US Air Force to retire all A-10s, cancel E-7 under 2026 spending plan
The Air Force wants to retire its final 162 A-10 Warthog attack jets in fiscal 2026, as part of a plan to divest 340 total aircraft.
The Pentagon also plans to cancel the E-7 Wedgetail program over what an official said were 'significant delays' and cost increases.
The service released its list of planned aircraft retirements as the Pentagon released its belated 2026 budget plan, which calls for a $211 billion discretionary budget for the Department of the Air Force. That includes a $184.9 billion discretionary budget for the U.S. Air Force itself, and a $26.1 billion discretionary budget for the Space Force.
The Pentagon also wants to add another $38.6 billion in 'mandatory' spending as part of the budget reconciliation bill, which would include $24.7 billion for the Air Force and $13.8 billion for the Space Force. If that passes, the department would receive $249.5 billion in total funding, which would be a 17.2% increase over enacted spending in 2025.
But if the reconciliation bill does not pass, and the administration's request is enacted unchanged, the Space Force would see an 8.7% cut in spending from 2025, while the Air Force's spending would be virtually flat from the $184.1 billion enacted in 2025.
If Congress grants the Air Force all of its requested retirements, it would be the biggest aircraft retirement in years.
The service said earlier this year that, in response to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's order to cut and reallocate about 8% of defense spending, it planned to accelerate its plans to retire old and outdated aircraft.
The plan to completely shutter the A-10 program would be a dramatic acceleration of the service's previous timeline, which would have retired all Warthogs by the end of this decade. And while lawmakers have in recent years acquiesced to Air Force requests to retire some Warthogs — after years of bitter disagreements between the service and Capitol Hill over the future utility of the jet — it remains far from clear whether Congress has the appetite to mothball all of the attack jets.
In addition to the A-10s, the Air Force wants to retire 62 F-16Cs and Ds, 21 F-15Es, 13 F-15Cs and Ds, 14 C-130H Hercules cargo planes, and 3 EC-130H Compass Call electronic warfare planes.
The service's retirement list also includes 14 KC-135 Stratotankers, 11 HH-60G combat rescue helicopters, 35 T-1 Texan trainers, 4 UH-1N helicopters and a B-1 Lancer.
But the proposed retirement list does not include Block 20 F-22A Raptors, roughly 32 of which the Air Force has tried to retire in recent years over concerns that they are not combat-capable. Congress has repeatedly blocked those efforts.
In a June 26 briefing with reporters, an Air Force official said the cost of an E-7 airborne battle management aircraft had grown from $588 million to $724 million, helping prompt its cancellation. The official said the department had concerns over whether it would survive in a contested environment.
Instead, the Pentagon is looking for ways to accomplish the mission that would have been done by the Wedgetail with space-based assets, and adding more Northrop E-2D Hawkeye aircraft.
This would be a major shift for the Air Force, which is retiring its aging E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control, or AWACS, aircraft and has for years seen the E-7 as the best successor.
The budget would also call for $10.3 billion in spending for the B-21 Raider, the Northrop Grumman-made stealth bomber that will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and $4.2 billion for the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, which will replace the aging Minuteman III. Northrop is also building a Sentinel.
Procurement funding for the B-21 would grow from $1.9 billion in 2025 to $2.6 billion in 2026, plus another $2.1 billion in reconciliation spending. If all spending is enacted by Congress, that would more than double the procurement budget for the Raider.
The budget calls for $3.1 billion to keep procuring the F-15EX Eagle II, which the Air Force had previously considered winding down after 2025. The Pentagon next year wants to buy 21 of the Boeing-made jets, which are an updated version of the fourth-generation F-15E, up from 18 in 2025.
The military plans to sharply cut its purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to 47 across the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in 2026. That would be down from 74 in 2025.
For the Air Force, the F-35A procurement would be cut nearly in half, from 44 tails in 2025 to 24 next year. Air Force spending on the Lockheed Martin-made jet would drop from $4.5 billion this year to $3.6 billion in 2026.
This would mean the Air Force would get 45 new fighters in 2026, which is below the benchmark of 72 annual fighter procurements the service says is necessary to modernize its fleet.
The Pentagon said money that would have been spent on procuring more F-35s will instead go to sustainment of the jets, and ensuring it has a strong enough supply base to support all the needed operations and maintenance. The Pentagon also wants to dedicate money to ensuring the jets' Block 4 upgrades will stay on track.
The Air Force's budget also includes $807 million in funding for its drone wingmen program, called Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which it hopes will accelerate development of platforms and autonomy.
