What Defense Tech Firms Can Learn From Formula One

What Defense Tech Firms Can Learn From Formula One

Excitement about self-driving taxis and small autonomous drones is exposing a dividing line between systems that operate at relatively slow speeds and the increasing challenges posed by systems operating at the speed of war. Government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton is looking to Formula One car racing to gain a combat edge for autonomous military vehicles. 

“Doing autonomy slowly is something that we’re getting better and better at,” Bill Vass, the company’s chief technology officer, said June 3. “Autonomy at speed is very hard. . . . Whether it’s an aircraft or a missile or an autonomous vehicle, on the battlefield, you have to move fast.”  

Booz is partnering with computer-chip maker NVIDIA to help develop autonomous Formula One race cars for Code 19, a startup. So far, the self-driving race cars have failed to match expert human drivers. But at the AI+ Expo in Washington, D.C., Vass and others argued that the Air Force and other military services will gain a lot from the effort to develop autonomous F1 cars. 

Eric Breckenfeld, director of technology policy for NVIDIA, said the speed and other engineering challenges the project is targeting are outside the problems mainstream automotive manufacturers are focused on.   

No one at commercial self-driving companies is incentivized to test how autonomous systems operate at 150 miles per hour, nor are they subjecting self-driving computers and chips to the extreme temperatures or intense vibration produced at those speeds.   

Like military operations, car racing is confined to “relatively low-volume, relatively customized systems” and “relatively cost-insensitive customers,” Breckenfeld said.  

Both also present “austere conditions, extreme circumstances of speed or vibration or temperature, and a ‘failure is not an option’” mindset.   

But because autonomous racing is not a national security issue, Booz, NVIDIA and their partners could draw on a much wider talent pool and engage with a much wider range of potential suppliers and collaborators. 

“It’s really useful,” he said, “to pull on all that volume, engage on surrogate problems, solve those out there” in the unclassified space. 

Motor sports have long been testing grounds for the automotive industry; overland and other high-endurance races push hardware to new limits of tolerance, said Lawrence Walter, co-founder and CEO of Code 19. Now it’s filling that role for the software that powers autonomous vehicles, too. 

“In competitive teams, where you’re racing against the best in the world, every ounce of performance matters, and the speed that you can extract . . . from the machines and from your software is critical,” Walter said. 

Formula One race cars are already loaded with sensors, Walter noted. In addition to cameras and speedometers, they generate enormously detailed performance data for every element of the vehicle.  

“In theory, with all that data, you should be able to perform better than a human that’s just driving by the seat of their pants using their intuition,” Walter said. “But . . . we haven’t been able to achieve that.”  

Like highly skilled fighter pilots, Formula One drivers who start racing at a young age have an edge: “Their control algorithm, all of the skills that they actually employ in operating the vehicle, is instinctive to them,” he said. 

In racing, there is a mathematically correct “optimal raceline,” a route around the track which, in theory, should produce the fastest lap time. “But when . . . you put an expert human driver driving that same track, the mathematical optimal race line is not actually what gets you around the track fastest,” Walter said. 

Code 19’s AI development has used human performance as a baseline so the computer can model its driving on real racers.

Vass said imbuing AI with those almost instinctive, “seat-of-the-pants” skills is one of the hardest problems autonomy engineers have confronted. 

The variables are many, Vass told Air & Space Forces Magazine, citing tire temperatures as just one area of complexity. Each time tires are changed during a race, the driver is placed at an disadvantage—until the tires heat up. “When your tires are cold, you can slide a lot, and it’s very scary,” said Vass, who has a Formula One license. “It’s very unpleasant—at least it was for me.” But skilled drivers know how to adapt and have techniques to heat up the tires faster.  

“The autonomy has to be able to handle that as well,” he said. “It has to know that it’s got cold tires, and it’s got to know . . . how to heat the tires up fastest, because whoever can heat the tires up faster again is going to have better lap times.”  

Programming autonomy requires engineers to understand all of the variables.

“How do you pass that to an AI agent?” Vass asked. “How do you get that human capability into the autonomy? That’s true in flying the jet, that’s true in the battlefield, that’s true in driving a tank. And so that’s where we have to connect the dots.” 

The Air Force is betting big on autonomous systems, including self-flying fighters and scores of drone wingmen that can partner with manned aircraft, to act faster than humans alone and to multiply its forces. Last year, then-Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall boarded an AI-powered F-16 fighter known as the X-62 VISTA to see for himself whether Airmen could trust the technology.

He climbed out of the cockpit, grinning.

Air Force 3-Star Nominated as NATO’s Top Officer

Air Force 3-Star Nominated as NATO’s Top Officer

An Airman with years of experience overseeing air operations in the Middle East is next in line to lead NATO forces as the top U.S. military official in Europe.

Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich is nominated for promotion to serve as the four-star head of U.S. European Command, the Pentagon announced June 5. If confirmed by the Senate, Grynkewich would also assume the title of Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO’s top military officer, amid the bloodiest conflict on the continent since World War II.

The North Atlantic Council, made up of representatives from each member nation who make political decisions for NATO, has approved the nomination. Grynkewich is expected to step into the role this summer, the alliance said in a June 5 release.

