Pentagon Awards $7.8 Billion in Contracts for Hundreds of New Missiles

Aug. 1, 2025 | By Greg Hadley and John A. Tirpak

In a pair of major contracts announced July 31, the Pentagon awarded a combined $7.8 billion for new missiles.

The deals, with Lockheed Martin for the Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile and Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile and RTX for the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, are expected to cover hundreds, if not thousands of munitions.

JASSM

Lockheed’s contract for JASSM and its “ship-killing” variant is worth $4.3 billion, covering five lots of JASSMs and four lots of LRASMs. The missiles will go to the Air Force and Navy, as well as Poland, the Netherlands, Japan, and Finland.

Roughly $1.4 billion is obligated at the time of the award, $1.1 billion of which is coming from Air Force coffers. Work is expected to last until January 2033.

The deal is a major step in the Pentagon’s new strategy of buying munitions in multiyear batches, a move officials say is necessary to provide a strong demand signal to industry and encourage companies to increase production capacity.

“Increasing JASSM and LRASM production is essential for American and allied national security, and Lockheed Martin is ready to answer the call,” Dave Berganini, vice president of hypersonic and strike systems at Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control division, said in a statement. “We are leveraging our advanced manufacturing capabilities and investing in our production facilities to quickly and affordably deliver these critical capabilities warfighters need to maintain a strategic edge and protect our nation from emerging threats.”

A company spokesperson deferred to the Air Force on how many missiles the contract award will cover. An Air Force spokesperson could not immediately comment.

However, a Pentagon acquisition report published in July 2024 noted that the five JASSM lots being negotiated at the time were expected to include anywhere from 550 to 810 rounds apiece. The four LRASM lots were each estimated to include somewhere between 120 and 240 rounds.

Air Force documents state that the service’s 2025 budget—the first in the multiyear procurement buy— covered 450 JASSMs and 115 LRASMs. The 2026 budget request is supposed to cover 389 JASSMs and 118 LRASMs, using a mix of the base budget and reconciliation funding recently passed by Congress.

However, the documents also indicate that the maximum production rate for JASSMs in 2026 could hit 860 missiles, while the LRASM rate would max out at 240.

AMRAAM

The AMRAAM contract, worth $3.5 billion, is the biggest deal inked in the program’s history.

The two-lot contract will produce missiles for the Air Force, Navy and a wide variety of allies, including Denmark, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Spain, Poland, Sweden, Taiwan, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Israel, and Kuwait, according to RTX.

Of the $1.5 billion obligated right now, $590 million is coming from the Air Force. Work is expected to continue into 2031.

An Airman from the 356th Fighter Generation Squadron prepares an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile to be loaded onto an F-35A Lightning II during a weapons load competition at Kadena Air Base, Japan, Nov. 17, 2023. U.S. Air Force photo by Lt. Col. Raymond Geoffroy

“As global conflicts intensify and air threats become more sophisticated, AMRAAM continues to give allied forces a decisive edge in combat,” Sam Deneke, president of air and space defense systems at RTX unit Raytheon, said in a statement. “This award underscores the critical role that the fifth-generation AMRAAM plays in maintaining air superiority and will ensure service members have the advanced technology needed to stay ahead of adversary threats.”

A company spokesperson deferred to the Air Force on how many missiles the contract award will cover.

In the 2025 budget, the Air Force, Navy, and FMS procured 734 missiles total. The 2026 budget request includes 677, though more are covered by reconciliation funding.

Budget documents indicate RTX could max out production in 2026 at 1,200 missiles.

Missile Buys

Munitions funding has often been seen as a “bill-payer” for other priorities, but that’s starting to change.

Congress granted the Pentagon multiyear procurement authorities for certain munitions in the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, responding to concerns about missile stockpiles dwindling from aid sent to Ukraine. Industry leaders have urged the government to invest in so-called “surge” capacity to respond to such contingencies, and DOD officials are using their new spending authorities more and more often.

Yet even with the hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2026 budget and the billions of dollars in contracts, lawmakers have indicated they want to push even harder.

In the reconciliation package that passed Congress in July, legislators included $1.3 billion to address diminishing sources, production, and expanded capacity for LRASMs and $525 million for the same for AMRAAM.

And senators this week offered a $7.3 billion boost over the Trump administration’s request for munitions and industrial base support next year.

“DOD has over a number of years failed to request funding for critical munition programs at their full achievable production rates, propose strategies to effectively work with industry, or request investments in the organic munitions industrial base to expand production capacity of critical munitions,” the Senate Appropriations Committee wrote in its draft of the 2026 defense budget, released July 31.

