The Mitchell Institute argues that the U.S. Air Force requires a comprehensive modernization effort to maintain a balanced force mix capable of defeating a peer adversary in high-intensity conflict. This necessity is underscored by a wargame comparing alternative force designs for 2035, which informed the recommendations. Strategically, the report urges Congress and the Department of Defense to make difficult choices regarding future force design. Policy must prioritize investments in fifth-generation combat aircraft, autonomous systems, and advanced guided munitions to ensure the service can simultaneously defend the homeland and deter major power aggression.
Mitchell
This hub page collects curated ThinkTankWeekly entries for Mitchell and links readers back to the publisher for the original reports.
-
1.
-
2.Aerospace Power Facts & Figures The Mitchell Institute’s research studies, policy reports, and forum papers. (Mitchell)
The Mitchell Institute’s research emphasizes that U.S. aerospace power is currently facing strategic and budgetary challenges comparable to those of the Cold War era. The analysis argues that the Air Force budget may be insufficient to maintain the technological and operational edge necessary for modern power projection, especially as the domain becomes increasingly information-centric. Key evidence points to a disconnect between federal defense spending priorities and the actual requirements for sustaining a dominant aerospace force. These findings imply that without a significant shift in policy and investment, the U.S. risks losing its primary tactical and strategic advantages in future conflicts.
-
3.
The Mitchell Institute argues that the U.S. Air Force requires significant investment in long-range, stealthy penetrating airpower to effectively deny adversaries operational sanctuaries. It asserts that decades of force cuts and deferred modernization have degraded combat capacity, leaving the service unable to simultaneously meet multiple strategic defense objectives. Consequently, scaling these advanced capabilities is presented as a critical national choice necessary to maintain deterrence and ensure victory in future conflicts.
-
4.In the News & Commentary The Mitchell Institute’s editorials, media articles featuring Mitchell expertise, and other content. (Mitchell)
The Mitchell Institute highlights that the ongoing conflict with Iran, specifically Operation Epic Fury, underscores the decisive role of space and cyber capabilities in modern high-intensity combat. These 'invisible' forces were instrumental in enabling strikes against over 1,000 targets, demonstrating the strategic advantage of multi-domain integration. However, the reports also highlight the inherent risks of complex air operations, as seen in a significant friendly fire incident between Kuwaiti and U.S. forces. Policy focus must therefore balance the pursuit of technological dominance in non-kinetic domains with rigorous improvements in multi-national tactical coordination.
-
5.
The Mitchell Institute's China Airpower Tracker highlights the rapid transformation of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) from a regional defensive service into a sophisticated force capable of projecting power beyond the First Island Chain. By integrating advanced aircraft, uncrewed systems, and mobile long-range surface-to-air missiles across five theater commands, China has significantly enhanced its aerial combat and denial capabilities. This tool provides a visualization of PLAAF airbases and SAM sites, emphasizing the strategic importance of China's road-mobile assets and their implications for survivability and power projection in a potential conflict.
-
6.
The Mitchell Institute asserts that space superiority is a foundational requirement for U.S. military operations, currently threatened by advancing Chinese and Russian counterspace capabilities. To mitigate these risks, the paper argues that the Department of Defense must clarify institutional roles and prioritize cross-domain investments to improve the survivability of the U.S. space architecture. Furthermore, the institute recommends a cultural shift towards treating space as a true warfighting domain, necessitating the integration of contested space scenarios into major military training exercises. These reforms are considered urgent to ensure the United States can maintain its strategic advantage in a linchpin domain.
-
7.
The Mitchell Institute report warns that the U.S. Air Force airlift system currently lacks the capacity and specific aircraft mix required to sustain combat operations against a peer competitor in highly contested environments. The analysis highlights that decades of underfunding and the geographical expanse of the Indo-Pacific have severely degraded the nation's mobility enterprise, posing a significant risk to global military operations. Consequently, the author advocates for immediate, multi-year investments to expand fleet capacity and restore the strategic mobility backbone essential for national defense.
-
8.Winning the Next War: Overcoming the U.S. Air Force’s Capacity, Capability, and Readiness Crisis (Mitchell)
The Mitchell Institute argues that the U.S. Air Force has entered a severe force-generation crisis, describing it as the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history at a time of rising peer threats. The report’s core reasoning is that deterrence and warfighting credibility depend on balancing three linked factors: sufficient force size, modern combat capability, and day-to-day readiness, and that current shortfalls across all three create unacceptable operational risk. It recommends a dual fiscal shift: increase top-line Air Force funding and reallocate internal spending from RDT&E toward procurement and operations and maintenance to rebuild near-term combat readiness. Strategically, the paper warns that failing to act now will raise the probability of major U.S. losses in a future high-end conflict and weaken U.S. deterrence posture.
-
9.A Broader Look at Dynamic Space Operations: Creating Multi-Dimensional Dilemmas for Adversaries (Mitchell)
The report argues that the United States must shift from legacy, static space operations to dynamic space operations (DSO) to preserve space superiority in an increasingly contested warfighting domain. It reasons that older architectures were designed for a benign environment, while current threats and mission demands require capabilities that can rapidly and frequently change orbital and operational parameters. According to the study, broad use of DSO would improve resilience, flexibility, and mission effectiveness by enabling maneuver, surprise, and novel mission approaches that complicate adversary planning. Strategically, the implication is that accelerating DSO adoption is urgent for deterrence and for protecting the space-enabled foundation of U.S. joint military operations.