logo
Air-Launched ‘Fighter Drone' Collaborative Combat Aircraft Being Eyed By USAF

Air-Launched ‘Fighter Drone' Collaborative Combat Aircraft Being Eyed By USAF

Yahoo13-05-2025

The U.S. Air Force is looking into the idea of air-launching Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones from other airplanes in addition to other ways of reducing dependence on traditional runways. Air-launched CCAs also fit in with the service's larger vision of CCAs having a disruptive impact on future aerial combat and presenting enemies with new challenges to address. At the same time, launching CCAs from mothership aircraft would present other operational challenges and limitations that would have to be overcome.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel raised the possibility of procuring air-launched CCAs on May 8 during a virtual talk hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association's Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. Kunkel is currently Director of Force Design, Integration, and Wargaming and Deputy Chief of Staff for Air Force Futures at the Air Force's headquarters at the Pentagon.
The Air Force's CCA program is being run in iterative development cycles. General Atomics and Anduril are currently developing what have now been designated as the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A as part of the program's first phase, Increment 1. Requirements for the follow-on Increment 2 are now in the latter stages of being finalized, and Kunkel has previously said his service may be leaning toward lower-cost and less complex designs for the second tranche. The Air Force has said it looking to acquire between 100 and 150 Increment 1 CCAs, and around 1,000 of the drones, at least, across all the future increments.
'As you look at how we generate combat power and the number of sites we can use, there's something to a shorter takeoff length, and there's something to vertical takeoff,' Kunkel said. 'We [have] got to figure out what that takes, because generally, when you do a vertical takeoff aircraft, you decrease the payload, you decrease the range. And so there's a balance that we need to strike here as we're thinking about how we generate combat power, how survivable it is, but then what the requirements are on the aircraft in terms of payload and range? But we're absolutely looking at that and what it takes.'
'We're also looking at, maybe we don't generate them [CCAs] from the ground at all,' he continued. 'Maybe we generate them by dropping them out of the aircraft. And so those are, those are all concepts we're looking at. But you're absolutely right. We don't necessarily want to be tied to air bases for our CCAs.'
YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A are both designed to take off and land from traditional runways, but are already being engineered from the ground up to align with the Air Force's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concepts of operations. ACE focuses heavily on the ability to deploy in irregular ways to a disaggregated array of operating locations, which include remote sites with limited infrastructure. This, in turn, helps upend enemy targeting cycles and reduces vulnerability. General Atomics has previously said the YFQ-42A incorporates specific design features that could help with operations from shorter and less well-maintained runways. The Fury design that serves as a base for Anduril's CCA, originally developed by Blue Force Technologies, also has features that allow for shorter field performance.
TWZ regularly highlights how CCAs with complete runway independence, or at least independence from traditional airstrips, could be especially attractive additions in the context of the ACE construct. Beyond being less vulnerable to attacks that will stop their operations, runway-independent CCAs would be able to launch and/or recover from a much larger pool of potential operating locations, which could create even more uncertainty for opponents.
Air Force officials have made clear that they expect to have to be able to fight while under attack during any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. Based on prior discussions about expected range capabilities, at least for CCA Increment 1, airfields that would put the drones within direct reach of likely operating areas in the Indo-Pacific region would be especially vulnerable to enemy bombardment.
'We know that the adversary is going to try and target our bases,' Maj. Gen. Kunkel said last week in an obvious reference to China. 'For the last 30 years, they've developed a rocket force. They've developed cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and all these things are meant to counter our bases, meant to keep us from reliably generating combat power from bases. One of the ways to thin out the adversary's mass is to put yourself in multiple locations.'
So, 'the ability to achieve air superiority in the future is going to be more complex, and there's a couple things that we're going to need. We're going to need mass, and we're going to need some type of affordable mass that can counter our adversaries where they are. And so CCAs help us out with achieving affordable mass,' he continued. 'The other thing that CCAs do that some people often overlook is they increase complexity for the adversary.'
'As an air-to-air guy, you know that the easiest threat picture to counter is the 'Hey, diddle, diddle up the middle.'' Kunkel continued. With 'the ability to position CCAs and posture them in different places in a theater, you can increase the complexity of the picture that our adversaries see dramatically. And so that's another point that we've found, is increasing dilemmas for the adversary, increasing the complexity of the picture that they're going to see, increasing the complexity of what it takes for them to counter us.'