The contracts came the same day as the appropriators criticized the military’s slowness to use the power it was given to buy critical munitions in multiyear batches. Lawmakers called out AMRAAM program in particular, calling the time it took to issue a contract an “avoidable failure [that] has resulted in lost opportunities to stabilize the supply chain and further delays production.”

“These procurements should result in unit-cost savings, stability in the supplier base, industry investment in expanding and upgrading their facilities, and weapons being delivered at cost and on or ahead of schedule,” appropriators wrote.

Rachel S. Cohen contributed to this story.

USAFE, AMC, AFMC Could Lose 4-Star Commanders

Aug. 1, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

At least three high-profile four-star Air Force commands could be downgraded to three-star roles, as the Pentagon presses to shrink the number of generals throughout the Department of Defense, people familiar with the matter told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Two of those jobs—U.S. Air Forces Europe-Air Forces Africa and Air Force Materiel Command—are currently vacant following the recent retirements of Gen. James B. Hecker and Gen. Duke Z. Richardson. The Pentagon has yet to announce any nominees to replace them.

The third, Air Mobility Command, is led by Gen. John D. Lamontagne, who took over in September 2024 as a newly promoted four-star general in what is traditionally a three-year assignment.

Back in early May, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called for a 20 percent reduction in the number of four-star general and flag officers. No final decisions have been made on which jobs might be downgraded and the matter remains under review, according to people familiar with the department’s deliberations. But the focus has been on the AMC, AFMC, and USAFE jobs among the Air Force’s typical four-star positions.

A spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of Defense told Air & Space Forces Magazine the military is still evaluating how to implement the policy. “We do not have anything new to announce at this time,” the Pentagon spokesperson added. An Air Force spokesperson offered a nearly identical answer.

The retirements of Hecker at USAFE and Richardson at AFMC present opportunities to make the change while the leadership positions are vacant. Their three-star deputies are the current acting commanders.

“The Department of Defense is still assessing and we do not have anything new to provide at this time,” the Air Force spokesperson said.

Each of the military services are allowed by law to have a certain number of four-star officers—combined, there are currently 27 authorized. That’s in addition to joint positions that are four-star jobs by statue, such as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau; and the heads of the military’s 11 combatant commands.

All told, the Pentagon employs more than 40 four-star generals and admirals.

The Air Force has the most four-star billets, at nine. In addition to the Chief of Staff and Vice Chief jobs, the heads of six major commands have been four-stars in recent years:

USAFE-AFA

AMC

AFMC

Air Combat Command

Pacific Air Forces

Air Force Global Strike Command

ACC’s commander, Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, is retiring, and his successor, Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, has already been confirmed by the Senate to receive a fourth star and take command at an Aug. 11 ceremony. Similarly, Lt. Gen. Stephen L. Davis, the Department of the Air Force’s Inspector General, has been nominated for a fourth star to succeed Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere, nominated to become Air Force Vice Chief of Staff.

Hegseth’s memo identified “realignment of the Unified Command Plan” as one way to reduce the number of top officers. He has reportedly considered combining or eliminating some of DOD’s 11 combatant commands, such as folding U.S. Africa Command back into European Command, or combining U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command into a single organization. But the Pentagon has not confirmed any changes and none appear to be imminent.

“[W]e must cultivate exceptional senior leaders who drive innovation and operational excellence, unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic layers that hinder their growth and effectiveness,” Hegseth wrote. “A critical step in this process is removing redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership by reducing excess general and flag officer positions.”

Ultimately, Hegseth stated that he wants to decrease the number of one-, two-, three-, and four-star generals and admirals by 10 percent.

“Now this is not a slash-and-burn exercise meant to punish high-ranking officers,” Hegseth said in a video released at the same time as his memo. “This has been a deliberative process, working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with one goal: maximizing strategic readiness and operational effectiveness by making prudent reductions in the general and flag officer ranks.”

Hegseth said the cuts would take place in two stages. “Phase one, we’re looking at our current service structure, and in phase two, it’s a strategic review of the Unified Command Plan,” he said.

The only consolidation announced so far is from the Army, which said it will consolidate its Futures Command and Training and Doctrine Command under a single four-star general later this year.