He would replace Army Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, who has held the dual role since July 2022. Grynkewich is set to be the fifth Airman in the post since Army Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was nominated as the first SACEUR in 1950. U.S. flag officers have served as SACEUR at the alliance’s main military command center in Belgium ever since. 

The European Command boss leads about 84,000 U.S. troops at more than 40 bases across the continent.

Grynkewich would take over at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe at a critical moment for the transatlantic alliance. Russia’s looming threat has spurred NATO nations to hike defense spending and cooperate with new urgency as Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine — which borders four alliance members — continues into its fourth year. Ukraine does not belong to NATO.

Gen. Carsten Breuer, Germany’s defense chief, told the BBC earlier this week he believes Russia could attack NATO by 2029. His prediction comes as the U.S. plans to begin discussing the potential withdrawal of American troops from Europe with its allies on the continent later this year.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is urging member nations to invest further in defense, particularly on munitions, as the U.S. turns its focus to the Pacific.

Grynkewich currently serves as the Joint Staff’s operations director. From July 2022 to April 2024, he worked at the heart of U.S. military action in the Middle East as commander of Air Forces Central. That included overseeing airstrikes against Iranian proxy groups, protecting ground troops, and helping Israel defeat a massive Iranian drone and missile attack the night of April 13, 2024, just a few days before handing over command to Lt. Gen. Derek C. France.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime,” the F-16 and F-22 fighter pilot told Air & Space Forces Magazine last year about his AFCENT time. “I’ve learned and grown as a leader myself in this position, and wouldn’t trade the experience for anything else.”

Grynkewich is the third flag officer and the second Airman nominated this week to lead one of the Pentagon’s 11 combatant commands around the globe. On June 4, President Donald Trump nominated Lt. Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, to lead U.S. Africa Command. Anderson would become the first Airman in that role if confirmed.

Top NATO Official Says All Members May Hit Spending Target After 11 Years

Top NATO Official Says All Members May Hit Spending Target After 11 Years

Eleven years after NATO pledged to spend at least 2 percent of each country’s gross domestic product on defense, “most, if not all” 32 of the alliance’s member nations are poised to reach or surpass that goal in 2025, Secretary-General Mark Rutte said June 4 at a ministerial meeting in Brussels.

NATO’s non-U.S. members will now be assigned “capability goals,” based on the role each country is expected to play in European defense, Rutte said. Those targets will be rolled out in three weeks at NATO’s full meeting at The Hague.

Rutte did not reference a reported plan to increase the contribution goal to 3.5 percent, or the 5 percent that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged at the NATO ministerial in February.

“At this ministerial, we are going to take a huge leap forward,” Rutte said at a June 4 press conference. “We will strengthen our deterrence and defense by agreeing [to] ambitious new capability targets,” he said, but to do so, “it’s clear that we will need significantly higher defense spending.”

“That underpins everything,” he added.

The U.S. spent 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense in fiscal 2024, down from a historical average of 4.2 percent. POLITICO reported June 4 that 23 of NATO’s 32 members are on track to spend at least 2 percent by this summer.

It’s “only fair” that the non-U.S. NATO nations increase defense spending, Rutte said, acknowledging that the U.S. is pivoting its focus to security in the Pacific.

“We have to . . . equalize with the United States,” he said. While NATO is “extremely important” to America, Rutte added, the U.S. is “so big and powerful” that it logically must concentrate on other military theaters. He said the U.S. does not plan to withdraw from Europe.

The sharp increase in defense spending is necessary, Rutte said, because the Russian threat “is there for the long term,” and despite its economic difficulties, Russia is “producing four times more ammunition than the whole of NATO.”

Purchasing munitions should be the alliance’s top priority, he argued, no matter how politicians decide to fund it.

“I only need to make sure that, collectively, we have what we need to prevent us from taking Russian language courses,” he said.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, the multinational effort to provide Ukraine with the weapons, vehicles and funds to prevail in its ongoing war with Russia, German defense minister Boris Pistorius called contributing 5 percent of GDP to defense “unrealistic.” Gradually increasing spending to hit that target is “possible and certainly needed” in light of the war in Ukraine, he said, but it would be a struggle to achieve that goal quickly—especially for smaller NATO allies.

Pistorius said the proposal will be discussed at the NATO summit later this month.

“It’s not about disappointing anybody,” he said. “It’s about negotiating . . . what is necessary and what’s possible.”

Germany announced after the meeting it will provide $5.7 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, focused on ammunition and air defense systems. The United Kingdom pledged $5.1 billion, of which $400 million will be used to build drones. Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden also pledged new aid to Ukraine, including ammunition, drones and naval equipment.

Rutte said that non-U.S. NATO members and European Union members have pledged “20 billion euros for Ukraine . . . in the first three months of this year,” versus 50 billion euros last year.

He did not detail how countries will share responsibilities under the new allocation of roles, but said the top priorities include “air and missile defense, long-range weapons, logistics, [and] large land-maneuver formations.”

“We need more resources, forces and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat, and to implement our collective defense plans in full,” he said.

