CENTCOM said the strikes were “a powerful response to yesterday’s attack on a commercial ship that was transiting the Strait of Hormuz.” The command added that “U.S. aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites after Iran hit M/V Ever Lovely on June 25 with a one-way attack drone. The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack.”

That incident “clearly violated the ceasefire,” the command proclaimed. “Furthermore, Iran’s dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor.”

As we noted yesterday, the attack on the Ever Lovely prompted the U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) to pause its plan to evacuate hundreds of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf which has been largely closed since Iran was attacked by the U.S. and Israel.

Earlier on Friday, President Donald Trump told reporters “We’ll find out,” when asked if Iran faced any consequences for the ship attack.

Asked if he considered the ceasefire to still be in place, the president said: “I don’t like the fact that they took a shot yesterday. Actually, four, we knocked down three at a ship, not an allied ship, but a ship, a very expensive ship, and it was fine, but it took a little beating. They shouldn’t be doing that. You’ll find out.”

There was no immediate military response from Iran, a U.S. official told us. However, as we have reported in the past, these kinds of attacks have resulted in tit-for-tat kinetic actions between the two nations. We also do not know the level of command and control the Iranian government has over hardline IRGC elements and if these kinds of attacks are occurring independent of the government leadership’s wishes.

In its post on X, CENTCOM said its forces CENTCOM forces “continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait. The U.S. military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect.”

The U.S. and Iran continue to negotiate over a future peace deal, but many sticking points remain, including how the country’s nuclear material will be dealt with and future nuclear operations monitored.

This is a developing story.

UPDATE: 5:56 PM EDT –

After the U.S. airstrikes, Iran reiterated that it will continue to hold at risk shipping in the Strait that does not follow its rules for transit.

“Iran has repeatedly stated that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will not return to what it was before the U.S. attack on Iran,” the official Iranian IRIB media outlet stated on X. “Any transit through the Strait must follow the routes announced by Iran; otherwise, the security of vessels cannot be guaranteed.”

UPDATE: 8:05 PM EDT-

The IRGC Navy claims it “struck American military targets in the region in retaliation for earlier aggression against Iranian coastal areas,” the official Iranian Press TV media outlet reported.

“The force made the remarks in a statement issued on Friday, saying its reprisal ‘targeted the deployment sites of the US terrorist military in the region,’” the outlet added.

However, there was no visual proof provided of any attack.

CENTCOM declined comment.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Carries Out First Strike On Iran Since Peace Memorandum Signed (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

This week’s caption reads:

An officer walks past a Royal Air Force Harrier GR7 ground attack jet, from the 2nd/4th Wing RAF Cottesmore, parked inside a hardened shelter at a base in an undisclosed location in the Gulf 04 March 2003 AFP PHOTO/POOL/Chris Helgren (Photo by CHRIS HELGREN / REUTERS POOL / AFP) (Photo by CHRIS HELGREN/REUTERS POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

• 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 TWZ.

The flights are part of a growing U.S. military presence being run by U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in support of the U.S. State Department. The movements are in response to 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes Wednesday night that Venezuelan authorities say devastated much of the northern part of the country and have killed more than 900. 

The first C-17 arrived in Venezuela this morning. Online flight trackers show that at least four of the cargo jets have left the U.S.

“The first air shipment of equipment has arrived to support the two specialized U.S. search and rescue teams, which are arriving in Venezuela to join ground operations as soon as possible,” the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said in a post on X. “With nearly 80 experts per team—firefighters, doctors, structural engineers—12 canines trained for detection in rubble, these groups bring advanced capabilities to locate survivors and assist in complex emergencies. Their personnel and specialized equipment are being positioned to head to the hardest-hit areas and begin operations when conditions allow.”

A second one reportedly landed in the stricken nation as well.

“A C-17 Globemaster III was loaded overnight at Dover AFB with Urban Search and Rescue personnel and equipment for transport to Venezuela in support of State Department-led humanitarian response efforts,” SOUTHCOM said in a post on X Friday morning. “America’s military is delivering the people and capabilities needed to save lives.”

Another C-17 landed in Curaçao. The island is serving as one staging area for international efforts to search for survivors and victims and bring in much-needed humanitarian aid.

U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Jarrard arrived in Caracas on Thursday to oversee the Pentagon’s Venezuela earthquake relief efforts, SOUTHCOM stated. 

“Jarrard is serving as the senior U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) official on the ground and is working closely with partners to plan, coordinate, and direct the U.S. military’s unparalleled logistical and operational capabilities to support the rapid, life-saving movement of response personnel, equipment, and humanitarian assistance into affected areas,” the command said in a media release.

In another post on X, SOUTHCOM included a photograph of a USMC MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The Osprey is part of an array of fixed- and rotary-wing assets deployed for the relief effort around the region.

Jarrard is leading SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan’s deployment of “significant forces to the effort,” according to the command. This includes the aforementioned cargo jets and Navy vessels, as well as C-130 Hercules transports, unspecified reconnaissance platforms and rotary-wing aircraft.

“These forces will provide specialized mobility services and support to U.S. government personnel, search and rescue teams, and U.S. interagency partners as they assess damage, locate the injured, and deliver critical, life-saving assistance,” SOUTHCOM said in a statement.

The Pentagon released images of a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter loading up personnel and supplies in Honduras for potential participation in this mission.

All this is being anchored by the two Navy vessels, which have been in the region for months.

Of the two, Fort Lauderdale has been in the Caribbean the longest and took part in the counternarcotics operation that led to the capture of former Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, now in custody in the U.S. The rest of the ships assigned to that mission left the region months ago.

Fort Lauderdale can embark multiple types of rotary wing aircraft, including Marine MV-22B Ospreys and UH-1Y Venoms. Other helicopters can use their large deck area for resupply and refueling, as well. The vessel could be used as a staging area to deliver aid and extract wounded from a nearby port or off the coast of Venezuela. Hundreds of sailors and Marines aboard could assist with humanitarian efforts, from the ship or on the ground. 

The flight deck of Billings, which arrived in the Caribbean in March, is much smaller and supports the ship’s MH-60 Seahawk helicopter and drones. It can also be used by other helicopters.

If needed, there are additional Navy assets operating off the East Coast that could be re-tasked to SOUTHCOM. 

The amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima recently returned to Norfolk from a 10-month deployment in the Caribbean. If it has not yet entered its planned maintenance availability, the vessel could be redeployed if called upon. 

Much less likely is moving the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. The fleet’s oldest carrier left Mayport, FL, on Wednesday and is now participating in large-scale FLEETEX before a planned transit to New York for America 250 events. 

Meanwhile, America’s unique array of ISR assets can be critical to Venezuela’s relief efforts.

Platforms like MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-4C Triton drones and piloted aircraft like P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol craft and even U-2 Dragon Lady spy planes could bring a lot of sensor power to bear to help with search and rescue, mapping and provide other geospatial intelligence benefits to develop a clearer picture of the situation.

This relief effort is still unfolding and the full extent of the damage is still coming to light. As we previously noted, the disaster offers an opportunity for the U.S. military to foster improving relations with Venezuela almost half a year after Maduro was snatched out of Caracas.

U.S. President Donald Trump appears to have seized on this chance, at least to some degree, announcing America would play a key role in helping Venezuela in a post on his Truth Social site.

“The two major earthquakes that just hit the great people of Venezuela are both massive in scale and have left a devastating number of deaths,” Trump proclaimed. “The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help! I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly. We will be there for our new and great friends. Early reports are not good!!!”

It is unclear how much larger the U.S. military presence will grow for this mission. Several other countries are taking part as well and China has pledged to. Trump has made keeping the Caribbean under the control of the U.S. a major part of his administration’s plans and a top reason for removing Maduro was to stem the influence of China and Russia there.

We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates when warranted.

UPDATE: 3:28 PM EDT –

SOUTHCOM provided an update on the assets being deployed:

• Two U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster aircraft are transporting U.S. Urban Search and Rescue teams based in Los Angeles and Fairfax, Virginia, and one U.S. Air Force C-17 will deliver load-movement equipment to Caracas.

• U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys will transport an airfield assessment team to Venezuela to support airport operations that were impacted near the earthquake epicenter.

• The U.S. Navy’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) and Freedom-variant littoral combat ship USS Billings (LCS 15) have arrived in waters near Venezuela and will begin supporting relief and live-saving efforts.

• Three U.S. Army CH-47 Chinooks and crews from Joint Task Force-Bravo will depart Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras en route to support the transport of key personnel and supplies aiding impacted Venezuelan communities.

• The command’s U.S. Space Force component is providing satellite imagery of devastated areas to disaster relief planners in Venezuela to aid them in assessing where immediate live-saving and aid efforts are needed most and identifying what capability requests to prioritize.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post C-17 Cargo Jets Flowing To Caribbean For Venezuela Earthquake Relief Effort appeared first on TWZ.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Masiello, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), disclosed the acceptance of the six radarless F-35Bs at a hearing before members of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week. This came as part of a larger back-and-forth between Masiello and Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and a retired naval aviator, about F-35 readiness rates across the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, which have long been a point of concern.

Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, released a report stating that the average F-35 full mission capable (FMC) rate across all variants had fallen from 38 to 25 percent between Fiscal Years 2020 and 2025. GAO defines FMC as an aircraft “that can perform all of its missions.” The F-35 JPO has not disputed GAO’s figures directly, but has openly disagreed with the methodology it uses to determine FMC.

“So, the GAO FMC rate is, they said, 25 percent. Your office claims it’s 56 percent,” Kelly said, leading up to his question. “We’ll go with your number, 50 percent. So, half of the airplanes are not fully mission capable, and I think it’s the Marine Corps that has been accepting airplanes with no radar in it. Is that correct?”

“We have accepted six aircraft for the Marine Corps that do not have a radar installed. That is correct,” Masiello confirmed.

Kelly then asked if this was due to a lack of available AN/APG-85 radars, which Masiello also confirmed.

Reports circulating already say that the aircraft in question are reportedly short takeoff and vertical landing-capable F-35Bs, though Masiello does not appear to have confirmed this during the hearing. The Marines are the only U.S. operator of the B variant, but they also fly carrier-based C models.

“The Block 4 modernization program is necessary to ensure that the Marine Corps and Joint Force can continue to project air superiority against future threats,” a Marine Corps spokesperson told TWZ today when asked for more information. “The Department of War deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for Block 4 capabilities (Technical Refresh 3 (TR-3), APG-85, etc.) and the largest fighter aircraft production line in the world. DoW officials made this decision with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the Block 4 capabilities. The Services’ decision ensured that production aircraft could accept Block 4 capabilities, rather than continuing to build Block 3 F-35s that would require extensive retrofit for Block 4 capabilities, thereby saving multiple years of retrofit hardware installation. ”

The Marine Corps deferred any further questions to the F-35 JPO. TWZ had already reached out to that office for more information, as well.

“F-35 Lightning II aircraft are being built to accommodate the F-35 advanced radar (APG-85) for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. When delivered, the F-35 with APG-85 will provide unmatched capability against current and future threats. Initial fielding for some F-35 aircraft is planned for Lot 17,” the F-35 JPO previously told TWZ in May when asked for an update on the radar situation. “The Program in coordination with the Services deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for advanced capabilities. This decision was made with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the capabilities.”

“The program has plans to accelerate APG-85 production capacity to deliver radars that meet capability, stability, and maintainability requirements needed to meet emerging threats,” the office added at that time. “F-35s with APG-85 radars, actual modernization plans, capabilities, and schedules remain classified to maintain program security.”

The F-35 JPO had provided TWZ with a similar statement when asked about whether radarless F-35s were already being accepted back in February.

In February, the U.S. Air Force also explicitly denied receiving F-35As without radars. There is no confirmation yet that the F-35 JPO has accepted any Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force or the Navy without radars. Previous reports have said that foreign customers are not expected to be impacted at all, at least in the near-term, since none of them are currently in line to receive AN/APG-85-equipped jets.

Today, the standard radar in use on F-35A, B, and C variants is the AN/APG-81, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) type with air-to-air and air-to-ground modes that traces its roots back to the 1990s. It also has a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode, which allows it to produce high-resolution map-like images. These can be used for target acquisition and identification, as well as general reconnaissance purposes.

Details about the new AN/APG-85, which Northrop Grumman is developing, continue to be limited. At the hearing this week, Lt. Gen. Masiello declined to talk about its specific capabilities in an unclassified setting.

The AN/APG-85 is also an AESA design, and is expected to offer an array of new and improved functionality compared to the AN/APG-81. As TWZ has previously noted, it will also just be able to leverage decades of additional general technological advancements since its predecessor was developed. In general, the use of gallium nitride (GaN) has had a major impact on modern radar developments when it comes to physical size, weight, and power requirements.

It should also be noted that the AN/APG-81 is deeply integrated with the F-35’s extensive electronic warfare capabilities, as well as other sensors and facets of the design. The AN/APG-85 is similarly expected to fuse together with other key elements of the Block 4 upgrade package, especially a planned new electronic warfare suite, which we will come back to later on.

As the F-35 JPO noted in its statement in May, the plan had been to start integrating the AN/APG-85 onto F-35s starting with production Lot 17. Deliveries of aircraft from that lot began last year. However, per official budget documents released earlier this year, the first production AN/APG-85s are not expected to be delivered before April 2028. This would actually be a nine-month improvement on the much-delayed delivery timeline for the new radars, the unit cost of which is currently pegged at nearly $9 million.

A compounding factor here is that the hardware used to mount the AN/APG-85 on the F-35 is not backwards compatible with the AN/APG-81. According to a report last year from Breaking Defense, the Joint Strike Fighter’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has reportedly at least raised the possibility of developing a common mounting solution, but also said that this would not be ready before Lot 20 aircraft start being delivered. The first Lot 20 jets are not expected to arrive until sometime between 2027 and 2028.

How the Marine Corps, or any other service, might utilize its radarless F-35s in the meantime is unknown. This was among our queries to the Marines today.

“The currently fielded Block 3 (TR-2) F-35 Lightning II is the most capable fighter in the world today, having proven its capabilities in combat,” the Marine Corps spokesperson added in their statement. “Its advanced mission systems enable the F-35 to deter, and if necessary, dominate in any clime and place.”

Senator Kelly also prodded Lt. Gen. Masiello about this, indirectly, at the hearing this week.

“So, I assume that those airplanes can’t count as fully mission capable with no radar?” Kelly asked the JPO head.

“I don’t think I would count them as fully mission capable,” Masiello said in response.

“You say you don’t think. I can’t imagine a scenario where an F-35 with no radar could be an FMC airplane,” Kelly retorted, which Masiello did not push back on.

TWZ has previously noted that F-35s without radars would not be completely useless, but their capabilities and survivability would certainly be severely degraded. As we previously wrote:

“As long as one F-35 in a formation has a radar, all of the other aircraft in said group should be able to benefit from the data it provides via their Multifunction Advanced Data Links (MADL). As such, even without a radar installed, a Joint Strike Fighter would not be without F-35-derived radar data if at least one other was flying cooperatively with it within MADL’s transmission reach.“

“It is possible that radar-less jets could be sent into combat, at least in an emergency scenario, though doing so would still require accepting greater risks. It would limit tactical flexibility, as well, since remaining linked together with other radar-equipped jets would be key. Those jets would also have to rely on using their radars more heavily, which can be a vulnerability. The F-35 also has a host of passive sensors that it can rely on for battlespace information, although none are capable of replacing the radar’s functionality. Data from other platforms transmitted via Link 16 is also available to all F-35 pilots.“

“Maybe one of the biggest issues with having no radar is that it is a major part of the jet’s electronic warfare suite. Its ability to transmit narrow, extremely powerful beams of energy adds to the jet’s potent electronic attack capability. So, without the radar, its ability to defend itself and others by leveraging the electromagnetic spectrum is also curbed.“

Remarks from Lt. Gen. Masiello at the hearing this week also raise new concerns about the capabilities that the AN/APG-85 radars will offer even when they do finally start being integrated onto F-35s. This is tied to what it will take to sufficiently cool the radar and other elements of the Block 4 upgrade package. Thermal management is another long-standing issue for all variants of the F-35, which has already had major negative impacts on readiness rates and maintenance demands, as you can read about in more detail here.

“So, right now, you’re cooling, you got about 30 kilowatts [of cooling],” Senator Kelly said as part of another question posed to the head of the F-35 JPO. “Block 4 requires 32 [kilowatts of cooling], is what I have here. But to get to the cooling needed to – for the full capability of the APG-85, needs to be somewhat higher, it seems like 62 kilowatts of cooling?”

“The requirement that we have for the program going forward is 62 to 80 [kilowatts of cooling],” Masiello said in response. “The challenge I see is if the totality of Block 4, when it’s installed, and on the aircraft, it takes the complete power available, which is 32 [kilowatts].”

“There’s no margin, which as you know, is not a smart way to go,” he continued. “So, we have an incremental approach to increase that. And we have an ongoing program to look at a more systemic and affordable upgrade to the power thermal management across the program.”

Masiello insisted that this Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) upgrade would not be required for AN/APG-85 integration, but also made clear that it would be available in time, regardless.

“For the engine core upgrade that we anticipate and have asked for additional funding on that, we anticipate that being fielded in 2031, and it will come with a marginal increase in the power thermal management,” he explained. “The actual system that’s under review and looking for the forward program will come a few years later into the system, which is when we would have the additional capabilities beyond Block 4, not yet to be determined that will require that.”

At the same time, as Masiello himself acknowledged, the current plan offers no margin when it comes to cooling before the PTMS upgrade is available. In response to further questioning by Senator Kelly, he declined to speak in an unclassified setting about what that might mean for the initial fielding of the AN/APG-85 radar.

As noted, the entire Block 4 upgrade effort continues to be beset by delays and cost growth, despite efforts to reorganize and accelerate certain components thereof. As of September 2025, the schedule for delivery of a truncated portion of the upgrade package was still running five years behind, according to GAO. The original goal had been for F-35s with the full suite of Block 4 improvements to begin arriving this year.

Beyond the AN/APG-85, Block 4 is eventually supposed to include replacements for the Joint Strike Fighter’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), as well as a new electronic warfare suite and a host of other improved capabilities. The Air Force previously described the electronic warfare package, which directly tied in with the APG-85, as a top priority. This is all driving the aforementioned demands for more auxiliary power-generation and thermal cooling capacity, work on which is also now behind schedule.

