USAF

The Pentagon has reached new framework agreements with three defense contractors as part of a strategy to acquire thousands of lower-cost air-launched cruise missiles in the coming years. The deals are directly in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. The Air Force has already said that it is aiming to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions in the next five years.

Under FAMM, the Air Force plans to acquire multiple types of lower-cost cruise missiles in different configurations. This will include ‘lugged’ types (FAMM-L) designed to be launched directly from hardpoints on aircraft, as well as ones intended to be employed from cargo planes via palletized munitions systems (FAMM-P). The service is also pursuing extended-range FAMM-BAR designs, with BAR here standing for “Beyond Adversary’s Reach.”

“Through [FAMM] agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5, the DoW will accelerate rapid validation of a new family of low-cost, air-launched cruise missiles – capabilities that will strengthen the Arsenal of Freedom,” according to a press release from the Pentagon today. “The agreements are a direct outcome of several Acquisition Transformation Strategy initiatives, including stabilizing demand signals, procuring industry-driven solutions, and maximizing flexible contracting.”

Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5 were also among the companies to receive framework deals from the Pentagon in May as part of plans to buy 10,000 lower-cost ground-launched cruise missiles through 2029. This is under a separate program called Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM). Leidos is part of the LCCM effort, as well. At that time, the Pentagon announced an additional agreement with Castelion regarding the production of 12,000 Blackbeard lower-cost hypersonic missiles. It’s also worth noting here that, since then, Norwegian defense contractor Kongsberg has aquired Zone 5.

“A key feature of these [FAMM] deals is the establishment of seven-year, multi-year agreements which, subject to congressional appropriations and enactment of all necessary authorizations, will be awarded upon the successful validation and competitive selection of the munitions,” today’s release adds. “The Department was granted 5-year authorization for FAMM in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is actively seeking congressional approval in the FY27 NDAA and Appropriations Bill for a 7-year multi-year procurement program to provide stability to new entrants.”

The Pentagon’s press release does not name any specific munitions.

Anduril has confirmed that its contribution will be versions of its Barracuda-500 design, and that it is aiming to start making deliveries under FAMM next year. The company will also be delivering a surface-launched version of the Barracuda-500 for the LCCM effort. Anduril first unveiled the full Barracuda family, which includes several tiers of what it calls “expendable autonomous air vehicles,” back in 2024, as you can read more about here. There are reports that at least one version of the Barracuda-500 has received an official U.S. military designation, AGM-189A.

Introducing: Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

“We joined the FAMM-L program in February 2026 and will execute the first ground and flight tests for Lug-Launched Barracuda-500M in the next several months,” Anduril noted in its release. “We completed the first successful flight test of Pallet-Launched Barracuda-500M in September 2024 and have since conducted dozens of successful flight tests that have further validated the maturity, performance, and modularity of the Barracuda-500 system, including Networked Collaborative Autonomy flights, terminal engagements, and payload performance validation testing.”

Zone 5 has also confirmed that it will be supplying its AGM-188A Rusty Dagger missile.

“By leveraging modern manufacturing and commercial technology, we are breaking the traditional cost curve, enabling the Department of War to field scalable, affordable capacity. The AGM-188 Rusty Dagger will deliver thousands of weapons per year for fighter and cargo aircraft employment but importantly without sacrificing exquisite performance,” Zone 5’s CEO Thomas Akers said in a statement. “Modern conflict has made one thing clear – the ability to rapidly scale production without sacrificing capability is critically important for air superiority. Rusty Dagger is built to deliver affordable, adaptable, highly survivable, incredibly lethal and rapidly deployable weapons that give the U.S. and our allies the ability to outpace and overwhelm evolving threats without being constrained by cost or production limitations.”

The deal with CoAspire is for that company’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile.

