Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao briefly mentioned the planned test at a hearing before members of the House Armed Services Committee on May 14.

“This summer, Norfolk Naval Base [sic] is going to be powered from an aircraft carrier,” Cao said on May 14. “We’re going to export the energy from the aircraft carrier to the base.”

“The Department of the Navy is executing a multi-pronged strategy to ensure the delivery of firm, baseload power to our installations for energy resilience and mission assurance,” a Navy spokesperson subsequently told TWZ directly when we reached out for more information. “One line of effort in the strategy is to deliver power from a Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to a compatible shore installation, to demonstrate the capability to meet emergent, mission critical needs. An initial test of this capability is being planned for later this year at Naval Station Norfolk.”

This statement refers to the Ford class generically, but the USS Gerald R. Ford is currently the only ship of its kind to have been commissioned into service. It is also homeported in Norfolk and just recently returned from a marathon 326-day deployment. That is the longest an American carrier has been at sea since the Vietnam War, and included supporting the mission to capture Venezuela’s dictatorial former President Nicolas Maduro and combat operations against Iran.

Supercarriers like Ford are already very much floating cities, with typical crew complements ranging from roughly 4,000 to 5,000 individuals, including members of the embarked air wing. They have immense power-generation requirements.

As noted, each Ford class carrier has two A1B nuclear reactors, the exact power output of which is classified. However, they are said to offer a 25 percent increase in “reactor energy” compared to the A4Ws used on Nimitz class aircraft carriers, as well as be simpler to operate. Based on that, the A1B is generally assessed to be rated at some 700 MWt. Two of them would then have a combined rating of 1,400 MWt. This is a fraction of what is offered by typical commercial power-generating reactors in the United States today. At the same time, those reactors are also designed to provide electricity across entire regions rather than just to a single military base.

Being able to use the Ford and other future carriers as floating power plants for major bases like Norfolk could offer a useful backup option for providing electricity if established power sources suddenly become unavailable for any reason. American officials have been increasingly sounding the alarm that many areas previously considered inaccessible sanctuaries, including in the U.S. homeland, could now be at risk during future conflicts. The scale and scope of long-range threats, as well as options for carrying out near-field attacks, only continue to grow. The proliferation of longer-range one-way attack drones, something where the barrier to entry is also low, has had a particularly pronounced impact on this threat ecosystem.

Demonstrating the ability of a Ford class aircraft carrier to provide power ashore might open up other operational possibilities. The U.S. military, as a whole, is increasingly focused on new distributed concepts of operations involving widely dispersed forces, many of which could be forward-deployed at operating locations with limited established infrastructure.

Turning an aircraft carrier into a floating powerplant could be valuable in a wide array of non-combat scenarios abroad and at home, including during disaster relief missions. Getting the power back on is often a critical component of those operations, which in turn can help restore access to medical care and other essential services.

Many critical U.S. military facilities are themselves in areas prone to natural disasters, the impacts of which can be severe and have significant second-order ramifications. Bases provide epicenters for recovery, too, routinely providing essential services after disasters. They could do so after attacks or in other contingencies. Making sure they have uninterrupted power in any of those scenarios would be critical. There are also long-standing concerns about the resiliency of America’s aging power grids, which could also be an indirect threat vector, including from cyberattacks.

During his testimony, Acting Secretary Cao highlighted how a carrier serving as a powerplant could also provide other support in a non-combat scenario.

“The energy that’s produced from these, we can … use it for a four-stage distiller making water, fresh potable water,” he said. “On a carrier, we’re pumping millions of gallons over the side every day of fresh potable water that tests at pH 7 [neutral pH], right, that we can now export in places like California, where you have a drought.”

As noted, none of this is entirely new. The U.S. military has a long history of using ships, including conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, to provide power ashore. One of America’s very first carriers, the USS Lexington (CV-2), helped provide electricity to Tacoma, Washington, between December 1929 and January 1930. At the time, the city’s grid relied on hydroelectric power sources, the output from which had dropped severely due to a mix of environmental factors. In 1931, Lexington also brought medical personnel and humanitarian aid to Nicaragua following an earthquake, an early example of the general value of carriers in the disaster relief role.

During World War II, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom collectively utilized at least seven Buckley class destroyer escorts as floating power plants. The Buckley class was well suited for this use given its propulsion system, which consisted of steam turbines powering electric motors. At least one of these ships, the USS Donnell, was converted to this role after suffering severe damage during combat operations in the North Atlantic. It was deemed to be too expensive to repair the ship to return to service in its original role.

An especially relevant past example is that of the MH-1A. This was a floating nuclear power plant converted from a World War II Liberty ship, originally named the SS Charles H. Cugle and later renamed Sturgis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operated MH-1A, which had a power rating of 10 MW, and used it to provide electricity in the Panama Canal Zone between 1968 and 1975. The ship and its reactor were subsequently returned to the contiguous United States. MH-1A was defueled in 1977. It remained in storage for decades before the decision was finally made to decommission it, a lengthy process that was only completed in 2018. Sturgis was subsequently scrapped.

At the time of writing, it is unclear if the Navy has any ships or barges in inventory that are explicitly capable of providing power ashore. Electricity is routinely provided to naval vessels in port from grids ashore, and the ability to send power the other way, at least in an ad hoc manner, has come up in the past. For instance, in 1982, the Navy considered sending the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Indianapolis to Hawaii to serve as a floating nuclear power station in the wake of Hurricane Iwa. Indianapolis was not ultimately deployed for this purpose in that case.

As an aside, the Navy has also long used decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines as floating schoolhouses for sailors learning how to operate and maintain nuclear reactors.

There are examples of ship-to-shore power generation elsewhere globally. Currently, Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov is the only purpose-built floating nuclear power plant in operation today, and you can read more about it here. However, South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries is actively working on a new floating nuclear power station design, and similar developments could be on the horizon elsewhere. There are also non-nuclear floating power plant designs in service, notably with commercial firm Karpowership in Turkey, and in development today.

There are still questions about the viability of employing Navy carriers like Ford in this way today. For one, ships sitting in port are inherently more vulnerable than ones at sea. Carriers are high-value assets that would be top targets in any major conflict, to begin with. Using a carrier as a replacement for traditional power sources, especially for a base that may have already have been or still be under attack, could come along with substantial additional force protection requirements. At the same time, carriers are inherently well-protected and relatively hardened platforms, especially against lower-end, smaller-scale threats.

There is also an operational capacity question. The Navy is currently struggling to meet operational demands with the 11 carriers it has available now. Between continued delays in the construction of new Ford class carriers and the schedule for retiring aging Nimitz class ships, there is a possibility that the force could shrink further in the near term. The Navy just extended the service life of the USS Nimitz to bring its impending inactivation in line with the expected delivery date of the second member of the Ford class, the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Pulling any of the Navy’s heavily in-demand aircraft carriers, which provide unique power projection capabilities, out of rotation to sit in port generating power could be a tough sell. That being said, carriers that are in between deployments could be used in this way, in some cases with relatively minimal disruption to other aspects of the force generation cycle. The seriousness of the contingency in question would also factor into the Navy’s assessment of its general force requirements and priorities.

It is worth noting here that the U.S. military has already been making investments in other forms of energy resiliency at established bases, as well as the ability to provide significant amounts of power at forward locations, in recent years. Acting Secretary Cao’s comments last week about the upcoming test at Naval Station Norfolk were prompted by a question about ongoing work on new small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, to help power U.S. military bases. The U.S. Army is currently the lead service for those efforts, as you can read more about here. The U.S. Air Force has also been heavily involved.

“We’ve got to have an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program,” Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Caudle, the service’s top officer, who also testified at the hearing alongside Cao, said. “So I think we’re dithering a bit there, and not really landing on the pilot, and laying out the program of record.”

“While the Army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it [SMR], I see no world in which the Navy is not going to be part of that discussion and bring our expertise through our long-established Naval Reactors [office], deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding [of] safe operation.”

As an aside, the Navy just recently announced its intention to expand its nuclear-powered fleets by using this method of propulsion on the future Trump class battleships. This, in turn, has raised new questions about the outlook for those ships, which you can read more about here.

When it comes to using Ford class aircraft carriers as floating nuclear power plants, the test this summer will help in determining whether this could be another mission to add to the repertoire of these ships.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford To Act As Floating Nuclear Power Plant For Facilities On Land appeared first on The War Zone.

One of the two Chipmunks flown last week by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is WG486 — formerly attached to the RAF Gatow Station Flight for intelligence-gathering flights over Berlin:

At the end of World War II, defeated Germany was left divided between the Allied powers of France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The division of the country also extended to the former capital, Berlin, which was left deep within the Soviet occupation zone. Under the quadripartite agreement, the Western Allies retained the right of access to Berlin, using land and air corridors running into the Western-occupied zones of Germany.

The quadripartite agreement also included provisions for the Allied powers to maintain ‘liaison missions.’ Formally, these were supposed to ensure communications between the Western Allies and the Soviets. In practice, they soon became a critical way of gathering intelligence, especially since the Western missions were permitted to move, relatively unimpeded, in the Soviet zone, which would later become East Germany. The same applied to the Soviets in the West. For the British, the liaison mission was known as the British Mission to Soviet Forces in Germany (BRIXMIS), and it was based in Potsdam, just outside Berlin.

The agreement also ensured access to West Berlin for the Western Allies, flying through three air corridors in and out of the city. Each of the Western Allies had an airport in the city, with the British using RAF Tegel. These corridors were full of transport activity during the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, when the Soviets attempted to cut off the Western sectors of the city by blockade. Outside the corridors, Western Allied military aircraft could also fly over the Soviet Zone of Berlin, although this was something Moscow was never happy about.

By the mid-1950s, relations between East and West were becoming more tense, and this airspace access began to be exploited for intelligence-gathering.

After the Berlin Airlift, the Western Allies were prohibited from flying combat aircraft in the corridors. Transport and training types, like the Chipmunk, were excluded from this rule, and in late 1956, the British launched the top-secret Operation Schooner (later renamed Operation Nylon), under which the trainers would conduct spy flights within the roughly 1,200-square-mile Berlin Control Zone.

Flying out of Gatow, the Chipmunk flights were officially for continuation training, which provided the required cover story. Actual training flights were also regularly conducted, also to preserve the cover.

From the mid-1950s onward, East Germany rapidly became the focal point for Soviet military expansion in Europe, and the British and other Western Allies had a growing need for precise intelligence on Soviet basing, equipment, tactics — anything, in fact, that provided a better understanding of the adversary and potential warning of an attack.

The U.K. Prime Minister’s office individually approved the Chipmunk flights from RAF Gatow. Two or three sorties were typically scheduled for each week. These were flown under visual flight rules (VFR) — so only in good weather — and not above 1,500 feet. The quadripartite Berlin Air Safety Center, which ensured the security of flights in the Control Zone, was notified in advance, and each flight was planned to last around three hours.

The primary ‘targets’ were the numerous Soviet military installations located within the Berlin Control Zone. The Soviet controller within the Berlin Air Safety Center, not coincidentally, often stamped the flight request card with the words “Safety of Flight Not Guaranteed.”

Mission equipment, at first, was a handheld camera, operated by a BRIXMIS member in the front cockpit of the Chipmunk, with the RAF pilot sitting behind. Each sortie required careful preparation, with the crew wearing oxygen masks at all times to prevent their identification. They would climb aboard the aircraft inside a hangar, with the cameras already loaded, and the engine would be started behind closed doors. After all, Soviet ‘watchers’ were posted around Gatow, and observation towers overlooked the base.

Though the Soviets were well aware of the real nature of these flights (once, according to one BRIXMIS account, a camera lens was accidentally dropped from an open cockpit onto a busy parade ground), the quadripartite agreement provided diplomatic immunity to the Royal Air Force pilots. Nevertheless, Moscow was upset about any Western flights outside of West Berlin, and harassment of aircraft was hardly rare. At least once, a Chipmunk was damaged by groundfire from a Soviet infantryman.

The importance of Schooner/Nylon increased as the Soviets made efforts to conceal their military activity in East Germany. To try to avoid the eyes of the liaison missions, they set up more Permanent Restricted Areas (PRA) — another provision of the quadripartite agreement. Within the Berlin Control Zone, the Chipmunks had access to several major Soviet divisional HQs, including some of its best-equipped and highest-readiness forces.

The construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 underscored the East-West standoff and led to the Soviets further bolstering their military presence in and around the city, including new air defense missiles and surface-to-surface sites. According to some accounts, Chipmunks were among the first assets to bring back evidence of the extent of the border closures enacted by the Soviets in August 1961.

By the end of the 1960s, one of the Gatow Chipmunks had received a permanent camera installation, and both got new radios. According to one pilot, the new camera was powerful enough to “record the maker’s name from the inside of a tank if the turret was open.”

On one occasion, a BRIXMIS member recalled being intercepted and closely followed by a Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter, which escorted the Chipmunk from the Soviet helicopter base at Oranienburg to the north of Berlin.

Right at the very edge of the Berlin Control Zone was an especially interesting ‘target,’ the Soviet airbase at Werneuchen. This was latterly home to MiG-25 Foxbat reconnaissance jets, and it also hosted periodic deployments of Soviet long-range bombers. It was also deep within a PRA, making ground access very difficult. The Chipmunks would fly close enough to photograph every aircraft on the flight line, aware that if they strayed beyond the main runway centerline, they would be outside the Berlin Control Zone and would be shot down.

Also connected to Werneuchen and even more remarkable in terms of mission equipment is the fact that at least one Chipmunk was fitted with electronic intelligence (ELINT) gear. This modification was approved by the U.K. Prime Minister in 1981 but was only revealed by aviation journalist Ben Dunnell in 2024. It is known that the ELINT equipment was used to gather information about a new Soviet battlefield radar, equipping the 9K35 Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher) short-range air defense system. However, it was also used in at least one flight over Werneuchen. No other details of the results of these missions have ever been released.

The Chipmunks remained busy until the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 heralded the end of the Cold War. Immediately before German reunification, in 1990, BRIXMIS was stood down and, with it, the need for intelligence-gathering flights came to an end. At its biggest strength, the RAF Gatow Station Flight never had more than four Chipmunks assigned.

The Gatow Station Flight remained active until 1994, when the last Chipmunk departed. Gatow finally closed as an RAF station the same year.

Last week, as the Royal Air Force marked the 80th anniversary of the classic Chipmunk trainer, it is worth remembering the unique role that the aircraft played during one of the tensest periods of recent history, during which the intelligence it collected helped keep the peace between East and West.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post The Tiny Chipmunk Trainer Was The Cold War’s Most Unlikely Spyplane appeared first on The War Zone.

We owe you everything.

This week’s caption reads:

4th July 1944: An American soldier takes a drink of captured German Cognac, while clearing out a German gun emplacement at Cherbourg. (Photo by Fred Ramage/Keystone/Getty Images)

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: Memorial Day Weekend Edition appeared first on The War Zone.

Though U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted the Strait remain open and free of any tolls, Iran is in discussions with Oman, a U.S. ally, to impose financial burdens on vessels passing through the critical chokepoint, The New York Times reported. Together, the countries border both sides of the Gulf of Oman, through which any ship must pass to get into or out of the Strait.

Two people familiar with the discussions over management of the waterway said that “Iran was not planning a toll system, which would charge simply for transit,” according to the Times. Instead, the talks with Oman have “explored a proposal to charge vessels fees for services.”

“Oman had initially rejected a joint partnership with Iran on the strait but is now in discussion over a share of the revenues,” the newspaper stated, citing two Iranian officials familiar with the talks. “The officials said Oman told the Iranians that it was willing to use its influence with neighbors in the Gulf, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and with the United States to push the plan, having realized the potential economic benefits of a fee system.”

Iran and Oman “appear to be emphasizing that the proposed system would involve fees, not tolls, a legally significant distinction,” the Times posited. “A tolling system that simply charges ships to pass through the waterway would be illegal under international law, but charging fees for actual services rendered to vessels, such as waste disposal at a port, is allowed under certain circumstances.”

On Wednesday, Iran’s newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority declared on X that it has “defined the boundaries of the Strait of Hormuz management supervision area” as the “line connecting Kuh Mobarak in Iran and the south of Fujairah in the UAE in the east of the strait to the line connecting the end of Qeshm Island in Iran and Umm al-Qaiwain in the UAE in the west of the strait.”

Iran’s claimed area of control includes the coastal waters of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman in addition to its own.

In the face of Iran’s insistence on controlling the Strait, Rubio on Friday reiterated that the Trump administration rejects any form of Iranian tolling on the Strait.

“That’s just not acceptable. It can’t happen,” Rubio said of any Iranian effort to impose payment for the safe passage of vessels. “If that were to happen in the Straits of Hormuz, it will happen in five other places around the world.” 

Rubio added that NATO allies are beginning to think through a worst-case scenario if Iran refuses to open the Strait of Hormuz.

“We all would love to see an agreement with Iran in which the Straits are open and they abandon their nuclear ambitions and so forth,” he told reporters. “We also have to have a plan B…We have to start thinking about what do we do if, a few weeks from now, Iran decides ‘We don’t care, we’re going to keep the Straits closed. We’re going to sink any ship that doesn’t listen to us or doesn’t pay us.’ Then someone’s going to have to do something about it.”

Since implementing the blockade on Iranian ports on April 13, “U.S. forces have redirected 97 commercial vessels and disabled 4 since the start of the blockade,” CENTCOM claimed on X.

Regardless of the blockade, Japan is anticipating the arrival of the first tanker full of oil that transited the Strait of Hormuz since the war began.

The Idemitsu Maru, a very large crude carrier that passed through the waterway in late April, could dock as soon as Monday, according to the trade ministry. Hauling two million barrels of Saudi crude, the vessel is on track to arrive at Idemitsu Kosan Co.’s Aichi refinery, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in a briefing document on Friday, according to Bloomberg News.

The announcement highlights the difficult choices many nations now have as a result of the war. Japan is a key U.S. ally and risks running afoul of Trump, who maintains opposition to Iranian control of the vital waterway, including tolls on shipping levied by Iran, something Trump vehemently opposes. But Japan is also one of the world’s importers of Middle Eastern oil and the inability to get what it needs as a result of the Iranian Strait closure is having dramatic economic effects.

Most of the ships passing through the Strait under the new Iranian system “were linked to Southeast Asian nations that maintain friendly relations with Iran,” the official state broadcaster IRIB claimed on Friday in a post on X.

There has been a large increase in the number of Iranian-trading tankers at anchor off the country’s main oil export port of Kharg Island in the past week, according to the Windward maritime intelligence firm’s multi-source intelligence (MSI) analysis.

“MSI images show 27 tankers off Kharg Island as of May 21, including 18 assessed as very large crude carriers (VLCC),” Windward reported. “This has expanded from 14 tankers a week ago on May 14, a 93% increase. All were ‘dark’ and not broadcasting their position via AIS.”

Windward “assesses the majority of VLCCs at anchor off Kharg Island are being used for floating storage. About two-thirds of Iranian-trading tankers are now constrained in the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Gulf by the U.S. blockade. The remaining third are either waiting at ports off China or at anchor off the Riau archipelago, in Malaysia’s EEZ.”

UPDATE: 5:25 PM EDT –

Trump convened a meeting with his senior national security team on the war with Iran on Friday morning, Axios reported Friday evening, citing two U.S. officials.

The president “is seriously considering launching new strikes against Iran barring a last-minute breakthrough in negotiations, sources who have spoken directly with the president say,” the news outlet stated.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and other officials attended the meeting along with Trump, the sources told Axios.

Hours later, Trump issued his cryptic message on Truth Social about not attending his son’s wedding due to “circumstances pertaining to Government.”

Iran insists it is ready with new tactics, weapons and a threat to extend the conflict beyond the region should a new round of fighting break out.

UPDATES

There are growing indications that the U.S. and Iran could be moving closer to a deal to end the war. However, both sides are poised to resume fighting as major sticking points remain over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its control over the Strait of Hormuz and the future of its ballistic missile arsenal as well as U.S. sanctions.

In a sign that progress has been made in talks to reach a deal, Pakistani and Qatari negotiators are now in Tehran.

“Field Marshal Asim Munir, is traveling to Tehran on Friday in an effort to reach a deal under which the U.S. and Iran would agree to end the war and launch negotiations for a broader agreement,” Axios reported on Friday, citing a Pakistani security source.

The Qatari negotiating team arrived in ​Tehran on Friday ‌”in coordination with United States to help secure ​a deal to ​end the war with ⁠Iran and resolve ​outstanding issues,” Reuters reported on X, citing a source ​with knowledge of the matter. “Doha, ​which has worked ​as a mediator in the ‌Gaza ⁠war and other areas international tensions, had till now distanced ​itself ​from ⁠playing a mediation role in the ​Iran war after ​it ⁠came under attack from Iranian missiles and ⁠drones ​during the ​latest conflict.”

Confirmation of Munir’s trip to Tehran, from several media outlets, came after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there was “slight progress” in negotiations with Iran.

“I don’t want to exaggerate it, but there’s been a little bit of movement, and that’s good,” Rubio said at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Sweden, on Friday.

In a post on X, the Saudi-based Al Arabiya news outlet claimed it has obtained a “final draft of a possible agreement between the United States and Iran, mediated by Pakistan” that is “expected to be announced within hours.”

The purported details of the nine-point plan are as follows, according to the publication:

• Immediate, comprehensive, unconditional ceasefire on all fronts, including land, sea, air.
• Mutual commitment not to target military, civilian or economic infrastructure.
• End to military operations and halt media war.
• Commitments to respect sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs.
• Guarantees freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.
• Joint mechanism to monitor implementation and resolve disputes 
• Negotiations on outstanding issues would begin within seven days.
• Gradual lifting of US sanctions in exchange for Iran’s commitment to the terms of the agreement.
• Draft agreement reaffirms compliance with international law and UN Charter. 

However, the reported draft agreement does not explicitly mention Trump’s key demands, including the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and export of its stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium, limiting its ballistic missiles and ending its support for Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis and several groups in Iraq.

Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran must dismantle its nuclear weapons program, turn over the enriched uranium and reopen the Strait.

Given the American leader’s stance on the issues, it seems unlikely that he would agree to such a deal as stated by Al Arabiya. TWZ cannot verify the validity of these details. Asked if they are accurate, the White House gave us the following response:

“Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and while President Trump always prefers a diplomatic solution, he has been clear about the consequences if Iran refuses to make a deal,” a White House official told us. “As the president stated, he will only make a good deal for the American people. He is not going to be rushed into making a bad deal. Due to the successes of Operation Epic Fury, Economic Fury, and the blockade, President Trump holds the cards and has all the time he needs to make the best deal for the United States and the world.”

The White House, however, pushed back on a Reuters report that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei told his country’s decision-makers not to agree to any deal to remove enriched uranium out of the country. A White House official told Fox News that the claim is untrue and that as of yet, no decision has been made on the matter by either side.

With the status of the peace process uncertain, Trump claimed he decided not to attend the wedding this weekend of his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to socialite Bettina Anderson due to “circumstances pertaining to Government, and my love for the United States of America.”

“I feel it is important for me to remain in Washington, D.C., at the White House during this important period of time,” Trump stated on Truth Social.

Amid talk of diplomacy, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) indicated that the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, loitering in the Arabian Sea, “is maintaining peak readiness while enforcing the U.S. blockade against Iranian ports.”

The post messaged that should negotiations break down, the U.S. is ready to resume attacking Iran should Trump so order.

For its part, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has threatened to push the war “beyond the region” if the U.S. or Israel resume attacks, promising “crushing blows … in places you cannot even imagine.”

Despite a bombing campaign that top U.S. officials say has severely crippled Iran’s ability to produce drones and missiles, Tehran has reportedly used the six-week old ceasefire to rearm far faster than anticipated.

“While the time to restart production of different weapons components varies, some US intelligence estimates indicate Iran could fully reconstitute its drone attack capability in as soon as six months,” CNN reported on Thursday, citing a source familiar with those assessments. “The Iranians have exceeded all timelines the IC had for reconstitution,” the US official said.

The network claimed that Iran is “rebuilding…military capabilities, including replacing missile sites, launchers and production capacity for key weapons systems destroyed during the current conflict.”