Being able to air-launch at least some types of CCAs would only add to the complexities for a defender, who might suddenly find themselves facing a force that has multiplied substantially from what was originally seen on their sensors. Drones launched in mid-air could also approach a target area from multiple vectors at once or break off from the main group to head to a different adjacent operating area.
Less survivable aircraft could also air-launch CCAs from rear areas and send them into higher-risk zones where more survivable aircraft like crewed stealth fighters could then take control. Air-launched CCAs could also offer valuable added on-station time for more localized missions like defending high-value, but more vulnerable assets, such as airborne early warning and control, tanker aircraft. These aircraft could even be launched on warning only when needed after a threat is detected.
A very long-range and stealthy platform with a high payload capacity, like the forthcoming B-21 Raider bomber, might also be able to extend its reach even further by launching CCAs inside highly contested airspace. This could be for defense or offensive mission needs. The Air Force has separately been exploring how CCAs might pair with the B-21, in general. The Air Force also has a formal agreement with the Navy and the Marine Corps regarding the development of CCAs that includes a requirement for a common architecture that allows for seamless exchange of control during operations.
'So as we're charting our path, they're charting their path, and you'll see that we're going down the same road,' Kunkel said. 'What we really want to get ourselves to is this interconnectedness, and this being able to pull up to a CCA, whether it's an Air Force CCA or a Navy CCA, and being able to operate it.'
'As you look at CCAs, they're going to be up in the sky, and there's going to be opportunities to be controlled by multiple different aircraft,' he added.
All of this still leaves open key questions about where and how air-launched CCAs might be recovered after missions, especially if bases closer to operating areas are deemed too high risk or if missions take the drones deep inside contested airspace. Any need to save range capacity to be able to recover at a location further away from hostile threats would trim back a drone's useful combat radius and limit on-station time after it arrives at its designated objective area. How those drones would be regenerated for other air-launched missions once recovered at remote locales is also another question that needs to be answered.
Mid-air refueling capability is something that's been on the table for future CCAs, wherever they are launched and/or recovered from, and that could help extend the time on station and overall reach of CCAs. It could also open up better recovery options for air-launched and ground-launched variants alike. At the same time, this would add complexity to the drone's design and impact its cost. The U.S. military has also been struggling for years already to meet existing demands for tanker support, which would only grow in scale and complexity in any future high-end conflict. Finding aerial refueling options that can survive in more contested airspace presents its own challenges.
Air-launched CCAs designed to be outright expendable or at least optionally recoverable might be another option, but one that would demand a very low-cost to have any chance of being operationally relevant. It is worth remembering here that the Navy has previously presented a vision for lower-cost CCAs that are 'consumable,' and that would be expended as one-way-attack munitions or training targets at the end of very short service lives that can include as few as a handful of missions.
It's important to note that the idea of air-launching 'loyal wingman' type drones is not new, and is something the Air Force in particular has been experimenting with for years now. The Air Force has also been cooperating with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on the LongShot air-launched drone program, the stated goal of which is 'to disrupt the paradigm of air combat operations by demonstrating an unmanned air-launched vehicle capable of employing current air-to-air weapons, significantly increasing engagement range and mission effectiveness' of fighters or bombers. In other words, this is an air-to-air missile carrier of sorts.
In 2023, DARPA chose General Atomics to continue developing its LongShot design – renderings of which are seen at the top of this story and below – with an eye toward a first flight before the end of that year. As of March 2024, the expected timetable for the drone's maiden flight had slipped to Fiscal Year 2025, which began last October, per Pentagon budget documents. Whether or not LongShot has flown now is unclear. How LongShot may now tie in to the Air Force's CCA program is unknown.
The possibility of air-launched CCAs might also align with Maj. Gen. Kunkel last month about how the program's focus could be leaning toward lower-cost and less complex drones for Increment 2. As he mentioned last week, there are still questions about capability tradeoffs that could come with various kinds of runway-independent designs.
Regardless, 'we want to provide dilemmas for the adversary that they weren't even thinking of. Everything needs to be a threat.'
