The Pentagon’s record $1.5 trillion defense budget reveals interesting differences in how each service seeks to spend its share of this trove of national treasure.
The Army and Navy are going big on procurement. The Space Force is investing across the board. And the Air Force leaders prioritized near-term readiness—with good reason.
With flying hours at a record low, the age of its planes at a record high, and chronic parts shortages, the Air Force must recover from years of underfunding. It’s good to see Air Force Secretary Troy Meink and Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach seek to increase operations and maintenance investment by $13 billion, flying hours by $1.3 billion, and sustainment accounts by $4.2 billion.
All told, that accounts for $18.5 billion of the Air Force’s requested $52.4 billion in new spending in 2027—more than one-third. You can’t make a clearer commitment to solving the readiness problem.
One might expect the remaining $33.9 billion in new funds would accelerate the rebuilding of the Air Force fighter, tanker, and ISR fleets at scale and arrest its shrinking total aircraft inventory, but that’s not happening. Inexplicably, the Air Force is still projecting to divest more airplanes than it buys, 149 divestitures against 108 new purchases (not including an undisclosed number of B-21 bombers).
Indeed, while the Pentagon’s budget request leaps by 50 percent, the Air Force budget increases by less than half that, 22 percent. More troubling still: USAF’s planned aircraft procurement budget rises just 2 percent—less than the rate of inflation.
By comparison, the Navy, which has its own readiness challenges, is taking a very different tack, spending $100 billion on procurement—more than triple the Air Force’s ask. The Navy is going all-in on buying new, asking for 34 ships and 123 aircraft, more than the Air Force.
Jets purchased today can be upgraded tomorrow; jets never purchased leave a hole in the inventory.
No one can question Wilsbach’s and Meink’s emphasis on readiness. But after that, the declining aircraft inventory is USAF’s number one challenge. The Air Force needs planes of every type: trainers, tankers, fighters, bombers, drones and more. Years of the so-called “divest-to-invest” strategy has yielded the smallest and oldest force in its history.
The Air Force now has fewer than 1,145 primary mission aircraft in its fighter fleet, the legal minimum set by Congress. China, meanwhile, has surpassed the Air Force’s fighter force, and will likely field more fighters than the entire U.S. military by 2030.
Fortunately, there are lessons from the past that can help. Think back to 1980. President Ronald Reagan, elected by landslide, was on a mission to revive a nation in malaise. American confidence and swagger, shaken by the Vietnam War, race riots, Watergate, gas lines, and double-digit inflation, was reeling from the humiliation of 52 American hostages held more than a year by rioters who took over the U.S. Embassy in Iran. The failed Desert One rescue mission put American military weakness on display.
Reagan’s timing was excellent. The Air Force had been developing new aircraft and weapons and was well-positioned to take advantage. But first, leaders had to learn to think big.
Retired Gen. Ron Fogleman recalled recently how, as chief of the fighter directorate at Air Force Headquarters in those days, he was told the new administration wanted to help modernize the force. The Air Force was then buying 24 F-16s annually, and Fogleman proposed raising that 50 percent, to 36. “And my boss came back and said, ‘No, no, you’ve got to think BIG.’” So Fogleman thought bigger: 48? Still too small.
Congress would ultimately authorize a four-year order for 480 F-16 jets—and later raise that figure to 504. From 1982-1985, the Air Force acquired an average of 126 F-16s a year.
And that’s not all. Over that stretch, USAF bought 195 F-15 fighters and developed GPS satellites, the F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter, and the B-1 and B-2 bombers—weapons that would radically alter the face of modern warfare and dramatically reduce combat losses. The U.S. ended the decade with unprecedented advantages in air and space.
Now it’s time for a repeat performance, and once again, all the right elements are all in place: the F-35 stealth fighter, an updated F-15EX with advanced electronic warfare tech, the sixth-generation F-47 fighter, the B-21 bomber, autonomous collaborative combat aircraft, and a host of new munitions all under development.
Of these, the F-35 and F-15EX are ready right now, and the others are getting close. Yet the Air Force isn’t buying them in the volume required by the national security strategy. USAF’s proposed 2027 budget seeks just 38 F-35s and 24 F-15EXs.
Planners are thinking too small. Congress should supersize their order and authorize multiyear contracts to stabilize supply chains and production and lock in lower prices.
Defenders of the status quo argue that waiting might enable USAF to get more capable jets later. But jets purchased today can be upgraded tomorrow; jets never purchased leave a permanent hole in the inventory.
Proof of that is in the legacy fleet. The B-52 has been re-winged and is about to get new engines, radar, and more; because they were purchased in volume in the 1960s, they’re still able to be the dominant workhorse of the bomber fleet today. B-52s outnumber the Air Force’s other bombers combined, even as they roar through their seventh decade. The A-10, which has been marked for divestiture repeatedly since the 1990s, likewise remains a workhorse, most recently getting updates to fly counter-drone and direct attack missions. Turns out you can teach old dogs, new tricks—but only if you have the dogs to teach.
There are clear signs Congress sees the problem. Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) joined ranks in April to introduce the bipartisan Airpower Acceleration Act. Their bill would authorize the Air Force to sign multiyear procurement deals, cutting the cost of new F-35s and F-15EXs and increasing procurement plans.
That’s how USAF built the force that defeated Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, got Serbia to stand down in Operation Allied Force in 1999, broke the Taliban in 2001, and delivered “shock and awe” in Iraq in 2003.
Today, that force remains capable, but worn down and in dire need of repair and replacement. All the pieces are in place to make that happen, but only if the decline can be reversed.
China’s rise, Iranian terror, and Russian belligerence point to the enduring need for deterrent airpower. Scale matters. The U.S. Air Force may not need to match China plane for plane, but it cannot continue to shrink to a shadow of its former size. Airpower is crucial to the effectiveness of the entire joint force. Failing to maximize USAF purchases today risks dooming the U.S. military tomorrow.
President Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to go big and transform the force. If the Pentagon can’t make that happen, Congress must. Write to your representatives: Our nation needs a bigger Air Force.