Iran “also still maintains ballistic-missile, drone-attack and anti-air capability despite the serious damage inflicted by US-Israeli strikes,” the network claimed, citing recent US intelligence assessments. That means “the quick rebuilding of military production capacity isn’t starting from scratch.”

These efforts are being aided by China and Russia, CNN added.

The U.S. military “has depleted much of its inventory of advanced missile-defense interceptors after expending far more high-end munitions defending Israel amid hostilities with Iran than Israeli forces used themselves,” The Washington Post reported, citing Defense Department assessments.

“The imbalance, according to three U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security matters, underscores the extent to which Washington has shouldered the burden of countering Iranian ballistic missile strikes duringOperation Epic Fury, and raises questions about U.S. military readiness and security commitments around the world,” the publication added. “The United States launched more than 200 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors in defense of Israel — roughly half of the Pentagon’s total inventory — along with more than 100 Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6 interceptors fired from naval vessels in the eastern Mediterranean, said the U.S. officials, who, like others in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security matters.”

By contrast, the newspaper noted, “Israel fired fewer than 100 of its Arrow interceptors and around 90 David’s Sling interceptors, some of which were used against less sophisticated projectiles fired by Iran-backed groups in Yemen and Lebanon.”

Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao on Thursday testified before the Senate that the U.S. is pausing arms sales to Taiwan because of the war with Iran. 

“Right now we’re doing a pause in order to make sure we have the munitions we need for Epic Fury,” Cao told Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. Olga Stefanishyna, however, told Politico Washington Bureau Chief Dasha Burns that the war with Iran has not yet affected U.S. weapons shipments to Kyiv. Still, she said American military officials told Ukraine “there’s nothing that could be guaranteed for the future.”

The war is facing increasing opposition in Washington. House Republicans on Thursday “abruptly canceled a vote on a resolution directing Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win approval from Congress to continue the war, after it became clear they lacked the votes to defeat the measure,” The New York Times reported. “The retreat was a striking setback that exposed fractures within the G.O.P. over the conflict at a moment when the party has begun pushing back forcefully on Mr. Trump and his agenda.”

In another sticking point to a peace deal, Israel continues to hit Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) on Friday released video it claims struck a structure in which five Hezbollah fighters “were located north of the forward defense line in southern Lebanon and eliminated.”

Contact the author: howard@TWZ.com

The post Iran Now Trying To Cement Long-Term Control Over Strait Via Fees appeared first on The War Zone.

The video in question, seen below, was included in a new tranche of declassified records that the Pentagon posted online today as part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE) initiative. UAP here stands for unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), which are also still commonly referred to as unidentified flying objects (UFO). This is the second batch of videos, pictures, and documents to be released through PURSUE, with the first having come back on May 8. Overall, what has been disclosed so far has been underwhelming, to say the least.

What has already been well established is that a pair of F-16CM Vipers from the Minnesota Air National Guard scrambled in response to the detection of an unidentified object on February 12, 2023. Authorities deemed the object, which was soaring at approximately 20,000 feet, to be concerning and a potential hazard to civil aviation. One of the F-16s shot it down over Lake Huron, which lies right along the U.S. Canadian border, with an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile. Canadian authorities subsequently recovered debris, which we will come back to later on.

U.S. Air Force fighters had also downed two other still unidentified objects, one in the skies off the coast of Alaska and another over Canada’s Yukon Territory, on February 10 and 11 of that year, respectively. This all followed the shootdown of a Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina on February 4, which came after it had already spent days passing over parts of the United States and Canada.

The official description of what is seen in the newly video, which is titled “USAF ANG F-16C (callsign [CALLSIGN]) Shoots Down UAP over Lake Huron with [Weapon System], 12 Feb 2023,” reads:

“At the 11 second mark, the sensor focuses on an area of contrast in the center of its field-of-view. At the 20 second mark, the footage appears to depict a kinetic interaction between two distinct areas of contrast, with the initial subject of the footage fragmenting in a radial displacement pattern that suggests a high-energy event.”

“This video description is provided for informational purposes only. Readers should not interpret any part of this description as reflecting an analytical judgment, investigative conclusion, or factual determination regarding the described event’s validity, nature, or significance.”

The footage was shot through an infrared camera. The F-16s involved in the shootdown were seen at the time carrying Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATP), which have both electro-optical and infrared video cameras, among other features. From what can be seen, the object is distinctly balloon-like with a roughly spherical shape. It has a single wire or some other kind of line dangling below, but there is nothing readily visible attached to it.

How the object is seen ‘bursting’ apart at the 20-second mark in the video is also very consistent with a balloon.

At the time of the shootdown over Lake Huron in 2023, which was widely publicized, the object was described as “octagonal” and as having multiple “strings” hanging below, but no visible payload.

The description above is in line with unclassified audio recordings of the in-cockpit communications from the two F-16 fighter jets that TWZ published the day after the shootdown.

“I wouldn’t really call it a balloon … I don’t know what … I can see it outside with my eyes,” one of the pilots can be heard saying in that audio. “Looks like something … there’s some kind of object that’s distended… it’s hard to tell, it’s pretty small.”

“I’m gonna call it a balloon,” one of the pilots adds later on.

“In the targeting pod, I can’t tell if it’s metallic or what, but I can see like lines coming down below it, but I can’t see anything below it,” one of the pilots also says at one point.

“The size of it, that would be challenging, it’s so slow and so small, I just can’t see it,” one of the pilots notes, as well.

You can listen to the full 2023 Lake Huron shootdown audio below.

In 2024, Canada’s CTV News also published records that were obtained via a request under Canada’s Access to Information Act, one of which said that a “module” was among the debris recovered after the shootdown and that it was “from a company who sells weather monitoring equipment.” The document in question was an email from Mark Flynn, at the time the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) deputy commissioner for Federal Policing, to Canadian Armed Forces Brig. Gen. Eric Laforest, then-strategic joint staff director of general operations.

“It will be analyzed to determine if there is anything unusual with it but I suspect not given the size,” Flynn’s email added. “Whether or not it is from the shoot down is uncertain.”

“Debris has been recovered from the shores of Lake Huron but after careful analysis, it was determined not to be of national security concern,” the RCMP also told CTV News directly.

The records the Canadian outlet obtained also included a redacted Royal Canadian Air Force report that further suggested the object might have been a weather balloon launched from a U.S. National Weather Service radar station in Michigan. That same report also highlighted the possibility that the object shot down over the Yukon Territory had been a so-called “pico” balloon, which amateur radio enthusiasts regularly launch across North America, a theory that was widely reported at the time.

The newly released video all but closes the case on what was shot down over Lake Huron being an innocuous balloon. This, in turn, adds to the existing and serious transparency questions surrounding all three of the still largely unexplained shootdowns in February 2023.

The only image to be released before now was a single still picture of the object downed over the Yukon Territory, which is seen below. You can find our previous analysis of what that picture shows here.

In an interview with TWZ‘s Howard Altman earlier this year, Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Maj. Gen. Chris McKenna also described the object shot down off the coast of Whitehorse in Alaska as a “white balloon” belonging to “either research or a state actor.” McKenna is the commander of 1 Canadian Air Division, operational commander for the Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Region (CANR), and the Canadian Joint Forces Air Component Commander.

TWZ and others have noted for years now that it has been, at best, curious that the U.S. military had not released imagery and/or video of any of these unprecedented shootdowns that followed the Chinese spy balloon affair. This disconnect is even pronounced given how quickly higher resolution video footage and pictures of geopolitically charged events, often captured through exactly the same kinds of sensors, are routinely released.

“Data release and footage is prioritized based on the geopolitical environment at the time,” Sean Kirkpatrick, then head of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) said in response to a question from TWZ about why video or pictures from the February shootdowns had not been released at a press briefing in October 2023. “So engagements with Chinese fighters, Russian fighters have a much larger priority in getting it through the review process or declassification than UAPs or other similar engagements.”

“We are however, working through those processes, which all exist and we’ve got several of them actually already declassified and ready to update on our website [which] we’ll be doing on the next update to the website,” Kirkpatrick, who left AARO in December 2023, added at that time. “And we’re putting them out as quickly as we can get them through their proper steps.”

The Pentagon established AARO in 2022 to serve as a central manager within the U.S. military for policies and procedures for tracking, reporting, and analyzing UAP incidents, as well as to act as a repository for intelligence assessments and other relevant data. Since then, the office has been a focal point for that criticism, especially from members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle, who have complained about stonewalling on UAP-related matters.

With all of this in mind, it’s interesting to note that the Pentagon’s PURSUE website says the newly released video of the Lake Huron shootdown did come via AARO, but in what appears to have been something of a circuitous route.

“On March 6, 2026, eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives requested access to 51 potentially UAP-related records allegedly held by the Department of War and the Intelligence Community,” according to the entry in the PURSUE archive. “The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) identified a collection of responsive materials held on a classified network. Many of these materials lack a substantiated chain-of-custody.”

“AARO assesses that this video, whose uploader-defined title is, ‘USAF ANG F-16C (callsign [CALLSIGN]) Shoots Down UAP over Lake Huron with [Weapon System], 12 Feb 2023,’ is likely derived from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform operating within the United States Northern Command area of responsibility in 2023. A user uploaded this video to a classified network in February 2023.”

This is a very odd description, suggesting that AARO was somehow not aware of the origin of the footage and/or could not confirm it. The PURSUE archive simply lists “Department of War” as the source of the video. TWZ reached out to the Pentagon and NORTHCOM for more information. The Pentagon confirmed to us that the video is indeed of the well-publicized shootdown.

As TWZ has noted in the past, there is evidence that U.S. and Canadian authorities withheld the release of certain materials related to the trio of shootdowns in February 2023, ostensibly to avoid confusion and speculation. We have also pointed out that this looks to have had exactly the opposite effect, and the optics of choosing this course of action remain puzzling.

The Chinese spy balloon incident earlier in February 2023 had already become a cause célèbre, highlighting worrisome gaps in air defense sensor coverage over and around North America. At the time, U.S. authorities very publicly scrambled to assure the public it was addressing those concerns. Major changes were subsequently made to various policies, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures.

There does continue to be questions in this regard, especially when it comes to responding to the ever-growing threats posed by drones. The Pentagon and other elements of the U.S. government have been working to address those issues in recent years, as well. TWZ has long pointed out that many UAP sightings are very likely to be drones, as well as balloons, operated by malign actors, including China and Russia, for intelligence collection or other purposes.

It remains to be seen whether the release today of the Lake Huron shootdown video leads to more disclosures around that incident, as well as what happened in the skies off the coast of Alaska and the Yukon Territory.

Update: 6:58 PM EST –

It has been brought to our attention that former AARO head Sean Kirkpatrick described the objects shot down between February 10 and 12, 2023, as all being balloons during a talk in April. Kirkpatrick, now an adjunct assistant professor of physics at the University of Georgia, was addressing a gathering of an independent organization called the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) at the time. He is a controversial figure to many in the UFO community for his stark refusal that the government has no proof of truly non human intelligence visiting earth.

“We scrambled jets and shot down a bunch of things. Do you know what we shot down? Balloons,” Kirkpatrick said. “You can imagine the response on the Hill when I briefed that.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post We Finally See The Mysterious Object Shot Down By F-16s Over Lake Huron appeared first on The War Zone.

The U.S. Air Force has released images showing an A-10C using its Probe Refueling Adapter to take on fuel from an HC-130J Combat King II earlier this month, somewhere in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. The Warthogs in question belong to the 107th Fighter Squadron from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan, which deployed to the Middle East in early April.

As we discussed in the past, the Probe Refueling Adapter could be of significant importance to the A-10 and the wider Air Force, during a future fight in the Pacific. Clearly, however, it is equally applicable to ongoing operations in the CENTCOM theater.

Indeed, the Air Force previously confirmed that the Probe Refueling Adapter effort was in response to an urgent combatant command requirement.

Adding the Probe Refueling Adapter is also relatively straightforward, since it makes use of the existing air refueling receptacle on the nose of the A-10. In turn, this means that the A-10 loses its regular nose-mounted receptacle.

As of April, the non-probe-equipped A-10 was only able to refuel from the KC-135, since the KC-10 had been retired, and the KC-46 was not yet certified to refuel the Warthog. This last issue is due to a long-running “stiff boom” problem, which runs the risk of damaging the receiving aircraft. The addition of the probe also means that the A-10s can now refuel from KC-46s too, which have a built in hose and drogue system, as well as a boom.

However, the A-10 can now take on fuel from Air Force HC-130s and MC-130s, or even Marine Corps KC-130s, as well as KC-130Js from other operators. Initial tests of the Probe Refueling Adapter involved an HC-130J from the 418th Flight Test Squadron.

These refuelers can operate from shorter runways and can offload fuel at very low altitudes, something the KC-135 is not able to do. Pairing the A-10 with these kinds of tankers, which can routinely operate from shorter fields and do so with far more flexibility, provides expanded aerial refueling flexibility for mission planners.

Working with the HC-130 and MC-130 is especially relevant for the A-10, bearing in mind its combat search and rescue ‘Sandy’ mission. This involves the jets providing escort and close air support for special operations helicopters working to retrieve personnel from highly contested territory. A-10s have flown this very mission over Iran. Already, HC-130s and MC-130s provide fuel to rotary-wing aircraft during these kinds of operations, and a probe-equipped A-10 would provide extended endurance and range in such scenarios.

The Probe Refueling Adapter also comes with a degree of flexibility. The Air Force describes it as “a field-configurable solution designed for installation by operational flight line personnel.”

“Units can install or remove the adapter in a matter of hours, allowing aircraft to be reconfigured between boom and probe refueling capability based on mission requirements,” the service says.

It is also notable that the Air Force imagery shows that the A-10s in CENTCOM are now also using the Angry Kitten electronic warfare pod.

The Angry Kitten had previously been test flown on the A-10, but had not been seen in an operational context. The store is also used operationally by Air Force F-16s and HC-130s and Navy F/A-18E/Fs. Angry Kitten was originally developed to replicate hostile electronic warfare threats during testing and training, as part of a cooperative effort between the Air Force and the Navy, but was so effective that it was adapted to operational use.

Using advanced Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, Angry Kitten detects and ‘captures’ radio frequency (RF) signals. Those signals are then manipulated and retransmitted. For example, RF signals from an enemy air defense radar can be recorded and sent back in a way that creates false or otherwise confusing tracks. The same data can also be used for broader intelligence-gathering purposes. You can read more about the capabilities of the pod here.

As well as the Angry Kitten pod, the A-10C seen in the accompanying imagery carries a Litening targeting pod and a pair of 500-pound-series Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).

Returning to the Probe Refueling Adapter, the A-10 is now putting it through its paces in an operational context in the Middle East.

But as we have discussed in the past, equipping A-10s and other combat jets with probes makes a good deal of sense for Pacific contingencies, too. They could also be operated alongside smaller tactical tankers, which could also play a very important role in that kind of conflict.

Simply put, the receptacle and boom mode of aerial refueling is optimized for plugging in at higher altitudes, for maximum efficiency and safety. However, in the Pacific, combat operations are likely to require fighters to take off with heavy loads from short runways, potentially battle-damaged ones, then immediately hook up to a tanker. Lower-level refueling using a probe is much more appropriate here and, indeed, is entirely in line with the Air Force’s Agile Combat Employment (ACE) strategy. This envisages fighters hopping from one austere forward airfield to another, keeping them close to the action, but farther away from the enemy’s strikes. Such airfields can also be accessed by standard C-130 transports, which can also help support tactical jets with spares, weapons, crews, etc.

There is also the fact that higher-level aerial refueling puts the tanker and receiver at higher risk of detection and engagement by the enemy. Aerial refueling assets, in particular, will be among the highest-priority targets for China in any confrontation in the Pacific. Indeed, there is a whole Chinese development thread focused on air defenses to engage aircraft like these, and other critical force-multipliers. Having refueling operations and tankers operate at a lower altitude puts them below the radar horizon, providing another layer of survivability, especially when working from islands closer to major target areas.

While the A-10 continues to evolve, the Air Force is still committed to its plans to retire the type for good before the end of the decade. For the time being, however, the Warthog is still in demand in combat theaters.

If the Probe Refueling Adapter concept could be extended to fighters like the F-16 and F-15, and potentially even future versions of the F-35A, these aircraft could rely more heavily on C-130 tankers, which are, at least in some cases, better suited to the ACE concept. Meanwhile, the larger KC-46s and KC-135s could operate somewhat further from the battlespace, including dragging tactical aircraft to and from the theater of operations, as well as supporting bombers and transports.

For some time now, the Air Force has also been looking at the possibility of acquiring the kinds of tankers that would be better suited to the kinds of mission likely to be encountered in the Pacific theater, albeit retaining the boom and receptacle method.

Now that the Probe Refueling Adapter is being proven in a combat theater, its success there could help keep the A-10 relevant throughout the last few years of its service, and perhaps even longer.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post A-10 Warthog’s New Aerial Refueling Probe Is Now Operational In The Middle East appeared first on The War Zone.

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

Q: SOCOM just put out an Area of Interest (AOI) request for what is being called the Hypervelocity Improved Carbine (HICAR) program, designed to “develop an improved carbine capable of operating with currently issued 5.56 NATO ammunition, while also incorporating design features to ensure reliability, durability, and longevity with the use of future hypervelocity 5.56x45mm ammunition.” What can you tell me about that?

A: So, HICAR’s got me excited. Back in the late teens, the Army went down this higher velocity [route], and I’m intentionally using the word velocity and not pressure in what they’ve done with the M7 and M8 rifles. They’ve been able to increase the velocity and therefore create a flatter shooting rifle as well as a rifle that has greater energy on target, and that does incredible things for barrier defeat in a lot of situations. Now we’ve had 10 years, almost, for that technology to mature, people have learned things, and the question then becomes, what could we do for special operators in calibers that are not new?

The advantage for SOF operators is I’ve got, say, the Green Berets who do a lot of partnering with foreign SOF operators, but there’s no [6.8mm] ammo running around central Africa, or you know, pick your favorite spot where we like to do partnering operations around the world. But there’s a lot of 5.56mm and other common cartridges of that nature, and so what we want to…achieve is maybe not the same effect as what the Army’s done with the M7 and the M8 and that high-velocity ammunition that they have, but where could we get close to that in 5.56 and potentially other calibers in the future.

It really goes back to the evolution in steel case ammo that Federal started several years ago, and there’s been more iterations of that coming out – new alloys for cases that far exceed performance of the standard brass that we’ve been using for the last 100 years. And the really amazing part is they can actually be cheaper than brass as well, so we get more performance at a lower cost. It’s a win-win.

Q: Can you provide any information about the hypervelocity rounds themselves?

A: At this point, it’s still a significant science project, and so there are no specific high velocity rounds that are fielded at this point. It’s an R&D project, and we’re trying to see where we can take that technology.

Q: Can you give me a sense of what you’re looking for in those rounds, and any timelines?

A:  You can see the round and what we’re going to do based on the HICAR document on Sam.gov, so that’s as much information as there is out there. What we’re really looking for is what does it [do] for the rifle? Because as you start getting into rifle development – there are a lot of things to consider, other than how much pressure can you put in the chamber. You’ve got to worry about the failure modes, and you know what happens if you get a projectile stuck in the chamber, things along those lines. There are a lot of other things that you have to worry about, because you want to make sure not only is the gun effective, but it’s got to be safe, and it’s also got to be suitable for the particular mission, and so that’s that broad spectrum that we’re trying to balance and trade off with everything that’s out there in between both the ammunition and the rifle that’s firing it.

Q: Can you provide an update on fielding of the Mid-Range Gas Gun, both assault and sniper configurations?

A: There is some sensitivity to that… We have been fielding the Mid-Range Gas Gun-Sniper variant since 2023, and we just recently started procurement of the assault variant, so we are pretty excited about getting kicked off of the assault variant from [Lewis Machine & Tool] LMT.

Q: When was the assault variant fielded?

A: We’re currently under a production contract with that. We have not begun to field it.

Q: Any timeline on that?

A: Actually, we are still having those discussions with the vendors. I don’t have an answer for that one.

Q: Why are you excited about the new Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assault (MRGG-A) variant?

A: That one kind of solves the extended range for those mid-range calibers, both 7.62 NATO and the 6.5mm Creedmoor round. That weapon exceeds a 1,200-meter point target in 6.5mm Creedmoor. It’s just a phenomenal, accurate weapon system for our SOF operators. All the components are super excited about this one.

Q: Can you provide an update on the Light Machine Gun-Medium (LMG-M) that is supposed to be chambered in .338 Norma Magnum?

A: SOCOM has paused that program at this time as far as a significant fielding. However, we are fielding a small portion to one unit, not to be mentioned, and we’re going to see how that works out in that unit. We’re doing a small fielding combat evaluation with a unit to see how it’s functioning.

Q: What about SOCOM’s other lightweight machine gun programs?

A: We just got into an OTA [Other Transaction Authority contract] for the Lightweight Machine Gun- Assault (LMG-A), the 7.62 variant, and have a couple competitors there working designs there and expect to have that out to replace the MK 48 in the Fiscal Year 2028-2029 timeframe.

Q: Is the LMG-M being provided by Sig Sauer?

A: Yes.

Q: Walk me through the advantages of a Norma .338 round.

A: So .338 has some significant range. The .338 has greater range than traditional .50 cal, and the particular round that we have is more effective on target than the .50 caliber at those greater ranges. However, if you compare it to 7.62 or some other lighter cartridges, it is still a heavier round. There are tradeoffs in the .338 machine gun world.

Q: What does the .338 bring to the table for operators?

A: You can replace a .50 caliber’s weighted system with a lighter system that is also dismountable. So, for instance, if you had a light vehicle that had trouble carrying a .50 cal plus a significant amount of ammunition, if you switch over to .338 you can save hundreds of pounds and keep that vehicle under its [gross vehicle weight rating] GVWR. Or especially if you’re doing things like jumping a vehicle that has to be able to hit the ground pretty hard – things along those lines. It allows you to reduce some of that weight, but be able to maintain the range and effectiveness.

Q: One last question, what can you tell me about any counter drone rounds that you are either fielding or looking to field across all platforms?

A: We have definitely been looking at counter-drone rounds specifically in the current calibers and so what can I do to augment operators with the rifle that they’re currently carrying. We’ve also been experimenting with various other things, from shotguns to 40 millimeters [40mm grenade], and we’re still trying to sort through there. There’s a lot of things you have to think about when you’re looking at the effectiveness of a round like that. Unfortunately, I can’t go any deeper than that, because I’m really getting into more of an [operational security] OPSEC type of thing, I don’t want to go there.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Inside SOCOM’s Search For New Machine Guns, Rifles And Ammo appeared first on The War Zone.

Speaking at the annual SOF Week conference, senior SOCOM officers provided updates on the current status of the highly modified MH-47Gs that provide the heavy-lift muscle for the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, or 160th SOAR, the famous Night Stalkers. As we have reported in the past on multiple occasions, these highly capable aircraft are frequently noted with different modifications cropping up around their airframes.

At this stage, however, SOCOM is beginning to draft possible requirements for the next iteration of special operations MH-47G — the Block III — expected to come online starting around 2032.

“Currently, we’re in Block II,” explained Sean Godfrey, product manager for the MH-47 at Army Special Operations Aviation Command. “We do not currently have what the Block III looks like, but that aircraft’s not going anywhere. It’s going to have to get upgraded over time.”

“Those next big things that we have to figure out would be how to get more out of the system,” Godfrey continued. “That would have to be enabling the aircraft to go further into more environments.” Another area of interest is increasing options for putting modular equipment on and off the aircraft, he added.

“That increased modularity to be able to rapidly take things on and off the aircraft to reconfigure it very quickly, to meet our mission requirements, is something that we’re always looking at,” added Dr. Steve Smith, SOCOM’s program executive officer for Rotary Wing.

“Anything that we do going forward, we’re going to try to make it as modular as possible. We want to go plug things in when we need them, unplug them, and take them off the aircraft when we don’t need them.”

Even with an aircraft offering the performance and capacity of the MH-47, preserving the allowable combat load is always at a premium. Increased modularity might include removing certain protection systems for operations in more-permissive environments, to give operators additional load. The same could be said for navigational systems, as well.

Smith continued: “There might be cases where I want to fill that aircraft with as much fuel as possible, and maybe that MH-47 becomes a flying FARP, and I put it somewhere, and we refuel other aircraft off of them.”

