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.

Hegseth Set to Testify Before Congress in June

Hegseth Set to Testify Before Congress in June

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will head to Capitol Hill this month to make the case for the Trump administration’s proposed defense budget, a Pentagon spokesperson said June 2.

Hegseth will appear before the House Armed Services Committee on June 12, the spokesperson confirmed in an email. He’ll then testify at its Senate counterpart on June 18, a congressional source said June 3.

A HASC spokesperson said the hearing will take place during the “week of June 12,” a Thursday, but declined to specify which day the hearing will be scheduled. The committees have not yet listed the upcoming hearings online.

The Trump administration is seeking a first-ever $1 trillion defense budget for 2026 via a partisan tax-and-spending package now under consideration in the Senate, as well as through the annual appropriations process. That ask is split between an $893 billion base budget and almost $150 billion earmarked for defense programs in the GOP spending bill, which Republicans aim to pass without needing Democratic votes.

The White House has released few details about how the U.S. defense community would spend the sum. Next year’s Pentagon funding is expected to prioritize homeland defense—including “Golden Dome,” President Donald Trump’s pet missile-defense project, and sending military assets to secure the U.S.-Mexico border—as well as counter Chinese dominance in the Pacific and bolster the U.S. defense industrial base. It would also offer troops a 3.8 percent pay raise. The White House plans to provide more details on its draft budget this month.

The massive request may face headwinds from within President Donald Trump’s own party. Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has argued the administration should grow the base budget rather than padding it through a reconciliation bill. 

When accounting for inflation, an $893 billion budget is a cut that would “decrease President Trump’s military options,” Wicker said in a May 2 statement.

The hearings mark the first time Hegseth will publicly face lawmakers since his Senate confirmation hearing in January. The former Fox News anchor has come under scrutiny for using the unsecured, encrypted messaging app Signal rather than classified channels to discuss bombing campaigns and other military affairs. He may also field questions about the Trump administration’s cuts to civilian staff across the federal government and efforts to expel transgender troops from the military, among other controversial moves.

This story was updated June 3 at 1:14 p.m. Eastern Time to include the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing date.

Air Force E-7 Promotion Rates Rise in 2025

Air Force E-7 Promotion Rates Rise in 2025

Airmen had an easier time earning a promotion to master sergeant this year, as nearly 1 in 4 eligible technical sergeants were chosen to advance.

Of the 25,805 technical sergeants eligible for promotion, the Air Force selected 6,043—or 23.42 percent—to advance to the grade of E-7, according to a May 29 press release. That’s about 500 more than last year, when 5,500 technical sergeants, or 18.65 percent, moved up.

The share of technical sergeants picked for promotion this year spiked in part because the pool of eligible Airmen shrank. The 2025 rate continues a three-year growth streak since 2022, when the master sergeant promotion rate hit its lowest point in at least 12 years.

At the time, the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic drove a surge in retention and tough competition for career advancement. Service officials also said the branch had too many noncommissioned officers without enough experience, slowing promotions. The Air Force has introduced multiple initiatives to convince Airmen to stay in uniform, including financial incentives and greater flexibility in duty station.

Last year, Lt. Gen. Caroline Miller, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services, told lawmakers that retention had returned to pre-pandemic levels. Miller said in April the Air Force was keeping 90 percent of Airmen overall this year, thanks to slight increases in both officer and enlisted retention—93 and 89 percent, respectively.

“The programs and policies enacted to address the previous dip in retention rates are strengthening our force, reducing gaps in warfighting capability, and shaping future investments,” Miller said in a statement for lawmakers last month.

Airmen typically spend about 14 years in uniform before reaching the rank of master sergeant. E-7s serve as technical experts who start to move away from frontline supervision into higher-level managerial roles.

The senior master sergeant promotion rate improved this year too, with an 11.64 percent promotion rate marking the highest level since 2018.

The Air Force Personnel Center plans to publish the list of master sergeant-selects on its website on June 5 at 8:00 a.m. Central Time.

YearEligiblePromotedPercent Rate
202525,8056,04323.42
202429,4975,50018.65
202328,8314,99817.34
202227,2964,04014.80
202124,7214,67618.92
202022,2864,64920.86
201919,4224,73324.37
201820,8666,17629.60
201720,1695,16625.61
201621,5045,01923.34
201523,6195,30122.44
201422,6784,07317.96
201337,6085,65415.03
201219,8095,46427.58
201119,5386,61833.87
201021,8295,42424.85
Globally Deployed, Combat Proven: All Platforms, All Weapons, One Solution

Globally Deployed, Combat Proven: All Platforms, All Weapons, One Solution

Today’s armament maintainers are tasked with performing flightline (O-Level) maintenance with an assortment of legacy test sets that greatly limit the ability to quickly and efficiently verify armament system readiness, diagnose failures, and ultimately return the aircraft to full mission capable (FMC) status. Legacy test sets are typically utilized on only a single aircraft, or perform a single function supporting multiple aircraft, resulting in increased training and logistics challenges, and longer than necessary test and repair times. This not only impacts armament maintainer effectiveness, but limits the realization of Agile Combat Employment (ACE) and the development of Mission-Ready Airmen.

