Restarting

The U.S. Air Force has been taking a new look at the feasibility of restarting production of the C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane as part of its still-evolving next-generation airlift plans. The service also continues to explore a wide range of next-generation aerial refueling concepts, including new stealthy and/or uncrewed tankers, but a firm vision for the way forward there has yet to emerge.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Daniel Tulley, head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), shared new details about future airlift and aerial refueling efforts, with TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

On the airlift side, the Air Force’s stated plan to date is to replace both the C-17A and C-5M Galaxy with a single Next-Generation Airlift (NGAL) platform, starting in the mid-2040s. Separately, the service is pursuing what could be a family of future aerial refueling capabilities under what is now called the Advanced Tanker Systems (ATS) program. Very broadly speaking, ATS presents a path toward what might come after the retirement of the aging KC-135 tanker fleet, though those aircraft are still expected to keep flying for years to come. The Air Force is also moving to further expand its fleet of newer KC-46A tankers in the interim, but persistent technical and other issues with that design continue to present hurdles.

At the roundtable today, Lt. Gen. Tulley was asked explicitly about restarting C-17 production. The manufacturer of those aircraft, Boeing, shuttered that line in 2015. The company also just marked the 35th anniversary of the design’s first flight yesterday.

“Heck yeah, but with a caveat, right?” Tulley said in response. “So we were just asking this question over the course of last week, and it’s in the context of next-generation airlift. So we are about to embark on the Analysis of Alternatives to replace the C-17 and replace the C-5. All options are on the table.”

“There’s always the option to service life extend the C-17, but the [production restart] question came up,” he continued. “I’ve heard this my entire career. Once we terminate an assembly line, can we ever bring it back? Does somebody store all the machinery and the dies and whatnot, and can you bring that out? So we’re asking that question.”

“But then whatever that answer is from the vendors, what will be the price tag associated with that?” he added. “You have to ask yourself, okay, is rebuilding a C-17 even if you make improvements – and there’s a loose analogy with the C-130J, [a] much more modern, capable variant of the C-130E [author’s note: the C-130J evolved more directly from the C-130H variant] I first learned to fly – if you do that with the C-17, is that the best move? Or are there new technologies that we can incorporate into it so that it can defend itself, so that it’s connected, it’s networked, it does all the things that maybe the current C-17 doesn’t do?”

“We’re looking into it as part of the Analysis of Alternatives. I’m hopeful that we’ll get to answer that question.”

In June, the House Armed Services Committee also directed the U.S. Air Force to prepare a formal briefing on the matter of new C-17 production in a report accompanying a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2027.

Boeing Pieces Together the Last C-17 on the Line

The RAND Corporation did conduct a detailed, independent analysis more than a decade ago that assessed the costs and complexities that could come from Boeing building more C-17As, as well as other variants and derivatives of the design. RAND’s conclusion was that any of the courses of action would require billions of dollars of new investment and entail risks, as you can read more about in more detail here.

Foreign participation in a new C-17 production run could help at least defray costs. Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom all currently fly Globemaster IIIs. The Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) initiative, a multinational arrangement with several European members, as well as the United States, also operates three of these aircraft.

Boeing told TWZ directly in June that unnamed C-17 operators had been reaching out about the prospect of restarting the production line, and that the company was “encouraged” by those discussions.

As Lt. Gen. Tulley stressed, there are significant questions about whether buying new-production C-17s, even with substantial improvements, is not only feasible, but a good use of resources. The Air Force’s Globemaster III fleet today continues to prove itself to be critical to the U.S. military’s ability to project power globally, and is in very high demand right now, especially amid the ongoing conflict with Iran.

The Air Force’s desire to replace both the C-17 and C-5, which are very different aircraft in form and function, could still easily lead the service down a different route. Boeing is not the only one looking at future NGAL opportunities. Another company, Radia, has been very actively pitching a clean-sheet design that is physically bigger than either the C-17 and the C-5, and that is geared toward greater operational flexibility, at the Air Force. Radia is targeting a first flight of its aircraft, called Windrunner, by the end of the decade, but it is still in a very aspirational stage at present.

Many questions also still remain about how the Air Force will ultimately proceed on the next-generation aerial refueling front.

“So thinking beyond the current KC-46 buy and the program extension, whatever that next tanker looks like, our Advanced Tanker System, it’s got to be connected. It’s got to be able to defend itself,” Lt. Gen. Tulley said at the roundtable. “But it begs the question: does it need to be manned? Could it be optionally manned? Could it be autonomous? Or is there a family of solutions maybe that would answer that question? So I do not believe that it has to be manned.”

