Commissioning flights are the “final exam” for the aircraft modification, the Air Force explained in a media release. “They provide both an opportunity for the White House enterprise to validate mission-capability, while also finalizing protocols required to safely and securely transport the President of the United States and enable his execution of his three constitutional roles; Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, and Head of State.”

Once these flights are successfully completed, the aircraft is officially “commissioned” into the active executive airlift fleet and becomes available for presidential missions along with the VC-25A and C-32 fleets, the service added in a release that included the new jet in its Trump-preferred red, white and blue livery.

You can read all about the program and the controversy surrounding it, especially having to do with the level of security and connectivity this aircraft provides, in our previous story here.

The VC-25B appears to be in the presidential hangar facility at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. You can read more about that in our story here.

UPDATE: 4:14 PM EDT –

Trump held a press conference at the presidential hangar facility to talk about the VC-25B. Here are some highlights.

• On the aircraft:

“Our pilots, designers, and engineers prepared an aircraft that is the largest Air Force One ever built. It flies further and faster than any Air Force One. Those are incredible engines. You may never have to stop for fuel. They call it unlimited — well, it’s pretty close to unlimited. And it is among the most beautiful aircraft the Air Force will ever see or operate. You’ll never have this opportunity again.”

• On its features:

“With the extraordinary devotion of many of you here today, this plane was transformed into a flying White House — at a level of luxury nobody’s ever seen before — in only 10 months, a timeframe no one thought possible. They put a lot of things on here that normally you wouldn’t. Great protective mechanisms, the latest and greatest in every aspect.”

“We have communications equipment up there that nobody’s ever seen before — the highest level, including Starlink. My friend Elon is going to be very happy. We have four or five different sets of double and triple communications systems like people haven’t seen. It represents what can happen with hard work, innovation, and aggressive timelines.”

• On the new paint scheme:

“So we had it all painted up in the new colors — red, white, and blue. We liked the baby blue, but it was time for a change. This is the sleekest look. When they asked what color I wanted, I said, “I like the colors of the American flag.” That makes sense. All of the planes in the fleet are being changed to this look — a much better look, and a more appropriate one.”

• On Qatar:

“The workmanship of this plane — when you see it, you won’t believe it. The quality of the woods, the quality of the materials, the quality of the engines. These engines are the finest and best in the world. Nothing like it. So it’s really an honor, and I want to thank the Emir of Qatar. He’s a fantastic guy. He went through a lot over the last few months.”

• On the VC-25A he used to fly to the G7 summit:

“My return from the G7 summit was the last planned trip aboard the VC-25A — the 747. We’ll probably do the museum thing. We’ll get them fixed up a little, and put them in museums. They’re great planes and great history. It’s a plane that was authorized by President Ronald Reagan so many years ago. It was flown by every president since George H.W. Bush, and it was a great plane. We had very little trouble with it. Boeing has done a fantastic job — they charge too much, but we’re going to get the prices down. Over its lifetime, that aircraft traveled to 96 countries on 223 international trips and flew over 6 million miles. It became the most famous airplane in the entire world. And as you know, it’s actually two planes — Air Force One is two planes, totally identical. The only way I can tell them apart is a slight difference in the wood grain on the desk. They became the most famous airplanes in the world.”

• On the July 4 capital flyover:

“So we’re going to have a big July 4th at the Capitol — flying over the Capitol. The generals promise to do a lot — not just one pass. They’ll do a little back and forth.”

UPDATE: 5:02 PM EDT –

Author’s note: Trump’s statement that his “return from the G7 summit was the last planned trip aboard the VC-25A” contradicts what the Air Force told us yesterday:

“The VC-25B Bridge aircraft will soon join the active executive airlift fleet alongside the VC-25A and C-32,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ this morning, but did not offer a firm timeline. When asked if this also meant that both of the VC-25As would remain in the service’s active executive airlift fleet, the same spokesperson said “yes.”

UPDATE 5:25 PM EDT –

Trump left his mark on the aircraft with his signature.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post New Air Force VC-25B “Bridge” Jet Has Joined The Presidential Airlift Group (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

Welcome to Bunker Talk. This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn’t cover. We can also talk about the stuff we did or whatever else grabs your interest. In other words, it’s an off-topic thread.

This week’s caption reads:

A scalar model for an atomic bomb proof hospital. Details show Geiger counters, decontamination chambers, oxygen wards, boiler room, power plant and huge hospital city below ground. The underground part would be insulated against radioactivity and poison gas by protective belts of earth, steel, and concrete. The underground hospital would accommodate 700 patients and a full hospital staff, in addition to an undetermined number of civilians. The three level subterranean hospital would be stocked with food, water and other supplies which would enable continuance of life for an almost indefinite period. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Prime Directives:

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

The post Bunker Talk: Let’s Talk About All The Things We Did And Didn’t Cover This Week appeared first on The War Zone.

Jason Lambert, President for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) at L3Harris, talked about the crewed-uncrewed teaming capability for the RC-135, and other major developments in a recent interview with our Jamie Hunter. He also spoke about airborne early warning, electronic warfare, and other capabilities the company is pursuing for various special mission aircraft across its portfolio. This includes a version of the airborne early warning and control-optimized Bombardier Global 6500 business jet-based AERIS-X that is now in the works for South Korea.

Jamie Hunter’s full interview with L3Harris’ Jason Lambert can be found below.

When it comes to the Rivet Joints, L3Harris supports the global fleet, which consists of 17 in U.S. Air Force service and another three flown by the Royal Air Force (RAF) in the United Kingdom. The company performs depot maintenance and upgrade work on the RC-135V/Ws at its facility in Greenville, Texas.

“The way these planes operate is every four years or so they come out of the field for depot-level maintenance. So we take the aircraft into our operation in Greenville, we take out the electronics gear, we do a full inspection on the airframe, look for any corrosion, [and] do any repairs required,” Lambert explained. “Then we basically build back the aircraft up with the latest antennas, hardware capabilities, processing power, as well as the software that’s currently going and always going, actually on a baseline spiral upgrade.”

“The software development is on a spiral upgrade schedule, so we’re constantly working the development of new updates and new upgrades for the capability set on the aircraft mission set itself,” he continued. “So, while the aircraft were actually birthed in the 60s and 70s from the Boeing line, from a mission system capability, they’re actually the youngest mission system across the entire United States Air Force, and the reason that’s the case is because as they come off the production line or come out of our depot center, every aircraft is leaving with the world’s leading technology, both software and hardware.”

L3Harris “is already provisioned to be able to do quick turn hardware and software upgrades on the aircraft,” Lambert noted. “We can do that from anywhere from a week to a month, and then actually field the aircraft back into operational theater to perform.”

It should be noted here that rapid upgrade cycles, measured in days, if not hours, rather than weeks or months, have been shown to be a decisive factor, especially when it comes to drones and electronic warfare, on both sides of the battlefield in Ukraine. The U.S. military has been increasingly open about its need to adapt faster, which was notably underscored by lessons learned from operations in and around the Red Sea between 2023 and 2025. We will come back to this later on.

For L3Harris, crewed-uncrewed teaming is one new capability it is already looking to insert into the Rivet Joint fleet using the processes available now.

“We’re currently in discussions right now to actually do demonstrations on that [crewed-uncrewed teaming] with the RC-135,” Lambert said. “So, new technology, new capability set that’s underway. The technology is actually there. It exists today. We just need to go demonstrate it.”

Lambert said that L3Harris has been talking with multiple unspecified drone makers about crewed-uncrewed teaming with the Rivet Joint, as well as other special mission aircraft. He also highlighted the company’s own ability to provide the secure datalinks that would be critical for realizing this capability, via the Broadband Communications Systems (BCS) business unit in Salt Lake City, Utah.

“The next question is how we actually go demonstrate that with a connected set of tissue in theater to be able to do that,” he added.

As noted, pairing the RC-135V/Ws with uncrewed teammates would expand their ability to scoop up electronic emissions and other intelligence, and to do so across a larger area. Drones could operate beyond the Rivet Joint’s organic sensor range and the radio horizon. They could carry additional sensor systems to also broaden the types of intelligence the team could gather at any given time. Having multiple assets tied together would also help with geolocation of radio signals via triangulation. Paired with the right tactics, the crewed-uncrewed team could allow for additional tactical flexibility and collection of higher-fidelity data.

The information the drones collect could be passed to the Rivet Joint’s crew for analysis and exploitation, as well as to other intelligence and command and control nodes further to the rear. The aircraft also have the ability to send data to forces at or near the tactical edge. The crew of these planes includes dozens of signals and electronic warfare specialists, as well as linguists, who can immediately begin sifting through the intelligence being collected and help get it where it needs to go.

RC-135V/Ws are already particularly well known for their role in creating so-called “electronic orders of battle” detailing an opponent’s force posture, especially when it comes to air defense and command and control assets. Drone teammates would fit right into this playbook, offering a new way to stimulate integrated air defense networks, and glean intelligence about capabilities and standard operating procedures as a result.

Crewed-uncrewed teaming could also help keep the Rivet Joints further away from threats. Stealthy drones, in particular, could be sent to collect intelligence in higher-risk areas. Adversary anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) bubbles are only growing in scale and scope, to include ever-longer-ranged anti-air missiles. This, in turn, threatens to push Rivet Joints further and further away from areas they would be tasked to collect on, especially in the midst of a high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. As an aside, the U.S. Army sees air-launched drones as a critical capability for its new ME-11B High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) ISR aircraft, specifically to help keep them as far away from enemy air defenses as possible.

The ability for Rivet Joint to act as airborne drone controllers opens the door to additional operational possibilities beyond ISR, including using those uncrewed teammates to provide localized force protection. The drones could be configured for other missions, including electronic warfare and signal relay, too. A networked swarm of uncrewed teammates in various configurations could offer further flexibility to perform multiple tasks simultaneously across a swath of the battlespace.

All of this could transform the RC-135V/Ws into more multi-purpose platforms going forward. At the same time, it should also be noted that the Rivet Joints are the definition of a highly in-demand, but low-density asset, and each one of the Air Force’s 17 aircraft can only be in one place at one time. The aging aircraft have also suffered readiness challenges in recent years, further limiting how many are actually available for real-world missions on a day-to-day basis.

In his interview with Jamie Hunter, L3Harris’ Lambert also discussed drone teaming and other capability developments the company is pursuing in the context of what this could mean for AERIS-X.

For AERIS-X, “think of connecting and having this be the command and control unit to be able to operate a set of unmanned aircraft,” Lambert said. It “is essentially the hub-and -spoke system to be able to go operate as a network in theater.”

“So, the current [AERIS-X] aircraft is, right now, in a six operators [sic] configuration. It can easily be flexed to eight. We’re also looking at opportunities to take the aircraft to 10,” he added. “The operator count is also a function of the AI [artificial intelligence] evolution. So you think about the effectivity of what that operator can do in terms of their workload that they have in that station. We view AI as not a replacement for that, it’s a supplement to the operator. So, being able to do – take on and process more information with less. So being able to do the job of 10 or more with a group of six is very feasible with an AI technology platform.”

This latter point could factor into directing larger groups of drones, as well as other mission sets. The uncrewed aircraft could themselves be highly autonomous, further helping to reduce the workload of human operators.

“Think of AERIS-X essentially owning the skies, so owning the battle space, and looking at not just what’s in the air, but what’s coming into the air from the ground. It’s got the radar package to be able to go look out,” Lambert also noted in talking about AERIS-X more generally. “We also have the capability set to integrate this with an ISR platform to be able to look downward. So, think SAR/GMTI [synthetic aperture radar/ground moving-target indicator] radar, standoff targeting, to be able to do that.”

“Mentioned the ground connectivity. Of course, we have that not only from line-of-sight, but we can also do through satellite link to be able to have that command and control on the ground, as well as control from the air,” he added. “And we have a program called TOC-L, Tactical Operations Center-Light, which is actually a complementary product and system to this. Because you can have the air bases, and think across maybe an island chain or set of four deployed locations, now you can have essentially a network architecture and infrastructure to be able to do that command and control across the suite of assets.”

In addition to the airborne early warning and control and surface surveillance roles, Lambert highlighted the ability to configure AERIS-X with electronic warfare capabilities, especially to provide additional layers of self-protection. L3Harris’ special mission aircraft portfolio also extends to electronic attack platforms, including the EA-37B Compass Call for the U.S. Air Force. Italy is also now on track to field a version of the EA-37B. L3Harris has already been working with that country on the Joint Airborne Multi-Mission Multi-Sensor System (JAMMS) aircraft program, as well.

In speaking with Jamie Hunter, Lambert also highlighted how L3Harris had leveraged technology from the Rivet Joint fleet for the MC-55A Peregrine for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Australians notably describe the MC-55A as an “airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare” platform.

It’s possible that the Rivet Joint fleet could gain electronic warfare capabilities, if they haven’t already. The Air Force has already been openly exploring the capabilities to be gained by teaming crewed Rivet Joint and Compass Call aircraft directly together during operations.

The electronic warfare domain is also an area where the aforementioned comments about rapid upgrade cycles are especially pertinent. Electronic warfare systems have to receive regular updates to ensure their effectiveness in an ecosystem where threats can evolve very quickly by changing waveforms or otherwise modulating the signals they pump out. The data that ISR platforms like the Rivet Joint collect is critical to staying ahead of adversary developments, but getting upgrades to systems in the field as fast as possible is also essential. If updates come too slowly, they could easily be out of date before they even arrive. A vital set of capabilities to further truncate these upgrade processes is now being developed under the umbrella of what is known as cognitive electronic warfare. Major leaps are already being made in shortening the time required to make these updates. The absolute “holy grail” of the concept would be an electronic warfare system that could adapt autonomously by itself in real-time, even in the middle of a mission, based on any new data it is presented with.

For its part now, L3Harris seems very interested in demonstrating how pairing drones with the Rivet Joint, as well as other ISR, early warning and control, and electronic warfare aircraft, could create new powerful airborne teams better suited to tomorrow’s potential conflicts.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post RC-135 Rivet Joints Could Control Drones To Drastically Expand Collection Capabilities appeared first on The War Zone.

“We have learned, particularly looking at Ukraine, there really is no sanctuary area that is protected from observation and potential targeting,” Maj. Gen. Bernard J. Harrington told us during a media roundtable to introduce his new command. It’s called the 7th Infantry Division Multi-Domain Command – Pacific (7th ID MDC-PAC). Headquartered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, it combines the 7th Infantry Division and the 1st Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF). The idea is to merge the maneuver capabilities of the 7th ID’s two Stryker brigades with the long-range sensing, fires, cyber, space, electronic warfare, and information capabilities of the MDTF.

The new unit was created as the U.S. still struggles to be on the leading-edge of modern drone warfare, especially when it comes to the lower-end segment of this broad capability set, a deficit we have frequently highlighted. This is a concern top Army officials have acknowledged to us.

“As we look at our employment of drones,” Harrington proffered, “we are looking at a host of not just traditional sense-and-strike drones, but how do we couple that — utilizing an adaptive and agentic C2 [command and control system] — to long-range one-way attack, to be able to overwhelm potential adversarial systems by a volume that is connected from our sensor drone all the way to our long-range one-way attack drone.”

Harrington was referring to an AI-driven system that can make and execute decisions on its own — routing data, repositioning sensors, matching targets to shooters — without requiring a human to manually approve each step. He later described it as being a “soldier-on-the-loop, not in-the-loop” system, meaning that a human monitors and can override the system’s actions.

You can read all about how AI will enable the future of lower-end drone warfare in our deep dive here.

In another lesson from Ukraine, as well as conflicts in the Middle East, Harrington wants to be able to use decoy drones to “confuse and potentially deceive an adversary.” The goal is to “deplete potential magazine depth.”

We saw this play out in Ukraine, where Russian mass barrages typically use decoy drones to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses, confuse its sensors and force the expenditure of valuable air defense munitions. Ukraine eventually responded in kind, with its own decoy drones, to achieve the same effects.

The need for the U.S. to develop a vast arsenal of long-range one-way attack drones that can also serve as decoys to consume enemy effectors is a topic TWZ has addressed in the past.

You can see one of the Russian decoy drones in the image below.

Harrington added that he is also looking at electronic warfare drones “to help isolate, and then enable other drones to be effective. So when we look at the family of systems, it is not just one role for any one of our drones — it’s how do they pair together, and then how do we get sensor to shooter most effectively to target any adversary appropriately.”

Harrington declined to say what kinds of drones the new command aims to field, though it should be noted that U.S. Central Command recently used Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones, a design reverse-engineered from the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, in the war against Iran. It was the first time those drones were used in combat.

“There are a host of drones that we are using from multiple vendors, and really what we’re looking at is how do we start bridging the gap — because I would say with the multi-domain task force, we got to a point for the first time that I’ve seen where we could now engage farther than we could sense,” he posited. “So we have worked very, very closely with several vendors in order to close that distance.”

A key to making this all work is getting these drones into the hands of troops to see how these systems actually function across the wide range of environments where the Army operates in the Pacific.

“We’ve got Arctic steppe in Alaska and the high north that are going to require a different type of drone and different types of employment than you would have in a jungle environment in Hawaii or Malaysia, which is different than a desert environment in the Australian Outback,” USARPAC commander, Gen. Ronald Clark, told us.

“It’s challenging, but we’re dealing with the best and brightest that we have — our young troopers out there are very comfortable with having technology in their hands, and very comfortable with giving feedback associated with what works and what does not, because their buddies’ lives depend on it,” Clark posited. “It’s literally a responsibility that every soldier takes on and takes very seriously.”

“The other thing I’d add is the distances we have to operate,” Clark noted. “For instance, if you drew a box that was 2,000 nautical miles in each direction and started in Cambodia — went east to the Philippines, south to Indonesia, and then back west to Malaysia, and then back to Cambodia — that box is roughly the same size as the box you would draw if you placed it over Western Europe, from the UK to Finland to Turkey to Spain.”

Interestingly, the officials leading this effort declined to name a specific adversary and there was no mention of China at all, even though that nation is the primary pacing threat of the service and by far the biggest challenge in the region.

“The multi-domain command Pacific is not tied to a specific adversary, and it’s not tied to a specific location,” Clark explained when asked about threats from North Korea. “It’s a capability that we have built to counter any threat from any adversary, so it’s not necessarily focused on a specific part of the region or a specific adversary.”

As we noted earlier in this story, this new command is being set up as the Army has struggled to catch up to drone warfare developments abroad. China has invested heavily in lower-end drone warfare at the infantry level up to long-range one-way attack drones. The country’s capacity to mass produce all types of drones rapidly on gigantic scales remains a real concern, too. This is not lost on U.S. Army leadership.

“We are behind on long-range sensing and long-range launched-effect strike,” Maj. Gen. James (Jay) Bartholomees, commanding general of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division, told us last year at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) annual symposium. “We absolutely need to build this capability quickly. We need to test it in our region; we also need to work with our allies and partners to do the same.”

The Army, it seems, is still trying to figure this all out.

Given that 7th ID MDC-PAC is essentially only a day old, there is a long way to go before the Army can draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of this concept. There are still many unknowns regarding what kind of drones the division has and is seeking, how many they need and the timelines for procurement. Regardless, setting up a new unit concentrating on melding drone warfare with the maneuver capabilities of Stryker brigades is a clear indication that the Army realizes it has to change how it operates to succeed in a Pacific fight.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Army’s Newest Unit Aims To “Overwhelm” Adversary With Drones In Pacific Fight  appeared first on The War Zone.

The report, from Jake Hecla, an MIT professor who covers aerospace and nuclear science and engineering, and co-author R. Scott Kemp, provides the most compelling analysis so far on how the Burevestnik is actually powered. Uncertainty around this has led to previous questions about whether Russia’s claims of nuclear propulsion for the weapon even stack up.

First, it’s worth recalling what we know about the Burevestnik program’s development milestones, which appear to have been punctuated by accidents.

It is also worth noting that there have been previous efforts to create nuclear-powered aircraft and missiles.

During the 1950s, both the Soviet Union and the United States tested airborne nuclear reactors aboard strategic bombers, the B-36 Peacemaker and the Tu-95 Bear, respectively. Neither of these trials actually saw the reactors drive the aircraft’s engines.

Under Project Pluto, the United States studied a nuclear-powered cruise missile and got as far as testing a reactor on the ground in 1964, before the idea was abandoned. The Pluto concept of operation was somewhat different to the Burevestnik, with the missile intended to fly at treetop level at Mach 3.5 and dispense nuclear weapons at different points along its flight path by performing “pop-up” maneuvers.

Fast forward to 2018, and Putin disclosed the Burevestnik’s existence, when it was presented as one of six ‘super weapons’ that also included hypersonic weapons and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed torpedo.

Soon after Putin’s 2018 announcement, the Norwegian-based environmental group Bellona suggested that a radiation spike in the Arctic that same winter may have been caused by a test of the missile.

Later in 2018, a U.S. intelligence report described the loss at sea of a Russian nuclear-powered missile during a 2017 test. The report added that Russia was expected to embark on a search and recovery mission to try to lift the missile’s wreckage from the seabed.

Then, in 2019, an explosion occurred aboard a barge in the White Sea, outside Nenoksa, killing five Rosatom scientists. It also led to a radiation spike in the Russian city of Severodvinsk, as you can read more about here. The explosion has been blamed on a reactor from a Burevestnik recovered from the sea, likely the one that was lost in 2017.

Last October, Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, announced that a successful test of the Burevestnik had been carried out, high above the Arctic Circle. Gerasimov said that the 15-hour flight “is not the [maximum] limit” for the missile. This appears to have been the first long-endurance test of the missile.

Hecla and Kemp agree that the October 2025 test was a success and that, moreover, it marks the first time a true nuclear-powered aircraft has ever flown for a sustained period.

This leads to the question of how the Burevestnik actually converts energy from its nuclear reactor into propulsive power to keep it in the air.

Hecla and Kemp may well have provided the answer.

Based on data that the researchers gathered, the size, shape, and performance of the Burevestnik indicate a different kind of propulsion system than envisaged for Project Pluto. The U.S. concept involved a ramjet, required to ensure supersonic performance in the atmosphere.

In the 1960s, the U.S. Air Force explored this idea with its Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, or SLAM. This weapon employed a nuclear-powered ramjet along with conventional rocket boosters to kickstart the system. Once at the appropriate speed, the engine would blow air over the reactor, which could have enough fuel to operate for weeks or months on end, and then force it out of an exhaust nozzle to produce thrust.

The Burevestnik is “very obviously a subsonic system,” Hecla told NPR.

By comparing open-source imagery of the Burevestnik, the researchers calculated that the missile is approximately 31 feet (9.5 meters) in overall length, with a wingspan of approximately 18 feet (5.6 meters). It likely flies at a speed of around Mach 0.75.

They conclude that the Burevestnik is “almost certain” to use a direct-cycle air-breathing nuclear propulsion system, which probably drives a turbojet.

In a direct-cycle system, air is drawn from the atmosphere and passes directly through the reactor core. A compressor forces the air through thousands of narrow, tube-like channels surrounding the nuclear fuel, where the heat generated by nuclear fission raises the air’s temperature. As the heated air expands, it exits the rear of the engine to produce thrust.

This approach differs fundamentally from most nuclear reactors, which use an indirect, closed-loop design. In those systems, a sealed coolant — typically water or another heat-transfer fluid — circulates through the reactor to carry heat away while keeping radioactive materials contained and minimizing radiation exposure.

While some kind of indirect loop design is not impossible, the researchers consider that it’s highly unlikely, due to the simple fact that these systems are considerably larger, heavier, and more complex and couldn’t be accommodated in what is by no means a huge missile.

This means that the Burevestnik is likely propelled using heated air that is drawn directly through the reactor core.

The resulting powerplant is simpler and more compact, but it comes with a serious drawback: “The direct cycle is very likely to result in a large quantity of radioactive material in the exhaust,” Hecla contends.

Essentially, as clean atmospheric air passes through the tiny tubes in the reactor, it gets irradiated and infused with fission decay products from the nuclear fuel.

The hot air that passes out of the end of the turbojet would be filled with radioactive isotopes of argon, krypton, and carbon, all of which would be scattered in its wake.

The longer the missile flies, the more of this harmful waste it would pump into the atmosphere, and onto the surface below.

The researchers highlight another problem, too.

Namely, any kind of prolonged flight is likely to result in corrosion of the reactor core, through a combination of heat and compressed air. This would create yet more radioactive particles.

Based on previous evidence, it seems that Russia might already be battling with the problems inherent in handling, loading, and testing a missile with this kind of propulsion system.

The Russian Ministry of Defense released the video below in 2018, saying that it showed an earlier Burevestnik test launch, as well as examples of the missiles themselves.

The MIT researchers consider that the fatal 2019 explosion in the White Sea was likely a failed attempt to recover a prototype Burevestnik reactor. The reactor is presumed to have restarted as it was being raised from the seabed, leading to an explosion.

Bearing all this in mind raises the question of why Russia set about developing the Burevestnik, especially when it has so many other ‘novel’ weapons in the works or already fielded.

Ultimately, the major advantage of the Burevestnik is almost unlimited range, something that we have discussed in the past:

“The missile can be launched preemptively and approach its target from any vector long after launch. For example, it could be launched from the Arctic, stay aloft for many hours, and then attack the United States from the south. Once launched, its flight path is entirely unpredictable, and it could exploit holes in defenses and weaker spots in early warning capabilities. It provides another reason why space-based tracking layers, including those that can spot low-flying aircraft, are currently very much on trend.”

On the other hand, the Burevestnik doesn’t appear to be very fast or difficult to intercept once detected.

There is also its inherent inflexibility, since Russia has said it is only envisaged as being used with a nuclear warhead. While this could change, the size and weight of a conventional warhead would be more limited, and it’s questionable if Russia would risk employing such a complex missile to deliver a relatively modest conventional charge, especially since it would leave a potentially lethal radioactive footprint regardless.

“It leaks radiation, making it easy to track; it’s slow and un-stealthy, making it easy to shoot down; and the inside of the missile degrades during reactor operation, calling into question its ‘unlimited’ range,” William Alberque, a former director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), told TWZ.

“There are so many reasons everyone abandoned this concept in the Cold War,” Alberque added.

Hecla and Kemp assess that Russia’s reason for embarking on the Burevestnik is likely more to do with proving technologies for more ambitious and advanced programs further down the line. These could include nuclear-powered surveillance drones or space-based nuclear systems that would have considerably more military value.

Another possibility is that this is a ‘pet project’ of Putin himself, the Russian leader having been wooed by the idea of a missile with near-limitless range, regardless of the practical utility.

On the one hand, the latest analysis does suggest that the test last October means that the Burevestnik is the first aircraft ever built and flown in a sustained manner using nuclear power.

That is a landmark, but it’s one that’s tempered by very significant questions about the safety of anyone in its vicinity, and the environment at large, not to mention its somewhat limited military value.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Here Is How Russia’s Skyfall Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile Actually Works appeared first on The War Zone.

Most remarkable, perhaps, are the scenes from a key oil refinery in the Kapotno area, in the southeast of Moscow. Videos from the attacks here show multiple fireballs and plumes of black smoke rising from the refinery, which is run by a subsidiary of the state-owned Gazprom. At one point, we can see the disc-shaped roof of one of the storage tanks being thrown into the air, before cartwheeling down. This incredible detonation appears to have been caused by an errant Russian missile, not a Ukrainian weapon.

The refinery appears to have been at least one of the primary targets of the raid, continuing Kyiv’s long-running campaign directed against Russian energy infrastructure. It is notable that at least some of the videos reveal efforts to protect the refinery in the form of anti-drone netting, which seems to have little to no effect against heavier weapons. More substantial cage-type protection for refineries is something we have seen come out of Ukraine’s offensive against Russian oil infrastructure earlier in the war and subsequently appeared during the conflict in the Middle East earlier this year, to help defend against Iranian drone attacks.

This particular refinery is one of the most critical in Moscow, supplying up to 40 percent of the capital’s petrol and about 50 percent of its diesel fuel. The strike was the second in two days on the facility. The previous one was described by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “a just response to Russian strikes.” Reportedly, the strike on Tuesday had already halted operations at the refinery.

In the wake of today’s Ukrainian attacks, Zelensky framed this as a response to Russia’s striking of a historic Kyiv monastery earlier this week.

On Monday, five people were killed in Kyiv, and the Dormition Cathedral in the Pechersk Lavra monastery complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of Ukraine’s most significant religious and cultural sites, was badly damaged.

The Russian media outlet RIA Novosti said the overnight attack on energy facilities in Moscow was the biggest in two years.

According to reports, the Ukrainian strikes caught many of the city’s residents off guard, leading to panicked messages on social media.

The Russian Ministry of Defense claims that its air defenses intercepted and ⁠destroyed 555 Ukrainian drones over ⁠multiple regions overnight. The number actually shot down could not be independently confirmed.

The mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin, said: “Air defense forces are continuing to repel a large-scale attack,” but admitted that several drones had reached the oil refinery and that the Sadovod shopping center, also in the south-eastern part of the city, was damaged. Sobyanin claimed ‌that about 180 drones heading for the capital had ‌been downed.

Elsewhere in the city, air traffic was disrupted at Vnukovo, Sheremetyevo, and Zhukovsky airports. Sheremetyevo seems to have been especially affected, with reports of evacuations and people seeking refuge in the parking area. Meanwhile, traffic was halted ​on Moscow’s ring road near ⁠the refinery, according to the ​interior ministry. A high-rise building in the Zhukovsky district, not far from the refinery, also seems to have been struck.

Andrei Vorobyov, the governor of the Moscow region, said that a high-rise residential building, an industrial facility, and a number of private houses had been damaged in the wider area around the capital. One video shows an attack drone smashing into a construction crane on its way to its target. Vorobyov said ​that 16 people ⁠had ​been injured in ​the attack.

Clearly, a significant number of drones and cruise missiles did manage to get through, or otherwise efforts to intercept them caused damage through falling debris, as seen in the video below, or stray air defense missiles.

Videos show both propeller-driven and jet-propelled long-range one-way attack drones in the skies over the Russian capital.

Among them appear to be examples of the Bars, part of a growing family of so-called “drone-missiles,” which combine the features of cruise missiles and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs). Previously, these had been considered as medium-range strike systems, with a maximum range of around 500 miles. Their presence over Moscow would indicate that their range is greater, perhaps evidence that they have been further adapted or reworked.

