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, but 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 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 policies 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.

Iran can “no longer threaten regional partners, or the United States, in ways that they were able to do before, across every domain,” the commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, explained.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that the “Trump administration’s public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what U.S. intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors.”

The newspaper cited “classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.”

“Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway,” the Times added. “Iran still fields about 70 percent of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile, according to the assessments. That stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and a smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter-range targets on land or at sea.”

The Washington Post offered a similar assessment last week.

Cooper took issue with those figures when asked about them.

“I think it’s appropriate in this forum not to discuss specific intelligence assessments,” he responded. “What I would say, from my perspective, is the numbers that I’ve seen in open source are not accurate. I think what also is not taken into consideration, it’s more than just the numbers. It’s the command and control that’s been shattered. It’s a significant degradation and capability, and it’s the lack of any ability to then produce any missiles…on the back end.”

Cooper was further pressed on Iran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz because it still has missiles and fast boats and other assets.

“In each of those cases, their capabilities have been significantly degraded,” the admiral posited. “If I just use my own professional experience and 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20 to 40 fast boats, and lately we’ve seen two or three. So the degradation means it’s been significant, but some residual capability does exist with respect to the threat that remains.”

CENTCOM forces recently sank about a half-dozen Iranian fast boats threatening ships in the Strait.

Though Cooper downplayed Iran’s current capabilities, he said Tehran posed significant new threats with its modern drones.

“The days of $35,000 drones that we saw in the last couple of years, particularly in the fight against the Houthis in Yemen, those days are behind us,” Cooper proffered. “Today we face an increased threat from drones that are highly sophisticated. They’re jet-powered. They have high-end sensors. They have electronic warfare…signals intelligence. So those days of using high value defenses to shoot down cheap targets are behind us.”

“Quite the contrary, what we have been doing lately is using our own low-cost one way attack drones, [to attack] Iran, making them use higher and more expensive weapons. So I can confidently tell you, we have flipped the cost curve in many ways. Always work to be done, but I like where we are in this regard.”

Cooper didn’t elaborate, but earlier in his testimony, he talked about the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones that TWZ has written frequently about. CENTCOM first began using these weapons, reverse-engineered from Iranian Shahed-136 drones, to strike targets in Iran.

The War Zone has advocated for the procurement of this exact class of drone by the American military and today, Cooper once again backed up that assessment.

The LUCAS drones are “an additional capability that we’ve now employed against an adversary very effectively,” Cooper commented. He declined to provide further details. 

“Vis a vis Iran, I think I would just like to keep that in the classified setting,” he noted.

Cooper provided additional statistics about Epic Fury to the committee.

• “We destroyed or buried much of Iran’s ballistic missiles, launcher vehicles, and long-range attack drones with more than 450 strikes on ballistic missile storage and systems and roughly 800 strikes on Iran’s drone-launching units and storage. In the air domain, Iran’s air and air defense forces are functionally and operationally irrelevant.” 

• “Before OEF, the Iranian Air Force flew between 30 and 100 sorties each day. Today that number is zero. We destroyed or rendered non-mission-capable Iran’s fixed-wing airfields, hangars, fuel storage, and munitions stockpiles, and we knocked out 82 percent of its air defense missile systems along with the radar and command architecture that tied them together.”

• “At sea, we destroyed 161 vessels in total across 16 classes of warships, effectively crippling the regime’s ability to operate.”

• “We eliminated more than 90 percent of Iran’s once-massive inventory of over 8,000 naval mines, with more than 700 airstrikes on Iranian naval mine targets. In sum, Iran’s navy can no longer claim to be a maritime power, and it cannot project into the Gulf of Oman or the Indian Ocean. Iran retains nuisance capability – harassment, low-end drone and rocket attacks, and residual proxy support – but it no longer possesses the means to threaten major regional operations or to deter U.S. freedom of action in the air or maritime domains.”

• “The second-order effects of OEF are significant. More than 2,000 strikes against Iran’s command-and-control structures created leadership vacuums, paralysis, and internal confusion.” 

• “We have seen reporting of desertions, personnel shortages, and signs of regime desperation in their attempts to compel discipline through arrest and execution. Most importantly for the region’s future: Iran will be highly challenged to proliferate advanced weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, or the Iraqi militia groups. The supply chain from Tehran to the proxies has been broken.”

While Iran has clearly been battered by attacks from the U.S. and Israel, recent events show it can still inflict damage on its neighbors and shipping. As we previously reported, Tehran has repeatedly struck the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before and after the April 7 ceasefire. In previous coverage, we have pointed out how Iran has also attacked U.S. warships and commercial vessels they were helping guide through the Strait of Hormuz during the short-lived Project Freedom operation.

Hours before Cooper testified, “the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy seized the Honduras-flagged fishery research vessel Hui Chuan,” a maritime security official told us. “The Company Security Officer (CSO) reported that the vessel was taken by Iranian personnel while at anchor approximately 38nm northeast of Fujairah, UAE, at 05:45 UTC.”

The Hui Chuan was operating as a “floating armory” storing weapons for Chinese security firms who protect ships at sea from attack by pirates, the official told us. The ship is now “bound for Iranian territorial waters,” the UK’s Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) organization said.

UPDATE: 8:06 PM EDT –

During an interview with NBC News, Rubio was asked what Trump asked Xi when it comes to Iran.

“He didn’t ask him for anything,” the secretary noted. “We’re not asking for China’s help. We don’t need their help… Our position is very clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

In a post on his social media platform responding to Xi’s remarks that the U.S. is essentially a declining power, Trump responded that the Chinese leader was referring to America under Biden and that things are much better now.

More interesting, however, is a hint Trump dropped about the future with Iran.

Among the accomplishments he claimed on Truth Social was “the military decimation of Iran (to be continued!).” 

The House voted for a third time against acting as a check on President Trump’s military powers in Iran, even as a growing number of Republicans express concern about the prolonged conflict, CBS News reported. 

Thursday’s vote on a Democratic resolution to rein in Trump’s authority was 212-212, falling just short of a majority. Originally introduced on March 4, the measure as written would have directed the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities within 30 days of the start of the war, which began on Feb. 28.

UPDATES

In a readout of the meeting in Beijing between Trump and Xi, the White House noted that the topic of the Strait of Hormuz came up in discussions between the two leaders.

“The two sides agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy,” the White House posted on X. “President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s reliance on the Strait in the future.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was among those accompanying Trump, highlighted Xi’s opposition to allowing Iran to impose tolls on ships transiting the Strait. 

“President Trump raised the issue of Iran with China and it was important,” said Rubio. “The Chinese side said they are not in favor of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz and are not in favor of a tolling system, and that’s our position.”

The much-longer Chinese readout of the meeting mentioned improving trade and a warning that the U.S. “must exercise the utmost prudence in handling the Taiwan question.”

However, there was no mention of Iran or the Strait of Hormuz.

While that doesn’t mean these issues weren’t discussed, readouts are messaging and this reflected the emphasis Beijing places on the paused war and its aftermath.

“The two heads of state exchanged views on major international and regional issues, including the situation in the Middle East, the Ukraine crisis, and the Korean Peninsula,” was about as close as the statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry came to addressing Iran.

Despite the Trump administration’s stance that China opposes allowing Iran to impose tolls on shipping, Beijing is paying for transits, the Guardian claims.

Tehran “says it has reached a deal with China that has already allowed a large number of oil tankers bound for China to go through the strait of Hormuz since Wednesday night, and this has been made possible by China agreeing to limited charging, undercutting US opposition to such moves,” the outlet reported. “The development suggests China has accepted Iran’s assertion that the shipping rules in the strait have changed, with reports suggesting the cost will be in the region of $1 per barrel.”

We cannot independently verify that and have reached out to the White House for details.

Trump pushed back on claims that China is working to arm Iran.

“We discussed it,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “I mean, when you say ‘support,’ they’re not fighting a war with us or anything. He said he’s not gonna give military equipment. That’s a big statement. He said that strongly. But at the same time he said they buy a lot of their oil there, and they’d like to keep doing that.”

Trump’s claim that China told him it won’t give weapons to Iran followed The New York Times report that Beijing was working to ship arms to Tehran.

“Chinese companies have been discussing arms sales with Iran, plotting to send the weapons through other countries to mask the origins of the military aid,” the publication stated, citing U.S. officials.

The United States “has gathered intelligence that Chinese companies and Iranian officials have discussed the arms transfers,” the newspaper added. “It is not clear how many, if any, arms have been shipped or to what degree Chinese officials have approved the sales.”

Officials briefed on the intelligence “have reached different conclusions on whether the arms have already been sent to the third countries,” according to the Times. “But no Chinese weapons appear to have been used on the battlefield against U.S. or Israeli forces since they began their war against Iran in late February.”

The newspaper reported last month that U.S. intelligence agencies had obtained information showing that China may have transferred shoulder-fired man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) to Iran. Intelligence also showed that China was considering other shipments of the weaponry.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Wednesday pushed back on claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet visited the country during the now-paused war with Iran. The denial is a strong public rebuke amid a growing relationship between the two nations that has seen Israel supply the UAE with Iron Dome air defense batteries to protect against Iranian attacks.

“The United Arab Emirates denies reports circulating regarding an alleged visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the UAE or receiving any Israeli military delegations in the country,” the UAE Foreign Affairs Ministry posted on X Wednesday afternoon EDT. “The UAE reaffirms that its relations with Israel are public and conducted within the framework of the well-known and officially declared Abraham Accords, and are not based on non-transparent or unofficial arrangements. Accordingly, any claims regarding unannounced visits or undisclosed arrangements are entirely unfounded unless officially announced by the relevant authorities in the UAE.”

The ministry added that the “UAE calls on media outlets to exercise accuracy and professionalism, and to refrain from circulating unverified information or promoting misleading political narratives.”

Hours before the UAE announcement, Netanyahu’s office claimed the Israeli leader did travel to the Gulf Arab nation, confirming a CBS News report about the visit.

“In the midst of Operation ‘Roar of the Lion,’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret visit to the United Arab Emirates and met with the President of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed,” the office posted on X. “This visit led to a historic breakthrough in relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.”

Israel’s N12 News chief political correspondent Amit Segal noted a “few striking details regarding the news of Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE.”

“A covert flight reportedly took place while Israeli airspace was fully shut—without leaks or detection,” he noted on X. “Sources suggest a deal was reached on an Iron Dome shipment” and “UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has publicly hosted Israeli leaders like Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid—but not Benjamin Netanyahu. Until now, their contacts stayed behind closed doors.”

Bennet and Lapid visited the UAE in 2021, as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively.

The announcement from Netanyahu’s office followed media reports on Tuesday about the visit to the UAE of two other high-level Israeli officials.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Mossad chief David Barnea visited the UAE at least twice during Operation Roaring Lion to coordinate war efforts. Barnea reportedly flew to the UAE in March and April. In addition, Israeli media reported that Shin Bet chief David Zini also visited the UAE to coordinate security efforts.

The back and forth over the potentially unprecedented wartime visit by three top Israeli officials to the UAE comes a day after U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee publicly confirmed that Israel sent the UAE an unspecified number of Iron Dome air defense batteries and troops to operate them. News of the deployment was first reported by Axios last month. Such an acknowledgement of direct Israeli military aid to an Arab nation is unusual in its own right.

TWZ cannot independently verify any of the travel claims. However, Israel has historically been viewed as an enemy by the Arab world and direct cooperation in the form of a visit by its head of state could be considered controversial to say the least. At the same time, things have changed dramatically in the region over the last decade or so, with Arab countries warming to relations with Israel. This has been spurred by the major economic development the region has seen as well as, at least to a degree, a common foe — Iran.

Perhaps the UAE is trying to appeal to a domestic audience or, as Israel’s I24 News senior Middle East correspondent Ariel Oseran suggested on X, UAE is trying to distance itself from Netanyahu and his coalition, not Israel writ large. Maybe Netanyahu, for his own reasons, is trying to claim a level of relationship that doesn’t exist, however that seems unlikely.

We may never find out for sure.

The Senate on Wednesday blocked the seventh Democratic attempt to prevent Trump from waging war on Iran. However, it was by the slimmest margin yet, indicating a growing unease in the legislature about the now-paused conflict.

The vote failed by a 49-50 margin, with all Democrats but John Fetterman of Pennsylvania supporting the measure. For the first time, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined fellow Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in breaking with Trump and voting with Democrats. 

This was the first vote on the War Powers Resolution since Trump bypassed the 60-day deadline to seek congressional authorization for Operation Epic Fury last month. You can read more about that effort in our story about it here.

Meanwhile, as we noted yesterday, NBC News reported that the administration is considering changing the name of the operation to Sledgehammer should hostilities resume.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post CENTCOM Commander Dismisses Reports That Iran Retains Most Of Its Missile And Drone Arsenal (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

Adm. Caudle, as well as Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith, testified before members of the House Armed Services Committee today. The focus of the hearing was on the Department of the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The Navy disclosed that it had decided the Trump class warships will feature nuclear propulsion in its latest long-term shipbuilding plan, which was released on Monday.

“I know there have been many conversations and questions over the past few days regarding the news that the Trump class battleship will be nuclear powered. And, as you know, Virginia has a long history of nuclear shipbuilding. What specific design plans can you share at this point and can [you] speak to how nuclear power would enable this system to be successful?” Rep. John McGuire, a Virginia Republican and former U.S. Navy SEAL, asked Adm. Caudle directly.

“Sir, we walked away from surface nuclear power decades ago, and that was one of the largest mistakes the Navy ever did, and we’re bringing it back,” the Chief of Naval Operations said in response. “We need nuclear-powered surface ships to sustain combat operations with our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.”

Though a major operator of nuclear-powered submarines, the Navy’s aircraft carriers are currently its only nuclear-powered surface ships. The service previously had a mixture of nuclear-powered surface combatants. This included three one-of-a-kind ships, the cruiser USS Long Beach, the destroyer USS Truxtun (later recategorized as a cruiser), and the frigate USS Bainbridge. There were also two California class and four Virginia class cruisers, the latter not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines. All of these ships entered service in the 1960s and 1970s. Expensive and complex to operate compared to similar conventionally-powered ships, they were all retired in the 1990s as part of post-Cold War drawdowns across the U.S. military.

As Caudle highlighted, the central benefit of nuclear propulsion is functionally unlimited range since naval reactors can operate for decades without needing to be refueled. In the context of modern ships packed with ever-more advanced weapons and other systems, it can also offer an important boost in onboard power generation. As noted, this does come at a cost. Today, Russia is the only country anywhere in the world with a nuclear-powered surface combatant, the Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov. In terms of nuclear-powered surface naval ships of any kind, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is the only other example. Russia also has several nuclear-powered icebreakers, but these are operated by the state-run nuclear company Rosatom.

“Imagine what that would have looked like in the Arabian Gulf if I’d had a nuclear-powered battleship there to give the air and defense and fires [sic] power that it could sustain – rotate ships that roll, that need gasoline around it,” Caudle continued today in his response to Rep. McGuire’s question. “So the imperative for this is crucial to develop that level of payload capacity.”

Navy officials have already acknowledged that Iranian attacks on friendly countries in the Middle East in the course of recent operations significantly disrupted established logistics chains. In particular, this impacted how the service delivered fuel to conventionally-powered warships in the region, as you can read more about here.

Threats to fuel supplies would be something the Navy would have to take into account in any future conflict, especially a high-end fight against China across the broad expanses of the Pacific. There are other logistics requirements that nuclear ships do still have in common with their conventionally-powered counterparts, as well, such as food for the crew and fuel for any embarked aircraft. Even with nuclear propulsion, maintenance and other requirements mean that ships cannot stay at sea indefinitely.

“We intend to, with all we can do, use pull-through technologies, [including] things from that we’ve worked on with DDG(X),” the Navy’s top officer added, speaking about the plans for the Trump class specifically. “It will have the SPY-6 radar. It will have the Baseline 10 Aegis combat system. It will pull through, of course, the A1B Ford class reactor plant and all the design that goes with that. The only thing inherently new to it will be the actual hull itself, and so most of the fixtures in it. And I would say the directed energy [weapons] and up gunning, that will also be new.”

Caudle had first shared the A1B reactor detail at another budget-related hearing earlier this week. It was previously known that the Trump class battleship program would leverage prior work done in relation to the now-defunct DDG(X) next-generation destroyer.

Multiple types of laser-directed energy weapons, as well as an electromagnetic railgun, are core elements of the planned armament package on the future Trump class warships. They are also set to be loaded with a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, in several large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays, and have a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns.

The Navy has previously stated that the battleships, now also referred to as BBGNs, will displace approximately 35,000 tons. This is very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The Trump class vessels are expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots, as well.

It is worth noting here that Caudle’s comments today represent a huge change in tone from how he had previously talked about the prospect of nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. Speaking to the press at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January, he had notably appeared to downplay the possibility.

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” he said at that time. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

Just last month, former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also said making the Trump class ships nuclear-powered was unlikely, citing the need to balance cost and complexity against aggressive schedule demands. Phelan was fired unexpectedly just two days after making those comments. There have been reports that disagreements over plans for the battleships, specifically, as well as other friction within the Trump administration, factored into his dismissal.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other[s],” President Trump said about Phelan while speaking to the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

As it stands now, the Navy still does not expect to order the first Trump class battleship until Fiscal Year 2028 and or see that ship enter service before Fiscal Year 2036. The first example, at least, currently has an estimated unit cost of around $17 billion, which is considerably more than the projected price tag of any of the next four Ford class aircraft carriers.

Even before the nuclear propulsion decision was announced, TWZ had raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. Caudle’s comments today about leveraging pull-through notwithstanding, nuclear-powered ships are inherently complex and expensive, which are the tradeoffs for the aforementioned boost in capability. A specialized workforce and supply chains are required to build such vessels. Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the United States currently building surface ships with nuclear propulsion, in the form of new Ford class carriers, all of which have suffered delays.

There are two more yards in the country that make nuclear-powered submarines, both of which are already under strain to meet Navy demands. There is a particular need to keep on schedule with the new Columbia class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to avoid any gap in capacity when it comes to the sea leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad. Additional plans now to supply Virginia class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, which Adm. Caudle said today he vehemently supports, can only further add to that workload.

The U.S. naval shipbuilding industry, collectively, has other demands to keep churning out conventionally-powered warships like Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as well. This is an industry that has contracted to a worrisome degree, overall, since the end of the Cold War, especially when compared to the completely opposite trend that has been observed in China. Efforts to reinvigorate America’s shipyards, and the continued challenges the Navy is facing in doing so, were key points of discussion at today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Adm. Caudle’s broad statement of support today for a nuclear-powered surface Navy raises the additional question now of whether the service might be interested in expanding this capability beyond the Trump class. Some of the Navy’s prior nuclear-powered surface combatants were derived from conventionally-powered designs. At the same time, any such decision would run up against the same shipbuilding capacity and other questions facing the new battleships.

Just when it comes to the Trump class, the plans for the ships could easily still evolve further, or even come to an end entirely. The timeline laid out now has the battleship program continuing well into the next presidential administration, where the fortunes of a new nuclear-powered surface navy could change dramatically.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Nuclear-Powered Trump Class Battleships Will Reverse One Of The Navy’s “Largest Mistakes”: Navy Boss appeared first on The War Zone.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense confirmed today that the development and integration of the external fuel tanks on the F-35I will be carried out by Elbit Systems’ Cyclone subsidiary. Elbit says the deal is valued at over $34 million and will involve tanks based on an existing Cyclone design originally developed for the F-16.

“The new capability is expected to extend the aircraft’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and enhance operational flexibility across long-range missions,” the company added.

Based on the reference to the F-16, the announcement has been widely taken to refer to external drop tanks, but it remains possible, although improbable, that the F-35I is getting some kind of conformal, flush-mounted fuel tank. This could have a reduced impact on stealth and overall performance, but would likely also involve significant shape change and alterations to the airframe. Integrating and clearing tanks of this kind for operational service would be a complex and potentially very lengthy process, since they would disrupt the highly quantified low-observable moldline of the aircraft. However, Israel has experience in operating both F-15s and F-16s with conformal tanks.

Obviously, adding external fuel tanks of any kind to the stealthy F-35I will degrade its low-observable features. However, with the Israeli Air Force putting a premium on its ability to conduct long-range strikes, this is clearly seen as a worthwhile tradeoff. If the upgrade does involve drop tanks, they are also likely to be jettisonable, possibly together with their pylons, meaning they could be discarded before penetrating a hostile air defense system, for example. This would only be the case on extremely high-risk long-range missions, and could not be sustained for long campaigns. They could also be dropped when under threat, giving the F-35I back critical agility and providing a lower radar signature.

There are also means of mitigating the penalty that drop tanks impose on a stealth aircraft. This is best evidenced by the new fuel tanks for the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor, which are seen as a critical addition to ensure that the fighter is able to better cover the vast distances involved in a potential future conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

The new faceted, low-drag tanks for the F-22, like the older ones, can be jettisoned from the jet to restore the full scope of its performance and further reduce its radar cross-section. However, Lockheed Martin says it expects the Raptor to go into direct combat, at least in some scenarios, with the tanks fitted.

There have also been steady signals that some kind of range extension was in the works for the Israeli F-35I.

Back in 2021, a cryptic announcement from Lockheed Martin confirmed that the company was working with an unnamed foreign buyer to develop a modification of the F-35 to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in engineering support work. An Israeli fuel-carriage enhancement was a possibility, as you can read more about this here.

Then, in 2022, separate reports emerged suggesting that Israel had developed an unspecified means of extending the range of its F-35Is, allegedly providing them with enough reach to hit targets in Iran without needing aerial refueling. The 2022 reports might have involved a prototype version of the tanks mentioned in the announcement today, some other kind of external fuel carriage, or they might have been erroneous.

More recently, just before the latest campaign against Iran, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter provided what was likely the first official confirmation that range-extending fuel tanks for the F-35I are already in service. In an interview in mid-February, he stated: “We developed fuel tanks that extend the aircraft’s range without compromising stealth.” Exactly how this was achieved was not revealed, but even small internal tanks may be a possibility, while also presenting a serious engineering challenge.

In the United States, range-extending external fuel tanks for the F-35 also re-emerged in 2025 as part of the ongoing Block 4 modernization effort for those aircraft, years after a requirement for streamlined drop tanks was eliminated. The Pentagon confirmed it will explore the feasibility of all forms of external fuel tanks, including underwing tanks, for all three variants of the F-35.

Overall, the idea of integrating external fuel tanks on the F-35 is far from new. Back in 2019, TWZ reported on how Lockheed Martin was looking at adding two 600-gallon drop tanks under the F-35’s wings as part of a larger range-extension study. This would have increased total fuel capacity by around 40 percent. Prior to that, studies had looked at adding smaller 480- and 460-gallon tanks.

Of these, the original 480-gallon drop tank was abandoned after aerodynamic and stores separation issues emerged. The subsequent 460-gallon design was also not ultimately pursued, and it was found that additional drag also eroded the range increase.

It is notable that Aviation Week previously reported that Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Cyclone had worked on both a conformal tank design for the F-35I and the 600-gallon drop tank.

As an Israeli-specific version of the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the Adir already incorporates some significant Israeli-developed systems. Many of these have been tested on a specially outfitted one-off version of the aircraft, which arrived in the country in 2020. Israeli additions include electronic warfare systems and also weaponry. The F-35I fleet is expected to be armed with the Rafael SPICE precision-guided bomb, but may eventually include air-to-air missiles and other weapons, too.

At the same time, the F-35’s inboard stores hardpoints are still plumbed for the carriage of external fuel tanks, suggesting that introducing this capability, including on the Israeli-specific F-35I variant, might not be too complicated.

The Israeli requirement for the F-35I to be less reliant on aerial refueling is especially important. The Israeli Air Force currently operates a fleet of only around seven aging Boeing 707 tankers. The overreliance on these aging tankers for long-range missions has led to previous speculation that the Israeli Air Force has relied upon U.S. Air Force refueling support when it has gone into combat. The Pentagon denied this.

At the same time, a strike package that doesn’t require tanker support is in some ways more flexible and more survivable. Moreover, the survivability of traditional refueling jets in or near contested airspace is becoming a growing concern. Meanwhile, Israel is now starting to modernize its tanker fleet, with the first of its more modern KC-46s having begun flight trials earlier this month.

Israel has also previously shown that it is willing to degrade the stealth characteristics of the F-35I to increase its strike capacity. The type has been seen flying strike sorties with external ordnance, demonstrating the F-35’s so-called ‘beast mode,’ featuring loads on underwing pylons.