How these moves impact international relationships will be one key to watch. In Europe, the new U.S. European Command boss is Air Force Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, who has a dual-hatted role as Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Here, the decision on what to do about USAFE-AFA has an implicit impact on NATO, because its commander is traditionally also the head of NATO Allied Air Command. Likewise, the Army’s top general in Europe, Gen. Chris Donahue, leads NATO’s Allied Land Command. Downgrading the USAFE-AFA commander to three stars could effectively demote the U.S. commander below their NATO counterparts.

By contrast, Air Mobility Command, which oversees the Air Force’s cargo and tanker fleet, is a four-star command largely to align it with ACC and other Air Force commands. AMC is the Air Force component command supporting U.S. Transportation Command, one of DOD’s 11 unified commands, but its Navy and Army counterparts, Military Sealift Command and Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, are three-star roles that report to higher-ranking officers within those services.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking Democrat, Jack Reed (R.I.), and others have raised concern over Hegseth’s push to trim the general officer ranks. They have argued for a voice in such significant changes, especially those defined in law and that carry international responsibilities.

Space Force Aims to Share Classified Threat Info with Industry

Aug. 1, 2025 | By Shaun Waterman

LAS VEGAS—The Space Force’s neighborhood watch-style initiative to share information with the private sector about threats to space assets will eventually grow to include classified intelligence, the general in charge said last week.

“Ultimately, the idea is, let’s do it at the classified level,” said Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant, who runs Space Systems Command, the Space Force’s main acquisition organization. SSC oversees Front Door, the service’s single point of contact for the space industry, and Front Door launched the Orbital Watch program in April to share threat intelligence with space asset owners and operators.

Initially, Orbital Watch briefings are including only general declassified threat intelligence products on a quarterly basis. But at last week’s ASCEND space industry event, Garrant noted that some companies in the sector have executives and even offices that are cleared to handle classified material. He predicted that eventually Orbital Watch will be able to brief companies on specific threats they face, even when the need to protect intelligence sources and methods means the warnings can’t be declassified.

“If we have a relationship with a company that enables classified information sharing, we can do very specific threat sharing with a specific company about a risk that we’re aware of for that company,” Garrant told reporters at a media roundtable.

“That’s the vision,” he added, “It’s going to take a little bit to get there.”

In its current Phase One state, Garrant explained, Orbital Watch is disseminating unclassified threat information derived from U.S. intelligence agencies. “We can push it to anyone,” he said, since it has been cleared for public release.

That access to intelligence products, albeit only unclassified or declassified ones, is one way Orbital Watch can offer a value proposition distinct from private sector efforts like the Space Information Sharing and Analysis Center.

After a Russian cyberattack against the Viasat network at the launch of the Ukraine war in 2022, the Space ISAC facilitated a classified briefing organized by then-Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Stacey Dixon. The agencies briefing included the FBI and the National Air and Space Intelligence Center. A “significant number” of temporary clearances, known as “one time read-ons,” were issued to space company senior executives normally not cleared to receive classified intelligence, Space-ISAC said later that year.

Garrant said that in Phase Two, Orbital Watch will include a portal where vetted companies can share their own threat information to the U.S. government for anonymous dissemination across the sector—a model borrowed from the cybersecurity industry.

He added the program is very conscious of the possibility that bad actors might seek to inject fake or misleading threat information through such a portal and will be carefully vetting space companies, including those from allied nations, before they would be granted access.

“We’re being very deliberate about Phase Two,” Garrant said, ”You could imagine there could be a bad actor out there pretending to be a commercial space company. The last thing we want to do is to be pushing them info, even unclassified info, or worse, we set up a two-way relationship with them. So that’s a really important part, that vetting and understanding who we’re talking to and the type of information that we’re sharing with them.”

An Orbital Watch “Tiger Team” is starting six months of work this August to get to Phase Two by consulting with stakeholders, said Front Door Director Victor Vigliotti.

“We need to ensure that we have a lot of stakeholders in the room, across the intelligence community, across the Department of Defense,” as planning begins, Vigliotti said.

Senate’s $852 Billion Defense Budget Saves Wedgetail, Keeps Space Force Flat

July 31, 2025 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Senators this week advanced a $852 billion defense spending bill for 2026 that would give the Air Force nearly $5 billion more than it asked for while saving the E-7 Wedgetail target-tracking aircraft and continuing military aid to Ukraine in a rebuke to certain Trump administration priorities in the year ahead.

The bipartisan legislation, which passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 26 to 3 July 31, offers $21.2 billion, or 2.5 percent, more in discretionary spending than the Trump administration sought for the Pentagon and intelligence agencies next year. Democrats Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), and Chris Van Hollen (Md.) opposed the bill.