A FARP, or Forward Arming and Refueling Point, is essential for operating from austere forward bases along (or beyond) the battle lines.

This is already a key mission for the MH-47, with the 160th using these aircraft in “Fat Cow” configuration. Filled with extra tanks, the Chinook then serves as a gas station on the ground for other rotary-wing aircraft. This was a tactic famously used in the Bin Laden raid.

At a FARP, aircraft can quickly receive fuel and weapons, even without shutting down their engines. As a result, they can accelerate the fight by dramatically increasing sortie rates, or FARPs can extend the combat range of an aircraft. When it comes to just adding fuel, refueling in mid-air is an even more efficient way of doing this.

“Maybe, maybe we can do in-air refueling off of an MH-47,” Smith mused.

While he admitted that he was “just throwing stuff up against a wall,” at this point, Smith also acknowledged that having more modular systems could make that possible.

“Aerial refueling is an amazing capability,” Smith continued. “It allows us to do a lot of things, but that affects your allowable combat load, right? So, is there a way to do something modular for aerial refueling, so that the system could come on and off quickly, so that would allow us to get maybe something in country, rapidly reconfigured, and then do something else.”

For the Army, the demands for greater range and ability that cover those distances faster are seen as critical capabilities, particularly in the context of any future fight against China across the sprawling expanses of the Pacific.

According to Smith, SOCOM is already looking at the possibility of porting mission equipment from its forthcoming MV-75A Cheyenne II tiltrotors onto the MH-47 Block III, and potentially even the Block II or Block III MH-60 fleets. However, he admitted that, at this stage, there is no funding appropriated for this, or even a formal requirement.

When it comes to making Block III a reality for the MH-47, this would likely follow the same procedure that is currently used to produce special operations Chinooks.

For the MH-47G Block II, specifically, Godfrey explained that the procedure starts with selecting a legacy aircraft, some of which are now more than 60 years old. SOCOM then removes all the mission equipment and software equipment, Godfrey continued, and flies the aircraft to Delaware. Here, the aircraft is essentially torn apart, and the parts to be used are recapitalized and returned to the Boeing production line. After a multi-year process, the Chinook re-emerges as a black-painted MH-47 and then goes to have all its mission equipment fitted. Then it is delivered to the unit.

Once in SOCOM service, Smith explains that “We’re constantly trying to figure out the best ways to increase range, increase payload, increase speed, reduce weight, all while somehow holding flight-hour costs low. And all these things aren’t rolling in the same direction.”

The MH-47’s need for range is an enduring one and is reflected in its regular use of in-flight refueling itself, using the probe-and-drogue method, as also employed by SOCOM MH-60s. Already, the MH-47 features massive sponson fuel tanks compared to the standard Chinook, making them the longest-range assets of the 160th.

But whether or not some kind of palletized or modular aerial refueling capacity comes to the Chinook remains to be seen.

Expanding the “Fat Cow” role and taking the MH-47 tanker to the air would be very enticing for SOCOM. It would give them their own air-to-air refueling assets, rather than relying totally on the Air Force MC-130/HC-130 fleets. As it is, providing fuel at FARPs can be a very high-risk mission for SOCOM, considering they are often working in contested territory. If the same aircraft could be adapted to refuel MH-60s and MH-47s in the air, they would not have to land in some scenarios, and the Army wouldn’t need to call upon external refueling assets, which might not be available or cannot be risked.

It is also worth noting that questions have also emerged about how the Army will ensure there is adequate tanker capacity to support its aerial-refueling-capable MV-75s. As delivered, all Cheyenne IIs will have the capacity to have a probe fitted, the Army has confirmed, even those in non-SOCOM units, although the exact mix of how many ‘big Army’ MV-75s will get the probe and how many won’t is yet to be determined. Bell, the MV-75’s prime contractor, and the Army have both suggested that tanker drones like the U.S. Navy’s forthcoming MQ-25 Stingray could help extend the Cheyenne II’s reach. An adapted MH-47 could provide another answer, although one with drastically different performance.

Recent operations in South America and in the Middle East have underscored the need for long-range missions by Special Operations Aviation Command. The prospect of a potential conflict with China across the vast expanses of the Pacific means that longer-range platforms, of all kinds, are an increasing area of interest, and the 160th’s heavy-lifting, far-flying Chinooks are no exception.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Night Stalker MH-47 Chinooks May Get Aerial Refueling Tanker Role appeared first on The War Zone.

The fact that the ballroom is as much of a military and security services installation as it is its stated function comes as the administration seeks a billion dollars in new funding from Congress for the U.S. Secret Service. Of that money, $220 million would go toward the facility, while the rest would go to other efforts to enhance security around the complex. The total cost of the ballroom project has previously been estimated to be $400 million. Trump had said in the past that private donors would pay for the construction — another controversial aspect of the project.

The last time a major bunker complex was installed below the White House grounds was roughly a decade and a half ago, under President Barack Obama. During that period, a large but secretive project saw the installation of an expansive underground facility, supposedly five stories deep, beneath the North Lawn. This facility was far larger and more elaborate than the President’s Emergency Operations Center — the PEOC — that was built below the now destroyed East Wing and dates back, at least in part, to around World War II. This facility was made famous by the tragic events of 9/11.

Based on lessons learned from the rickety response to that crisis, the PEOC was also progressively upgraded throughout the Bush Administration and beyond. You can read all about the existing bunker facilities at the White House in our prior report linked here.

Now that the East Wing is gone, the historic PEOC is likely gone as well, and a much grander labyrinth of underground spaces is being installed in its place. It appears that these deep underground areas will take up a substantial part of the entire floor plate of the massive ballroom building, so we are talking about a huge amount of square footage here, not just a new emergency bunker. Think a multi-story underground office building more so than a bomb shelter.

Trump, standing in front of the foundation of the ballroom while the racket of work crews filled the air, went into detail to reporters yesterday as to what is being built beneath the ballroom. Some of the features he mentioned were already known about, but not elaborated on, and some were new. They included:

• A military hospital
• Research facilities — it is unclear what these are, whether these are Secret Service and/or military facilities, or something else entirely
• Meeting rooms and rooms that go “hand-in-hand” for the military

Trump goes on to proclaim the ballroom is actually a “shield” to protect all these sensitive areas. Overall, Trump says the facility is “already down about six stories deep.” He later restated that the complex does indeed go six stories down. Trump also said during his presser, “the underneath is far more complex than the upper” when discussing the overall structure.

Trump continued to detail some of the defensive features of the ballroom facility:

• Drone proofing, stating “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact”
• Missile proofing
• “Great sniper capacity” (USSS counter-sniper teams are an omnipresent fixture atop the White House)
• The roof is developed “for the military” with a 360-degree view of Washington, D.C., due to its height.

Now we get into the really interesting and a bit peculiar part. Trump went on to say that the roof will have a “massive drone capacity.” He later adds that “it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington.” The president also stated that “we use it as a drone port. We can have unlimited drones up there, and drones are what’s happening right now.”

In another quote, Trump, talking about the roof again, said “on top of the roof, we’re going to have the greatest drone empire you’ve ever seen that’s going to protect Washington.” He also said systems from below the new ballroom facility will be put on the roof “for drone and missile capacity.”

So what is he actually talking about here?

First off, it is abundantly clear that this will be the most hardened overall structure on the White House grounds by a huge margin. It will feature passive defenses against many forms of attack. From the windows to the walls, the facility will be hardened to a level not seen on legacy structures on the property.

It will also have active defenses. 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.

So, it sounds like the roof of the ballroom is going to be a major air defense installation, at least for counter-drone applications, for the area, and interceptor drones will likely provide at least part of this capability, along with electronic warfare and possibly directed energy weapons. Surface-to-air missiles could find a home there, as well. There is a known rooftop FIM-92 Stinger-firing Avenger missile turret near the White House for this purpose today, which was installed not long after 9/11, but this capability could be expanded, at least in a crisis or during special occasions, to the rooftop of the new structure. It could even host longer-range systems. Currently, the capital area features the only permanent surface-to-air missile network in the United States, featuring the NASAMS for medium-range defense, with launchers arrayed around the region.

Still, firing off a rocket packed with a high-explosive blast-fragmentation warhead low over the capital is a far more dangerous action than emerging alternatives, as mentioned above, at least for countering drones. Regardless, Trump alluded to systems being able to be stored in the bottom of the ballroom facility that can be moved up to the roof for protection. It’s unclear if some sort of lift system would allow this to occur more seamlessly on demand, if indeed his description was accurate, but being able to configure air defenses on the rooftop based on the threat at any given time would be highly advantageous.

Whether the president thinks drones will be used in the future to transport cargo and individuals to and from the White House grounds, using the roof of the new facility, isn’t clear, but it sounds like that’s at least part of the vision. Not long after the East Wing was torn down, we inquired with the White House if the ballroom’s roof would work as a helipad for Marine One. This inquiry was spurred by the chronic landing area issues with the new VH-92A Marine One helicopters. We never got a response, but the news hit this week that the White House is now looking to build a helicopter landing pad due to this issue. It isn’t perfectly clear if the ballroom could serve in this role or at least be used as an alternative landing site.

Finally, it’s clear that the underground portion of the ballroom will include a multitude of command and control, training, computers, and communications support areas, and much more for military operations and defense of the White House itself. Much of this also fits into the continuity of government realm, a key mission for the USSS and the White House Military Office. Considering the size of the new facility, it will likely also have a lot of room for future expansion.

That being said, it is worth noting that while a modern underground facility like this may be more secure, it cannot even come close to protecting against a direct nuclear attack. The requirements for such an installation far exceed anything we are seeing with the ballroom (or anywhere else really).

Trump added in his presser yesterday that with the ballroom will come “great military capacity, we are building it in conjunction with the United States military.” Exactly how the marriage of the military’s and Secret Service’s wants came together with building a huge ballroom for galas is unclear. The timeline of events that gave birth to the ballroom-fortress concept seems fascinating in its own right.

With that in mind, and considering this was all in the blueprints for the highly complex structure being built now, the military and the USSS were clearly deeply involved in its design from early on, which makes it puzzling as to why the White House is just asking for funding for those security features now.

Regardless, while this new addition to the White House grounds may be referred to as a ballroom, it is one built atop a sprawling military installation and cocooned within a hardened armor shell that has many other roles than its stated purpose.

UPDATE:

Trump now says the ‘drone port’ was top secret until it was disclosed due to litigation.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

The post The White House Ballroom Is A Deep Fortress In Disguise (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The LUCAS program, developed by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of War for Prototyping and Experimentation under OUSW R&E, is intended to field ‘affordable mass’ by producing large numbers of relatively low-cost drones that can be deployed in coordinated waves to saturate enemy defenses and expand strike capabilities at scale. Each LUCAS drone costs around $35,000, which is a fraction of the price of available missiles with similar range.

Based on the Iranian Shahed-136, LUCAS was used in combat for the first time when a large number of them were fired against Iranian targets in the opening salvos of Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. part of the joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran that began on February 28 of this year.

“LUCAS, indispensable,” U.S. Central Command boss Adm. Brad Cooper told TWZ when asked how effective the drones had been and how much they helped preserve magazine depth, given their comparatively low cost and faster and easier production.

Meanwhile, the original Shahed-136, as well as Russian Geran-series developments of it, have rapidly become a signature weapon of the war in Ukraine, acting as Moscow’s primary standoff strike munition. For years now, Shaheds have led Russia’s campaign of bombardment against Ukrainian infrastructure and cities. While the Shahed has a range in excess of 1,000 miles, LUCAS, in its current configuration, is a bit smaller, with a range of around half that distance. A version of the current airframe used for the LUCAS program also serves in a target surrogate role for training and testing.

Under the new effort, Hivemind will act as an AI “pilot” for LUCAS, allowing groups of drones to coordinate movements, maneuver collaboratively, and adapt to changing battlefield conditions in real time. The effort will culminate in an operational demonstration this fall in which a single operator will direct a swarm of LUCAS drones, but initial flight tests with the software installed will take place before then, Shield AI told TWZ.

Speaking to TWZ at the annual SOF Week conference yesterday, Shield AI’s Brandon Tseng explained that much of the work on inserting the Hivemind AI pilot into LUCAS has already been proven by the company’s experiences working with Ukraine.

“LUCAS is a reflection of about two years’ worth of work with OUSW R&E, and a reflection of a lot of the work that we’re doing in Ukraine with one-way attack drones,” Tseng explained. “For the past several months, we’ve been shipping hundreds of AI pilots for one-way attack drones into Ukraine. Those drones have increased the probability of a kill. They have reduced [the] kill chain timeline, they have reduced the cost per effect, instead of, one out of every 10 of these one-way attack drones hitting their target, now they’re 10 out of 10 in terms of what we’re seeing, and it’s really about taking a lot of that development that we’ve done over in Ukraine and bringing it to a program like LUCAS to again increase probability of kill, reduce cost per effect, and increase probabilities of success.”

In the Ukrainian context, Tseng confirmed that its AI agents are employed across a range of uncrewed platforms. At one end of the scale, these include one-way attack drones with a range of around 62 miles and an overall cost of $8,000, out of which the AI pilot costs around $1,000. At the other end of the scale are much larger and more expensive drones and missiles, including cruise missiles from the Switzerland-based Destinus company.

Returning to the U.S. military, the current effort began with Shield AI working on collaborative autonomy with OUSW R&E, something that began before the second Trump administration. That work was carried forward until the company was one of several down-selected to provide AI pilots for LUCAS.

The effort could represent a significant step toward fielding collaborative autonomy, a long-term goal of massed drone operations, with teams of autonomous systems operating together in dynamic and highly challenging combat environments. These could include ones where GPS is denied and communications are degraded, due to heavy employment of electronic warfare by the enemy.

“LUCAS is about delivering affordable mass, but mass without coordination is limited in value,” Tseng, who is the president and co-founder of Shield AI, said in a media release. “Hivemind is the AI pilot that makes that mass intelligent. It’s the autonomy layer that enables teams of drones to sense, decide, and act at scale. We’re proud to partner with OUSW R&E to put this capability in the hands of the warfighter at the speed of relevance.”

Hivemind is intended to streamline the operation of networked uncrewed systems by allowing a single operator to monitor and direct, as needed, multiple platforms simultaneously during complex, highly-coordinated missions. Using Hivemind, human operators retain authority over strike decisions, while the autonomy software handles navigation, coordination, and general mission execution. The operator can override and redirect the swarm’s operations and redefine its objectives at any time. Automating the swarm’s operations as much as a possible accelerates the timeline from target detection to engagement across a kill chain. The swarm should also be able to collectively act faster than an enemy can react, overwhelming and potentially breaking its decision cycle.

“It’s our policy that the moral decision behind the use of lethal force is always made by a human, and so ‘human in the loop’ is certainly part of the game for that decision-making process,” Tseng highlighted. “Once you make that decision, in the same way, once you decide to launch a cruise missile, then the AI is actually helping ensure that that decision gets fulfilled.”

For the time being, the U.S. military demands a human operator is ‘in or on the loop’ for kinetic or otherwise potentially deadly actions, as opposed to letting autonomous weapons choose what targets to attack on their own without any extra authorization. While less controversial morally, this can also be a tactical hindrance, slowing the swarm’s potential and adding complexity and vulnerabilities to its operations. The debate around this choice will only get more heated as adversaries bypass this elected restriction in order to get an upper hand in future combat scenarios.

As we pointed out in our initial reporting on LUCAS’s emergence, the fact that some of the LUCAS drones already include miniature SATCOM terminals is very noteworthy. After all, ‘human in the loop’ swarming would not be possible without this form of communications at the beyond line-of-sight ranges these drones fly. At the same time, an entire swarm can be controlled in this manner, even if just a handful are equipped with SATCOM terminals. While a swarm can be mesh networked within line-of-sight, it has to relay all the important information back to an operator. By using some of the drones as SATCOM relay nodes, the entire swarm can be controlled remotely from most places on the planet.

Regardless, the Hivemind AI pilot will allow appropriately equipped LUCAS drones to perceive their environment, make decisions, and act autonomously without continuous human input. Unlike conventional autopilots tied to fixed flight paths, Hivemind is designed to dynamically adjust mission plans, react to unforeseen conditions, avoid obstacles, and carry out complex tasks with minimal operator oversight.

In terms of how an AI pilot can assist LUCAS drones, including providing autonomous mission execution and swarming in GPS-denied, communications-denied environments, Tseng likened the technology to that which is behind self-driving cars.

“We’re using a lot of the same technical approaches that Tesla or Waymo are using; we use sensors on board these drones and weapon systems to perceive our environment. We got a GPU [graphics processing unit, a specialized electronic circuit designed for digital image processing] that thinks about what to do and is programmed to think about the different missions that it’s executing in said environment, and then we take action, maneuvering the drone or the weapon system in the environment.”

Already, Hivemind has been inserted in a variety of other platforms, including aboard Anduril’s YFQ-44A under the U.S. Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, the U.S. Navy BQM-177 test aircraft, the Airbus UH-72B Lakota helicopter, and the Destinus Hornet platform. The company says it has integrated AI pilots for 28 different platforms to date.

Tseng said the company wants to start flight testing with Hivemind in July. “I hope they make it operational as quickly as possible,” he added.

The path to operational service should be made easier by previous experience from Ukraine, where it took only eight weeks to put an AI pilot into one of their one-way attack platforms.

However, the final decision on fielding AI-equipped LUCAS drones rests with the customer. “It’s up to the government, and I’m not going to disclose timelines on when the government thinks about fielding it,” Tseng said of the Hivemind-equipped LUCAS drone.

While LUCAS drones without AI pilots have already achieved impressive results in the recent conflict with Iran, according to the Pentagon, Shield AI is meanwhile confident that the capabilities of the platform will be significantly enhanced once they are flying with AI onboard. The results should include increasing the probability of kill, lowering the cost per effect, and increasing overall mission success.

“If you have cheap one-way attack drones, but it takes 10 or 20 of them to destroy a target, they’re no longer that cheap, right?” Tseng contended. “But if all of a sudden you have cheap one-way attack drones, and one out of one can kill it, and now you can kill 20 targets, that is a really low cost per effect, and that’s what the United States is after at the end of the day.”

Putting an AI pilot in the LUCAS drone is a big deal for the program. If it works as planned, it should help realize the long-held ambition of coordinated swarms of drones, not just drones being deployed en masse.

Using the software, multiple LUCAS drones will be able to share tasks and maneuver cooperatively, making saturation attacks even more effective. As well as the drones dynamically rerouting, avoiding air defenses, and otherwise adapting to changing battlefield conditions, an AI pilot makes it easier for missions to continue despite hostile jamming or loss of datalink connectivity. Indeed, using AI, drone swarms can maintain near-perfect combat efficiency even if it loses members. Drones can be configured with all different payloads, with the swarm’s makeup tailored to each mission, and the AI system can maximize their collective effectiveness at all times.

With flight testing of Hivemind-equipped LUCAS drones expected to start in only a couple of months, we should begin to get a better look at the transformation of these kamikaze drones from expendable individual weapons into groups of networked weapons that collectively equate to much more than the sum of their parts.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post U.S. Military’s Shahed-136 Kamikaze Drone Clone Is Getting Hivemind Swarming Capability appeared first on The War Zone.

Officials from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) talked about the intersection of future plans for the MH-60M fleet and ITEP during a roundtable at the annual SOF Week conference yesterday. TWZ was in attendance, along with other outlets. The Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, also known as the Night Stalkers, operates the MH-60Ms.

The Army selected General Electric’s (GE) T901 as the winner of the ITEP competition in 2019. The engine remains in development, with flight testing involving a modified Black Hawk beginning in May 2025.

“We are following very closely what the Army is doing with ITEP. We are hoping that we will get it,” Lt. Col. Aron Hauquitz, head of the Technology Applications Program Office (TAPO), said at the roundtable yesterday. “We’ll be able to put it in our aircraft, and we’ll create the Block 2 variant of the MH-60M.”

In “FY30 [Fiscal Year 2030], we’re going to start either the Block 1.2 or the Block 2” upgrade program for the MH-60M fleet, Lt. Col. Cameron Keogh, the Program Manager for the MH-60 within SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Rotary Wing (PEO-RW), also said at the roundtable. “It’s going to hinge on what’s going on with the Improved Turbine Engine, the T901 program that the Army’s running. We’re closely following that. If it continues to be successful, we will integrate that engine.”

To take a step back quickly, Night Stalker Black Hawks today already have an array of unique features compared to other H-60 variants in service elsewhere across the U.S. military and globally. This includes a terrain-following/terrain avoidance radar and other sensors, a variety of defensive systems, and an extensive communications suite, which you can read about in more detail here. A subset of the MH-60Ms are also configured as Direct Action Penetrators (DAP), which can be armed with a mix of guns, missiles, launched effects, and rockets to provide organic close air support during missions.

Cramming all of these capabilities on the MH-60Ms also requires significant changes to their core structure, and they are notably heavier than other typical H-60 variants. To account for this, the 160th’s Black Hawks already have YT706 turbine engines that are more powerful than the T701s found on standard Army models. GE makes both of these engines.

The YT706 has “higher fuel consumption, but it also has a higher output to help us keep that extra weight in the air,” Lt. Col. Keogh noted yesterday.

Integrating the T901 onto a typical Black Hawk will provide “50 percent more shaft‑power while delivering significantly higher fuel efficiency,” according to Lockheed Martin. Sikorsky, the prime contractor behind the H-60 family of helicopters, became a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin in 2015.

“The 50% power increase means a Black Hawk can transport additional fuel or payloads, such as launched effects, medical evacuation litters, forward area resupply loads or advanced sensor packages, without compromising aircraft performance,” Lockheed Martin highlighted in a press release earlier this month. “The engine’s performance at high altitude, high temperature conditions expands the Black Hawk’s envelope, giving commanders more options for insertion, extraction and reconnaissance missions in austere environments.”

“Higher fuel efficiency and lower maintenance demands lessen the supply chain burden in contested environments, a core tenet of the Army’s continuous transformation strategy,” the press release noted. “Improved specific fuel consumption reduces the number of refuel stops, extending mission endurance and shrinking the fuel footprint in forward operating bases.”

The boost in capability that the T901 is set to bring is especially relevant for Night Stalker MH-60Ms, given their unique attributes and mission requirements. The maintenance and logistics benefits would also be particularly attractive for the 160th. The Regiment routinely flies extremely demanding missions, often conducted across long distances and under adverse conditions, and staged from far-flung locations with limited access to established support chains.

Plans otherwise for the Block 1.2/Block 2.0 MH-60M upgrades are still evolving.

Right now, the core “focus on that is payload restoration. We’re trying to take weight out of the airplane [sic], [and] we’re trying to move the CG, the center of gravity, forward,” Lt. Col. Keogh explained. “How we’re doing that without reducing capabilities is we’re just kind of moving the capabilities around.”

“Somebody asked me earlier if we’re going to take the anti-ice system off the airplane to lose some weight. We’re not. We need the anti-ice, especially up in Washington State,” he continued. “We’re taking some of our heavier boxes, a lot of our avionics, we’re putting them up forward into the crew department, we’re putting them behind the pilots. That’s going to shorten cable runs – copper weighs a lot, you’d be surprised – and then it also helped with our CG shift, as well.”

“That’ll give the operators more butts in seats as they head out to the objective, and also give the air crews better fuel flexibility for mission planning,” he added.

To go back to ITEP, the new engine has long been expected to offer a major leap in performance to regular Army Black Hawks, as well as the service’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. However, as noted, the program has faced major uncertainty in recent years. The effort has suffered significant delays tied to manufacturing and supply chain issues. The T901 was also a central component of the Army’s Future Attack Recon Aircraft (FARA) program, which the service axed in 2024.

Last year, there were indications the Army was moving to cancel ITEP, too, with the service requesting no additional funding for the program in its 2026 Fiscal Year budget proposal. Congress subsequently interceded, appropriating another $238 million for continued work on the engine in the current fiscal cycle.

In its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request, the Army is again not asking for any new money for ITEP, which has raised new questions about the program’s future.

At the Army Aviation Association of America’s (AAAA) 2026 Warfighting Summit last month, Army Maj. Gen. Clair Gill said he was “very excited about where they’re going there” with ITEP and that the engine was “almost nearing completion of certification.” Gill is the service’s Program Acquisition Executive for Maneuver Air.