The F-35 program as a whole continues to face growing costs and other challenges associated with operating and maintaining the jets, which are key factors in the low readiness rates of all variants in service today. Spare parts shortages have been a particularly persistent and serious problem, as you can learn more about in this past TWZ feature.

“That is now what we’re putting forth is the requirement, which is the reason why, in this generational investment of the 2027 budget will help us. So, we will fill up the available parts,” Lt. Gen. Masiello also said at the hearing this week. “It’s not a systemic issue with the system having the ability. It’s the fact that we didn’t put enough parts and pieces on the shelf. And we’ve increased the demand exponentially with the number of aircraft fielded, and we didn’t do the same thing with the spare parts and the system.”

As of last year, the total project cost of the entire program, from initial development in the 1990s through the end of the type’s expected lifecycle in the 2070s, was pegged at $2.1 trillion. The JPO has stressed in the past that this figure includes the acquisition of thousands of jets and that inflation is expected to account for roughly half of the total cost.

When it comes to the continuing saga of the AN/APG-85, F-35s are now being delivered without any radars, and it could be years still before that changes.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post It’s Official: F-35s Are Now Being Delivered Without Radars appeared first on TWZ.

David McGuinty, the Minister of National Defense of Canada, made the remarks after a meeting in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart, Shinjiro Koizumi. Breaking Defense reports that McGuinty confirmed he had spoken with Koizumi about the GCAP, which the Canadian official described as a “promising initiative.”

“We are interested in learning more about it. I’ll take it back to my team and see what it looks ‌like,” McGuinty told Reuters.

Until now, no senior Canadian official appears to have spoken publicly about interest in GCAP. However, the development comes as Ottawa weighs up the option of a split fighter buy, which would involve acquiring the U.S.-made F-35 and one other type. This thinking has been driven by a growing rift between Ottawa and Washington.

However, the possibility of Canada coming on board GCAP as an ‘observer’ had been raised in March of this year. According to The Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily newspaper, unnamed Japanese officials disclosed that, during a previous meeting, McGuinty and Koizumi discussed such an arrangement.

Canada’s joining GCAP with observer status would provide it access to information on the program and could be a stepping-stone to deeper involvement.

Earlier this week, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto raised the possibility of other nations joining GCAP, noting that, were that to happen, “we would be completely willing, because the more there are, the greater the chances of creating something and bringing down costs.”

Crosetto then identified Canada as “the country most interested [in GCAP] at the moment.” He said he would be “fully open” to Canada joining as an observer.

For Canada, however, GCAP would require a rethink of Canada’s potential pursuit of a split-buy approach to its new fighter.

Until now, the Saab Gripen E had been identified as the most likely candidate to be bought alongside the F-35.

Sweden has made a strong push to sell Gripen to Ottawa, and Saab offered to build the jet in Canada, in an effort to secure support for its previous bid, which it lost to Lockheed Martin. Since then, Saab has also emerged as the preferred candidate to supply Canada with its future airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) via its GlobalEye.

In April of this year, McGuinty confirmed that Ottawa was still reviewing its earlier plan to buy 88 F-35s.

“The review of the purchase of the F-35s is continuing… We are taking the necessary time to study very, very closely the question of the fighter fleet,” McGuinty told the Senate’s defense committee.

The split-buy option emerged since Canada has already made a firm commitment to buy 16 F-35As to start replacing its aging CF-18 Hornets. Canada’s industry also has a significant degree of involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Canada currently has around 75 CF-18A/B+ jets and has also added 18 upgraded former Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18A/Bs, plus seven more as spares, to help bolster its fleet.

Of Canada’s first 16 F-35s, four have already been paid for in full, while parts for eight others have also been purchased. The first Canadian F-35s were expected to be delivered for training at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in 2026.

Back in 2023, Canada’s Liberal government announced plans to buy 88 F-35s, a decision that appeared to bring closure to what had already been a very protracted process. You can read about this here.

However, amid growing trade tensions and a war of words with the United States, Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a review of the F-35 program shortly after taking office in the spring of 2025.

There are other arguments for a split buy, too. Back in 2019, the cost of buying the planned 88 F-35s was put at $19 billion. Now it has rocketed to $27.7 billion, not including weapons and infrastructure.

Bill Blair, who was Canada’s defense minister when the review of the F-35 buy was launched last year, pointed to the advantages of a mixed fleet, saying it would give the RCAF more options to handle different types of threats.

“What happens if you have to persist in that space for months and months and years? The tool that you use, is it the right tool to do that job?” Blair said. “We need to have a whole wide range of capability sets to deal with all the eventualities that we could face.”

Were Canada to procure the Tempest, it would surely have to wait longer than 2035 — the prospect of GCAP’s fighter entering service at this date, as planned, is highly unlikely. Canada would be fourth in line behind the three core partners. Ottawa would need to buy more F-35s, perhaps around two thirds of its original intended number, or around 60 aircraft, and also keep the best of its CF-18s in service for longer, if that’s even possible. The Hornets are getting very old and disappearing from service abroad. Supporting them will become increasingly problematic. When the Tempest finally arrived, it would provide a flipped high-low fighter mix. This is essentially the same approach that the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan — all current F-35 operators — are taking.

However, the Tempest does appear to be especially well-suited to Canada’s fighter requirement.

The design of the jet will stress extreme range and a large payload — roughly twice that of the F-35A. Senior GCAP officials have said the jet could potentially carry enough internal fuel to fly across the Atlantic without refueling.

While these attributes are optimized for a future conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, they are equally applicable to dealing with the ‘tyranny of distance’ and the increasing Russian threat posed around Canada’s enormous land mass, which extends far into the highly strategic Arctic region.

“Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighter aircraft and fifth-generation missiles that are able to go at much greater speeds and with much more that are holding Western allies at risk at this moment in time,” the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lt. Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet, said in the past.

Plans to arm the Tempest with larger air-to-air missiles offering a longer range than those currently used by any of the three GCAP partner countries have also been revealed, as you can read about here.

If Canada decides it wants a sixth-generation combat aircraft to tackle current and emerging threats from China and Russia, the GCAP might be the only realistic choice. The rival pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has collapsed, and there is little chance of Canada getting its hand on the Boeing F-47.

But any kind of split buy “would duplicate a certain amount of infrastructure and training,” Speiser-Blanchet admitted.

In some cases, however, there could be cost-benefit arguments in having a mixed fighter fleet, as well as the important factor of not relying entirely upon one source of this type of combat equipment.

There is also the question of how feasible it would be for Canada to join GCAP at this point, at least in terms of industrial participation and steering requirements. The latter point seems next to impossible, with national requirements already set, and most of the workshare agreement has also been divided up between the three partners.

The same applies to India, which has also looked at joining GCAP in the past.

There has been talk of Saudi Arabia possibly joining GCAP in some capacity, and, more recently, Poland has been reported as being interested in buying the aircraft, too.

With that in mind, Canada’s best shot might be to buy the jet ‘off the shelf,’ rather than hope for industrial windfalls.

At the same time, Canada and the United Kingdom are partners on some other key military programs, including the Royal Canadian Navy’s future River class Canadian Surface Combatants, derived from BAE Systems’ Type 26 design for the U.K. Royal Navy. 

Returning to the Tempest, the broader GCAP program still has to survive considerable challenges, both technical and political, that lie ahead.

As we have explained many times in the past, the process of creating an all-new fighter, especially one incorporating stealth technologies, brings very lengthy development times and high costs.

At this point, BAE Systems is in the process of building a demonstrator as part of the GCAP program, with a first flight planned by the end of 2027.

The latest rendering of that demonstrator appears at the top of the story. Notably, it retains the Typhoon’s EJ200 turbofan engines, with non-stealthy nozzles. The Tempest will have an all-new powerplant.

As we have argued in the past, the more time that passes, and the more deeply intertwined with the F-35 Canada becomes, the arguments in favor of a split fighter buy become harder to justify. Buying the Tempest would certainly not be the cheapest option, and would force a rethink of timelines, but it does underscore the fact that Canadian officials are casting their net wider, looking at very high-end capabilities, and seeking to build deeper strategic relationships outside of the United States.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Canada Throws A Curveball As It Signals Interest In Joining GCAP Sixth-Gen Fighter Program appeared first on TWZ.

The evacuation plan, which IMO developed with Oman, was designed to provide safe passage to vessels in the Persian Gulf that are still unable to transit the Strait, which has been largely closed since Iran was attacked by the U.S. and Israel. The announcement came as traffic was beginning to move through the Strait again amid ongoing, albeit tense peace talks between the U.S. and Iran. However, these transits represent a tiny fraction of what took place before the war.

The IMO decision today also came after a warning earlier on Thursday by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) that safe passage through the Strait was limited to routes designated by Tehran and that other routes were “unacceptable and completely dangerous,” according to The Washington Post. The publication cited Iranian state-run media. The IRGC-N also claimed it turned back several ships trying to transit the Strait through the southern route suggested by IMO. There is also a northern route, near the Iranian coastline while concerns remain about mines in the main route, down the middle of the Strait.

IMO said it is pausing its evacuation plan even though the ship that was attacked was not taking part in that nascent effort.

“Following the launch of the IMO’s evacuation plan, through which several vessels have already been successfully evacuated, I have decided to temporarily pause its implementation in order to reconfirm that the necessary safety guarantees continue to be in place for the ships on our evacuation list and all those in the region,” IMO Secretary-General Mr. Arsenio Dominguez said in a statement. “I have been informed of an attack today in the Gulf of Oman on a vessel which passed through the Strait of Hormuz. This vessel did not transit under IMO’s evacuation framework. I have always reiterated that the safety of the seafarers remains paramount. Therefore, to ensure a coordinated approach and navigational safety, the evacuation plan will be paused until further clarity is obtained.”

“Today marks the Day of the Seafarer, underlining the importance of ensuring that the continued evacuation of the thousands of seafarers stranded in the Persian Gulf can proceed without the risk of them becoming collateral victims in this geopolitical conflict,” Dominguez added.

A maritime security official told us the ship that was attacked was the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged cargo ship, according to MarineTraffic. The incident occurred about 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center.

“A cargo vessel has been hit on the starboard side by an unknown projectile, causing damage to the bridge,” UKMTO stated on X. “Master has reported no casualties and no environmental impact. Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”

As we reported yesterday, IMO along with Oman devised a plan to allow vessels to leave the Persian Gulf through a southern route along the Omani coastline. The southern route is clear of mines and is the preferred route, according to the Joint Maritime Information Center.

A second route, to the north along the Iranian coastline, is controlled by the Islamic Republic.

In its initial unveiling of the evacuation plan, IMO said “this large-scale operation will be carried out in close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal States in the region, the United States and the maritime industry.”

We reached out to IMO for more information given that the IRGC-N is apparently not cooperating.

As we noted earlier in this story, there has been a spike in traffic through the Strait since last week’s signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran.

However, the IRGC-N’s new stance “marks a reversal in the normalization trajectory building since the MoU signing,” the Windward maritime intelligence firm warned on Thursday. 

“The IRGC published a claim on its official Telegram channel that three tankers transiting the southern corridor had been ordered to turn back. Windward identified five vessels exhibiting behavior consistent with that claim, with a sixth losing AIS signal during the incident,” the intelligence firm noted.

“A VHF Channel 16 broadcast warned all vessels that transit without AIS or IRGC permission would be at their own risk,” Windward added. “The southern corridor, previously described as not requiring Iranian approval, is now subject to active IRGC enforcement, eliminating the only route operators believed to be free of Iranian control.”

It remains to be seen how or if this latest turn of events will alter what has been a positive trajectory for commercial shipping in the Strait. Simmering frictions between the IRGC and Iranian government that have emerged in recent months make it difficult to assess just who is in control in Iran and who has the final say in operations on this strategic waterway. Regardless, a pause in the evacuation plan and a new kinetic strike on shipping are not good omens.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Plan To Move Ships Through Strait Of Hormuz Paused After Iran Strikes Cargo Vessel appeared first on TWZ.

Defense News drew specific attention to the new jostling over funding for the E-7 in a report earlier today. Breaking Defense had been among the first to report the basic points yesterday. The House Appropriations Committee had released the details in a report accompanying a draft defense spending bill for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which we will come back to in a moment.

To recap quickly, roughly a year ago, the Pentagon and the Air Force disclosed their intention to axe the E-7 program, which had suffered delays and cost overruns, and acquire additional E-2Ds as an interim gap-filler. Questions about the future survivability of the Wedgetail were also raised. The Air Force’s long-term goal was then and still is now to eventually push most air moving-target indicator (AMTI) tasks into space, though that is still years away from truly becoming a reality. Congress subsequently intervened to save the Wedgetail, appropriating billions for the effort in Fiscal Year 2026. The E-7 was again missing from the Air Force’s proposed 2027 Fiscal Year budget, which raised the prospect of a new battle with Congress.

Top Pentagon and Air Force officials subsequently said that the viewpoint on the Wedgetail had fundamentally changed, and submitted an amendment to the budget request to include funding for the program. Per a memo earlier this month from Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House, this was done in two ways. $898,549,000 was taken from “Other Procurement, Air Force” section of that service’s budget proposal, while another $650,549,000 came out of “Aircraft Procurement, Navy.”

The combined $1,549,098,000 was moved into the “Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force” account. According to Vought’s memo, the funding would go toward “priority requirement to deliver two E-7 Wedgetail prototype aircraft and continue Engineering Manufacturing and Development activities for a program of record.”

The Air Force already has seven E-7s on order now, including the two jets to support rapid prototyping efforts. It is unclear when the service expects to begin flying Wedgetails operationally. Before the attempt to cancel the program, the target date for initial operational capability had already slipped from 2027 to 2032. It should be noted here that variants of the E-7 are already in service in Australia, South Korea, and Turkey, and that the United Kingdom is set to field a fleet of Wedgetails, too.

The report the House Appropriations Committee released yesterday included important additional context about the latest funding plans.

“While the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2027 did not include funding for the E–7 Wedgetail program, the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of Defense testified before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that they support this critical platform and have submitted a budget amendment to the Office of Management and Budget to restore funding for the platform,” it explained. “The shift in mindset at the Department of Defense translated to requested transfers from the Special Update Program in Other Procurement, Air Force, and the E–2D program in Aircraft Procurement, Navy for a total investment of $1,549,098,000 for E–7 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force in fiscal year 2027.”

“While the Committee wholly supports the E–7 program and funding realignment, the Committee also restored the E–2D program to six aircraft for fiscal year 2027,” the report added. “The Committee understands the operational necessity of the E–2D platform; the complementary nature of the E–2D and E–7; and believes that more aircraft, not fewer, are necessary to support our warfighters now and in the future.”

It is not immediately clear whether the draft spending plan that the House Appropriations Committee has now put forward still includes the full $1,549,098,000 for the E-7 program, as well as the restoration of funding for the E-2D purchases. The memo from OMB had stressed that its intent in shifting funding around was not to add to the roughly $1.5 trillion topline for its proposed 2027 Fiscal Year defense budget. Congress can, of course, appropriate additional funds as it sees fit, and often does.

Regardless, this new debate over how and where to find funding for the E-7 highlights larger issues surrounding airborne early warning capacity within the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy.

“The conflict in Iran has reinforced the need for the Air Force to maintain a credible airborne battle management capability, currently being met with the Air Force’s E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System and the Navy’s E–2D Hawkeye programs,” the House Appropriations Committee’s report also notes. “As the E–3 is set to retire, the E–7 Wedgetail will serve as [a] modern replacement for lost battle management capability, commensurate and interoperable with assets already being utilized by key allies.”

This is all true, as TWZ has previously stressed in detail, long before the latest conflict with Iran erupted in February. Airborne early warning and control is absolutely vital to the prosecution of modern air operations, and even more so now in an age of exploding drone and cruise missile threats. The substantial deployment of E-3s to Saudi Arabia was one of the clearest indicators that a major campaign against Iran was increasingly imminent. The same had been true about the lead-up to the operation to capture ex-Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

Not mentioned in the report, however, is the Air Force’s slashing of the E-3 fleet in recent years, the service’s repeated deferral of any plans to acquire a replacement for those aircraft, and the loss of Sentry on the ground in an Iranian attack in March. The strain on the Air Force’s E-3s has been readily apparent for years now.

The House Appropriations Committee report also leaves out any broader context about the planned E-2D purchases for Fiscal Year 2027. When it released its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025 back in 2024, the Navy had no plans to order more Hawkeyes, at least over the next five years. In its 2026 Fiscal Year budget request, the service asked for funding for four E-2Ds, presumably as part of the plan to cancel the E-7. Congress subsequently appropriated funding for three Hawkeyes in that fiscal cycle.

When it rolled out its latest budget request earlier this year, the Navy outlined all-new plans to buy 12 E-2Ds – six in Fiscal Year 2027, two in Fiscal Year 2028, and four in Fiscal Year 2029 – explicitly “to replenish accelerated service life burn down of existing force structure due to Overland Airborne Early Warning (AEW) tasking.” This underscores operational strain on the Hawkeye fleet, which can only have been further added to by operations in relation to Iran over the past few months. This also points to E-2Ds supplementing E-3s in providing overland coverage.

Just yesterday, the White House sent Congress a separate supplemental funding request for nearly $90 billion, primarily to help cover various costs associated with the war against Iran.

How exactly the E-7 program gets funded in Fiscal Year 2027, as well as what happens to the plans to order more E-2Ds, remains to be seen. The House Appropriations Committee’s draft defense spending plan could still evolve in various ways in the coming weeks and months, and will need to be reconciled with companion legislation making its way through the Senate. Once Congress passes the bill, President Donald Trump will still need to sign off on it, too.

It’s also worth noting that other potential options for providing additional airborne early warning and control capacity in the interim are emerging.

What is clear is that both the E-3 Sentry and E-2D Hawkeye fleets remain as critical as ever, but have been even more stressed by recent operations against Iran, with new E-7s still years away from entering service.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post In An Ironic Turn Of Events, White House Wants To Raid Navy E-2 Account To Pay For USAF E-7s appeared first on TWZ.

“Shocking, yes,” exclaimed Steve Jones, a former Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon pilot who now flies 777s for Atlas Air. “‘Jesus Christ!’ or ‘holy shit!’ come to mind, but shocking will do.”

Jones was reacting to a 37-second video clip of the jet – painted in Qatar Airways Cargo livery – flying over the runway at the Horseshoe Bay Private Jet Center in Horseshoe Bay, Texas. At about the 12-second mark, the jet makes a sharp bank to the right, placing the right wing tip just above the ground before gaining altitude and flying off.