The future CCA force, which might include air-launched types, is a central part of that vision.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Offers F-47 Sixth-Gen Fighter To Japan: Reports
Trump Offers F-47 Sixth-Gen Fighter To Japan: Reports

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Offers F-47 Sixth-Gen Fighter To Japan: Reports

Boeing's F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter has been pitched to Japan by U.S. President Donald Trump, according to reports. The idea of an export-configured F-47 was brought up by Trump when he announced Boeing's win in the U.S. Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) manned combat jet initiative in March. Meanwhile, Japan is reportedly also considering increasing its purchase of F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighters, prompted by concerns over the timeline for the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), a sixth-generation combat jet being pursued jointly by Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. A possible sale of the F-47 to Tokyo was raised during a phone call between Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba last week, according to a report from the Japanese daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun. According to this source, the short-notice call was confirmed by Ishiba administration officials and came just before a visit to the United States by Ryosei Akazawa, Japan's top trade negotiator, for talks on Trump's economic tariffs. Trump and Ishiba are said to have discussed the strengthening of the U.S.-Japanese military alliance, with the U.S. leader asking whether the Japanese prime minister agreed that '47' is a good number. The new Boeing fighter received the Mission Design Series designation F-47, echoing the fact that Trump is the 47th U.S. president. The Asahi Shimbun also reports that Trump praised the F-22 Raptor and the so-called F-55, a purported development of the F-35 that the U.S. president first mentioned while talking to the press earlier this month. Trump has described the F-55 as a twin-engined F-35, but there has been no confirmation from the manufacturer or the Pentagon that such an aircraft is in the works. According to Japanese officials, Trump asked whether Ishiba was interested in U.S.-made fighters and promised to get 'the best' for Japan. The same officials noted that the offer of buying U.S. combat jets was not tied to any tariff negotiations. At this stage, there's no sign that Tokyo is actively looking to add a new type of fighter jet to its inventory, although earlier this year, Ishiba did disclose an interest in buying C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft from the United States. With Boeing's C-17 production line now shuttered, any such aircraft would have to be transferred from the U.S. Air Force or from an allied operator inventory. Officially, at least, Japan is still committed to the GCAP program, which aims to field a sixth-generation crewed fighter, which is known in the United Kingdom as Tempest. You can read more about what we know of this aircraft and its planned capabilities here. However, there are now indications that Japan may be concerned that the Tempest fighter will not be ready for service soon enough for its requirements. Citing two unnamed defense sources, Reuters reports today that Japan is looking at ways of filling a gap in its fighter fleet pending the likely delayed arrival of GCAP. One of those sources blamed a lack of urgency on the part of Italy and the United Kingdom for the slow pace of the GCAP initiative, while the other noted it was taking too long to align each country's concept of how the aircraft will operate. A British Ministry of Defense spokesperson told Reuters that: 'The United Kingdom, Italy and Japan are focused on delivering a next-generation combat aircraft for 2035 and we are making strong progress.' Recently, however, at least one senior British official in the GCAP team has mentioned the goal for Tempest replacing the U.K. Royal Air Force's Typhoon in the 2040s. The first option for Japan involves buying additional F-35s. Already, Japan is the largest overseas customer for the aircraft. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) is in the process of introducing 147 Joint Strike Fighters, in the form of 105 conventional takeoff and landing F-35As and 42 short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35Bs. The STOVL jets will go aboard Japan's two Izumo class helicopter carriers, which have been modified to operate F-35Bs. Reuters reports that senior officials in Tokyo are now discussing the possibility of buying more F-35s, although the numbers involved are unclear. Currently, Japan has received 43 F-35As, while six F-35Bs have been delayed. Overall, delays in F-35 deliveries related to the introduction of critical upgrades have impacted the program significantly, and it's unclear how quickly the aircraft could be provided to Japan, even if they were to be ordered imminently. 'We have already paid for many items, and they haven't arrived,' a senior lawmaker from Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party told Reuters about the current F-35 delays. 'It's not right to be told to buy more when previous orders haven't been fulfilled.' However, if Japan does opt for more F-35s, that could come with a potential economic advantage, serving as a bargaining chip for Tokyo amid tariff talks with Washington. 