The U.S. has long assumed the greatest responsibility within NATO for long-range aviation and aerial attack, while Germany has provided the bulk of ground troops and electronic attack. The U.S., U.K., and France have provided the lion’s share of naval forces, and other countries have filled in the remaining capabilities. In recent years, however, NATO’s dramatic expansion has meant that non-U.S. countries are bringing on far greater frontline aviation and air defenses, with many more fifth-generation F-35s than the U.S. will station in Europe. Poland’s ground forces rival those of Germany, and newer, smaller NATO allies have niche capabilities in logistics and special forces.    

The need for greater NATO spending is made clear by “Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine, the threat of terrorism, and intense global competition,” Rutte said. The alliance this week will “assess the gaps we have in our collective defense,” he added, to ensure NATO’s protection against Russia and China “not only today, but also in three to five years.”

Also on the table are a renewed investment in “infrastructure and resilience,” Rutte said, as well as a push to build munitions production capacity.

Rutte, echoing U.S. defense officials and associations that have said companies need to see strong demand to invest in greater weapons production, said the plans for increased funding are about “making sure . . . that our defense industries will put in extra production lines, extra shifts.”

Rutte praised the Trump administration’s efforts to “stop the bloodshed” in Ukraine and achieve “a just and lasting peace.” He said NATO’s efforts to support the beleaguered country, which Russia invaded unprovoked in 2022, are about ensuring Ukraine’s self-defense and preventing further aggression on the continent, not prolonging the war.

“Putin should never, ever try this again,” he said of the three-year-old invasion, “and that means we have to test him” and sit down to regional peace discussions.

“The U.S. is taking the lead on this, and I’m really glad that they do that,” Rutte said.

Asked if he believes the U.S. is solidly backing Ukraine—Hegseth skipped this contact group meeting—Rutte said the U.S. “is completely committed to NATO; completely committed to our joint endeavors when it comes to Ukraine, there’s no reason to doubt that.”

“Most of these meetings take place in Europe, so it will not always be possible for U.S. officials to participate in every meeting,” he added.

It’s the first meeting of Ukraine’s roughly 50 military benefactors at the U.S.-run Ramstein Air Base in Germany that a U.S. defense secretary will not attend, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“We are at a pivotal moment for our security,” Rutte said. “Make no mistake, NATO is strong today, and we will become even stronger. Strong defenses send a clear message: No one should ever think of attacking us.”

This General Could Be the First Airman to Lead AFRICOM

This General Could Be the First Airman to Lead AFRICOM

U.S. Africa Command could soon have its first Air Force general in charge, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the nomination of Lt. Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson to lead the combatant command and pin on a fourth star.

President Donald Trump also nominated Navy Vice Adm. Charles B. Cooper II for promotion to lead U.S. Central Command as a four-star admiral, replacing Army Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the Pentagon said in a June 4 news release. The command oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and southwest Asia, including the Navy-led campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Army and Marine Corps generals have led AFRICOM since its creation in 2007. Three Sailors and one Airman, Lt. Gen. James C. Vechery, have served as deputy commanders at the organization’s headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM is currently led by Marine Gen. Michael E. Langley, who took over the post in August 2022.

Anderson is no stranger to the continent or to joint commands, having led U.S. Special Operations Command’s Africa branch from 2019 to 2021.

During Anderson’s tenure at SOC-Africa in January 2020, three Americans died and three others were wounded by al-Shabab fighters in an attack on Kenya’s Manda Bay base. A Pentagon investigation into the ambush concluded that multiple security lapses and failure to focus on threats on the ground allowed the militants to mount an attack that killed a U.S. Soldier and two contractors.

That October saw Air Force CV-22 Ospreys carry Navy SEALs into northern Nigeria to rescue an American hostage from local gunmen; a month later, SOC-Africa led the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“On essentially no notice, SOC-Africa planned and coordinated an operation that ultimately involved over 13,000 troops, an amphibious ready group, a carrier strike group, and a major airlift,” then-AFRICOM boss Gen. Stephen J. Townsend said about the withdrawal in July 2021, when Anderson handed command of SOC-Africa to Rear Adm. Milton J. Sands III.

“Anderson’s leadership of Operation Octave Quartz ensured the successful and safe repositioning of over 700 service members [and] 900 pallets of cargo from Somalia in less than 60 days,” Townsend said.

Anderson currently serves at the Pentagon as director for joint force development under the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A native of Ypsilanti, Mich., Anderson has flown KC-135 tankers, MC-130E special operations transports, and U-28A reconnaissance planes, according to his command biography. The general spoke highly of partnerships with African nations during his SOF-Africa tour.

“They are some of the best partners I’ve ever worked with,” he said at the 2021 change-of-command ceremony. “They’re not looking for a handout, they’re looking for a helping hand. And what more can you ask for? That’s why I’m passionate about Africa.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Anderson would oversee U.S. military operations as American troops have stepped up airstrikes in an effort to limit militant groups’ territorial gains, Niger’s ouster of U.S. forces has limited their ability to fly surveillance missions, and China and Russia are vying for greater influence across the continent.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing to consider Anderson and Cooper’s nominations.

