A new report by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies warns that the U.S. Air Force’s current spending trajectory—heavily weighted toward research and development (R&D)—risks undermining its operational readiness and force structure. As adversaries field more combat-ready platforms in greater numbers, analysts argue that the USAF must urgently rebalance its budget to prioritize procurement of actual aircraft over future capabilities still years from deployment.
Runaway R&D vs. Operational Shortfalls
The Mitchell Institute’s paper, titled “The Real Cost of Airpower: The Case for Rebalancing Air Force Modernization,” highlights a growing imbalance in how the USAF allocates its modernization funds. In fiscal year 2023, approximately 66% of the service’s modernization budget went to RDT&E (Research, Development, Test & Evaluation), while only 33% supported procurement—an inversion of historical norms where acquisition once dominated.
This trend has led to a shrinking combat fleet even as threats from peer competitors like China and Russia grow more acute. The USAF now operates fewer than 5,000 manned aircraft—the smallest since its founding in 1947—and many are aging legacy platforms with limited survivability against modern integrated air defenses.
“We’re investing heavily in tomorrow’s technology while underinvesting in today’s combat power,” said retired Lt Gen David Deptula, Dean of the Mitchell Institute. “You can’t deter with PowerPoint slides.”
Next-Gen Programs Driving Budget Imbalance
Much of the USAF’s R&D spending is concentrated in next-generation programs such as:
- NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance): A sixth-generation fighter family projected to cost hundreds of billions over its lifecycle.
- B-21 Raider: The stealth bomber program is progressing rapidly but remains years away from full-rate production.
- Aurora-class ISR platforms: Rumored high-altitude surveillance systems reportedly under development.
While these programs are critical for long-term technological superiority, their timelines mean they will not contribute meaningfully to near-term deterrence or conflict scenarios—especially in regions like the Indo-Pacific where massed ready forces are essential.
The Shrinking Fighter Force and Aging Platforms
The USAF fighter inventory has declined by nearly 30% since 2001. As of FY2024 planning documents:
- The average age of fighter aircraft exceeds 30 years.
- Only about one-third are considered fully mission-capable at any given time due to maintenance backlogs and parts shortages.
- The F-22 fleet is capped at under 180 airframes and slated for early retirement despite no direct replacement fielded yet.
This hollowing-out effect has real-world implications. During recent Pacific exercises such as Cope North and Talisman Sabre, USAF units struggled to generate sufficient sortie rates due to limited tails available per squadron—a stark contrast with Chinese PLA Air Force trends showing consistent growth in both quantity and quality of fighters like J-20s and J-16s.
Recommendations: Rebalancing Toward Procurement
The Mitchell Institute recommends a strategic shift that includes:
- Increasing procurement share: Target a near-term reallocation where at least half of modernization funds go toward buying aircraft rather than developing them.
- Sustaining F-35A buys: Accelerate annual purchases beyond current levels (~48/year) toward original goals (~80/year) to replace aging F-16s and A-10s faster.
- Avoid premature retirements: Delay divestment of legacy platforms until viable replacements are fielded at scale with trained crews and logistics support.
This approach echoes historical lessons from Cold War-era force planning when maintaining a credible day-one deterrent was prioritized alongside future tech bets like stealth or precision strike evolution. “Quantity has a quality all its own,” Deptula emphasized during a rollout briefing on Capitol Hill this month.
Bureaucratic Incentives Favor Development Over Delivery
A key structural issue cited by analysts is how Pentagon budgeting mechanisms incentivize long development cycles over rapid fielding. Program managers often prefer funding streams tied to multi-year RDT&E milestones rather than riskier acquisition phases vulnerable to cost caps or congressional scrutiny.
This dynamic leads to what some call “perpetual prototyping”—a cycle where promising technologies remain stuck in labs or test ranges without ever reaching frontline squadrons. Examples include hypersonic glide vehicles whose test flights continue without clear IOC timelines or drone wingmen concepts (CCAs) still awaiting firm procurement pathways despite successful demos under programs like Skyborg or DARPA ACE.
Congressional Role and Budget Outlook for FY2025–26
The FY2025 defense budget request continues many of these trends—with over $50 billion earmarked for USAF RDT&E versus just $23 billion for procurement. Congressional appropriators have begun questioning this imbalance during recent hearings on posture statements by Secretary Frank Kendall and Chief of Staff Gen David Allvin.
Kendall acknowledged concerns but defended NGAD timelines as necessary investments given adversary advances in AI-enabled kill chains and counter-stealth radar systems. However, lawmakers from both parties urged greater transparency on delivery schedules—and more emphasis on near-term force generation capabilities such as tanker recapitalization (KC-46), autonomous ISR drones (MQ-X), and munitions stockpile replenishment (JASSM/StormBreaker).
Strategic Implications Amid Global Flashpoints
The report lands amid rising global tensions—from Ukraine’s contested skies to Taiwan Strait brinkmanship—and underscores how U.S. airpower must be both technologically superior and numerically sufficient across theaters. With NATO allies also facing similar dilemmas between innovation vs inventory gaps (e.g., Germany’s Tornado replacement delays), the USAF’s path may set precedents for allied planning strategies as well.
Conclusion: Balancing Tomorrow’s Edge With Today’s Needs
The Mitchell Institute’s warning serves as a timely call for recalibration—not abandonment—of next-gen ambitions within U.S. airpower strategy. While NGAD, B-21s, CCAs, and hypersonics remain vital pillars of future dominance, they cannot substitute for ready squadrons today equipped with proven platforms able to deploy rapidly across contested zones worldwide.
