrial base capabilities” while leveraging the F-15EX’s long range capabilities, large payload, and ability to complement stealth fighters.

f-15ex
An F-15EX Eagle II from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron, 53rd Wing, takes flight for the first time out of Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., April 26, 2021. (U.S Air Force photo by 1st Lt Savanah Bray)

Together, the F-35 and F-15EX buys total only 45 aircraft—just over half the Air Force’s longstanding goal of 72 new fighters per year to hold down the fighter fleet age and capacity steady.

Asked to comment, an Air Force spokesperson said the goal of 72 fighters a year “is not currently achievable. We make fighter production decisions based on the funding available and the ability of industry to deliver aircraft.”

If the Air Force’s previous plan to buy 48 F-35s had continued along with 21 F-15EXs, it could have bought 69 jets, still shy of the goal.

The newly-named F-47—previously the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter—“is moving forward with $3.5 billion in funding following President Trump’s March 2025 decision to proceed with Boeing’s development,” the official said, describing it as the “first manned sixth-generation fighter.” The Pentagon’s research, development, test, and evaluation budget document shows the F-47 moving from advanced technology development to prototyping, with a bump of $1 billion from the 2025 funding level.

“We did make a strategic decision to go ‘all-in’ on F-47,” the official said.  

The Navy’s F/A-XX counterpart to the F-47—a contract for which was considered imminent last month—will only receive “minimal development funding,” and be put on hold, the official said. The $74 million going to that program will finish the design and “preserve the ability to leverage F-47 work,” but the Pentagon is worried that there aren’t enough “qualified industrial base engineers” available to conduct both programs simultaneously.

Defense leaders believe that “the industrial base can only handle going fast on one program at this time,” and the F-47 is a “presidential priority.” The idea is to “go all-in on F-47 and get that program right, while maintaining the option for F/A-XX in the future.”

There’s “an active conversation” among President Trump, Defense Secretary Hegseth, and Navy Secretary John Phelan whether to continue with the program, the official added.

Another key future element of the Air Force fighter fleet is the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program’s drones, being built and tested by Anduril Industries and General Atomic Aeronautical Systems. The CCA budget for fiscal ’26 is $807 million, the official said, “and that is really to fund accelerated platform development efforts [and] to sustain autonomy development.” That’s a significant bump from the $494 million the Pentagon had previously projected.

The B-21 development program, meanwhile, is slated for $4.74 billion—$2.3 billion in the base budget and $2.4 billion from the reconciliation bill—which the official said would “speed up production.” The total amount requested for the B-21 was $10.3 billion, the official said; which includes production.

The official said that the Air Force “will divest the remaining 162 A-10 aircraft” two years early, in fiscal 2026 instead of fiscal 2028, as previously planned. Those retirements will produce savings down the road but will actually cost $57 million in fiscal 2026.

The Air Force is also requesting $1.08 billion for F-22 modification procurement, which includes an infrared search and track system and stealthy, long-range fuel tanks and pylons, among other modifications. The Air Force seems to have dropped its yearslong effort to get Congress to allow the retirement of 32 of the oldest F-22s.

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed reporting.

Space Force Spending Could Hit $40B in 2026

Space Force Spending Could Hit $40B in 2026

Extra funds for the Golden Dome missile defense shield could push Space Force spending to $40 billion in 2026, a 30 percent leap from this year, if the reconciliation bill being now before Congress and the President’s new budget proposal both pass.

But with $13.8 billion in one-time reconciliation funds, the outlook for future years remains unclear.

The White House said last month that the Pentagon’s “base” budget earmarked just $26.4 billion for the five-year-old Space Force, a decrease versus prior years. But in more detailed plans unveiled June 26, the total picture came into focus.

If combined, reconciliation and the budget measure would make 2026 the first year ever that defense spending reached $1 trillion. But lawmakers, industry executives, and experts worry that piling extra funds into a one-time supplemental bill, rather than the base budget, will not yield the kind of sustained growth in defense spending necessary to improve readiness and modernize for continuing and emerging threats.

“I have said for months that reconciliation defense spending does not replace the need for real growth in the military’s base budget,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in May. 

Reconciliation, the critics say, only provides a temporary increase, and since budget planners base future spending on the prior year’s base budget, relying on supplemental spending adds risk to major programs. 

Eric Fanning, CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, called the reconciliation bill “a sugar high” at a conference last month, warning industry would see it as an inconsistent demand signal. Getting the bill through Congress, meanwhile, has proven more challenging than the White House had hoped. As Anthony “Lazer” Lazarski, of Cornerstone Government Affairs, said on a recent Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies’ podcast, passage has proven to resemble “a very large pig going through the python.”

For the Space Force and Golden Dome, it’s unclear how much can be accomplished with a $13.8 billion down payment on space-based missile interceptors and new tracking and targeting satellites. Some estimates for the total cost of such a system have ranged from about $175 billion to more than $540 billion. 

For now, most of that of the reconciliation money earmarked for the Space Force is for Golden Dome-related research, development, test, and evaluation, according to senior officials and budget documents

Most details related to Golden Dome are classified. Until Space Force Gen. Michael A. Guetlein is confirmed as its program manager, a defense official said, “the breakout and funding for those efforts” won’t be released. The military services have yet to release its “justification books” detailing all its spending plans for fiscal 2026. 