“The inclusion of CoAspire in this groundbreaking FAMM program multi-year agreement underscores CoAspire’s ability to revolutionize our country’s strike capabilities, offering a long-range solution that can be deployed across multiple platforms,” Doug Denneny, CoAspire’s CEO, Owner, and Founder, said in his own statement. “We, and our 56 first-tier suppliers across almost every state are excited to support the Air Force’s need to affordably procure thousands of FAMM cruise missiles over seven years. We applaud the Department’s inclusion of CoAspire as the only small business in this historic production opportunity. This is a true commitment to expand the defense industrial base while growing jobs across the US and bringing affordable cruise missile capabilities to the Air Force.”

RAACM Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile

Rusty Dagger and RAACM were both developed initially under the Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program. ERAM’s main initial focus has been on delivering lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. Zone 5 has previously confirmed that AGM-188A deliveries to Ukraine have begun, but it is unclear whether they are now being employed operationally. ERAM is known to be feeding into the FAMM effort, as well.

Overall, “offering both lugged and palletized variants, the FAMM provides the Air Force with flexible logistics, handling, and deployment options,” the Pentagon’s press release today notes.

“The multi-year approach utilizes firm-fixed-price contracting with a minimum quantity floor. Shares are split among all qualified vendors to ensure multiple production lines are positioned to surge,” the release further explains. “Contractors that meet or exceed production schedules will be eligible for additional procurement quantities – pending congressional appropriations – fostering a competitive environment that rewards efficiency and speed.”

These latter points highlight the fact that the FAMM program, as well as the LCCM effort, has a larger goal of addressing the critical need for strike munitions that can be produced at scale and in a cost-effective manner. TWZ has been calling attention to this broader reality for years, which has only been underscored by the latest conflict with Iran and a succession of other global crises. As we previously wrote after the announcement of the LCCM framework deals:

“Expenditures of critical air-to-surface and surface-to-surface munitions, as well as anti-air interceptors, by the U.S. military, as well as its allies and partners, in conflicts in recent years have only underscored the vital need to bolster these inventories. Demand for stand-off munitions, in particular, would be far greater in any future high-end fight against a near-peer adversary like China. That is a scenario where American forces could easily find themselves tasked to prosecute tens of thousands of targets, just in the opening phase.”

“Furthermore, existing munitions are often exquisite in design, and take months, or more often years, of lead time to produce. The Pentagon’s focus on “disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators,” rather than any of America’s long-established prime defense contractors, with its newly announced framework deals, is extremely significant in its own right. This is the latest example of a major shift away from awarding high-profile contracts to large legacy providers, helping to diversify the industrial base and promote competition. This also means moving away from companies accustomed to very long lead procurement and production arrangements.”

The Pentagon has also made clear that the FAMM framework agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5 do not preclude other companies from being brought into the program in the future. “The Department will also preserve competition opportunities for new vendors to be onboarded for additional quantities and new capabilities in the future as technology continues to advance,” per today’s release.

The market space for lower-cost cruise missiles has exploded in recent years in the United States and elsewhere globally. Relevant designs also occupy a space where the defining lines between these weapons and long-range kamikaze drones, as well as decoys, are increasingly blurry. Overlap between the FAMM and LCCM programs also highlights how many of these weapons are being adapted for launch from air, land, and maritime domains, which can help streamline production and supply chains, as well as offer operational benefits.

Taking deliberate steps to leave the door open to future competition reflects a larger push to avoid so-called ‘vendor lock’ in the U.S. defense contracting space. This has also been punctuated by moves to ensure greater government control of intellectual property rights and a focus on modular, open-architecture systems across major U.S. military acquisition efforts.

With the FAMM framework deals announced today, on top of the LCCM agreements back in May, the Pentagon is continuing to lay a vital foundation for the procurement of thousands of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

For several months, Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport was so packed with U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers deployed for the fight against Iran that officials in Jerusalem complained about the toll that presence was taking on airport operations. The issue came to a head on Tuesday, when Israel’s Transportation Minister placed a limit on how many of these jets can land at Ben Gurion Airport. The move comes despite an increase in fighting between the U.S. and Iran and with several Arab nations coming under fire from the Islamic Republic. Tuesday afternoon, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced a new round of strikes against Iranian targets as the naval blockade on that nation’s ports is being restored.