Senate Adds Billions for Air Force Programs to GOP Spending Bill

Senate Adds Billions for Air Force Programs to GOP Spending Bill

Senate lawmakers unveiled legislation June 4 that would funnel at least $26 billion to the Air Force and Space Force starting this year as Washington Republicans aim to modernize America’s aging military and revitalize the defense industrial base for an era of competition between world powers. 

The Senate bill offers billions more dollars for military aerospace than its House counterpart, which narrowly passed May 22 as part of a partisan tax-and-spending package making its way across Capitol Hill. The Department of the Air Force stands to receive many billions more under broad provisions for military space sensors and missile development, for instance, that don’t specify which organization would use the funds.

The provisions are part of the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that would enact large swaths of Republican President Donald Trump’s policy agenda through the budget reconciliation process, which lets lawmakers pass spending legislation with fewer votes than usual.

It illustrates the Senate’s commitment to “peace through strength,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told reporters at a June 4 Defense Writers Group event.

“We still have a strong military, but the trend is not headed in the right direction,” Wicker said. “The military advancements that will result from this bill are indeed historic, and their importance cannot be overstated.”

Senators kept the bill’s $150 billion cap for defense spending but set slightly different priorities than the House for how that money should be spent to challenge Chinese dominance in the Pacific, secure the U.S.-Mexico border and bolster America’s air defenses, among other issues.

As in the House, the Senate defense panel looks to boost production of the F-15EX fighter, B-21 bomber, C-130J transport aircraft, EA-37B electronic-attack jet and MH-139 patrol helicopter. It would also prevent retirement of the F-22 and F-15E fighters, speed development of the next-generation F-47 fighter and Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones, and fund Air Force training in the Pacific. It offers $2.1 billion for spare parts and repairs for Air Force platforms as well.

For the Air Force, the Senate bill adds $2.5 billion for facilities upkeep and modernization; $250 million to field air defenses that are cheaper than those systems typically cost; $50 million for fuel tanks to extend the range of the F-15EX; and $10 million apiece for wargaming and the Air Force Concepts, Development, and Management Office.  

Senators also offered to spend more than the House on certain Air Force initiatives. Those include $2.5 billion to continue developing the Sentinel land-based nuclear missile, $1 billion more than in the House bill; $550 million for classified programs, a $250 million boost; and $187 million to add electronic warfare tools to the F-16 fighter, a $137 million increase.

Some Space Force programs would see a greater windfall from the Senate as well. Classified military space superiority programs would receive $5.1 billion under the Senate bill, more than $1 billion over the House version; plus $150 million rather than $100 million for ground target-tracking satellites.

The bill also adds $7.2 billion for military space sensors and $5.6 billion for space-based and boost-phase missile interceptors; it’s unclear how much of that money would go to the Space Force.

Lawmakers also earmarked $3.3 billion for military operations along the U.S.-Mexico border, including to hold migrants at U.S. bases. A defense official said in February the Army was planning to house as many 30,000 detained migrants at its installations.

The $150 billion defense portion of the massive reconciliation bill aims to push the U.S. defense budget above $1 trillion for the first time, when added to the $893 billion the Trump administration seeks in baseline annual funding.

Wicker argues the U.S. needs to steadily increase baseline defense spending rather than trying to pad it through unconventional measures. Asked how funding offered through reconciliation could affect lawmakers’ priorities for next year’s base budget, Wicker predicted Congress will float a “vastly different number” than the Trump administration has proposed.

“I think House and Senate authorizers and House and Senate appropriators are likely to have quite a different view from OMB on how that is racked and stacked,” Wicker said.

“There are some members of the administration who thought we would be delighted with the $1 trillion,” he added. “That’s not the way we viewed it.”

Though Republicans on the Hill welcome reconciliation as an opportunity to spend 5 percent of America’s gross domestic product, or around $1.5 trillion, on defense, Wicker said the Trump administration is using the measure to pretend that it can both cut defense spending while also achieving a historically large Pentagon budget.

“It makes no sense,” Wicker said. 

He suggested it won’t be difficult for lawmakers to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills, saying he and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers largely agree on a way forward and that the Trump administration is on board.

Rogers, of Alabama, said in a June 4 statement he’s eager to continue the party’s forward momentum on a “generational investment.”

But Wicker acknowledged disagreements over other aspects of the enormous spending package, from Medicaid cuts to its impact on the federal debt, could spell trouble for the defense provisions if efforts to rally Senate Republicans to vote for the bill fall short.

“I really think maybe 85 senators, if you ask them in a vacuum, do they want this $150 billion to be enacted? They would say yes—Democrats and Republicans,” he said of the defense package. “It’s the other parts that are going to take some massaging.”

Republican leaders on the Hill hope the package can clear Congress and reach Trump’s desk by July 4.

While the GOP could unilaterally enact the reconciliation bill without wooing Democrats, boosting the base budget would require buy-in from both parties to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for appropriations bills in the Senate. Both the compromise reconciliation measure and annual appropriations will need to survive a razor-thin Republican majority to pass in the House.

Wicker’s panel will get the chance to publicly press Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the 2026 budget at a June 18 hearing—the first time Hegseth has appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee since his confirmation in January.

The defense secretary is also slated to testify before the House and Senate appropriations committees on June 10, as well as the House Armed Services Committee on June 12.

