USAF

The U.S. Air Force is set to hold a classified meeting with defense contractors to share its requirements for a new air-to-air missile with a maximum range of at least 1,000 nautical miles. This is roughly 10 times the reach afforded today by the latest versions of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). An anti-air missile with this kind of extreme range would be especially well-suited for attacks on critical airborne early warning and control planes, as well as tankers and other high-value aerial assets operating in rear areas. The Air Force is also already interested in an air-to-surface version of this new weapon, which it has dubbed the Air Force Long Range Weapon (AFLRW).

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s (AFLCMC) Armament Directorate (EB) issued a notice yesterday regarding the planned AFLRW industry day gathering. The two-day meeting is currently scheduled to take place at the Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility (GWEF) at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on August 25 and 26. The Air Force says the event will be held at the Secret classification level and that all attendees have to have appropriate security clearances.

“The AFLRW is aimed at addressing the next generation of Air-Launched Standoff Weapon variants in line with Department of War priorities,” according to the industry day notice. “AFLRW may select multiple vendors for both the Air-to-Air (A/A) and Air-to-Surface (A/S) variants with a focus on A/A solutions for Initial Operational Capability.”

“Both [AFLRW] variants will have a threshold minimum range of 1,000 NM [nautical miles] and be capable of striking respective A/A and A/S targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner,” the notice adds. It does not elaborate on what those specific scenarios entail.

The notice also puts particular emphasis on modular components and open-architecture systems, and finding a “Master Integrator” to combine the various elements into a complete missile, or all-up-round.

“Industry should expect a quick-turn Whitepaper Request for Information following the event focused on the 2 solution types above for both variants,” per the notice. “AFLCMC is seeking the next generation of Air-Launched Long-Range Weapon variants that expand the United States’ ability to hit priority air, land, and sea targets far and fast!”

Beyond the range threshold, the notice does not include any other details about requirements the Air Force may have now for the AFLRW. That being said, a desire for an anti-air missile able to hit targets at least 1,000 nautical miles away is very notable by itself.

Though the exact figures are classified, the AIM-120D-3 version of the AMRAAM, the latest model in widespread U.S. service, is generally understood to have a maximum reach of around 100 miles (close to 87 nautical miles). There have been hints that it may be able to fly out further than that, at least against targets in certain envelopes. Longer-range versions of the AIM-120 may now be in development. A known key requirement for the new AIM-260A Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) has also been extended reach over the AMRAAM. Still, even the JATM, which the U.S. Navy and Air Force are developing together, is not expected to have anywhere near the range required for the AFLRW.

It is worth noting here that the Air Force almost adopted a very long-range, high-speed missile designed to engage both air and surface targets during the Cold War. However, the maximum range of that Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile (ASALM) was still only expected to be 300 miles (260 nautical miles).

Starting in the mid-2000s, the Air Force and the Navy also worked together on a Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), intended as a single weapon to supplant the AIM-120 and variants of the AGM-88 anti-radiation missile. This evolved into the Next Generation Missile (NGM), which came to a close, at least publicly, in 2013, ostensibly over rising costs. A more secretive Triple Target Terminator (T-3) program, which had initially been conducted in parallel with JDRADM/NGM, continued afterward for at least some period of time. In 2017, a possible successor to T-3, the Long Range Engagement Weapon (LREW), but the fate of that effort is unclear.

In February, the Navy put out its own new call for a long-range anti-radiation missile capable of engaging air and surface targets, dubbed the Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM). However, the service did not say what its desired range for this weapon might be at that time. The Navy has already started fielding an air-launched version of the multi-purpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), designated the AIM-174B. TWZ has previously assessed the AIM-174B to likely be in the same range category, broadly speaking, as the Cold War-era ASALM. We have previously explored in detail how the AIM-174B slots into the Navy’s long-range kill chains.

How The Navy’s New Very Long-Range AIM-174 Will Pierce China’s Anti-Access Bubble

Nothing approaching a range of 1,000 nautical miles appears to have ever been discussed, at least openly, in relation to any of these programs. Interestingly, the Air Force did publicly talk about the prospect of anti-air missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 miles in a report to Congress in December 2024. However, the report mentioned them as part of a projected threat ecosystem the service envisions taking shape by 2050.

“Counterair weapons with ranges out to over 1,000 miles and supported by space-based sensors will place aircraft, such as tankers, that have traditionally operated with impunity, at risk,” the Air Force’s 2024 report said. This offers a hint at the kinds of capabilities it is looking to add to its own arsenal through the AFLRW effort.

After the Navy put out its AESM contracting notice, TWZ also highlighted the value of such a missile for targeting vital airborne early warning and control assets. This is often referred to as the ‘AWACS killer’ role, which references the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. As we previously wrote:

“All that being said, the value of an ‘AWACS killer’ missile is clear-cut. AEW&C are critical surveillance and battle management assets. Shooting them down deprives an opponent of those capabilities, inherently reducing their ability to effectively maneuver air assets and share important information, including with other nodes on the ground or at sea, as well as in the air. Knocking out these flying radar stations, which can be especially well-suited to spotting lower flying threats from their high perches, just hampers an enemy’s overall situational awareness.”

“The issue, of course, is that AEW&C planes typically orbit well behind the front edges of a conflict, creating additional challenges for targeting them. This is where something like AESM could come into play. A weapon of this type could engage other aerial targets by zeroing in on the radiofrequency emissions they pump out. This could include electronic warfare aircraft, and potentially other aerial targets. AESM might be able to take on a more general anti-air role with the addition of an active radar and/or imaging infrared seeker, as well as datalinks allowing for the use of networked targeting data. [The AGM-88E] AARGM and [AGM-88G] AARGM-ER both feature an active millimeter-wave radar seeker to enable them to hit fleeing ground targets, but a similar concept could be adapted for air-to-air use.“

AARGM F-18

“For the Navy, as well as other branches of the U.S. military, this is all particularly relevant in the context of a potential future high-end fight with China, which has made major investments in its fleets of AEW&C and electronic warfare planes. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also been pursuing ever-longer-ranged anti-air missiles, including types that could be used to target American AEW&C platforms, as well as other key support aircraft.”

In that piece, we also touched on the potential for the AIM-174B to help meet U.S. military needs for an ‘AWACS killer’ missile. With the ability to hit targets in the air, as well as down below, out to at least 1,000 nautical miles, AFRLW would be a dramatic step above even the AIM-174B in capability.