Israel has repeatedly used its F-35Is in strikes on targets both closer to Israel and much further afield. In 2018, it became the first operator to use the jet on offensive operations. Meanwhile, it has also recorded success in aerial combat against hostile drones.

Last year, the Adir was involved in strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. There were reports that Israeli fighters often landed on fumes after their initial sorties during this conflict. With these jets operating to the edge of their endurance, fuel starvation was a serious threat, and it is perhaps surprising that none were lost. External drop tanks were also found in multiple locations in eastern Iraq, pointing to their use to maximize long-range sortie rates early in the conflict.

The F-35I also played an important role in striking Iranian targets during the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign launched at the end of February this year.

The Israeli effort against Iran, Operation Lion’s Roar, also saw an Israeli Adir claim the first aerial victory for any F-35 against a crewed aircraft. On March 4, in an incident that you can read more about here, an F-35I brought down an Iranian Yak-130 Mitten combat trainer over Tehran.

The importance of the F-35I to Israel has also been demonstrated by the country’s successively adding to its orders for the type.

Earlier this month, it was confirmed that the Israeli Air Force is set to receive a fourth F-35I squadron, bolstering its fighter inventory with another 25 of the aircraft.

In 2023, Israel opted to buy a third squadron of F-35Is, covering 25 more jets. This batch is scheduled to be delivered starting in 2028.

Once all four squadrons are stood up, Israel will have a total of 100 F-35Is.

Before long, we are likely to see at least some of these jets sporting the long-range upgrade announced today. At that point, the precise nature of these external fuel tanks will finally be revealed.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Israel’s F-35s Are Getting External Fuel Tanks appeared first on The War Zone.

All this reflects the continued high utility placed on the MQ-9 fleet, as well as its considerable loss rates sustained against mid-tier and lower-tier adversaries. It also points away from filling the MQ-9’s role with a far more exquisite, costly, but more survivable asset, which seems to have been the direction the Air Force was heading, at least in part, for many years now. With this in mind, this new direction appears to accept that many losses will occur in future combat scenarios and embraces that reality to leverage quantity over quality for whatever eventually takes over from the MQ-9.

Testifying before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Maj. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the acting head of Air Force Futures, said that a new requirements document for an MQ-9 replacement had been approved. Aviation Week was first to report the development.

The approval clears the path for the Air Force to begin a new acquisition process for an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) that will assume the MQ-9’s role. A medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) system, the Reaper is primarily used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions.

Niemi told the Senate Armed Services Committee that improvements in technology since the MQ-9 was developed mean the service now considers it possible for a new drone to be “more flexible,” leaning upon open architectures.

At the same time, modern production methods mean the new drone will be easier and cheaper to produce “in mass numbers,” Niemi said. The result should be a drone that the Air Force can “use in a more attritable way.”

Interestingly, within the Air Force, there has in recent years been a shift away from the term attritable — meaning inexpensive enough to be willing to lose on high-risk missions while being capable enough to be relevant for those missions — to “affordable mass.” This is something TWZ previously highlighted was already happening back in 2021.

This change came about as a way of helping define the kinds of advanced drones that the Air Force is planning to acquire in the coming years, reflecting that their capabilities will necessarily come at a cost that will make them less than “attritable.”

Last month, the Air Force published a market survey notice, requesting information from industry on a new attritable ISR drone.

This notice included some key performance parameters for the drone, including a range of up to 932 miles and a 20-hour endurance. The attritable nature of the drone was reflected in a requirement for it to fly 100 missions with a “low-to-medium acquisition” cost.

The basic Reaper can fly for more than 20 hours unarmed, or more than 12 hours with weapons. In the case of the MQ-9B version, with an extended wingspan, flight endurance can be increased to more than 40 hours.

“Operators desire low-cost, fast-to-field, fast-to-deploy airborne ISR mass to increase mission flexibility and mission surging,” the market survey notice added.

The process of figuring out what to replace the Reaper with has been ongoing for many years now. However, the latest effort is noteworthy for its emphasis on a lower-cost, more attritable platform.

Back in 2020, the Air Force published a request for information for a program dubbed MQ-Next, also seeking an MQ-9 successor. This was focused on ISR and strike capabilities, but also stated a desire for reduced operating costs and greater persistence, survivability, and range.

By 2021, the Air Force was concentrating more on a family of systems — the so-called Next-Generation Multi-Role Unmanned Aerial System Family of Systems (Next-Gen Multi-Role UAS FoS) — including a growing emphasis on low-observable (stealth) technologies. The same year, the service said it was seeking a replacement for the MQ-9 that could possibly include defensive counter-air capabilities to protect high-value manned aircraft, such as tankers, as well as potentially fly red air aggressor missions. Fast forward to today, and it’s clear that these higher-performance air-to-air focused missions could be taken over, at least in part, by the current Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. As a result, whatever replaces the MQ-9 is unlikely to have such broad requirements.

The Next-Gen Multi-Role UAS FoS included scope for platforms that could be survivable and reusable, or ones that would be attritable or expendable. This was not a single platform solution, either. It would likely need to include a mix of systems.

The 2021 document also stipulated that the MQ-9’s successor should be tailored for Great Power Competition, pointing to a drone ecosystem suitable for the kinds of highly contested environments that would be encountered during a conflict with a peer rival such as China or Russia. At the same time, the solution was also intended to fly missions in more permissive environments, like the MQ-9.

Around this same time, the Air Force also said it wanted to leverage advances in development and manufacturing, meaning that smaller numbers of manned aircraft could be produced quickly to meet dynamically evolving threats. This reflected the Air Force’s “Digital Century Series” that was in vogue at that time, and which led to talk about “throwaway” technology and essentially “disposable” aircraft. Some of this appears to have made it into these new requirements, which stipulate that the aircraft needs to be able to fly just 100 missions.

Meanwhile, the latest statements from the service describe a drone with increased flexibility achieved through open architecture, rather than building bespoke batches of drones for particular requirements. Previous statements from the service outlined an aspiration to have its new drone capable of accommodating rapidly reconfigurable payloads, something that open architecture would expedite.

Above all else, the MQ-9 successor will still have to operate in contested environments.

In his testimony yesterday, Niemi presented a vision of a new drone, the design of which would stress being attritable, rather than survivable.

The Pentagon has long worked on the basis that a future conflict with a peer rival, and especially with China in the Pacific, would see it facing highly robust anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) scenarios. With that in mind, previous Reaper replacement studies had suggested that low observability would need to be incorporated into the design.

The latest thinking seems to reject that, or at least reorient the program toward a lower-cost platform of the kind that the Air Force would be able to field in mass, as well as to absorb the anticipated attrition in a high-end conflict. This does not preclude this airframe from featuring low-observable elements. In fact, it most likely will. But those would be more aggressively balanced against cost.

Concerns over the MQ-9’s vulnerability to air defenses have been ongoing for years now, although usually the nuances of this issue are not portrayed accurately in the media. Regardless, many MQ-9s were lost over Yemen, against a bottom-tier force. The war with Iran earlier this year underlined both the great utility and vulnerabilities of the platform. At least 24 Air Force Reapers were destroyed during the war, but these aircraft were pushed deep into Iran, loitered there for hours on end, and did some of the most important air-to-ground strike and surveillance work during the air campaign. While the Air Force says it plans to “buy back” some of the losses from that conflict, that will come with a hefty price tag, something that the service will want to avoid with its next ISR/strike drone. Furthermore, production of the MQ-9A model has now ended in favor of the MQ-9B.

The assumption that the MQ-9 replacement will be acquired in significant numbers is also noteworthy in terms of the current Air Force Reaper fleet, which includes more than 130 MQ-9As, according to Aviation Week.

What appears to be missing at this stage, or at least obscured, is an acquisition strategy for the new drones. As well as the aerial platforms, the MQ-9 successor will require suitable new ground control systems, sensors, and data exploitation technologies, all of which are compatible with open-architecture standards. These systems will also have to leverage the latest technologies to allow the drones to be more effective and more survivable over the battlefield.

Since MQ-Next, the U.S. drone landscape has changed considerably in terms of manufacturers. A few years ago, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics would have been seen as the front-runners for the MQ-9 replacement. Now, there are more contenders, often with a founding focus on rapidly scaling up production at low cost. Still, these firms have much to prove, especially considering the risk in replacing an aircraft as important as the MQ-9. At the same time, in the more advanced drone space, the legacy defense “prime” contractors are also making major progress in leveraging new technologies to reduce production costs and migrating away from exquisite, very expensive drones as their default offerings.

Back in 2021, the Air Force was promoting a “Speed to Ramp” initiative for its MQ-Next, which would see the first iterations of this capability fielded before “the 2026/2027 timeframe.” Other solutions under the same effort would begin to be fielded “in the 2030 timeframe,” the Air Force said.

While the latter timeline might still be somewhat achievable, it will require a considerable effort and investment and, not least, the firming up of the requirements for exactly what the Air Force wants its MQ-9 replacement to look like.

What we do know is that, while the Reaper’s replacement might not be as survivable as once envisioned, it will certainly be tailored to the increasingly harsh realities of a conflict against an advanced peer-state adversary. 

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post MQ-9 Reaper Replacement Requirements Stress A Drone Cheap Enough To Risk Losing appeared first on The War Zone.

“The Department of War has reached new framework agreements with a slate of disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators to aggressively expand the United States military’s strike capabilities,” the Pentagon declared in a press release today. “Agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos, and Zone 5 will launch the Low-Cost Containerized Missles [sic; Missiles] (LCCM) program, while a parallel agreement with Castelion advances an initiative to scale low-cost hypersonic solutions.”

“The new frameworks for LCCM will drive a fast-paced experimentation and assessment campaign that will culminate in a Military Utility Assessment by the sponsoring Service Components. Designed to move at the speed of commercial industry, the agreements establish the terms for future firm-fixed-price production contracts,” the release adds. “This effort positions the Department to procure over 10,000 low-cost cruise missiles across these portfolios in just three years, starting in 2027. The Department is creating a pathway for rapid and repeatable production of high-volume, lethal strike capabilities. The agreements include firm fixed material-unit costs for production lots in 2027 through 2029.”

The Pentagon has not yet explicitly defined what it means by “containerized” in this context, or how exactly these munitions might be fielded. However, there is already a clear focus on designs that could be fired from containerized launchers on land or loaded on ships. As TWZ has reported on many occasions, containerized systems offer immense operational flexibility, as well as the ability to blend in with standard shipping containers, creating targeting challenges for opponents. The LCCM munitions could be adapted for air launch, if they are not expected to also be employable in that mode already. Common munitions that could be employed from launch platforms across domains would offer additional benefits in terms of logistics and production, as well as helping to keep costs down through economies of scale.

Anduril has already announced that its contribution will be the surface-launched version of its Barracuda-500M design, a weapon that can also be air-launched. The company says it plans to deliver a minimum of 1,000 of these weapons to the U.S. military each year for the next three years.

Leidos says it will supply an LCCM design that leverages existing work on its air-launched AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile (SCM), also known as Black Arrow, originally developed for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The company plans to deliver 3,000 of these units under the new framework deal.

“At approximately twice the size of the AGM-190A, the LCCM offers increased mission effectiveness and fuel capacity to maximize range. Building on the Leidos Small Cruise Missile’s heritage, the LCCM leverages key design features including a modular airframe and a common Weapon Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) to enable rapid integration, upgrades and mission adaptability,” Leidos’ press release adds. “The design also utilizes Leidos’ established supply chain and scalable production approach. While initially ground-launched, LCCM’s modular design could also support maritime platform integration and air-launched variants.”

At the time of writing, CoAspire and Zone 5, the latter of which was recently acquired by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, do not appear to have issued press releases regarding the Pentagon’s LCCM announcement. However, both companies have already developed cruise missile designs under the U.S. Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, which was focused first on delivering new, lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. CoAspire’s ERAM design is called the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM), while one from Zone 5 is named Rusty Dagger.

ERAM is also now feeding into the Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. That service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year had already laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

CoAspire has talked in the past about surface-launched versions of its RAACM and its new longer-range RAACM-ER. Zone 5 could similarly look to adapt its existing Rusty Dagger missile to meet the specific LCCM requirements.

“Concurrently, once Castelion achieves testing and validation, the Department will award a two-year multi-year procurement contract for a minimum of 500 Blackbeard missiles annually, with options to extend for up to five years,” the Pentagon’s press release today also notes. “To further encourage Castelion’s self-funded facility expansion, the Department is actively seeking the necessary authorizations and appropriations to purchase over 12,000 Blackbeard missiles over five years.”

Castelion has already been developing a ground-launched version of Blackbeard for the U.S. Army. Last month, the company formally announced that it had received a separate contract from the U.S. Navy for an air-launched version to arm that service’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

“The experimentation and assessment campaign for LCCM will be led by the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, with the Army Program Acquisition Executive Fires serving as the transition partner and acquisition lead for procurement,” according to the Pentagon. “To kickstart this initiative, the Department will procure test missiles from all four LCCM companies starting in June 2026, laying the groundwork for the assessment phase of the program. These agreements were developed in close coordination with the United States Air Force Program Acquisition Executive Weapons, the Test Resource Management Center and multiple components across the War Department, including the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment.”

It should be stressed here that the problem set that LCCM and the tangential framework arrangement with Castelion are intended to address, that of a critical need for production of cost-effective strike munitions at scale, is not new. Expenditures of critical air-to-surface and surface-to-surface munitions, as well as anti-air interceptors, by the U.S. military, as well as its allies and partners, in conflicts in recent years have only underscored the vital need to bolster these inventories. Demand for stand-off munitions, in particular, would be far greater in any future high-end fight against a near-peer adversary like China. That is a scenario where American forces could easily find themselves tasked to prosecute tens of thousands, of targets, just in the opening phase.

Furthermore, existing munitions are often exquisite in design, and take months, or more often years, of lead time to produce. The Pentagon’s focus on “disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators,” rather than any of America’s long-established prime defense contractors, with its newly announced framework deals, is extremely significant in its own right. This is the latest example of a major shift away from awarding high-profile contracts to large legacy providers, helping to diversify the industrial base and promote competition. This also means moving away from companies accustomed to very long lead procurement and production arrangements.

The LCCM effort follows years of work in the pursuit of lower-cost stand-off munitions, especially by the U.S. Air Force. This is underscored by the fact that all of the companies named today already have relevant designs that they have been working on under contract to the U.S. military. This, in turn, has already led to an explosion in the market for munitions in this general category, many of which increasingly blur the line between long-range kamikaze drones, traditional cruise missiles, and decoys. It should also be noted that the new lower-cost munitions are not intended to replace existing exquisite designs, but instead to form a valuable high-low capability mix that offers a more cost-effective and flexible blend of options for striking targets.

The U.S. Army and U.S. Navy have also made significant investments already in containerized launchers capable of firing various types of longer-ranged missiles.

If the frameworks announced today produce the promised results, they could be instrumental in laying the foundation for the production of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Update: 6:20 PM EST –

Zone 5 has now provided a statement regarding today’s announcement from the Pentagon.

“Zone 5 is proud to partner with the Department of War on the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles program to deliver affordable, scalable strike capacity to our warfighters needed to deter and defeat emerging threats,” Thomas Akers, CEO of Zone 5 Technologies, said. “This program reflects exactly where American defense innovation must go: faster development, on-demand production, and high-volume weapons that can be fielded at the pace of relevance. We are honored to be a part of this effort to expand the munitions industrial base and strengthen America’s arsenal.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post 10,000 Low-Cost Cruise Missiles In Three Years Procurement Plan Laid Out By Pentagon (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

An image posted on X by Israel’s I24 News outlet shows what it claims is caging around oil tanks near Dubai International Airport. In the far-right section of the photo, what appears to be a more complete metal enclosure of some of the fuel tanks can be seen, while in the foreground, construction looks to be taking place on caging for additional tanks.

This seems to be the first sighting of these structures in the UAE and across the Gulf Arab nations. It is unclear when construction on the structures began or how many of these barriers the UAE is building or plans to build. We have reached out to the UAE Embassy in Washington for more details.

As we have reported in the past, the idea behind these kinds of metal structures is to mitigate the damage caused by incoming munitions by creating a barrier between the point of weapon impact and the target. The caging depicted is not designed to protect against Iranian ballistic missiles, and even cruise missiles could be a challenge. These kinds of structures are made to help defend against one-way attack munitions, such as the Shahed-136, many of which Iran has launched against the UAE. They can also protect from near-field small suicide drone attacks, although these have not been a major issue in the UAE during this conflict.

As noted earlier, while these structures may be new to the UAE, it is not the first time metal caging and even mesh nets have been used to protect critical energy infrastructure. Russia has employed these measures on its oil storage facilities in attempts to protect them from repeated Ukrainian drone attacks for a number of years now.

You can see some of those defensive measures in the following images and videos.

It is no surprise that the UAE would resort to such measures. Since the conflict broke out on Feb. 28, the Emirates have been particularly hard hit by Iranian attacks, especially on its energy infrastructure.

The UAE Defense Ministry says its air defenses “have engaged a total of 551 ballistic missiles, 29 cruise missiles, and 2,265 UAVs” fired by Iran.

Two of the UAE’s major energy infrastructure sites – the oil storage facilities at the UAE Port of Fujairah and the Habshan natural gas processing facility – have been damaged by Iranian missiles and drones. You can see video of some of the Iranian attacks on the UAE below.

Habshan, the main natural gas plant supplying the fuel in the United Arab Emirates “will only return to full capacity next year, highlighting the long recovery times for some of the region’s most critical infrastructure that was damaged in the Iran war,” Bloomberg News noted. 

The most recent Iranian attack on the UAE came on May 10, more than a month after the U.S. and Iran agreed to a ceasefire that is barely holding on. The Emirates, however, haven’t just taken defensive measures. As we noted earlier this week, reports emerged that it carried out secret airstrikes on Iranian targets.

The war has once again highlighted the need for hardened structures to protect valuable assets, an issue TWZ has frequently covered. Meanwhile, shortly before the war broke out, the U.S. took a step toward acknowledging the importance of these kinds of defensive systems. The Pentagon issued new guidance for protecting critical infrastructure against drone attacks that calls for increased use of netting, cables, and other kinds of passive physical defenses.

The following video shows War Secretary Pete Hegseth introducing the Pentagon’s new approach to protecting infrastructure from drone attacks.

The new plan represented a notable shift in policy within the department. For years now, U.S. military officials have often pushed back on the utility and cost-effectiveness of investing more in the physical hardening of bases and other critical facilities, especially shelters to shield aircraft from drones and other threats.

Whether the new structures UAE is building to defend its energy infrastructure actually work will only be known should Iran launch a new round of attacks that target these sites. Clearly, the world will be watching and taking notes.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post UAE Building Massive ‘Cope Cages’ To Protect Energy Facilities From Iranian Drone Attacks appeared first on The War Zone.

CBO released a detailed cost estimate of what it described as a notional “National Missile Defense System” yesterday. CBO’s $1.191 trillion figure covers various expenses over a 20-year timeframe. This is more than double the projected price tag that CBO had put forward last year. President Trump first announced plans for a new national missile defense architecture in January 2025. The initiative was originally dubbed Iron Dome before being renamed Golden Dome.

“The analysis is based on the objectives laid out in the President’s executive order titled ‘The Iron Dome for America.’ The Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) implementation of that order – an initiative now called the Golden Dome for America (GDA) – is in the early stages,” CBO’s latest estimate explains up front. “Although documents from DoD’s budget request for the 2027 fiscal year provide five-year projections of funding plans for GDA, details about what and how many systems will be deployed – the ‘objective architecture’ – have not been released, making it impossible to estimate the long-term cost of the GDA system being contemplated by DoD. In the absence of specific plans for GDA’s objective architecture, CBO has estimated the cost of a notional NMD architecture based on the defensive systems and capabilities that are called for in the executive order.”

“DoD’s stated cost appears to cover a shorter time frame than CBO’s analysis and may reflect a different scope of activities and budget categories. Even so, that stated cost is far lower than CBO’s estimate for a notional NMD architecture consistent with the ‘Iron Dome” executive order,” CBO’s assessment adds. “That difference suggests either that GDA’s objective architecture is more limited than CBO’s notional NMD system or that DoD expects significant funding from other accounts to contribute to GDA (or both). For example, procurement of interceptors might be funded directly through the services’ missile procurement accounts instead of the GDA fund.”

For its part, the Trump administration has most recently pegged the price tag for Golden Dome’s “objective architecture” at approximately $185 billion. Last year, President Trump himself had put forward a $175 billion figure, which he said would include systems to be fielded “in less than three years.” TWZ has noted on several occasions now that the administration’s estimates may just cover a portion of the planned Golden Dome architecture, which could easily cost hundreds of billions in total to field and operate.

CBO’s analysis is broken into six main elements – the space-based interceptor constellation, upper wide-area surface sites, lower wide-area surface sites, regional sectors, self-defense for four existing surface sites, and a space satellite constellation for tracking targets – as well as a collection of miscellaneous ancillary costs. The surface site and regional sector categories primarily consist of costs associated with expanding on existing land and sea-based anti-missile interceptor and sensor capabilities, such as Aegis Ashore, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI).

An all-new constellation of 7,800 space-based interceptors is, by far, the largest single component of CBO’s projection. This capability is estimated to cost $723 billion to acquire, and then another $1 billion annually to operate and maintain ($20 billion over 20 years), for a total of $743 billion. This is 60 percent of the total estimated $1.191 trillion price tag, and 70 percent of the projected acquisition costs.

CBO provides a detailed breakdown of how it arrived at these figures.

“The average cost per SBI [space-based interceptor] satellite would be $22 million. That average is for the initial 7,800 SBIs as well as the nearly 1,600 SBIs that would be needed each year thereafter because of the satellites’ short five-year service life. The need to periodically replace SBIs means that the acquisition costs would be spread over the life of the system,” according to the cost assessment. “The total is based on a cost of $500 per kilogram to launch the SBIs into orbit. Although that launch cost is lower than typical launch costs today, it is thought to be achievable using the new generation of heavy-lift rockets, such as the Space-X [sic] Starship, that are being developed. Even lower launch costs may be realized in the future, but that could have only a limited effect on total costs for the SBI layer because, even at $500 per kilogram, launch costs account for less than 5 percent of the total.”

“Both the very large number of SBIs needed to engage just 10 targets simultaneously and the SBIs’ short service life are the result of how the satellites move in orbit. To be close enough to reach their targets within the three to five minutes available in the boost phase, SBIs must be in LEO at altitudes of roughly 300 to 500 kilometers,” it continues. “However, the characteristics of satellite motion in LEO affect the size of constellations meant to provide continuous coverage over specific locations on Earth. (For boost-phase SBIs, “coverage” is relative to an ICBM’s [intercontinental ballistic missile] launch location, not the location of the ICBM’s target.)”

“Satellites in LEO cannot be fixed over specific points on Earth; they orbit in a band centered on the equator and bounded equally north and south by their orbital inclination (usually measured in degrees of latitude). Therefore, constellations of many SBIs are needed to ensure that a sufficient number (20, for example, if two shots are needed against 10 ICBMs) are always close enough to potential launch locations to reach targets during the boost phase,” the assessment adds. “The total number of satellites in a constellation depends mainly on the speed of the interceptors, how quickly they can be launched, the number of simultaneous targets the system needs to handle, and the latitudes to be covered.”

“Because atmospheric drag at the altitudes at which SBIs would orbit causes their orbits to decay over time, each satellite would need to be replaced roughly every 5 years. (By contrast, the service life of surface-based interceptors can be 20 years or more, and surface-based interceptors can be maintained and upgraded during that time.),” CBO also says. “For CBO’s notional constellation, roughly 30,000 satellites would be needed to keep 7,800 in orbit for 20 years.”

All this being said, CBO’s notional space-based interceptor architecture is still predicated only on defeating a relatively limited strike (a single wave of 10 ICBMs) from “a regional adversary,” a term typically used to describe countries like North Korea and Iran. The Trump administration has indicated in the past that Golden Dome is intended to defend against a much broader array of threats, including from peer adversaries like Russia and China.

Furthermore, CBO points out that its cost estimate does not include additional space-based interceptors designed to engage missiles during the mid-course portion of their flight, which are also being explored now as part of the Golden Dome plan.

“Although the notional NMD system analyzed by CBO would be far more capable than defenses the United States fields today, it would not be an impenetrable shield or be able to fully counter a large attack of the sort that Russia or China might be able to launch,” the latest cost estimate also stresses. “As a result, the strategic consequences of deploying an NMD system with the capacity considered here are unclear because they hinge on an adversary’s perception of the defense’s capability and how that adversary chose [sic] to respond.”