While an anonymously sourced Israeli news story stated that U.S. and Israeli officials are irate about this decision, three experts we spoke with suggest that despite ratcheted-up kinetic actions, the restrictions on tanker operations at Ben Gurion will be more of an inconvenience to U.S. forces than a major problem.

At issue is the tension faced by a very busy international airport operating at the peak of summer travel season, while also having to host dozens of American tankers deployed for high-tempo combat operations that are currently not happening.

“Hundreds of thousands of plane tickets were bought by Israelis to fly and enjoy their summer vacation,” Miri Regev said earlier on Tuesday. “We promised that we will enable commercial flights and we will not cancel a single ticket because of American refueling planes.”

“Therefore I have given instructions that we will not allow any U.S. refueling tankers to land at Ben Gurion Airport beyond the agreed number of 20 planes, and the remaining planes will land at Air Force bases.”

As we reported in the past, the U.S. Air Force began sending tankers to Ben Gurion in the lead-up to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran that began Feb. 28.

Nine KC-46 Pegasus and five KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling jets arrived at Ben Gurion in the days before hostilities began. The number of U.S. Air Force tankers, as well as the service’s cargo jets, at the airport has grown tremendously since then.

“A fleet of about 75 U.S. refuelers and cargo planes had parked at Ben Gurion Airport for many months, as part of the US military buildup in the region prior to the war,” the Times of Israel reported on Tuesday. “Following the partial removal of the tankers in recent weeks, more than 30 US refueling planes are estimated to be stationed at Ben Gurion Airport, crowding out civilian aircraft and creating a shortage of parking spaces.” 

In our previous reporting, we noted that dozens of U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft deployed to Ben Gurion Airport had been expected to stay in Israel at least until the end of this year, though those plans now appear to be in flux.

Satellite imagery indicates the US has withdrawn 32 of the roughly 60–72 aerial refueling tankers it had stationed at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, leaving about 32 as of early July 2026.

Source: @EGYOSINT pic.twitter.com/V8hKe2BfzJ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 7, 2026

Meanwhile, there are alternatives for the dozen or so KC-135s and KC-46s that now need a new home. The Air Force can operate tankers from several other bases in Israel as well as across the region. However, bases closer to Iran have come under dense Iranian fire and five tankers were reportedly damaged in an Iranian long-range strike on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia in March. Operating far forward during war time, such as at the traditional hub for these operations, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, isn’t possible due to the extreme risk posed by Iranian standoff weapons. Other bases, like Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan is already packed with aircraft with little room for dozens of tankers.

As we noted earlier in this piece, the tanker limit reportedly upset U.S. and Israeli officials alike.

“Senior officials at U.S. Central Command have contacted the IDF’s top brass and Israel’s defense establishment in recent hours following the Transportation Ministry’s decision Tuesday not to allow additional American refueling aircraft to land at Ben-Gurion Airport,” according to Israel’s Ynet news outlet. “According to sources familiar with the details, the Americans were angered by the decision and made clear that it directly harms the operational needs of U.S. forces operating in the region amid the escalation with Iran. They said the refueling aircraft are a vital component of the regional deterrence and defense array.”

TWZ cannot independently confirm Ynet‘s reporting. Earlier in the day, Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, CENTCOM’s spokesman, told us that the command “will continue working with our Israeli partners to best position U.S. aircraft to support operations.”

Hawkins declined to elaborate.

“Israel is a strong military ally, and we appreciate the warm hospitality for American forces as we work shoulder to shoulder in promoting regional security and stability,” Hawkins stated.

