California base home to new unit that ‘represents the future of the Air Force'
Beale Air Force Base will be home to a new mission that could return the Northern California installation to the forefront of defense technology.
Beale, near Marysville in Yuba County, was announced as the home of the Air Force's new Collaborative Combat Aircraft's readiness unit and its semiautonomous, unmanned aircraft, a mission that Air Force leaders and California lawmakers are calling a milestone.
One of the mission's ultimate goals, said Air Force officials: 'delivering combat power at a fraction of the cost of traditional fighters.'
'This is a major win for Beale AFB and a vote of confidence in the capabilities of our region,' said Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, in a statement Friday announcing the move. 'These aircraft represent the future of the Air Force —autonomous, highly capable, and ready to deploy at a moment's notice. This new mission not only solidifies Beale's role in our national defense, but also brings new technology and investment to our region.'
LaMalfa and California Sen. Adam Schiff worked to bring the unit to Northern California. The Beale site beat out Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and North Dakota's Grand Forks Air Force Base for the technologically advanced unit.
The two lawmakers toured Beale just weeks ago ahead of the Air Force's announcement, LaMalfa's office said.
'When we visited Beale Air Force Base just a couple weeks ago, I met committed California servicemembers working to protect our nation and apply new technologies to the adapting threats we face,' Schiff is quoted in the statement. 'As the West Coast remains on the front line for deterring adversaries in the Pacific and the home of the nation's technological innovation, I'm proud to see Yuba County at the tip of the spear for promoting America's national security.'
Two aircraft, the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A, are undergoing ground testing to evaluate engine performance, avionics and other metrics before moving to flight testing later this year, said Air Force officials. A decision on production of the aircraft is expected in 2026.
'This phase bridges the gap between design and flight, boosting confidence and laying the groundwork for a successful first flight and eventual fielding to the warfighter,' U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said in a statement.
'We're moving fast because the warfighter needs this capability,' Allvin said. 'These aircraft will help us turn readiness into operational dominance.'
The ability to take combat-ready aircraft to the skies at a moment's notice is a key component of Beale's new mission. Efficiency is just as important, said Air Force officials in informational materials detailing the new unit.
The new unmanned aircraft means fewer sorties or training missions to maintain flight readiness. The aircraft will be ready to fly at any time, but minimally flown so fewer airmen will be needed to support the fleet, Air Force officials said.
The incoming unit marks a reunion of sorts for the Northern California base. The RQ-4 Global Hawk, the unmanned, remotely-piloted, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft that supported operations including Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, patrolled the skies from its Beale Air Force Base home from 2004 until it was pulled from the base in 2022.
In addition to its new mission with future unmanned combat aircraft, Beale plays a key role in national defense with several important operations.
The base is home to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing and the U-2 'Dragon Lady,' a high-altitude spy plane that gathers intelligence from around the world. These aircraft have even been used recently to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border. Beale also supports aerial refueling with KC-135 tankers, which help other aircraft stay in the air longer.