While the Air Force would benefit from the spending boost with a $233 billion windfall, the Space Force would come in just shy of its full request at $26 billion. The bill does not include money for military construction, which is handled separately.

The higher topline underscores a disconnect between the Trump administration, which has taken an unconventional approach to funding the Defense Department while pulling back on some major modernization programs and support for foreign partners, and some of its allies in Congress, who argue the Pentagon’s spending proposal is short-sighted and jeopardizes American security.

“I think not only the prior administration, but this administration as well, have underestimated the level of challenge that we have,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the top defense appropriator, said as lawmakers met to consider the bill. “You’ve got authoritarian regimes coordinating with each other … and the one thing they have in common: They hate us, and they want to replace the role that America plays.”

While the Senate plan cuts spending on military personnel and research and development for the Department of the Air Force by about $500 million and $3 billion, respectively, it funnels an additional $5.6 billion into Air Force procurement and $2.4 billion into operations and maintenance across the two services.

Lawmakers opted not to push for more than 24 F-35A fighters next year, breaking with their counterparts in the House who would fund 42 Lightning IIs. Senate appropriators also want to spend $1.7 billion for eight C-130J airlifters for the Air National Guard, add two EA-37B Compass Call electronic-attack jets for $619 million, and offer $800 million to an unnamed “high-priority classified program.”

The bill also rounds out congressional support for the Air Force’s pursuit of the E-7 early-warning jet, which the Pentagon wants to ditch in favor of using Navy E-2D Hawkeye planes and satellites to track airborne threats instead. Senators are offering $847 million to continue that prototyping effort—a precursor to buying a 26-piece fleet to replace the Wedgetail’s decades-old predecessor.

Lawmakers and some military aviation experts have expressed skepticism that adding five Hawkeyes as a stopgap measure before surveillance satellites are ready to take on the Wedgetail’s mission would be enough to satisfy demand for its help.

“I can’t explain why the department wanted to wait on Navy fighters or Air Force early-warning programs … but we identified these issues and addressed them appropriately,” said Sen. Chris Coons, the top Democrat on the defense appropriations panel.

To keep an eye on the project’s price tag, Senate appropriators are asking the Air Force to report back on how it plans to rein in the jet’s design requirements and cost.

“At the inception of the U.S. E-7 program, the purchase of this existing Australian capability was heralded as the Department of Defense making use of rapid acquisition authorities,” the panel added. “This proposed termination, after over $2 billion in investment in less than four fiscal years, raises questions about the Department of the Air Force’s ability to successfully execute rapid prototyping programs intended to result in the fielding of major capabilities.”

For the Space Force, the draft budget offers an additional $500 million to continue developing the Space Development Agency’s third tranche of data-sharing satellites and $105 million to invest further in commercial surveillance technologies, according to the committee’s summary of the bill.

Senate appropriators would also fully fund a 3.8 percent pay raise for all troops, plus an extra 10% raise for junior enlisted service members.

Senators tacked on a slate of amendments that includes language on upgrading Air Force Reserve C-130H transport planes, launching NASA’s OSAM-1 refueling satellite, and an update to Congress on the projected cost of the new Sentinel ground-based nuclear missiles, among other provisions.

In a party-line vote, the panel also blocked an amendment curbing the Trump administration’s ability to send the former Qatari royal plane it plans to use as Air Force One to Trump’s presidential library after he leaves office.

The bill’s next stop is the Senate floor. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she hopes the full chamber will take up the defense spending package once lawmakers return from their monthlong summer recess Sept. 2. That gives senators a few weeks to pass a Pentagon budget, reach a compromise with the House, and send it to the president’s desk before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30—a goal broadly seen as unlikely.

The $21 billion difference between the House and Senate defense spending proposals sets lawmakers up for tough conversations as they seek a middle ground that can win approval from Congress and President Donald Trump.

The Department of the Air Force has already received billions of dollars for top-priority programs under the One Big, Beautiful Bill, the massive GOP-led spending package enacted without Democratic votes in early July. Though Trump has touted that bill, known as a budget reconciliation package, as a generational investment in America’s most pressing defense needs, its critics point out that the one-time money comes at the expense of sustained growth in the base budget.

“We cannot seriously address these challenges while artificially constraining our resources,” McConnell said.