Transgender Troops Face Tough Decision As Deadline to Self-ID Looms 

Transgender Troops Face Tough Decision As Deadline to Self-ID Looms 

Active-duty transgender troops have until June 6 to identify themselves and begin the voluntary separation process or wait and risk involuntary separation later—even as questions linger over how that decision might affect their security clearances for future employment.  

The Pentagon announced the June 6 deadline on May 15. National Guard and Reserve members have until July 7. A senior defense official said at the time that the military departments must begin the separation process within 30 days after members identify themselves as transgender. 

It is unclear how many people may be affected by the order. In February, a senior defense official said there were 4,240 members serving who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and about 1,000 members had received gender-transition surgery since 2014. But how many of those are still serving is not known. Not all transgender troops are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and only some who are choose to undergo surgery. 

“I think everyone is trying to make the decision that they think is best for them and their situation, and they’re doing so in an extreme absence of information,” said Col. Bree Fram, a transgender Guardian who noted she was sharing her personal views and not speaking on behalf of the Space Force or the government.

Those who voluntarily self-identify are promised “a very significant voluntary separation pay, a covered permanent change of station move to their home of record” and an honorable discharge if there is no misconduct prompting the separation, the defense official said. Other resources, including financial counseling, temporary healthcare coverage, employment assistance, and the Transition Assistance Program, will remain available. 

But the process of ousting transgender troops may make it more difficult to land a job once out of uniform. The Pentagon will yank their access to SkillBridge, a program that funds internships, apprenticeships, and training in civilian organizations for Active troops for up to 180 days of service. When asked why, a separate defense official cited a May 15 memo, which specifically excluded SkillBridge because it “is a discretionary program,” meaning it is not required by law. 

The senior defense official said troops who separate voluntarily will receive double the payment compared to those who separate involuntarily. For example, an E-5 with 10 years of service would receive about $101,000 for a voluntary separation compared to $51,000 in involuntary separation pay; an O-3 with seven years would receive about $125,000 in voluntary separation pay, but only about $62,000 if separated involuntarily. 

The memo states that the military branches will check that troops who ask to leave under the policy have a current diagnosis of gender dysphoria or a history of that diagnosis, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria.

For members who do not self-identify, however, the memo states that “the primary method of identifying … [affected service members] who are no longer eligible for military service will be through compliance with the Individual Medical Readiness (IMR) program.” 

The assessment of medical readiness will be conducted through the DoD Periodic Health Assessment, which will include questions about whether service members have a current diagnosis of gender dysphoria or a history of that diagnosis, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria. 

Gender dysphoria refers to the sometimes severe stress or anxiety people can feel if their gender identity does not match their sex at birth. It can be treated through behavioral changes, such as dress and mannerisms, or through medical interventions, such as hormone replacement therapy or gender-transition surgery. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth contends that a history of gender dysphoria or transition treatment is incompatible with military service. Transgender troops have served openly since 2016. President Donald Trump moved to bar transgender troops during the Republican’s first term, though troops serving at the time were grandfathered in. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, lifted the ban on transgender recruits entering service when he took office in 2021.

Active-duty troops may apply for a waiver by June 6; Reservists and Guardsmen have until July 7. A person diagnosed with gender dysphoria who managed to serve without clinically significant distress and without attempting to transition could theoretically receive a waiver, but anyone who has attempted to transition is ineligible. 

The Air Force implementation plan includes one major difference from the DOD memo: It allows volunteers with 15 to 18 years of service to apply to retire early under the temporary early retirement authority. The Defense Department policy had limited that option to troops with more than 18 but less than 20 years of service to apply for TERA. 

Questions Remain 

Though the memos give transgender troops a deadline to self-identify, the services have not released in-depth policies on what the process looks like for involuntary separations. 

“There is still the unknown of ‘what does it mean to be involuntarily separated?’” Fram said. 

The Defense Department said in February that “all service members affected by the policy will be separated with an honorable characterization of service, except where their record otherwise warrants a lower characterization.”  

But troops who are involuntarily separated may not receive “certain benefits” available to those who separate voluntarily, the senior defense official said in May. They also may have to pay back bonus or incentive payments for which the required obligation has not been met.  

Another complicating factor is the three-letter code listed on troops’ DD-214 discharge papers that signifies the reason for discharge. 

Pentagon guidance said the code for enlisted troops separated under the policy will be “JFF,” meaning the discharge was directed by the defense secretary’s authority. But officers “will be processed for separation on the basis that their continued service is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security using the JDK separation program designator code,” the guidance said. 

A JDK code would indicate the service member could not be trusted with national security matters, which presumably would make it difficult to retain or obtain a security clearance, said retired Air Force Col. Joshua Kastenberg, a former Air Force judge now teaching law at the University of New Mexico. 

“If someone wants to go into classified work, it’s huge,” he said. “Keep in mind that people who leave the military honorably, some of them want to find jobs with contractors that require a clearance because they pay well and it gives them an opportunity to serve national defense without having to put on a uniform. That door may be shut to them as a result of this.” 

