General

The U.S. buildup of forces in the Middle East ahead of a possible attack on Iran relies very heavily on the performance of the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command (AMC). Hundreds of its cargo jets and aerial refueling tankers have moved materiel into theater and helped tactical jets, radar planes and other aircraft deploy across oceans to places like Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, among many other locations. At the same time, the current crisis in the Middle East pales in comparison to the massive spike in demand for airborne logistics that would occur during a Pacific fight against China. Regardless, ever greater demand is being placed on an increasingly aging AMC fleet.

Few people know the nuts and bolts of AMC and its mission better than Michael “Mini” Minihan, a retired Air Force general who led the command from October 2021 to November 2024. In a 45-minute interview, Minihan offered his insights on that and a whole host of other topics. They include the current crisis and its airlift demands, challenges from China, future airframes, arming airlifters and refuelers, the connectivity issues he championed, AI and the leaked memo that put a cap on his career.

Since retiring, Minihan serves as a strategic advisor and board member to defense and technology companies, non-profits, and think tanks while continuing to write and speak on leadership, national security, and the future of air mobility and global power projection.

Some of the questions and answers have been edited for clarity.

Q: The C-17 Globemaster III heavy lifters have been supporting one crisis after another it seems. Have the hours accumulated faster on those airframes? What do you think should replace them and when? 

A: All the things I was concerned about while I was in uniform, I remain concerned about right now. The options on the table are service life extension programs [SLEP] that the C-17 is already a candidate for. There was talk late last year about the KC-135 Stratotanker receiving another [SLEP]. You know, those types of things are concerning to me. At the end of the day, I think this nation needs to pay for the Air Force it needs, and the Air Force that it needs has a modern, capable mobility fleet. It’s not just old stuff that keeps getting patched up to get older. That’s the reality. So I’m concerned.

Q: Right now, a massive buildup is underway in the Middle East. AMC is doing the heavy lifting there as always. But in a crisis in the Pacific, would we have enough airlift aircraft to support moving quick enough across that vast theater, especially to respond to an invasion of Taiwan? 

A: What you’re talking about is always a concern, regardless of the scenario. The reality is that America relies on the mobility fleet to project its power… So there’s not any scenario, even in the day-to-day competition, where you’re happy with the supply-demand intersection. So I think that we’ve got to work on capacity, certainly out of the entire mobility fleet, when it comes to the airlift and the air refueling. And then if you overlay that in contested environments, the concern gets bigger.

Q: Considering how long it has taken to build up forces in the Middle East, where tankers and cargo jets are flying over uncontested airspace, how concerned are you about being able to project enough power over long distances to protect Taiwan from an attack by China?

A: The alarm that I had when I was active duty exists today… So the reason I’m a civilian right now is because I was ringing the bell on the exact questions that you’re asking right now and that concern still remains. The reality is against a China or against a Russia, they’re going to challenge you in all domains, from great distances. They absolutely understand that the mobility fleet is America’s capability to project power quickly. So there’s going to be a focus on it. But once again, you’re describing concerns that I had and expressed when I was active duty, and I still have those same concerns.

Inside Taiwan’s Strategy to Counter a Chinese Invasion | WSJ

Q: What response did you receive when you expressed those concerns in a memo that was leaked to the public in 2023?

A: Well, I’m a civilian right now.

Q: Is that the reason why?

A: The leak created antibodies that would want me in another job. That memo was getting after all the things that you’re asking about right now. It was getting after capability and capacity. It was getting after readiness. It was getting after explode into theater. It was getting after the mobility fleet being able to do what it’s asked to do, despite being extremely vulnerable, despite it being extremely antiquated – all those things. 

I believe that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force [Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach] now is focused on modernization and readiness. Those were 100% things that I was championing very early. And I think those things exist now, and I think we need to continue to put pressure on [those things] to get the resourcing, to get not just the Air Force, but America’s mobility fleet, to the capability and capacity that it needs to be at, so that we can not have concerns about China and not have concern about [deploying] to Europe when needed.

Q: Were you fired over the memo?

A: I was not fired. I thought for two weeks that I was going to be fired, but I was thankfully allowed to serve out the rest of my command tour. But I was asked to retire.

Q: What were the biggest lessons learned by Mobility Guardian and our readiness to meet the challenge China poses in the Pacific? 

A: We’ve got to explode into theater very quickly. We’ve got to be able to explode into theater in numbers and volumes and challenges that we’ve not experienced in any of the modern…operations. We’ve got to put the entire joint force in place. We’ve got to do it quick enough that it gives an enormous deterrent value and also be able to provide that decisive victory, should it get to that.

We’ve got to transition from a deploy to an employ phase very quickly. So that’s establishing hubs and spokes. And then the last thing I’ll say – this is about maneuver. We have got to maneuver at a tempo required to win. So we got to put America’s unique and amazing capabilities in a position of advantage, and then once they’re in that position of advantage, we’ve got to be lethal, and that requires logistics, sustainment, supply maneuver, all the things that have to come together in the joint force to be lethal have to be there, and we need to work extremely hard to do that. 

So Mobility Guardian was really a rehearsal, and we demonstrated that we couldn’t explode into theater. We demonstrated that we could go from deploy to employ. But we also learned some hard lessons, and to get it to the scale and the volume of the tempo that we needed to be, we’ve got work to do.

Mobility Guardian 2023

Q: What were some of these lessons?

A: The lessons are connectivity. You probably heard me say that a bunch both in uniform and out of uniform, but connectivity became my number one thing. I testified before the House Readiness Committee on that. I came up with a concept called 25% of the fleet by 2025, but the reality is that the car I rented right now driving from the airport to my hotel room has more connectivity in it than the overwhelming majority of the mobility fleet. So connectivity matters. 

We’ve got to operate at a tempo required to win, which means we need to do extremely long missions. We need to have exquisite situational awareness. We need to understand the changing dynamic of the operational environment. When it comes to red forces, blue forces, threats, priority receivers, priority users. We’ve got diffuse information and logistic priorities across services, so there’s almost an unlimited amount of lessons learned. And then command relationships matter as well as command and control. All those things matter too. So plenty of lessons learned. I don’t think any of those are surprising. I think they’re accounted for in the Air Force’s readiness and modernization. But we also need to get resources so that we can be the Air Force this country needs.

Q: How would you peg our overall readiness, realistically, to confront China in the Pacific militarily? 