No Slowdown in Demand for Air Force Bombers, 4-Star Says

July 31, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

The demand for Air Force bombers to conduct joint exercises, show-of-force operations, or actual combat missions has reached record-high levels—prompting the four-star in charge of their operations to consider resurrecting more bombers from the boneyard to sustain that effort.

“In the last 18 months, I have seen more activity and more demand signals for bombers than I have seen probably in the last, at least, five to 10 years,” Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Thomas Bussiere said in an exclusive interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine. Bussiere is nominated to become the Air Force’s next vice chief of staff.

The service has dispatched its bomber task forces 48 times in the past year and a half, Bussiere said, including 16 deployments. The Air Force began sending its roughly 140 bombers out in small groups rather than basing them overseas for longer stretches to protect them from attack.

Another 12 bomber taskings involved flying outside the United States, taking part in training, and returning to the U.S. without stops in between, he said. Nearly half were so-called “cross-combatant command events,” he added. In those instances, bombers zig-zag from one continent to another—and possibly to a third—before returning stateside.

Some task force outings took airmen through regions such as North America, the Middle East and South America on a single deployment, Bussiere said.

“If that wasn’t enough, in the last 18 months, we had eight no-notice activations of our bomber forces; all three platforms—B-1, B-2 and B-52,” he said. Six of those entailed combat taskings “to go out and do destruction on behalf of their nation,” he added.

That includes the covert June 21 mission, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, to destroy facilities connected to Iran’s nuclear program. The Air Force flew seven B-2s from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., to Iran for the airstrikes, while another group of B-2s headed west to the Pacific as a decoy operation. Bussiere declined to say how many stealth bombers were involved in the decoy.

At least six B-2s were also deployed to Diego Garcia for more than six weeks at the request of U.S. Central Command. These aircraft conducted strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen and were on call during hostilities with Iran in the run-up to Midnight Hammer.

The remaining two bomber task forces took part in either a show of force or integration with a training exercise overseas, to “basically show the flag” and conduct national messaging, Bussiere said.

Combatant commanders are asking for BTFs because bringing a bomber to overseas drills “sends a very distinct and unique message” to allies, partners and adversaries, he said. Even a large group of smaller aircraft “doesn’t have that same messaging” because of the optics of bombers, especially those that can drop both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Bombers send “a slightly different message,” he said. “Our allies and partners love to train and integrate with our bomber force and their regional combatant commands love to have us participate in their training exercises.”

That’s led to a level of bomber activity not seen since the “throes of Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan” in the early 2000s, Bussiere said. The demand for bombers, he said, is “unyielding.”

To maintain that tempo of deployments, Bussiere said he’s willing to pull more B-1B Lancers, a conventional bomber, out of the service’s plane graveyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

The B-1B force shrank to 45 several years ago as the Air Force retired more than a dozen of the oldest, most worn jets in service. Global Strike has since brought back two of the airframes to replace two that were condemned after accidents: One was regenerated in place of a B-1 destroyed in an April 2022 fire, and another replaced a B-1 that crashed in January 2024.

“There’s still a few left in the boneyard that we could potentially pull out if needed,” Bussiere said.

Regenerating retired bombers isn’t a given, though. The service first considers the viability, utility, and cost of bringing a retired or damaged aircraft back to life.

In any case, Bussiere hopes the command won’t need to explore that option again: “Usually, it’s for a mishap.”

Air Force Orders Force-Wide Inspection of M18s in Wake of Airman’s Death

July 31, 2025 | By Matthew Cox

The Air Force is performing a force-wide safety inspection on every one of its M18 9mm pistols as the service investigates the circumstances around the July 20 discharge of the service pistol that killed a 21-year-old security forces Airman.

The safety inspection of the service’s 125,000 M18s coincides with Global Strike Command’s July 22 announcement that it had ordered its troops to stop using the Sig Sauer-made handgun until its investigations surrounding of the death of Airman Brayden Tyriq Lovan, who died on duty about 1:30 a.m. at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming are complete.

“The Air Force directed the service-wide supplemental inspection of the M18 out of caution to validate the serviceability of weapons and reinforce confidence in their use,” an Air Force spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The Global Strike order marked the first time an Air Force command had paused use of the M18, according to the spokesperson, who added that some units in Air Combat Command have temporarily restricted the pistol’s use as a “precautionary measure until Airmen undergo refresher training.” Training can include both operating and safe handling of the firearm.

Troops in affected ACC units can start using the M18 again once they have completed the training, which is expected to take about two weeks.

The War Zone was the first to report on units in ACC pausing the use of the M18.