“Such a deployment could prompt regional adversaries to increase their inventories of long-range missiles (nuclear or conventional) or to pursue more effective countermeasures to improve their chances of penetrating the NMD system,” the assessment notes. “Peer or near-peer adversaries could overwhelm CBO’s notional NMD system with salvoes of many missiles in a large-scale attack with their current nuclear forces, although they still might choose to increase their arsenals of long-range missiles (both nuclear and conventional) to ensure they maintain that capability.”

With this in mind, “DoD could opt to build a national missile defense system that was smaller or larger than (or altogether different from) CBO’s notional system. A larger system designed to handle a full-scale Russian ICBM attack, for example, could include more space-based interceptors or more NGIs at the three upper wide-area surface layer sites,” it also cautions. “It could also include more interceptors at lower levels. A smaller system, by contrast, might be able to engage fewer missiles or protect fewer areas. The total number of regional sectors in CBO’s notional system is based on providing some terminal coverage to the entire country as suggested by the language in the ‘Iron Dome’ executive order.”

As mentioned, putting interceptors in space has been one of, if not the highest profile aspect of the stated Iron Dome/Golden Dome plan from the very start. Space-based weapons were also a central element of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which was directly referenced in the original executive order outlining the new missile defense initiative. Infamously dubbed “Star Wars” by its critics, SDI never came close to achieving its ambitious goals. Its planned anti-missile capabilities in orbit were especially hampered by technical challenges and high costs.

The U.S. Space Force is already leading a new SBI program, with a stated goal of demonstrating a relevant capability integrated into the larger Golden Dome architecture by 2028. Space Force has already awarded deals with a combined value of $3.2 billion to 12 companies for SBI-related work. Several firms, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Anduril, have already announced work on prototype interceptor designs.

The Northrop Grumman video below includes a computer-generated clip depicting a space-based interceptor engaging a target outside the Earth’s atmosphere, starting at 0:13 in the runtime.

Over the past year and a half or so, U.S. military officials have voiced particular support for the space-based component of Golden Dome, saying that advances in relevant technologies in the decades since SDI make it a more viable concept today. They have also downplayed the costs, as well as the geopolitical ramifications of further weaponizing space, as necessary to defend Americans against growing missile threats.

“I think there’s a lot of technical challenges,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said during a live interview as part of Defense One‘s State of Defense 2025: Air Force and Space Force virtual conference last year. “I am so impressed by the innovative spirit of the American space industry. I’m pretty convinced that we will be able to technically solve those challenges.”

“Depends on where you sit, right, you know? But to say that it’s the responsibility for the U.S. government to protect its citizens from emerging threats makes perfect sense to me,” he added at that time when asked about the potentially destabilizing impacts of Golden Dome. “And we clearly see a country like the PRC [People’s Republic of China] investing heavily in these kinds of threats, whether it’s hypersonic [weapons], whether it’s threats from space. And so now it’s time for the U.S. government to step up to the responsibilities to protect American citizens from those threats.”

“We’re basically responding to a warfighting domain where our adversaries have already put interceptors in space, and we want to make sure that we rebalance that in terms of deterrence,” Saltzman said more recently in response to a question from our Howard Altman at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February.

“Interceptors by definition refer to a handful of well-acknowledged capabilities that other countries have, like ground and air-launched anti-satellite missiles or capabilities like the SJ-21, which has a grappling arm,” a Space Force spokesperson later clarified to TWZ when asked for further details about the “interceptors in space” Saltzman had mentioned.

This all highlights the very real prospect of actual fighting in space during future conflicts, something the U.S. military is increasingly preparing for, as you can read about more here. What would be necessary to protect 7,800 anti-missile interceptors in orbit, as well as critical associated space-based sensors and communications constellations, could easily add to Golden Dome’s total cost.

As CBO makes clear in its latest assessment, much is still unknown publicly about the actual scale and scope of Golden Dome, and what it might therefore cost in the end. At the same time, space-based interceptors are a very real part of the planned architecture, with work underway now to develop those capabilities.

The concept that CBO has outlined already involves an extreme expenditure of money and resources, all for a capability it still assesses to be useful only against relatively limited barrages from rogue states. Those are threats that could well be addressed using far less expensive surface-based systems, though not ones that can intercept targets in their boost phase.

As underscored now by CBO’s latest cost projection, a relevant constellation of interceptors in space remains likely to be the most costly and complex aspect of Golden Dome, if it comes to fruition at all.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post 7,800 Interceptors In Space At Core Of $1.2 Trillion Golden Dome Cost Estimate appeared first on The War Zone.

“The IDF is currently establishing a factory that will produce suicide drones (FPV drones) for use in all theaters of war,” Israel Army Radio reported. “The goal of establishing the factory is to industrialize and significantly expand the arsenal of suicide drones that the IDF has, in order to increase capabilities on the battlefield.”

Israel is racing to catch up to Hezbollah in the use of this class of fast, highly maneuverable munitions that became a main strike weapon for both Ukrainian and Russian forces, as well as elsewhere in the world. In our earlier reporting about the issue, we noted that the Iranian proxy has ramped up FPV attacks the deeper Israel has pushed into southern Lebanon. 

You can see some videos of those attacks below.

A big issue for Israel has been that while a domestic manufacturer is producing FPV drones, they include Chinese components, which represent both a security and a supply chain concern, the IDF-funded Israel Army Radio explained. By bringing production in-house to its Technology and Logistics Division, the IDF is looking to boost output, reduce cost and use only indigenous components.

The IDF estimates that the factory will begin supplying the army with drones in large quantities starting in July. Initially, the goal is to produce 1,000 per month, according to Israel Army Radio, with production then being boosted to tens of thousands.

Reaching that goal is not a huge leap for the IDF, one of the world’s most technologically advanced militaries in a country not devastated by the kind of war faced by Ukraine. In comparison, as we have reported in the past, Ukraine and Russia both make and use multiple millions of these drones every year. 

Seeing the lessons learned from Ukraine, the U.S. too is scaling up, with plans to significantly increase the number of FPV drones it makes.

For Israel, however, boosting the number of FPV drones for its troops is only part of the equation in this realm of warfare. The IDF has been highly criticized in Israel for not reacting more quickly to defend against these weapons, especially after encountering them on a much smaller scale in 2024 and watching what has taken place in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Exacerbating the problem for Israel is that Hezbollah has been relying heavily on fiber-optic guided FPV drones. Fiber optic cables mitigate the effect of electronic warfare efforts to jam radio signals as well as some of the limitations imposed by geographical features that can impede the line-of-sight radio connection between drone and operator.

Faced with a threat that is causing casualties and damaging equipment, Israel is beginning to roll out new countermeasures. As we have previously noted, these solutions range from putting netting on vehicles to improving armor defensive systems.

In our past reporting, we explained that the idea behind netting is that drones will get caught up in these nylon or mesh metal barriers and become disabled, or, in some cases, the nets will help keep the drones far enough from the occupants before exploding to keep them from being killed. 

As for protecting armor, active protection systems (APS) on its tanks and armored personnel carriers are being adapted to provide hard-kill counter-drone protection. These systems use sensors to detect incoming rocket-propelled grenades, missiles, and other similar threats, and fire projectiles to hit them before they strike the vehicle. Israel is a major pioneer in the APS space, with systems being deployed for decades, but just how soon it can upgrade existing systems, such as Iron Fist, for this application isn’t clear. Also, this doesn’t help many lighter vehicles that do not have APS capabilities.

The IDF is also working on other systems. They include equipment to better detect the drones as well as the creation of interceptor drones specifically designed to counter FPV drones, according to Israel’s YNet media outlet.

Israel is far from alone in trying to both make more FPV drones and defend against them. The U.S., for instance, recently came under attack by FPV drones in Iraq and its services are training on ways to defend against them. Given Israel’s advanced military tech base that produces weapons used around the world, we will keep an eye on the solutions to the FPV scourge as it develops.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Israel Building Factory To Pump Out Its Own FPV Drones appeared first on The War Zone.

Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, asked Hegseth for an update on the E-7 during a hearing before members of the House Appropriations Committee earlier today. In his question, Cole, who is Chairman of the committee, also highlighted the loss of one of the Air Force’s existing E-3s, also known as Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, in an Iranian attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia in March. That has put new emphasis on the Wedgetail program. The latest conflict with Iran has also just added to the already significant strains on the dwindling fleet of aging E-3s, as TWZ has previously explored in detail.

“Let me ask you a specific question, and you may want to get back to me on this, I don’t know, but we’ve had some discussion over – you know, we lost one E-3. On the ground, thank goodness. Looks like no crew loss,” Rep. Cole said, leading into his question. “This committee has been interested in investing in the E-7. The Pentagon signed the contract for five additional planes. [It is] not in the Air Force budget [for Fiscal Year 2027]. Is there going to be a fix to that? Where are we at on thinking about the E-7?”

As of April, the Air Force had awarded contracts to Boeing for a total of seven developmental E-7s. Versions of the Wedgetail are already in service in Australia, South Korea, and Turkey. The United Kingdom is also set to field a fleet of these aircraft. However, a U.S.-specific configuration is now in the works.

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

“And the E-7 is one of those,” Hegseth continued. “So, we’ve actually sent a budget amendment to OMB [Office of Management and Budget at the White House] to add that. I think it has a future. It has a place on the battlefield. And we’ll get more information for you on that, as well.”

The continuing resolutions referenced here are short-term federal government spending packages that Congress routinely approves when it cannot pass a full annual budget.

Secretary Hegseth also touched on the Air Force’s long-term plan, which remains unchanged publicly, to eventually push most, if not all, air moving-target indicator (AMTI) tasks into orbit. His comments today implicitly acknowledge that cancelling the E-7 program would have risked a serious capability gap in the near term, with the hopes of a better solution coming in the future. This is something TWZ had been sounding the alarm on since last year. Despite major investments and prototyping activities already underway, those space-based capabilities are still years away, at best, from becoming a reality. The Air Force’s original plan to replace a portion of its E-3 fleet with E-7s underscored the expectation that airborne early warning aircraft would also continue to play a vital role for years to come.

As a replacement for the E-3, the E-7 is a much more modern and capable aircraft. The Wedgetail is arguably the best airborne look-down sensor platform anywhere in the world at present, which is especially valuable for spotting long-range kamikaze drones, as well as cruise missiles. The Boeing 737-based design is also adaptable to other mission needs, including battle management and serving as a networking node using its own expansive communications and data-sharing suite. TWZ highlighted all of this in March, when Australia announced it was sending one of its E-7s to the Middle East to help Gulf Arab States defend against Iranian attacks.

Hegseth’s comments today on the change in mindset at the Pentagon do not touch on the argument that he and others made last year, that the E-7 was too vulnerable to be viable in future conflicts. This was despite an accompanying plan for the acquisition of more of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes that the U.S. Navy currently flies to fill airborne early warning capability gaps in the absence of an Air Force Wedgetail fleet. TWZ and others had quickly pointed out that the same survivability questions applied equally to the E-2D, which is also not as capable an aircraft as the E-7, which you can read more about here.

When previously arguing for its cancellation, Hegseth and others had also cited cost overruns and delays that had befallen the Air Force’s Wedgetail program since it first kicked off back in 2022.

As noted, Congress had interceded to save the E-7 from purgatory, at least in Fiscal Year 2026, appropriating more than $1 billion in new funding for the program. Of the seven Wedgetails the Air Force has on order now, five were put on contract just this past March. The service had previously ordered two other jets to support rapid prototyping efforts. Even so, the Air Force had continued to sound somewhat noncommittal about the future of the E-7 program.

“We, of course, as we always do, follow congressional direction, and we will do the [E-7] rapid prototypes. We will fund those rapid prototypes,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “They told us to deliver a plan for additional aircraft. Now we will do that.”

“By the way, ‘deliver a plan’ does not mean we’re going to put it in the budget,” Meink also said at that time. “We will deliver a plan of what it takes to do it, and then we’ll have a discussion with them [Congress].”

This is what turned out to be the case, at least initially, with the E-7 again being absent from the Air Force’s proposed 2027 Fiscal Year budget when it was rolled out in full last month.

“The Department [of the Air Force] is committing to work with you to figure out how to adjust the [20]27 budget submission to fund the E-7, and then work the [20]28 [budget] going forward,” Meink said at a separate hearing more recently, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Despite the Pentagon saying its position on the E-7 has now completely changed, when the Air Force might begin flying the jets operationally remains to be seen. The service’s original goal was to have Wedgetails flying real-world missions in 2027, but the schedule had already slipped to 2032 by the beginning of last year. Though it is back underway now, the program was effectively frozen for much of 2025, which could easily have set the timeline back even further. Steps could also now be taken to try to accelerate the acquisition and fielding of the aircraft.

In the meantime, the E-3 fleet, which has already shrunk dramatically in recent years, continues to struggle to meet operational requirements. Demand for AWACSs has now surged further due to the latest conflict with Iran. As noted, the Iranians also destroyed one of these prized aircraft in March. The Air Force has said that it is looking into replacing various aircraft lost in the fighting with Iran so far, but it is unclear if this will include regenerating a previously retired Sentry from storage. That would be a long and costly process, but there is no other realistic source available for a replacement E-3, the very last of which were delivered in the early 1990s.

As it stands now, the Pentagon and the Air Force look to have fully dropped their opposition to moving ahead with fielding the already sorely needed fleet of new E-7s.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Pentagon’s Mindset On E-7 Radar Aircraft It Tried To Axe Has Completely Changed: Hegseth appeared first on The War Zone.

The test-launch from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region took place at 11:15 a.m. Moscow time today, according to the Kremlin. Around half an hour later, Russian officials said that the missile hit its target at the Kura test range on the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia’s Far East.

The commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces, Sergei Karakayev, informed Putin of the successful test. The Russian leader monitored the launch via video link from his office bunker.

Putin called the test a “major event and unconditional success.”

“The positive results of the Sarmat missile system launch will allow us to deploy the first missile regiment armed with this missile system to combat duty in the Uzhur formation of Krasnoyarsk Krai by the end of this year,” he added, referring to the 62nd Red Banner Rocket Division at Uzhur in Siberia.  

Putin says the missile’s range could exceed 35,000 kilometers (21,748 miles).

The RS-28 Sarmat, known to NATO by the codename SS-29 Satan II, is Russia’s new-generation heavy ICBM, intended to replace the Soviet-era R-36M2 system (SS-18 Satan).

A video shows the launch of the R-36M2 ICBM (SS-18 Satan):

The Sarmat is a silo-launched, liquid-fueled, nuclear-armed ICBM. The missile will reportedly have a host of capabilities intended to defeat ballistic missile defenses, ranging from decoys and other countermeasures to a fractional orbital bombardment capability, and independent post-boost vehicles (IPBV). There have even been suggestions that it could carry a payload of multiple hypersonic boost-glide vehicles.

While these features are all relatively novel, the fact that the Sarmat is liquid-fueled might seem like something of a throwback to the Cold War. However, as we have discussed in the past, it does bring certain benefits:

A liquid-fueled ICBM might seem somewhat dated, but it does offer the advantage of a more capable and dynamic propulsion arrangement. But unlike a solid fuel design, it has historically been difficult to keep these types of missiles in a fueled state indefinitely, often meaning that launch crews had to go through a lengthy process of fueling the weapon shortly before launch. However, a hydrazine-based liquid rocket fuel with nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) as the oxidizer provides a more stable, less corrosive option that allows for long-term storage of missiles in a fueled, ready state when combined with the right component materials and environmental controls.

Details of the missile were presented by Putin back in 2018, at the same time he unveiled several previously unknown strategic weapons systems.

An official video of the Sarmat released by the Russian Ministry of Defense in 2018:

The first successful test launch of the Sarmat took place in 2022, also from Plesetsk. However, it was followed by a failed test launch in February 2023. A further test in September 2024 was also unsuccessful, leading to the destruction of the Yubileynaya test silo at Plesetsk. 

The original plan was for the Sarmat to become operational in 2020, something that obviously did not come to pass.

Exactly what has caused the problems is unclear. The delays could be due to technical issues with the missile, Russia’s sluggish economy, or, very likely, a combination of factors. 

Indeed, there were delays in the development of the Sarmat even before Russia launched its all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which has led to international sanctions and other strains on the country’s defense industrial base.

On the other hand, the slow progress made by the Sarmat so far means that it will now enter service after the demise of the New START Treaty, which expired in 2021.

New START had placed hard limits on the number of deployed and non-deployed land-based ICBMs, total available launch tubes for submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable heavy bombers that Russia and the United States could have in total. The agreement also set a firm limit on total deployed and non-deployed systems.

With those limits now gone, Russia will be able to replace the R-36M with Sarmat on a one-for-one basis, while still maintaining its other ICBMs if it desires, and moving ahead with other strategic weapons modernization programs, including the Avangard nuclear-armed hypersonic boost-glide vehicle.

A video released in conjunction with the fielding of the Avangard missile complex at the Dombarovsky Strategic Rocket Forces base:

Even under New START regulations, Russia had fewer than 520 deployed “launchers” as of September 2018, with the treaty allowing for a maximum of 700 such systems. These “launchers” in this context comprise land-based ICBMs, SLBM launch tubes, and heavy bombers.

Meanwhile, the lifting of New START limits on America’s nuclear arsenal means that, at this point, it is unclear whether or not the new LGM-35A Sentinel ICBMs will carry multiple warheads. Like the Sarmat, the Sentinel has faced issues, chief among them major delays and spiraling costs, driven heavily by complexities associated with building new infrastructure. Regardless, the ongoing development of the Sentinel in the United States is also spurring work on the Sarmat program.

At this stage, it remains to be seen whether the apparent success of the test today allows the Sarmat to enter service before the end of the year. So far, its test history has been distinctly patchy. If the missile can be perfected, however, it could pave the way for Russia to deploy even more strategic missiles in the future, with the potential for triggering a new arms race.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Russia Plans To Deploy Sarmat ICBM Operationally Later This Year appeared first on The War Zone.

Speaking at a panel discussion on air superiority at the recent Defence24 Days event, Maj. Gen. Ireneusz Nowak, the inspector of the Polish Air Force, confirmed that work was underway to modify the M28 for the mission.

“Following the signing of the contract between the Armed Forces Support Inspectorate and the contractor, the first prototype of the armed [M28] will undergo modifications to equip the aircraft with gun armament,” Nowak said. He also referred to the success of the An-28-based solution in Ukraine.

Interestingly, Nowak added that other undisclosed aircraft will also be deployed by Poland in a similar role.

Although the An-28 was manufactured in Ukraine, the production line in that country has long since closed down, meaning that aircraft and spares are limited. On the other hand, PZL Mielec in Poland launched production of the M28 Skytruck development in the early 1990s, and limited manufacture continues to this day. Meanwhile, the Polish Air Force currently operates around two dozen M28s, primarily for transport work.

In Ukrainian hands, the An-28 was initially armed with a six-barrel Gatling-type M134 Minigun, which is pintle-mounted in the cabin door. The aircraft’s high-wing configuration provides a notably wide field of fire for the weapon, which generally fires between 3,000 and 6,000 rounds per minute, or 50 and 100 shots every second.

Subsequently, the Ukrainian aircraft has been adapted to launch two different types of interceptor drones, providing another means of defeating their targets. You can read about this development here.

The primary targets of the Ukrainian An-28 are Shahed/Geran long-range one-way attack drones.

After being vectored to an area where the Russian drones are known to be flying, the crew uses an infrared camera, mounted externally on a turret, as well as night-vision goggles (NVGs), to help engage them.

The An-28 and M28 both offer a significant short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability, making them ideal for operating in and out of shorter and more austere forward airstrips. Ukraine has certainly made use of this capability, and Poland is likely to do the same if it formally adopts the drone-hunting M28.

At this point, it is not entirely clear if there are firm Polish plans to introduce a drone-hunting M28, most likely via conversion or potentially even new production, or if the initial focus will be on testing of the prototype.

As we reported in the past, even before the armed An-28 appeared in Ukraine, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) had explored the possibility of converting an M28 derivative into a small side-firing gunship, a sort of miniature take on the AC-130 concept, to potentially be able to transfer that capability to American allies and partners. This was based on the C-145A Combat Coyote formerly used by AFSOC, and would have been armed with twin 50-caliber GAU-18 machine guns.

The threat posed by drones to Poland was hammered home last September, when around 20 unarmed military drones entered its airspace after allegedly being launched from Russia. The unprecedented incursion led to the Polish Air Force and other NATO militaries scrambling aircraft. Up to four drones were confirmed to have been shot down, most by the Royal Netherlands Air Force, operating from a base in Poland.

The Polish government concluded that the drone incursion was a deliberate provocation. But it also underscored the vulnerability of Poland’s military and civil infrastructure, and cities were it to come under full-scale attack by armed drones. In such a scenario, Russia would likely employ them alongside ballistic and cruise missiles and decoys, making an even greater challenge for the air defense network.

There is also the fact that fighter aircraft and surface-to-air missiles offer a very expensive, albeit high-end solution to the drone threat. Compared to missiles, a gun-armed turboprop comes with a much lower cost-per-engagement and offers greater magazine depth, and potentially a far lower chance of major collateral damage.

Of course, as in Ukraine, Polish counter-drone M28s would be operated as part of a networked air defense system.

Nowak noted that the Polish Army’s forthcoming AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters and its new AW149 combat support helicopters are also expected to be used to counter drones. Of these, the AW149 is already being adapted to use European 70mm rockets with laser guidance, and will also be fitted with guns. Meanwhile, the counter-drone mission is one of increasing importance for U.S. Army AH-64s, and for attack helicopter operators at large.

Nowak said that the U.S.-made laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) rockets will meanwhile be integrated on Polish Air Force F-16 fighters and FA-50 light combat aircraft. The APKWS could potentially be an option for the M28, too.

Within its air defense branch, Poland plans to introduce new air and missile defense systems procured under the Narew and Wisła programs by 2032, which cover the short-range and medium-range air defense segments, respectively. Directed-energy systems will also be a focus of future planning and could be harnessed for air defense roles.

In terms of air defense sensors, Poland is also making significant investments. It acquired two Saab 340 airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) aircraft under a crash program, and is also planning to field a new airborne early warning system based on an aerostat — a type of uncrewed tethered airship. In the past, Poland has said that the main focus of the aerostat system will be detecting various tiers of drones, as well as helicopters and potentially other lower and slower-flying crewed aircraft. Of critical value here will be its persistent look-down capability that will span the border, keeping watch for incursions from the east.

Once again, while the long-term Polish plans for the counter-drone version of the M28 remain to be confirmed, the fact that a major NATO air force in Europe is taking the drone threat so seriously is worthy of note in itself.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Drone-Hunting M28 Skytruck In The Works For Poland appeared first on The War Zone.

Under its new definition, the IRGC claimed a tenfold expansion “forming a complete crescent” of “about 20 to 30 miles to one now over 200 to 300 miles,” Political Deputy of IRGC Navy Mohammad Akbarzadeh said in a TV interview, according to the official Iranian FARS news agency.

“The Strait is no longer viewed as a narrow stretch around a handful of islands but instead has been greatly ​enlarged in scope and military significance,” Akbarzadeh noted. “In the past, the Strait of Hormuz was defined as a limited area ​around islands such as Hormuz and Hengam, but today this view has changed. The Strait is now defined as a strategic zone stretching from ‌the ⁠city of Jask in the east to Siri Island in the west.”

We asked the White House and CENTCOM for reactions to the IRGC Navy announcement. The White House dismissed it.

“During Operation Epic Fury, Iran was crushed militarily – their ballistic missiles are destroyed, their production facilities are dismantled, their navy is sunk, and their proxies are weakened. Now, they are being strangled economically by Operation Economic Fury and losing $500 million per day thanks to the United States military’s successful blockade of Iranian ports,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told us. “The Iranian regime knows full well their current reality is not sustainable, and President Trump holds all the cards as negotiators work to make a deal.”

CENTCOM has not responded to our query.

The reported expansion is the second announced by Iran since the start of its conflict with the U.S. and Israel.

The IRGC did not specify what actions it would take under its expanded definition. However, while the vast majority of Iran’s naval forces have been destroyed during Epic Fury, it has been attacking ships in the region with cruise missiles, drones and its fleet of small attack boats that remains largely intact. In addition, Iran has reportedly continued mining the Strait even after the April 7 ceasefire.