A: We’re ready. I like the way that [IndoPacific Command leader] Adm. [Sam] Paparo uses it. He says we’re ready, but he’ll never admit to being ready enough. This is kind of like the coaches that you love to play for – they are never satisfied. I would broaden it beyond readiness. I would say readiness, integration and agility of the joint force is what matters. And as ready, integrated and agile as we are, we need to be more. And those things have a deterrent value in themselves, and they’re also the essentials to decisive victory. So China enjoys positional advantage, but America enjoys extreme warfighting capabilities that can always get better, and it starts with readiness, integration and agility. We want to get to the point where we’re so ready that they don’t want to take us on.

Q; What were the three biggest problems you faced in your job and how did you go about solving them? Were you successful?

A: The three biggest problems I faced during my command tour at Air Mobility Command was resourcing, resourcing and resourcing – articulating the state of the mobility platforms and securing the resources necessary to get them on step to where they need to be. And so I said resourcing three times, and I mean it.

This is all about money. You can say everything you want. You can say all the things are important. You can say ‘you’re right, General Minihan, we agree with you,’ but if it’s not followed up with resourcing, then it’s meaningless, you know? So at the end of the day, this is all about resourcing. Can we decide to be the Air Force, the joint military that puts the resourcing behind what it means to decisively defeat a near peer adversary? Or do we wait until another December 7, or another September 11 event to finally get all the things pulled together that we need to pull together. So I get it. This is expensive. 

We’ve got a chance of a century right now, I believe, with this administration. When you line up the executive orders, when you line up the acquisition reform, when you look up the possibility of a $1.5 trillion defense budget, you know those things come together means that we can move faster and move differently than we’ve ever done but we’ve got to be ready to do it.

We can’t apply all the opportunities over the same template of how we acquire, how we take risk, how we get our warfighters the things that they need and expect a different outcome at the end of the day. The overall statement for this, and this is big into problem statements. If I were to describe the problem statement we’re trying to solve is, can we get critical war-winning capabilities to our warfighters faster than China? At the end of the day, if we can answer yes to that question, then we’re going to be okay. If it’s a maybe or a no, then we’re going to have some significant concerns moving forward.

Trump Calls For Massive Increase To Defense Spending: $1.5 Trillion For 2027

Q: Were you successful in your efforts to solve those problems?

A: Was I successful? I would say I was successful at ringing the bell. I needed three more years to get it across the line. And I’m not comparing myself to a Gen. [Curtis E.] LeMay or a Gen. [Wilbur L.] Creech, but those two [Major Command] MAJCOM commanders – who are the fathers of the modern strategic bomber force and the father of the modern fighter force –  were both MAJCOM commanders for over six years. So if I had to give myself a grade, I would say me and my teams were A-plus for effort and articulation and at the end of the day, getting the system to react quickly within three years proved extremely challenging.

Q: What was your grade for that?

A: It’s to be determined. You know, the money process takes a little time. I think there’s money for connectivity coming up in the current and the next few years, which is a great sign and a big change. If I were to grade it for what I wanted, I would have given myself a C, but I think it’s a higher grade than that, due to the circumstances, due to the realities of the budgeting and the resourcing process.

Q: What are the three biggest problems facing current interim AMC Commander Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss (formerly deputy AMC commander until Gen. John D. Lamontagne was named Air Force Vice Chief of Staff earlier this month). 

A: The problems are getting resourcing across the line. Can you deliver them? Money. You know, at the end of the day, MAJCOMs don’t have the money to get the things that they need and under the current process. So how do you affect the organizations and entities above you, so that you can align the resourcing to do the things that it needs to do, and the timelines that you need to do it when that’s always a challenge for everybody. 

Air Mobility Command (AMC) Change of Command Ceremony – Scott AFB

But if you’re asking what [Lamontagne] needs to worry about…if you look at the first Iran operation, if you look at the Venezuela operation, whatever is going to happen over the next short-term future for the Middle East, you can walk away saying, ‘we’re just fine.’ You can walk away saying, ‘Hey, we can project power over long distances. We can impose America’s will. We can do the things that our president and our nation asked us to do.’ And that’s right, you can do it under those circumstances. 

The courage of the joint team is phenomenal. The capability of the joint team is phenomenal, but it does not compare to what will happen in a near-peer fight in the Pacific or in Europe. We are going to be contested from long distances in all domains, and the fleet that we have now is not going to be successful in that environment unless we take quick action and fix things.

Q: There is a lot of hype around Rapid Dragon and giving the airlift community a ‘shooter’ role. But in a major conflict, won’t the fleet be tasked to the max just with its core logistics mission? Do we need more airframes to really do the Rapid Dragon concept justice?

A: I hear this one a lot. So here’s the reality. I’ve got to carry the missile, the bomb anyway. Okay, I’m not trying to be Global Strike. I’m not trying to be a fighter. I’m not trying to compete with capabilities that are legit and high-end when it comes to delivering kinetic effects. But if I have to carry it anyway, and there’s an ability for C-130s, C-17s  and other airlift platforms, why would you not want that capability? 

So I’m not saying it can go into the high-threat areas or the medium-threat areas. I’m not saying that it needs to be a primary mission. But let’s really look at the thing – at the entire process here. I’ve got to carry that stuff anyways, so I am either gonna stop and drop it off for someone else to shoot, or I could have the ability to do it. If a combatant commander needs a demand signal, there’s a ton of C-130s. Our foreign partners and allies operate them. These aren’t complex systems. The munitions already exist. It’s essentially air-dropping it out of the airplane. And I think it has enormous viability in the Pacific. It can service medium- to low-[threat] targets all day long that need servicing and free up the other sets to get after the high-end threat environments where they need to be focused. So I think it’s something we need to consider.

Rapid Dragon

Q: That segues nicely to my next question. What are the biggest threats China poses to our tankers and airlifters during a time of war?

A: The ability to get out of town by dropping electrical grids and navigation signals. This is true for all the platforms. This is why I say we’ll be contested at great distances in all domains. Critical infrastructure matters and getting out of town – we already talked about what it means to explode into theater. So it’d be silly to think that they’re going to not take a very inexpensive way to disrupt our ability to do that. And then, the farther you get to the threat, regardless of which way you’re heading around the ocean, you know is going to increase their ability to reach out with long-range effects and stop mobility. 

If you stop one tanker, you stop six fighters. That sounds like a good return on investment if you’re an adversary trying to prevent us from projecting power. I don’t think I’m saying anything I haven’t said before, and I don’t think I’m saying anything that’s inconsistent with others [are saying] about what the real environment is going to look like. 

They’re students of us. They have unimpeded access to our critical infrastructure for a decade or more, and we’re going to expect them to call in on their investment and impose a cost on us a great distance.