The base will host to its annual air and space expo June 7-8. Tickets and more information are available at bealeairshow.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine's drone strike on Russia spurs global military rethink, raises U.S. preparedness concerns
Ukraine's drone attack on Russia last weekend was a technological and intelligence game changer. It will reshape not only how the United States bolsters its military, but how the entire world does — allies and adversaries alike. While defense specialists examined the feat in the days since the attack and Ukraine celebrated its success, the question remains: How prepared is the U.S. to use and fend off this emerging tech in warfare? Not well enough, former Utah Rep. Chris Stewart told the Deseret News. Stewart spent 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force and served on the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence while he was in the House of Representatives. He argued that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's attack, which took more than a year and a half to plan, was 'brilliantly planned' and 'brilliantly executed.' It was a 'dramatic event' that will reshape military thinking globally, Stewart said. On June 1, more than 100 Ukrainian drones targeted military airfields and warplanes in Russia that held equipment used in the more than three-year war. Zelenskyy shared a thread online celebrating his military's success in the mission, nicknamed 'Spider Web.' The attack was unique because it demonstrated Ukraine's ability to conduct a successful mission without intelligence assistance, it struck deep into Russian territory, destroyed billions of dollars of Russian equipment and came at a very low cost to Ukraine. The attack consisted of 117 unmanned drones, each with a drone operator. Drones were smuggled into Russia and placed in wooden containers that had remote-controlled lids. The drones then 'took off to strike their targets,' which were at four different Russian airfields, Ukraine's Security Service said. Ukraine said 41 Russian aircraft were hit by their drones, dealing Russia a blow of an estimated $7 billion. Zelenskyy touted that one of the targeted locations was directly next to one of the FSB Russian security service offices and Russia had 'suffered significant losses.' Zelenskyy said Ukraine will continue to propose a 'full and unconditional ceasefire' and work toward peace with Russia, but its June 1 attack may have pushed Russia further away from the negotiating table. Stewart argued that the attack, while largely successful in its goal of targeting some of Russia's prized possessions, is also a 'destabilizing event.' 'It was an attack, direct attack on an asset that Vladimir Putin considers his highest priority and I worry a little bit about the implications of that,' he said, later adding, 'I'm not saying Zelenskyy shouldn't have done it, I'm just saying … one of the outcomes for that is it's going to make … the peace negotiations that are taking place much harder.' President Donald Trump — who was apparently not aware of Ukraine's attack ahead of time — spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. According to Trump, Putin said he would respond to the drone attack. It was a 'good conversation,' but not one that would lead to immediate peace, Trump said. Hours later, Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Pryluky, killing at least five people, including a 1-year-old child. On Friday, Russia launched one of its largest aerial attacks of the war, bombing six Ukrainian regions. The attack included 407 drones and 33 missiles. It killed four people, Ukraine said. As Ukraine balances protecting its front lines and cities, continuing its counteroffensive against Russia and seeking to strike a peace deal, the escalation raises questions about what the recent attack means for the United States and its adversaries. Stewart noted that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been interesting to watch because, in some ways, they are fighting a World War I-style war through trench warfare, but the use of unmanned drones in the battlefield has escalated fighting to World War III-level combat. The drones used by Ukraine aren't 'sophisticated weapons' by any means, Stewart pointed out. They aren't much different than drones seen flying in the park on weekends. However, if they're deployed strategically, they can cause 'enormous damage,' as seen by Russia. 'Last Friday, could you have imagined what happened in Russia over the weekend? And the truth is is no one did. And that's just one example of, we don't know really how this is going to change and be implemented and we're probably not nearly as prepared as we should be,' Stewart said. He also highlighted how Russia and Ukraine have 'leapfrogged' one another throughout the war. If Russia develops a drone with a new capability, Ukraine will develop a superior one weeks later, and so on. The technology itself is rapidly evolving in the war, Stewart said. 'Going back three years, if you had talked about how will drones affect the war in Ukraine, everyone would have shrugged their shoulders and said, 'Well, I'm not sure,' or they would have said, 'Well, probably not a lot,'' he said. 