Both U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Iran say the IRGC launched strikes against U.S. Navy warships and commercial vessels they were helping to protect during the short-lived Project Freedom on May 4. That was an effort, created by Trump, to help guide ships through the Strait that was paused after about 36 hours. CENTCOM forces responded with strikes on attacking ships. Days later, another exchange of fire took place, with CENTCOM saying it bombed Iranian targets after destroyers came under fire transiting the Strait to the Gulf of Oman.

Meanwhile, the Navy has disabled four Iranian vessels trying to run the ongoing blockade.

The IRGC said the new definition was created in response to yesterday’s statements by President Donald Trump repeating that Iran’s Navy has been destroyed by U.S. attacks during the now-paused Operation Epic Fury.

“This very design and implementation of the new plan shows that this force is present on the scene with authority,” Akbarzadeh proffered.

As we noted yesterday, frustrated by the pace of negotiations, Trump threatened new military action against Iran ranging from resuming Project Freedom to new airstrikes against Iranian targets and perhaps even a ground incursion to retrieve Iran’s highly enriched uranium.

The closure of the Strait is having a direct impact in the U.S., spurring Trump to consider pausing the federal gas tax as a form of relief for American consumers as energy prices soar, The Washington Post noted. The move — which requires congressional approval to pass — would mark the latest in a string of government interventions to address fallout from the war.

“Since the war began in late February, the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil, an international benchmark, has skyrocketed from about $70 to more than $107. U.S. gas prices — now an average of $4.50 a gallon — have reached levels not seen since 2022 and contributed to Trump’s falling approval ratings ahead of the November midterms,” the Post stated.

The impacts of the closure are even greater in Asia, which relies more heavily on oil that normally transits the Strait. For instance, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked his nation’s 1.4 billion people to spend less on fuel, fertilizer, and travel, The New York Times reported. 

Modi “made these sweeping recommendations in a national address on Sunday after securing a big win for his party in recent state elections,” the newspaper added. “With that victory in hand, he no longer has to worry that voters might punish his candidates for higher prices of fuel, food and transport, which are tightly controlled by India’s government. Instead of subsidizing the losses and running huge budget deficits, India’s leader appears emboldened to ask its people to bear the burden.”

The situation is so dire that the International Energy Agency has recommended a range of measures for governments and businesses to reduce demand and mitigate the “oil shock,” CTech reported. 

“Among the proposals: encouraging remote work and reducing commuting, which accounts for between 5% and 30% of vehicle use,” according to the publication. “Road transport alone represents about 45% of global oil demand. According to the agency, if the average employee worked from home three days a week, personal oil consumption could fall by as much as 20%.”

Several countries have already adopted such policies, CTech noted. 

“Indonesia now requires public-sector employees to work remotely on Fridays, while Myanmar mandates remote work on Wednesdays. Pakistan and the Philippines have introduced four-day work weeks for government employees, while Sri Lanka, Peru, and Bangladesh have shortened school weeks or expanded distance learning.”

Meanwhile, the longer the Strait remains closed, the greater the impact on the global economy. Though Trump continues to insist his bottom line on ending the conflict is ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, the Strait of Hormuz remains the most urgent flashpoint.

UPDATE: 3:50 PM EDT-

The U.S. military is considering officially re-naming the war with Iran “Operation Sledgehammer” if the current ceasefire collapses and President Donald Trump decides to re-start major combat operations, NBC News reported, citing two U.S. officials.

“The discussions about possibly replacing ‘Operation Epic Fury’ with ‘Operation Sledgehammer’ underscore how seriously the administration is considering resuming the war started on Feb. 28, and could allow Trump to argue that it restarts the 60-day clock that requires congressional authorization for war,” the network added.

Saudi Arabia “launched numerous, unpublicized strikes on Iran in retaliation for attacks carried out in the kingdom during the Middle East war,” Reuters reported, citing two Western officials briefed on the matter and two Iranian officials.

“The Saudi attacks, not previously reported, mark the first time that the ​kingdom is known to have directly carried out military action on Iranian soil and show it is becoming much bolder in defending itself against its main regional rival,” the outlet added.

The news about Saudi Arabian strikes on Iran comes a day after it was reported that the UAE attacked Iran as well.

UPDATE: 3:22 PM EDT –

During his testimony at the Senate Appropriations Committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine was asked how – despite the vast investment in national defense and the U.S. military – Iran can still close the Strait.

“It’s complicated,” Caine responded.

Speaking to reporters before leaving for China, Trump was queried by reporters about the future of negotiations with Iran.

“We’re going to see what happens,” the president responded. “We’re only making a good deal… I believe that one way or the other, it’s going to be very good for the American people—and I think actually, very good for the Iranian people.”

Trump gave some insights into his message to his Chinese counterpart, President Xi.

“I think number one, we’re going to have a long talk about it,” the U.S. leader posited. “I think he’s been relatively good, to be honest with you. Look at the blockade. No problem. They get a lot of their oil from that area. We’ve had no problem. And he’s been a friend of mine. He’s been somebody that we get along with. And I think you’re going to see that good things are going to happen. This is going to be a very exciting trip. A lot of good things are going to happen.”

Asked the extent the average American’s finances are motivating him to make a deal with Iran, Trump dismissed the notion.

“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran, they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing, we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”

UPDATES

The war has cost U.S. taxpayers $29 billion so far, Jay Hurst, Pentagon comptroller, told lawmakers this morning. That’s up from the $25 billion estimate he provided Congress on April 30. These estimates mostly take into account the amount of munitions the U.S. has expended during Epic Fury. They do not include the cost to repair damage to U.S. military installations across the Middle East, Hurst again noted today.

That means the price tag for Epic Fury will be far higher than what Hurst told Congress.

In addition to 14 troops who have been killed so far, several media reports have pointed out that the damage to U.S. assets has been far more extensive than officially reported. Last week, for instance, a Washington Post analysis “found 217 structures and 11 pieces of equipment that were damaged or destroyed at 15 U.S. military sites in the region.”

A new attack on Iran could spur the country to pursue weapons-grade enrichment of its uranium, an official in Tehran threatened on Tuesday.

“One of Iran’s options in the event of another attack could be 90% enrichment,” Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the Iranian parliament and the spokesperson for the body’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, stated on X. “We will review it in the parliament.”

As we previously noted, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had a stockpile of close to 901 pounds, at least, of uranium enriched to 60% purity, which presents clear proliferation concerns.

The 60% enrichment level is well above what is required for civilian power generation (typically between 3% and 5%), but also below the level for it to be considered highly enriched or weapons-grade (90%). At the same time, it is understood to be a relatively short step, technically speaking, to get uranium from 60% to 90% purity. As a standard metric, the IAEA says that 92.5 pounds of 60% uranium is sufficient for further enrichment into enough weapons-grade material for one nuclear bomb.

However, it is one thing to threaten to boost enrichment and another thing to actually do it. Sites that would have traditionally been used to do this are now largely destroyed. What’s left of them is heavily surveilled by the U.S. and any strong indication that such a move was taking place would likely result in a new wave of strikes from the U.S. and especially Israel.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee publicly confirmed that Israel sent the UAE an unspecified number of Iron Dome air defense batteries and troops to operate them. News of the deployment was first reported by Axios last month.

“Can I say a word of appreciation, deep appreciation and admiration for the United Arab Emirates?” Huckabee said during an event in Tel Aviv on Tuesday. “I think that the UAE is an example. They were the first Abraham Accord member, but look at the benefits that they have had as a result. Israel just sent them Iron Dome batteries and personnel to help operate them. How come? Because there’s an extraordinary relationship between the UAE and Israel.”

Huckabee added that in the days after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas surprise attack on Israel, the UAE was the only nation maintaining flights to Israel while U.S. and European carriers stopped.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom and permanent representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Ali Mousavi, issued a formal complaint about the U.S. interdictions of Iranian oil tankers M/T Tifani and Majestic X, Iran’s official IRNA news outlet reported.

“In a letter to IMO chief Arsenio Dominguez on Monday, Mousavi referred to the dire conditions of the crew members of the two seized tankers, warning that Washington is responsible for the lives and health of the sailors caught in the situation,” the outlet claimed.

In the letter, “Mousavi stated that about 60 crew members of the two tankers, including 20 Iranian nationals, are being held on a tugboat in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, reportedly without adequate food and water to those on board.”

Mousavi called the situation “intolerable and a clear violation of the relevant rules and regulations of the IMO, stressing that any unilateral US claim has no legal justification for exposing civilian seafarers to starvation, deprivation and danger on the high seas,” IRNA noted. “He described the US behavior as illegal, reckless, inhumane and completely inconsistent with the basic standards governing the treatment of persons employed in commercial shipping.”

TWZ cannot independently verify that claim. CENTCOM declined comment.

In the wake of French Tiger attack helicopters shooting down Iranian drones attacking the UAE in March, France is now considering embarking these aircraft aboard frigates for any potential Strait of Hormuz security effort.

“The French Army’s Tiger helicopter was tested last March in the United Arab Emirates; equipped with its 30mm cannon and two pods carrying 22 rockets, it proved to be truly effective—and a powerful deterrent—against Iranian drones,” French Navy Admiral Thibault de Possesse, commander of the Charles de Gaulle carrier strike group now in the Red Sea, told the RFI media outlet. 

“Recently—thanks to the efforts of the DGA [Directorate General of Armaments], as well as those of the Navy and the Army—we have certified the deployment of Tiger helicopters aboard French Navy frigates,” de Possesse explained. “Consequently, we are now capable of launching and recovering these combat helicopters—which are armed and specifically adapted for drone interception—directly from Navy frigates. They have already demonstrated their effectiveness against this type of threat in the United Arab Emirates.”

The Israeli Air Force intercepted a drone “launched from the east,” for the first time since the ceasefire with Iran took effect, the IDF said.

It remains unclear whether the drone was launched from Yemen or Iraq, as launches from both countries have been described in the past by the IDF as “from the east,” noted I24 reporter Ariel Oseran.

Soar Atlas has released new high-resolution imagery it claims shows a clear view of a clandestine airstrip Israel built in western Iraq. The existence of the airstrip was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, which stated it was set up to aid Israel’s air war on Iran in the now-paused war. The facility housed special forces and served as a ​logistical hub for the Israeli air force, the newspaper noted. Built with the ⁠knowledge of the U.S. just before the start of ​the war, it also included ​search-and-rescue teams positioned to assist any downed Israeli pilots.

The Soar Atlas images were taken March 8 and appear to show the airstrip constructed on a dry lake bed near al-Nukhayb in Iraq’s Anbar Desert during the opening days of the Iran war.

“The improvised runway, measuring approximately 850 meters in length, was reportedly built overnight between March 1–2, 2026,” according to Soar Atlas.

As we noted yesterday, the Iraqi military said the facility no longer exists and that investigations are underway to determine how it came to be built. We have also reported that Israel likely created similar facilities in Iraq during the 12-Day War last year and TWZ has noted that it would likely happen again in the future.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post IRGC Navy Claims Vast Expansion In Its Definition Of Strait Of Hormuz (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The U.S. Air Force is asking for just over $296 million to support work on the new ARRW variant in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. This money would fund “the design, test, and evaluation of Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) Increment 2 with terminal seeker and data link capability and other cost reduction production initiatives into ARRW,” according to official budget documents.

The Air Force’s budget documents also indicate that prior work has already been done that “integrated Air Force and DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] enabled system technologies into a prototype that demonstrated the viability of this concept to be fielded as a long range prompt strike capability.”

Furthermore, the “ARRW [program] designed, developed, manufactured, and tested, [sic] a number of prototype vehicles to inform decisions concerning ARRW acquisition, production, and leave behind capability,” the budget documents add. “ARRW Inc.2 adds enhanced capability.”

“FY27 [Fiscal Year 2027] plans to begin [ARRW] INC 2 technology efforts such as but not limited to integrating pre-planned product improvements, design, trade studies, hardware upgrades, facilitization, affordability initiatives, and testing,” the documents also note.

To take a step back quickly, ARRW is known as a boost-glide vehicle-type hypersonic weapon. Designs of this type use a rocket booster to get an unpowered glide vehicle to an optimal speed and altitude. The glide vehicle then detaches from the rest of the weapon and proceeds to its target along a relatively shallow flight path within the Earth’s atmosphere. The vehicle is also designed to maneuver along the way, sometimes erratically. The combination of speed, flight trajectory, and maneuverability creates particular challenges for opponents when it comes to spotting and tracking incoming glide-vehicles, let alone attempting to intercept them or otherwise reacting to the threat. It is this ability to pierce enemy air defenses and very rapidly strike very high-value targets that makes hypersonic weapons so attractive.

“The Air Force will employ units equipped with ARRW to provide an offensive, high-speed strike capability to destroy high-value, time-sensitive, land-based targets in anti-access/area-denial environments,” according to a report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation that was released in March. “Launched from bomber aircraft, ARRW provides standoff capability to prosecute targets in a timely fashion.”

To date, the Air Force has disclosed plans to integrate ARRW onto its B-52 and B-1 bombers, but other aircraft could potentially carry these weapons, or variants thereof, in the future.

ARRW, in its current guise, is also understood to only be capable of engaging static targets. Adding a terminal seeker would open up the ability to hit targets on the move, including ones at sea. The budget documents do not provide any further details about what kind of seeker the Air Force is looking to add to the Increment 2 variant. Imaging infrared sensors, radars, or passive signal homing seekers – or some combination thereof – could be potential operations.

The extreme heat and physical stress that hypersonic weapons experience in flight, as well as the shape of the glide vehicle, would make integration of any seeker system of these more complex. It is worth noting that ARRW’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, is already developing an anti-ship-optimized version of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missile for the U.S. Army. A key element of the new PrSM variant is the addition of a multi-mode seeker system to enable engagement of moving targets. It is possible that some of that technology could be applicable now to work on the new iteration of the AGM-183.

A data link would also allow targeting updates to be sent to Increment 2 ARRWs in flight, helping to get it first to a general area where the enemy is, or at least believed to be, before its seeker takes over. That system would also need to be able to communicate under hypersonic flight conditions. Given the AGM-183A’s range, off-board platforms would be required for initial target detection and tracking. The weapon’s ability to close that distance very quickly does limit the time available for the target to try to leave the area.

The Air Force did demonstrate exactly the kinds of networks that would be required to close this extremely long-range kill chain in a simulated ARRW strike during Exercise Northern Edge 2021. The designated target was 600 nautical miles from the launch platform, a B-52 bomber. In that instance, no weapon was actually released.

Multiple ARRW flight tests have been conducted since then, including the launch of an AGM-183A with a live warhead from a B-52 flying from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam in 2024. As TWZ noted at the time, the Guam test sent clear signals to China. The Air Force has made no secret of how important it views the development and fielding of hypersonic weapons as part of larger preparations for a potential future high-end fight against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Pacific. This is further underscored by the fact that the mention of the “terminal seeker and data link capability” for Increment 2 of ARRW is actually contained in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) section of the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request.

In the context of a major conflict in the Pacific, there would also be a very high demand for prompt, long-range anti-ship capability. The ability to conduct those strikes even in the face of dense anti-air defenses would be even more attractive for engaging very high-value vessels, such as China’s growing fleets of aircraft carriers or big deck amphibious assault ships. The PLA Navy’s (PLAN) combat fleets, overall, continue to grow in scale and scope at a prodigious rate, as well. This, in turn, has put additional emphasis on the development and fielding of new and improved anti-ship capabilities that can be air-launched, as well as employed from the maritime and ground domains, across the U.S. military in recent years. Increment 2 ARRWs could also offer another means to strike mobile, high-value targets on land, such as ballistic missile transporter-erector-launchers.

For its part, the PLA has been actively developing and fielding various types of hypersonic weapons, including boost-glide vehicle designs. Its ever-growing arsenal of traditional ballistic missiles now includes several air-launched types, including ones with nuclear and conventional warheads. The latter are widely believed to be capable of being employed against enemy ships, as well as targets on land.

To reiterate, a plan now to develop an Increment 2 version of ARRW is also just an important step forward for the program as a whole. As mentioned, the Air Force had previously moved to cancel work on the AGM-183 in 2023. The announcement followed a number of failed flight tests of what had been expected to be the first operational hypersonic weapon anywhere within the U.S. military. The explicit intent at the time was to shift resources to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) effort. HACM is an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile that functions in a completely different way from ARRW.

In the years that followed, there were steady signs that the Air Force’s position on ARRW was changing and that it had not actually been axed in the end. Last year, it became clear that the service had rebooted the program when it requested funds to purchase missiles for operational use in its Fiscal Year 2026 proposed budget. The Air Force ultimately received $362.15 million for the procurement of ARRWs in the current fiscal year, and is now seeking a little over $452 million to continue doing so in Fiscal Year 2027. How many of the weapons the Air Force has ordered to date, and how many more it plans to buy in the coming years, is currently deemed to be Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) that is not releasable to the general public.

Depending on how ARRW and HACM programs progress, the former could still be the first hypersonic weapon to enter operational U.S. Air Force service, with an Increment 2 version able to hit targets on the move following close behind.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New Version Of Bomber-Launched ARRW Hypersonic Missile Is A Ship Killer appeared first on The War Zone.

On Sunday and Monday this week, the Austrian Air Force scrambled Eurofighter Typhoons in response to the alleged flights in the neutral country’s airspace. This was confirmed by Austrian Ministry of Defense spokesperson Michael Bauer on X.

According to Bauer, the incident on May 10 saw the Austrian Air Force scramble two Eurofighters after a pair of “PC-12s” were detected flying without authorization in the Totes Gebirge region of Upper Austria. Once Austrian Eurofighters intercepted the aircraft, they are said to have turned back and returned to Munich, Germany.

The following day, at 12:31 p.m., two more Eurofighters scrambled in response to an overflight by two “PC-12s.” This was a so-called Priority A intercept, meaning the highest-priority response for the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) force. On this occasion, however, Bauer said it was unclear whether the U.S. Air Force aircraft had the necessary clearances — in contrast to Sunday’s incident.

An official Austrian Ministry of Defense video shows a QRA scramble involving the Eurofighter:

Austria retains clear guidance for the procedures of transiting its airspace, as detailed on this webpage.

“The matter is to be resolved through diplomatic channels,” Bauer added.

In general, there appears to have been something of a spike in U.S. military aircraft activity over the Alpine region in recent days.

According to reports in the Swiss media, a total of nine overflights by the U.S. Air Force have taken place over Switzerland over the past three days. All of these flights were authorized.

The U-28A is a militarized version of the Pilatus PC-12M single-engine turboprop and carries a variety of sensors, including electro-optical and signals intelligence (SIGINT) equipment. It can also perform light utility duties in a pinch, among other missions.

Not all of the Draco aircraft share the same configuration, with different iterations appearing over the years. It is known that most of these aircraft have a sensor turret with electro-optical and infrared cameras, as well as SIGINT systems to geo-locate and monitor hostile communications and other emitters. There are also reports that some of the aircraft may have a synthetic aperture radar imaging capability. 

AFSOC has also upgraded the U-28A to a configuration known publicly only as EQ+. This update includes a new sensor turret with a high-definition, multi-spectral imaging full-motion video camera, which also offers better standoff range, according to Pentagon budget documents. This allows the aircraft to fly at higher altitudes and operate further away from its target, reducing risks to the crew and allowing for more discreet surveillance.

The Draco also features an extensive communications and data-sharing suite. This allows them to transmit the information it gathers back to command centers for further exploitation or straight to personnel on the ground, all in near real-time. These capabilities give the Draco a robust overwatch capability for special operations forces on the ground.

The exact size of the current U-28A fleet is not entirely clear. In a report published in December 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that close to 40 U-28As remained in service.

In September 2024, the GAO confirmed to TWZ that it was conducting a classified review of SOCOM’s decision to divest the U-28As, as well as its King Air-based ISR aircraft, the latter of which are often referred to collectively as MC-12s.

Meanwhile, the Draco continues in service. Since its first combat deployment in June 2006, these unassuming aircraft have established themselves as an important component of U.S. counter-terrorism operations around the world.

For Austria, airspace policing is one of the core functions of its air force. Indeed, the country’s controversial Eurofighter fleet is dedicated to this mission, with no air-to-ground capability at all.

Sitting outside of NATO puts Austria in a somewhat unusual position as regards U.S. overflights, although it should be noted that permissions were also denied by alliance members during Operation Epic Fury, the campaign against Iran.

While the Pentagon hasn’t officially disclosed the use of the U-28A in Epic Fury, it would not be surprising, especially considering its ability to operate from small airports and forward operating bases with limited infrastructure. 

Meanwhile, there is also a precedent for unauthorized U.S. military overflights in Austrian airspace.

As we recounted in the past, in 2002, when the U.S. military was building up its forces in the Middle East ahead of a possible offensive against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Air Force attempted to sneak two F-117A Nighthawks through Austrian airspace.

On that occasion, the U.S. Air Force filed a flight plan for a KC-10A Extender tanker to fly through Austrian airspace, something that was easier to gain clearance for, since it was unarmed. In fact, two F-117s were neatly tucked under the wings of the big tanker in close formation during the flight.

Due to irregularities in the flight plan, two Austrian Air Force Saab Drakens were scrambled and soon identified the two F-117s. 

Imagery of the intercept was presented by the Austrian Minister of Defense during a meeting of the National Security Council and was presented as part of a diplomatic protest lodged at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. 

A glance at the map reveals why the U.S. military regularly overflies Austria and Switzerland when routing from Germany to Italy or to the Middle East, to avoid long transits over France. Due to Austria’s geography, incursions typically only occur for a few minutes, especially where the flight time between German and Italian airspace is very short.

We have reached out to the U.S. Air Force for clarification on the incidents.

At the very least, the apparent incursions demonstrate that the U-28A remains very much in operational use and active around Europe, while underscoring the sometimes fraught nature of overflight agreements.

UPDATE: May 13, 7:00 AM EDT-

Austrian Ministry of Defense spokesperson Michael Bauer has provided more details of the Austrian Air Force scrambles that took place earlier this week.

According to Bauer, a flyover request was filed on May 10 for two U.S. Air Force PC-12s, flying from RAF Mildenhall, England, to Bucharest, Romania. Bauer continued:

“However, around 2:10 p.m., two other USAF aircraft approached Austrian airspace. At 2:21 p.m., an alarm scramble of Eurofighters was therefore triggered. The two USAF aircraft, however, turned away before entering Austrian airspace.”

On May 11, another U.S. Air Force flyover request was submitted and approved. As filed, two PC-12 aircraft flew over Austria. On this occasion, two Eurofighters monitored the flyover and verified that the flyover request matched the actual flight.

Meanwhile, Defense News has published the following statement provided by an official from U.S. European Command, relating to the May 10 incident:

“This flight took place after an administrative error in the overflight clearance paperwork was corrected. The United States continues to work closely with Austrian authorities on any questions regarding overflights and fully complies with Austrian laws and procedures.”

Contact the author: thomas@thwarzone.com

The post U.S. Air Force Special Operations Aircraft Accused Of Austrian Airspace Incursion appeared first on The War Zone.

The Navy announced its intention to fit a nuclear propulsion system to the Trump class warships in its latest annual shipbuilding plan, which was released earlier today. The document also refers to these future large surface combatants as BBGNs, or nuclear-powered (N) guided-missile (G) battleships (BB). USNI News was first to report on this development.

The only nuclear-powered surface vessels in the Navy’s fleet today are its Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers. The service has not had a nuclear-powered surface combatant since the 1990s. During that decade, the one-of-a-kind cruiser USS Long Beach, destroyer USS Truxtun (later recategorized as a cruiser), and frigate USS Bainbridge, as well as two California class and four Virginia class cruisers (the latter not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines) all left active duty. Nuclear propulsion offers functionally unlimited range, as well as a major boost in onboard power generation. It also comes with cost and complexity, in terms of a ship’s core design, and what it takes to operate and maintain it. We will come back to those issues later on.

The Navy has now outlined plans to acquire 15 Trump class BBGNs, one virtually every other year, between Fiscal Year 2028 and 2055. Two are also set to be ordered back-to-back in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031. An initial official estimate has put the price tag of each of these ships at $17 billion. This is more than what the service expects to spend on each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, the projected unit costs of which range from roughly $13 to $15 billion.

“Our Fleet deserves and our national security requires the most comprehensive capability a surface combatant can provide, not just what we can make do with tradeoffs. The nuclear-powered Battleship is designed to provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodating advanced weapon systems required for modern warfare,” the Navy’s new shipbuilding plan declares. “Adding capability at the highest end of the high- low mix, the Battleship’s primary role is to deliver high-volume, long-range offensive fires and serve as a robust, survivable forward command and control platform, it is not a destroyer replacement.”