The service is also requesting a $73.2 billion discretionary budget and a $4.5 billion mandatory — or reconciliation bill — budget for operations and maintenance, $44.3 billion in discretionary spending and about $200 million in mandatory spending for personnel. The research development, test and evaluation budget would total $46.4 billion, including $36.2 billion in discretionary spending and $10.2 billion in mandatory spending.
The F-47 fighter, also known as Next Generation Air Dominance, would see its R&D budget increase from $2.4 billion in 2025 to nearly $2.6 billion in 2026. If another $900 million in spending requested as part of the reconciliation bill passes, that would bring the Boeing-made F-47's budget to almost $3.5 billion.
The service's total procurement budget request would reach $36.2 billion, or $26.5 billion in discretionary spending and $9.7 billion in reconciliation bill spending.
With reconciliation spending included, the Air Force's procurement budget would include $24.8 billion for aircraft, $6.1 billion for missiles and $784 million for ammunition.
The Air Force wants to buy 14 Boeing-made T-7A Red Hawk trainer aircraft for $362 million in 2026. But there would be no new funding for the E-7 airborne battle management aircraft, also made by Boeing, amid a disagreement between the service and top Pentagon leadership over whether space-based target tracking would be better than an airborne platform.
The proposed budget would restore $387 million in funding for Lockheed's hypersonic AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon. This could resurrect a program that once seemed doomed after several failed tests in recent years.
Procurement spending on the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP — which was used for the first time last weekend to strike multiple Iranian nuclear sites — would be slightly lower in 2026. The Air Force has nearly $8.6 million budgeted for the MOP in 2025, which would drop to $6.8 million in 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How EY's finance transformation team is approaching AI strategy
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. As finance leaders face pressure to modernize and deliver ROI on their spending on technology and consulting, EY's finance transformation team is focused on putting emerging technologies to work not just for clients, but inside the firm itself. The team, led by Deirdre Ryan, global finance transformation leader, is playing a dual role: Helping CFOs navigate AI adoption while also piloting those same tools internally across EY's finance and consulting functions. In a recent interview inspired by her session at the Gartner Finance Executive Conference last month, Ryan explains how EY is using agentic AI to reshape FP&A workflows and why being 'client zero' is critical to building credibility in the market. She also discusses how CFOs can avoid repeating past mistakes from automation efforts, what it takes to lead a finance organization through transformation and how to do so with clarity, purpose and psychological safety. Global Finance Transformation Leader, EY Notable previous employers: Deloitte Dontech Dun & Bradstreet This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. DEIRDRE RYAN: We feel very strongly that we have to be client zero. If we're going to advise clients on new technologies, we need to understand them ourselves and use them in real scenarios. We created a platform called EYQ. It's essentially a private environment where our people can interact with large language models securely. We made it accessible on laptops and mobile devices, and it's helped our consultants build hands-on understanding of the tools we're asking clients to adopt. As of recently, we've had over 150,000 consultants using it globally. It's one of the largest private LLMs in the world that EY developed in-house. In finance specifically, we've been building and piloting an agentic AI solution for FP&A. It looks like a normal dashboard, but what makes it powerful is that as actuals come in, it generates AI-driven insights automatically. That's helpful, but the real impact comes from scenario planning. It's built on driver-based forecasting, so we've identified the variables most correlated with forecast accuracy. You can adjust those and instantly see how the outlook changes. It goes even further. We've modeled it so that there are three AI agents working like analysts, with a manager agent that synthesizes and returns the best answer. You can ask something like, 'What would a one percent drop in GDP do to our forecast?' and it does the work. It's not removing human oversight — someone still has to take action — but it's changing the way FP&A work gets done. One client saw it and said, 'I have an army of silent FP&A analysts now.' That stuck with me because that is where the function is headed. That brings up another important point. Psychological safety is something we talk about a lot. When tools like this are introduced, it's natural for teams to wonder what it means for them. They may worry their work is being replaced or question what their future looks like in the function. This is where leadership matters. People entering the workforce today don't want to spend three days in Excel. They want to work with tools that help them think and act strategically. If you're in FP&A and you're given the choice between spending days building a model in spreadsheets or using agentic AI to get that answer instantly and then focusing your time on what to do about it, people are going to choose the latter. That's how you retain talent. If finance doesn't evolve, it risks losing its best people. So yes, we're advising clients on these tools, but we're also living it internally. We're applying it ourselves, and we're navigating the same leadership, talent and change management conversations that our clients are. That's what being client zero means. It's difficult for CFOs today because they still play a very traditional role. They must protect and preserve the assets of the organization and mitigate risk, but now they're being asked in a meaningful way to