Q: Is there any particular Chinese system or munition that worries you the most?

A: What worries me the most? I’m worried, just like I was in uniform, about the multi-domain aspect for which they’re going to go after us. I’m worrying about how those all come together. Certainly, without connectivity in the mobility fleet, it’s hard for mobility aircraft to understand where the threats are, especially the kinetic threats. So our ability to understand if you’re in a threat ring or a dynamic threat environment is extremely handicapped. And certainly the kinetic ones are of the biggest concern. Like they are in any war. 

Q: We have seen interest from the DoW in multiple fronts on how to give our existing tankers better defenses, from better situational awareness to giving them mini interceptors to pairing them with [collaborative combat aircraft] CCA-like companions. What do you think the best cocktail of solutions is here?

A: The single biggest contributor to survivability in a big airplane is connectivity. The biggest contributor is not having a 12-hour-old Intel brief that you’re relying on to get you through the mission. So real-world updates, real-time updates, just like our fighters and our bombers enjoy. Battle management that gets after maneuver and not just kill chain. Those things matter. 

If you were to ask me what I would want most when it comes to survivability, it would be connectivity that gives me the situational awareness to let our young crews – our captains, our lieutenants, our NCO – go out there and make great decisions as they’re operating under delegated authorities. Connectivity matters most. No doubt. Connectivity is why I put the priority on it when I was in uniform, because it’s the single biggest contributor to survivability. I just don’t think because of the size of these airplanes, in the maturity of the threat, that we’re going to be able to rely on traditional means of survivability.

Q: What about mini interceptors, or pairing these aircraft with CCA-like companions? Would that work?

A: I mean, I love it. The whole concept we came up with, the next-generation air lift [NGAL] and next-generation air refueling systems [NGAS]. I definitely see a role for CCA beyond just loyal wingman to fighter. So we can do this with everything from a CCA version of a tanker. We can do it with a stealth version of a tanker. I don’t think we need huge numbers of those. We can do stealth-like characteristics, like blended wing. 

We can certainly have aircraft that are multirole, both cargo and air refueling. And so then you can have a lot of tankers that look like the tankers that we have now, the ability for small CCA and drones and other things to do electronic warfare and spoof and jam and other things like that are all on the table in my book and things that we should be exploring.

Q: What about a stealth tanker? Would we be able to afford it? Has adapting the B-21 Raider stealth bomber been looked at? What are your thoughts on that?

A:  I think that we’ve got to have a family approach to air refueling, and that’s where the NGAS concept came up. It’s hard for me to believe, to think that you’re going to be able, in a highly contested environment, to get our highest capabilities into the high-threat environments without having some sort of stealth-like CCA air refueling capability. I don’t think we need big numbers of them. I understand completely that they’re expensive, but we’ve got to work through that process, and we’re doing it with NGAS. So everything I’m telling you, I’ve said for years, and I’ve got a lot on the record out there that’s getting after the questions you’re asking, and I’ve not changed since I got out of uniform. 

The announcement by Northrop Grumman, the partnership with Embraer gets after this. If you go tackle that announcement, it gets after creating a family-of-systems approach to the problem, as opposed to we’re just going to field one piece of the problem at a time. We’re not going to work the integration in advance. We’re not going to work the readiness in advance. We’re not going to work the agility in advance, and I was happy to see in that announcement that they’re approaching the problem differently, because that’s the kind of approach I think we need to be successful.

Q: Have you looked at adapting the B-21 for this kind of stealth tanker role?

A: I don’t know what they’re looking at adapting, but I think there’s eloquence in the solutions that exist and that they’re working on, and then broadening their missions to beyond just the original intent for which they were designed. So I think that there’s great value in looking at those opportunities.

Q: What about an Agile Combat Employment (ACE) tanker capable of supporting small numbers of fighters from forward airfields? The KC-390 is being pitched for such a role. Do we need smaller tankers capable of operating from shorter fields?

A: We need a family of tankers that can address all the warfighter needs in all the warfighter environments. So we need tankers that look a lot like the ones we have now, that can handle the low-threat environments. We need tankers that can push into the medium-threat environments and service the big volume offloads in the abundant amount of receivers that will be out there. We need tankers that can operate in a medium- to high-threat with blended wing and stealth characteristics. And then we need stealth like tankers that can go into a higher-threat environment, as well as unmanned and CCA. 

I believe there’s room in the Air Force for all in that capability. Let’s be clear, it’s what the kinetic force needs, you know. So the strike force and the bomber force are [fifth-generation] fifth-gen and [sixth-generation] sixth-gen, and yet we still operate a mobility force that’s on its best day, 2.5 Gen and in some cases, second generation. So we’ve got to catch up, not because of ego, but because of capability. At the end of the day, this is about equilibrium of the enabling force to actually do what it needs to do, so that the strike force can carry out its missions in all environments. That’s what needs to happen.

Q: Is there money to do that? Is there a will from higher headquarters and then the administration to make that happen?

A: Well, there needs to be. Like I said, I think the opportunity is here with this administration. Its executive orders, its acquisition reform, and the possibility of a significant increase in the budget. But this gets back to, are we going to pay for the Air Force that this country needs? It’s been under-invested in, especially in mobility, and we need to ensure that this president and every future president, when they call on the Air Force to support the joint force, to project America’s power to serve the national interests and impose our will when needed, that we need to develop these kind of things. We have to do this if we want to be the Air Force that this country needs.

Q: Have you talked to anybody in the current administration or the current Department of War about this, and what’s your sense of the interest there?

A: I think the conversation is turning where it needs to go. I have not talked to the current administration about this specifically, but I think there’s an appreciation, when you line up the talking points that align the priorities of where the department is going, I think that there is 100% alignment with what my priorities were when I was in uniform, what my priorities are now that I’m out of uniform, with the priorities of where this administration is going.

I realize it’s still hard. I realize there are still challenges. I realize there are no easy answers to any of this, and I realize that there’s more to modernization and readiness than just the mobility fleet. And I also realize that these are the things that we need to do.

Q: Low-end drones are a big problem, especially for big airplanes sitting idle on the ground. What do you think should be done to defend our airlift assets against lower-end drones?

A: Just like everyone else, I watched the [Operation Spider Web] attack that Ukraine carried out on Russia’s strategic forces. And the only thing that surprised me about that is that people were surprised and that it took so long for them to do it. This is a real threat. It gets down to air base defense. It’s something that we championed in Air Mobility Command during my time there, because of the drone incursions that were happening over multiple Air Mobility Command bases and multiple Air Mobility Command missions. So this isn’t a surprise to me. 