Jones estimated the jet was flying about 50 feet off the ground during the ‘flat’ part of its flyby and traveling at between 210 and 220 knots.

“It looks like the flaps and slats are up,” Jones noted.

The exact altitude and speed are unknown.

“Two things came to mind,” Jones said after watching the video. “The pilot is probably very good, or lucky, because he was extremely low, and you can see that the right wing tip got pretty close to the ground. You can’t even see the wings from inside the cockpit. You’re looking at somewhere like a 212-foot wingspan.”

Inside the cockpit, “there’s a lot of warnings the crew has to either disable or ignore,” the 777 pilot said. “For example, there’s a ground proximity warning. There’s a configuration warning – not only the ‘whoop whoop’ sounds, but also there will be audible signals saying that, ‘you’re close to the ground, pull up, pull up.’ The sink rate alarms would be going off. All those things are going on. There are some things that you can disable that will prevent those things, but not all of them all at once.”

“That’s a pretty great video,” Jones proffered, “but not a smart thing to do.”

The reason, he said, was that “the plane is not designed” to fly like that. “A wind gust in the wrong direction, or a judgment on his actual altitude and height could have been off. It’s a lot of airplane that close to the ground going at those speeds.”

Asked how difficult it could have been for the pilot to pull off such a maneuver, Jones told us that the aircraft is very forgiving.

“The Triple Seven is a very easy airplane to fly… It’s very gentle on the controls. It’s a well-designed airplane to be able to fly at altitudes and take off and landings, but not to fly extended periods low-level over the ground. You’ve got engine pods hanging down, long wingspans.” 

“I’ve never flown that aircraft in that particular configuration that low, but I imagine that it is not necessarily difficult to fly. It comes down to ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.’”

Jones, who has about 850 hours in a 777, said that he would not want to be on a flight like the one seen on the video.

“If I was the co-pilot or first officer flying that situation, I wouldn’t have been comfortable, and I would have said ‘I’m not comfortable with this,’ and try to put a stop to it, but again, I don’t know the circumstances around it, so I can’t speculate, but with two brains, sometimes three or four brains in the cockpit, usually the voice of reason will come up between other folks.”

Things would not go well for him if he were captured on video flying like this, Jones acknowledged.

“I would lose my job,” Jones said with a laugh. “I don’t even know if they would ask why I would do it. I would just probably lose my job.”

There are other factors to consider when it comes to official reactions to this flight, Jones said. 

“What I don’t know is if that particular pilot had authorization to do so,” he stated. “So it could have been authorization from the tower, authorization from the company, or whatever, in order to create something like that. But knowing how the industry is, if there were no prior permissions or authorization, that pilot and that crew will probably lose their jobs.”

FAA records show the jet, N-705DN, is registered to Jetran LLC, an aircraft leasing and service company with an address at Horseshoe Bay. We have reached out to them for more details about the status of the aircraft and why it was flying so low. However, the company reportedly released a statement saying that the low pass flight “does not reflect operational standards” and the aircraft was going through “a pre-delivery test flight” before being turned over to Qatar Airways.

Jetran was also quick to point out that “the pilots on board were not Qatar Airways pilots.”

Qatar Airways Cargo “has an agreement with Jetran for five aircraft. DHL and Ethiopian Airlines are also due to take delivery of the aircraft in the future,” according to Aerospace Global News.  

“As the launch customer for the 777-200LRMF, this milestone marks an important moment for both Mammoth Freighters and Jetran,” Jordan Jaffe, CEO, Jetran, told the publication in April. “From the outset, we have had strong confidence in the Mammoth engineering team and their vision for the program.” 

The aircraft is a former Delta Air Lines 777-200LR that was converted to freighter configuration by Mammoth Freighters, according to FlightRadar24.

“Mammoth Freighters has been made aware of a video circulating on social media showing a low-pass flight of a Mammoth-converted 777 freighter aircraft in Qatar Airways livery,” the company said in a statement on its website. “Mammoth is not the owner of the aircraft and Mammoth was not in control of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver. The current owner (which is not Qatar Airways) was in control of the aircraft at the time of the maneuver. The aircraft is in its final stages of preparation prior to delivery to Qatar Airways.”

“While the aircraft is painted in Qatar Airways livery, it was not owned or operated by Qatar Airways, did not carry a Qatar Airways registration, and the pilots on board were not Qatar Airways pilots.”

The FAA told us “it is aware of reports about this event and is looking into it.” We have also reached out to Qatar Airways and Horseshoe Bay Private Jet Center.

As to why anyone would authorize a flight like that, Jones shrugged.

“This is a cargo aircraft. It has a job to move cargo from Point A to Point B, not to create videos for Instagram,” Jones scoffed. “From a company standpoint, I don’t know their policies, but I can imagine a company with a $300 million aircraft and the insurance that goes along with those aircraft would not allow such a flight to happen unless they authorized it.”

What reason that would be is unclear.

“Sometimes you see manufacturers like Boeing or Airbus do a demonstration at the Paris Air Show, where you’ll see a steep takeoff or a climb or a low pass,” Jones said. “I’ve never seen one that low before, even at an air show.”

Speaking to us at a layover in Luxembourg, Jones said that so far, he hasn’t heard much buzz from the 777 pilot community about this video, but expects that to change.

“Give it a few hours or a couple of days and I probably will,” he said.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Boeing 777 Pilot’s Take On Extremely Low Pass By Boeing Jet Captured In Viral Video appeared first on TWZ.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s (AFLCMC) Armament Directorate (EB) issued a notice yesterday regarding the planned AFLRW industry day gathering. The two-day meeting is currently scheduled to take place at the Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility (GWEF) at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on August 25 and 26. The Air Force says the event will be held at the Secret classification level and that all attendees have to have appropriate security clearances.

“The AFLRW is aimed at addressing the next generation of Air-Launched Standoff Weapon variants in line with Department of War priorities,” according to the industry day notice. “AFLRW may select multiple vendors for both the Air-to-Air (A/A) and Air-to-Surface (A/S) variants with a focus on A/A solutions for Initial Operational Capability.”

“Both [AFLRW] variants will have a threshold minimum range of 1,000 NM [nautical miles] and be capable of striking respective A/A and A/S targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner,” the notice adds. It does not elaborate on what those specific scenarios entail.

The notice also puts particular emphasis on modular components and open-architecture systems, and finding a “Master Integrator” to combine the various elements into a complete missile, or all-up-round.

“Industry should expect a quick-turn Whitepaper Request for Information following the event focused on the 2 solution types above for both variants,” per the notice. “AFLCMC is seeking the next generation of Air-Launched Long-Range Weapon variants that expand the United States’ ability to hit priority air, land, and sea targets far and fast!”

Beyond the range threshold, the notice does not include any other details about requirements the Air Force may have now for the AFLRW. That being said, a desire for an anti-air missile able to hit targets at least 1,000 nautical miles away is very notable by itself.

Though the exact figures are classified, the AIM-120D-3 version of the AMRAAM, the latest model in widespread U.S. service, is generally understood to have a maximum reach of around 100 miles (close to 87 nautical miles). There have been hints that it may be able to fly out further than that, at least against targets in certain envelopes. Longer-range versions of the AIM-120 may now be in development. A known key requirement for the new AIM-260A Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) has also been extended reach over the AMRAAM. Still, even the JATM, which the U.S. Navy and Air Force are developing together, is not expected to have anywhere near the range required for the AFLRW.

It is worth noting here that the Air Force almost adopted a very long-range, high-speed missile designed to engage both air and surface targets during the Cold War. However, the maximum range of that Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile (ASALM) was still only expected to be 300 miles (260 nautical miles).

Starting in the mid-2000s, the Air Force and the Navy also worked together on a Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), intended as a single weapon to supplant the AIM-120 and variants of the AGM-88 anti-radiation missile. This evolved into the Next Generation Missile (NGM), which came to a close, at least publicly, in 2013, ostensibly over rising costs. A more secretive Triple Target Terminator (T-3) program, which had initially been conducted in parallel with JDRADM/NGM, continued afterward for at least some period of time. In 2017, a possible successor to T-3, the Long Range Engagement Weapon (LREW), but the fate of that effort is unclear.

In February, the Navy put out its own new call for a long-range anti-radiation missile capable of engaging air and surface targets, dubbed the Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM). However, the service did not say what its desired range for this weapon might be at that time. The Navy has already started fielding an air-launched version of the multi-purpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), designated the AIM-174B. TWZ has previously assessed the AIM-174B to likely be in the same range category, broadly speaking, as the Cold War-era ASALM. We have previously explored in detail how the AIM-174B slots into the Navy’s long-range kill chains.

Nothing approaching a range of 1,000 nautical miles appears to have ever been discussed, at least openly, in relation to any of these programs. Interestingly, the Air Force did publicly talk about the prospect of anti-air missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 miles in a report to Congress in December 2024. However, the report mentioned them as part of a projected threat ecosystem the service envisions taking shape by 2050.

“Counterair weapons with ranges out to over 1,000 miles and supported by space-based sensors will place aircraft, such as tankers, that have traditionally operated with impunity, at risk,” the Air Force’s 2024 report said. This offers a hint at the kinds of capabilities it is looking to add to its own arsenal through the AFLRW effort.

After the Navy put out its AESM contracting notice, TWZ also highlighted the value of such a missile for targeting vital airborne early warning and control assets. This is often referred to as the ‘AWACS killer’ role, which references the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. As we previously wrote:

“All that being said, the value of an ‘AWACS killer’ missile is clear-cut. AEW&C are critical surveillance and battle management assets. Shooting them down deprives an opponent of those capabilities, inherently reducing their ability to effectively maneuver air assets and share important information, including with other nodes on the ground or at sea, as well as in the air. Knocking out these flying radar stations, which can be especially well-suited to spotting lower flying threats from their high perches, just hampers an enemy’s overall situational awareness.”

“The issue, of course, is that AEW&C planes typically orbit well behind the front edges of a conflict, creating additional challenges for targeting them. This is where something like AESM could come into play. A weapon of this type could engage other aerial targets by zeroing in on the radiofrequency emissions they pump out. This could include electronic warfare aircraft, and potentially other aerial targets. AESM might be able to take on a more general anti-air role with the addition of an active radar and/or imaging infrared seeker, as well as datalinks allowing for the use of networked targeting data. [The AGM-88E] AARGM and [AGM-88G] AARGM-ER both feature an active millimeter-wave radar seeker to enable them to hit fleeing ground targets, but a similar concept could be adapted for air-to-air use.“

“For the Navy, as well as other branches of the U.S. military, this is all particularly relevant in the context of a potential future high-end fight with China, which has made major investments in its fleets of AEW&C and electronic warfare planes. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also been pursuing ever-longer-ranged anti-air missiles, including types that could be used to target American AEW&C platforms, as well as other key support aircraft.”

In that piece, we also touched on the potential for the AIM-174B to help meet U.S. military needs for an ‘AWACS killer’ missile. With the ability to hit targets in the air, as well as down below, out to at least 1,000 nautical miles, AFRLW would be a dramatic step above even the AIM-174B in capability.

The Pacific region offers a host of practical examples to give a better sense of what this kind of reach means. The distance between U.S. bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa and Taiwan is roughly 390 nautical miles. The distance between Andersen Air Force Base on Guam and Taiwan is around 1,500 nautical miles. AFLRW-armed aircraft flying over the East China Sea or the northern end of the South China Sea would conceivably be able to engage targets with hundreds of missiles inside the Chinese mainland, as long as suitable targeting data was available. The AFLRW’s range would be relevant on other potential hotspots globally, as well.

AFLRW would give the Air Force a way to pick off airborne early warning and control aircraft, as well as tankers, bombers, other kinds of surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, and potentially even unsuspecting tactical jets. The missiles would be able to do so without necessarily alerting them to the fact that they are being targeted at all, at least till it’s too late to escape. Having air-to-air missiles that can go after targets at such great ranges means the need to project tactical airpower and support aircraft far forward and deep into harm’s way for the counter-air mission would be less critical, at least during the first opening stages of a conflict. By eliminating key force multiplying aircraft with long-range weaponry, conditions would be better for the survivability of traditional counter-air packages.

On top of offering a new way to hold higher-value targets in rear areas at risk, AFLRW would give Air Force aircraft added flexibility to engage targets closer to the tactical edge, but not necessarily near where they might be flying at any one time. In the aforementioned Pacific scenario, areas of active combat in the air and on the surface could easily be dotted across a broader zone spanning thousands of square miles.

As mentioned, the Air Force also sees anti-air threats being able to reach further and further out. This means stand-off munitions, in general, will need greater reach to help reduce the risk to launch platforms. The AFLRW’s range recommendation is a tacit admission that the U.S. military will face growing challenges piercing adversary anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) bubbles, especially the ones that China has established and is continuing to expand on. It also highlights the increasing risks to friendly airborne early warning and control aircraft, tankers, and other supporting aerial assets needed for sustained air combat operations. Chinese air-to-air missiles are already outreaching their American counterparts, and the U.S. is working to change that now with AIM-174, AIM-260 and other programs.

There are still questions about what it might take to develop a feasible AFLRW with at least a 1,000 nautical mile range, and what might be able to carry a missile with that kind of reach. It is worth remembering here that the Air Force has openly talked about the possibility of the B-21 Raider bomber taking on a greater role in air-to-air combat in the future, which might include acting as a ‘weapons truck’ loaded with anti-air missiles. The aforementioned ASALM was also intended primarily for employment from bombers. For bombers like the B-21, the AFLRW would also just offer a valuable organic way to address threats in the air and down below, potentially hours ahead of arriving over the target area.

The AFLRW will also have to cover the very long distances it flies at least relatively quickly, especially to be relevant for attacking time-sensitive or otherwise fleeting targets. This might require a multi-stage or air-launched ballistic missile-like design or even something more exotic.

There is also the question of targeting at such extreme distances. These weapons will not rely on the sensors and targeting information generated by the platforms they are launched from. Above all else, the AFLRW will, by default, have to be tied into a deeply networked ‘kill web’ that brings together tertiary sensors and other supporting elements across vast networking layers. That ‘web’ would be spread across the air, land, sea, space, and even cyberspace domains, and incorporate assets from other branches of the U.S. military beyond the Air Force.

Above all else, the space-based aircraft tracking layer will be very important when it comes to enabling this weapon. The Air Force’s 2024 report on future threats confirmed this. The U.S. military itself is actively working to field new distributed satellite constellations to provide potentially game-changing persistent air and ground moving-target indicator (AMTI/GMTI) capability globally, with exactly these kinds of long-range kill chains in mind, as you can read more about here. Very stealthy aircraft working farther forward that are in line-of-sight of potential targets are another way these weapons can be employed. The USAF also has just such a platform.

Much remains to be learned about the Air Force’s plans for the air-to-air and air-to-surface versions of the AFRLW, and what other requirements the service has for those missiles. The industry day gathering scheduled for August will provide the service with additional information about what options might be available and on what timeframe.

Regardless, the Air Force has now made clear publicly that it wants a solution that can kill planes a thousand miles away from the launch aircraft. This matches all the signals that the Pentagon has been sending indicating it is very concerned about its ability to pierce an enemy’s protective bubble in the years ahead. Above all else, it points to a new era of net-centric warfare where the kill web is truly king.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Wants Air-To-Air Missile With A Whopping 1,000-Mile Range appeared first on TWZ.

Citing four sources familiar with the matter, Reuters reports that President Donald Trump’s administration plans to go ahead with the engine sale, said to be worth more than $700 million, despite some resistance from Congress.

Ahead of his July trip to a NATO summit in Turkey, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan would be provided with a “big gift” in the form of F110 engines and potentially F-35 fighter jets.

“He’s a member of NATO,” Trump replied. “He really is a strong member of NATO. Yeah, I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.”

Speaking alongside Trump, Vice President JD Vance said a review was underway to see if Turkey could receive the F-35.

“Pete and the entire team are reviewing this right now, because there are certain things that we have to certify have happened … in order to comply with American law,” Vance ⁠said, referring ​to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The question of whether Turkey might receive F-35s has long been a fraught one, with Ankara kicked out of the program back in 2019, a development we will return to later.

For now, however, Turkey’s priority seems to be securing F110 engines.

Turkey’s TF Kaan next-generation fighter is a flagship program of the country’s burgeoning aerospace industry. The program was launched in 2010, and the first prototype took to the air in early 2024.

Reportedly, Turkey plans to complete three pre-production prototypes, to be followed by 250 series-production aircraft, incorporating various refinements.

Last month, a contract was reportedly signed for 20 examples of the initial Block 10 versions of the Kaan.

The twin-engine Kaan was developed with a reduced radar signature in mind, as well as a high level of performance and modern avionics and other systems. As a result, it doesn’t offer the same level of low observability as the F-35, while its sensor fusion, electronic warfare capabilities, and other ‘fifth-generation’ features lag behind the U.S.-designed jet.

Critically, the Kaan is powered by U.S.-supplied General Electric F110 turbofans.

F110s are assembled under license in Turkey by TUSAS Engine Industries (TEI) but are still governed by U.S. export restrictions. These engines are already used in significant numbers by the Turkish Air Force F-16 fleet, the third-largest in the world. Outside of the F-16, the F110 is also used in the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15EX Eagle II, among other F-15 variants. An F110 comes with a typical flyaway unit cost of $10 to $15 million.

The Kaan program has long been overshadowed by the question of whether Washington will make available in larger numbers the F110 turbofans used in the prototype. Reportedly, an initial batch of 80 engines is required.

While Turkish officials have expressed hope of ultimately switching to a domestically produced engine type for the Kaan, TEI’s TF35000, it’s unclear how realistic this is, at least in the near term. Turkey has also looked at acquiring alternative engines, too, including those from Russia or Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom.

In the meantime, the importance of the Kaan to the Turkish Air Force increased significantly in 2019, when it became clear that Ankara would be kicked out of the F-35 program, in which it had a considerable industrial stake, and a plan to buy around 100 of the fighters. Washington took that decision after Turkey refused to abandon its purchase of Russian-made S-400 long-range air defense systems.

As well as the S-400, U.S. lawmakers were unhappy with Turkey’s worsening relations with Greece, its other connections with Russia and Azerbaijan (which included the deployment of F-16s to the latter country), its conduct in the Syrian civil war, and human rights abuses. Turkey’s opposition to Sweden joining NATO also proved to be a significant hurdle.