'And the answer to that question is, it impacted it greatly.' During a briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Ukraine's drone attack 'absolutely does' raise questions about the United States' security. She pointed to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the expansion of defense funding to bolster the U.S. military as it examines how to respond to the emergence of drone usage. 'The president has a full understanding, I can tell you because I've spoken to him about it, about the future of warfare and how drones are a big part of that, and I will not get ahead of our policy team, but I think you can expect to see some executive action on that front in the very near future,' she said. Evelyn Farkas, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense, said she believes the United States doesn't have the capability to protect against swarms of drones, should an adversary launch an attack. It's something the Department of Defense would need to look at, both domestically and at its overseas bases, she said. But bolstering U.S. military operations would need to start with production. Most drones are being produced overseas, including by U.S. adversaries like China. 'Now that they've used them to strategic effect, it will be even more urgent for the United States to improve its drone capability and to invest in drones,' Farkas, who is the executive director of the McCain Institute, said. The attack over the weekend proved that while drone warfare is not entirely a new operational tactic, the strategy behind using them changed the game. Stewart argued the attack also proved there are two major issues facing the U.S. as it stands on the sidelines of the current war: drone defense and implementation plans need to be drafted, and the supply chain needs to be less dependent on China. China, Stewart noted, has also been successful in purchasing land near U.S. military installations globally. Commanders have likely spent the last several days reviewing how to protect assets after seeing Ukraine launch drones into Russian bases at a very close range, he said. 'They weren't really particularly worried about the aircraft sitting out on their tarmac, and it turned out they should have been, right?' he said of the Russian military, later adding, 'I think people are looking at that differently now than they were.' The U.S. military has said it must invest in drones, commonly called unmanned aircraft systems or UAS. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll said in a post online that modernization is critical to U.S. national security. 'Investing in UAS isn't optional — it's essential for battlefield dominance, enhancing precision and protecting Soldiers,' he said. Air Force Gen. David Allvin highlighted the need for technological advancement and investment, pointing to Ukraine's attack. 'In today's environment not every asset must be exquisite/expensive. Look what Ukraine just did,' he said in a post online. 'We can't afford to walk by assets like this that generate lethal effects.' Hoover Institution fellow Jacquelyn Schneider has long argued that the U.S. needs to invest in low-cost technology to advance its military. In a 2023 op-ed, she expanded on her research and argued that the U.S. military has ended up in a paradox. It chased emerging technology that made weapons so expensive that upgrading them would be difficult. It left the Pentagon with a stockpile that was 'neither good enough nor large enough' for its plans, Schneider argued. 'The United States also underprioritized technology that would rein in the cost of logistics, maintenance, and replenishment, opting instead for high-tech weaponry patched together with fragile and outdated software,' she wrote. Schneider said the U.S. needs to 'urgently' prioritize technology that would cut warfare costs and admit it cannot replace all of its systems. High-cost technology should be complemented with cheaper options, she said. 'If the United States hopes to persevere against Russia in the short term and China in the long term, it must consider the economic impact of technology even as it pursues technological advantage,' Schneider wrote. Farkas agreed. The United States has an undeniable issue by having 'very expensive systems that are now vulnerable to foreign drones,' she said. War is a 'great accelerator,' Stewart said of technological advancements. It just depends on if the U.S. military will use it properly, he argued. 'The problem on the defense spending side is, we're just not spending the money we should. The bigger problem is, are we spending it right?' he questioned. 'It doesn't do us much good to buy $50 million Predator drones when we know now that a $500 plastic drone can do nearly the same thing.' Stewart said one of his largest concerns after Ukraine's attack is how the U.S. will respond. It's a pressing issue for the industry and the Pentagon as it grapples with rapidly evolving technology and the price tag of modern warfare. 'Will we spend it in the right way and are we keeping up with technology?' he asked, saying he hopes the administration is prompted to ask those questions after Ukraine's attack.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Lesser-known D-Day' strikes as Pentagon purges transgender patriots serving in the U.S. military