'Japan's purchase of defense equipment would contribute to the U.S. trade surplus, so in that sense, it could be considered [in trade talks],' Ryosei Akazawa told reporters yesterday. The second option is to upgrade Japan's existing fourth-generation fighters. These comprise around 85 Mitsubishi F-2s and approximately 200 F-15Js. Already, 68 of the F-15Js have been earmarked for a long-awaited upgrade that will take them to F-15JSI Japanese Super Interceptor standard with the addition of new radar, electronic warfare systems, weapons, and possibly more. An upgrade to the F-2s would be a new development, but it would help ensure combat air capability until the arrival of the GCAP. However, were Japan to buy more F-35s, that could threaten the future of its involvement in GCAP altogether, and if the Japanese were to leave the program, it's far from certain whether Italy and the United Kingdom would be able to continue without them. Even with Japanese participation, there are questions about the feasibility of GCAP, not least because of the enormous pressure on the U.K. defense budget with various other big-ticket programs competing for funds. Provided that Trump's tentative offer of F-47s for Japan is firmed up, that would provide another route for Japan to acquire a sixth-generation fighter, on a similar or potentially more favorable timeline than GCAP. The F-22 was never offered for export, on account of the sensitive nature of its technologies, as you can read about here. But it seems increasingly likely that the F-47, or a version of it, might be sold. As one of America's closest military allies, Japan would be well-positioned to buy it, should it be offered. When announcing the F-47 contract award, Trump said that U.S. allies 'are calling constantly' with a view to obtaining an export version of the NGAD fighter. He said that the United States would be selling them to 'certain allies … perhaps toned-down versions. We'd like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense, because someday, maybe they're not our allies, right?' For Japan, or any other potential export customer, the big problem is likely to be the cost, with the baseline F-47's unit cost expected to be at least twice that of an F-35, or in the $180 million to $200 million range, based on publicly available information. On the other hand, a somewhat downgraded NGAD crewed fighter, which should also be notably cheaper, could be a very interesting option for Japan, as an alternative to GCAP. It would give Japan the chance of operating America's top fighter, something it was never allowed to do with the F-22. It would also allow the JASDF to integrate more seamlessly with its U.S. counterparts, which is even more important than for European allies. Moreover, it could open the door to other export opportunities, notably Australia, which is increasingly cooperating with both the United States and Japan. For the U.S. Air Force, F-47 foreign sales would increase production numbers and could lower unit costs, as well as making maintenance less expensive. U.S. officials are already talking about different future iterations of the NGAD combat jet. The former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, Andrew Hunter, recently suggested that the baseline F-47 might just be 'Increment 1' of the NGAD crewed combat jet initiative. An export-optimized increment would seem to make a lot of sense. On the other hand, buying more F-35s or F-47s would come with disadvantages, including reliance on the United States for operational support and sustainment at a time when even close allies are having doubts about the reliability of Washington as a strategic partner. With Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) having a major stake in GCAP, Japan will have sovereign control of the aircraft once it's delivered, meaning, for example, that it would be able to adapt or upgrade them without U.S. approval. Tokyo would also benefit from MHI's industrial partnership in GCAP, with revenues from every sale. For years now, Japan has been steadily increasing its military budget as it faces what its 2024 defense white paper described as 'the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II.' The three primary threats are identified as China's ambitions toward its southwestern archipelago, as well as Russian and North Korean missile and nuclear programs. While stepping away from the GCAP effort altogether would have considerable repercussions, far beyond Japan, further delays to that program might well force Tokyo to look at other options for its fighter force. Contact the author: thomas@

Trump's Air Force One Debacle Leaves The U.S. With A Weaker Wartime Command Post
Trump's Air Force One Debacle Leaves The U.S. With A Weaker Wartime Command Post

Yahoo

time16 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's Air Force One Debacle Leaves The U.S. With A Weaker Wartime Command Post

WASHINGTON — If Donald Trump wants someone to blame for his still having to ride around in a 40-year-old Air Force One, he might consider starting with a long look in the mirror. And if Americans want someone to blame for their future presidents being saddled with a plane lacking a key wartime capability, they should consider taking a long look at the current president. The drama surrounding Trump's turn to the Qatari royal family for a 747 luxurious enough to meet his needs as he attacks Boeing for not finishing replacement jets quickly enough hides a pair of simple facts: The entire debacle began with Trump's self-image as a top-notch 'deal maker,' and his meddling will leave future presidents with planes unable to refuel in flight, severely degrading their utility in an actual war. Before he even took office the first time in 2017, Trump was already boasting that he would force Boeing — which had been on pace to deliver two new, purpose-built 747s by the end of that term — to slash its contract price. To meet Trump's demands, the Air Force agreed to abandon a process already years in progress and instead purchase and retrofit two already built planes whose buyer had gone bankrupt. Among the features dropped from the required specifications list was in-flight refueling, thereby reducing the amount of time a commander-in-chief can remain aloft to only about 15 hours, rather than a week or more. If a plane carrying the president cannot refuel in midair, that severely limits how and where a president can travel and be kept out of harm's way in the event of a major attack on the United States. 