Meanwhile, as we have noted in earlier reporting, the U.S. has already returned F-22 Raptors that were flying out of Ovda Air Base in Israel back to the United States. Other aircraft, such as A-10s and F-15Es, have also returned home from or have been replaced in the CENTCOM region. So clearly there is a lot of shifting of aviation assets taking place even amid current operations.

A former senior U.S. Air Force leader acknowledged the tensions inherent in operating military aircraft for combat operations out of a civilian airport. However, Ben Gurion is considered one of the most important airfields in the region, the former official told us. 

Ben Gurion’s location, situated just to the southeast of Tel Aviv, roughly in the center of the country, is a big factor, both in terms of geography and Israel’s vaunted integrated air defense system (IADS), the former leader added.

Still, he suggested that the new limits at Ben Gurion don’t automatically mean a restriction in U.S. air operations against Iran or in support of partner forces.

Given the existing options in the region, CENTCOM and the Air Force will be looking at what runway, ramp space, and equipment availability there is elsewhere.

“Flow control is something we’re always concerned about during combat operations,” he explained, adding that planners will consider distance to where the tankers have to orbit, proximity to potential threats, and the capacity to launch sorties.

“They really work in advance to create the best mix of protection, survivability, and an operational envelope,” the former senior leader noted.

Retired Air Force Col. Troy Pananon, who once commanded Mildenhall Air Base, a tanker installation in the U.K., surmised that the Ben Gurion restrictions will have limited effects.

“I would say the base has an impact on the overall plan, but it doesn’t limit the ability to execute,” said Pananon, who was quick to point out he has no inside information about current operations. “Tanker planners can and should modify the plan to ensure there is enough fuel airborne in the AOR to accommodate the requirements for the receivers servicing the designated targets for the day. In other words, if they are limited in capacity at base A, they can or will supplement from base B, or adjust loiter times or targets.”

“Air campaigns by nature are a fluid event and stresses the importance of planners, leadership and C2 [command and control,” he added.

Israel is carrying out a balancing act when it comes to Ben Gurion, a high-ranking IDF official told us.

The airport “is effectively Israel’s only major international civilian airport,” he noted. “Haifa and Ramon handle only a very small fraction of Israel’s civilian air traffic. Operationally, Ben Gurion can accommodate roughly 20 U.S. Air Force refueling tankers. Beyond that number, the impact on civilian aviation becomes significant.”

However, “at the same time, Ben Gurion is arguably the safest airport in the region for U.S. aircraft,” the IDF official pointed out. “That is why discussions are currently focused on finding the right balance between parking tankers at Ben Gurion and dispersing them among Israeli Air Force bases. In my view, this is fundamentally an operational, economic and civil aviation issue, not a political one.”

The issue of U.S. Air Force tankers at Ben Gurion interfering with civil aviation is not new.

“The presence of the aircraft—not the U.S. military—is causing significant operational difficulties at Ben Gurion Airport, as they are parked almost everywhere possible at the airport,” Israel’s N12 News reported on X back in May.

בישראל התקבלו מסרים מהאמריקנים שלפיהם עשרות מטוסי התדלוק המוצבים בנמל התעופה בן גוריון צפויים להישאר בארץ לפחות עד סוף השנה האזרחית. נוכחות המטוסים שלא הצבא האמריקני מעוררת קשיים משמעותיים בתפעולו של נתב”ג, שכן הם חונים כמעט בכל מקום אפשרי בנמל@Dean_Fisher_

— החדשות – N12 (@N12News) May 18, 2026

How long the limitations at Ben Gurion last remains an open question, especially should Israel find itself at war again with Iran. 

As we pointed out in previous reporting, the KC-46s and KC-135s now at Ben Gurion alone are a tanker force far larger than what the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has in its inventory today. Each KC-46 also carries more fuel to offload to receivers than a KC-707 or a KC-135. During Epic Fury, when both the U.S. and Israel were attacking Iran, U.S. tankers gassed up IAF jets.