Friday marked a grim milestone for transgender service members across the armed forces: the deadline set by the Pentagon to either resign or face involuntary separation under a Trump administration policy that legal advocates say is discriminatory, unjustified, and a profound betrayal of those who serve. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. Under a May 15 directive, military commanders were ordered to review medical records for any diagnosis, history, or symptoms 'consistent with gender dysphoria.' Those identified and not granted a rare, nearly unobtainable high-level waiver, which requires the denial of one's identity, are being kicked out from service. The result: a systemwide purge that LGBTQ+ advocates call discriminatory, degrading, and dangerous to military readiness. Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military banRelated: This trans Air Force recruit wants to jump out of planes to save others. He's suing Trump to serveRelated: Transgender Army officer Erica Vandal was born into military service. Now, she's suing Trump to stay in 'There's nothing voluntary about forced separation,' said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which represents transgender plaintiffs suing the administration over the ban in Talbott v. United States. 'Honorable and committed transgender servicemembers are being coerced into choreographing their own dismissal under a presidential edict that maligns their character with falsehoods — characterizations the government itself admitted in court are untrue. These are decorated veterans who served for decades, and forcing them out simply for being transgender is a shameful betrayal of American values.' The policy took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted an injunction in a separate case, Shilling v. United States, the lead lawsuit challenging the ban. Commander Emily Shilling, a Navy pilot, aerospace engineer, and the first out transgender aviator cleared for tactical jet operations, is the lead plaintiff in that case out of Washington state. Speaking at the Equality PAC Pride Gala just days before the implementation of forced separation, Shilling made her position clear. 'The case was originally Shilling v. Trump, and now it's Shilling v. United States. I want to make it very clear: I am not against the United States. I serve because I love this country — even when the courts get it wrong,' she said. Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing 'This ban does not make us stronger,' Shilling continued. 'It tells service members that their identity matters more than their performance, their sacrifice, or even their oath.' The Pentagon's order has triggered a wave of quiet exits — and agonizing decisions. Some troops are retiring early to preserve benefits. Others are being separated involuntarily under codes usually reserved for misconduct. Major Erica Vandal, a plaintiff in Talbott v. United States, is among those now being forced out. She is a West Point graduate, a Bronze Star recipient, and a veteran of Afghanistan who served with distinction for 14 years. 'The military has invested millions of dollars in training thousands of transgender servicemembers,' said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which also represents Talbott plaintiffs. 'Major Vandal and others are now being forced out through a humiliating process typically reserved for misconduct that will leave a stain on their records. This mistreatment… is needlessly cruel and a shocking betrayal of our commitment to all those who serve.' Related: Federal judge roasts Trump DOJ attorney over 'frankly ridiculous' claims in transgender military ban case Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff, has told The Advocate that he had no intention of resigning. 'I do not have any plans to pursue voluntary separation,' he said in May. Navy Commander Blake Dremann, a submarine logistics officer and one of the first out transgender service members, marked the day with a somber reflection online. 'Today will be a lesser-known D-Day for many transgender service members,' he wrote in a lengthy post on the social media platform Threads. 'They must 'choose' to leave voluntarily or ride out involuntary separation. I have requested my regular retirement… It feels like giving up. It feels like I will be judged for it.' Dremann, who was set to deploy for the 12th time, called the ban's deployability rationale 'made up' and listed what he called the '7 Truths' of transgender service: they are in every branch and specialty; they lead, deploy, and train others; they are welcomed and trusted by their units; and they have families and communities who support them. 'We LOVE what we do AND we are damn good at it,' he wrote. 'If merit is what matters, my gender shouldn't.' Waivers under the policy must be approved by a Senate-confirmed official—a process that many legal advocates describe as opaque and functionally unattainable since it requires the military member not to express their gender identity. The Pentagon has cut transgender troops off from SkillBridge, a civilian career prep program, and reinstated its ban on gender-affirming care. While legal challenges persist, lawmakers are highlighting the policy's immediate harm. On Thursday, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — a decorated Iraq War veteran and double amputee — led 22 Senate Democrats in a last-minute plea to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, urging him not to carry out what they called a 'foolhardy,' 'cruel,' and 'politically motivated' expulsion. Related: Combat vet Tammy Duckworth leads Democrats' final plea to stop Pentagon purge as trans military ban begins In a scathing letter obtained by The Advocate, Duckworth wrote that the policy 'punishes those who have volunteered to serve' and warned that it would 'harm our armed services' operational readiness and lethality.' The letter condemned the Pentagon's order to assign separation codes to transgender troops that suggest they pose a threat to national security. 