By Robbin Laird
The United States Air Force stands at a critical crossroads. After decades of counterinsurgency operations and peacetime bureaucracy, America’s air arm faces an uncomfortable reality: it may not be adequately prepared for the high-intensity conflicts that could define the next decade. This sobering assessment comes from one of the service’s most experienced leaders, retired General T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley, the 18th Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force
We asked General Mosely after his comprehensive presentation on airpower at the Sir Richard Williams Foundation seminar on May 22, 2025, to provide a follow up on that presetnatiion to highlight his recommendations for shaping a way ahead for recrafting effective airpower.
General Moseley provided a thoughtful response to this request. His central thesis is both urgent and actionable: the Air Force must fundamentally restructure itself from a peacetime organization optimized for stability operations to a combat-focused force capable of deterring—or if necessary, defeating—peer adversaries in an increasingly dangerous world.
The strategic environment facing the Air Force today bears little resemblance to the relatively stable post-Cold War period that shaped much of its current structure. Moseley identifies several converging challenges that demand immediate attention:
- Operational Overstretch: Current operational tempo continues to strain an already aging force structure. Aircraft and personnel are deployed at unsustainable rates while facing increasingly sophisticated threats worldwide.
- Technological Adaptation: Adversaries are rapidly adopting innovative technologies, creating new vulnerabilities in existing U.S. command and control systems. The comfortable technological superiority America once enjoyed is eroding.
- Resource Constraints: Despite growing threats, defense spending remains at approximately 3% of GDP—a level Moseley argues is fundamentally inadequate for current security challenges.
- Cultural Drift: Perhaps most concerning, the Air Force has experienced what Moseley describes as a “minimalization” of warfighting culture through years of non-combat focused policies and peacetime governance structures.
Rather than proposing abstract strategic concepts, Moseley offers eleven concrete reforms that could be implemented within a single leadership tenure. These fall into several key categories:
Organizational Restructuring
The Air Force must align its peacetime organizational structure with wartime deployment requirements. This means building around the squadron—the essential unit of deployed air power—rather than the complex bureaucratic structures that have evolved over decades of peacetime operations.
“The essential building block of deployed air/space forces is the squadron and multiples of squadrons,” Moseley writes. “The peacetime template must match the wartime deployed template.”
Cultural Transformation
Equally important is restoring what Moseley calls the Air Force’s “warfighting ethos.” This requires comprehensive changes to personnel policies, training programs, promotion criteria, and educational curricula. The goal is to advance the “best qualified” personnel for combat effectiveness rather than bureaucratic management.
Training Revolution
Current training approaches are insufficient for the threats the Air Force may face. Moseley advocates for increased actual flying time and hands-on field training, noting that while simulations and procedural trainers are useful for skill development, they cannot replace real-world exposure to complex combat environments.
Resource Reallocation
The former Chief of Staff calls for increasing defense spending to a minimum of 5-5.5% of GDP, arguing that current funding levels cannot adequately address personnel needs, infrastructure requirements, operations and maintenance, research and development, and modernization demands simultaneously.
Acquisition Reform
One of Moseley’s most specific recommendations involves centralizing acquisition, contracting, and sustainment activities at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, leveraging existing capabilities to create a more efficient and responsive procurement system. He also calls for updating the Goldwater-Nichols Act to streamline acquisition timelines and authorities.
Beyond organizational changes, Moseley identifies specific equipment and capability priorities that demand immediate attention:
- Fighter Aircraft: Mid-life upgrades for F-22 Raptors, comprehensive avionics and engine improvements for F-35As, and acceleration of the F-47 program to ensure adequate numbers on required timelines.
- Support Systems: Resolution of ongoing problems with the KC-46 tanker and T-7 trainer programs, either through fixes or new procurement initiatives.
- Strategic Systems: Accelerated fielding of the B-21 bomber and investigation of the Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance program for potential Air Force applications.
- Legacy Systems: A systematic review of older aircraft for potential retirement, particularly non-survivable fourth-generation platforms that may become liabilities in high-threat environments.
General Moseley highlighted concerns with regard to vulnerabilities in global communications systems. He advocates for utilizing the full electromagnetic spectrum to provide forces with “parallel, reliable, resilient, survivable” communication paths. Notably, he identifies upgrades to HF communications as the most available and cost-effective solution—a recommendation that takes on added significance given recent concerns about space-based communication vulnerabilities.
The former Chief of Staff also addresses the critical issue of defense industrial capacity, calling for actions to incentivize growth in aerospace, propulsion, munitions, and sensor manufacturing. His recommendations include fuller utilization of multi-year procurement contracts and establishment of dedicated funding streams similar to the Navy’s shipbuilding accounts.
Moseley’s analysis extends beyond internal Air Force reforms to broader strategic considerations. He calls for a comprehensive review of service roles and missions, suggesting that an updated “Key West Agreement” may be necessary to address overlapping capabilities and ensure each service’s contributions align with current national security requirements.
This recommendation reflects an understanding that effective military reform cannot occur in isolation—it must be coordinated across the joint force and aligned with broader national security objectives.
Perhaps most importantly, Moseley argues that these reforms are achievable within the tenure of a single Air Force leadership team. This emphasis on practical implementation timelines reflects his experience with the bureaucratic challenges that often derail military reform efforts.
The general’s approach recognizes that perfect solutions implemented too late are less valuable than good solutions implemented immediately. His “doable do’s” philosophy prioritizes actionable steps that can create momentum for broader transformation.
General Moseley’s analysis arrives at a critical moment for U.S. air power. The comfortable assumption that American technological and operational superiority will persist indefinitely is increasingly questionable. Meanwhile, potential adversaries continue developing capabilities specifically designed to challenge U.S. strengths.
The reforms Moseley proposes represent a return to first principles of military effectiveness combined with practical adaptations to contemporary realities. The question is not whether these changes are necessary, but whether current leadership has the will to implement them before external events force more drastic adaptations.
As Moseley concludes, tomorrow’s challenges center on “preparing for potential combat on a theater and global scale against highly lethal opponents in an age of strategic uncertainty and increasing lethality.” The time for incremental adjustments may be passing. What remains is the opportunity—and responsibility—to act on lessons that experience has already taught.
The Air Force that emerges from such reforms would be leaner, more focused, and better equipped to fulfill its primary mission: controlling the air and space domains that underpin America’s broader defense strategy. Whether that transformation occurs proactively or reactively may determine not just the future of American air power, but the broader trajectory of U.S. national security in an increasingly contested world.