ITEP is “performing as intended,” and “the resourcing that Congress added in 2025 and the resourcing that Congress added in 2026 is being used to deliberately continue that testing,” Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips also told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the AAAA conference, but did not elaborate on future plans for the engine. Phillips is the Deputy Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Maneuver Air.

“We will need a little bit more money to get through the EMD [engineering, manufacturing and development] program, but it’s certainly not anywhere close to the money that we’ve already received for the program,” Mike Sousa, GE’s Executive Program Manager for the T901, had also told members of the media ahead of the AAAA conference, according to Breaking Defense. “So there is a little bit of money that is still required.”

Another factor now in all of this for the Army, as well as the Night Stalkers, is the expected arrival of the new MV-75 Cheyenne II tiltrotor in the next few years. The MV-75 offers massive boosts in range and speed compared to any Black Hawk variant. At the same time, that is also expected to come at a cost. As it stands now, the MV-75 is not expected to replace all of the Army’s H-60s, which will continue to play important roles for years to come. SOCOM and the 160th have a similar vision when it comes to the fielding of a special operations-specific version of the MV-75 and the future of the MH-60M.

“There will not be a one-for-one swap for MH-60M and MV-75. Don’t ask me what that exact number will be,” Dr. Steven Smith, head of SOCOM’s PEO-RW, also said at the roundtable yesterday. “We’re still going to need analysis to determine what that will be, but it will not be a one-for-one swap. We recognize that the M-60s will be required for the crisis response mission.”

As an aside, the 160th’s MH-60Ms, including examples in the DAP configuration, were a key element of Operation Absolute Resolve to capture Nicolas Maduro, then Venezuela’s dictatorial president, in January. TWZ explored the contributions of the DAP helicopters in detail at the time.

Altogether, the MH-60M is still on track to be a central component of the Night Stalker’s fleets for years to come, whether the helicopters are re-engined in the end or not.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New Engines Key To Night Stalker MH-60M Black Hawk Upgrade Plans appeared first on The War Zone.

Navy Capt. Mike Linn shared details about the Navy’s plans for teaming UUVs and various types of swimmer delivery vehicles (SDV) with our Howard Altman on the sidelines of the annual SOF Week conference yesterday. Linn currently works within the Naval Special Warfare program office (PMS 340), a division of the Naval Sea Systems Command’s (NAVSEA) Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants (PEO USC).

“That is the goal,” Linn said when asked about the Navy’s view of teaming UUVs with SDVs, the latter of which the service also refers to as SEAL Delivery Vehicles.

As it stands now, the main workhorse of the Navy’s SDV force is the Mk 11, which is just under 22 and a half feet long. It is operated by a crew of two and can carry six passengers. Also referred to as the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS), the Mk 11 is what is known as a “wet” submersible design, where the occupants are exposed to water the entire time during their voyage. The Mk 11, like its predecessors, can be launched and recovered from submerged submarines with specialized Dry Deck Shelters (DDS) attached to their hulls.

The Navy has also acquired several new Dry Combat Submersibles (DCS) in recent years, which feature a pressurized cabin with space for a crew of two and eight passengers. This means the larger DCSs can operate at greater depths than the SWCSs. They also deliver their occupants to the destination dry and relatively warm, helping to reduce operator fatigue and certain potential health risks. The DCS does have the limitation of being too big to fit inside existing DDSs. At least publicly, this is understood to translate to the need for support from a mothership on the surface.

There are multiple UUV designs in the Navy’s inventory today, as well. These are largely torpedo-shaped designs intended to be deployed from and retrieved by vessels riding on the surface or submarines. In recent years, the service has been working to expand its ability to launch and recover UUVs from submerged submarines without the need to send out divers to help. Historically, underwater retrieval of UUVs, in particular, has been a largely manual affair, often conducted via DDS.

In terms of the potential benefits of UUV-SDV teams, “underwater systems like the SDV and UUVs afford reach underwater,” Capt. Linn explained. “So, if you can get somewhere in an SDV and then launch a UUV to go do something, then that would make you more capable.”

“You could extrapolate, just as you would have an unmanned wingman in an aircraft, or a maritime surface co-pilot, the same can be said for underseas,” he continued. “So, if you have an unmanned system with you underwater, then I suppose you can use your imagination.”

“A good example might be a harbor,” he added. “Technology is in a state where passing through the mouth of a harbor, a choke point, is maybe much more well defended. Or it is a choke point, and they don’t want to pass there with a big manned platform. So if you send a smaller unmanned platform through, then that’s pretty logical.”

“It can be an overall risk-reducer,” he further noted. A key mission set for Navy UUVs is scouting ahead for mines and other potential hazards, and otherwise helping commanders establish a better ‘view’ of the battlespace above and below the waves. This could all be especially valuable for SEALs during high-risk missions, including ones being conducted covertly or clandestinely.

Capt. Linn was also candid about the challenges the Navy still has to overcome to make this underwater teaming ability a reality. He described both crewed SDVs and UUVs as being “deaf, dumb, and blind” in terms of their current ability to communicate and coordinate with each other to ensure they are both in the right place at the right time.

“Through-water data transfer is difficult, and so the modality that you choose while remaining survivable is kind of difficult. And, also, in order to do that, you have to have pretty well synchronized systems,” he said. “We’re looking at all ways of transferring data through water. It can be acoustic, [and] there’s light-based transfers.”

There are other questions still to be answered around how UUVs teamed with the SDVs would operate, including where the uncrewed companions would be launched from. If the SDVs have to carry them to the launch point themselves, this could present additional challenges.

“You’ve got to consider your volume in the SDV, which is not great,” Capt. Linn noted. “Are you going to strap it to the outside?”

He did confirm that testing is already being conducted to delve deeper into this potential pairing. He said that the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD), headquartered in Panama City, Florida, has been leading the charge.

“I think we’re still years away from having something at the reliability level that they want,” Capt. Linn added. “Again, back to the actual ones and zeros, and the modality of data transmission, [being at the] right time, right place,” and doing all of this “where you have to be survivable, that’s difficult.”

As Capt. Linn has made clear, significant hurdles will need to be cleared before UUV-SDV taming can become a reality. However, there are also real operational benefits that would come from pushing toward this goal.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Navy SEALs In Mini-Submarines Teamed With Underwater Drones In The Works appeared first on The War Zone.

The initial German Tranche 4 Eurofighter to be shown in public was presented at Airbus Defense & Space’s Manching site near Munich today, as part of the Airbus Defense Summit. The aircraft, a single-seater, has the production number GS0115 and the service registration 34+03. At this point, no German Tranche 4 has flown, but the company says it has already completed several examples at Manching. Flight testing is scheduled to begin in the coming weeks.

Under Project Quadriga, Germany ordered 38 Tranche 4-standard aircraft in November 2020. Originally planned to be delivered between 2025 and 2030, 31 of the aircraft will be single-seaters, and seven will be two-seaters. The total also includes replacements for two Eurofighters lost in accidents.

This is part of a broader push to enhance the capabilities of the Luftwaffe. While the Tranche 4 jets are slated to replace the Luftwaffe’s early Tranche 1 aircraft, which have far more limited capabilities, Berlin also plans on buying another 55 Eurofighters as a partial replacement for the Tornado swing-wing combat jet. As well as these 93 Tranche 4 Eurofighters, Germany has ordered a batch of 20 Tranche 5 Eurofighters, with a contract for these signed late last year.

The German requirement has been made more complex by the need to replace a portion of the Tornados operating in the nuclear strike role. This has led to a decision to purchase 35 F-35As that will be able to carry B61-12 free-fall nuclear bombs. However, the F-35As will also have an important role within Germany’s expanding conventional long-range strike arsenal, including using the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) cruise missile.

Currently, the Luftwaffe has around 138 Eurofighters in service, which includes a mixture of Tranche 1, 2, and 3 variants. 

While the Tranche 4 Eurofighter looks much the same as the earlier (Tranche 1 to 3) jets operated by the Luftwaffe, it is a notably different aircraft underneath the skin.

Significantly, the Tranche 4 Eurofighter is fitted with the ECRS Mk 1 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, supplied by Hensoldt. The new radar has already been trialled in a specially configured Eurofighter test aircraft, and using a modified Airbus A320 testbed, the so-called Advanced Technology Research Aircraft.

An AESA radar was long a glaring absence from the Eurofighter and has been in the works for many years.

The European Common Radar System (ECRS) story is a long and complicated one, involving Leonardo in the United Kingdom and Italy, Indra in Spain, and Hensoldt in Germany. Ultimately, it has spawned three discrete AESA radar versions, based on differing requirements and timelines.

As such, the ECRS Mk 0 is fitted in aircraft for Kuwait and Qatar. The Mk 1 is the definitive standard for Germany and Spain, with the German Tranche 4s being delivered with the so-called ECRS Mk 1 Step 0 configuration (effectively, a Mk 0 with a new antenna). In a second development phase, the Mk 1 Step 1 configuration will be installed in the Quadriga aircraft from mid-2027.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom gets the more advanced ECRS Mk 2, which you can read about here.

Despite the differences, all these sensors combine traditional radar functions, such as search and targeting, with electronic warfare tasks, a growing area of interest for Typhoon operators, as well as high-speed communications tasks.

Overall, any kind of AESA radar brings some major advantages to modern combat aircraft. In contrast with traditional mechanically scanned array technology, an AESA can find and track a target at a much greater range, more quickly, and with a greater degree of accuracy. This also applies to smaller threats, including those with limited radar signatures or flying at very low levels, which older radars find much harder to detect. This is especially relevant when tackling drones or cruise missiles.

With their increased power output, AESA radars also typically offer a higher standard of target discrimination and multi-target tracking capabilities, and are more resilient to hostile jamming. They are also considered a lot more reliable, primarily due to having far fewer moving parts than mechanically scanned arrays.

Longer range means that AESA radars are a significant advantage when employing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles, like the Meteor that arms the Eurofighter.

More enhancements for the Tranche 4 jets are expected to be incorporated under the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) program, which focuses on the aircraft’s avionics architecture. The work includes developing a new cockpit featuring a large-area display, as well as new flight-control and mission computers, communications equipment, and armament control systems. However, it’s not clear what Germany will pick from this ‘menu’ of improvements. Different Eurofighter customers choose specific configurations; notably, the Tranche 4 aircraft unveiled today still lacks the PIRATE (Passive InfraRed Airborne Track Equipment). The important forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track sensor was omitted by Germany, originally on budget grounds.

Connected with LTE, work has also been underway for some time on a Large Area Display for the Eurofighter. Measuring 12 x 22 inches, the Large Area Display replaces the previous three 6 x 6-inch multifunction head-down displays (MHDDs) and makes it easier for pilots to handle vast quantities of information better. This is especially useful when working with AESA, or during crewed-uncrewed teaming, for example.

Falling outside the scope of Project Quadriga, but just as important for the Luftwaffe, is the plan to transform 15 existing Eurofighters into electronic warfare aircraft. The resulting Typhoon EK jets will feature an Arexis electronic warfare suite from Saab and be able to employ AGM-88E Advanced Anti-radiation Guided Missiles to suppress and destroy enemy air defenses. The EKs will replace Germany’s Tornado ECR jets that have been serving in this role since the 1990s and will give the Luftwaffe an important capability boost.

At one stage, it looked as if the Eurofighter’s central role within the Luftwaffe would start to diminish after around 2040, when the FCAS was expected to come online and replace these combat aircraft with a new ‘system of systems,’ including a crewed fighter, the NGF.

But for a long time now, there have been cracks in the FCAS program, with France and Germany, the two major partners, at loggerheads. German defense officials are apparently unhappy with French demands to have a disproportionate share of the program and are now said to be looking at other options, including how it might separate itself from France in the program.

Whatever happens with FCAS, the chances of a sixth-generation crewed fighter entering service on the given timeline are increasingly unlikely.

As a result, the Eurofighter is set to be an even more important Luftwaffe asset, and for longer. It will almost certainly be operated in the future alongside ‘loyal wingman’-type drones, which now feature prominently in German military ambitions.

Contenders for this requirement, which calls for capabilities to be fielded around 2030, include the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie drone, which Airbus and Kratos are pitching to Germany. At the same time, Airbus has also been working on a stealthy CCA-like concept of its own, known as Wingman. Meanwhile, Boeing Australia has teamed up with Rheinmetall, the largest arms manufacturer in Germany, to offer the MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone to the German military.

Last year also saw the emergence of another possible contender for the Luftwaffe CCA, when German defense startup Helsing unveiled its CA-1 Europa.

More extensive investments in the Luftwaffe reflect a significant shift in priorities for the German military, which is now increasingly orienting itself toward a potential future conflict with Russia.

In response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the German Armed Forces are undergoing their biggest transformation since the Cold War. There is now a broader effort underway to reconfigure the German military from a low-readiness, expeditionary force to a high-readiness, territorial military focused on operations on NATO’s eastern flank. At the same time, long-range strike capabilities, neglected since the Cold War, are suddenly a major area of concern.

Just as important is investing in new equipment, and the unveiling of the Tranche 4 Eurofighter in Bavaria today is a very visible demonstration of this trend.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Germany Unveils Latest Tranche 4 Eurofighter appeared first on The War Zone.

The U.S. military is moving aggressively to reduce reliance on expensive single-use munitions, and laser weapons are oft-touted as part of a long-term solution. The recently released FY2027 budget reflects the urgency, with billions appropriated for scaled directed energy research and development (R&D) programs. “DE capabilities offer an inexpensive cost-per-shot alternative to conventional systems, increased magazine depth, and enhanced defense-in-depth,” budget documents state. The volume of high-end munitions expended during Operation Epic Fury, previous engagements with Iran, and the fight in and around the Red Sea against the Houthis, not to mention the near half-decade-long war in Ukraine, has sparked debate around the status and depth of U.S. stockpiles, driving renewed interest and investment in low-cost, reusable alternatives.

Countering swarms of cheap Iranian drones and missiles during extended combat operations presents a new challenge for America’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers, which are limited by how many missiles can be packed into 90 or 96 vertical launch system (VLS) cells and can only be reloaded at friendly ports with proper gear. Lasers, in contrast, do not face the same constraints, although the services have faced significant hurdles in fielding operational systems in the past.

The Navy has armed nine guided-missile destroyers with shipboard solid state lasers (SSLs) for self-defense since we reported on the first in November 2019. “The Navy has placed directed energy systems on nine ships and is working to expand testing and employment in the fleet,” a U.S. Navy official confirmed to TWZ. However, the official declined to discuss current operations when asked if the systems were employed against Iranian forces in the Middle East.

While the U.S. has several SSL programs in various stages of testing and development, two primary systems are operational on warships today: the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), and the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). TWZ has covered both systems in detail before, which you can read about here and here.

ODIN, the first SSL scaled across multiple destroyers, features a low-powered laser designed to work as a “dazzler” to blind or confuse the electro-optical and/or imaging infrared seekers on incoming weapons, such as one-way attack drones, throwing them off course. The system can also neutralize cameras and sensors used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) deployed aboard enemy ships, submarine masts, crewed aircraft, and drones. Initially, ODIN was installed on eight ships, but one unit was transferred for training to Naval Surface Warfare Center Port Hueneme from USS Kidd (DDG-100), which is completing a two-year maintenance availability in Everett, WA.

Two ODIN-enabled destroyers are on combat deployments in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). USS Spruance (DDG-111), part of the five-ship Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and the independently deployed USS John Finn (DDG-113) are operating in the Indian Ocean supporting ongoing operations against Iran. USS Gridley (DDG-101), the only other ODIN-equipped DDG underway, is in the South Atlantic Ocean escorting aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68) to her new homeport at Norfolk. The four other destroyers are at their respective homeports in San Diego and Yokosuka, as depicted in the graphic at the top of this post.

The far more powerful but less numerous HELIOS system, integrated solely on USS Preble (DDG-88), is a 60-kilowatt (kW) class laser weapon capable of knocking down smaller unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and burning holes in fast inshore attack craft (FIAC), as well as functioning as a dazzler like ODIN. The system, which also carries the designation Mk 5 Mod 0, provides a low cost-per-shot capability to address anti-surface warfare and counter-ISR threats, while fully integrating with the Aegis Combat System. Lockheed Martin has previously discussed scaling the power rating up to 150kW.

Preble, the only destroyer currently equipped with HELIOS, is forward-deployed and at homeport in Yokosuka, Japan. During a demonstration last year, Preble successfully disabled four incoming drones. Funding for additional tests and maintenance was included in the FY2027 budget.

The Navy has also installed other experimental high-energy laser directed energy weapons on ships in the past, such as the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator tested aboard USS Portland, and test-fired a LOCUST laser from an aircraft carrier for the first time last year. The latest budget request supports R&D for several programs, including a containerized 150kW Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) for cruise missile defense, the Joint Beam Control System (JBCS) technology to develop a 300-500kW laser, and upgrades for the High Energy Laser Counter Anti-Ship Cruise Missile Project (HELCAP).

Regardless, while laser weapons are very attractive for all the reasons listed earlier in this article, their application remains limited by various factors. Laser weapons capable of downing drones and disabling small boats have a range measured in single miles, at best, so they are only capable of providing close-in defense. This is further impacted, and heavily so, by atmospheric conditions. They also need to have their beam dwell on the target for extended periods of time in order to burn a hole in it. As a result, their ability to rapidly engage targets, and especially at range in all weather conditions, is very limited. Thermal and power supply restrictions also impact their ability to make rapid follow-up shots. Finally, lasers remain finicky pieces of technology and are full of delicate components, which has impacted reliability in the field.

Still, even with all these limitations, these systems are improving and their range, reliability, and power will increase over time. As a result, they will only become a more important part of naval warfare in the coming years, with hopes that their ability to rapidly down faster-flying missiles isn’t too far over the horizon.

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

The post These American Destroyers Are Equipped With Laser Weapons appeared first on The War Zone.

Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), spoke to TWZ and other outlets about the C-146 replacement plans at a roundtable on the sidelines of the annual SOF Week conference yesterday. The Wolfhounds are part of what SOCOM refers to as its Non-Standard Aviation (NSAv) fleets.

There are some 20 Wolfhounds in service today, which are operated by Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). The C-146, which AFSOC began flying in the early 2010s, is a militarized version of the Dornier Do-328, something we will come back to later on. The Air Force also has another Do-328, nicknamed Cougar, that has been used to conduct research and development and test and evaluation activities in support of SOCOM.

“So we have had a highly successful Non-Standard Aviation program, again that really developed under the crucible of where those operations that the Command [SOCOM] was in many parts leading in the really peak days in the War on Terror,” Col. Bronder explained. “So those aircraft, again, battle-proven C-146 Wolfhound aircraft, [were] set up at various TSOCs [theater special operations commands], providing the direct support.”

However, “those aircraft were fairly constricted by their short range, [and] by being a unique aircraft. There wasn’t a large global backbone to sustain them,” he continued. “So it was a successful model, but maybe not a very cost-effective one.”

The Air Force’s official C-146 fact sheet says the aircraft can fly up to 1,500 nautical miles while carrying 2,000 pounds of cargo. The Wolfhound does offer the flexibility to operate from shorter runways and semi-prepared airstrips, as well as roads.

“We’re looking for ways to recapitalize that fleet with something that’s more cost-effective, leverages a commercial kind of sustainment enterprise better, and then it again provides maybe a more capable aircraft to cover down on larger areas faster,” Col. Bronder added. “So those are the types of requirement spaces we’re working through as we plan out what the next phase of NSAv looks like.”

The Do-328 was first developed in the 1980s as a commuter airliner. A jet-engined 328JET derivative followed in the 1990s. Both variations only saw relatively limited sales. Just 217 examples were reportedly built, inclusive of both turboprop and jet-powered versions, during the production run in the 1990s. Only a fraction of those aircraft are still flying. Several attempts have been made to revive production of modernized versions of the design, but so far without success. Last year, Deutsche Aircraft unveiled the first prototype of its new D328eco, but, at the time of writing, it has yet to fly.

With the exception of a lone example operated by the Botswana Defence Force, the U.S. Air Force is the only military user of the Do-328. All of the Air Force’s examples were acquired second-hand. The C-146s supplanted an even smaller fleet of Bombardier Q-200s, a version of the De Havilland Canada DHC-8, or Dash 8, which AFSOC had begun flying in the NSAv role in the late 2000s.

Since the early 2010s, the C-146s have been criss-crossing the globe, providing discreet support to U.S. operations forces, sometimes right at the tactical edge. As one known example, Wolfhounds were heavily involved in supporting the opening phase of the French intervention in the northwest African country of Mali in 2013. C-146s continue to be used to move special operations forces and cargo, as well as to help evacuate injured personnel and perform other light utility-type missions worldwide. They have even sometimes been employed as VIP transports in more far-flung locales.

The C-146 fleet has also received various upgrades over the years. This includes unspecified modifications that have enabled the aircraft “to land at more austere, semi-prepared runways,” which “resulted in an approximately ten-fold increase in the number of available runways worldwide,” according to a declassified annual Air Force report published in 2015, which this author previously obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

As Bronder made clear yesterday, SOCOM and AFSOC are still very early in the process of laying out the requirements for a successor to the C-146. Any desire for boosts in range, performance, payload, and other capabilities will need to be balanced against the need for any future NSAv aircraft to be able to operate from the same kinds of remote and austere locations as the Wolfhound does today.

SOCOM is certainly looking to move quickly on securing a replacement for the C-146. It is asking for $55 million to buy the first three of these new NSAv aircraft in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget.

“The current C-146A fleet will be divested of on a schedule that maintains this critical TSOC capability, as transition to the new aircraft occurs,” the budget documents also note.

In the meantime, the Wolfhound fleet will continue providing important, if not often overlooked, support to American special operations forces around the world.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Hunt For C-146 Wolfhound Special Ops Transport Plane Replacement Underway appeared first on The War Zone.

Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), discussed the integration of the radar together with the AGM-190A on the AC-130J earlier today. Bronder spoke to TWZ and other outlets alongside other SOCOM acquisition officials at a roundtable on the sidelines of the annual SOF Week conference.

AGM-190A is the formal U.S. military designation for the SCM, developed by Leidos, originally under the name Black Arrow. It has now also emerged that SOCOM refers to the missile by the nickname Havoc Spear. With a demonstrated range of at least 400 miles, the missile has far greater reach than any of the other missiles and precision bombs that the AC-130J is known to be able to employ now by a huge margin. The Ghostrider’s current armament package, which also includes a 30mm automatic cannon and a 105mm howitzer, is focused on close air support and interdiction missions against targets at much closer ranges.

“A lot going on in that space,” Col. Bronder said today. “Our unique teaming with Leidos, that started with a CRADA [Cooperative Research and Development Agreement], that accelerated through an express development program on the now called AGM-190 Havoc Spear affordable cruise missile.”

A CRADA is a non-traditional research and development mechanism through which elements of the U.S. military can pool resources with private companies and other organizations. These agreements allow the parties involved to pursue mutually beneficial work, but without a typical contract or even money necessarily changing hands.

“That program [the AGM-190] has really been moving along quite, quite quickly,” Bronder continued. “We’re looking at ways to kind of accelerate fielding of that weapon in the not too distant future with close teaming with AFSOC [Air Force Special Operations Command] partners to really collapse that development and operational test timeline. So, real big acquisition success there.”

“We have tech demonstrations with the AESA radar and the small cruise missile that we’re now looking to see how we can augment and accelerate fielding those types of capabilities for the SOF [special operations forces] fleet,” Bronder added.

“CRADAs produced the AGM-190A Havoc Spear small cruise missile that offers an affordable mass solution with significant range to our service partners,” U.S. Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, head of SOCOM, also said separately during his keynote address at the SOF Week conference earlier today. “Integrated with the AESA radar on the AC-130 gunship, [it is] a formidable capability.”

SOCOM’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, released last month, had hinted at plans to demonstrate the new combination of capabilities for the AC-130J in the next year or so. The command is asking for nearly $5.9 million to support work on the so-called Precision Strike Package (PSP) for the AC-130J. PSP is the overarching system through which all weapons and associated sensors are integrated onto the Ghostrider.

The new funding “is required to integrate AESA radar capabilities into the PSP,” according to SOCOM’s budget documents. The planned work “includes software and hardware development to incorporate the AESA functionality into the Battle Management System and other associated AC-130J systems.”