In the wake of all this, the chances of Turkey receiving F110 engines were dramatically reduced. At the same time, Turkey’s request to buy additional F-16 fighters was also turned down. Turkey reportedly also began stockpiling spare parts for its F-16 back in 2019, fearing the effects of U.S. sanctions.

Toward the end of the Biden administration, U.S.-Turkish relations began to improve, and Washington moved to push through sales of new F-16s and upgrade kits for older jets to Turkey. There also began to be suggestions that the F-35 was potentially back on the table for Turkey.

Under the Trump administration, Washington’s relationship with Ankara has become closer, with Erdogan frequently praised by the U.S. leader.

In early 2024, the U.S. State Department finally approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 40 new F-16C/D Block 70 fighters, plus the upgrade of 79 existing aircraft to F-16V configuration.

At the same time, the issue surrounding the S-400 and the sanctions that followed that acquisition remains.

As it stands, U.S. law does not permit Turkey to operate or possess the S-400 system if it wishes to rejoin the F-35 program, as a result of security concerns around the Russian-made system.

During a visit to Turkey in early 2024, the U.S. Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland reportedly suggested that the United States might be willing to offer Patriot air defense systems if it were to give up its S-400s, which could also clear the way to re-entering the F-35 program.

“Frankly, if we can resolve this S-400 issue, which we want to do, the United States would be pleased to welcome Turkey back into the F-35 family,” Nuland said. “But we must solve this other issue first, and while we solve it, we must also ensure that Turkey has a strong air defense.”

The apparent decision to clear the F110 sale certainly represents a further softening of Washington’s stance, and it could be a stepping-stone to Ankara eventually being readmitted to the F-35 program.

Turkey’s desire for F-35s has only been intensified by the fact that Greece, its major strategic rival, has been approved for a purchase of the jets. You can read all about how tensions between Greece and Turkey are reflected in the countries’ respective air forces in this previous feature.

Even regarding the F110 transfer, some opposition to defense sales to Turkey remains in Washington.

In particular, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the leading Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, has reportedly stood in the way of the engine sale during an informal review process.

However, according to the four sources who spoke to Reuters, the F110 deal should be “finalized in the coming days, followed by a formal notification from the State Department to Congress.”

While lawmakers can use the congressional review process to raise their concerns over big-ticket defense exports, the administration can override these.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is expected to override Meeks’ effort to block the engine deal.

For the Kaan program, the F110 is vital.

Denied the F-35 and with F-16 deals moving forward only slowly, Turkey has been forced to look elsewhere to meet its short-term fighter needs. Most significantly, it signed a deal for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon jets last October.

Turkey has also been investing heavily in drones, including the ANKA-3, a low-observable flying wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), and the fighter-like Bayraktar Kizilelma. Still, these are viewed as adjuncts to advanced crewed fighters, like the Kaan.

Whether securing the F110 engines means the Kaan meets its target of service entry around the 2030 timeframe remains questionable.

However, it is a major step in that direction.

As well as being fielded by the Turkish Air Force, the Kaan could have significant potential for export, although sales would be governed by U.S. restrictions on its engines. It is one of a number of medium-weight fighters that feature low-observable characteristics and advanced avionics. These include China’s FC-31 and South Korea’s KF-21.

Reportedly, Indonesia already signed a contract for 48 Kaan fighters last June.

Perhaps most importantly, the F110 deal would get back on track what is very much the flagship of Turkey’s military aerospace industry. At the same time, a U.S. decision to provide Ankara with these engines will also be welcomed by those in Turkey who still wish for a way back into the F-35 program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Trump Set To Clear Critical F110 Turbofan Engine Sale For Turkey’s Kaan Fighter appeared first on TWZ.

Endeavour is the centerpiece of the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center. It is a 200,000-square-foot expansion of the museum and will be “the only place in the world to see a complete, authentic space shuttle system, displayed in a 20-story launch position,” CSC said in a media release on Wednesday.

The exhibit is set to open on Nov. 13, 2026.

Endeavour was born out of the tragic loss of Challenger on January 28, 1986. NASA had to figure out how to replace the doomed orbiter, so it looked at several options.

The first shuttle, Enterprise, was built as a developmental test vehicle and made its first independent flight from the back of the converted 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) on Aug. 12, 1977. Enterprise was also used for fit checks on the launch pad and many other engineering and testing activities, but it was not built to fly into space. Although it was available for modification and could feasibly be altered for full duty, NASA decided converting it for orbital work was not the best move. Instead, the all new orbiter that would be named Endeavour was authorized for construction in 1987.

Endeavour lifted off on its maiden voyage on May 7, 1992, and flew 25 times, with its final flight coming in May 2011. As the last of its breed, it incorporated new features and upgrades, including being the first shuttle to carry a Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS), according to Space.com. Endeavour also had “the first fully activated Advanced Health Management System to watch over the shuttle’s three main engines during launch, as well as a three-string global positioning system (GPS) for pinpoint navigation during landings,” the publication added. In addition, the last of the orbiters was built with the most advanced avionics, with glass displays, when it entered service.

During its time in space, Endeavour performed a variety of tasks, including helping to construct and sustain the International Space Station. Throughout its career, it spent 299 days in space, orbiting the Earth nearly 4,700 times and logging close to 123 million miles, according to NASA.

“Among Endeavour’s missions was the first to include four spacewalks, and then the first to include five,” the space agency added. “Its STS-67 mission set a length record almost two full days longer than any shuttle mission before it. Its airlock is the only one to have seen three spacewalkers exit through it for a single spacewalk. And in its cargo bay, the first two pieces of the International Space Station were joined together.”

It also flew the first mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

During an 11-day mission in 2000, the astronauts “used the radar instruments in Endeavour’s payload bay to obtain elevation data on a near global scale,” NASA noted about the mission with a military connection. “The data produced the most complete, high-resolution digital elevation model of the Earth. The SRTM [Shuttle Radar Topography Mission] comprised a cooperative effort among NASA with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, managing the project, the Department of Defense’s National Imagery and Mapping Agency [now the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency], the German space agency, and the Italian space agency. Prior to SRTM, scientists had a more detailed topographic map of Venus than of the Earth, thanks to the Magellan radar mapping mission.”

Endeavour, like the rest of the orbiters, always captured the public’s imagination. In December 2008, the spacecraft made its voyage back to Kennedy Space Center in Florida after landing at Edwards AFB. A photo of that trip, taken from an F/A-18B Hornet flying overhead, was once described by TWZ as “Arguably The Most Spectacular Photo Of NASA’s Shuttle Carrier Aircraft Ever.” You can read more about that picture and the flight in our story from the time here.

On September 21^st, 2012, NASA delivered Endeavour to Los Angeles, noted AmericaSpace.com. “Over the course of four days in October, the orbiter gradually crept her way through the city’s narrow streets.” The move captured a huge amount of attention.

While plans had been in the works for a while to house Endeavour in a purpose-built exhibit, a major issue developed.

“An earthquake-resistant building large enough to house a 184-foot-tall Shuttle stack had a staggering cost estimate of $400 million,” AmericaSpace.com explained. “The California Science Center was unable to raise enough money to build the facility prior to Endeavour’s arrival. The museum still needed to protect the orbiter from the elements, so it built a metal hangar to temporarily house the spacecraft. The more aspirational exhibit would be conducted at a later date.”

That later date will be in November, as we noted earlier. 

The CSC is one of four locations where the surviving shuttle fleet is being displayed.

Shuttle Atlantis is located at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex; Discovery at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center and Enterprise at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum. While each display is unique, and Kennedy Space Center’s is very dramatic, showing the orbiter as it would look in orbit, nothing compares to how CSC is displaying the full Shuttle Launch System (SLS) with its boosters and fuel tank in the vertical orientation, looking like it’s about to blast off one more time.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Space Shuttle Endeavour Looks Absolutely Incredible In All Its ‘Full Stack’ Glory appeared first on TWZ.

“The Sultanate of Oman based on its responsibilities toward the Strait of Hormuz, and its importance to the global economy, and in accordance to its continued commitment to the international law and the law of the sea to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait without imposing any tolls, in line with the outcomes and efforts reached by the United States and Islamic Republic of Iran…has worked in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to provide vessels with the option of a temporary maritime corridor defined by the coordinates announced by IMO and Omani authorities. Ships willing to transit must coordinate with IMO,” Oman’s Maritime Security Center stated Wednesday on X.

“This large-scale operation will be carried out in close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal States in the region, the United States and the maritime industry,” according to the IMO.

IMO on Wednesday issued additional guidance to what it is calling an “evacuation” plan and noted that there are two routes for ships transiting the Strait. The northern route, close to the Iranian shoreline, is controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran while the southern route, along the Oman coastline, is coordinated with U.S. authorities.

The southern route is clear of mines and is the preferred route, according to the Joint Maritime Information Center.

Regardless of which route ships prefer, IMO is cautioning them to “remain in their current position and await further instructions.”

Vessels have to wait to “allow safe sequencing, avoid congestion, and mitigate risks related to mines and degraded navigation conditions,” IMO added. “Movements will only begin once vessels are contacted through the coordinated mechanism involving IMO, UKMTO, and MICA Center, followed by coastal State coordination.”

As for current mine clearance operations, CENTCOM would not offer details about how they are being carried out.

“I won’t go into specifics for operational security reasons,” Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, CENTCOM’s spokesman, told us Wednesday morning. “We’ve been at this for a number of weeks and we’re making progress, as demonstrated by the safe passage currently available to commercial vessels and enabling traffic flow to pick up.”

All this comes after tensions surrounding the Strait erupted again last week, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps saying it was being closed again after Israeli attacks on Lebanon and CENTCOM maintaining it was open.

Trump on Wednesday took to Truth Social to dispel what he claims are inaccurate media accounts about the Strait.

“Iran has informed the U.S. that, despite troublemaking Fake News reporting to the contrary, there are ‘NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND BEING SOUGHT OR RECEIVED BY IRAN ON SHIPS TRAVELING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ,’” Trump proclaimed. “If this is false information, negotiations would end, immediately!”

TWZ cannot independently confirm any of these statements; however, ship tracking organizations on Wednesday say commercial vessels have been transiting the Strait at increasing rates, though far from what they were before the war.

“Vessel activity through the Strait of Hormuz has rebounded sharply across two consecutive weekends, pointing to a clear shift in traffic patterns through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints,” the MarineTraffic website stated on X Wednesday. “According to #MarineTraffic data and Kpler data, confirmed crossings rose from 32 vessels between 12–14 June to 93 vessels between 19–21 June, an increase of 61 crossings week-on-week.”

The biggest change came on Saturday, MarineTraffic noted, “when crossings jumped from 3 to 42 compared with the previous weekend. The recovery has been supported by recent diplomatic developments and a temporary OFAC general license, which has helped ease immediate compliance uncertainty around approved Hormuz transits until 21 August.”

When it comes to oil, at least 20 tankers carrying 35 million barrels have exited the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz since the U.S. and Iran agreed to open the sea lane, according to data provided by Kpler.

Still, two major shipping companies we spoke with remain cautious about transiting the Strait.

Maersk referred us to a statement they gave TWZ last week saying that the announcement about the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding “is a welcome and positive development, but publicly available details are still limited, and it is too early to assess how it will impact logistics and maritime operations in the Middle East. At this stage, there are no changes to our operations in the region.”

On Wednesday, a company spokesman told us Maersk still has five ships stuck in the Persian Gulf.

Hapag-Lloyd is also taking a wait-and-see attitude.

“Our vessels are ready for a transit, but we will only sail through the Strait of Hormuz when it is safe to do so,” a company spokesperson told us, declining to say how many ships it still has in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy’s RFA Lyme Bay and two German warships have transited the Red Sea in case they are needed to help remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. The Lyme Bay, “now configured as an Afloat Forward Support Base for mine countermeasures, transited the Suez Canal on 19th June and then passed south through the Red Sea,” the Royal Navy (RN) noted. 

The ship carries uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) with towed sonar arrays and AI automatic target recognition that can “filter and refine vast amounts of data allowing operators to speed up the process of classifying and neutralizing mines,” according to the RN.

Lyme Bay also has “Video Ray Defender-Viper portable mine disposal submersibles, capable of locating, identifying and destroying mines.”

There are also mine warfare, diving and explosive ordnance disposal specialists on board to assist the mine clearance mission.

Lyme Bay was accompanied by the German command and support ship FGS Mosel and minehunter FGS Fulda.

However, those vessels “detached from the task group on 23 June to head for Djibouti for resupply and further preparation,” according to Navy Lookout, an independent publication focusing on the Royal Navy. “They currently operate under the European Union mission Operation Aspides, which has the sole aim of defending merchant shipping against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.”

We have reached out to the German Bundeswehr and Aspides for additional insights.

Amid the renewed flow of traffic through the Strait, oil prices have plummeted in recent days. As of Wednesday morning, Brent Crude was trading at just under $74 a barrel, according to OilPrice.com. That’s down from a high of more than $114 per barrel at the height of U.S.-Iran tensions in early May.

How long oil prices continue to fall is an open question as the U.S. and Iran continue to express disagreements over the terms of a final Iran-U.S. peace deal following the MoU signed last week.

In addition to the aforementioned confusion over the status of the Strait, there is ongoing discord over whether Iran has agreed to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. Trump and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) both say Iran has agreed to let inspectors in while the Iranians say that isn’t the case.

Meanwhile, both sides have issued bellicose threats against the other as the often acrimonious negotiations for what is essentially an extension of the ceasefire continue. 

As we have noted in the past, there is tremendous global and domestic pressure on Trump not to resume the war. The world economy is only beginning to recover from rising oil prices while Trump’s Republican party faces a midterm election in November made challenging by the unpopularity of this conflict. In addition, forces have now been deployed for many months and will have to be rotated out in the coming weeks.

Regardless, while getting vessels finally out of the Persian Gulf is still a priority, when robust two-way transits will return is still unclear, which will be critical to stabilizing the situation economically and geopolitically.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Plan To Evacuate Hundreds Of Ships Still Stranded From Strait Of Hormuz Closure Is Coalescing appeared first on TWZ.

The Air Force officially retired the MQ-1 in 2018. At that time, the service still had dozens of these drones in its inventory. More than 50 Predators were heavily cannibalized for parts they shared with their newer cousin, the MQ-9 Reaper. A number of demilitarized examples were also put on display. Today, 15 MQ-1s remain in storage at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, and are technically the property of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Then there’s the matter of the MQ-1s that went to the Navy.

“In 2019, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) received 20 MQ-1 aircraft from the U.S. Air Force,” a spokesperson for NAWCWD, part of the Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), confirmed to TWZ. “These aircraft were redesignated as NMQ-1Bs to support our mission.”

The new nomenclature here is notable. In the U.S. military’s joint service designation system for aircraft and missiles, the prefix “N” refers to platforms that have been modified in some way, typically for testing purposes, that are not readily reversible. One of the better-known examples of this is the Air Force’s secretive NT-43A radar cross-section measurement platform, a heavily modified Boeing 737-200 with a completely new and enlarged nose, as well as a huge radome extending from the tail. Other “N” aircraft that various branches of the U.S. military have operated over the years have had far less dramatic modifications. How exactly the NMQ-1B configuration differs from a typical MQ-1B is unclear.

“NAWCWD is an RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation] command and the platforms were acquired to support our targets department,” they added when asked for more information. “The NMQ-1B platform is being used for test and training. We have nothing further to provide at this time.”

TWZ had reached out to the Navy for more details after the Air Force had also confirmed the transfer of the MQ-1s. We had asked the Air Force about the status of any Predators still in its inventory after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed the loss of an “MQ-1” to Iranian fire at the end of May. By all indications, what Iran shot down was actually a U.S. Army MQ-1C Gray Eagle, a design that evolved from the Predator, but that is distinctly different.

When the Air Force retired the MQ-1, the service still had dozens of airworthy examples. TWZ pointed out at the time that at least a portion of them could end up as targets for air-to-air and surface-to-air weapons, as well as sensor testing and other weapons testing. The fact that NAWCWD says it is still using the drones today would seem to point more to the latter than the former, though anti-air missile testing does not necessarily have to entail the destruction of the target.

For instance, certain kinds of testing of some missile seekers can be done without it ever leaving a rail on an aircraft or a launcher on the ground. The Navy and Air Force test communities also use specialized podded systems to support the development and evaluation of new and improved seekers for anti-air missiles, something we have explored in detail in the past. Even live fire tests do not always result in the target being destroyed if that is not the intended outcome. Just by removing the warhead, missiles will still pass within lethal distance with their proximity fuzes being triggered to confirm a simulated kill. The missile will fly on, and the target will survive to live another day.

As noted, at least based on the NMQ-1B designation, the Navy’s Predators have been altered in some significant way. One possibility is that they have been modified to be able to mimic an array of different radar, infrared, and/or other signatures. In this way, a Predator could offer a lower-cost and long-endurance flying asset capable of replicating a variety of aerial threats to support testing and training requirements. The U.S. military already uses smaller crewed aircraft as surrogates for cruise missiles and long-range kamikaze drones, as can be seen in the TWZ video below. This is in addition to target drones specifically built for this purpose.

The NMQ-1Bs could also be modified in a variety of other ways to support more specific NAWCWD requirements, or to make them more adaptable to meet changing demands. The standard MQ-1B variant also features two underwing hardpoints that could be used to carry various stores, such as countermeasures and small munitions. This would further expand the Predator’s flexibility as a test and training asset from one sortie to the next. Being able to more readily modify or swap out the drone’s internal systems, as well as the software running them, would also be a boon for its current role.

Despite being housed within NAWCWD’s targets department, depending on their current configuration, the NMQ-1Bs could also help monitor missile and other test activities, or even act as signal relays. Before armed MQ-1 versions arrived, RQ-1 Predators were already flying surveillance and reconnaissance missions using infrared and electro-optical full-motion video cameras in turrets under their noses. The drones could also be fitted with small radars with synthetic aperture modes capable of capturing still imagery, even through cloud cover, smoke, and dust, and at night.

News that the Navy is still using Predators for testing and training purposes certainly comes at a time when drone threats at home and abroad have become firmly top of mind for the U.S. military. For American authorities, the ability of long-range kamikaze drones, in particular, to hold prized assets at risk was just highlighted by the latest conflict with Iran. Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, as well as other conflicts globally in recent years, have also underscored this reality. For years now, TWZ has been calling attention to the dangers that various tiers of uncrewed aerial systems pose, which are only set to continue to expand in scale and scope.