Asked about the JDK code, a Defense Department official said “the separation code alone does not infer a revocation of a security clearance.” The official could not answer in time whether the JDK code would apply to all officers who are separated under the policy, or just those separated involuntarily. 

Transgender troops must now comply with the dress, grooming, and fitness standards of their birth sex, which might not be possible for some service members at this point in their transition. Especially in question is the status of those transgender members whose gender data was changed in military personnel systems. Fram said she has heard anecdotally that some transgender members have been placed on administrative leave since they would not be able to adhere to the standards of their birth sex. 

The unknowns mean some transgender service members are taking the voluntary separation option “as the best of bad choices,” Fram said. “But to be clear, it is not voluntary. These people would be continuing to serve if the circumstances were different. They are avoiding the threat of further unknown consequences.”  

Two lawsuits challenging the policy change are still being litigated, but the Supreme Court last month overturned an injunction that would have kept transgender troops in uniform until the cases were settled. That process could take years, and Kastenberg doubts it will end favorably for plaintiffs, since there is no statute barring the military from discriminating based on gender identity. 

The Pentagon memo directs commanders aware of troops with a diagnosis, a history of, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria to refer them to the medical review process. Fram worried that policy could be used against troops “just outside what people expect, particularly in women who may be more masculine than what others expect,” and Kastenberg shared her concern.

When asked if there would be safeguards to prevent misuse of the policy, the senior defense official told reporters in May that the military “has long granted broad discretion and authority to commanders . . . and so, this policy, like many others, will rely on their qualifications, discernment and judgment in how to interpret and apply the guidance.” 

Golden Dome to Counter Ukraine-Inspired Attacks, USAF Boss Says

Golden Dome to Counter Ukraine-Inspired Attacks, USAF Boss Says

The top Air Force officer says President Donald Trump’s ambitious “Golden Dome” homeland defense initiative could ultimately counter the kind of strike Ukraine carried out earlier this week, using drones to hit multiple Russian aircraft deep inside the country.

“I think the fascinating thing will be, to what extent, in the future . . . the Golden Dome will integrate not only [systems to counter] the larger ballistic, cruise, hypersonic missiles, but also some of these closer-in, more effective ones,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said at a June 3 Center for a New American Security event.

However, he said he believes the initial phase of Golden Dome development will not include closer-range defensive measures.

Kyiv launched a surprise attack using more than 100 drones, striking “34% of [Russia’s] strategic cruise missile carriers,” according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Russia confirmed attacks in five regions including on multiple military bases.

“We’ll see how the conversation gets stirred up again based on the strike, but it shows us that seemingly impenetrable locations need to pay more attention to that,” Allvin added.

The Golden Dome project, which could cost $542 billion over the next two decades, is led by Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael A. Guetlein and is expected to rely heavily on satellites and other space-based technologies to detect and intercept incoming threats from drones to hypersonic missiles. Trump has set a goal to complete the project within three years, touting it as a way to “forever end the missile threat to the American homeland.”

But given the complexity of developing and fielding such technology, analysts view the tight timeline as ambitious. Guetlein has likened the mission’s scale to the “magnitude of the Manhattan Project,” warning that it will require a heavy lift from the Pentagon, intelligence agencies and various industries.

Allvin said Guetlein faces a daunting challenge and will require significant support. The Air Force is expected to play a key role, as the system relies on airborne defenses and close coordination with the Army and other services to ensure effective coverage, particularly in strategic regions like the Indo-Pacific.

The region’s defense posture is now in the spotlight as China looms as a threat that “could be imminent,” according to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. While the impact of Ukrainian forces using small drones to strike Russia’s military bases and damage long-range bombers may not be a “wake-up moment,” it is certainly an “eyebrow-raising” one, Allvin said.

The Air Force is taking steps to make its critical assets in the Pacific more resilient in case of attack, like reinforcing aircraft shelters. As part of this effort, a seven-year project is underway at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam to upgrade the runway, hangars, and maintenance facilities to support both permanent and rotational forces, including allies’ fighter aircraft.

“It’s something that we haven’t necessarily been ignoring, but it’s been a matter of resource prioritization,” Allvin said. “We could really make it very defensive, but if all we’re doing is playing defense, and we can’t shoot back, then that’s not a good use of our money.”

As Washington starts to draw lessons on preventing a similar drone attack on American military assets, Allvin also suggested the Air Force should consider adding simpler aircraft that can make big impacts.

But he cautioned against the rising enthusiasm for inexpensive unmanned aircraft. Many believe the Air Force should invest in “a bunch of cheap, long-range, and kinetically powerful” drones, he said, but that’s a fantasy. Those three qualities don’t exist together, he argued.

Instead, Allvin stressed the need for a balanced force mix—using myriad cheaper aircraft to sow initial confusion before advanced platforms launch more critical attacks. A smart mix lets commanders apply “the right weapon for the right target,” and avoid having to “expend all your high-end kit” on every mission, he said.

Experts Weigh in on Lessons Learned From Ukraine’s Drone Attack

Experts Weigh in on Lessons Learned From Ukraine’s Drone Attack

Ukraine’s successful attacks on bombers deep within Russia using relatively inexpensive drones will certainly affect the progress of that war, but don’t offer a practical new model for the structure of U.S. airpower, two experts said.