What specific AESA radar is going on the AC-130Js is unclear. At last year’s SOF Week conference, Col. Bronder said there was “pathfinding” underway involving Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-83, also known as Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR).

“AFSOC is exploring the development and use of the AESA Radar on the AC-130J as the command continues to operate as both the SOF component to the Air Force and air component to USSOCOM,” AFSOC told TWZ when asked for an update in August 2025. “We cannot discuss the type of radar due to operational security.”

The APG-83 does remain a very plausible choice. The Air Force has already been in the process of integrating this radar onto a significant portion of its fleets of F-16C/D Viper fighters for years now. Beyond its target detection and tracking capabilities, the AN/APG-83 has a synthetic aperture mapping mode and is capable of producing ground moving target indicator data. Also referred to as SAR mapping, this mode allows SABR to produce high-resolution radar imagery. GMTI tracks can be overlaid on those images. All of this, in turn, can be used for target acquisition and identification purposes, as well as general reconnaissance.

There are other AESA radars on the market, as well, including a growing number of compact designs. Radars of this type, in general, can spot objects of interest, even ones with smaller radar cross-sections, faster and do so with greater precision and fidelity compared to older mechanically-scanned models. They can also just scan faster and perform multiple functions near-simultaneously, and do so with improved resistance to radiofrequency jamming and far greater reliability.

As mentioned, TWZ has long pointed out that the addition of an AESA radar would be a huge upgrade for the AC-130J’s ability to spot, track, and engage targets at extended ranges, even in bad weather. The radar would be able to provide real-time midcourse updates to a stand-off weapon if it had a data link capability. This would make engaging moving targets possible if the missile also had a terminal seeker capable of doing so.

Overall, the capability boosts the AESA radar offers are especially important when paired with new, longer-range strike munitions like the AGM-190A. The radar could also help improve the Ghostrider’s effectiveness when employing other shorter-range munitions, including GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) now and GBU-53/B StormBreakers (also known as SDB IIs) in the future.

AESA radars will also expand the AC-130J’s general surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as provide improved general situational awareness.

This is all reflected in SOCOM’s budget documents, which state: “AESA radar enhances the AC-130J’s situational awareness, precision targeting, and survivability while replacing phased-out legacy radars, enabling the Gunship to close Joint Force kill webs and expand its role in support of USINDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] and Western Hemisphere operations.”

The mention here of the Indo-Pacific region underscores broader questions about future operational relevance that have been facing the AC-130 fleet in recent years. The Ghostrider and its immediate predecessors were workhorses during the Global War on Terror era, flying heavily over countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Even so, they flew almost exclusively under the cover of darkness to help reduce vulnerability to ground fire.

Threats to AC-130s would be far more pronounced in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. For years now, this has been the chief scenario driving U.S. military planning around force structure and other requirements. The latest conflict with Iran, as well as other U.S. operations in and around the Middle East in recent years, have made clear that more capable air defense systems are steadily proliferating to smaller nation states and even non-state actors, as well.

The integration of a new stand-off strike capability paired with an AESA radar is one way for the AC-130J to respond to this evolving threat ecosystem. It could also open the door to other new capabilities for the Ghostrider, as well as other AFSOC aircraft like the OA-1K Skyraider II light attack plane. Similar questions about future relevance have been raised about the OA-1K, a design that is also primarily geared toward counter-terrorism missions and other low-intensity conflicts.

The AC-130J fleet is also in the process of receiving a number of other upgrades, including improvements to its defense countermeasures suite.

It is very possible that the AGM-190A could find its way out of the special operations community and into more widespread U.S. military use. The Air Force is currently planning to buy nearly 28,000 low-cost strike munitions over the next five years through its Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program.

“We’re also continuing to talk to the Air Force about what they’re doing with their Family of Affordable Mass Munitions [sic]” to see “if there’s some continued interplay there for us to do a service-to-SOF or SOF-to-service transition,” Col. Bronder said today.

Last week, the Pentagon also rolled out a plan to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles, primarily for surface-launched applications from containerized launchers, in the next three years. Leidos is among the companies now involved in this Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM) program, and is developing a derivative of the AGM-190A to meet those requirements.

For the AC-130J, a full-up demonstration of the pair of an AESA radar and the AGM-190A cruise missile will mark another step toward giving the gunships a valuable, if not increasingly essential, boost in capability.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post AC-130J Gunship With Mini Cruise Missiles Paired With AESA Radar To Undergo Tests appeared first on The War Zone.

According to the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the first flight of the Su-57D was conducted in the hands of Sergey Bogdan, chief test pilot at the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The flight proceeded as planned in accordance with the flight mission parameters, UAC said.

“Flight tests have begun on the prototype of the Su-57, a fifth-generation two-seater fighter.  This aircraft, developed independently by our aircraft manufacturers, will, in addition to its unique combat characteristics, also possess the capabilities of a combat trainer and a command and control aircraft,” said Denis Manturov, First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia.

“We are continuing our work on improving and expanding the capabilities of our most advanced fifth-generation aircraft complex. I am confident that the two-seater version of the aircraft will significantly contribute to its success in foreign markets,” added Vadim Badeha, CEO of UAC.

We now have a much better view of the two-seater, which we can compare with the standard single-seat Su-57 already in Russian service. The new aircraft features an elongated cockpit canopy with a steep elevated position for a second crew member behind the pilot. While the definitive role of the new version remains unclear, many observers believe the aircraft represents Sukhoi’s attempt to transform the Felon into a command-and-control platform to operate as part of a future crewed-uncrewed teaming concept, a concept of operations the Felon is already participating in developing.

The first image emerged through the Fighterbomber Telegram channel, a source closely associated with Russian Aerospace Forces personnel. According to the claims accompanying that first photo, it showed the aircraft during taxi tests, an important stage before any flight trials.

The appearance of the twin-seat Su-57D places Russia in a very exclusive club. At present, China is the only other nation publicly associated with a two-seat fifth-generation fighter program through its Chengdu J-20S variant, an aircraft also widely acknowledged to be associated with crewed-uncrewed teaming for the growing family of Chinese uncrewed combat air vehicles (UCAVs) and fighter-like loyal wingman drones.

A composite image that compares the two-seat J-20S with improved single-seat J-20A and the original single-seat J-20:

The extra crew station could dramatically reduce pilot workload during high-intensity missions involving the control of formations of drones, but also in missions such as electronic warfare and strike coordination. Of course, the aircraft could also be used as a combat trainer.

The second crew member may eventually direct formations of Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B UCAVs. Russia has already experimented with linking the Okhotnik drone to existing single-seat Su-57 prototypes during previous testing campaigns.

The emergence of the aircraft is also intriguing in the context of the abandoned Indo-Russian FGFA program, an effort once intended to create a customized export version of the Su-57 for India. One of New Delhi’s longstanding requests involved a two-seat configuration, but negotiations collapsed years ago amid disagreements over technology transfer, performance concerns, and design priorities. Ironically, the very concept India once sought may now finally be materializing.

There will be various other changes beyond the cockpit redesign. Accommodating a second seat will likely have required some internal rearrangement involving avionics bays, fuel storage, and mission systems. The changes to the outer mold-line of the jet will also have a negative impact on the aircraft’s low-observability (stealthy) characteristics and performance.

The Su-57 program has long faced a degree of (sometimes unfair) skepticism in the West due to limited production numbers, sanctions pressure, limited combat employment, and persistent questions surrounding the overall level of stealth performance. Nonetheless, Russia continues to push upgrades for the aircraft. In recent years, imagery has also surfaced showing experimental low-observable engine nozzles and revised propulsion systems intended to improve maneuverability and survivability.

Despite the intrigue surrounding the new imagery, many uncertainties remain. There is still no indication of whether the aircraft is intended primarily for Russian use or export customers, or if the program has any kind of formal Russian state backing. However, a comment on Telegram from Rostec says that the Su-57D “was developed by specialists at UAC on their own initiative.”

The project may be aimed largely at attracting more international buyers for the Su-57, which has so far struggled to find export interest amid intensifying global competition in the stealth fighter market, and Russia’s pariah status since its invasion of Ukraine.

For now, the newly surfaced imagery provides a very interesting glimpse into a previously unknown program. However, the emergence of the two-seat Su-57D at the very least signals a major evolution in Russia’s fighter ambitions.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Russia’s New Two-Seat Su-57 Felon Takes Its First Flight appeared first on The War Zone.

The announcement was made today on the deck of the stealthy Visby class corvette Härnösand. The Visby class is currently the largest surface combatant used by the Swedish Navy, but it will be dwarfed by the Luleå class. While the Visby class has a displacement of 705 tons and a length of 238 feet 6 inches, the French design has a displacement of 4,390 tons and is 400 feet 3 inches long.

According to reports, the Defense Materiel Administration (FMV), Sweden’s defense procurement organization, chose the French design primarily based on its advanced integrated combat systems and the maturity of the design. As you can read about here, the first example for the French Navy began sea trials in late 2024.

Thirdly, Sweden factored the speed of delivery into the equation. This last point reflects the urgency of the requirement, as the country looks to rebuild its naval power since joining NATO and against the resurgent Russian threat.

While Sweden had long been looking for a next-generation warship to follow on from the Visby class, it originally envisaged a more modest design, with four air defense corvettes based on the Visby design. Since then, the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Sweden’s joining NATO have changed the security landscape dramatically.

When it first pitched its FDI frigate for the program, France had offered to supply Sweden with the first fully equipped warship in 2030, a notably bold timeline. Unlike the rival offers, Naval Group is already building the FDI warships — meaning Frégate de Défense et d’Intervention, or Defense and Intervention Frigate — at its yard in Lorient. Sweden expects to receive one vessel per year starting in 2030.

Despite choosing an off-the-shelf foreign design, there will be industrial benefits for Sweden, with local defense contractors, in particular, Saab, involved in kitting out the warships.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson today heralded the selection of the new warship as “tripling the Swedish [ground- and surface-based] air defenses.” The frigates were always expected to focus heavily on anti-air warfare capabilities, something that’s of growing interest to the Swedish Navy and the importance of which has been underscored by recent conflicts.

For Sweden in particular, a new frigate with enhanced anti-air warfare capabilities will be better able to protect itself, other vessels, and even shore areas or islands, against threats from the air. The overwhelming numbers of crewed aircraft, drones, and missiles that Russia could potentially put up in a conflict involving Sweden have been a significant concern even before the country joined NATO.

The Luleå class will swap out some of the original French combat systems found in the baseline FDI frigate and replace these with locally made equipment.

However, for its critical air defense role, Swedish Minister of Defence Pål Jonsson confirmed that the Luleå class will be armed with two types of missiles from the pan-European MBDA. The first of these is the Aster 30, which, as we have described in the past, is the primary anti-air weapon of the French FDI. In its baseline form, the FDI hull can accommodate 16 Aster missiles in a pair of eight-cell launchers — later vessels will be able to carry 32 by doubling the number of launchers.

The Aster 30 is able to engage targets at more than 75 miles. Recent improvements to the Aster 30 include enhancing its capabilities against anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), a relatively new type of threat.

Aster 30 will be complemented by the CAMM-ER, the extended-range version of the Common Anti-air Modular Missile that is being added to the five Visby class corvettes, to expand their anti-air warfare capabilities. The CAMM-ER surface-to-air missile can engage a wide variety of threats out to a range of around 25 miles.

In terms of anti-ship missiles, the Swedish boats will carry the locally made RBS 15 instead of the MM40 Exocet on the French ships.

As well as an onboard helicopter, anti-submarine firepower will be entrusted to the Swedish Torped 47 instead of the MU90. This new, lightweight torpedo has recently been tested by the Swedish Navy, being fired from a corvette, and during live-fire exercises from a submarine, as seen in the video below.

With its long track record of naval artillery, Sweden will provide the Bofors 57mm instead of the OTO 76mm, while the Bofors 40 Mk 4 will be used as the close-in weapon system (CIWS) in place of the 21-tube RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). The Bofors 40 Mk 4 can fire Bofors 3P (Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity-fused) ammunition, which can be programmed in six different modes to provide
optimised effect against different targets, including airbursts against aerial drones.

Smaller-caliber guns will be fitted in the form of the Saab Trackfire 12.7mm remote weapon stations (RWS), replacing the Lionfish 20 or Narwhal 20mm.

At this stage, it appears that the French-made SETIS combat management system will be retained on the Swedish warships and not replaced with a local equivalent, such as the Saab 9LV. However, the Sea Giraffe 1X radar, from the same firm, will reportedly be included in the sensor array. This would displace the original Thales Sea Fire radar found in the baseline FDI design and would extend air defense surveillance out to a significant range.

Choosing an existing French design means that Sweden will be able to share some of the costs of the program with other operators. As well as France, Greece is ordering the FDI design, and other potential customers include Sweden’s neighbor, Denmark. At the same time, operating common or very similar warship designs enhances interoperability, especially during joint operations.

The decision also further cements the military relationship between France and Sweden. Welcoming the Swedish choice, President of France Emmanuel Macron today wrote on X that it reflected the burgeoning defense partnership, which has also seen France select the Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) to replace its E-3F Sentry Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) fleet, as well as Swedish participation in advanced deterrence. The latter refers to the forward deployment of nuclear-capable French Rafale fighters to Sweden, as European NATO members look at bolstering their deterrence capabilities independent of the United States.

For the Swedish Navy, the primary area of operation has been the Baltic theater, an area of resurgent strategic relevance, as the host to regular and sometimes hostile Russian military activity, maritime, airborne, and also increasingly in the ‘gray zone’ or hybrid warfare.

Once the new Luleå class frigates arrive, starting in 2030, according to plans, the improved capabilities of these powerful vessels will not only bolster Swedish Navy operations in its traditional Baltic area of operations but also out into the wider North Atlantic region, reflecting Sweden’s developing military ambitions as it becomes a more established NATO member.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Sweden Chooses Unusual French Design For Its New Frigates appeared first on The War Zone.

Our Howard Altman talked with DZYNE’s Connor Toler, the project manager for Blitz, on the show floor at the annual SOF Week conference today. Blitz and BlitzBox were first unveiled last week.

“It’s fitting that gap between multi-rotors [quadcopter-type drones] and then longer – a little bit larger Group 2s. So you’re really fitting that mid-range range [sic] and endurance, while keeping an operationally relevant payload,” Toler explained. “What really makes it special is its modularity. So, the ability to be able to swap out payloads at a time of need, not having pre-configured systems, and also allowing the end user to adapt those payloads and those modules themselves.”

In U.S. military parlance, Group 2 drones have maximum total weights between 21 and 55 pounds, can fly up to an altitude of 3,500 feet, and have top speeds of 250 knots or less. Group 1 covers everything below Group 2, capability-wise, including Blitz and the even smaller multi-rotor drones, Toler mentioned.

The Blitz drone itself is a small, highly modular fixed-wing design. It is propelled via a pair of electrically powered propellers, one in each wing. It can cruise at speeds between 40 and 75 Knots Equivalent Air Speed (KEAS).

There are two battery options for Blitz. The standard one offers a maximum range of 50 miles (80 kilometers) and total endurance up to one hour. The extended range type allows the drone to fly out to 93 miles (150 kilometers) and boosts its endurance to two hours. The drone is designed so that the choice of battery does not otherwise impact the total payload capacity, which does have additional impacts on range and endurance.

Blitz has a stated maximum payload capacity of five pounds. It has two payload bays in the main body, as well as nose and tail sections that can be readily swapped out. None of this requires special tools. The tail is notably where the drone’s communications package sits, making it easier to fit different specific radios to meet customer requirements.

One of the payload options is a two-pound fragmentation warhead from MMS Products based on that company’s Mjolnir design. Mjolnir was originally designed to be dropped from small drones.

In the press release it put out last week, DZYNE had also highlighted Blitz’s ability to be configured for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and electronic warfare (EW) missions, as well as for “deception, and other mission effects.” Deception in this case could mean acting as a decoy.

“Blitz offers a lot of flexibility in the electronic warfare space, [and] some of the deception space, as well,” Toler, the Blitz project manager, reiterated today. “We’re able to run antennas out to the wing tips. So, there’s channels on the wings and mounting points on the wing tips.”

“One of the benefits is that it’s not tube-launched, and why is that a benefit is that you’re actually able to put things that are volumetrically unoptimized, per se, and you’re not constrained to a tube,” he also noted. “So you’re really allowed flexibility and creativity when it comes to what you can solve.”

In terms of guidance, currently, Blitz’s main means of getting to the designated target or target area is via satellite navigation using pre-set coordinates.

“We also do have a visual-based navigation module that basically allows you to navigate in a [GPS-]denied environment, which is optional,” according to Toler. This allows the drone to navigate by comparing imagery of the terrain below against an internal database preprogrammed in advance.

Using pre-set coordinates for targeting alone would preclude attacking anything on the move. Whether some degree of automated targeting capability is already available for Blitz, or on the horizon, is unclear. DZYNE says that Blitz can also be employed in an operator-in-the-loop mode, which would require an active control link to the drone during flight. Advances continue to be made in automated target recognition and engagement capabilities, driven by parallel developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning, as you can read more about in this past TWZ feature. This, in turn, could reduce the importance of having a mode of operation involving direct, if any, operator control. For its part, the U.S. military says it sees humans continuing to be involved, at least to some degree, in the operation of drones for the foreseeable future.

Whether the operator remains in the loop or not after launch, mission planning and control of Blitz drones can be done via handheld tablet-like devices. A software “plugin” to support the drones has already been integrated into the Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK) suite in service across the U.S. military, as well as with foreign armed forces.

However, right now, “typically, how they work is you predetermine what area you’re going to fly, that gets loaded onto the aircraft before you launch, and then we’re off to the races,” according to Toler. “Within the plugin itself, when you’re operating Blitz, you’re not flying an aircraft. What you’re doing is you’re planning effects over some area, and then you’re assigning aircraft to that mission.”

In its current form, Blitz is also designed to be lower-cost and, by extension, expandable, though a specific cost target has not yet been provided. Toler said today that there is a “path” to making the drone more recoverable and potentially reusable, but primarily for training rather than operational purposes.

“What’s really unique about Blitz is that, regardless of any of those different scenarios, it’s actually the exact same thing. You’re not modifying the aircraft to fit into any of those employment options,” Toler added. “So not only is it incredibly flexible from a payload perspective, but it’s also incredibly flexible from an employment perspective.”

Blitz takes off under its own power and is small enough to be hand-launched. It can also be deployed via four-rail launchers, which can be carried by small teams on the ground, as well as installed on ships and boats. Individual Blitz drones can be carried inside a container that provides an integrated charging station, as well.

And then there is the containerized BlitzBox launch system. As part of its announcement last week, DZYNE showed one example utilizing what outwardly looked like any other 10-foot shipping container. Up to 16 Blitz drones on four separate rail launchers can fit inside. Toler confirmed today that DZYNE has also been working on a 40-foot type, which can hold up to 100 of the drones.

BlitzBox opens up significant additional operational possibilities for Blitz. Containerized systems present inherent benefits for expeditionary or distributed operations as they can be readily deployed and redeployed via truck, as well as by cargo aircraft and ships. Groups of container launchers could be positioned far forward, or even behind enemy lines, and operated remotely. Since they look like any other shipping container from the outside, this also creates targeting challenges for opponents.

The containerized launch system “can be configured to be as autonomous as you liked [sic] it to be,” according to Toler. He said DZYNE has already demonstrated the ability to operate BlitzBox remotely at extended ranges via satellite communication. He specifically highlighted SpaceX Starlink and its government-focused cousin Starshield as examples of networks that could be used to manage the containers and the drones inside.

BlitzBox launchers could be loaded with dozens of drones in different configurations to perform various tasks as coordinated by a single user. Currently, there is no fully-autonomous swarming or cooperative capability, though DZYNE’s software can help deconflict operational plans prior to launch.

Toler described a notional scenario in which “Let’s say, if you’re operating a BlitzBox, I want to assign 30 aircraft for that mission. And the software will deconflict those aircraft and launch them in a sequence to make sure that you know there’s no mid-air collisions, and they time the effects appropriately.”

“Right now, what Blitz uses is basically pre-coordinated cooperation, and what I mean by that is the vehicles, once they launch, they’re not talking to each other,” he added. “One of the benefits of that is, that when you’re in [a] denied environment, you can’t ensure that the vehicles are going to be able to talk to each other. So our current implementation allows you to still have coordinated effects without relying on that.”

The way BlitzBox is designed, each one of the containers can also just be used to store drones, either for reloading other launchers or for use in other modes.

“So, you can imagine having a BlitzBox with aircraft in a ready-to-launch state, as you see them there, and perhaps a separate container with aircraft in their box state as this reloads,” Toler explained. “But now that container not only allows you to grab reloads from the BlitzBox itself, but let’s say your CONOP [concept of operations] changes and now you want to just throw a handful in the back of a Razor [Polaris MRZR] or in [the] back of a vehicle, and operate from somewhere else. You can just go grab those reloads and take them.”

Toler said DYZNE has already “worked with several customers across the DOW [Department of War]” in regard to Blitz and BlitzBox. However, it is unknown whether or not any branch of the U.S. military has moved to acquire these drones and launchers, or may have already begun fielding them.

That being said, as mentioned right at the start, this kind of containerized drone launch capability is something the U.S. military is very actively pursuing. In February, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) put out a call for proposals for a Containerized Autonomous Drone Delivery System (CADDS). Last month, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) put out a separate contracting notice seeking concepts for drones with a high degree of autonomous operation, as well as containerized launch systems to go with them. DARPA also outlined a notional concept of operations involving a largely self-sustaining “autonomous constellation” able to support networked swarms consisting of as many as 500 drones at once.

TWZ has previously called particular attention to the threat that unassuming containerized drone launchers can pose, given their ability to hide in plain sight. Ukraine has already demonstrated the effectiveness of this kind of drone attack with its Operation Spiderweb last year, which succeeded in destroying prized bombers and other aircraft at several Russian airbases. Israel’s near-field attacks from within Iran during the opening phases of the 12 Day War are another example of how this kind of capability could be employed deep within enemy territory. DZYNE says Blitz and BlitzBox have been in development since before Operation Spiderweb, but there are clear similarities in the company’s proposed concepts of operations.

As we also previously wrote after DIU’s CADDS announcement:

“Even in an overt operational context, readily deployable containerized systems capable of acting as hubs for drone operations across a broad area with limited manpower requirements could offer a major boost in capability and capacity. Ships, trucks, and aircraft, which could themselves be uncrewed, could be used to bring them to and from forward locations, even in remote areas. If they can support a ‘heterogeneous mix’ of uncrewed aerial systems, a single container could be used to support a wide array of mission requirements, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, electronic warfare, kinetic strikes, and/or communications signal relay.”

…

“Drone swarms are only set to become more capable as advancements in autonomy, especially automated target recognition, continue to progress, driven by parallel developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning, as you can read more about here. Future highly autonomous swarms will be able to execute various mission sets even more efficiently and in ways that compound challenges for defenders. Massed drone attacks with limited autonomy already have an inherent capacity to just overwhelm enemy defenses. In turn, electronic warfare systems and high-power microwave directed energy weapons have steadily emerged as some of the most capable options available to tackle swarms, but have their own limitations. Even powerful microwave systems have very short ranges and are directional in nature, and electronic warfare systems may simply not work at all against autonomous drones.”

It should be noted that a number of other companies in the United States and elsewhere globally have already put forward other concepts for containerized drone launchers. Many countries around the world have fielded containerized or container-like drone launchers, especially mounted on trucks, or are in the process of doing so. China has been particularly active in this regard. Israel has also long been a pioneer in developing these kinds of capabilities as part of its work on long-range kamikaze drones. As seen in the video below, Iran is now another major actor in this domain.

DZYNE’s BlitzBox, coupled with its new Blitz drone, could still be reflective of a larger trend set to emerge now, especially in response to the clearly growing demand from the U.S. military.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post BlitzBox Packs 100 Weaponized Drones Into An Unassuming Container appeared first on The War Zone.

Check out the video:

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

The post B-1B’s Future Armament According To Its Test Pilot appeared first on The War Zone.

Lt. Col. Robert Wilson, chief of the AFSOC Armed Overwatch Requirements Branch, briefed journalists, including from TWZ, on the latest plans for the OA-1K ahead of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Week, taking place from today in Tampa, Florida.