As far as Russian air defenses are concerned, videos from Moscow painted a desperate picture, including at least one likely missile interceptor from a Pantsir short-range air defense system streaking past a Ukrainian drone before making a sharp turn in the opposite direction. In the past, we have seen examples of the Pantsir installed on top of buildings in Moscow, and last month footage appeared showing the counter-drone-optimized SMD-E variant being lifted onto the top of a skyscraper by helicopter.

Additional footage shows soldiers or security forces using rifle-caliber weapons and man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) in an effort to bring down drones at very short range.

One video apparently even shows an individual taking aim at a Ukrainian drone using a 9mm Makarov pistol.

For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the very public nature of the attacks on Moscow is especially embarrassing.

The Russian leader had previously warned of impending “systemic strikes” on Ukraine, but Kyiv’s continued ability to hit back at scale, and to target the Russian capital in particular, is now combined with the biting effects of fuel shortages across the country.

In an unusual move, Russia, which is the world’s third-biggest oil producer, is to import fuel by sea this month as it confronts shortages caused by relentless Ukrainian drone attacks on its refineries.

Andrey Gurulyov, a retired lieutenant general and deputy of the State Duma (the lower house of the Russian Federal Assembly), called for Russia to “strike the enemy mercilessly” in response to the attack. “We need to strengthen our air defense system, but most importantly, we need to hit the enemy,” he told the RTVI news outlet. “Hit the enemy mercilessly, without overthinking it.”

Just before the latest Ukrainian air attack, President Zelensky said he had held “an important coordination call” with U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron that may “bring about significant change.”

Yesterday, Zelensky said he had won key pledges of further support from world leaders attending the G7 Summit in France. “These last few days were very important for Ukraine because it is the reunification of the G7 around Ukraine,” Macron told reporters as he and Trump left the Palace of Versailles near Paris.

In the meantime, with little progress being made by either side on the battlefield, the conflict has increasingly settled into tit-for-tat air assaults on key infrastructure and cities.

Kyiv was this week hit by a major barrage of ballistic missiles and drones, and these, together with the heavy attacks on the Russian capital in the last couple of days, signal a further escalation of the air war between Moscow and Kyiv. Beyond that, this latest barrage on Moscow signals what could be a new, far more aggressive phase of Ukrainian long-range strike operations targeting the economic heart of Russia and its seat of power.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Extraordinary Footage From Moscow Under Heavy Ukrainian Aerial Attack appeared first on The War Zone.

The Senate Armed Services Committee released a full copy of the proposed legislation earlier this week. In this, it states that it is “concerned about CSAR force structure” in the Air Force.

The importance of the Air Force CSAR mission, and the role of the HH-60W specifically, was underscored earlier this year when the type took part in efforts to rescue the crew of an F-15E Strike Eagle shot down in Iran.

Now, the committee points to the Air Force’s decision to truncate its buy of heavily modified HH-60Ws, followed by the transfer of 26 of these from CSAR units to the AFDW to replace UH-1N Twin Huey helicopters. AFDW uses these helicopters to support continuity of government plans, contingency response, homeland operations, and ceremonial honors in the National Capital Region. Under normal circumstances, the vast majority of AFDW missions involve VIP movements.

“The committee believes that these actions have left CSAR forces unnecessarily short of the forces needed to support CSAR operations in a major contingency,” the legislators say. The committee has now called upon the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a study of CSAR requirements and capabilities, including HH-60Ws and HC-130J Combat King IIs, and provide a report briefing to Congress before the end of March 2027.

Until that study is completed, the committee has called upon the Secretary of the Air Force to avoid making any more changes in CSAR force structure.

The Air Force had once planned to replace its AFDW UH-1Ns with new MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters, but revealed last year it was considering using HH-60Ws for this role instead. The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year confirmed that it was moving ahead with these plans.

As we have discussed in the past, the HH-60W will bring a substantial increase in speed, range, and payload capacity compared with the aging UH-1Ns now flying AFDW missions, while also outperforming the smaller, lighter MH-139 in each of those key metrics.

The Air Force’s current plan calls for development of the HH-60W AFDW variant to begin in Fiscal Year 2027, starting October 1, with the first aircraft entering modification the following fiscal year. Those reconfigured Jolly Green IIs would then begin replacing the increasingly outdated UH-1Ns assigned to the AFDW mission at Andrews Air Force Base (now part of Joint Base Andrews).

TWZ had previously raised the question of how the transfer of 26 HH-60Ws for the AFDW role might affect the operational capacity of the rest of the CSAR-focused fleet.

In particular, the Air Force has no plans to procure additional Jolly Green IIs despite the upcoming transfer.

As the Senate Armed Services Committee points out, the Air Force already decided to scale back HH-60W purchases, from an original program of record for 113 of the helicopters. The total planned fleet now stands at 91. This amounts to the CSAR fleet losing roughly 30 percent of its entire Jolly Green II fleet, the first of which began entering Air Force service in 2022.

The legislators point to the ongoing demand for CSAR capabilities, not just in lower-end conflicts such as the war with Iran, but especially in potential future high-end fights, such as one between the United States and China in the Pacific, where aircrew losses would be greater by an order of magnitude.

For years, TWZ has warned that the growing reach and sophistication of modern air defenses are calling into question the viability of traditional fixed-wing and helicopter CSAR missions. In a high-end conflict, especially against China in the Pacific, even stealth aircraft are expected to face significant risks inside contested airspace. The idea that a Black Hawk helicopter, no matter what is bolted onto it, is going to survive in that same environment is highly questionable, and that’s if it can even reach the rescue point at all. The distances involved in the Pacific are far greater than those in Europe or the Middle East, which the legacy CSAR fleet was largely optimized around.

Back in 2023, one of the Air Force’s senior procurement officers asserted that the HH-60W fleet would not be “particularly helpful in the Chinese area of operations” due to these reasons. The Air Force’s cuts to planned purchases of HH-60Ws reflected this reality, while other senior officials have acknowledged that the service will need to rethink how it carries out this critical mission in future wars. The issue is that the cuts didn’t result in other capabilities taking the HH-60W’s place, like uncrewed systems and tiltrotors. So now there is an emerging gap in CSAR capabilities, both in terms of new ones more aligned with the challenges of the Pacific and just any kind of CSAR capability at all. Turning a large portion of the HH-60W fleet into VIP transports certainly doesn’t help with problem.

For the time being, at least, the Air Force is heavily reliant upon its HH-60Ws, regardless of potential vulnerabilities. With orders for the Jolly Green II slashed, and more than two dozen examples slated to switch to another mission, it is perhaps not surprising that legislators want to know how the Air Force will be able to conduct CSAR in the future.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Congress Questions Air Force’s Combat Rescue Readiness As HH-60W Helicopters Get Turned Into VIP Transports appeared first on The War Zone.

“The VC-25B Bridge aircraft will soon join the active executive airlift fleet alongside the VC-25A and C-32,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ this morning, but did not offer a firm timeline. When asked if this also meant that both of the VC-25As would remain in the service’s active executive airlift fleet, the same spokesperson said “yes.”

TWZ had reached out after seeing the aforementioned social media posts regarding the VC-25A that took President Donald Trump and others to and from the annual G7 summit in France this week. That particular aircraft has the Air Force serial number 92-9000 and is also often referred to simply by the tail number 29000. Several outlets had subsequently reported that one or both VC-25As were being removed from service.

“‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’ The Last Ride,” Steven Cheung, Assistant to the President & White House Director of Communications, wrote in a post on his official account on X, which also included a picture of 92-9000.

“I have been fortunate to fly around the world on this iconic plane for 5 1/2 years — of the 35 years it has been serving U.S. Presidents… THANK YOU… AIR FORCE ONE 2900,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino also wrote in a post on X that included a video of the aircraft.

The Air Force’s clarification to TWZ today is in line with a story from NBC News just last week. “Once the Qatari plane, which the Air Force refers to as VC-25B Bridge, enters the rotation this summer, the VC-25As will continue to serve in the executive fleet and could still be used by the president as Air Force One,” that outlet reported, citing an unnamed U.S. official.

The VC-25B Bridge “program epitomizes what is possible when clear accountability is placed on one individual, and the entire enterprise of stakeholders aligns behind a single mission outcome … deliver a bridge capability as soon as possible to relieve pressure on the aging VC-25A fleet,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, had also said in a statement accompanying a press release last month.

The Air Force is also in the process of acquiring two fully-equipped VC-25Bs from Boeing, and currently expects to take delivery of the first one in mid-2028. The service also said that “on-going [VC-25A] modifications are to extend the service life until the VC-25B aircraft are fielded” in its proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which was rolled out earlier this year.

When the Bridge aircraft enters service, it could well become President Trump’s preferred Air Force One option. Since his first term, he has been very eager to accelerate delivery of a new Air Force One jet. The VC-25B program has been mired in delays and cost growth for years. Under the current schedule, the Air Force is set to get the first of those aircraft just months before Trump leaves office again.

Under the original Air Force One replacement plan, the VC-25As would have been retired already. These jets, as well as four E-4B Nightwatch ‘doomsday plane’ flying command posts that remain in Air Force service today, are based on the 747-200. This is a model that first entered production in the 1970s, and they are becoming very difficult and expensive to operate and sustain. 200-series 747s in any configuration have all but evaporated from service worldwide, creating additional supply chain hurdles. Boeing shuttered the 747 line entirely back in 2023.

As Gen. White said in his statement in May, the Bridge aircraft will help ease the strain on the VC-25As until the fully-equipped replacement VC-25Bs arrive. At the same time, serious questions remain about the Bridge aircraft’s ability to truly support the full spectrum of Air Force One missions, as TWZ has highlighted repeatedly in the past. Operational security concerns about using a former foreign-operated VVIP jet for this mission have also been raised, though U.S officials have downplayed any such risks.

The VC-25As notably have shielding against electromagnetic pulses (EMP) and other features that harden them to be able to operate even in the midst of a nuclear exchange. The Air Force One mission also requires alternate options to be available at all times. Both VC-25As often accompany the president on international trips, with the second acting as one of the backup options.

The arrival of the Bridge aircraft could still allow the Air Force to move at least one VC-25A into more of a reserve status, at least when it comes to taskings for lower-risk trips. The full replacement plan might eventually reach a point where the Air Force could deem it possible to cannibalize 29000 for much-needed spare parts. At the same time, if the Air Force were to be left with just one truly full-spectrum Air Force One aircraft, this would only magnify the aforementioned controversy and concerns surrounding the ex-Qatari jet.

The Air Force did also confirm last year that it was buying two additional 747-8is from German flag carrier Lufthansa to support the Air Force One fleet. The service has now taken delivery of at least the first one of these aircraft, which is being used as a trainer for aircrew and maintainers on the ground. The other will be a source of spare parts.

Regardless, the Bridge aircraft is getting close now to formally entering service, and its public debut could come within a matter of weeks. An Air Force spokesperson had already confirmed to TWZ last week that the jet had received its new livery – as seen in the picture below – and was undergoing “final modifications” ahead of its formal entry into service.

The new paint scheme has itself been a controversial aspect of future Air Force One plans for years now. During his first term, President Trump announced that the future VC-25Bs would wear a new red, white, and blue scheme rather than the iconic paint job that currently adorns the VC-25As, which dates back to the Kennedy administration. President Joe Biden subsequently reversed that decision, but Trump reinstated his original plan after taking office again last year. U.S. Air Force C-32s, as well as new executive jets serving the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security, have also emerged in the past year with their own versions of this livery.

The Bridge aircraft’s current location is unclear. Last week, still unconfirmed reports emerged that the jet had flown discreetly from Texas, where it had received initial modifications and the new livery, to Andrews Air Force Base just outside Washington, D.C. Andrews is where the VC-25As, as well as various other Air Force executive aircraft, are based.

When the Bridge aircraft will make its first official appearance remains to be seen. In its report last week, NBC News said that Trump could use the jet for a planned trip to Mount Rushmore in South Dakota on July 3, citing an unnamed White House official and another source familiar with the deliberations. Reuters also reported in May that the ex-Qatari 747 might make its debut during a July 4 flyover.

TWZ has reached out to the White House for more information.

It should be noted here that the evolving Air Force One plans also reflect a larger revamping of executive aircraft fleets across the U.S. military and other ends of the federal government under the current administration.

The VC-25B Bridge’s official entry into service does now look to be increasingly imminent, but the Air Force’s VC-25As are also set to keep flying, at least for the time being.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post No, A VC-25A Air Force One Jet Isn’t Being Retired Just Yet appeared first on The War Zone.

After a long process to determine what to do with Long Beach, the Navy on Wednesday put out a call for companies willing and able to perform the extremely complex and lengthy operation to transport, dismantle, de-militarize, and dispose of what was once a 721-foot-long ship that displaced 15,540 tons, including its two defueled reactor plants. Long Beach was launched in 1959 and commissioned two years later.

You can read more about the ship, its unique character, armaments and exploits in our two-part interview with a master chief who served on Long Beach here and here.

This marks just the second time the Navy has opted to select a commercial yard to dismantle a nuclear-powered warship. The first was the ex-USS Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from the same era as Long Beach. It is vastly more complex and expensive to dispose of nuclear-powered vessels than conventionally powered ones because of all the radiological concerns, even long after the reactors have been defueled.

We’ll get into more details about how difficult, time-consuming and costly a process this could be later in this story when we examine the pitfalls of the Enterprise situation, admittedly a much more complex undertaking for various reasons we will explain. However, first we need to understand how Long Beach got to this point.

The decision to go forward with the Long Beach dismantling process came after a Naval Vessel Historical Evaluation (NVHE) in April determined that the ship was ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) despite its history as the first surface combatant ever to have nuclear propulsion and combat service that ranged from the Vietnam War to Operation Desert Storm.

“The ship was deactivated in 1994 and towed to Newport News Shipbuilding where the entire superstructure was removed and the reactors were defueled,” according to the NVHE. “After this work was completed in the winter of 1995, the hull was towed through the Panama Canal to Puget Sound where it has been waiting to be recycled.”

In 2012, the ship was sold for scrap.

“Long Beach had 10,000 tons of steel, 300 miles of electrical cable and 450 tons of aluminum, earning it the voice radio call sign ‘Alcoa’ after the aluminum maker of the same name,” Reuters reported at the time.

“More than a dozen scrap dealers have expressed interest in taking part in sealed online bidding for the hull, with more than 7.35 million pounds (3.33 million kg) of steel, aluminum and copper wiring, galley equipment, tables, chairs, lockers and bunks,” Government Liquidation president Tom Burton told the news outlet.

“It’s a two-year process but it could take 18 to 26 months,” Burton said. “What’s left is an inert hull.”

It remains unclear what happened to that scrap sale. We reached out to the Navy for answers.

The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard subsequently completed a limited-scope hull preservation availability in 2015 that resulted in the removal of the bow and stern, according to the NVHE records. It was ultimately decided not to save the ship by placing it on the NRHP because “major alterations have been made in design that do not maintain the historic design of the vessel (loss of the superstructure and major hull elements),” the review found. “Character defining features of USN warship have been lost, such as main armament, superstructure, bow, and stern. Does not evoke the aesthetic of a 20th Century USN warship.”

Moreover, a 60-day period for stakeholders to comment expired earlier this month with no responses.

With all the hurdles to ultimate destruction now out of the way, the Navy will host an Industry Day meeting on June 24 and 25 in Washington, D.C. for companies interested in learning more about what is involved in the final dismantling of the USS Long Beach.

Whoever gets the job will first have to transport it from Puget Sound to the shipbreaking yard by “dry transport via semi-submersible barge, deck barge, or semi-submersible heavy lift vessel” because the ship’s “current structural condition precludes an open ocean tow,” according to the RFI.

“Dismantling and disposing of ex-Long Beach is necessary in order to comply with Navy policy for inactive nuclear-powered ships stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) statutory responsibilities,” the RFI explains. “The requirement for disposal includes dismantling, demilitarizing, and recycling the remnant hull sections at an authorized commercial facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and removing and packaging the reactor plant components for transportation and disposal as low‑level radioactive waste (LLRW) at an authorized radioactive waste facility or facilities.”

There are no timelines or cost estimates associated with the RFI, nor is there any guarantee that a request for proposal will be issued. We’ve reached out to the Navy for more details.

Our past reporting offers some insights into the tremendous time and money it takes to dismantle a nuclear-powered warship, as evidenced by the saga of the aforementioned Enterprise. However, it should be noted that there are some big differences between that vessel and Long Beach. The carrier is far larger and more complex, had eight reactors compared to two, and had less prep work done in advance.

In 2019, the Government Accountability Office found that it could cost the Navy more than $1.5 billion to fully dispose of Enterprise.

The GAO report also stated that a complete process could take more than 15 years to finish.

From our previous story about the dismantling of the ship known as the Big E: 

“The Navy officially decommissioned Enterprise, also known by its hull number CVN-65, in February 2017, after more than five decades of service. The ship had already effectively been in mothballs since 2012 and Newport News Shipbuilding completed a lengthy ‘inactivation’ process, which included removing nuclear fuel, mission systems, and other items from the ship, in April 2018.

‘At approximately 76,000 tons, CVN-65 will require an unprecedented level of work to dismantle and dispose of as compared to previous ships,’ GAO’s review, which the congressional office published on Aug. 2, 2018, said. ‘Regardless of the approach the Navy chooses, CVN-65 will set precedents for the processes, costs, and oversight that may be used to dismantle and dispose of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the future, such as the Nimitz-class carriers which the Navy will begin to retire in the mid-2020s.’”

The first of those, the USS Nimitz, the Navy’s oldest operational carrier, is scheduled to be inactivated in 2027, the Navy told us.

On March 13, the Navy signed a $95.7 million contract with Huntington Ingalls Inc. “for advance planning and long-lead-time material procurement to prepare and make ready for the accomplishment of the inactivation and defueling of USS Nimitz (CVN 68). Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by March 2027.”

Meanwhile, the Navy originally projected that it would cost somewhere between $500 and $750 million to scrap the Enterprise, but by 2013, this figure had grown to over $1 billion. The difficulties involved forced the service to push back the start of the process more than once.

The regulatory and logistical picture was equally tangled. The Navy and the NRC disagreed on what standards should apply if a private company did the work, and NRC only has direct authority in 13 states, potentially limiting where the job could even be done. Conducting the work at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard — the Navy’s proven approach — risked worsening an already serious maintenance backlog for active ships. The commercial route could be faster and cheaper, but no private yard had ever handled military nuclear reactors at this scale, and the highly classified nature of U.S. naval reactor design added another layer of complexity. 

You can read more about the challenges involved with breaking up a nuclear behemoth in our deep dive into the problems with the Enterprise effort here.

The challenges of disposing of Enterprise, however, continued even after a final decision was made about what to do with the vessel.

On May 30, 2025, the Navy awarded a $536.7 million contract to dismantle the ship to NorthStar Maritime Dismantlement Services, LLC, of Vernon, Vermont, according to Pentagon records. The work was initially expected to be completed in November 2029.

“It was the first time a U.S. nuclear-powered warship will be dismantled through a commercial effort, representing a significant milestone in responsibly and safely closing out the legacy of one of the most iconic nuclear-powered warships,” the Navy noted at the time, according to USNI.

However, the effort unraveled over a legal battle over how the Navy handled final bid submissions, ultimately resulting in the service being “ordered to pause the project and reassess bids, while the appeal now puts the future of the contract back in question,” according to NBC15 News. “The Navy is expected to re-award the contract by June 2026.”

We have reached out to the Navy to find out the status of that contract as well.

Even as the Navy is working to dispose of its first nuclear-powered surface combatant, it is planning for the newest one. The Navy says its proposed Trump class battleships will be nuclear-powered as well.

It remains to be seen how the complications the Navy has faced trying to dismantle Enterprise will affect the disposal of Long Beach and what lessons will be applied, if any. The answers to some of those questions should come into sharper focus next week when interested parties get to ask the Navy for themselves at the Industry Day.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Navy Finally Seeking To Dispose Of USS Long Beach, The World’s First Nuclear-Powered Cruiser appeared first on The War Zone.

Within this jumbled and often misunderstood narrative, one new capability stands out from the rest that would give the MQ-9 extreme value today and for years to come. This is turning the MQ-9 into a radar-toting airborne early warning (AEW) platform for detecting and tracking aircraft, drones, and missiles. A Reaper in this exact configuration just flew for the first time recently.

The MQ-9 sortie in question was the product of a partnership between General Atomics and Saab, with Saab, already a leader in AEW systems, providing the podded radar system named LoyalEye. This initial test flight took place on May 19th, and a full demonstration of the pairing’s capabilities is planned for next year.

GA-ASI President David R. Alexander stated the following about the MQ-9 AEW capability:

“AEW for MQ-9B will offer critical aloft sensing to defend against tactical air munitions, guided missiles, drones, fighter and bomber aircraft, and other threats. Operational availability for a medium-altitude, long-endurance UAS is the highest of any military aircraft, and as an unmanned platform, its aircrews are not put into harm’s way.”

For many years now, I have discussed how the most glaring new mission set for a medium altitude, long-endurance drone is AEW. The idea is relatively simple in concept. Take a cost-effective drone that can fly at medium altitudes for long periods and bolt on some radar pods capable of air moving-target indicator (AMTI) functionality. Then configure the datalinks (both line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight) aboard the aircraft to send the information the pods collect back to controllers, who also remotely operate the drone and the pods from the ground. Such an unmanned aircraft could fly its missions at relatively low cost, and operate in a distributed manner, near where its surveillance capabilities are needed most. Above all else, it would be able to persist for very long periods of time — think of loitering over its launch location for the better part of a day or more — providing persistent long-range look-down radar surveillance, which has never been more important than it is today.

One-way attack munitions, also known as long-range kamikaze drones, are a massive threat to confront on many levels. These unmanned aerial systems blur the definition between cruise missiles and drones. In this case, cruise missiles are also part of the same problem set. While the question of how to shoot down relatively cheap one-way attack drones cost-effectively gets a lot of attention, just spotting them in order to engage them at all, especially at a distance, is also a challenge. Their small signatures and low-altitude flight profiles, as well as their slow speed, can make it so ground-based sensors don’t detect them until it’s almost too late, and aging airborne sensors also have limitations in doing so.

This is where an advanced look-down airborne radar is critical. It can spot these objects from above at long distances and separate them from the ground clutter. The problem is that airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) manned platforms are hugely expensive, resource intensive, and are the very definition of high-value, low-density assets. Many of them can only operate from longer runways, meaning they can only be based far away from where the threats are. Even then, they are top targets, as we saw earlier this year in Saudi Arabia, and their airfields are prime targets too, which can leave them trapped or destroyed on the ground.

The USAF has a dwindling number of geriatric E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, which, despite upgrades, are not the best at spotting low-flying drones. The USAF is now moving begrudgingly forward with stalled E-7 procurement, but these aircraft are also very complex, expensive, and labor-intensive platforms that need long runways to operate from. The Navy has the E-2D Hawkeye, which is more modern and capable in some regards, and less in others, but is also not available in vast numbers as they have other critical taskings, especially to support carrier air wings. These aircraft are better suited to operate from remote forward airfields, and having a smaller logistical and crew footprint, but still require far more support than an MQ-9. Overall, these crewed aircraft are also increasingly vulnerable to long-range air defenses, and, while their sensor range is generous, it is still limited, making their utility questionable in a peer state conflict.

For higher-end missions, where command and control is a major part of what AEW&C platforms will be called upon to do, directing air wars and coordinating defenses, while also supplying networking support, a pod-equipped MQ-9 cannot replace an E-7 or E-2. For providing critical surveillance, especially in areas where there are gaps in crewed AEW&C coverage, or in places that just don’t require that level of support, the AEW-capable MQ-9 is a very attractive solution. Even pushing these uncrewed sensor nodes forward, into higher-threat areas, under certain circumstances, to provide high-fidelity radar coverage where no crewed platform would ever be risked, is a real use case. An MQ-9 is far more expendable than a manned AEW&C asset from human life, cost, and recovery operation requirements (combat search and rescue) perspectives.

The truth of the matter is that even if the E-7 replaces all 15 remaining E-3s, and even if the Navy adds E-2 Hawkeyes, in a future distributed conflict, there is no way these aircraft can give all the coverage needed, persistently, day and night, while providing surveillance for all threatened locales. Not even close. This is especially true as relatively cheap one-way attack drones, such as the Shahed-136, can travel over a thousand miles, drastically expanding potential threat areas at a very low cost to the enemy.

This is where the podded MQ-9 can shine, with a detachment of a few of these aircraft providing persistent coverage (“orbits”) over key areas 24/7 while retaining a small logistical footprint. This would also directly support the USAF’s Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine, where small groups of tactical aircraft will move quickly from one forward location to another in hopes of staying ahead of an enemy’s targeting cycle. While that may be the goal, these traveling road-shows of airpower will still need persistent look-down coverage, especially if they are positioned deeply within the enemy’s striking range. AEW&C aircraft will not be able to provide this coverage persistently (if at all). AEW MQ-9s could, and they could drastically increase the situational awareness, range, and overall effectiveness of other key defensive capabilities, such as surface-to-air missile systems and fighter aircraft, with the targeting data they provide.

General Atomics is also turning the MQ-9 family into drone killers themselves with the addition of laser-guided rockets. This could result in ‘hunter-killer’ teaming, where the AEW MQ-9 spots the threat and the laser-guided rocket-equipped MQ-9 intercepts and destroys it. Just the AEW MQ-9 on its own can also use its powerful MTS electro-optical sensor turret to visually identify potential enemy aircraft once they get close enough, allowing for a non-cooperative friend or foe identification capability.

You can even look to the recent fighting in the Middle East, which saw Iran barrage allied bases on the Arabian Peninsula with one-way attack munitions and low-end cruise missiles. Reapers with LoyalEye pods could have provided persistent look-down radar coverage over threatened areas, especially as the USAF’s dwindling and rickety AEW&C fleet was overtasked. They could have also created a radar picket line across the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and eastern Iraq, providing high-fidelity look-down radar coverage and a true early warning screen for Iranian weapons heading towards their target areas, all without putting a crew at risk.

Now, it’s worth noting that the USAF envisions a future where AEW and general AMTI sensing is largely migrated to an orbital layer of satellites, and they are actively working to realize this capability, which would be absolutely revolutionary if fully realized. Yet, as of now, it’s still an if, and it will take years to fully come to fruition. Even then, relying on a space layer alone for this absolutely critical capability would be a huge vulnerability. Backing it up with a lower-end, flexible airborne solution will likely remain critical for a long time to come. AEW MQ-9s can help efficiently fill out a high-low AEW/airborne moving target indicator mix. This is especially true as the platform itself, the MQ-9, can be reconfigured for a huge range of other missions when AEW capabilities are not in high demand, so the USAF isn’t left with a single mission asset.

The AEW MQ-9s can also provide their capabilities here at home. America is dealing with a tough future when it comes to defending the homeland, and providing look-down radar capabilities is a major part of adapting to this reality. Outside of tethered aerostats, which have not proven to be a large-scale workable solution yet, AEW MQ-9s would provide flexible, efficient and persistent capabilities in areas where it may be needed, especially in times of heightened defense, like major public events and during a crisis.

The AEW MQ-9s can also provide their services during large force employment training exercises, including going some way to emulate more capable crewed AEW&C platforms, at least with target track generation, when those manned AEW&C assets are not available. They could also be very valuable in an opposition forces ‘red air’ role, which has historically been sorely lacking in AEW, especially as AEW capabilities proliferate around the globe, particularly with America’s primary pacing threat, China.

The naval side of this is a big deal too. The fact that General Atomics is modifying the MQ-9 family to operate from large deck amphibious assault ships and carriers presents another huge opportunity. It could provide LHA/LHDs with a truly organic fixed-wing AEW asset for the first time — one that doesn’t require large flight crews and that can loiter above the amphibious strike group for very long periods of time. This is becoming more important as enemy missile and drone technology evolves. Having to rely on surface combatants and a small contingent of fighter aircraft, if any at all, for air defense is limiting and can impart extra risk at inopportune times, especially in littoral environments. During a major conflict, these ships could operate too far out to sea to make land-based AEW support plausible and those assets will be over-tasked as it is. AEW MQ-9 seems like a relatively glaring off-the-shelf solution to this problem. It’s also worth noting that the USMC already operates the MQ-9 and integrating it into the shipboard Air Combat Element (ACE) of a Marine Air-Ground Task Force should be relatively straightforward.

AEW configured examples could also be extremely useful for the Marines’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) concept, which mirrors elements of the USAF’s ACE doctrine, but goes beyond just the aerial fight. Marines deployed forward in the enemy’s ring of fire under EABO will need look down protection more than pretty much anyone else, which the AEW MQ-9 could provide at low risk. The MQ-9 family is already capable of short field operations and that is only being enhanced with new STOL (short-takeoff-and-landing) members of the MQ-9 family, meaning they can fly from small, austere airstrips and could maintain sortie rates even if those airstrips receive partial damage.

For supercarriers, the AEW MQ-9 could augment the E-2D, providing constant look down radar coverage for the entire carrier strike group when E-2s are not up. This would deeply benefit the CSG’s entire air warfare mission, providing critical sensor data to Aegis warships, fighters, and the carrier. They could also augment E-2D coverage during high-threat periods of vulnerability, including putting additional sensor coverage farther away from the CSG over high-risk vectors of attack. We discussed in detail how an AEW capable version of the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray could also serve in this general capacity.

All of this is from a very American point of view, but the AEW MQ-9 concept may be most attractive to foreign air arms that currently have no dedicated AEW capabilities at all, or are looking to augment the limited capacity they do have. Fielding a traditional AEW&C force is very expensive, even for a small cadre of crewed platforms, limiting the realistic application of such a force even if the country can afford it to begin with. AEW MQ-9 could help ‘democratize’ AEW and allow many allies to field such a capability, which a coalition force during multi-national operations could also benefit from, including the U.S. In this way, AEW MQ-9 could be a huge win not just for countries in need of this kind of capability at a lower price point, but also for the U.S., as this kind of sensor information will become far more widespread, putting less pressure on its own organic AEW force. This could be leveraged both in peacetime for surveillance and monitoring, but especially in a crisis.

Just look at what’s happening with the drone threat to Europe for instance. MQ-9s with the radar pods could provide sustainable airborne surveillance for NATO countries. Think of the AEW MQ-9 as the F-5 Freedom Fighter of AEW capabilities. And once again, these allies would be able to use the MQ-9s in many different ways when not configured for the AEW mission, including peacetime monitoring and patrols not related to airborne moving target tracking.