The shipbuilding plan highlights various aspects of the planned arsenal on each of the Trump class warships, including its ability to launch a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, loaded into large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays. Each one of the vessels will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, laser directed energy weapons, and various additional weapons for close-in defense.

“Vastly increased power generation capacity provides warfighting capability across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including through electronic warfare tools and high-output lasers that allow us to reduce reliance on high-cost single-use munitions for both attack and defense,” the shipbuilding plan also notes. “The internal volume and capability to embark a fleet command staff allows us to take the Maritime Operations Center concept to sea. As a tactical command-and-control platform, the Battleship can lead a Surface Action Group (SAG), integrate its systems with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) for layered defense, or operate autonomously, possessing the organic capability to defeat advanced threats and distributing our force capability.”

The Navy has said in the past that each of the Trump class warships will displace approximately 35,000 tons, very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They are also expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots.

As noted, as recently as four weeks ago, the Navy was pushing back on the idea, at least publicly, that the Trump class warships could be nuclear-powered. The service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which was rolled out last month, describes the vessels as non-nuclear BBGs that will feature “diesel generators, gas turbines, [and] propulsion motors.”

“That [the $17 billion estimated unit cost of a Trump class warship] is the early initial estimate. We’ll see where we really settle down as we get through that and start to rationalize some of the costs. So let’s see where we land on that first ship, and then what the economies of scale get us to as we move through it,” former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also told reporters at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exposition on April 21. “I think a little bit with those numbers, they’re still moving around, because this question: is it nuclear-powered, is it not nuclear-powered?”

“It could be [nuclear powered], but it’s unlikely, but it could be,” Phelan said at that time. “I think we’re trying to understand all the proper trade-offs.”

Phelan was fired unexpectedly and with little explanation the following day, with veteran Navy officer Hung Cao taking over as Acting Secretary. On April 23, The New York Times, published a report, citing anonymous sources, saying the former Navy Secretary’s sudden exit was tied to disagreements with President Donald Trump over plans for the Trump class battleships, including efforts to accelerate their production and entry into service. There have been reports pointing to other factors in Phelan’s dismissal, including friction with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, as well.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other[s],” President Trump himself told members of the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle also said at a roundtable around the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

TWZ has reached out to the Navy for any more information it can offer about when and why the decision was made regarding nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. We have already raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships in the past, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. As Phelan and Caudle previously indicated, nuclear power can only add to the design’s complexity and up-front price tag, as well as what it will take to operate and maintain the ships once they enter service. These were factors in the Navy’s past decision to move away from nuclear propulsion on surface warships. Russia’s Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov is the only nuclear-powered surface combatant in service anywhere in the world today. Nuclear-powered surface ships of any kind remain a relative rarity globally, as well, even among nuclear powers.

The choice now to use nuclear reactors to power the Trump class comes at a time when naval shipbuilders in the United States are already under heavy strain, and have been struggling in many cases to stay on budget and schedule. Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the country currently building nuclear-powered surface vessels of any kind, which are the Ford class aircraft carriers. While the USS Gerald R. Ford is in service now, work on subsequent ships in the class continues to be beset by delays and cost growth.

There is also immense pressure on U.S. shipyards that built nuclear-powered submarines. This has been magnified by plans to provide Virginia class boats to the Royal Australian Navy as part of the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. The same yards are also responsible for producing the new Columbia class nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Those boats have to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements, and there is little, if any, margin left.

The Navy has other shipbuilding plans, as well. Naval shipyard capacity in the United States, or the lack thereof, has been an increasingly worrisome issue for years now, and remains concerning despite U.S. government efforts to reverse the trend in recent years. The Navy’s new shipbuilding plan does underscore the service’s determination to avoid past shipbuilding pitfalls with the new battleships.

“Learning from the lessons of prior shipbuilding programs, the Battleship acquisition plan is a prime example of how we are changing the way the Navy does business. This will be the first clean-sheet surface combatant designed in more than 30 years, and we are deliberately incorporating modern digital engineering, advanced production practices, and AI [artificial intelligence] enabled design tools to reduce cost and schedule risk from the outset,” the shipbuilding plan states. “To strengthen this approach, we are adopting proven best practices from foreign partners with advanced shipbuilding techniques. This includes front loading production engineering to ensure high design maturity before construction begins, using precision modular construction methods, and tightly integrating design, planning, and production teams to minimize rework and accelerate throughput.

“We are also applying long term production planning, rigorous process control disciplines, and deeper supplier integration to stabilize the industrial base and improve quality across distributed construction sites. Modeled on commercial shipbuilding, this digital-first approach will accelerate design, reduce manual rework, and create a direct link between design and production,” it continued. “The Battleship will employ a highly modular architecture that enables distributed construction across the industrial base while allowing U.S. shipyards to focus on final assembly, integration, and testing. This strategy strengthens workforce stability, increases industrial base resilience, and delivers a more predictable, affordable path to fielding the capability.”

As it stands now, the Navy is still planning to order the first Trump class warship, set to be named USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. The current expectation is that it will not enter service until Fiscal Year 2036. This underscores an additional point that the program will carry over into the next presidential administration (and potentially beyond). Further major changes could well be made to its scale and scope, or it could be outright cancelled, in that timeframe.

For now, at least, the Navy has settled on its future Trump class battleships being powered by nuclear reactors.

Update: 5/12/2026 –

A U.S. Navy official has now provided the following statement in response to TWZ‘s queries for more information about the decision to use nuclear propulsion on the Trump class battleships:

“The Battleship requirements entail the appropriate balance of survivability, lethality, affordability, endurance, operational flexibility, and industrial feasibility. The FY27 Navy Shipbuilding Plan’s inclusion of a nuclear-powered Battleship will provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodation of advanced weapons systems required for modern warfare.“

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Trump Class Battleships Will Be Nuclear Powered (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

As we stated shortly after the war kicked off, a mission into Iran to rid the country of its highly enriched nuclear material, once and for all, would be extremely risky and very complex. You can read more about these realities here. The main issue is that, by the Trump administration’s own stated objectives, the current conflict doesn’t really end until the enriched uranium, most of which is likely buried in the rubble of the underground Isfahan nuclear complex, is removed from the country. Estimates state that this stockpile, stored in scuba tank-like cylinders, is likely enough material to construct around a dozen nuclear warheads, that is if a program to fully weaponize it and construct and validate a device were to move forward.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump said Iran initially offered to accompany the U.S. into its facilities storing HEU that were severely damaged during last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer attacks.

However, Tehran changed its stance, Trump claimed.

“They said ‘you’re going to have to take it,'” the American president said of Iran’s initial response to the issue of recovering the uranium.

“We were going to go with them, but they changed their mind because they didn’t put it in the paper,” the president added, referring to a peace plan delivered by Iran over the weekend. “So they agree with us, and then they take it back…But I have a great plan, but the plan is they cannot have a nuclear weapon. And they didn’t say that in their letter.”

Trump also played-off the issue this weekend saying U.S. forces are watching the site closely and will kill anyone or anything that gets close to it.

Speaking to 60 Minutes, Netanyahu seemed more direct about a potential ground incursion into Iran, yet evasive about the details. Asked how he envisions the highly enriched uranium will be removed from Iran, Netanyahu stated: “You go in, and you take it out.”

“With what? Special forces from Israel, special forces from the United States?” the Israeli leader was quizzed.

“Well, I’m not gonna talk about military means, but what President Trump has said to me, ‘I want to go in there.’ And I think it can be done physically. That’s not the problem. If you have an agreement, and you go in, and you take it out, why not? That’s the best way.”

Netanyahu was purposefully elusive when asked if it would require force to remove the uranium should no agreement be reached.

“Well, you’re gonna ask me these questions. I’m gonna dodge them. Because I’m not gonna talk about our military – possibilities, plans, or anything of the kind,” he proffered. “I’m not gonna give a timetable to it, but I’m gonna say that’s a terrifically important mission.”

The Israeli government “wants Trump to order a special forces operation to secure Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile,” Axios reported on Monday. “Israeli officials say Trump is hesitant to order such an operation because it is highly risky.”

As we have previously reported, Trump is mulling over his options to retrieve the HEU through a special operations mission. Former U.S. Central Command commander, retired Gen. Joseph Votel, also told us at the time that such an endeavor is highly risky and may not achieve its goal. You can read more about his analysis in our interview with him here.

Meanwhile, ending the hostilities remains in question as the U.S. and Iran remain far apart in ceasefire negotiations. Trump on Monday called the aforementioned recent Iranian peace offer a “piece of garbage” that he didn’t finish reading and added that the ceasefire is on “massive life support.”

Trump is “leaning toward taking some form of military action against Iran to increase pressure on the regime and force concessions on its nuclear program,” Axios reported, citing two U.S. officials.

“He will tune them up a bit,” one U.S. official told the outlet. “I think we all know where this is going,” a second U.S. official said.

Regardless, two U.S. officials told Axios they don’t think Trump would order military action against Iran before he returns from China.

Trump is considering Project Freedom, the effort to guide commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz that he paused after about 36 hours last week, Axios added. He is also weighing whether to “resume the bombing campaign and strike the 25% of targets the U.S. military identified but hasn’t hit yet.”

Trump told Fox News that he is thinking about reconstituting Project Freedom.

“President Trump just spoke to our John Roberts a moment ago,” the network noted. “He says he is now considering renewing Project Freedom, but he says this time around the US guiding ships through the Strait of Hormuz would be just one small piece of a larger military operation.”

“He would not divulge at this time what the other pieces would be,” Roberts explained.

As we previously explained, Trump initially claimed he paused Project Freedom to give Iranian negotiators more time to respond to his peace deal. However, NBC News later reported that Trump ended the effort because Saudi officials, surprised by the operation, withdrew access to its bases and airspace.

Iran on Monday revealed what it claimed to be its terms, which made no mention of the uranium. They include the U.S. paying war damages to Iran, recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, the end of U.S. sanctions and the release of Iran’s blocked assets by the U.S., according to a post on X by Iran’s official IRIB state broadcaster.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei described his government’s offer as reasonable.

“Is it excessive to demand an end to maritime piracy against Iranian ships?” he asked rhetorically. “To demand the release of Iranian assets unjustly held in foreign banks for years under American pressure? Our proposal for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, is that excessive? Establishing security and peace across the entire region, including Lebanon, is that excessive?” “Unfortunately, the American side still insists on positions largely built and shaped by the Zionist regime, and continues to hold its one-sided stance and unreasonable demands,”  Baghaei added.

In his comments, the Iranian official was referring to the U.S. firing on and seizing Iranian-linked ships. Baghaei was also reacting to a statement made by Trump on Sunday dismissing Tehran’s latest offer. Trump has repeatedly stated his main objectives are that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon and that the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened. The future of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and support for proxies like the Houthis and Hezbollah are other sticking points.

“I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives,’” Trump announced on his Truth Social platform. “I don’t like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!”

Given the wide diplomatic gap between the U.S. and Iran and statements by Trump and Netanyahu, how much longer the ceasefire can hold remains an open question.

UPDATE: 7:44 PM EDT –

Reacting to the aforementioned Wall Street Journal story about a clandestine Israeli military base set up in Iraq, that country’s military on Monday said there are currently no foreign military bases or forces operating in the country.

The Iraqi Security Media cell stated on X that “the matter pertains to an incident that occurred on 5/3/2026, during which an Iraqi security force from the Karbala Operations Command, as well as from Najaf, moved and clashed with unidentified, unlicensed detachments supported by aircraft at that time, resulting in the martyrdom of one fighter from the Iraqi security forces, the injury of two others with wounds, and the damaging of a vehicle.”

“We wish to clarify that some are attempting to exploit this incident politically, and there are escalatory statements being made without knowledge of the facts,” the post continued. “All these statements harm the reputation of Iraq and its security leadership, which affirms—and is certain—that there are no unauthorized forces or bases currently on Iraqi territory. There is significant effort being undertaken by our security units through inspection operations across all areas of responsibility. We also affirm that the necessary legal measures will be taken against anyone attempting to spread misleading information or malicious rumors that send negative messages about Iraq’s sovereignty, prestige, and the sacrifices of its security institutions.”

UPDATE: 6:36 PM EDT –

Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system “has been nearly 99% effective against missiles from Hamas and Hezbollah militants and ​has knocked out most missiles from Iran,” the chairman of ‌state-owned Iron Dome maker Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd said on Monday, according to Reuters.

Rafael’s Yuval Steinitz told a conference of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs that since the October ​2023 Hamas raid on Israel, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in ​Lebanon have between them fired some 40,000 rockets at Israel.

“Iron ⁠Dome intercepted most of them with success rates that (are) not 100% but close ​to 100%. It’s around 98%, even 99%, so it’s not perfect, but almost,” ​Steinitz said.

Iran, he added, has fired about 1,500 ballistic missiles at Israel in two rounds of fighting since 2024 and “only several dozens” were not intercepted.

He noted that there was ​no shortage of missile interceptors.

The Trump administration is keeping up its economic pressure on Iran, “sanctioning another network selling and shipping Iranian oil for the IRGC,” State Department spokesman Tommy Piggott stated X. “This action marks an additional round of sanctions under Economic Fury, part of the Administration’s maximum pressure campaign.”

Satellite imagery from @CopernicusEU shows no supertanker loadings on May 8, May 9 and May 11 (we don’t have data for May 10 from either Sentinel 1 or Sentinel-2 ),” Bloomberg energy and commodities columnist Javier Blas noted on X. “It looks like the longest stretch without loadings since the early days of the war.”

UPDATE: 6:17 PM EDT –

As Pakistan positioned itself as a diplomatic conduit between Tehran and Washington, “it quietly allowed Iranian military aircraft to park on its airfields, potentially shielding them from American airstrikes,” CBS News reported, citing U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter. 

Iran also sent civilian aircraft to park in neighboring Afghanistan, the network added, saying it was not clear if military aircraft were among those flights.

Among the military hardware was an Iranian Air Force RC-130, a reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering variant of the Lockheed C-130 Hercules tactical transport aircraft.

The United Arab Emirates has ​secretly carried out military ‌strikes on Iran, the Wall ​Street Journal reported ​on Monday, citing ⁠people familiar with ​the matter.

The strikes, ​which the UAE has not publicly acknowledged, ​included an ​attack on a refinery on ‌Iran’s ⁠Lavan Island in the Persian Gulf, WSJ said, ​adding ​that ⁠the attack took place ​in early ​April, according to the publication.

UPDATES

The U.S. blockade on Iranian ports remains ongoing, there was another report of ships attacked by drones in the Persian Gulf and the UAE said Iran is continuing to launch attacks against its territory.

U.S. Central Command on Monday claimed it has turned away 62 ships and disabled four attempting to run the blockade in total since the blockade began on April 13.

The Ambrey maritime security firm said two ships were struck on Sunday in the Persian Gulf.

“A Panama-flagged deck cargo vessel was impacted by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) while anchored approximately 23.6 NM east-northeast of the port of Doha, Qatar,” according to an Ambrey alert. “The impact resulted in a small fire, which was subsequently extinguished by the vessel’s crew. The vessel reported damage to its conveyor system at approximately 07:15 UTC. One coast guard vessel was observed alongside, rendering assistance. No crew casualties were reported in connection with the incident. This incident occurred approximately 2.8 NM south of an additional vessel that was impacted by a projectile on the morning of 10 May. Ambrey will provide updates as new information becomes available.”

The Ambrey alert did not specify who launched the drones.

On Sunday, UAE said it was attacked by two drones launched by Iran, the latest in a string of strikes dating back to the beginning of the war on Feb. 28 and continuing even after the April 7 ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran.

The issue of Iran will loom large over Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing later this week. As we have previously reported, China relies heavily on Iranian oil and is also suspected of aiding its war efforts.

Trump is expected to call on Beijing to persuade Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. However, the topic is fraught with tensions over recent U.S. actions against China.

Last week, the U.S. imposed sanctions on several China-based companies, alleging that they provided “satellite imagery to enable Iran’s military strikes against US forces in the Middle East” and enabled “efforts by Iran’s military to secure weapons, as well as raw materials with applications in Iran’s ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs,” according to the Guardian.

On Monday, China lashed out at those sanctions, describing them as illegal and unilateral, Reuters reported.

“We have always required Chinese enterprises to conduct business in accordance with laws and regulations, and will firmly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises,” spokesperson Guo Jiakun said at a regular press briefing.

Iraqi lawmakers are calling for investigation into a clandestine military outpost Israel reportedly set up in the Iraqi desert to support its air campaign against ​Iran. The Wall Street Journal on Saturday reported that Israel built the installation, ​which housed special forces and served as a ​logistical hub for the Israeli air force, with the ⁠knowledge of the U.S. just before the start of ​the war. It also included ​search-and-rescue teams positioned to assist any downed Israeli pilots, according to the Journal. Israeli forces fired on Iraqi troops after it was discovered, the newspaper added. 

Ahmed Majid, a Kurdish politician, “is among several lawmakers who have harshly reacted to the report of the existence of an Israeli base in the Arab country,” Iran’s official IRNA news agency reported on Monday. Majid warned “that Iraq’s sovereignty is being violated by both the United States and the Israeli regime.”

Member of Parliament Abu Turab al-Tamimi called the presence of the Israeli military base and American forces “a dangerous security scandal” and raised questions “about how enemy forces entered deep into Iraqi territory without the knowledge of border guards, the Interior Ministry, and the Joint Operations Command.”

al-Tamimi insisted that “an immediate investigation should be opened and committees should be formed to hold the perpetrators accountable,” IRNA noted.

Video emerged online purporting to show the Israeli outpost, in the Najaf desert, from a distance. The video was reportedly taken by an Iraqi soldier, though we cannot independently verify these claims.

However, the likelihood of an outpost like this is something we have suggested was all but assumed going back to last year’s 12 Day War.

Hezbollah released video footage on Sunday claiming to show its first-person view (FPV) drones attacking an Israeli Iron Dome air defense battery in northern Israel. The video shows what appears to be two attacks, one on a launcher and one on another launcher with several Israeli troops observed nearby. In each case, the video cuts out before any damage is seen. 

“There was no public comment from the IDF, but unofficially, IDF sources could not dispute the video’s authenticity, and the visuals spoke for themselves,” the Times of Israel noted.

As we were among the first to report, Hezbollah has been ramping up its FPV drone attacks on Israeli forces, creating havoc and leaving Israel scrambling for countermeasures. 

The British Royal Navy is deploying its Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon to the Middle East to take part in a potential European post-ceasefire effort to secure the Strait of Hormuz. The vital body of water has been closed to nearly all shipping by Iran since the war broke out on Feb. 28.

The deployment comes as the U.K. and France will host the first meeting of the Strait of Hormuz coalition of defense ministers on Tuesday to map out a way forward amid the global economic impact of the Strait closure. It is also taking place as the latest round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran remains deadlocked while a shaky ceasefire holds.

“The Type 45 destroyer will forward deploy to ensure the UK can contribute to a future multinational mission to secure the critical waterway and safeguard freedom of navigation, following a sustainable ceasefire,” the Royal Navy said in a statement on Monday. “HMS Dragon can use her Sea Viper missile system to help safeguard UK assets and interests – assisted by Wildcats from 815 Naval Air Squadron equipped with Martlet missiles able to deal with the aerial drone threat.”

The Wildcats are helicopters with drone-busting capabilities that operate off Royal Navy destroyers and frigates.

The idea is that the Dragon would help set up an air defense bubble over the Strait in case a more comprehensive ceasefire breaks down. That would protect ships like the German minesweeper Fulda, which is also heading toward the region, as well as commercial vessels transiting the Strait.

As we previously reported, the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond used the Sea Viper system, along with guns, to take down more than a half-dozen drones launched by the Houthis in one engagement during the Iranian-backed rebel group’s campaign against Red Sea shipping in 2024. 

You can see an image from that engagement below.

The Portsmouth-based Dragon left the UK in March and has been “helping to safeguard the island of Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean,” according to the Royal Navy. In our earlier reporting, we noted that the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle entered the Red Sea last week.

News about the deployment of French and U.K. vessels to the Middle East sparked a sharp warning from Iran.

“Any deployment and stationing of extra-regional destroyers around the Strait of Hormuz, under the pretext of ‘protecting shipping,’ is nothing but an escalation of the crisis, the militarization of a vital waterway, and an attempt to cover up the true root of insecurity in the region,” Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated on X. “Accordingly, it is emphasized that the presence of French and British warships, or those of any other country potentially accompanying the illegal and internationally unlawful actions of the United States in the Strait of Hormuz, will be met with a decisive and immediate response from the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, they are strongly advised not to complicate the situation further.”

Gharibabadi did not elaborate on what that response might be.

Tomorrow U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey MP will co-chair a meeting of over 40 nations, alongside his French counterpart, Minister Catherine Vautrin, for the multinational mission’s first Defense Ministers’ meeting.  

“The plan is strictly defensive and, once conditions allow, will focus on restoring confidence for commercial shipping along the critical trade route,” the Royal Navy noted. “HMS Dragon could play a key role in this mission. The ship’s forward presence will help strengthen confidence among commercial shipping firms, support mine-clearance efforts, and protect vessels once hostilities have ceased.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Possibility Of Operation To Retrieve Iran’s Enriched Uranium Appears To Rise As Negotiations Sputter (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), the manufacturer of the MQ-9, confirmed today that it had conducted recent flight tests of an Air Force MQ-9A armed with APKWS at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR).

According to the company, “the demonstration featured multiple types and variations of shot profiles, including aerial targets. All shots were executed flawlessly by the MQ-9A crews using laser-guided rockets and a specialized launcher.”

The utility of APKWS against ground targets for the MQ-9 family of drones is abundantly clear. It provides an extremely precise, relatively low-collateral option that can also drastically expand the drone’s magazine depth. Standard APKWS can be used against a large number of ground and surface targets, from lightly armored vehicles to troops under shallow cover.

Then there is the air-to-air application. In U.S. military service, the laser-guided air-to-air rocket is known as AGR-20F, a variant of the APKWS II, specifically, also known as the Fixed Wing, Air Launched, Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Ordnance (FALCO). In its press release, GA-ASI refers to the rocket simply as APKWS. FALCO includes the modified laser-guidance and control section and a proximity fuze that is ideal for taking down smaller aerial targets. FALCO-equipped rockets can also be used against soft ground targets, like standard vehicles and fast boats.

The test campaign was, in part, a response to “real-time technological adaptation requirements,” GA-ASI explained. The urgent need for C-UAS capabilities saw the trials accelerated, reducing the time between planning, integration, and flight test.

“We recognize the value that a system like APKWS brings to the MQ-9 aircraft as a tool to counter one-way attack drones,” said GA-ASI President David R. Alexander. “APKWS can increase the number of weapons the MQ-9A is able to carry, as well as being able to carry new, lower-cost weapons. More than anything, this integration effort underscores how government and industry can collaborate to rapidly test and make new capabilities available to warfighters.”

Exactly how many APKWS a single MQ-9 can carry is unclear, but the standard pods used for these weapons are loaded with seven rounds, as seen loaded on the MQ-9A involved in the live-fire trials. Nineteen-round rocket pods are also a possibility. The MQ-9 in its standard configuration has seven hardpoints, with six main underwing pylons usually utilized for weapons.

The potential of the MQ-9, or MQ-9 variants, to carry APKWS for the C-UAS role is something that GA-ASI brought up last month.

In particular, the Mojave short takeoff and landing (STOL) drone was earmarked for C-UAS, as part of a broader mission scope for the aircraft.

“We’ve shown APKWS mounted to Mojave in a static display at some of the recent U.S. Army shows where Mojave STOL was present,” General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley told TWZ in April. “Integrating new weapons is a multi-part process. Fit tests, weight considerations, captive carry for airworthiness, software, [and] actual live-fire.”

“For Mojave STOL and other GA-ASI aircraft, we’re inside that process now with APKWS,” he added. “It’s flying and firing soon, [in] weeks, not months.”

Meanwhile, GA-ASI presented a CGI video showing the Mojave STOL undertaking the rocket-armed drone-hunter mission “somewhere in the Western Pacific.” In this scenario, the Mojave STOL used an EagleEye multi-mode radar, as well as its infrared sensor in the turret under its nose, to spot and track a pair of kamikaze drones clearly modeled on the Iranian-designed Shahed-136 pattern.

The drone is then depicted warning a forward U.S. outpost about incoming uncrewed aerial threats through a satellite link. From a ruggedized laptop on the ground, an operator directs that the kamikaze drones be neutralized. A Mojave equipped with two 19-shot rocket pods then moves in and destroys them. The aircraft is later shown being rearmed at a very austere jungle airstrip.