This is going to have to be a joint solution, and I know the Army is working very hard on this, but there’s also going to have to be a capability of the Air Force and wings that are deploying to be able to do this on their own as well. So no easy answers here. 

I feel like we’re behind, but catching up. I think it nests nicely into the Golden Dome opportunity as well. But you know, you gotta be able to handle everything from the low-cost drones all the way up to the highest capability missiles that could attack the homeland. This all fits in a spectrum of threats that we need to be concerned about. 

Q: You brought up drone incursions. When and where did they happen and was the source ever found?

A: The incursions took place in late 2021 and early 2022 for Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and constantly at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey throughout my command. I’m not tracking that the source of those incursions was identified. It doesn’t mean that they weren’t. To my knowledge they weren’t. But, you know, at the end of the day, if you can’t control the airspace, including the airspace that drones are using, that’s a problem. It doesn’t matter if you’re in garrison or deployed. We’ve got to have the ability to defend at a greater capability than we have. 

Q: How are the C-5M Galaxy cargo jets doing? Are readiness rates improving? Will we need a direct replacement of something its size when their time finally comes to head to the boneyard? Was the M upgrade program successful?

A: I’m a year and a half out of the conversation. The last data point I got was from U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) commander Gen. [Randall] Reed‘s congressional testimony, where he said that the mission reliability rate, I believe, had fallen to 46%. So, if that’s true, then it’s still an enormous concern. I don’t know any part of your life where you tolerate a critical capability operating less than half the time when you need it. So C-5s are an enormous concern for me. 

I think there are options out there when it comes to large-volume aircraft that exist, that are being worked now, that can help us get capability quickly. And then I think there are concepts out there, like the commercialization of the C-5 fleet, that need to be taken seriously as well and apply commercial standards, commercial supply chain to increase the readiness of it. And between a combination of those two, I think that you can sustain what America needs to project large volume lift, but also get much higher than a 46% mission reliability rate.

Q: Do you see the need for a similar sized cargo aircraft to replace the C-5 when it’s finally time for them to retire?

A: I do. I think building large, colossal aircraft is one of the hardest things to do on the planet, when you think about it. I need someone to help fact check me on this, but I don’t think more than 250 large aircraft have ever been built. You know, when you include the Hughes aircraft, include the C-5, include the Russian Antonovs, the fleet has been small because it’s hard. At the same time, it does things that nothing else can do. You don’t have to condemn your cargo to sea lift only. You can move things very quickly – large volume things, critical capabilities. And so we need to have this capability. 

But I don’t see the Air Force buying C-5 replacements. I see them transitioning C-5s to a different model, like commercialization. And I see the manufacturer of a large aircraft that can handle the volume being in the CRAF [Civil Reserve Air Fleet], and being a service concept that can get America the stuff we need when we need it. As opposed to developing another C-5 replacement, in addition to what’s going to have to eventually replace the C-5…

Q: Was the M upgrade on the C-5 successful?

A: I wasn’t there for when it was done, but … I would love to see what the original predictions were. When you spend all that money on that airplane and then still have a 46% mission reliability rate, it sounds like it is still challenged, like it used to be.

Q: Why hasn’t the Air Force gone big into uncrewed smaller logistics aircraft like China has? Especially considering dispersed ops in the Pacific?

A: Aviation right now is at a point of affordability and simplicity that we have got to distribute capability down to more tactical levels and have less centralization. Drones, automated aircraft 3,000 pounds or less, need to be a part of that equation. They need to be a part of the equation. 

I am a big fan of drones…The problem we’re trying to solve is getting winning capabilities to our warfighters faster than China. That’s what we need to be focused on. We have got to be infatuated with automation and connectivity. We have to be infatuated with drones and automated aircraft from small to medium to large capabilities. 

China’s unmanned transport aircraft completes maiden test flight

The biggest question I hear about why people don’t want small- and medium-capability is because they’re concerned about who commands and controls it and in my mind, that’s the point. You don’t have to command and control it. This is like a distributed maneuver pool, like a Jeep used to be in the Army. It’s inexpensive, it’s easy to operate, and we give it to maneuvering commanders in the field. We get TRANSCOM and Air Mobility Command out of the command and control of it. We let commanders determine their own priorities and service them, and then all we have to do is integrate them into the critical capabilities that Air Mobility, Command and TRANSCOM provide. You know those and we actually free up more of their assets to do that strategic and operational lift, as opposed to always having to get down into the capabilities that can be served by something much smaller. Does that make sense?

Q: Yes. Single pilot tanker operations, what’s your final thought on that?

A: Final thought on that is, we need to do more of it. I’m not saying we need to do more testing, but when it comes to automation, when it comes to concepts, when it comes to the tempo, the things we’re going to be required to do, we have to set ourselves up to be successful in an extremely deadly and demanding operational environment. 

And to think that we’re going to apply the old dogma over this new operational environment, it’s just going to put us in a really challenging place to be successful in. So single tanker pilot ops made a comment on autonomy. It made a comment on what we need to do to win in the Pacific. It made a comment on risk taking, and it made a comment on, I think, a command team that understood how to apply real concepts over real problems and come out with an informed way forward. So there was a larger message than just single pilots in tankers.

Q: Finally, how did you see the rise of AI influencing AMC and how do you see it being used by the command in the future?

A: I’m a big fan of AI as long as commanders maintain the risk and the priority settings. You know I tried hard to get AI incorporated in Air Mobility Command, but the entire ecosystem wasn’t ready to have that conversation yet. I think AI and data are its own domain. 

Like other domains we’re going to need supremacy and superiority in it. We’re going to need to fight for it and fight from it. It’s going to benefit from the other domains, but I think disproportionately it’s going to benefit the other domains. More so our ability to sense and seize opportunity, our ability to simplify, our ability to reduce variables, our ability to gain decision advantage, our ability to make better decisions, quicker, at a higher tempo than the adversary. I think all those things are AI- and data-oriented, and I’m still not certain that we see it that way. We have got to get first mover advantage in the AI domain, and that’s going to take some work. I think that we’re starting to get there, but I think we have a long way to go on it.

Boeing KC-46A Tanker Refuels Military Aircraft Using 3D

Q: Why do you think that there’s been such resistance to AI?

A: I’m not certain most people actually use it. It’s new. Certainly there’s a newness to it. But at the end of the day, this is about data. Can you trust the data? It really flips the script, if you think about it as its own domain, because then you understand the magnitude of its importance, and you understand that this is about decision making and trust, and that you’re actually not off-shooting that to the machine to do. That you’re asking the machine and the AI to reduce variables and increase simplicity.