While innovative, the raids did not herald a new era of air warfare, which still demands aircraft that can reach far across the globe to hold targets at risk, they said.  

In a daring raid launched June 1, Ukraine sent semitrailers loaded with 117 attack drones to locations near Russian bomber bases. As seen in on-scene video footage, the drones launched from false tops in the trucks and flew to the nearby flightlines, where they individually attacked parked aircraft.

While Ukraine initially claimed to have destroyed “more than 40” aircraft in the raid, it later revised that to “at least 13.” Nevertheless, cameras on some of the drones, as well as commercial satellite imagery, showed heavy damage to many aircraft—including Tu-195 “Bear” and Tu-22 “Backfire” bombers—which are out of production and cannot be replaced. Those aircraft were targeted, the Ukrainian SBU security service said, because they have launched many cruise missiles into Ukraine, frequently from well inside Russian airspace. Also hit were an A-50 “Mainstay” airborne warning and control aircraft and cargo planes.  

A Ukrainian security service image of SBU chief Vasil Maliuk looking at aerial photos of Russian Tu-95 “Bear” and Tu-22 “Backfire” bombers with a red “X” near their wingboxes, indicating the intended aimpoints in the June 1, 2025 drone attacks on Russian bombers. (Ukrainian Security Service photo via X)

The attacks were carried out simultaneously across the breadth of Russia, not only in locations close to Ukraine but as far as Belaya air base, more than 2,600 miles from Ukraine in the Irkutsk region of Russia.

Those aircraft not destroyed outright may still have to be written off, because the drones attacked their wingboxes—the crucial load-bearing area of an aircraft that carries its weight, and through which most wiring bundles and control mechanisms pass.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin, speaking at the AI+ Expo in Washington on June 2, addressing the unconventional operation, noted that innovation in combat “is growing so much more rapid. . . . It should humble us.”

The Ukrainian strike demonstrates that the idea of sanctuary from attack is “sort of going away as a concept,” as is the idea that forces must fight across great distances to reach their targets, he said.

“Why don’t we think about including that in our Air Force, and doing like the Ukrainians do?” Allvin asked.

Airpower experts from the Air and Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, however, said the operation, while certain to affect the Ukraine war, isn’t necessarily a template for the Air Force to follow.

“I would caution against interpreting this innovative strike as something more than it was,” said Mark Gunzinger, Mitchell’s director of future concepts and capability assessments.

“Was it potentially game-changing in the sense of a European conflict? Absolutely, but the drones used for the attack were transported into Russia via ground vehicles, which would not be a viable means to conduct very long-range strikes in a western Pacific fight,” Gunzinger said.

But he went further than Allvin, saying the era of operating out of safe spaces is over, both at home and abroad.

“Too many people still believe the U.S. will be a sanctuary from kinetic attacks during a future war,” Gunzinger said. “On the contrary, we must expect our homeland bases and forces will be attacked by long-range missiles, uninhabited aircraft, and by unconventional means, like Russia just experienced.”

Gunzinger argues that the drones acted more as mobile artillery or cruise missiles, not combat aircraft with the range, stealth and weapons to succeed in dangerous airspace. The drone attacks showed that “one of the best ways to take out an enemy’s air force is when it’s . . . on the ground,” he added.

The U.S. must be able to do the same, Gunzinger said. But rather than spend money on an army of small drones that can strike at close range, he said, the Air Force should invest in “capacity to strike deep into contested areas.”

The Air Force needs the new B-21 Raider bomber and next-generation F-47 fighter, he said, because “no other service” or allied nation can provide those capabilities.

The Russia strike provides abundant evidence, though, that “we must invest in defenses against these threats abroad and in our homeland, and do so now, before we experience a similar strategic shock,” Gunzinger said.

He echoed remarks from former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall that the Air Force “can no longer wait for the Army” to fund and develop missile defenses for air bases, a mission assigned to the Army in 1947.

“Our Air Force must prepare to defend its own bases and forces,” Gunzinger said. The Army has “neglected” the air base defense mission for decades, he argued, “in favor of acquiring highly redundant capabilities like long-range strike missiles and fixed-wing [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] aircraft.”

Congress “must provide the Air Force with additional funding and end strength for air base defense, since robbing its other modernization programs to resource a new mission would risk prolonging its status as the oldest and smallest U.S. Air Force ever,” he added.

Asked what the Air Force is doing to defend against similar drone incursions—now that mass attacks against parked aircraft are no longer hypothetical—a service spokesperson said that the commanders of U.S. Northern Command and Indo-Pacific Command “are the lead synchronizers for operations to counter” unmanned aerial systems.

“Our forces maintain a high state of readiness to defend against a wide range of threats,” including “emerging UAS and drone swarms,” a defense official said through a spokesperson.

“We [the DoD] are developing a range of capabilities that can evolve to counter this threat across all components of the kill chain that include detection, tracking, identification/classification, and defeat, both with kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities,” the official said. “We continuously invest in layered air and missile defense technologies, early warning systems, and rapid response protocols designed to detect, track, and neutralize airborne threats well before they can reach critical assets.​”

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, head of the Mitchell Institute, called the drone strikes “a compelling example of applying an effects-based approach to operations to achieve classic counter-air objectives.”