It is noteworthy that, prior to APKWS, MQ-9s and related drones have demonstrated, during testing, their ability to destroy airborne targets using various other weapons, including AIM-9X and Hellfire missiles.

Meanwhile, APKWS has emerged as an increasingly popular choice in the air-to-air C-UAS role since U.S. Air Force F-16s began employing the rockets this way in combat against Houthi drones in 2024. TWZ was first to report on this development. The total number of U.S. military and foreign aircraft platforms cleared to use a variant of the rocket specifically optimized for air-to-air use continues to grow.

There are advantages and disadvantages to using a drone like the MQ-9 or Mojave STOL as a drone-hunter.

Drones of this kind have questionable survivability in high-end operations. The latest conflict with Iran has underscored the vulnerability of the Reaper, in particular.

On the other hand, TWZ has previously highlighted how a drone like the Mojave could be used to provide more localized force protection, including against uncrewed aerial threats, at forward outposts and rear areas in the context of a larger conflict.

The attributes of the Mojave STOL — including its short- and rough-field capabilities — make it especially relevant for a future conflict in the Pacific. Here, it would be able to push its C-UAS and other capabilities far forward, including to island outposts. As for the MQ-9, as used in the live-fire trials, this aircraft is not rough-field-optimized like the Mojave STOL, but can still operate from forward areas with semi-prepared airstrips.

At the same time, the capabilities inherent in the Mojave STOL mean it can also operate from aircraft carriers and big-deck assault ships, opening up the possibility of rocket-armed examples setting up counter-drone screens in maritime scenarios.

When it comes to the air-to-air APKWS, this weapon is well-suited to slower-flying and less dynamic targets. Compared to traditional air-to-air missiles, it comes with a much lower cost-per-engagement and offers greater magazine depth, as you can read about here.

In terms of finding targets, drones like the MQ-9 and Mojave STOL have limited situational awareness compared to traditional air-to-air platforms. They can be fitted with onboard radar with air-to-air modes, which could serve as a primary detection sensor. So, too, could infrared search and track (IRST) sensors, which have been tested extensively on other GA-ASI drones. Thereafter, the MQ-9’s MTS electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) turret would provide target ID and engagement functions. Taking advantage of tactical networks could also provide the drone with critical initial telemetry to aid in the IR/EO sensor’s lock-up.

It’s also worth noting that drones like the MQ-9 or Mojave STOL are not anywhere near as quick to respond to incoming drone threats, and especially run down multiple incoming hostiles in a short period of time, as fighters. On the other hand, they are able to loiter for far longer at a fraction of the cost, providing resilient combat air patrols. They could also perform strike and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support while on station.

For its part, the MQ-9 offers these capabilities coupled with a higher performance and a more extreme endurance over the Mojave STOL. With hundreds of MQ-9s available, many could be armed with APKWS and tasked to provide anti-drone screening against lower-volume raids across large areas.

Indeed, it could be well imagined how APKWS-armed MQ-9s could have played a valuable role in this context during the conflict with Iran earlier this year, protecting allied Arab gulf states and U.S. installations from incoming one-way attack munitions. An MQ-9 picket line of sorts could have been set up over the Gulf, for instance, thinning incoming drones waves. Or these aircraft could have been perched to the east of major bases, providing a final airborne layer counter-drone defense.

With the MQ-9 and the related MQ-1C Gray Eagle being widely operated by the U.S. military and a number of export customers, the ability to transform these aircraft into rocket-armed drone hunters could be of high interest indeed.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post MQ-9 Reaper Fires Laser-Guided Rockets In Tests appeared first on The War Zone.

Two photos showing Russian Navy Project 21980 Grachonok class patrol boats underway in the Black Sea were published by Ukrainian defense adviser Serhii Sternenko. The photos were reportedly taken this month, but it’s not clear if they show the same vessel (in one photo, the Russian Navy flag is flying from a mast, and in the other, it is not).

This may well be the first instance of this kind of add-on protection, which is now routinely used by both sides of the conflict in Ukraine on tanks and other fighting vehicles, being installed on a surface vessel. However, as we reported in the past, a cope cage has also appeared on at least one Russian Navy ballistic missile submarine, the Tula.

The Project 21980 vessel is described by Russia as a multi-purpose anti-saboteur boat. Primarily designed to protect ports and other naval installations, they are used by the Russian Navy as well as the Border Service. Around 30 of the vessels have been completed since 2008.

According to Ukrainian sources, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet operates nine Project 21980 boats, while another four are assigned to the Border Service.

Displacing around 150 tons, the Project 21980 is a little over 100 feet long and can be armed with a 14.5 mm machine gun, anti-sabotage grenade launchers, and an Igla-series man-portable air defense system (MANPADS). Ironically, the Russian media has, in the past, heralded the success of the Grachonok class during exercises in which the vessel was used to detect and destroy uncrewed aerial vehicles (as well as uncrewed surface vessels and other small-sized surface targets).

The cope cage covers most of the surface area of the vessel, with three distinct levels: a first section protecting the area above the stern; a second section mounted above the bridge and projecting aft of it, but below the antenna array; and a third section aft of the main superstructure. The sides of the vessel appear entirely unprotected; this may well be to allow normal operations such as docking. Furthermore, access here is required to operate the weapons, as well as the rigid-hull inflatable boat (RHIB) that is typically stowed at the stern, and which is deployed and recovered by crane.

Considering the normal mounting of the machine gun on the bow and the grenade launchers firing aft from the rear of the superstructure, it’s not clear how these weapons function after the cope cage is fitted. At the very least, the additional protection screens would appear to significantly reduce their fields of fire, limiting them to a very depressed trajectory.

Moreover, while the cope cage provides a degree of overhead protection against drone-delivered munitions, it can be easily seen how a skilled drone operator would be able to find a gap in the protection. FPV drones, in particular, are highly maneuverable and have already demonstrated their ability to penetrate inside armored vehicles through open hatches and into buildings through whatever openings might be available. In this case, flying a drone around the static cope cages would not appear to be too difficult.

At the same time, the protection doesn’t address the threat posed by uncrewed surface vessels (USVs, ‘drone boats’) and uncrewed underwater vessels (UUVs) that have repeatedly been used to attack Russian targets in and around the Black Sea.

The threat of Ukrainian naval drones was most recently underscored in an incident on the night of April 30, when, according to reports, a Border Service PSKA-300 class patrol boat was struck, close to the Kerch Bridge. A photograph subsequently published on a Telegram channel showed a memorial plaque indicating that nine members of the Russian crew were killed in the strike. Ukrainian reports suggest that, as well as the PSKA-300, a Project 21980 Grachonok class patrol boat was also hit in the same raid.

The PSKA-300 and Project 21980 are both regularly used to patrol the waters around the Kerch Bridge, linking mainland Russia with occupied Crimea, which is a regular target of Ukrainian strikes.

At the same time, equipping surface vessels with these kinds of add-on protection is a logical extension of the drone war. Russian forces began installing top protection on their tanks in the build-up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Armor of this type has since become a common feature on Russian and Ukrainian tanks and other armored vehicles, primarily as a defense against FPV and other types of weaponized commercial drones.

As the war has progressed, the threat of Ukrainian aerial drones has been extended into the Black Sea.

Last summer, we reported on how Ukraine had begun using so-called bomber drones launched from USVs to attack targets in Crimea. The occupied peninsula is especially target-rich, hosting high-value Russian radar and air defense systems, as well as military aircraft. In that context, Ukraine using similar weapons to target Russian surface vessels in the Black Sea should come as no surprise.

Bomber drones launched from drone boats offer various advantages. They give Ukrainian operators the ability to strike more than one target per drone with heavier warheads than typical FPV drones usually carry. They can also travel farther while maintaining their connection, as they don’t have to dive to the ground to hit their targets. As we have reported in the past, Ukraine also has bomber drones that can launch guided munitions with a heavier punch. All of these would offer a significant threat to Russian vessels in the Black Sea.

Already, Ukrainian actions have effectively forced the Black Sea Fleet to vacate Crimea and instead operate from Novorossiysk, although this hasn’t removed the Ukrainian threat entirely.

As well as heavier and more capable bomber drones, Ukrainian drone boats are also increasingly being used as platforms for launching FPV drones. Back in 2024, the first evidence emerged that Ukraine was using a capability like this, with aerial drones being launched from USVs as part of its campaign of attacks on Russian offshore platforms. 

Meanwhile, it was reported recently that the HX-2 strike drone, from German manufacturer Helsing, has been adapted for launch from small boats. The company states that the HX-2s feature standoff range and artificial intelligence (AI) enabled capabilities that make them resistant to electronic warfare systems, and can be employed in networked swarms.

Further proliferation of FPV drones and new missions for these types include a growing emphasis on using them in a coastal defense capacity. Here, again, patrol boats like the Project 21980 would be exposed to additional threats.

Overall, questions remain about how effective the drone protection on the Project 21980 patrol boat might be in practice. However, the emergence of the fixture again underscores Russia’s concerns about the dangers posed by Ukrainian weaponized drones. This is a threat that is now very real across all domains and one that is steadily growing worldwide.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Anti-Drone “Cope Cage” Appears On Russian Patrol Boat appeared first on The War Zone.

The latest sunset timeline for the Galaxy and details about the near-term plans for NGAL are contained in the Air Force’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The service currently has 52 C-5Ms in its inventory, all of which were upgraded from older B and C variants, the last of which were built in 1989. Service through 2050 means the youngest examples will be 61 years old at the time of their retirement. The Air Force also just recently disclosed that the C-5 fleet’s mission capable rate has slumped to 37 percent. The Air Force also has 222 C-17As, the last of which it acquired in 2013. Neither the C-5 nor the C-17 is still in production today.

The C-5M is the largest airlifter in U.S. military service today, and one of the biggest in operational use anywhere globally. In addition to just being able to accommodate much larger payload mass and volume compared to the C-17A, it has the benefit of being able to load cargo and personnel from the nose and tail ends, and do so simultaneously. The Galaxy offers a unique capability within the U.S. military for moving outsized and unusual payloads by air, including satellites and other space-related items. The services of the C-5 remain in high demand, as highlighted by support provided for ongoing operations against Iran, as well as during the build-up to that conflict, along with other contingencies around the Middle East in the past few years.

“In accordance with [the] Air Force’s strategic direction, C-5 Modernization Efforts funding supports Next-Gen Airlift (NGAL) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) and Concept Development efforts,” per the service’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents. “NGAL is projected to fully replace the C-5M fleet tentatively in FY 2050 and maintain the Strat Air [sic] program floor of 223 C-17 aircraft and 52 C-5 aircraft per the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”

The Air Force is asking for $8.9 million to support the NGAL AoA and related concept development work through the C-5 Modernization Efforts line in Fiscal Year 2027. This is on top of $200,000 in funding received for NGAL in this part of the budget in the 2027 Fiscal Year. The AoA process offers a means to assess potential options and further refine requirements for new weapon systems and other capabilities.

“NGAL efforts will include but [are] not limited to operational analysis, concept development, and acquisition strategy framework to prepare for Milestone A approval and entry into the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase of a major defense acquisition program,” the budget documents further note.

As mentioned, the Air Force released a strategic airlift strategy document last year that envisioned the C-5Ms being replaced by the mid-2040s.

“With an accelerated NGAL Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) in FY27 [Fiscal Year 2027] and an uninterrupted acquisition process with consistent funding, the first NGAL aircraft could be produced as early as FY38,” the Airlift Recapitalization Strategy document, dated November 18, 2025, said. “It is estimated the NGAL program will reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in FY41.”

“One NGAL aircraft will replace one C-5M aircraft until the entire C-5M fleet is retired. Then, the C-17A fleet will be replaced by NGAL at a one-for-one swap,” the document added. “Uninterrupted inter-theater airlift capacity is paramount for global operations during fleet recapitalization. Current recapitalization projections require C-5M viability until 2045 and C-17A viability through 2075.”

“We’re working forward on the NGAL to combine the view of the C-5 and the C-17 fleet, and figure out what the next strategic airlifter needs to be,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss had also told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “That conversation in my book can’t happen enough, or can’t happen fast enough, candidly.”

Sonkiss is Deputy Commander of Air Mobility Command (AMC). She has been serving as the interim commander of AMC since her predecessor, Gen. John Lamontagne, became Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force in January.

As mentioned, the Air Force’s C-5s are key strategic airlift assets, but are also aging and increasingly difficult to sustain. Keeping the Galaxy fleet flying has already presented significant challenges for years now.

“I’m a year and a half out of the conversation. The last data point I got was from U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) commander Gen. [Randall] Reed‘s congressional testimony, where he said that the mission reliability rate, I believe, had fallen to 46%,” retired Air Force Gen. Michael “Mini” Minihan, who last served as commander of AMC, told TWZ in an interview in February. “So, if that’s true, then it’s still an enormous concern. I don’t know any part of your life where you tolerate a critical capability operating less than half the time when you need it. So C-5s are an enormous concern for me.”

At a hearing before the House Appropriations Committee in April, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach told members of Congress that the C-5’s mission capable rate had fallen to 37 percent, further underscoring these difficulties.

“It has to be,” Lt. Gen. Sonkiss had said at the roundtable in February when asked if it was reasonable to expect the C-5 to remain viable even to 2045.

“Define risk. I’m not trying to be pejorative in here, but what risk would you like me to talk about?” she added when asked about the risks this might entail. “There’s a financial risk to having to sustain an older aircraft. And we’ve shown in the Air Force that we’re capable of doing that. The C-5, we’ve invested a lot of money to keep it on board, and it is, and there is no other aircraft that can provide the capacity that the C-5 does.”

“We’ve shown time and time again that when that aircraft [the C-5] is asked to perform, it does. And so we’ll continue to invest,” she continued. “What I would like to see us do, though, is move forward from having to pour that much money into something old to the pathway to a modernized fleet.”

Especially given Sonkiss’ comments here about the C-5’s unique attributes, questions have also already been raised about the viability of a common replacement for that aircraft and the C-17A. The Globemaster III is also an essential and heavily demanded component of the U.S. strategic airlift force today, but is a very different aircraft with its own distinct capabilities. In particular, the C-17 offers significant short and rough field performance that enables it to bring heavy payloads very far forward for an aircraft of its size, even in the absence of improved runways. It was designed from the outset to transport combat-ready ground units, including tanks and other heavy armor, to landing zones at or at least near the front lines, as well as drop paratroopers into those same areas.

There is also the matter of an ever-expanding threat ecosystem, which the Air Force expects to include anti-air missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 miles by 2050. This will pose increasing challenges to advanced aircraft, let alone non-stealthy and slower-flying types. Key supporting assets, like airlifters and aerial refueling tankers, would also be top targets during any conflict, and even more so in a high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific.

One company, Radia, is actively pitching a new airlifter that is bigger than the C-17 and the C-5, and is being designed with a high degree of operational flexibility in mind, to meet the Air Force’s NGAL needs. Development of that aircraft, called Windrunner, originally started with a focus on carrying oversized components for wind turbines, and its projected range is shorter than that of either the Galaxy or Globemaster III. Overall, Windrunner is still in a very aspirational stage, as you can read more about here.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing, among others, have also been publicly showing various concepts for advanced transports and tankers in recent years. This includes stealthy types and blended wing body designs. A BWB aircraft could also offer a more limited degree of low-observability (stealthiness) together with significant internal payload capacity.

“I think there are options out there when it comes to large-volume aircraft that exist, that are being worked now, that can help us get capability quickly,” former AMC commander Minihan said in his interview with TWZ earlier this year. “And then I think there are concepts out there, like the commercialization of the C-5 fleet, that need to be taken seriously as well and apply commercial standards, commercial supply chain to increase the readiness of it. And between a combination of those two, I think that you can sustain what America needs to project large volume lift.”

There has also been significant overlap in work on future airlift concepts and potential designs for next-generation aerial refueling tankers, something the Air Force has also been hoping to get into service in the 2040s timeframe. The Air Force’s proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget shifts work on future aerial refueling capabilities from what had been called the Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS) to a new effort dubbed Advanced Tanker Systems.

“We are shifting to what’s called Advanced Tanker Systems,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Frank Verdugo, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Budget, had said during a briefing on the rollout of the service’s latest request last month. “It’s looking to offer more options than just NGAS, and to make sure that our future advanced tanker systems are more resilient and can operate in contested environments.”

What this means for when the Air Force might see a next-generation tanker enter service, and how that might factor into NGAL, is unclear. The service’s current aerial refueling plans include more purchases of KC-46s in the coming years, which will increase the total objective fleet size. Older KC-135s are still expected to remain in service for years to come.

The Air Force’s future airlift strategy also clearly has yet to fully solidify, with the C-5s now set to remain in service into Fiscal Year 2050.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post C-5 Galaxies Now Slated To Keep Flying Until 2050 As Readiness Plummets To 37 Percent appeared first on The War Zone.

More than 20 U.S. Navy warships, two carrier strike groups among them, are enforcing the blockade of Iran in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). To date, CENTCOM has redirected 61 commercial vessels linked to Iran and disabled at least four attempting to run the blockade.

The Navy released new images last week of both CSGs supporting the blockade. The USS George H.W. Bush was conducting flight operations in the Arabian Sea on May 6, and recently spotted with 25 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, two E-2D Hawkeyes, and three MH-60 Seahawks of Carrier Air Wing 7 visible on the flight deck. Unlike the Abraham Lincoln CSG, also operating in the AOR, George H.W. Bush is not equipped with 5th-generation carrier-based F-35Cs.

The Gerald R. Ford CSG transited the Strait of Gibraltar westbound and is steaming toward Norfolk. The strike group has been deployed for 322 days, as of May 11, and is expected to return home in the coming weeks. The CSG departed Norfolk in June 2025 and was initially supposed to return in January, but its deployment was extended twice to support combat operations in the Caribbean and the Middle East.

Three carriers are now underway training in preparation for future deployments. The Dwight D. Eisenhower CSG, which recently completed a 15-month availability, is working up off the east coast with AIS turned on. The George Washington CSG got underway on May 10, according to ship spotters, leaving port in Yokosuka, Japan, escorted by guided-missile cruiser USS Robert Smalls. The Theodore Roosevelt CSG is “conducting advanced training to bolster strike group readiness and capability” in the Pacific Ocean.

USS Nimitz is anchored off Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for a five-day liberty port call. Nimitz is circumnavigating South America en route to her new homeport in Norfolk. Originally slated to be decommissioned this year, her service life was recently extended into 2027.

Another Marine Air-Ground Task Force is set to arrive in CENTCOM in the near-term. While the Boxer ARG has not been confirmed in CENTCOM as of publication, an arrival announcement could come as soon as this week. The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is comprised of a command element, a Ground Combat Element, Battalion Landing Team 3/5, an Aviation Combat Element with two squadrons, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 163 (Reinforced) and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122, and a logistics combat element. The approximately 5,000 Marines and Sailors aboard Boxer ARG will join the Tripoli ARG, already on station in the Middle East, and significantly enhance the United States’ expeditionary capabilities in the region.

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 11, 2026: 20 Warships Enforce Iran Blockade appeared first on The War Zone.

A “constellation” like the one described above, incorporating drones configured for a wide array of roles, including surveillance and reconnaissance and kinetic strike, could be readily deployed in contested areas, or even potentially positioned deep behind enemy lines. Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb covert drone attacks on several Russian airbases last year, as well as Israel’s near-field attacks from within Iran during the opening phases of the 12 Day War, have already demonstrated the effectiveness of the kind of capability DARPA is seeking. TWZ has also highlighted the value that this kind of drone swarm launch capability would offer on land and at sea on several occasions in the past, including after the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) put out a very similar call for proposals earlier this year.

DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office (TTO) first put out its request for information for this containerized drone swarm capability back in April, but has updated the relevant contracting notice several times since then. The latest version was posted online yesterday. At least from what has been shared so far, DARPA has not yet given this project a name.

“Existing commercial, airborne Group 1-3 platforms are limited in endurance, payload capacity, and onboard electrical auxiliary power. When operated as constellations, they typically require substantial infrastructure and basing area [sic] for deployment and recovery. These constellations typically require human involvement to recover, recharge/refuel, and launch again, lacking full autonomy necessary to achieve sustained operations spanning days or longer,” the current version of the contracting notice explains. “The landscape of current platform technologies has broad limitations that require evolution to achieve high-endurance constellations consisting of drones with meaningful payload Size Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP-C) staged from fully autonomous containers capable of complete mission-cycle management inclusive of launch, sustainment/swap-out, and recovery.”

The U.S. military breaks drones into five different categories. Collectively, drones in Groups 1 and 2 can have maximum weights of up to 55 pounds, fly up to altitudes of 3,500 feet, and have top speeds of up to 250 knots. Group 3 is a very broad middle tier that covers designs that weigh anywhere from 56 to 1,320 pounds and can get up to 18,000 feet, but again have speeds of 250 knots or less. Together, Groups 1 through 3 include a very wide range of drones from small quadcopters all the way up to long-range one-way attack munitions.

Given the aforementioned limitations, “DARPA has identified an exigent need for highly deployable, versatile-SWaP Group 1-3 platforms, operating in autonomous constellations that are stored within, deployed from, recovered in, and managed by a fully autonomous container, to support a variety of payloads and missions in GPS-denied environments,” the contracting notice adds. “Advancements in low-SWaP technologies enable constellations comprising a variety of novel payloads, each requiring dedicated power and weight, but capable of operating in synchrony across the constellation. Constellation populations may comprise up to 500 platforms (number may vary as a function of payload type). Each platform will be equipped with a subsystem or independent payload system with the potential to achieve high operational availability for the combined system over multiple-day periods.”

The notice leaves the requirements for the drones and the containerized launch and recovery systems relatively open-ended.

“Unmanned aerial vehicle (herein referred to as “drones”) in the Group 1-3 space with capabilities for fully autonomous launch, recovery, storage, organization, recharging/refueling, organization, internal logistics management, and pre/post-flight checkout. Proposed drone designs must form a mission-focused, collaborative constellation. Responses must be cognizant of long endurance drone constellations with high operational availability and constellation management,” per the notice. “Novel configurations that enable multi-day continuous operations with their corollary constellation management software (ideally with path optimization and collision deconfliction) and innovative configurations of autonomous container-based deployment solutions are of particular interest to DARPA.”

“Storage containers (herein referred to as “containers”) that provide fully autonomous drone storage, logistics management, launch, recovery, and recharge/refuel, while conforming to the intention of a standardized military container (e.g. Conex, 463L pallets, Tricon, ISU container, etc.),” the notice adds. “Innovative ideas and non-standard containers (e.g. suitcase-based distributed systems, box-based systems) will also be considered within the context of the presented approach, but solutions should be compatible with current military transport capabilities. It is envisioned that these containers shall be self-sufficient with consideration of energy storage, communication equipment, and compute capability.”

DARPA also says it has a tangential interest in a remotely operated “host platform” that could carry the containers to and from a designated area, from which the drones can then be launched and recovered. The contracting notice does not specify whether this would be an air, ground, or maritime platform, or some mixture thereof.

The video in the social media post below shows a launch system for quadcopter-type drones installed on an uncrewed ground vehicle, which the U.S. Army previously tested.

Perhaps most interestingly, DARPA’s contracting notice highlights existing drone-and-launcher combinations used for “preplanned lightshows and commercial activities,” though it also notes that these are not suitable for U.S. military use. Last year, TWZ pointed out how these exact kinds of developments in the commercial entertainment space underscore very real threats posed by more capable, weaponized swarms. That piece came after a Chinese firm, DAMODA, rolled out a containerized system capable of launching, recovering, and recharging thousands of small, electrically-powered quadcopter-type drones at the touch of a button.

As we wrote at that time:

It is worth reiterating that DAMODA’s Automated Drone Swarm Container System, at least as it exists now, is clearly designed for entertainment industry use first and foremost. Though the company’s drone light show routines are certainly visually impressive and often go viral on social media, they are pre-scripted and conducted in a very localized fashion. What the company is offering is not a drone swarm capable of performing various military-minded tasks in a highly autonomous manner at appreciable ranges from its launch point.

At the same time, large-scale drone light shows put on by DAMODA (and a growing number of other companies), do highlight, on a broad level, the already highly problematic threats posed by swarms. The new Automated Drone Swarm Container System underscores the additional danger of these same threats hiding in plain sight. The steady proliferation of advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, especially when it comes to dynamic targeting, will only create additional challenges, as TWZ has explored in detail in this past feature.

