The bill directs the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure continued production and procurement of both an advanced‑capability fighter model and a fifth‑generation fighter model until Air National Guard (ANG) fighter units are fully recapitalized. It amends planning language in the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act to include fifth‑generation aircraft in recapitalization planning.
This matters to ANG squadrons, the defense industrial base, and DoD budgets because it seeks to keep production lines open and prioritize replacement of legacy aircraft in the Total Force. Firms that build the listed aircraft, base communities that rely on ANG squadrons, and acquisition and program offices will all see programmatic and budgetary effects if the requirement is implemented.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the Air Force to maintain production and procurement of at least one advanced capability fighter and one fifth‑generation fighter until the Secretary certifies that legacy fighters in covered ANG units are replaced. It adds fifth‑generation aircraft to an existing NDAA recapitalization planning provision.
Who It Affects
Air National Guard fighter units, Air Force acquisition and sustainment offices, prime contractors and suppliers for F‑16 and F‑15EX variants, and congressional defense committees who receive the required briefings and reports.
Why It Matters
The bill locks a production‑continuity requirement into statute rather than leaving it to discretionary acquisition planning, which creates enduring obligations for procurement posture, industrial base management, and budget prioritization.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes planning and procurement behavior in two linked ways: (1) it adds fifth‑generation aircraft to the statutory planning construct used for recapitalizing the Air National Guard, and (2) it imposes an affirmative duty on the Secretary of the Air Force to keep at least one advanced capability fighter model and one fifth‑generation fighter model in production and procurement until every covered ANG fighter unit has been modernized out of legacy aircraft.
Practically, the statute directs the Secretary to either enter new contracts or modify existing contracts to meet the production requirement. It requires the Comptroller General to review advanced capability fighter procurement challenges, provide a briefing to congressional defense committees within one year of enactment, and deliver a final report shortly after that briefing.
Following the GAO work, the Secretary must report to the same committees about progress in implementing GAO recommendations and in replacing legacy aircraft; that reporting starts 180 days after the GAO report and continues annually.The bill also instructs the Secretary, working with the Director of the Air National Guard, to conduct a feasibility study focused on the role of advanced capability fighters for both active and reserve components. The study must consider unmanned or autonomous options, quantify cost impacts associated with foreign sales of F‑16 Block 70/72 variants, designate which units are eligible for recapitalization, evaluate mission suitability for steady‑state and contingency requirements, and assess whether a multiyear contract is the best acquisition approach.
The Secretary must send the study findings to Congress within 180 days of enactment.Finally, the bill defines ‘‘advanced capability fighter aircraft’’ to include, by name, the F‑16 Block 70/72 variant (and later variants) and the F‑15EX, while explicitly excluding the Block 70/72 F‑16 from the definition of ‘‘legacy capability fighter aircraft.’' It also codifies the concept of a ‘‘covered Air National Guard fighter unit’’ as any ANG fighter unit that, as of enactment, has not begun replacement of legacy fighters. Those definitional choices shape which platforms and units the procurement and sustainment requirements will target.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts ‘‘fifth generation fighter aircraft’’ into section 154(b)(2) of the FY2025 NDAA planning provision, making fifth‑gen part of statutory recapitalization planning.
It requires the Secretary to ensure continued production/procurement of at least one advanced capability fighter model and at least one fifth‑generation model until the Secretary certifies that every covered ANG fighter unit has replaced its legacy fighters.
The Comptroller General must review advanced capability fighter procurement issues, brief congressional defense committees within one year of enactment, and deliver a final report within 30 days after that briefing.
The Secretary must deliver the results of a feasibility study to Congress within 180 days of enactment; the study must analyze unmanned/autonomous integration, estimate cost savings tied to foreign sales of F‑16 Block 70/72 variants, identify eligible units, assess mission fit, and evaluate multiyear contracting.
The statute expressly defines ‘‘advanced capability fighter aircraft’’ to include the F‑16 Block 70/72 variant (and later) and the F‑15EX, and it specifies that the Block 70/72 F‑16 is not a ‘‘legacy capability fighter aircraft.’.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name: the 'Air National Guard Squadron Preservation Act of 2025.' This is administrative, but the short title signals congressional intent to prioritize ANG squadron recapitalization when interpreting the statute.
Policy statement on Total Fighter Force
Expresses a policy that the United States should maintain Total Fighter Force capabilities by ensuring ANG fighter squadrons are fully recapitalized. The policy language does not create enforceable entitlements, but it frames subsequent provisions and provides a statutory backdrop for interpreting Secretary actions and reporting obligations.