Then you really think about, how does a commander be able to set priorities, set risk tolerances, adjust those as required, and then, at the end of the day, this is about better decision making. I think that there’s a complexity to this that just needs to play out a bit, but I know one thing, I don’t think our adversaries are downplaying AI and data as a domain. I think that they’re 100% embracing it, and I think we need to do the same. And of course, it’s American ingenuity. We’ll get better at it and dominate.

Q: Any final thoughts you want to share? Any questions I didn’t ask?

A: No, I appreciate the opportunity here. I think that the Air Force has it right when it comes to modernization and readiness. I think that the Air Force has it right, and we need to have the resourcing to be their Air Force that this country needs. I think mobility has a longer way to go than most within the Air Force. So I continue to champion that. Those things I cared about in uniform, I care about out of uniform, and I didn’t wait to retire to have an opinion on these things. So I want to be the generation of Americans that gets this straight before we get slapped like we did on December 7th and September 11th. Let’s not wait till we get slapped to get the act together. Let’s go now hard, because our sons and daughters deserve it.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

We finally have something else to call General Atomics’ Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) by other than its formal YFQ-42A designation: Dark Merlin

Dark Merlin is one of two designs that the USAF has officially chosen for development and flight testing under the first increment of its CCA program, which intends to give fighter aircraft a ‘loyal wingman’ uncrewed companion.

General Atomics gives its reasoning for the naming as such:

“Dark merlins, deadly falcons known for their black feathers and devouring of other falcons as prey, often collaborate in groups for maximum effect against their targets. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology describes the merlin as a “small, fierce falcon that uses surprise attacks” to bring down its prey in flight. The dark merlin is native to the Pacific Northwest of the United States, often migrating into southern California, where bird spotters routinely report seeing them near the YFQ-42A’s manufacturing home in San Diego.”

The 1962 book “Profiles of the Future” imagined global technological marvels yet to change the world, offering that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” It’s no coincidence that the Dark Merlin name also reflects the wizardry of Merlin from
Arthurian legend, paying homage to the somewhat supernatural new era of semi-autonomous
air combat.

“Dark merlins are hunting machines, built for speed and aerodynamics,” said GA-ASI President David R. Alexander. “They harass other falcons for fun, and they eat what they kill. The name sums up our new uncrewed fighter perfectly.”

The name is a very welcome development. We have discussed internally in our newsroom on multiple occasions that the designations for the CCAs, the other being Anduril’s YFQ-44A, which goes by the nickname Fury, carried over from its roots as a ‘red air’ training drone, are a bit hard for the public to follow. Now, with General Atomics giving their ‘fighter drone’ a unique nickname, referring to them as Dark Merlin and Fury will be a bit easier.

Both aircraft are currently in flight testing, and General Atomics has already put Dark Merlin, which is based on the firm’s Gambit chassis-centric family of combat drones concept, into production. This is ahead of the USAF making a decision on which Increment 1 CCA, or both, it wants to buy in larger numbers.

The naming also comes after it was announced that the Marines will use Dark Merlin as a testing surrogate for its own CCA program, which could possibly open the door to the Corps purchasing the ‘drone fighters’ for operational use.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

While Kim has remained at the top of North Korean leadership, the party congress’s presidium – its executive committee – has been reshuffled since the last meeting in 2021. More than half of its 39 members have been replaced, according to state media.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Human rights experts from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner expressed concern about the possible link between Guatemala’s attorney general, Consuelo Porras, and alleged illegal adoptions of disappeared Indigenous children.

According to investigators, led by Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite, the adoptions would have occurred between 1968 and 1996 during Guatemala’s armed conflict — a period marked by human rights violations that particularly affected Indigenous communities.

The allegations refer particularly to 1982, when Porras headed the Elisa Martínez Temporary Home and allegedly acted as the “legal guardian” of minors who were later placed in irregular international adoptions.

“We are particularly concerned that a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation has not been carried out into the alleged involvement of certain state authorities in these processes and that the mothers affected by these illegal adoptions have apparently received neither recognition nor adequate reparations,” the U.N. experts said in a statement.

The Elisa Martínez Home operated as a center under the Directorate of Child and Family Welfare with the authority to oversee national and international adoptions.

Once children entered the home, the director or person in charge became their legal guardian, allowing them to process adoption proceedings in Guatemala and abroad under the adoption regulations in force at the time, Prensa Libre reported.

The controversy arose as Porras sought to become a magistrate of the Constitutional Court, the country’s highest court, once her term at the Public Ministry ends in May.

According to analysts, the attorney general was seeking refuge in the high court to obtain the protection granted by immunity, and submitted her candidacy to the Superior University Council of the University of San Carlos of Guatemala, digital outlet LaHora.gt reported.

However, after the report was made public, the university excluded her from the list of candidates for the court, determining that she did not meet the requirements of suitability and integrity.

The Public Ministry reacted strongly to the U.N. report. In an official statement, it described the allegations as “spurious, malicious and biased,” arguing they are based on unverified information intended to interfere in the country’s sovereign processes.

In a post on X, Porras rejected the accusations against her as “false and politically instrumentalized.” She said they lack evidentiary support and “are completely malicious, and far from protecting human rights, they violate and distort them.”

Porras’ defense maintains that her role at the Elisa Martínez Temporary Home was administrative and that she had no legal authority over the final destination of the minors. The attorney general also announced she is weighing legal action against the U.N. experts, arguing that her presumption of innocence has been violated.

While the experts insist on the need for independent and thorough investigations, Porras maintains that she is facing “international political persecution” aimed at weakening her position at the head of the Public Ministry.

Consuelo Porras was appointed in 2018 and ratified in 2022 as attorney general and head of Guatemala’s Public Ministry. Although her mandate is focused on criminal prosecution, her tenure has been internationally questioned and sanctioned by more than 40 countries, including the United States and the European Union, over allegations of corruption and undermining democracy.

Porras has been accused of using the justice system as a political weapon to protect corruption networks and pursue independent prosecutors, judges and journalists, triggering repeated citizen protests that demand her resignation.

After the election of President Bernardo Arévalo in 2023, the Public Ministry under Porras initiated a series of legal actions to attempt to annul the election results and cancel the ruling party, Semilla.

Since Arévalo took office, the relationship between him and Porras has been marked by constant confrontation.

Arévalo has sought legal mechanisms and legislative reforms to remove her, while Porras has refused to attend Cabinet summonses and has kept multiple investigations open against the president’s inner circle, generating institutional paralysis and a deep political crisis in the country.