This is not theoretical, either. As mentioned, in June [2025], Ukrainian forces launched multiple drone attacks on airbases across Russia with the help of covert launchers loaded on the back of unassuming civilian tractor-trailer trucks. This entire effort was dubbed Operation Spiderweb and took months of planning.

The global market space for containerized launch systems for drones and other payloads is already substantial and continues to grow. Firms in China have been particularly active in this regard, and developments in that country have often also been tied to work on swarming capabilities. Companies in the United States, as well as in Europe and elsewhere around the world, are also increasingly active in this arena.

In general, containerized weapon systems offer immense flexibility for employment in ground-based modes, including for rapid deployment to remote or austere locations, as well as on any ship with sufficient deck space. TWZ has previously laid out a very detailed case for why the U.S. Navy should arm its warships with containers loaded with swarms of drones, which you can find here.

Container-like launchers for drones, many of which are mounted on trucks, are also an increasingly common sight globally. Iran has been a particularly significant developer of such capabilities as part of its development of long-range kamikaze drones, as seen in the video below.

However, most existing relevant containerized or container-like systems focus on launching payloads rather than recovering them, let alone getting them ready to be relaunched. To date, the latter capabilities have been more of an area of interest for commercial applications. Chinese firm DJI and other companies are increasingly offering container-like ‘docks’ for small commercial drones, though they are generally designed to host just one uncrewed aerial system at a time.

TWZ actually covered much of this already after the DIU announced it was hunting for a very similar-sounding Containerized Autonomous Drone Delivery System (CADDS) capability in February. The CADDS announcement, however, was focused purely on the launch-and-recovery components of the equation, as you can read more about here. How DIU’s effort might be related to what DARPA is exploring now is unknown.

In its call for CADDS proposals, DIU had also highlighted a new, more general emerging demand for more launch capacity to go along with a U.S.-military push to acquire and field hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new drones, especially smaller types, in the next few years. This has all been spurred on by sweeping new guidance from the Pentagon, which was rolled out last year, aimed at “unleashing U.S. Military drone dominance.” Though DARPA’s contracting notice does not touch on this directly, the capability it is describing would help address this broader question of how U.S. forces would actually employ all of these new uncrewed aerial systems.

Furthermore, as we wrote after DIU put out its call for CADDS proposals:

“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.”

“An inherent benefit of a drone swarm, in general, is that each individual component does not have to be configured to perform all of the desired tasks. This creates additional flexibility and resilience to threats, since the loss of any particular drone does not necessarily preclude the swarm from continuing its assigned missions. There are tangential design and cost benefits for the drones themselves, since they can be configured to carry only the systems required for their particular mission demands.”

…

“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 remains to be seen whether or not DARPA’s exploration of drone swarms and associated launch systems that could form future “autonomous constellations” leads to an operational capability. Still, this, together with DIU’s CADDS effort, shows clear interest within the U.S. military in making this a reality, if possible.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Drone Swarms Packed Into Unassuming Containers Sought By DARPA appeared first on The War Zone.

U.S. forces “disabled M/T Sea Star III and M/T Sevda, May 8, prior to both vessels entering an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman in violation of the ongoing U.S. blockade,” CENTCOM stated. “A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet from USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) disabled both tankers after firing precision munitions into their smokestacks, preventing the non-compliant ships from entering Iran.” 

This was the third time that the U.S. has fired on Iranian ships running the blockade. The Navy has used a destroyer’s five-inch gun firing inert rounds to blast the engineering section of one ship to disable it and a Super Hornet’s 20mm Vulcan cannon to disable the rudder on another. So, the use of bombs dropped down a ship’s smokestack to disable but not destroy a ship is not new. You can read about these prior instances here.

The weapons used in this latest wave of attacks on blockade runners weren’t disclosed. 500lb laser-guided bombs are likely what was employed here based on the Super Hornet’s stores options, precision required, and the effects seen. These can utilize high-explosive bomb bodies or inert ones for desired effects, with the latter being most probable in this case.

Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin was the first to report this news.

The blockade on Iranian ports was enforced April 13 to strangle Iran’s economy as part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. On Friday, CENTCOM reported that U.S. forces have prevented more than 70 tankers from entering or leaving Iranian ports. 

“These commercial ships have the capacity to transport over 166 million barrels of Iranian oil worth an estimated $13 billion-plus,” the command stated on X.

However, “a confidential CIA analysis delivered to administration policymakers this week concludes that Iran can survive the U.S. naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship,” The Washington Post reported on Thursday, citing four people familiar with the document.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates claims it was once again attacked by Iranian ballistic missiles and drones on Friday.

“The Ministry of Defense announced that on May 8, 2026, the UAE air defense systems engaged 2 ballistic missiles and 3 UAV’s launched from Iran, resulting in 3 moderate injuries,” the UAE Defense Ministry (MoD) announced on X Friday morning EDT. “Since the beginning of the blatant Iranian attacks on the United Arab Emirates, the air defenses have engaged a total of 551 ballistic missiles, 29 cruise missiles, and 2,263 UAVs.”

The UAE, located about 60 miles south of Iran across the Strait, claims these attacks have killed 13 and injured 230.

The MoD “affirmed that it remains fully prepared and ready to deal with any threats and will firmly confront anything that aims to undermine the security of the country, in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, security and stability and safeguards its interests and national capabilities.”

Tehran did not immediately respond to the claim, which TWZ cannot independently verify.

These incidents follow an exchange of fire last night between the U.S. and Iran. As we reported yesterday, U.S. Central Command said it attacked several locations in Iran after “Iranian forces launched multiple missiles, drones and small boats as USS Truxtun (DDG 103), USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), and USS Mason (DDG 87) transited the international sea passage. No U.S. assets were struck.”

Iran said it launched the attacks in retaliation for “violation of the ceasefire and the aggression by the terrorist US military against an Iranian oil tanker near the port of Jask.”

The extent of the damage to Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island and the Bandar Kargan naval checkpoint in Minab, targets struck by the U.S. on Thursday in response to the attacks on U.S. Navy ships, remains unclear. No images have emerged and neither Iran nor the U.S. have commented.

Last night, Trump called the exchange a “love tap” and said the ceasefire still held.

This is a developing story.

UPDATE: 11:40 AM EDT –

Amid the kinetic activity, diplomacy continues as Trump insists that Iran never develop a nuclear weapon. The status of its ballistic missile arsenal, control of the Strait of Hormuz and support for proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis are also major sticking points.

The U.S. is waiting to hear back from Iran about its peace proposal, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. 

“We’re expecting a response from them today at some point. We have not received that yet,” he said.

The secretary added that he remained concerned that Iran is still trying to maintain control over the Strait.

“We’ve seen the reporting overnight that Iran is trying to establish some agency that’s going to control traffic in the Strait,” Rubio explained. “That would actually be unacceptable.”

Iran, meanwhile, is accusing the U.S. of moving the goal posts in the negotiating process by using force.

“Every time a diplomatic solution is on the table, the U.S. opts for a reckless military adventure,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on X. “Is it a crude pressure tactic? Or the result of a spoiler once again duping POTUS into another quagmire? Whatever the causes, [the] outcome is the same: Iranians never bow to pressure.”

UPDATE: 11:55 AM EDT –

Iran claims that its “naval commandos carried out a special operation to detain” an oil tanker, “which was attempting to disrupt Iran’s oil exports and national interests.”

“Implementing the decision of the Supreme National Security Council and with a judicial ruling, the Army Navy seized the oil tanker Ocean Koi, which was carrying Iranian oil and tried to take advantage of the situation in the region to harm and disrupt the oil exports and the interests of the Iranian nation,” said Iran’s Army Public Relations Office in a statement on Friday.

​”The commandos of the Army Navy ‘directed the violating oil tanker to the southern coast of Iran and handed it over to the judicial authorities,'” according to the statement. “The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran will ‘vigorously defend the interests and assets of the Iranian nation in the territorial waters of the country and will not tolerate any violator or aggressor.'”

Though Iranian officials identified this ship as the Ocean Koi, it is also known as the Jin Li. It is part of Iran’s so-called dark fleet and was sanctioned by the U.S. in February for transporting millions of barrels of Iranian oil. It is unclear why Iran made a show of this event, though it could have been for domestic consumption in the wake of yesterday’s attacks on several targets.

You can see video of the claimed boarding below.

UPDATE: 12:16 PM EDT –

The CIA recruited sources inside Iran, but flawed covert communications reportedly helped Iranian counterintelligence identify and arrest informants, a new report from Reuters stated.

“In interviews with six Iranian former CIA informants, Reuters found that the agency was careless…amid its intense drive to gather intelligence in Iran, putting in peril those risking their lives to help the United States,” the outlet explained.

“Such aggressive steps by the CIA sometimes put average Iranians in danger with little prospect of gaining critical intelligence,” Reuters added. “When these men were caught, the agency provided no assistance to the informants or their families, even years later, the six Iranians said.”

UPDATE: 12:25 PM EDT –

Iranian officials continue to dismiss the notion that the country will cede control of the Strait.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, said on Friday Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz is an asset “‘on the scale of an atomic bomb’, adding that Tehran would not give up the capability it gained through war.”

12:43 PM EDT –

Hours after launching another attack on the UAE, an Iranian official says that country will remain a target for supporting the U.S. and Israel.

“Iran will not leave the UAE alone, and they are well aware of that, which is why they are trying to maintain tension between Iran, the United States, and the Zionist entity,” Ali Khodarian, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Commission, stated on X. “The Americans have realized that their naval blockade parade will henceforth face a military response from the Islamic Republic. No one can now carry out a military operation against our ships without a response.”

UPDATE: 1:37 PM EDT –

The United States will facilitate two days of intensive talks between the governments of Israel and Lebanon on May 14 and 15, State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott announced on Friday.

UPDATE: 1:48 PM EDT-

CENTCOM released imagery of the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers USS Truxtun (DDG 103), USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), and USS Mason (DDG 87) operating in the Middle East. “The three destroyers are currently sailing in the Arabian Sea supporting the blockade against Iran,” the command stated on X. “As of today, CENTCOM forces have redirected 57 commercial vessels and disabled 4 to prevent the ships from entering or leaving Iranian ports.”

The three destroyers were in last night’s exchange of fire with Iran.

UPDATE: 3:32 PM EDT –

The U.S. is denying the latest Iranian claim that it successfully carried out an attack on U.S. military assets.

On Friday, the Iranian Army claimed “while the US Navy was attempting to remove three of its destroyers from the Strait of Hormuz towards the Sea of Oman with air support, we carried out a combined missile and drone operation, during which we targeted this naval group with 8 cruise missiles and 24 suicide drones. As a result of this operation, and despite the extensive attempts by the US Navy to repel the attack, one cruise missile and three suicide drones successfully hit the American destroyers, causing fires to break out on them.”

Asked if any U.S. ships were struck today, a U.S. official offered a one-word response.

“No,” the official stated.

UPDATE: 7:36 PM EDT –

During a press gaggle with reporters outside the White House, Trump was asked if he would resume the now-paused Project Freedom.

“We’ll go a different route if everything doesn’t get signed up, buttoned up,” he answered. “We may go back to Project Freedom if things don’t happen — but it’ll be Project Freedom Plus, meaning Project Freedom plus other things.”

Trump also said the U.S. expects to get a response from Iran on the American proposal aimed at ending the war “supposedly tonight.”

Asked if Iran is slow rolling the process, Trump says: “we’ll find out soon enough.”

UPDATE: 8:13 PM EDT –

Open source investigator @MT_Anderson says satellite imagery shows the Ocean Trader, a shadowy special operations mothership, appears to be off the coast of Diego Garcia. That’s America’s sprawling island base deep in the Indian Ocean. It includes an airfield, port and large lagoon. It has served as a host for strategic bombers during a number of crisis over the years. 

“Sentinel 2 from May 7 reveals a highly significant arrival at NSF Diego Garcia,” he wrote on X. “Likely spot of Spec Ops Command (SOC) mothership, MV Ocean Trader, safely anchored inside the atoll.”

In addition, Anderson says the Military Sealift Command’s (MSC) large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ship USNS Pililaau and an unidentified Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer were “also in the lagoon. My last definitive spot [for Ocean Trader] was way back in Nov 2025 off the coast of Puerto Rico.”

As we reported in October 2025, Ocean Trader was seen “prowling the waters of the Caribbean.” It was seen as the U.S. was building up forces for potential raids against cartels in a mission that morphed into one aimed at Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Able to launch special operations helicopters, drones and fast boats, and carry troops and supplies, we noted that the ship “could play a central role as a staging point and command and control node for direct action against cartels should the orders come.”

In January 2026, the U.S. captured Maduro in a raid that relied heavily on special operations forces. It is likely the Ocean Trader played a role in the mission. Likewise, this highly-specialized vessel could provide its services in a wide range of contingencies for the ongoing crisis with Iran. This includes helping to enforce the blockade, rescuing downed aircrew, or even participating in direct action missions against Iranian interests. Beyond that, Ocean Trader has spent a lot of time in the Middle East over the years. With all this in mind, its presence in the region at this pivotal time should come as no surprise.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post F/A-18 Super Hornet Drops Bombs Down Smokestacks Of Iranian Tankers Running Blockade (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

This week’s caption reads:

Soldiers with Bravo Company, Task Force Guardian, 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, secure a bunker in an enemy fortified entrenchment during the initial phase of combat operations as part of an exercise during the Joint ReadinessTraining Center (JRTC) rotation 24-09 at Fort Johnson, La., July 18, 2024. Task Force Guardian is comprised of personnel from 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry; 1st Battalion, 186th Infantry; and the 141st Brigade Support Battalion. The JRTC goal is to create realistic environments that help prepare units for complex operations. (Oregon Army National Guard photo by 1st Sgt. Zachary Holden, 115th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)

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 full-size Yildirimhan model was first shown publicly this week at the SAHA 2026 International Defense and Aerospace Exhibition in Istanbul, where it gained much attention. The program was presented by Turkish Minister of Defense Yasar Guler and is said to have been in development for around a decade.

The Yildirimhan is a conventionally armed non-tactical longer-range ballistic missile, which is itself a somewhat novel concept, albeit one that we have discussed in the past, in relation to China, Israel, and Russia.

The missile is planned to have a range of 6,000 kilometers (3,728 miles), which puts it just into the ICBM category. Missiles in this class are considered to have a range of over 5,500 kilometers, and most can reach considerably further.

The Yildirimhan is powered by four rocket engines and uses only a single stage, which is also unusual. It may be a measure of technological limitations, since Turkey hasn’t previously embarked on a missile that can fly this far.

The Turkish Ministry of Defense says the Yildirimhan will be road-mobile — as seen in the accompanying video, embedded below — and will be able to carry a very large warhead weighing 3,000 kilograms (around 6,600 pounds). It will be liquid-fueled, powered by a combination of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine.

This means the ICBM would have to be fueled before launch. As a result, its response time would be reduced compared to a solid-fuel weapon. This would also make the missile far more vulnerable to preemptive strikes and more complicated to handle.

At this stage, there are no details about the timelines for the potential introduction of the Yildirimhan to service, although Turkish media reports claim that production of the fuel and development of the warheads are already underway.

Notably, of the NATO nations in Europe, only Turkey currently fields a conventional ground-launched missile with a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) — the locally developed Tayfun (previously Bora-2) short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).

In the past, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for Turkey to field missiles with ranges beyond 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), reflecting concerns about growing regional threats.

“As Turkey, we are located in a geography of high strategic importance, located in the heart of three continents, where global arm wrestling is never lacking … the first condition for survival in such a geography is deterrence,” Erdogan said at the time.

As we have discussed in the past, Turkey unveiled its Tayfun Block IV missile in 2025. This is the largest and heaviest member of the shorter-range Bora/Tayfun weapon family and is considered likely to have a range of around 1,000 kilometers (621 miles). A test firing apparently occurred in the fourth quarter of 2025.

“The Tayfun Block IV achieves long ranges, setting another record for the Turkish defense industry,” manufacturer Roketsan said in a statement at the time, according to Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency news outlet. Roketsan added that it “will be capable of destroying numerous strategic targets, such as air defense systems, command and control centers, military hangars, and critical military facilities.”

Furthermore, Turkey has been working on a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM), known as Cenk, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, which would meet the ambition set out by Erdogan. In the past, there has been speculation that Cenk could be a further development of the Bora/Tayfun family, which should make development more straightforward, although the precise relationship between these weapons remains unclear. Like the Yildirimhan, Cenk could also be an all-new design.

The Cenk MRBM would already put most of Turkey’s potential adversaries within range. Even the Tayfun Block IV has the reach to strike anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean and deep into the Middle East.

As it stands, Turkey has developed its strike capabilities primarily to counter its regional rival, Greece, while it has also reportedly used short-range ballistic missiles against Kurdish militants in Iraq in the past. Of course, neither of these threats requires an ICBM.

There is also the fact that Turkey has limited means of testing a missile with a range of 6,000 kilometers. Turkey’s primary missile-test range is on the Black Sea, but the distance from east to west is under 1,000 kilometers. This would require longer-range missiles to be launched on a steep parabolic trajectory, something that North Korea has repeatedly done for its missile tests.

However, there has been talk of developing a spaceport in conjunction with Somalia, which could provide a solution to this problem, offering the potential to launch ballistic missiles — as well as space launch vehicles — far out into the Indian Ocean.  

Unlike the earlier Bora/Tayfun family, which utilizes aero-ballistic trajectories, within the atmosphere, the MRBM and ICBM would complete much of their flight in the exo-atmospheric regime. As well as enhanced performance, larger missiles like the Cenk and Yildirimhan also introduce the option of carrying larger or multiple warheads and potentially decoys and other countermeasures against anti-missile defenses.

All of this poses a greater technological challenge, but it’s clearly one that Turkey is now grappling with.

Over the past quarter-century, Turkey has rapidly expanded its missile industry to encompass both ballistic and cruise systems, many of which have since entered service with the Turkish Armed Forces. Some of these weapons have also been offered for export, where the Turkish defense sector has profited from the fact that its products are free from the restrictions imposed by the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) guidelines. ITAR serves to limit the transfer of defense and military technologies and services — especially the more sensitive ones — to certain countries. There is an argument that bringing a conventionally armed ICBM to the export market might be considered logical, albeit potentially geopolitically disruptive, in this context.

On the other hand, Turkey is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) arms control bloc, an arrangement that puts severe restrictions on the export of missiles that can carry payloads of more than 1,100 pounds to distances of more than 190 miles. This would rule out exports of the Yildirimhan, unless Ankara were to walk away from MTCR.

Most likely, therefore, is that Turkey is looking to field the Yildirimhan to extend the reach and firepower of its own conventional deterrent, allowing it to hold at risk targets as far away as Beijing.

As planned, the ICBM also carries a very heavy warhead that would have a significant bunker-busting effect, as well as being able to take out certain area targets. At the same time, interest is growing in having a strategic conventional ballistic missile deterrent to go against a nuclear foe, a concept that Iran has adopted.

There are, so far, no indications that Turkey might be seeking to develop nuclear warheads, with Ankara having relied on NATO’s collective defense and U.S. nuclear guarantees ever since the Cold War. However, the new ICBM would provide a potential stepping stone to such a capability, were priorities to change. This is a reality that has been identified in the case of South Korea and its ballistic missile developments.

It should also be noted that Turkey has a track record of developing high-end defense products as flagships of the country’s military aerospace capacity and as points of pride for the nation as a whole. The TF Kaan new-generation fighter is a prime example of this trend.

Regardless of the utility of an ICBM to Turkey, the political leadership in Ankara has consistently supported its missile sector, including promoting increasingly longer-range weapons. With that in mind, the Yildirimhan represents the latest outcome of a wider research-and-development effort, and one that reflects the country’s aim to strengthen its conventional deep-strike deterrence.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post What Is Behind Turkey’s Pursuit Of An ICBM? appeared first on The War Zone.

American authorities say this is just the first batch of records to be shared as part of a new push for “total transparency” on this topic, which has long been a source of controversy and criticism. National security concerns have been increasingly raised about UAP sightings, many of which have been determined to be drones or balloons. The very real and worrisome prospect that adversary intelligence-gathering and other malign activities have become muddled with the matter of UAPs is something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for years now.

“Today, the Department of War [DOW] announced the initial release of new, never-before-seen files on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) as part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE),” the Pentagon said in a press release today. “This interagency effort includes The White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Department of Energy (DOE), the DOW’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and additional components of U.S. intelligence agencies.”

The records that have been released so far come from the U.S. military, the FBI, NASA, and the State Department. In addition to videos and pictures said to show unidentified objects, there are also intelligence reports, statements regarding claimed sightings, diplomatic cables, and other documents. Many of the documents are redacted in part, particularly to omit names and other privacy-protected information. Some of the records, including ones from the FBI and NASA, are said to have been released, at least in part, in the past. We will come back to all of this later on.

The social media posts below show just some of the videos currently contained in the online PURSUE archive.

PURSUE is the result of a directive from President Donald Trump earlier this year. In February, Trump announced in a post on his Truth Social website that he would be “directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.”

“President Trump directed the Department of War to identify and release government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena, and unidentified flying objects because he is the most transparent president in history,” the White House told TWZ directly today when reached for more information about the new release of records. “While past administrations have sought to discredit or dissuade the American people, the President is focused on providing maximum disclosure to the public, who can ultimately make up their own minds about the information contained in these files. The American people asked, and President Trump delivered — enjoy!”

It is worth noting here that AARO had previously released multiple tranches of declassified UAP-related records, including imagery of unresolved sightings, but on a much more limited and inconsistent basis. The office has also released other assessments and reports over the years, including a review of historical claims, and has provided additional classified information to Congress.

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

“The Department of War is in lockstep with President Trump to bring unprecedented transparency regarding our government’s understanding of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” Secretary of War Pete Hegesth said in a statement today. “These files, hidden behind classifications, have long fueled justified speculation — and it’s time the American people see it for themselves. This release of declassified documents demonstrates the Trump Administration’s earnest commitment to unprecedented transparency.”

“The American people have long sought transparency about the government’s knowledge of unidentified anomalous phenomena,” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is actively coordinating the Intelligence Community’s declassification efforts with the Department of War to ensure a careful, comprehensive, and unprecedented review of our holdings to provide the American people with maximum transparency. Today’s release is the first in what will be an ongoing joint declassification and release effort.”

“The FBI is proud to stand alongside President Trump and our interagency partners in this landmark release of UAP records. For the first time in history, the American people have unfettered access to declassified government files on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon – a level of transparency that no prior administration has delivered,” FBI Director Kash Patel added in his own statement. “The FBI remains committed to supporting this rolling declassification effort with the same rigor and integrity we bring to every national security matter. As these files continue to be reviewed and released, the American people can be confident that their security remains our highest priority.”

“I applaud President Trump’s whole-of-government effort to bring greater transparency to the American people on unidentified anomalous phenomena. At NASA, our job is to bring the brightest minds and most advanced scientific instruments to bear, follow the data, and share what we learn,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, as well. “We will remain candid about what we know to be true, what we have yet to understand, and all that remains to be discovered. Exploration and the pursuit of knowledge are core to NASA’s mission as we endeavor to unlock the secrets of the universe.”

At the time of writing, U.S. authorities do not appear to have briefed the press or the public on the current contents of the PURSUE archive, or called attention to the release of any information in particular.

“No media engagement is planned at this time,” a War Department official told TWZ today. “We are not providing any comment or assessment on the files overall or on any specific file, so that the American people can make up their own minds regarding the files.”

Images taken from the surface of the moon during several Apollo missions are certainly standouts, but it is unclear what they show. In some cases, like the image below taken during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, there are already said to be indications that what is seen is simply a visual ‘artifact’ of some kind rather than an actual object.

There is also the image below, said to be of a “reported UAP that resembles a football-shaped body near Japan,” which very much looks like it could be a balloon of some kind. Chinese use of high-altitude balloons and other lighter-than-air craft for intelligence-gathering and other missions is well established, and there have been reported sightings of such platforms around Japan, as well as other countries in the Pacific, as TWZ has reported on in the past. China’s ‘spy balloons’ became a global cause celebre after one was shot down after passing across the United States in early 2023.

Questions are starting to emerge about what is really being seen in other ‘unresolved’ imagery now found in the PURSUE archive, as well.

Overall, little additional context is provided for the records in the PURSUE archive, including about prior investigations into any claims and what conclusions, if any, may have been drawn. Investigations into some of the materials released today are said to still be ongoing. As noted, at least some of the records have been released in part in the past, as well.