As it sits now, Japan has already expressed interest in the AEW MQ-9 and many other nations are sure to follow.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the idea of AEW functionality on an uncrewed platform isn’t exactly new. It has been experimented with before and China is thought to have added some of this functionality to its far more advanced high-altitude, long-endurance drones. But providing a robust, off-the-shelf solution for the more accessible and flexible medium-altitude, long-endurance drone class, and especially the most proven of all types in this class on the planet, the MQ-9 family, makes glaring sense for an extremely wide set of potential users, including the United States.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

The post MQ-9 Getting Airborne Early Warning Radar Is A Huge Deal appeared first on The War Zone.

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. 

“The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies.

SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.”

“Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states.

We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

• “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”

• “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”

• “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”

• “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”

• “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”

• “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and

• “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.”

The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response.

TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” 

Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000.

“Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies.

The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran.

Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times.

Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran. 

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported.

Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].

“Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.”

Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted.

You can see a video of one of those strikes below.

“Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”

UPDATE: 6:57 PM EDT –

Lockheed Martin responded to our questions:

Lockheed Martin is accelerating production and increasing capacity to deliver a record number of interceptors to American and global customers, and stands ready to support any U.S. government decision on Foreign Military Sales deliveries. Additional questions should be directed to the U.S. government.

The PAC-3 MSE is the only variant currently in production. We closed our PAC-3 CRI production line in 2023.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Pentagon’s Ability To Supply Ukraine With More Patriot Interceptors Questioned By Congress (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The Air Force down-selected the designs from General Atomics and Anduril to move ahead as part of the first incremental development cycle of its CCA program, or Increment 1, back in 2024. What were originally designated the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A first flew in August and October 2025, respectively, and have been undergoing further testing since then. Dark Merlin testing was paused earlier this year after one of the drones crashed, but has resumed.

“By moving fast from competitive selection into full-scale manufacturing, we position ourselves to field highly credible and combat-ready semi-autonomous systems to stay ahead of the pacing challenge,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said in a statement today. “These contracts reaffirm our confidence in the strategic path forward for the program to procure over 150 combat capable CCA by the end of the decade.”

The Air Force says these contracts were awarded four months ahead of schedule, reflecting “that the FQ-42 and FQ-44 meet rigorous mission requirements and are ready for full-scale manufacturing.” At the time of writing, the service does not appear to have provided an update on the expected delivery timeline of the first production CCAs, but it has said in the past that it is hoping to have the first examples in operational service toward the end of the decade. Air Force has asked for nearly $1 billion in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request to begin procurement of these drones.

“Under the contract, Anduril will deliver an initial set of production FQ-44 semi-autonomous fighter aircraft to support continued testing, validation, and, ultimately, operational fielding,” Mark Shushnar, Anduril’s Vice President for Autonomous Airpower, also wrote in a blog post today. “The contract also establishes a structure for the Air Force to buy additional lots of production FQ-44 aircraft across the next several years, providing a clear path for the Air Force to rapidly and affordably expand fighter capacity.”

“This is an exciting day for our company and the nation,” David Alexander, President of General Atomics’ Aeronautical Systems, Inc. division (GA-ASI), said in his own statement. “Moving to production on FQ-42A is the result of an extraordinary partnership and many years of investments between General Atomics and the U.S. Air Force. We’ve been preparing for this order, and manufacturing is already well underway.”

A split-buy of Dark Merlin and Fury drones will help drive down risk. The designs are also very different, which opens the door to more operational possibilities for the Air Force right from the start. General Atomics and Anduril can also then focus on refining the respective strengths of their uncrewed aircraft. As noted, TWZ has pointed out on several occasions that a mixture of uncrewed platforms with different attributes would be needed to truly do justice to the CCA concept.

Furthermore, the Air Force making this decision still deep in the developmental phase also underscores how critical the service sees CCAs, and its desire to push ahead with getting at least an early iteration of the capability into service.

“Collaborative Combat Aircraft change how we project power and generate mass in highly contested environments,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach said in a statement today. “Delivering this capability to our warfighters faster ensures our forces maintain the tactical edge required to deter and, if necessary, defeat any adversary.”

The Air Force has also further split the CCA effort into hardware and software segments, with airframe development falling into the former category.

“These distinct efforts validate acquisition transformation principles to secure a critical operational advantage: decoupling hardware from software,” according to an Air Force press release today. “By treating mission autonomy as ‘software sold separately,’ the Air Force ensures that the warfighter receives state-of-the-art physical platforms alongside agile, easily updatable software, effectively breaking traditional procurement molds.”

Anduril and General Atomics, as well as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Collins Aerospace, and Shield AI form the current vendor pool for the software side of the CCA program. The Air Force announced today that it had awarded additional mission autonomy contracts to Anduril, Collins, and Shield AI. Anduril is notably the only company currently with CCA contracts on the hardware and software sides.

“This targeted award, based on the vendors’ ability to meet aggressive schedule and affordability requirements, will fund the first of two six-month competitive phases designed to speed the fielding of operational software to the warfighter,” according to an Air Force release. “While the baseline contract establishes a continuous competitive arena, the competitive awards are designed to deliver capability faster. Following the initial six-month period, the Air Force will evaluate the vendors’ progress and execute a second competitive award period. This performance-based competition will culminate in the selection of a primary mission autonomy provider for CCA Increment 1, with award planned for selection by summer 2027.”

“Furthermore, this software contract leverages a first-of-its-kind award fee exposure strategy, which enables operator feedback and combat performance to determine what the Air Force pays for mission autonomy. The Air Force will only pay the entire licensing fee if a vendor provides a combat capability aligned with warfighter needs and feedback,” the release adds. “The licensing approach also allows the Air Force to award software licenses to any of the six vendors within the pool at any point over the next six years. This approach ensures the Air Force can procure the best-performing and most affordable solutions as technology evolves.”

More government ownership of key intellectual property, and software in particular, has become a central guiding principle for the U.S. military contracting, in general, in recent years. When it comes to autonomy software packages, there is also now a core government-owned Autonomy Government Reference Architecture (A-GRA) that goes beyond the Air Force’s CCA program.

“Today, Lattice for Mission Autonomy is fully A-GRA compliant, ensuring that it can be integrated not only with all Increment 1 CCA, but with the full spectrum of current and future A-GRA compliant aircraft,” Anduril’s Shushnar highlighted in his blog post. “Through the A-GRA, the CCA program has established the foundation that will drive the development of a larger ecosystem of autonomous aircraft.”

Shield AI’s Hivemind software is also already flying on a number of different drones.  Just last month, the Pentagon announced that it would be using this autonomy package to introduce swarming capabilities to its Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones.  

“Mission autonomy is the cornerstone of the CCA concept, and leveraging a competitive, multi-vendor environment ensures we capture the latest technology,” Secretary Meink also said today in another statement. “This approach guarantees our Airmen are equipped with state-of-the-art capabilities today but keeps the door open for the breakthroughs necessary to maintain air superiority.”

In general, greater government control over intellectual property rights also helps avoid the potential to be locked into a single vendor. Establishing vendor pools to compete for follow-on contracts also creates opportunities to lower costs and to diversify supply chains, especially when it comes to hardware. That diversification, in turn, can be beneficial when it comes time to scale up production of both key subcomponents and complete systems.

As far as we know, the Air Force is still planning for at least one more incremental CCA development cycle, or Increment 2, firm requirements for which have yet to be publicly released. This could lead to further diversification of the service’s future CCA fleets. The Air Force has notably already given the YFQ-48A designation to Northrop Grumman’s Talon Blue drone design, which first broke cover in December 2025. Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat, originally developed for Australia, now has a greater presence in the United States.

The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy are also pursuing their own CCA fleets in very close coordination with the Air Force. The Air Force is very much in the lead in fielding drones in this category, which could factor into future Marine and Navy decisions. The Marines are currently planning for their first tranche of MQ-58 Valkyrie CCA drones from Kratos to arrive in 2029. The Navy’s program is still very much in its infancy.

The Air Force’s CCA program has now taken another major step forward toward an initial fleet of drones that will include both General Atomics Dark Merlin and Anduril’s Fury.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Orders Both General Atomics’ FQ-42 And Anduril’s FQ-44 Into Production appeared first on The War Zone.

Diehl Defense recently confirmed that it plans to launch production of Ukraine’s Flamingo cruise missile in Germany. Diehl’s chief executive, Helmut Rauch, said that his company was planning talks in the coming weeks with Fire Point, the manufacturer of the Flamingo. Previously, Diehl had signed a technology agreement with Fire Point but had not disclosed any details.

Meanwhile, another European missile manufacturer, MBDA, the largest company of its kind in Europe, has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Ukrainian defense firm Luch to expand collaboration on deep-strike capabilities by focusing on the Neptune family of cruise missiles. Under the agreement, MBDA and Luch will work together on the so-called Neptune 2 missile, via what the European missile house describes as a process of “disruptive innovation.”

Reflecting this broader trend, during a visit to Kyiv last month, German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius noted Ukraine’s “remarkable” wartime technological advances and said that Berlin was looking at joint ventures that included long-range drones, air defenses, and electronic warfare.

Looking at these Ukrainian cruise missiles in more detail, Luch’s Neptune first emerged as an anti-ship missile, based on the Soviet-era Kh-35, known to NATO as the SS-N-25 Switchblade in its surface-launched form. The Neptune came to prominence when it was used to sink the Russian Navy’s Slava class cruiser Moskva in 2022.

Ukraine reportedly began work on a new land-attack version of the Neptune in 2023. A Ukrainian defense official told TWZ that this version has a range of up to 225 miles (360 kilometers). This compares to a reported maximum range of around 190 miles (300 kilometers) for the anti-ship version.

Subsequently, Ukraine introduced the extended-range Long Neptune, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated has a range in the region of 620 miles (1,000 kilometers). The Long Neptune features an extended body to accommodate additional fuel for its turbofan engine. It has reportedly been used against dozens of targets inside Russia.

The land-attack versions of the Neptune reportedly use a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) and an imaging infrared sensor in place of the anti-ship missile’s active radar seeker.

At least one more version of the Neptune has also been developed, this one apparently featuring fuel tank ‘bulges’ for increased range. As you can read about here, this model appears to be something like an intermediate-range version, falling between the original land-attack Neptune and the Long Neptune.

Turning to the Flamingo, also known as the FP-5, this was designed from the ground up to hit targets deep within Russia, the missile having a reported range of 1,864 miles (3,000 kilometers). The Flamingo is significantly bigger than the Neptune series, being launched from rails mounted on a trailer, rather than from canisters on the flatbed of a truck.

The Flamingo also features a notably larger warhead, reportedly weighing around 2,205 pounds (1,000 kilograms).

A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action:

In terms of guidance, the Flamingo is said to use a combination of methods, including various types of satellite navigation. An underlying inertial navigation system is likely to be present. The missile is powered by an AI-25 turbofan engine, a type produced in Ukraine for military and civilian aircraft, including the L-39 Albatros trainer and the Yak-40 feederliner.

Ukraine’s development of increasingly long-range land-attack cruise missiles is driven by the requirement to strike targets deeper inside Russia. Kyiv has received standoff missiles from its allies, including the air-launched Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG from the United Kingdom and France, respectively, as well as the U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missile. However, these are not available in large numbers and are limited by restrictions imposed upon their use. Additionally, none of them have the kind of range or warhead capacity offered by the Flamingo.

Kyiv has long been campaigning to receive Tomahawk cruise missiles from the United States, but so far, Washington has refused these requests, with U.S. President Donald Trump saying he is “not looking to see an escalation” in the conflict. These highly accurate missiles would be able to hit targets roughly 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from Ukraine’s borders.

As well as cruise missiles, Ukraine has also developed a huge variety of long-range one-way-attack drones, and other designs that blur the line between long-range kamikaze drones and cruise missiles, including Palianytsia, Peklo, and Trembita.

Kyiv has also been working on developing new ballistic missiles. However, the longest-range one of these, as far as is known, is the Hrim-2, which can hit targets at 174 miles (280 kilometers) or possibly up to 310 miles (500 kilometers).

Meanwhile, Fire Point has developed the FP-7 ballistic missile, a weapon with a stated range of around 124 miles (200 kilometers), and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds (150 kilograms).

In both cases, however, these ballistic missiles lack true strategic reach. This would be partially addressed by the FP-9, which Fire Point aims to start testing this summer, and which is expected to have a range of 530 miles (855 kilometers).

Ukraine’s efforts to develop new and more destructive missiles, and to build them at scale, come as Europe’s NATO members also increasingly look to field weapons in this class.

The scale factor is an important one, since Ukrainian wartime weapons development stresses equipment that can be produced rapidly, in large numbers, and at a lower cost point. Fire Point has said that it aims to increase Flamingo production to a daily rate of at least seven missiles by October of this year. This would translate to 2,555 built annually. It remains questionable whether this is a realistic target, but the prospect of additional production lines elsewhere in Europe would change things.

At the same time, it should be noted that the Flamingo and Neptune cruise missiles, for all their capabilities, are not especially sophisticated. They both fly at subsonic speed and do not appear to have any attempts at signature control. While they are certainly destructive, they are far from immune to interception.

Their effectiveness can be increased by using them in missile barrages and combined with drones and potentially decoys, to overwhelm air defenses. Here, too, is an area in which Ukrainian experience could help, creating a mix of high-end missile capabilities with combat mass from lower-end drones.

With this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that Diehl is already looking at how it can improve the Flamingo.

Diehl’s Helmut Rauch has said that his company could outfit the Flamingo with a much more advanced seeker, leveraging the German firm’s experience in this area.

An unverified video that appears to show a Flamingo cruise missile strike on a military factory in Cheboksary in western Russia:

Similarly, MBDA’s expertise in missile development and production could potentially be incorporated in future versions of the Neptune.

Either way, Ukraine would benefit from advanced technologies that otherwise might not be immediately accessible.

What is clear is that European NATO allies are increasingly looking to address their lack of land-based long-range strike capabilities. As well as facing an increasingly belligerent Russia equipped with an expanding arsenal of long-range missiles, Europe is also confronting the prospect of its U.S. ally being unwilling to provide the same kinds of capabilities.

Ukraine is not alone in being unable to secure U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Berlin, in particular, is looking for alternatives to the U.S. Army long-range fires battalion equipped with various conventionally armed standoff missiles — including Tomahawk — that was expected to be deployed in Germany on a rotational basis, starting this year. The U.S. move was an apparent response to disagreements with Germany over the Iran war as well as ongoing tariff tensions. 

While Europe does have new long-range strike programs underway, they are not expected to bring new systems into service until the 2030s. At the same time, efforts like the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), which involves France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, still have to agree on common requirements, provided that is even possible.

Separately, Germany and the United Kingdom have unveiled plans to jointly produce a “deep precision strike” weapon with a range of over 1,240 miles (2,000 kilometers). At this point, however, no industrial framework has been agreed on. Potentially, an advanced version of the Flamingo could meet that requirement, even if only as an interim measure before a more bespoke solution can be developed.

Russia’s extensive use of ground-launched missiles in Ukraine, along with its deployment of long-range weapons in Kaliningrad, has only highlighted the deficiencies in Europe’s deep-strike capabilities as NATO seeks to strengthen conventional deterrence against Moscow.

For Europe, Ukrainian missile developers like Luchs and Fire Point bring the valuable experience of wartime innovation, while established defense firms like MBDA and Diehl provide additional industrial capacity and advanced technologies. If either of these projects succeeds, they could not only help Ukraine field more advanced and capable cruise missiles, but also help address one of NATO’s most pressing capability gaps.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Ukraine To Help Fulfill Europe’s Long-Range Strike Missile Needs appeared first on The War Zone.

A formal request for a briefing on the Air Force’s plans surrounding the E-11A fleet is included in a report accompanying a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The Senate Armed Services Committee released a full copy of the proposed legislation and the report yesterday.

The Air Force currently has 7 BACN jets in service, which are based on several different models from the Bombardier Global Express family of business jets. The BACN package has also flown operationally in the past on one of NASA’s high-flying WB-57F research aircraft and a fleet of now-retired EQ-4B Global Hawk drones.

“The committee is aware of the Department of the Air Force’s decision to cancel the E–11 Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) capability, which has historically provided critical communications relay and data translation functions enabling joint and coalition operations, particularly in contested and communications-degraded environments,” the report says. “The committee is concerned about the operational risk associated with the loss of the E–11 BACN capability and the lack of clarity regarding the Department’s plan to mitigate resulting gaps in airborne communications, data integration, and battle management.”

“Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 31, 2027, on the Department’s plan to address capability gaps resulting from the cancellation of the E–11 BACN capability,” it continues.

The briefing needs to at least provide the following:

• “A detailed justification for the decision to cancel the E–11 BACN capability, including cost, survivability, and operational considerations.”
• “An assessment of the operational risks created by the cancellation, including impacts on joint all-domain command and control, communications interoperability, and support to combatant commander requirements.”
• “A description of alternative capabilities, programs, or concepts of operation the Department plans to employ to replicate or replace E–11 BACN functionality, including any space-based, airborne, or ground-based solutions.”
• “Associated timelines, funding requirements, and acquisition strategies for such alternatives.”
• “A description of how the Department will ensure continuity of communications relay and gateway capabilities in contested environments during any transition period.”
• “An assessment of impacts to joint and coalition interoperability, including any risks to ongoing operations or contingency plans.”

Currently, the BACN aircraft provide an extremely valuable airborne communications gateway that can be used to relay data across various waveforms between platforms in the air, at sea, and on land. The planes offer a vital way to ‘translate’ between data-sharing systems that may not otherwise be able to ‘talk’ to each other. E-11As can also provide a vital node between line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight links. During the conflict in Afghanistan, the BACN aircraft became known for providing this service and creating an active data-sharing rebroadcasting network in a country where mountainous terrain could often limit the reach of line-of-sight links.

The Air Force first announced its intention to divest the E-11A fleet earlier this year as part of the rollout of its annual budget request. The service offered few additional details publicly at that time, beyond that the Hybrid Satellite Communications (STACOM) Terminal program would provide a “bridge” capability in the near term.

Hybrid SATCOM is a capability the Air Force is working to field on a variety of aircraft, including aerial refueling tankers and cargo planes, which is intended to give them better access to government-owned and operated and commercial satellite constellations. SpaceX’s Starlink network and its government-focused cousin, Starshield, are already in particular widespread and still-growing use across the U.S. military. Distributed constellations of satellites, like the ones used for Starlink and Starshield, to support various mission requirements are changing warfighting, and the pace of those developments is accelerating.

An annual force structure report that the Pentagon released last month offers some further insights into the Air Force’s argument for retiring the E-11As.

“Predicated on the successful deployment of next-generation orbital systems, the E-11A fleet is scheduled for divestment in FY 2028,” the force structure report says. “These space-based assets will provide equivalent relay and datalink capabilities, superseding current E-11A functions and enabling a modernized transition of the mission set. Consequently, all cost savings will be reinvested into the replacement capabilities.”

“As part of a broader strategy to align resources with the most pressing operational needs, the Department of the Air Force will divest its fleet of seven E-11A aircraft, with the action planned for FY 2028,” the report adds. “This decision allows for the strategic reallocation of fiscal resources to fund more critical, high-priority service requirements and accelerate modernization efforts in other key areas.”

The Air Force’s decision regarding the E-11A came without any real warning, at least publicly. As noted, the service had significantly increased the fleet size in recent years, driven in part by the retirement of the EQ-4Bs. The aircraft had looked set to continue serving for years to come.

Demand for the capabilities BACN offers has gone well beyond Afghanistan. The aircraft continue to be heavily utilized to support active combat operations, including as part of Operation Epic Fury against Iran this year. The platform was also utilized during the mission to capture former Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in January.

At the same time, there are questions about the survivability of the E-11A going forward as a non-stealthy business jet-based aircraft, especially in the context of a future high-end fight. These concerns are even pronounced for the BACN aircraft given that a key aspect of their mission set to date has involved flying within range of line-of-sight links. A growing threat ecosystem that pushes the planes further and further from the forces they are expected to support would challenge their utility.

China and Russia, in particular, are developing very long-range anti-air missiles, and the Air Force itself has warned that designs with ranges of 1,000 miles could be in service by 2050. Ever-more sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) ‘bubbles’ will be an increasing challenge for traditional non-stealthy combat support aircraft, not just BACN, as time goes on. Even smaller adversaries like Iran and North Korea, and even some non-state actors, are continuing to field more threatening air defense systems, as well.

As an aside, the U.S. Army now views very long-range air-launched drones as a key capability to help ensure the relevance of its new Bombardier Global Express-based ME-11B High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) surveillance and reconnaissance planes in future large-scale conflicts. You can read more about the plans for HADES here.

All this being said, there is also something of an interesting parallel, very broadly speaking, between the Air Force’s current plans for the E-11A fleet and its failed Pentagon-backed attempt to cancel the E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft program. The arguments for axing the E-7 were also heavily rooted in plans for new space-based capabilities, concerns about the vulnerability of a non-stealthy aircraft in future high-end conflicts, and a general desire to shift resources to other priorities. Congress ultimately intervened to save the Wedgetail program, and the Air Force and the Pentagon have now completely changed their tone, at least publicly, on the matter.

“I know our department had taken the position that it was … other satellite ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities] that was probably going to be capable of a lot of that in the future,” Secretary Pete Hegseth said in response to a question about the E-7 at a hearing in May. “But I think that mindset was indicative of a mindset that we’ve shed, which is the divest-to-invest mindset, which was an austerity mindset, that we’re going to get continuing resolution after continuing resolution. So, we [sic] got to get rid of these platforms in order to invest in these platforms. And there are gaps that need to still be filled. And there are systems that still need to be funded that are used on the battlefield right now, say, MQ-9s, A-10s, you name it.”

Hegseth’s comments here would seem to reflect a logic that one could also apply to the E-11A fleet, at least based on the arguments the Air Force has put forward for its divestment so far.

Whether Congress intervenes now to save the BACN aircraft remains to be seen. The Air Force is still expecting to continue flying the jets through next year at least.

The Air Force will now have a chance to more formally argue before members of the Senate Armed Services Committee for moving ahead with its plan to axe the E-11As.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Senators Want Answers On USAF Plans To Cut E-11 BACN Combat Communications Jets appeared first on The War Zone.

The long-standing potential for a drone attack on the White House was something we recently discussed last month in an examination of President Donald Trump’s plans to fortify the under-construction ballroom. More on that later in this story.

The plot involved a group of individuals who wanted to “attack the UFC event and involved staging a ‘demonstration’ on the north side of the White House,” CBS News reported, citing the court filings. “The group would then fly drones ‘laden with unspecified explosive devices which would detonate over the north side of the UFC arena,'” according to the filing in the case of one of the five people arrested, 19-year-old Tycen Proper.

When the drones exploded, “the group then planned to force attendees of the UFC event and ‘high value targets’ to evacuate to the south,” Proper’s affidavit read. The suspect told investigators that the plan was for group members to “act as snipers and additional shooters,” shooting fight attendees and the “high value targets” as they fled from the explosions.

The affidavit said the “high value targets” were “wealthy people” and politicians, CBS noted. 

Proper allegedly told investigators the goal of the attack was to “jumpstart” a revolution in the U.S. He was interviewed from a hospital, according to the document, where he was admitted on an emergency basis due to “homicidal ideations.”

In addition to Proper, Bryan Omar Roa, 24, of Calimesa, California; Michael Alan Thomas, 32, of Pinon Hills, California; Daniel K. Eskridge, 32, of Kidder, Missouri; and Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez, 31, of Omaha, Nebraska were also charged, according to the Justice Department.

Fox News was the first to report details about the plot.

TWZ cannot independently verify any of these details at this time and it remains publicly unclear what capabilities, training, funding and equipment the suspects had to actually carry out a complex attack like the one described. Proper’s mother said her son “began interacting with a group online that was comprised of individuals who claimed to be ex-military and Christian-based,” according to the court documents. They espoused anti-government and anti-Semitic sentiments.

At the very least, it would have taken unique skills and some level of discipline, coordination and operational security to pull off this kind of a plot. It would have also required funding and time. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies disrupt attack plans long before they get close to becoming operational, and many of those have a low chance they could actually been implemented as dreamed-up. That does not mean the individuals involved or their plans are not still a significant threat. In this case, there is no information available on whether anyone involved had the means and ability to stage an attack like the one described.

Regardless, it is important to note it would be a challenge to stop people simply from bringing weaponized uncrewed aircraft into range of the White House without law enforcement having prior knowledge. Actually employing those drones as weapons successfully is another story. Still, the danger of such an attack looms large and is growing by the day.

As we have frequently highlighted, two incidents last year highlight the alarming danger of near-field drone attacks that raised lingering concerns in the U.S.

On June 1, 2025, Ukraine launched drones hidden in trucks at air bases across Russia, causing severe damage to its strategic aviation fleet. Weeks later, Israel fired drones from deep inside Iran at the country’s air defenses during the 12-Day War.

TWZ raised concerns about just these kinds of attacks for years long before the ones in Russia and Iran took place.

The following video shows one of the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian bombers during Operation Spider Web.

In both Russia and Iran, the drones were set up undetected deep in enemy territory during armed conflict against military targets. The plot on the White House, as characterized in the court documents, is of course different on many levels and was to be planned and executed by citizens, not sponsored by another nation at war with its neighbor. At the same time, both present a host of challenges to defend against, many of which overlap.

Given the presence of the president, his family and thousands of VIP guests on the White House lawn at the time, as well as the event’s extremely high-profile nature, UFC Freedom 250 was “designated a Special Event Assessment Review 1 event, like the Super Bowl, Indianapolis 500, Kentucky Derby and college football games, according to the Department of Homeland Security,” ABC News reported last week.

Security was also tightened at the Ellipse outside the White House, where thousands more watched the event on large screens.

The increased precautions included concern about drones, said Tara McLeese, special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Washington Field Office.

Federal law prohibits flying drones in the airspace over the National Capital Region, so McLeese advised fans ahead of the event to “leave their drones at home.”

“We will have law enforcement drones for overwatch, but just to make it simple for the public, if they see a drone, we want them to report that,” she said, according to ABC.

The Secret Service declined to talk about its concerns over drone threats, instead pointing us to its post on X.

While we don’t know the extent of the counter-drone measures deployed by the FBI, Secret Service or even the military, they certainly included devices to detect and, if needed, jam the signals of threatening drones. However, as the war in Ukraine and Israel’s push into Lebanon have proven, the efficacy of these methods is far from assured. This is especially so since the introduction of drones controlled via fiber optic cables, which mitigate the effects of radio frequency passive detection and active jamming with a direct hardwired link between a drone and its operator.

Meanwhile, as we noted in our story about Trump using the ballroom he is building as a kind of defensive fortification, using traditional kinetic protection from drones and other aerial threats in and around the White House is limited and risky. The advent of interceptor drones, many that are hit-to-kill or use electromagnetic pulses and other low collateral damage means instead of explosive warheads, is starting to mitigate some of those concerns.

From the story about Trump’s ballroom:

“Clearly, the drone issue is a massive one and has been for many years. This structure will serve as a secure place to do daily business if needed. Based on Trump’s comments, it will also act as a critical active defense node with its roof hosting air defenses, and apparently ones that are capable of at least a limited degree of area defense, not just highly-localized point defense. This is where drones could come into play. Drone interceptors (drones that intercept other drones) are well suited for the unique challenges of defending the White House and the Mall area as a whole, where collateral damage is a huge concern. Some of these systems use warheads, while others do not, physically smashing into their targets or blasting them with electrical pulses and other non-traditional effects instead. Drone interceptor capabilities are expanding rapidly now, equipping forward bases and warships. They proved critical in defending U.S. interests against Iranian attacks during the recent war. In Ukraine, they have proven indispensable in countering waves of Russian Shaheds.”

Directed energy, such as lasers and high-power microwave weapons are another potential countermeasure, but these systems remain somewhat in their infancy and have very short range. Above all else, using them in dense urban areas, especially those with nearby low-flying air traffic, can be extremely problematic. They are not widely deployed for the counter drone role in the United States and won’t be in the near term.

It’s also worth remembering that the alleged plan did not necessarily rely on the accuracy of the drones or the damage they could inflict. The goal was to induce panic by their very presence and drive people into a field of fire to be attacked by snipers.

Even if counter-drone measures were able to provide a relatively robust protective bubble over UFC 250 at the White House, the plot as described in the documents further highlights the vulnerability large events have from even the lowliest of drone attack attempts.

The U.S. at the moment is protecting several facilities across the country with huge crowds during the World Cup soccer tournament at a time of heightened global tensions. Countering drone attacks was a central component of pre-event security measures as well as ongoing efforts.

This all comes as the U.S. is working to increase authorities to allow the military and law enforcement to better protect against drone threats.

We were the first to report numerous unauthorized drone flights over U.S. military facilities and other sensitive areas. The defensive capabilities have been constrained by a labyrinth of often confusing legal and regulatory hurdles. Incursions by cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border have sharpened the need for reforms, some of which are underway.

As we reported back in February, in advance of the U.S. hosting the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games, the Trump administration pushed to expand counter-drone authorities. Congress granted that when it passed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Officials have already taken action against drone operators using these new authorities. Last week, FBI Los Angeles said it seized drones and issued citations to pilots near SoFi Stadium for alleged violations of temporary flight restrictions during last Friday’s World Cup match, The Los Angeles Times reported. The bureau “shared photos showing confiscated drones as well as an image of a drone operator being cited,” the newspaper noted. “However, it did not specify how many drones were taken or how many pilots were issued citations. It also did not provide details on the technology used to locate or track the drone operators.”

The bureau did not say if the operators of these drones had nefarious intent or whether they were armed, though neither of those are prerequisites for violating the no-drone-zone rules.

While the actual ability of the alleged perpetrators to pull off the combined drone and sniper attack on the White House like what’s described remains unknown, the threats to the homeland from uncrewed aircraft are only growing by the day, as are nefarious actors’ experience and creativity with the technology.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Alleged Plot On White House UFC Fight Puts Drone Threat In The Spotlight appeared first on The War Zone.

The proposed CAPINT tank was unveiled at the Eurosatory defense show on the outskirts of Paris this week.

Europe currently has four major lines of development effort for future main battle tanks (excluding the United Kingdom), ranging from multinational programs to national developments. The landscape has become much more fragmented over the past two years, as nations have increasingly understood the urgency of fielding new-generation armored vehicles.

Arguably the most ambitious of these programs is the now-delayed Franco-German MGCS, which began in 2017 and is now expected to arrive in service some time in the mid-2040s. With the MGCS delayed by roughly a decade, both France and Germany have a looming capability gap. In the case of France, its Leclerc tanks are due to be taken out of service by 2038.