The head of U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) has downplayed the current significance of Chinese efforts to develop new long-range strike aircraft with more global reach. He said that China remains, at best, a regional bomber force, though it continues to “aggressively” pursue new capabilities in this regard, like the long-awaited H-20 stealth bomber.

AFGSC commander Gen. Stephen Davis talked about Chinese bombers and other aviation developments with TWZ‘s Howard Altman last month. In that same interview, he also discussed his command’s role in any future conflict in the Pacific region, as well as new U.S. strategic capabilities that are in the works now, such as the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), among other topics. This was Davis’ first interview since taking command of AFGSC in November 2025.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) recruitment video below from 2021 includes a teaser for the H-20 at the very end.

中国空军2021年度招飞宣传片完整版震撼发布！易烊千玺 吴京倾情加盟演绎强军路上精彩人生！「逐梦青春」| 军迷天下

“I can certainly understand their [the Chinese] desire to have a long-range strike capability like the United States, and I know that they’re pursuing it aggressively,” Davis said when asked for his thoughts on the H-20, as well as two very large stealthy flying wing-type drones that emerged in China last year. TWZ was first to report on the emegence of both of these designs, which appear to be at least in the initial flight test phase of development.

The H-20 is understood to be a stealthy flying wing-type bomber, very roughly analogous to the U.S. B-2 Spirit, and its development is said to trace back to the early 2000s. The U.S. military has previously estimated that it could have a maximum unrefueled range of close to 6,214 miles (10,000 kilometers), and noted that its reach could be further extended through aerial refueling. Past reports have also said that it might be able to carry up to 10 tons of ordnance, including land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles.

“What I can tell you is they’re just not there yet,” Davis continued. “I think our adversaries look at our long-range strike capabilities, and … want to mimic them, but they can’t.”

“There’s no other country in the world [besides the United States] that can take and deliver a long-range strike platform pretty much on any day, in any time and place that they’re choosing, right?” he added. “Really, China is a regional bomber force at best. I think they’re trying to continue to develop that.”

China’s bomber force currently consists of variants of the H-6, the core design of which was originally derived from the Soviet Tu-16 Badger. The H-6N version, which made its official debut in 2019, has enabled the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to re-establish a strategic nuclear triad. The N model is primarily designed to carry a single very large air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) under its fuselage and is one of the H-6 types that is capable of being refueled in flight. How many different types of missiles have been integrated onto the H-6N to date is unclear, but its arsenal does include the nuclear-capable Jinglei-1 (JL-1), as you can read more about here.

Gen. Davis’ comments are in line with past statements from U.S. officials on the H-20, specifically.

In 2024, an unnamed U.S. intelligence official said the H-20 Stealth Bomber was “not really” a concern, according to a report at the time from Breaking Defense.

“The thing with the H-20 is when you actually look at the system design, it’s probably nowhere near as good as U.S. LO [low-observable] platforms, particularly more advanced ones that we have coming down,” the same official said. “They’ve run into a lot of engineering design challenges, in terms of how do you actually make that system capability function in a similar way to, like, a B-2 or a B-21.”

“The H-20 … may debut sometime in the next decade,” the Pentagon subsequently wrote in its annual report to Congress on Chinese military developments later in 2024. That report also highlighted ongoing efforts in China to develop a stealthy medium-range bomber, which has been referred to in the past as the JH-XX.

The Pentagon’s most recent annual China report, published in December 2025, notably makes no mention at all, directly or indirectly, of the H-20 or JH-XX. That report did note that “of China’s currently fielded systems, the DF-26 IRBM [intermediate range ballistic missile and the H-6N’s ALBM are both highly precise theater weapons that would be well suited for delivering a low-yield nuclear weapon.” This underscores Gen. Davis’ comments about the continuing regional limitations of the Chinese bomber force.

Despite past PLA pronouncements that the program is on track, the current status of the H-20 is unclear. The present state of work related to the JH-XX, and whether it may have carried over into other programs, like the J-36 advanced tailless tactical combat aircraft, is also unknown. Starting in the late 2010s, there had been a surge in official and semi-official statements about how the H-20 was ‘coming soon,’ but this looks to have largely subsided in the past year or so.

This is despite a flurry in other very high-profile Chinese military aviation developments, including the aforementioned large flying wing-type drones, as well as the J-36 and J-XDS sixth-generation stealth fighters, the GJ-11 uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), the KJ-3000 airborne early warning and control aircraft, and more. The PLA Navy (PLAN) has also made major strides in advancing its carrier-based aviation capabilities in the past year or so.

As TWZ has noted in the past, a platform like the H-20 would give the PLA the ability to hold entirely new swaths of the Indo-Pacific region, including in parts of the continental United States, at risk. An expanded long-range strike aviation force would also expand China’s ability to target highly strategic outlying areas, including the U.S. island territory of Guam and Hawaii, as well as threaten regional competitors like Japan and India. If fielded, the aforementioned JH-XX could also have an important role in future regional operations.

The PLA has already been working to expand its routine bomber operations in the Western ends of the Pacific, especially around Taiwan and in the hotly contested South China Sea. Chinese bombers also now regularly integrate with their Russian counterparts and have made use of bases in that country for joint patrols. H-6K missile carrier aircraft flew in international airspace near Alaska for the first time ever during one of these joint operations back in 2024.

China and Russia conduct joint air strategic patrol over Bering Sea on July 25. This marks the eighth air strategic patrol organized by the two militaries since 2019.

Photos from China PLA Air Force Weibo accounthttps://t.co/g9w27FRnnM pic.twitter.com/oeZA4cUQR9

— Ryan Chan 陳家翹 (@ryankakiuchan) July 25, 2024

In his recent interview with TWZ, AFGSC commander Gen. Davis similarly highlighted the continued importance of American bombers in the Pacific.

“We have a requirement to be able to do that, day-to-day, for the President. We have to be able to penetrate adversary air defenses and deliver capabilities as directed,” Davis said when asked about the ever-growing threats posed by Chinese anti-access and area-denial capabilities. “We’ll continue to do that, as I said, by essentially, you know, taking all the information we can get, and integrating the B-21. Obviously, one of the great things about the B-21 is it’s going to be much more capable, it will have more sensors, it will have more inputs to it that will make it even stronger and more capable as a penetrating bomber.”