Amendment to FY2025 NDAA planning language
Amends section 154(b)(2) of the FY2025 NDAA to add fifth‑generation fighters to the planning requirement for sustainment and recapitalization. By changing the statutory planning language, the bill elevates fifth‑generation aircraft into the formal planning process used for ANG recapitalization and may constrain future planning that excluded fifth‑gen by omission.
Procurement mandate, contracting route, GAO review, and Secretary reporting
Imposes the core procurement mandate: the Secretary must take necessary steps to keep production and procurement of at least one advanced‑capability and one fifth‑generation fighter ongoing until the Secretary certifies replacement of legacy fighters in each covered ANG unit. To satisfy that duty the Secretary can enter new contracts or modify existing contracts. The Comptroller General must assess procurement challenges and recommend solutions, provide a briefing within one year, and deliver a final report within 30 days of the briefing. The Secretary then must provide a progress report to congressional defense committees 180 days after the GAO report and annually thereafter, covering both implementation of GAO recommendations and replacement progress (including next‑generation air dominance aircraft as an option). These procedural requirements create recurring oversight touchpoints and a statutory cadence for updates to Congress.
Feasibility study and definitions
Directs a feasibility study (in consultation with the Director of the Air National Guard) to determine the need for advanced‑capability fighters for Active and Reserve components. The study’s required elements—unmanned/autonomy planning, Block 70/72 foreign‑sale cost savings, unit eligibility, mission fit, and multiyear contracting analysis—are operationally specific and will force acquisition planners to produce near‑term cost and capability metrics. The definitions chapter names Block 70/72 F‑16 variants and the F‑15EX as advanced capability aircraft and excludes Block 70/72 F‑16 from the statute's legacy class; it also defines ‘‘covered’’ ANG units as those that had not commenced replacement as of enactment. Those definitional choices will drive which platforms remain eligible for statutory protection and which units are prioritized for recapitalization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Air National Guard fighter units and their host communities — The statute prioritizes recapitalization for ANG squadrons that had not started replacement as of enactment, which preserves squadron mission capability and supports local economies tied to Guard basing.
- Prime contractors and supplier tiers for specified platforms — Firms building F‑16 Block 70/72 variants and F‑15EX (e.g., companies in the F‑16/F‑15 supply chain) gain a statutory backstop for continued production and potential contract extensions.
- Combatant commanders — By pushing for full ANG recapitalization, the bill improves the availability of modern aircraft for steady‑state posture and contingency surge requirements.
- Air Force program offices managing legacy transitions — The directive creates a prioritized mission for program offices to execute recapitalization plans with statutory visibility and congressional reporting requirements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Air Force acquisition accounts and Treasury — Maintaining production lines and procuring additional aircraft will require funding; budget pressure may shift resources away from other modernization programs or require supplemental appropriations.
- Other DoD modernization priorities — Statutory procurement continuity for specific platforms can crowd out investment in alternative or next‑generation systems that compete for limited procurement dollars.
- Contracting offices and program managers — They must manage contract modifications, potential multiyear procurements, and coordination with FMS customers while meeting the Secretary’s statutory obligations.
- Air Logistics Complexes and sustainment enterprises — A concentrated recapitalization effort will increase depot and sustainment workload, potentially stressing manpower and supply chains if not funded concurrently.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is preserving ANG squadron readiness and the industrial base by legally sustaining production lines versus preserving the Air Force’s ability to pivot procurement and funding toward emerging technologies or more cost‑effective solutions; the bill solves one problem—production continuity—but does so by constraining acquisition flexibility and potentially locking in platform choices.
The bill creates a direct trade‑off between force‑structure stability and acquisition flexibility. By requiring continued production of at least one advanced and one fifth‑generation fighter until all covered ANG units are modernized, Congress narrows the Secretary’s discretion to pause or redirect production lines even where evolving threat assessments, cost overruns, or emergent technologies might argue for different choices.
That statutory stick may keep industrial workforces employed and production lines warm, but it can also lock the Air Force into procurement trajectories that become suboptimal over multi‑year horizons.
Implementation questions loom. The statute does not appropriate funding and leaves the Secretary to 'take such steps as may be necessary'—language that creates uncertainty about whether compliance requires reprogramming, supplemental funding, or internal prioritization.
The definitions and the phrase 'covered Air National Guard fighter unit' hinge on the status as of enactment; units that begin replacement shortly after enactment may present edge cases. The GAO timeline (briefing within one year, final report 30 days later) provides rapid oversight but may be too compressed to resolve complex industrial base or contract modification issues.
Finally, naming specific variants (Block 70/72 F‑16, F‑15EX) reduces ambiguity but risks privileging near‑term platform continuity over longer‑term investments in autonomy, sensors, or a true next‑generation air dominance fleet.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.