In addition, some new criticism has already been leveled at U.S. authorities for proving that it is possible to redact and downgrade sensitive imagery related to UAP sightings for release, despite pushback in the past. Over the years, TWZ repeatedly highlighted the dichotomy between the rapidity with which the U.S. military can release post-strike and other incident videos and pictures from advanced sensors that fit a desired narrative compared to the time it takes for official disclosures regarding UAPs, if they ever come. As a prime example of this, American authorities still have yet to release any imagery from the shootdowns of three still-unidentified objects in the skies over the United States and Canada back in 2023. This is despite previous pledges to do so and subsequent releases from the Canadian government.

The full scale and scope of new details to be found in the PURSUE archive remains to be seen, and, as noted, U.S. authorities have pledged more releases to come. At this point, there does not look to be anything really revelatory, and it seems to be more of the same, which is not necessarily a surprise. In other words, don’t get your hopes up.

TWZ will be taking a much closer look at the records in the coming days, and as any more information is released.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post The Newly Released Government UFO Archives Will Leave You Shrugging appeared first on The War Zone.

This story has been updated with new information from CENTCOM that it attacked Iranian targets in response to U.S. Navy destroyers being fired on by Iran.

“FARS investigations in Bandar Abbas show that during the exchange of fire between the Iranian armed forces and the enemy, parts of the commercial area of Bahman Qeshm pier were targeted,” the official Iranian FARS news outlet reported on Telegram.

The outlet did not say who had launched the attack. In a previous report, Fars said that “sounds of several explosions were heard near Bandar Abbas. A few minutes ago, people in Bandar Abbas heard several sounds resembling explosions near the city.”

Bandar Abbas is the epicenter of Iranian naval operations around the Strait of Hormuz and was attacked repeatedly during Operation Epic Fury. It is located about 15 miles from Qeshm Island.

The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News reports signs indicating a “UAE hostile action at Bahman Port in Qeshm,” while the explosions in Bandar Abbas were related to “defense activity in response to two small aircraft, ” Israel’s i24 News reporter Ariel Oseran reported on X. “If this issue is confirmed, the UAE will pay the cost of its hostile action.”

Though it is unclear what is taking place, online flight trackers show at least five U.S. KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling jets got airborne from the UAE at the same time. We don’t yet know if this is related.

The reported attack comes amid heightened tensions in the Strait and two days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced the abrupt pause of Project Freedom, an effort to protect commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf. Though Trump claimed he did so to foster further negotiations with Iran, NBC News later reported that the president ended Project Freedom after one day because Saudi officials, surprised by the operation, withdrew access to its bases and airspace.

It also comes after Iran attacked the UAE and Oman in response to the U.S. moving to evacuate ships from the Persian Gulf under the now stalled Project Freedom. It’s possible this could be a direct retaliation for those actions from one of those countries. At the same time, there have been past reports of Iran activating its air defenses, possibly due to operations to probe the country’s air defenses in order to determine their status. This could be another one of those instances or a result of confusion entirely.

Iran’s islands in the Strait of Hormuz are strategic strongholds from which it can project its forces and surveil the region. The complex littorals that make up this waterway make it an ideal area for employing small boat swarming tactics. Iran retains much of its small boat capacity even after Epic Fury and has trained to employ it for decades. These islands are also a host to anti-ship missile and one-way attack drone systems. These can turn the Strait and the surrounding bodies of water into very dangerous places for ships to operate. This arsenal remains partially intact.

This is a developing story. We will update this post when we know more.

UPDATE: 5:01 PM

Fox News Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin is now reporting on X that the U.S. attacked Qeshm Port and Bandar Abbas. Citing a senior U.S. official, she said she was told “but this is NOT a restarting of the war.”

We have reached out to the Pentagon, CENTCOM and the White House for more details.

UPDATE: 5:14 PM EDT –

FARS is now claiming that the U.S. “violated the ceasefire by targeting an Iranian oil tanker ship moving from Iranian coastal waters in the Jask area towards the Strait of Hormuz, as well as another ship entering the Strait of Hormuz opposite the port of Fujairah, UAE. At the same time, they carried out air assaults on civilian areas in cooperation with some regional countries on the coasts of Bandar Khamir, Sirik, and Qeshm Island.”

We cannot independently verify that and have reached out to CENTCOM for further details.

UPDATE: 5:29 PM EDT –

As we noted earlier in this story, the reported attacks on Iran came amid further discussion between the U.S. and Iran over peace negotiations.

Washington and Tehran “are discussing a one-page plan for both sides to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end hostilities for 30 days while they try to reach a comprehensive deal,” The New York Times reported hours before the strikes took place.

UPDATE: 5:36 PM EDT –

The U.S. military also just struck Iran’s Bandar Kargan naval checkpoint in Minab, Griffin reported, citing a senior U.S. official. That’s located about 50 miles east of Bandar Abbas.

CENTCOM provided new details on X.

“U.S. forces intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes as U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman, May 7,” the command wrote.

“Iranian forces launched multiple missiles, drones and small boats as USS Truxtun (DDG 103), USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), and USS Mason (DDG 87) transited the international sea passage. No U.S. assets were struck.”

CENTCOM “eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking U.S. forces including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” the command added. “CENTCOM does not seek escalation but remains positioned and ready to protect American forces.”

UPDATE: 6:16 PM EDT –

The IRGC Navy, for its part, claims it carried out a large-scale attack against U.S. warships.

“Following the violation of the ceasefire and the aggression by the terrorist US military against an Iranian oil tanker near the port of Jask, and the approach of warships belonging to the terrorist US military toward the Strait of Hormuz, a very large-scale and precise combined operation was carried out,” the IRGC Navy claimed. “Various types of anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles, along with kamikaze drones equipped with high-explosive warheads, were launched toward enemy destroyers. Intelligence monitoring indicates significant damage to the American enemy, and three invading enemy warships quickly fled the Strait of Hormuz area.”

Videos have emerged on social media purporting to show Iranian air defenses engaging targets.

UPDATE: 6:53 PM EDT –

In a post on his social media platform, Trump said the three destroyers have safely transited out of the Strait under fire.

“There was no damage done to the three Destroyers, but great damage done to the Iranian attackers,” the president proclaimed on Truth Social. “They were completely destroyed along with numerous small boats, which are being used to take the place of their fully decapitated Navy. These boats went to the bottom of the Sea, quickly and efficiently.”

“Missiles were shot at our Destroyers, and were easily knocked down,” he added. “Likewise, drones came, and were incinerated while in the air. They dropped ever so beautifully down to the Ocean, very much like a butterfly dropping to its grave!”

“A normal Country would have allowed these Destroyers to pass, but Iran is not a normal Country,” Trump posited. “They are led by LUNATICS, and if they had the chance to use a Nuclear Weapon, they would do it, without question — But they’ll never have that opportunity and, just like we knocked them out again today, we’ll knock them out a lot harder, and a lot more violently, in the future, if they don’t get their Deal signed, FAST! Our three Destroyers, with their wonderful Crews, will now rejoin our Naval Blockade, which is truly a ‘Wall of Steel.’”

UPDATE: 8:25 PM EDT –

The IRGC-connected Tasnim news agency released what it claims are the “first images of the [IRGC] Navy firing missiles at American ships.”

UPDATE: 9:06 PM EDT –

Talking to reporters outside the White House this evening, Trump said the ceasefire is still in place despite the strikes.

“Yeah, it is,” he explained. “They trifled with us today. We blew them away. They trifled. I call that a trifle.”

The U.S., he added, “knocked the hell out of them.”

A deal with Iran “might not happen, but it could happen any day,” the president told reporters. “I believe they want the deal more than I do.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Just Struck Iranian Targets Around The Strait Of Hormuz (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The Air Force is asking for $1 million in its budget request for the 2027 Fiscal Year to conduct a New Heavy Bomber Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Aviation Week was the first to report on the appearance of this AoA in the service’s budget documents. All branches of the U.S. military routinely use the AoA process to assess available options and further refine requirements for new weapon systems and other capabilities.

The Air Force currently has 76 B-52Hs in service. The last of these aircraft rolled off Boeing’s production line in 1962, though they have received numerous upgrades in the decades since then. These bombers continue to be in high demand as conventional long-range strike platforms, as evidenced by their heavy use in the latest conflict with Iran. They also play a key role in the air leg of America’s nuclear triad.

“A Heavy Bomber Analysis of Alternatives will begin in FY27 [Fiscal Year 2027] to analyze the future long range strike requirements to determine future B-52 requirements and costs and/or a new heavy bomber aircraft configuration and costs,” the Air Force’s latest proposed budget explains.

More specifically, the newly requested funding will support “initial planning activities to develop key performance parameters, key system attributes, and additional performance attributes for a follow-on heavy bomber in the USAF,” per the service’s budget documents. “The FY27 work scope will include key planning activities for programmatic, requirements, capabilities, and vendor options that could field [sic] in the future.”

The $1 million in funding for the AoA would come through a line item titled “Advanced Concept Demonstration” contained within the section of the Air Force’s budget for “B-52 System Improvements.” The service did not ask for or receive any money for this particular line item in Fiscal Year 2026, but did get nearly $4 million in funding for it in the preceding fiscal cycle.

The Fiscal Year 2025 funding supported a “classified Proof of Concept demonstration on the B-52,” according to the budget documents.

The Air Force is already in the midst of a massive, multi-billion-dollar modernization effort for the B-52 fleet. In the coming years, the bombers are set to get new engines, radars, communications capabilities, and more, as you can learn about in more detail here. The upgrades are so substantial that the aircraft will be redesignated B-52Js in the process. A host of new ordnance, including advanced hypersonic missiles and new nuclear weapons, is set to be integrated onto the B-52 fleet, as well.

Based on the Air Force’s current force structure plans, the B-52 is set to outlast both the B-1 and B-2 bombers, and serve alongside the forthcoming B-21. Despite its age, the B-52’s design has certain unique benefits, especially the space underneath its wings for the carriage of outsized payloads, including very large munitions. This has also led the bombers to play important roles in research and development and test and evaluation efforts in the past, including air-launching large crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

There is really nothing like the B-52 in production today anywhere globally, which has further contributed to its long service life. There is only one company in the United States currently building heavy bombers of any type, Northrop Grumman, with the B-21. The stealthy Raider is a very different aircraft designed to meet a very different set of requirements from the B-52, hence the Air Force’s stated plan to operate the two aircraft together for decades to come.

The Air Force’s budget documents do not specify any particular design or other requirements for a follow-on heavy bomber. One possibility could be an aircraft with a blended wing body (BWB) planform, something the service has already been exploring for other mission sets. A BWB aircraft could offer a limited degree of low-observability (stealthiness), as well as significant internal payload capacity, including the ability to carry outsized stores. This could also be paired with Air Force plans for a next-generation aerial refueling tanker, which we will come back to in a moment.

Whatever design requirements might emerge, a new heavy bomber to supplant the B-52 would not need to be as complex as the B-21. Still, it could involve a costly development cycle and risk, with few, if any, additional customers beyond the Air Force on the horizon. Today, only the United States, Russia, and China fly heavy bombers of any kind. Other countries, such as Australia, could be interested if the aircraft was uniquely cost-effective and could be exported.

The New Heavy Bomber AoA might also consider more radically different options for meeting even just some of the requirements that the B-52 fulfills today. As a tangential example, the Air Force has looked at a very wide array of concepts for next-generation aerial refueling capabilities, including stealthy, BWB, and business jet-based tankers, as well as packaging an aerial refueling boom in a ‘buddy store’ type pod that a fighter could carry.

The Air Force’s desire to conduct this AoA now also raises questions about the future of its existing B-52 modernization plans and the expected service life of the bombers. From what has been publicly disclosed to date, a fully upgraded force of B-52Js is still a decade away, at least, from becoming a reality. The re-engining effort and work on the new radars, the two biggest ticket items in the upgrade package, have also been beset by delays and cost growth.

Deciding to conduct an AoA does not commit the Air Force to pursue any particular course of action. As the budget documents note, the new heavy bomber review is also set to explore “future long range strike requirements to determine future B-52 requirements” that do not necessarily lead directly to a full follow-on program. We do not know what the service may have already concluded in this regard from the results of the classified demonstration in Fiscal Year 2025, either.

Regardless, despite the jokes, the B-52 cannot fly forever. At some point, the airframes will simply age out. The service is now clearly looking to put serious thought into what might come next.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Is Going To Explore What Will Finally Replace The B-52 appeared first on The War Zone.

Legislation making its way through Congress would allow the Navy to gift three retired F-14Ds to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center museum in Huntsville, Alabama, and open the door to one of the iconic jets potentially being returned to flight status. Companion bills in the Senate and House are both dubbed the “Maverick Act,” a clear reference to the Top Gun film franchise and the fictional Navy Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, played by star Tom Cruise.

Senator Tim Sheehy, a Montana Republican, introduced the Senate’s version of the Maverick Act on March 23. Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, co-sponsored that bill. Sheehy is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and former Navy SEAL. Kelly is also a retired naval aviator, who flew A-6 Intruders, and astronaut. In the House, Representative Abe Hamadeh, a Republican from Arizona and U.S. Army veteran, introduced the companion legislation with the same title on April 16. There are nine co-sponsors to Hamadeh’s bill, including one Democrat. The legislation cleared the Senate by unanimous consent on April 28, and the matter is now in the hands of the House.

The last Navy F-14 was officially retired in September 2006 after 32 years of service to the fleet. Despite its retirement in the United States, the Tomcat has remained under extremely tight export controls due to its continued service in Iran, the only other country to ever operate the type.

The three Tomcats now earmarked for potential transfer are identified by their Navy serial numbers, or Bureau Numbers: 164341, 164602, and 159437. These are the only three F-14Ds currently in storage at the famed boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, per U.S. Air Force records. Three A variants and a pair of B models are also currently stored there. The current condition of any of these aircraft is unclear.

Sticking with the text of the Senate version at the time of writing for simplicity, the bill says the transfer of the F-14s to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, an air and space museum established by the government of Alabama in 1970, would be made at no cost to the government. “Any costs associated with such conveyance, costs of determining compliance with terms of the conveyance, and costs of operation and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the Commission,” per the proposed legislation.

The bill explicitly states that the aircraft will “not have any capability for use as a platform for launching or releasing munitions or any other combat capability that it was designed to have.” It also lays out a series of conditions for the transfer, noting that the Secretary of the Navy would not be obligated to restore, repair, or otherwise modify the Tomcats before handing them over, but would provide accompanying maintenance and operations manuals along with any excess spare parts available.

The matter of excess spare parts leads us to the most eye-catching section of the bill:

“The Secretary [of the Navy] shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F-14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission.”

“The Secretary will not be responsible for transferring any additional parts or providing any additional support beyond what is stated in this section, during or after the conveyance of the aircraft,” the proposed legislation adds. As such, the Secretary of the Navy would allow the Commission to enter into agreements with relevant nonprofit organizations to help with restoring and operating the aircraft “for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage.”

The transfer would also be made under the “condition that the Commission shall operate and maintain the aircraft in compliance with all applicable limitations and maintenance requirements imposed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,” the bill notes. “The Commission shall not convey any ownership interest in, or transfer possession of, the aircraft to another party without the prior approval of the Secretary.”

The Navy would reserve the right to immediately repossess the aircraft if either of the above terms were breached.

“The Maverick Act of 2026 creates a narrow exception to the post-retirement restrictions that have destroyed nearly all F-14s, ensuring that its legacy is preserved,” according to a press release that Representative Hamadeh’s office put out on May 1. “The Maverick Act allows three of the world’s final Tomcats to be demilitarized and transferred for public display and education under strict national security safeguards. It does not restore combat capability or reopen foreign transfer.”

“I want to thank Senator Sheehy and his colleagues for passing this legislation aimed at preserving for history one of the most iconic aircraft ever flown,” Hamadeh said in an accompanying statement. “As a former U.S. Army officer, I know that many of the men and women I served with felt the same way. That is why I proudly introduced this legislation.”

It is worth noting that retired F-14s are on public display at various military bases and museums in the United States, but none are in flyable condition. Around its retirement, there had been unsuccessful pushes in the past to try to get a Tomcat back into the air in private hands, including by the late Dale “Snort” Snodgrass, a legendary naval aviator and F-14 pilot, who performed official Navy Tomcat demos at airshows for many years.

The prospect of getting a ‘warbird’ Tomcat flying has remained a persistent topic of popular discussion, but has long seemed largely impossible due to bureaucratic red tape, as well as the cost and complexity of doing so. TWZ stressed these points when it emerged that a non-flying F-14 would be featured in the sequel to 1986’s Top Gun and 2022’s Top Gun: Maverick. The U.S. military was heavily involved in the production of both movies. The original film cemented the place of the F-14 and the Navy’s TOPGUN program in popular culture.

A key factor in all of this has been that the story of the Tomcat is inseparably linked to Iran, which received a fleet of F-14As before the fall of the Shah in 1979. The Islamic Republic that emerged afterward continued to operate the jets despite the U.S. government cutting off support. American authorities also moved to impose very tight controls on access to retired F-14 airframes and spare parts, and many of the aircraft were destroyed outright as they left Navy service because of this.

Intriguingly, the prospect of having an F-14 flying again in the United States may have become more likely as a result of the latest conflict with Iran. As TWZ has previously reported, joint U.S. and Israeli strikes between February and April may well have finally put an end to the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force’s (IRIAF) Tomcat operations for good.

Even before the conflict, Iran likely only had a handful of serviceable Tomcats. For example, only one example appeared at the Kish Air Show in 2024, as you can read about here.

Still, even if the Maverick bill is passed and signed into law, there would be many more hurdles before an F-14 could return to the air. After many years spent in the desert boneyard, the Tomcat would require deep inspections to ensure its structure and critical subsystems were fully functional and compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration’s certification requirements.

Just getting the F-14 back to flight status would be massively labor-intensive and very expensive. Keeping the jet in the air would also require considerable funds, with the Tomcat being notoriously maintenance-heavy. Flying the jet regularly would impose high costs, including fuel. The F-14 holds roughly 2,280 gallons of fuel internally. So filling up the jet with a single tank of gas would run around $14,500 at today’s jet fuel prices. This jumps up considerably with external fuel tanks, which add another 534 gallons to the price tag. It can burn this fuel load very fast, especially during high-performance airshow routines.

Complex, supersonic swing-wing jets have periodically appeared at U.S. airshows, specifically the Soviet-era MiG-23 Flogger. In 2023, a privately owned MiG-23UB crashed at the Thunder Over Michigan airshow in Ypsilanti, Michigan, highlighting the challenges of operating these kinds of jets in private hands.

Meanwhile, a Tornado F2, another Cold War-era swing-wing jet, is now being returned to flight status by Jared Isaacman. Now the administrator of NASA, Isaacman is also the founder and former CEO of the ‘red air’ adversary support provider Draken International, as well as a tech billionaire, astronaut, and the operator of a pristine MiG-29 Fulcrum personal jet.

Whether or not the Maverick Act becomes law, or if the U.S. Space & Rocket Center returns an F-14 to U.S. skies, the legislation is a notable new development in the Tomcat’s story. It could have broader impacts, as well. On several occasions in the past, members of Congress have proposed legislation to curtail private operators from flying former advanced U.S. military aircraft, in general.

When it comes to the possibility of a Tomcat back in the air, while it is certain to be a big challenge, it is fair to say that no other single aircraft has more of a draw in popular culture and more pull in the public consciousness. There are likely to be many people with a lot of money who would be eager to get behind an initiative to get one of the jets back in the air if the opportunity presents itself.

Overall, turning the idea of a ‘warbird’ Tomcat from fantasy into reality would be extremely welcome among Top Gun movie lovers, loyal fans of the F-14, Naval Aviation veterans and aficionados, and the aviation heritage community at large.

Update: 5/8/2026 –

Patricia Ammons, Senior Director of Communications at U.S. Space & Rocket Center, has provided TWZ with the following statement regarding the Maverick Act:

“We are grateful to U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy. R-Montana, and co-sponsor Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona, for considering the U.S. Space & Rocket Center as the recipient of three F-14D aircraft and his colleagues in the U.S. Senate for the unanimous passing of the Maverick Act that would allow the U.S. Navy to transfer these historically important aircraft to be used for public display and educational purposes.”

“Senator Sheehy is a multiple time graduate of our Aviation Challenge and Space Camp programs, so he has first-hand experience in how inspirational aircraft and space artifacts can have on future pilots and explorers. The Rocket Center is the proud custodian of multiple aircraft that serve as tangible learning tools for our Aviation Challenge students.“

“We also appreciate U.S. Rep. Abraham Hamadeh and his co-sponsors, including Rep. Dale Strong, R-Alabama, for introducing the act to the House of Representatives. We look forward to the House voting to allow the Rocket Center to receive these vehicles and begin planning for their future use as part of our programs.”

Author’s note: Special thanks to @Osinttechnical on X for bringing this to our attention.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post My God… The F-14 Tomcat May Actually Fly Again Over The United States (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

With a color scheme recalling an F-111F Aardvark of the same unit, the 48th Fighter Wing F-15E serial 91-0311 had first been unveiled in a ceremony at RAF Lakenheath in England, on April 28. However, it seems its first flight in its new look was recorded today.

The jet departed Lakenheath in the morning as EAGLE 31, accompanied by its wingman, EAGLE 32. After taking on fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker, the jets headed to North Wales. From there, EAGLE flight went to the Holbeach Air Weapons Range on the coast north of Lakenheath, where the inert bombs were dropped. 

Recalling the F-111, the specially painted F-15E has the same camouflage scheme in two shades of green and tan, and the original 494th Tactical Fighter Squadron marking and red band on the tail. The tails of the jet also bear the legend “40 years El Dorado Canyon,” the panther emblem of the 494th, an F-111 silhouette, and the 48th wing’s Statue of Liberty insignia.

Notably, the nose radome is left in its standard gray paint.

Elsewhere on the nose, the Strike Eagle carries another F-111 silhouette and the inscription “Karma 52” in red. This commemorates KARMA 52, the Lakenheath-based F-111F serial 70-2389, which was the only example of the type lost during the El Dorado Canyon raid. The jet, armed with four GBU-10 laser-guided bombs, was flown by pilot Capt. Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci, and weapons system officer Capt. Paul Lorence. The exact fate of KARMA 52 remains unknown, with the aircraft wreckage never being located after it came down in the Mediterranean.

Capt. Ribas-Dominicci’s body was later washed ashore; the body of Capt. Lorence was never recovered. Their mission had been a hazardous one: a single-ship, low-level attack on a heavily defended target at night.

Two dozen F-111s of the 48th Fighter Wing, also based at Lakenheath, were at the forefront of the Air Force’s El Dorado Canyon strikes, conducted in April 1986, together with Navy assets from the aircraft carriers USS America and USS Coral Sea. The raid was launched by U.S. President Ronald Reagan after the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque, in which two U.S. soldiers were killed and over 70 others wounded. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was blamed for the attack.

Ever since, the 48th Fighter Wing at Lakenheath has remained the first choice for a wide variety of critical missions around the globe, most recently Operation Epic Fury over Iran. This campaign has seen four combat losses of the F-15E, three of them to friendly fire. As to the other loss, this led to one of the most dramatic and complex combat search and rescue (CSAR) missions of recent times, before the two crew were safely recovered.

As of 2025, as you can read about here, the Air Force was planning to return its two squadrons of F-15Es from Lakenheath — the only permanently forward-deployed examples of the aircraft — to the United States.

Currently, Lakenheath is home to the 492nd and 494th Fighter Squadrons flying the Strike Eagle. These squadrons each have a primary aircraft assigned (PAA) complement of 26 aircraft, although this is subject to some fluctuation. Under the 48th Fighter Wing, these operate alongside the 493rd and 495th Fighter Squadrons flying the F-35A, the first of the Air Force’s stealth jets to be based in Europe.

As well as being fitted with the more powerful Dash 229 engines, Lakenheath’s F-15Es have been at the front of the queue to receive a sophisticated new radar warning and electronic warfare suite, the AN/ALQ-250 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System, or EPAWSS.

With the F-35A now firmly embedded at Lakenheath and apparently also provided with forward-deployed B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bombs, these stealthy jets may well take over entirely the F-15E, provided Congress approves consolidating the Strike Eagles in the United States. It is also possible that the decision to significantly boost the planned F-15EX Eagle II buy may see these plans changed.

In the meantime, the F-35A flies alongside the F-15E at Lakenheath, where these jets and their airmen continue the proud traditions of the 48th Fighter Wing.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.comu

The post Camouflaged F-15E Painted To Mark F-111’s Libya Raid Blasts Through Mach Loop On First Flight appeared first on The War Zone.