The Pacific region offers a host of practical examples to give a better sense of what this kind of reach means. The distance between U.S. bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa and Taiwan is roughly 390 nautical miles. The distance between Andersen Air Force Base on Guam and Taiwan is around 1,500 nautical miles. AFLRW-armed aircraft flying over the East China Sea or the northern end of the South China Sea would conceivably be able to engage targets with hundreds of missiles inside the Chinese mainland, as long as suitable targeting data was available. The AFLRW’s range would be relevant on other potential hotspots globally, as well.

AFLRW would give the Air Force a way to pick off airborne early warning and control aircraft, as well as tankers, bombers, other kinds of surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, and potentially even unsuspecting tactical jets. The missiles would be able to do so without necessarily alerting them to the fact that they are being targeted at all, at least till it’s too late to escape. Having air-to-air missiles that can go after targets at such great ranges means the need to project tactical airpower and support aircraft far forward and deep into harm’s way for the counter-air mission would be less critical, at least during the first opening stages of a conflict. By eliminating key force multiplying aircraft with long-range weaponry, conditions would be better for the survivability of traditional counter-air packages.

On top of offering a new way to hold higher-value targets in rear areas at risk, AFLRW would give Air Force aircraft added flexibility to engage targets closer to the tactical edge, but not necessarily near where they might be flying at any one time. In the aforementioned Pacific scenario, areas of active combat in the air and on the surface could easily be dotted across a broader zone spanning thousands of square miles.

As mentioned, the Air Force also sees anti-air threats being able to reach further and further out. This means stand-off munitions, in general, will need greater reach to help reduce the risk to launch platforms. The AFLRW’s range recommendation is a tacit admission that the U.S. military will face growing challenges piercing adversary anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) bubbles, especially the ones that China has established and is continuing to expand on. It also highlights the increasing risks to friendly airborne early warning and control aircraft, tankers, and other supporting aerial assets needed for sustained air combat operations. Chinese air-to-air missiles are already outreaching their American counterparts, and the U.S. is working to change that now with AIM-174, AIM-260 and other programs.

There are still questions about what it might take to develop a feasible AFLRW with at least a 1,000 nautical mile range, and what might be able to carry a missile with that kind of reach. It is worth remembering here that the Air Force has openly talked about the possibility of the B-21 Raider bomber taking on a greater role in air-to-air combat in the future, which might include acting as a ‘weapons truck’ loaded with anti-air missiles. The aforementioned ASALM was also intended primarily for employment from bombers. For bombers like the B-21, the AFLRW would also just offer a valuable organic way to address threats in the air and down below, potentially hours ahead of arriving over the target area.

The AFLRW will also have to cover the very long distances it flies at least relatively quickly, especially to be relevant for attacking time-sensitive or otherwise fleeting targets. This might require a multi-stage or air-launched ballistic missile-like design or even something more exotic.

There is also the question of targeting at such extreme distances. These weapons will not rely on the sensors and targeting information generated by the platforms they are launched from. Above all else, the AFLRW will, by default, have to be tied into a deeply networked ‘kill web’ that brings together tertiary sensors and other supporting elements across vast networking layers. That ‘web’ would be spread across the air, land, sea, space, and even cyberspace domains, and incorporate assets from other branches of the U.S. military beyond the Air Force.

Above all else, the space-based aircraft tracking layer will be very important when it comes to enabling this weapon. The Air Force’s 2024 report on future threats confirmed this. The U.S. military itself is actively working to field new distributed satellite constellations to provide potentially game-changing persistent air and ground moving-target indicator (AMTI/GMTI) capability globally, with exactly these kinds of long-range kill chains in mind, as you can read more about here. Very stealthy aircraft working farther forward that are in line-of-sight of potential targets are another way these weapons can be employed. The USAF also has just such a platform.

Much remains to be learned about the Air Force’s plans for the air-to-air and air-to-surface versions of the AFRLW, and what other requirements the service has for those missiles. The industry day gathering scheduled for August will provide the service with additional information about what options might be available and on what timeframe.

Regardless, the Air Force has now made clear publicly that it wants a solution that can kill planes a thousand miles away from the launch aircraft. This matches all the signals that the Pentagon has been sending indicating it is very concerned about its ability to pierce an enemy’s protective bubble in the years ahead. Above all else, it points to a new era of net-centric warfare where the kill web is truly king.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The Pentagon and the U.S. Air Force have fully abandoned an attempt to axe the acquisition of E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, and to use E-2D Hawkeyes to help fill the resulting gap. In something of a twist, the Pentagon has proposed cutting U.S. Navy E-2D purchases, as well as raiding a classified Air Force account, to keep the E-7 program going. The House Appropriations Committee has now pushed back on the E-2D part of that plan. The back-and-forth underscores the critical importance of airborne early warning and control aircraft and the strain on existing U.S. fleets.

Defense News drew specific attention to the new jostling over funding for the E-7 in a report earlier today. Breaking Defense had been among the first to report the basic points yesterday. The House Appropriations Committee had released the details in a report accompanying a draft defense spending bill for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which we will come back to in a moment.

To recap quickly, roughly a year ago, the Pentagon and the Air Force disclosed their intention to axe the E-7 program, which had suffered delays and cost overruns, and acquire additional E-2Ds as an interim gap-filler. Questions about the future survivability of the Wedgetail were also raised. The Air Force’s long-term goal was then and still is now to eventually push most air moving-target indicator (AMTI) tasks into space, though that is still years away from truly becoming a reality. Congress subsequently intervened to save the Wedgetail, appropriating billions for the effort in Fiscal Year 2026. The E-7 was again missing from the Air Force’s proposed 2027 Fiscal Year budget, which raised the prospect of a new battle with Congress.

Top Pentagon and Air Force officials subsequently said that the viewpoint on the Wedgetail had fundamentally changed, and submitted an amendment to the budget request to include funding for the program. Per a memo earlier this month from Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House, this was done in two ways. $898,549,000 was taken from “Other Procurement, Air Force” section of that service’s budget proposal, while another $650,549,000 came out of “Aircraft Procurement, Navy.”

The combined $1,549,098,000 was moved into the “Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force” account. According to Vought’s memo, the funding would go toward “priority requirement to deliver two E-7 Wedgetail prototype aircraft and continue Engineering Manufacturing and Development activities for a program of record.”