Confirmation that NAWCWD continues to operate a fleet of NMQ-1Bs also comes amid a surge in U.S. military flight testing activities, and commensurate demand for supporting test assets. This is being driven heavily by a flurry of next-generation aircraft and missile developments, as well as efforts to modernize existing platforms to keep pace.

Around their retirement, there were rumors that the remaining MQ-1 fleet could be used to test cooperative swarming capabilities, including hardware, software, and communications networks. There is no hard proof that this occurred, but it seems quite plausible considering the timing and how well-known and adaptable the Predator was at the time.

Using surrogate drones in the development of autonomy agents, teaming architectures, and swarming capabilities is now a very well-established practice. The big question is that if these Predators are still flying, or at least have been since their retirement, how is it that we have not caught a glimpse of them? One answer would be that this work was done at clandestine test facilities like Area 51 or even less secretive but still somewhat remote locales. If this is the case, these aircraft likely have historic significance, paving the way to the autonomous air combat revolution currently underway.

Overall, how much longer the Navy might continue to make use of the NMQ-1Bs remains to be seen. The service’s test community has already given the iconic Predator nearly a decade of extra life.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Pocket Fleet Of Unseen MQ-1 Predators Still Flying In Specialized Role appeared first on TWZ.

While Australia’s contribution to Valiant Shield includes a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and around 80 personnel, one of the more notable aspects is the involvement of Australian Defense Forces (ADF) aviator observers alongside a U.S.-led MQ-28 component. The arrangement will allow Australian personnel to work with operators and planners as the uncrewed aircraft is employed in a complex, multi-domain operational environment for the first time.

Directed by the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Exercise Valiant Shield 2026 kicked off on Monday and continues through July 1.

“Valiant Shield demonstrates our enduring commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Adm. Steve Koehler, commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, said in a media release. “Exercising advanced multidomain capabilities with our allies ensures we continue to seamlessly innovate and operate together, project combat power together, and prevail over any challenge — together.”

The U.S. Air Force today released a series of photos showing an MQ-28 taking part in Valiant Shield. The drone was photographed at Rota, in the Northern Mariana Islands, on June 21. Accompanying captions state that the Ghost Bat will be used to advance human-machine teaming, including flying in concert with crewed fighters.

“The Department of the Air Force and its partners will analyze the aircraft’s contribution as a force multiplier that extends the reach, awareness, and survivability of crewed platforms in contested environments,” the U.S. Air Force adds.

The MQ-28 involved in the exercise is configured with an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor system in the nose. The Ghost Bat is a highly modular design, with the nose section designed to be readily swappable.

The Ghost Bat’s participation in Valiant Shield comes as Australia continues efforts to mature collaborative combat aircraft concepts, an increasingly important component of future air warfare, with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) currently very much at the forefront. Designed to operate alongside crewed fighters and other assets, like tankers and airborne early warning and control aircraft, the MQ-28 is intended to extend sensor coverage, serve as a weapons platform, and perform a variety of other missions while reducing risk to human pilots.

Valiant Shield offers a particularly relevant proving ground for the MQ-28. The exercise brings together forces from the United States, Australia, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand to train in responding to coordinated threats across the maritime, air, land, cyber, and space domains. Participants will be required to detect, track, and engage shared threats while operating across a vast geographic area and under realistic conditions.

For the Ghost Bat program, exposure to this type of coalition environment is significant. Future conflicts in the Indo-Pacific will require seamless integration between allied forces, crewed aircraft, and increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems. Observing how the MQ-28 is incorporated into a large-scale multinational exercise should provide valuable insights as Australia moves toward making its collaborative combat aircraft capabilities operational. Currently, the MQ-28 is slated to be in service with the RAAF in 2028, which would likely make it the first operational CCA anywhere in the world.

The exercise also reflects growing allied interest in integrating uncrewed systems into complex command-and-control architectures and air defense networks. As autonomous aircraft move from experimentation toward operational service, events such as Valiant Shield are becoming important venues for testing how these systems contribute to the broader fight rather than operating as standalone assets. Valiant Shield has served as a diverse test crucible in recent years, with advanced capabilities being put through their paces in a realistic, joint-force environment.

According to defense reporter Carter Johnston, the Ghost Bat’s Indo-Pacific deployment will include operations from an austere airfield led by the U.S. Air Force. This will be conducted under the Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concept, something that is seen as fundamental to survival in a future conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific region. It is also notable that the U.S. Air Force’s new CCA drones are being developed from the ground up around concepts for distributed and disaggregated operations.

The exact status of the MQ-28 with the U.S. military testing community is somewhat unclear, as we have discussed before. There have been indications of Ghost Bat flight testing in the United States in the past, and the U.S. Air Force previously said it had made use of at least one MQ-28 to support advanced uncrewed aircraft and autonomy development efforts. Regardless, the Air Force, at least, has test units set up to explore exactly how to use CCAs operationally, including in an ACE-type environment. This kind of testing is now also involving the first two Air Force Increment 1 CCAs, with the YFQ-44 Fury ‘fighter drone’ prototype notably having been tested out of Edwards Air Force Base, California, helping to demonstrate how CCAs can be deployed and sustained in contested environments.

Other U.S. participants in Valiant Shield 2026 include the George Washington Carrier Strike Group, based around the aircraft carrier USS George Washington with the embarked Carrier Air Wing 5, the cruiser USS Robert Smalls, and the destroyers USS Benfold and USS Shoup.

Valiant Shield 2026 will also see the deployment of the containerized Typhon missile system in Japan. According to the Japan Ministry of Defense, the Typhon and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) will participate in Joint Integrated Anti-Ship Warfare training carried out in the waters around Kanoya and Amami Oshima Island. However, no live firing is scheduled.

The U.S. Army’s Typhon was first deployed to Japan last year, as you can read about here. The system, which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-6 multi-purpose missiles, is a growing feature of U.S. military activities in the wider Indo-Pacific region.

Returning to the Ghost Bat, it now seems that the test flights of the MQ-28 off the coast of southern California from the U.S. Navy’s base in Point Mugu, California, were an important precursor to Valiant Shield. In fact, the same drone that was flown out of Point Mugu, ATS-008, is the example now involved in Valiant Shield.

Boeing had previously said its main goals of those flights were to demonstrate the maturity of the design and promote export sales. As we noted at the time, the choice of testing location also seemed to be relevant given Boeing’s involvement in the Navy’s still-evolving carrier-based CCA plans.

As for the MQ-28’s previous test campaigns, the drone has been flying in Australia since 2021, with the RAAF having received eight Ghost Bats in the pre-production Block 1 configuration.

Boeing is now building the first of a batch of nine Block 2 drones for the RAAF, which will provide an intermediate stepping stone to the fully operational Block 3 version. The Block 3 aircraft is expected to be substantially larger and have a greater range. It will also feature an internal weapons bay that can accommodate a single AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), two GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), or equivalently sized stores.

The RAAF has employed Block 1 MQ-28s to demonstrate some important capabilities in testing so far. This includes crewed-uncrewed teaming with RAAF E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft and F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters.

When it comes to potential export sales, participation in Valiant Shield will give Japan, Canada, and New Zealand a closer look at the drone and its capabilities. Of these, Boeing has already publicly named Japan as a potential customer and has said it is exploring potential opportunities with other unnamed countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

Valiant Shield should offer the clearest indication yet of how the Ghost Bat can contribute to a coalition fight. As the United States and its allies increasingly embrace autonomous combat aircraft, the MQ-28’s performance in one of the Indo-Pacific’s largest and most complex military exercises will be watched closely as an indicator of how collaborative combat aircraft could be employed across the region in the future.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post MQ-28 Ghost Bat Drone Debuts In Large-Force Combat Exercise In The Pacific appeared first on TWZ.

Now Ukraine and NATO are looking to the private sector for ways of changing that equation through what is being called the Airfield Denial Challenge. It offers a 250,000 Euro award to companies or individuals who come up with workable ideas to prevent Russia from being able to use its air bases.

“The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) operational experience has firmly established that the ability of the adversary to project air power from secure rear-area airfields remains one of the most consequential asymmetries in the current conflict,” according to NATO’s Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT). “Enemy tactical aviation, operating from bases beyond the reach of conventional Ukrainian strike assets, continues to conduct strikes using guided aerial bombs, cruise missiles, and stand-off munitions against friendly forces, critical infrastructure, and civilian population centers.”

The goal of this program is lofty.

“Each sortie originates from an airfield. Every airfield is a node of vulnerability: if it can be persistently denied, the adversary’s air campaign is fundamentally disrupted at source,” SACT suggested.

You can see video from one of the Ukrainian attacks on Russian tactical aviation bases below.

Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to halt these attacks are insufficient, SACT posited.

“Current workarounds: manned strike aviation, ground-based long-range fires (MLRS, ballistic missiles), and conventional single-unit loitering munitions have demonstrated limited effectiveness against defended airfield targets,” SACT argued. “They lack the mass-effect, persistence, and EW (Electronic Warfare)-resilience required to simultaneously suppress airfield infrastructure across multiple aim points in a contested environment.”

The “battlefield logic is clear,” the NATO subcommand added. “Point-defense and reactive interception of individual weapons must be complemented by persistent denial at the source.”

“We must find technologies that will help to permanently limit the enemy’s use of aviation infrastructure: aircraft, runways, fuel and ammunition storage facilities, and ground support infrastructure,” the Ukrainian Defense Ministry (MoD) explained. “Ukrainian miltech companies, startups, and engineering teams are invited to participate.”

SACT said the challenge is technically agnostic and that it is looking for ideas that include, but not are not limited to, the following:

• Uncrewed aerial systems of any configuration or range class

• Autonomous or semi-autonomous munitions and loitering systems

• Swarming and mass-effect approaches

• Alternative delivery mechanisms beyond conventional aerial platforms

• Hybrid solutions combining multiple technologies

Regardless of what type of solution is presented, it “must be capable of operating in GPS-denied and EW-contested environments, across all weather conditions and seasons, and must demonstrate a credible path to rapid fielding.”

In addition, SACT is looking for systems that can conduct sustained strikes deep into contested airspace, operate without “continuous human control,” be fully autonomous and deliver “sufficient mass and precision to suppress multiple aim points across an airfield simultaneously.”

SACT also wants systems that require minimal training, and have AI-assisted target acquisition that “reduces reliance on expert judgment.”

The solicitation comes with the understanding that whatever solutions are presented won’t be proven, but should be at least in the mid-to-upper tier of the military technology readiness level (TRL) scale. It includes systems ranging from those having “high fidelity” laboratory integration of components to those with prototypes “near, or at, planned operational systems.”

Meanwhile, any solution that will take more than a year to be fielded won’t be considered.

The deadline for submissions is July 20. Ten finalists will be selected on August 11 and will be invited to a “pitch day” on Sept. 3, tentatively in Poland, to showcase their designs.

Whether this ambitious program will actually lead to the fielding of any systems that can persistently deny Russia the ability to launch aircraft is very much in question.

As we have frequently reported, Ukraine has one of the world’s most innovative defense technology infrastructures that has created drones, missiles and other weapons designed, tested and fielded under intense wartime conditions. However, it has still been unable to achieve the goals being sought by this challenge. 

One of the big issues Kyiv faces is the limited amount of funds to pursue some of these advances and what the Atlantic Council has described as “Ukraine’s inability to mass produce sophisticated weapons or sustain stable military supply chains.” 

Getting an idea into the hands of NATO, which has developed a half-billion dollar fund to develop weapons for Ukraine, could ultimately help turn an idea into a workable weapon to keep Russian tactical aviation at bay. Even if that happens, though, the time it would take to develop these weapons at a scale large enough to make a real difference would be a formidable endeavor.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post NATO And Ukraine Turning To Private Sector To Help Crater Russian Airfields appeared first on TWZ.

The details emerged in a special notice announcing an upcoming virtual industry day, where government officials plan to brief contractors on the scope of the program and gather feedback on construction risks, industry capabilities, and acquisition strategies before moving toward a formal procurement process.

While the notice, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is intended primarily as market research, it offers one of the clearest looks yet at the scale and ambition of the Fightertown recapitalization effort.

According to the notice, existing airfield facilities cannot support the program’s requirements, prompting the selection of a new site to expand the current airfield infrastructure. Rather than a collection of isolated projects, the government describes the effort as a “complete campus approach” intended to synchronize facility construction with aircraft procurement, personnel movements, and logistical requirements.

The envisioned campus would include aircraft hangars, squadron operations facilities, corrosion control facilities, maintenance shops, and other aviation support infrastructure. Extensive airfield improvements are also planned, including new taxiways, aprons, shoulders, and specialized aircraft operating surfaces.

Highly likely to be included in the recapitalization efforts will be measures to help reduce vulnerability and ensure critical operations could continue in wartime. After all, in a potential fight against China or Russia, JBER would be high on the list of priority targets in the opening phases of a large-scale conflict. As we have repeatedly outlined in the past, aircraft shelters with varying degrees of hardening are suddenly very much back on the agenda in response to growing drone and missile threats. 

Beyond flight-line infrastructure, the project encompasses a substantial support ecosystem. Plans call for a munitions complex, petroleum operations facilities, warehousing and supply functions, dining facilities, visitor control infrastructure, firefighting facilities, training centers, simulators, and housing for unaccompanied airmen.

The government also notes that the campus design remains flexible and could ultimately involve modifications to, or demolition of, existing facilities as planning progresses.

Rather than relying solely on traditional military construction contracting approaches, the Army Corps of Engineers says the program intends to leverage authorities provided in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. Those authorities could allow the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA), Progressive Design-Build (PDB), and other alternative execution methods.

The notice explicitly states that the government intends to capitalize on private-sector innovation while avoiding what it describes as costly and time-consuming federal contracting burdens. It also emphasizes that the execution strategy will encourage industry partners to propose novel technical and construction solutions.

The scale of the investment underscores Alaska’s growing importance as a hub for U.S. airpower. JBER already serves as one of the Air Force’s premier fighter installations and occupies a critical geographic position between North America, the Arctic, a part of the world that has only grown in strategic significance in recent years, and the Indo-Pacific theater, where strategic planning is highly focused on a potential future conflict with China.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson hosts the headquarters of the 11th Air Force, the service’s top command in Alaska, and its 3rd Wing, which operates a mix of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning Control System (AWACS) radar planes, C-17 Globemaster III airlifters, and C-12 light utility aircraft. It is also home to the Alaska Air National Guard’s 176th Wing, which has additional C-17s, as well as HC-130 Combat King rescue aircraft and HH-60 rescue helicopters.

In addition, in 2023, the Air Force announced the creation of the 55th Operations Group, Detachment 1 at the base, as a detachment of the 55th Wing at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

“The new detachment will… serve as a strategic launch and recovery point for RC-135V/W Rivet Joint operations and exercises in the region,” according to the Air Force.

The move reflected increased demand for RC-135V/W Rivet Joint spy plane sorties in the Pacific, with JBER being well-positioned for these aircraft to gather intelligence on areas of interest in the northern end of the Pacific and the increasingly strategic Arctic region.

The arrival of the Rivet Joint prompted a previous reconstruction effort at JBER. In what the Air Force described as a “mega-project,” one of the two runways there was extended to help it better support operations involving larger aircraft like these.

In the future, the strategic location of JBER, as well as its current status as one of the few F-22 bases, suggests that it could eventually host the F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter, the first of which is expected to make its first flight sometime in 2028. The F-47 could therefore well end up as the centerpiece of the Alaskan Fightertown, in keeping with the vision for the jet serving as a critical force multiplier that can bring together other crewed and uncrewed assets. With that in mind, at least some of the Fightertown Recapitalization Program may be specifically tailored to the requirements of the F-47.

Importantly, JBER also serves as the focal point for the Red Flag-Alaska and Northern Edge exercises.

The Red Flag-Alaska exercises can take place up to four times a year and mirror those flown over the Nellis Range Complex in Nevada, with some differences. Namely, the ranges in Alaska, many of which are instrumented, are enormous, and can include a more varied array of assets.

From JBER and other bases in the region, Red Flag-Alaska participants have access to the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC). Covering an area of more than 67,000 square miles and providing 77,000 square miles of airspace above, JPARC is the “largest instrumented air, ground and electronic combat training range in the world,” according to the Air Force. It is regularly used to provide a realistic training environment for full-spectrum engagements, ranging from individual skills to large-scale joint engagements.

JPARC’s role could grow further in the coming years as the Air Force pushes large-scale exercises further and further out into the broad expanses of the Pacific. Other range complexes further down along the West Coast are seeing increasing use, as well. Even very large overland ranges, such as the sprawling Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) adjacent to Nellis Air Force Base, are increasingly constrained when attempting to replicate modern scenarios based on ever-growing adversary anti-access and aerial denial (A2/AD) bubbles.

Meanwhile, Northern Edge also occurs in and around Alaska every two years, with these large-scale events being used to test and evaluate new systems and capabilities from across the U.S. military.

In the past, the Air Force has described Northern Edge as a demonstration of “the U.S. commitment to the region by building interoperability, advancing common interests and a commitment to our allies and partners in ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific,” as well as showcasing U.S. ability to defend the homeland from and throughout Alaska.

As planning advances, we will learn more about what this new Alaskan Fightertown will look like. What is already clear is that the Air Force and the Pentagon are preparing for a long-term expansion and modernization effort on a scale rarely seen at an operational fighter base.

More details could emerge during the industry day scheduled for June 30, when government officials will provide a comprehensive update on the program and solicit feedback from industry partners on how to execute one of the Air Force’s biggest military infrastructure projects.

Update: 3:45 PM ET –

“We are deliberately investing in Pacific Air Force’s critical infrastructure by replacing and upgrading operations and maintenance facilities in addition to making repairs to existing buildings and funding mission-ready materiel, storage, and sustainment necessary for homeland defense and Agile Combat Employment operations,” a U.S. Air Force official has now told us in response to our queries for more information about the Fightertown plan. “We are also extending the runway and building a Joint Integrated Test and Training Center at JBER.”

“We are in the design stage now and will have a better idea of timelines once we receive an appropriation,” they added.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Air Force’s Fightertown Alaska Plan Takes Shape appeared first on TWZ.

According to a report from CNN, the pilot recounted seeing “multiple Iranian drones hovering in the air, moving as one, in a formation that resembled a jellyfish.” The report is based on statements from four unnamed sources said to be familiar with the matter.