The Pentagon, meanwhile, is taking a “‘one budget, two bills’ approach for the FY ’26 budget,” according to a senior budget official speaking on background. Documents released by the Defense Department and the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 25 and 26 layout how USSF would spend its money:  

Space Force 2026 Budget

CategoryCombinedBase BudgetReconciliation
Military Personnel$1,505,137,000$1,496,908,000$8,229,000
O&M$5,910,348,000$5,888,163,000$22,185,000
RDT&E$29,034,380,000$15,486,466,000$13,547,914,000
Procurement$3,657,987,000$3,393,637,000$264,350,000
Totals$40,107,852,000$26,265,174,000$13,842,678,000

Long Range Kill Chains

According to a DOD budget document, about $7.7 billion in reconciliation spending will fund “Long Range Kill Chains” for the Space Force. In 2025, when the Space Force earmarked just $244 million for the program, it noted a focus on ground moving target indications from space. For 2026, the billions under that category appear to be for other space-related work; ground moving target indication is now in a new account, funded with a little more than $1 billion. 

The reconciliation bill is still a moving target itself. The latest reconciliation bill language released by the Senate Armed Services Committee included $150 million for ground targeting satellites, $125 million for military space communications, and $350 million for space command and control. It also includes $2 billion for airborne targeting satellites, $5.6 billion for space-based interceptors, and $7.2 billion for space-based sensors. It is unclear if these together fund “Long Range Kill Chains.”  

Missile Warning 

In addition to the Long Range Kill Chains program, the DOD budget document details major funds going to missile warning programs that could be part of Golden Dome. The Space Development Agency’s “Tracking Layer,” which will include numerous small satellites in low-Earth orbit, would get $2.58 billion total if both measures passed, including more than $800 million from reconciliation.  

The Next-Gen Overhead Persistent Infrared program, which includes elements on the ground and in geosynchronous and polar orbits, would receive nearly $1.9 billion, including more than $900 million from reconciliation. 

Both would receive hundreds of millions of dollars more than was projected in the last future years defense plan issued a year ago. Among missile warning program, the one program that would appear to face a cut is the planned Resilient MW/MT medium-Earth-orbit constellation, which appears to face a modest $28 million haircut, from $714 million to $686 million. 

All told, missile warning programs account for more than 12 percent of the entire Space Force budget. 

SATCOM 

Satellite communications continues to be another area of major investment. The DOD budget document details $1.23 billion in research and development for Evolved Strategic SATCOM, satellites for communicating with nuclear forces, and $571 million for jam-resistant tactical SATCOM technology. 

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed to this report.

DARPA’s No. 2 Sees Quantum Sensing as Threat to Stealth

DARPA’s No. 2 Sees Quantum Sensing as Threat to Stealth

The rise of quantum sensing is could someday overcome the advantages of stealth aircraft, making them easier to identify and increasing the need for speed, self-defense measures and other means of evading an enemy, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s No. 2 official said.

The “stealth era” may be coming to a close as future sensors emerge, Rob McHenry said on a webinar hosted June 25 by the Air and Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to hide, in an operational sense, in a realistic way,” McHenry said, “due to the sophistication of sensor fusion and track, using AI and other techniques.”

How soon that will happen is still anyone’s guess, as quantum remains an attractive but elusive technology. McHenry’s comments come as the Air Force continues to invest in new stealth technologies and platforms intended to evade increasingly sophisticated air defenses. These include the B-21 bomber, now in testing, the future F-47 fighter, and new hunter-killer drones. In addition, some stealth attributes could eventually be given to larger, slower jets, like tankers and transport planes as a self-protection measure.

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said the need for stealth remains vital. “Stealth increases the probability of penetration, and decreases the probability of intercept of the stealthy aircraft,” Deptula said. “What Mr. McHenry raises is that those probabilities may be changing—but the fact is that they will continue to exist.”

Deptula said a modern stealth aircraft operates with “an associated set of other mission assets that employ real-time effects using advanced electronic warfare, cyber, space effects, and kinetics.” It is in combination wiith these that stealth is most effective.

“Add that up and factor in the dynamic variables of combat and it’s quite formidable,” he said. “Detection is but one element of a series of actions that must be taken to defend against stealth. After detection, the low-observable target must be tracked, the track must be transferred to an interceptor, then to a weapon, then to a fuse, and the fuse must be properly designed for the target. Each one of these elements in the kill chain are complicated by stealth, which decreases the probability of intercept.”

McHenry said the U.S. needs to develop more defensive capabilities, particularly in the air domain. While naval vessels are “designed to take a hit and keep fighting,” he said, aircraft are not. “We don’t have anti-missile missiles on our tactical aircraft,” he said. “You assume you’re going to get shot at and you can do something about it.”

Quantum’s threat to stealth could also benefit U.S. defense, McHenry said, enabling U.S. defenders to more quickly recognize stealthy aircraft fielded by rival nations, like China, whose air combat technology is increasingly approaching that of the U.S.

Quantum sensing collects atomic-level data on time, temperature, rotation, and more to pinpoint an object’s location with unprecedented accuracy.

Quantum sensing is transitioning from a science “to an engineering discipline that we can deploy in real-world situations,” McHenry noted. Once that technology can be fielded, “if you emit a kilowatt of energy, you’re going to be seen and you’re going to be engaged,” he said.

“The ability to do that in small, lightweight form factors is going to be fundamentally different than anything we’ve had before,” McHenry continued. “And so, while we’re worried about … the implications of that for the stealth era and what’s next beyond that, we’re also obviously leveraging that fully to go after the adversaries and be able to track things … virtually anywhere, anytime.”