The Air Force already has seven E-7s on order now, including the two jets to support rapid prototyping efforts. It is unclear when the service expects to begin flying Wedgetails operationally. Before the attempt to cancel the program, the target date for initial operational capability had already slipped from 2027 to 2032. It should be noted here that variants of the E-7 are already in service in Australia, South Korea, and Turkey, and that the United Kingdom is set to field a fleet of Wedgetails, too.

The report the House Appropriations Committee released yesterday included important additional context about the latest funding plans.

“While the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2027 did not include funding for the E–7 Wedgetail program, the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of Defense testified before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that they support this critical platform and have submitted a budget amendment to the Office of Management and Budget to restore funding for the platform,” it explained. “The shift in mindset at the Department of Defense translated to requested transfers from the Special Update Program in Other Procurement, Air Force, and the E–2D program in Aircraft Procurement, Navy for a total investment of $1,549,098,000 for E–7 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force in fiscal year 2027.”

“While the Committee wholly supports the E–7 program and funding realignment, the Committee also restored the E–2D program to six aircraft for fiscal year 2027,” the report added. “The Committee understands the operational necessity of the E–2D platform; the complementary nature of the E–2D and E–7; and believes that more aircraft, not fewer, are necessary to support our warfighters now and in the future.”

It is not immediately clear whether the draft spending plan that the House Appropriations Committee has now put forward still includes the full $1,549,098,000 for the E-7 program, as well as the restoration of funding for the E-2D purchases. The memo from OMB had stressed that its intent in shifting funding around was not to add to the roughly $1.5 trillion topline for its proposed 2027 Fiscal Year defense budget. Congress can, of course, appropriate additional funds as it sees fit, and often does.

Regardless, this new debate over how and where to find funding for the E-7 highlights larger issues surrounding airborne early warning capacity within the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy.

“The conflict in Iran has reinforced the need for the Air Force to maintain a credible airborne battle management capability, currently being met with the Air Force’s E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System and the Navy’s E–2D Hawkeye programs,” the House Appropriations Committee’s report also notes. “As the E–3 is set to retire, the E–7 Wedgetail will serve as [a] modern replacement for lost battle management capability, commensurate and interoperable with assets already being utilized by key allies.”

This is all true, as TWZ has previously stressed in detail, long before the latest conflict with Iran erupted in February. Airborne early warning and control is absolutely vital to the prosecution of modern air operations, and even more so now in an age of exploding drone and cruise missile threats. The substantial deployment of E-3s to Saudi Arabia was one of the clearest indicators that a major campaign against Iran was increasingly imminent. The same had been true about the lead-up to the operation to capture ex-Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

Not mentioned in the report, however, is the Air Force’s slashing of the E-3 fleet in recent years, the service’s repeated deferral of any plans to acquire a replacement for those aircraft, and the loss of Sentry on the ground in an Iranian attack in March. The strain on the Air Force’s E-3s has been readily apparent for years now.

The House Appropriations Committee report also leaves out any broader context about the planned E-2D purchases for Fiscal Year 2027. When it released its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025 back in 2024, the Navy had no plans to order more Hawkeyes, at least over the next five years. In its 2026 Fiscal Year budget request, the service asked for funding for four E-2Ds, presumably as part of the plan to cancel the E-7. Congress subsequently appropriated funding for three Hawkeyes in that fiscal cycle.

When it rolled out its latest budget request earlier this year, the Navy outlined all-new plans to buy 12 E-2Ds – six in Fiscal Year 2027, two in Fiscal Year 2028, and four in Fiscal Year 2029 – explicitly “to replenish accelerated service life burn down of existing force structure due to Overland Airborne Early Warning (AEW) tasking.” This underscores operational strain on the Hawkeye fleet, which can only have been further added to by operations in relation to Iran over the past few months. This also points to E-2Ds supplementing E-3s in providing overland coverage.

Just yesterday, the White House sent Congress a separate supplemental funding request for nearly $90 billion, primarily to help cover various costs associated with the war against Iran.

How exactly the E-7 program gets funded in Fiscal Year 2027, as well as what happens to the plans to order more E-2Ds, remains to be seen. The House Appropriations Committee’s draft defense spending plan could still evolve in various ways in the coming weeks and months, and will need to be reconciled with companion legislation making its way through the Senate. Once Congress passes the bill, President Donald Trump will still need to sign off on it, too.

It’s also worth noting that other potential options for providing additional airborne early warning and control capacity in the interim are emerging.

What is clear is that both the E-3 Sentry and E-2D Hawkeye fleets remain as critical as ever, but have been even more stressed by recent operations against Iran, with new E-7s still years away from entering service.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The Senate Armed Services Committee is “concerned” about the U.S. Air Force’s current plan to retire its E–11A Battlefield Airborne
Communications Node (BACN) aircraft in Fiscal Year 2028. Legislators want more details about how the service expects to plug any capability gaps that might result from axing the highly specialized communications planes. The Air Force abruptly announced plans to retire the E-11A fleet, which has more than doubled in size in recent years, and supplant it with new space-based capabilities back in April.

A formal request for a briefing on the Air Force’s plans surrounding the E-11A fleet is included in a report accompanying a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The Senate Armed Services Committee released a full copy of the proposed legislation and the report yesterday.

The Air Force currently has 7 BACN jets in service, which are based on several different models from the Bombardier Global Express family of business jets. The BACN package has also flown operationally in the past on one of NASA’s high-flying WB-57F research aircraft and a fleet of now-retired EQ-4B Global Hawk drones.

“The committee is aware of the Department of the Air Force’s decision to cancel the E–11 Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) capability, which has historically provided critical communications relay and data translation functions enabling joint and coalition operations, particularly in contested and communications-degraded environments,” the report says. “The committee is concerned about the operational risk associated with the loss of the E–11 BACN capability and the lack of clarity regarding the Department’s plan to mitigate resulting gaps in airborne communications, data integration, and battle management.”

“Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 31, 2027, on the Department’s plan to address capability gaps resulting from the cancellation of the E–11 BACN capability,” it continues.