Needless to say, the veracity of the report should be treated with caution, especially bearing in mind the highly dynamic and confused nature of the situation. However, CNN claims that the account was taken seriously enough to prompt debate within the U.S. intelligence community. It should also be noted that the testimony relates only to the pilot and not the Weapon Systems Officer (WSO).

The report suggests that, during a post-incident debriefing, the F-15E pilot told intelligence officials that they saw:

“Multiple drones interconnected and moving as one with smaller drones below the bigger drones like legs. Real alien shit.”

Those words are not from the pilot themselves, but are said to be from one of the sources familiar with the witness account.

Another source told CNN that the same pilot described seeing a “minefield of drones” in the air.

Again, provided these accounts are correct, we cannot say for sure that the pilot actually saw what they described. After all, this was during an extremely high-stress period, and the pilot also ended up with a concussion. Even the U.S. intelligence officials involved in the debrief reportedly disagreed on how to interpret what the F-15 pilot described, and whether the pilot could recount the incident clearly, according to CNN.

The same report also repeats the assertion that the pilot had previously been shot down in the same conflict, during a friendly-fire incident that left three Strike Eagles downed over Kuwait in March. The High Side, a publication on Substack, first reported this detail, citing unnamed current and former Air Force officials. CBS News also subsequently reported this, citing anonymous individuals familiar with the events.

As for the F-15E incident over Iran, you can read our analysis of what was previously revealed about what happened here.

While the exact cause of the loss of the F-15E hasn’t been revealed, NBC News previously quoted three unidentified officials who said the jet “was probably struck by a Chinese-made shoulder-launched missile” and that the engagement may have been supported by a “long-range early-warning radar that spots stealth aircraft,” which Iran received in the “early days” of the war. U.S. President Donald Trump also reportedly said that the Iranians used a shoulder-fired missile, and that “they got lucky.”

Furthermore, while the pilot was rescued within hours, the WSO hid out in a crevice as both rescuers and Iranians frantically searched for him. They were picked up around 50 hours after ejection, aided by a rescue mission involving hundreds of troops, scores of aircraft, and diversion operations over more than a half dozen different parts of Iran. The effort also saw the loss of a second aircraft, an A-10 attack jet in the air, as well as two MC-130J Commando II special operations cargo planes and several H-6 Little Bird special operations helicopters that were destroyed on the ground.

The most dramatic interpretation, that a drone swarm directly participated, even if by happenstance, in the shootdown of the Strike Eagle, cannot be entirely ruled out, but there is no publicly available evidence supporting it. There is the description of this formation being a “minefield,” as in something the F-15 could stumble into. This is an interesting note and it may just be how it was mentioned figuratively. At the same time, putting up some sort of a drone screen formation along a known route, especially if it is being used for low-level transits, or near a high-risk facility, could make some sense. Basically, the aircraft would fly into it and be destroyed if it hits a drone, the drones are detonated in close proximity to the aircraft or even if they are connected physically somehow and the aircraft hits the cables. This would match with the description, to a degree, and it would not require any sort of real swarming capability. This would be something of a new ‘barrage balloon’ concept that is more flexible and easier to deploy on demand. China is using balloons in a similar manner to protect key installations today. In addition, Iran certainly has employed its fair share of bizarre tactics and weapons concepts to that point that this doesn’t seem that implausible, but still, it is just a guess.

Returning to the new report, if the pilot really did see a ‘jellyfish-like’ group of Iranian drones that were truly swarming, that would point to previously unknown capabilities within that country, but this is technology that is certainly within the realm of credibility.

Swarms, in this context, are groups of vehicles or guided munitions that are interconnected via datalink and work cooperatively to maximize their combined abilities to accomplish an objective or set of objectives. It is important to note that a major role is played by the nature of a swarm’s computing and autonomy capabilities, and the supporting communications architecture. Swarms can range from ones offering basic cooperative capabilities to far more advanced and dynamic, advanced AI-driven ones. Swarms are not to be confused with a group of drones that are simply sent on a mission together, but have no true cooperative capabilities. These can be best viewed, at least in the aerial sense, as formations of drones or ‘flocks’ of drones that are basically preprogrammed, with tactical planning and large numbers providing an advantage, not the ability to react to external stimuli and make decisions as a team in real-time.

Regardless, based on two of its sources, CNN asserts that “initial reports indicated that it was possible the drone formation had in some way enabled Iran to shoot down the American jet.”

This would raise questions about what type of performance and configuration these drones had, including what altitude the drones were at when they were supposedly sighted, as well as the flight level of the Strike Eagle.

Previously, U.S. officials disclosed that Iran had made use of smaller drones in the hunt for the missing F-15E WSO, but there was no mention of any kind of drone swarms.

For China and Russia, to name just two nations, both of which have provided military assistance to Iran, drone swarming is very much an area of focus. Swarms have many uses, not just to overwhelm the enemy, but also to sense broad areas cooperatively and to work as a highly efficient group offering mixed capabilities that equate to a sum greater than their parts.

In the case of China, as we have been reporting on for years, the country has moved especially fast on drone swarming, working to evolve these capabilities on different scales for many years. China has repeatedly demonstrated swarms of loitering munitions, deployed from container launchers that can be mounted on light vehicles or helicopters, for example. The country also has worked to develop higher-end swarming capabilities using larger drones, as well as advanced unmanned combat air vehicles. This is on top of the country’s place as an absolute leader in low-end unmanned technologies, including massive coordinated drone swarms for commercial purposes.

The potential of this kind of warfare has not been lost on the U.S. military either, which has been working on it for decades. These efforts date back many years, with the public disclosure of the Perdix having come nearly a decade ago now, and cooperative swarming trials have been carried out repeatedly in the open since then. These efforts have since become ‘mainstream’ as the drone revolution has taken hold of the defense industry. Some of these technologies are now being operationalized in a publicized manner. All this is on top of what is likely an extreme level of development in the classified realm.

Only last month, TWZ reported on how the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was looking into drones with a high degree of autonomous operation, as well as remotely-operated containerized systems to launch, recover, and otherwise support them. The end result would be a largely self-sustaining “autonomous constellation” capable of supporting networked swarms consisting of as many as 500 drones at once.

By now, swarming capabilities are a key emerging tenet of modern military drone development and are beginning to be demonstrated on the battlefield in Ukraine.

At this point, it is worth noting that Iran has already demonstrated “loitering” surface-to-air missiles, an unusual category of weapon that blurs the distinction between a kamikaze drone and a more traditional surface-to-air missile. As far as we know, Iran has not attempted to use these weapons in swarms, although having them operate in larger groups would clearly boost the probability of success.

There is also the possibility that what the F-15E pilot saw was some kind of previously unknown drone technology fielded by the U.S. or Israeli military, before the Strike Eagle came down. Clearly, Israel and the United States deployed certain systems in the conflict that had not been seen before, and both countries have the ability to field platforms with swarming capabilities. Releasing a group of drones that can hunt and even kill over the Iranian countryside, looking for targets of opportunity over large areas, like air defenses and standoff weapons launchers, is exactly the kind of concept that swarms were envisioned as being so capable at realizing.

Subsequently, while the rescue effort was underway, the U.S. military certainly was making use of drones in the vicinity. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, previously described how “A-10s and […] drones and other tactical aircraft were violently suppressing and engaging the enemy in a close-in gunfight to keep them away from the front-seater and allow the pickup force to get into the objective area.” 

The use of drones for suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, as well as stand-in jamming of those systems, is a very real component of modern air warfare dating back decades. Israel was a pioneer in it, which you can read all about here. Those capabilities are far more advanced today, especially for long-range systems dedicated to those missions and for the emerging ‘launched effects’ segment of drone warfare. It’s hard to imagine that these proven capabilities were not put to some use over Iran during the war. The U.S. military even employed its own one-way attack munition, the LUCAS drone, with similar capabilities.

With all that being said, there is the possibility that the pilot experienced something else entirely, perhaps related to their concussion or another kind of phenomenon. Even a flock of birds or a group of balloons, the latter of which can be used as decoys to confuse enemy radar and bait fighter aircraft and other air defenses, could appear as a drone swarm, for example. Iran had every reason to use such cheap, but potentially effective tactics. While an experienced fighter pilot would normally be able to tell the difference between drones or birds, these were very much abnormal circumstances. Then there is the matter of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), which this could fall into, just for the reason that what was seen may be hard to identify. We don’t know what the description of the configurations of the drones was, or if any was provided, which could help narrow down the possibilities. Also, did the aircraft’s sensors detect these craft? We just don’t know.

For now, the reported drone sighting remains an intriguing but unverified element of a much larger story, many important details of which are still to emerge.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post What Was The “Jellyfish-Like” Drone Swarm The Downed F-15E Pilot Reportedly Saw Over Iran? appeared first on TWZ.

The X-65 is being developed under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors (CRANE) program, which kicked off back in 2020. DARPA subsequently chose Aurora Flight Sciences, a subsidiary of Boeing, to proceed alone with the development of its design. Aurora moved into the latest phase of the program in 2024 and is now targeting a first flight next year. CRANE has suffered several delays and cost growth over the years, which we will come back to later on.

“The wings have arrived — the next big milestone for X‑65!” Aurora Flight Sciences wrote in a post on its official account on X today. “Built at our WV [West Virginia] facility, the triangular wings enable active flow control testing across multiple sweeps. Integration is underway in VA as we push toward first flight for the @DARPA CRANE program.”

In November 2025, Aurora had also announced progress in construction of the central fuselage. The company has also done wind tunnel testing of subscale models, as well as digital modeling in past phases of CRANE.

The X-65 has a so-called Co-Planar Joined Wing (CJW) planform that includes two sets of wings attached that merge together at the tips, creating the triangular shape on either side. They also have small extensions that extend from those tips, giving the drone a 30-foot wingspan. The design also has a twin vertical tail arrangement.

There is a chin air intake under the forward fuselage, as well as a single exhaust. Renderings have shown that the design will have on t op of the forward end of the fuselage. At the time of writing, neither Aurora nor DAPRA appear to have disclosed details about the drone’s main propulsion arrangement. The X-65 is said to have a gross weight of approximately 7,000 pounds.

As noted, the most intrigueing aspect of the X-65 is the banks of active flow control (AFC) “effectors” that use bursts of highly pressurized air to roll, pitch, and yaw. Traditionally, fixed-wing aircraft use a mixture of flaps, rudders, and other surfaces that physically move to maneuver in flight.

“The AFC system supplies pressurized air to fourteen AFC effectors embedded across all flying surfaces,” according to a press release Aurora put out last year. “The triangular wing design enables testing across multiple wing sweeps and is modular with replaceable outboard wings and swappable AFC effectors to allow for future testing of additional AFC designs.”

“The X-65 will be built with two sets of control actuators – traditional flaps and rudders as well as AFC effectors embedded across all the lifting surfaces,” a 2024 press release from DARPA also notes. “This will both minimize risk and maximize the program’s insight into control effectiveness. The plane’s performance with traditional control surfaces will serve as a baseline; successive tests will selectively lock down moving surfaces, using AFC effectors instead.”

“The X-65 conventional surfaces are like training wheels to help us understand how AFC can be used in place of traditional flaps and rudders,” Dr. Richard Wlezien, then the CRANE program manager at DARPA, also said at that time. “We’ll have sensors in place to monitor how the AFC effectors’ performance compares with traditional control mechanisms, and these data will help us better understand how AFC could revolutionize both military and commercial craft in the future.”

“We’re building the X-65 as a modular platform – wing sections and the AFC effectors can easily be swapped out – to allow it to live on as a test asset for DARPA and other agencies long after CRANE concludes,” Wlezien also noted.

Being able to eliminate traditional moving control surfaces presents a host of potential benefits, as TWZ has detailed in past reporting on the CRANE program:

“Getting rid of traditional control surfaces inherently allows for a design to be more aerodynamic, and therefore fly in a more efficient manner, especially at higher altitudes. An aircraft with an AFC system doesn’t need the various actuators and other components to move things like ailerons and rudders, offering new ways to reduce weight and bulk.”

“A lighter and more streamlined aircraft design using an AFC system might be capable of greater maneuverability. This could be particularly true for uncrewed types that also do not have to worry about the physical limitations of a pilot.”

“The elimination of so many moving parts also means fewer things that can break, improving safety and reliability. This would do away with various maintenance and logistics requirements, too. It might make a military design more resilient to battle damage and easier to fix, as well.”

All of this could be especially valuable for stealthy aircraft designs, as we previously wrote:

“While all of this could be beneficial for many aircraft type, AFC technology could be especially significant when applied to stealth designs. Designers of stealthy aircraft have to be mindful of any joints or other gaps between exposed surfaces, and try to generally keep them to a minimum, to ensure the radar cross-section remains as low as possible.“

“As such, traditional control surfaces, which by definition cannot always be flush with the rest of the aircraft’s external shape, are a major and currently inescapable issue. Fly-by-wire designs also keep these surfaces fluttering at all times to keep the stealthy aircraft stable in forward flight. AFC technology holds the promise of being able to change this reality and make it easier to optimize the radar-evading qualities of a stealthy design. Other technologies, like the ability to dynamically warp wing structures to provide flight control, could also help in future stealthy aircraft radar signature control.”

A design like the X-65 that has the option of using either traditional control surfaces or AFCs could offer further flexibility.

Deeper exploration of the potential of an AFC design is exactly the point of DARPA’s CRANE program, which is now aiming to kick off actual flight testing next year. As mentioned, there have been multiple delays in work on the X-65 over the years. The original goal was for the drone to fly for the first time in 2025.

“The costs to produce the prototype aircraft for test flights ended up being higher than expected” and “DARPA chose to ‘strategically pause’ the X-65’s development and reevaluate the program,” Defense News reported in November 2025. Aurora also “confirmed technical and supply chain challenges were a factor in the program delays, as well as the inherent riskiness involved in working on a DARPA project.”

It should be noted here that this is not the first time AFC technology has been experimented with. U.K.-headquartered BAE Systems, which also submitted a design for CRANE, tested a flying subscale AFC-equipped design called MAGMA in the 2010s, which you can learn more about here.

Pentagon budget documents show that DARPA has received nearly $63 million in funding for CRANE since Fiscal Year 2024, when the program entered its third phase. DARPA is not asking for any additional money for this effort in Fiscal Year 2027, which it says reflects the expectation that it will conclude by the end of next year. As DARPA has said in the past, future programs could further continued use of the X-65 drone, as well as the technology it demonstrates.

“We’re excited to continue our longstanding partnership with DARPA to complete the build of the X-65 aircraft and demonstrate the capabilities of active flow control in flight,” Larry Wirsing, Aurora’s Vice President VP of aircraft development, said in a statement last year. “The X-65 platform will be an enduring flight test asset, and we’re confident that future aircraft designs and research missions will be able to leverage the underlying technologies and flight test data.”

With its wings finally delivered, the X-65 continues to take shape as Aurora and DARPA push toward finally getting the drone and its novel control arrangement into the air.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post DARPA X-Plane Designed To Maneuver With Just Bursts Of Air Finally Gets Its Wings appeared first on TWZ.

The United States lifted its naval blockade of Iranian ports, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on Friday, following the execution of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding in Versailles. While the blockade is over, the fate of the blockade forces – and future U.S. force posture in the region – remains unclear. The “plan is to keep the current force posture” during negotiations, a U.S. official said on background, but “the agreement contemplates the reduction in military forces in the region upon the agreement of a final deal.”

Major U.S. naval assets, including two aircraft carriers, continue operating “in the general area to support freedom of navigation,” according to a press release from CENTCOM. “U.S. forces remain present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect.” USS Abraham Lincoln, now deployed for more than seven months, was conducting flight ops in the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR) as of June 21, and USS George H.W. Bush was last spotted on June 20.

USS Nimitz arrived at Naval Station Mayport in Florida on June 16, marking the completion of her participation in Southern Seas 2026. “This year’s deployment marked the 11th iteration of the Southern Seas exercise since 2007, demonstrating the United States’ enduring commitment to the Western Hemisphere. Southern Seas 2026 highlighted unprecedented diplomatic and military integration, recording the highest number of Latin American leadership visits in the exercise’s history, with approximately 339 distinguished visitors embarking and 3,100 guests hosted during port visits.” Nimitz is on the final leg of a homeport shift to Naval Station Norfolk after the Navy announced a service life extension into 2027.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower departed Norfolk on June 17 for Fleet Replacement Squadron Carrier Qualifications (FRS-CQ) and is underway in the Virginia Capes Operating Area, according to publicly available AIS data. Eisenhower is not scheduled to deploy this year, and is preparing for a deployment in early 2027, TWZ has learned.

USS Theodore Roosevelt got underway on June 15 and is conducting exercises off the west coast in the U.S. 3rd Fleet AOR. The drills are meant to “bolster strike group readiness and capability” and the crew was spotted participating in firefighting drills, barricade drills, and crash and salvage training on the flight deck. While the upcoming deployment date is unknown, Roosevelt is the next carrier slated to deploy.

USS Carl Vinson is moored at Berth Lima at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego. Over the weekend, Vinson was the centerpiece of NASCAR’s “Race the Base” event at Naval Base Coronado. “The event marked a historic collaboration between the U.S. Navy and NASCAR while celebrating the service’s enduring connection to the American people. It provided attendees opportunities to engage directly with Sailors, explore Navy capabilities, and learn about the Navy’s role in defending the nation around the globe.”

USS George Washington moored in Apra Harbor, Guam, from June 16-20, and then participated in a PHOTOEX to kick off exercise Valiant Shield 2026. Washington was pictured alongside cruiser USS Robert Smalls, destroyers USS Shoup and USS Benfold, fast-attack submarine USS Minnesota, and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, including JS Kaga, JS Fuyuzuki, and JS Jingei. “Valiant Shield is a biennial, multilateral field training exercise conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces and partner nations in the Western Pacific focusing on joint, cross-combatant integration operating seamlessly across sea, air, land, and cyberspace.”

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 Aircraft Carriers: June 22, 2026 appeared first on TWZ.

To get a better sense of how this project came together so quickly, the challenges it faced and the tradeoffs that had to be made, we spoke with Jason Lambert, President of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) at L3Harris, the company that performed the conversion. During the interview, he gave us some unique insights into this highly visible and often controversial effort.

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

Q: Can you give us an overview of L3Harris’s role in this program?