The Air Force awarded a $22 million contract to Sig Sauer in 2020 for the M18 to replace the Beretta M9 9mm pistol in use since 1985. The Navy and Marine Corps also adopted the M18, while the Army contracted with Sig Sauer for the M17 and M18 Modular Handgun System, or MHS, in 2017.

The M18, the compact version of the MHS, is based on the Sig Sauer P320, a striker-fired pistol, which has had its share of controversy. Multiple lawsuits filed against Sig Sauer, mostly by law enforcement officers, have alleged that P320 pistols discharged unintentionally.

One of the main differences between the M18 and the P320 is that it features an external safety lever that, when engaged, prevents the weapon from firing.

In a July 29 statement, Sig Sauer said it had “proactively offered assistance” to Air Force investigators looking into the July 20 fatal discharge.

“SIG SAUER has ALWAYS and will continue to put the safety and security of the U.S. Military, the law enforcement community, our consumers, and the public first,” the statement said.

The company also defended the safety of the P320 design.“The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without the trigger first being moved to the rear,” the company asserted. “This has been verified through exhaustive testing by SIG SAUER engineers, the U.S. Military, several major federal and state law enforcement agencies, and independent laboratories.”

The Air Force Global Strike Command investigation continues, noted spokesman Charles Hoffman, who said cause of the discharge has not been determined.

The investigations are being conducted by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and Global Strike Command safety office. The specific investigation at F.E. Warren Air Force Base is tied to the July 20 incident and being “conducted based on the evidence of what actually occurred,” Hoffman said. “The length of time for each phase here will differ based on what is or is not discovered.”

Commercial and Military Space Must Advance Together

July 31, 2025 | By Col. Jennifer Reeves, USAF (Ret.)

In the race to out-innovate adversaries, the U.S. Space Force has one key advantage over its international rivals: a robust, dynamic commercial space industry. America’s booming private space industry provides launch, sensing, communications and other space-based capabilities to commercial customers—as well as the government—and many of those capabilities could have valuable military applications.

But as good as these commercial offerings are, they were not designed or intended to answer military requirements. Many military space functions are inherently governmental in nature. Missile warning, missile tracking, and missile defense, for example, as well as targeting targets on the ground, at sea, in the air or in space, are jobs we wouldn’t want to contract out. We want our government to provide for our collective defense, not hired hands.

To ensure American space superiority—that is, the ability to achieve desired effects in space when and where required, even in the face of adversaries’ countermeasures—the United States cannot expect to rely solely on commercial systems. The nation must pursue a balanced, hybrid approach that integrates commercial capabilities into a bespoke military space architecture.

Space Systems Command adopted this strategy a few years ago when Gen. Michael Guetlein, now the director of President Trump’s Golden Dome initiative, coined the motto “exploit what we have, buy what we can, and build only what we must.”

As the U.S. builds its future national security space architecture, leaders must assess when commercial solutions are sufficient and when assured government capabilities are necessary. Many motivations drive this approach—the need for assured government control, unique military considerations, and the availability, reliability and cost-effectiveness of commercial alternatives.

Assured control is important because commercial firms are not obligated to provide unprofitable services; they can choose to discontinue support, jeopardizing the customer’s ability to execute its mission. Russia’s threats against SpaceX for letting Ukraine use its communications services are well documented, as is SpaceX’s unwillingness to support certain Ukrainian military operations as a result.

Corporate motivations will not always align with national objectives. Leaders and shareholders may not tolerate risking billions in investments in space; they may balk at providing services under pressure from outside groups or even employees.

Some satellite services fall into a middle category, where commercial capabilities may be helpful and might complement military systems, but where military needs are unique and cannot be answered by commercial solutions alone. Weather satellites fit in this zone.

The Space Force is contemplating shutting down its aging Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, which provides weather data to military users worldwide. Without DMSP, the military will need new solutions, including current U.S. military programs like Electro-Optical Weather System (EWS) and Weather System Follow-On Microwave (WSF-M). These cannot be wholly replaced by commercial solutions, but military users can benefit from combining their data with commercial offerings—as long as the military can be assured secure access to those capabilities in time of conflict.

The final category of space systems are purely commercial technologies. Planet and Maxar, two commercial providers, deliver open-source imagery that enhances both global awareness and tactical decision-making. Vast is pioneering space stations that could provide options to the U.S. government after the International Space Station is decommissioned. Commercial launch providers continue to innovate, making access to space faster and more economical.