As well as the main battle tank that is supposed to be its centerpiece, the MGCS program, as a ‘system of systems,’ is expected to field other crewed and uncrewed vehicles. These will likely be tasked with electronic warfare, air defense, or as platforms from which to launch drones or loitering munitions or fire directed-energy weapons.

Alongside this effort, around a dozen European nations (excluding France) are currently working on research and development under the MARTE (Main ARmored Tank of Europe) program, which is looking at tank requirements for the post-2040 period.

Against this complicated backdrop, France and Germany have both come to the realization that they will need new tanks before the MGCS arrives in service.

As a result, Germany is now working on the Leopard 3, also known as the Leopard 2AX, expected to provide a service-ready fighting vehicle around the early 2030s.

Back in April of this year, French Armed Forces Minister Catherine ​Vautrin told parliament that Paris had decided to launch an “intermediate” tank program to mitigate delays affecting MGCS.

To meet the French requirement for a stopgap tank, KNDS is now proposing its CAPINT (CAPacité INTérmédiaire, or Interim Capability).

This will combine a French turret and main gun on the hull of a German Leopard 2, a tank that is already in production for a variety of customers. Should this solution be chosen, a new Leopard 2 would likely be set up in France to manage the demand.

Interestingly, another new tank on show in Paris this week, the New Main Battle Tank (NMBT) concept demonstrator, from the Leonardo Rheinmetall Military Vehicles (LRMV) joint venture, also uses a Leopard 2 hull as its starting point, although that may change in the future. Derived from the Rheinmetall Panther KF51, the new tank is being offered to the Italian Army, which is also looking for a successor to its current Ariete main battle tank.

Returning to the CAPINT tank, the turret will be uncrewed and armed with the 120mm ASCALON smoothbore gun from KNDS France. The plan is to have the turret able to accommodate a 140mm cannon in the future. The 120mm ASCALON has already undergone firing trials using an uncrewed turret on a moving vehicle. Meanwhile, the 140mm version of the ASCALON is planned for the MGCS.

Unlike larger-caliber guns that have been proposed for future tank programs in the past, the 120 mm ASCALON offers the advantage of being fully compatible with all NATO-standard 120 mm ammunition. This means operators can maintain and leverage their existing ammo stockpiles.

The three crew of the CAPINT will be carried in an “armored citadel” at the front of the vehicle, which will be defended by passive composite armor as well as reactive and active protection systems.

The active protection system will be developed by KNDS and will be distributed around the turret and hull, so its defensive effectors provide more complete coverage.

In the meantime, it is interesting to note that a Leclerc outfitted with an anti-drone “cope cage” on top of its turret is part of the dynamic demonstration of military equipment at Eurosatory this week.

KNDS says it will complete a CAPINT demonstrator tank as early as 2030 and, should France choose to go with it, it could deliver the first series-production examples in 2035, leading to frontline deployment in 2037.

There is also a plan to incorporate into the CAPINT some of the advanced systems that are intended for the MGCS.

These elements are likely to include fully integrated AI, the aforementioned passive/reactive/active protection systems, counter-drone warfare, and beyond-line-of-sight engagement capability.

Another feature of the MGCS program that would likely be brought forward for the CAPINT tank is accompanying uncrewed ground vehicles (UGVs). According to MGCS, one or two types of “robotic wingmen” are planned for the interim tank. These UGVs will be able to keep up with the tank, but will be small enough to be affordable. Their cost will also be governed by offering different levels of passive protection.

The renewed focus on tank programs reflects a broader resurgence of armored warfare across Europe, driven largely by lessons from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While that conflict has highlighted the vulnerability of tanks to drones, loitering munitions, and precision anti-tank weapons, it has also underscored that heavily protected, mobile firepower remains indispensable for combined-arms operations. As a result, European militaries that once downsized or delayed armored modernization are now investing heavily in new main battle tanks and upgrades.

While the need for interim tanks in both France and Germany is becoming increasingly urgent, the current push for the CAPINT and for the German Leopard 3/Leopard 2AX does risk putting the MGCS program under threat.

“We are already working to create what will be the combat of tomorrow,” KNDS CEO Jean-Paul Alary said during a press conference at Eurosatory yesterday. “Maybe the combat of tomorrow, the ambition of MGCS, will come a little bit earlier than the project itself.”

Meanwhile, according to Reuters, a German government spokesperson raised doubts about the future of MGCS, saying that the project would be focused on “platform-independent” technologies, adding that it was not clear whether a joint tank would still be built.

Depending on how capable these stopgap tanks prove to be, the decision of France and/or Germany to walk away from the more complex MGCS program could become easier. Much will likely also depend on the path that the MARTE program takes, with the possibility that MGCS requirements could be superseded. Meanwhile, recent experience with the Franco-German-led pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has highlighted just how difficult it can be to keep programs like these on track, regardless of how badly they may be needed.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Interim Main Battle Tank Unveiled As Future European Tank Project Slips appeared first on The War Zone.

At this time, we do know that the aircraft in question was being used to support the Radar Modernization Program (RMP), and its loss will have ramifications for that effort. The RMP has already suffered years of delays and major cost growth, the latter of which triggered a deep, legally mandated review. However, in the past year, the U.S. Air Force has been talking more positively about progress on this critical upgrade, as well as other parts of a larger B-52 modernization effort that have faced their own hurdles.

“It was a B-52 that was on initial takeoff, supporting the Radar Modernization Program,” Air Force Col. James Hayes, Deputy Commander of the 412th Test Wing at Edwards, said at a brief press conference yesterday. “It was a local test sortie. It took off, and immediately after takeoff, crashed and burst into flames.”

The 412th is the main unit at Edwards. As noted, the base serves as the Air Force’s main test and evaluation hub.

“After reviewing the footage of the crash, it was deemed that this was an unrecoverable crash and unsurvivable,” Col. Hayes added. The B-52 had “a mixed crew of military, government civilians, and government contractors supporting this test mission.”

“Right now, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those that lost their loved ones,” he also stressed. “This is a tragedy.”

When reached by TWZ for comment today, Boeing reiterated a brief statement it made yesterday that confirmed two of its employees died in the crash. The company’s full statement is as follows:

“We extend our deepest condolences to the loved ones of the eight crew members who lost their lives in the B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base, California. It is with great sadness that we confirm two Boeing employees were among those on board. We are in contact with their families and are offering support.”

Boeing, the original manufacturer of the B-52, is serving as the prime integrator for the RMP. Raytheon is supplying the new AN/APQ-188 active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, which is derived primarily from the AN/APG-79. In the United States, versions of the AN/APG-79 are in service today on U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and all EA-18G Growlers, as well as U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18A-D Hornets. The AN/APG-82 used on Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and F-15EX Eagle IIs also builds on the AN/APG-79. The AN/APQ-188 will replace the mechanically-scanned AN/APQ-166 found on B-52s today.

The RMP is one of many major upgrades planned for the Air Force’s entire fleet of 76 B-52s in the coming years. The bombers are also set to get all-new engines, improved communication suites, and more. The changes will be so substantial inside and out that the designation of the bombers will switch from B-52H to B-52J in the process.

“It is too early to tell,” a U.S. Air Force official told TWZ today when asked about potential impacts to the RMP.

We have also reached out to Raytheon.

The publicly stated plan for the RMP has called for the integration of the AN/APQ-188 radar onto two B-52s to support initial testing. Modification of those bombers began in Fiscal Year 2023, and the first example with the new radar touched down at Edwards in December 2025. Air Force budget documents say the second radar test B-52 is expected to be ready some time in Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1, 2025. Whether that milestone has already been reached is unclear.

It is also not known how many AN/APQ-188s may be available at all at present. “The remaining test-phase radars are expected to be delivered through the summer of 2024,” Raytheon said in a press release back in 2023.

As noted, the RMP has already suffered significant delays. Under the original program schedule, flight testing was expected to start in 2024. The initial goal was for AN/APQ-188-equipped B-52s to begin flying operational sorties in 2027. As it stands now, the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program is expected to run into the middle of 2029, with initial operational capability then coming in 2030.

These delays have also come along with substantial cost growth. In 2021, the estimated price tag for development of the AN/APQ-188 and integration of those radars onto the Air Force’s full fleet of 76 B-52s was pegged at nearly $2.4 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). By 2023, the RMP’s costs had risen by 12.6 percent, per GAO. The program was eventually subjected to an extensive legally required review of its requirements and cost targets, which led to a scaling back of planned capabilities, at least initially.

“Part of what we did to control cost is to work at what are the main things that we need on this radar? As you may recall, we’re buying a radar that is largely a F-18 Hornet radar with some small modifications. We did that intentionally because that is what was on the market at the time,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Andrew Gebara, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, explained in August 2025. “It would actually cost us more if we asked [a contractor] to design the new radar.”

Gebara’s remarks came during a virtual talk hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“Having said that, it doesn’t mean that we need everything on that radar that the Hornet had on it,” he continued. “We have a certain number of minimum things that we need to do to be able to do our B-52 mission. And so part of the cost saving [review] was looking at what are those things, to make sure that we’re prioritizing precious dollars on things that we need.”

Gebara said at that time that the revised RMP plan still kept the door open for “opportunities for growth in the future, if it comes to that.”

The AN/APQ-188 is still set to provide essential new capabilities, in part just by being a more modern AESA design. As TWZ has written in the past:

“In general, AESA radars offer greater range, fidelity, and resistance to countermeasures, as well as the ability to provide better overall general situational awareness, compared to mechanically scanned types. Increasingly advanced AESAs bring additional capabilities, including electronic warfare and communications support.”

“For the B-52, any new multi-mode AESA will improve the bomber’s target acquisition and identification capabilities, including when used together with targeting pods available for the bombers now. New radars for the bombers will also be helpful when it comes to guiding networked weapons over long distances to their targets and could provide a secondary ground moving target indicator (GMTI) and synthetic aperture radar surveillance capabilities. The radar upgrade could help defend B-52s from air-to-air threats, including through improved detection of incoming hostile aircraft.”

“Boeing has already looked at some schedule improvement that we’ve seen,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, the service’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, also told TWZ and others more recently at a roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. White was speaking at the time collectively about progress on the RMP and the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) for the B-52 fleet.

At that time, Gen. White also highlighted how the relatively small size of the B-52 fleet, combined with the operational demands placed on it, had created additional challenges for modernizing the bombers. The B-52s are in high demand to support conventional combat operations, as underscored by their heavy use in the recent conflict with Iran. A portion of the fleet is also a key element of the air leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad, which imposes additional hard operational requirements for available aircraft.

“The challenge with B-52 that I think everybody forgets, it’s such a small fleet that has such a tremendous requirement in terms of readiness,” White said. “You’ve got to have a certain number on the ramp. That’s a requirement.”

With the B-52 fleet expected to fly into the 2050s, it is extremely likely that the Air Force will move to regenerate a bomber from storage to replace the one lost yesterday, just to meet general operational demands. That is typically a weeks-long process, at best, for an aircraft of this type and size.

Since 2015, the Air Force has returned two other B-52s to service to make up for losses. One of these aircraft replaced a B-52 that crashed and burned at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam in 2016. The other one took the place of a bomber that was totaled on the ground when an electrical fire broke out during routine maintenance at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in 2015. Thankfully, there were no fatalities in either of those mishaps.

With CERP and the other modernization efforts underway, there is high demand for resources to support B-52 test and evaluation work overall. This is reflected in a nearly tenfold year-over-year increase in the planned budgeting for B-52 test aircraft asset support at Edwards. The Air Force received just over $1.5 million to help pay for “the test aircraft, manpower, Bomber Modular Data Acquisition System (BMDAS), and facilities at the Air Force Test Center” in Fiscal Year 2026, according to official budget documents. The service is now seeking nearly $11 million in this same line item for the next fiscal cycle.

In the meantime, as mentioned, the Air Force has rightfully made clear that its immediate priorities following yesterday’s B-52 crash are engaging with the families of those who perished and working on the investigation, which could take months to complete. Edwards has also at least shut down flight operations today, primarily due to the state of the runway following the mishap.

The full scale and scope of the impacts to the RMP from yesterday’s loss remain to be seen.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post B-52 Involved In Tragic Crash Was Heading Out On Radar Test Sortie appeared first on The War Zone.

The footage, which first appeared on Chinese social media, shows the large drone in vertical flight, making a pedal turn (rotating around its vertical axis in the hover), and in sustained forward flight with its twin proprotors fully tilted. Previous imagery was limited to tethered evaluations that demonstrated basic hover capability. Now, with flight testing advancing, more could be revealed about the aircraft’s performance envelope.

As in the previous imagery, the aircraft’s engines are unshrouded, with their streamlined fairings removed. Like the MV-75, the R6000 features fixed engine nacelles with hinged proprotors, in contrast to the first-generation tiltrotor design found on the V-22 Osprey, in which the entire nacelle pivots up and down as a complete unit.

Previous imagery showing the R6000 conducting a tethered hover test had begun to circulate last November, as we discussed at the time.

While no details have been released about the scope of the current trials, the ability to conduct sustained untethered flight is a key milestone for any tiltrotor program, given the complexity of the aircraft’s aerodynamics and flight-control systems. Tiltrotor designs are especially challenging, as evidenced by the V-22’s checkered record through the years. 

In October 2024, a photo emerged showing the first completed prototype of the R6000 at the Wuhu United Aircraft Production Workshop in China’s eastern Anhui province. United Aircraft had unveiled the design, also referred to as the UR6000 and Zhang Ying (or Steel Shadow), at the 2024 Singapore Airshow.

Developed by the Chinese firm United Aircraft, the R6000 is one of the largest uncrewed tiltrotor designs currently in development anywhere in the world. Combining the vertical takeoff and landing capabilities of a helicopter with the speed and range advantages of a fixed-wing aircraft, it is — officially, at least — aimed at logistics, disaster relief, offshore support, and other missions requiring access to areas without prepared runways. United Aircraft has presented both crewed and uncrewed versions of the R6000 in the past.

As we have outlined previously, a crewed or uncrewed tiltrotor in the R6000 class could fulfill various military applications for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

The aircraft would be particularly valuable for sustaining PLA island bases in the South China Sea, as well as isolated installations elsewhere in the Pacific and along China’s remote border regions, where conventional airfield infrastructure is limited.

This kind of aircraft could support overseas deployments and regional contingencies, including a potential operation against Taiwan, by moving troops, supplies, and equipment between dispersed locations without relying on prepared runways.

In particular, the R6000 would be well suited to operating from the Type 076 amphibious assault ship and other large People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) amphibious ships, greatly extending their reach for logistics, reconnaissance, and other missions.

As well as logistics, a fully developed R6000 has clear potential as a multi-mission platform. Its payload capacity could also accommodate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) equipment, electronic warfare payloads, communications relay systems, or potentially even precision-strike weapons. It is worth noting at this point that a special operations version of the MV-75 is already in the works, with a gunship variant likely, and a sea control concept has been displayed, too. China is likely to at least explore similar development paths for its tiltrotors.

In this respect, the R6000 also makes for an interesting comparison with Bell’s V-247 Vigilant, which was originally pitched to meet the U.S. Marine Corps multirole, VTOL-capable drone program, known as MUX. The V-247 has also been pitched to the U.S. Navy, while Bell has presented renderings showing V-247s operating together with the crewed V-280 Valor tiltrotor design, which the U.S. Army’s MV-75 is based on.

When it comes to advanced uncrewed aviation, this is an area that China has invested heavily in over the past decade. Its projects span everything from smaller tactical drones to high-altitude reconnaissance platforms and increasingly sophisticated combat drones. The R6000 fits squarely within Chinese efforts to develop a range of uncrewed transport aircraft, including developing large autonomous logistics aircraft capable of operating in challenging environments.

In the vertical-lift segment, China is also busily exploring crewed tiltrotor designs.

Earlier this month, new footage emerged showing what is understood to be China’s first crewed tiltrotor aircraft during flight trials. That aircraft had first broken cover in August of last year, as we wrote about at the time.

Although the R6000 has, in the past, been pitched primarily for civilian applications, the technology has obvious military relevance. Large autonomous tiltrotors could provide rapid resupply to dispersed forces, support operations in remote regions, or deliver cargo to ships and austere bases without the need for conventional runways. Tiltrotors have huge potential for the PLA, which has major littoral mission demands and a growing fleet of amphibious warships to which these kinds of aircraft are especially well suited.

As such, the R6000 is worth watching as another indicator of the Chinese military’s increasingly ambitious vertical-lift programs, as well as its diverse and growing series of uncrewed aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post China’s Big R6000 Tiltrotor Drone Has Entered Full Flight Testing appeared first on The War Zone.

The incident reportedly occurred around 20 nautical miles south of the Isle of Wight, off the south coast of England, and outside British territorial waters. According to the Ministry of Defense, the initial report came from the crew of the U.K.-registered yacht, which alleged that a Russian warship fired warning shots at a distance of approximately 500 yards.

According to the Press Association, the incident occurred at around 11:40 a.m. local time, in waters between the Isle of Wight and Normandy.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson confirmed to us that they are investigating reports of the incident, but stressed that the investigation remains in its early stages.

“No injuries or damage have been reported by the yacht, which is continuing its journey,” the spokesperson added.

The Royal Navy was already shadowing the Russian vessel when the alleged incident occurred, the ministry confirmed.

“HMS Mersey was monitoring the Russian vessel at the time. We cannot provide further comment while investigations are ongoing. A seaboat from HMS Tyne has visited the yacht to gather details and check that they are safe.”

Both HMS Mersey and HMS Tyne are River class offshore patrol vessels, frequently used to shadow Russian and other warships passing through the Channel, which is widely considered the busiest shipping area in the world. 

According to unconfirmed reports, the Russian warship said to be involved is the Admiral Grigorovich, the lead ship of its class, which is also known to NATO as the Krivak V class. The frigate is seen at the top of this story, during an encounter with Royal Navy vessels earlier this year, again in the English Channel.

The Ministry of Defence also sought to distance the incident from another recent maritime security operation in the Channel, in which British forces boarded the Smyrtos, a sanctioned shadow-fleet oil tanker, which was sailing under a false Cameroonian flag.

The boarding of the Smyrtos by Royal Marine Commandos and specially trained law enforcement officers from the National Crime Agency last Sunday was the first U.K.-led operation of its kind. The six-hour military operation also involved Chinook, Merlin, and Wildcat helicopters, a Royal Air Force P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, as well as the frigate HMS Sutherland and the mine countermeasures vessel HMS Ledbury.

It remains unclear exactly which Russian Navy vessel was involved in the incident today, what prompted the alleged warning shots, or whether any communication took place between the warship and the yacht before the incident.

We will update this post as we find out more about today’s incident.

UPDATE: 2:45 PM EDT –

There is growing speculation that the Russian warship involved in the incident may have suffered some kind of mechanical failure or difficulty at sea.

The U.K. Shadow Defense Secretary James Cartlidge said the incident was “very concerning” and the United Kingdom should “be in no doubt that Russia poses a direct threat.”

The leader of the Liberal Democrat party, Ed MacCleary, said: “These reports are extremely concerning. Russia is quite literally on our doorstep. Aggression and intimidation from Putin in the English Channel cannot be tolerated.”

UPDATE: 2:50 PM EDT –

According to BBC News, the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich fired warning shots after the two vessels came into close contact.

The broadcaster further reports that the “small, motorless yacht had drifted towards the warship in foggy conditions after setting off from the United Kingdom.”

The BBC cites the Russian Ministry of Defense as saying that the yacht had been on a “dangerous approach” towards the warship, and its crew fired into its path “with rifles” after making several attempts to contact it over the radio and after launching warning flares.

The Russian Ministry of Defense further claimed that its sailors had acted in “strict accordance with international shipping regulations.”

A U.K. government source told the BBC that a couple in their 60s were onboard the yacht at the time. They said they did not hear when the Russian frigate sounded its horn.

There have also been unconfirmed reports identifying the yacht involved:

UPDATE: 2:55 PM EDT –

Data obtained by BBC Verify suggests that the Admiral Grigorovich has been in the Channel for an extended period, repeatedly being re-supplied by a repair vessel, so that it can escort shadow-fleet vessels through these waters.

Based on satellite images it has reviewed, the BBC says the frigate has been re-supplied by the PM-82, an Amur class repair ship, while operating between the Channel and the North Sea in recent months.

In April, the frigate was reported to have escorted six shadow fleet vessels through the Channel while being monitored by the Royal Navy.

UPDATE: 3:00 PM EDT –

At least one Royal Air Force P-8 Poseidon has transited from its base in Scotland to patrol the Channel this evening, according to publicly available flight-tracking data. The maritime patrol aircraft is very likely tasked wth monitoring Russian naval activity in the area.

More details of the incident have been reported by Deborah Haynes, the security and defense editor at Sky News.

Haynes writes on X that the Russian frigate “fired a couple of warning shots” close to the yacht in the Channel after also sounding an alert to avoid it sailing too close. Citing an unnamed defense source, Haynes reports that it is understood that the Admiral Grigorovich appears to be having difficulty controlling its movements, perhaps due to a propulsion issue. 

The warning shots “were certainly not fired at the yacht,” the same source said.

Additionally, while the Admiral Grigorovich has been escorting Russian-flagged vessels through the Channel in recent months, Haynes writes that it was not involved with escorting the Smyrtos, which was boarded by British forces at the weekend.

UPDATE: 3:05 PM EDT –

After reaching out to the U.K. Ministry of Defense for more clarification, TWZ received the following from a spokesperson:

“Following attempts to contact a British vessel in the Channel, the Grigorovich fired warning shots. These were not aimed at the vessel and were an attempt to prevent a possible collision.”

“We assess that this is an isolated incident and not linked to the UK’s interception of the Smyrtos this weekend. HMS Mersey has been monitoring the Russian vessel and support has been provided to the crew of the yacht.”

“We assess that the Grigorovich was displaying to other vessels that it was drifting rather than being manoeuvred under power, which may have made her feel more vulnerable, leading to warning shots being fired.”

“We assess that after sounding warnings, the Grigorovich fired several warning shots, but these were not aimed at the yacht.”

The spokesperson told us that they further assess that the shots fired were single rounds, rather than automatic fire.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post U.K. MoD Investigating Reports Of Russian Warship Firing Warning Shots In English Channel (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

Before we get to the questions and answers, however, here is the backstory.

The U.S. Navy needed the Constellation class frigate, badly, and the program to construct it seemed built to deliver. Rather than a clean-sheet design, the service chose the proven Franco-Italian FREMM as its parent design, betting that adapting an existing platform would be far faster and cheaper, and overall less risky than starting from scratch.

It wasn’t. Among the issues plaguing the program, constant change orders pushed the design far from its origins. Two years into construction, the first ship was barely 10% complete while its design was still being finalized. Meanwhile, costs and schedules blew well past original projections.

As a result of these issues, the Navy late last year cancelled the program. That left Fincantieri’s Wisconsin yard sidelined while a contract to replace the Constellation class frigate went to rival Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula.

In the wake of the program’s implosion, the Navy created the Vessel Construction Manager (VCM) system. It uses a hired manager to hold the prime contract and run the show, overseeing shipyard performance, controlling subcontracts, and acting as a buffer between the service and the builder to keep costs and schedules on track.

In a wide-ranging, hour-long exclusive interview, Moutafis – appointed CEO on July 1, 2025 as the wheels were already falling off this project – gave us unique insights into Fincantieri’s version of how Constellation turned into a debacle and what needs to change as a result. He also touched on an array of other topics, which we will address in future installments.

Some of the questions and answers have been edited for clarity.

Q: Why was the Constellation class frigate cancelled from your point of view? What happened that caused the program – which was seen as a must-succeed endeavor, and hugely promising – to get to the point where it was shuttered?

A: It’s for sure a tricky situation. On one hand, the way the Constellation class program was initially laid out and envisioned – potentially a lot of the things that were driving it may have been ahead of its time.

So, while you’re saying you want to attempt to do one thing, but at the same time you’re not evolving the way you execute can lead you to an undesired effect. And I say this because in my eyes, some of those lessons learned out of Constellation are being manifested in the things that the Navy has been rolling out the past few months – a new approach that empowers PAEs [Navy Portfolio Acquisition Executives] to make decisions, to minimize change, to embrace innovation and new technologies. All these elements that we see now being rolled out, I think to a certain degree, connect back to lessons that have been learned out of the Constellation class journey.

Q: What lessons, specifically?

A: Figure out what you want to prioritize, to what extent you want to prioritize schedule, and what’s the best way to say this. When you know when you need something delivered and at what pace, then enable the right level of decision-making. Because otherwise – I don’t want to sound this the wrong way – but perfection sometimes is the enemy of more than good enough.

Going beyond the Constellation class, now the needs are for vessels to be out there for the warfighter as soon as possible. For sure, we will see many cases where it will be considered that a vessel with these capabilities – even though potentially, in some areas, it may not have enough tons of steel on its sides, or whatever – it will be good enough to assist the warfighter as they head into harm’s way.

Those trade-offs are now being placed at the PAE level, allowing Navy leaders at that level to make the right decisions – figuring out whether to continue going down a design spiral versus just moving out with production and enabling us to have the right capabilities on time for the warfighter.

You can see former Navy Secretary John Phelan announce the cancellation of the Constellation class in the following video.

Q: Could the Constellation class have been salvaged? What would have needed to change to get it to a place where it was affordable, on time and efficient?

A: I think the initial and envisioned approach was a healthy one. Had we kept on track with what was, back then, the principles that led to the selection – but also how it was originally set up – we probably would have kept closer to the original design. And thus allowing [us] to be closer to the original schedule. And thus allowing [us] also to build the vessel that was desired, without delays or major changes.

On our end, from day one or day two – let me say that once the Navy decided their shift, we opted to consciously become a true partner and showcase that we are a true partner to the Navy and the nation. We said, ‘Okay, we will adjust, we will move forward.’ And it’s a clear reality that what we have in Wisconsin is an asset for the Navy, especially in a time like this that leaves all of us eager to serve the way you would need us to serve – whether it’s today through serial production of landing ships and/or icebreakers or others. And in the future, should the small surface combatant segment have additional needs, it’s obvious that the infrastructure [in Wisconsin] has been built to ideally serve that type of vessel, so we’re ready to answer the calling.

Q: Why didn’t the Navy just take the base class and do minimal modifications to it? It became what seemed like a totally new ship.

A: That’s a great question, Howard, but I would need to speculate to answer that one, and I wouldn’t want to do that, because you’re right. But at the same time – what’s the saying? Hindsight is 20/20. It’s probably one of those occasions at this point. But it’s a great question. I’d love to be with you when we pose it to the right folks.

Q: But what do you think is the answer to that question, from your point of view?

A: From our point of view – from the get-go, when the award was made, it was made because there was a review of the requirements, a review of the design, and a review of all the elements that led to recognition that the parent design possessed exactly the right features to represent the path forward. So collectively, we had marched on that path. We might find ourselves in a different situation right now, but like I said, it’s one thing asking somebody to change their M.O. and adopt a new approach without fully empowering them or doing something drastic to signal that type of transformation. And it’s another where we said ‘we will try this new approach.’ But there was a lot of follow-through that was needed.

Everybody has developed experiences in certain ways, and everybody – especially when you have folks that have been doing it for decades – has developed their own rules of thumb and approaches to dealing with certain situations. It’s not easy to pivot an entire structure to a new idea or a new approach. So like I said, probably it was the right idea, but a little bit ahead of its time.

Q: What do you think of the lessons that should be learned from the Constellation class’s story?

A: I want to be a glass-half-full type of guy, so that’s why I connected back the things that I’ve been seeing being rolled out by our Navy the last few months as indeed adopting some of those lessons learned. So I’ll go back to the fact that they’ve decided to find new ways to apply the principle that schedule is king. And those new ways include changes that are not just at the leadership level, not just at the level following that, but indeed of restructuring and reorganizing the teams that are there to implement those guidelines – because that’s key in order to be able to change your ways and adopt lessons learned.

So I’m hopeful that this new approach of the PAE setup will be an enabler to adopt the lessons learned: of how to move fast, of how not to mess with a design especially when it’s meeting and exceeding requirements, of how to manage change – not in the rollout of a change, but in the decision-making of whether to adopt change or not. So a lot of those new ideas that they’ve been trying to apply are promising to that effect.

Q: The Navy adopted the new VCM program to oversee construction of the new Landing Ship Medium (LSM) vessels you are working on. This is a direct result of what happened with the Constellation class, right?

A: I would definitely think so, because it indicates the whole idea that the Navy is recognizing – instead of applying the typical layers of full team presence in the shipbuilder’s yard, additional layers of engineering design, etc. – we’re saying, ‘Okay, in a case where we want to go fast, let’s make our decisions ahead of time, select the design, check it quickly ahead of time, and assign it as a production-related design in the hands of that VCM, and allow an industry set of characters between the VCM and the shipbuilder to deliver.’

Q: What does Fincantieri have to give up in this VCM approach?

A: Thinking on this – Fincantieri, as a global group, likes to be end-to-end with the end customer. Our strategy is to develop the design according to the needs and requirements, move forward all through construction, and even post-construction to provide full support throughout almost the entire lifecycle of a vessel. That’s the Fincantieri model around the globe.

In this case, we’re looking to adjust to the approach that the Navy is looking to apply – and we can view it as a benefit. We can take it on as a build-to-print: be the shipbuilder that respects this design, doesn’t try to mess with it, just works out all the kinks to ensure producibility, and then moves swiftly into quick serial production.

From that perspective, we’re not really giving up something – we’re just placing at the disposal of the nation the assets that are already in place, and looking to produce as many vessels as quickly as possible.

Q: How will this speed up U.S. shipbuilding?

A: How I interpret this strategy is the Navy saying: in programs that work, find an approach that allows them to almost get out of the picture. They recognize schedule is priority number one and a quality vessel is priority number two. In order to enable that ‘build more and build fast’ approach, they’re seeking to place somebody – the VCM – to take on the construction, provide them with a mature, production-ready design with no changes to it, and enable the kind of interaction you’ve seen in commercial shipbuilding. That allows those two parties – the VCM and the shipbuilder – to work fast through daily decision-making in a way that favors schedule without compromising quality.

They’re seeking to equip the VCM with a design that will not be touched – a build-to-print situation – and empower them to make these types of decisions daily, so that at the end of the day they simply deliver a vessel to the Navy, minimizing the Navy’s need or propensity to intervene.

It’s an innovative approach, and it definitely requires all parties to give up habits and practices that have taken hold in the past. As long as parties stick with this new approach, it has a great chance of success. On our end, we’re trying to be disciplined in respecting it and pushing forward.