'Using this discharge code is not only cruel,' it read. 'It's stupid.' For Dremann, who says he would continue serving if allowed, the impact is personal, but the fight is larger than one career. 'Our lives as service members are an example to many that need to see it to believe they can be us,' he wrote. Talbott, a reservist, said he has until July 7 to decide whether to fight separation or accept what the government calls 'voluntary' exit. 'I'm definitely feeling the weight of what this means for my thousands of fellow trans service members who are active duty and had to make their impossible decision by today,' Talbott told The Advocate on Friday. 'We are all burdened with the uncertainty of what's to come and major concerns about the widespread ramifications of the sudden dismissal of thousands of troops. I continue to find strength in the knowledge that this fight is not over, and I am confident that we will prevail in the end.' Another plaintiff, 24-year-old Air Force recruit Clayton McCallister, graduated from basic training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas on Thursday after 7.5 weeks of grueling instruction. Despite graduating with the highest physical training scores in his dorm and receiving praise from superiors and peers alike, McCallister was told he would not be allowed to continue to technical school. 'Everybody that I worked with and worked for wants me to be in the Air Force—point blank,' McCallister said in a phone interview Friday. 'They said I was one of the best trainees they've had come through there. As far as my wingmen, they're mad about it just as much as I am.' Although McCallister technically remains on active duty, he has begun the process of separation, doing so under protest. 'It's not what I want,' he said. 'But with the uncertainty of the involuntary separation process, especially in a training environment, my wife and I just want some stability in this. With the end result likely being the same, I told them I want whatever is fastest to get the whole process over with.' He added that he's not eager to set his dreams and hard work aside, but that having been forced to decide his future, he's putting his family first and going with certainty, for now. McCallister, who trained for a career in special warfare and was preparing to enter pararescue—a highly selective field involving combat and medical rescue, said the decision to force out trans troops despite their qualifications sends a dangerous and demoralizing message. 'When I first came to training, I thought I had to prove that trans people could serve,' he said. 'But as I got deeper into it, I realized: we've already proven that, over and over. Thousands of trans service members have already done that.' McCallister said fellow trainees told him he had changed their minds about the ban. One airman who initially supported it told McCallister he now stands firmly against it after serving beside him. 'I may not have won the war,' McCallister said. 'But I won some battles here at BMT. I changed some opinions.' Now in legal limbo, McCallister is awaiting paperwork, medical evaluations, and the official processing of his discharge. He said the timeline is unclear, and his family remains in flux. 'We're just trying to find some stability again,' he said. 'It's stressful. But people here saw me for who I am. That means something.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why ‘Good Night, and Good Luck's' 1950s story of media intimidation is eerily relevant in Trump's America
The historical echoes in 'Good Night, and Good Luck' are extraordinary. Some might even say they're eerie. On Saturday at 7pm ET, viewers around the world can see for themselves when CNN televises the blockbuster hit Broadway play starring George Clooney. The play transports viewers back to the 1950s but feels equally relevant in the 2020s with its themes of unrestrained political power, corporate timidity and journalistic integrity. Add 'Good Night, Good Luck' on CNN to your calendar: Apple / Outlook or Google The real-life drama recounted in the play took place at CBS, the same network that is currently being targeted by President Donald Trump. That's one of the reasons why the play's dialogue feels ripped from recent headlines. Clooney plays Edward R. Murrow, the iconic CBS journalist who was once dubbed 'the man who put a spine in broadcasting.' Murrow helmed 'See It Now,' a program that pioneered the new medium of television by telling in-depth stories, incorporating film clips and interviewing newsmakers at a time when other shows simply relayed the headlines. In the early '50s, Murrow and producing partner Fred Friendly were alarmed by what Friendly called in his 1967 memoir the 'problem of blacklisting and guilt by association.' At the time, the country was gripped by Cold War paranoia, some of it stoked by Senator Joseph McCarthy's trumped-up claims about communist infiltration of the government, Hollywood and other sectors. In a later era, McCarthy would have been accused of spreading misinformation and attacking free speech. Murrow and Friendly thought about devoting an episode to the senator and his investigations, but they wanted a dramatic way to illustrate the subject. They found it with Milo Radulovich, an Air Force reserve officer who was fired over his relatives' alleged communist views. Radulovich was a compelling, sympathetic speaker on camera, and Murrow's report on him not only stunned viewers across the country, but it also led the Air Force to reverse course. 