The AMC head was responding to a specific question about how autonomy could play into the Air Force’s future aerial refueling plans, which included a reference ot the U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone. The Navy just announced its first low-rate initial production contract for MQ-25s on Monday.

“I think you’re seeing that with the MQ-25 and the Navy’s work, but then, how do we, the U.S. Air Force, bring that to bear in scope, scale, and range?” Tulley continued. “An optionally manned or an unmanned tanker, at range, the ranges we need to operate at, it’s a very large aircraft. And we’re not yet to where we’re employing fully autonomous large aircraft, but the technology, I would say, is there and rapidly getting there if it’s not.”

The MQ-25 is another Boeing product, and that company has shown a rendering of a larger, land-based derivative in the past. Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works has also put forward several advanced tanker concepts in the past, including stealthy and potentially uncrewed designs.

“We will be going after how to make the tanker survive,” William Bailey, the Air Force official currently performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, had also told TWZ and other outlets at a separate roundtable at the Air, Space & Cyber Conference yesterday. Bailey was responding to a direct question about whether the service was moving away from the idea of a stealthy tanker as part of the ATS plan.

“So, lots of work around what do we do in the future for our tankers, and we spent a pretty dedicated effort to go through and look at what do we think those design solutions could look like,” Bailey also said. “We looked internally. We went out to industry, had those guys come back with their thoughts on how to provide a more survivable aircraft.”

“The stuff that was coming in for me might have been an incremental improvement, but [it was] not clear that that represented the next step, the next phase,” he added. “What you’ll see is we’ll take our efforts, and we’ll look at, hey, if the real question is tanker access, then let’s not constrain ourselves to just the aircraft itself and trying to make a stealthy tanker. We need a tanker to have access, so we’ll talk about all those systems that it would take to protect that tanker.”

Bailey said the question of operational “access” applied to next-generation discussions, as well.

As is the case with the Air Force’s airlift fleets, the service tankers are in high demand due to the conflict with Iran and other current operational requirements. Stress on the existing tanker force, compounded by the ever-advancing age of the KC-135s, has been a steadily growing point of concern for years now. U.S. military officials have long been drawing attention to the limits of available aerial refueling capacity to meet even routine peacetime demands. The Air Force, as well as the U.S. Navy, have also expanded their use of contractor-owned and operated tankers to perform certain non-combat aerial refueling missions to help ease this strain.

In the meantime, the Air Force is still pursuing upgrades for its existing airlift and tanker fleets, with heavy focus on increased network connectivity and improved self-protection capabilities.

Greater connectivity “can be a game changer, and it has been a game changer in Operation Epic Fury [against Iran],” Lt. Gen. Tulley said at today’s roundtable. “The ability for air crews to communicate, to coordinate tanker orbits and rendezvous, to pass threat information, to save lives and save aircraft has been everything we expected it to be and more.”

“We have MAF NEXUS that we’re pursuing. The goal is to have this on all mobility aircraft, whether they’re future-built and it’s incorporated, or it’s an add-on capability to existing aircraft,” he continued. “It brings edge compute, the ability to then employ AI [artificial intelligence] and much more computing core power forward on the aircraft, and it does network with the rest of the joint force and the Air Force’s battle management system.”

When it comes to new options for protecting existing tankers, “nothing’s off the table,” the AMC boss added. “Whether it’s [in the] electromagnetic spectrum, whether it’s kinetic self-defense, a layered approach, we’re looking at everything to come up with what might be the best system. But it’s got to be a system that we can afford, and it’s got to be one that we can put on all the aircraft we have and the ones we’re about to build.”

Using Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) or other types of drones to help provide localized defense for airlifters and tankers could be another option. The Air Force has already experimented with this, at least to a degree.

The Air Force is otherwise still clearly continuing to shape its future airlift and aerial fueling visions. As part of that work, the service is now at least considering the possibility of rebooting C-17 production.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Icelanders head to the polls on Saturday to decide whether their country should reenter negotiations to join the European Union, a vote that could have economic and security implications beyond the small Arctic country.

The election comes 13 years after Iceland, under a Eurosceptic government, paused the last EU accession talks, believing the country would fare better outside the bloc.

But much has changed since then.

Arctic security concerns have grown amid Russia’s war against Ukraine and United States President Donald Trump’s threats to invade neighbouring Greenland, the cost of living has climbed and Iceland’s currency has kept wavering.

Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir, whose Social Democrats party is pro-EU, said she will honour whatever choice the public makes.

If Icelanders vote “yes”, the country would likely start years of negotiations with Brussels to hammer out membership terms. It would then hold a second referendum on whether to formally become part of the EU.

Frostadottir has said a “yes” vote would see the nation “enter negotiations with our heads held high and stand together in seeking a good agreement”.