“Long-range strike, I think, contributes to every important mission set that we have in the Department of War,” the AFGSC commander also said when asked about how bombers could be employed against Chinese naval forces, specifically. “Obviously, one of the attributes of the modern force is the weapons they can carry, the variety of weapons they can carry, and the number and types of targets they can attack.”

“I think in any major confrontation that the U.S. would find itself in, you’re going to find your bomber forces are participating in bringing those skill sets to bear,” he added.

With this in mind, China is also still pursuing new long-range strike aviation capabilities, though it remains to be seen when the H-20 might finally emerge.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

With 30 percent of polling stations reporting results, Anutin’s Bhumjaithai Party has a commanding lead.

Thailand’s ruling Bhumjaithai Party has taken an early lead in general elections, according to a preliminary vote count.

With around 30 percent of polling stations reporting results, the party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, took a commanding lead over the progressive People’s Party, showed partial results released by the country’s election commission.

The populist Pheu Thai Party, backed by the billionaire former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was jailed last year, was in third place, the results showed.

People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut appeared to concede defeat as the results came in, telling reporters, “We acknowledge that we did not come first.”

“We stand by our principle of respecting the party that finishes first and its right to form the government,” said Ruengpanyawut.

Nevertheless, the three-way battle is unlikely to see any single party win a clear majority, meaning parties will likely have to resort to coalition-building to form the next government.

Bhumjaithai, seen as the preferred choice of the royalist-military establishment, centred its campaign on economic stimulus and national security, tapping into nationalist fervour stoked by deadly border clashes with neighbouring Cambodia.

Its leader, caretaker premier Anutin, stepped in as prime minister last September, after his predecessor, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, was forced out of office for an ethics violation.

Threatened with a no-confidence vote, Anutin dissolved the National Assembly or parliament in December to call a snap election.

The rival People’s Party, which many had expected to win a plurality of seats, had promised to curb the influence of the military and the courts, as well as break up economic monopolies. Pheu Thai campaigned on economic revival and populist pledges like cash handouts.

Al Jazeera’s Tony Cheng, reporting from Bangkok, said there was a sentiment of “political fatigue” in the run-up to elections, but voters turning out Sunday were still hopeful about the prospect for change.

Constitutional referendum

Thai voters were also ‌asked during the vote to decide if a new constitution should replace a 2017 charter, a military-backed document that critics say concentrates power in undemocratic institutions, including a powerful Senate that is chosen through an indirect selection process with limited public participation.

The election commission’s early count showed voters backing constitutional change ‌by a margin of nearly two to one.

Thailand has had 20 constitutions since the end of absolute monarchy in ⁠1932, with most of the changes following military coups.

If voters back the drafting of a new national charter, the new government and lawmakers can start the amendment process in parliament with two more referendums required to adopt a new constitution.

“I believe that the party that wins in the next election will have an outsized influence on the direction of constitutional reform, whether we move away from the junta-drafted constitution or not,” said Napon Jatusripitak of the Bangkok-based Thailand Future think tank.

After a tumultuous month of continued national immigration raids and the ICE shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, nationwide protests are set to occur today amid calls for a general strike. Small businesses across the L.A. area announced Friday closures in observation of the strike, while others who voiced support said the decision to close is impossible — especially for independent restaurants, which suffered an outsized string of hardships through 2025, causing a growing number of permanent closures.

Many operators who say they are unable to close are donating a portion or all profits from Friday’s business to immigrant rights causes. Some say they’ve left the decision up to their staff, who rely on the day’s wages. One restaurateur, who requested anonymity for fear of ICE retaliation, said their employees’ earnings regularly pay for undocumented staff’s private transportation to and from work, and they cannot afford to close for even a single night.

Some of L.A.’s restaurants, bars and cafes closed in observance of the strike and protests include Proof Bakery, Wilde’s, South LA Cafe, Lasita, Bar Flores, Canyon Coffee, Chainsaw, Yellow Paper Burger, Kitchen Mouse, Bacetti and Civil Coffee.

Guelaguetza‘s co-owner and Independent Hospitality Coalition member Bricia Lopez took to social media Thursday afternoon to provide tips for fellow restaurateurs who can’t afford to close their businesses today. They included donating to immigrant rights organizations or spotlighting specific fundraising dishes, as many across the county now are.

Some local restaurants are opting to remain open but are donating the day or the weekend’s proceeds to nonprofits and legal funds, or they’re temporarily flipping their dining rooms to centers for community action such as making protests signs.

Guelaguetza is offering free horchata and cafe de olla for protesters or those who can provide proof of donations to immigrant communities through 3 p.m. In Glassell Park, a pop-up tonight will raise funds for street vendors currently avoiding work for fear of ICE. Taiwanese chef Vivian Ku is fundraising at her downtown and Highland Park restaurants, while she closes Silver Lake’s Pine & Crane to the public in order to use it as a staging ground for aid groups today.

“For a lot of restaurants, coffee shops, etc., they’re just a few bad days from being upside down for the month, and a few bad months from having no business at all,” an owner of Highland Park’s Santa Canela posted to Instagram on Thursday. “We understand the weight and power of collective action, but plain and simple: We didn’t feel comfortable making financial decisions on behalf of our entire team as to whether or not they could afford to lose another shift at the end of the month at a time when cost of living has never been higher.”

Home-style Chinese restaurant Woon, with locations in Historic Filipinotown and on the edge of Pasadena bordering Altadena, will remain open, too.

“I wish we had the luxury of closing our doors, but we will keep them open as we stand in solidarity with our community and neighbors,” chef-owner Keegan Fong posted to Instagram. “We’ve given our staff the option to take the day off while also allowing those who need the hours to continue to work.”

Even those who are closing today have stressed the importance of supporting local restaurants.

Historic Filipinotown bar Thunderbolt posted its decision to close on Friday morning, with a statement on Instagram that read, “This strike isn’t about small businesses, but they will bear the weight of it…For small business in the food and beverage industry, closing the doors on a Friday night — during an already brutal January — can be catastrophic.”

Here are some L.A.-area restaurants remaining open today but fundraising for immigrant rights.

The B-21 Raider stealth bomber is one of the Air Force’s most ambitious weapons programs, designed to carry out deep-penetrating nuclear and conventional strikes over heavily defended skies and other missions its predecessor, the B-2, was never envisioned as doing. As the head of the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), one of Gen. Stephen L. Davis’s main tasks is guiding the development of the Raider, of which 100 are currently slated for procurement and that number could grow substantially larger in the coming years.

