Air Force senior leaders discussed how the service can adapt to a contested environment, balance current readiness with future modernization and turn emerging capabilities into combat power during a panel at the Air and Space Forces Association's 2026 Air, Space and Cyber Conference Sept. 14.
The panel featured Gen. Kevin Schneider, commander, Pacific Air Forces; Gen. Adrian L. Spain, commander, Air Combat Command; Lt. Gen. Kenyon Bell, deputy chief of staff for Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection; and Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, Air Force chief modernization officer.
The conversation began with lessons from recent operations and how those experiences are shaping the future force.
Schneider identified command and control, agile combat employment and resiliency as key areas for the Air Force moving forward, emphasizing the need for stronger command and control nodes, resilient data pathways and logistics capable of operating under pressure.
Spain reinforced the changing nature of the operating environment, pointing to the vulnerability of bases and the need to generate combat airpower while under attack.
"We do not operate from sanctuary any longer," Spain emphasized. "Our bases are under attack, and we have to continue to generate air power in spite of that."
That reality also changes how the service approaches logistics and force protection. Bell stressed that preparing for the future fight means preparing Airmen and infrastructure for conditions they cannot always predict.
"The era of uncontested logistics is over," Bell said, highlighting the need to sustain and regenerate forces while operating in contested environments.
For Niemi, recent operations also reinforced the need to accelerate investments in point defense, a rapidly expanding mission designed to safeguard air bases against a full spectrum of airborne threats, and rethink the balance between a small number of highly capable platforms and a broader force able to generate mass.
The modernization challenge, however, is not simply determining what the Air Force needs next. Leaders must also decide how much risk the service can accept today to build that future force.
Schneider explained that each level of the Air Force operates on a different timeline, with operational commanders closest to the immediate risk.
"The operational end user, whoever has OPCON, TACON, owns the risk to mission and the risk to force to the Joint Force commander," Schneider said. His role, he added, is to communicate that warfighter risk throughout the service so leaders can make informed decisions about the transition from current readiness to future modernization.
Spain described how ACC is balancing the immediate demands of presenting forces to combatant commanders with requirements extending decades into the future. While the force fighting within the next five years may look similar to today's force, he noted that it could look different a decade plus from now.
Niemi emphasized just how far ahead modernization decisions must look to deliver effective operational capabilities for tomorrow's Airmen.
"We're trying to make a decision now and anticipate what the world is going to look like in 2033," Niemi explained, noting that decisions made today may not deliver capabilities for years.
The tension in meeting today's operational needs while shaping tomorrow's force is an important part of the process rather than a problem to eliminate, Spain discussed.
"A healthy process here is always under tension," Spain said. "It shouldn't be that we all agree all the time or we wouldn't be giving the Chief and SecAF the info they need to make fully informed decisions."
The panel then turned to how the Air Force can move emerging capabilities from development into the hands of the warfighter.
Niemi said the service should avoid trying to solve every problem at the headquarters level and instead allow operational commanders to experiment with new tools and determine what works.
"What I'm trying to focus on is to get it close enough that when it goes down to Gen. Spain or Gen. Schneider, that they have enough to be able to figure out what right actually looks like when I give them an 80% solution," Niemi said.
Schneider similarly said that modernization cannot stop at acquiring a new platform, but must also include the sustainment of the program.
"It's more than just the equipment or the shiny thing that sits on a ramp," Schneider said. "It's everything that enables it or allows it to be successful."
Spain highlighted the difficulty of introducing new capabilities into established communities. New capabilities, he explained, require commanders to help operationalize them and demonstrate how they can contribute to the fight.
That challenge becomes particularly important as the service develops capabilities such as Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Niemi pointed to the cultural shift required to embrace technology that could eventually perform tasks traditionally handled by pilots.
"I can imagine a day in the future, 10 years, maybe more, where a CCA autonomous algorithm does a better job flying a fighter airplane than I did as a captain," Niemi said. "That hurts my ego a little bit, but at the same time, I see that this trend is happening."
The panel closed with a discussion on whether the Air Force should continue refining existing concepts or develop entirely new ones.
Spain pointed that to find the answer, start by asking what problem the service is actually trying to solve. Then look at if the current CONOP that exists sufficiently addresses the problem or could it if it was modified. If it cannot, he said, you probably need to transition to a concept that will.
"This stuff is really hard, and a lot of smart people have tried to do this the best they could under the conditions within they were working and now it is our turn," Spain said. "We are committed to … making the best decisions that we can for the Air Force today, while also preparing our Air Force for the Future."
Ultimately, the panelists emphasized that building the future Air Force will require more than new platforms. It will require resilient Airmen, infrastructure and logistics, risk-informed decision-making and a willingness to put emerging capabilities into the hands of warfighters to determine what works.
As the service prepares for an increasingly contested fight, the panel underscored the need to remain ready for today's fight while continually shaping the force needed for what comes next.