The Space Force’s Commercial Space Strategy recognizes this and seeks to leverage commercial capabilities wherever markets are mature, risk is manageable, and existing commercial solutions offer useful advantage.

The key is alignment: matching mission needs with a workable acquisition model. The distinction is not who builds it—industry builds nearly everything—but rather who owns, controls, and operates the system once it is fielded.

Threats to U.S. space systems are increasing. Jamming and spoofing are now common, and orbital aggression—threatening satellites in orbit—on the rise. Cyber-attacks on satellites and ground stations are also increasing. Against that threat picture, the Space Force will need both agility and assurance. The agility of commercial partners must be paired, therefore, with the assurance of sovereign capabilities. That means deeper collaboration: sharing threat intelligence, integrating requirements, and designing architectures that blend commercial speed with military staying power.

The Space Force’s challenge is to preserve full-spectrum military capability where required, while also incorporating commercial participation where possible. The United States does not need to choose between military capabilities and commercial innovation. But to have both, it must follow a hybrid approach to ensure America’s advantage in space remains—and more important, enhanced.

Lawmakers Seek Extra Scrutiny of Air Force Missile Community Cancer Concerns

July 30, 2025 | By Chris Gordon

The Air Force has spent more than two years studying cancer risks to Airmen who work with the service’s intercontinental ballistic missiles. Now lawmakers in Congress are placing fresh scrutiny on the issue and have prepared legislation that would direct the service to clean silos and launch facilities.

Draft versions of the annual defense policy bill from both houses of Congress each contain provisions regarding the safety of ICBM facilities and the Air Force’s investigation of potential increased cancer rates among those who have worked on the sites.

In the latest update to its Missile Community Cancer Study, Air Force officials said in June that they had found preliminary indications that missileers were slightly more at risk to be diagnosed with cancer than the general population.

A “health risk assessment characterizes the health risk as low but not zero,” Col. Ric Speakman, the commander of the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, which is running the study, said during a town hall event. “Therefore, the appropriate action is to include missile alert facility workers in an occupational surveillance.”

Congress is looking to take more action.

The Senate version of the draft 2026 National Defense Authorization Act calls for the Air Force to conduct a “deep cleaning” of its Minuteman III launch control centers every five years. There are 45 LCCs—underground crew capsules where Airmen operate ground-based nuclear weapons—spread across Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Colorado, supporting 450 silos, 400 of which are operational.

The cleaning would continue until the launch control centers are decommissioned as the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles replace the Minuteman III fleet in the coming years. Sentinel will have new and fewer underground facilities for Airmen.

The current facilities were first deep-cleaned in 2014 as a “quality of life” undertaking, per an Air Force release at the time. During the June town hall, Air Force officials said there was a “deep cleaning contract in progress.”

The Air Force also has a separate contract for the remediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a likely carcinogen, at ICBM facilities should the need arise in the future. Four launch control centers were found to have levels of PCBs that required remediation.

Air Force Global Strike Command said in June that its deep cleaning would increase the focus on intake and exhaust ducts and chemical, biological, and radiological filters.

A health risk assessment for current Airmen conducted by the Air Force flagged the presence of benzene, “which was detected in trace amounts in a few of the LCCs,” according to a June 5 release from Air Force Global Strike Command. PCBs and chloroform drove “a smaller portion of the increased risk,” according to AFGSC. The Air Force said the levels of benzene and chloroform were “well below standards for remediation.”

The Senate’s language appeared to be in line with AFGSC’s current plans, though it does not spell out exactly what constitutes a “deep cleaning.”

“There is continuous cleaning by personnel and facility managers, but there is also a deep cleaning conducted,” an Air Force Global Strike Command spokesperson said. “A deep cleaning happens annually and has for years.”

The spokesperson noted there are two types of cleaning the command plans to conduct in the future and is contracted for at its wings—the regular deep cleaning, which the spokesperson likened to “extremely thorough spring cleaning”—and separate remediation of harmful substances.

“The second type of cleaning is PCB remediation,” the spokesperson said. “PCB remediation was targeted first where PCBs were found and has been accomplished. We have a contract to conduct remediation if any future PCBs are detected. This cleaning follows methods to remediate PCB levels to below threshold levels. If the area cannot be remediated, maintenance procedures have been developed to refabricate and replace contaminated panels.”