The briefing needs to at least provide the following:

• “A detailed justification for the decision to cancel the E–11 BACN capability, including cost, survivability, and operational considerations.”
• “An assessment of the operational risks created by the cancellation, including impacts on joint all-domain command and control, communications interoperability, and support to combatant commander requirements.”
• “A description of alternative capabilities, programs, or concepts of operation the Department plans to employ to replicate or replace E–11 BACN functionality, including any space-based, airborne, or ground-based solutions.”
• “Associated timelines, funding requirements, and acquisition strategies for such alternatives.”
• “A description of how the Department will ensure continuity of communications relay and gateway capabilities in contested environments during any transition period.”
• “An assessment of impacts to joint and coalition interoperability, including any risks to ongoing operations or contingency plans.”

Currently, the BACN aircraft provide an extremely valuable airborne communications gateway that can be used to relay data across various waveforms between platforms in the air, at sea, and on land. The planes offer a vital way to ‘translate’ between data-sharing systems that may not otherwise be able to ‘talk’ to each other. E-11As can also provide a vital node between line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight links. During the conflict in Afghanistan, the BACN aircraft became known for providing this service and creating an active data-sharing rebroadcasting network in a country where mountainous terrain could often limit the reach of line-of-sight links.

The Air Force first announced its intention to divest the E-11A fleet earlier this year as part of the rollout of its annual budget request. The service offered few additional details publicly at that time, beyond that the Hybrid Satellite Communications (STACOM) Terminal program would provide a “bridge” capability in the near term.

Hybrid SATCOM is a capability the Air Force is working to field on a variety of aircraft, including aerial refueling tankers and cargo planes, which is intended to give them better access to government-owned and operated and commercial satellite constellations. SpaceX’s Starlink network and its government-focused cousin, Starshield, are already in particular widespread and still-growing use across the U.S. military. Distributed constellations of satellites, like the ones used for Starlink and Starshield, to support various mission requirements are changing warfighting, and the pace of those developments is accelerating.

An annual force structure report that the Pentagon released last month offers some further insights into the Air Force’s argument for retiring the E-11As.

“Predicated on the successful deployment of next-generation orbital systems, the E-11A fleet is scheduled for divestment in FY 2028,” the force structure report says. “These space-based assets will provide equivalent relay and datalink capabilities, superseding current E-11A functions and enabling a modernized transition of the mission set. Consequently, all cost savings will be reinvested into the replacement capabilities.”

“As part of a broader strategy to align resources with the most pressing operational needs, the Department of the Air Force will divest its fleet of seven E-11A aircraft, with the action planned for FY 2028,” the report adds. “This decision allows for the strategic reallocation of fiscal resources to fund more critical, high-priority service requirements and accelerate modernization efforts in other key areas.”

The Air Force’s decision regarding the E-11A came without any real warning, at least publicly. As noted, the service had significantly increased the fleet size in recent years, driven in part by the retirement of the EQ-4Bs. The aircraft had looked set to continue serving for years to come.

Demand for the capabilities BACN offers has gone well beyond Afghanistan. The aircraft continue to be heavily utilized to support active combat operations, including as part of Operation Epic Fury against Iran this year. The platform was also utilized during the mission to capture former Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in January.

At the same time, there are questions about the survivability of the E-11A going forward as a non-stealthy business jet-based aircraft, especially in the context of a future high-end fight. These concerns are even pronounced for the BACN aircraft given that a key aspect of their mission set to date has involved flying within range of line-of-sight links. A growing threat ecosystem that pushes the planes further and further from the forces they are expected to support would challenge their utility.

China and Russia, in particular, are developing very long-range anti-air missiles, and the Air Force itself has warned that designs with ranges of 1,000 miles could be in service by 2050. Ever-more sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) ‘bubbles’ will be an increasing challenge for traditional non-stealthy combat support aircraft, not just BACN, as time goes on. Even smaller adversaries like Iran and North Korea, and even some non-state actors, are continuing to field more threatening air defense systems, as well.

As an aside, the U.S. Army now views very long-range air-launched drones as a key capability to help ensure the relevance of its new Bombardier Global Express-based ME-11B High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) surveillance and reconnaissance planes in future large-scale conflicts. You can read more about the plans for HADES here.

All this being said, there is also something of an interesting parallel, very broadly speaking, between the Air Force’s current plans for the E-11A fleet and its failed Pentagon-backed attempt to cancel the E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft program. The arguments for axing the E-7 were also heavily rooted in plans for new space-based capabilities, concerns about the vulnerability of a non-stealthy aircraft in future high-end conflicts, and a general desire to shift resources to other priorities. Congress ultimately intervened to save the Wedgetail program, and the Air Force and the Pentagon have now completely changed their tone, at least publicly, on the matter.

“I know our department had taken the position that it was … other satellite ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities] that was probably going to be capable of a lot of that in the future,” Secretary Pete Hegseth said in response to a question about the E-7 at a hearing in May. “But I think that mindset was indicative of a mindset that we’ve shed, which is the divest-to-invest mindset, which was an austerity mindset, that we’re going to get continuing resolution after continuing resolution. So, we [sic] got to get rid of these platforms in order to invest in these platforms. And there are gaps that need to still be filled. And there are systems that still need to be funded that are used on the battlefield right now, say, MQ-9s, A-10s, you name it.”

Hegseth’s comments here would seem to reflect a logic that one could also apply to the E-11A fleet, at least based on the arguments the Air Force has put forward for its divestment so far.

Whether Congress intervenes now to save the BACN aircraft remains to be seen. The Air Force is still expecting to continue flying the jets through next year at least.

The Air Force will now have a chance to more formally argue before members of the Senate Armed Services Committee for moving ahead with its plan to axe the E-11As.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Air Force has awarded contracts for the production of General Atomics FQ-42A Dark Merlin and Anduril FQ-44A Fury drones. This sets the service up to operate a split initial fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), something TWZ has highlighted as being a distinct possibility from the start.

The Air Force down-selected the designs from General Atomics and Anduril to move ahead as part of the first incremental development cycle of its CCA program, or Increment 1, back in 2024. What were originally designated the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A first flew in August and October 2025, respectively, and have been undergoing further testing since then. Dark Merlin testing was paused earlier this year after one of the drones crashed, but has resumed.

“By moving fast from competitive selection into full-scale manufacturing, we position ourselves to field highly credible and combat-ready semi-autonomous systems to stay ahead of the pacing challenge,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said in a statement today. “These contracts reaffirm our confidence in the strategic path forward for the program to procure over 150 combat capable CCA by the end of the decade.”