In his first interview since taking command on Nov. 4, 2025, from Gen. Thomas Bussiere, Davis offered The War Zone exclusive insights about the B-21 and what it can bring to the table in a future high-end fight. As the leader of AFGSC, Davis also oversees B-1B Lancer, B-2A Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers and all U.S. Air Force intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). During his Monday morning conversation with us, Davis talked about a host of other topics beyond just the Raider, including the future of the E-4C “Doomsday Plane,” the way forward for the troubled Sentinel ICBM program, and challenges posed by China and Russia.

You can read the first part of our interview here.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: What capabilities will the B-21 have by the time it achieves initial operating capability (IOC), and what will come later?

A: Right now, I’m focused on delivering the initial capability. And unfortunately, I can’t talk too much about the capabilities of the bomber. They are significant, and they are impressive. From the command’s perspective, we’re concentrating on getting everything in place up at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to bed down that capability. Really, it’s the acquisition community that’s still delivering that plane, and I’m certainly interested in that, but I’m probably more focused on the bed down and getting those things right.

Q: Can you provide an update on the Raider’s Initial Operating Capability (IOC)?

A: As for IOC, we are thinking of it in an OPSEC framework. We are not building prototypes, and the infrastructure to support the B-21 is on time. The program remains a benchmark of acquisition and has validated the value of the digital engineering that went into it from the beginning; I can tell you that the penetrating global strike platform we are building and will get with the Raider is amazing.

Q:  Will the B-21 still be optionally manned?

A: That’s a future capability for the aircraft. Right now, we’re planning for the manned implementation of that aircraft and getting the crews ready to be at Ellsworth when the plane arrives.

Q: What roles will the B-21 be capable of executing beyond the standard deep strike mission set of the B-2? Will they be able to defend themselves kinetically from air threats as well as ground threats?

A:  I really don’t want to talk about those specific attributes of the B-21 because some of those are classified. What I can say is that it will continue to build on the capabilities of the B-2. As you know, in the environment and the places where it might operate, those people are improving their defenses, and likewise, we have to improve the capabilities so we can deliver for the president and the nation a penetrating bomber. Clearly, with a nuclear mission, there are places that we’re going to have to go to deliver nuclear weapons, if ever called upon by the president of the United States, and that’s something that I have to provide to the Department of War and to the president.

Q: We have heard so much about the Long-Range Strike family of systems, but so far, we only know of two members of that family, the B-21 and the Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon (LRSO). What other types of systems make up this family and when will we be able to meet them in the future? 

A: Well, once again, you hit me on all the classified aspects of the program. I would say any platform operating today is in a family of systems that’s connected to other things within the Department of the Air Force, and the Department of War, and that’ll continue to be the case of the B-21. And, as a matter of fact, we’re going to extend those, and it will be more connected than the B-2 in order to do its penetrating global strike mission. I think one thing you could add to family systems is the F-47 6th-generation fighter. You know, it’s going to be paired with the F-47 under certain circumstances. So we certainly consider that new 6th-generation stealth fighter as part of the family of systems that might be employed with the B-21.

Q: Any update on that program?

A: Nothing other than I believe it still remains on track. I was recently out of St. Louis, and they got a chance to take a look at the work that they were doing out there. As you know, Air Force Gen. Dale White has just been announced as the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, leading the F-47 and the B-21 programs, so that will create some integration there as well. I know Dale. He’s a very talented acquirer, so I think that bodes well for both those programs.

Q: How will unmanned systems, specifically aerial drones, be paired with the future bomber force? What capabilities are you looking at in this regard? 

A: In terms of what we might incorporate into both the B-21 and the B-52 in future environments, we’re going to take every bit of information we get on board that aircraft to improve situational awareness. So I’m agnostic on where that comes from, whether that’s overhead capabilities, whether that’s remotely piloted capabilities, or UASs. Our plan is to integrate as much information as we can of that platform.

Q: Will B-21s be able to control collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) or longer-range drones? What about the B-52J?

A: In terms of CCAs, I think where the Air Force is right now is that they’re building those to be incorporated into the F-47 primarily in fighter aircraft. That’s the first step. It’s certainly possible in the future that they might become part of that family of systems. When you think about long-range strike, when we’re doing [continental U.S.] CONUS-based missions, it really would limit the ability to use some of those platforms as they don’t quite have the extended flight envelopes that the B-21 and the B-52 have.

Q: And with the B-52, as far as working with CCAs, is that still to be determined?

A: I would say yes. I would think that the B-21 would be the more logical partner for that. But once again, we have to deliver that capability that the Air Force does and integrate with fighters. That’s the first step. Assuming that goes well. I think we’ll look at the next steps.

Q: What will it take to pierce China’s A2AD [anti-access/area denial] umbrella? What capabilities do you need to do the job, from a [ground moving GMTI/AMTI target indicator/air moving target indicator] space layer to drones to accompany B-21s? What is your vision?

A: We have a requirement to be able to do that day-to-day for the president. We have to be able to penetrate adversary air defenses and deliver capabilities as directed. And we’ll continue to do that, taking all the information we can get and integrating it into the B-21. Obviously, one of the great things about the B-21 is that it’s going to be much more capable. It will have more sensors. It will have more inputs to it that will make it even stronger and more capable as a penetrating bomber.

Q: What role will your bombers play in taking down the Chinese Navy?

A: That’s an operational plan. I really can’t talk much about it, other than to say that long-range strike contributes to every important mission set that we have in the Department of War. Obviously, one of the attributes of the modern force is the variety of weapons they can carry, and the number and types of targets they can attack. I think in any major confrontation that the U.S. would find itself in, you’re going to find your bomber forces are bringing those skill sets to bear.

Q: What makes the move to put a single pilot onboard the B-21, along with a weapon systems officer (WSO) instead of two pilots, possible, and why is that the right call? 

A: In terms of the crew complement for the B-21, that’s an ongoing discussion within the Department of the Air Force. No final decision has been made. Frankly, we had the same discussion on the B-2 on how it would be manned. And ultimately, they went with two pilots, in part because of the cost of the platform and the number they were producing. Actually, at the time, it was a requirement to have navigator or WSO experience to be a B-2 pilot. We went away from that over time, but that was one of the initial requirements. With B-21 pilots, it’s a different plane, as it has a number of different capabilities. So we think that the right thing to do is look carefully at that crew complement and decide how to best make that the most capable combat platform we can.

Q: Will the B-21 have creature comforts that the B-2 doesn’t have to help the crew out during long missions?

A: I think the B-21 is going to be largely like the B-2 in how it supports the crews. There’s enough room for crew members to go on rest status. There’s a place to go to the bathroom, obviously, and to prepare food. All those things will exist in the B-21.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com