drive innovation within finance and across the enterprise. They need to understand disruptive technology well enough to make smart capital allocation decisions and guide the business forward. So, CFOs have to start getting their hands dirty. A lot of people I meet have seen demos or presentations, but haven't used the tools themselves. You have to understand the capabilities. Start small — maybe it's a proof of concept to help your team come up the learning curve — but that gives you insight into what these technologies can do. And from there, you can ask the bigger question: How do we apply this in a meaningful way to our finance organization? That's why our team tells CFOs to not just look at the tech, but think about the end game. What do you want your finance function to look like once you've integrated these tools? You have to do some things in parallel, which is tough because CFOs are already being asked to do so much. But this is one of those areas where you can't afford to take a one-track approach. You don't want to repeat what happened with robot process automation. Very few companies realized the value they expected. It became very democratized — people used it to automate a few hours of work here or there — but it didn't lead to large-scale transformation. That's the risk with AI and generative AI. The technology is unbelievably powerful, but without a strategy, you end up with fragmented efforts. You have to ask: Where is the puck going to be, and how do we get there? That means setting a clear end state, helping your finance team come up the learning curve, and avoiding what I call death by a thousand cuts — a little pilot here, a tool there, but no cohesive vision. So, yes, you want experimentation, and maybe that's informal — sharing a cool use case in a meeting. But it also needs to be backed by a very intentional strategy tied to how your finance function delivers value. For this, there are two big buckets I talk about with CFOs. One is productivity, and yes, you can absolutely drive productivity using these tools. We have great examples of that. And honestly, any of my competitors could give you the same 200 use cases for technology within finance. So I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but many of those use cases have been around for a long time. So if you're going to pursue productivity, you need to ask where you're going to get the biggest ROI. What's going to move the needle? The second bucket, and this is where I think the real value is, is decision insight. That's about using these tools to provide better analysis that helps your peers in the C-suite make smarter, faster decisions. And while that's much harder to quantify, I think it's equally important. Sometimes I ask CFOs to imagine a scenario. Let's pretend your data is perfect, it comes in on time and everything is consistently defined. Of course, that never happens, but let's just pretend. What is the kind of analysis you'd want to do on demand that could give you a competitive advantage? And it's interesting, because many CFOs haven't even had the [capacity] to think that way. They're so tied to traditional metrics like revenue and profitability that they haven't had the chance to ask, 'If I had access to better data and AI tools that let me explore it faster, what decisions could I make differently?' That kind of thinking is where AI can really change the game for finance. I think it depends on what you mean by 'a single source of truth'. We all know CFOs need to ensure the financial statements are accurate. And with technology of all types, there has to be a level of trust that the data is producing results that fairly represent the performance of the organization. Do I know any company whose data is 100% perfect all the time? No. Especially not large, acquisitive organizations. But what I always tell clients is, you have to prioritize. Not every data point needs to be perfect, but the ones that drive the most value do need to be consistently defined and captured across the enterprise. You could spend the next 10 or 20 years cleaning data, and it still wouldn't be perfect. The better approach is to identify the data that will drive meaningful analysis and ensure that it's reliable. That way, when you present insights to the executive team, you have confidence in the underlying information and the decisions it supports. It's about being intentional. Know what value you're trying to unlock, and focus on the data that supports that value. Recommended Reading How PwC's tax team is using agentic AI Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Walmart exec sounds the alarm on concerning customer trend
It's a pretty hard time to be a retailer right now. It doesn't matter if you're a large, multinational company or a niche shop on Main Street. Related: Amazon makes a massive $4 billion bet to take on Walmart The world of commerce is filled with complicated problems that often lack clear-cut solutions. That's especially the case in retail in the U.S. since the Trump administration announced broad tariffs that affect many countries around the world. Tariffs, or the duties companies pay to import foreign goods, are designed to help protect domestic interests and workers. They also tend to make items more expensive - either for companies or consumers. And some of the newly instituted tariffs affect our biggest trading partners. As it stands now, current tariff rates on China are at just over 50%. That means that a company would pay an average of a 50% tax to bring in Chinese-made goods to sell in the U.S., per the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In reciprocation, China's average tariff rate on U.S. goods is over 32%. "President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit - this is an emergency," an official White House fact sheet argues. Image Source: Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images Tariffs certainly make the business side of things more complex. If they work with foreign suppliers, U.S. companies must now make a hard decision: either continue working with these suppliers and accept a more expensive operation, or