'That was a decision that was not made by the Air Force but made by the White House,' then-Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told senators at a hearing in 2017, conceding that, in the event of an attack on the United States, the lack of midair refueling capabilities 'will certainly be a limiting factor and we'll have to plan accordingly.' What's more, it's unclear whether Trump's interference in the program will have saved taxpayers a dime. While the 'fixed price' contract means that Boeing was forced to absorb their cost overruns, the delays Trump caused have required the Air Force to spend millions more on repairs and upkeep of the existing 747s that entered service under George H. W. Bush in 1990. And none of that includes the new burden taxpayers must now bear to transform Qatar's gift to Trump — the most expensive ever given by a foreign nation to an American president and an apparent violation of the Constitution's clear prohibition against them — into an Air Force One before he takes it with him to his presidential library when he leaves office, as he says he intends to do. Modifying the plane could take many months or even years, meaning those hundreds of millions of dollars or more will be spent so Trump can use the plane for as little as several months or potentially not at all, assuming that he, in fact, leaves office in 2029 as the Constitution requires. White House officials did not respond to HuffPost queries on this topic, and the Air Force said the contract to modify the Qatari jet for Trump's interim use was deemed classified, even though it has previously put out routine press releases on the Air Force One program. Trump himself, in a discussion of Qatar's jet with Fox News host Sean Hannity, said he wanted the new plane because the current Air Force One is not big and 'impressive' enough. 'When you land and you see Saudi Arabia and you see UAE and you see Qatar and you see all these, and they have these brand-new Boeing 747s mostly, and you see ours next to it,' Trump said en route to the Arabian Peninsula earlier this month. 'It's much smaller, it's much less impressive.' Military aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia pointed out that all the problems with the program are entirely of Trump's making, and that had the president kept his hands off the process that began during the Obama administration, he would likely already be flying in the replacement planes. 'This was Trump trying to look like a great negotiator,' Aboulafia said. 'Almost certainly he'd be flying in a new jet now.' Like so much involving U.S. policy and controversy in recent years, it began with a Trump tweet. 'Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!' he wrote a month after winning the 2016 election for president, but a good six weeks before taking office. Trump had built his reputation by depicting a smart and savvy businessman as the host of the reality show 'The Apprentice,' and his declaration that the U.S. government was being taken advantage of by Boeing in its still-under-negotiation contract for two replacement Air Force One jets pushed that same theme. 'I don't want a plane to fly around in that costs $4.2 billion,' he told an audience at one of his rallies in Pennsylvania 10 days later. 'We're going to cut the price way down ― way, way down.' Trump for years has presented himself as an expert on aircraft, possibly because he has owned some and briefly ran a small airline before it went under, yet expresses views that suggest he is not. For example, he once bragged that his personal Boeing 757 was actually larger than Air Force One, even though it was 75 feet shorter in length and a fraction of the weight. In any event, Trump's vows to save money on the new Air Force One contract led Boeing's CEO to travel to Trump's country club home in Palm Beach, Florida, to lay out options for reducing costs for the two planes. Trump, barely a month after taking office, was already boasting he had cut $1 billion from the price. (The White House within weeks reduced the claimed savings to 'millions.') Part of the plan was to acquire the planes on the cheap. The Russian airline Transaero had ordered two 747-8s but had subsequently gone bankrupt. The planes were being stored in the Mojave Desert to avoid corrosion, and Boeing was eager to unload them. While the final sale price was never disclosed, it was believed the government paid considerably less than the $380 million per plane list price. But the primary mission of the jets that serve as Air Force One is actually to serve as command-and-control military platforms, if the need arises, and acquiring fuselages is a mere first step. The existing pair of 747-200s was built in the mid- and late-1980s and put in service in 1990. They have the plumbing for in-flight refueling, shielded electronics against the electromagnetic pulses from nuclear weapons blasts, advanced systems for encrypted communications, several different countermeasures against missiles and the ability to generate enough electricity to power it all. All these and likely more were on the list of features that the Air Force had wanted in the new 747s. It turns out, though, that tearing down an already completed passenger liner and installing the required configuration and equipment was considerably more difficult than building a new one 'in-line' at Boeing's assembly plant in Everett, Washington. Aboulafia compared it to building a house from scratch with all the amenities you want planned in ahead of time, compared to buying an existing house and having to tear out walls and floors, replacing all the wiring, plumbing and duct work and then finishing everything out. 