Our next installment of this interview focuses on how Fincantieri is planning to help build Trump’s Golden Fleet and the challenges ahead.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Fincantieri CEO Opens Up About The Constellation Class Frigate Debacle appeared first on The War Zone.

The base’s official Facebook and X pages have posted the following statement:

“A United States Air Force B-52 Stratofortress crashed shortly after takeoff on the Edwards airfield at 11:20 a.m. Emergency crews immediately responded to the scene and the situation is ongoing. More information will be provided as it becomes available.”

From what we can see, the B-52 appears to have crashed on or at least very near the base’s main runway. Still images and video emerging now show a large fire with black smoke that can be seen from miles away.

News of the crash first emerged in a post on the unofficial Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook group. That post said the aircraft in question was tail number 061, but this is currently unconfirmed. While its status is unclear, this particular B-52 was the first to receive a new AN/APQ-188 active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, which is one part of a much larger modernization effort for the entire fleet of these bombers.

How many individuals were on board the B-52 when it went down, and their fate, are currently unknown. However, the bomber ejection seat configuration could have presented complications for escape depending on how soon after takeoff the incident occurred. The B-52 has crew positions that eject downward.

Prior to this crash, the Air Force had 76 B-52s in service.

Though the two incidents are unrelated, this is also the second crash of a U.S. military aircraft in three days. A U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18D Hornet assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323 (VMFA-323) went down near Mount Rainier in Washington State on June 13. The two individuals in that jet were able to eject safely. The Hornet did start a wildfire after hitting the ground.

Update: 4:00 PM ET –

Fox News has now shared a video it says is of the aftermath of the crash, which shows a very large scorched area along the side of one of the runways at Edwards. There is no readily discernible wreckage, pointing to a total loss of the aircraft.

Update: 4:18 PM ET –

Edwards Air Force Base has shared a new update as of 12:48 PM PDT via its social media accounts. The full statement reads:

“The airfield has been closed, and all inbound aircraft are being diverted. All non-commercial visitor passes have been suspended until further notice to allow the installation to focus entirely on emergency response operations.”

Update: 6:43 PM ET –

The 412th Test Wing Public Affairs Office has now issued a brief press release, which is as follows:

 “An Air Force B-52 Stratofortress carrying eight people on a routine test mission crashed today shortly after take-off at 11:20 a.m. (PDT). Initial indications are that the crash was not survivable. Emergency response personnel are on scene, and officials are working to account for all personnel.”

“The crash is currently under investigation.”

Ten is the maximum number of people that can ride about a B-52 at one time, with four jump seats in addition to the available crew stations. Eight died in the crash. This makes it the biggest loss we know of at Edwards since a fatal crash of a B-50D bomber with eight individuals on board near the base in 1951.

UPDATE: 7:41 PM EDT –

Speaking at a press conference after the crash, Air Force Col. James Hayes, Deputy Commander at 412th Test Wing, Edwards Air Force Base, offered some additional details.

• “After reviewing the footage of the crash, it was deemed that this was an unrecoverable crash and unsurvivable. At that point, we went into the notification process.”

• The B-52 that crashed was taking part in the Radar Modernization Program.

• “At this point, we don’t have any indication as to what the cause was of this.” The answers might not be known for upwards of six months after several investigations. 

• The B-52 had “a mixed crew of military, government civilians, and government contractors supporting this test mission.”

• The base is terminating operations tomorrow “mainly because of the runway itself, and we’ll eventually get back to full operations and execute…but at this point, yes, we are standing down operations tomorrow.”

UPDATE: 4AM EDT—

Boeing has put out a statement mourning the loss of the crew, two of which were its employees.

*Author’s note: We changed the maximum crew to ten after a past bomber pilot informed us that the B-52 can hold this many people, not eight as we understood it to be.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post B-52 Bomber Crashes At Edwards Air Force Base In California (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports remains in full effect, for now, pending the execution of the ceasefire agreement, scheduled to be formally signed on Friday in Geneva, according to a notice released today by NAVCENT. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces launched multiple waves of strikes last week against Iran following the shootdown of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter, and disabled an additional two commercial vessels that tried to skirt the blockade, bringing the total to nine. Two carriers, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush, embarked with a combined seven squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, two squadrons of EA-18G Growlers, and one squadron of F-35C Lightning IIs, continue to support “self defense” strikes and blockade operations.

The Lincoln CSG has been deployed for nearly seven months and would likely be among the first naval assets to rotate out of the theater if the blockade winds down. The details, and scale, of the drawdown of forces in the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR), as agreed upon in the memorandum of understanding (MOU), are murky as of publication. More than 20 U.S. Navy surface combatants have been operating in the region.

USS Nimitz entered the final leg of her homeport shift to Norfolk, operating off the east coast in the U.S. 2nd Fleet AOR after a monthslong circumnavigation of South America, according to flight tracking data and public AIS. Nimitz conducted operations northwest of Cuba and the Bahamas last week. On Thursday, six Super Hornets, attached to the “Kestrels” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 137, carried out an air power demonstration and show of force, dropping MK-82/BLU-111 bombs on a simulated target in the Gulf of America.

On the west coast, USS Theodore Roosevelt continues working up in preparation for a future deployment. The flattop got underway on June 10 for INSURV inspections to verify readiness and returned to San Diego the following day. The group was also spotted conducting a live fire exercise with the Mk 38 25mm machine gun. USS Carl Vinson got underway for sea trials after a nine-month Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) and moored at port in San Diego on June 13.

In the Western Pacific, USS George Washington is on a summer patrol and operating in the Philippine Sea. The CSG conducted a replenishment-at-sea with USNS Earl Warren and helo operations while underway in the vicinity of Guam last week. Destroyer USS Shoup, part of the CSG, pulled into Apra Harbor early this morning, according to AIS.

Two ARG-MEUs are currently deployed. Forward-deployed USS Tripoli continues operations in the CENTCOM AOR, and USS Boxer is underway in the Indo-Pacific (INDOPACOM) AOR, operating in the South China Sea. For a detailed review of America’s amphibious assault fleet, check out our recent report here.

Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

The post America’s Naval Force Posture Largely Unchanged With Iran Ceasefire Deal On The Horizon appeared first on The War Zone.

Meanwhile, shipping companies, the U.N. and a maritime security company tell us they are taking a wait-and-see attitude before changing current operations or offering advice to do so. As Trump noted over the weekend, the Strait needs to be fully de-mined while Iranian officials say they will still impose fees for transit.

“The blockade is ongoing and is expected to remain in place until the signing [of the memorandum of understanding] on Friday,” the source, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details, told us. 

The official declined to tell us whether that means the U.S. will fire on vessels trying to run the blockade or turn ships back, as they have in the past.

As of June 12, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said it disabled nine vessels trying to run the blockade and redirected 139 others. You can read more about how those ships were disabled here.

Iran’s reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, combined with the U.S. ending the blockade that went into effect on April 13, is a major component of the U.S.-Iran agreement. Iran closed the Strait to most shipping after it was attacked by the U.S. and Israel on Feb. 28. As we have frequently reported, that had a cascading effect on the global economy, sending oil prices higher.

During a press conference and in a message on Truth Social, Trump on Monday said the Strait of Hormuz was already “partially opened.”

“Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with Oil, out of the Strait of Hormuz,” the president said on his social media site. “They are going along the Southern ‘Highway,’ which is totally safe, secure, and pristine. There are other areas of travel, also!!!”

“Ships are starting to go out now,” Trump added later at a press conference in France. “By Friday it will completely opened.”

As we previously reported, ships had been transiting the Strait via a southern route close to the United Arab Emirates and Oman under the overwatch of the U.S. military. Last week, Trump revealed that the U.S. had enacted a secret plan to get hundreds of ships out of the Strait; however, that still pales in comparison to the number of ships transiting before the war broke out.

As for the blockade, Iranian officials on Monday said it was their understanding it would be lifted right away.

“Under the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will come to an immediate and permanent end beginning tonight,” the Secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated early Monday morning EDT, according to Iran’s official IRNA media outlet. “Furthermore, the naval blockade against Iran will be lifted immediately and completely.”

Also on Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, said the country will continue to charge vessels transiting the Strait for services rendered.

“According to the MoU, Iran and Oman will be responsible for managing passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” he stated. “Iran is not seeking to impose tolls. However, in return for navigation services, environmental protection, insurances and other maritime services, Iran will collect the necessary fees.”

A day earlier, Trump addressed the blockade in two statements on his Truth Social site.

“This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me,” the president said in the second of the two posts, issued at 6:27 P.M. EDT. “The Leaders of the Region have, for the first time, found a President who can help them achieve real Peace. With the opening of the Strait upon the signing of the Deal on Friday, for purposes of mine removal, oil will flow on both ends again for the Region, and the World!”

A little less than an hour earlier, Trump said he was authorizing “the immediate removal” of the blockade.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines.”

We reached out to the White House for further clarification.

Though both Trump and Iranian officials have weighed in on this deal, much about it remains unknown, something Vice President JD Vance explained Monday morning.

Vance told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” program that though the U.S. and Iran struck a preliminary deal, there are “a lot” of details that remain to be ironed out, but he expressed confidence that America has “all the cards” in subsequent talks.

Vance told the network that Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is expected to be involved in those upcoming discussions — as well as its parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. He is a hard-liner, Squawk Box noted, whose participation could signal that the regime’s conservative faction is on board with the deal.

“The agreement reached Sunday would extend the U.S.-Iran ceasefire for 60 days and set up a framework for future negotiations about Tehran’s nuclear program and other key issues,” CNBC further explained. “The preliminary deal has yet to be signed and its text has not been released.”

The sides have given themselves “60 days to reach a technical agreement on how to down-blend Iran’s highly enriched uranium and both freeze and monitor its nuclear program going forward,” Axios reported. “That’s a tall order given how difficult it was to reach the much less detailed memorandum of understanding.”

The U.S. “insists Iran is incentivized to reach a final agreement because sanctions relief and access to frozen funds depend on progress on the nuclear front,” Axios added. “Some hawks in the U.S. and Israel worry there will never be a final deal and the war will end with the nuclear questions unresolved.”

Trump told the New York Times on Sunday afternoon that the agreement he had reached with Iran would ultimately assure that the Strait of Hormuz was “permanently toll-free,” a seeming sticking point with Iranian expectations as we discussed earlier in this story.

Trump also insisted that if Iran failed to reach a final nuclear accord with the United States, he would restart military attacks on Tehran or make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in return for 20 percent of the region’s revenues.

Given that the U.S. began building up forces in the region in January, many of the ships, aircraft and troops will have to retrograde out of the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the coming weeks. So exactly what the American footprint will be in the CENTCOM area of responsibility in two months is questionable.

There is also massive global and domestic political pressure to end the war, which, as we noted earlier, has created economic upheaval around the world. Moreover, the conflict has not been popular at home, and American voters go to the polls in November for the midterm Congressional elections with Trump’s Republican party struggling to maintain control. Starting the war again, especially knowing how it went this time around and failed to deliver a deal on top of it, would see these pressures magnify.

Regardless of the diplomatic breakthrough, shipping companies tell us that they are not changing course when it comes to transiting the region.

“The announced agreement is a welcome and positive development, but publicly available details are still limited, and it is too early to assess how it will impact logistics and maritime operations in the Middle East,” a spokesperson for Maersk told us. “At this stage, there are no changes to our operations in the region.”

A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd expressed similar sentiments.

“The latest developments give reason to hope that the security situation in the Strait of Hormuz will improve,” the spokesperson told us. “We are currently reviewing the information available and are in close contact with relevant authorities and our security partners. At this stage, our risk assessment remains unchanged and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for Hapag-Lloyd transits until further notice. The safety of our crews and vessels, and the security of our customers’ cargo, remain our highest priority.”

The U.N.’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) told us that it too was waiting for further details to emerge before offering any concrete new advice to commercial vessels sailing in the region.

“Details of the agreement are due to be released, which will provide more clarity on how restoring full trade can return through the Strait of Hormuz,” IMO told us.

The organization “is working with relevant countries, particularly Oman, Iran and the rest of the coastal States, on the safe route to be used for the evacuation of seafarers on trapped vessels and for trade to resume,” IMO added. “We are assessing the feasibility for vessels to transit and conduct the trade safely and securely, avoiding possible hazards like mines as well as congestion which could lead to accidents.”

An official with the Ambrey maritime security company said there is still a long way to go before commercial vessels can navigate these waters securely.

“The proposed deal still requires meaningful implementation across multiple governments, which will take time,” Joshua Hutchinson, a former Royal Marine commando now serving as the company’s Managing Director of Risk and Intelligence, told us. “Furthermore, over 1,000 vessels remain in the Persian Gulf, and the threat of mines looms; clearing such a large number of vessels will take several months of coordination.”

In addition, “reports say that the agreement will allow the Iranian Maritime Authority to retain control of the Strait of Hormuz through a clearance system, and, for the time being, this will be one of the major concerns that ship operators and owners need to understand,” Hutchinson added.

Another factor in all this remains Israel. Officials in Jerusalem have stated that they will not withdraw from southern Lebanon and will continue to strike Hezbollah targets they deem necessary. The Israeli airstrike on a Hezbollah site in Beirut on Sunday reportedly almost derailed the announcement of the MOU, with an Iranian missile attack on Israel scrubbed at the last moment.

Though the preliminary agreement marks the biggest diplomatic breakthrough since hostilities began, there is still a long way to go until Friday in a region known for its volatility. As we have previously reported, several rounds of tit-for-tat attacks between the U.S. and Iran threatened to derail the shaky ceasefire in the past.

Even if Friday’s milestone signing should be reached, questions still remain about whether peace will ultimately be achieved. Given everything at stake, the world awaits warily to see what happens next.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Naval Blockade On Iran Will Remain In Place Until At Least Friday appeared first on The War Zone.

Interest in expanding the role of the JDAM-ER as a bunker buster is tucked away in a section of the Pentagon’s proposed 2027 Fiscal Year budget covering requested funds for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). DTRA is a multi-faceted organization focused on responding to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threats. Since deeply buried and otherwise hardened facilities are often tied to WMD programs, a key area of the agency’s work is helping devise new and improved ways to hold those targets at risk. A prime example of this is the key role DTRA played in the development of the 30,000-pound-class GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bomb.

Now, DTRA wants to “evaluate current hard target defeat capabilities with 2000lb Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (GBU-64 JDAM-ER) and provide recommendations on future JDAM-ER development to enhance HDBT penetration capabilities,” according to Pentagon budget documents.

GBU-64/B is the formal designation the U.S. military has given to the 2,000-pound-class JDAM-ER. As is the case with standard JDAMs without supplemental wings, the JDAM-ER is a kit that turns various types of unguided bombs into ‘warheads’ for the resulting precision-guided munitions. Additional versions of the JDAM-ER kit are available for use with 500-pound and 1,000-pound-class bombs.

Prime contractor Boeing has said that the BLU-109/B bunker-buster bomb can be combined with the JDAM-ER kit, but it is unclear if that configuration is already in operational U.S. service. At the time of writing, the GBU-64(V)1/B still looks to be the only subvariant officially confirmed to be in use anywhere across the U.S. military. The GBU-64(V)1/B uses the Mk 64 Quickstrike air-dropped naval mine as its warhead. There is also a 500-pound-class GBU-62(V)1/B, which pairs a JDAM-ER kit with the smaller Mk 62 Quickstrike mine. You can read more about these versions, also called Quickstrike-ERs, here.

It’s not clear whether bunker-buster JDAM-ERs are in inventory today outside of the U.S. military, either. Versions of the JDAM-ER using general-purpose high-explosive bombs as warheads have been in service at least in Australia and Ukraine for years now.

Wingless bunker-busting 2,000-pound-class JDAMs are a staple in the U.S. military’s aerial munition arsenal, and were very publicly employed in large numbers in strikes on Iran earlier this year. Tactical jets and bombers were used to deliver them.

If it has not been put into U.S. service already, a 2,000-pound-class JDAM-ER would offer clear benefits when configured as a bunker buster, in general. Depending on how it is released, a standard JDAM can hit targets up to 15 miles away, according to the U.S. Air Force. With the wing kit, JDAM-ERs have a maximum reach of roughly 45 miles, though the exact range is also dependent on release altitude and flight profile. As noted, being able to release bunker buster bombs further away from the target can help reduce risks to the launch platform.

The additional drag of the JDAM-ER wing kit could also reduce the bomb’s kinetic energy, which is important for bunker-busting. It is possible that the bombs could be programmed to glide to a certain point above the target before diving onto it for maximum effect.

At the same time, the gliding capabilities of a JDAM-ER open the door to additional operational possibilities enabled by low-angle attack profiles. Being able to focus the effects of a bunker buster bomb directly on the side of a structure rather than at steeper angles from the top could offer major benefits.

Furthermore, it would be possible to get the bombs deeper down inside the entrance tunnels and through the sides of other fortified structures, magnifying the warhead’s effectiveness. Lobbing precision-guided bombs into tunnels and cave entrances is already a well-established tactic, and one that can hamper access to underground targets that might otherwise be unreachable. This is something we will come back to in a moment. Striking dams, bridge pylons or even ships in port, among other targets, at shallow angles, would also be a new weaponeering option for heavy bunker buster warheads not often found on cruise missiles.

What further enhancements might emerge as a result of the JDAM-ER bunker-buster testing DTRA has planned remains to be seen. As an aside, the U.S. military also looks set to field a jet-powered derivative, called the GBU-75/B JDAM-LR, which features even greater range, as you can learn more about here.

With all this in mind, DTRA’s budget request notably includes a separate mention of plans to “conduct R&D [research and development] in ‘skip’ bombing capability to develop new tactics and weaponeering options,” which could help in “enabling deeper access for penetrating weapons.”

Skip bombing specifically involves releasing munitions in a way so that they bounce off the ground or the surface of a body of water. This sends them further forward on a flatter trajectory that can be beneficial in various scenarios. The core tactic here is decades old now. British bombers famously used bombs specially designed for skip bombing attacks against German dams during World War II. During the war, skip bombing was also heavily used when attacking ships, especially by U.S. military aircraft in the Pacific Theater. Doing this could help ensure more serious hits on a target’s hull near the waterline.

Improved skip bombing tactics could be paired with new precision-guided bunker busters, including versions of the GBU-64/B, for further increased effect. Being able to penetrate deeper into tunnel entrances and other weak spots on the ground could create additional complications for an opponent trying to dig out key assets afterward.

In recent months, Iran has been observed working to regain access to nuclear and other facilities that the United States and Israel have targeted in the past year or so. This includes sites the U.S. military struck during Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025. This has contributed to continued questions about the overall effectiveness of the aerial strikes on many of these targets.

It’s also worth noting here that Iranian authorities themselves took steps at various points to cover entrances and ventilation shafts to try to make underground facilities even harder to reach, including by any raiding forces on the ground.

While U.S. bunker-busting strikes on targets in Iran have been front-and-center in recent months, the new capabilities that DTRA is interested in would be applicable in conflict scenarios, as well. There’s something of a global trend, especially among America’s adversaries and competitors, toward more underground and/or hardened facilities. China, Russia, and North Korea, in particular, all have significant and still-expanding networks of subterranean military infrastructure, including air and naval bases, missile silos, command and control bunkers, and more.

This, in turn, has already been driving the U.S. military to pursue other new bunker-busting capabilities. These efforts are known to include a conventional Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) successor to the MOP and a new nuclear bunker buster bomb referred to currently as the Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A). The U.S. military has also added a new conventional 5,000-class bunker buster bomb, the GBU-72/B, to its arsenal in recent years.

Bunker-buster versions of the JDAM-ER would offer valuable additional options for U.S. commanders at the lower end of the capability spectrum, if they haven’t already entered service to a degree.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Bunker Busters With Winged JDAM-ER Kits Could Allow For Near Horizontal Strikes On Fortified Targets appeared first on The War Zone.

This September, the A-10 “Warthog” Thunderbolt II was scheduled to make its final flight. Instead, the A-10 deployed again, this time supporting combat operations over the Strait of Hormuz, striking Iranian fast-attack craft and maritime threats near one of the world’s most important shipping chokepoints. The A-10 was also the “Sandy” escort that recovered two downed F-15E airmen from inside Iran. Then, later in April, the Air Force reversed course and announced it would keep the jet flying through 2030.

While the Air Force changed the headline, it has yet to follow through with the harder financial commitment needed to preserve actual A-10 combat power. Its fiscal 2027 budget, released shortly after the extension announcement, funds zero dollars of A-10 modernization, cuts depot maintenance below the service’s own stated requirement, and is crippled by “sunset” policy and institution resistance around the aircraft’s “upcoming divestment.” 

In other words, by the end of this year, the A-10 will be without depot support, without a training pipeline, without weapons-school instruction, and without operational-test capacity. To a community that was scheduled for final retirement this October, every month waiting for the promised extension makes rebuilding slower, costlier, and closer to infeasible. Without action, the A-10 will transition from a combat asset to a line item waiting for liquidation.

A-10 combat capacity requires a meaningful shift in priorities that brings back resources and overcomes institutional resistance. Saving a limited number of aircraft is wasteful unless it is matched with resources, personnel, and policy that make it clear the A-10 is a valuable combat asset. The justification for preserving the A-10 is measurable in combat utility and financially sound reasoning. 

I have no sentimental attachment to the A-10. I flew combat fighters as both an F/A-18 TOPGUN graduate and later as a U.S. Air Force F-22 Mission Commander with more than 2,000 flight hours, including combat deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Since leaving the cockpit, I have worked closely alongside the A-10 community as it reinvented itself around modern warfare and Indo-Pacific priorities. I care about preserving combat capability and making disciplined present-value force-management decisions grounded in operational reality.

The A-10 was not preserved out of nostalgia. It was preserved because recent operations reminded the Air Force that immediate combat power still matters and the A-10 has proven useful in ways many planners underestimated. Today, it provides unique value unmatched by any of its peer tactical aircraft. It operates from austere locations, supports standoff and maritime strike, and validates emerging lower-cost weapons that reduces pressure on more expensive strike aircraft. 

As noted in the opening of this article, the A-10 also fills a critical combat role many have discounted: Sandy missions supporting combat search and rescue. Recent recovery operations over Iran protecting two F-15E airmen demonstrated again that personnel recovery escort, permissive strike, armed reconnaissance, and low-altitude tactical coordination remain critical and complex combat skills. The A-10 community has been supporting these missions for over 50 years. That wealth of knowledge and experience is being displaced. Without a replacement, the Air Force carries a mission requirement it may prove unable to fulfill. 

Why Preserving The A-10 Was The Right Decision 

For years, the Air Force’s divestment logic rested on several assumptions: that future conflicts would prioritize different force packages, that replacement capability would mature on schedule, and that preserving the A-10 generated less value than retiring it. 

Recent events changed that projection. The A-10 has sustained operations in both Europe and the Middle East. Simultaneously, Air Force strategy in the Pacific has benefited from ongoing A-10 support developing distributed combat employment, maritime strike, and advanced weapons integration. The same platform once dismissed as a legacy close-air-support aircraft is now proving adaptable to several emerging operational problems and service priorities. 

The A-10 is not theoretical surge capacity sitting in storage. It remains active combat power supporting real operational demand today. Combat escort, personnel recovery, permissive strike, armed reconnaissance, and maritime interdiction remain ongoing Air Force missions and long-standing A-10 strengths. 

A less known strength of the A-10 is the leverage it provides as a modernization platform. The A-10 community has quietly become one of the Air Force’s most effective rapid integration ecosystems. Because the aircraft relies heavily on government-owned hardware and software architectures, operators and engineers have been able to test and field new capabilities in weeks instead of years. The community has been behind recent breakthrough integrations including AGR-20 APKWS, Small Diameter Bomb, ADM-160 MALD employment, beyond-line-of-sight communications, maritime strike weapons, and network-enabled command and control. 

Nobody is arguing the A-10 is the future of Pacific airpower. It doesn’t need to be. The aircraft has become a low-cost operational laboratory for rapid tactical adaptation fully integrated into real combat capacity. 

The Air Force is trying to solve exactly these problems across the broader force. It has built doctrine around Agile Combat Employment, dispersed basing, rapid combat regeneration, and operations from degraded infrastructure. The A-10 has honed these skills for more than 30 years, proving proficient in these missions as early as Operation Desert Shield, including highway landings, integrated combat turns, austere maintenance operations, and distributed basing experimentation. 

Preserving one of the few communities with real operational experience executing tactics the broader force is still learning is strategically wise. The A-10’s latest life extension was never simply about preserving an airframe. It was about preserving combat capability, operational experience, and one of the Air Force’s few proven rapid-integration ecosystems.

What The Air Force Will Lose 

The current plan has the service preserving a limited number of airframes while allowing the combat system behind the A-10 to collapse. A fleet that numbered more than 280 aircraft just a few years ago, and 162 at the start of fiscal 2026, is set to fall to 54 next year and just 36 by 2030. The cuts land hardest where the expertise is hardest to rebuild: the Air National Guard’s A-10 force, 47 aircraft as recently as last year, goes to zero, its flying hours swapped for a new cyber mission. What survives risks becoming a ghost-fleet. Of the “three squadrons to 2030” the Chief of Staff has promised, the active-duty force shrinks to a single squadron of 17 jets with no spares behind it. 

Combat capability does not reside in aluminum alone. It resides in maintainers, instructor pilots, operational test teams, weapons officers, logistics pipelines, and institutional continuity accumulated over decades. All of that is currently at risk. The capacity to produce, refine and retain this talent and experience is perishable. Airmen face irreversible career decisions. Maintainers transition to other fleets. Weapons instructors leave. Operational test is blocked. Once assignment pipelines close and personnel move on, the impact compounds quickly. To a community that was previously scheduled for final retirement this October, every month of uncertainty adds to the complexity of sustained readiness. Rebuilding later becomes expensive and slow, if not impossible. 

How perishable A-10 specific knowledge is was documented by the Air Force’s own testing. When the Pentagon ran a 2018–2019 flyoff to determine whether the F-35 could replace the A-10 in close air support, forward air control-airborne (FAC-(A)), and combat search and rescue (CSAR), F-35 pilots had no qualification or training requirement for the FAC(A) and CSAR missions. To make the comparison work, the test had to crew the F-35 with former A-10 pilots, aviators who carried their Sandy and weapons-school training over from the very aircraft being retired. The report demonstrated mission performance depended on the aircrew, not the airframe. 

Years later, in 2023 and 2024, the Air Force still had no close-air-support or CSAR training requirement for any F-35 pilot. In April 2026, the formal A-10 training unit at Davis-Monthan, the 357th Fighter Squadron, the schoolhouse that is home to the Sandy qualification, graduated its last class. On the same day, halfway across the world, A-10 flew the combat rescue mission saving downed aircrew inside Iran. The dissonance between real world combat value and misaligned budget politics will be on full display if the 357th schoolhouse and its Sandy training syllabus are allowed to fully inactivate in just a few months. The Air Force has confirmed there is no transition underway to move the Sandy mission to any other airframe, and no successor qualification program in development.

This is not a new concern. In 2021, the Senate formally recorded that A-10 combat search and rescue had been “100 percent effective” in Operation Allied Force, recovering a downed F-117 and F-16 pilot. The Warthog has now done it again over Iran. Congress has consistently levied the concern but the Air Force and its budget still haven’t made this a real priority.

The Air Force has already invested heavily to preserve A-10 viability well beyond 2030: roughly $1.1 billion to re-wing 173 aircraft, completed in 2019, and a follow-on contract worth up to $999 million to put new wings on the remaining 109, about $2.1 billion in total to extend the entire fleet’s structural life into the late 2030s. But even those investments faced similar institutional resistance inside the Air Force. The service repeatedly placed A-10 funding on its “unfunded requirements” list rather than in its base budget, while funding upgrades to other legacy fighters instead. Congress has consistently met Air Force resistance, such as in 2021 when the service spent just $15.6 million of $100 million Congress had appropriated to sustain the fleet into the 2030s. Allowing the enterprise behind those re-winged jets to collapse now would write off an investment the taxpayer and Congress already paid for and has barely begun to recoup.

This is not a theoretical risk. When the F-22 production line closed at 186 aircraft, well short of the original requirement of 750, the assumption was that follow-on capability would arrive to fill the gap. The limited F-22 fleet now bears disproportionate sustainment costs awaiting delivery of the proposed F-47 sometime in the mid-2030s, and even then, the two could serve alongside each other for a period of time. Timing errors in force design can become effectively irreversible, especially once the infrastructure that sustains a capability is dismantled. In the A-10 case, that includes not only the aircraft but also the depot and integration ecosystem that support it. Once those are gone, the option value is gone with them. 

The financial logic behind accelerated divestment is also less straightforward than topline savings figures suggest. Retiring the A-10 does not eliminate operational demand. Combat search and rescue escort, permissive strike, armed reconnaissance, and distributed-operations requirements still exist. Those missions and their costs migrate elsewhere: more flight hours on higher-cost aircraft, additional maintenance burden, increased schoolhouse demand, and greater operational tempo across communities already under strain.

The A-10 offers combat power at a discount through both cost per flight hour and cost per effect on target. Mission specialization means A-10 employing laser-guided rockets, gun, or other comparatively low-cost weapons provides a strong complement to high-end fighter packages and their standoff weapons. 

The Air Force mission, its airmen, and our nation’s combat capacity all stand to benefit from a more complete commitment to the A-10 and its community.

What The Air Force Should Do 

The Air Force must revisit their A-10 commitments to ensure the extension is real. 

Restore and protect the 357th Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan. The 357th is the Air Force’s formal A-10 training unit and the institutional home of the Sandy qualification, the schoolhouse where combat-search-and-rescue expertise is produced, refined, and passed to the next generation of aircrew. It graduated its last class in April 2026 and is set to inactivate this year. No successor Sandy qualification program exists across the Department of War, and the Air Force has confirmed none is in development. Inactivating the 357th severs the center of excellence that produces the very capability the service says it values. Reversing that decision is the single highest-leverage action available, and the clearest signal of whether the 2030 commitment is real. The squadron should be retained until a validated replacement for the Sandy mission is stood up and producing qualified aircrew on a replacement platform.

Stabilize the rest of the enterprise through the extension timeline. If the service intends to preserve meaningful capability through 2030, the supporting structure has to survive with it. That means protected funding for depot maintenance, training, operational-test, and maintainer retention. Exempt the A-10 from “sunset” policy where budgets are still being slashed with justification of “upcoming divestment.” Instead, leverage the A-10 operational-test process as a rapid-integration and tactics pathfinder, capturing and transferring those lessons across the broader force before the capability disappears. 