Lacking bombers, stealth aircraft, an “ISR-strike kill chain” or the ability to suppress enemy air defenses, Ukraine “had to come up with an innovative means to effectively project power to accomplish their desired effects,” Deptula said. So the country seized on the solution of “cheap, easy-to-produce and tactically effective” precision-guided munitions—largely quadcopters laden with explosives—that could get most of the way to their targets on trucks.

Taking this approach, Ukraine achieved a “strategic effect: neutralizing enemy airpower at its source,” he said, and it’s time the U.S. military renewed its focus on “an effects-based approach to operations.”

Although the raids are focusing attention on the vulnerabilities of aircraft parked in the open, “infantry, tanks, ships . . . logistics storage” and other attractive targets are also susceptible to such attacks, Deptula said.

The danger posed by “cheap, small, and numerous precision-guided munitions are significant, and must be addressed by the entire U.S. military with equally innovative defensive measures,” he said.

All U.S. military branches “must act swiftly to prioritize base and area defenses, decentralize operations, and in the case of the Air Force, advocate for funding to ensure its aging fleet is not only recapitalized but also protected,” he said, calling any element of military power that can’t survive enemy threats a “hollow deterrent.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should cut the Army’s effort to build hypersonic missiles that are “too destabilizing in peacetime to be deployed by our allies, and use up too much lift to be practical in wartime,” Deptula said. Instead, the Pentagon should use those resources to build effective counter-drone capabilities and base defenses.

“Leadership and candor will be required to make this happen,” he added.

He argued for renewed emphasis on hardened aircraft shelters and force protection.

“Since the end of the Cold War, none of the U.S. armed forces have made force protection a priority due to several factors, not the least of which is cost, and the perceived absence of threat. That is no longer the case,” he said.

Efforts to place hardened shelters on Guam, a strategic U.S. outpost that would be a key military hub in a conflict with China, for B-2 Spirit bombers and F-22 Raptors didn’t bear fruit because DOD leaders view “the risk of a conflict affecting aircraft on Guam and in the continental U.S. as an acceptable risk to take,” Deptula said.

He hopes Russia losing so much of its long-range aviation at once “will get the attention of the DOD leadership.”

Allvin: Ukrainian Drone Attack Highlights Need for Diverse Arsenal

Allvin: Ukrainian Drone Attack Highlights Need for Diverse Arsenal

Ukraine’s audacious drone attack June 1, which appears to have destroyed several Russian strategic bombers—some based thousands of miles from the war’s front line—posed a dramatic backdrop for a major defense innovation forum in Washington this week, underscoring the ways in which the rapidly developing capabilities of autonomous weapons are revolutionizing the battlefield.

The attack should make the Air Force think about balancing its force design between high-end platforms with “exquisite” capabilities and cheaper, attritable platforms like the one-way drones Ukraine employed, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin told the fourth annual Exchange on Innovation and National Security June 2.

The Exchange celebrates the legacy of the 25th U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, a physicist who is credited with recognizing the urgent need for the Department of Defense to embrace and integrate emerging technologies. It’s now part of the AI+ Expo, organized by the Special Competitive Studies Project.

“Not every part of our Air Force has to be the high air dominance exquisite [force],” Allvin said. “We need that because we always need to be able to penetrate high air defenses.” But he added that “disruptive effects” could be more effective depending on their location.

“When we say ‘air power, anytime, anywhere,’ it doesn’t have to be the most exquisite, exclusive, expensive, sophisticated player,” he said. “It just needs to be able to generate effects for the commander and for the president.”

Diversifying the fleet would help the Air Force avoid “breaking the bank on day one of the fight,” Allvin added.

Allvin said he is also seeking balance in human-machine teaming: “The human-machine team that can make smart decisions faster is the one that can put the adversary … on the back foot,” he said.

Ukraine remotely controlled the 117 drones used in its attack through the cellular network and allowed them to fly autonomously as well, according to Ukrainian military blogs.

First-person-view drones adapted for military use are the center of a new initiative announced at the Exchange by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). Originally founded a decade ago by Ash Carter as an embassy for the Defense Department in Silicon Valley, DIU has grown into a billion-dollar annual acquisition powerhouse and the centerpiece of an ecosystem of more than 270 innovation organizations across the DOD.

Project G.I. is a $20 million challenge grant designed to integrate the latest technology in three areas: uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), electronic warfare (EW), and uncrewed ground vehicles (UGV), DIU Director Doug Beck said.

The project seeks commercially sold drones that small tactical units can use when their communications are being jammed or they are in isolated areas with spotty connectivity.

Project G.I. uses funding that’s more flexible than that of typical defense development projects, allowing DIU “to go all the way from idea to initial fielding with an operational unit,” Beck said.

DOD appropriations can normally be used for only one purpose within accounts like research and development, procurement, or operations and maintenance. But Congress gave DIU $220 million to spend without guardrails, which has allowed the organization to field new tools years faster with rapid testing.

It “totally unlocks things and allows us to partner in a completely different way with the [military] services,” Beck said.