Lawmakers are also likely to examine the Air Force’s overarching study further. The House NDAA includes an amendment from Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a former Air Force one-star general, that orders the National Academies to independently review the findings of the Air Force’s missile community cancer study as well as to run its own study of the occupational health and safety hazards facing Airmen at Minuteman III missile facilities. Those findings are due 18 months after the bill becomes law.

The Air Force has insisted that its current study, designed by the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, is rigorous and may wrap up before the end of the year. But the service dismissed cancer concerns in studies in 2001 and 2005. AFGSC commander Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere has expressed public dissatisfaction with those surveys.

“Let’s make sure that we have some outside experts working with the Air Force studying cancer rates with our ICBM missions,” Bacon said in a July 30 post on X. “We want to ensure credibility and that whatever results come out, we’ve done total due diligence.”

‘No Aircraft Is Beyond Saving’: C-130 Flies Again 5 Years After Hard Landing

July 30, 2025 | By David Roza

A C-130J transport plane took flight at Ramstein Air Base, Germany on July 15, five years after being grounded by a hard landing that damaged its wings, landing gear, and engines.

Rehabilitating tail number 11-5736 was an odyssey, according to a July 29 press release. It required new wings, engines, and other main components that had to be shipped across the Atlantic.

The repair marked the first-ever wing replacement of a C-130J in the field, the release said, and shipping the new wings required building first-of-its-kind transport containers.

“Ultimately, this project reaffirmed the Air Force isn’t just about advanced technology,” Senior Master Sgt. Justin Jordan, quality assurance superintendent for the Ramstein-based 86th Maintenance Group, said in the release. The aircraft is assigned to Ramstein’s 37th Airlift Squadron.

“It’s about the people who make that technology work,” he said. “It’s about grit, discipline and the unwavering belief that no aircraft is beyond saving when the mission demands it.”

U.S. C-130J Super Hercules pilots assigned to the 339th Flight Test Squadron prepare to depart from Ramstein Air Base, Germany, July 26, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Rebecca Harima)

The trouble started April 23, 2020, when a crew took the Hercules up for a routine pilot evaluation sortie. The plan was to practice an assault landing, where pilots touch down and come to a complete stop as quickly as possible, as they might have to do during a combat airlift mission on a dirt airstrip.

The pilot was on speed and glide path until about 70 feet above ground level, where he began reducing the engine power, called a power pull, too early. Usually the power pull is not supposed to start until 20 feet above ground level, but in this case the engines were at their lowest in-flight idle setting at 45 feet above ground level.

The reduction in power made the aircraft fall faster to the runway. The Hercules slammed down onto its main landing gear at 3.62 Gs and at a sink rate of 834 feet per minute, well above the aircraft’s limits of 2.0 Gs and 540 feet per minute.

Before the Herc’s nose landing gear touched pavement, the co-pilot called for a go-around. The pilot pushed the throttles forward, flew back around, and landed safely. Nobody was injured, but the hard landing buckled parts of the fuselage, cracked parts of the wing, and caused an estimated $20.9 million in damage, investigators said in a 2021 report.

Still, Air Force officials decided it would be more cost effective to return the C-130 to the fleet rather than retire it, Col. Lucas Buckley, commander of the 86th Maintenance Group, said in the release.

“Between the engineers, planners and technicians, taking the steps to put the aircraft back together was the best investment for the Air Force,” he said.

A U.S. Airman assigned to the 86th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron renders a salute to a departing C-130J Super Hercules at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, July 26, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Rebecca Harima)

Making C-130 parts is a familiar task for the Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., which provides intensive depot maintenance and engineering support for a range of aircraft including the Hercules. It took four years, but workers there built new wings and custom containers to transport them to Germany.

A depot team from the Robins-based 402nd Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron accompanied the wings to Ramstein, where they and Airmen from the 86th Maintenance Group spent more than a month replacing the wings, engines, and other components.

The hard work paid off July 15, when tail 5736 took off for the first time in five years

“Watching her lift off the runway felt like watching a dream take flight,” Jordan said. “It wasn’t just a mechanical achievement, it was a deeply personal moment.”

On July 28, the C-130 arrived back in the U.S. Col. Joshua De Paul, commander of the 402nd Aircraft Maintenance Group at Robins, said the C-130 will undergo follow-on maintenance, repairs, and inspections at the base. The aircraft is scheduled to return to service in spring 2026.

“That first flight was a tribute to everyone who believed in her and worked tirelessly to bring her back to life,” Jordan added. “I’ll never forget the sound of her engines roaring to life and the sight of her wheels leaving the ground. It was magic!”