The Air Force says these contracts were awarded four months ahead of schedule, reflecting “that the FQ-42 and FQ-44 meet rigorous mission requirements and are ready for full-scale manufacturing.” At the time of writing, the service does not appear to have provided an update on the expected delivery timeline of the first production CCAs, but it has said in the past that it is hoping to have the first examples in operational service toward the end of the decade. Air Force has asked for nearly $1 billion in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request to begin procurement of these drones.

“Under the contract, Anduril will deliver an initial set of production FQ-44 semi-autonomous fighter aircraft to support continued testing, validation, and, ultimately, operational fielding,” Mark Shushnar, Anduril’s Vice President for Autonomous Airpower, also wrote in a blog post today. “The contract also establishes a structure for the Air Force to buy additional lots of production FQ-44 aircraft across the next several years, providing a clear path for the Air Force to rapidly and affordably expand fighter capacity.”

“This is an exciting day for our company and the nation,” David Alexander, President of General Atomics’ Aeronautical Systems, Inc. division (GA-ASI), said in his own statement. “Moving to production on FQ-42A is the result of an extraordinary partnership and many years of investments between General Atomics and the U.S. Air Force. We’ve been preparing for this order, and manufacturing is already well underway.”

A split-buy of Dark Merlin and Fury drones will help drive down risk. The designs are also very different, which opens the door to more operational possibilities for the Air Force right from the start. General Atomics and Anduril can also then focus on refining the respective strengths of their uncrewed aircraft. As noted, TWZ has pointed out on several occasions that a mixture of uncrewed platforms with different attributes would be needed to truly do justice to the CCA concept.

Furthermore, the Air Force making this decision still deep in the developmental phase also underscores how critical the service sees CCAs, and its desire to push ahead with getting at least an early iteration of the capability into service.

“Collaborative Combat Aircraft change how we project power and generate mass in highly contested environments,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach said in a statement today. “Delivering this capability to our warfighters faster ensures our forces maintain the tactical edge required to deter and, if necessary, defeat any adversary.”

The Air Force has also further split the CCA effort into hardware and software segments, with airframe development falling into the former category.

“These distinct efforts validate acquisition transformation principles to secure a critical operational advantage: decoupling hardware from software,” according to an Air Force press release today. “By treating mission autonomy as ‘software sold separately,’ the Air Force ensures that the warfighter receives state-of-the-art physical platforms alongside agile, easily updatable software, effectively breaking traditional procurement molds.”

Anduril and General Atomics, as well as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Collins Aerospace, and Shield AI form the current vendor pool for the software side of the CCA program. The Air Force announced today that it had awarded additional mission autonomy contracts to Anduril, Collins, and Shield AI. Anduril is notably the only company currently with CCA contracts on the hardware and software sides.

Collaborative Mission Autonomy

“This targeted award, based on the vendors’ ability to meet aggressive schedule and affordability requirements, will fund the first of two six-month competitive phases designed to speed the fielding of operational software to the warfighter,” according to an Air Force release. “While the baseline contract establishes a continuous competitive arena, the competitive awards are designed to deliver capability faster. Following the initial six-month period, the Air Force will evaluate the vendors’ progress and execute a second competitive award period. This performance-based competition will culminate in the selection of a primary mission autonomy provider for CCA Increment 1, with award planned for selection by summer 2027.”

“Furthermore, this software contract leverages a first-of-its-kind award fee exposure strategy, which enables operator feedback and combat performance to determine what the Air Force pays for mission autonomy. The Air Force will only pay the entire licensing fee if a vendor provides a combat capability aligned with warfighter needs and feedback,” the release adds. “The licensing approach also allows the Air Force to award software licenses to any of the six vendors within the pool at any point over the next six years. This approach ensures the Air Force can procure the best-performing and most affordable solutions as technology evolves.”

More government ownership of key intellectual property, and software in particular, has become a central guiding principle for the U.S. military contracting, in general, in recent years. When it comes to autonomy software packages, there is also now a core government-owned Autonomy Government Reference Architecture (A-GRA) that goes beyond the Air Force’s CCA program.

“Today, Lattice for Mission Autonomy is fully A-GRA compliant, ensuring that it can be integrated not only with all Increment 1 CCA, but with the full spectrum of current and future A-GRA compliant aircraft,” Anduril’s Shushnar highlighted in his blog post. “Through the A-GRA, the CCA program has established the foundation that will drive the development of a larger ecosystem of autonomous aircraft.”

Lattice for Mission Autonomy: An Unfair Advantage for Unrivaled Deterrence

Shield AI’s Hivemind software is also already flying on a number of different drones.  Just last month, the Pentagon announced that it would be using this autonomy package to introduce swarming capabilities to its Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones.  

Shield AI flies Hivemind AI Pilot on 6th Aircraft

“Mission autonomy is the cornerstone of the CCA concept, and leveraging a competitive, multi-vendor environment ensures we capture the latest technology,” Secretary Meink also said today in another statement. “This approach guarantees our Airmen are equipped with state-of-the-art capabilities today but keeps the door open for the breakthroughs necessary to maintain air superiority.”

In general, greater government control over intellectual property rights also helps avoid the potential to be locked into a single vendor. Establishing vendor pools to compete for follow-on contracts also creates opportunities to lower costs and to diversify supply chains, especially when it comes to hardware. That diversification, in turn, can be beneficial when it comes time to scale up production of both key subcomponents and complete systems.

As far as we know, the Air Force is still planning for at least one more incremental CCA development cycle, or Increment 2, firm requirements for which have yet to be publicly released. This could lead to further diversification of the service’s future CCA fleets. The Air Force has notably already given the YFQ-48A designation to Northrop Grumman’s Talon Blue drone design, which first broke cover in December 2025. Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat, originally developed for Australia, now has a greater presence in the United States.

The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy are also pursuing their own CCA fleets in very close coordination with the Air Force. The Air Force is very much in the lead in fielding drones in this category, which could factor into future Marine and Navy decisions. The Marines are currently planning for their first tranche of MQ-58 Valkyrie CCA drones from Kratos to arrive in 2029. The Navy’s program is still very much in its infancy.

The Air Force’s CCA program has now taken another major step forward toward an initial fleet of drones that will include both General Atomics Dark Merlin and Anduril’s Fury.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

After reportedly losing dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones while battling Iran, the Air Force on Friday confirmed to TWZ that it is planning to purchase an undisclosed number of unused ones from General Atomics, who made the aircraft. The company, however, said it has less than 10 of these drones to offer, and it remains unclear where else the Air Force can find more.