All this being said, in a time of war, these restrictions would be quickly lifted and civilian flights would decline. While moving aircraft around to other bases and still providing the majority of the refueling capacity available before the tankers’ exodus from Tel Aviv will certainly be possible, sortie rates and durations for receiver aircraft could still suffer in a sudden crisis. Seeing as these are tankers, their availability and proximity to their ‘customers’ has downstream effects. It comes down to how much gas is available in the sky at any given time versus the needs of the air operation. Luckily, America’s tanker crews and planners are masters at juggling their assets to make sure any changes in basing has a minimal impact on commanders’ needs.

The Israeli Transportation Minister’s decision comes as the prospects for a diplomatic settlement of the tensions between the U.S. and Iran seem dimmer than at any point since a ceasefire was agreed to on April 8.

As we noted earlier in this piece, CENTCOM forces “began launching an additional round of strikes on Iran to continue degrading Iranian capabilities used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” the command stated on X. “The strikes are taking place as American forces prepare to resume the naval blockade against Iranian ports and coastal areas. The blockade goes into effect at 4 p.m. ET.”

At 3 p.m. ET today, U.S. Central Command forces began launching an additional round of strikes against Iran to continue degrading Iranian capabilities used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes are taking place as American forces prepare to resume the…

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 14, 2026

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “warned Iran on Tuesday against launching future attacks on Israel, saying Tehran would face a far harsher response than in previous confrontations,” the Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday.

“Do not count on it being quiet if you attack us,” Netanyahu said while speaking at the Negev Conference in Dimona. “Do not count on a rerun; this will be a different event, much more powerful.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu, today, at the Negev Conference in Dimona – in a message to Iran’s leaders:
“We are prepared for any scenario. I can tell you only one thing, and I will say this to the leaders of Iran: Do not count on it being quiet if you attack us. Do not count on a… pic.twitter.com/tbgRd7PNon

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) July 14, 2026

Given all this, it does not appear there will be much of a reduction in the need for U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers in the Middle East. However, where they will be based remains in flux.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The U.S. Air Force has officially decided that the B-21 Raider will be flown by a crew consisting of two pilots, just like the B-2 is today. The service had previously considered operating the bomber with just one pilot alongside a weapon systems officer (WSO), or ‘wizzo.’ The plan is now to transition some number of qualifying WSOs and combat systems officers (CSOs) to become pilots for the future B-21 fleet.

The formal announcement about the standard two-pilot crew complement for the B-21 came yesterday. This follows the Air Force’s announcement in June that an operational test pilot had taken the controls of a pre-production Raider for the first time.

“Following careful analysis of the B-21’s advanced capabilities, Air Force leadership determined that a two-pilot configuration optimally supports the aircraft’s mission profile,” according to an official release. “To maximize the lethality and survivability of the Raider, it is imperative to retain the deep tactical and combat experience currently residing within the WSO and CSO communities.”

“The Air Force is establishing a pilot transition program for select weapons system officers and combat systems officers who will be chosen to attend pilot training with a follow-on assignment to the B-21,” the release added. “Eligible officers will be provided with additional information via command channels when available.”

The Raider is still in development, but the Air Force is now aiming to begin fielding the bombers next year at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. The stated plan remains to acquire at least 100 B-21s, but service officials have said they plan to roll out a more precise figure next year, which is widely expected to be larger. This will also have an impact on the total number of pilots required.

“The pilots will be 11B bomber pilots and the Air Force is still working through the number of B-21 pilots we will have,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ directly today when asked for more information about the crewing decision.

“11B” here is the basic Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for bomber pilots. Suffixes are used to reflect specific bomber types that individuals are assigned to fly. This administrative code should not in any way be confused with the U.S. Army’s 11B Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) for infantrymen.