Tie any future divestment to demonstrated replacement readiness, not the calendar. Do not divest the A-10 until there is a trained and capable replacement for each mission it performs. Build a deliberate plan for a clean handoff of mission responsibility and the community knowledge behind it, and gate future retirements on proven replacement capability rather than programmatic timelines.

The case for retiring the A-10 was always a timing argument: accept a measured reduction in near-term capacity in exchange for a better future force. The Air Force already announced the A-10 was back. Now it must fund the decision it already made before the combat capacity disappears anyway.

Paul “Gu$” Garcia is a TOPGUN Navy Fighter Weapons School instructor and graduate who flew combat missions in the F/A-18 across Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. He transitioned to fly the F-22 in the IndoPacific as a member of the Hawaii Air National Guard, leading the Homeland Defense mission for the Hawaii and Guam Air Defense Region for Operation Noble Eagle. He retired from the U.S. Air Force as the lead for PACAF modernization and innovation in 2025. He is Managing Partner and founder of Merge Combinator.

The opinions and views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views or opinions of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Department of Defense, or any part of the U.S. government.

The post A Disciplined Case For The A-10 The Air Force Won’t Make appeared first on The War Zone.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said the Tu-22M3 crashed while making an approach to land in the Irkutsk region, in southeastern Siberia, during what it described as a routine training flight. According to the ministry, the bomber was not carrying a combat load, all crew members ejected safely, and there were no casualties or damage on the ground. The cause of the crash has not been disclosed, and an investigation is underway.

The governor of the Irkutsk region, Igor Kobzev, said that the aircraft crashed in the Bokhansky district, near the village of Kamenka. Kobzev added that the crew had been found by local people after ejecting and were already getting medical treatment.

Belaya, near Irkutsk, is an important Backfire base, accommodating the 200th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment. 

The Tu-22M3 remains a key component of Russia’s Long-Range Aviation fleet and has been used extensively in the war against Ukraine to launch cruise missile strikes in standoff attacks. This makes any loss of the type noteworthy even when it occurs outside of combat operations, as was the case today.

In the Ukraine war, the Tu-22M3 has primarily been associated with attacks using Kh-22 (AS-4 Kitchen) and Kh-32 supersonic anti-ship missiles repurposed for use against ground targets. This weapon has proven to be very destructive, although not highly precise, for land attack applications and has resulted in significant numbers of civilian deaths.

A video from May 2022 that purports to show the launch of Kh-22 cruise missiles, as seen from the cockpit of a Tu-22M3:

During the conflict, Ukraine claims to have used a Soviet-era S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) long-range surface-to-air missile to bring down the Tu-22M3 that crashed in the Stavropol region of southern Russia on April 19, 2024, an incident you can read more about here.

Other examples of the Tu-22M3 have been destroyed on the ground by Ukrainian drone strikes during the conflict.

In August 2023, a Backfire was destroyed by a drone strike while on the ground at the airbase of Soltsy-2 in the Novgorod region.

Subsequently, in Operation Spiderweb, in June 2025, four more Tu-22M3s were confirmed destroyed on the ground, while another two were confirmed damaged. At least four more Backfires were targeted in the same attacks and may also have received some degree of damage. On this occasion, Ukraine employed short-range explosive-laden drones that targeted Russia’s missile-carrying bomber fleet in an unprecedented attack on at least four airbases, including Belaya.

Today’s incident also adds to a growing list of recent non-combat accidents involving the aging bomber fleet. Previous such losses, all in the Irkutsk region, occurred in August 2024, April 2025, and June 2026.

After all of these incidents, the Russian Tu-22M3 fleet today numbers around 50 active aircraft, although there are additional non-serviceable aircraft that could be brought back into service after extensive overhaul.

Since the Tu-22M3 has been out of production for decades, every airframe is especially precious. Any loss reduces Russia’s Long-Range Aviation capabilities and readiness. This has an impact not only on the war in Ukraine but also on Russia’s broader Long-Range Aviation force, a key element of the country’s strategic military posture.

We will update this post as we find out more about today’s incident.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Russian Tu-22M3 Swing-Wing Bomber Seen Plunging Into The Ground appeared first on The War Zone.

According to the Coronet East X account, the jets belong to the 75th Fighter Squadron and arrived through Aviano Air Base in Italy from Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

One of the most interesting shots shows one of the jets with an F-15E tail marking, green footprints of the Air Force Pararescue Jumpers (PJs) and the words “So others may live,” which is their motto. As we have previously reported, A-10s took part in the daring mission to rescue two F-15E crewmembers whose Strike Eagle was shot down over Iran, acting in the Sandy low-altitude escort role for the rest of the rescue package. One A-10 was struck by Iranian fire and crashed. The pilot survived.

So it is possible that the Warthog with this marking took part in the F-15E crew’s CSAR operation or another one that we do not know of. We reached out to the 75th Wing for more information.

Following a long aviation tradition of personalizing aircraft, the Warthogs are emblazoned with colorful nose art that includes Nintendo game characters homages like Ridley the giant purple space dragon, ‘Diddy Kong,’ King Dedede, Samus Aran, Star Fox and Little Mac. Non video game references include Macho Man, Doc Holliday and the Reaper.

We have previously noted that personnel have applied nose art as part of other deployment to Muwaffaq Salti, which appears to be becoming something of a trend in the region. F-15Es from RAF Lakenheath are well known for their often comical nose art designs and the practice is now allowed after the USAF forbid it unless under very particular circumstances for many years.

The mission marks show a mix of weapons used against Iranian targets. They include Small Diameter Bombs, GBU-12 Paveways, Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) laser-guided rockets, AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles. Miniature Air-Launched Decoys (MALDs) and generic bombs that probably signify Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). The A-10 notorious gun is also represented.

There are also a couple of target type ‘kill’ markings seen, as well. This includes a pair of boats and a truck that appears to have made a giant secondary explosion, based on the mushroom cloud marking.

As we have previously reported, the venerable Warthogs were pressed into service helping to destroy the Iranian Navy, strike Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria, and take part in the aforementioned rescue mission, among other tasks, as part of Operation Epic Fury.

All this took place as the seemingly ceaseless debate between the Air Force and Congress about the future of these jets and their survivability in future conflicts rages on. We recently wrote that an amendment added to the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization bill threw a lifeline to the jets. It called for the Secretary of the Air Force to keep supporting A-10 training, testing, experimentation, maintenance, and sustainment efforts through to the planned retirement date, as well as preserving lessons learned and operational expertise from A-10 missions to help shape future replacement systems.

Regardless of what ultimately becomes of the A-10, the markings seen in these pictures shows they still provided a lot of value in this most recent fight.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post A-10 Warthogs Arrive In England Festooned With Nose Art And Mission Markings From Epic Fury appeared first on The War Zone.

This week’s caption reads:

FEB 22 1981; Federal Emergency Management Agency (Underground Bunker At Den Fed CTR); (Photo By Dave Buresh/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

Prime Directives:

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

The post Bunker Talk: Let’s Talk About All The Things We Did And Didn’t Cover This Week appeared first on The War Zone.

The Navy issued a formal request for proposals for UJTS in March. The service currently plans to acquire 216 new jet trainers to replace the just under 200 T-45s that are in its inventory today. With Boeing now out of the running, the Sierra Nevada Corporation (which has now partnered with Northrop Grumman and General Atomics) and a team led by Leonardo and Textron are the only known remaining competitors. Lockheed Martin, which had teamed with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), also dropped out back in April. Aviation Week and Breaking Defense were among the first to report on Boeing’s decision regarding UJTS.

“Boeing is focused on meeting our commitments, and we bid for programs where we believe we can provide the right solution tailored to our customers’ needs and requirements,” a Boeing spokesperson told TWZ. “After careful evaluation, we have determined the T-7A does not meet the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System requirements.”

“We have therefore informed the Navy that we will not bid on the current RFP. We remain committed to delivering the T-7A as a modern, growth-oriented training solution for 4th, 5th and 6th generation pilots as requirements evolve,” they added. “We look forward to providing and sustaining both current and future capabilities for the Navy.”

Boeing says its decision on UJTS is tied to the General Electric F404 turbofan. The company has stressed that the F404 is a proven design with millions of flight hours on multiple platforms, including the T-7A, and is a clear example of a ready-to-field design. Still, Boeing’s view is that the UJTS engine qualification requirements would require additional long-cycle development work, and potentially limit its ability to meet the Navy’s initial operational capability target for the new jet trainers.

All this being said, it is still not entirely clear what the specific issues might be, given that the F404 is such a well-established design that has been and continues to be used on a variety of military aircraft. This includes several other land-based jet trainer designs beyond the T-7, like the Scaled Composites Model 400, which competed against the Red Hawk in the Air Force’s T-X competition, and the Turkish Aerospace Industries Hürjet.

Most notably, the F404 also powers the TF-50N that Lockheed Martin and KAI had put forward for UJTS. At the time of writing, neither Lockheed Martin nor KAI looks to have offered a detailed explanation for the decision to withdraw from the Navy jet trainer competition.

The T-7A has also suffered from various technical and other issues over the course of its development, which has led to significant delays in its entry into Air Force service. The service is now hoping to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk next year. Any potential for direct synergies in terms of support and sustainment between the Air Force and Navy jet trainer fleets is now off the table.

It is worth pointing out that the TF-50N and the T-7 are also both single-engine designs. The Beechcraft M-346N that Leonardo and Textron have put forward is powered by a pair of Honeywell F124 turbofans. Two Williams FJ44-4M turbofans power SNC’s Freedom Jet, which is also the only clean-sheet design in the running for UJTS. This may point to a general view of the UJTS requirements that make single-engine designs less attractive.

The Freedom Jet design is also tailored to meet now-axed requirements for UJTS to be able to perform carrier qualifications and simulated carrier touch-and-goes at base on land. The requirements for so-called Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) training at facilities ashore have historically been structured specifically in a way that “simulates, as near as practicable, the conditions encountered during carrier landing operations,” according to the Navy.

SNC says its choice to build an aircraft that can still perform these tasks is deliberate, and offers the Navy what could still be important capability and flexibility in the future, as you can read more about here.

The Navy’s decision to remove carrier qualifications and otherwise alter key aspects of the tactical jet aviator training pipeline has been and continues to be controversial. The service has argued that substantial investments in virtualized training and assisted carrier landing capabilities, such as Magic Carpet and its successors, have fundamentally changed the landscape when it comes to training future pilots for carrier-based operations.

Earlier this month, the Navy also confirmed that it had raised the total cost ceiling for the prospective UJTS contract from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion.

“The Government updated the price cap to reflect a change in the program cost estimate due to new information received,” Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) subsequently explained, according to Breaking Defense.

The substantial increase in the projected cost has raised its own questions about the outlook for the competition and the development program that is expected to follow. The Navy’s decisions to scale back its training requirements had previously been seen as opening the door to existing land-based jet trainer designs, or derivatives thereof, like the T-7 and the TF-50N. That, in turn, was viewed as a potential way for the service to help keep costs and risk low.

The Navy’s T-45 replacement plans have already been delayed multiple times, with the service originally planning to pick a winning design this year and to have the first example enter operational service in 2028. The goal now is to award a contract in the middle of next year.

The aging T-45 fleet has faced its own struggles, including a spate of reported hypoxia-like physiological episodes among pilots that led to the development of a new oxygen system. There have been several Goshawk crashes in recent years due to a variety of factors, with the most recent coming just last month. The pilots in that case thankfully survived.

For Boeing, the decision to drop out of the running for UJTS could also allow it to refocus resources to other priorities. The company is also notably one of two remaining competitors vying to build the sixth-generation F/A-XX carrier-based fighter for the Navy. Boeing is already heavily engaged now on work for the F-47 sixth-generation fighter for the Air Force.

When it comes to the UJTS competition, with Boeing having bowed out, the SNC-led and Leonardo/Textron teams are now facing off head-to-head.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Boeing Drops Out Of Navy’s T-45 Jet Trainer Replacement Competition appeared first on The War Zone.

TWZ has frequently reported how Russia, and to a lesser extent China, have moved aggressively to assert their presence in the High North, leaving the U.S. and its NATO allies looking to bolster their defenses.

While Russia remains totally bogged down and suffering high attrition in Ukraine with little chance of moving masses of troops to the Arctic at the moment, concern over the future has spurred NATO to bolster its presence along the Finnish border. Having moved to a wartime economy during the full-on conflict with Ukraine, Russia could leverage that in a post-Ukraine war future to threaten NATO’s borders.

A NATO official told us Friday morning that while the alliance assesses that the chances of a near-term conflict are low given the war in Ukraine, “Moscow could seek to expand westward into the Nordic and Baltic nations after a ceasefire with Ukraine.”

Russia appears to be investing in infrastructure in preparation of such a contingency. A joint report by several Nordic and Baltic media outlets published earlier this week has found that Russia is expanding military facilities along its borders with Norway and Finland to accommodate tens of thousands of new troops.

“New satellite images show that Russia is increasing its armament in [the] vicinity,” the report stated. “SVT, together with media partners in several countries, has examined how Russia is preparing for 80,000 soldiers… It is a threat that we should take seriously, says Thomas Nilsson, head of Sweden’s military intelligence service (MUST).”

The images “show new barracks for thousands of soldiers, long lines of military vehicles and ammunition storage,” the report further noted. “All winter, Russia has been building new military structures in several places on the other side of the Finnish border.”

“We expect to have 80,000 soldiers on our border and that can be compared to the fact that we previously had 20,000,” Finnish Army Chief Pasi Välimäki told the joint investigation.

A separate report by the Finnish Yle media outlet found that the Russians are expanding a base in the town of Novaya Vilga to hold as many as 6,000 Russian troops. It is located about 100 miles east of the Finnish border.

“NATO has monitored a buildup of military infrastructure in Russia along NATO’s Eastern Flank, particularly along Finland’s border,” the NATO official told us earlier this week. “The real question is what becomes of the infrastructure? Will, for example, Russian troops now in Ukraine be relocated there after the war? It’s something we certainly need to consider, and we do.”

“That’s why NATO and nations are working to deliver real military capabilities to the alliance now, not five to ten years from now, which is so very, very important,” the official added.

One of those efforts, as we noted earlier in this story, was stood up on Saturday, involving NATO’s two newest members.

NATO’s Forward Land Forces (FLF) Finland began operations in Finland and Sweden, according to the alliance. The FLF will include NATO’s newest multinational battlegroup, led by Sweden, “to support the defense of NATO’s northeastern flank.”

The establishment of FLF Finland places a Swedish battlegroup based in Boden, Sweden, and a Multinational Staff Element in Rovaniemi, Finland, under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and NATO.

“Sweden is contributing a battalion battlegroup that, together with a Multinational Staff Element in Rovaniemi, will form the core of FLF Finland,” NATO added. “The Swedish battalion battlegroup is prepositioned in Boden, with capacity to operate in the North Calotte and, where necessary, rapidly reinforce the presence in northern Finland. In 2026, Sweden’s contribution to FLF Finland will total around 600 personnel, with the option to expand to 1,200 personnel if needed.”

“This region is one of the most strategically significant and environmentally challenging areas in the world,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. and SACEUR Alexus G. Grynkewich. “FLF Finland, just like Arctic Sentry, will leverage NATO’s strength to defend our territory and ensure the Arctic and High North remains secure, especially considering Russia’s military activity and China’s growing interest there.”

The U.S. too is working to improve its presence and operations in the region. During last month’s SOF Week symposium in Tampa, Florida, the head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) announced the formation of Nordic Bridge to “tie together” the work of U.S. European Command, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and SACEUR.

Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot provided no real details about Nordic Bridge at the time, so we reached out to NORTHCOM for additional details.

“The Nordic Bridge concept seeks to enhance Arctic integration between U.S. Northern Command and U.S. European Command and enhance cooperation between NORAD and NATO in order to expand domain awareness, strengthen deterrence, and improve interoperability,” a NORTHCOM spokesperson told us last month. “It envisions increased participation in each other’s training and exercises, increased data sharing (such as air pictures), deconflicting conferences to maximize personnel availability and participation, etc.”

Last month, Guillot visited Grynkewich “to discuss opportunities under this concept,” the NORTHCOM spokesperson told us.

All this is taking place, of course, against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s frequent insistence that the U.S. subsume Greenland to provide better Arctic protection for the U.S. homeland. The issue reached a fever pitch earlier this year, causing a serious rift with NATO after the president threatened to invade the world’s largest island. You can read more about that in our story about the crisis here.

While there are no indications that the Arctic region is about to break out into open conflict, there are several indications that Russia, NATO and the U.S. are increasing preparations for such an eventuality.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Russia Building New Infrastructure For Major Troop Deployments Along NATO’s Northern Flank appeared first on The War Zone.

Airbus’s Defense and Space unit launched the ‘Team Gen 6’ initiative today with a message on X, declaring that it was “an exciting step for European sovereignty.” So far, eight German defense and aerospace contractors have signed a strategic positioning paper as part of the effort. Those firms are Autoflug, Diehl Defense, Hensoldt, Liebherr, MBDA Germany, MTU Aero Engines, and Rohde and Schwarz.

Reflecting the German-Spanish nature of the new program, those companies are now “closely integrated” with firms from Spain, comprising GMV, Grupo Oesia, Indra, ITP Aero, and Sener.

“While the development of the overarching [FCAS] ‘system of systems’ is progressing as before, the sixth-generation fighter aircraft integrated within it requires a new, agile industrial setup,” Airbus said.

“As Team Gen 6, we have the capabilities and the capacities. Now, we are looking for close alignment with policymakers and the air force[s] to drive forward a superior European air combat system for collective security,” the X post stated.

Airbus also presented a video showing a notional concept aircraft flying with multiple uncrewed platforms. While not too much (as in not much at all) should be read into this, the crewed aircraft features canard foreplanes, a chin intake, and an unusual cranked wing.

Speaking just ahead of the announcement, at the ILA Berlin airshow today, where TWZ was in attendance, Jean-Brice Dumont, head of air power at Airbus Defense and Space, said the company remains committed to delivering a sixth-generation combat jet. “There is a need for a bit of a reshaping and reconsidering the reality of today,” Dumont added.

Dumont explained that the now-abandoned NGF was one of seven separate “pillars” of technology development being worked on under FCAS. As well as the crewed jet, pillars include powerplant, remote carrier vehicles, precision-guided weapons, and data connectivity.

“We have to consider safeguarding areas where it works, and how we reshape,” he added. “At the moment, we are going to seek guidance from our governments [on] what they want us to do. There has to be demonstrated an industrial feasibility of what is being asked — not only technical. That’s probably a lesson now,” Dumont added.

Dumont continued: “The world in 2026 is very different to the world of 2017 when the [FCAS] programme was launched. We have to accept that fact and reshape it — we need another way to get to the same goal, with faster milestones.”

“The problem we had is that we had drawn a line to 2040, and new technologies for everything,” Dumont added, referring to the goal of having the FCAS, including the NGF, in service by that date. “Today, you see demonstrations of connectivity, systems of systems and unmanned vehicles all around the world. The need is there, and in the countries that we are competing with, they are using it already.”

According to Dumont, the company has “put a number of options on the desk of our ministers and ministries of defense,” and is now awaiting further guidance from officials.

As the centerpiece of FCAS, in its original form, the NGF element was the most high-profile and challenging component of the project. However, it had long been dogged by disagreements over industrial workshare and leadership between Airbus and Dassault Aviation, which were the prime contractors for Germany and Spain, and France, respectively.

Dassault had demanded that it play the defining role in NGF, reflecting key requirements for the jet driven by the French Armed Forces. These included the ability to operate from aircraft carriers, and provision to deliver nuclear weapons. Germany or Spain needed neither of these functions.

Despite the disagreements that derailed NGF, Dumont argued that there had still been useful lessons learned from the FCAS program.

“What Phase 1A and 1B [of the program] have given is a very thorough analysis of the repartition of the work between the crewed and uncrewed platforms, and this remains. That kind of shapes what the manned aircraft will have to do.”

As an example of this work, Dumont pointed to ongoing work that will involve trials of a Eurofighter operating as a “command fighter” — a crewed jet that can operate in collaboration with drones, or what Airbus now refers to as uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft (UCCAs). The tests will see a Eurofighter fitted with a Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod modified to serve as the interface between the crewed jet and UCCAs. This should pave the way toward an in-service command fighter capability being introduced to the Eurofighter, something that will be incorporated in the sixth-generation combat jet from the outset.

Initial trials will involve a Learjet test configured as a surrogate command fighter and flying with drones in an “enhanced teaming” mode. Airbus hopes to have the command fighter-configured Eurofighter ready for operational service in 2029.

“The demand from the customers is: be ready early,” Dumont explained. “This is not a contradiction to the Future Combat Air System challenge — it is the need to have our platforms evolved earlier than we had traditionally planned.”

The termination of NGF and the launch of Team Gen 6 leaves plenty of questions over the future of Europe’s air combat landscape.

TWZ spoke to Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, for his take on what might happen next.

On the matter of Germany and Spain now teaming up under the Airbus umbrella, Barrie said that the relationship makes a lot of sense, but its success is far from certain. On the one hand, the two countries already work together within Airbus, and both Germany and Spain are seeking a replacement for their Eurofighter fleets.

“In terms of Team Gen 6, I do wonder if there’s an element of trying to kind of scramble to recover something from the wreckage of NGF, as it were, that the collapse of NGF doesn’t signal the end of Spanish industrial interest in next-gen combat aircraft development,” Barrie said. “But if somebody asked me, do I think between Germany and Spain, they can put together a credible program if nobody else is involved? I think that the numbers would be very difficult to stack up.”

Putting the German and Spanish future fighter requirements together, the two countries might, at best, need to build 300 new combat jets, with a figure of 250 more likely, Barrie contended. Team Gen 6 would then face a real struggle to break even.

This reality will, Barrie believes, force Germany and Spain to look for other partners, which will likely come down to a choice between the British-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) and the Swedish next-generation combat aircraft program, led by Saab. Of these, GCAP has the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, and also involves Italy and Japan. Sweden’s crewed fighter requirements are less clear at this point.

Building a role for Airbus in GCAP would be difficult at this point. With the industrial architecture already in place, bringing not one, but two more partners into that program would be disruptive, particularly in terms of timeline. Already, the Japanese in particular are concerned about the pace of the program, especially since the United Kingdom has not yet fully committed to it in terms of funding.

“My own view is that the United Kingdom remains committed to the program, but there are financial pressures elsewhere,” Barrie noted. “I think that the more likely outcome in all of this is a kind of German, Spanish, Swedish tie-up. The kind of requirements in some ways are aligned a bit better.”

This extends to the size of the aircraft, Barrie observed.

“The kind of aircraft that the Swedes seem to be thinking about, the crewed element is probably more of a bigger Gripen E/F, heading towards Typhoon, in terms of size. This is more in keeping with what the Germans and the Spanish seem to be looking for. Obviously, the United Kingdom and Japan, in particular, need something with longer legs and bigger internal payload, hence GCAP.”

“GCAP will be highly capable,” Barrie continued. “That will come with a unit cost to go with it. Maybe what the Swedes, the Germans, and the Spanish might do will be cheaper.”

Provided a German, Spanish, Swedish teaming arrangement could work, the resulting combat jet could still enter a space where it would face competition for important export orders from France, which looks set to continue the development of the Rafale, especially now that NGF has collapsed. Further competition could be provided by South Korea with further developments of its KF-21 and Turkey with the TF Kaan, although these are notably less-ambitious fifth-generation designs.

The Tempest, as currently envisaged, with its very different set of requirements, would not necessarily be a direct competitor to Team Gen 6, Barrie argued, since it would be a closer match to the F-47 in terms of size, capabilities, and cost. While the potential size of this market would be more limited, probably U.S. reluctance to export the F-47 would play in the Tempest’s favor.

As to the possibility of the United States offering a ‘watered-down’ export model of the F-47, Barrie considers this unlikely to generate much interest.

“Yeah, you can have a downgraded version of my super airplane — as a kind of marketing slug that hardly sells, does it?” Barrie continued. “Even if it’s 10 percent less capable, even if it’s 10 percent less expensive, it’s still a likely unit cost of $250 million or more, which is eye-watering.”

This leaves us with the French, and what they might be able to recover from NGF.

If France goes it alone with a sixth-generation combat jet, Dassault will likely be strongly backed by the French government, and the company has traditionally punched well above its weight.

In the medium term, Dassault has a healthy backlog of orders for the Rafale and is very much at the right end of the cost curve. Barrie considers that the Rafale will remain a profitable airplane for the foreseeable future, but at some point, France will need to think about a successor based on an all-new airframe. Industrially, France has the capability to go alone with this, but they would likely look to a partner or partners to come on board. The likelihood of those partners coming from Europe has now been reduced, but other possibilities might be found in the Gulf states.

Then there is the question of India, which may still buy more Rafales but which, in the fullness of time, is likely to look for a new-generation fighter, and could be a potential partner for France.

“I don’t see the Indians ever being fully committed to only one country,” Barrie continued. India has already hinted that it might want to try and join the pan-European FCAS or GCAP. Meanwhile, Russia has been a long-term military partner for India, and Barrie thinks that the recent appearance of a two-seat version of the Su-57 Felon may well indicate another effort to sell that fighter to India.

Were India to continue its pattern of buying Russian combat aircraft, that would give any potential European partner serious pause for thought, based on the security implications. Meanwhile, India also remains committed to developing its own next-generation fighter.

What the NGF debacle has demonstrated is that any potential partner with France on its next-generation combat aircraft program will likely have to be happy taking a junior role, with Dassault calling the shots.

The collapse of the New Generation Fighter could well be a pivotal moment for European defense cooperation, but it does not signal the end of Europe’s sixth-generation combat aircraft ambitions.

Airbus’s Team Gen 6 announcement marks the start of a German-Spanish-led industrial approach that its backers hope will be more agile and less contested than its Franco-German-led predecessor. However, significant political, financial, and industrial challenges remain, including the search for a reliable partner, or partners. As with NGF, the success of Team Gen 6 will ultimately depend on whether European governments can align their strategic priorities and industrial interests to deliver a sovereign future air combat capability.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Germany And Spain Launch ‘Team Gen 6’ After Europe’s Next-Gen Fighter Effort Collapses appeared first on The War Zone.

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee released a draft defense spending bill for the 2027 Fiscal Year. It includes a provision that would prevent the Air Force from retiring more than two U-2Ss in that fiscal cycle. The Air Force currently has 23 of these aircraft in inventory, including three two-seat TU-2S trainers.

A summary of the proposed legislation also says it includes “$81 million for U-2 programmed depot maintenance to fully restore four aircraft.” The current operational status of the aircraft in question is unclear. This is included under the umbrella of $335.3 billion in total funding for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts across the services that the draft bill would appropriate for Fiscal Year 2027.

Programmed depot maintenance for any aircraft is an intensive process that essentially involves a full tear-down and detailed inspection. Paint and other coatings are typically stripped and reapplied. Upgrades and modifications are often worked into depot maintenance cycles given the extensive work already being done.

The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year completely zeroes out the line for U-2 O&M, to include depot maintenance, reflecting the service’s desire to retire the fleet. An annual force structure report the Pentagon released in May concisely outlines the current argument for retiring the remaining U-2Ss.

“The Air Force will retire the entire 23-ship U-2 fleet, as the platform is no longer viable for future high-end conflicts,” the force structure report says. “Continued operation presents significant safety, logistical, and financial risks that outweigh the platform’s remaining utility in contested environments.”

“This decision allows for the strategic reallocation of fiscal resources to fund more critical, high-priority service requirements and accelerate modernization efforts in other key areas,” it adds. “Continuing to operate the U-2 fleet would require a significant investment to address systemic issues, including diminishing manufacturing capacity, material shortages, and safety risks inherent in the aging platform.”

Questions about the continued relevance of the U-2 in the face of an ever-expanding global air defense threat ecosystem are not new. Near-peer competitors like China and Russia, as well as lower-tier potential adversaries like Iran, continue to develop and field more capable air defense systems and expand their anti-access and area denial bubbles. This, in turn, has threatened to push the U-2 further and further from the areas where it would be tasked to collect.

On top of all this, the U-2s are aging and becoming more costly to operate and maintain. The U-2S models in service today were upgraded from earlier variants that began their service careers in the 1980s.

As noted, this is not the first time the Air Force has tried to retire its remaining U-2s, citing operational and sustainment-related factors. In response, Congress has repeatedly intervened in the past few years to at least block full divestment of the fleet over persistent concerns about the aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and capacity gap that might result.

The Dragon Lady continues to offer a unique ISR platform that can fly higher than any other operational non-orbital platform, crewed or uncrewed, the U.S. military has, at least from what we know today. This, in turn, means that the aircraft can bring imaging, signals intelligence, communications payloads, and other sensors up to those altitudes, giving them particularly good fields of view. From this perch, aircraft can use a slant angle to peer deep into denied areas while still flying international airspace and further away from potential threats. The use of the U-2 to gather intelligence about a Chinese spy balloon that soared over parts of the United States and Canada in 2023, which involved flying above it, offered a particularly public demonstration of the value of the aircraft’s high-altitude capabilities.

Each Dragon Lady can also carry a wide array of different sensor systems simultaneously, as well as communications packages, further increasing its flexibility. The U-2Ss have the ability to be readily deployed to forward locations globally and conduct long-duration sorties, as well. The latter points have been especially relevant in comparison to known existing ISR satellite constellations that are constrained by their orbits and can only offer relatively short-term coverage over a specific area. We will come back to this in a moment.

It is worth noting here that the Air Force’s Dragon Lady fleet also has a long history now of providing valuable ISR support outside of traditional combat operations. Last year, the service confirmed U-2Ss were supporting the enhanced border security mission along the United States’ southern boundary with Mexico. The aircraft have been used to support counter-narcotics operations over the years, as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. NASA also operates a pair of ER-2 aircraft, another version of the Dragon Lady, as high-flying scientific research platforms.

The Air Force has been hinting for years now at the existence of advanced aircraft in the classified realm that could help fill gaps left by the retirement of the U-2, and also be more survivable in very high-threat environments. This has now been further underscored by the emergence of the ‘RQ-180,’ or a related stealthy design, in Greece earlier this year, the likely capabilities and roles of which TWZ explored in a detailed feature in April. At the same time, we have raised still unanswered questions in the past about how many of any such drones might actually be in service and what kind of operational capacity those fleets might provide.