'It's extremely difficult to do as a retrofit,' he said of the major modifications needed. 'It's much easier to do that in-line.' Among the first features to be dropped in the new contract was the in-flight refueling, a major structural modification which would have required new pipes running from where a flying tanker's fueling boom attaches on a jet's nose and then down and aft to the fuel tanks. Other changes were made, too, such as a reduction in power generation capacity to run all the systems and using Boeing's standard environmental control system rather than a specialized one. Trump then insisted on a new red, white and dark blue color scheme to replace the iconic light blue and polished silver that Air Force Ones have had since the 1960s, but an analysis found dark blue paint on the bottom of the plane would cause excessive heating on sensitive components. The new colors were scrapped during the Biden administration, and it is unclear if Trump will once again insist on his preferred paint job. In late 2016, the Air Force was estimating the new 747-8s, built from scratch, would be in service by 2023 or 2024 — more or less matching the timeframe required by the ones delivered in 1990. By late 2024, the Air Force was estimating that the two retrofitted planes acquired in 2017 — their interiors and systems torn down and rebuilt — would be ready by 2028 or 2029, possibly later. Because Trump demanded Boeing sign a fixed-price contract, the company began losing money at the start of the coronavirus pandemic because of supply chain disruptions and a shortage of skilled workers with the requisite security clearance. By 2023, its losses on the $3.9 billion contract it had been coerced into by Trump neared $2 billion. 'A very unique set of risks that Boeing probably shouldn't have taken,' CEO David Calhoun, who replaced the Boeing executive who had struck the deal with Trump, conceded in a 2022 earnings call. 'But we are where we are.' Trump, while lying about how much money he has 'saved' — he told Hannity that Boeing's not-yet-finalized contract in late 2016 was worth $5.7 billion, rather than the $4.2 billion even he was citing at the time — still regularly blames Boeing. 'I'm not happy with Boeing,' Trump told reporters traveling with him on Air Force One on Feb. 19, then hinted at the efforts that were already underway to solicit a plane from Qatar. 'We may do something else. We may go and buy a plane, or get a plane or something.' Trump's degradation of Air Force One as a military asset, ironically, comes as he simultaneously boasts of making 'war-fighting' the top priority at the Defense Department, which he accuses of having gone soft under predecessor Joe Biden. As a young man, Trump had the opportunity to serve in Vietnam but avoided doing so by producing a diagnosis of 'bone spurs' from a doctor friendly with his father. As a candidate for president in 2015, he disparaged Sen. John McCain, who spent nearly six years in a Hanoi prison, as 'not a war hero.' And as president, he called service members who die for their country 'suckers' and 'losers,' according to his own former chief of staff. Despite this, he continues to regale his audiences about his 2018 visit to Iraq aboard Air Force One — with no running lights and window shades drawn ― as a feat of tremendous courage, even though similar trips had been done by presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama while Biden had visited Ukraine and Israel, two active war zones not under the control of the U.S. military, a first for a commander-in-chief. 'I got out of the plane and actually asked my people, 'You know,' I said, 'Excuse me, I was very brave sitting in that cockpit. Am I allowed to give myself the Congressional Medal of Honor?'' Trump said at a February speech in Miami Beach. Since winning back the presidency in November, Trump and his defense secretary, former Fox News weekend host Pete Hegseth, have regularly bragged that they are bringing back a 'warrior' ethos at the Pentagon to put the top priority on 'war-fighting.' Yet Trump, by interjecting himself into the details of a technical contract, has made the future Air Force One planes from Boeing less capable war-fighting platforms than the current ones, with potentially an even less capable version poised to enter service, depending on how much or little is done to the Qatari plane. Air Force procurement officer Darlene Costello told Congress in testimony earlier this year that even more easing of requirements might be done to let one of the two already ordered planes enter service in 2027, although she provided no details. It is unclear whether Trump much cares about that aspect compared to the impression his plane leaves on his fellow world leaders. 'We're the United States of America, I believe that we should have the most impressive plane,' Trump told Hannity. 'Apparently looking good is more important than protecting the country,' Aboulafia said, adding that he still cannot wrap his head around a president flying around in a plane that had been owned and run by a foreign government. 'It would be a major flying security risk.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store