As mentioned, the standard crew complement for a B-2 bomber is also two pilots. There is also a small cot that allows for one pilot to sleep while the other flies during portions of a sortie, which can sometimes stretch across multiple days. Having two pilots also offers an additional margin of safety. That being said, for single-pilot B-21 operations, the Air Force could have provided WSOs with additional training to be able to fly the aircraft in an emergency.

“I think the B-21 is going to be largely like the B-2 in how it supports the crews,” Air Force Gen. Stephen Davis, head of Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), told TWZ in an interview with our Howard Altman in January. “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.”

Exclusive First Look: Step inside the cockpit of a B-2 stealth bomber

This was Davis’ first interview since taking charge of AFGSC, which oversees the Air Force’s bomber fleets, as well as other strategic capabilities. His predecessor, now-retired Gen. Thomas Bussiere, had been the one to recommend operating the B-21 with one pilot and one WSO.

“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,” Davis said in his interview with us when asked about this. “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.”

This latter point is particularly notable now that the Air Force has formally announced that it will transition WSOs and CSOs into B-21 pilots.

“With B-21 pilots, it’s a different plane, as it has a number of different capabilities,” Davis had added. “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.”

It remains unclear whether or not the Air Force might still consider single-pilot B-21 operations down the line. There was at least a stated desire for an optionally piloted mode, or the means to rapidly integrate one, as part of the requirements for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program that led to the Raider. TWZ highlighted this all the way back in 2017 after we obtained a heavily redacted copy of a Department of Defense Inspector General report titled “Audit of the Acquisition of the Long Range Strike Bomber,” via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That report was dated September 8, 2015, the same year Northrop Grumman was chosen as the winner of the LRS-B competition.

When reports first emerged that the Air Force was considering single-pilot B-21 operations in November 2025, TWZ pointed out that there were strong signs that a high level of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) infused autonomy had already been baked into the design.

While those capabilities might someday open doors to pilot-optional or uncrewed modes for the B-21, they could also be very beneficial for human pilots flying the bombers now. For years now, the U.S. military has been heavily investing publicly in ‘virtual co-pilot’ type technologies to increase safety margins and reduce workload for aircrew on fixed-wing planes and helicopters. This is on top of any work being done in the classified realm.

As we wrote previously:

“Since the early 2010s, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been notably supporting the development of AI ‘co-pilots’ that could be used on helicopters and fixed aircraft to help increase safety margins and reduce workload for human pilots through a program called the Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System (ALIAS). ALIAS’ work has been centered on Lockheed Martin’s MATRIX autonomy flight control software package.”

Sikorsky Completes DARPA ALIAS Phase 2 Autonomous Flight

“Other companies, such as Shield AI and Merlin, have been developing similar autonomy packages and steadily growing their capabilities. Merlin has been notably working toward integrating its autonomy software onto an Air Force KC-135 tanker. Shield AI’s Hivemind has already been integrated onto a host of crewed and uncrewed platforms. It is also worth noting that the B-21 has been in development for more than a decade, and its capabilities in this regard would have been way ahead of its time.”

Teaming Autonomous Jets: Hivemind + MQM-178 Firejets

“An AI agent would offer a B-21 crew additional layers of redundancy and added safety margins, as well as just helping to reduce total workload, which could offset risks associated with having just one pilot. If the functions of that virtual co-pilot extend to offering well-formulated tactical advice, such as whether or not to attack, jam, or avoid a threat altogether along the B-21’s carefully calculated ‘blue line’ flight path, it could also offer an important boost in survivability and tactical flexibility.”

Otherwise, the B-21 continues to be a model acquisition program that has been able to stay largely on schedule and budget, despite at least some hurdles, according to both U.S. military officials and members of Congress. In February, the Air Force announced that it was boosting the rate of production of the bombers to help accelerate their fielding.

When the first B-21 touches down at Ellsworth Air Force Base, we can now expect it to be flown by a crew consisting of two pilots.

Howard Altman contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

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