The U.S. military is also pushing ahead with the development and fielding of new space-based ground and air surveillance capabilities. This includes work toward the fielding of new satellite constellations that could provide game-changing persistent coverage globally, as you can read more about here. Despite steady progress, including on-orbit testing of prototypes, there are still questions about when any of these new assets in orbit will be fully operational. The U.S. Space Force recently announced it is now targeting 2028 for the “early” fielding of at least some of these new space-based surveillance capabilities.

The draft defense spending bill from the House Appropriations Committee does still have to be finalized, and then brought in line with companion legislation in the Senate. Both chambers of Congress then need to pass the bill before it can be sent to the President’s desk to be signed into law. There are many opportunities along the way for major changes to be made to the bill.

That being said, Congress has consistently blocked Air Force efforts to fully retire the U-2 in recent years. Another potential reprieve, which would also demand the service take steps to bolster the operational capacity of the remaining fleet, has now appeared on the horizon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Four U-2S Spy Planes Would Be Restored In Bill That Would Save The Dragon Lady Fleet appeared first on The War Zone.

Jerod Harris caught Catfish with the pod under its belly as it came in to land at Edwards Air Force Base in California on Monday. Edwards is the main hub for U.S. Air Force test and evaluation activities, and Catfish has been seen there many times over the years as part of its work. The aircraft, which carries the U.S. civil registration code N757A, also happens to be the first 757 ever built, and took to the skies for the first time back in 1982.

As already noted, Catfish has already played a central role in the story of F-22. The aircraft’s heavily modified nose is designed to directly replicate that of the Raptor, and contains the same AN/APG-77 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar as the fighter. The swept wings on top of the cockpit were also designed to support testing of the conformal antennas for the Raptor’s AN/ALR-94 electronic support measures system and other components of its ‘fused’ sensor suite. The aircraft has supported the development of a wide array of other systems for the F-22, and is packed inside with additional equipment to support those needs in particular, including a replica of the Raptor’s cockpit. You can read more about Catfish and its general history here.

So it is not surprising then that the heavily modified 757 would also be used now to help with continued testing of the new underwing infrared sensor pods for the Raptor. Carrying the pod under the forward end of the fuselage would offer the sensors inside a good open field of view to the front, as well as to the left, right, and down.

The stealthy pods have been test-flown on actual F-22s for years now. At the same time, there are only a limited number of Raptors available, in total, and they are notoriously fuel-hungry, maintenance-intensive, and otherwise expensive to operate. If the particular test plan calls just for level flight, and over extended periods of time, a platform like Catfish could be an attractive alternative. With space for dozens of engineers and technicians in its main cabin, and workstations for them, the aircraft would also offer very different options for testing and evaluating the pod while in-flight. A North American Sabreliner business jet has also been used to test these pods in the past.

The capability, in general, for Catfish to carry stores under its fuselage might open up additional possibilities for utilizing the aircraft in support of other testing efforts, if it hasn’t already.

Catfish would also be well suited to supporting testing of other elements of the Raptor 2.0 package. Under the current plan, the Air Force’s F-22s are also set to get a new integrated distributed infrared search and track (IRST) system called the Infrared Defensive System (IRDS).

IRST systems have seen a renaissance across the U.S. military in recent years, as well as elsewhere globally. IRSTs detect and track targets via their infrared emissions, making them particularly valuable for helping spot stealthy targets with features designed to reduce their radar cross-sections. The sensors are also immune to radio frequency electronic warfare jamming and operate passively, meaning they do not emit signals that could alert a target to the fact they are being tracked. IRSTs can also be used to cue or otherwise be linked to other sensors, including AESA radars. This data fusion can provide higher fidelity tracks of multiple targets, as well as improved situational awareness overall.

Increased demand for IRSTs has led to a commensurate increase in demand for testing using multiple platforms. This, in turn, has been a major component of a general uptick in U.S. military flight testing in recent years to support a variety of new, advanced programs.

Other elements of the Raptor 2.0 upgrade plan include new stealthy drop tanks, improvements to the jet’s stealthy features, radar capabilities, electronic warfare suite, and more, as you can read about in detail here.

At least a portion of the Raptor fleet is also set to receive modifications to enable them to act as airborne controllers for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. The Air Force’s F-22s are set to be the service’s first tactical jets to be used in that role, though others will follow.

The F-22 upgrade work is reflective of current Air Force plans to keep the Raptors in service for decades to come. In 2024, the Air Force said it no longer had a firm retirement schedule for the fighters.

Raptors have been used in recent years as surrogates to support work on the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, a component of which is Boeing’s F-47 sixth-generation fighter. As such, Catfish will have already been feeding into those developments, which are now firmly a top Air Force priority.

At the same time, Catfish is now 44 years old. Boeing 757s, in general, are increasingly disappearing from service globally as they become more complicated and cost-intensive to sustain. Especially with the work ongoing now on the F-47, it seems likely Boeing will start looking toward a new highly specialized testbed aircraft modified to reflect the particular physical geometry, unique avionics, and other features of the new fighter.

Similarly, the F-35 family also has a dedicated test jet, the Boeing 737-300-based Cooperative Avionics Testbed, nicknamed the CATbird. There are several other airliner and business jet-based testbeds flying globally today, though Catfish is certainly one of the largest and most visually distinctive. Improving digital simulation and modeling tools could allow for less reliance on surrogate testbed aircraft in the future, but they will in no way be eliminated.

China notably has something of a clone of Catfish based on a Russian-made Tupolev Tu-204C airliner, which itself was designed as an analog to the 757. The Chinese jet’s primary purpose has been supporting the development of the J-20 stealth fighter, the country’s closest answer to the F-22.

In the meantime, Boeing Catfish remains a very important part of continued work to improve and expand the capabilities of the F-22. This now extends to testing of specialized underwing pods for the Raptor.

Special thanks again to Jerod Harris for sharing his pictures of Catfish carrying the stealthy sensor pod with us.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post F-22’s ‘Catfish’ 757 Testbed Spotted Carrying Raptor’s New Infrared Sensor Pod appeared first on The War Zone.

Trump’s latest statements about taking Kharg Island came in the wake of the most intense round of tit-for-tat attacks between the U.S. and Iran since the ceasefire went into effect April 8. The U.S. launched waves of strikes across Iran, including firing what Trump said was 49 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles at Iranian targets. In response, Iran launched missiles and drones at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain.

Meanwhile, Iran claimed it shut the Strait of Hormuz completely after the new round of kinetic action while U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) insisted it remains “open for transit.”

However, in the wake of yesterday’s back-and-forth strikes, Trump proclaimed his desire to seize Iran’s vital oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island.

“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” Trump said on Truth Social.

A short while later, the president modified those remarks in an interview with Fox News.

“I don’t know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you,” Trump later told the network. “You’d make a fortune, but I don’t know that America has the stomach, I think they’d like to see us come home.”

Located about 20 miles from the Iranian coastline, Kharg Island presents a daunting challenge, leaving troops trying to take it under threat from Iran’s remaining arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, rocket artillery, and fast boats that can launch swarming attacks on ships, fire missiles, and lay mines. This is something we were among the first to point out, before the possibility of invading the island became a national news story.

“It seems unusual that we would announce an intention to seize Kharg Island in advance,” retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, former leader of U.S. Central Command, told us. “Military commanders always want to preserve the principle of surprise in any operation – it helps reduce risk and often times gives us the tactical edge.”

“In this case the president did not announce any specific details – which can preserve some operational flexibility,” Votel noted. “It may also be a part of a more elaborate communications strategy that is focused on getting the regime to understand they are running out of options and that we can and will do whatever we need to, militarily, to support diplomatic efforts and bring the conflict to a conclusion.”

“Seizing Kharg Island is a significant undertaking,” added Votel, now a Distinguished Military Fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Not only will it involve ground troops to actually control the terrain – but also tactical delivery means, air cover, a strike campaign to set the conditions and then all the resources to protect this force while they are on the Island. In addition – the force has to be sustained meaning we have to have a way to get them supplies, engineering capabilities, life support, evacuate casualties, and if necessary reinforce them with additional force.”

All these actions would be taken close enough to the Iranian coast to “potentially subject [assault forces] to missile and drone attacks,” the former CENTCOM commander noted. “Not impossible, but certainly not insignificant either.”

When we first spoke to Votel about this issue in March when stories first bubbled up about Trump threatening Kharg Island, he told us that “a battalion sized force of Marines or soldiers could probably do that. So you’re probably looking at 800 to 1,000 troops, kind of size, maybe a little bit smaller, probably not much larger than that.”

Plans for the U.S. military to try and capture the island “have been drawn up for months but continuously shelved because the operation was considered too risky,” a senior Pentagon official and two administration officials told CNN.

Speaking to us on Thursday, Chris Miller, who served as acting Defense Secretary at the end of Trump’s first administration, said it would take considerably more troops for such an operation than Votel first suggested.

“I would expect it would take an infantry brigade at a minimum,” said Miller, referring to a unit of between 3,000 to 5,000 troops. “I’d prefer two brigades and a lot of mobile air defense to protect from Shaheds and plenty of barrier material to make bunkers when artillery starts dropping in. Plus, obviously, significant air power to hit time-sensitive Iranian targets like artillery and missile batteries.”

“It’s completely doable by our combat forces in the region,” added Miller, now founder and CEO of FPF Defense, a startup building a low-cost Shahed drone interceptor. “This is exactly the type of operation they are designed and optimized for. It’s not that heavy of a lift for them.”

Holding the island, if taken, won’t be easy, however, Miller posited. 

“The logistics would be challenging for us because it will be difficult to get resupply ships in under the Iranian defensive shield,” he explained. “And aerial resupply will be contested as well.”

Miller said he was not concerned that Trump told the world he wants Kharg Island.

“My assessment is the Iranian regime continues to misunderstand President Trump,” Miller said of his former boss. “I suspect the Iranians have already prepared for such an eventuality.”

Former Army Maj. Gen. Pat Donahoe, who retired in 2022 as commanding general of the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning in Columbus, said asking how Kharg Island can be taken “is the wrong question.”

“It’s not taking it, it’s holding it over time and enduring the slow bleed of casualties that comes with holding it,” noted Donahoe, now chief operating officer at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia.

“It’s Khe Sanh,” explained Donahoe, a reference to one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War, where about 6,000 Marines and their South Vietnamese counterparts held out at a base along the Laotian border against 20,000 North Vietnamese troops for nearly 80 days. 

“Sure we can grab it, but it puts us in range of all their stuff,” Donahoe said. “And we have to resupply it, etc. It’s dumb.”

The U.S. struck military targets on the island during Epic Fury, but Trump has stated he ordered all the oil infrastructure to be left untouched. Since the ceasefire, Iran has been preparing for a possible U.S. operation to take control of Kharg Island, CNN noted today.

“Iran laid traps and moved additional military personnel and air defenses there earlier this year, according to multiple people familiar with U.S. intelligence reporting on the issue,” the network reported. “The island already has layered defenses, and the Iranians moved additional shoulder-fired, surface-to-air guided missile systems known as MANPADs there.”

It remains to be seen whether Trump actually takes any action against Kharg or anywhere else on the ground in Iran. As we have previously noted, Trump has threatened to put boots on the ground to capture Iran’s highly enriched uranium and has constantly made grand military threats without following through. This includes repeated threats that he would order the destruction of Iran’s civilian infrastructure. Clearly these are meant to push the adversary to the negotiating table, but their potency has degraded as this has become increasingly clear.

Hours after raising the specter of seizing Kharg Island, the president seemingly reversed course, saying he was halting orders to bomb the Islamic Republic tonight due to a breakthrough in negotiations.

“Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump stated on Truth Social. “Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized — Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, reportedly pushed back on Trump’s negotiations claims.

“The Fars News Agency, associated with the Revolutionary Guards, quoted a ‘knowledgeable source close to the Iranian negotiating team’ who denied President Trump’s claim regarding an agreement on an initial deal, and stated that ‘no text of the initial memorandum of understanding with the United States has been approved,'” Axios reporter Barak Ravid stated on X.

Trump has made repeated claims that a deal was virtually done, when it never materialized and the Iranians certainly have their own strategy they are executing. Whatever comes next, whether it be more bombing, a peace deal, a continued blockade and strait closure, or even an invasion of Kharg Island, it’s unclear, and that may be just as true moment-to-moment for the President of the United States as it is to everyone else.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post What It Would Take To Seize Iran’s Kharg Island, According To Top Former Military Leaders appeared first on The War Zone.

The House Committee on Armed Services added the requirement for the C-17 production restart briefing to a report accompanying the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), last week. The Air Force took delivery of its last Globemaster III in 2013, and has some 222 of these airlifters in service today. The air arms of Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom also have smaller fleets of these airlifters. Three more of these aircraft are operated under the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) initiative, a multi-national arrangement with several European members, as well as the United States. Boeing shuttered the C-17 line entirely in 2015.

“The committee recognizes that the existing C-17 fleet continues to bear significant operational demands supporting combatant commander requirements, humanitarian assistance missions, and global mobility operations,” the provision in the House Committee on Armed Services’ report notes. “The committee is concerned that future operational demands may place additional strain on the existing C-17 fleet.”

“Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2027, assessing the feasibility of restarting the production line for the C-17 aircraft,” it adds.

The committee wants the Air Force’s briefing to at least include the following:

• “An assessment of the technical and industrial feasibility of restarting the C-17 production line, including the status of tooling, supplier base viability, workforce availability, and potential reconstitution costs.”
• “An estimate of the timeline required to reestablish production and deliver the first newly produced aircraft.”
• “A cost estimate for restarting the production line and procuring additional aircraft, including options for limited procurement and multi-year procurement.”
• “An evaluation of alternative approaches to increasing strategic airlift capacity, including service life extension programs, modernization of existing aircraft, procurement of commercial derivative cargo aircraft, and expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.”
• “An assessment of potential international partner interest in participating in or contributing to a restarted production line.”

TWZ subsequently reached out to Boeing to ask about the company’s current position on rebooting C-17 production.

“Our goal is to help our customers be successful, and we work with them to develop innovative solutions to meet their mission needs, including development and production partnerships,” a Boeing spokesperson told us this week. “We are proud of our continued support for the unique, mission-proven capabilities that the C-17 Globemaster III delivers to the U.S. Air Force and eight allied nation partners.”

At the Paris Air Show last year, Turbo Sjogren, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Global Services-Government Services, had told Shephard Defense that talks with an unnamed country about a possible C-17 production restart were in their “early infancy.”

“It is a very extraordinary effort to do” and is “reflective of the utility of the aircraft,” he also said at the time, according to Shephard.

Boeing has also now said that it is always willing to work to better understand the requirements and needs of its customers. Any talk about the prospect of restarting C-17 production would also have to be viewed in the broader context of the Air Force’s still-evolving requirements for the Next Generation Air Lift (NGAL) program. The service’s current NGAL plans envision a single aircraft replacing the very different C-17 and C-5 Galaxy fleets, as you can read more about here.

TWZ also reached out to the U.S. Air Force about the recently requested briefing.

It is unclear what it might cost to get the C-17 line restarted and what the unit price of these new-production aircraft would be in the end. There are various factors at play, including whether Boeing retains any relevant tooling, the knowledge base of its current workforce, the state of third-party supply chains, and the availability of physical space to build the airplanes. Back in 2019, the company sold off the facilities in Long Beach, California, where it built the original run of Globemaster IIIs.

More than a decade ago, the RAND Corporation did conduct a detailed, independent analysis that explored options for resuming production of the baseline C-17A, a new C-17B, and a significantly revised “fuel efficient” C-17FE derivative.

The C-17B was “a variant Boeing has proposed that adds centerline landing gear, a tire deflation/inflation system, higher-thrust engines, advanced flaps, and an advanced situational awareness and countermeasures system,” according to RAND’s report. The C-17FE derivative “would have a narrower fuselage, up-rated engines, a double-element flap system, winglets, a longer loading ramp, a shorter cargo door, and a modified horizontal tail.”

RAND said that it could cost between $2.1 and $2.7 billion in 2011 dollars to begin making C-17A models again after a pause, depending on how much tooling Boeing retained. The cost ranges would be $4.6 to $6.4 billion for new production of the improved C-17B version, and $6.2 billion to $7 billion to start building the C-17FE derivative. Billions more would be required to actually procure the aircraft, with unit prices being highly dependent on the total size of the production, as outlined in the table below. If nothing else has changed, these cost projections would still be significantly higher today just due to inflation.

As an aside here, RAND published a similar assessment of the options for restarting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011. That report factored heavily into a study the Air Force subsequently delivered to Congress on that topic back in 2017, which you can read more about here.

Foreign participation in new production of C-17s could help defray costs, and is one of the points the House Armed Services Committee specifically wants the Air Force to address in its briefing. As TWZ noted last year after Turbo Sjogren made comments at the Paris Air Show, Boeing’s discussions at that point might not have been with the U.S. government. Earlier in 2025, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had expressed interest in buying Globemaster IIIs, raising immediate questions about where those aircraft might come from.

It should be noted here that the U.S. Air Force’s C-17s have received various upgrades over the years, and the service continues to move ahead with other plans to improve their performance and expand their capabilities. This includes the installation of 3D-printed microvanes on the fuselage, which offer a very minor reduction in drag (approximately one percent), but that translates into real reductions in fuel consumption. All Air Force C-17s are expected to have this feature by the end of next year. Communications and data-sharing upgrades have also been a major focus area across all of the Air Force’s airlift and tanker fleets.

Boeing is now under contract for a more extensive upgrade of the flight decks on Air Force C-17s. The company says this will aid in “resolving avionics obsolescence” and integrate new open systems architectures to make it easier to add new and improved capabilities and functionality in the future.

The prospect of a re-engining effort for the Globemaster III fleet has also been raised in the past, but the Air Force downplayed the value of doing so earlier this year.

When it comes to discussions about restarting C-17 production, another key factor is the lack of immediate alternative options. There is really no other aircraft in this class in production now in the United States or anywhere else in the West. Airbus has long positioned its turboprop-powered A400M as sitting in a capability space between Lockheed Martin’s C-130 family and the C-17. Embraer’s KC-390 Millennium design, which is also offered as an aerial refueling tanker, has generally been pitched as a jet-powered competitor to the C-130. China’s Y-20 and Russia’s Il-76 are really the only in-production analogs on any level to the C-17 globally.

The House Armed Services Committee has now also asked the Air Force to speak to the possibility of buying “commercial derivative cargo aircraft” and/or an “expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet,” or CRAF, to help bolster airlift capacity. The CRAF is an arrangement by which the U.S. military can call upon commercial airlines and charter companies to help move cargo and personnel, which you can learn more about here.

A key issue here is that the C-17 is specifically designed for tactical operations right at the tactical edge. This includes the ability to bring combat-ready forces to far-flung locations without the need for an established airfield. Additional commercial alternatives could still be utilized in rear areas to help free up C-17s for more demanding missions and otherwise relieve stress on the Globemaster III fleet.

Questions have been increasingly raised about the survivability of the C-17 itself, especially in the context of a future high-end fight, as the threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. The Air Force has made clear that it is working to find new ways to bolster the defensive capabilities of all of its existing airlifters, as well as its tanker fleets, and that this is a key consideration in the evolving NGAL requirements.

TWZ has long been sounding the alarm on the need for more survivable cargo planes and tankers. The Air Force already has decades’ worth of experimental work and studies on concepts for stealthy cargo aircraft and tankers, as well as non-stealthy ones with blended-wing-body (BWB) planforms, under its belt. Over the years, several companies have publicly put forward prospective designs that could be relevant for NGAL, as well.

When any new platform developed under NGAL actually enters service remains to be seen. The stated plan the Air Force has put forward to date would see those new aircraft replacing its C-5s first, with C-17s flying through 2075. By that point, the Globemaster III, as a type, will have been in service for 80 years.

“The C-17 is the most amazing airplane ever made. I have a lot of time in it, so I can say that. We have asked it to do a lot of things, and it’s done more than we ever planned for when we bought that airplane,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “It has performed flawlessly, but it’s getting old too.”

Sonkiss is Deputy Commander of Air Mobility Command (AMC). She has been serving as the interim head of the command since her predecessor, Gen. John Lamontagne, became Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force in January.

“I cannot have a gap in my strategic airlift forces, and we’re working forward on the NGAL to combine the view of the C-5 and the C-17 fleet and figure out what the next strategic airlifter needs to be. That conversation, in my book, can’t happen enough, or can’t happen fast enough,” she added at the roundtable in February. “We have to get after what next looks like, and we can’t wait until we’re shoveling it into the boneyard before we get to that discussion.”

Whether the Air Force’s future airlift plans also include buying new-production C-17s remains to be seen. For its part, Boeing does not appear to have ruled out the possibility just yet.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Boeing “Encouraged” By C-17 Production Restart Discussions appeared first on The War Zone.

At the ILA Berlin airshow yesterday, where TWZ was in attendance, officials from the two companies announced that Kongsberg has now formally acquired a 90 percent stake in Zone 5. California-based Zone 5 will continue to operate as an independent subsidiary under the Norwegian contractor. As well as discussing the industrial acquisition, the officials provided details of how the Rusty Dagger fits into the new-look portfolio, and updates on how that program is progressing.

Founded in 2011, Zone 5 is one of an emerging class of defense companies gaining prominence for developing low-cost, rapidly deployable capabilities. In many ways, they represent the inverse of traditional defense contractors, favoring speed, scalability, and cost efficiency over highly customized, high-priced systems.

Kongsberg first announced the acquisition in December, with executives noting that buying a stake in Zone 5 offered the fastest path to offering lower-cost missiles that still deliver meaningful combat capability, especially in terms of bringing these to the European market.

“What we’re doing here is that we’re combining Kongsberg’s niche, exquisite technologies with a company very capable of designing for cost efficiency and mass production,” explained Thomas Akers, founder and CEO of Kongsberg.

As to why Kongsberg didn’t choose to develop its own equivalent to the Rusty Dagger, Harald Aarø, Kongsberg’s executive vice president for business development and strategy, provided the following answer:

“Technically, could we be capable of doing it? Yes, but we are not as capable, as we will probably spend a longer time, and perhaps not strike as smart solutions,” Aarø said. “That doesn’t mean that our engineers aren’t just as smart. Our engineers are just as smart, but on a different sports field, so to speak.”

Aarø also described how the specific combination of the Rusty Dagger and the JSM makes for “a very effective future strike solution.” Namely, the Rusty Dagger provides cost-effective but still highly capable standoff strike, while the more exquisite JSM comes with a heftier price tag but offers a greater chance of making it through to even heavily defended targets, on account of its sophisticated guidance and low-observable characteristics.

As well as being launched from a pylon on a fighter, the Rusty Dagger can be configured for palletized employment from a cargo aircraft, reflecting growing interest in this type of munition employment. It can also be surface-launched both on land and at sea.

According to Tom Kanewske, Zone 5’s chief strategy officer: “What’s interesting about our missile is that the same base, light cruise missile is field retrofittable for all employment modes, and that puts us in a very unique space, in that a country and their [armed] services are able to purchase the same munition and field retrofit for that to be surface launched, whether from land or the deck of a ship, or pylon launched from a fighter aircraft, or palletized.”

Since larger numbers of Rusty Daggers can be launched in any given scenario, they can overwhelm enemy air defenses and improve the chances of success.

According to Kanewske, Rusty Dagger and JSM “offer a weapon pairing that truly no other missiles in the world do.”

While the JSM can be carried internally in the F-35, the same is not currently the case for the Rusty Dagger, although Kanewske said that this is “something that is of keen interest to the [U.S. military] services and several of our international partners.”

When it comes to utilizing the Rusty Dagger and JSM together in a combat scenario, Kanewske noted the possibility of integrating capabilities that would allow the Rusty Dagger to offer “cooperative behaviors” with the JSM. This reflects a growing trend toward leveraging artificial intelligence to help make all munitions more effective and survivable, something that has been demonstrated via Golden Horde and follow-on programs.

Both missiles fly at high-subsonic speeds, the Rusty Dagger being able to strike targets at a range of 250 miles, according to Zone 5, while the JSM has a range of more than 215 miles.

In one highlighted scenario, F-35s could penetrate closer to the target, with their JSMs carried internally to preserve their low-observable features. Meanwhile, much larger numbers of Rusty Daggers could be pylon-launched from fighters, and dropped in palletized form out of the cargo holds of transports, from outside of the range of hostile air defenses.

Kanewske confirmed that, this year, its first year of production, “well above 1,000 units for Rusty Dagger” will be completed, including for the U.S. Air Force, as the AGM-188, under the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

Last month, the Pentagon laid out plans to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles over the next three years, as part of a broader strategy to dramatically bolster its stockpiles of standoff strike munitions and prepare the industrial base to sustain those inventories going forward. This is seen as especially critical for supporting the demands of future high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China, and doing so in a cost-effective manner.

The Rusty Dagger has so far been cleared for use from four different types of fighter aircraft, Kanewske said. One of these is the F-16, which used the weapon in end-to-end live-fire trials at the Eglin Test and Training Range in Florida earlier this year. Another platform may be the A-4, with a contractor-operated example of the attack jet having been used in company trials. Then there is the Ukrainian Air Force, which is using the Rusty Dagger, under the Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, although the specific platforms have not been disclosed. Any of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, Su-25 Frogfoot, and Su-27 Flanker are likely candidates — as well as its own F-16s.

A series of unverified photos, first published by Russian sources, showing purported parts of Rusty Dagger missiles retrieved after being used by Ukraine:

In the case of the F-16, Kanewske said that only 72 hours were required to integrate the Rusty Dagger on the jet during the trials at Eglin.

“We’re the only affordable mass munition that is currently on contract with an export international customer, and we are actively involved with them at this time,” Kanewske said, clearly referring to Ukraine.

Zone 5 is currently under U.S. Air Force contract for both FAMM and ERAM, and is also under contract with the U.S. Army for its Low-Cost Containerized Missile (LCCM) program, and for the U.S. Navy as part of its Coalition Heterogeneous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) program, which seeks a low-cost anti-ship cruise missile to provide to partner countries. Both LCCM and CHAOS involve surface-launched missiles.

As well as the ability to rapidly scale up production and a relatively low unit cost, the Rusty Dagger brings with it an open-architecture concept, applying to both software and hardware. This means new, sovereign features and capabilities can be introduced at short notice by customers. In the past, an operator might have to wait up to five years for unique subcomponents to be integrated in a similar weapon, Kanewske contended. With the Rusty Dagger, Zone 5 has demonstrated that this can be achieved in under 12 months.

Then, when it comes to producing the missile at mass, rather than having to “make that factory bigger and bigger,” Kanewske explained that the company offers a franchise model “that allows us to roughly parachute in the design, the equipment, the tooling, the fixtures, the quality control, so that countries can drop in their own subsystem capabilities, and we can achieve manufacturing at pace and at scale.”

Speaking in Berlin yesterday, Kongsberg’s Harald Aarø confirmed that Germany is a particular target for this franchise model, including for the Rusty Dagger. He identified Germany as having “probably the best manufacturing capabilities on this planet,” making it an obvious choice for a European manufacturing footprint.

Reflecting on the changing security situation on the continent since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Aarø said that now is “a natural time to start looking at a production site in Europe,” providing nations there with national sovereign capabilities based on the Kongsberg/Zone 5 joint portfolio.

Kongsberg’s acquisition of a majority stake in Zone 5 evidences a broader shift in Western defense planning toward affordable, mass-produced precision weapons that can be fielded at scale alongside more sophisticated strike systems.

The war in Ukraine has exposed the harsh reality that Europe needs far more standoff weapons than it currently possesses, and it needs them at a price point that allows stockpiles to be measured in the thousands rather than the dozens. Rusty Dagger is very much indicative of a new generation of systems designed around that requirement, prioritizing low-cost mass production over the exquisite but scarce munitions that have traditionally dominated Western arsenals.

As conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue to highlight the operational value of low-cost, long-range munitions, demand for capabilities such as the Rusty Dagger is likely to grow. In an increasingly crowded marketplace, Kongsberg and Zone 5 will hope they can leverage their partnership, the Rusty Dagger’s combat use in Ukraine, and the potential to harness its capabilities in combination with the JSM, to build on the missile’s success.

At the same time, Kongsberg’s interest in establishing European production reflects a wider recognition across the continent that long-range strike capacity, industrial resilience, and the ability to sustain missile inventories are becoming increasingly important elements of national and collective defense.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Kongsberg Bets On High-Low Cruise Missile Mix With JSM And Rusty Dagger appeared first on The War Zone.

The MQ-28 Block 3 was revealed today at the ILA Berlin airshow, taking place this week in the German capital. The unveiling was conducted by officials from both Boeing Australia and Germany’s Rheinmetall. The German firm is partnered with Boeing to offer the drone to the German military, as well as to tap into the potentially very lucrative European CCA market.

“This is the aircraft that we are offering to Germany,” MQ-28 Global Program Director, Glen Ferguson, said at the rollout. “This is the third iteration of design now, and we are on point to build out first [Block 3] aircraft next year.”

The previous Block 1 and Block 2 variants have completed more than 150 test sorties in Australia and the United States.

Australia has already acquired eight Block 1 MQ-28s, which are configured as pre-production prototypes.

The first nine Block 2 drones, now in production, are seen as a pathway to an operational capability, which is fully realized in the Block 3.

The Block 3 aircraft features a wing that is 25 percent larger, combined with a thrust increase from 10,000 pounds to 12,000 pounds. It’s not immediately clear how that thrust increase will be achieved, but coupled with greater wing area, it will confer an increased payload capability. This translates into an additional 2,000 pounds of fuel, stores, and mission payloads.

“That additional capacity gives operators freedom to balance payload and endurance to configure for the mission at hand, whether that means carrying extra fuel for longer-range operations, increasing weapons carriage, or any combination of both,” Ferguson said.

The latest iteration of the drone also adds beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) control. Introduction of BLOS communication links means the MQ-28 can be operated at unlimited standoff distances, whether from a ground station, a naval vessel, or a crewed aircraft. With its range of over 2,000 nautical miles, adding BLOS to the drone also ensures that it can conduct independent operations when not controlled by a crewed aircraft, which was always envisioned as a potential role for Ghost Bat. Having a SATCOM option also opens up better resiliency for control in electronic warfare combat environments.

“Inclusion of features such as BLOS capability is a direct result of our learnings to date along with feedback from air forces as they understand more about the role and integration of CCAs into joint force operations,” Ferguson explained.

As for the critical internal weapons bays, these are added within each side of the slab-side fuselage, shown in a video released by Boeing.