If the result is “no”, “all speculation about what [EU membership] might involve will be set aside”, she said.

Knife-edge vote

Recent surveys show Icelanders are almost evenly split on the proposal.

A Gallup opinion poll conducted this week found that 51.6 percent of respondents were against new EU membership talks, while 48.4 percent favoured them.

An earlier survey by Icelandic pollster Maskina showed a narrow majority of 51.3 percent of respondents backing new EU accession talks.

Gabriella Gricius, associate professor of strategy at the Norwegian Military Academy, said Iceland’s lack of armed forces has always left it “reliant on NATO and specifically the US for its security”.

“As the US has grown more unpredictable, and specifically, its rhetoric around Greenland has grown more concerning, it is not surprising that Iceland is seeking additional security guarantees through the EU,” Gricius told Al Jazeera.

Adam Fishwick, a lecturer in international relations at the University of Iceland, said the expected benefits of membership would be reduced inflation, a more stable currency and fewer customs barriers for consumers.

“There may also be opportunities for regional development in Iceland, which is an important issue here, with access to dedicated EU funds,” he told Al Jazeera.

However, the debate over EU accession remains “quite polarised”, he noted. Opponents fear the small nation of 395,000 people would “lose control over everyday policy decisions” and have limited sway in a bloc filled with larger European powers, Fishwick said.

Voters to weigh impact on inflation, currency

The benefits of EU membership for Iceland are not as obvious as for other potential candidates.

Iceland is a relatively wealthy country that, as a member of Schengen and the European Economic Area, already gets a lot of the single-market access that would come with EU membership.

However, the country has experienced growing economic pains in recent years, primarily regarding the cost of living. Consumer prices in 2025 exceeded those of any EU state and were 87 percent higher than the EU average.

Iceland’s currency, the krona, meanwhile, has been prone to exchange-rate swings that opponents say lower investment confidence and make it more costly to borrow money. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs concluded that the costs of maintaining Iceland’s own currency probably outweigh the benefits. Adopting the euro, it said in a report, may help reduce interest rates and transaction costs.

Joining the EU could help address both issues.

Iceland would become a part of the bloc’s customs union, in which goods move freely between members and face a common tariff when imported from non-member countries. It could also adopt the more stable euro as its currency.

Fishing industry concerns: ‘Backbone of the economy’

A major concern, though, is the impact on the country’s fishing industry, an economic pillar that in 2024 directly contributed about 8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and much more indirectly.

By joining the EU, Iceland would become subject to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, which governs European fishing fleets and fish stocks.

Iceland’s fishing industry fears this change could lead to new catch quotas, increased foreign competition and, more broadly, less control over local fishing policy.

“The fundamental objection to EU membership is that Iceland would not retain full control over its fisheries – the traditional backbone of the economy,” Valur Ingimundarson, professor of contemporary history at the University of Iceland, told Al Jazeera.

Even if Icelanders vote “yes” to proceed with EU negotiations, the country is unlikely to go forward with EU membership unless it secures “ironclad” exemptions regarding its fishing industry, said Ingimundarson.

‘Additional security guarantees’

Mounting security pressures in the Arctic, coupled with uncertainty about US commitment to its traditional European partners, are also contributing to Iceland’s renewed interest in the EU, say analysts.

Though Iceland is a founding member of NATO and has a 75-year defence treaty with the US, it has no standing armed forces of its own and is located in a geopolitical hotspot that both Russia and the US have sought to project power in.

While Russia has expanded its military presence in the Arctic in recent years, President Trump has repeatedly threatened to use force to seize nearby Greenland.

Ingimundarson said pro-EU Icelanders see “the EU as a source of political and economic protection for a small state confronted by coercive great-power politics and uncertainty about the US as a reliable security partner”.

Iceland’s Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Gunnarsdottir has said membership would be “a valuable addition” for Iceland, even though NATO and the US would still be its core security partners.

In comments to Reuters, Gunnarsdottir said Iceland has been “disappointed” with the US’s “pressure campaign waged against both Greenlanders and Denmark”.

Russia poses a security threat “in our waters and nearby, in the North Atlantic”, said Gunnarsdottir.

For the EU, bringing Iceland into its orbit would expand EU territory much deeper into the North Atlantic, potentially deepening its strategic focus there, said Gricius, the professor.

“Icelandic membership in the EU wouldn’t necessarily change Arctic security dynamics, as Iceland is and will continue to be an Arctic state,” she said. “However, it may influence how the EU behaves in the Arctic, as the EU would then include four of the eight Arctic states – Iceland, Finland, Sweden and Denmark.”