All of this continues to raise serious questions about the Air Force’s near-term ability to plug gaps left by the losses fighting against Iran and in other recent operations in and around the Middle East. The downed Reapers have a reported combined value of about $1 billion.

Furthermore, despite the top Air Force officer recently praising Reaper as “perhaps the most valuable player” in the air war against Iran, the aircraft have been in the crosshairs of service officials. They have openly questioned the drone’s survivability and, by extension, general value in future operations. The Air Force has made several half-hearted efforts, without success, to find a successor. It is now in the early stages of a new attempt at acquiring an “MQ-9 Next.” You can read more about that effort in our story here.

It will be years, if ever, before “MQ-9 Next” comes online. Meanwhile, the search is on for existing replacements.

“The USAF intends to purchase several unused MQ-9A Block 5 from GA-ASI [General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.],” a spokesperson for the service told TWZ today. “A number of MQ-9A Block 5 aircraft were manufactured based on forecasted purchases for other customers but are no longer needed. The available aircraft are currently GA-ASI owned aircraft.”

“The USAF has received funds to begin the acquisition process,” they added.

The Air Force was responding to our questions about congressional testimony from a top officer highlighting the service’s plans to backfill the combat losses. 

“We’re looking at options to buy back as many of the MQ-9As as we possibly can right now,” Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, had told members of Congress at a hearing back on May 13. “So there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year.”

Tabor also said at that time that the Air Force’s total MQ-9A fleet had shrunk to 135 aircraft. Official budget documents say the Air Force had 165 Reapers in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1 of last year. This had already marked a significant year-over-year decrease, down from 231 MQ-9As at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2025.

Despite Air Force needs, General Atomics told us the number of available Reapers is in short supply.

“Between parts in stock for new builds, and company-owned Reapers with some number of flight hours on them, there are less than 10 total ‘new’ MQ-9As available to any customers anywhere in the world,” General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley told TWZ earlier this week. “There are some number of decommissioned Reapers out there, and some number of those could potentially be brought back into service.”

One place the Air Force won’t be able to find any Reapers is in storage. 

“The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (The Boneyard) has zero MQ-9s in storage nor have they ever regenerated a MQ-9 back into service,” the spokesperson told us.

The MQ-9A is out of production. General Atomics has moved on to the MQ-9B, and currently offers those drones in multiple configurations. Though an evolution of the original Reaper, the core B model design differs in significant ways from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this broader family would have to be of the B model and worked into the existing production schedule.

How many MQ-9As the Air Force has lost in operations in and around the Middle East since January 2025 is unclear, but is understood to be substantial. As of May, “nearly 30 MQ-9 Reapers have been lost in the course” of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported, citing “people familiar with the matter.” This is on top of dozens of Reapers reportedly downed while conducting operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in the past year or so.

At the hearing last month, Tabor did not provide any official accounting of Reaper losses, but did acknowledge that “we are concerned about how they’ve attrited.”

In another effort to bolster the supply of operational Reapers, the Air Force told us that while it never regenerated MQ-1 Predator drones back into service, it was repurposing parts from these aircraft that the service stopped using in 2020. There were dozens on hand after they were retired.

More than 50 were sent to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) “and heavily cannibalized for spare parts for the MQ-9 aircraft,” the spokesperson told us.

Questions about the status of the MQ-1 fleet arose last week after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) acknowledged the loss of an “MQ-1” drone to Iranian fire. This has led many to question whether American forces are flying the venerable Predator again as a result of the Reaper losses.

At the time, the Air Force declined to say if it lost any of theirs and referred us to CENTCOM, which declined comment. However, on Friday, the Air Force told us that in addition to the Predators being used for parts, 20 had been transferred to the Navy. We reached out to them for comment. 

As we previously noted, it is also very possible, if not likely, that the uncrewed aircraft in question was an MQ-1C Gray Eagle, a related but different design still in active U.S. Army service. You can read more about this event in our original story here.

At the time of the incident, CENTCOM declined to tell us which variant of the MQ-1 was lost.

Regardless, the Air Force’s mad scramble to find additional Reapers highlights the value of having a high-flying, long-loitering drone that can gather intelligence and fire off munitions, no matter how slow it flies.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

With the U.S. Air Force set to still be flying B-52s at least into 2050, at which point the youngest examples will be some 88 years old, it has become common to quip about the bombers staying in service forever. However, the Air Force is now looking to conduct a formal review of its requirements to see whether the development of a successor might be warranted, and potentially sooner rather than later.

The Air Force is asking for $1 million in its budget request for the 2027 Fiscal Year to conduct a New Heavy Bomber Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Aviation Week was the first to report on the appearance of this AoA in the service’s budget documents. All branches of the U.S. military routinely use the AoA process to assess available options and further refine requirements for new weapon systems and other capabilities.

The Air Force currently has 76 B-52Hs in service. The last of these aircraft rolled off Boeing’s production line in 1962, though they have received numerous upgrades in the decades since then. These bombers continue to be in high demand as conventional long-range strike platforms, as evidenced by their heavy use in the latest conflict with Iran. They also play a key role in the air leg of America’s nuclear triad.

“A Heavy Bomber Analysis of Alternatives will begin in FY27 [Fiscal Year 2027] to analyze the future long range strike requirements to determine future B-52 requirements and costs and/or a new heavy bomber aircraft configuration and costs,” the Air Force’s latest proposed budget explains.

More specifically, the newly requested funding will support “initial planning activities to develop key performance parameters, key system attributes, and additional performance attributes for a follow-on heavy bomber in the USAF,” per the service’s budget documents. “The FY27 work scope will include key planning activities for programmatic, requirements, capabilities, and vendor options that could field [sic] in the future.”

The $1 million in funding for the AoA would come through a line item titled “Advanced Concept Demonstration” contained within the section of the Air Force’s budget for “B-52 System Improvements.” The service did not ask for or receive any money for this particular line item in Fiscal Year 2026, but did get nearly $4 million in funding for it in the preceding fiscal cycle.

The Fiscal Year 2025 funding supported a “classified Proof of Concept demonstration on the B-52,” according to the budget documents.

