Building Combat Mass Air Cmdre Edwards on How NATO Is Preparing Fighter Forces for the Future

Chapter headingChapter subheadingAhead of the International Fighter Conference 2026, Air Commodore Howard Edwards discusses what "building combat mass" means in practice and the future of combat air power.Contents

Thank you for reading Template 1

Building Combat Mass

Air Commodore Edwards on How NATO Is Preparing Fighter Forces for the Future

As NATO adapts to an increasingly contested security environment, combat air readiness depends on far more than advanced aircraft. Resilience, interoperability, industrial capacity and the ability to generate and sustain combat power at scale are becoming increasingly critical.

Ahead of the International Fighter Conference 2026, Air Commodore Howard Edwards, DCOS Force Preparedness at NATO AIRCOM, discusses what "building combat mass" means in practice, from integrating crewed and uncrewed aircraft and balancing fourth-, fifth- and sixth-generation capabilities to strengthening coalition interoperability and the industrial base that underpins combat air power.

Air Commodore Howard (Howie) Edwards

DCOS Force Preparedness

NATO AIRCOM HQ

Air Commodore Howie Edwards serves as DCOS Force Preparedness at NATO AIRCOM, responsible for directing and coordinating Force Preparedness functions across the command and providing policy guidance and advice to the Chief of Staff.

Joining the RAF in 1991, he flew the Tornado GR1 and GR4 in strike, attack and SEAD roles, completing operational deployments over Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. His career has included command of XIII Squadron, senior operational appointments at CENTCOM and NATO, Combat Air Strategist within the MOD, and command of No. 6 Flying Training School.

Promoted to Air Commodore, he became Combat Air Force Commander, responsible for the UK’s F-35 and Typhoon forces, the Red Arrows and the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. He returned to NATO in 2025 and assumed his current role as DCOS Force Preparedness in June 2026.

Air Commodore Edwards has flown more than 3,500 hours and completed over 100 combat missions across multiple operational theatres.

1. As Deputy Chief of Staff Force Preparedness, you oversee readiness and evaluation across NATO AIRCOM. How is the Alliance adapting its approach to force preparedness to ensure air forces can respond to an increasingly contested and unpredictable security environment?

First, we must change our perspective in which we view the environment. Rather than focusing on generating forces for known requirements, the Alliance is putting the weight of effort into maintaining credible combat power under sustained pressure, whilst being agile enough to adapt rapidly as the security environment or threat changes.

For NATO air forces, that means preparedness is not simply about whether an aircraft or unit is available on a particular day. It is about whether we can generate, integrate, sustain and regenerate combat power in a contested environment.

To achieve this state of preparedness, we are placing greater emphasis on operational readiness, resiliency, and the ability to operate effectively when our assumptions about access, communications or infrastructure are challenged.

To compliment preparedness, the second element is interoperability and integration. NATO's strength is not simply the sum of 32 national air forces; it is our ability to employ those forces as a coherent Alliance capability. Our commanders are given the right tools or capabilities, and the flexibility to use them as necessary thanks to the on-going interoperability and integration work.

In addition, our exercises and evaluations are increasingly designed to test that integration under realistic conditions, by considering potential challenges that could disrupt the way we normally operate.

Ultimately, preparedness leads to credible deterrence. Potential adversaries must believe that NATO can respond quickly, operate effectively and sustain the fight for as long as necessary. Our objective is to build air forces that are prepared enough, resilient enough and adaptable enough to respond when the crisis does not look like the one we expected.

2. This year's International Fighter Conference centers on "Building Combat Mass". From NATO AIRCOM's perspective, what does building combat mass actually mean in practical terms, and what are the biggest obstacles to achieving it?

Combat mass is our ability to generate sufficient combat power, at the right time and in the right place, and to sustain that power for as long as the operational situation demands.

In practical terms, that means having the aircraft, weapons, trained personnel, enabling capabilities, command and control, logistics and infrastructure required to operate at scale. It also means being able to regenerate combat power when losses, maintenance demands or operational tempo begin to reduce our effectiveness. Mass must be credible, sustainable and resilient.

For NATO, a critical factor is the ability to integrate. We need to be able to combine the capabilities of multiple nations and domains into a coherent fighting force. Our advantage comes from being able to generate effects collectively — across air, space, cyber and the maritime and land domains — and to do so under contested conditions.

The biggest obstacles are capacity, sustainability and interoperability. One example is advanced combat aircraft, which are highly capable. But they require sophisticated weapons, maintenance, logistics, data, infrastructure and highly trained personnel. Those supporting elements can quickly become the limiting factor.

We must consider the challenge of industrial capacity. Combat mass requires sufficient stocks of critical munitions and spare parts, and the ability to replenish them at the pace demanded by a major conflict. That is not something that can be generated overnight.

And finally, there is the challenge of time. Building combat mass is not a single procurement decision. It requires sustained investment, training, exercising and cooperation across the Alliance and commercial industry.

Combat mass is not about the number of available platforms; it is about generating and sustaining combat power as a whole, bringing enough capability together, integrating effectively and sustaining under pressure to impose costs on an adversary and achieve our operational objectives.

3. Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) are rapidly moving from concept to operational capability. Looking beyond the technology, what do you see as the greatest operational and organisational challenges in integrating crewed and uncrewed aircraft into NATO air operations?

Technology is moving quickly – the war in Ukraine is showing us how quickly, but the bigger challenge may be how we change the way we organise and employ air power around it. Integrating crewed and uncrewed aircraft requires us to rethink doctrine, command and control, training, authorities, permissions and ultimately how commanders generate and employ combat power.

