“We are shifting to what's called advanced tanker systems,” Maj. Gen. Verdugo told reporters during a Pentagon budget briefing, explaining why the Air Force removed direct funding for a next‑generation tanker and moved money toward mission systems for existing aircraft.
Maj. Gen. Verdugo and the “Advanced Tanker Systems” budget line
The Air Force’s 2027 budget request eliminated funding for the Next‑Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS), which had received nearly $12 million in the prior year. In its place the service requested $13 million under a new line titled “Advanced Tanker Systems.” Service officials said the money would target “mission systems as opposed to platform,” and that the funds would be provided through the baseline budget rather than supplemental congressional funding.
NGAS funding zeroed out while analysis continues
The NGAS program was the explicit focus of earlier efforts to design a future refueling platform. The new approach, according to an Air Force spokesperson, is to “explore options based on NGAS Analysis of Alternatives that will enable resilience and persistence of aerial refueling in a future, highly contested conflict.” That spokesperson added that the work “includes pursuit of platform‑agnostic capabilities focusing on connectivity, battlespace awareness, and survivability.”
Procurement trade‑offs: fighters and bombers vs. tankers
Defense planning in the same budget request shows the Air Force asking for 24 F‑15EX aircraft and 38 F‑35 jets, alongside a multi‑billion dollar investment for development and production of the next‑generation F‑47 fighter and the B‑21 bomber. At the same time the service plans to buy 15 KC‑46 tankers while retiring roughly 20 aging KC‑135s. The KC‑135s “are already taking heavy battle damage in the Iran war,” the reporting notes — a detail that frames the fleet‑balance concern raised by some observers.
Air Mobility Command leaders, recent losses, and connectivity shortfalls
Current and former air mobility leaders have publicly warned that the refueling fleet is aging and lacks critical communications and connectivity upgrades needed for “full awareness of enemy and friendly aircraft in chaotic combat zones.” That shortfall is one of the problems the Advanced Tanker Systems line aims to address. The concern is underscored by recent operational losses: six airmen died last month in a tanker crash during Operation Epic Fury.
Lt. Gen. Reba Sonkiss, the interim head of Air Mobility Command, bluntly framed the operational mismatch, saying, “I cannot have a 90‑year‑old tanker refueling a B‑21, and if you do the math, as we reach the end of programs for things, that’s the reality.”
Concerns voiced by a former military official and defense experts
Some defense experts argue the delay in prioritizing a new tanker risks creating an imbalance between refueling capacity and a growing combat aircraft inventory. “When you don't make it a priority, this is as fast as you can go,” one former military official said. He added, “When, when bombers and fighters are the priority, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be, and that you don't understand how the mobility can fit into the programming strategy, this is what happens. You just get eked along.”
How Air Mobility Command leaders, Congress, and combat aircrews will respond
- Air Mobility Command leaders will press for connectivity and survivability upgrades to legacy tankers and for investments that ensure compatibility with next‑generation bombers and fighters, based on their recent public statements.
- Congress and budget planners will have to weigh the baseline $13 million for Advanced Tanker Systems against the earlier NGAS funding and competing procurement priorities — notably multibillion investments in the F‑47 and B‑21 programs and purchases of F‑15EX and F‑35 jets.
- Combat aircrews and combatant commanders will watch whether platform‑agnostic mission systems can close capability gaps while KC‑135 retirements and combat losses reduce available refueling capacity.
The Air Force has chosen a measured, systems‑level path rather than immediate new‑airframe development: prioritize connectivity, battlespace awareness and survivability across existing platforms while continuing an Analysis of Alternatives for NGAS. The question left by that choice is concrete and immediate — can mission‑system upgrades bought at the $13 million level bridge an aging tanker fleet and sustain the service’s expanding combat force while a replacement aircraft remains only an option under study?