A: It’s an honor to talk about this monumental and generational event. L3Harris worked in conjunction with the Air Force to deliver the first VC-25B — a 747-8I that the U.S. government received as a gift from Qatar. We had the opportunity to work on that aircraft for a 10-month period, with pre-staged employees operating on a 24/7, three-shift structure to convert it into what was unveiled on Friday: the new Air Force One.

L3Harris, in the ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] business, is uniquely positioned for this type of project. We’re the world’s largest non-OEM [Original Equipment Manufacturer] integrator of aircraft. We don’t make planes from scratch — we’re not a type certificate holder like Boeing, Airbus, or Gulfstream. We take existing planes, whether commercial or military, and missionize and outfit them for specific uses. We operate the world’s largest intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance fleet — the RC-135 Rivet Joint.

We missionize business jets for electronic attack, ISR, and airborne early warning and control missions, including a series of special mission aircraft, some of which are classified. And then, of course, the head-of-state mission, which we’ve been proud to be part of for many years.

We’re also the prime contractor for the Senior Leader Communication System. Any time the president is on board Air Force One, the communications system he uses to talk to his staff and to world leaders — voice, video, all content going on and off the plane — has to be secure, so state actors cannot intercept it, and it has to have the right bandwidth and latency, which is evolving as new satellite providers come online. 

We have the ability to broker and work with multiple providers to ensure that the system is 24/7 ready whenever the president needs it. And when he’s on that plane, he’s not just the commander-in-chief — he’s the head of state, representing the country internationally. The president spoke to that directly when he talked about the livery and how this plane looks. Our team is just very, very excited to have converted this aircraft into what is now the first VC-25B.

In conjunction with the modification work, we were also asked to help build out a training program and a sustainment program — not just for this specific aircraft, but for the VC-25B fleet overall. On the training side, the Presidential Airlift Group had been flying the legacy 747. The 747-8I is a very different aircraft — it’s much larger — so we worked with two companies to address that. We leased an aircraft from Atlas Air for a period of time, and we purchased a plane from Lufthansa out of their commercial fleet to serve as a dedicated flight trainer, so the Presidential Airlift Group could learn how to fly the platform.

You can see video of one of those Lufthansa 747-8is below:

We also built a one-to-one scale mockup of the aircraft interior and placed it on the hangar floor at Joint Base Andrews. It was an exact replica of the layout — monuments like bulkheads, walls, doors, tables, and chairs in full-scale configuration, along with the galleys — so the flight crew supporting the president could practice and learn how to operate this aircraft before ever flying it. There were multiple training touchpoints built around that, and then, of course, the sustainment portion: spare parts, engineering support, everything needed to keep that aircraft ready whenever the president needs it. All of that infrastructure was built out in advance — not just for this plane, but to support the entire VC-25B fleet, which will include more aircraft to follow.

Q: How did this all come about? Was there a requirement for a bridge Air Force One aircraft prior to the Trump administration’s second round? How did it all come into being and why?

A: In the first administration, a deal was signed with the Air Force and Boeing to build the VC-25B. That program has been delayed significantly by years, and its budget overrun by billions. You have that event taking place. The aircraft weren’t ready for the president’s use coupled with the fact that the VC-25A — the legacy aircraft — are 35 years old. They’re starting to have — there’s not a safety risk, there’s an operational risk in terms of what happens on planes, given their, I’ll just say, their usage. And so the president and the Air Force wanted to have a solution… given that the VC-25Bs are delayed further and the VC-25As are starting to — I’ll say show some age in terms of their availability. Again, there’s only two of those VC-25As and so one is usually in for depot-level maintenance. In fact, at present, I have one of them in my facility.

The other one came back from the G7 summit recently, the president flew on that. And then of course the second one is in for maintenance. It was at Boeing’s facility at San Antonio for several months, getting upgraded, and then it’s in our facility right now for paint. That leaves the president with one VC-25A asset that, from an operational availability perspective, is not probably what it should be, given the age of the plane. So the Air Force approached us with a solution potential on how we could potentially go find a bridge to create when the VC-25Bs that are under contract with Boeing would be ready, and this was the solution.

Q: Can you provide any insights into what it took to get the work on the VC-25B done in just 10 months? Can you tell the story of how it all came together and why L3Harris was tasked with the job?

A: I’ll start with the L3Harris piece. Our core competency and what our uniqueness is, is taking existing platforms — military or commercial — and modifying them based on whatever the customer’s mission set might be. For example, we take tankers and convert them into the RC-135 Rivet Joint, the country’s premier intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform. We take a legacy G550 business jet and convert it to the EA-37B Compass Call electronic attack plane. We take a Global 6500 from Bombardier and are converting it to ARES X, an airborne early warning and control offering for the Republic of Korea.

We do that because we’ve got an engineering team of 2,600 people on our total workforce of 7,600. Within the ISR business, 5,600 are cleared, so we have the ability at scale and size to do classified things very quickly and detect classified things with a large group of people that can do things in our facilities. So there is a lot of technical talent, but with that we also have around 100 people in our ODA. The ODA is essentially the delegated organization from the FAA, where we in our business can do work on behalf of the FAA for certification work. 

So, the way we operate it, we’ll take an existing platform or an existing plane, and rather than have to certify it from scratch, we have to just certify the modifications that we’re doing for it. So you’re always starting with this baseline, and then you’re doing a modification on top of that baseline that enables us to go far quicker than if we were to start with a brand new aircraft from scratch. 

So all that aircraft missionization competency is one of the reasons I think of why we were asked. The second reason is we’re the prime contractor for what’s called the Senior Leader Communication System, and so that communication system is used for every aircraft that’s utilized for Air Force One. So, in the 747s that the president flies — when he’s flying on a 757 — those are known as the C-32s — we have the hardware and the software on that aircraft, as well as the services that connect from satellite links, ground links, and be able to manage the communications content that the president and his staff are using in flight anywhere in the world.

Think of it like a help desk always online when the president or his staff are flying to ensure that the connections are live and working. If there’s an issue, we have redundancies within the system that we can ensure that it’s working, and most importantly, in addition to it being resilient, it’s also secure when that phone call gets made, or that video feed gets made from POTUS to a world leader, we’ve got to make sure that adversaries aren’t listening in. And so it’s fully secure, and that’s the core competency of what L3Harris does. So, combining those two pieces together, along with our legacy of supporting the Air Force One fleet, and we’re a logical choice to be asked to go take on this work and we are really uniquely positioned to do that because of the nature of the things that we do.

Q: What is the difference between this aircraft and Boeing’s VC-25Bs that are still in modification? 

A: They both started as a 747-8i so from a platform perspective, they are the same. I can’t talk too much about the VC-25B program. What I can say for this one is, while this is an 8i, it had a very nice interior that came in from the Qataris. So we had a place to start from. 

One of the first things we have to do on this aircraft, in conjunction with the U.S. government, is ensure it is safe. There was a lot of content and buzz on blogs and whatnot about is the aircraft secure? Is there anything that we wouldn’t want coming in on the aircraft? Somebody could listen in, something like that. And I can assure you that was very effectively managed to the highest degree. Experts from the U.S. government, experts from L3Harris, experts in cyber security, electronic warfare, ensured that every square inch of that plane was clean, not only on the exterior but interior of the plane and all systems within. So I’ll say, there’s just electronic scrubbing, is how I would describe it, to ensure that it was safe and secure. Frankly, that work took place even before we were able to do any real work on the plane. 

Once we started work on the plane, it had an existing interior, much of which we kept and maintained. One of the things that we had to do for the speed of this program – because the goal was to get it done before the country’s Independence Day. 

We were excited that we delivered early to that commitment. There are things that would have driven the schedule, so for example, changing the room structure, changing the hard walls, or any of the bulkheads, things like that, that would drive a significant amount of schedule risk associated. So those were some of the big rules that said, ‘okay, we’re not going to change any of what I call monuments,’ but there’s things within those that we did have some flexibility to change.

For example, there’s some things that came in on the interior that, while they look very nice, they weren’t really representative of what would be fitting for the U.S. president, and so we did make some modifications into some of the fit and finish in terms of the leather and wood and other aspects of what the aircraft looks like to really be fitting for the president’s mission.

Q: When the original VC-25B contract was put forward, we were told the USAF, the White House and Secret Service carefully picked the exact requirements needed to execute the mission, and they would come at great cost. Some were even dropped to save money, like aerial refueling. Clearly, those standards had to change drastically to make this Bridge aircraft happen. What requirements were relaxed and what features were omitted in order to meet its aggressive budget and timeline requirements?

A: That’s classified, so I won’t be able to take that one, but I’d prefer that you direct that question back to the US Air Force. 

Q: The one thing we get asked about the most is if this aircraft is hardened against electromagnetic pulse and has the command and control capabilities of the full-up VC-25B? Can you speak about that?

A: I think that’s one I’ll also have to defer back to the Air Force.

Q: What about survivability? The VC-25As are covered with infrared countermeasures and missile detection systems, and there are clearly capabilities that are less obvious. This aircraft doesn’t appear to have a similar outfit. How was survivability factored into its abbreviated modifications? 

A: Survivability of the aircraft was something that was absolutely thought of, but I can’t comment on the specific systems on the aircraft yet. That’s one I’ll have to direct you back to the Air Force.

Q: If this aircraft is good enough to carry the commander-in-chief in the Air Force One role, why does the USAF need to spend over $4 billion on the other two aircraft? Why can’t the USAF just procure two aircraft in this configuration?

A: It’s an interesting question. Good question for the Air Force, but that’s an interesting question.

Q: Will this aircraft be able to fly all missions that the current VC-25As can? What about trips overseas to less peaceful regions? 

A: I can comment about [the recent speech Trump gave at Andrews Air Force Base]. I know he’s intending to use this aircraft for international travel. I think he mentioned that there’d be an upcoming flight to Turkey coming up in the future. So specific locations, that’s always done through the White House planning group and White House Presidential Airlift Group. But the intent is this aircraft would be used overseas very much. The president talked about it in his speech about how it really is comparative to some of the other head-of-state aircraft. 

It’s 18 feet longer for one so it really is a large aircraft. In fact, the hangar at [Joint Base Andrews] JBA that we were in on Friday for the ceremony was actually custom-built for the VC-25B because of the size of these planes. 

In addition, of course, when you see the livery up close, it’s just amazing in terms of what it looks like. So I think the intention is for the president to use this overseas. He definitely signaled that directly on Friday.

Q: But are there any preclusions about where it can go at all? To a less peaceful region? Is there any place that it can’t go that the other aircraft can?

A: That’s probably a question for the Air Force.

Q: The aircraft belonged to another country’s government. What had to happen in order to make sure a foreign aircraft like this is free from potential nefarious tampering, bugs and other potential threats? Did every single component have to be examined?

A: What I can say is that a team of experts from the U.S. government, in terms of cyber security, did an immense amount of work on this aircraft, in conjunction with the L3Harris team, to ensure that this aircraft was fully safe from that environment, that threat, and that threat has been fully mitigated. I can say that. How they do it is classified.

Q: The interior in this thing cost massive amounts of money when the Qataris outfitted it. It was one of, if not the most incredible VIP aircraft on earth before becoming a VC-25B. What unique elements of its interior and other VIP features were kept and what was changed? 

A: The majority of the wall structure was all kept so any movements of monuments was maintained. That aircraft has 10 restrooms, and those were all kept and maintained. The fit and finish, in terms of some of the materials that were selected, those in some cases were upgraded in certain areas of the aircraft, and that’s both in terms of some of the leather and some of the wood grain veneers and things to be able to not only be esthetically pleasing, but fitting for the U.S. president.

You can imagine that the president is on the aircraft and could be doing interviews with the media. The presidential seal was of course incorporated in a few areas.

We had to put in an air stair, which is for when the aircraft is landing in a remote location, it doesn’t have to — like on Friday — there’s the trucks that come up with the stairs to be able to get on and off the plane. This has one that can self deploy, so that was a fairly sizable structural mod to be able to integrate that into the aircraft and go through the certification process with it, but it works flawlessly. It’s actually a phenomenal piece of mechanical engineering. So yes, there were a couple of minor things that had to happen in conjunction with the other systems we had to incorporate.

Q: Were these requests from the president himself?

A: I’ll say that the president didn’t see the aircraft personally until last Friday, but his staff was directly engaged in the project throughout the entire project. Air Force leadership engaged throughout the entire project. We had senior Air Force visitors, including the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. [Dale R.] White [The Pentagon’s Director of Critical Major Weapon Systems], and representatives from the White House military office visit us on several occasions to check on the progress of the aircraft, and then also to make design decisions.

I think about even one like the paint scheme, and the president had to sign off on the paint scheme, had to sign off on — if you look at the back of the tail — the wavy flag versus the fixed rectangular flag. The president personally had to approve all those items. 

And one of the things the Air Force did an amazing job of helping us with is getting those decisions made as early as possible on the program, and then once the decisions were made, keeping the configuration frozen. In any type of aircraft development program, regardless of the customer, being able to make those design decisions and have them… locked in the front end allows the team to actually go do the procurement and engineering and work on the aircraft without having to do a lot of change.

In this example, we had an objective, along with our Air Force customer, to get this plane delivered before the 4th of July, 2026 for the country’s 250th birthday. And the team rallied behind that mission set to do that. And we could never have done it without the level of collaboration we had with the Air Force, working the requirements back with the president.

You can see the VC-25B bridge jet practicing touch-and-goes at Andrews in the following video:

Q: What new features does this aircraft’s interior have that the VC-25As don’t?

A: Well, the upgrades. So the comm suite is all the latest content gear, so that’s an upgrade. The aircraft is larger than the 25A, again about 18 feet larger, and so I’ll just say the size and just the finish of the aircraft. 

Also, VC-25As were commissioned under President Reagan, and then first used under President Bush, and so while they are nice planes, they’re 35 years old, and so you can imagine just how those will wear a bit over time. 

And yes, they’ve been kept upgraded, but this is a modern, beautiful aircraft, and I can say, when I saw it for the first time, it was the most beautiful aircraft I’ve ever seen. It’s — and if you have the chance someday to walk on the inside — or as things will start being released, you’ll see that on the interior also. It’s just absolutely gorgeous. And we had a great plane, a great point to start from, but again, we did have to do some things to make it fitting for the U.S. president.

Q: The paint job has gotten more press than anything else. What was the process of painting the highest profile aircraft on earth?

A: That’s a great question. So the first was the color selection, and as the president said on Friday, he was asked what color would he like. ‘So I like the American flag,’ and so trying to incorporate the American flag into the color scheme, we did a couple of things. 

One, we took a legacy fuselage of a business jet. We do a lot of work on missionized planes to use it as essentially a test to be able to get the white and the red and the blue and the gold. How we apply those, took a lot of practice. We essentially painted a scrap airframe to be able to do the testing. The second thing we did is our team actually painted a C-32 — which is actually the first aircraft that was ever released with this paint scheme — a 757 called C-32A.

So we painted that and released that and actually got to show it live to the senior leaders of the Air Force before it was delivered, and it came out great as well. 

But what we learned from that plane was the sequencing. So the plane’s got essentially the white on top, the red, the gold stripe, and the navy on the bottom. We actually learned through that process of painting the 757 of how to optimize the sequence, and essentially the navy coming last.

That’s navy that’s on the undercarriage of the fuselage, when you see it up close, you can actually see your reflection in it. It’s just so beautiful. But we did learn that because it’s on the lower end of the aircraft, and we’re doing continual maintenance and masking of the aircraft, it was optimal to do that in the last part of the sequence, and so that’s something that we took forward when we painted the 747.

Q: What will happen to the original VC-25As? What about this new aircraft once the full VC-25Bs enter service in a couple of years?

A: Great question. The aircraft are still flying, they’re not decommissioned, per se. You know, there were some announcements made when the aircraft flew a mission coming back from the G7 summit and landed at Andrews last week, but those aircraft are still available for use.

But in terms of the operational availability of what you expect, there’s two aircraft that are again, 35 years old, and so they’re not going to have that same uptime as what you’d expect out of the new planes. But in terms of a plan for usage, that’s probably a good question for the Air Force.

Q: What happens with this aircraft once the full VC-25Bs enter service in a couple years?

A: I think that’s also probably a good question for the Air Force. They’ll have the better purview for that. In terms of L3Harris’s role with this right now, our role is to sustain it and make sure that this aircraft is always ready to fly whenever the president needs it. And then I think what we just demonstrated again with this plane is we have the capability from both a scale with our size of what we have from our workforce, our classified workforce, the speed in which we can operate, and the unique expertise to do very high-demanding aircraft modernization and integration roles. We’re ready to step up whenever the Air Force asks us to.

There’s many things we do for them on a regular basis. This one gets a lot of press. It is actually interesting because it was — up until this past week — essentially an unacknowledged special access program, meaning we couldn’t talk about it. So all this was happening essentially in the dark, and you go home and talk to your family at night, and they ask, ‘why are you stressed out,’ or ‘why do you look so tired,’ and you can’t say. And that’s just the nature of what we do in the classified world. 

We’re doing this in several other examples across other customers we work with. This one just finally was able to come into the light, and we’re just thankful to be able to talk about it, but we want to do more.

Q: What lessons can L3Harris and the USAF learn from this program?

A: What we learned from this program is when the U.S. government has an immediate or incredibly urgent need, when the Department of War and industry work together as a partnership and team with leadership alignment all the way to the top, you can do anything. And it totally changes the game in terms of what’s been thought of as — I’ll say a historically slow and sluggish defense acquisition process. We at L3Harris and the Air Force just proved that that entire paradigm can shatter if you put the right leaders together to be able to do an impossible mission, and you do it as one team.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Inside The Making Of The New Air Force One appeared first on TWZ.

Leonardo and Baykar announced the development today. The trials took place last month at Baykar’s flight and test center in Çorlu, Turkey, and involved a Leonardo-owned M-346 Fighter Attack variant and a Kizilelma UCAV. An Italian Air Force T-346A, the trainer version of the M-346, was on hand as chase aircraft.

During the flight-test campaign, the Kizilelma completed its taxi and takeoff autonomously. It then autonomously joined the M-346 in formation. At this point, the two-person crew in the jet assumed full control of the Kizilelma.

The Kizilelma used so-called Smart Fleet Autonomy algorithms developed by Baykar’s Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) Laboratory for the trials.

Once ‘handed over’ to the M-346, the pilots in the jet made use of a newly developed and fully integrated avionics suite to command different formations. Via a crewed/uncrewed computing system, the Kizilelma performed different maneuvers and formations, including position changes, separations and rejoins. These were executed autonomously by the drone, with the M-346 pilots only responsible for providing the initial commands.