Firstly, we need to determine how CCAs are incorporated into existing air command structures and how commanders’ control and employ them in a dynamic and contested environment. That becomes particularly important when communications are degraded or disrupted. We cannot build a concept of operations that assumes perfect connectivity.

Secondly trust is critical. Commanders and crews need confidence that these systems will behave predictably, understand their limitations and perform as intended when the situation becomes complex. That confidence will come from realistic testing and evaluation, rigorous training and repeated operational use — not simply from technical demonstrations.

Interoperability will always pose a challenge for NATO. We have 32 nations with different aircraft, data links, weapons, networks, security classifications and national authorities. If CCAs are going to contribute meaningfully to Alliance combat power, we need to ensure they can operate within a common framework and generate effects alongside aircraft from different nations.

The key is to understand how we build a force in which people and technology complement each other's strengths. The advantage will come from using autonomy to generate scale, persistence and risk tolerance, whilst keeping human judgement at the centre of command decisions. If we get the organisational and operational framework right, CCAs could fundamentally change how NATO generates combat mass.

4. Exercises and operational evaluations play an increasingly important role in validating combat readiness. What lessons are emerging from recent NATO training activities, and how are these influencing the Alliance's approach to preparedness?

Recent NATO training activities are highlighting our reliance on data, in all areas, and our ability to process it, understand it and manipulate it. In addition, the often-overlooked topic of logistics and sustainment are proving key in NATO’s ability to sustain and maintain any campaign. As always, our ability to interoperate and collaborate across the AOR is key to Force Preparedness.

5. Having flown more than 100 combat missions across multiple operations, how have your experiences in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya shaped your views on the capabilities future fighter forces will need to succeed?

Having flown more than 100 combat missions across multiple operations my key observation is that the ability to communicate, assimilate and operate in contested and congested environments will always be a capability required by future fighter forces. Possessing the capability to strike deep into that which an adversary holds dear will remain a key aspect of deterrence and one that, with multi-domain support, remain a 5^th/6^th gen fighter force key mission set. CCAs will be key here as well as the ability for data-sharing and rapid exploitation.

6. Many NATO air forces are balancing investment in next-generation platforms while sustaining and upgrading existing fourth- and fifth-generation fleets. How do you see that balance evolving over the next decade, and where should commanders prioritise investment?

Modern Air Forces are wise to maintain their 4^th generation platforms to a credible and relevant standard as these fleets often possess mass which is a quality all of its own. A High/Low mix of capability is essential to remain on the right side of the cost-curve and therefore be sustainable during any extended campaign. My take on the balance between 4^th/5^th/6^th generation investment is that Air Forces should purchase at least the minimum they need for ‘night 1’ capability whilst maintaining a blend of high and low capability for follow on action. A strong industrial base that is able to sustain whilst ‘in contact’ is also a key enabler in winning any future fight.

7. The future battlespace will demand faster decision-making, greater interoperability and closer integration between allies. In your view, what are the most important steps NATO and partner nations must take now to ensure coalition airpower remains a credible deterrent?

The first step is to recognise that credible deterrence depends on what an adversary believes NATO can do, not simply on what capabilities we possess as an Alliance. We need to demonstrate that NATO can make decisions quickly, generate combat power rapidly and sustain it in a contested environment. Joint exercises are an excellent way in which NATO nations demonstrate how integrated and interoperable they already are, through common standards, compatible networks, shared data and realistic multinational training. We exercise as we intend to fight — across nations, domains and command structures, and under conditions where communications, navigation and information offer as many challenges as advantages.

We operate under the assumption that an adversary will target our networks, infrastructure, logistics and information systems from the outset. Our air forces therefore need to be able to disperse, operate from multiple locations, continue functioning when systems are degraded and recover quickly from disruption. Resilience is no longer an enabling function; it is a fundamental component of combat power.

The requirement to establish strong relationships, procedures and trust before the crisis is critical. Day one of the fight is too late. That means exercising together routinely, exposing our forces to realistic levels of friction and ensuring commanders are comfortable operating across national and organisational boundaries.

Finally, we need to increase the speed of decision-making without losing political and operational control. Technology can give commanders more information, but information alone does not create decision advantage. We need the right authorities, processes and command relationships to turn information into action faster than an adversary can.

Ultimately, credible coalition airpower comes down to unity, readiness and resilience. If an adversary believes that NATO can bring together capable forces quickly, make decisions faster, and sustain combat power, then we strengthen deterrence and show that NATO is more integrated, more adaptable and more credible as a coalition than any adversary can afford to challenge.

8. The International Fighter Conference brings together senior military leaders, programme managers and industry experts from across the combat aviation community. What conversations do you believe are most important for attendees to have this year, and what do you hope delegates will take away from the event?

The most important conversations this year must centre on the resilience, capacity and adaptability of the industrial base that underpins combat air power. As security challenges become more complex and operational demand increases, our ability to generate credible combat capability is increasingly dependent on strong partnerships between armed forces, governments and industry. We need honest discussions about accelerating innovation, strengthening supply chains, increasing production capacity, sustaining fleets at readiness, and ensuring that emerging technologies can be integrated at pace.

I hope delegates leave the conference with a shared understanding that deterrence and warfighting advantage are no longer delivered solely by platforms, but by the strength of the entire ecosystem that supports them. Success will depend on how effectively we collaborate across nations and sectors to build a resilient, responsive and scalable industrial base capable of delivering the combat air capabilities required for the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Join the International Fighter Conference 2026
3–5 November 2026 | Eisbach Studios, Munich, Germany

These challenges will take centre stage at the International Fighter Conference 2026, where senior military leaders, programme managers and industry experts will explore how the combat aviation community can build the capacity, resilience and technological advantage required for future operations.