Each bay can carry a single AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) or two Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) precision-guided munitions. These can comprise either the GBU-39/B SDB I or the GBU-53 SDB II, also known as StormBreaker. The Ghost Bat is the first CCA we have seen capable of carrying AIM-120s internally, a significant development in itself. The option for internal stores carriage is also a huge deal at this point, with Boeing having recently validated its radar cross-section (RCS), proving that the CCA is harder to detect and better able to operate in contested environments.

“The combination of a highly capable platform, stealth features and advanced autonomy provides unprecedented ability for air forces to extend their mission effectiveness and operational flexibility,” said Brad Thompson, director for Phantom Works Australia, after the completion of the RCS trials.

The drone also has provision for three external weapons stations. At least one of these has already been tested, during an end-to-end engagement in which a target drone was brought down by an AMRAAM. The air-to-air role is notably relevant since the drone is also envisaged as a force-protection asset, to defend airborne early warning aircraft and tankers, etc, as well as working with fighter aircraft. Combined with more thrust and larger wings, the external pylons would appear to open up the possibility of flying with as many as five AMRAAMs, and at least four, or with a mixed load of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

For Block 3, Boeing is also known to be working on three or four alternative sensor payloads. Integration of these would be facilitated by the fact that the entire nose can be swapped out to accommodate different payloads.

Bringing the MQ-28 Block 3 from Australia to Berlin reflects the relationship between Boeing Australia and Rheinmetall and the fact that the German Air Force — the Luftwaffe — is being pitched to for its CCA requirement.

“At the moment, we are still in negotiations with the German government, but if they want to have the plane by 2029, my expectation is that by at least next year, we have to go into the final stage of negotiating the contract,” Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told Breaking Defense.

In expectation of a German CCA requirement, the ILA Berlin airshow featured a heavy presence of combat drones.

Also making its public debut was a full-scale model of the Airbus U760 Ravenstorm, a combat drone designed to operate alongside fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat, strike missions, and electronic warfare roles. The new uncrewed aircraft is part of a revamped drone portfolio from the company, and you can read more about it here.

As well as Ravenstorm, Airbus is also offering a Europeanized version of the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie, which is apparently being pitched as a lower-cost aircraft and one that offers the option of runway-independent operations.

From the United States, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems presented a full-size model of a drone from its Gambit family, with the company also confirming that it has been in talks with Germany regarding its CCA requirements.

Meanwhile, German firm Helsing revealed a new version of its CA-1 Europa drone — which looks remarkably similar to Ghost Bat. The CA-1EA (for Electronic Attack) follows the CA-1KA (Kinetic Attack) and reflects the high priority Germany attaches to its need for a CCA to accompany its forthcoming Eurofighter EK electronic warfare jets, as well as other combat aircraft.

Helsing says the CA-1KA is planned to begin flight testing early next year. To get around issues of testing this class of drone in European airspace, the first flying prototype will feature a cockpit for a safety pilot.

Even if the MQ-28 Ghost Bat loses out in Germany, in the face of stiff competition, the Block 3 version already has the support of Australia, which also wants to upgrade earlier aircraft to the same standard.

“These features, developed in partnership with the Royal Australian Air Force, will be progressively released to the fleet through a spiral upgrade program, and are available to interested allied countries,” Ferguson said.

The Boeing official added that the MQ-28 will be in service with the Royal Australian Air Force in 2028, and he is “fairly certain that it will be the first operational CCA anywhere in the world.”

When Boeing and Rheinmetall announced their strategic partnership back in March of this year, they said that the MQ-28 could be provided to the German Armed Forces by 2029.

It should also be noted that Boeing is now conducting test flights of the Ghost Bat from the U.S. Navy’s base in Point Mugu, California. The company says its main goals in doing this are to demonstrate the maturity of the design and promote export sales, but the trials could well also point to potential U.S. military interest.

A lot could change before then, and it is unclear to what degree Germany’s CCA requirements have been defined, while any procurement will also have to navigate decision-makers in the government.

In the meantime, the MQ-28 Ghost Bat continues to evolve. The unveiling of the Block 3 version today underscores how rapidly the collaborative combat aircraft market is maturing.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Boeing’s New Larger Ghost Bat Can Carry AIM-120 AMRAAMs Internally appeared first on The War Zone.

The latest round of attacks and counterattacks touched off after U.S. Central Command launched three waves of strikes on targets in southern Iran in retaliation for what Trump said was Iran’s downing of an AH-64 Apache helicopter, reportedly by an Iranian Shahed drone. Iran denied attacking the Apache. You can read more about that incident here.

Though damage assessments are still ongoing in the wake of Iranian missiles and drones launched across the Middle East overnight, a U.S. official told TWZ Wednesday morning that so far, there have been no injuries among U.S. personnel reported and no indication yet of any damage to American installations. That’s despite Iranian claims to the contrary.

“Iran launched multiple missiles and drones and just about all were intercepted according to initial reflections from assessments that are ongoing,” the official told us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details. “No reports of harm to any U.S. personnel; not aware of any damage to our locations at this time.”

However, as we have noted in the past, similar U.S. assessments during the height of Epic Fury were later contradicted by reports of wide-spread damage from Iranian attacks.

Iranian officials said they again launched attacks on the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, as well as Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan and targets in Kuwait.

Several videos emerging overnight claimed to show missile interceptions and explosions resulting from the latest Iranian kinetic actions.

Some showed missile interceptions over Muwaffaq Salti. As we have frequently noted, the base has been a major staging area for U.S. airpower in the region. It came under Iranian attack before the ceasefire, with an AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar there having been notably targeted.

Additional video shows what appears to be an explosion in the distance as viewed from a CCTV camera in Manama in the wake of a claimed Iranian missile launch at Fifth Fleet headquarters. The extent of the damage, if any, is unknown.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-connected Tasnim News Agency also posted a video it claims shows an attack on the Fifth Fleet. The short video shows what appears to be an explosion in the distance and again, there is no way to tell what, if any damage, was caused.

The Kuwaiti Foreign Affairs Ministry condemned the latest Iranian strikes and said the nation “reserves its full right to take all necessary measures to preserve its security and defend its territories and vital facilities, in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter.”

Iran said its latest volley of kinetic actions were in response to what U.S. officials say were strikes on 20 Iranian targets in response to the helicopter downing.

This latest flurry of strikes prompted comments about the future of diplomacy from both sides.

During a morning press conference, Trump said “we hit ’em hard yesterday, and we’re going to hit ’em again hard today, in case you miss it, in case you don’t turn on your television set, and we’ll see what happens with the deal.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Trump told Fox News that there may be additional U.S. attacks that focus on “Iranian power plants and bridges.”

The president’s comments to Fox follow statements he made on his social media outlet saying Iran has taken too long to agree to a peace deal.

“Iran’s Military is a complete and total mess,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Much of it, like their Navy and Air Force, doesn’t even exist anymore – They have been completely defeated. Iran is all talk and no action. The Bully of the Middle East is DEAD!!! They’ve taken too long to negotiate a deal that would have been great for them, now they will have to pay the price!!!”

Trump did not elaborate on what that price may be.

As we noted earlier in this story, Iran is reassessing the future of diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending the US-Israeli war against the country, according to the official Iranian IRNA news outlet.

“We have to review it,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei told IRNA. “Diplomacy and the battlefield are not separate matters; rather, they run alongside and complement each other in safeguarding Iran’s interests and security.”

​Baqaei stressed that Iran’s military and diplomatic tracks operate in coordination.

“Wherever the Armed Forces deem it necessary, they respond to the enemy with authority and strength, and last night’s events showed that Iran’s brave Armed Forces do not hesitate in defending the country,” he posited.

Despite the flare-up in fighting and posturing by both sides, negotiations appear to be continuing.

“Following consultations with the United States, Qatari negotiators headed to Tehran this morning to meet with the Iranians in an attempt to bridge the remaining gaps,” CNN reported on its Arabic channel, citing a source. “The visit indicates that diplomacy remains active, despite an exchange of fire between Iran and the United States overnight—marking one of the most significant tests of the ceasefire to date. A US official told CNN that the United States believes these strikes will not derail the negotiations.”

At issue remains the future of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran’s ballistic missile arsenal and support for proxies and the easing of U.S. sanctions. Whether the increased fighting between the two sides will derail these efforts remains an open question.

UPDATES

Iran claims it downed another U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone overnight. While TWZ can’t verify that, we have noted that the loss of dozens of these drones to Iran and the Houthis have forced the U.S. Air Force to scramble for replacements.

A cargo ship came under small arms fire 88 nautical miles south of Balhaf, Yemen in the Gulf of Aden, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) monitoring organization.

“A cargo vessel has reported being approached by one craft with 6 armed persons onboard,” UKMTO explained. “There was an exchange of fire between the small craft and the cargo vessel’s Armed Security Team resulting in the small craft turning away. Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”

While details about who was involved are scant, this is the first attack in the region, near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, since the Houthi rebels of Yemen threatened to shut the vital waterway down in support of Iran last week. You can read more about the implications of the Iranian proxy group closing the Strait on the U.S. military and the global economy in our prior reporting here.

In a post on X, CENTCOM on Wednesday announced it disabled an oil tanker trying to run the blockade of Iranian ports.

The incident took place at 11:14 p.m. on June 9, when a U.S. aircraft “fired precision munitions” into the engine room of the Palau-flagged M/T Settebello as it transited the Gulf of Oman.

The ship was attempting to transport oil from Iran, the command added.

In addition to the ships it disabled, CENTCOM said it has “redirected 134 ships that complied, and allowed 42 vessels supporting humanitarian aid to pass since initiating the blockade on April 13.”

You can read more about the other seven ships hit by CENTCOM here.

When it comes to the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman region, Trump took to social media to say the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports has devastated Tehran’s economy.

“The Fake News Media refuses to report how EFFECTIVE the U.S. Naval BLOCKADE is, the most successful Blockade in the history of Naval Warfare,” the president proclaimed on Truth Social. “NOTHING GETS THROUGH unless we want it to. IT IS A STEEL WALL! Iran is doing ZERO business, not paying their military, or any of their bills, and quickly becoming a FAILED NATION! Lots of oil is getting out. Praise be to Allah!”

However, in a post on X, the Windward trade intelligence group said that “five Iranian-trading [liquified petroleum gas] LPG carriers have broken the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports,” Windward stated. “Four discharged in India, one in Pakistan. All five used the same playbook, spoofing and AIS blackouts to mask loading and destination. Yet all signaled their exit and/or entry through Hormuz via AIS. Three were already U.S.-sanctioned. A fourth sanctioned June 6. Two operated under false flags, making them legally stateless.”

However, the crude oil blockade is holding, Windward added. 

“No Iran-trading VLCC tracked in Asia via Malacca, Sunda, or Lombok since May 4,” the organization noted.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is scheduled to visit CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, today to discuss the ongoing situation with the head of that command, Adm. Brad Cooper, and engage with troops.

Despite efforts to quell the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force continues to strike targets in that country.

“Over the past day, the IDF struck Hezbollah infrastructure sites in the area of Tyre and in several areas in southern Lebanon,” the IDF stated on Telegram.

“In the area of Tyre, the IDF struck six infrastructure sites used by the Hezbollah terrorist organization to advance terror attacks against the State of Israel and IDF soldiers operating in southern Lebanon,” the IDF added. “Among the infrastructure struck was a site used by Hezbollah terrorists to launch explosive drones toward IDF soldiers.”

In southern Lebanon, “the IDF struck ready-to-use Launchers, terrorists who operated in the area in which IDF soldiers are operating, and additional terror infrastructure sites,” it claimed.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, attacked a gathering of Israeli troops with a missile, according to Tasnim.

The ongoing Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon and continuing presence in Syria has raised tensions with Turkey. Any direct conflict flaring up from the long-simmering animosity between two of the region’s most powerful militaries – though extremely unlikely – would be a far bigger deal than a dertailment of U.S.-Iran peace talks.

“We are fully aware of what the ultimate objective of the delusion of ‘Greater Israel’ is,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Wednesday, adding that Israel’s actions in Lebanon and Syria now threaten Turkey.

The Turkish leader’s statements sparked a harsh response from Netanyahu.

“The antisemitic tyrant Erdogan, who perpetrates genocide against the Kurds, supports the terrorist organization Hamas, oppresses his own people, and imprisons political rivals, is the last one who can preach morals to the State of Israel,” the Israeli leader retorted. “The State of Israel and the IDF, the most moral army in the world, will continue to act forcefully against Iran and its proxies that threaten the Middle East and the entire world.”

The latest events in the Mideast region show that there is no immediate end in sight to the hostilities and we will continue to monitor developments here given the ongoing impacts on the U.S. military and global economy.

UPDATE: 3:01 PM EDT –

Trump claimed the price of oil will fall because of how much has been secretly moved out of the region.

“We’re taking about millions of barrels of oil,” the president told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

On his Truth Social, Trump claimed that last month, he “directed our Great U.S. Military to execute a secret mission to support Oil Tankers and other Commercial Ships through the Strait of Hormuz.”

“Today, I am pleased to announce that this effort has resulted in more than 100 MILLION Barrels of Oil making its way through the Strait, and into the Open Market,” he added. “More than 200 Commercial Ships have safely traveled through the Strait. This wildly successful effort is because the UNITED STATES of AMERICA CONTROLS the Strait of Hormuz — NOT Iran. Their military is defeated, and their economy is lost. It’s over for Iran!”

However, TankerTrackers.com clarified that the president was referring not to Iranian oil, but Arab oil.

UPDATE: 3:39 PM EDT –

Hegseth thanked troops at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, for their efforts in the Middle East.

UPDATE: 4:12 PM EDT –

The Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) “has expressed deep concern and strong condemnation of the attack on the tanker MT Settebello,” according to the organization.

“I strongly condemn any act from any party that endangers the lives of seafarers and the safety of international shipping,” said Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez. “This is simply unacceptable. My thoughts are with the families of the three missing seafarers and with all those awaiting news of the crew members.”

Two Indian seafarers died and one was reported missing after the attack, according to The Hindu.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Overnight Attacks Rattle U.S.-Iran Ceasefire (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center posted a contracting notice yesterday justifying a planned sole-source contract to Denmar Technical Services, Inc. in relation to “Reduced Gravity Modification” of the 737-73W aircraft. Earlier this year, signs had already emerged that NASA might be in line to get a heavily modified and highly secretive 737 from the Air Force, designated the NT-43A and commonly referred to by the callsign RAT55. However, yesterday’s notice does not appear to refer to the NT-43A, long used as an airborne signature measurement platform and described in the past as the world’s most secretive 737, which is based on a much older 200-series airframe. We will come back to this later on.

What NASA wants now

“NASA requires Denmar Technical Services, Inc. to conduct a feasibility assessment to determine the Boeing 737-73W’s suitability to perform the NASA reduced gravity mission; modify the aircraft cabin, if required, to support reduced gravity operations; perform overdue maintenance and inspections, perform airworthiness restoration tasks, and paint the aircraft exterior with NASA identifiers,” the contracting notice NASA released yesterday explains.

The notice adds that the aircraft, if modified, would be used, at least most immediately, “for the Reduced Gravity Test Bed Project in support of the agency [sic] need for performing validation testing on Space Suits in support of the Artemis program.”

Artemis is NASA’s current effort to return U.S. astronauts to the lunar surface. The Artemis II mission, conducted in April, involved the first fly-by of the Moon by a crewed spacecraft since the end of the Apollo program in the early 1970s. However, the spacecraft did not touch down on the surface. The goal now is for a crewed lunar landing to come in 2028. RAT55 was notably used to support the launch of the Artemis II mission and the subsequent recovery of the capsule after its return to Earth.

Back in January, NASA had put out a separate contracting notice calling for information about new options to provide “parabolic flight services” to simulate “reduced gravity environments, including microgravity” for testing and scientific research purposes. The Florida-based Zero-G corporation is currently the primary provider of these services to NASA, using a retrofitted Boeing 727-200 dubbed ‘G-Force One.’ You can read more about NASA’s general use of Vomit Comets in the context of that notice here.

The Boeing 737-73W under consideration to be turned into a Vomit Comet “is owned by the United States Air Force (USAF). Denmar Technical Services, Inc. has specialized knowledge of this Boeing 737-73W aircraft as they are currently contracted by the USAF to modify the aircraft under a classified military program,” the contracting notice NASA released yesterday adds. “NASA does not have a ‘need to know’ regarding the details of the current modifications being made under the USAF contract and therefore is unable to provide modification details to another contractor or provide another contractor with access to the aircraft. The USAF will transfer ownership of the aircraft to NASA upon completion of the closeout tasks.”

“Denmar Technical Services, Inc. is uniquely positioned to close out work under their existing obligations while performing the feasibility assessment, maintenance, and any modifications required under this action,” the notice continues. “Additionally, due to the constrained timeline for the NASA Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program’s space suit testing for Artemis, NASA requires the assessment and overdue maintenance to be performed immediately upon contract award and any subsequent aircraft modifications to be complete no later than October 1, 2026. The timeline can only be supported if this requirement is fulfilled concurrently with the USAF closeout tasks.”

Denmar is a small aviation firm headquartered in Reno, Nevada. At the time of writing, its website lists a wide array of specialized design, modification, flight testing, and other work among its portfolios. This includes “advanced customized mission system development” that “encompasses the design of unique airborne operator interfaces, specialized emitters and sensors, system integration, and post-mission analytics and processing.” The company also describes itself as the “Nation’s leading experts on IR [infrared] and RF [radiofrequency] survivability, signature modeling, [and] agile software development for analysis and real-world operational assessments.”

In line with all this, Denmar is understood to have been the prime contractor behind the extensive modifications to RAT55. In April, the Air Force confirmed to TWZ that the NT-43A was “being transitioned to start the next phase of its career,” as reflected by its involvement in the Artemis II mission, “after decades of flights supporting the Air Force in various roles.” The aircraft, which is understood to have long called the secretive and remote Tonopah Test Range Airport (TTR) in Nevada home, has been seen much more publicly since then.

However, as NASA’s recent contracting notice makes clear, the 737 it is now looking at as a potential Vomit Comet is a much newer 700-series model. TWZ has reached out to the Air Force and NASA for more information.

The curious case of N712JM

As mentioned, it is very possible, if not highly probable, that the 737 NASA is now considering turning into a Vomit Comet is one that the Air Force acquired in 2020, which TWZ explored in-depth at the time. That aircraft, which is a -73W model, is still officially on the U.S. civil register, with the registration code N712JM. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records show that the preceding owner of this aircraft was Denmar, which acquired it in 2019. The plane’s history before that is murky, with Boeing delivering it in 2013 to East West Bank via a trusteeship with Wells Fargo Bank, per the FAA’s records.

N712JM had drawn particular attention in 2020 not just because of its transfer to the Air Force, but also because it emerged at that time wearing a green protective coating and otherwise looking like it had just rolled off the production line. It also had some unusual external features that raised questions about its role, as we explored at the time.

In 2020, Jon Ostrower, long-time aviation journalist and editor-in-chief of The Air Current, told TWZ the following:

“This is definitely an airplane that never made it to a formal finish you’d expect from a commercial airplane. The green finish is a protective coating applied to fuselages during manufacturing to protect from scratches and other damage. It is dissolved during painting. You can also still see the manufacturing (line) number as well. That’s from its original trip down the assembly line. There’s also quite a bit of instrumentation visible with sensor wiring leading into the cabin through the passenger windows. This type of arrangement points to a flight test setup of some kind.”

In 2020, N712JM conducted many test flights in U.S. military ranges off the coast of Southern California, flying various flight profiles, some of them quite unusual. The aircraft flew those sorties from Santa Maria Airport in California, and used the callsign STING 38.

What the Air Force has been using N712JM for to date is unknown. Per FAA, the aircraft has been and continues to be registered to an address at Bolling Air Force Base (technically now part of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling) in Washington, D.C., which looks to belong to the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO). The RCO has headed up multiple cutting-edge, high-priority programs over the years, including the development of the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the X-37B reusable spaceplane. A 737-based platform could be configured to support an array of different research and development and test evaluation activities that would fall under the purview of RCO, as well as other stakeholders that this office might engage with.

There has also been some speculation over the years that N712JM might have transformed into an Air Force 737 with the serial number 21-0024, but this appears to still be unconfirmed. The 21-0024 serial has more recently become associated with other shadowy 737s tied to the U.S. military, which have civilian-style paint schemes and may also be on the U.S. civil register. One of them was notably spotted in 2025 at a U.S. forward operating location in El Salvador, sitting directly alongside an Air Force AC-130J Ghostrider gunship and a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol plane. This, in turn, raised questions about its involvement in the ongoing U.S. campaign of strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, as TWZ previously explored in detail.

Sightings and flight tracking data have also pointed to N712JM being a resident at the Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) facility at Colorado Springs Airport, in the Colorado city of the same name, over the years. SNC is well known for highly specialized and unique aircraft modification work, especially for the U.S. military, but its exact connection to this 737 is unclear.

Interestingly, there have been several online flight tracking data ‘pings’ suggesting new activity related to N712JM at Colorado Springs Airport since at least February of this year. However, there do not appear to be any confirmed flights by the aircraft from there in that same timeframe. This airport notably sits adjacent to Peterson Space Force Base.

There is still a possibility that NASA could be looking at a different Air Force 737-73W for possible conversion into a Vomit Comet. As the contracting notice makes clear, the aircraft in question is currently in the classified realm. At the same time, this seems far less likely to be the case given everything that is known (and still unknown) about N712JM.

A separate question does exist now as to what effort the Air Force might be in the process of closing out that would allow it to transfer any classified 737 to NASA. TWZ has previously raised tangential questions about how the Air Force might fill the resulting gaps left by the highly-specialized RAT55 moving on to the next stage of its career. It is certainly interesting in its own right that NASA seems to be focused heavily at the moment on leveraging some of the most secretive 737s in existence today to support its much less sensitive needs.

More details may emerge if Denmar deems the “classified” Air Force 737 to be a suitable starting place to create a new Vomit Comet to support NASA’s reduced gravity training needs and the Artemis program.

Update: 3:45 PM EST –

In immediate response to our queries, NASA has directed us to an additional notice about the award of the sole-source contract, valued at $8.4 million, to Denmar Technical Services back on June 1.

“The contractor will modify a Boeing 737-700 aircraft to perform lunar-gravity parabolic flights to test NASA space equipment. Once modifications are complete, NASA Armstrong will own the aircraft and oversee aircraft operations out of NASA Johnson,” the notice says. “The aircraft will be used to validate astronaut lunar suits and associated crew systems required to support Artemis mission objectives. This can be done with the modified 737 aircraft in an operationally relevant, reduced-gravity environment prior to lunar mission execution.”

No mention is made here about the sourcing of the aircraft from the Air Force or its classified mission work, as outlined in the sole-source justification that was released yesterday.

Update: 6/11/2026 –

The U.S. Air Force has provided TWZ with a brief statement about the 737-73W aircraft in question.

“The Boeing 737-73W aircraft was originally procured to serve as a flying testbed,” a spokesperson for the service said. “The program ended and [the] USAF is transitioning the aircraft to NASA.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Is This Secretive Air Force 737 About To Become NASA’s Next ‘Vomit Comet’? (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

Cobra 600 is being presented at the ILA Berlin airshow, taking place this week in the German capital. The Cobra 600 is also known as the Airborne Launching and Attack System (AirLAS), and the program was launched last year.

The concept behind the Cobra 600 is that of a ‘missile taxi,’ in which the drone platform carries the IRIS-T missile over a considerable distance. All the while, the drone is meshed with a ground-based air defense system. Typically, this would be one of Diehl’s IRIS-T SLM or IRIS-T SLS systems. Of these, the IRIS-T SLS employs the same missile as the air-to-air variant — and therefore the same missile as the Cobra 600. The physical interface between the drone and the missile is a standard pylon as used on the Eurofighter jet.

As for the drone platform, this is provided by another German firm, the Polaris Raumflugzeuge aerospace start-up. It has a similar kind of efficient delta planform as the Shahed-136, with a modified flying-wing-like design. On the wingtips are mounted endplate vertical stabilizers. As displayed, the drone is powered by a pair of JetCat-P1000-PRO micro turbojet engines, each of which provides a maximum thrust just shy of 250 pounds. However, the drone has intake ports for another two engines. It’s not clear if these are only intended to be fitted if heavier payloads are being carried, but it’s certainly a possibility. Concept artwork released by Polaris, as seen at the top of this story, shows a four-engine configuration, with the turbojets buried in the airframe and fed by much longer intakes, helping to shield them from detection.

Polaris Raumflugzeuge has already built a variety of drones in the same configuration, and the company eventually aims to scale this up to produce a spaceplane.

Drawing on its design heritage, the Cobra 600 drone has retractable wheeled tricycle landing gear, meaning that it can be reused in some scenarios. The drone therefore takes off and lands from runways, although it is also able to operate from suitable shorter airstrips, such as stretches of highway. It’s also intended to be cheap enough that commanders will also be willing to risk losing it in combat, or after it runs out of fuel.

The concept of operations has the Cobra 600 serving as an adjunct to a ground-based air defense system, extending its range considerably.

With the missile fitted, the Cobra 600 has a range of around 250 miles. This compares to around 25 miles for the ground-launched missile used in the IRIS-T SLM, or approximately eight miles for the missile used in the IRIS-T SLS.

As such, the Cobra 600 has the potential to turn the ground-based IRIS-T into something a little closer to a long-range surface-to-air missile, in terms of the distance it can cover. Of course, this is only true in terms of absolute range, with the speed and maneuverability of the drone being far inferior to a long-range missile. Unless the target is nearby, or the Cobra 600 has been pre-positioned based on known target vectors, the reaction time it offers is strictly limited. The missile itself is also able to tackle a more limited range of potential targets than a dedicated long-range surface-to-air missile, some of which offer an anti-ballistic missile capability, for example.

On the other hand, the Cobra 600 offers the distinct advantage of being able to loiter in a given area, waiting for threats to emerge, or to perform combat air patrols to screen certain sectors. It is best viewed as a forward-positioned additional launcher for the ground-based IRIS-T, and is also entirely reliant upon that system (or a similar one) for its effectiveness. At the same time, leveraging existing ground-based air defense systems as a force multiplier is a clear advantage. Another possible operational scenario would involve setting the Cobra 600s up as interceptors on a runway, sitting ready for launch on a runway to defend against lower-end threats.

In its current form, the Cobra 600 has no onboard sensors to detect targets other than the imaging infrared seeker head that’s integral to the standard IRIS-T missile.

In an operational scenario, a target for the Cobra 600 would be detected and identified by the ground-based air defense system to which it is ‘tethered.’ Connected via datalink, the ground-based system would vector the drone to the appropriate location. Using its own seeker, the IRIS-T would lock onto the target and be commanded to launch by the operator of the ground-based system. Of course, this presupposes that the datalink is not compromised by hostile interference or due to line-of-sight limitations, although SATCOM capability, like Starlink, would help keep redundant control over the drone beyond line-of-sight.

At this point, the mode of engagement is not dissimilar to the ground-based IRIS-T SLS, which features a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability. This means it can fire missiles without first establishing the weapon’s lock on the target. After receiving target information in the form of three-dimensional coordinates, the missile uses inertial guidance during the initial stage of flight. Upon reaching the designated engagement altitude, its imaging infrared seeker activates and begins searching the predicted target area.

Another conceivable option would be to add some kind of sensor, such as an infrared camera, to the Cobra 600 drone platform, meaning that a ‘person in the loop’ could establish that the missile had locked onto the correct target.

A further option could be to ‘uncage’ the missile seeker and let it search across its field of view only when the Cobra 600 is in a designated ‘kill box,’ within which it would have authority to engage any target it acquires, reactively, and autonomously. Issues such as this clearly need to be addressed, based on combat requirements and ethical concerns.

As well as operating the Cobra 600 in conjunction with the IRIS-T SLM/SLS, it could also be integrated with other ground-based air defenses. According to Polaris, it could also be embedded with aircraft or in a maritime environment.

The Cobra 600 has already completed its first flight tests, with a dummy IRIS-T missile fitted. Currently, the development effort is mainly funded by the company, but there has also been investment from at least one interested nation.

With the IRIS-T SLM/SLS combat-proven in Ukraine, experiences from this conflict have almost certainly helped inform the development of the Cobra 600.

The war in Ukraine also provides an interesting parallel to the Cobra 600, in Russia’s missile-armed adaptations of its Shahed/Geran drones.

Russian developments have seen the fielding of these drones carrying either a single R-60 air-to-air missile, a much older and less capable equivalent to the IRIS-T, or man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

According to Ukrainian accounts, as well as the rail-mounted missile on the top, these drones are equipped with a camera and a radio-frequency modem.

However, the concept of operations for the missile-armed Russian drones is very different. While it gives the drones a means to engage Ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, it works more as a deterrent than as a genuinely useful tactical application. As we have noted in the past, the difficulty in obtaining a high degree of situational awareness and the limited agility of the drone raises questions about the effectiveness of these solutions. On the other hand, Russia has been working on a man-in-the-loop (MITL) control capability for the Shahed/Geran, which could potentially be used to operate the missile.

Considerably larger than the Shahed-136 design, the Cobra 600 will provide a higher performance delta overall. It is also jet-powered, and, with up to four engines, this would give more impressive response times and maneuverability than the Russian system.

It should be noted that there are other previous precedents for arming drones with air-to-air missiles. In at least one instance from 2002, a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone fired a Stinger heat-seeking anti-air missile at an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat fighter that was trying to shoot it down, which can be seen in the video below.

The fast pace of development of the Cobra 600 reflects a growing need for ground-based air defenses more generally, after decades of neglect. There is also a need for less-expensive, less-exquisite solutions in this area, something that the Cobra 600 also addresses, with a price point that is significantly lower than a long-range surface-to-air missile (although with the various disadvantages outlined above). At the same time, the Cobra 600 may well end up being used against even lower-cost drones, for which the IRIS-T is still a very expensive solution.

The Cobra 600 reflects a broader shift in air defense thinking driven by the lessons of recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East, where persistent drone threats, as well as cruise missiles, have exposed the limitations of traditional ground-based air defense architectures.

By combining the endurance and flexibility of a drone with the proven, off-the-shelf IRIS-T interceptor, the Cobra 600 offers a potentially cost-effective way to extend defensive coverage over greater distances and to put ‘shooters’ into contested areas that crewed systems would not be able to venture. While some questions remain about how the Cobra 600 would be integrated with existing operational doctrine, the concept highlights the growing demand for innovative, layered, and resilient air defenses as militaries seek to counter increasingly varied and numerous aerial threats.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Germany’s Cobra 600 Is A Jet Powered Interceptor Drone That Slings An IRIS-T Missile appeared first on The War Zone.