The Air Force is already in the midst of a massive, multi-billion-dollar modernization effort for the B-52 fleet. In the coming years, the bombers are set to get new engines, radars, communications capabilities, and more, as you can learn about in more detail here. The upgrades are so substantial that the aircraft will be redesignated B-52Js in the process. A host of new ordnance, including advanced hypersonic missiles and new nuclear weapons, is set to be integrated onto the B-52 fleet, as well.

B-52 Future Stratofortress: The Upgrades That Will Transform The B-52H Into The B-52J

Based on the Air Force’s current force structure plans, the B-52 is set to outlast both the B-1 and B-2 bombers, and serve alongside the forthcoming B-21. Despite its age, the B-52’s design has certain unique benefits, especially the space underneath its wings for the carriage of outsized payloads, including very large munitions. This has also led the bombers to play important roles in research and development and test and evaluation efforts in the past, including air-launching large crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

There is really nothing like the B-52 in production today anywhere globally, which has further contributed to its long service life. There is only one company in the United States currently building heavy bombers of any type, Northrop Grumman, with the B-21. The stealthy Raider is a very different aircraft designed to meet a very different set of requirements from the B-52, hence the Air Force’s stated plan to operate the two aircraft together for decades to come.

The Air Force’s budget documents do not specify any particular design or other requirements for a follow-on heavy bomber. One possibility could be an aircraft with a blended wing body (BWB) planform, something the service has already been exploring for other mission sets. A BWB aircraft could offer a limited degree of low-observability (stealthiness), as well as significant internal payload capacity, including the ability to carry outsized stores. This could also be paired with Air Force plans for a next-generation aerial refueling tanker, which we will come back to in a moment.

Whatever design requirements might emerge, a new heavy bomber to supplant the B-52 would not need to be as complex as the B-21. Still, it could involve a costly development cycle and risk, with few, if any, additional customers beyond the Air Force on the horizon. Today, only the United States, Russia, and China fly heavy bombers of any kind. Other countries, such as Australia, could be interested if the aircraft was uniquely cost-effective and could be exported.

The New Heavy Bomber AoA might also consider more radically different options for meeting even just some of the requirements that the B-52 fulfills today. As a tangential example, the Air Force has looked at a very wide array of concepts for next-generation aerial refueling capabilities, including stealthy, BWB, and business jet-based tankers, as well as packaging an aerial refueling boom in a ‘buddy store’ type pod that a fighter could carry.

The Air Force’s desire to conduct this AoA now also raises questions about the future of its existing B-52 modernization plans and the expected service life of the bombers. From what has been publicly disclosed to date, a fully upgraded force of B-52Js is still a decade away, at least, from becoming a reality. The re-engining effort and work on the new radars, the two biggest ticket items in the upgrade package, have also been beset by delays and cost growth.

Deciding to conduct an AoA does not commit the Air Force to pursue any particular course of action. As the budget documents note, the new heavy bomber review is also set to explore “future long range strike requirements to determine future B-52 requirements” that do not necessarily lead directly to a full follow-on program. We do not know what the service may have already concluded in this regard from the results of the classified demonstration in Fiscal Year 2025, either.

Regardless, despite the jokes, the B-52 cannot fly forever. At some point, the airframes will simply age out. The service is now clearly looking to put serious thought into what might come next.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Air Force’s budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year looks like it will bring a massive boost for the F-15EX program, with the planned buy now reportedly standing at 267 jets. TWZ was the first to report on the existence of what was then known as the F-15X, and has repeatedly argued in the past that investing in the Eagle II is a very logical decision for the Air Force. This is especially the case as the service looks to a future without its F-15E Strike Eagles, which have borne the brunt of combat operations for decades.

According to Breaking Defense, the Air Force’s fiscal 2027 budget, revealed yesterday, looks to buy another 24 F-15EXs at a cost of $3 billion, but this is just the start, according to the new plan. Ultimately, the service wants to more than double its previous Eagle II buy, which previously stood at 129 jets, with the total having fluctuated in recent years.

The new move is primarily a response to the need to “begin to recapitalize the aging F-15E fleet,” an Air Force spokesperson told Breaking Defense.

The plan will be supported by the Trump administration’s gargantuan defense budget for fiscal 2027, which requests approximately $1.5 trillion in total funding. You can read more about this development in our previous coverage of the budget, which includes munitions, missile defense, shipbuilding, and other programs, as well as aircraft. It’s important to note that this controversial proposal still has to pass through Congress, and some changes to it will be made, at the very least.

When the budget was first rolled out, it included funding sought for another 24 F-15EXs, but didn’t include details on the dramatic change to the planned total fleet size for the aircraft.

Now, the Air Force has made clear that it wants to keep the F-15EX production line open for longer, ensuring that it will receive both fifth-generation F-35As and F-15EXs — the latest iteration of the F-15 that first entered service with the Air Force in 1976. Ultimately, a third line will spin up once the sixth-generation F-47 combat jet enters series production. As for the F-35, these are still being bought in the latest budget request, and they also get a boost, but they are not currently being delivered with radar, as the Block 4 upgrade is in limbo.

Overall, the Air Force expects to see its budget increase by around a whopping 38 percent compared to fiscal 2026, to $338.8 billion. Of those funds, a significant proportion will go into procurement, driving this up by around 30 percent, although that covers all assets, and not just new fighters.

The budget also includes significant increases for weapon system sustainment and flying hours.

At the same time, the Air Force budget includes requests to retire a number of aging aircraft, something that the increased F-15EX numbers will help address.

In particular, for fiscal 2027, the Air Force wants to get rid of 20 F-15Es. These would be the oldest examples, which include the aircraft fitted with the less powerful Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engines.

Of course, it remains possible that lawmakers will block such a move, although having more F-15EXs to replace these jets should make it a more acceptable proposal.

Additional F-15EXs mean more capability for the Air Force.

While the F-15EX will almost certainly take on a multirole mission once it’s more established in service, the air-to-air mission is currently the priority due to the Air National Guard getting the first of these jets. These units are tasked with the homeland air sovereignty mission, which focuses on intercepting aircraft and shooting down potential barrages of cruise missiles and, now, long-range one-way attack drones. As we have outlined in the past, the F-15EX is ideal for this role, especially, and a much more reasonable proposition for this mission than a more complex fifth-generation platform:

In the homeland defense role, which is the bread and butter of the F-15C/D ANG units, the F-15EX’s payload, range, open architecture, very advanced electronic surveillance and warfare suite, and overall adaptability will be of incredible use over many decades of service. You do not need a stealth fighter to do this mission. In fact, much of what is traded in terms of reliability, performance, and sustainment cost for low observability hinders the homeland defense mission. This includes raw kinematic performance. The F-15 can get places very fast when it needs to and still has fuel left over to do something once it is there, which is critical for quick reaction alert missions.