Beginning with an overview of the program, Lt. Col. Wilson stressed that the OA-1K — a militarized derivative of the popular Air Tractor AT-802 crop duster — is not viewed as a replacement for legacy platforms like U-28 (which he previously flew) or the MC-12. Instead, it is “a new, purpose-built solution for today’s complex environments.”

The thinking behind the Skyraider II reflects the transition from the Air Force’s focus on counter-terrorism operations in the post-9/11 period to a more complex threat picture. Now, the service has to be more prepared to fight against a much wider range of adversaries across the spectrum of conflict.

As Wilson explained, “the OA-1K represents a new era for AFSOC, with the flexibility to support not only counter-terrorism-like missions, but also crisis and contingency response, competition with more advanced adversaries, and even aspects of full-on conflict. To meet this wide range of mission sets, OA-1K is a multi-role capability platform that is essentially a Swiss Army knife of airborne capability.”

The OA-1K multi-role mission remit therefore covers close air support (CAS), armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and precision strike.

At this point, Wilson explained, “we’re in the midst of production and delivery of aircraft, and we’re reaching a point where we are getting very close to demonstrating capabilities such as the weapons employment, the ability to provide ISR capability, so we’re kind of transitioning the program from what was previously developmental and conceptual to actually getting to the point where we’ll be looking to get into operational tests.”

To keep pace with changing threats, the Skyraider II has a modular design that provides flexibility for future upgrades, which could include expanded payloads, such as more advanced weapons, or more exquisite intelligence-collection capabilities.

Reflecting on the potential for future enhancements in terms of external sensors and other payloads, Wilson continued: “We really think of this as levers that can be manipulated with a combination of fuel, weapons, and exquisite capabilities that can be increased or decreased based on the mission set to most effectively apply the capability to whatever mission it’s going out to accomplish that day.”

The OA-1K is also expected to enhance overall ground-force lethality and situational awareness through its provision of modern datalinks for joint integration.

All of this is expected to come with a much lower price tag than would be the case for traditional crewed aircraft.

According to Wilson, the cost-effectiveness of the OA-1K translates to a cost per flying hour of roughly $2,500. For comparison, an F-16C/D costs roughly ten times this amount per hour to operate.

“The OA-1K is one of the most affordable AFSOC platforms, which then frees up higher-end assets that are more costly, for other mission sets around the world, and that dollar amount makes it roughly 50 percent more cost-effective than even an MQ-1, which is an unmanned platform, and it’s more cost-effective than armed platforms like the U-28,” Wilson added.

NB: Wilson subsequently clarified that he had misspoken and that the cost comparison was between the OA-1K and other crewed platforms, like the U-28.

In terms of fielding, AFSOC has taken possession of its 18th OA-1K and is expecting a handful more throughout the end of the fiscal year. The initial cadre of crews is still training at Will Rogers Air National Guard Base in Oklahoma, with plans to station the aircraft in the future at both Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

The next step in standing up this capability will involve demonstrating the rapid deployment abilities of the OA-1K. This is something that was part of the original requirement but which is also seen as increasingly vital for SOF missions, which already demand a high level of expeditionary agility. The ability to rapidly disassemble and reassemble the Skyraider II would become even more important in a potential confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific theater.

“With rapid disassembly and reassembly, OA-1K can be loaded into a mobility aircraft like a C-5 or C-17 for rapid worldwide deployment, supporting missions around the world at a moment’s notice, and importantly, we’re talking a matter of hours instead of days or weeks that it would have otherwise required to fly around the world wherever it needs to go,” Wilson explained.

To start with, AFSOC is looking at testing this deployment capability using larger transport aircraft, primarily to maximize the number of OA-1Ks that can be moved at once, although Wilson said the exact number that will fit in a C-5 or C-17 will be determined as part of the operational test process later this calendar year.

Once deployed, the OA-1K is expected to operate “from nearly anywhere,” including short dirt surfaces, grass strips, and unimproved runways. As such, it will give the Air Force a combination of rapid deployment and austere environment capability that it otherwise doesn’t possess.

As noted earlier, there have been repeated questions about the survivability and general utility of the OA-1K in more contested environments, something that TWZ has looked at in depth in the past. But Wilson is confident that its mix of capabilities means it can still be relevant, even when facing a high-end opponent.

“First, it complicates things for the adversary because you may not have the aircraft in predictable locations,” Wilson contended. “It ensures that armed overwatch is provided for the joint force to increase their own survivability, and finally, it also ensures the persistent presence of the capability at a low cost compared to other platforms, freeing up higher-end assets for other locations.”

All of this can be achieved with a relatively tiny logistics footprint, with only a handful of contract maintainers required, and the disassembly/reassembly process can be done safely even in austere environments. Each two-person aircrew is being trained in this process, which includes conducting functional check flights in these locations before the aircraft conducts its mission. The actual process of disassembly and reassembly takes just a matter of hours.

With traditional Air Force platforms, deployments can take days or weeks, not just in terms of physically having to fly the aircraft to wherever it needs to go around the world, but all the planning that’s necessary for the crews, ground support services, etc.

“We have demonstrated this capability by doing a timed disassembly and reassembly in a controlled environment in a hangar,” Wilson added. “We’ll next look to conduct the activity in an actual mobility aircraft during our operational test later this calendar year.” After that, AFSOC will look to conduct the rapid disassembly and reassembly of the Skyraider II as part of exercises, likely next year.

“Just like anything else, the more reps and sets that we accomplish, the more ready we will be whenever we need to conduct it operationally,” Wilson said.

While Wilson did not mention it by name, this mode of operating ties directly into broader Air Force plans for the Agile Combat Employment, or ACE, concept, which is designed to ensure that combat airpower can still be brought to bear in a timely way, even when conventional airbases are put out of action or otherwise held under threat — the kinds of conditions likely in a conflict with a near-peer competitor, like China or Russia. In fact, the OA-1K has a particular role to play in this sort of scenario, since it’s even questionable if more advanced platforms will be able to execute as envisioned in a major conflict under ‘ACE rules.’

Wilson is also confident that, even without recourse to these kinds of expeditionary basing tactics, the OA-1K offers a suitable degree of survivability for many different scenarios.

“We have a certain built-in survivability capability for the platform,” Wilson explained. “The contractor has built in cockpit and engine armor, for example, to ensure that it’s survivable, and it does have defensive systems. So I would say it does have a baseline level of defensibility and survivability, and then we are certainly working on, with funding, ensuring that it is modernized and equipped, not only for survivability, but for really any other capability for the platform as well, to ensure that it remains relevant for the future.”

As for that first operational deployment, that could occur “in the coming years,” provided that the program continues to mature as anticipated.

There are potential pitfalls ahead, not least the question about how many OA-1Ks the Air Force will eventually receive.

Wilson reiterated that the program of record still calls for 75 aircraft, but admitted that this could be a challenge to achieve. As it stands, the U.S. Special Operations Command, as the procurement agency for the OA-1K, has cut its planned purchase down to 53 airframes, citing resource constraints.

“As the capability sponsor, I would say less than 75 is not desirable,” Wilson noted. “Any decrement below that is essentially a result of resource constraints and budget limitations. We will continue advocating to ensure that we get closer and ultimately achieve that program of record, but as you can imagine, budget constraints that impact various programs have decreased the final fleet size to less than that currently.”

The prospect of a potentially smaller OA-1K fleet means that having the aircraft working alongside other platforms, including drones, may become more important. Already, however, AFSOC sees the value of crewed/uncrewed missions for the Skyraider II.

“The integration of manned and unmanned assets is something that we’re certainly looking at in terms of capability,” said.

When it comes to weapons capabilities, Wilson confirmed that APKWS laser-guided rockets are compatible with the OA-1K and are something that AFSOC wants to have as part of the ordnance options for the platform.

APKWS is quickly becoming a weapon of choice for a wide range of platforms, offering a low-cost, high-volume, precision weapon that is equally effective for both ground attack and counter-drone missions. APKWS was proven incredibly effective on light attack aircraft experiments that tangentially led to the procurement of the Skyraider II, working as the primary weapon for those aircraft. So it should come as no surprise that it will be integrated onto the Skyraider II. It’s actually somewhat surprising it isn’t already.

As far as the Red Wolf cruise missiles, Wilson was a little more circumspect. “That is certainly an area that we are looking to explore to allow for inclusion of that weapon into the planned set,” he said.

As we have explained in the past, adding Red Wolf, or a similar standoff weapon, to the OA-1K armory is one way of ensuring the aircraft can be more relevant and survivable, providing it with a true long-range strike capability.

Putting aside the Red Wolf, it is also somewhat surprising that so little weapons integration work appears to have been carried over from earlier iterations of the armed Air Tractor concept, since similar versions of this aircraft have been flying for years, including in combat.

The Air Force service sees the OA-1K as far more than a light attack aircraft and more as a modular platform that will be able to be configured for irregular warfare, armed overwatch, ISR, strike, and more. Clearly, by pushing its rapid-deployment capability, the service is seeking to underscore the relevance of the aircraft in the Pacific theater. Meanwhile, recent conflicts in the Middle East — where traditional airbases were pummelled by drone and missile attacks — have demonstrated that the Air Force still has a requirement to conduct combat operations in other, less-contested environments too.

Once the OA-1K starts demonstrating its rapid-deployment capability, AFSOC hopes that the aircraft will further demonstrate that it fills a niche that no other crewed Air Force platform currently can.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Plan To Test OA-1K Skyraider II’s Rapid Deployability Outlined By Air Force Special Ops Command appeared first on The War Zone.

“I have been asked by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was scheduled for tomorrow, in that serious negotiations are now taking place,” Trump proclaimed on Truth Social, adding that, “in their opinion, as Great Leaders and Allies, a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond.”

“This Deal will include, importantly, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN!” the president emphasized. “Based on my respect for the above mentioned Leaders, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached.”

However, as Axios reporter Barak Ravid noted, “Trump has extended deadlines and postponed planned attacks on Iran at least half a dozen times since the war began.”

So it remains to be seen whether this latest statement has any merit or if it is another effort to kick the can down the road.

Trump’s latest claim about the war highlights the ever-changing narrative of events. Earlier in the day, Axios reported that Iran had given an updated proposal for a deal to end the war, “but the White House believes it is not a meaningful improvement and is insufficient for a deal,” citing a senior U.S. official and a source briefed on the situation.

At issue is the future of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and specifically their stockpile of enriched uranium. Trump’s bottom line is that Iran needs to give up any and all future nuclear ambitions, and the enriched uranium it already has, while the Iranians maintain they have the right to enrich uranium and will not hand over any of their existing material. Tehran’s control of the Strait, its ballistic missile and drone arsenal, and support for proxies are other sticking points.

U.S. officials say Trump wants a deal to end the war, but is considering resuming it “due to Iran’s rejection of many of his demands and refusal to make meaningful concessions on its nuclear program,” Axios added. “Trump is expected to convene his top national security team in the Situation Room on Tuesday to discuss military options, two U.S. officials said.”

Axios stated that the senior U.S. official said if Iran won’t shift its position, the U.S. will have to continue the negotiations “through bombs.”

In contrast, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei on Monday told reporters that his country’s “nuclear enrichment is a right that ‘already exists,'” an indication that Tehran isn’t budging on its stance. Still, Baghaei also described how negotiations with the United States are still continuing through Pakistani mediation.

All this comes against the backdrop of reports that the U.S. and Israel have been carrying out their most intense preparations yet to renew attacks on Iran, possibly as soon as this week, two Middle Eastern officials told The New York Times on Friday.

Monday’s back and forth comes a day after Trump issued a new warning to Tehran, saying “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

In the wake of renewed threats from Trump, Iran claims it is prepared to defend against the U.S. and Israel if needed.

“In case of aggression against Iran again, Iran’s armed forces have new #surprises for the enemy,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei warned, according to a post on X by the official Iranian IRIB media outlet. “Contradictory behaviors and threats of the enemy do not confuse or scare us.”

The tough talk between the U.S. and Iran clearly also includes some amount of bluster as the two sides seek a way forward without appearing to have caved to the other’s demands. Trump’s claim about holding off on an attack due to improving negotiations may be another example of that. But eventually time on this kind of posturing will run out and this week could be that inflection point.

UPDATE: 5:53 PM EDT –

New satellite imagery shows damage to three Iranian ships caused by the U.S-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran’s Navy.

Satellite imagery dated May 17 from Shahid Bahonar Port appears to show the IRIS Makran, a forward base ship of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, with a large hole in the deck alongside other heavy damage.

Imagery shows the IRGC Navy’s expeditionary base ship IRIS SHAHID MAHDAVI apparently sunk.

Satellite imagery dated May 12 also shows the Iranian IRIS Kordestan, an Iranian Navy forward base ship in the Persian Gulf with light to moderate damage due to the airstrikes.

Dozens of U.S. Air Force refueling jets now deployed to Ben Gurion Airport are expected to stay in Israel at least until the end of this year, Israel’s N12 News reported on X.

“The presence of the aircraft—not the U.S. military—is causing significant operational difficulties at Ben Gurion Airport, as they are parked almost everywhere possible at the port,” the outlet added.

UPDATES

On Monday, the country’s Supreme National Security Council said a newly formed Iranian agency, called the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), would provide “real-time updates” on operations and the latest developments in the Strait, a crucial chokepoint through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas pass in peacetime.

The announcement about the PGSA follows news that Iran “started a Bitcoin-backed insurance service for shipping companies that want to transit the Strait of Hormuz,” Bloomberg News reported, citing the semi-official Fars news agency reported, which claimed it has documents obtained from Iran’s Ministry of Economy and Financial Affairs.

Dubbed Hormuz Safe, “the Iranian government says it could generate more than $10 billion in revenue for the Islamic Republic,” Bloomberg noted, adding that Fars provided no timeframe or a breakdown of how the service would work.

The effort is widely seen as a way for Iran to get around calling any fee for crossing the Strait a toll.

“The Iranian regime is introducing a formalized toll system under the guise of maritime insurance policies and continuing to deploy incentives and threats to vessels in the Persian Gulf as part of their efforts to normalize and solidify Iranian control over the Strait,” the Institute for the Study of War posited. “This system appears designed to be more palatable than an outright ‘toll’ by framing it as a ‘maritime insurance policy.’ The insurance presumably insures the vessel against an Iranian attack.”

“As the President stated, the Strait is international water, and we are not going to let Iran toll the Strait or normalize an illegal regime where they attempt to control traffic through the Strait.,” a White House official told us.

Coinciding with its growing efforts in the Strait, PGSA unveiled an account on X on Monday.

“The Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) is the legal entity and representative authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran for managing the passage and transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” PGSA asserted. “Navigation within the introduced boundaries of the Strait of Hormuz, which were previously determined by the Armed Forces and authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is contingent upon full coordination with these entities, and passage without permission will be considered illegal.”

Iran has divided its operational control over the Strait of Hormuz area between the Iranian Navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy.

“From the shores of Makran to the Strait of Hormuz, it is managed by the Iranian Navy, and the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are managed by the IRGC Navy,” the official Iranian IRIB news outlet announced on X.

Despite the ongoing U.S. blockade of its ports, Iran is still loading crude into tankers, “although (not right now) in Kharg Island,” Bloomberg commodities and energy columnist Javier Blas reported on X. “Instead, it’s loading a tanker at Jask, an alternative terminal outside the Strait of Hormuz (but inside the US Navy blockade line).”

In a post on X, TankerTrackers.com stated that there “are actually plenty of able, cargo-empty tankers within the US Navy blockade perimeter but Iran has already lowered its oil production to match consumption and some storage buildup on land. The storage situation does not appear to be dire for the time being.”

As we have previously reported, a major goal of the blockade is to hurt Iran economically, including by threatening its ability to store oil.

Pakistan has reportedly deployed thousands of troops, jets and air defense systems to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom amid a shaky ceasefire.

Pakistan’s contribution to the mutual aid pact includes Chinese weapons, Reuters explained. It “has deployed a full squadron of around 16 aircraft,” mostly JF-17 Thunder fighters, which were ​sent to Saudi Arabia in early April. Pakistan had also sent “two squadrons of drones,” Reuters reported, adding that Islamabad could also send more troops, plus a Chinese-made HQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile system.

The equipment is operated by Pakistani personnel and financed by Saudi Arabia, the news outlet pointed out. It remains unclear exactly what this means, if it pertains to the deployment or to the hardware itself.

Earlier this year, we reported that talks about the jets were underway, potentially to be paid for by converting some of the billions of dollars of Saudi loans taken out by Islamabad. However, at the time, shortly before the war broke out, it remained unclear if the Saudis even would want a light fighter like the Thunder at all, especially considering it could cause a rift with the U.S. at a critical time. In the past months, the kingdom had been offered the U.S.-made F-35, as you can read about here, and operates advanced fighters like the F-15SA and Typhoon.

The JF-17 was developed jointly by China’s Chengdu and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), and the first prototype took to the air in 2003. The aircraft is powered by a single Russian-designed RD-93 turbofan engine, an improved version of the RD-33 that is found in the twin-engined MiG-29 Fulcrum. Presumably, the JF-17s will help defend Saudi skies from drone and cruise missile attacks, although that too isn’t perfectly clear at this time.

It is possible that amid the shaky ceasefire, Iran’s proxies may be carrying out attacks on Arab Gulf nations. On Sunday, both the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia said they were attacked by drones. UAE officials said the attacks were carried out by Iran or its proxies while Saudi said it was struck by drones launched from Iraq.

The UAE Defense Ministry said an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant was struck by one of three drones launched at the country. Two other drones were successfully intercepted, it said.

In its initial statement on X, the MoD said that the drones “entered the country from the western border direction,” without assigning blame. UAE officials later updated that to say the drone was “launched by Iran or one of its proxies” in what officials called a “dangerous escalation.”

The officials did not get more specific. The Houthi rebels of Yemen operate southwest of the UAE while several Iranian-backed militias operate in Iraq, northwest of the country.

The Emirate MoD “affirmed that it remains fully prepared and ready to address any threats and will firmly confront any attempts to undermine the country’s security, in a manner that safeguards its sovereignty, security and stability, and protects its national interests and gains.”

In a post on X, the IAEA expressed “grave concern” about the incident and said military activity that threatens nuclear safety is unacceptable. The [director general] reiterates call for maximum military restraint near any NPP to avoid the danger of a nuclear accident.”

Pakistan on Monday “strongly condemned” the drone attack on the UAE’s nuclear power plant.

“Any deliberate targeting of nuclear facilities constitutes a grave violation of international law, including international humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter, and the fundamental principles of nuclear safety and security enshrined in the Statute and resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said in an X post. “Nuclear installations must never be targeted under any circumstances. Such reckless actions carry potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences for human life, the environment and regional, as well as global peace and security.”

Pakistan’s condemnation comes as it is trying to keep a flagging peace process going amid an increasingly tenuous ceasefire.

Saudi Arabia said it too was attacked by drones on Sunday, but did not say who launched them.

The official spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense (MoD), Major General Turki Al-Maliki, “stated that on the morning of Sunday…three drones were intercepted and destroyed after entering the Kingdom’s airspace coming from Iraqi airspace,” the Saudi MoD stated on X. Al-Maliki “affirmed that the Ministry of Defense reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place, and will take and implement all necessary operational measures to respond to any attempt to infringe on the Kingdom’s sovereignty, security, and the safety of its citizens and residents on its territory.”

There are several Iranian-linked proxy groups in Iraq that have been attacking U.S. and allied facilities in that country.

On Monday Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a phone call with his Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan. According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the two discussed issues related to the ongoing diplomatic process and the latest regional developments, in their seventh call since the ceasefire began.

The New York Times is reporting that Israel established at least a second base in Iraq to aid its air campaigns against Iran. As we previously noted, the presence of the first one was reported by The Wall Street Journal.

In its story, the Times stated the base it was writing about pre-dated the current conflict and was used during last year’s 12-Day War between Israel and Iran. The newspaper also said a Bedouin shepherd was killed by helicopter fire after stumbling on the base in an effort to keep it secret.

The Times story lines up with our earlier reporting that Israel likely created facilities in Iraq during the 12-Day War. We also predicted at the time that it would likely happen again in the future.

As we noted in the past, Israel used the base reported on by the Journal to stage troops and equipment and provide combat search and rescue service if needed for downed pilots during the current conflict. 

Amid its own ceasefire agreement with the Lebanese government, Israel is continuing to hit Hezbollah targets in the southern part of that country where it has a growing military presence.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Trump Claims He Called Off Imminent Iran Bombing Campaign At Behest Of Allies (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

As a supplement to existing interceptors, a lower-cost alternative would improve Patriot’s cost-per-intercept ratio, especially against lower-tier threats like drones and cruise missiles. The design could also be easier to produce at scale, helping address increasingly worrisome strains on stockpiles and supply chains. These are issues TWZ has been calling attention to for years now, and that have been magnified by Patriot’s heavy use during the latest conflict with Iran.

Last Friday, the Army’s Capability Program Executive (CPE) for Defensive Fires quietly put out a call for information about prospective new low-cost interceptor designs for Patriot.

“We are running a very aggressive Low Cost Interceptor (LCI) missile and missile sub-system competition,” Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), wrote in a post on LinkedIn yesterday, calling attention to the contracting notice. “We will be holding an Industry Day in DC in the very near future. We are looking to generate the greatest amount of interest and participation across the entirety of the missile technology industrial base as possible! This effort is intended to result in multiple awards that can lead to multiple different capable yet affordable missile interceptor solutions!”

The contracting notice itself breaks the $1 million unit price target into four component groups, each of which the Army wants to cost no more than $250,000. These are: Low-Cost Interceptor All-Up Round (AUR) and Fire Control, Low-Cost Rocket Motor, Low-Cost Seeker, and Fire Control and Flight Guidance Implementation. The Army is also seeking information about a potential contractor to serve as the central integrator for all of those “best of breed” elements, which could come from different sources.

When it comes to the complete missile, or AUR, and associated fire control system elements, the Army wants to integrate the missiles into existing M903 trailer-based launchers and leverage the service’s new Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) network. The M903 is already capable of accommodating newer PAC-3 series interceptors, including the MSE variant, as well as older PAC-2 types that remain in inventory.

Northrop Grumman’s IBCS was designed from the outset with a modular, open-systems approach to make it easier to integrate new systems and functionality as time goes on. You can read more about IBCS in detail in this past TWZ feature.

“The Government seeks a component-level solid rocket motor (SRM) capable of meeting the rigorous kinetic and kinematic requirements necessary for an AMD interceptor and capable of being integrated as part of a MOSA AMD interceptor,” according to the contracting notice. “The Government seeks a component-level seeker capable of threat acquisition, tracking, and terminal guidance in support of AMD missions against the stated threat sets within contested and degraded environments (e.g., active electronic warfare, harsh weather, cluttered terrain, etc.).”

“The Government seeks a component-level fire control and flight guidance implementation capable of providing engageability options to the IBCS and providing post-launch management of interceptor flight and communications messaging,” the contracting notice adds.

Overall, the new low-cost interceptors are intended to “serve as supplementals to the Integrated Fires Air and Missile Defense mission against Air Breathing Threats (ABT), Cruise Missiles, Close-Range Ballistic Missiles (CRBM), and Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM),” per the notice. SRBMs are typically defined as ballistic missiles with maximum ranges under 620 miles. The U.S. military also uses the term CRBM to categorize ballistic threats that can hit targets out to no more than 186 miles.

The Patriot system currently has the ability to engage all of the threats listed above, but that capability comes at a cost. The unit price of each PAC-3 MSE interceptor has risen to approximately $5.3 million, according to the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. This is up from a historical average of around $4 million for each one of these missiles. These are also exquisite munitions that take years of lead time to produce, something we will come back to later on.

In 2024, the Army announced that it had axed plans for a new interceptor for Patriot, previously called Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI), in large part due to projected costs.

“So, right now, the Army has decided that we are not going to move forward on what we were calling a Lower Tier Future Interceptor,” then-Brig. Gen. Lozano said in a live interview with Defense News‘ Jen Judson from the floor of the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference that year. “That was going to be a very expensive endeavor. … Interceptors in that family or class of interceptors are very capable, but also very expensive.”