seek domestic suppliers. Neither of these options is particularly easy. More Retail: Walmart makes drastic change amid alarming customer trendLowe's makes one of its largest ever billion-dollar acquisitionsSubway owner makes major billion-dollar fast food acquisitionAmazon makes a harsh decision amid concerning customer trend If a company chooses the former option, it must incur the price associated with tariffs. This often means either absorbing heightened costs that cut into their bottom line, or passing costs off to customers. Often, many companies do a mix of both, leaving no party happy with the solution. If a business chooses the latter option and seeks out new domestic suppliers, it must scramble to find one without disrupting supply chain and inventory too much. This can be a next-to-impossible task. Tariffs can make shopping more complicated, too. This is especially the case when dealing with a large-scale corporation, like Walmart (WMT) , which juggles extremely complex supply chains around the world and whose business hinges on pleasing millions of customers. Related: Walmart makes drastic change amid alarming customer trend On June 9, at the Oppenheimer Consumer Growth & E‑Commerce Conference, Walmart CFO John Rainey said his company was forced to get more nuanced when it comes to purchasing products from suppliers in the midst of the tariff uncertainty. "Let's use a barbecue pit as an example," Rainey explained. "If that's being imported and it has a certain tariff applied to that, given the elasticity expectations around that, we're going to sell fewer of them." So Walmart would purchase fewer barbecue pits under the assumption that fewer customers would be making bigger purchases on more expensive items. In some categories, Walmart might be buying "as much as 20% less of items to make sure that - or try to ensure that we don't get into a situation where we can't sell through the inventory that we you can't carry throughout the year," he continued. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Where's Tulsi Gabbard? Intelligence director missing from key moments as insiders say she's been ‘wrong on the big stuff'
WASHINGTON — President Trump's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were the result of 15 years of intel work, the Pentagon said Thursday — but Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard curiously was missing from key moments before and after the raid. The ex-Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii — an outspoken opponent of US military intervention in the Middle East — now faces the perception that she's being shunted to the side by the commander-in-chief, with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who previously held her job, taking on a larger profile. Gabbard, 44, was missing from an intelligence briefing with Congress on Thursday, where Ratcliffe gave lawmakers classified details of the Saturday strike. She also was excluded from a June 8 national security pow-wow at Camp David, where Trump began to shape his plans for Iran with Ratcliffe and other key leaders, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Two days after that meeting — to which administration officials told Fox News Gabbard was not invited — she released what one person close to the administration described as a 'fear-mongering' video on the dangers of nuclear war, in what was seen as a swipe against a preemptive strike. 3 CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard meet in the Situation Room of the White House on June 21, 2025. via REUTERS 'That narrative played directly into the hands of those who did not support the president's then-upcoming bold decision to obliterate Tehran's nuclear program,' the source said. The sentiment exemplified what an administration official who told The Post this week: 'She's been wrong on the big stuff. Trump made headlines earlier this month when he twice split from his intelligence chief's assessment that Iran wasn't close to building nuclear bombs. 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one,' Trump said of Gabbard while aboard Air Force One on June 17. 3 President Trump disagreed with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's assessment that Iran had not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon. AP Gabbard endorsed Trump last year largely on foreign policy grounds after repeatedly slamming mainstream Democrats and pre-Trump Republicans for promoting regime change abroad. As a Democratic presidential primary candidate in 2020, she hawked T-shirts reading 'No War With Iran' — launching them two days after Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Still, multiple insiders said they don't believe Gabbard is in danger of getting fired — and a White House official who saw Gabbard Friday before she briefed Trump in the Oval Office detected no signs of tension, calling speculation that she's on the ropes 'bogus.' Gabbard was among the senior leaders who joined Trump in the situation room during the daring bombing mission on Saturday. And internal disagreements among his aides often are welcomed by Trump, particularly on foreign policy. Some sources, however, foresee her role being reduced as Ratcliffe, a former Texas Republican congressman, asserts more influence on intelligence strategy. It comes as Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) seeks to cut Gabbard's staff from roughly 1,600 to just 650, a senior Senate aide familiar with the proposed legislation told NBC News Friday. 3 The Pentagon released jaw-dropping footage showcasing a test of the 30,000-pound heavy-duty bunker buster bombs that were used against Iran. Department of Defense Trump has been more hesitant to oust leaders in his administration this year than he was in his first term. There have been no changes in his cabinet, aside from the rerouting of former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz to US ambassador to the United Nations, following his mistakenly adding a reporter to a Signal chat about air strikes in Yemen. Gabbard's office did not offer a comment for this story. Additional reporting by Steven Nelson