The customer also seems very happy with the jets.

In its 2025 annual report, the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) provided an absolutely glowing assessment of the F-15EX, as you can read about here.

In terms of the air-to-air mission set, the report noted:

“Against the level of threat tested, the F-15EX is operationally effective in all its air superiority roles, including defensive and offensive counter-air against surrogate fifth-generation adversary aircraft, as well as basic air-to-ground capability against the tested threats.”

The reference to the F-15EX’s effectiveness against fifth-generation threats is especially notable. While it’s unclear exactly what kinds of threats are being referred to, a fifth-generation fighter will typically have a low-observable design, advanced ‘sensor-fused’ avionics, and generally high performance, among other attributes. In fact, very much the kind of threat that the Air Force would expect to face in a potential conflict with China.

Once the F-15EX takes on more offensive missions, it becomes even more relevant, especially as an F-15E successor, including carrying outsized payloads, among them hypersonic missiles, over long distances, which would likely be critical in a conflict in the Pacific.

But even without these offensive attributes, the Eagle II offers capabilities that are unique in the Air Force.

The F-15EX can efficiently carry 12 AIM-120s today, but that number could be nearly doubled in the future. Smaller air-to-air weapons could expand the F-15EX’s air-to-air magazine depth, too. Laser-guided rockets, now established as an F-15E weapon, would be another obvious candidate to arm the F-15EX, especially for counter-drone work.

Using the F-15EX as an arsenal ship of sorts, especially when equipped with long-range missiles, in cooperation with its stealthy counterparts operating silently and forward, is a tactic, among others, we have long discussed. Equally compelling is the case for the two-seat Eagle II serving as a ‘drone controller’ for the Air Force’s forthcoming Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).

Beyond all this, the F-15EX can carry a lot of payload over a long distance, to include traditional air-to-ground weapons. If the F-15EXs replace F-15Es, they will certainly have a focus on air-to-ground missions, as well.

Just as important as its capabilities and its proven airframe, the F-15EX promises to deliver a lot on the investment. The jets should provide lower operational and sustainment costs compared to both legacy and fifth-generation types, and over many decades.

In the past, Boeing told TWZ that the F-15EX has a 20,000-hour airframe service life. “This has been enabled by running a full-scale fatigue test long enough to show structure that is good beyond 20,000 hours, and structural redesigns purposely implemented by Boeing have addressed known fatigue-critical locations,” the company’s Rob Novotny explained. This is a major benefit of an extremely mature and evolved airframe. It will be able to serve for the better part of a century at common usage rates. When you amortize the unit cost over, in some cases, two and a half times the service life of most fast jets, it offers a very clear value proposition. The cost per flight hour is also well understood after decades of Eagle operations, including years of service of similar advanced variants.

This is not the first time that planned F-15EX numbers have been boosted, after dropping to a low of just 80 aircraft with the slashing of the procurement plan in 2023.

The program was then slated to grow from 98 aircraft to 129 in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal.

That decision came only weeks after President Trump made the surprise announcement that the Michigan Air National Guard, which is losing its A-10 attack jets, will be reequipped with the F-15EX.

At that point, Portland, Fresno, New Orleans, and two squadrons at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, were slated to get the F-15EX. This plan would have required some 90 jets out of the 98-aircraft inventory. Adding Michigan, and based on those squadrons expanding to 21 jets, would require 126 aircraft. That would have left just three aircraft to satisfy test, evaluation, and training requirements.

Increasing the planned buy to 267 jets opens up the possibility of creating 13 squadrons of 21 jets, with three F-15EXs left over. Exactly what final balance the Air Force decides upon remains to be seen, but whichever way you look at it, it’s a major boon for the Combat Air Forces.

It seems almost inevitable that at least some of the additional F-15EXs will be used to replace aging F-15Es.

The possibility of swapping out F-15Es for F-15EXs is something we discussed back in 2020.

In an official Justification and Approval document at the time, the Air Force stated:

“The objective of this program is to rapidly develop, integrate, and field the F-15EX weapon system to refresh/replace aging F-15C/D aircraft. A decision to also refresh F-15E aircraft has not yet been made, but remains an option.”

After four losses in Operation Epic Fury, the relatively small 215-strong Strike Eagle fleet remains in high demand with an enduring commitment in the U.S. Central Command region that leverages many impressive niche capabilities. With just six frontline Strike Eagle squadrons, at least one is always deployed. The F-15E is also capable of delivering nuclear weapons and is the first jet certified to employ the newest variant of the B61 tactical nuclear bomb.

Replacing these critical jets is fast becoming a priority, and one that the F-15EX is uniquely suited to fulfill.

The F-15E shares similar cutting-edge technology as found in the F-15EX. It has been upgraded with the Raytheon AN/APG-82(V)1 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, the new Advanced Display Core Processor (ADCP) II, and it too is receiving the new Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, or EPAWSS, self-protection system.

With the F-15EX numbers outlined in its fiscal 2027 budget request, the Air Force would be well placed to replace a significant proportion of its Strike Eagle inventory.

As well as the F-15E, the Air Force needs to replace F-16s and A-10s. At least some of the planned retirements of these types could be covered by F-15EXs. Having the line healthy and warm could allow for more Eagle IIs to be bought to cover the F-15E fleet and some F-16 and A-10 retirements beyond the 267 F-15EXs currently planned. This may make even more sense as the F-16 ages and becomes more expensive to operate, in particular.

With the Air Force at large feeling the effects of years of underinvestment in new fighters, and with China presenting a massive pacing challenge, the Air National Guard is now pushing Congress to approve multiyear funding for the acquisition of between 72 and 100 new fighters each year. Again, the Eagle II could help meet this need, although there are limits to what the production line can support, especially with foreign orders.

It remains to be seen exactly how the jets will be fielded and, as noted earlier, Congress will have to approve this budget request for it to be signed into law.

As it stands, however, the F-15EX appears to be going from strength to strength, with the Air Force increasingly enthusiastic about the latest iteration of the iconic Eagle.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com