There had been subsequent signs that a follow-on of some kind to LTFI was in the works. “This year we’re starting a new interceptor program that will have longer range [and] higher altitudes,” Army Lt. Col. Steven Moebes, Product Manager for Lower Tier Interceptors, told Secretary Pete Hegseth during a show-and-tell at the service’s Redstone Arsenal last December, at which media outlets were also present.

“We want to see if we can bring, from scratch, an interceptor that we can own the IP [intellectual property] for, then go find contract manufacturing,” Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll also told reporters at the Pentagon just earlier this month, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Driscoll reportedly indicated at that time that the total price point the service was aiming for was $250,000. As mentioned, we now know that this is the cost target for each of the four elements that would combine to form an interceptor costing $1 million or less.

A goal to acquire an anti-air interceptor that is capable of engaging everything from lower-tier air-breathing threats to SRBMs, but does not cost more than $1 million, is still ambitious. It is also in line with Pentagon-wide initiatives to expand the acquisition of lower-cost munitions, including by leveraging new, non-traditional industry partners well beyond established prime defense contractors, and open-architecture approaches. Secretary Driscoll’s mention of Army ownership of the IP also highlights another important aspect of these initiatives, which is aimed at preventing vendor lock, and allows for new competitions to be readily run for AURs and subcomponents.

To reiterate, the new low-cost interceptor is intended to be a supplement to existing options for the Patriot system. At the same time, not all threats require something like a PAC-3 MSE. So, as noted, adding a new relatively cheap alternative to the mix would offer benefits in terms of cost-per-intercept ratio. The price associated with using the system to knock down lower-tier threats, particularly long-range kamikaze drones with unit prices measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, has become a major talking point in the past decade. Patriot also offers an important layer of defense against shorter-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phases of their flight, which present real threats, as underscored by the latest conflict with Iran, and are increasingly proliferating. As such, being able to provide lower-end terminal ballistic missile defense at a reduced cost point will also be increasingly valuable going forward.

A new, but still capable interceptor for Patriot that is relatively cheap compared to existing types like the PAC-3 MSE could be beneficial when it comes to stockpile management and supply chains, especially if it is also faster to produce at scale. The recent conflict with Iran and other crises in the Middle East in recent years, along with support to allies and partners, particularly Ukraine, have underscored the need for new steps to ensure sufficient numbers of anti-intercepts and other critical munitions remain in U.S. inventory.

Though the Pentagon has insisted that America’s arsenal is still sufficiently stocked to address current and future contingencies, U.S. officials have openly called attention to the potential impacts of high expenditure rates and the importance of diversifying the industrial base that supplies these weapons. The up-front need for a large stockpile of anti-air and other munitions, and the ability to refill it rapidly, not on a timeline measured in years, would only be even pronounced in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific.

When it comes to Patriot, there is a separate, but directly related issue of overall capacity. The Army’s Patriot force continues to be inadequate to meet existing demands, let alone what would be required in a future major conflict against an adversary like the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

The Army has been working to expand the total size of its Patriot force, as well as improve the capabilities of the system through the addition of new radars and other functionality. The Pentagon has also reached deals with the PAC-3 MSE’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, to ramp up production of those interceptors. The service is now looking toward new containerized launchers for the Patriot system, which could be carried by future uncrewed trucks, as well.

However, many of these developments are still likely years away from fully materializing and are subject to their own supply chain limitations. The Navy is now working to integrate PAC-3 MSE into the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), adding a valuable new anti-air interceptor to its sea-based arsenal, but also further increasing demand. Growing U.S. demand around the Patriot, overall, including as a result of heavy use of the system in the latest conflict with Iran, has had second-order impacts on other customers globally.

Altogether, a new lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot system could be an important, if not increasingly essential, addition to the Army’s arsenal. At the same time, whether the service can meet its goal of finding a missile that meets its significant requirements, but still costs less than $1 million, remains to be seen.

UPDATE: 6:11 PM EST –

In his LinkedIn post yesterday, Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano had included a rendering of a missile, seen below. It has been brought to our attention that this is a rendering of the FP-7 ballistic missile under development by Fire Point in Ukraine. Fire Point says it is now also developing an anti-air interceptor version called the FP-7.x, new details about which were recently released. The core design is reportedly based on the Russian 48N6 used in the S-400 surface-to-air missile system. Whether the FP-7.x could be considered for the U.S. Army’s requirements for a new interceptor for the Patriot system is unknown.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post ‘Cheap’ Patriot Interceptor Costing Under $1 Million Now Being Sought By Army appeared first on The War Zone.

The apparent first publicly available photo of the two-seat Su-57 appeared on the Fighterbomber Telegram channel, which has close ties to the Russian Aerospace Forces. The same account claims that the aircraft is now undergoing taxi trials.

The most prominent modification to the aircraft is a redesigned forward fuselage, with a tandem two-seat cockpit that is broadly similar to that on the Su-30 Flanker family and on the two-seat Su-27UB Flanker-C. As on the Su-30, the rear seat is positioned significantly higher than the front one, providing a much better view forward from the rear cockpit.

The background of the photo has been blurred, so the location cannot be identified. Typically, tests of this kind would take place at Zhukovsky, near Moscow, the major hub for Russian experimental aerospace testing.

Some reports suggest that this new version of the Felon is designated Su-57D or Su-57UB, but this remains unconfirmed. In a Russian aerospace context, the suffix D would normally denote long range, while UB signifies a combat trainer.

There have been suggestions that the two-seat Su-57 might have been built using an existing single-seat Felon airframe, namely one of the prototypes, T-50-5R.

With no previous reports that Sukhoi was actively working on a two-seat version of the Su-57, the aircraft’s appearance now is all the more intriguing.

However, back in 2023, details of a patent emerged for a “multifunctional two-seat low-observable tactical aircraft,” with plans published showing a two-seat Su-57. According to Russian media reports, the planned two-seat aircraft is intended for “acting as an airborne command post for network-oriented operations of mixed groups of aircraft.” This is a concept that actually dates all the way back to when the Su-30 was first drafted at the end of the Soviet era. At the same time, the patent points to the utility of such an aircraft for crew training. Regardless, the accompanying illustration looks very similar to the two-seat Felon we see in the image from Fighterbomber.

As far as the Russian Aerospace Forces are concerned, only 76 Su-57s (presumed to be single-seaters) are on order. This is a surprisingly low number, with Moscow instead having chosen to invest in the cheaper and well-proven Su-35S and Su-30SM/M2 families of tactical fighters. The Su-57 first appeared, then in T-50 pre-production form, a decade and a half ago.

The idea that Russia might be seeking a combat trainer to help convert pilots to the Su-57 seems very unlikely, especially considering the small number of frontline Felon fighters currently planned. Stealth fighters have dropped the two seat trainer companion concept from the Cold War era. The extreme focus of signature control, high cost of the aircraft, higher levels of automation, as well as enhancements in simulated training over the years, have spurred this.

It may be that Sukhoi is seeking to promote a two-seat combat version of the Su-57 as a direct successor to the twin-seat Su-30SM/M2. These aircraft are widely used by the Russian Aerospace Forces for both long-range air defense and ground attack/strike, two roles for which Russia has long prized having an extra crewmember on board.

There is also the fact that the two-seat Su-57 is intended to operate alongside loyal wingman drones, specifically the Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B (Hunter-B) flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV).

The emergence of crewed-uncrewed teaming will be greatly enabled by a second person acting as a ‘mission commander’ of sorts. In this case, they would occupy the rear seat of the Su-57 and help control uncrewed systems, coordinating tactics with them near the forward edges of the fight. It is in this capacity that the two-seat version of China’s J-20 is widely expected to operate.

There have already been signs that the Su-57 and S-70 programs are directly linked, including ‘loyal wingmen’ cooperative testing. A two-seat Felon would offer a much more suitable platform for this kind of teaming to be taken further. It is perhaps no coincidence that one of the vertical fins of the two-seat Su-57 carries the silhouette of an apparent S-70.

As well as the S-70, the tail marking also appears to show the Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate fighter, the S-71 stealthy air-launched missile, and some other kind of munition, perhaps generic.

This marking may well suggest that the two-seat fighter is intended to work in conjunction with all of these platforms, to various degrees, forming a new family of Russian air combat systems. This would be in line with a similar kind of tail markings we have seen on single-seat Felons, including the aircraft that was involved during previous cooperative testing with the Okhotnik-B.

Of course, a two-seat Su-57 would potentially be able to provide the Russian Aerospace Forces with a platform that can undertake all these roles: long-range air defense, ground attack/strike, drone controller, and combat trainer.

The two-seat Felon is very likely also being aimed at the export market. There would also be a precedent here, in the shape of India.

Back in 2003, Russia and India signed a letter of intent concerning the joint development of the Prospective Multirole Fighter (PMF), commonly referred to in India as the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).

In 2010, a contract was signed covering the preliminary design of the PMF, to be jointly developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) of India on the basis of what was then known as the T-50 — the prototype of the Su-57 Felon.

Notably, the Indian Air Force wanted a two-seat PMF.

It’s not clear how far Sukhoi progressed on a two-seat PMF to meet the Indian requirement, but the result would have looked very much like the two-seat Felon now apparently under test.

This was all academic, however, since India walked away from the PMF in 2018. This followed an embarrassing incident, in which the fifth prototype T-50 caught fire on the runway at Zhukovsky, reportedly in full view of an Indian delegation.

Nevertheless, Moscow has continued to push the Su-57 for India, as that country struggles with acquiring new advanced fighters and fielding them in the required numbers.

At the same time, Russia has sought to kickstart the Felon program by finding other export customers for the Su-57E version.

So far, only Algeria has confirmed, via its state-run media, that it has bought the Su-57E, as we discussed at the time. It appears that two aircraft have already been delivered to the North African nation, out of a possible total of 14.

Being able to offer a two-seat Felon could well attract more foreign interest, especially customers that might be looking to acquire members of the Su-30 family, or who might be looking to replace these same aircraft.

Potentially, Sukhoi might choose to combine the two-seat Felon with the improvements incorporated in the long-promised Su-57M. Also known as the ‘second stage’ Su-57, the Su-57M would be powered by the new AL-51F-1 (izdeliye 30) turbofan engine, replacing the current AL-41F-1, with increased thrust, lighter weight, and lower operating costs, as well as other advanced features. As you can read about here, Sukhoi has also unveiled a new type of thrust-vectoring engine nozzle for the aircraft, intended to improve the low-observable features of the Felon.

Still, adding another seat to the Su-57 will cause an impact on performance. Range could be decreased due to reduced internal fuel load, and the aircraft’s general performance, including speed and turning capabilities, could also suffer. Its radar signature, especially from the critical frontal aspect, will be affected as well. At the same time, the Su-57 is not a very low-observable aircraft, or even close to it. It was designed around a different philosophy than Western fifth-generation fighter aircraft, which took limitations in low-observable technologies and cost into heavy consideration. You can read more about this here.

The absence of Russian interest in buying more Felons has meant the Su-57M program has progressed only very slowly.

Getting more export customers would provide a huge boost to the Su-57 and would also help the Russian military.

Foreign investment is vital to speed the development of the Felon. The same was true in the late 1990s when India’s purchase of the Su-30MKI Flanker essentially secured the development of the multirole version of this fighter, which was only later acquired by Russia. On the other hand, any export customer would be taking a big risk due to the war with Ukraine and its impact on the Russian aerospace and defense industry, as well as its geopolitical standing.

While we await more imagery and details of the latest iteration of the Su-57 Felon, it is certainly noteworthy that a two-seat version of another fifth-generation fighter now appears to have broken cover.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Two-Seat Variant Of Russia’s Su-57 Felon Fighter Materializes appeared first on The War Zone.

According to the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Mykhailo Fedorov, the development of the weapon — the name of which hasn’t been revealed — took 17 months. A product of Brave1, the defense tech arm of the Ukrainian government, the weapon is said to carry a 250-kilogram (551-pound) warhead, to which is attached a wing kit and some kind of guidance system, the nature of which has not been disclosed.

In a statement today, Brave1 said the glide bomb “has completed all required trials,” and has now been declared ready for combat. The weapon is said to be able to hit targets “dozens of kilometers behind enemy lines.”

With the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense having placed a first order, pilots are now said to be training with the weapon, meaning that combat deployment is “imminent.”

Ukrainian authorities claim that the weapon was designed from scratch and was “not copied from Western or Soviet systems.”

An accompanying video shows the release of the weapon from a Ukrainian Air Force Su-24 Fencer swing-wing attack jet. The bomb is then seen with its range-extending wings deployed; interestingly, these are seen extended immediately after release. Otherwise, the weapon also features notably large cruciform tailfins. The apparent lugs seen under the body of the munitions suggest that, like Russian glide bombs, the weapon ‘topples over’ to assume the correct profile before the wings deploy.

We have reached out to Brave1 for more details on the glide bomb.

It is also worth noting that a previous video, from August 2024, showed another type of air-launched munition, apparently also homegrown, being released from a Ukrainian Su-24, as you can read about here.

Again, we have reached out to Brave1 to better understand if there is any relationship between these weapons. However, the development of the new weapon officially began in December of 2024, several months after the mystery munition appeared.

As for the Ukrainian Air Force, the new glide bomb should provide an important addition to Western-supplied weapons in this class.

Ukraine already employs the Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range (JDAM-ER) and AASM-250 Hammer bomb supplied by the United States and France, respectively. The Ukrainian Air Force also makes extensive use of the U.S.-supplied Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), which also has pop-out wings.

At the same time, the new weapon helps Ukraine match similar weapons that are proliferating in the Russian inventory. The Russian Aerospace Forces have, for several years now, been making extensive use of increasingly larger dumb bombs fitted with add-on precision guidance kits. Russia has also been working to refine its glide bombs, making them more effective than the original, fairly crude designs.

Based on Ukraine’s experience with its expanding roster of longer-range kamikaze drones and glide bombs currently in service with both sites, a satellite navigation-assisted inertial guidance system would be used to direct the glide bomb to a specific set of coordinates. Additional seekers are possible, but not probable at this time.

It is not clear if the new Ukrainian weapon has any kind of powerplant. Ukraine has already been employing multiple types of jet-powered kamikaze drones. More importantly, Ukraine’s French-supplied Hammer precision-guided bombs also feature a rocket booster. This feature is of unique utility for Ukraine, which often slings its glide bombs via pop-up launch profiles from low level executed by its fighter and attack aircraft. This is due to the extremely heavy air defenses near the front lines. Even without a motor, however, the weapon provides an important capability and one that is increasingly important as stocks of Western-supplied munitions are eroded or their supply is otherwise interrupted.

A video compilation provides a look at the French-made Hammer munition being used by Ukrainian Su-25 attack jets, including low-level toss bombing:

We will likely have to wait to see the weapon in action before establishing whether it can be launched from platforms other than the Su-24, although this would seem almost guaranteed.

While Ukraine’s Su-24s are the country’s launch platforms for stealthy Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG air-launched cruise missiles provided by the United Kingdom and France, its MiG-29 Fulcrums and Su-27 Flankers have been the primary carriers for other Western-supplied air-launched precision air-to-ground munitions like the JDAM-ER, SDB, and Hammer bombs, as well as AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM). The size of the weapon would allow it to be carried by any of these platforms, as well as Su-25 Frogfoot attack jets, which also deliver Hammers.

Whatever the launch platforms and the new weapon’s exact capabilities, its biggest advantage is that it offers a domestic source of air-launched precision-guided munitions with some kind of standoff range. The longer-range Storm Shadows and SCALP-EGs were provided only in relatively limited quantities to Ukraine. They can only be launched by the Su-24 and are reserved for more strategic targets.

Meanwhile, the JDAM-ER has never been in widespread use with the U.S. military or other foreign armed forces, so the quantities available are questionable.

To help meet the shortfall, the U.S. Air Force launched a project to develop a new, relatively low-cost precision-guided air-launched standoff munition focused primarily on meeting Ukrainian demands for weapons of this kind. In August of last year, it was reported that Washington had approved the transfer of thousands of these Extended Range Attack Munitions (ERAM) to Ukraine. As well as the Rusty Dagger from Zone 5 Technologies, CoAspire developed the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM) under the ERAM program. 

However, evidence of these weapons being employed by Ukraine has yet to emerge.

There is also the fact that a domestically developed standoff weapon can be used without restriction against any kind of target. Previously, longer-ranged Western-supplied weapons have come with restrictions on their employment. As a result, Ukrainian officials have repeatedly and publicly called for more flexibility in striking targets inside Russia proper. This became especially critical during the Ukrainian incursion into the latter country’s Kursk region.

The apparent rapid pace of development of Ukraine’s first homegrown glide bomb suggests that this is an urgent requirement and one that may well have been driven by problems in the availability of equivalent Western munitions. With that in mind, combined with claims that the weapon is now ready for combat, we may not have to wait too long for evidence of it being used in action.

UPDATE: May 19 –

More details have emerged about the new Ukrainian glide bomb. As reported by Business Insider, the weapon is named Vyrivniuvach, meaning “Equalizer.”

The bomb is said to employ a high-precision guidance system and modern targeting algorithms, and it can also be dropped by F-16s and Mirage 2000s, although “additional certification is required for full operational use” from these platforms.

The same report suggests that the Vyrivniuvach is approximately three times cheaper than a JDAM-ER. Standard JDAM kits have historically cost between $20,000 and $30,000 apiece, with the unguided bombs that they are paired with adding a minimal increase to the overall price tag. 

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Ukraine’s Homegrown Glide Bomb Breaks Cover appeared first on The War Zone.

The Ford is finally home. The supercarrier, with nearly 4,500 Sailors aboard, pulled into Naval Station Norfolk on Saturday, greeted by hundreds of families and friends after completing a grueling 326-day combat deployment. The well-deserved homecoming capped the longest deployment in more than five decades, which was extended multiple times to support operations across two continents and combatant commands.

Ford, the world’s largest and most advanced aircraft carrier, departed Virginia almost a year ago for, what was at the time, a routine deployment to Europe. The deployment turned out to be anything but when Ford was redirected to the Caribbean in November ahead of Operation Absolute Resolve. Following the successful extraction of President Nicolas Maduro out of Venezuela, and despite pushback from top Navy brass to come home, the CSG crossed the Atlantic again to project power and pressure from the eastern Mediterranean and northern Red Sea during Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Overall, Ford sailed over 57,000 nautical miles, logged more than 5,700 flight hours, and conducted 12,000+ aircraft launches. Upon arrival in Norfolk, Carrier Strike Group 12 was presented with the Presidential Unit Citation, the highest honor a military unit can receive.

Meanwhile, three other carriers conducting routine operations and work-ups returned to their respective homeports with much less fanfare. USS George Washington, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and USS Theodore Roosevelt, each at various stages of training prior to future deployments, pulled into Yokosuka, Norfolk, and San Diego, respectively, over the past week.

The Navy’s only forward-deployed carrier, USS George Washington, completed a weeklong shakedown cruise after a brief pierside availability. In response to unconfirmed reports the flattop was in maintenance, a George Washington spokesperson told TWZ the “U.S. Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier conducts short maintenance availabilities between patrols to service critical systems and conduct repairs” and was recently “underway conducting routine operations to sharpen our Sailors’ warfighting edge.” Regardless of her past status, Washington is operational today and preparing for an upcoming WESTPAC patrol.

The U.S. maintains a considerable naval fleet in the Middle East enforcing the ongoing blockade of Iran. Two CSGs and one ARG – more than 20 warships in total – continue operations in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). Another ARG, led by USS Boxer, is nearby in the Indian Ocean operating under U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) as of May 16, but, as we have noted previously, the group could enter CENTCOM at any time. U.S. forces have redirected 81 commercial vessels and disabled four attempting to run the blockade to date, according to the latest press release from CENTCOM.

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

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

The post Where Are The Carriers As Of May 17, 2026: Ford Is Finally Home appeared first on The War Zone.

Video of the incident showed one of the Growlers close in on and then collide with the other from behind, striking the lead aircraft’s rear with its nose from above. They then became entangled together, nose up, and then down, before tumbling to the ground. Four small explosions from ejection seats blasting out of the falling Growlers can be seen before the parachutes of the four crew members opened up. The Growlers hit the ground, exploding into a ball of flames, followed by the crew members floating down in their parachutes.

These still images show another view of the collision.

The crash caused a fire that was since contained, according to the base.

Initially, the base was placed on lockdown.

While the exact cause of the mishap isn’t confirmed, the leading Growler may have been in the under-nose blind spot of the trailing one right before impact. This is a condition we have seen become catastrophic in other airshow disasters. We will have to wait and find out if this was indeed a contributing factor.

As the jets rolled vertical, they seemed stacked on top of each other, making ejection extremely dangerous. Remarkably, the ejection sequences cleared the crews of each other’s aircraft.

You can check out what the display is supposed to look like in the video below:

We will provide updates when available.

UPDATE: 9:45 PM EDT –

Navy Cmdr. Amelia Umayam released the following statement:

“On May 17, 2026, two U.S. Navy EA18-G assigned to Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 129 from Whidbey Island, Washington collided in mid-air while performing an aerial demonstration involving four air crew for the Mountain Home Air Force Base Gunfighter Skies Air Show, near Mountain Home Air Force Base at about 12:10 p.m. MDT.

All four of the air crew successfully ejected and they are being evaluated by medical personnel. First responders are on the scene.

The incident is under investigation. More information will be released as it becomes available.”

UPDATE: 5/18/2026 –

Air Force Col. David Gunter, commander of the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base, put out the following statement after the collision:

“First and foremost, we are incredibly thankful that everyone involved in today’s incident is safe.”

“The extraordinary professionalism of our emergency response teams, including the city and county, allowed for quick response to the aircrew as well as securing the scene to ensure the safety of our guests, performers and community. And to all of our guests here today, I can’t tell you how much we appreciated your patience, trust and support.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Navy EA-18G Growlers Collide At Idaho Air Show (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The unusual SUVs were first spotted as Trump’s motorcade moved through the Chinese capital on May 13, as can be seen in the video in the social media post immediately below. They continued to be a feature of the motorcade throughout the U.S. President’s state visit, which wrapped up today.

The U.S. Secret Service has confirmed to TWZ that it was not the operator of any of the vehicles discussed in this piece, and it could not say whether they belonged to the U.S. Embassy or the Chinese government. The Secret Service and other U.S. authorities bring large numbers of vehicles and other assets to support any presidential visit overseas, especially very high-profile ones like Trump’s trip to meet with Xi this week. State Department and other U.S. government resources already in the destination country — or region — are leveraged, as well. Local security forces also help protect American presidents during these occasions.

The two high-top SUVs that were seen in the motorcade are based on one of the current generation models available from Chinese manufacturer Hongqi.

There were two other SUVs with notable modifications to their roofs – a Chevy Suburban and a Lincoln Navigator. There was also a Ford E-series van with a prominently modified roof.

All of the American-designed vehicles in question are available in China, and they were all seen with Chinese license plates. However, the Suburban had a black plate with white lettering, a type issued for foreign-owned vehicles, which might point to it belonging to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. At the same time, China has issued specific diplomatic plates over the years that are black and white, but also include red kanji, which was not seen in this case. A general example of this is seen in the social media post below. We will come back to this later on.

Regardless of their operators, the modified Hongqi SUVs were clear standouts that quickly caught attention online.

The purpose of the custom tops on the Hongqi SUVs is unknown, but they would offer space to fit additional outsized equipment. Possible options might include an electronic warfare system, directed energy weapon, or a communications array. On the subject of advanced electronic warfare systems and directed energy weapons, these capabilities are set to become increasingly commonplace in VVIP motorcades, in general, due to the danger of drone attacks.

A new high-top roof could allow individuals to stand up fully while still inside the vehicle, but the benefit that would provide in this case is unclear. There are no obvious apertures or firing ports. It is unknown whether any part of the very top retracts to allow for the deployment of something inside. There is something of an upper fairing visible on the front, but it could be there for a number of reasons.

Whatever the case, the modified Hongqi SUVs are definitely very heavy-set, with the vehicles running visibly low on their rear axles in particular. There is also some kind of feature attached to the rear of the vehicles. However, without a full view from the rear, whether this might be a lift or something else is not clear. A lift would make some sense considering whatever is inside appears to be very heavy.

There was also clearly some value to having one of the SUVs in this configuration positioned at different points in the motorcade simultaneously. One at the front and one at the rear are seen in the main video posted above.