The need for a universal armament test solution, one that is easy to use, portable and rugged, with rapid test and setup times, and common across all platforms and weapons, has become readily apparent and increasingly in demand on the flightline. Working closely with armament maintainers from across the globe, both DOD and ally, Marvin Test Solutions (MTS) identified key functionality and capabilities essential to supporting legacy, current, and future generation platforms and weapons systems. The outcome of this effort resulted in the widely deployed and combat proven MTS-3060A SmartCan™ Universal Armament Test Set. It has become the universal solution for eliminating the burden of multiple, aircraft-specific test sets on the flightline—delivering a standard.

A typical SmartCan kit, with all associated cables and adaptors contained in a single carry case, can replace the flightline test capabilities of over a dozen test sets across USAF fighters and UASs. It can also support a broader implementation to include bombers and surface-to-air defensive systems as needed. See Table 1 for additional details.

Table 1. O-Level Test Set Replacement Matrix

All fielded aircraft, manned and unmanned, rotary and fixed wing, can be loaded onto a single SmartCan, eliminating the traditional deployment model of using multiple aircraft-specific armament test sets on the flightline. Test results and measurement variances for each weapon are displayed real-time for review, analysis, and fault-isolation. Additionally, test log files can easily be moved or copied for printing and analysis, supporting emerging predictive maintenance initiatives.

Unlike legacy handheld test sets that are only capable of performing stray voltage and continuity tests, the SmartCan implements functional/active MIL-STD-1760 testing to ensure armament systems are ready to support Smart weapons, before they are loaded. Coupled with munitions communication channels supporting all existing weapons protocols, it provides a full system test for all legacy and Smart weapons. It performs both pre-load and functional checkouts, the testing of multiple squib signals, and implements a cross-fire test process superior to all other O-Level armament test sets in service today.

In addition, SmartCan supports a 4-year calibration cycle dramatically reducing sustainment burdens. This feature, combined with flexible software updates and multi-weapon capabilities, ensures continued relevance for future-generation platforms and munitions.

The rugged design, ergonomic layout, and small footprint enables field operation anywhere in the world, making it the ultimate tool for flightline armament test. It is designed and qualified to operate under extreme environmental conditions, meeting MIL-PRF-28800F Class 1, MIL-STD-810C and MIL-STD-461F requirements. Battery operation further enhances field usability; any AA batteries and an innovative power management system enable over 40 hours of test time without the need to replace the batteries. Test setup and execution times are also significantly improved, and the results are striking! F-16 setup times are reduced by an impressive 91% decrease. Similarly, test execution times for a pylon utilizing MIL-STD-1760 and a LAU-129, tested for both AIM-120 and AIM-9X, saw substantial reductions of 85%, and an 89% reduction respectively. See Table 2 for additional details.

Table 2. F-16 Setup / Test Time Comparison

Advanced cybersecurity features and protections further differentiate the SmartCan, making this the most cyber-secure O-Level armament test set. Data encryption, a custom operating system, NIST Certified software for Test Program Set (TPS) development, and a removable secure data (SD) card all contribute to the enhanced cybersecurity of this test set. Its design ensures no sensitive data remains on the unit when the card is removed, meeting stringent DOD information assurance standards.

The ability to streamline TPS development and release cycles is another unique advantage of the SmartCan. ATEasy™ and SmartCanEasy create a powerful integrated TPS development environment. 
Deployed on 14 platforms, in 21 countries, the SmartCan has also been endorsed by Lockheed Martin and the USAF F-16 System Program Office with SERD #75A77 and granted cybersecurity authority to operate (ATO). Additionally, it was successfully evaluated during AFWERX’s Agile Combat Employment CASE initiative. Its performance continues to demonstrate unmatched versatility, cyber resilience, and operational efficiency across allied forces worldwide

The MTS-3060A SmartCan is the premier O-Level armament test solution currently globally deployed on 14 platforms, in 21 countries, in Systems Integration Labs, with SERD Certification (#75A77) and cybersecurity authority to operate (ATO). 

SmartCan is the most advanced O-Level armament test set available, capable of testing all Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) and Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE) including pylons, launchers, bomb racks, guns, and pods. It delivers: the quickest setup and execution times with reduced training needs, a small logistics footprint, enhanced cybersecurity, and superior active armament test capabilities—all designed to maximize warfighter readiness and combat effectiveness.