What was described as an advanced radio-frequency data exchange system was used to share all data between the platforms.

The Kizilelma/M-346 trials in Çorlu were the first live phase of Leonardo and Baykar’s K-SWARM program, which focuses on developing interoperability between crewed and uncrewed aircraft. The companies refer to this as crewed/uncrewed teaming (CUC-T), but it’s also referred to by other names, including manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T), or collaborative combat teaming.

TWZ was provided the opportunity to experience the M-346FA firsthand during a visit and demonstration flight at the Beech Factory Airport in Wichita, Kansas:

Whatever the term, the ambition is similar: to have future fighter pilots go into battle accompanied by drones under their control, ready to fire weapons, gather intelligence, jam communications, or serve as decoys.

Baykar and Leonardo helped accelerate the start of these crewed/uncrewed teaming trials by first running simulated missions, including using an M-346 full-mission simulator in Venegono, Italy, and the Leonardo product capability and concept laboratory, or PC2LAB, in Turin. This meant that algorithms, as well as tactics and procedures, could be tested in the virtual realm first.

The Kizilelma’s rapid rise to prominence as a fighter-like UCAV has been notable, and there have been some impressive milestones along the way.

In general, the Kizilelma is one of only a few fighter-type air combat drone projects to have resulted in hardware. The development of the Kizilelma began as long ago as 2013, although the project was only revealed to the public in July 2021, when conceptual studies were presented. 

Kizilelma was flown first — very briefly — in December 2022, as you can read about here. That milestone came only weeks after the Kizilelma’s emergence for ground testing.

The UCAV is claimed to be supersonic (at least in later versions), have a degree of reduced-observable characteristics, and be tailored for the kinds of air combat missions typically undertaken by crewed fighter jets. In particular, it is eyed as being a drone companion to Turkey’s next-generation TF Kaan crewed fighter. In its definitive form, the drone is powered by a single Ukrainian-made Ivchenko-Progress AI-322F turbofan delivering close to 10,000 pounds of thrust with afterburner.

Late last year, Turkey announced that the Kizilelma used a Turkish-made Gökdoğan air-to-air missile to destroy a target drone, marking the first occasion a UCAV had launched a radar-guided air-to-air missile. Days later, Boeing followed up the feat when its MQ-28A Ghost Bat drone launched an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) in southern Australia.

A next set of K-SWARM tests is planned for the coming months, with more complexity and additional functions. The companies say these will require greater levels of situational awareness and assets working together ‘as one’ toward mission objectives. Further details, including how enhanced situational awareness will be achieved, were not disclosed, but it should be noted that the Kizilelma has already been tested with a Toygun electro-optical sensor and targeting system, as well as an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

Ultimately, however, the K-SWARM program aims to harness AI technology to enable uncrewed systems to incrementally shift from remote piloting to autonomy, suggesting that, in future trials, the Kizilelma will autonomously conduct more complex missions and maneuvers on the command of the M-346 pilots. At all times, those human pilots will maintain full control and decision-making, the companies say.

A UCAV operating under the control of a crewed tactical jet represents a major milestone for Turkey, placing it among a very small group of countries pursuing this advanced capability. Publicly, such crewed-uncrewed teaming has largely been confined to experimental efforts in the United States and China. We meanwhile know a lot about what the United States has been doing in the “white world” in this regard, and it is now only accelerating its CCA efforts, while it is clear that China has also prioritized it.

Russia has also reportedly flight-tested its S-70 Okhotnik UCAV with a crewed Su-57 Felon fighter, but there is no confirmation about the degree of collaboration achieved. Last year, meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force demonstrated an MQ-20 Avenger drone being controlled by a pilot in an F-22 Raptor, during a mock mission.

Given the current surge in interest in collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs), the joint trials by Baykar and Leonardo also appear especially well-timed.

To take just one European country, Germany currently has a stated requirement for an operational CCA to be fielded before the end of this decade. While the Kizilelma might not necessarily be in the running for that, the AI technology that it is now demonstrating could be of considerable interest to a variety of export customers.

Meanwhile, the Kizilelma, like other Turkish defense products, comes with the advantage of being 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. Already, Turkey has leveraged its drone developments to secure major arms sales to a variety of countries for which these kinds of capabilities would otherwise be out of reach — in both technological and political terms.

The opportunity for Turkey to offer for export the Kizilelma in concert with the high-end TF Kaan, or the lower-end Hürjet light combat aircraft, would put it in a unique position, at least in Europe. The same platforms could also be supplied with integrated weapons options, providing another significant advantage.

As for Leonardo, the M-346 has recorded some notable sales, with the combat-optimized Fighter Attack version also gaining increasing traction. Meanwhile, through its stake in Eurofighter, the Italian firm may well be looking forward to offering these ‘drone commander’ capabilities to the multirole fighter. As we have discussed only recently, the collapse of the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) effort means that CCA capabilities are even more in the spotlight, including efforts to team UCAVs with advanced fourth-generation platforms like the Eurofighter Typhoon.

For Baykar and Leonardo, demonstrating that the Kizilelma can be commanded from an M-346 is an important achievement, but scaling that capability to different aircraft, larger formations, and increasingly autonomous mission execution will ultimately determine whether K-SWARM becomes an operational capability rather than simply a technology demonstrator. It should also be remembered that while the autonomy engine and AI agent are critical parts of an effective fighter-CCA teaming concept, it is unclear how developed these technologies are in the K-SWARM experiments. After all, just controlling the UCAV is one thing, but having the drone do much of the thinking while the pilot gives approvals and basic directions is the key. The companies have also proposed developing these technologies further to achieve ‘swarming,’ which presents an even greater challenge in this context.

However, with demand for affordable force multipliers continuing to grow and air forces looking for ways to increase combat mass without buying ever more expensive crewed fighters, a UCAV that can combine with a crewed combat aircraft further demonstrates the rapid pace of advances in Turkey’s burgeoning drone capabilities.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Turkey’s ‘Fighter Drone’ Teamed With M-346 Fighter-Trainer In Autonomy Trials appeared first on TWZ.

VX-30 shared pictures of the P-8A arriving at its home base in Point Mugu, California, on its Facebook page last week. Naval Air Station Point Mugu, part of Naval Base Ventura County, sits right on the southern California coast with direct access to the expansive Point Mugu Sea Range. The Navy and other branches of the U.S. military, as well as defense contractors, regularly use the offshore ranges for missile and other tests, which the Bloodhounds support. Aircraft from VX-30 also often deploy to other locations around the world to support test and evaluation activities, including in other U.S. military range complexes in the Pacific Ocean around Hawaii and in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida.

As noted, the P-8A now assigned to VX-30 is actually the very first Poseidon ever built and is also known as T-1. The aircraft, which made its maiden flight in 2009, was used for years to support the Poseidon program. The Bloodhounds are also in line to get the second test P-8A, which is also still referred to as T-2. We will come back to this in a moment.

VX-30 already operates a variety of planes specially configured to support test missions, including the aforementioned P-3s. The unit also has KC-130T Hercules tanker/transports, as well as its one-of-a-kind NC-20G and NC-37B jets. The NC-37B was specifically acquired to replace one of the squadron’s NP-3D Orions, a variant nicknamed the “Billboard” because of its heavily modified tail. The NC-20G and the NC-37B reflect a larger push to revamp the Bloodhounds’ fleets in recent years.

Collectively, VX-30’s aircraft are equipped with a mix of radars, cameras, and other equipment to collect imagery, telemetry, and other data during tests. They have communications and data-sharing suites to be able to pass information along to test facilities on land to aid with live monitoring and for deeper analysis.

Aircraft assigned to VX-30 are also used for what is called range surveillance and clearance missions to keep unwanted visitors and errant bystanders out of the way in the air and down below during tests. This is where the P-8As will come in, at least initially.

“Both aircraft will perform the Range Surveillance & Clearance mission as well as dedicated testing for Naval Air Systems Command programs supported by P-3 today,” a NAVAIR spokesperson told TWZ last year. “T-1, the airworthiness P-8 aircraft, will have a radar modification to integrate an APY-10 in the airframe, as one does not currently exist.  This will provide T-1 with a supportable radar configuration and capability that mirrors the baseline P-8 fleet. T-2 will be unmodified.”

Raytheon’s AN/APY-10 is the standard maritime search radar used on the P-8A, and is primarily designed to spot and track vessels on the surface, as well as masts belonging to submerged submarines protruding above the waves. It also has a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode that allows it to capture still images, even through cloud cover, smoke, and dust, and at night. The SAR mode is one of several capabilities of the P-8As that allows it to be used for surveillance in coastal environments and over land, as well as while flying over open bodies of water.

Standard Poseidon aircraft also have a sensor turret with electro-optical and infrared full-motion video cameras, as well as signals intelligence capabilities, as you can read more about here.

The P-8A’s core capabilities are well suited to the range surveillance and clearance mission. In an unmodified form, the Poseidon’s other sensors might be capable of gathering additional visual and other data during testing, as well.

NAVAIR has also left the door open to potentially modify VX-30’s ‘new’ P-8As in the future to take on an expanded role with the squadron. The Poseidon is based on the Boeing 737 airliner, and offers swap space that could accommodate additional systems down the line. The Navy already operates several more deeply modified P-8s with additional intelligence-gathering capabilities. Those aircraft are notably capable of carrying the AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS), a large podded active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, under their fuselages, as you can learn more about here. Boeing has developed other add-on sensor packages for the P-8A over the years, as well.

Unlike the P-3, the P-8A also has the ability to refuel in mid-air via boom-equipped tankers. That is another capability VX-30 might be able to leverage to enable longer-duration flights, whether in support of range surveillance and clearance or other missions.

Overall, the “P-8 will go a long way to enabling range support operations and will provide new opportunities for future developmental programs,” the NAVAIR spokesperson told us last year.

On top of the P-8A’s inherent capabilities, even the older test jets are just younger and more modern, in general, than the P-3s that make up the core of VX-30’s fleet today. The Navy took delivery of its last new-production P-3C variant in 1990, and Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) shuttered the line afterward. This means the very youngest Orion is 36 years old now. As noted, the Navy has been steadily withdrawing Orions from service in recent years.

Several Navy test squadrons do continue to operate P-3s, but that’s becoming an increasingly more complex proposition. This is not just because of the maintenance demands of aging aircraft that are no longer in widespread U.S. service, but also the availability of trained aircrews. As part of the transition of active and reserve Navy maritime patrol squadrons from the P-3 to the P-8, the service no longer has a Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) for the Orion. FRSs are the Navy’s ‘school houses’ that provide training specific to particular aircraft types to aviators and ground personnel before they are sent to operational units. VX-30 now has to do that training in-house.

“The two P-8s will reduce sustainment costs and increase availability over the four P-3 aircraft VX-30 currently flies. P-8s also help alleviate P-3 manning challenges now that the FRS and operational squadrons have all transitioned to P-8 or decommissioned,” the NAVAIR spokesperson told us last year. “P-3 aircraft require a Flight Engineer crew position, and as the P-3 model manager, the return on time invested to train incoming pilots or qualify Flight Engineers in the P-3 is rapidly diminishing for VX-30’s primary missions.”

It remains to be seen whether the configurations of T-1 and T-2 might evolve in the coming years to expand their ability to support testing over the Point Muge Sea Range or elsewhere globally.

In the meantime, T-1’s arrival already marks a new chapter for VX-30 and the Navy’s oldest P-8A Poseidon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post First P-8 Poseidon Ever Built Starts New Career Supporting Pacific Missile Tests appeared first on TWZ.

A satellite image taken on June 20, 2026, obtained by TWZ from Planet Labs, shows the extent of construction work on shelters at Engels Air Base in the Saratov region in the southeast of the country. Unlike previous protective shelters, which are sized for tactical aircraft, those at Engels are much larger, in keeping with the dimensions of the Tu-95MS Bear-H and Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers that are stationed there.

Based on the available imagery, no fewer than 17 separate protective shelters appear to be under construction at the base, which is located around 300 miles from the nearest Ukrainian border.

Engels, also known as Engels-2, is one of the most important airfields of Russia’s Long-Range Aviation Branch. It is home to the 22nd Heavy Bomber Aviation Division, which is responsible for Russia’s only squadron of Tu-160s, plus another squadron of Tu-95MS bombers.

Both those types have been widely employed in the conflict in Ukraine and especially in the standoff strikes that have targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, among other objectives, civilian and military, across the country.

Between 2012 and 2017, Engels Air Base was reconstructed. In parallel to the main runway, which is around 11,500 feet long and 230 feet wide, a new runway of the same length and a width of 200 feet was built. Later, the parking area for aircraft was entirely reconstructed.

Reportedly, work on bomber-sized protected shelters began in April 2025, some months ahead of Operation Spiderweb, the large-scale Ukrainian drone strike against mainly bomber bases across Russia last summer, and which you can read about in our coverage here.

Soon after, a model of a Blackjack-sized aircraft shelter was shown to Russian Minister of Defense Andrei Belousov, as seen below.

Engels was not among the airbases targeted in Operation Spiderweb, but the potential vulnerability of the aircraft there was already clear.

As we wrote about at the time, Engels came under attack by long-range Ukrainian drones in March 2025, with a weapons storage area at the base apparently the primary target.

In January of 2025, we reported on a huge fire close to Engels Air Base, caused by what Russian officials described as a “massive” Ukrainian drone attack. The strike was on the strategically important fuel storage tank farm for Engels, and the fire raged for several days after.

Earlier in the conflict, Engels was also attacked three times in the month of December 2022 alone. On at least one of those occasions, Russia stated that the airbase was attacked by Soviet-made jet-powered uncrewed aerial vehicles modified by Ukraine to carry explosives.

Attacks such as these have repeatedly underscored the ability of relatively slow and low-flying Ukrainian drones to fly deep into Russian territory and strike strategic military targets. Meanwhile, Operation Spiderweb presented a new dilemma — short-range drones launched covertly, in mass, from locations much closer to airbases.

Amid continued questions about the efficiency of local air defense capabilities, Russia has embarked on various initiatives to try to protect its aircraft on the ground at their bases.

From the start of the conflict, Russian airbases have dispersed their aircraft for protection, although this is not so straightforward for bombers, with their more intensive demands on space, crews, maintenance facilities, weapons, and others. One of the runways at Engels has been used as a dispersed parking area for years now.

Russia has also taken further precautions at its airbases. To begin with, they installed blast walls between active aircraft. This was an attempt to contain any damage to one aircraft in an attack, designed to prevent both fire and shrapnel from spreading.

More recently, construction work at multiple bases has been adding many dozens of new hardened aircraft shelters to better shield aircraft from drone attacks and other indirect fire. At the start of this effort, however, the shelters were sized to accommodate smaller tactical jets, and the bombers were not provided with the same kinds of protection. This may also have been a reflection of the specific vulnerability of airfields closer to Ukraine and to the U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles, which began to be used against Russian airbases in late 2024.

Instead, bomber bases were provided with discarded aircraft to serve as decoys. More unusual measures included placing vehicle tires on the upper surfaces of aircraft and painting aircraft silhouettes on concrete airfield surfaces. The tires, specifically, were intended to confuse image-matching seekers on Ukrainian-operated standoff weapons. TWZ was first to spot the strange coverings atop a couple of bombers at Engels in August 2023.

Now, imagery from Engels confirms that the shelters are being extended to Russia’s bombers, too. This marks a significant change in Russian bomber operations, with these aircraft previously having been left essentially unprotected on their airfields, including undergoing maintenance in the open.

At this stage, it’s not clear what level of protection the bomber shelters might offer. The most robust tactical aircraft shelters are understood to utilize steel frames with prefabricated concrete elements on top, which may not survive a direct hit by a large cruise missile, but could defend against many types of drone and cluster munitions strikes.

Another shelter type, this time using curved sections of sheet metal, has also appeared at some Russian tactical airbases, but likely serves as little more than a drone screen against near-field attacks by smaller FPV and ‘bomber’ drones.

Even if the bomber shelters are on the more fragile side, they could provide some degree of protection, especially against smaller drones, as well as shielding operations — and even the presence of bombers — from observers, complicating targeting.

As well as bearing the brunt of long-range cruise missile strikes against Ukraine, Russia’s bombers are a far more precious asset than tactical jets, the most important of which remain in series production.

In contrast, the Tu-95MS (and the Tu-22M3 Backfire-C) have been out of production for decades, while efforts to restart Tu-160 production have moved only very slowly so far.

At the same time, these aircraft are a key element of the country’s strategic military posture, forming one arm of Russia’s nuclear-delivery forces.

The need to provide adequate protection to aircraft — especially for the U.S. military — is something that TWZ has addressed before. Aircraft shelters with varying degrees of hardening are now very much back on the agenda globally, in response to evolving drone and missile threats. There is a growing debate within America’s armed forces and Congress about the value of building new defensive infrastructure for its aircraft, as well as investments in new active air and missile defense and tactics, techniques, and procedures. Except for a few forward deployment locations, the United States does not invest in robust shelters for its combat aircraft, including its bombers. The risks of this situation, including at home in the continental U.S., were highlighted across the media when Barksdale AFB was swarmed recently by drones, with the base’s prized B-52 bombers left largely defenseless on the apron.

Consistent Ukrainian drone (and also cruise missile) attacks have made it clear that Russia’s bomber bases are among the most prized targets for Kyiv. Ukraine’s ability to strike facilities of this kind by various means has now driven the expansion of the program to build protective shelters to Engels Air Base, something that is unprecedented for Russia, even going back to the Cold War. The construction marks a new doctrine of force protection for the Russian bomber fleet, which has suffered losses that are very hard to replace. With Moscow now coming under mass air attack in broad daylight, it appears the threat from long-range strikes is now growing at what is clearly an alarming rate for Russia.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Russia Is Building Huge Protective Shelters For Its Strategic Bombers appeared first on TWZ.

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: 4:14 PM EDT –

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

• On the aircraft:

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

• On its features:

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

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

• On the new paint scheme:

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

• On Qatar:

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

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

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

• On the July 4 capital flyover:

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

UPDATE: 5:02 PM EDT –

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

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

UPDATE 5:25 PM EDT –

Trump left his mark on the aircraft with his signature.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

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

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

This week’s caption reads:

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

Prime Directives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hecla and Kemp may well have provided the answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researchers highlight another problem, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2012, the ship was sold for scrap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

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