'The Radulovich program was television's first attempt to do something about the contagion of fear that had come to be known as McCarthyism,' Friendly recalled. That's where 'Good Night, and Good Luck' begins — with a journalistic triumph that foreshadowed fierce reports about McCarthy's witch hunts and attempted retaliation by the senator and his allies. Clooney first made the project into a movie in 2005. It was adapted for the stage last year and opened on Broadway in March, this time with Clooney playing Murrow instead of Friendly. Both versions recreate Murrow's actual televised monologues and feature McCarthy's real filmed diatribes. 'The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one,' Murrow said in a pivotal essay about McCarthy, uttering words that could just as easily apply to Trump's campaign of retribution. A moment later, Murrow accused McCarthy of exploiting people's fears. The same charge is leveled against Trump constantly. 'This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve,' Murrow said, sounding just like the activists who are urging outspoken resistance to Trump's methods. In April, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to investigate Miles Taylor, a former Trump homeland security official who penned an essay and a book, 'Anonymous,' about the president's recklessness. This week Taylor spoke out about being on Trump's 'blacklist,' using the same language that defined the Red Scare of the '50s and destroyed many careers back then. 'People are afraid,' Taylor said on CNN's 'The Arena with Kasie Hunt.' He warned that staying silent, ducking from the fight, only empowers demagogues. Murrow did not duck. Other journalists had excoriated McCarthy earlier, in print and on the radio, but Murrow met the medium and the moment in 1954, demonstrating the senator's smear tactics and stirring a severe public backlash. Afterward, McCarthy targeted not just Murrow, but also the CBS network and Alcoa, the single corporate sponsor of 'See It Now.' McCarthy threatened to investigate the aluminum maker. 'We're in for a helluva fight,' CBS president William Paley told Murrow. The two men were friends and allies, but only to a point. Paley had to juggle the sponsors, CBS-affiliated stations across the country, and government officials who controlled station licenses. In a Paley biography, 'In All His Glory,' Sally Bedell Smith observed that two key commissioners at the FCC, the federal agency in charge of licensing, were 'friends of McCarthy.' The relationship between Paley and Murrow was ultimately fractured for reasons that are portrayed in the play. Looking back at the Murrow years, historian Theodore White wrote that CBS was 'a huge corporation more vulnerable than most to government pressure and Washington reprisal.' Those exact same words could be written today, as CBS parent Paramount waits for the Trump-era FCC to approve its pending merger with Skydance Media. Billions of dollars are on the line. The merger review process has been made much more complicated by Trump's lawsuit against CBS, in which he baselessly accuses '60 Minutes' of trying to tip the scales of the 2024 election against him. While legal experts have said CBS is well-positioned to defeat the suit, Paramount has sought to strike a settlement deal with Trump instead. Inside '60 Minutes,' 'everyone thinks this lawsuit is an act of extortion, everyone,' a network correspondent told CNN. In a crossover of sorts between the '50s and today, Clooney appeared on '60 Minutes' in March to promote the new play. He invoked the parallels between McCarthyism and the present political climate. 'ABC has just settled a lawsuit with the Trump administration,' Clooney said. 'And CBS News is in the process…' There, Jon Wertheim's narration took over, as the correspondent explained Trump's lawsuit. 'We're seeing this idea of using government to scare or fine or use corporations to make journalists smaller,' Clooney said. He called it a fight 'for the ages.' Trump watched the segment, and he belittled Clooney as a 'second-rate movie 'star'.' On stage, Clooney as Murrow challenges theatergoers to consider the roles and responsibilities of both journalists and corporate bosses. Ann M. Sperber, author of a best-selling biography, 'Murrow: His Life and Times,' found that Murrow was asking himself those very questions at the dawn of the TV age. Murrow, she wrote, sketched out an essay for The Atlantic in early 1949 but never completed it. He wrote notes to himself about 'editorial control' over news, about 'Who decides,' and whether the television business will 'regard news as anything more than a saleable commodity?' Murrow wrote to himself that we 'need to argue this out before patterns become set and we all begin to see pictures of our country and the world that just aren't true.' Seventy-six years later, the arguments are as relevant and necessary today.