The modified Lincoln Navigator has a far smaller, but still interesting addition to its roof, which could contain an electronic warfare and/or satellite communications systems. It also has what may be a small electro-optical sensor turret on top of the front end of the roof. Several whip-type antennas mounted on top of the vehicle are also seen.

It is worth noting here that marked Chinese Police Ford F-150 pickups were also seen deployed in Beijing during Trump’s visit with a roughly similar configuration, including the sensor turret on top.

The Chevy Suburban also has a slightly raised roof with an array of antennas, including an X-shaped type commonly associated with UHF satellite communications arrays. Interestingly, this SUV looks similar in some broad respects to Suburbans configured as command, control, and communications support vehicles that the White House Communications Agency (WHCA) and certain elements of the U.S. military have operated over the years. These are more commonly referred to as “Roadrunners” and are a staple in U.S. presidential motorcades, as you can read more about here. As already noted, this particular SUV had a type of license plate pointing to a foreign owner. While we know that this is not a U.S. Secret Service vehicle, the WCHA or another U.S. government operator could still be a possibility.

Last, there is the Ford E-series van. The available views of this vehicle are more limited, but it does have a modified roof with what look to be work lights positioned at various points around the edges. This is in addition to the red and blue emergency lights along the front edge. There is also an unknown feature at the top left corner of the roof, which has a cone-shaped protrusion at the front. Its purpose is not immediately clear.

Vans are inherently multi-purpose vehicles by design, and Chinese police are known to use marked E-series types for various purposes, including riot control. It is possible this particular example could be part of a rapid response team, or serve some other function.

In general, specialized, unique, and sometimes unusual vehicles are common to see in VIP motorcades, especially presidential ones. TWZ has been among the first to call attention to new additions to the U.S. presidential motorcade lineup, in particular, over the years. This includes the appearance of new Cadillac Escalade presidential limousines just in January of this year.

If the vehicles seen during Trump’s recent trip to China, especially the Hongqi SUVs with the huge custom tops, continue to be features of motorcades during state visits by prominent leaders to Beijing, more details about their configuration and functions may emerge.

Special thanks to Newsweek‘s Ryan Chan for bringing this to our attention.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Mysterious Chinese SUV With Massive Roof Featured In Trump Motorcade In Beijing 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:

Sleeping accommodation in the Clapham deep shelter, London. Four thousand beds at three shillings a night, deep beneath London, are being offered to Festival of Britain visitors. The beds, together with dining accommodation, are in Clapham’s deep shelter, now taken over by the London County Council. The deep shelter is a mile long, runs 45 feet beneath the underground railway. (Photo by PA Images 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 FAA announced the “definitive decommissioning” of the Fightinghawk fleet at Villa Reynolds Air Base in San Luis province yesterday. The base was home to the final Argentine A-4 unit, the 5th Air Brigade (V Brigada Aérea).

As well as the FAA’s introduction of the F-16, the decision to stand down the A-4s was based on prioritizing “operational efficiency and economic sustainability,” the service said. In a statement, it also pointed to the costs of maintenance and sustainment of the aging jets; keeping these aircraft operational had become an increasingly difficult challenge in recent years.

A version that was unique to Argentina, the Fightinghawk emerged from a major modernization program carried out by Lockheed Martin on former U.S. Marine Corps A-4M and OA-4M Skyhawks, which were taken out of storage at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC). Work on the first batch of aircraft was conducted by Lockheed Martin in Ontario, California, with the remainder upgraded in Córdoba, Argentina.

Fightinghawk deliveries to Argentina comprised 32 A-4ARs and four OA-4ARs, beginning in the mid-1990s. Interestingly, these upgraded jets were equipped with the same AN/APG-66 radar used in early F-16 variants and were capable of carrying AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. In the cockpit, the Fightinghawk introduced hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, multifunction displays, and a new head-up display. Also installed were an onboard computerized mission-planning system and a new navigation/attack computer. Radar-warning receivers and onboard oxygen-generating equipment rounded out the upgrade package.

Although significantly more capable than the Vietnam-era Skyhawks they evolved from, the Fightinghawk was never designed as a dedicated air-defense fighter. Nevertheless, it was forced into that role after Argentina retired its last French-built Mirage fighters in 2015.

Against this backdrop, the FAA spent years trying to rebuild its ‘fighter’ capability but was repeatedly hampered by British efforts to block potential fighter buys. There was even speculation that Argentina might push to secure a deal with either China or Russia. Numerous aircraft options were evaluated before the U.S. government finally approved the transfer of F-16s from Denmark to Argentina in October 2023.

Early the following year, Argentina’s President Javier Milei confirmed that Buenos Aires would purchase the secondhand F-16s from Denmark. Welcoming the news, the U.S. Department of State described the jets in question as “low-cost high-performance multirole aircraft.”

The FAA is now in the process of introducing 24 F-16s, in the form of 16 single-seat F-16AMs and eight two-seat F-16BMs. It is also receiving several older Viper airframes for use as training aids and a spare parts source.

The retirement of the Fightinghawk also concludes the legacy of the wider A-4 series in Argentine service.

Argentina’s relationship with the A-4 began when the FAA took delivery of 26 former U.S. Navy A-4Bs in 1966, becoming the first export customer for the Skyhawk. A second batch of 26 A-4Bs arrived in 1970 and similarly joined the 5th Air Brigade at Villa Reynolds.

In 1976, another batch of 26 aircraft was delivered to the FAA, these being A-4Cs, again from U.S. Navy stocks. Their arrival allowed another unit to be equipped, this time the 4th Air Brigade at El Plumerillo.

For FAA service, these aircraft received the official designation A-4P from the U.S. government and the manufacturer, but were locally still often referred to as A-4B/Cs.

As well as equipping its air force, Argentina acquired A-4s for its naval air arm. In 1970, the Argentine Navy received a batch of 16 A-4Qs, a unique designation that applied to upgraded former U.S. Navy A-4Bs. These were primarily intended to serve aboard the aircraft carrier Veinticinco de Mayo, a Colossus class vessel that was transferred from the United Kingdom after service with the U.K. Royal Navy and the Royal Netherlands Navy. Unlike the first-generation FAA A-4s, the naval Skyhawks had, from the outset, provision for AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles to provide air defense cover for the carrier group. They could also be fitted with a buddy refueling store.

By the time of the Falklands/Malvinas War in 1982, which began with Argentina’s surprise attack on the tiny British South Atlantic territory, nearly 8,000 miles from the United Kingdom, around 36 A-4s were in FAA service, with another eight more operational with the Argentine Navy.

At least one A-4 was tested from the airfield at Port Stanley in the Falklands, but the type was not judged suitable for sustained combat operations there. As for the Argentine Navy A-4s, these were initially embarked on the Veinticinco de Mayo, but the loss of the cruiser Belgrano forced the Argentine carrier back to port to avoid a similar fate.

All this was fortunate for the British, since the FAA and Argentine Navy A-4s were forced to operate from bases on the mainland, at the very margins of their range.

For the A-4s, the war began with the support of the initial amphibious landings near Port Stanley, after which FAA Skyhawks clashed for the first time with the British task force on May 12, 1982. Although four A-4s were brought down by air defenses in this confrontation, they inflicted heavy damage on the destroyer HMS Glasgow.

Typically, the FAA A-4s would transit to the islands at high levels, refuel from a KC-130 Hercules tanker, then drop down for a low-level attack run, dropping U.S.- or British-made free-fall bombs. Considering the challenges of these operations and the fact that the combination of low-level release and often-incorrect fusing meant many bombs failed to detonate, the jets had a major impact. In the course of more than 200 combat sorties, FAA A-4s sunk four warships and damaged several more. The service suffered eight losses at the hands of U.K. Royal Navy Sea Harriers out of a total of 19 A-4s lost, together with 17 pilots.

Meanwhile, the Argentine Navy A-4s claimed to have inflicted fatal damage on two warships (claims disputed by the British), for the loss of three Skyhawks and two pilots.

The bravery of the FAA pilots is noteworthy here, since the A-4s were flying with no air-to-air missile armament, no radar, no modern navigation system, delivering unguided munitions, and without radar-warning equipment. As you can read about here, as far as self-protection systems, the few examples that were introduced by the Argentines during the conflict were the result of desperate ingenuity.

The end of the conflict saw operations hampered by a U.S. arms embargo, but the Argentine Skyhawks soldiered on. The Argentine Navy stood down its last A-4Q in 1988, while the last of the first-generation FAA A-4s was retired in 1999.

With the retirement of the Fightinghawk, the A-4 remains in active military service only with neighboring Brazil.

The Brazilian Navy also acquired A-4s for carrier operations, but the retirement of its sole flattop, Sao Paulo, means that the value of its Skyhawks, locally designated AF-1, is increasingly questionable. However, work has been undertaken to upgrade these aircraft to ensure they remain viable, albeit now operating from a land base, at São Pedro da Aldeia. In all, five single-seaters and a pair of two-seaters were brought up to AF-1B and AF-1C standards, respectively. The seven upgraded Skyhawks received airframe and engine overhauls, a new Elta Systems EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, a glass cockpit with HOTAS controls, and various other improvements.

Now that Saab Gripen E/F fighters are joining the Brazilian Air Force, retaining the Skyhawk fleet is also less important, and their time in service will likely come to an end soon.

In the meantime, however, the A-4 continues to provide good service to private military contractors, who appreciate the jet for its versatility, agility, and relatively low operating costs, meaning that it excels as both an adversary and as a test and training platform. Chief among these operators is the Canadian Top Aces, flying ex-Israeli A-4s, and Florida-based Draken International, which operates a fleet of the jets that previously flew with the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

As we have discussed in the past, the capabilities of some of these contractor-operated A-4s would be beyond the imagination of many of the pilots who originally flew the jets in military service. The latest standard of A-4s operated by Top Aces, for example, includes an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and an infrared search and track (IRST) system to better replicate more modern threats.

Therefore, while the A-4 may be fast disappearing from the inventories of air forces, its legacy is set to live on in the most tangible form, as it continues to serve in a variety of support roles around the world in the hands of commercial operators.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Argentina Retires Its A-4 Fightinghawks appeared first on The War Zone.

Photographer Jonathan Tweedy took pictures of several U.S. Navy test jets departing Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on May 13. This included an F/A-18F Super Hornet from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31 (VX-31) carrying the AIM-260 on the fuselage station outboard of its right engine intake. The jet also has a modified FPU-13/A drop tank with an infrared search and track (ISRT) sensor on its centerline station, as well as flight data pods on its wingtips. The Aviationist was the first to publish Tweedy’s pictures of the VX-31 jet with the JATM.

Eglin is routinely used as a staging point for U.S. military aerial weapons testing, as well as other aviation research and development and test and evaluation work. The base is situated right next to extensive over-water ranges over the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of the Florida panhandle.

When it comes to the AIM-260, Tweedy’s picture confirms the design is very minimalist, at least externally, with only four fins at the tail. Unlike the AIM-120, it has no mid-body control surfaces, or even strakes running along the sides. The JATM’s overall configuration reflects optimization for maximum speed and range.

The JATM in this case looks to have a live high-explosive warhead, as indicated by a yellow band at the front end of the body. There are also two black bands toward the rear, which could point to the location of the missile’s rocket motor.

The nose cone has a distinct light gray color compared to the rest of the predominantly white body. There are square markings at various points at the rear of the body, which are often seen on aerial munitions and aircraft during testing to help with visual tracking, as well.

Overall, the AIM-260 seen in Tweedy’s pictures looks entirely in line with what had previously been depicted in official renderings of the JATM, both in terms of its design and markings.

The Navy is developing the AIM-260 in cooperation with the Air Force. In the past, officials have explicitly cited the growing reach of Chinese air-to-air missiles, and the PL-15 in particular, as key drivers behind the JATM program. China continues to develop and field more capable air-to-air missiles, as you can learn more about this past TWZ feature. A boost in maximum range is therefore known to be a central requirement for the AIM-260, which is reportedly designed to hit targets out to at least 120 miles, if not further.

Another known requirement for the AIM-260 is to have a form factor that is roughly the same as the AIM-120, making it easier to integrate on existing aircraft. Details about the JATM otherwise remain limited. As TWZ has previously written:

“An advanced rocket motor with highly loaded propellant has long been seen as a likely route to give the AIM-260A significantly greater range, as well as speed, over the AIM-120 without making the new missile larger. A core known requirement for the JATM is that it has to have the same general form factor as the AMRAAM, in large part to ensure that it can fit inside the internal bays on stealth fighters like the F-22 and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In addition to crewed aircraft, AIM-260As are expected to arm future stealthy drones like the ones under development under the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program.”

…

“The AIM-260A’s rocket motor is also likely to be a dual-pulse design that retains energy across the flight envelope to further extend range and help dramatically with endgame maneuverability. Thrust vectoring capability would also be a requisite to give the missile sufficient agility in the absence of additional control surfaces.”

…

“An active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) seeker is likely. Multi-mode seeker capability, potentially with imaging infrared and passive radiofrequency (RF) guidance capabilities, could be extremely valuable in the face of an ever-expanding countermeasure ecosystem, although we have no idea if this is a feature now or not. It’s also possible it could be introduced in later variants. Advanced networking capabilities would be a key feature, allowing the missile to get additional targeting information from an array of third party sources. This is especially imported for engaging targets beyond the reach of the launch platform’s own sensors and it can allow the aircraft firing the missile, especially a stealthy one, to avoid having to switch on its radar and increase its vulnerability to detection as a result. Multiple networked JATMs might even be able to prosecute engagements cooperatively.”

Overall, the JATM program, which traces back to at least 2019, remains largely classified. As noted, flight testing of AIM-260 has been underway for some time and has already included multiple live-fire shots. There has also been movement in recent years to get the missile into production and fielded operationally.

Navy Super Hornets, along with U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors, are expected to be the first types to fly operationally armed with AIM-260s. The missiles will surely be integrated onto a host of other aircraft, including the Air Force’s future F-47 and whatever design the Navy might choose to become its sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter.

What the projected timeline might be for the AIM-260 entering operational service now is unclear. When the program first emerged publicly in 2019, the goal was for the missiles to be fielded in 2022. There were reports late last year that JATM had suffered a new three-month delay due to funding issues, based on a fact sheet distributed by some members of the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. However, the committee subsequently said that the information was incorrect.

As an aside, the Navy announced back in 2024 that it had begun limited fielding of another, different very-long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-174B, which is derived from the surface-launched Standard Missile-6. The AIM-260 is expected to be complementary to the AIM-174B, as you can read more about here and check out our video below.

The first public sighting of an AIM-260 this week certainly points to new progress toward finally fielding this new air-to-air missile.

Special thanks again to Jonathan Tweedy for sharing the pictures of the AIM-260 on the VX-31 Super Hornet with us.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Secretive AIM-260 Air-To-Air Missile Finally Breaks Cover appeared first on The War Zone.

Some of these small munitions cost about $1,000 a piece and can reach speeds of nearly 200 miles per hour. Some also have AI-assisted guidance. They have proven to be a far cheaper alternative to effectors like Patriot interceptors – costing more than $5 million a piece – and even far less advanced missiles for downing Shaheds, which have caused widespread destruction across Ukraine for years. In an hour-long interview, Brave1 CEO Andrii Hrytseniuk talked about how Ukraine developed Shahed interceptors, their effectiveness and the growing interest from the U.S. – which produced its own drone-killing interceptor that Ukraine has used – and other allies. He also spoke about Ukraine’s burgeoning uncrewed ground vehicle industry, which we will discuss in the second part of this interview.

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

Q: Tell us about Ukraine’s development of Shahed interceptor drones.

A: The majority of Shaheds are destroyed by interceptors. So this is the dominance of interceptors in aerial defense already. And Ukraine built the new class of weapon globally. It didn’t exist before. Interceptors have extremely high potential, and the main advantage of the interceptors is extremely low price.

In total, we have more than 150 Ukrainian companies who are producing interceptors. And these are interceptors of different architecture. Some are small rocket type first-person view (FPV) drones. In some cases, they resemble small planes. In some cases, they resemble big planes. Some of them are X wings, like a combination between FPV and fixed wing. We use different varieties in different regions and different conditions. 

Q: How do you determine which interceptors are right for the job?

A: As an example, in case the Shaheds are coming from the Black Sea, where we have Odessa and other cities on the coast, small interceptors are used only in the last kilometers. The planes are used like loitering munitions, flying for hours and when they find a Shahed, they destroy it.

We need some interceptors that are capable of flying for hours and for hundreds of kilometers. For some, we need just a small diameter zone of protection.

Q: Given the success you’ve had with interceptor drones, have the U.S. and allies in the Gulf reached out, considering the death and destruction caused by Shahed drones launched by Iran?

You can see video of one of those attacks below.

A: I am permanently discussing and we are involved in discussion of interceptors and the potential of interceptors. And of course, it’s one of the top priorities for all countries to build the capability to use interceptors.

Ukraine is able to produce more than 2,000 interceptors per day, and this is not a maximum per day, more than 2,000. And for us, this is not a threshold, not a limit. In the case of export contracts and procurements, we can do much more than 2,000 per day. As an example, during the terroristic attack of Russia, they used more than 1,300 Shaheds and this was just during the last 24 hours. So of course, we need to have a huge number of interceptors.

Q:  Did you use more than 1,000 interceptors to defend against them?

A: I will not share details of how many Shaheds were destroyed by interceptors or other types of weapons, but in total, we were able to hit 97% of all Shaheds. This is the public information from our air defense command.

The following video shows some of the aftermath of the recent Russian Shahed barrage.

Q: So when the U.S. and allies ask for help, what do you tell them and what is the current status of exports? The last time I wrote about this issue, the law prevented exports.

A: Brave1 works with Ukrainian and international companies to build and test solutions. We are not deeply involved in export questions. So I cannot comment here, because I’m not aware of the current status.

Q: The U.S. sent its own interceptor drones, the Merops system, to Ukraine in 2024. It proved so effective that it was sent to the Middle East to protect U.S. assets during the now-paused war against Iran. How much, if anything, did Ukraine learn from it?

A: Most successful defense manufacturers learned from our military and Brave1 – both Ukrainian manufacturers, and Merops. Without the direct input of the Ukrainian military and experts, Merops would never have become such a high-performing system, as it is now.

Q: What can you tell me about the relationship between Ukraine and the U.S. and allies as a result of what’s taking place in the Middle East?

A: It’s extremely interesting, and a lot of questions are coming to us, and we are sharing our experience.

Q: Have you had direct conversations with the U.S. military?

A: We are working with the majority of our allied countries. We have calls, sessions, conferences where we are sharing our experience, and the results of Brave1 transforming and improving the Ukrainian defense industry. Everyone is interested. This is the magic that it’s possible to do in such a short period of time. Right now, in Brave1, we have more than 2,300 different Ukrainian companies that are building weapons. And when the war started, it was a majority of state run companies and a very small number of private companies, and right now there is a huge list of companies.

Q: You told me that Ukraine has a wide variety of interceptor drones, from the small ones to the bigger ones. How many different kinds of interceptors do the U.S. and allies need to defend against what Iran was launching?

A: I believe that the minimum is 10.

Q: 10? Why?

A: It takes 10 different types of architecture. For us, it’s important to have more different products, because it creates competition between Ukrainian companies, and they are much quicker, building new innovations, and they run faster to get ahead of the competitors – of their rivals. Also, it’s important to have not only interceptors. Interceptors themselves do nothing. This is the combination of variety of technologies, radars, permanent control system, the navigation systems, the systems for remote control, because the soldiers operating them should be not on the front line. They need to be in shelters. So this is the variety of different sub technologies, and as a whole, this is the segment of drone-based aerial defense.

Q: Wild Hornets, for instance, claims its Sting interceptor can be operated by soldiers from 2,000 kilometers away. How common is that?

A: Right now our pilots are able to manage interceptors from any place in the world.

Q: Could pilots at the Tampa, Florida headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American military efforts in the Middle East, operate interceptor drones?

A: Let’s imagine I’m sending my pilot to the U.S. on a business trip and something happens, and my pilot will be needed to manage interceptors. He will be able to do it from New York or California.

Q: Getting back to the 10 different kinds of interceptor drones the U.S. and allies need. What different kinds? What are the differences?

A: Interceptors against ISR drones. Interceptors against Shahed heavyweight kamikaze drones. Interceptors against decoys. Interceptors that are capable of flying extremely high. Interceptors that are capable of increasing their speed to catch jet kamikazes. Interceptors that can throttle very quickly. Interceptors that have a long flight time and can fly a long distance. So there are a variety of different interceptors.

Q: How do you use AI?

A: We have a very responsible attitude about the ethical aspects of AI. Human-in-the-loop sometimes is used, but mostly we use human-on-the-loop where it’s a synchronous usage of human to arm, disarm, to cancel decisions, but not the human-in-the-loop where we need to wait for the human decisions, because speed of decisions should be taken into account. The effective hitting of Shahed drones is much higher when the human is not in the loop, but on the loop.

Q: Has Ukraine learned any lessons watching the U.S. and its allies defend against Iranian Shahed drones?

A: That’s the best question from all my interviews, for the last period of time. I can tell this subjectively from myself, not a representative of Brave1 or the country. One of the main lessons is that you should never be sure that you are secure enough and your technologies are perfect, because you don’t know what is in the pocket of your enemy. And you always need to be ready for the worst case scenario and permanently improve the level of readiness to counteract or react to absolutely non-predictable different things. And the speed of your reaction is crucial.

You can see one such Iranian Shahed attack on U.S. forces in the following video.

Q: Is there anything in particular you’ve seen about the performance of Iranian drones against the U.S., Israel, the UAE and other countries that surprises you and that you need to develop new ways to defeat them?

A: No. As you know, there is a strong cooperation between Russia and Iran, and Iranian technologies appear to have been used on the battlefield by Russia, and I’m sure vice versa as well.

Q: Have you seen anything different about how Iran is using these drones?

A: I didn’t see anything different. The things that I saw were the same, but I’m not a military expert. We are focusing on technologies.

You can see Iran’s Shahed drone attack on the U.S. Navy’s facility in Bahrain on the opening day of the war below.

Q: What about Ukrainian companies? How closely are they watching this conflict, and when they talk to you, are they saying anything about what they’ve learned and can use to improve Ukrainian weapons?

A: Everyone would like to help. And because we see that Ukraine, this is the only country who knows – and proven for years – how to defend itself against Russian new technologies. And of course, for us, it’s very painful to see because we have this experience. We know what to do, but all these tens of millions [of] people are facing these problems, but we could help.

Q: In March, President Donald Trump said: ‘We don’t need their help in drone defense. We know more about drones than anybody. We have the best drones in the world, actually.’ What do you think about that?

A: I cannot comment.

Q: Would you say there was a difference in the level of interest from the U.S. and allies at the beginning of the war to now? 

A: Of course, absolutely different interest. Previously, it was almost zero interest. And right now, this is number one topic.

Q: What advice would you give to the U.S. about defeating Shaheds?

A: Number one is, do not believe that you have plenty of time, a lot of time for preparation. The time is gone. The second one is cost matters. And the expenses for defense should be less than the expenses of your enemy to attack you. Number three is permanently focus on asymmetrical solutions.

Q: Like what?

A: When Ukraine didn’t have enough air defense missiles, we invented interceptors (drones). When we had a lack of 155mm ammunition, we invented FPV drones. When we had a lack of helicopters, we invented drone bombers. We had a lack of naval fleet, so we invented naval drones. 

And we see that such tremendous change of new technologies on the battlefield posed a lot of different new innovations everywhere, and we are the Ukrainian government cluster that analyzes all military ideas of different industry players. We see that every month the number of ideas is increasing, nothing. This is just opening new doors to a new era of new technologies.

Q: Have interceptor drones been able to replace those fired by high-end systems like the Patriot air defense system and others?

A: No. It’s not about replacement. Interceptors will never replace Patriot. Patriot is a great technology, the best in the world missiles for protection against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles. But of course, it absolutely doesn’t make any sense to use it against Shaheds. It’s extremely expensive, extremely it is overkill.

In our next installment, Hrytseniuk talks about how Ukraine plans to meet President Volodymyr Zelensky’s directive to produce 50,000 uncrewed ground vehicles this year.

Contact the author: howard@TWZ.com

The post Inside Ukraine’s Interceptor Drone Innovations Swatting Down Thousands Of Russian Shaheds appeared first on The War Zone.